As far as the Prosecution submits the certified copy of the sentence, I do not want to voice any misgivings. In as far as we are concerned with the clemency plea, I do have to raise objections, since this clemency plea was not certified, and, moreover, one cannot determine whether this clemency plea should be regarded as a captured document.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I am assuming that that is a formal objection to the clemency plea, and no objection to the balance of the document. I call the Court's attention to the fact that I do not claim that this was necessarily a captured document in the sense we previously used it, this clemency plea. I do call the Court's attention to the fact that we have had ample evidence here of the burning of the records of Stuttgart and the distribution there being bombed out. This is the best evidence which we have available, the clemency plea. I am not very deeply concerned about it; if the Court decides they will not accept the clemency plea, I would like to offer documents from the balance of it, which is submitted as Prosecution's exhibit 497.
THE PRESIDENT: For the convenience of the Court, how many pages of this document will be admissible?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: The last two pages, Your Honor, and the last two or three pages which were signed by the man, Weber.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean to eliminate those or to include them? I have not looked at the document, as yet.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Beginning with page 59 and through page 61, is that part which constituted the clemency.
The balance of the document is the... the first fifty-eight pages... there is no objection to them, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: ... We are having difficulty...
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May the document be received in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 497, with the understanding that the pages numbered- from 59 through to the balance of the document, - with the exception, of course, of the certificate of translation, - shall not be considered as in evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: It will be so received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: As Prosecution Exhibit 498, the prosecution desires to introduce Document 706. This document consists of a letter by Mother Euphemia Burger, Mother Superior of the Convent Untermarchtal, dated on the 17th of January 1947, which she subsequently identified in a sworn affidavit and stated that the facts contained in that letter were true. The affidavit was sworn to on the 4th day of May 1947. It also consists of two letters signed by Josef Ersing, the first on the 21st of January 1947, and the second on the 22nd of January 1947. On the 3rd day of May 1947, Josef Ersing swore that he had signed these letters, that he had re-examined the original letters, and that the facts therein stated were true. The document, therefore, consists of the original letters, both subsequently sworn to. I am not going to read these letters extensively but I ask the Court to read them in connection with Exhibit 497 because they contain statements which indicate that these witnesses clearly felt that the whole trial of this convent was conducted as a subterfuge, to cover up the confiscation of the property of this convent, which had taken place earlier under an order of the Gestapo. The prosecution offers Document NG-706as Prosecution Exhibit 498.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document will be received in evidence. Where will you place this in the Document Book?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I will place it in Supplement 3-B, immediately following Exhibit 497.
The next, separate, document will be Document NG-851. Perhaps defense counsel who have particular defendants who were members of the People's Court, or who were members of the Ministry, would like to look at this original exhibit. NG-851 isan article by Dr. Arno Weimann on the subject, "Politics and the Criminal Law in the Third Reich," with a statement by Dr. Weimann that the document, consisting of twenty eight pages, conforms with the previous... with the scientific treatise written by him - a larger one - on the same subject. If you don't have copies I can send some up.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I object to the using of this document. I don't know, really, under which category this document is supposed to come. This can not be a public announcement by Dr. Weimann... a public speech because publication in the press, or in any other way, by Dr. Weimann, would, not be accepted, would not be permitted, because Dr. Weimann because of his pro-Nazi action - was attacked by the press very severely. If it was composed especially for the purpose of the prosecution then it would have to contain some kind, of an affidavit, some kind of a certification... Then the question would arise as to whether, for political questions, Dr. Weimann - particularly considering the fact that the press of today is fighting him - is a suitable expert on political questions. In its present form I believe the document cannot be accepted, in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honor, please, we have done a lot of work having this translated...
JUDGE BRAND: When was it written?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: It was written in February 1947. That is, the certificate was written in 1947. I will be very frank. I believe the objection is sound. I assumed that this thing was sworn to. I won't throw it on the floor... I will just withdraw it.
As Prosecution Exhibit 499 the Prosecution offers NG-1395. This is a sworn statement by General Walter Warlimont of the German Wehrmacht. It states, on oath, - "that I have compiled, the above survey to my best knowledge from memory, that I have based it on facts known to me personally, and that I have been, from 1 January 1942 until 6 September 1944, Deputy Chief of the Armed Forces Operational Staff."
It is sworn to on the 7th of May 1947, in Allendorf, Germany, before Peter Beauvais, who is duly authorized to administer oaths. I consider this document of importance on the whole subject matter. We are considering particularly the relationship between the increased intensity of criminal prosecutions and sentences, and the losses of the German Armed Forces, and in manpower, and territory beginning with the surrender at Stalingrad. This separation of figures by General Warlimont covers the area from January to March 1943, to April 1945. I will now offer as Prosecution Exhibit No. 499, Document NG-1395.
THE PRESIDENT: Where do you place this document?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I will place this document in Supplement Book 1, if your Honor please. In this connection I think it is proper for me to call to the Court's attention that the distribution of punishment in Germany for 100,000 convictions (transcript pages 2247 and 2248 in the English Transcript -- Exhibit 249) contains a list of tables of punishment and death sentences during this same period. The Court may, of course, draw what inferences it chooses, but I feel I am justified, in calling this part of the record to the Court's attention since it is in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: ... Pages 2247 and 2248 -- does that refer to pages of the Transcript?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, your Honor... Did the Court's come through?... Yes, your Honor, that refers to pages of the Transcript.
At this time I will ask Mr. King to continue with the presentation of the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 499, being NG-1395, is admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: May I first revert back to Friday's session? Exhibit 496 was offered, and then withdrawn, or received conditionally; I am not at this moment precisely sure of its status. In any event, the objection made by defense counsel went to the deficiency in the affidavit which was that a statement appended to the exhibit was signed, by Mr. Einstein but it was not sworn to, and the defense objected to the the lack of a jurat. That jurat has now been supplied, and while copies of the document in the hands of defense counsel, and for that matter before the Court, will not show the jurat, it does, of course, clearly show on the exhibit.
It is document 1081, and it has now been sworn to before one Peter Beauvis on the 14th of May 1947. The Court will recall that in introducing the document, Mr. Wooleyhan suggested that it be placed in document book III-B supplement.
We again offer the document NG-1081 as Exhibit 496, and I will show it to defense counsel at this time, prior to handing it up to the Secretary General.
Last week, during the introduction of the documents contained in the document book Supplement III-A -
DR. SCHUBERT: No objection.
MR. KING: I am informed that defense counsel has no objection to the document Exhibit 496, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Whatever conditions were placed upon the admission of that document at the time it was offered will now be removed and it is received without conditions.
MR. KING: Last week, in connection with the introduction of the documents in the book supplement III-A, we informed the Court that there were two additional documents which would be offered at a later date. One of them concerned the document to be found, at page 81. There appears, beginning on page 81, a document which is identified as NG-678. In the first place, that document was inadvertently placed there, and I told the Court that it would be substituted by another document which also bore the identification of NG-678. I must tell the Court at this time that that document will not be offered, so that the Court and defense counsel will disregard the page numbers between and including 81 and 85 of the document book Supplement III-A.
THE PRESIDENT: Were any documents admitted in evidence between those pages?
MR. KING: No, that is one document.
I will not go through the formality of placing in the document book the correct document, which we do not such to offer.
In connection with the book III-A, we would at this time like to introduce, as Exhibit No. 500, the document NG-744; which appears beginning on page 117 of the document book Supplement III-A. This is a document dated the 7th of August, 1942 or 1943 -- one moment -- 1942. It is a letter signed by Dr. Freisler and is addressed to the Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal and to the General Public Prosecutors at the District Courts of Appeal, also for the information of the Presidents of the Reich Supreme Court and of the People's Court, and of the Chief Public Prosecutors at the Reich Supreme Court and the People's Court.
It concerns the enforcement of the law against Poles and Jews, the ordinance concerning which is dated 4 December 1941. Apparently having had some experience in the operation of that ordinance, it became necessary to issue instructions and interpretations based on the experience, and this letter is for that purpose.
Without further reading or explanation of the document, we offer it as Exhibit 500.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: In connection with the introduction of the next document, may I inquire of the Secretary General if he has English and German copies of the document 2006-PS?
JUDGE BRAND: May I interrupt you a moment?
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Only English, sir.
JUDGE BRAND: On the first page of Exhibit 500 there is one word which is illegible.
The paragraph marked "1", the last line -- how does it read, please? "The Pole or Jew must not appear as a witness against the German during the ..."
MR. KING: May I recall from the representative of the Secretary General the original of the document NG-744?
(The document was returned)
That sentence should read: "If, however, such a testimony cannot be evaded, the Pole or Jew must not appear as a witness against the German during the main trial; he must always be interrogated by a judge", etc.
JUDGE BRAND: Thank you.
MR. KING: The next exhibit, 501, will be the document 2006-PS, which has been distributed as a loose document, and I suggest that it be placed in document book II. The document 2006-PS is a decree from the Reichsgesetzblatt, 1934, Part I, page 75.
The principal change accomplished by the decree or statute is that the Reich governors are placed under the administrative supervision of the Reich Ministry of Interior, as is apparent from Article III.
Article IV states that the Reich governor may issue now constitutional laws. Article V states that the Reich Minister of Interior may administer the necessary legal and administrative regulations for executions of the law.
We offer the document 2006-PS as Exhibit 501.
THE PRESIDENT: The document may be admitted in evidence. I would like to inquire, however, whether this was an enactment of the Reichstag.
MR. KING: It does not appear --
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, please. May I inquire as to whether this was an enactment of the Reichstag?
MR. KING: It does not appear on the face of the document that it was an official act resulting from the democratic process in the Reichstag.
THE PRESIDENT: I call your attention to the second paragraph of the document.
MR. KING: Yes, the second paragraph does so indicate. I think perhaps what I stated at first may be the true situation, but it is a matter of argument which I don't believe we should go into at this time unless Dr. Brieger has some comments on this.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, a number of complaints are being handed to me just now regarding, the translation of this basic law, and in this short period available to me I cannot test all of them, as to whether they are correct. Therefore I am merely at this moment reporting these corrections.
MR. KING: May I say one word before Dr. Brieger proceeds. While it is possible that the translation is not correct, according to Dr. Brieger and his colleagues, I think it is a matter which we need not take up here, since it comes under the general category of faulty translations, and we can handle this as we are and will be handling other faulty translations, and I don't believe it is necessary to review them here since they will have to be reviewed before the ex office committee that is going to deal with translations.
DR. BRIEGER: In regard to this law I only wanted to take up a different attitude, because it is a very basic law. I even could say "the" basic law from the year 1933 from which everything else developed, and therefore my colleagues as well as I are particularly interested in having all of the mistakes in regard to this law clarified in time, or, rather immediately, assuming the agreement of the Court, I therefore take the liberty of raising the objections right now in regard to the translation.
Line 1, after "enacted" you have to insert "unanimously" in accordance with the German, which says "einstimmig,", unanimous.
In line 2 it should say instead of "vote", "approval", for the German text says "Zustimmung".
Then something which is very fundamental, because the German text is simply misunderstood here. They are talking about the Reichstag, while it should say Reichsrat, which is an entirely different agency.
Line 3, after "constitution" is to be inserted "for laws amending the Constitution", for the original says "fuer verfassungsaendernde Gesetzgebung."
Article III, line 1, I recommend that here after the word "Governor" in brackets the German term should be inserted, Reichstatthalter, for the position of the Reichstatthalter was not the same one as that of a governor in the United States. There was some similarity, but we can on no account say that the two terms are identical, as is evident from the fact that the governor in the United States is elected, while the Reichstatthalter was appointed.
Article V, line 1, I recommend instead of using the term "administer", the term "issue" because the German original itself says "erlassen." That is all.
JUDGE BRAND: In view of the statement which counsel for the defense has made as to the fundamental importance of this document, I should like to say that the references to lines in which it is claimed there are errors was such that it was impossible for me to follow, and it would be a very great convenience if a complete corrected copy, assuming that correction is necessary, should be presented to us, as you have indicated, at an early date.
DR. BRIEGER: I shall gladly take care of that, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, what is your position as to who enacted this law, as to what body enacted the law? Without argument I should like to know your position.
DR. BRIEGER: What party enacted that law?
THE PRESIDENT: What organization? Was it passed by the Reichstag?
DR. BRIEGER: Passed by the Reichstag, that is right. But at the moment, however, I want to correct another point so that it will not be misunderstood what I said before, on the one hand about the Reichstag, and on the other hand about the Reichsrat. Therefore I am again referring to the preamble, and that is the second paragraph of the preamble. May I in part read the German text and then the English. The German is: "Der Reichstag hat daher einstimmig das folgende Gesetz beschlessen." Consequently, "the Reichstag has enacted, the following law." In this case "Reichstag" is the correct term. "Das mit einmuetiger Zustimmung des Reichsrats hiermit verkuendet wird." "Which is hereby promulgated with the unanimous vote of the Reichstag." In this place it should read instead of "Reichstag" "Reichsrat," council. That is, in the first place "Reichstag" is correct, but the secont time it is not "Reichstag" but "Reichsrat."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Briger, I very clearly understood you to say that the third word of the second paragraph should be "Reichsrat."
DR. BRIEGER: Pardon me, Your Honor. No, in the second paragraph the third word should remain "Reichstag." But in the second line of the first paragraph the word "Reichstag" should be replaced, by "Reichsrat." In other words, the text should read then "with the unanimous vote of the Reichsrat -- approval". That is right, "Approval .
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I confess I don't know all about how they enacted laws in these days, but of course the Reichsrat was a council of ministers, was that not true?
DR. BRIEGER: Not only of ministers.
THE PRESIDENT: What then? A council of what?
DR. BRIEGER: The Reichsrat, as far as I remember, was, above all, a representative council of the Laender with the Reich.
THE PRESIDENT: At any rate it was not the Reichstag, was it?
DR. BRIEGER: The Reichstag represented the German people, and it was always elected by the German people; even still under Hitler it was elected.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not thinking at all how it was elected or how it was constituted. I am talking about its functions. The Reichstag was a legislative body.
DR. BRIEGER: That's right, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and I had never heard before that it was necessary to have the signature of the Reich Minister of the Interior to an enactment of the Reichstag, and yet I find that name attached to this document.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, we are not here concerned with the Minister of the Interior, but the Reichsrat, the council, which was a second organization in addition to the Reichstag. Some went so far as to speak of a first and a second chamber, even though I don't think that that is a correct description. In other words, they a scribed to the Reichsrat somewhat the functions of the American Senate, although I myself consider that not quite correct.
The Reichsrat had to give its approval, not only for laws which concerned the Minister of the Interior, but as far as I remember, had to give its approval for all kinds of laws. Your Honor, if I may make a suggestion in this respect -- Your Honor, it has just been pointed out to me that your question refers to something else; namely, that here below the law, the signature of the Reich Minister of the Interior appears. For the constitutional enacting of the law, this has absolutely no significance. The Minister of the Interior signs, only because he wants to assume the responsibility for the publication of the law. If the Tribunal should desire which would be understandable, to have the competence of the Reichsrat described, we are willing to show the relevant article from the Weimar Constitution to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not concerned with the functions of the Reichsrat, but I am very much interested in knowing who composed the Reichsrat.
DR. BRIEGER: They were the authorized representatives of the Laender with the Reich. They were especially the envoys of the Laender to the Reich. It was the same thing as it was already under the old constitution of Bismark of 1871. There were, to be sure, some changes, but some unimportant changes. In its conception, the Reichsrat was the same as the Bundesrat under the old German Constitution.
THE PRESIDENT: My point, Dr. Brieger, was this: when I see the name "The Reichminister of the Interior Frick" signed to this document, it throws some doubt in my mind upon that being an enactment of the Reichstag, and you throw more doubt upon that when you say that in the second line of that Preamble, "Reichstag" should be translated "Reichsrat." Now you say that the signature of the Minister of the Interior's name here has no particular significance. It has significance in my mind because of those doubts upon it being an enactment of the Reichstag.
DR. BRIEGER: May I repeat then that the Reichsminister of the Interior affixed his signature above all, because apparently he was charged with the responsibility for the orderly promulgation of the law.
THE PRESIDENT: He wasn't so charged by the Constitution.
DR. BRIEGER: That may be correct.
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: May I make a brief statement in regard to this? The law is enacted through the decision of the Reichstag with the approval of the Reichsrat, and the promulgation through the Reich President. If then another minister also affixes his signature to the law, he does so for the reason that his special department is affected by the individual law. If, for example, a law which concerned agricultural matters was decided upon, passed by the Reichstag, approved by the Reichsrat, and promulgated by von Hindenburg, then below the name Hindenburg, the agricultural minister affixed his signature. Since the Enabling Act concerned constitutional and administrative questions, that is the department of the Minister of the Interior, he had to affix his signature also. For the constitutional enacting of the law, this additional signature had absolutely no significance. This appears without any doubt from the Weimar Constitution. I believe that the description of all the constitutional and administrative conditions in Germany are so important for the trial and also will take up a certain amount of time, that the defense on their own initiative when they examine their defendants or at another time will state their position in detail.
DR. BRIEGER: In addition to what Dr. Kuboschok said, I only want to take the liberty of pointing out Article 3 to the attention of the Tribunal. That is the article which shows that Dr. Kuboschok's statements are correct, for from this article, it is quite apparent that the Department of the Reich Minister of the Interior was especially affected by this law.
THE PRESIDENT: I'd like to ask Mr. King: Dr. Brieger has stated that in the first line of that Preamble, after the word "enacted," he says that the document shows that the word "unanimously" has been omitted. Can you see that, Mr. King?
MR. KING: May I recall from the Secretary-General's representative the document. I would rather submit that question to our German expert than answer it myself.
We will take the position that the recommendations for changing the English, as it now appears, be adopted by the Court. Specifically, the word "unanimous" should appear as the sixth word in the first line of the second paragraph, since that apparently was an omission by the translator.
JUDGE BRAND: Will you read it the way it ought to be, slowly?
MR. KING: Yes. The second paragraph: "Consequently, the Reichstag has enacted unanimously the following law which is hereby promulgated with the unanimous approval of the Reichsrat after ascertaining that the requirements of the Reich Constitution have been met." With reference to the two additional changes in Article III, there is no objection to using the German word "Statthalter"; and in Article V, the use of the word "issue" as suggested by Dr. Brieger is preferable to the word "administer", which now appears in the English text.
DR. BRIEGER: That is quite agreeable to us.
THE PRESIDENT: And now, Mr. King, one more question, and only one more. Do you concede that Article IV gives to the Reich Government the right to change constitutional provisions at will?
MR. KING: Your Honour, a simple question simply stated, but I think it imposes too great a burden on me at the moment to answer that. I will supply you an answer to the best of my ability at the first opportunity. At the moment, I am not prepared to say.
I would like to revert back to my answer to your original question as to whether or not this decree was the result of action in the Reichstag. I think it can be said unequivocably that we will take the position in connection with Count One of the Indictment that no decree of the Reichstag, after this date or as late as this date, could follow in the democratic process of the Weimar Constitution. That is the basis for my earlier remark that regardless of what this said, we doubted that it could be an enactment of a democratic representative group of the people.
JUDGE BRAND: You are referring to the legal effect of an instrument?
MR. KING: That is correct.
JUDGE BRAND: You are not then challenging the fact which appears on the face of the instrument, that it was passed by the Reichstag?
MR. KING: I am not challenging the empty form of the statement that it passed through the formal machinery of the Reichstag.
JUDGE BRAND: You are claiming that the Reichstag was not at that time a democratic instrument?
MR. KING: That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: I have on e more question now: why?
MR. KING: I think the answer to that question pretty largely involves the proof under Count I, Your Honor.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Wandschneider for the defendant Dr. Rothenberger. The Court just opened up the question whether in the opinion of the prosecutor it was correct that the Reich Government can change the Constitution. Since this is a fundamental question, I would like to ask the Court whether it is desirable at this opportunity, that from the point of view of the defense, too, something may be said in regard to this?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Wandschneider, apparently by a two-thirds vote of the members of the Reichstag, they could set aside any provisions of the Constitution and enact new measures. I am not quite through with my statement.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I understand the question. The President intends to show that Article IV is contrary to the former provisions of the Constitution, that changes to the Constitution cannot be made by the Government but rather with the majority which is necessary to change the Constitution through the legislative body.
THE PRESIDENT: I haven't said that. But what I mean to say is this -- I didn't finish my former statement -- I was interrupted. If it be conceded that by virtue of provisions of the Constitution, the Reichstag could, by a two-thirds majority vote, amend the Constitution in its specific provisions at any point, it still is a question whether the Reichstag can delegate that power to a Ministry or to any other body in the world. Delegation of power is a question there that becomes vitally important.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I do understand, Mr. President. Basically this question cannot be solved and answered by the way of normal constitutional law, but, according to constitutional and international principles, the answer depends upon the extent to which in the case of a victorious revolution -- and there have been great arguments in international and constitutional law brought about by this -- every Government which has attained power for a longer time by virtue of a revolution, is in a position to issue new laws and to gradually establish new constitutional principles which actually are contrary to the former formal constitutional law of the state. That is, the basic question comes up here and I cannot answer it finally as yet, but I want to open it up as to what extent new constitutional principles actually appeared here which are not already invalid because they are contrary to the former conception. That such a contradiction existed according to formal law and to the former constitutional law, that I have to admit.
THE PRESIDENT: We have passed the usual time for a recess, and we will take this up again.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: (Attorney for Defendants Schlegelberger and von Ammon):
May it please the Tribunal, I ask the Tribunal to be permitted to give a brief explanation to the question discussed at the end of this morning's session. A question by the Presiding Judge brought about a discussion of general constitutional questions. The problems which arise in connection with that question are so voluminous and complicated that the Defense from the outset has considered it its duty to deal with these questions elaborately in their case in chief. At this time it is not certain whether that will be a single presentation or statements by an expert witness, but we shall take an opportunity to state our position to the question which was discussed to day, paid to further questions of constitutional law. Further more, I take the liberty to point out that today a discrepancy between the question of the Presiding Judge and the answer of Counsel existed. The question by the Presiding Judge dealt with a specific case; the answer, by Counsel, dealt with a large field of constitutional law, and apparently, on account of a misunderstanding, did not meet the specific question put by the Presiding Judge. I believe, therefore, that I should ask that the entire discussion of that question be postponed to such time as the Defense will be prepared to discuss that entire problem.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, I don't want to include an unseemingly element of jocularity into this discussion, but I have been advised of it. It rather reminds me of the justice of peace in my county, before whom a demurrer was filed to a complaint. The young lawyer who had made that practical mistake went to the justice of the peace about three weeks later and said, "Judge, have you ruled on my demurrer?" "Oh", he said, "you know I've got to hear some evidence before I can do that."
The Prosecution is even itself somewhat in that position. The matter is a very serious legal question, and we shall brief it most thoroughly as part of our case; and perhaps, I may say that we agree somewhat with the Defense Counsel that we can both do our best on this question when the final briefs, or the issues at law, are squarely presented, either by some motion, in this case, or otherwise. However, we do think that the document is valid, and should, of course properly be considered as an exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you desire to have tho instrument admitted in evidence now?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes.
DR. BRIEGER: (Attorney for Defendant Cuhorst) Your Honor, I would like to be permitted to revert for one moment to the translation of Document 2006-PS, the law concerning the reorganization of the Reich.
On the basis of the efforts by Mr. King to correct Paragraph 2 of the preamble, yet essential mistakes remain there. It says in the last line of the German text that the requirements of legislation to amend the law, have been met. The correct version would be the English translation such as I have now received from the Prosecution, and it should read that the requirements for legislation to amend constitutional laws have been met. In the original translation it was not expressed that those requirements were requirements to amend the laws, which is now clarified.
MR. KING: Dr. Brieger has discussed the question of further altering the second paragraph with the German lawyer who works with tho Prosecution on such matters, and they have agreed, among themselves, as to the reliability of the translation which Dr. Brieger has offered. However, I am wondering, perhaps, if there hasn't been considerable confusion caused now, and if it wouldn't be better to re-submit the document, this time with all suggested and agreed upon changes incorporated, so that there will be no doubt as to how the final document should read.
If Dr. Brieger agrees to that, I think for the purpose of clarifying the whole matter, that should be done.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to withdraw it for the moment?
MR. KING: I would suggest that we not withdraw it, but substitute a corrected instrument when the now copy is ready.
DR. BRIEGER: That is a very good suggestion on the part of Mr. King, and accordingly I should like to best express myself on the translation which the Prosecution has submitted to me a few moments ago, that is to say to examine the new text, and then to ask the Tribunal tomorrow whether, or what amendments arc desirable.
MR. KING: In the meantime the Document 2006-PS will remain as Exhibit 501.
JUDGE BRAND: Are you offering it now?
MR. KING: I offered it earlier, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: He is not offering it now?
MR. KING: I am re-offering it at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you the corrected copy ready for re-offering at this time?
MR. KING: I am not offering the corrected copy; I am offering the instrument that we have been discussing this morning, and which is subject to replacement when the new copy is ready.
THE PRESIDENT: Personally I would like to see that new copy before I am ready to pass on it. I don't know how the other members of the Tribunal may feel, but I will not participate in any acceptance of that document until I see what it is.
MR. KING: Yes, Your Honor, that is why I suggest that we receive this one in evidence, subject to that it is to be replaced by the other one if and when it meets your Honors'approval. I want to be sure that one of these documents, either this one or the other instrument, is in evidence; and the only way we can be sure of that is to make the definite offer of this one at this time.