My colleague, Dr. Nelte, has renounced the calling of any further witnesses. In so doing he has renounced calling Halder as a witness, that is General Balder, which, of course, is his privilege. But this renunciation on his part as to hearing Halder damages my rights. to be submitted -
THE PRESIDENT: Doctor, if Dr. Nelte does not call General Halder then you can apply for calling him yourself and the matter will be considered. Presumably you have already asked for him and you have been referred to the fact that he has been specified by Dr. Nelte. Now, Dr. Nelte has not called him. You can renew your application if you want to.
DR. LATERNWER: Mr. President, I do not believe that point of view is exactly relevant here. When the written statement was presented by the Russian Prosecution it was stated on objection by defense counsel that the witness should be here for cross-examination. Consequently, in agreement with my other colleagues, we agreed that Halder would be heard for Keitel. It this witness is not called I will not be in a position to cross-examine him. I believe, consequently, that I con apply to call Halder as my own witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, we will consider the matter of General Halder and let you know in the morning. It is five o'clock now.
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for defendant Frank): Mr. President, I should like to ask the witness a few more questions which have become necessary through the cross-examination and which touch on certain questions.
THE PRESIDENT: You cannot do it tonight at any rate. We will consider it and 1st you know tomorrow morning but you cannot do it tonight.
DR.SEIDL: I simply wanted to bring it up so the witness would still be at hand tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, he shall be at hand.
MR. DODD: Your Lordship, if I may have one minute of the Tribunal's time Justice Jackson asked me to bring to the attention of the Tribunal for its information these facts apropos of the discussion of this morning.
handed to him by Dr. Thoma and it shows that there was a red line drawn in the margin beside this passage which was translated and mimeographed and included in the document book. Dr. Thoma this morning felt that he had not underlined it and he also felt that there was ubdoubtedly a mistake in the translation and Colonel Dostert tells us that there is no mistake in the translation and that it was underlined.
THE PRESIDENT: Well now, Dr. Nelte, we should like to know what your position is about General Westhoff and Obergruppenfuehrer Wielen, or something of that sort. You were given the opportunity of calling those witnesses and we understand you do not desire to do so.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, through the cross-examination It has been clarified in my mind that the Prosecution has abandoned the original claim against Keitel, namely that he issued the order that the fifty Royal Air Force officers should be shot. The Prosecution has admitted that the charge cannot be substantiated. case and in which he made that charge against the defendant Keitel. He presented these charges to the defendant and the defendant in connection with these four points admitted them.
Since I was going to call General Westhof only on the question of this order of Keitel's, and to testify that he did net issue the order and he did not translate it, I have no need to call him.
However, Westhof was not present at the conference at the Obersalzberg so knows nothing first-hand. I see no further necessity for calling this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, you are to decide whether you want to call him or not. Unless Sir David has Said that he has not issued such an order, I think you can call him on the ground that a charge was applied. The abandonment of charges which Sir David brought up would be a good reason for not calling him.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, there is no abandonment of any charge. In fact, the Prosecution stands by what is stated, about General Westhof, about the statements which apply to Defendant Keitel. That is the stand of the prosecution. The prosecution stands by that as it is put in.
MR. NELTE: May I please ask whether the Prosecution wishes to assert that General Westhof has testified that Keitel had issued this order or had transmitted it?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, you have the document which contains an excerpt of General Westhof's testimony. You knew what he has said in that statement. The Tribunal proposes to call General Westhof themselves, in order to hear his statements; whether he adheres to the statement. And also Wielen, whose evidence is principally against the Defendant Kaltenbrunner.
DR. NELTE: Then I should also like to ask the Prosecution to produce the affidavit that General Westhof deposed on this matter, before the Tribunal so that it would be made clear.
THE PRESIDENT: When you say affidavit, do you mean the statement?
DR. NELTE: No. I mean the affidavit. No unsworn statement but a sworn statement. So far, the Prosecution has dealt only with unsworn to protocols which Col. Williams required and received from the Defendant, and it is this affidavit which I want. This affidavit states clearly Westhof's statement that he had never stated that Keitel ever issued any order nor did he transmit it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I have no affidavit. I havechecked with Mr. Roberts sna we have not got one.
There were two interrogations, if my recollection is correct, one which was early and one on 2 November. There were two interrogations and apart from the reports of the interrogations, one of which I put in, they are in Dr. Nelte's document book. I have no affidavit. If I had, I should produce it at once. I don't know where Dr. Nelte got the information, but certainly no affidavit has ever been brought to my attentions.
THE PRESIDENT: The only thing the Tribunal can find is a statement made by General Westhof and a certain gentleman whose name I have forgotten. Oh yes, Brigadier Schepp. The course which the Tribunal proposes to to call General Westhof and to ask him whether his statement made in that document is accredited to him.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: The Prosecution has not the slightest objection to that.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshall will have General Westhof and also Wielen--they will be here tomorrow morning at 10:00 o'clock.
MARSHALL OF THE COURT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 1000 hours, 10 April 1946).
DR. THOMA (Counsel for defendant Rosenberg): Mr. President, the High Tribunal, I stated yesterday that Labouche was not marked in my document book and that I would read it. My assertion was not correct. I made thin assertio for the following reasons: the passages in the document book to be cited ire marked in red; the other parts did not have to be translated. The passages that the French referred to had not been anticipated. I consequently assume that these did not have to be translated. This communication from Rosenberg, however, had a different meaning. Rosenberg had made a sign in certain documents that were outlined in red to indicate that these passages did not have to be read; that includes the quotation from Labouche. Consequently, the error which took place. correctly translated. That, too, was an error. I apparently committed this error because the emphasis of a certain word in it struck me as peculiar.
I request the translation department to pardon me. The document book itself--
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal quite understands that there must have been some mistake, and no one, I hope -- and certainly not the Tribunal -- is accusing yon of any bad faith in the matter at all. The Tribunal quite understands that there must have been some misunderstanding or some mistake which led to whatever has happened.
DR. THOMA: Thank you.
DR. NELTE: (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): Mr. President, permit me to ask the Tribunal a short question related to procedure matters in the case of Westhoff. I yesterday stated the reasons why I believed I could forego calling the witness Westhoff.
The Prosecution has cleared up this error; consequently. my assumption is no longer true. I should like to ask the Tribunal whether the original situation is thereby automatically restored, and can I also cross examine this witness as a defense witness or must I make a formal application to call him as a defense witness?
THE PRESIDENT: No, Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal does not desire you to make any formal application. You can ask the witness any questions when he has answered the questions which the Tribunal will put to him, and the Prosecution, of course, can also ask him questions.
DR. NELTE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Seidl, I think you wanted to put some questions to this witness, did you not, on behalf of the defendant Frank? We hope that they will not be very long. BY DR. SEIDL (Counsel for defendant Fra nk):
Q. Witness, the Prosecution asked you a question yesterday in connection with the AB Action; namely, that was part of the general pacifying measures. It was necessary in connection with uprisings in the year 1940 in the General Government in Poland. In this connection the Prosecution read you a quotation from Frank's Diary of the 16th of May, 1940. I want to read to you one further sentence from this same citation from the Diary. It reads as follows:
"Every arbitrary action is to be prevented withthe most astringent measures. In every case the point of view must be regarded that takes into consideration the necessary security of the Fuehrer and of the Reich. Moreover, action will be postponed until the 15th of June." from which one could deduce-
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not think that you really can read passages of Frank's Diary to the witness. I mean, you are re-examining to clear up. He had not seen the diary.
DR. SEIDL: I shall ask him a question in preparation for which I must read another quotation; otherwise he will not understand the question.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the question? You can put the diary to Frank when you call Frank. AB Action, and he was presented with a passage from this diary that must have given him the impression that a large number of Poles had been shot without any trial.
THE PRESIDENT: What question do you want to put?
DR. SEIDL: I should like to ask him whether he knows Ministerialrat Wille, what position he occupied in the General Government and in what way Dr. Wille worked, if he was involved within the framework of this action.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, ask him that if you like, but the diary has no relevance to that question at all.
DR. SEIDL: But he can only answer the question sensibly if I first show him the corresponding passage from the diary. Otherwise he doesn't see the connection.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal doesn't see the connection, either -- and the Tribunal thinks there is no point in reading the diary to him.
DR. SEIDL: That will become immediately apparent once I read the passage. I therefore ask to be allowed to read one more passage from the diary.
THE PRESIDENT: No, Dr. Seidl. You can ask him your question but you can't read the diary to him. You stated what the question was, whether he knew somebody held a certain position in the General Government. You can ask him that question.
Q Witness, do you know Ministerialrat Wille?
A No, I don't remember him. General Government?
A No; that, too, I do not remember.
DR. SEIDL: Then the one question is already settled. to an entry in Frank's diary, in connection with concentration camps. I can ask this question only if I am permitted to read a passage from the diary.
THE PRESIDENT: Tell us what the question is.
DR. SEIDL: The question would have read: Is the point of view expressed in the entry in the diary that I intended to read, the correct point of view? And does it correspond to his previous statements on Monday or is the point of view correct which the Prosecution deduced from the passage, which the Prosecution read from the diary yesterday?
(A short pause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal thinks you can put the question, if you put it in the form: Do you know what was the attitude of Frank towards concentration camps?-- if you pit it in that way -- and what was that attitude.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, this question was already answered by the witness in his examination-in-chief. He answered that Frank had a negative attitude toward concentration camps. Yesterday, however, a passage was road from Frank's diary which seemed to prove the opposite. However, there are dozens of passages in Frank's diary that corroborate the statement of the witness and which considered what the Prosecution brought up. I can honestly ask a sensible question only if I read some of these other passages.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, all those matters can be gone into with Frank. You can prove every passage in the diary which is relevant, and you can put the most necessary ones to Frank.
DR. SEIDL: The third question would have been related to the telegram -
THE PRESIDENT: It is only a very exceptional privilege that you as Counsel for Frank are allowed to re-examine at all, and the Tribunal have expressed that they do not think this is a ratter on which you ought to be allowed to re-examine. The person to re-examine is the one who calls a witness in the first place. We can't allow, in ordinary cases, re-examination by everyone.
DR. SEIDL: I therefore renounce any further questions to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire.
(The Witness left the court room.)
(A new witness entered the box.)
Sir David, could you find no the German version of General Westhof's statement in those papers here?
SIR. DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I looked for it, but couldn't find it, my Lord.
ADOLF WESTHOF, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Your full name?
and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
Q You any sit down. General Westhof, you made a statement before a Captain J.B. Parnell, did you not?
A I don't remember his name. I made a statement in England.
Q Yes. On the 13th of June, 1945?
Q You don't know English, I suppose. document?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: An English copy?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. well, Sir David, if you would follow me whilst I read it and draw my attention to any passages which are really relevant -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a rather long document. I don't wish to read it all to the witness. to this statement or whether you wish to make any alterations in it. And I Will read to you, so that you may remember it, the material passages from the statement.
Q "I was in charge of the general department when the shooting of the escaped R.A.F. Prisoners of war from Stalag Luft 3 took place. It was the first occasion on which Field Marshal Keitel sent for me. I wont with General von Graevenitz. He had been sent for and I was to accompany him. A certain number of officers had escaped from the Sagan camp. I don't remember how many, but I believe about eighty"-
DR. NELTE: (Counsel for defendant Keitel); Could I be of service to the Tribunal by offering you the German translation of this document and give it to the witness?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: I am very grateful to Dr. Nelte. as you can? You will be able to see what are the really material passages, and then tell the Tribunal whether that statement is correct.
(A brief pause)
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, here is another part of this declaration. It is a very extensive document. Could I also submit this to the witness?
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that he has not the whole document?
DR. NELTE: No, he does not have all of it yet
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes, certainly.
DR. NELTE: I received from the Prosecution three sections which I should now like to give him. Then he would have it in total.
THE PRESIDENT: The statement that we have here in English is five pages in t type, and is certified in this way:
"This appendix contains an accurate translation of oral statements made to me by Major General Westhoff on 13 June 1945 in reply to questions concerning the shooting of 50 RAF officers from Stalag Luff 3. Dated this 23rd day of the ninth month, 1945. J.B.Parnell, Captain, Intelligence Corps."
DR. NELTE: I do not know whether General Weshoff was not perhaps interrogated several times. In this document he also made statements regarding the whole polic regarding prisoners of war. In other words, not explicitly about the case of the 50 executed officers. This is a continuous report.
THE PRESIDENT: The only document which is in evidence is this document, which I have in my hand, which is annexed to the report of Brigadier Capcott.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: I have looked at the document, the part that Dr. Nelte has. I think my German is sufficient to identify it. It is the same document. If Your Lordship will look at Page 2, Your Lordship will see the passage "General Inspector, General Roettich". My Lord, that is where it starts, and I have checked it as to the last paragraph.
It is the same, "I cannot remember having received any reports." As far as my German goes, that is the same here, so this part of the document is the last half of the document that Your Lordship has.
THE PRESIDENT: I see, you, Dr. Nelte and Sir David, perhaps the best course would be if Sir David put the passages upon which he relics to the witness, and the witness could then be asked whether those were accurate.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And Dr. Nelte can ask any questions that he wants to after that
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, Counsel is going to ask you questions upon this document now, so you need not go on reading.
____________________ BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE:
Q Have you had a chance of reading the first paragraph of this statement?
Q And is that correct; is that true.
A There are a few things in it that are net entirely correct. For instance, on the first page-
Q Shall I read it to you and see how far it is correct:
"I was in charge of the general department (Abteilung Allgemain) when the shooting of the escaped FAR prisoners of war from Stalag Luff 3 took place." That is correct, is it not?
A The phrase missing, "when the shooting took place."
Q Now, "It was the first occasion on which Field Marshal Keitel had sent for me. I went to General von Graevenitz. He had been sent for, and I was to accompany him." Is that right?
Q "A certain number of officers had escaped from the Sagan Camp. I cannot remember how many, but I believe about 80." That is correct, too?
Q Now, the next sentence: When we entered, the Field Marshal was very excite and nervous and said, 'Gentlemen, this is a bad business.'" Is that correct?
A pr 10-M-RT-3-3
Q Then, "We were always blamed when prisoners of war escaped. We could not tie them to our apron strings." That is your own comment. Then you go on to say as to what the Field Marshal said: "This morning Goering reproached me in the presence of Himmler for having let more prisoners of war escape. It was unheard of." You go with your comment. Is that correct-- that the Field Marshal said, "This morning Gearing reproached me in the presence of Himmler for having let some more prisoners of war escape"?
A No, not Himmler, but in Hitler's presence.
Q It ought to be in Hitler's presence?
Q Now, the next sentence, "All German Air Force camps came directly under the German Air Force itself, but the inspector of Prisoner of war camps was in charge of all camps for Inspection purposes." We have had all that explained. I do not think that there is any dispute about the organization. I will not trouble you about that. We have gone into that in this Court in some detail. Unless the Tribunal wants it, I did not intend to trouble this witness again. You say, "I was not Inspector yet. General von Graevenitz was Inspector, and all camps came under him in matters concerning inspections and administ ration," Then you say, "Goering blamed Keitel for having let those men escape.
These constant escapee were bad show. Then Himmler interfered. 'I can only say what the Field Marshal told us, and he complaind that he would have to provide another 60,000 to 70,000 men as Landwache'", etc. Is that right? did the Field Marshal say that?
Q Now, the second paragraph: "Field Marshal Keitel said to us, 'Gentlemen, these escapes must stop. We must set an example. We shall take Very severe measures. I can only tell you that the men who have escaped will be shot. Probably the majority of them are dead already'. Keitel said that to us at the conference" Is that correct?
Q Then you say"we were amazed, as that was a conception we had never come across before. The affair must have happened in March. We were sent to the Field Marshal in Berlin a few days after the escape, not on that account but for some other business.
We knew that they had escaped, and we ware taken by surprise by that declaration of the conference." Then you go on again with your account of the conference.
"General von Graevenitz intervened at once and said, But, Sir. that is out of the question. Escape is not a dishonorable offense. That is specially laid down in the Convention," Is that correct--that General von Graevenitz said these words? but there is missing in this report the fact that the Field Marshal said to Graevenitz that this was a matter of a Fuehrer decree. That is not stated in this report.
you, you say:
"He", that is, General von Graevenitz, "raised these objections, whereupon Keitel said, 'I don't care a damn; we discussed it in the Fuehrer's presence and it cannot be altered."
Is that correct?
A No. The Field Marshal said, "that is a matter of indifference to me." to the best of your recollection, what the Field Marshal did say after General von Graevenitz had made his objections. might perhaps read, regarding the presence of von Graevenitz and myself at the headquarters in March of 1940.
Q General Westhoff, the Tribunal may want that later. It would be easier if you would try to stick to this statement for the moment, whether it is right or wrong, and then we will deal with any other one later on. It is just this point, if you could direct your mind to it. on the ground of the Convention, what did the Field Marshal say? What did he say at that point?
A The Field Marshal then said, "It is now a matter of indifference; we must set an example." to that effect, or a Fuehrer order, or something of that sort. Did he mention that? Fuehrer decree. it is only fair to yourself to read it; it is the second sentence: "But in this case none of our men--that is, the men of the Wehrmacht--had shot any of the prisoners of war.
I made inquiries at once."
Then you say: "None of them had been shot by a soldier, but by Gestapo men only, or else police sentries. That proves that probably Himmler--of course, I don't know whether he made the suggestion to the Fuehrer or how they arranged it; it should be possible to find that out from Goering, who was present at the conference. Naturally, I don't know."
Do you remember making these answers?
Q Then, you say again: "At any rate, it is a clear fact that our men did not shoot any of them, they must all have been shot by policemen."
You then point out, in the last sentence: "But in this particular case only those caught by our people were brought back to the camp--that is, those caught by soldiers." the police orders, and you repeat that the military did not shoot any of them. And then in the third sentence you say: "I had a report sent to me at once, and told General von Graevenitz, 'Sir, the only thing we can do is to see that no dirty business is carried out where we are in charge.'" Is that right?
Does that correctly describe what you did, General? with a fait accompli, and then you say, after repeating General von Graevenitz' protests to Field Marshal Keitel, when he had said, "That is quite impossible, we can't shoot any people": "How the shooting was carried out I heard from the representative of the Protecting Power, Herr Naville, of Switzerland."
Is that right?
Q How did you hear of the shooting? it for the Foreign Office. I did not receive this. The representative of Switzerland to whom I had sent the report, on his return visit, visited me, and it was from him that I heard all that I ever heard about this matter, that apparently a prisoner of war who had returned to the camp had seen that the escaped officers had been driven out to a certain prison camp under heavy guard.
That is the only thing I knew about this affair, and I never found out in what way these officers were killed. The Gestapo refused to inform me of this. you received from the representative of the Protecting Power. I don't know if you remember whether his name was Naville or not.
A I am sorry, but I didn't understand the question. very little--you received from the representative of Switzerland, of the Protecting Power. Is that right? where you tried to get in touch with the foreign office, and if you will look down the paragraph you will see that you say:
"At any rate, we did not get any news, and so it was pointed out to the Field Marshal that such a state of affairs was impossible, that we had to get in communication with the Foreign Office. Then he emphatically stated that it was forbidden to get in touch with the Foreign Office." Is that correct?
Q I will read on, two sentences further:
"The affair was raised in the House of Commons in England, and then a note was sent by our side. Then I was quite suddenly called up by Admiral Buerkner, of the Foreign Department, Amtsgruppe Ausland, in the OKW, which keeps contact with the Foreign Office. He called me up by telephone at night and said: 'The Field Marshal has given me orders to prepare an answer for England immediately. What is it all about? I don't know anything about the case.' I said: 'Herr Admiral, I am sorry, but General von Graevenitz received strict orders not to talk to anyone about it.' Nothing was allowed to be put down in writing either. Apart from that, we ourselves were faced with an accomplished fact. This order was apparently issued by Himmler and the position was such that we could do nothing more at all about it."
Is that a correct account?
A Here again the word "Himmler" stands where the word "Hitler" should stand.
Q Yes, I see. Apart from that, that is correct? I mean, in substance, is that a correct account of the conversation between Admiral Buerkner and yourself? him about the affair, and you only knew what the gentleman from Switzerland had told you, and that you had made various attempts to approach the Gestapo. it states: "Then the Foreign Office itself got into touch and took charge of this affair. Then another of my men, Oberstleutnant Kraft, went to Berchtesgaden while I was on a journey. At that time a note to England was to be prepared. Then when we read this note to England in the newspaper we were all absolutely taken aback. We all clutched our heads; mad! We could do nothing about the affair."
Is that correct? Did you say that, and is that correct? Foreign Office was charged with drawing up a note to England. At this discussion Colonel Kraft was there as a specialist, he had been called in on this matter. However, that is not to say that Colonel Kraft was in any way concerned in the drawing up of the note; that was purely a matter taken care of by the Foreign Office. He was there simply in order to clarify any errors in fact that might creep into it. to read unless the Tribunal wanted it, because you are making quite clear that in your opinion the General Inspektor, General Roettich, had nothing to do with the affair at all. And if you accept it from me that that is the substance of the next two paragraphs, I won't trouble you with it in detail.
You are making clear that General Roettich had nothing to do with it. Is that right?
Q Well, I am sorry. If you will look at the first sentence--I thought it represented it fairly. Look at the first sentence. "General Inspektor Roettich had nothing to do with it, nothing at all. He did not have any hand in the affair. He was completely excluded from it by the fact that these matters were taken out of his hands, apparently at that conference with the Fuehrer in the morning--that is to say, the conference between Himmler, Field Marshal Keitel and Goering, which took place in the Fuehrer's presence."
Is that right? I only wanted to put it shortly, that you were trying to, and quite rightly, if it is true, give your view that General Roettich had nothing to do with it. Is that right; that is, that sentence I read to you?
Did you say "yes"? efforts to escape, but he had nothing to do with this matter.
Q There is no difference between us. That is what I was suggesting. Now, I'd like you to look at the next paragraph. It also deals with General Roettig. Then after that you explain the position of the officers. You say this "I only know an order existed that only officers and I believe only those who were caught by the Gestapo should be handed over to then."
Then you say, talking about intelligence -- I don't want to trouble you about that. Then, if you would look at the next paragraph:
"I received a report from the camp saying so and so many men had been shot while attempting to escape. I didn't hear from the Gestapo at all. It's like this: The reports are sent to the camp. Then the camp informed us that a certai number of men had been recaptured and a certain number shot. Things are reported in that way. The Gestapo sent me no information whatsoever; they merely told us casually whenever we made inquiries that they had recaptured a certain number."
Now the next sentence I want you to look at carefully: "The fieldmarshal gave us detailed instructions to publish a list at the camp, giving the names of those shot, as a warning. That was done. That was a direct order that we couldn't desobey." Is that correct? der to frighten off the rest of those who were still in the camp.
And then, the next sentence says:
"Apparently the bodies were burned and the ashes put into urns and sent to the camp."
Then you say that that raised great difficulties. A sentence or two later you say that matters of that sort were always passed to higher authority. They went to the Party Chancellory and then there wass hell to pay. The cremation of prisoners of war is forbidden. contrary to the conversation, you say:
'Whenever I addressed the officers' corps and said, 'Gentlemen, we only act according to the conversation,' someone from higher authority from the Part Chancellory arrived the following day and said, 'Gentlemen, the conversation is a scrap of paper which doesn't interest us.