This question has nothing to do with the delay of the trial, nothing but the procurement of documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything to that, General Rudenko?
GENERAL RUDENKO: Yes, Mr. President, with your permission, I would like to say a few words. on the question concerning the demand of the Defense Counsel. I would like to add to what has already been said by Sir David Fyfe, with regard to the declaration made here by the Defense Counsel. to turn the Prosecutor into a Defendant and that they would like to determine the motives as in his opinion the motives were not known, and that in order to determine these motives it was necessary to investigate the question whether the conventions were violation by other warring powers. of all the Prosecution -- it is really strange to hear such a declaration on the part of such a Defense Counsel after a three-months-long trial and after the presention of all proofs by the Prosecution. documents and testimony on all the counts of the charges presented against the Defendants, and as is evident from this morning's session, when we were investigating the questions of the Counsel for Defendant Foering, as the Tribunal knows, the Tribunal agreed to a major part of Defense Counsel's requests. But the question which is being put by Dr. Exner reveals quite certainly a divergence of views. the main point of the trial. This is a trial of the main German was criminals. We are investigating the Fascist cases and even when we investigate all the proofs which are presented by the prosecution and by the Defense Counsel, we can also present all evidence concerning these counts. But it is not admissible and it would indeed be a gross violation of the Charter while investigating these charges to dwell on problems which have absolutely nothing to do with the charges we are investigating, and that is why the Prosecution is so energetically objecting to the presentation and the reading of such documents which have absolutely nothing to do with, this case.
That is what I wanted to add to what Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe has said on behalf of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Before the Tribunal adjourns, as it will do not, I want to say that the next four defendants on the Indictment are required to name their witnesses and the subject matter of their evidence, and the documents and the relevance of the documents, by Wednesday next at 5:00 p.m. The Tribunal will hold a similar session to the session it has been holding this morning with reference to the defense of those defendants on Saturday next at 10:00 o'clock.
The Tribunal will now adjourn until 2:15.
(A recess was taken until 1415 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make: With reference to the pronouncement that I made this morning, the Tribunal may hear the applications for witnesses and documents of the Defendants Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, and Frick, before Saturday. That will depend upon theprogress of the case. I have already stated that those applications must be deposited with the General Secretary by 5 o'clock P.M. on Wednesday. Indictment must make application naming their witnesses and the relevance of their evidence, and the documents and the relevancy of the documents, by Friday next at 5 P.M.
Thirdly, the Tribunal will sit in closed session on Monday next at 4 P.M.
Perhaps I ought also to say that this doesn't affect -- may affect but it does not refer directly to Defendants' Counsel who represent the criminal organizations. Those Counsel will be heard after the close of the Prosecution, case, as has already been announced.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I only want to say that if the Tribunal desire to hear anything on the question of reprisals, which was raised by Dr. Exner, Mr. Dodd is prepared, if the Tribunal would care to hear further matter on it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, The Tribunal would like to hear that now.
MR. DODD: May it please the Tribunal: I wish to say at the very outset that I have made a rather hurried preparation during the noon recess of the few notes on this subject based on some work which we had done a little earlier. I am not altogether prepared to go into the matter at any great length at this time, but I did want to call to the attention of the Tribunal a few of these notes that we have prepared and to say that, in view of Dr. Exner's contention that some of the documents which are offered by the Defense, or which they intend or hope to offer, are admissible on the theory or under the doctrine of reprisal.
cerning the treatment of prisoners of war expressly prohibits altogether the use of reprisals against prisoners of war. army instructions reprisals against prisoners of war as early as 1862 or 1863. mention at all, insofar as we are able to ascertain, the use of so-called "reprisal action" against civilians. ratified Brussels Declaration, so-called in International Law -- that conference rejected or struck out several sections which were proposed by the Russians at that time, having to do with the use of reprisal action against civilians. I cite that because it is interesting and indicates that the powers were certainly thinking about the matter of reprisals against civilians as early as that time. said by the writers on this subject that before reprisal action may be taken a notice of some character is usually required, and this reprisal action is directed against some specific instance which the first power believes to be offensive and which it believes may call for or justify the use of reprisal action. So that some notice of some kind seems to be required by the power which feels it has been offended to the offending power.
I might say that in the Prosecution's case in chief we specifically avoided any reference to the well-known incident during this war of the shackling of prisoners of war, because there there was some color of notice, and the matter was resolved by the powers concerned. this noontime, and if the Tribunal would like to have us do it, we shall be glad to prepare ourselves further.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal: The position with regard to the Defendant Hess is set out in Dr. Seidl's communication to the Tribunal, and I have one or two comments to make on that on behalf of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Dr. Seidl prepared to make the application? Would it be convenient to follow the same course as we followed with Dr. Stahmer, and perhaps Sir David may see if he has any objection, first of all to the witnesses, one by one, that you are asking for?
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Hess): I should like to request the Court to permit me a short preparatory remark.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: My Lord, Judges: From what happened in this morning's session I had the conviction that now the trial has entered into a decisive phase, at any rate so far as concerns the Defense. I competently feel myself obliged to make the following application: undertake to examine the relevance of the evidence submitted by the Defense and should limit itself in this to the witnesses, and as to the relevance of documents it should wait until a later time. I base this request on the following: the submission of evidence by the Defense. In this it was only witnesses and not documents that were re discussed.
A second decision of the 18th of February mentions the following: In order to avoid a delay in the bringing of witnesses and documents, Defense Counsel shall, etc. ment has relevance can only be decided when I have this document in my own hands; in other words, when I am familiar with the precise contents of that document. It is impossible in a summary proceeding such as is now being attempted, in which the admissibility of whole books is being decided on, to pass accurate judgment whether a particular passage in a document has relevancy of not. This question can only then be decided once and for all when the Prosecution and the Court have the documents in their hands, before the Defense wishes to submit it.
THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Seidl, I have stated twice this morning that the question of the final admissibility, whether of witnesses or evidence, or documentary evidence, can only be finally decided when the document is actually nut in or when the witness is actually a sired a question. What we are now considering is whether the document has any possibility of relevance and must, therefore, be searched for if necessary, or sent for.
DR. SEIDL: Yes. If I understand you correctly, Mr. President, it is not necessary --
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl. the Tribunal thirds that you had better deal with your witnesses and documents now, and we don't desire to hear any further general argument on the subject.
We desire to hear you upon the documents and the witnesses which you wish to call and to produce.
Dr.SEIDL: It is a question of the documents I have already mentioned, and not that I am about to mention.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the documents which you are about to mention.
DR. SEIDL: It is a question of all the documents, and not simply the documents that I shall produce in the future.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have before us your application for certain witnesses and certain documents, and we wish to hear you upon that application.
DR. SEIDL: Very well, but I must draw up a list by next Wednesday also for the Defendant Frank , and I should like to know whether those documents should be brought up which I already have in my own hands.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all you had better deal with your witnesses in the same way that Dr Stahmer did.
DR. SEIDL: Very Well. previous secretary of the defendant Hess.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL - FYFE: MY Lord, I haven't seen this list until a moment ago.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness he wants to call is Ingeborg Berg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr Seidl tells me that this lady was as private secretary of hose, it seems to me, prima facie, a reasonable that there was a chance of discussing the matter, As a general rule it seems to me reasonable that a private secretary can be called who can corroborate the matters with which the defendant was dealing. I don't thing any of my colleagues will disagree with that point.
DR. SEIDL: By second witness is the previous Gauleiter of the Foreign Organization of the NSDAP, Dr. Bohle.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Seidl, you haven't really adopted the procedure which the Tribunal asked you to adopt, You have'nt specified the relevaner of the evidence which you wish to produce. You have referred to some previouse application. The Tribunal has not got all these applications before it at the moment, and therefore we wish to know in what respect the evidence of Ingeborg Berg is relevant.
DR. SEIDL: I shall explain that, Madam Berg was Hess secretary at his liaison offices in Berlin. She is to make statements as to since when Hess had been making preparations for his flight to England, and what sort of preparations they were.
She is further to testify as to what Hess' attitude was toward the Jewish question in a particular case, namely, in connection with the Progrom of 28 November 1938.
THE PRESIDENT: Is she in Nurnberg?
DR. SEIDL: She is here, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may deal with the Second witness now, if you like.
DR. SEIDL: The Second witness is the previous Gauleiter of the Foreign Organization of the Dr Bohle. He is here in prison. activity which might be interpreted as fifth column activity.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On the second witness, that is one of our allegations against the Auslands Organization, and therefore it does seem relevant.
DR. SEIDL: Dr Schellenberg is the third witness I mention. Whether I shall be able to uphold this application I can only judge after the Court has given me the opportunity to speak personally with these witnesses who are here in Nurnberg. I do not know whether the witness, in the period before the 5th June, could be reached. I should like to say that time was previously occupied with interrogating a witness.
I should, consequently, like to ask the Tribunal, first of all, to be able to speak to this witness personally.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have anything to say about that, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I understand that this is the witness Schellenberg who was called for the prosecution.
THEPRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I submit that it would be very undesirable to have private conversations with witnesses before cross-examinations. If Dr. Seidl wishes to cross examine thewitness Schellenberg further, then he ought to apply to the Court to cross-examine him in open court.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think I remember that some of the defendant's counsel asked to postpone the further cross examination of Dr. Schellenberg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, my objection is not to the further cross examination; that is a matter, of course, which is entirely for the Court once a witness is in its hands. But my recollection is that Dr. Merkel and Dr. Kaufmann also wanted to cross examine the witness further, and therefore I submit that both generally and on this particular occasion it would be very undesirable for any counsel what is going to cross examine to have a private conversation with the witness before he cross examines. That is the matter to which I object.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but if the defendants' counsel finally decide that they are not going to cross examine the witness, I suppose then they would be able to examine him in chief if they wanted to do so, to call him.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I have never heard, my Lord, of that procedure being adopted. If a witness is called by one side, then the other side must, in my respectful submission, do what they can by way of cross examination. The witness is before the Court and, as theprosecution have called the witness, then I submit that the defense should deal with the witness by way of cross examination. They have the additional rights which cross examination gives, which is a compensation for the other rights which they would have if he were their own witness.
DR. SEIDL: We might reach some agreement that the defense would renounce the right to cross examination, if the witness can actually say something pertinent, if we could have him give an affidavit. I do not believe that the prosecution would object to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, as there are no technical rules of evi-
dence applicable to this trial, would it be objectionable, would you say, if the defense were permitted to see Schellenberg in the presence of a representative of the prosecution, if that is satisfactory to them?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sure the prosecution all desire that only the interests of justice should be furthered, and if the Tribunal consider that that would be a suitable method of dealing with it, the prosecution would raise no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. Tribunal will consider your application.
DR. SEIDL: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you any other witnesses that you wish to refer to?
DR. SEIDL: For the time being, no. However, according to the position of the 18th of February, every defense counsel has the right, until the conclusion of the trial, to ask permission to call further witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: I think now is the time for you to apply; in accordance with the order of the Tribunal to which you are referring, this is the time at which you are to apply for any witnesses you want. The Tribunal always has the discretion, which it would exercise, if you prefer to make any further applications. If later you want to ask for further witnesses, the Tribunal will always consider your application.
Did you get that?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President. Der Bund Deutscher im Osten, and Der Volksbund der Deutschen im Ausland, and as to whether its activities were similar to those of the fifth column, a witness might be called on this question, the brother of Rudolf Hess, why was previously an alternate Gauleiter of the Foreign Organization of the NSDAP, and is at the moment in Mergentheim in an internment camp.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we haven't got your application in front of us with reference to that. If you want to make any further application you may do so.
DR. SEIDL: I hereby make the application.
THE PRESIDENT: You say you want to make it now?
DR. SEIDL: If it is possible I should like to make the application now. I am, of course, perfectly prepared to submit that application in writing later.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will hear you new, then, upon this application, and you can put the application in writing afterwards as a matter of record.
DR. SEIDL: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: What is his name?
DR. SEIDL: Alfred Hess. His last official position was Deputy Gauleiter of the Foreign Organization of the NSDAP. At the tire being he is in Mergentheim, in the internment camp there.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes? For what purpose? You said because he was going to speak as to fifth column activities, was that it?
DR. SEIDL: Regarding the fifth column and regarding the question of whether or not the foreign organization of the NSDAP was related to Der Volksbund der Deutschen im Ausland and Der Bund Deutscher im Osten, and was so related in a way to carry out fifth column activities.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David?
SIR DAVID-MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have already conceded that this is a relevant issue, and therefore the only question is cumulation. The defendant Hess will himself be able to speak on this point, and the witness further if the Tribunal allows it. or interrogatories from a third witness on the point would be sufficient at the moment, unless any further issue is disclosed, in which case Dr. Seidl could summon the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, now, you can pass on to your documents.
DR. SEIDL: Very well. It is my intention for individual documents in Rudolf Hess's document book, to read various passages in order to establish the connection. A further justification of the relevance of these documents is superfluous, since the question of documents submitted by the prosecution-they have already been accepted in evidence by the Court.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the application is in this form. .
"I intend to read pages from the following books: Rudolf Hess' Speeches; Directives by the Deputy of the Fuehrer. The relevancy of these documents can be inferred simply from the fact that both have already been introduced in evidence by the prosecution." of course Dr. Seidl may, within the usual limits, comment on them as much as he likes. If he intends to put in other speeches and directive, documents of the same class, then the prosecution asks that he indicate which speeches and which directives he is going to out in.
DR. SEIDL: What Sir David. Maxwell-Fyfe read was the outline of my application. It is true that from the book of Rudolf Hess' speeches I intend to read certain passages, and further, from the book Orders of the Deputy of the Fuehrer. The prosecution has already submitted both these books in evidence, and the Court has accepted them. most certaily relevant, Whether those passages that I intend to read are relevant or not can only be decided after I submit these documents. that it is only possible to decide on the relevancy of a document when one has that document before one and knows its precise contents.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I hole Dr. Seidl will realize that this is largely a matter of mechanics. If he is going to introduce new speeches and new directives, they have got to be translated into English, Russian, and French; and therefore it will be necessary, for the general progress of the trial, that he should indicated which, passages he is going to put in so that they can be translated as well as considered.
I am sure that Dr. Seidl will only desire to use relevant passages. Naturally, every politician makes many speeches on many subjects, and some of Hess' speeches may well not be relevant.
I suggest that it is not unreasonable; we are only trying to help along the general progress of the trial by the request that I have made.
DR. SEIDL: Of course, Mr. President, I shall read only those passages, and few of them at that, which are relevant. It never entered my mind to read whole sections of the book if it is not necessary. counsel for Hess nor for Frank shall I submit one single document that could not be recognized as relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but what Car David was saying was that for the mechanics of the trial, owing to the unfortunate fact that we don't all understand German, it is necessary that these documents which are in German should be translated. There fore, it is necessary for you to specify which speech and which part of the speech you propose to rely upon, and then it will be translated.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I shall incorporate every single passage that I intend to read in a document book, and every passage from a speech that I intend to read will be submitted to the Court, in proper time, in a document book. to take up the work which, of course, I shall attend to.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Mr Lord , that is quite all right. That is exactly the point that I was seeking to make.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, they Now you are coming to paragraph 3.
DR. SEIDL: Yes. Thirdly, I shall read passages from the report of the conference between Lord Byron and Hess, which took place in 1941. I shall attempt to prove in this the motives and aims which moved the defendant Hess to his flight to England. submitted a report of this conference with Sir Kilpatrick.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Seidly thinks that that conversation adds anything to the conversations with the Duke of Hamilton and Mr. Kilpatrick, I shall not object to him reading the report.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the document?
DR. SEIDL: It is in my hands.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the nature of the document? I mean, what authenticity has it? Whoe made it? Who wrote it?
DR. SEIDL: The document was found among the papers of the defendant Hess, and were given to him when he was brought from England back to Germany. It is a carbon copy, certified by an official stamp; it is certified as the carbon copy of an original.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to see the document.
DR. SEIDL: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: If you will let us have the document, we will consider it.
DR. SEIDL: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Then there is a letter, isn't there? There are two other documents referred to, but you are not asking us for those? A document of a letter to Hitler on the Reich Cabinet dated 10 May 1941.
DR. SEIDL: This application apparently was made by my predecessor. I should like to have an opportunity of examining the relevancy of this point.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Do you wish to say anything, Sir David, about them?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE:We haven't got that document. The Prosecution have not got the letter that the Defendant Hess sent to Hitler, and we just simply can not help on that point.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. If that document can be located, it shall be submitted to you.
DR. SEIDL: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Horn.
DR. HORN (Counsel for defendant Ribbentrop): It is my intention to call as the first witness for the defendant Ribbentrop the Ambassador Friedrich Gaus, at present in a camp at minder near Hannover. the German Foreign Office, and in this capacity, it is to be seen, how necessary this witness is.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Horn would carry out the same procedure as Dr. Stahmer and pause for a moment when he has introduced the witness, I shall then be able to indicate in the same way whether there is any objection.
DR. HORN: Certainly.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As far as Herr Gaus is concerned, there is no objection, subject to one point on what I may call the Foreign Office, group of witness, and I think it will be convenient if I develop it now, and then Dr. Horn would deal with the point in one moment.
Dr. Horn is asking for Herr Gaus, Miss Blank, who is the defendant's private secretary, and then witnesses three to seven, five foreign office officials Sonnleitner, Rintelen, Gottfriedsen, Hilger and Bruns.
Miss Blank was allowed or not by the Tribunal, and two of the witnesses, von Sonnleitner and von Rintelen were granted on 5 December. Von Sonnleitner was granted as one of two and Herr Bruns was granted simpliciter. special facts are stated as to which these witness will speak, and at the present moment, the applications are not within the Rule of Procedure 4 (a), but what the Prosecution suggest is this: who will speak as to Foreign Office business and activities, but they suggest that if he has Herr Gaus and his private secretary, Miss Blank, that one other Foreign Office official to speak as to the general methode would be sufficient, and Sonnleitner is obviously the sort of person who could help the defendant on General foreign Office matters. They suggest that to call seven witnesses to deal with his general position in the business would be unduly cumulative, and they suggest that three is sufficient. but really my point involves the number of them.
DR. HORN: May I reply to that: Dr. Gaus in all probability, will be my main witness. Therefore, since 10 November 1945, we have done everything to find this witness and after that had been accomplished, to bring him here. The witness is not personally here, and I consequently am not in possession of the knowledge of precisely what he will testify. For this reason I would also like not to commit myself as to the other witnesses from the Foreign Office.
I should like to make this application. The other witnesses whom I have listed here are not such as will give testimony on routine matters or, as Sir David said, on general matters regarding the Foreign Office. Rather, they are witnesses who can give testimony on very specific points which were brought up by this Prosecution.
I vonsequently suggest that, as to the calling of these other witnesses, a decision should be reached only after Ambassador Gaus is here.
In connection with this, I should like to ask the Court again personally to assist me in the calling of this extraordinarily important witness because only if I have him here in a short time can I submit my evidence in writing to the General Secretary in time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, we will consider that. That deals with one to seven, does it not?
DR. HORN: Mr. President, I should like to remark that the witness listed under number two I should like to be omitted. Consequently, not two to seven, but three to seven.
Fraulein Blank has made the following statement. For many years she was secretary of the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, von Ribbentrop, since 1933. The witness Blank drew up a large number of definitively important sketches and plans and also was in touch with Ribbentrop at decisive moments and spoke to him about these things. I should like to call-
THE PRESIDENT: Then you are asking, are you, that Ambassador Gaus and Fraulein Blank should be brought here as soon as possible that the consideration of the other witness, three to seven, should be deferred until yon have had an opportunity of seeing Gaus and Blank?
DR. HORN: Yes. As regards Fraulein Blank, I say that she is in an internment camp near Nurnberg, Hersbruck.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that she is so near that you could see her yourself there?
DR. HORN: I did not understand; I'm sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you mean that Fraulein Blank is in a camp so near Nurnberg that you could go and visit her and speak to her there?
DR. HORN: Yes, I do have that possibility. May I interpret this as authorization to visit Fraulein Blank in order to interrogate her?
THE PRESIDENT: We understand that this is your application, and we will consider it.
DR. HORN: Thank you. adjutant to Hitler, at the time being in the Nurnberg prison.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to this witness, the application says that there was a decisive conference between Hitler and the defendant von Ribbentrop, and that he can speak as to certain things that occurred. If that is so, if he can speak as one attending the conference, the Prosecution have no objection. nesses -- to what I call self created evidence. That is if a witness is merely coming to say that the defendant said that he had certain views, that, in the submission of the Prosecution, does not carry the thing any further. If I understand, this witness is speaking as an observer of the conference, and, as such, we take no objection.
DR. HORN: I should like to give Sir David my assurance that this is a witness who has immediate, first-hand knowledge of these decisive events and can give such testimony. eign Office, now in Nurnberg in the numicipal prison.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal would be good enough to look at the seventh line from the foot if this application, it says that Steengracht will further testify that, contrary to the assertions of the Chief Prosecutor of the United States, the protests of the churches and of the Vatican were always processed, thus obviating even worse excesses. defendant Ribbentrop sent forward the protests of the churches to Hitler, then the Prosecution would feel that they ought not to object to the witness.
DR. HORN: I can say in regard to this, Mr. President, that these protests were submitted not only to Hitler, but that furthermore, and on the initiative and order of the defendant, those officers involved in those crimes were reprimanded.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Can we go on to Ten?
DR. HORN: My witness is Dahlerus. The submission of him was discussed at length, and I should like to know whether further discussion of the relevan of submitting this witness is necessary.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I have already put my general position with regard to Dahlerus. Apparently this defendant wants him on one particular point namely, an order from Hitler, and I submit that the appropriate way would be in Dr. Horn added an interrogatory on that point. vate order to a Swedish engineer, but in view of the fact that interrogatories have been ordered, I suggest that Dr. Horn can send a further interrogatory on that point.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I remark in this connection that it is not a question here of a command of Hitler, but a question of the decisive note that was the beginning of the second world war.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL_FYFE: My position goes into a great deal of these requests. This is only evidence if Herr Dahlerus can say what Hitler said, what Hitler told him. It isn't evidence if Herr Dahlerus can say, "Herr Ribbentrop told me that Hitler had so ordered." That does not add to the evidence of the defendant himself. Therefore, I think it is essential that before one can judge of the evidential value at all, that the matter should be submitted, as I suggest, by way of interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, unless you have anything further to add with reference to this witness, we will stop at this point, because we think it is impossible to go further today, and apparently it is impossible to finish the whole of your applications this afternoon, so do you wish to add anything more about Dehlerus?
DR. HORN: Yes, I should like to make a short statement in answer to what Sir David says is evidential. This witness will not say what he heard from Ribbentrop; he will testify to what he heard about Ribbentrop from the decisive personality, namely, Hitler himself.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: A general point, My Lord: In the case of the witnesses who are asked for by Dr. Horn, I had prepared the comments of the Prosecution, and they have been typed out in English. The Tribunal will realize that we only received this application yesterday, and it had to be translated. I haven't been able to get it translated, but I have given Dr. Horn a copy quite informally so that he would be informed, and it might be useful if I handed it in because it might shorten the proceedings and also act as a record when the Tribunal resumes the consideration.