wrong. There was a law in Germany that if a person had two public offices he could be paid only for one. Since I was still President of the Reichsbank and received at first my salary and then my pension from the Reichsbank, I did not receive any salary as a minister. portfolio, as such did you have anything really to do? Did you have anything to do with the resolutions of the Cabinet, or was that just a title, minister without portfolio? Did it have any substantial content? after I left the Reichsbank I did not receive a single official conference; that I did not take part in a single official meeting; and that on my part, unfortunately, I did not have any possibility to discuss anything. I lacked every factual basis for it, because I had no field of office work.
there were a few others--who did not have any official activity at all. For instance, in the case of Seyss-Inquart, who was minister without portfolio, he at least had his mission in Holland. in Poland. Schirach--I do not know whether he was minister without portfolio; I think it has been mentioned, but I am not sure if it is correct--he had his administration in Austria. I didn't have anything to do with the administration or in any way with the State or the Party at that time.
Q What about the current activities? Circulars by Lammers were sent out, and you were alleged to have contributed to that. I have said that I saw to it wherever there was any possibility, and I saw it very clearly here, very definitely--during the entire time until the collapse I received three official memoranda. The numerous invitations to official funerals and other social occasions are really not worth considering as official communications. I did not take part in these anyway. state. The first time it was a letter from Himmler, a circular or a suggestion for a law from Himmler, who intended, with, respect to jurisdiction over the anti-Social elements of the population, to have that transferred to the police or the Gestapo, that is to say, an administrative principle -
Q Well, that is known, Dr. Schacht. You can assume that that is known; which Frank had sent me, and where he emphasized that here there was a violation of the principles of law. That law was never made. It would have been extremely regrettable, because I am convinced that I myself was definitely an anti-Social element in Himmler's opinion.
about the State property, government property, in Yugoslavia after we had occupied Yugoslavia. I answered that since I did not take part in the preparatory discussions about that draft, I would ask to be excused from any cooperation.
The third incident occurred in November 1942. Apparently by mistake the draft for a law was circulated by the Reich Aviation Minister, which contained the suggestion to take boys of 15 and 16, students of 15 and 16, into the service of anti-aircraft. To this letter--because this was a welcome opportunity for me to state my opinion with regard to the military situation--I answered in a long letter which I sent to Goering -
Q The third of November?
A The 30th of November. There must be a mistake, the 30th of November. On the 2nd of December, I believe, it was taken personally by my secretary to the adjutant of Goering and given to the adjutant of Goering in a closed envelope, with the request that he should open it personally.
Q One moment, Dr. Schacht.
DR. DIX: That letter and been submitted under PS-3700 by the Prosecution, but it is also in our document book under Exhibit 23; page 66 of the English text and page 59 of the German text. If your Honors would have enough time, I would appreciate it greatly if I could read this letter here. It is a very nice letter. However, I have to consider the time, and therefore I ask you, Dr. Schacht, be say a few words about its content.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will read the letter. It isn't necessary for you to read it now, is it?
DR. DIX: All right. Well, then, may he state a few words about that letter shortly before the recess?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I could like to say, if it is permitted, that to my knowledge that letter has already been read here by the American Chief Prosecutor.
BY DR. DIX:
Q Read? I believe it is quite sufficient if you submit that letter in evidence. out portfolio? characterize, one can call you a Characktermajor.
A I don't know what a Characktermajor is, At any rate, I was never a Major, but I have always had character.
Q But, Dr. Schacht, that is a historical remark, made by Kaiser Wilhelm the First about the authority he had as German Emperor, to Bismarck.
THE PRESIDENT: I think this is a convenient time to break off.
(A recess was taken.)
BY DR. DIX:
Q. Dr. Schacht, we have been talking about the letter dated November the 30th, 1942, to Goering. Did that letter have any kind of consequences?
A. Yes, the letter had very considerable consequences. It had the result that on the 22nd of January I did at last receive my long hoped for dismissal from my position of a minister without portfolio. The reason given however, was such which wasn't quite so pleasant. I believe the letter is among the files of the Tribunal, There is a letter attached from Lammers.
Q. Yes, well, we have made it the subject of Lammer's interrogation, didn't we?
A. Yes. But I should only like to refer to the statement which says: "With reference to your entire conduct in the present frightful struggle of the German nation," which referred to my entire attitude.
DR. DIX: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, it is Exhibit No 26 of our document book. It is on page 76 of the English text and on rage 69 of the German text. BY DR. DIX:
Q. Please continue.
A. My entire attitude during this war was, therefore, the reason leading to my dismissal, and the dismissal also contained the statement that I was being dismissed for the time being. According to Lammer's statement, as we heard it here the other day, it was also made on the Fuehrer's initiative and included in the letter. And I was perfectly clearly aware of that expression when I received the letter. I was a member, which, incidentally, was a board that hadn't met for at least eight years. At any rate, I wasn't at the meetings. Maybe it was six years, I'm not sure. The wording of that decision was communicated to me by the chairman of that State Counsel, Mr. Goering, and, because of its almost amusing contents, I still recollect it very clearly. It stated:
"My answer to your defeatism, which is undermining the resistance of the German people, and to the letter which you have written, is that I remove you from the Prussian State Counsel."
I'll say it was amusing because a sealed letter of mine couldn't possibly undermine the resistance of the German people. A further result was that Party leader Bormann demanded from me the return of the golden Party emblem, something which I did, of course, comply with at once. Apart from that, during the subsequent days, I was particularly closely watched by the Gestapo. I immediately left my apartment in Berlin; that is to say, within twenty-four hours, and for the whole day, both on foot and by car, the Gestapo spies followed me through Berlin, and I quietly retired to my farm in the country.
Q. Since on one occasion the trial brief mentioned material and other reasons for the decisions which you have made, the question appears justified to me as to just how the situation was regarding your property and your income after 1933. Please, will you in your reply take into consideration that it is remarkable that in 1942 you had an increased income.
A. A few months ago the press, apparently with the approval of the military government, have published a list of salaries and incomes which the Fuehrer had paid to Party leaders and ministers in Germany and, in connection with that, their income and their property was discussed, and I was on that list. I wasn't mentioned under "taxations", but it was stated that in 1942 I had an unusually high income. The whole list is incorrect, since the figure is a gross figure and does not take into consideration that from that figure the war profit tax was deducted, something which hadn't been known when that list was compiled. So that from the figure, which is stated in that connection, a possible eighty per cent must be deducted; and then the income is by no means remarkable any more. As far as my personal property is concerned, that list shows that in the period of ten years, and by comparison my property has hardly changed. And, I want to emphasize particularly in that connection that during the last twenty years my property remained approximately static and did not increase.
Q. If I remember rightly, than you on your own initiative reduced your owrn salary as president of the Reichsbank?
A. When, on Hitler's usggestion, President Hindenburg, in March of 1933, appointed me again to the position of president of the Reichsbank, Hitler left it to me to decide upon my own income.
At that time, I fixed my income to be less than twenty-five per cent than my former income as Reichsbank President, and voluntarily.
Q. Did you ever receive presents or donations from Hitler, be it money, be it in goods, or be it in presents?
A. As I've just mentioned, I have never received any kind of donations from Hitler, and I think he would hardly have risked offering me one. I did, indeed, receive a present on one occasion from Hitler, and that was on the occasion of my sixtieth birthday. He gave me a picture, which certainly had the value of about 20,000 marks. It was an oil painting by a German painter, Spitzweg; so that it would have the approximate value of 20,000 marks if it had been genuine. As soon as the picture was brought into my room I recognized it as a forgery, and I succeeded three months later to trace the original. I started proceedings about the genuineness of the picture, and the forgery was found out before a court.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not appropriate for the Tribunal to listen to this.
BY DR. DIX:
Q. Did Hitler ever give you the right to wear a uniform or give you a par military rank?
A. I think, so as to abreviate the conversation and if the Tribunal will permet me to do so, I will only say that I returned the forgery and it was never replaced; so that I haven't, in fact, received a present from Hitler Hitler offered me a uniform.
He said I could have any uniform I wanted, and I only raised my hand in defense and didn't accept one, not even the uniform of the civil servant.
Q Now, another subject: Do you know anything about concentration camps? camps, I heard, and quite frequently, that political opponents and other un popular or unconfortable persons were taken away to concentration camps. About this taking away of their liberty I was, of course, extremely perturbed at the time, and I continously demanded, as far as I had the opportunity during any conversations, that the arrest and the taking away to concentration camps should be followed by a legal proceeding, complete with defense, at a proper time. Reichminister of the interior Frick was making efforts in the same direction in the early days. In the subsequent days this type of locking up became less and less publicly known, and from that I gathered that these matters were secretive. Only much later -- that is to say, second half of 1934 and 1935 -
Q When you not Gisevius, you mean? deprivations of liberty, but that on certain occasions there was bodily ill treatment, such as beating, etc. I have already said before this Tribunal that as a result, as early as May 1935, I used an opportunity to draw Hitler's attention to these matters personally, and that I told him at the time that such a system would make us despicable to the whole world and would have to cease. I have also mentioned that I had publicly talked, too about these matters whenever there was a possibility of doing so. which started later on -- of all that I never heard anything at all. Probably first of all, these matters didn't start until the outbreak of war, and because beginning in 1939 I was living a very retired sort of life. to me when I was here in prison, but I did hear, as early as 1938 or thereabouts that there were deportations of Jews. Certain individual cases were brought to me, and I could only ascertain in each case that there were deputations to Theresienstadt, where there was supposed to be an assembly camp for Jews, where Jews were accommodated until a later date when the Jewish problem should be the treated further. Any physical ill treatment or even killing never did come to my knowledge.
Q Did you ever lock at a concentration camp? camps when, on the 23rd of July, 1944, I myself was dragged into a concentration camp. Before that I didn't look at a single concentration camp at any time, but after that I not only saw the normal concentration camps but also the death camp in Flossenburg.
Q Didn't you, in Flossenburg, receive the visit of a man thinking the same way you did? man brought to you or possibly to this Tribunal, and in which he describes that visit. I can only, on my own observation -
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think it is improper to give the contents of a letter from a person unidentified. I have said to this Tribunal before that those letters which come from unidentified persons -- if he is identified, it has not been done in evidence -- come to all of us. I am sure members of the Tribunal get a great many of then. If that is evidence, then the Prosecution should reopen its case, because I have baskets of them. directly and it is even more improper to relate then by oral testimony when the document is not produced. I think this kind of evidence has no probative value and I object to it.
DR. DIX: I think that I may be permitted to say that I would never do anything improper or have done anything improper. I do not intend in any way to submit this very harmless letter to the Tribunal as evidence, but this letter, which reached me through quite regular channels, brought knowledge to Dr. Schacht and myself that there was a plan to murder him. That is why I asked the witness Kal tenbrunner about the matter.
The only reason why I am asking Dr. Schacht is because I expect that he will now inform the Tribunal that there was in fact an order to murder him which existed at that time. That fact, not the letter as such, but that fact, is not quite without significance, because if the regime wants a man killed then that seems at least proof for the fact that they were not particularly well-meaning. That is the only reason why I had asked that this letter should be mentioned, and it is, of course, also at Mr. Justice Jackson's disposal. It is really quite an amusing letter, written by a simple man.
I would never have dreamt of submitting that as a document in evidence. If the Tribunal should have any kind of objections against discussing the matter, something which has been discussed when Kaltenbrunner was examined, then I shall certainly refrain from doing so. In fact, I am quite astonished that the matter should be given so much significance.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the Tribunal thinks that the letter isn't being offered in evidence, and therefore you ought not to refer to it. Well, then, don't refer to it.
DR. DIX: Well, let's drop it. BY DR. DIX:
Q Now, then, at last you find yourself dismissed. What did you do next? the removal of Hitler. Those were my only political activities. Apart from that I was living on my farm.
Q Didn't you in the spring of 1939 go on a journey?
A No, I didn't understand--about the dismissal of the President of the Reichsbank. I was talking about 1943 and you are talking or going back to 1939. In 1939, after the dismissal in January 1939---and I mentioned Hitler was putting it to me that I should go on a journey abroad and at the time I want via Switzerland, where I saw all my friends, to India.
Q Did you work politically in India?
A In India I was merely travelling as a tourise. I didn't carry out any political activities but, of course, I went to see several governors and I spent three days at the Viceroy's house.
Q Didn't you have political connections with Rangoon and with Chinese circles? Rangoon, I had the visit of a Chinese friend who had visited me before in Berlin on some occasion and who had been given the task by his government to talk to me about the Chinese position
Q That is Chiang Kai-Shek's China? Japan at the time. The other China didn't exist. This gentleman asked me a few questions as to Chiang Kai-Shek and the Chinese Cabinet.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I can't see the slightest relevancy to this. In the first place, we heard it once and secondly, after we had heard it, it has no relevancy to the case. We have no charge against him that he did anything in China and we will stipulate that he was as pure as snow all the time he was in China. We haven't a thing to do with that and it is taking time here that just gets us nowhere, and is keeping us away from the real charge in the case.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal quite understands if you say it is irrelevant. Why do you say it is relevant?
DR. DIX: I regret that Justice Jackson---we understand each other more than that. It is relevant. It is fully connected with the case, in this statement of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we heard three times that the defendant Schacht went to India. Three times in his evidence he dealt with that he went to India and China. How is it relevant.
DR. DIX: I am not now talking about the journey to India We mentioned it briefly to explain the timing. I had put a question, referring to Schacht's negotiations in Rangoon with the envoy coming from Chiang Kai-shek and at that point Justice Jackson raised his objection, but the fact of the friendly connections to Chiang Kai-Shek's government and support given to them is relevant for the same reason because of which I attached importance to the fact that it became clear here that as far as the Union of Soviet Republics is concerned, Schacht, during the time when Hitler was running a political campaign against them, did still pursue a pre-Soviet economic policy; and now we have case number two, where he is demanding connections which were contrary to Hitler's policy. In other words, he was pro-Chiang Kai-Shek, and with that against Hitle ally, and that was Japan. In that connection, the negotiation with the Chinese are of significance and I think they won't occupy mere than one minute. They were really going to be mentioned in parenthesis.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that if you consider his relations with China of any importance, it can be stated in one sentence.
DR. DIX: Yes, I am of the same opinion.
THE WITNESS: I will say it in one sentence. In a written memorandum, I advised Chiang Kai-Shek's government to continue holding out against Japan and giving the reason that the economic resources behind China would last longer that the economic resources of Japan and I advised Chiang Kai-Shek that if he pursued a solemn policy, he should predominantly rely on the United States of America.
BY DR. DIX: And then, upon your return from India in August 1939, did you not find a rather tense situation, someone who was just coming back? Did you not then get in touch with the cabinet or with Hitler so as to discuss that atmosphere?
A Of course, I found a very tense situation. There was Poland and I used my return to write a letter to Hitler, a letter to Goering, and a letter to Ribbentrop; that is to say, the three leading men, and in those letters I informed them that I had come back from India and I suggested and I expected that at least one of them would then call on me so I would com and report to him regarding my experiences and that, of course, would have given me an opportunity to talk to these leading men Much to my extreme surprise, I didn't get any answer from Hitler at all, nor any answer from Goering; and Ribbentrop answered by saying that he had seen my letter. Nothing was left to me therefore than to make my own inquiries regarding the state of affairs with Poland and when the things came to a head, I took the well-known steps, which has been described by Gisevius; I mean the attempt to get into the headquarters.
Q Yes, yes; we needn't repeat it. The question which remains open, as far as I am concerned, is that I will ask you, what were you going to tell the generals, particularly General von Brauchitsch, at that last moment, anything that might have had a chance to stop the war? general political statements would not cut any ice with von Brauchitsch. He would certainly refer himself to Hitler's leadership. I was going to tell something quite different therefore and, in my opinion, is of the utmost significance. I was going to remind him that he had sworn an oath of allegian to the Weimar Constitution.
I wanted to remind him that the law, the empowering law did not give powers to Hitler but to the Reich Cabinet and I wanted to remind him that in the Weimar Constitution there was an article, or is an article, which has never been cancelled and according to which, a war cannot be started and declared without the previous agreement by the Reichstag, with their parliament. I was considering that Brauchitsch would mention his oath sworn to Hitler and I would have told him I have sworn the some oath, and "You haven't sworn any oath other than your military one, perhaps, but this oath did not in any way cancel the oath you had sworn to the Weimar Constitution; to the contrary, the oath to the Wiemar Constitution is the one that was in force. You have the duty therefore to see to it that this entire question; namely, war or no war, must come before the cabinet, must be discussed there, and if the Reich Cabinet has passed a resolution, then the matter would go before the Reichstag." If these two steps had been taken, then I am firmly convinced that no war would have started. Brauchitsch? We don't want any repetition as far as the description of that whole action is concerned, and your visit to the Bendler Strasse, and all that, but have you anything to add to Gisevius' story or hove you anything to offer?
A I can only confirm Gisevius's statements in every single point and describe it as correct and I myself only want to add that, for amongst other reasons which kept us away from the visit, Thomas also mentioned the one that Brauchitsch would be probably arrested the very moment, that we should say anything against the war or try to stop him, but to add here as to his oath of allegiance to Hitler. The main reason, however why the visit did not come about, was perfectly and correctly stated by Gisevius and in his affidavit, it is also mentioned by General Thomas---the affidavit which we shall still submitthe main reason was the belief that war had been cancelled.
Subsequently, I went to Munich on some business matter and when I was in Munich, the declaration of war or, rather, the march into Poland surprised me.
Q You mentioned the Reichstag earlier. There was in fact, though not before but after the declaration of war, a meeting of the Reichstag and you at the time were still a minister without portfolio, so that, normally speaking, you should have sat on the minister's bench during that meeting. Did you sit there?
A I didn't participate in that meeting at all and I want to add right now that during the entire war, I only participated in one meeting of the Reichstag, something which I couldn't avoid, considering the matters which I have mentioned here yesterday. This happened after Hitler's return from Paris. During the meeting of the Reichstag, which followed the reception, I had to be present because, as I said, otherwise it would have been too much of an affront. talked about at all, but during which the Fieldmarshal titles were being given out by the dozen. mentioned to stop the outbreak of war. This brings us to that particular chapter of your attempts to make a revolt against Hitler and his Government and then, further, let us make it our principle, whenever possible, not to repeat anything which the witness Gisevius has already stated. Let us supplement or correct or add whatever you know from your own memory. Before touching upon that chapter, however, may I ask you whether you know from information received from others or any other clues, that the oppositional views and attitude held by you and your friends, and your oppositional aims, were known in circles abroad?
A I don't want to repeat anything, I merely want to point out that I have already several times stated here that I was completely in touch with my friends in Germany, not only with Americans, Englishmen and Frenchman, but also with neutrals.
stations allowed themselves to talk ablut my enmity to Hitler. Immediately all of my friends and my family got a shock anytime such matters were audible in Germany. upon with an attempt to remove the Hitler regime. Unfortunately in 1935-36 and in 1937, I had to learn the truth that all those in whom I had hopes had failed. I mean in this connection, the scientists, educated citizens and the leaders of economy. speeches, without making any statements, I could not rely on those circles. You could only rely on the military. I got in touch with generals like Kluge, only to find out first of all in the military circles if there might be men who could talk about such things. in the Munich Putsch. your activities in 1938? brake out? general whom I could got a hold of. I used the same argument which I have mentioned in connection with the impossible interview with General Brauchitsch; in other words theory wasn't all. I did in practice talk to all the Generals.
Q Wasn't that attempt regarding General Hoeppner?
Hoeppner, but in a series of conversations to got him to take action.
Hoeppner was perfectly willing and prepared and unfortunately he too lost his life in connection with the 20th of July, 1944. In 1942 - and this is something which has not been mentioned here because Gisevius wasn't a participant - in 1942 I tried again to suggest something to General Von Witzleben again, This happened by means of making a quick journey to Frankfurt where he was at that time officially stationed, but Von Witzleben appeared quite beside himself, as before, to act, but he told me of course that he could only do so when he had a chance at the front again.
Q Just one moment. In Frankfurt there was Mrs. Struenck, she was involved in this matter?
DR. DIX: May I tell the Tribunal that at this moment that Mrs. Struenck had been permitted as a witness and she is here. So as to save time, however, I have decided to drop the witness since she could only make cumulative statements regarding something which Gisevius has already said and I don't think that is necessary. The only thing which she could say that is new is something that Schacht has just stated. It is the special journey to Frankfurt to Von Witzleben, but no doubt on the strength of the experiences of this Tribunal, the Tribunal will know that such efforts that were made for a period of years and it doesn't appear necessary to submit proof for that fact. So as to save time, therefore, I am suggesting that Mrs. Struenck should not be called as a witness.
A (continued) May I perhaps say one more thing? During conversations mentioned by Gisevius here, which I had with other generals, that is Beck's group, Fromm, etc., during which I was of course always present myself. The reason why these matters did not get going for some time was because they were always waiting for the outcome of negotiations abroad. I think about that enough has been said here too; so I need not go into any more detail and I shall then come to one last point, which did not become apparent from Gisevius' statement but about which an affidavit from Colonel Gronau will be submitted here and that is something which I can mention quite briefly so as to save time.
Naturally, the group Goerdeler, my friend Struenck and others and Gisevius, together with me, we all agreed with matters relating to the 20th of July and we were all involved. I think it was mutual that whenever possible we only told each other something which the other man had to know, so as to not embarrass the other man too much, should he at any time be submitted to the tortures of the Gestapo. For that reason, apart from being in touch with Goerdeler, Gisevius and Struenck he had another connection, another channel to the generals who were ahead of that and that was the general of the Artillery Lindemann, one of the main participants in that development, who too later on lost his life. Lindemann -- if I read part of the affidavit from Gronau which refers to Lindemann, Exhibit No. 39 of our Document book, it is on page 168 of the German test and Page 156 of the English text.
Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. It refers to things that have already been mentioned, and I shall only read the part that deals with the 20th of July. It is on page 178 of the English text andon page 170 of the German text, and I start with question five:
"Question: You brought Schacht and General Lindemann together. When was that?
"Answer: In the fall of 1943, for the first time in years, I saw General Lindemann again, my former school and regiment comrade. While discussing politics I told him that I knew Schacht well, and General Lindemann asked to be introduced to him, whereupon I established the connection.
"Question: What did Lindemann expect from Schacht, and what was Schacht's attitude toward him?
"Answer: The taking up of political relations with foreign countries following a successful attempt. He promised his future cooperation. At the beginning of 1944 Lindemann made severe reproaches, blaming the generals for hesitating too long. The attempt would have to be made prior to the invasion of the Allies.
"Question: Was Lindemann involved in the attempted assassination of 20 July 1944?
"Answer: Yes, he was one of the main figures.
"Question: Did he inform Schacht of any details of this plan?
"Answer: Nothing about the technical end of the attempt; he did inform him, however, on what was to happen thereafter.
"Question: Did Schacht approve the plan?
"Answer: Yes.
"Question: Did Schacht put himself at the disposal of the military in the event the attempt succeeded?
"Answer: Yes.
"Question: Were you arrested after 20 July 1944?
"Answer: Yes.
"Question: How were you able to last through your imprisonment?
"Answer: By stoically denying complicity."
Now, we have gone through the years 1941 and 1942 logically. We have talked about the putches, and we have come to 1944, something we could not avoid, and we have to go back to the year 1941.
You have already mentioned efforts abroad in 1941. You were in Switzerland. Did you make any efforts in that direction? and tried again and again to find some way by means of which one might shorten the war.
Q In this connection, the letter from Freser is important. I think Freser's letter and the way it was smuggled into Switzerland has been mentioned by Gisevius. I have had two occasions to state the contents, once when we discussed the admissibility and once when we discussed the translation, and I do not think I need do it again or that I need read it once more, but I shall submit it. It is Exhibit 31, and it is on page 84 of the German and page 91 of the English text. We shall come to that in a moment. News in the same year and which deals with the conversation of the American with Schacht in 1941. I shall not read that either since the main points of the contents have already been discussed. I submit it as Exhibit Number 32, page 90 of the German and page 99 of the English text. May I quote one sentence and may I point out that this article has already been the subject of certain accusations which happened during the cross examination of Gisevius and which were raised by the representative of the Soviet Prosecution.
GENERAL RUDENKO: I would like to make one objection in regard to the document 32; this document, an article about Dr. Schacht, is an article written by an unknown author of his conversation with an unknown economist, and it was published on 14 January 1946. That is, while the trial was actually in progress, and I think that this article cold not be presented as evidence in regard to Schacht's case.
DR. DIX: May I, before you decide, say something very briefly.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
DR. DIX: The article has been granted. I have been permitted to use it in evidence. We have discussed it, and the Tribunal can, of course, cancel that position.