We must be frank to say that we do not have the balance of the case record. We do not have the opinion verdict. We do not have the result of the trial. The facts we have at the moment consist of those stated in this indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean by that they have not been found? Or do you mean you do not have them here?
MR. KING: We do not have them here, and to the best of our knowledge they have not been found.
With this introduction we offer this Document NG-837 as Exhibit 509.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: May I ask if the Secretary General has copies for distribution at this time, of the Document NG-988.
The Document NG-988 will be Exhibit 510 The President:
Where will you place this document?
MR. KING: I will place this document, Your Honor, as the last document in Supplement Book One.
It is an extremely long document, consisting of 111 pages. It consists of a statement of the organization of the Ministry of Justice as of January 1944, and in certain instances a period somewhat prior to that, and periods shortly after that. The January 1, 1944 date is a central date, and the organization chart is rather largely concerned with the positions in the Reich Ministry of Justice, and the functions of individuals holding those positions as of that date. We are not going to call attention to any particular portion of it, or summarize it in any way, except to repeat that the individuals in the Reich Ministry of Justice holding positions around or about January 1, 1944, are set down in here, together with their duties and responsibilities.
We offer the Document NG-988 as Prosecution Exhibit 510.
DR. SCHILF (For Defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg):
The prosecutor did not express the fact as to whether these plans showing the distribution of positions are captured documents. The copy which we have before us does not show that. The copy which has been distributed contains, first of all, a statement dated 7 March 1947, signed by a JustizObersekretaer Ernst Ewert. He says at the beginning of the document, the enclosed copies are the authentic plans showing the distribution of offices at the Reich Ministry of Justice compiled on the basis of documents of the combined files of the Departments concerned. That statement, which was only signed this year, has not been sworn to and it does not show in what manner the compilation was made, and as to whether the person who signed the document wished to assume full responsibility - that is to say, under oath. It is possible, however, that the individual plans of distribution as such could become proper documents if the question is clarified as to whether these documents were captured or not. For that reason I believe that the statement by the prosecutor on that point needs supplementing.
MR. KING: The short and complete answer to Dr. Schilf's question is that this is a captured document, as is apparent from the original on the stamp. It bears the stamp of the Ministry of Justice, the date, 1944. So far as the statement from which he read - which is included with the original - that is merely a statement of explanation, and the document for our purposes may be received without it. Our position is that the entire document is a captured document, and anything else that appears, is merely an attempt to explain what the document is.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, may I add the following remark? The documents which I have before me in the original here do not all bear the stamp which would show that these are captured documents. Only one document bears such a stamp, and that is the first one, dated January 1944. All the other documents do not bear the stamp, nor is it revealed whether the first document of the year '44 belongs together with the other documents.
I have just found one document bearing the date of 15 July 1944 without a stamp; 1 April 1943, no stamp; December 1944, no stamp, 19 September 1944, no stamp; 3 October 1944, no stamp. Only one document has a stamp.
MR. KING: It is quite true, as Dr. Schilf has pointed out, that all of the documents do not bear the stamp, and I don't believe that I implied that every one of the separate divisions of this document did. I said that they were captured documents to the best of our knowledge, and as is shown on the first page of the document we are presenting by the stamp. Dr. Schilf, for present purposes, will have to take our word for it that they were captured. We can assure him that we were not in Berlin in April of 1943 or oven in July of 1944 preparing these documents for presentation at this time. They do bear the dates as here indicated and were obviously mimeographed and set up for distribution at that time. I should think on the basis of the date alone that it would be evident that they are captured documents.
Quite apart from that, the documents which we are offering are the originals--that is, the original mimeographed sheets--in German. Our information shows that these were produced out of the Ministry of Justice files as a result of a systematic search conducted there for documents in preparation for this case.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire whether these are separate documents, or whether they are separate parts of one document?
MR. KING: They are obviously separate documents which have been offered together at this time as one document. They relate to the Court No. III, Case No. 3.same general subject matter; that is, the positions held by individuals in the Reich Ministry of Justice and those individuals' responsibilities and duties.
They were found in the same file, and, because they relate to the same subject for approximately the same period, they are offered as one document.
The only better evidence we can offer; Your Honor; is to have the individual who actually found them put on the stand as a witness, which has not been necessary in past cases where we have asserted that the documents were captured. In this instance, where the date and condition of the original make the facts so clear; it would be our opinion that such a witness is not necessary to establish; prima facie at least; that they are captured.
THE PRESIDENT: Undoubtedly there is force in what you say, but never before have we been faced with a situation where every document hasn't borne a stamp.
MR. KING: It might help the Court to make up its mind on this question if the original were handed up. I think it is apparent from the original that it is not a document that has been manufactured very recently.
(Document submitted to the Court.)
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. King, is this document covered to the same extent that the others have been covered by the first two exhibits which were introduced?
MR. KING: That is right; it is covered fully by the Coogan affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel have anything further to say?
MR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, may I add another word? I do not wish to throw any doubt on Mr. King's statement that these documents might be covered by the Coogan affidavit, but it strikes me that Mr. Ewert's statement on the first page of this document, signed on 7 March 1947; shows the words "Patent Office". It appears that these files are at the Patent Office in Berlin and may possibly not be covered Court No. III, Case No. 3.by the Coogan affidavit.
I would like to draw attention to that because the first page includes the note: "Patent Office, Berlin, 7 March 1947."
MR. KING: I think Dr. Schilf's comment probably does not require reply at this time, but just to state our position, the Patent Office, the Patent Amt, is the name of the building where the document center is now located, the documents captured having been moved there* and the individual who signed the statement is obviously a former employee of the Reich Ministry of Justice, who knew something about these documents as they were found and merely, on request, made this statement. I don't think it creates any great mystery at all about the nature of the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is ready to rule on this. Examination shows that the documents are in themselves strong circumstantial evidence that they are authentic documents that must have been found among the archives of the Administration of Justice.
There is something the matter with this sound system; I don't know what it is. I thought I was speaking loud enough.
As I said before, there is strong circumstantial evidence that these documents are documents that were found. It doesn't seem possible that they could have been produced; they must have been found in the files of the archives of the Administration of Justice. There can be no injustice in ruling that they are admissible because these documents are in part, at least, signed by the defendants in the dock. It is, therefore, easily possible for them to prove they are not authentic, if they are in fact not authentic.
We will admit them in evidence.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, I would like to rectify a technical mistake that took place late Monday. Without objection, and by agreement of defense counsel and all of us, document 1393-PS, which is the Reich Law for the Union of Party and State, was considered as introduced into evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 508. Technically we did not have the exhibit at that time, and I supply it now.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: I am wondering whether, at the time the document was talked about on Monday, it was offered and introduced in evidence.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: It was the last thing we did Monday afternoon, Your Honor, and it may well be that the prosecution did not offer it. However, at this time we offer it as Prosecution Exhibit 508.
THE PRESIDENT: I certainly hope the record will not show that I had ruled that it was admitted in evidence at that time. We will admit it in evidence now.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: It was not the fault of the Court any more than it was the fault of myself and defense counsel if it went in.
As Prosecution Exhibit 511, the prosecution will offer the document NG-308.
This consists of originally a letter from one Arthur bieger dated January 20, 1947, together with an affidavit of Bieger dated 3 May 1947, in which he verifies the facts contained.
THE PRESIDENT: We don't know anything about this document, I wish counsel would repeat what he said.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Beg pardon?
THE PRESIDENT: I had no knowledge of the document and I didn't have it before me. I wish you would repeat what you said.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, I shall. This document consists of a letter dated January 20 1947 signed by one Arthur Bieger, together with an affidavit signed by the same person on 3 May 1947. It includes, as shown in the letter, a resume of the acts of the defendant Cuhorst in reporting the affiant to the Gestapo and handwritten letters of the defendant Cuhorst which show that while he was professedly in a friendly manner warning is very close friend Bieger that he must not listen to foreign broadcasts, he was at the same time reporting him to the Gestapo and telling the Gestapo just what he would testify to. He also warns the affiant Bieger that he need get no satisfaction from the fact that Cuhorst may be going to Norway, that Cuhorst's arm is long, and that also if Bieger should escape to Switzerland, his family can be subject to persecution, even if they remained in Germany. Fortunately for Bieger, he avoided arrest a til after the end of the war. The Prosecution offers the document NG 808 as Prosecution Exhibit 511.
THE PRESIDENT: Where shall we place this document?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I would place this document, Your Honor, in Supplement 3-B
JUDGE BRAND: Three ---
MR. LA FOLLETTE: 3-B. Supplement 3-B.
JUDGE BRAND: What I have received is two copies of the same affidavit and nothing else. No. 808.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Is everyone in that shape?
THE PRESIDENT: No, mine is all right.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Do you have another one? Here is the full assembly. I am sorry. Will you bring them back? I thought Dr. Brieger --
DR. BRIEGER: It was my fault. Concerning this affidavit "I would like the Tribunal to allow me to make a further statement, because hitherto it had not been submitted to the defense, and therefore I had my first opportunity here in this courtroom to see this affidavit. Therefore I would ask you to allow me to revert to this in the next session.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I am not sure just what Dr. Brieger is talking about. It was distributed, the whole document, on Friday or Saturday. I had the document in the court room on Monday and handed it to Dr. Brieger and asked him if he would let me waive the 24-hour rule on Monday, so that I could get it in, and he said he would prefer to look at the document further, so I didn't do it. But it has been distributed under the receipt that we have, the whole document, and I don't know whether this is an objection or what the complaint is.
DR. BRIEGER: When Mr. La Follette the other day during the last session discussed this matter with me, I assumed that in the interim this affidavit would be distributed to the defense counsel. In the meantime I did not receive it. Just now I contacted my colleagues, who also told me that hitherto they had not received it. On the other hand, it is of basic importance for my client, and and therefore I am forced to raise an objection so that I do not deprive myself of the opportunity to make a further statement.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Of course Jr. Brieger has the right to object, which is a privilege. In a minute we will have or hope to have, if the Court Doesn't accept my statement for it, the receipt of the Defense Center that this was distributed on Friday. It is another one of those things that if it reached there, we rely on the receipt.
DR. BRIEGER: I believe that this difficulty could be eliminated very speedily if I would be afforded the opportunity in the coarse of this morning to discuss the matter to my client Cuhorst for five or ten minutes. Only to have such an opportunity have I raised my objection. I am not concerned with making difficulties for the Prosecucion.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honor please, I am sure Dr. Brieger isn't, but I have in my hand here a receipt of the Defense Center signed "Burns 5-19-47," and one signed "5-15-47."
THE PRESIDENT: I remember distinctly that Prosecution counsel referred to this particular document on Monday, sayin- it would be introduced today. Now, it will do no harm however, to let this rest until after the morning recess, at which time we will rule on it. We admit the document, however.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: It will be admitted in evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: It will. In the meantime if Dr. Brieger has something further to say after the recess, we will hear it.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Well, if he wants to look at the exhibit further, I have no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what he does want, as I understand it.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: As Prosecution Exhibit No. 512 the Prosecution will offer document NG-1471, which should go into Supplement 3-B. I may say in passing that this will be followed by NG 1472 and NG 1473, all of which should be placed in the same document book.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Secretary General is going to distribute it.
Perhaps, Mr. Secretary General, while Dr. Grube is looking at this document you might distribute to the bench the proper copies of NG 1472, 1473, and 1474, all of which are in the courtroom.
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. La Follette, are all of these to go into Document Book 3-A?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: 3-B, Your Honor.
JUDGE BRAND: Thank you.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: That is, all with the exception of 1474, which I would put in Supplement 3-A. I didn't know whether all of them had been --
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence. I am referring to 512.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: That is NG 471, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
JUDGE BRAND: Correction, NG-1471.
THE PRESIDENT: What is this document now being offered?
MR. LA FOLLETTE:NG-1472. NG-1472 will be Prosecution's Exhibit 513.
THE PRESIDENT: Has it been handed up?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Not yet, Your Honor. I'd like to discuss it for a minute. It's on the Tribunal's dosk. This consists of an indictment by the defendant Lautz of a Czech by the name of Chalupa for acts which he committed and which word described as high treason. These acts were committed in May of 1943 in Czechoslovakia, or what was described as the Protect rate. The indictment was filed before the Special Senate of the People's Court in which the defendant Peterson sat as lay judge.
The Prosecution offers as Prosecution's Exhibit 513, the Document NG-1472.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Prosecution's Exhibit 514 will be Document NG-1473. This involves an action filed by the defendant Lautz before the People's Court in Berlin in which the defendant Petersen sat as lay judge. The indictment was filed on June the first, 1941 against two Czech citizens, Pichrt and Hrstka. Pichrt received five years and Hrstka eight years for cooperating with an organization which it was alleged was attempting to furnish people for the Czech foreign legion. The trial was in Berlin on the 24th of March 1942.
The Prosecution offers as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 514, the Document NG-1473.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted into evidence.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: As Prosecution's Exhibit 515, the Prosecution offers the Document 1474, which is the affidavit of Herst-Guenter Franz August Franke.
THE PRESIDENT: I believe you said that you place this document in some other book.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, I would place this in Supplement 3-A.
This is the affidavit of Herst-Guenter Franz August Franke, sworn to before Peter Beauvais at Fallingbostel on the 6th day of May 1947. Poter Beauvais is duly authorized to administer oaths in this cause under the Taylor Affidavit, which is Exhibit 3.
I would like to read a part of this affidavit which I consider to be rather important. With reference to the handling of proceedings in the Reich Ministry of Justice on reviewing criminal sentences, this affiant says:
"From the very beginning the proceeding came to us as a case of seditious undermining of the defense spirit" -
THE PRESIDENT: From what page are you reading?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I am reading from Page 3, Your Honor. It's marked Point 2.
"-- with the report of the Chief Public Prosecutor or of the Chief Reich Prosecutor. If the case had some measure of significance, it would in the same way come to be reported to the Minister of State Secretary. Since in this case no decision on the limitation of competence was to be made, this kind of report was called an information report.
"With ministerial reports everyone who took part in the compilation had the opportunity of giving his opinion freely and in the following regular order: the compiler, the Referent, the Department Chief, the State Secretary. State Secretary Klomm regularly took a very lively and active part in the discussions, and his opinion was accorded full weight according to my observation also in cases of seditious undermining of the defense spirit, so that he contributed to decisions even when he did not make the decision himself, as he did in the Minister's absence.
"Extraordinary appeals were filed after the matter had been presented to the Minister or State Secretary in the same way as described above. The decrees based on all these reports were signed at least by the Ministerial Director, and in cases of fundamental importance by the Minister with counter signature by the State Secretary, or in the absence of the Minister, by State Secretary Klemm himself.
As examples of case of fundamental importance in this sense let the following be quoted. The question of the publicity of the utterance could play a certain role, or the question of the psychological condition of the offender, or the offender's personality."
I skip one paragraph:
"There was no fundamental difference between Thierack's and Klemm's clemency policy in cases of seditious undermining of the defense spirit. Both men were severe in their judgment of these cases, because it was desired to avoid by all means that the critical military situation might shake the internal front, and thus cause a stab in tho back of the fighting forces. The tendency expressed during the decision was that the bloody sacrifices at the front and at home should not be made senseless through a soft clemency policy. Within this frome due account was paid to the personal circumstances of the individual case.
"Klemm and Thierack were known as close friends. They lived together in Lichterfelde, went to work together in the mornings and home together in the evening. We repeatedly observed that cases were discussed between the two beforehand outside work. If for any urgent reason we rang up the Minister in his house, State Secretary Klemm regularly answered the phone. Then he either called the Minister or said: "I will report it to tho Minister." That was also the case with lightning executions, which occurred mostly after air-raids in cases of looting. In criminal cases where the Party Chancellory was to participate, Klemm's connections with the Party Chancellory were made use of in that as a rule the proceedings with the Party Chancellory were handed over to him. Since Minister Thierack did not like negotiating with President Freisler of the People's Court, necessary discussions with Freisler were also handed over to State Secretory Klemm."
I am going to interpolate a minute, Your Honor, to say that what I am reading next I consider to be very interesting, revealing and relevant.
"On the 2nd of May 1945" -- That was just before Berlin fell -- "I was staying at Eutin (Holstein) together with Minister Thierach, State Secretary Klemm and office director Buerkner. Then after a cabinet meeting in Ploon under the direction of Doenitz the marching orders for Flensburg had been issued, I received orders from Minister Thierach in the presence of State Secretary Klemm to remain in Eutin and to camouflage myself. I received an identity card bearing the name Gustav Friedrich and I lived under this name until I was arrested in May 1946. No reasons were produced as to why I was given these orders. The only explanation which I can find is that they wanted to prevent any information about my section from falling into the hands of the enemy according to the principle that documents which had to be kept secret were to be destroyed."
The Prosecution offers as Prosecution' Exhibit 515, the Document NG-1474.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Mr. King will proceed, Your Honor.
MR. KING: The prosecution desires to offer at this time a portion of the IMT opinion on the slave labor policy of the Government of the Third Reich. He offer this portion from the IMT opinion as Exhibit 516. The portion of the opinion concerning this subject, which we offer for judicial notice, begins on Page 243 in the English text of Volume I of the official documents of the International Military Tribunal. It continues through to near the bottom of the Page 247 in the same volume.
In the German text of mimeographed version of the IMT opinion, the portion which we are offering begins on Page 16,468 and extends through page 16,493.
At this time, I would like to read a portion of the total which we are offering for judicial notice beginning on Page 243 of Volume I.
3448a "Slave Labor Policy Article 6 (h) of the Charter provides that the 'ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose, of civilian population of or in occupied territory' shall be a War Crime.
The laws relating to forced labor by the inhabitants of occupied territories are found in Article 52 of the Hague Convention, which provides:
"'Requisition in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.'
"The policy of the German occupation authorities was in flagrant violation of the terms of this convention. Some idea of this policy may be gathered from the statement made by Hitler in a speech on 9 November 1941:
'The territory which now works for us contains more than 200,000,000 men, hut the territory which works indirectly for us includes now more 350,000,000, In the measure in which it concerns German territory, the domain which we have taken under our administration, it is not doubtful that we Shall succeed in harnessing the very last man to this work.'
"The actual results achieved were not so complete as this, but the German occupation authorities did succeed in forcing many of the inhabitants of the occupied territories to work for the German war effort, and in deporting at least 5,000,000 persons to Germany to serve German industry and agriculture.
"In the early stages of the war, manpower in the occupied territories was under the control of various occupation authorities, and the procedure varied from country to country. In all the occupied territories compulsory labor service was promptly instituted. Inhabitants of the occupied countries were conscripted and compelled to work in local occupations, to assist the German war economy. In many cases they were forced, to work on German fortifications and military installations.
As local supplies of raw materials and local industrial capacity became inadequate to meet the German requirements, the system of deporting laborers to Germany was put into force. By the middle of April 1940 compulsory deportation of laborers to Germany had been ordered in the Government General; and a similar procedure was followed in other eastern territories as they were occupied. A description of this compulsory deportation from Poland was given by Himmler. In an address to SS officers he recalled how in weather 40 degrees below zero they had to haul away thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands'. On a later occasion Himmler stated:
"Whether ten thousand Russian females fall down from exhaustion while digging an anti-tank ditch interests me only insofar as the anti-tank ditch for Germany is finished.....We must realize that we have 6-7 million foreigners in Germany....They are none of them dangerous so long as we take severe measures at the merest trifles.'
"During the first two years of the German occupation of France, Belgium, Holland, and Norway, however, an attempt was made to obtain the necessary workers on a voluntary basis. How unsuccessful this was may be seen from the report of the meeting of the Central Planning Board on 1 March 1944. The representative of the Defendant Speer, one Koehrl, speaking of the situation in France, said: "During all this time a great number of Frenchmen was recruited, and voluntarily went to Germany.
He was interrupted by the Defendant Sauckel: 'Not only voluntarily some were recruited forcibly.'
To which Koehrl replied: 'The calling up started after the recruitment no longer yielded enough results.'
To which the Defendant Sauckel replied: 'Out of the five million workers who arrived in Germany, not even 200,000 came voluntarily', and Koehrl rejoined: 'Let us forget for the moment whether or not some slight pressure was used. Formally, at least, they were volunteers.'
"Committees were set up to encourage recruiting, and a vigorous propaganda campaign was begun to induce workers to volunteer for service in Germany. This propaganda campaign included, for example, the promise that a prisoner of war would be returned for every laborer who volunteered to go to Germany. In some cases it was supplemented by withdrawing the ration cards of laborers who refused to go to Germany, or by discharging them from their jobs and denying them unemployment benefit or an opportunity to work elsewhere. In some cases workers and their families were threatened with reprisals by the police if they refused to go to Germany. It was on 31 March 1942 that the Defendant Sauckel was appointed Plenipotentiary-General for the Utilization of Labor, with authority over all available manpower, including that of workers recruited abroad, and of prisoners of war."
That is all of the total which we are offering -- that we care to read at this time.
We offer into evidence the portion of the IMT transcript from Volume I of the Official Document of the International Military Tribunal, including pages 243, 244, 245, 246, and all but the last paragraph of 247.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received, but not in evidence.
MR. KING: It will be received for judicial notice?
THE PRESIDENT: For judicial notice.
MR. KING: Yes, thank you.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honors Please, Mr. King has just offered as judicial notice the last of the development in the Prosecution case, with several reservations I would like to make:
First, we have not finished reading our transcript of the record. We are dividing that between us, reading it more accurately than we have before. We found one or to places where, undoubtedly exhibits have been received in evidence, but the transcript does not show it. We do not want to lose the benefit of those documents. There were cases, so far as I can find, where there was no objections; it was simply a matter of overlooking it in the transcript.
We want our transcript to be correct.
THE PRESIDENT: I think possibly that might have occurred because of this sound system which seems to be impossible.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I think Your Honor is quite right, and I am sure since the transcript does not show any objections at any time, it is purely an inadvertent admission in the transcript, and not the fault of any one. But to make our record look right, we want to reserve the right to come back and correct them when they are found.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be stated now that every exhibit that has been introduced in evidence has been ruled upon as being in evidence, from my certain knowledge.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: In my mind, that satisfies that request.
Your Honor, the other one is one that may involve only one case, maybe one or two -- I found a case in the transcript, the page of which I do not have with me, where before the Prosecution had introduced its exhibit which consisted of the official initials of the members of the Justice Ministry, in one case a document was admitted on the condition that these after we identified it we could, the initial of the defendant Mettgenberg. As I recall, there may be one or two other such situations. We would only want to have the right to get the exhibit when Counsel and we can agree, make a stipulation as to those facts; if we do not agree, to present some evidence attempting to tie up these signatures subsequently because no harm can be done to the Defense. They have reviewed the documents. It is purely that one question and I do not believe there will be any controversy.
With those two reservations the Prosecution now rests.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not understand how the Prosecution has rested or can rest until this cross-examination of the affiants has taken place.
There was something said in the early stages of this trial that it was possible that some of the affiants might be cross examined after the Defense had begun the case, but there has been no definite ruling on that point, and it is stated now that we desire to have that cross-examination take place before the State finally rests. We have ordered witnesses to be here, and we are assured by the Secretary General that some of them will be here tomorrow morning.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Of course, the Tribunal has the right to make any ruling they chose. I only state again that the Prosecution, as far as its formal introduction is concerned, rests. We will abide by any order that the Tribunal might make as to whether cross-examination should take place, of course. But, again, the Prosecution rests.
DR. SCHUBERT (For the defendant Oeschey): May it please the Court, this morning before the session, together with my colleague Koessel for the defendant Rothaug, I called on Major Schaefer at the Defense Center. As far as I know, Major Schaefer has been instructed to produce the witnesses for cross-examination. We designated a number of witnesses who, in our view, will be available at any time here in Nurnberg. And, Major Schaefer has taken the necessary steps to produce an adequate number of witnesses tomorrow and on Friday.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I might say to the Tribunal that the Prosecution requests 24 hours notice of the appearance of these witnesses so that we shall know who will be required to be present at the cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: That request is refused. That request is denied. This is cross-examination of witnesses, who were introduced by affidavits by the Prosecution. I requested yesterday that the Prosecution call these witnesses and was met with a refusal -
MR. LAFOLLETTE: (Interposing) Your Honor, it was not a refusal, because the ordinance requires -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) I have the floor, if you please, Mr. LaFollette -- I must speak first and you may speak afterwards if you desire.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: (Interposing) I assume -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Don't interrupt me.
I have requested you, Mr. LaFollette, to have witnesses in Court beginning tomorrow morning and you told me you would have nothing to do with it.