Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: No, no.
MR. McHANEY: They were asking, as I understood it, for a tabulation of documents. Now, if we are simply talking about who is to go first in the closing statements, why I have only a few words to say about that.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all we were discussing when we started.
MR. McHANEY: Yes, but I thought we had a new note interjected here, and it was that to which I was directing my remarks.
THE PRESIDENT: If so, it is a sour note.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH (For the Defendants Frank and Hans Loerner): Your Honor, I admit that in my last argument I have introduced something new. I suggest that the discussion about this request because of the marking of the document books could, after all, be delayed until the question about the sequence of the arguments has been settled. I brought this forth only because it is in close connection with it, and this question was also begun in part by my colleague Dr. Gawlik, because it does show just how, in my opinion, the Prosecution should have done that from the very beginning and as the Prosecution in Case Number VII has actually done it. During the entire presentation of evidence by the Prosecution, with every piece of evidence, it can clearly be discerned against which one of the individual defendants that particular document is directed or against which defendant the witness is called. I believe that the argument of the Prosecution that this is a terrific amount of work which would now have to be made up does not represent a sound point of view at all if the fair conclusion of this trial is concerned. This, in any case, has already been demonstrated in an exemplary manner in Case Number VII.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. McHaney, asking for a categorical answer, please, do you object to the Prosecution opening the argument in the usual way, to be followed by the defense, and the closing by the Prosecution?
MR. McHANEY: No, your Honor, we don't. The reason we sought Court No. II, Case No. 4.to have the defense counsel go first is not because we were looking for any advantage or any great opportunity to answer their precise arguments but more because of the time element.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. McHANEY: We have a very small staff working on this case. Mr. Robbins has been forced to carry the great burden of the case. We are now working as hard as we can on briefs. It means that we are going to have very little time to devote to preparing our closing argument; and we thought that if no substantial harm would result it would be a little easier on us and not harm the defense in any way to permit us to go last, which would give us approximately five more days in which to work on our closing arguments. However, if the Court, as it apparently does, feels quite strongly about this matter, we will, of course, go first, if that is the Tribunal's wish.
THE PRESIDENT: No one is more anxious to save time than the Tribunal; but time mustn't be saved at the expense of someone's rights. Excuse me a minute while I confer with my colleagues. The Court will retire for a discussion of about five minutes.
(The Tribunal retired from the courtroom.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: At the conclusion of the proof, the testimony, the Prosecution will make its opening argument. The Defense will follow with the Defense arguments, and that will conclude all argument. There will be no rebuttal or closing argument by the Prosecution, one argument by the Prosecution, one by the Defense.
We urge upon Defense counsel that they start now preparing their arguments to avoid delay in translation. Now, if you say that you can't do that until all the proof is in, that is a mistake. You are all now fairly advised of the claim against the individual defendants, and you can prepare your defense, your argument in defense, starting now. If you wait until the Prosecution's argument is completed before you start your defense argument, that is the preparation of it, we will have an endless delay because all the arguments will go into translation at the same minute, and we will be held up for no one knows how long. I am sure that you know enough now about the claims, the accusations against your particular defendants, to start preparing your arguments. If you meet something unexpected, I mean if something that you could not anticipate comes up in the Prosecution argument, you can answer it extemporaneously, that is orally, without having it written down. The Tribunal does not anticipate that anything sensational or new will confront you, but if it does you can answer it without having it prepared ahead of time. That is what you are accustomed to doing in ordinary law suits. You don't write out your argument ahead of time. You make your argument when the point comes up.
Now, the next point. There will be no lengthy interval between the close of the Prosecution's argument and the argument of the first Defense Counsel, at the most one days, perhaps less. We'll see, depending on when the Prosecution's argument closes. We will give the first Defense attorney sometime before he has to argue, but it won't be very long, and then while the rest of you are arguing the others can be finishing up their defense arguments when their turn comes.
Is this plan perfectly clear now to defense counsel, or are there any questions that anyone would like to ask?
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Seidl for the Defendant, Oswald Pohl.
Your Honor, one question does not seem to have been completely clarified. That is just how long will the interval be between the conclusion of the presentation of evidence and the beginning of the final arguments by the Prosecution and the Defense?
THE PRESIDENT: Not more than ten days, probably less. For instance, if we should finish the testimony on Friday, we would start the arguments a week from the following Monday, which would be about ten days. We can't tell you exactly, but that is about the length of time.
Are there any other questions?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Dr. Rauschenbach for the Defendants August Frank and Hans Loerner.
Your Honor, now that the question of the arguments has been ruled upon, I would like if I could formally introduce the request which I have made before with regard to the document books. This is a motion of the 1st of August, 1947, which I would like to read now.
I request that the Prosecution should be asked that with regard to everyone of its document books which it have presented, it should compile a table of contents and that this table of contents should be out at my disposal. This table of contents should indicate the following: The document number, the exhibit number, the designation of the count of the indictment, and a statement whether this is used in order to prove the guilt of the Defendants Frank and Loerner.
The reasons for this are the following: Since, from the resolution that was adopted by the Tribunal in bank the count of conspiracy is not brought against the Defendants any more, the Prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of every Defendant must give the precise circumstances under which it sees a participation of the Defendant in question in certain crimes.
The Prosecution in Case No. VII against List and others has already given due consideration to that fact, and there the Defense welcomed the fact that in Case VII in every document book which was submitted, an index of the kind which I have just requested was also being furnished. In order to facilitate the further preparation of the Defense, and in particular the final arguments of the Defense, since the conspiracy count has been dropped, it would, in my opinion, be necessary under all circumstances that the Prosecution now precisely name all the documents which show a participation or a complicity of the Defendants August Frank, or Hans Loerner in the crimes which have been mentioned in the various counts of the indictment.
Your Honor, I would like to show you a document book from Case VII, a document book which has been provided with such an index. I request the Tribunal to take a look at this document book so that the Tribunal will see just what procedure has been followed in Case VII and just how simple and how efficient this procedure really is.
The objection of the Prosecution that the compiling of such an index would amount to a lot of work right now can, in my opinion, not be used, at the expense of the Defendants, because if the Prosecution doesn't do it then the Defense and the Tribunal will have to do it in the case of each individual Defendant. Here they will have to examine all the documents, which amount to more than six hundred, in order to see whether they incriminate the particular Defendant. I believe that the Prosecution, who has presented all this evidence, should do that.
THE PRESIDENT: This is an excellent plan which is being used in Case No. VII, but it is being used at the start of the case and not just as the case is about to close, and we have observed that each Defendant, as he goes on the stand, has a ready reference to the documents, which he knows in many cases by heart, which have any reference to him. They are marked; he has read them; he has his explanation ready; and he can put his finger on the document which affects him.
In the closing argument the Prosecution will tell the Defense which document he relies upon and for which Defendant, and in addition the Prosecution will file briefs which may not be all ready by the time the arguments are concluded, but all in all the Defense is now well advised of the different documents or pieces of testimony which the Prosecution relies on as to the particular Defendant. The delay which would be involved in the preparation of an index of 650 or more documents we cannot agree to. The Tribunal itself is preparing just such a document as you spoke of, Dr. Rauschenbach, so that we will have the benefit of it, and I think you are perfectly well advised, and I am sure your client and each Defendant is of the documents which in any way tend to accuse him. He has them all gathered together. He puts his finger on them very easily and readily, more readily than the Tribunal or the Prosecution can. Accordingly, your motion will be denied.
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Seidl for the defendant, Oswald Pohl.
Your Honor, I am not quite certain whether I have correctly understood the ruling of the Tribunal in one point. In the translation one part was translated as follows that the Prosecution would submit briefs, and as far as I have understood it so far, the Tribunal only wants final arguments, which are to be held here in the courtroom, from the Prosecution and the Defense. However, apparently it is not the intention of the Tribunal to accept so-called closing briefs, neither from the Prosecution nor from the Defense. These closing briefs were desired in Case I the medical trial, by the Tribunal, and I would like a ruling from the Tribunal whether it wants to adhere to its original ruling, that in this trial no closing briefs are to be submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: This Tribunal does not need both a closing argument and a brief from either Prosecution or Defense. You say what you want in your closing argument. We will have a transcript of it, and we don't want a repetition of it in the way of a brief after that.
DR. von STAKELBERG: Dr. von Stakelberg for the defendant Fanslau.
Your Honor, a few minutes ago the Tribunal has requested us to already begin with the preparation of our Defense speeches. At this time the Tribunal has also expressed its opinion in that respect, that sensational new evidence against the individual defendants could not be expected to be submitted any more. I fear that the Prosecution wants to attempt in any case, with respect to the Defendants Fanslau and Tschentscher to submit new evidence. Here I have an announcement dated the 8th of August, 1947, in which the Prosecution has informed me and my colleague, Pribilla, that the Prosecution intends, in line with the rebuttal, to call certain witnesses for certain new crimes of the Defendant Fanslau and Tschentscher, which the Prosecution alleges, they will be brought forth. In line with this announcement yesterday I submitted a written motion, and I don't think the Tribunal has as yet received the translation of it.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
However, I have given a copy of this to the interpreter, and I request that I be allowed to read it here, briefly. The request is not very long. It only amounts to one and a half pages. By virtue of a brief of the 8th of August of this year, the Prosecution has announced that it will submit certain evidence material for the rebuttal with regard to the defendants Fanslau and Tschentscher. For the case of the defendant Fanslau I object to the evidence which has been announced. The reasons for this are as follows: One, in their previous presentation of evidence, the Prosecution has only submitted evidence to the effect that War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity have been committed. I have already stated in my opening statement that the previously-submitted evidence of the Prosecution does not contain any evidence for the participation of the defendant Fanslau in these crimes.
In my opening statement, I, therefore, made the request that the trial against Fanslau should be discontinued with regard to counts one to three of the indictment. In the meantime, Count 1 of the indictment has been dropped. With regard to counts two and three of the indictment, the Tribunal has ruled that a prima facie case against the defendant Fanslau had been established.
Two, in excess of the prima facie evidence, the Prosecution now intends to submit quite precise evidence for participation of the defendant Fanslau in certain crimes. This presentation of evidence, consequently, characterises itself as a so-called testimony-in-chief, and not as testimony in rebuttal.
Three, the crimes which have been alleged now are completely new. The Prosecution supports itself on the affidavit of Otto Ohlendorf about the Einsatzgruppen. The new evidence, however, refers to alleged crimes of the supply troops of the Division Wicking.
Further, the allegation is completely new that the defendant Fanslau had inspected the killing of Jews, and that he had participated in them at Zolozow, Berosowska or Bogdanowka and Tarnopol, and that in Bogdanowka had issued an order to shoot every Jew on sight.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
For this reason also the new offer of evidence of the Prosecution represents itself to be testimony-in-Chief. Further, as testimonyin-chief, however, the offer of evidence of the Prosecution comes too late.
I want to support myself on Wigmore, "A treatise on the AngloAmerican system of evidence in trials at Common Law", which quotes, in paragraph 1873, the ruling of the Judge J. Waite in the case of Hathaway v. Hemingway (20 Conn. 191, 195), as follows:
"When by the pleadings, the burden of proof of any matter in issue is thrown upon the plaintiff, he must in the first instance introduce all the evidence upon which he relies to establish his case. He cannot, as said by Lord Ellenborough, go into half his case and reserve the remainder. The same rule applies to the Defense. After the plaintiff has closed his testimony, the defendant must then bring forward all the evidence upon which he relies to meet the claim on the part of the plaintiff. He cannot introduce a part and reserve the residue for some future occasion. After he has rested, neither party can, as a matter of right, introduce any further testimony which may properly be considered testimony-in-chief... But this rule is not in all cases an inflexible one. There is, and of necessity must be a discretionary power, vested in the Court before which a trial is had, to relax the operation of the rule, when great injustice will be done by a strict adherence to it. If a party, by a mere mistake of inadvertence, omit to introduce a piece of testimony constituting an essential link in his chain of evidence, and does not discover the mistake until after he has closed his testimony, the Court, in its discretion, will rather than that his cause should be sacrificed, permit him to supply the omission; taking care, however, to see that the adverse party is not prejudiced by the relaxation of the rule."
"This discretionary power, however, is to be exercised with great caution. While the rule may be departed from for the sake of preventing great and manifest injustice, it ought not to be so frequently Court No. II, Case No. 4.disregarded as to render it a rule in name and not in reality."
The Prosecution has not set forth any reasons for an exceptional treatment of this evidence which has been submitted too late.
Five, I therefore request (a) that the evidence of the Prosecution which has been offered should be excluded as inadmissable because it comes too late; (b) in case that the Tribunal does not agree with the request under (a) the Defense should be granted the right to use all necessary evidence in order to give counter-evidence against the new allegations of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal cannot rule in advance on this evidence. We are not sure what it will be, what the nature of it will be; and if the objection is made at the time it is offered we will rule on it at that time. The rule of law which you cite is a perfectly sound one with which the Court is familiar, that the Prosecution's proof should be submitted before it rests its case. But it has the right, of course, to offer rebuttal evidence.
Now, whether this is rebuttal evidence or whether it is evidence which should have been presented in-chief, or whether it is evidence which is newly discovered, which the Prosecution did not have when it presented its case-in-chief--we can only determine at the time it is offered. We will rule upon it at that time.
DR. PRIBILLA (Counsel for defendant Tschentscher): Your Honor, I only want to say that I am in the same position, and I will also submit counter-evidence for Tschentscher.
DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for defendants Volk and Bobermin): Your Honor, I want to mention another point. The Prosecution has twelve boxes full of file material which belonged to Office Group W. Already some time ago I made a request that this material should be placed at my disposal so I could look at it, so that I would be able to give defense material to the Tribunal. At the beginning of the trial this motion was denied for the reason, I assume, that, first of all, the Prosecution should be given the opportunity to look through the material.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
However, the Prosecution, in the meantime, has had sufficient time to look at the material, and, I assume, that evidence for the defense will also be included in these files for my clients. That assumption on my part has shown itself to be correct because in the crossexamination of the defendant Dr. Bobermin the Prosecution submitted an extensive report about the activity of the Eastern German Construction Material Company, which has fully confirmed the claims and allegations made by the client whom I represent; and similar to this report which accidentally was submitted by the Prosecution, there may be a great number of other documents. Of course, I am restricted in my defense if the Prosecution disposes over the entire file material, and I don't have it available. For this reason, I can't submit any defense material for my client.
I herewith repeat my request, which I made earlier, that these boxes with the files of Office Group W be placed at my disposal so that I will be able to look into them for defense material.
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for defendant Pohl): Your Honor, I agree with the request made by Dr. Gawlik, with regard to the defendant Pohl whom I represent. The defendant Pohl was chief of Office Group W, and he is particularly interested in this material. I believe that this motion should be granted already for the reason that in no complex of questions has the Defense been able to obtain any defense material, and those exhibits and documents from the file material are in the hands of the Prosecution which are appropriate to support the defense of these clients.
There is a fundamental lack and deficiency in all these trials that the entire document material is solely in the possession of the Prosecution, and the Prosecution only submits those document which can be used in order to incriminate the defendants. In this trial, therefore, a ruling is not being adhered to which is a matter of course in German criminal procedures, where the Prosecution is obligated not only to submit the material which it considers incriminating to the defendants, Court No. II, Case No. 4.but to submit all the evidence which has any bearing, even on exonerating the defendant.
In the German Penal Code there is a special regulation where this duty of the Prosecution is specifically announced. In Germany, the Prosecution is not only at liberty to submit exonerating material or not--but this is a duty as far as the Prosecution is concerned. Here, the consideration is used that only in this way can the truth be found, and the basis be laid on which the Tribunal can give a just verdict.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this is a familiar and universal rule in the United States as well, that the Prosecution is charged with the production of all evidence, whether it shows guilt or innocence. That is a universal rule which we are familiar with.
Mr. Robbins, what is your attitude on this motion. What is your attitude on this motion.
MR. ROBBINS: I would first like to consult with Mr. McHaney, but to state first that the Prosecution does not have these twelve or fourteen boxes that the Defense think we do. We don't know what happened to the documents that Baier turned over. We wish we had them, but we have not been able to find them. I don't doubt for a moment that he turned them over to American authorities, but that doesn't mean that they came into the hands of the Office of the Chief of Counsel.
DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for the defendant Mummenthey):
Your Honor, I want to join the statements made by my two colleagues. Already, months ago, I requested that the files of the DWB be submitted because they contain a large number of valuable documents which Mummenthey sent to his superior agency with regard to the compensation paid to the inmates. That the Prosecution possesses these documents becomes evidence from the fact that part of the documents which are contained in the files and which are known to Mummenthey were actually submitted. I maintain the same point of view that it is a duty of the Prosecution to turn over also those documents to the Defense which could be used to exonerate the defendants.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will assume that several counsel have the same motion to present. I think we will reserve decision on this until two o'clock so that the Prosecution can determine and advise the Tribunal just what document they do have.
DR. FRITSCH (Counsel for defendant Baier):
I did not want to join the opinion of my other colleagues, but I only wanted to state that I am able to put at the disposal of the Prosecution the receipt which shows that these files were handed over. My means of this receipt they will certainly be able to find the present location of these boxes. The situation was such that Baier turned over these documents against a receipt, and this was done exactly in the same way that Loerner turned over the watches, which have already been mentioned. The receipt for the watches was taken away from him later. The receipt for the boxes, he still has in his possession. I, therefore, am gladly prepared to submit them here.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know about this receipt, Mr. McHaney?
MR. McHANEY: No, I do not, Your Honor. I don't know who he got the receipt from, nor do we have the vaguest idea of where the documents are.
THE PRESIDENT: Probably signed by PFC Jones.
MR. McHANEY: Very true.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have that receipt. Dr. Fritsch?
DR. FRITSCH: I would have to fetch it, Your Honor; perhaps I could submit it in the afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, the motions now being made by Defense counsel are nothing new in the procedures here at Nurnberg. They were advanced very early in the I.M.T. procedure, and to my knowledge have been consistently denied by all the tribunals. That is done, primarily, on the ground of difficulty.
We don't receive WVHA documents in nice, large cases, and have them all together; and, have our people go through them and sort out the incriminating evidence, and then hide the so-called exonerating evidence. These documents are picked up out of all sorts of files. Copies of these documents are normally sent to many different affencies, and only by a great deal of work and painstaking search, in Berlin primarily, do we manage to pick up copies of these various documents which have been put in. Some of them come out of Himmler's files; some of them come out of other files. But it is a very rare thing, I don't know of any -
THE PRESIDENT: Some of them come out of the woods, too.
Mr. McHANEY; Very likely, They are all brought together in nice cases where we could turn them over to these gentlemen to search through. They come down one at a time normally, or perhaps three or four at a time. They are put in our document rooms; they are identified with the number, and they go through a very complicated procedure.
What these gentlemen ask for is a carte blanche to go into the Prosecution's Document rooms and to search the files up and down for any material which they may find interesting to their clients and for their cases. I don't think that is proper. I don't think it is necessary to protect their interests. We are running a large number of cases around here, and it is impossible to segregate the material which applies only to one particular case against another.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, at this point you probably have segregated all the documentary material that refers to WVHA, haven't you?
MR. McHANEY: Not at all, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: No, not even now? I thought by this time that would have been done.
MR. McHANEY: No; the material is never physically segregated at all; nor, by and large, are the indices to the material segregated.
We receive in summaries of documents which have a number across the top. We get hundreds of them. We pick out those when they come across our desks which we are interested in using in this case, and they are then processed, duplicated, mimeographed translated, and made available.
The others just remain there; they are not sorted out or segregated in any way.
Now, what these gentlemen ask for is an entry permit to our document rooms.
THE PRESIDENT: A roving commission.
MR. McHANEY: That is quite correct, a searching expedition. Now, one defense counsel claims he turned over the files, or rather the files of the defendant Baier was turned over to a certain man. He can identify those bundles of documents. The rules permit him to make application to this Tribunal to order the production of those documents. If we have them, we are bound to produce them, and we shall do so. My understanding is that we do not have them. If, in his application, he can identify the agency to which he surrendered the document, the Tribunal has available the offices of the Secretary General to find them -- and they will make that effort.
But the basic request being made here is for something quite different, and for something which we think is impossible to give them and is not necessary to protect their interests.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the picture as we get it is that you have twelve large crates of WVHA documents, nine of which are exonerating and which you keep locked, and the other three you use for your own purposes. --and Dr. Seidl nods his head that that is exactly what is happening.
How large are these packing boxes, Mr. McHaney?
MR McHANEY: My colleagues tell me that we have no such boxes. However, before two o'clock if the Court wishes to make its ruling at that time, we will make a thorough search, and if we find any boxes of documents, why, we will advise the Tribunal at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I have seen rooms in that courthouse that they might be lost in.
MR. McHANEY: That is very true, Your Honor. It may even be that Mr. Baier's documents are lying around somewhere, but we don't know about it.
THE PRESIDENT: It might even be in the Defense Information Center.
MR. McHANEY: That is quite true; it might very well be.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, enough of this until two o'clock. We will make a ruling at that time.
Well, we haven't turned a wheel this morning. It is now eleven twenty five, and we haven't taken a word of testimony. Is there something more, sir? (To Pribilla)
DR. PRIBILLA (Counsel for defendant Tschentscher):
Your Honor, this was quite a nice conversation we had about this document material. However, there is a very serious aspect to it. I am actually very grateful to Mr. McHaney that he has told us so openly about the conditions which prevail with regard to the documents and just how they are evaluated. He was quite surprised when he said that the attornies couldn't demand that we should receive a permit to enter the document rooms. However, Your Honor, that is my opinion. Such a permit should be given to the Defense from the very moment on when the entire files about the incidents which are to be judged here are in one hand. That is, in the hand of one, single party namely, the Prosecution.
Mr. McHaney haw described to us just how these documents are being handled, and it is quite strange that the documents which are picked out are only the incriminating documents. Therefore, we can say that it would be just and fair if the Defense, on its part, could also look for the exonerating material.
If one wanted to say the Germans have lost the war and that we don't trust the Germans -- then, in order to follow the same procedure, the German Defense should he given some American officials who, in the interests of the Defenses, would look for the exonerating documents.
THE PRESIDENT: That's nonsense to talk that way. And we don't like it. There has not been the least suggestion here, and you know it very well, that we don't trust the German attornies. They have been given every assistance that we could possibly give them. And the suggestion that because you are German attornies you would not be allowed to look at the documents is just a little bit offensive.
DR. PRIBILLA: Your Honor, I regret that you have understood my statement in that way and I am grateful to you for what you have said with regard to the fact that you do trust the German defense counsel. However, I was quite serious when I made that suggestion. I have already submitted the same suggestion in writing to Military Tribunal I. Here I am only concerned with the principle that if the material is available in large amounts then not only one party should be given access to that material but in the same way the other party should have access to these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. We have heard enough on this subject until two o'clock. We will take a ten minute recess now.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court will find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SEIDL (For the defendant Pohl): May it please the Court, regarding the remark to which the President has taken exception. I think it is important to state that Dr. Pribilla only expressed his personal opinion, that he did not speak on behalf of defense counsel.
HORST KLEIN - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued BY MR. HIGGINS:
Q. Witness, were you ever a member of the SA?
A. No.
Q. Subsequent to the purge which took place in 1934 the SS became the most powerful organization of the Party, did it not?
A. No.
Q. What particular organization was more powerful than the SS?
A. The Corps of the Political Leaders was the real authority within the Party.
Q. Well, didn't the leaders of the SS exercise a great deal of influence in the politics of the day?
A. I never noticed anything but I was not among the leaders of the SS. At the time I was a Rottenfuehrer, which is, roughly, a corporal.
Q. You didn't know that the higher members of the SS dictated the policies of the government during that period of time, say, subsequent to 1938?
A. This is the first time I have heard anything of the sort.
Q. Did you ever receive any decoration or citation or honor of any sort as a result of your participation in the Roehm affair?
A. For my participation in the Roehm affair, as far as I know, I was never cited nor did I receive a decoration because of it.
Q. Yesterday in the very last part of my examination I inquired into your relations with the Nordland Publishing Society. Could you very briefly tell me what the functions of this enterprise were?
A. The Nordland Publishing Company at that time published, I believe, a monthly or weekly magazine - a very bad one, incidentally - and later on they published books.
Q. And what, generally, were the contents of these books which were published by this organization? What matter did it treat, or rather what matter did they treat?
A. I must confess that I only read their books occasionally because I was not a publisher nor did I have the experience. My activity for this firm was confined to occasional legal consultations which never amounted to anything very much. Therefore, I do not know any details about the contents of the books.
Q. How long were you connected with this association?
A. My consultant activities to this editing office came to an end in April 1940.
Whether, and how long, I was registered on the commercial register I can't tell you because when I ceased to be a procurist it was not up to me but up to the superintendent.
Q. Could you tell me the date when you first became associated with it?
A. I contacted it for the first time, I believe, 1st February 1939 when I met them for the first time.
Q. I also inquired concerning the Sudeten Springs Ltd. and I would like to know over what period of time your duties or association with this organization continued?
A. I was connected with that organization during the same period of time.
Q. And could you very briefly tell me what purpose this organization served?
A. The Sudeten-Quell G.m.b.H. at that time had to buy a national spring in the Sudetenland. Then the firm was to supply troop canteens with mineral water. They were also to supply private markets. It was intended, above all, to make mineral water cheaper within the scope of the tendency to replace alcoholic stimulants. One said that alcohol wras damaging to national health but it was not intended to forbid alcoholic consumption altogether. It was intended to have in the canteens a beverage just as high in quality which has to be cheaper than a glass of beer.
Q. Could you tell me whether or not it was a profit organization? Did it operate for profit?
A. This firm, of course, made profits, but the plan was to have the profit used to keep the price of mineral water down, in other words, to serve this somewhat ideal purpose. The position wras thus that the other mineral springs, such as Fachingen, made very high profits. In private markets the mineral water which comes from the earth quite naturally was much more expensive than an alcoholic beverage of quality.
Q. Then the purpose of this organization wras to eliminate the exorbitant price of mineral water previously?