I told him that I would not interfere with the authority of the presiding judge in a case of that kind. In addition to that, I was not even the immediate superior of Cuhorst. That was the President of the District Court. That conversation did not have the character of a complaint to the effect that Cuhorst frequently or regularly made it difficult for defense counsel to survey the files.
Q Were you the competent authority to receive such complaints?
A Yes, of course. If there had been a complaint, I would have followed it up without hesitation. I remember in a different case with one of the deputies of Cuhorst, another temporary presiding judge of a Special Court, there I was told -- not in the form of a formal complaint -that the presiding judge in question had that bad habit in his trials. I followed it up immediately, and I would have done the same if in the case of Cuhorst a complaint would have been lodged with me.
Q Did any defense counsel ever come to you complaining about Cuhorst from a different point of view? By that I mean, that his sentences were too severe?
A That question I can answer in the negative, without doubt.
Q Did you or your personal referent have sufficient contact with defense counsel that it would not have been difficult for you to hear such criticism; in other words, that these gentlemen would have had the courage to go to you and tell you about it?
A To come to me, that didn't take much courage. I was at all times at the disposal of all officials and defense counsel. The same thing with my personal referent. Both of us had so much contact that we would have certainly found out of any irregularities or illegalities.
Q Witness, I should like to refer to some statistical files. I have already put the material to you, and ask you to discuss the proportion of death sentences in Stuttgart to those pronounced by other special courts. I also gave you the Reich Justice Calendar which contains the numbers of inhabitants and also those with the Protectorate. Do you have that in front of you?
A Yes, I do. From that, I can see the population figures of the entire Reich area and of the District Court of Appeals of Stuttgart. In the Document NG-252, which was put before me, I also find the total number of death sentences pronounced, but in that extensive trial, I cannot find the number of death sentences in Wuerttemberg.
Q Therefore you are not in a position to draw any conclusions?
A Personally, I always was of the opinion, and am of the opinion today, that the number of death sentences at Stuttgart had to be well below the Reich average, but since I am lacking the exact figure of death sentences for Wuerttemberg, I cannot prove it.
Q May I base myself on the assumption that in somewhat regular intervals you were asked to go to the Reich Ministry of Justice to Berlin to attend conferences of the chief presidents under the chairmanship of the Minister or the Under-Secretary, and that on that occasion, probably unofficially, in an exchange of information with your colleagues, you were in a position to orient yourself about these things, is that correct? Is my assumption correct?
A Yes. On account of continuous objections and reproaches made by the Penal Division of the Reich Ministry of Justice, of course I became interested in the conditions in other districts, and from conversations of that kind; and then later before the catastrophe, from conversations with judges who had come from already occupied territories to Wuerttemberg; also, from a conversation with Minister Guertner, I had gained the impression; and then first of all, on account of these continuous objections stating that the practice of Stuttgart was too lenient, I gained the impression that the practice and sentences in Stuttgart, in relation to the practices of other districts, had to be called relatively lenient.
Q Did you arrive at that conviction on the basis of a definite directive or a decree of the Reich Ministry of Justice where a number of Cuhorst sentences were criticized as being too lenient? You know what directive I am referring to?
A Well, there wasn't only one directive of that kind but the objections were made and criticisms were voiced in great number -- partly in individual cases, partly in collective directives where a dozen or more cases were mentioned and were quoted, which in the opinion of the Reich Minister of Justice had been decided too lenient. The last directive of that kind, which I remember, must be of summer 1944, and that referred to the penal senate, not the special court.
About 12 cases are listed there. If I remember correctly, the majority concerned Cuhorst.
Q Did you consider yourself duty-bound to notify Cuhorst as quickly as possible of such directives if they concerned him, and did he consider it important?
A Of course, it was in my line of duty to bring such objections to the attention of the persons concerned; but as far as individual cases were concerned, I frequently refrained from doing so because I knew Mr. Cuhorst's attitude well enough. Cuhorst disregarded such criticisms. In the course of time, he got so angry about these matters, that at any rate in the end anything of that nature which came from the Reich Ministry of Justice got him into a frenzy.
Q In spite of that, wouldn't you consider it right to say that Cuhorst therefore saw himself obliged to become more severe or that he rather decided that he would stick to his old course?
A The latter is certainly correct.
Q Witness, in discussing these matters, we have already arrived at the same time at discussing the so-called guidance. May I ask you what did you do in accordance with directives of the Reich Ministry of Justice concerning guidance; in other words, did you organize that guidance for your district?
A That guidance, as it was desired by the Reich Ministry of Justice, was not given consideration by me for my district. By incidentals in my career, I had been separated from the direct judge's practice, but I considered myself a judge at all times. I became a judge because the independent position of the judge, which is only subordinate to the law, was held in high esteem by me, and it was not compatible with my conscience that I should contribute to endanger that independence.
Q Do I understand you correctly, witness, that by independent practice of the judge, you mean to say that it is not right to influence that practice of the judge by administrative directives but that on the other hand these judges are subordinate only to the decisions or bound only by the decisions of the Reich Supreme Court?
A Certainly, undoubtedly as far as the decisions of the Reich Supreme Court serve as precedence.
Q I want to refer to another matter coming from Berlin; that is to say, the desire of the Reich Ministry of Justice that prosecutors and judges should get together before the sentence being pronounced in order to discuss matters of the demand for sentence and sentence expected. What can you say in that connection?
A Details of that decree which was actually issued are no longer available to me from memory, nor do I know whether that decree went only to the General Public Prosecutor or also to the President of District Courts of Appeal. If the letter is the case, then I have received that decree, and as it was my duty, brought it to the attention of the judge. The meaning of that decree, as it is in my recollection, was that too great differences between demand for sentence and sentence itself should be avoided if at all possible; that therefore the Public Prosecutor under certain circumstances could be induced to, after discussing it with the General Public Prosecutor or the Senior Public Prosecutor, mitigate a demand for sentence which might have been too severe on his part.
Q. If before 1933 a judge or you as his deputy approached a man of the prosecution, especially the general public prosecutor, with the question what command for sentence was to be expected, would these gentlemen have considered that they shouldn't answer?
A. I believe before that time one would never have thought of it, and whether the general public prosecutor in such a case would have answered me, I don't know.
Q. Do you happen to know whether before 1933 that was prohibited at all; or, would you assume so?
A. Whether that was an explicit prohibition, I don't know; but it certainly wasn't done.
Q. Were there any specific tendencies, inclinations, among the judges in Wuerttemberg concerning the sentencing of foreigners, Jews or gypsies or, were they agreed upon -- by tendencies or inclinations I mean in the first place such as extermination; but, others also.
A. That among the judges of Wuerttemberg such inclinations existed, I do not believe; that any agreements were made in that direction I consider quite impossible.
Q. Witness, do you happen to know, or, did Mr. Cuhorst discuss with you, whether he or his associate judges found it easy to pronounce death sentences?
A. Various judges of the Wuerttemberg special court upon one occasion or another told me how hard it was for them to decide on death sentences. Cuhorst also at least one time discussed with me how he suffered from these matters in connection with death sentences. That was probably at the time when he took sick leave, or shortly before.
Q. Were these matters, in part, a motive for Cuhorst to ask for a different job?
A. I should assume so. Cuhorst at various times told me that he would like to get away from the special court; he had done that for so many years and he had enough of it.
Q. Did he express that wish also in connection with the continued guidance?
A. That certainly also played a part.
Q. Now, witness, I want to ask you did Cuhorst show any legal preferences for party members before the court; or, what was his general attitude when confronted with acts committed by party members?
A. I said before already that Cuhorst was a convinced national socialist; but, he did not cover up for criminal acts committed by party members -- not at all. I know that frequently he voiced criticism when in his opinion the prosecution, if it was a case -let's say of corruption by party members failed to file the indictment. Various cases are known to me where during the trial, party officials who had become guilty of such acts, were treated very harshly by him.
Q. On this occasion I should like to put a question of fundamental importance to you, witness. You said, if I understood you correctly, that Cuhorst showed great severity when cases like that came before him, On the other hand, did he have the possibility, as a judge, to exert any influence upon the prosecution prosecuting a case; or, am I right to assume that was exclusively a right of the prosecution and he had no influence upon them.
A. That was an exclusive matter for the prosecution authorities.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a sufficient answer; we have heard it before.
DR. BRIEGER: I didn't understand your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: How was the nullity plea and extraordinary objection applied in Stuttgart?
A. As far as I know only against the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Was the extraordinary objection employed in cases before the special court?
A. Cases of the special court and of the penal senate, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not referring to the nullity pleas, but to the special extraordinary objection.
A. Mr. President, in practice I never had anything to do with these matters.
THE PRESIDENT: I see; all right.
A. Details, therefore, are not known to me about it.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Were there any cases which had been tried before the special court Stuttgart which were transferred to other special courts for a second trial -- and why?
A. That happened quite frequently. As I would like to assume, the reason was that Stuttgart was considered more lenient than other special courts, and one expected that if a second trial would take place in Stuttgart again, the results would be unsatisfactory.
Q. If I understand you correctly then, it never occurred that cases from other courts were transferred to Stuttgart for a second trial; that the reverse case occurred frequently.
A. Yes.
Q. Is it true that Cuhorst already in 1940 was drafted by the armed forces and, without his knowledge and against his will, shortly before his transfer to the front, he was declared indispensable -and why?
A. I have to say yes. I had the instructions that I should hold these officials as indispensable as long as possible.
Q. In 1943 was Cuhorst on sick leave for three months?
A. For a considerable time, for reason of nervous disturbances, Cuhorst was on sick leave. It may have been three months.
Q. Is it true that in 1942, that is one year before the disciplinary proceedings by the party against Cuhorst, is it true that Dr. Glueck, as Gau leader of the Reich Jurists League, discussed the reasons of that disciplinary case against Cuhorst; and, what was the point of view of Dr. Glueck in this connection?
A. On the occasion of the visit of the then under secretary Rothenberger in Stuttgart, a conference took place concerning personnel matters in my office.
Upon the request of Mr. Rothenberger, the Gau leader of the National Socialist Jurists League, Justizrat Glueck was present. During that conference I reported that Cuhorst desired to become president of the District Court at Ravensburg. Thereupon, Glueck in a very brusque manner stated immediately that the Gauleiter would never agree to the appointment of Cuhorst for the position of District Court President at Ravensburg. It is known to me that Cuhorst was appointed president of a district court in another area, but that question was not discussed at the time because it was not my district.
Q. By whom and why was a disciplinary proceeding of the party court institute against Cuhorst in 1943; and what was the purpose of that?
A. That party disciplinary proceeding before the Gau court was initiated by the Gauleiter; the purpose was the exclusion of Cuhorst from the NSDAP.
Q. Did you attend the party disciplinary proceeding against Cuhorst; and, where did this take place?
A. The Gau Court on its own afforded me an opportunity to attend the proceedings and on account of the great importance the exclusion from the party would have, I took advantage of that. The proceedings took place in the large hall of the former Wuerttemberg Diet.
Q. In that trial did various Kreisleiters, a SD member and an attorney from Munich appear as witnesses against Cuhorst?
A. I remember two Kreisleiters as witnesses, and I remember there was an SD official; also an attorney from out of town.
Q. Did Cuhorst defend himself -- and with what success?
A. Cuhorst defended himself, and with the energy with which he was known for.
Q. The exclusion from the party would have resulted in Cuhorst losing his position.
A. I have to assume that.
Q. Would you assume that all these matters contributed essentially to bring Cuhorst into a condition of nervous irritation which must have had its effect on his activity as a judge?
A. That certainly contributed to it.
Q. How and why in the summer of 1944 did Cuhorst leave his position as judge; what was your opinion at the time?
A. In the middle of September, 1944, I received the brief instructions from the Reich Ministry of Justice to put Cuhorst at the disposal of the armed forces. The reason was not contained in the directive, but I assumed, as a matter of course, that the reason was the general dissatisfaction of the Reich Ministry of Justice with the practices and the sentences of the special court Stuttgart; and for that, first of all, Cuhorst was responsible.
THE PRESIDENT: The time has arrived for our morning recess of fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. LaFollette, there was some conversation with reference to two prosecution witnesses from the French Zone.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, your Honor, They are both still here.
THE PRESIDENT: And you will have no difficulty in keeping them here no matter how long this examination continues; is that correct?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your Honor please, they will stay.
THE PRESIDENT: Then counsel for both sides may rely upon it that they will be examined irrespective of the length of this examination.
DR. BRIEGER: Could I have a litter talk with Mr. LaFollette?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May I say, your Honor, that after I suggested this arrangement Dr. Brieger pointed out that he still must get away for a very fine personal reason on Friday.
THE PRESIDENT: We understand that, but I want him to he assured that regardless of how long this examination takes these witnesses will be kept here and in due time, will rectify.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Unless the Court orders otherwise, I would like to put them on now rather than bring them back. That is my position.
THE PRESIDENT: They will be kept here.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, if it will be agreeable to the Bench and also to the Prosecution, I would suggest that late this afternoon both witnesses of the Prosecution will show up here. It will be just a short examination. I am merely interested in examining one definite witness today because he is also ailing. However, the third witness would also like to be examined today but these two examinations will probably be much shorter than the examination of Dr. Kuestner. Therefore, I consider it possible to examine them in between but I would line to ask urgently that the witnesses will not be examined while I am out of town.
THE PRESIDENT: They will not be examined while you are out of town, and if it is agreeable to you they may be examined this afternoon.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes. May I ask a very few questions of the witness, Dr. Kurstner, in order to conclude this examination?
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Witness, the Prosecution, some time ago, submitted to two Tribunal two so-called Fuehrer Informations which were introduced to the Tribunal with No. NG-632, Exhibit 187, and NG-1249 Exhibit 402 respectively. The first exhibit concerns Stuttgart directly and I am referring to the second one only for purposes of comparison. Four your information, Witness, I would like to state briefly, it is entitled "Fuerher Information" That is supposed to mean information which the Reich Ministry of Justice sent to Hitler; that this happened frequently and repeatedly and it is designated with No. 66.
This copy which was submitted here is supposed to be the particular copy which was returned to the Ministry of Justice for their files; whereas, according to the explanation at made by the Prosecution, the original was sent to Hitler. I take the liberty to submit both of them to you and then I shall ask you a question about them, namely, the following, as to whether you notice anything as to the official methods. Look at it and take you time.
A. As to the regulations and usages in the official channels of the Reich Ministry of Justice, I am not informed; but I worked long enough in a Ministry and later on as Chief of a Large government agency to be able to say that these documents have several noticeable aspects regarding the official routine of business. According to my felling, the copy that is retained in the files should, in the case of such an important document as a report of the minister to Hitler, that is, to the head of the state. Definitely show who has the responsibility for sending it out. It should thus, as one says, be initialed and it should also have a forewarding remark. At least that is my opinion.
I notice another thing too. The Reich Ministry of Justice had stapled files, for the two documents that I have before me, it can be concluded positively that the original of which the photostats were made was not stapled into the files. That as all I can say in regard to this point
Q. Only one brief question in regard to the matter itself. Do you know anything about this incident regarding Stuttgart?
A. No.
Q. A question of a different nature now. May I ask you to give this book to me, please? Could a judge for temporary employment be transferred to a different district of a district court of appeals and there be employed as a judge?
A. That was at least during war time possible. It was effected by the Ministry but also I believe if the district court of appeals if the district that was concerned agreed that the judge be transferred away from it. In the letter case the judge, I believe, had also to agree, At least I assume so.
Q. A final question. Witness, what do you know regarding the fee that Dr. Klett asked for in the Oesterle Case and what effect did these matters have while you participated in them?
A. Lawyer Dr. Klett in Stuttgart had, together with another lawyer, taken over the defense of Oesterle who was later condemned to death.
THE PRESIDENT: What fee did he ask for?
THE WITNESS: As far as I recall Dr. Klett asked for a fee of 7,000 Marks. Later the case was referred to the disciplinary chamber because of asking for too large a fee and the two counsel were fined. If I remember correctly, Dr. Klett was fined 3,000 Marks. The Ministry issued the instruction to me to examine the question as to whether, according to the existing regulations, the excessive fee could not be reduced. The Ministry wanted to made the appeal by the general public prosecutor dependent upon the answer to this question. As the appropriate, fee for Dr. Klett would have been a thousand Marks according to the disciplinary chamber. I reduced the fee to that amount.
DR. BRIEGER: Thank you, witness. I have concluded my examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other defense counsel desire to examine?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Dr. Kubuschok for the Defendant Schlegelberger.
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q. Witness, before, you discussed the conferences among the presidents of the district courts of appeal in the Ministry of Justice which took place at regular intervals, One thing is certain in the case of these conferences, that Dr. Schlegelberger participated usually. Can you tell the Tribunal what was your impression regarding the attitude of Dr. Schlegelberger at these conferences, what was the tendency which he had, as a rule, in these conferences?
A. I had know Dr. Schlegelberger since approximately 1920.
THE PRESIDENT: Just answer what was our impression as to his attitude in these conferences.
A. I had the following impression about Dr. Schlegelberger at these conferences and at other official meetings, namely, that he felt himself to be a high official of the old type, that his remarks too were in accordance with that; that he was always endeavoring, as far as it was possible to heim in accordance with the entire situation, to take care of the interests of the Administration of Justice and of justice as such. In particular, in personal of official matters discussions less so in the case of these official conferences, it could be easily recognized that there were considerable differences between Freisler and Schlegelberger, not only in their personalities but also in their conception of the things that were necessary.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Thank you.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Dr. Wandschneider for Dr. Rothenberger. May I address a few questions to the witness?
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q Witness, for how long have you known the defendant, Dr. Rothenberger?
A I have known Dr. Rothenberger since approximately 1935 from these conferences of the presidents of the district courts of appeal which have been mentioned frequently.
Q Did you gather any more detailed impression of his personality and on the basis of what events?
A I gained an impression of him in particular at a conference where Dr. Rothenberger gave a lecture concerning the attacks which were constantly made in the "Schwarze Corps", the organ of the SS, at that time, against the Administration of Justice. Dr. Rothenberger, as was generally recognized later on during the discussion period, spoke in an extraordinarily brave and frank manner, and requested Dr. Guertner to go to Hitler himself and stop these attacks in the "Schwarze Corps."
Q What happened after these representations?
A If I recall correctly, some time later a decree was issued to the General Public Prosecutor in Stuttgart and it was issued to the General Public Prosecutor because, among the officials of the Administration of Justice who were attacked, there was also a prosecutor from Stuttgart. This decree, as far as I remember, expressed the following, namely, that Minister Guertner had spoken with Himmler, that Himmler had stated that he disapproved of these attacks. Moreover, I still recall that in this decree, in a somewhat weakened form, Himmler's regret regarding these attacks was expressed.
Q Did you see anything of Dr. Rothenberger's work during the war in the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A Yes.
Q Would you please describe it?
AAt such conferences Dr. Rothenberger frequently opposed the attitude of the Reich Ministry of Justice, especially Dr. Freisler.
Q Was his reaction towards Freisler especially violent and strong?
A Oh, yes. It was easily recognizable that the two were very definite opponents and that these differences were expressed again and again.
Q What was the general opinion after Dr. Rothenberger became Undersecretary? What was his relationship to Thierack and how did it develop later on?
A Regarding Dr. Rothenberger, especially after the tale which I described just now, one had high hopes. One did not expect a great deal of good from Thierack on the other hand, regarding tho Administration of Justice. At first everything seemed to go well, since apparently Thierack seemed to have made the reform ideas of Dr. Rothenberger his own to a large extent, so that one could assume that Dr. Rothenberger would be able to exert a sufficient influence on Thierack.
After Dr. Rothenberger left the office of Undersecretary, Thierack stated at a conference that the reason for Rothenberger leaving his office was that in a book which had been published under his, that is, Rothenberger's name, that apparently had been written by a younger assistant of his, in brief, a plagiarism had occurred.
THE PRESIDENT: We are familiar with that entire story.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q We don't have to hear anything about this whole story, witness. In that connection I merely want to ask the question: Were you and your colleagues and the circles of jurists, when Rothenberger left his office, convinced of the fact that very serious material differences in addition to the personal ones were the reasons for Rothenberger's leaving?
A I was of that opinion and I was not the only one. I believe I remember that on the occasion which I mentioned before, Dr. Thierack also gave a hint to that effect, something like this, that it was an open question as to whether, in the course of time, because of the material differences of opinion, he would not have had to part with Dr. Rothenberger.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other direct examination? The Prosecution may cross-examine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LaFOLLETTE:
Q Dr. Kuestner, did you ever work in the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A (No response.)
Q Did you hear me? Did you ever work in the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A No.
Q Did you know that Dr. Hans Gramm was the personal referent or adjutant of Dr. Schlegelberger?
A Yes.
Q Do you know that after looking at the Fuehrer Information sheet No. 6 which you looked at - PF 632 he said, "After perusing the contents of No. 66 the Fuehrer Information, that is copy 3 of the original, I can say that copy submitted to me is an authentic copy of the original."
Do you still want to express the opinion to this Tribunal that from your observation as a man who had never worked in the Reich Ministry of Justice, that Fuehrer Information Sheet is not a valid Fuehrer Information Sheet?
AAt the outset of my answer to the question that the defense counsel of Cuhorst asked me, I stated that the customs and instructions in the Reich Ministry of Justice in this manner of handling the files are not known to me. I merely expressed my own opinion. Whether it is correct I don't know.
Mr. La-FOLLETTE: The Prosecution offers Document NG-1884 as Prosecution Exhibit 576, which is the affidavit of Dr. Hans Gramm.
DR. BRIEGER: I want to raise an objection to the submission of this exhibit. I must now refer to the rule made by the Tribunal which Mr. LaFolette referred to only the day before yesterday, but at that time, in my case, an event was concerned which occurred before the rule was made; whereas, this affidavit bears the date of the third of July 1937 and at least is affected by the first rule which was laid down in March and in which the Tribunal made it clear that the Tribunal expects that every witness who is present in Nurnberg should appear here before this Tribunal and be examined by counsel.
The Prosecution had cause, all the more to call him and examine him, since the witness Gramm appeared in this courtroom and was examined extensively and, therefore, I do not see why, thereafter, and affidavit by this witness is offered in evidence.
Mr. LaFOLLETTE: My friend makes a very good point. He doesn't know that without driving me, as far as the Gramm affidavit is concerned, I am perfectly willing to waive the rule as to him.
Gramm was here, your Honor, but there was no opportunity to present him as a witness and no opportunity to return him. I would like to have the affidavit offered for whatever it is worth and if I can't get him back, the Court may attach such probative value as it cares to attach. As far as Klett is concerned, in order that we may proceed I had anticipated, when that affidavit came up, that I would not raise any objection.
DR. BRIEGER: Much as I am otherwise inclined to comply with Mr. LaFollette's request, I see this as a case of very essential importance and, much as I regret it, I have to insist upon my objection.
THE PRESIDENT: All you have to do is state an objection and we will assume that you insist upon it.
Will you please tell us, in a few words, exactly what the issue that you have been discussing is with reference to this Fuehrer Information?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't understand this witness to say that the exhibit was not an authentic exhibit.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I understood him to say that it was not an authentic exhibit, that from what he had seen it had never been issued because the third copy that he saw was not in the form which would be customary if an original had been issued.
I will say to Your Honors also that whether I offer it now, which may not be the proper time-- I had contemplated offering this affidavit as a rebuttal affidavit, if I can't get Gramm back here, because, as I recall, the defendant Schlegelberger stated that he did not believe that PS-632 was an office copy of valid Fuehrer Information. This affidavit by the man who dealt with them states that it is a valid copy; I mean, that the copy in the office shows that a valid Fuehrer Information was issued and that it is valid.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number of the exhibit? I have the exhibit number, but what is the document number?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: NG-1884.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification at this time; for identification only.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: May it be delivered to the Secretary General so that it may be in his possession?