That was done on a form and lost it's importance to a large extent as far as the occupied territories were concerned. On these forms there was only a due which explained the purpose of the trip, such as "NN cases" and was approved without my further difficulty when the initial, of the department chief was on it. The report on that duty trip itself which was submitted here as a document neither gave any explanation of the matter of the NN cases nor did it contain anything which would have given cause to have further reports made on the subject.
Q. These are the only documents which the Prosecution has submitted against you as far as the NN cases are concerned. Concerning Exhibit 252, however, we found a report made by Herrn Von Ammon concerning NN cases. Would you comment on this for the benefit of the Tribunal? I ask you to give us the page number also in the English document book.
Q. On the list of the reports to be made, the schedule of the reports, page 77, Exhibit 252, that is in the English book on pages 87 to 88, as a subject for a report I have listed "spiritual care for NN-prisoners", with the hand-written remark "refusal". I remember that matter quite well.
The problem was that foreign clergymen-- I can no longer say whether they were French, Belgian, or Luxembourgers, but they were foreigners, I remember that quite well--these foreign clergymen had offered to take charge of the spiritual care of NN prisoners. Without making any further inquiries into the nature of the NN cases, purely for reasons of keeping these natters secret, I refused, because these tasks of spiritual care could have been taken care of by German clergymen.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, that concludes the subject of the NN cases.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
( At 1630 hours, 10 July 1947, a recess was taken until 0930 hours, 11 July 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America; against Josef Alstoetter, et al., Defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 11 July 1947; 0930-1630, Justice Brand, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 3.
Military Tribunal 3 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Marshal, will you ascertain if all the defendants are present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants arc present in the courtroom with the exception of Defendant Engert, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the notation be made the defendant Engert has been excused. The Tribunal is about to rule upon the motion directed against Count I of the indictment. Count I of the indictment in this case changes that the defendants acting pursuant to a common design unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly did conspire and agree together to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity as defined in Control Council Law. No. 10, Article 2. It is charged that the alleged crime was committed between January, 1933, and April, 1945.
It is the ruling of this Tribunal that neither the Charter of the International Military Tribunal nor Control Council Law No. 10 has difined conspiracy to commit a war crime or crime against humanity as a separate substantive crime. Therefore this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try any defendant upon a charge of conspiracy considered as a separate substantive offense. Count I of the Indictment, in addition to the separate charge of conspiracy, also a lieges unlawful participation in the formulation and execution of plans to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity which actually involved the commission of such crimes. We therefore cannot properly strike the whole of Court I from the indictment, but insofar as Count 1 charges the commission of the alleged crime of conspiracy as a separate substantive offense distinct from any war crime or crime against humanity, the Tribunal will disregard the charge.
This ruling must not be construed as limiting the force or effect of Article 2, Paragraph 2 of Central Council Law No. 10 or as denying to either prosecution or defense the right to offer in evidence any facts or circumstances occurring either before or after September 1939 if such facts or circumstances tend to prove or to disprove the commission by any defendant of war crimes or crimes against humanity as defined in Control Council Law No. 10.
We have only one further suggestion. The learned counsel who presented the defendants' case before the joint session promised us some very interesting citations. Notwithstanding the fact that we have decided the case we should still welcome the citations. You may proceed with the examination.
DR. HAENSEL: I am just compiling the citations. I am just about to compile the most recent citations from literature I have received from Zurich. I think that although the case is decided, it is very interesting and I shall take the liberty to submit that material to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has made the decision, but in the course of the final opinion it may become proper to present the reasoning supporting the decision, and for that reason we shall be glad to have your views and your citations.
DR. SCHILF: With the permission of the Tribunal I continue the examination of the witness Klemm.
HERBERT KLEMM - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Herr Klemm, yesterday afternoon you described your work as Undersecretary as far as NN cases were concerned and concluded that description.
We come now to another field of your activity -- that is concerning Department 5 was Administration of Penalties and Department 13 was a special department. I asked you repeatedly about the conference of chiefs of departments of 6 January 1944. May it please the Tribunal, it is Exhibit 45, NG195; Document Book 1-B. After that Department Chiefs' meeting Division V was put under you. That is penal administration. Please will you tell the Tribunal whether act-ually you worked in Division V and whether you made decisions for that division or department.
A When I started my work as an Undersecretary in the Ministry of Justice Department 7 had already been evacuated from Berlin. Owing to that fact I had almost nothing to do with Division 7. I have thought it over very carefully and I could think only of four reports made which refer to Division 7.
Thus once the division chief Engert came to see me to discuss the question of transfer from one evacuation place to another emergency location. If I remember correctly, the places in question were Zoebenick and Templin in the north of Berlin. The Senate President Hecker who was a witness before this court also came to see me concerning budget questions in two personnel matters. The question of an increase in salary for two positions. The Ministry of Finance opposed that bitterly, whereas I had succeeded in persuading the personnel department of the Party Chancellory to interest inself for those matters, personnel matters of the Adninistration of Justice, and to support them. The Ministerialrat Noerr reported to me once about the card file which listed the professions of the prisoners. The second time a personnel matter from a penal institution in Bavaria. Any other reports where I had to make any decision or preliminary decision I did not receive from Department V Only the witness Eggensberger had seen me repeatedly. He may have reported to me about some details concerning Department V. I do not recall details. Eggensberger had some special tasks in the ministry. One, construction plans on the part of the Ministry, that also was the plan to establish an emergency location, barracks which we wanted to have built ourselves.
Then he was in charge of the motor pool of the Ministry. Especially in these tiro natters Eggensberger came to see no at various times.
Q You mentioned, as Chief of Department v, Ministerial Director Engert. Is that the defendant Engert?
A Yes.
Q Was there another chief of that division before Engert?
A When I became undersecretary, Division v was directed by Ministerial Secretary Marx. Then Engert came on this post, and Engert only went to Thierack, whom he knew from the People's Court.
Q Division V had to supervise penal institutions. Did you ever visit penal institutions, during the period of your activity as Undersecretary ?
A As Undersecreatry I visited only one penal insitution, the female juvenile prison in Rotenfeld on the Ammersee. I did not visit any other institutions.
Q When were you at the prison of Rotenfeld?
A That was in 1944-1945, the end of 1944 and the beginning of 1945, and I was there once, around Easter of 1945.
Q The prosecution has submitted various documents referring to conditions in penal insitutions. Those are: Exhibit 272, NG-553, in document book IV-C; Exhibit 274, NG-566, also in document book IV-C; and Exhibit 275, NG-506, also in document book IV-C. The prosecution, when submitting these documents, stated that conditions in the penal insitutions were the same as in the concentration camps. I ask you, Mr. Klemm, do you happen to know anything about violations of rules in the penal institutions which were under the administration of justice from reports which you received, on the basis of which these things would become clear to you?
A I never received any reports of that kind. However, I know from general conversations with other officials of the Ministry of Justice that, especially as to the questers, the food, and the medical care of the prisoners, everything was done which was at all possible during a time of war.
Q As to the documents which I have just cited, Exhibit 272 is an affidavit by Ludwig Schirler, Superintendent of the Prison at Ebrach, and Exhibits 274 and 275 are also statements by witnesses. These exhibits are concerned with conditions which allegedly arose immediately before the collapse of the German military forces. Would you please tell us whether these three documents are possibly in contradiction with the statement which you have just made?
A In the descriptions by these three witnesses we can find, I believe without doubt, that these are conditions which arose immediately in connection with the catastrophe; that is, immediately before the occupation by alied troops. He never, up to that time, things were always handled correctly in the penal institutions of Justice on its part did everything humanly possible to avoid over-crowding of the insitutions.
In this connection may I refer to the circular decree of the Ministry of Justice of 12 February 1945? In that circular decree reference is also made to three other circular decrees of 20 December 1944, of 7 February 1945, and of 10 February 1945. All those measures are quoted and emphasized which were to be taken to avoid over-crowding of penal institutions, and the circular decree of 12 February 1945; which I have cited, even directs that all prisoners are to be sent on leave who still had to serve only six months. That was done only to avoid over-crowding.
That circular decree was also submitted by the prosecution in this case. It is found in Exhibit 290, and is NG-030-, in document book VII-B, at pagel. Within the document, it is sheet No. 7 which refers to it, but it is at page 1 in document book VII-B.
It has to be considered that when all the conditions of the catastrophe arose, communications with Berlin also broke down, at least for the greater part. Therefore, we were even informed about these circumstances of chaos in the various insitutions.
Q The prosecution has submitted Exhibit 300, NG-455, also in document book VII-B, at page 43 in the German text.
Witness, that document bears your initial. Will you please comment on the statements which are contained therein and, furtermore, since that document is initialed by you, will you tell us whether you had any reason to do anything against the conditions or the facts described in this document?
A As to the circular latter from the food Ministry, in 1944, I saw that with the incoming mail. I was put before an accomplished fact, because that circular letter had already been distributed, and I had no reason to change anything about it because the rations for the prisoners were definitely within the limits of that which was possible at the time. They were so high that, to make a comparison here, they were higher than the rations which are available today to the free German population. I only want to mention one example. For a ration period of four weeks, the prisoners receive 10,400 grams of bread. I happened to find out from the newspapers that the free population in Germany today, also for a ration period of four weeks, received only 4,000 grams in April of 1947.
Q Grams of what bread? Will you state that, please?
A Bread, dry bread, yes. But that is just an example. The question of food for the Jews was not acute, because, by the 13th decree concerning Reich citizens, the Jews were no longer subordinated to the Administration of Justice.
I would like to say one more word concerning the feeding of Eastern workers and Poles. As far as the prisoners within the boundaries of the Reich were concerned, according to section 1 of figure 7 of that decree, they received the same food as other prisoners did. Section 2 is only a ruling concerning the feeding of Poles within the Incorporated Eastern Territories and not the feeding of Poles who came from the Incorporated Easters Territories. That provision states that the Poles within the Incorporated Eastern Territories should receive 80 percent of the food that the free population in the Incorporated Eastern Territories received; that is, in addition to the extra rations for heavy workers.
The reason was the following: The newly Incorporated Estern Territories received more food than the rest of Germany and in order to assure that these prisoners in the Incorporated Eastern Territories should not be in a worse position than those in the Reich their nutrition and feeding was based on the figures for the free population. Therefore, in this manner, the prisoners employed in the Incorporated Eastern Territories had at least the same amount of food as the prisoners within the Reich.
Q The witness Hecker, a few days ago, described two cases in which the Ministry of Justice took disciplinary steps against official of penal institutions. That was supposed to have occur in 1944. One was the case of a penal institution in Southern Germany where a Wachtmeister, a Chief Warden, maltreated prisoners. The other case concerned the penal institution of Schiratz in the then incorporated Eastern Territories. That involved a superintendent of a penal institution who was punished for incorrect actions. Was a report made to you at the time, as Undersecretary?
A I was informed about these cases just because they were extraordinary and surprising. In the Division for the Administration of Penalties, such cases were extremely rare, and just because they were sorare, those two cases were reported.
In both cases , disciplinary measures were taken without any restraint and beyond that charges were made against the superintendent for disregarding of his duty of supervision. He was sent away and removed from office.
Q. The prosecution in this connection submitted another document, It is Exhibit 291, that is NG-770, also in Document Book VII -B. It deals with the problem whether church services could be held in penal institutions. I ask you whether you had anything to do with that matter?
A.Yes, and I remember it quite well because I had a rather not argument with Thierack about that matter. Thierack , without informing me, prohibited that any church services could be held in penal institutions. I found out about that directive through the Deutsche Justiz -- the periodical for German Justice -- of 1944, on Page 270. I immediately went to Thierack and referred to ethical reasons, but he did not abstain from his intentions. Then I used stronger arguments. I told him that I knew from the period of my work in the Party Chancellery that Hitler himself had issued a strict order that during the war all measures which might cause struggles with the church should be abstained from. Thierack doubted that. I offered that I would get a written confirmation from the Party Chancellery about that. He forbid that I write to who Party Chancellery. I told him in the course of the conversation that I was quite sure what the outcome of that matter would be. The moment one bishop would turn to Hitler, Hitler , on account of his basic attitude, would disavow Thierack.
A short time later when letters were received from German bishops, from the Protestant side as well as from the Catholic side, I went to Thierack and he became rather thoughtful and agreed to rescind the former order. That happened in a very carefully stated form, but it actually occurred. Especially for that matter, I claim a certain amount of credit.
Q. In Exhibit 297, that is NG-405; also Document Book VII-B, we find an affidavit by the director of the penal institution by the name of Strehlow.
In that affidavit of the 22nd November '46, Strehlow stated in that affidavit that in the penal institution Ploetzensee shortly after the beginning of the war -- that is in 1939 -- experiments were made with poison gas. I ask you, did you hear anything about these experiments during the period of your activity in the Ministry of Justice?
A. No, neither in office nor outside of the office.
Q. You told the Tribunal that you received only very few reports from Department V, that is Penal Administration; that is to say, that practically you had nothing to do really with Division V. I ask you, did you come to know about measures taken to evacuate penal institutions? The prosecution submitted a rather serious document, that is Exhibit 290,NG-030, Document Book VII-B. It is an instruction from Division V, that is to say from the Chief of Division V to the General Prosecutor at Linz. There are further instructions attached to this directive, and from these instructions it can be seen that in case of an approach of the enemy in various graduations, the prisoners should be released of transferred in groups and also a certain number of them should be killed or exterminated. Do you happen to know anything about that directive sent to the General Prosecutor at Linz, or did anything about that come to your attention?
A. I did not have any knowledge of these directives. I know that I am under oath. I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize that I am absolutely conscious of that fact. I saw these directives for the first time here in these documents. These directives bear no date, no address. It is not known to me whether and to what extent they were distributed to all General Prosecutors. I have already emphasized that practically I had nothing to do with Division V and only a few reports were made to me.
With reference to the instructions themselves, I can explain the following.
It is really a detail, but it assures me that I have never seen these instructions. As every individual, I have my peculiarities. One of them is that I am allergic to certain linguistic mistakes, and if these mistakes accurred in letters which I had to sign, then I had these letters rewritten in my office so that such expressions should be avoided. For instance, if these instructions contained the word "weitgehendst," it's linguistically impossible, because a verb cannot be used that way. It should be "weitestgehend." If I had seen these instructions I probably would not have permitted that word to be used. Moreover, I would have protested immediately to Thierack for legal as well as for humane reasons and also for practical considerations, because I could not imagine how a thing like that could be carried out.
Q. Did you, in any other connection , that is not with reference to Exhibit 209, have anything to do with directives concerning the evacuation of penal institutions the moment the enemy approached?
A. Yes, in two cases I gave directives about the evacuation of penal institutions. I had to do that really by coincidence. My home was in Bautzen in eastern Saxony. On the 11 of February 1945, the Russians were about 50 kilometers before Bautzen. In Bautzen there was a penal institution with several thousand inmates. On the 11 of February , the Director of the Penal Institution came in my house. I happened to be in Bautzen over Sunday and returned on Monday morning to Berlin. He asked me for instructions as to what he should do on account of the proximity of the enemy. On account of the lack of time and without con acting the General Prosecutor who was really competent for it, I gave the instruction to immediately release all prisoners who still had to serve no longer than one year. It may even be that I mentioned a larger remainder of the term. As the second measure, I ordered the evacuation of all other prisoners to Waldheim, a place about 120 kilometers further west. The opportunity was favorable, particularly favorable because the Director had assured himself the necessary railroad cars.
The penal institution was outside of the town of Bautzen and the prisoners without any commotion could be transported away.
When on Monday morning I returned to Berlin, the first release of prisoners were in the same train, as I could find out from conversations of people who were standing around me and who happened to be released prisoners.
Another case is the case of the penal institution Rodenfeld. I went there around Easter, 1945, that is the time between the 28th of March and the 1st or 2nd April, 1945. There I gave the sane instructions to the matron of the penal institution concerning the release of penal prisoners; and the second instruction I gave in the mantime because of the advance of allied troops, the unoccupied space had become rather narrow. I gave a second instruction to remain with the balance of the prisoners in the institution and to turn it over to the American troops. Both measures that I took are in contradiction with the basic instructions, but I could not follow the basic instructions because I did not happen to know them at all.
Q Herr Kleem, just the same you are put in connection with other evacuation measures; that is the case which occurred in the penal institution Sonnenburg. It is known to you that according to an affidavit by Frau Lepin, during the night from the 29 to 30th January, 1945, in Sonnenburg over eight hundred people were shot dead by the SS. You have heard here before this Tribunal the witness Hooker and the witness Eggensberger. They testified about telephone calls at night made to Thierack, or the then General Prosecutor Hansen. During the last telephone conversation between Eggensberger and Hanson, your name allegedly was mentioned, This matter is of extraordinary importance. Would you please comment on it and tell us what you know about that entire group of problems.
A Here again, to the best of my knowledge and conscience, and with reference to my oath, I can only say that I have never been informed, I have never found out anything about, the order by Gauleiter Stuertz; and that here only from the documents of this trial I was informed that Gauleiter Stuertz had is aid an order; and from these documents only, particularly from the affidavit of Lepin, I found out that over eight hundred people were to be shot dead at Sonnenburg. I know the following about Sonnenburg: About the middle of January, 1945, Thierack told me the following: At that time Himmler had become the commander in chief of tho so-called Weichsel Army, that was the army which was supposed to protect Pomerania and Berlin, and, as army commander, Himmler had issued a very severe decree where each local authority, as well as the civilian population in General, was prohibited to evacuate without his specific permission.
Also, the Supreme Reich authorities received that order, as well as the minister of Justice Thierack. He thereupon, especially as far as Sonnenburg was concerned, that is what he told me, approached Himmler and asked for apremature evacuation. Himmler, as he told me, did not only prohibit evacuation of Sonnenburg, but he also told him that he needed the workers among the inmates of the prison in Sonnenburg for military purposes, and that, for that reason, he subordinated the prisoners of Sonnenburg immediately under his own command. Thierack told me thereupon -- here I, as Minister of the Reich, can no longer do anything because within the area of operations the military commander has more authority than a civilian Reich Minister.
Q Would you, as precisely as possible, indicate to the Tribunal the date when Thierack gave you that information?
A It must have been the middle of January, 1945 -- immediately after that order had been issued by Himmler. Thierack told me at the same time that his orders, his instructions, had been rejected. I know for sure that it was before the conference of the division chiefs, which probably took place at the end of January, 1945; and which is represented in Exhibit 45 by the minutes; because, during that conference of division chiefs, as can be seen from the minutes, Thierack explicitly referred to that order by saying that it was strictly prohibited to evacuate prematurely.
Q I should like to interrupt you here. May it please the Tribunal, this again is with reference to Exhibit 45, NG-195, which was repeatedly mentioned, in Document Book 1-B, and it is tho conference of the department chiefs mentioned by the witness of the 31st January, 1945; and is found on page 114; of Document Book 1-B, that is the German page. The following can be found:
"The field offices of the Ministry in Prenzlau and Zoebenick".-- those were the emergency locations -- "are not to be evacuated prematurely, not even by members of the family." Witness, you may now proceed.
A It was about ten days before Thierack said that in this conference of the department chiefs, that I had already the conversation with Thierack about Sonnenburg.
Q I have already mentioned here the affidavit of Frau Lepin. I should like to indicate tho exhibit number -- Exhibit No. 293, that is NG-741, Document Book VII-B; German page 27. Frau Lepin assured, in lieu of oath, that that murder at Sonnenburg occurred during the night from the 29th to the 30th January, 1943. Would you please tell the Tribunal whether at that time, in your opinion, Thierack had at all the possibility to issue any directive, any instructions, or orders concerning Sonnenburg?
A It is not only my opinion, but it was absolutely clear that at that time that penal institution was exclusively under the order of Himmler.
Q Witness, I mentioned already that the witness Hecker spoke about night telephone calls made to the director of the institution at Sonnenburg; that these telephone calls were made at the beginning of February, 1943; and on that occasion Thierack was supposed to have told the witness Hecker, when Hecker informed him about the telephone call from Sonnenburg, that Sonnenburg should defend itself against the approaching enemy. Do you happen to know anything about any such statements ?
A Concerning time which Hecker mentions, I cannot say anything. If, however, Thierack made that statement that the penal institution was to defend itself, then, that is in accordance with what he told me in the middle of January about the situation under the command of Himmler. As military commander, the order for the defense could only be given from a military office. Whether or not that Thierack knew that such an order had been given, I couldn't tell.
Q Did you ever speak with the General Prosecutor Hansen, whose name has been frequently mentioned here by the penal institution, about the fact that any dispositions had been made by him or anybody else? -- With regard to that penal institution?
A Yes, I spoke to Hansen about the subject Sonnenburg, and that after Thierack instructed me about what I have mentioned before. Hansen and I discussed the problem that the authority over Sonnenburg had been changed. Hansen knew about it because he repeated it to me. At that time evacuations in general were carried out only by the Reich Defense Commissar, and the Reich Defense Commissar, as a result, had to have an interest to see that no penal prisoners should mix among the fleeing population. I also discussed that problem with Hansen in that sense, stating that the minister could no longer dispose of that natter and that it might be that through Stuertz, who was the Reich Defense Commissar, he could persuade Himmler to permit the evacuation in time.
Hansen knew the Gauleiter Stuertz very well from his previous activity in the Party Chancellory. Hansen had for a long time been personnel referent with Bormann, and belonged to the Reichsleiter's Office.
Q. Was that the only conversation you had with Hansen about Sonnenburg?
A. Yes, apart from that I did not discuss Sonnenburg with Hansen.
Q. The witness Eggensberger, furthermore, mentioned that he made a notation about that conference with Hansen, a file notation about the telephone conversation --- according to the statement by the witness Eggensberger, he submitted that notation to Hecker the next morning. I ask you now, did you ever see that file note or that notation made about the telephone conversation -- was it submitted to you officially or did you, by accident, find it on your desk?
A. No, I never saw that notation. If Hansen mentioned my name in this connection to Eggensberger, and described things correctly, then he could only have done it in connection with the question as to who was competent to give any orders to Sonnenburg; but, if he happened to say that I agreed that the prisoners could be turned over to the Gestapo, that would have been absolutely wrong. That the prisoners were turned over to the Gestapo, I only found out here in this court-room. My knowledge of these matters do not go any further then I have described them. If , moreover, I had read that notation, and it would have contained that last passage. I mentioned, then I would have corrected that immediately; I would have been in a position to correct it. I do not know whether Thierack received that notation made by Eggensberger.
Q. You have stated that V had practically nothing to do with you; was it within the competence of Division V to decide whether prisoners should be turned over to the Gestapo?
A. As such, merely administratively, the general public prosecutor, as can be seen from the situation, had to act independently in contact with the Reich Defense Commissar, but such far-reaching measures with such far-reaching consequences, if it would have been possible to comm unicate with the Ministry at that time, would have to be discussed there.
Any one who knew the independent nature of Thierack, knew full well that Thierack would have reserved the right to determine that for himself, and that in this matter no one else would have been permitted to make a decision.
Q. Herr Klemm, the last question in this connection concerns Stuertz, the Gauleiter of Brandenburg, who was also Reich Defense Commissar. Did you ever have any negotiations with him, particularly about the case Sonnenburg ?
A. I have already explained how my conference came out with Hansen concerning the case Sonnenburg. I do not want to repeat that, but I can imagine that Hansen wanted to cut short the discussion with Eggensberger by saying that I knew about the matter, because several weeks or months before Hansen had come to see me, and complained particularly about Hecker and Eggensberger. He said among other things, that if these men see that I do not have the same intentions, the they always refer to it that that was the wish of the Minister or the Undersecretary to do so. I knew the routine of the Ministry too well, and in such cases, I said I will get in touch with the Minister and the Undersecretary. They cannot come to me with such tricks. Perhaps there was a similar situation when Hansen used these tactics.
Q. Herr Klemm, the question of Hansen seems to be cleared up. I asked you also about Gauleiter Stuertz; will you please, briefly, tell us whether you knew Stuertz, who, at that time, was Reich Defense Commissar, and whether you had any conferences with him concerning the Sonnenburg case?
A. I never had any conference with Stuertz; nor with the police; nor any negotiations with the SS about Sonnenburg; not even a conversation; and, neither was informed by him or by Hansen, in writing or orally, about any negotiations with any of these agencies on their part.
Q. We come now to another chapter, that is Division 15; what were your relations to that Division as Under-Secretary?