DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for defendant Sauckel): Mr. President, a few interrogatories are still to be submitted. First of all, I submit Exhibit No. 15 to the Tribunal. That is an interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Whose interrogatory ?
DR. SERVATIUS: Darre, the minister for food and agriculture. This interrogatory deals with matters which have already been the subject of this trial, and I should like to draw your attention to a very few points. There is the question of what was Sauckel's general attitude, particularly toward Himmler's views; and the witness emphasizes that there was considerable controversy between Himmler and Sauckel in this respect. He then mentioned one particular case which he has considered, which was directly under Sauckel's supervision in Thuringia, and he says that the freedom of the workers there was such that they were still hiring themselves out to farmers during the day, which was rather too much. He then talked about a clash between Sauckel and Himmler in the presence of the Fuehrer about the question of treatment, and he says that Himmler had stated, "I come under the Fuehrer only, and for business purposes under the Reich Marshal; and I do not have to justify myself before you". has been allowed by the Tribunal, which I sahll submit as Exhibit No. 16. I should like to underline a very few points. The witness talks about Sauckels function and the functions of Dr. Ley, and he says that Sauckel was carrying out the function of the state while Ley was looking out for the social picture welfare and social supervision. health, and supervision department had existed earlier and had continued to function under the responsibility of the Minister of Labor.
Then comes the interrogatory of Dr. Voss, which I submit as Exhibit No. 17. I shall submit the original later. I am afraid I cannot find it at the moment. This doctor was the medical officer in a camp, and he talks about the conditions in the camp, particularly after air attacks, and about the activities and welfare efforts of the Labor Front. He not only refers to the camps in which he was working but he knows a great deal generally about conditions in other camps.
His statement is a contradiction to the testimony given by Dr. Jaeger. Similarly, the following document, which I shall submit as Exhibit No. 18 and which originates from Dr. Ludwig Scharmann, who served in a different sector, also contains statements of the witness which are similar to the previous one for his sector and contains a contradiction of the testimony given by Dr. Jaeger.
That completes the interrogatories which have been granted me. Now I have a number of documents for which I have applied but about which a decision has not yet been announced. I do not know whether I am now to submit them to the Tribunal. They are mostly laws and decrees and such instructions as I would like to submit in addition to what I have already submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Servatius, the Tribunal would like you to submit them now, because the Tribunal wishes to deal with the evidence on behalf of the defense finally now, today.
DR. SERVATIUS: There is a decree by Sauckel dealing with the return transport of sick foreign workers. It shows that workers who had fallen sick were transported back and that the seal of the Red Cross was attached to the transport. The actual decree is in the official collection of laws and decrees which have already been submitted. I shall ascertain my exhibit number presently. It will be no. 99 in the additional document book. 1943, which has already been offered in evidence. This deals with the investigation of sanitary measures introduced in camps, and it deals with the accusations which have been raised with reference to these accommodation problems. of war on leave concerning the alleviation of the statute regarding "transformation". I shall also submit it and give the exhibit a number. For the moment it is my document No. 101.
Then come documents 102 and 103. They are both laws contained in the official Reich Law Gazette, and which are German instructions regarding compulsory labor service. It is the emergency services which I submit as Document 102.
tructions, but I am told that the prosecution is going to read them, and therefore I assume that I need not do so. the Eastern campaign, was active as a recruiting officer in the East. It deals with conditions, and it states particularly that Sauckel's activities has brought about a basic change in the general attitude, It is short, and I consider that it is of particular importance, because up to now no recruiting officer has been heard on the subject.
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: My Lord, with regard to that affidavit, I am told, the prosecution having not seen that at all, that that should be accepted with the same reservations as have been made in the previous cases.
THE PRESIDENT: Was that affidavit you spoke of by Count von Sprete, S-p-r-e-t-i?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: Yes, My lord.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I was going to submit a list of all of Sauckel's decrees as Document 109, so that there w ill be a general survey of the great attention which is paid to all the small matters, Only the titles will be in that list.
THE PRESIDENT: You didn't give a number to the affidavit of Count von Spreti, Dr. Servatius.
DR. SERVATIUS: It will be given No. 108 in my Document Bock and then I shall give it an exhibit number later when I submit the numbers for the other documents.
THE PRESIDENTS: Dr. Servatius, aren't you giving your exhibit numbers now?
DR. SERVATIUS: I can't do so at the moment because I haven't got the originals with me and most of these are originals which have been submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, in the case of the Defendant Sauckel, as in the case of every other defendant, the exhibits offered in evidence in his behalf should have a consecutive series of numbers and that is a consecutive series which is settled by the Counsel himself who offers the documents in evidence. It doesn't depend upon whether he has the original before him.
DR. SERVATIUS: In that case, I can give them exhibit numbers. Document 108 will have Exhibit No. 18.
THEPRESIDENT: Which is that?
DR. SERVATIUS: Exhibit No. 18.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps the most convenient way would be if you would carefully go through your exhibits and give the list to the General Secretary, giving the exactexhibit number of each document.
DR. SERVATIUS: Very well.
the position of the Reich Defense Commissioner who has beenmentioned in connection with manpower, and the Reich Defense Commissioner, of course, is the Gauleiter who has been mentioned during the case of Speer in connection with the armament industry.
These are merely the basic laws, so that they are at the disposal of the Tribunal. from the witness Hildebrandt, at Stothfang, who had been examined here in Court. It deals with the question of how far Sauckel had to obey Speer's instructions and what the relations were between the two departments. The prosecution haven't yet defined their attitude and I think perhaps it would be best if -
MR. DODD: We will be glad to have this affidavit submitted, Mr. President. We have no objection whateverto it. As a matter of fact, if it wasn't submitted by Dr. Servatius, we intended to offer it ourselves.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Of course the Tribunal thinks it is irregular, really, that a witness who has been called and given evidence, has been cross-examined -- has been re-examined and cross-examined by any other counsel for the defense who wants to, that he should be entitled to give any other evidence, but if you are both agreed that is convenient in this case, as a special circumstance we will admit it.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I of course recognize at once the Court's observation about submitting affidavits of witnesses who have been before the Tribunal. What happened here was that some rather material matters were not gone into when he was here, and I think theTribunal will find them quite helpful in clearing up the situation about Sauckel and Speer with respect to their relative and individual responsibilities for this slave labor program. Other than that, I of course wouldn't urge it at all. I think the Court will find it helpful.
DR. FALECHSNER: Dr. Flaechsner, for Defendant Speer. Mr. President I wouldn't make a formal objection against the admission of such an affidavit if I werenot convinced in this particular case that with the admission of such an affidavit a series of questions will be opened up which will, in turn, necessitate further arguments. I have only seen the wording of this affidavit this morning and I am convinced myself that further investigation of its contents will at least be necessary.
I believe, therefor that if this trial is to be shortened, one ought not to depart from the general rule in this existing case either and that affidavits from witnesses who have already appeared before the Tribunal should not be permitted. In this particular case, where there are references to the publications in the affidavit, the case could be made quite clear if these publications were submitted and, therefore, the affidavit is not at all necessary.
THE PRESIDENT : Do you wish to say anything in answer to that objection?
DR. SERVATIUS : Mr. President, this affidavit is, in fact, a supplementation of the instructions contained in Document 4006, which the prosecution are proposing to submit; but I hadn't known this was proposed. We are here concerned, in practice, with a question which was opened up by Speer's examination, namely, the significance of the Ministry of Speer in comparison to the department of Sauckel : Who, of the two, was the more powerful; who could give orders; who had to obey. I think the documents will make that clear.
THE PRESIDENT : Yes, but you and the prosecution had the opportunity of cross examining Speer when he was in the witness box and you could then have elicited anything you wanted to elicit at that time.
DR. SERVATIUS : Yes, only the circumstances were not known to me at that particular moment.
MR. DOOD : Mr. President, I don't wish to press on this at all, and if the Tribunal has any doubt about it at all I will withdraw my position. I thought it might be helpful, but it really isn't important and I think if there is any question about it we might let it go.
THE PRESIDENT : Well, the Tribunal think it is irregular to introduce new evidence by affidavits from a person who has already been called as a witness, and in view of the objection on behalf of the Defendant Speer, the Tribunal cannot accept the evidence.
DR. SERVATIUS : In that case, I will withdraw it.
That completes my statement of evidence. The only thing that is still outstanding is the Witness Letsch' interrogatory, which has been granted, and the interrogatory of the Witness Bachenbach, and I have no hopes of still receiving them.
THE PRESIDENT : Dr. Steinbauer ?
DR. STEINBAUER : Dr. Steinbauer, for Defendant Dr. Seyss-Inquart. Mr. President, at the moment there are four documents which I beg to submit and which I have received through the General Secretary. The Tribunal has allowed them and the prosecution know of them. Unfortunately, however, they have not been completely translated. Hannema, who was a director of the Bovmans Museum at Rotterdam. They pertain to the question of the alleged plundering of art treasures. I shall give this document the number 108. I shall submit the English text and the Dutch original.
The next document is an edition of the Newspaper "Nieuw Rotterdamsche Courant", dated the 17th of May, 1942, of which I have the original and a German translation. It contains a warning regarding the shooting of hostages. This document I shall submit under No. 109 in the original.
The following document is also an edition of the same newspaper; its date is the 10th of August, 1942, and once more it contains an announcement regarding the shooting of hostages. In connection with this document, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that this announcement was due to an order from the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces in Holland, General Christiansen, and that the Higher SS and Police Leader Rauter has signed it. I shall give it the number 110.
The next document is one I have only received yesterday from the General Secretariat and is a copy of the interrogatory from the Cavalry Commander Kleffel. During the period from the 27th of March 1945 until the 8th of April 1945, he had been Deputy Command of the 25th Army in Holland. He confirmed that the Reich Commissioner Seyss-Inquart had stated in a letter to the Fuehrer that he demanded the stopping of the fighting to prevent the damage being done to the country and also to prevent a famine and castrophy. This document is No. 111 of my document book and these documents had been allowed by the Tribunal. I beg, therefore, to receive them in evidence.
Today, the General Secretary's office has sent me two affidavits; one comes from the former commander of the Defense District of Scheveningen? His name is Erwin Tschoppe. He is submitting an affidavit dealing with the attitude and conduct of the defendant with respect to the evacuation of the Coastal area. Because of the short time at my disposal, I have not yet been able to show this document or the following one to the prosecution but I have already informed the prosecution that these two documents exist.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer, these documents, I apprehend, have not been shown to the prosecution--
DR. STEINBAUER: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute; have not been approved by the Tribunal and one question that arises is: Are they very long? Because I find that the translation division has been overloaded with very long documents.
DR. STEINBAUER: No, it is a very short document, which is important to me, however, because it shows how the defendant acted during that decision and how he took care of the Dutch population.
THE PRESIDENT: If it is short and if you will submit it to the prosecution, then it can be translated and admitted subject to any objection.
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, sir. The same applies to the following document which I also received today. It is an affidavit of Adalbert Joppich.
He was the President of the German Supreme Court in the Netherlands and he is making a very brief statement about the position and the attitude of the defendant with regard to legal questions affecting the Dutch population. I should beg the Tribunal that this document should also be admitted in evidence, assuming that again I shall adopt the procedure of submitting a copy of the translation to the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: What number did you give.
DR. STEINBAUER: The copy of the document will be 112 and Adalbert Joppich will be 113. Still outstanding are the documents allowed by the Tribunal which are Bolle's affidavit, Dr. Reuter, Voelkers and Lindhorst-Herman. The General Secretariat and I are trying to obtain those affidavits. Until now, it has only been possible to establish Belle's residence. Finally, I should request that two applications should be granted, which I have mane in writing; one is the obtaining of the membership card in the NSDAP of the defendant, Which has been, impounded on the occasion of his arrest and which is amongst his personal documents and must be in the custody of the Tribunal or official custody. A few months ago I had made a request to that effect but both parties had apparently lost track of the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, you don't mean that it is in the custody of the Tribunal; you mean that it is in the custody of the military authorities.
DR. STEINBAUER: Quite right. I meant the prison department, of course.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, what was the other document?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: I don't want totake up your Lordship's time but that membership card, that could have been applied for months ago. It is on the same footing as these documents which counsel has been putting in. We haven't seen them, I don't what this card is going to prove but it is going to be a great deal of trouble to get it here just as these documents are giving a great deal of work to the translation division .
THE PRESIDENT: What is the importance of the membership card? Presumably he knows when he became a member. What relevance does the card have on it?
DR. STEINBAUER: It is of importance because according to the war crime laws which have now been published in Austria, all members having a membership number above six and one-half million will not be regarded as the so-called "old fighters" or illegal members. Seyss-Inquart has stated in the witness box -
THE PRESIDENT: That has nothing to do with this Tribunal. It may be relevant in some ether proceeding and before some other court but not before this Court.
DR. STEINBAUER: There is a point, that the prosecution had alleged that he had been a member since 1931 and of the NSDAP but, of course, I am not trying to cause any trouble. I only thought that the membership card might be amongst the property which was taken away from the prisoner and that therefore one could have a look.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Did he deny that he was a member since 1931?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, oh, yes. He states that he hadn't become a member until the 13th of March 1938, formally.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes; formally, I remember, yes; but he had been a member of the Austrian Nazi Party very much longer, if I remember rightly.
MR. DODD: We will agree here and now, Mr. President, that that card showed that he became a member, as far as the card is concerned, on that date. I am sure that is what it will show and if it will help the doctor, we will be glad to agree to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STEINBAUER: The last exhibit which I am applying for is the following: During cross examination a document has been submitted, where an eighteeen-year-old female clerk of the police, by the name of Hildegarde Kunze, is stating that the sterilization of Dutch Jews had been caused.
Seyss-Inquart states in this connection that he had never written to the police directly at any time but that he had in three personal letters to Himmler directly objected to the treatment of Jews and that in one of his letters he had mentioned sterilization. This, presumably, was the cause for that witness mentioning it and presumably she gained knowledge of these facts through seeing the original or copy of the letter which Himmler may have passed on to the RSHA. My client has requested me that in this important question, I should make an attempt to obtain permission for these letters to be obtained, these letters which he has written to Himmler, in order to disprove the statement given by witness Hildegarde Kunze, which is implicating. I do not wish to conceal that it will probably be difficult to find those letters amongst the very many documents of the RSHA.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you made your application in writing about this?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, I have made a written application.
THE PRESIDENT: Giving the dates when the letters were written?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, everything I could ascertain regarding the time and when received and it is contained in my application.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that but you understand that the work involved in this sort of thing is very great indeed.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, far be it from me to underestimate the difficulties which are connected with my application. Apart from this, I have no further application I wash to make.
THE PRESIDENT: You will adjourn now.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)
(The Tribunal reconvened at 1405 hours, 3 July 1946.)
The PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will not sit in open session on Saturday next, nor will it sit in open session on any Saturday in the future unless it gives notice that it is going to do so.
Yes, Dr. Thoma.
DR. THOMA (Counsel for the defendant Rosenberg.) : Mr. President, yesterday I mentioned an affidavit of Dr. Heinz Oeppert, Reichshauptstellenleiter. I have now received this affidavit from Dr. Oeppert, and I have conferred with Mr. Dodd in this connection. Mr. Dodd has no objections to the submission of this affidavit on my part.
May I read but a brief passage taken from this affidavit, Mr. President ?
THE PRESIDENT : Can you tell us what the affidavit is about ?
DR. THOMA : Yes, Mr. President. Dr. Oeppert had the Office of Ideological Enlightnment for the Plenipotentiary who was charged with the enlightenment and education of the party in ideological matters, and he testified about the activity of this office. In this connection we are almost exclusively concerned with observation of matters and incidents in this sphere, party would not have been possible even if they had wished it, for this office had no executive powers of any kind. There were constantly very intense differences between the state and party organizations who participated in this sphere of activity, between the Propaganda Ministry and the Church and the Party and Chancellery. The measures taken against specific clergymen, as far as I know, were taken by the SD or the Gestapo. This will be Exhibit No. R-051.
THE PRESIDENT : Is anyone representing Dr. Fritz ?
DR. SCHILF : Dr. Schilf on behalf of Dr. Fritz, who is absent on behalf of the defendant Fritsche.
Mr. President, Dr. Fritz applied in writing last Monday concerning affidavits which are still outstanding, one an affidavit of Clifton Delmar a journalist, and the other an affidavit of His Excellence Feldscher, Ambassador of the Protective Power from Berne. Both of these affidavits have not reached us, and we are asking the High Tribunal if we may submit and be allowed these documents later.
I have no further comments. No other applications have been made.
THE PRESIDENT : I didn't hear the name of the second one. Was it Feldscher ?
DR. SCHILF : Ambassador Feldscher. He is now at Berne in Switzerland. He was the Ambassador of the Protective Power.
THE PRESIDENT : Have these affidavits been placed before the Prosecution
DR. SCHILF : No, Mr. President, they have not been submitted to the Prosecution. They have not been received; they have not reached us.
THE PRESIDENT : Are they affidavits or interrogatories ?
DR. SCHILF : They are two interrogatories, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT : I see. Well then, when the interrogatories come back answered, they can be shown to the Prosecution if they want to put in cross interrogatories, and then they can be translated and submitted to the Tribunal.
Dr. Schilf, there was an application -- I am not sure whether it was in writing or whether it was only oral -- with reference to Schoerner and Voss, and one other man, whose names were used in cross-examination by the Prosecution. I think they were affidavits; I am not sure, and there was an oral application, I think, to cross examine those persons. Do you want that to be done, or have you withdrawn that ?
DR. SCHILF : Mr. President, that application has not been withdrawn, but it was put in only as an auxiliary application, to have effect only if the interrogatory notes or records submitted by the Russian Prosecution would not be considered as affidavits, only interrogation records.
Dr. Fritz made application to this effect, that if these three documents were to be used as a basis of evidence, we cannot forego cross examination. There three documents were used in the examination of the defendant Fritsche only in part, and only short passages were submitted to the defendant in his examination in each instance.
THE PRESIDENT : What you want to say is that if the Prosecution don't want to use the whole of those documents, but only the parts which were put to the defendant Fritsche in the course of cross examination, then you don't need to have those persons called for cross examination, but if the Prosecution wish to put in the whole document, then you want to cross examine them. Is that right?
DR. SCHILF: Mr. President, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you meaning that you are asking the Tribunal to strike out the passages in the defendant Fritsche's evidence which deal with these statements or are you merely meaning that if the prosecution wished to use not only the parts which they have put to the defendant in cross-examination but other parts of the document, that in that event you would like to cross-examination the deponents Voss and Schoerner ?
DR. SCHILF: Mr. President, only in the case of the three interrogatories in toto shall be accepted and considered pieces of evidence, then cross-examination shall take place.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, then you do mean what I first of all put to you. is wanting to put in the whole document or whether he has put enough of it in
GENERAL RUDENKO: Mr. President, as I have already stated to the Tribunal, when these written statements were submitted and the protocols of the interrogations were written down in accordance with the procedure which is in existence in the Soviet Union the Prosecution will only use these parts which were read here before the Tribunal and on which defendant Fritsche was cross-examined.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then it is not necessary to have those witnesses brought here for cross-examination.
DR. SCHILF: Yes, indeed, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then that brings the Tribunal to the end of all the evidence for the Defense, with the exception of two witnesses who are here and to be called on behalf of the defendant Bormann.
DR. FLAECHSNER: Mr. President, on behalf of the defendant Speer may I submit a document which has already been translated and is known to the Prosecution. This is the Fuehrer protocol of 4 January, 1943. This shall have the number Speer Exhibit 35. I had it in the table of contents, where it was included as Exhibit 35 but at that time it had not been translated. May I submit it, therefore, at this time ?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, on behalf of the defendants with the exception of interrogatories which have already been granted, the answers to which have not yet been received.
Of course, those interrogatories, subject to thier being admissible, will be admitted when the answers are received and that applies also to anything in the shape of an affidavit which has been allowed by the Tribunal but otherwise the evidence for the defendants is now closed with the exception of Dr. Bergold.
DR. SERVATIUS: (Counsel for defendant Sauckel): Mr. President, I have a question regarding the testimony of the witness Walkenhorst in case he is not called as a witness. I have an affidavit at my disposal which I have received and I assume that I may submit this in case this witness is not examined here before the Court. It deals with but a very brief question ; the telephone conversation which Sauckel had regarding the evacuation of the concentration camp Buchenwald and Walkenhorst was the man at the other end of the wire. This is the one question and I have an affidavit as to that. ask him but in case he is not examined here I may use the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: You are speaking of Walkenhorst ?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, the witness Walkenhorst.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he is going to be examined now.
DR. SERVATIUS: I hope so, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I believe he is here. they have all been dealt with in the discussion which we have had during the last two days. If there is any other matter which the defendants' counsel wish to raise they should raise it now. is now concluded, subject to the reception of documents which I may describe as outstanding, either interrogatories or affidavits.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I be permitted, please, to introduce three documents with the permission of the Tribunal. We are concerned with the following questions:
German population. This fact is decisive and how the circulation of this paper increased and it is important to know to what circumstances we can trace back the fact that at a certain period of time there was a marked increase in circulation, which actually did take place. "Stuermer" did increase its circulation.
THE PRESIDENT: We have already dealt with this application. We have had the application before us and we have considered it and we have refused it.
DR. MARX: Yes, I beg your pardon, Mr. President. ascertained that in the year 1935 a very sudden increase in circulation took place and the Prosecution would like to prove that this increase did not result from within the German people but rather that high Party functionaries and agencies used their influence in bringing about a threefold increase. Of course, it is of essential significance whether a three-fold increase results from a demand by the people or whether it is the result of the German Labor Front using its influence in the person of Dr. Ley and a special edition was given out and through Exploiting the huge machinery at the disposal of the Labor Front. of extreme significance to the Defense to determine which case applies.
In this direction, Mr. President, I have three pieces of proof or data and with the permission of the Tribunal I shall read a directive and I ask that I be allowed to use this as a piece of evidence from which we can conclude that Dr. Ley as the director of the German Labor Front, gave directives to all agencies of the German Labor Front to disseminate this special edition and to see to it that the greatest possible circulation be brought about amongst all workers and in factories. It is one of the most significant prints of the Prosecution, that the German people, through the "Stuemer" and through the defendant Streicher, was influenced in that manner and was later made ready to support those measures in the east, the mass destruction which was carried out in the east.
declared relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: You said you have got three documents. The first one is a directive.
DR. MARX: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: What are the other two ?
Dr. MARX: One is an excerpt from the newspaper the "Stuermer" in May 1935, edition number 18 and this statement reads as follows:
"Mr. Bernhardt, who fled from Berlin to Paris says under date of 29 March 1935, in the Paris dailies, under the heading "Stuermer circulation increases three fold " He says the following: -
"Support is being given by the highest agencies of the Reich as the circulation of the "Stuermer" shows in less than a year the circulation has increased three-fold through the help of the highest party -- "
THE PRESIDENT: Wait. You have already told us that the circulation of the Stuhrmer went up three fold. It is not necessary to repeat it all again. We only want to know what the documents are. The first one is a directive of Ley. The second one is an issue of the Stuermer. what is the third one?
DR. MARX: The third, Mr. President, is a summary of the circulation from January 1935 until the middle of October 1935, and from this summary we can see that within the period of one year, the circulation increased from 112,000 to 480,000.
THE PRESIDENT: That is sufficient. We do not want to know any more about it.
DR. MARX: Very well, Mr. President. Then, may I be permitted-
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: It is entirely in the hands of the tribunal, but we should see no objection from the Prosecution point of view admitting these documents. The first would appear to directly link the defendant Streicher with another of the conspirators. It would be a most important document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Marx. The three documents will be admitted.
DR. MARX: I should like to submit the documents under Exhibit Numbers 19, 20, and 21.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. MARX: I beg your pardon, Mr. President. May I make one more remakr? This matter came about in this way and was delayed in this manner, for I personally did not know anything about this. It was only by accident that heard from the records of the Stuermer, and of my own initiative I considered it to have a probitive value. I himbly beg your pardon for submitting this material at this late date.
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for Defendants Funk and Schirach): Mr. President, I, of course, do not wish to put a further application, but I should like to put a legal question in order to clarify it.
At this time in the Commissions interrogations are being carried on in order to gather evidence with regard to the organizations.
In this connection, witnesses are being interrogated, witnesses whom we here do not know, and documents which we do not know are being submitted in these interrogations. Only in the course of the next few weeks will we of the Defense know the results or the findings of the material gathered in these commissions.
We. the Defense attorneys who are active in this Court, have in mind the following case: It could be, for instance, that one of these defendants in the dock, on the basis of a now witness' statement, could be involved and accused as a member of one of the organizations, or that documents would be submitted, documents to which we, as Defense Counsel for those defendants, have to show our attitude, or use them in refutation.
We. are quite agreed that the taking of evidence and the presentation of evidence be concluded here. However, we wish to reserve the right in case of that kind-
THE PRESIDENT: I think you will find when you look carefully at the order which the Tribunal made, that this matter was provided for, and that if there is any matter in the course of the hearing of the case against the organizations which in any way materially or directly affects any of the individual defendants, the Tribunal, of course, has discretion to hear counsel for that defendant upon the matter, and I think that is psecifically dealth with in the order that we have made.
DR. SAUTER: This resolution is known to us, of course, Hr. President, but we just wanted to be clear on this point, that this regulation will be maintained and be in force, even though our presentation of evidence here will be concluded.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. Tribunal?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: I have eight documents to put in. My Lord, they are documents which it is intended to refer to in the final speech and accordingly I would not propose to do more than just to indicate their nature to the Tribunal and put them in very quickly. I have a list of them which I will hand up first. It may be convenient to see their nature.
THE PRESIDENT: Are they documents which have not yet been offered in evidence?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: Yes, My Lord; I am offering them in rebuttal.
THE PRESIDENT: You have a list here?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: Yes, My Lord. My Lord, the first document, 1519-PS-