THE PRESIDENT: Mr. King, I call your attention to the fact that you say you are offering a portion. You mean you are offering a portion or reading a portion?
MR. KING: I would like to correct that. If I said "offer a portion" it was inadvertent, because I mean "read a portion," offering as in the past, the entire document.
With the exception of the first line of that affidavit I will begin reading with the second paragraph:
"Affidavit. I, Dr. Manfred Roeder, being duly sworn, depose and state:
"On 1 April 1935 I was called to the Military Judiciary, on 1 November 1935 I became Supervisory of the Air Force Regional Command, on 1 April 1937 Supervisory Judge Advocate of Courts Martial of the Air Force Regional Command VII, Brunswick, on 1 December 1938 Supervisory Judge Advocate of Courts Martial of the Air Force Regional Command III, Berlin, on 1 January 1939 Chief Judge advocate of Courts Martial and on 1 October 1939 Supervisory Judge of Anti-aircraft Artillery Corps I, and on 1 November 1940 Supervisory Judge in Air Force Administrative Command Headquarters III, on 1 August 1941 Oberstkriegsgerichtsrat. I remained until 1 January 1944 as Supervisory Judge with Air Force Administrative Command Headquarters III and on 1 January 1944 I became Chief Judge with Air Force IV, on 24 January 1945 I became Generalrichter. I never belonged to the party. On 1 October 1933 I ranked as a member of the S.A. by reason of the transference of the Stahlhelm to that body, and I left the S.A. at my own request on 1 April 1935.
In 1938 I made my first acquaintance with the Gestapo. A certain Counsellor SCHWARZ of the Reich Air Ministry had been arrested by the Gestapo. I heard of it by accident, and thereupon demanded the man's immediate release, as he appeared to me to be innocent. General WEISE and I raised this most important question together.
"Counsellor SCHWARZ was then proved innocent and set free. We received no support from the Ministry of Justice. In many cases, if it had merely tried to exercise the necessary influence the Ministry would have been able to free many people from Gestapo custody.
Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER was a man who wavered first to one side and then to the other. With regard to the administration of justice in the Air Force we declined to collaborate with the Ministry of Justice on fundamental questions, in order to be free from the influence of party politics. I know that the Ministry of Justice was very indignant at the independence of military law administration and that in 1942 the first attempt was made to eliminate military administration of the law from all political trials, i.e. practically to do away with military administration of the law as a department of justice. This attempt was not successful until after 20 July 1944.
"In Poland we only exercised jurisdiction over military personnel. We were not responsible for the inhabitants of the country. If persons of Polish nationality were sentenced in military courts, it was only in cases of punishable acts between Poles and German military personnel, or cases of offenses against the security of the armed forces. The civilian population came under the jurisdiction of special courts of the Ministry of Justice. I first became acquainted with the special courts of the Ministry of Justice in Poland in the fall cf 1939, when I set up Air Force Courts Martial. At this time, it was about the 17th or 18th of September, there was in W (illegible) an Amtsgerichtsrat from Schneidemuehl and an Amtsgerichtsrat from Stettin in Graudenz. I got the impression that criminal, court judges were particularly chosen from those parts of the provinces ordering on Poland for these special courts. I saw myself how these men turned up in Poland at the beginning of the war without food, without shelter and without directions as to where they should report. I do not know whether it was in Bromberg or Graudenz. When I arrived at the hotel, two men were sitting in the lobby. One introduced himself as a Landgerichtsrat from Schneidemuehl. He had come by car and had nothing to eat for days. In the confusion which still existed they did not know how to find their way about, I thereupon sent them to headquarters so that they could establish a contact.
My impression is that it was only in 1940 after the French campaign that the SS with its administration of the low gained predominance. The special courts were supposed to take over the functions of the Polish jurisdiction. For those special courts there was a court order for Poles, which was often not approved by our judges. Out judges in Warsaw and Cracow often told me that the fact that Polish witnesses could not be sworn in caused constant difficulties. We treated the Poles in accordance with the military penal code. People from the special court made representations to the Ministry of Justice that because of this the Poles received preferential treatment from us. Whereupon the Ministry of Justice referred these complaints to the Reich Air ministry. The military courts were relatively more popular with the civilian population than the special courts, because the military courts worked more objectively. The civilian population refused to have anything to do with the special courts. They were much more afraid of the special courts than they were of the military courts. The feeling was frequently voiced in military circles that the civil administration and the special courts handled the political treatment of the occupied territories extremely clumsily. We saw with our own eyes the resistance movement growing, because, as is well known, force is countered with force.
After the French campaign the SS courts and the police Courts came to the fore in Poland. The special courts were replaced by regular courts in the larger cities, so that then in Poland military, SS, and Civil jurisdiction existed side by side.
"In 1944 after 20th July jurisdiction over political offenses was withdrawn from the Wehrmacht administration of justice. The decree stated that in a number of clearly defined political offenses a report had to be made to the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry of Justice then decided which cases had to be tried by the people's Court. The rest of the cases, which were unimportant, were referred back to the military legal administration after having been checked by the Ministry of Justice. In the interests of justice the courts martial sabotaged this decree, because on account of military necessity they had the possibility of dealing with the matter themselves.
The military courts at home could not evade the decree. The decree was a declaration of mistrust against the objectivity of military jurisdiction, it complied with a wish of the Fuehrer, and found resonance in the ministry of Justice which criticized the mild treatment of political matters."
I will not read the last paragraph. It is signed by Dr. Roeder on the 25 January 1947. Nuernberg, Germany.
DR. GRUBE: Counsel for the Defendant Lautz. I have no formal objection against this affidavit. However, I would like to reserve the right to call Roeder as a witness. I ask, therefore, that I be permitted to make a reservation now that the Witness Roeder appear here.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Crube, I understand that you want the right to call Dr. Roeder as a witness.
DR. GRUBE: Yes. I do not want to decide about it now. However, I would like to reserve the right to call him if necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: You would have that right without reserving the right at this time. You may call Dr. Roeder as a witness when you present your defense. The rule we announced this morning would cover that, I think.
DR. GRUBE: Yes, sir. Indeed.
MR. KING: The Prosecution now offers in evidence as Exhibit Number 46, the document marked NG-711.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The Prosecution will now introduce as Exhibit Number 47, the document NG-218 which will be found in the English text on Page 118. This is a memorandum to the heads of departments dated 2 December 1941, signed by the Defendant Schlegelberger.
"In war more than -
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, may we inquire of Defense Counsel if they have Document 218 on Page 132 of the German Document Book?
MR. KING: In view of the temporary absence of that document from the German Document Book, we will withdraw and proceed with another exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: This will carry the Exhibit Number 47?
MR. KING: That is correct, Your Honor.
As Exhibit Number 47, the Prosecution would like to introduce NG-199 which is to be found beginning on Page 123 of Document Book 1, Section B. I might point out to the Court that the document extends to Page 133 of the English text.
This is a decree concerning personnel measures in connection with the reorganization of justice. It is dated October, 1942.
"So that in urgent individual cases the necessary personnel measures may be taken to build up a powerful system of administration of justice, I order on the basis of the Fuehrer decree of 20 August 1942.
It appears to be from Reichsgesetzblatt I.
"To facilitate the re-organization of legal administration, judges and officials of the Reich administration of justice can until 31 March 1943 be transferred to another office of the same pay-group or to a similar lower-salaried position--whereby they retain the same official designation and income as hitherto-- or else temporarily suspended from duty or retired from service without the proving of incompetence."
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Defense counsel Wandschneider. In the name of my client I should like to object to the submission of this document for the reason that this can only be a draft, because according to the opinion and recollection of my client the text of such a decree was never signed and therefore it could not be a decree published formally among the publications of German jurisdiction. In this connection I ask to find out what the signature under this decree was and if possible to produce the Reichsgesetzblatt (Reich Legal Gazette).
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honors, has the court ruled on the objection?
THE PRESIDENT: We are waiting for your comments.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: We can produce the Reichsgesetzblatt, if necessary. This very large Reichsgesetzblatt is very voluminous. The document itself, I believe, shows on its face that it was a decree with the date of publication on the face of the document. If it should develop that it has not been published, I think that is a matter of defense, but at present it indicates that it was a published decree.
JUDGE BRAND: Is there a certification that it is a copy of the Reichsgesetzblatt?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: It does not, Your Honor. At this time I prefer to withdraw the submission of this exhibit until I check up on the character of the representation made in it.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Wandschneider wishes to know if you are able to tell him whose signature it was. If you are able to tell him, do so. If not, please report the fact.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: What signature does Dr. Wandschneider refer to?
THE PRESIDENT: The Reich Ministry of Justice. It's signed "The Reich Ministry of Justice" but no definite name is given.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: We will withdraw the introduction of this document at the present time.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Does the court desire to recess at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: We will take a 15 minute recess at this tine.
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is again in session . MR. WOOLLEYHAN: If the Court please, at this time the Prosecution would like to present Document NG 802, which appears in Document Book I-A. Let me correct that statement please:
It does not appear in the index of Document Book I-A for the reason that it was not prepared in the proper farm in time to be so included. However, after the book was bound, this document was prepared and distributed to the Defense Information yesterday afternoon. I wish at this time to inquire whether the defense counsel have German copies of Document NG-802. It is a biographical affidavit of the defendant Rothenberger; it was sent to the Defense Information Center last night. You do not have a copy? (Apparently net) It was the Prosecution's intention to offer that document in evidence at this time, but if the defense does not yet have it, we will postpone it until Monday. We have an alternative suggestion: There appears a *** photostat of the criminal affidavit; if the defense counsel for Rothenberger would care to glance ever it,and if he has no objection, we could introduce it later this afternoon; otherwise, in the normal course of **** business, we will wait until Monday.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I might just add that this is a document which is purely a biographical affidavit of the defendant Rothenberger and only affects him as far as I can see.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask if the instrument is contained in any document book that the Tribunal has?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: It is not, but we have English translations available for the Tribunal, if defense counsel would fool that he can safely permit us to proceed; if not, we will wait. No objection apparently; will you distribute those to the Court. We are now distributing what we hope is a sufficient number of English translations of the document in ques tion.
MR. WOOLLEYHAN: The Prosecution wishes to offer us Exhibit No. 48 --- correction, Exhibit No. 47 Document NG802, a biographical affidavit -
MR. LA FOLLETIE: I am sorry, Your Honors, but I think -
MR. WOOLLEYHAN:
If the Court please, due to an omission of the German Translation of this document, we will withdraw it, correct it, and introduce it at a later date.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, it appears that we are having a hard time with document No. 47.
MR. WOOLLEYHAN: Yes, sir; this is the third try. What we hope will be Prosecution's Exhibit 47, we wish to offer at this time, document NG 605 which is found on page 20 of the document book l-A, English book 1-A.
THE PRESIDENT: What page is that?
MR. WOOLLEYHAN: Page 20 of the English document book 1-A; that is the other book, the one we had been using. Do the interpreters have that?
INTERPRETER ROSENTHAL: No, we do not have it. The copies are not identical.
MR. WOOLLEYHAN: I shall read the first few lines and check. "Reports and Information Introduction into office of Attorney General Dr. Joel at Hamm."
INTERPRETER R0SENTHAL: No, we do not have it.
HR. WOOLLEYHAN: I will withdraw the document -
INTERPRETER ROSENTHAL: (Interposing) Yes, we have it.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It is in the German document book? You have it?
INTERPRETER ROSENTHAL: Yes.
MR. WOOLLEYHAN: It is as follows:
"Reports and Information Introduction into Office of Attorney General Dr. Joel at Hamm.
"On 17 August 1943 the formal introduction into Office of the now Attorney General, Dr. Joel by State Secretary Dr. Rothenberger took place in the general meeting-room of the Superior Provincial Court at Hamm.
Together with numerous representatives of the Party, of the State and of the Wehrnacht, Deputy-Gauleiter Vetter Took part in the celebration, representing there the Three Gauleiters of WestphaliaNorth, Westphalia-South and Essen. In his introductory speech State Secretary Dr. Rothenberger explained that it seems as though the war, which the German people are waging for their existence and for the maintenance of European culture, had entered a decisive phase at the end of its fourth year.
At such an important stage of the war, the moral and psychic attitude of each German would matter a great deal, Germans to whom greatest demands wore being put today and that the spiritual power of resistance of the people were of decisive importance for the final struggle. To secure and strengthen this steadfast spiritual attitude were the most eminent tasks of our administration of justice, for our people would endure the biggest sacrifices and privations if it were to know that justice and equal treatment were being guaranteed..."
If the Court pleases, and if it is acceptable to the Tribunal, the Defense Counsel and the Prosecution have just orally stipulated that the document now being read will be offered into evidence at the conclusion of the Prosecution's reading subject to the Prosecution furnishing the Defense Counsel at the earliest possible moment, which will probably be the next day the Court is in session, the statement as to the source of this report we are now reading. The original exhibit does not show, on the face, from what publication this document was taken. The Prosecution has undertaken to furnish that to the Defense Counsel and at the earliest possible moment.
Is that agreeable to the Tribunal?
THE PRESIDENT: That will be agreeable to the Tribunal.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: And, the acceptance will be conditional?
THE PRESIDENT: I think you might as well follow the same practice as you did a while ago, and retain the exhibit at your desk.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: And not offer it at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: You can offer it, but I think if you keep that exhibit instead of sending it up here it will be better.
You did that in the other instance, did you not?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Very well, your Honor, we will try again with Exhibit No. 47.
THE PRESIDENT: If I remember correctly, the other Exhibit you retained was later withdrawn?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, sir; it was.
THE PRESIDENT: We will receive it conditionally, but I suggest that this matter should not be allowed to run along indefinitely. I think you should report back to us Monday about the situation of these Exhibits.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, sir; we will withdraw the document and resubmit it on Monday.
JUDGE BRAND: The Prosecution was going to read it and offer it, and that it be received conditionally.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In line with the Tribunal's suggestion, the Prosecution will withdraw the offer and resubmit it the next day of business. The next document which the Prosecution wishes to offer as Exhibit No. 47 is found on page up of the English document book 1-A, document No. NG 290. The letterhead is:
"National-Socialistic German Workers' Party, The Fuehrer, Fuehrer Headquarters, 20 August 1942.
"Reich Minister Dr. FRANK asked me to be released of his duties in the Party, to be able to devote himself most intensively to his tasks as a governor general. I granted this request.
"I appoint the party member Dr. Georg THIERACK as Chief of the National Socialist Lawyers' League.
"Signed Adolf HITLER."
The second page of the original document reads:
"I appoint NS Party officer Dr. Curt Rothenberger up to new Gau-chief of the NS Lawyers' League in the Gau of Hambourg as my deputy in the administration of the NS Lawyers' League.
"Berlin, 24 September 1942.
"The Chief of the NS Lawyers' League.
"THIERACK, Commanding Chief."
Page 3 of the original document reads:
"Order "I hereby appoint NS Party officer, Party member KLEMM in the Party chancellery as liaison officer between the Chief of the NS Lawyers' League and the Munich offices of the Central NSDAP Headquarters.
"Signed THIERACK, "Commanding Chief."
The Prosecution offers Exhibit No. 47, Document No. NG 290 in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: It will then be received in evidence.
MR. KING: May it please the Court, the prosecution would offer at this time Exhibit No. 48, Document No. NG-220, which will be found in Document Bock 1, Section B, at page 120. The Court will note that the document consists of three pages - two letters and the certificate of translation. At this time we desire to read only from the letter which is to be found on page 121 of the English translation. From the Office of the Reich Minister of Justice:
"To the Presidents of the Appellate Court. Berlin, 8 May 1937. Subject: Specification of higher officials for draft into the Reich Ministry of Justice.
"In order to enable us to draft in case of an emergency capable aids of the higher services into the Reich Ministry of Justice, I request to have the names of 2 to 4 young lawyers of local courts or courts of appeals from the larger districts, and 1 to 2 such officials from the smaller districts submitted. Initial nominations to reach me on 15 June 1937, and every two years thereafter, always on 1 April. The specified officials should be especially suited for work at the Reich Ministry of Justice.
"Because of the great demands that are made on all those in the service of the Ministry, I want to suggest only such officials who have proved themselves superior, and whose attitude guarantees that they will defend the National Socialist state at anytime without hesitation, and represent it effectively. They must have the character qualities which are requisite in the administration of justice."
MR. KING: That's all we wish to read from this document. That letter is signed by Dr. Nadler.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The prosecution would now like to introduce as Exhibit No. 49, Document No. NG-560, which is to be found on page 134 of Document Book 1, Section B. This is addressed to a Captain Ryan. The first paragraph is as follows:
"I enclose the "List of Officials Dismissed for political reasons from the Reich Ministry of Justice and the former Prussian Ministry of Justice" which you requested of me the day before yesterday.
In respect to the regular ministerial officials of the higher and elevated civil service it ought to be complete. In the other branches of the service we cannot remember all the persons dismissed. We have given all the minor officials that we can remember but it is easily possible that omissions exist because of the length of time which has passed."
MR. KING: It is signed "Schneller, Ministerial Director, 20 July 1945". There follows on the same page of the English text a list of officials with a few introductory paragraphs. Those introductory paragraphs we wish to read. The first paragraph:
"The following methods were available for the removal of regular ministerial officials.
"1. According to the civil service law of the Reich and of Prussia which essentially corresponds with the law of the German Civil Service Act:
1. Transfer to an office with at least equal final base pay. Financial loss: Normally at the greatest, loss of the Ministerial bonus (in the higher civil service 1200 RM. annually).
2. Transfer to inactive status for Staatssekretaeren and Ministerialdirektoren.
a. Financial loss the difference between active salary and inactive status pay which for senior officials of these high paid groups normally corresponded to the pension.
b. Upon putting an official from inactive status back into a position with less pay than his normal course, he received his former service salary again (therefore, not merely the salary of the new office) so that the financial loss was normally limited to the loss of the Ministerial bonus.
3. As purely practical, not legal removal from office: derogation to another authority. The official then remained possessor of his ministerial office and received its salary, paid by the new service office. Financial loss was therefore at the highest the loss of the Ministry or equally placed to a Ministry for the purpose of the Ministerial bonus.
II. According to the "Professional Officials Law" which was promulgated by the National Socialists 1. Dismissal without pension according to section 2, BBG, which was only permissible on account of Communist activity and did not happen in the Ministry of Justice.
2. Dismissal according to section 4, BBG, with 3/4 of the pension accrued up to that time.
3. Transfer to an office - also with less final base salary - according to section 5, BBG with debiting of the salary of the former office. Financial loss was therefore at the highest the loss of the Ministerial bonus.
4. Transfer into retirement in the interests of the service (without proposal of the official and without incapacity to serve) according to section 6, BBG. Financial loss was the difference between salary and pension so far as according the general Civil Service Law. A pension was already earned which always came true with the Ministerial officials.
The removal of assistants from office normally followed by cancellation of the employment contract and return to the authority with which they were permanently placed."
MR. KING: There follows a list of several pages of officials dismissed with their positions held and a summary of their qualifications. We do not believe that it is expedient at this time to read that list so we offer as Exhibit No. 49, the Document NG-560
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I raise an objection against the use of this document. The document in its first part includes a letter; evidently it went to commanding officer of a camp. The German prisoner has furnished a list. This list and the statement in the covering letter are not covered by an affidavit. We not even know whether this list was put together by the person who sent it or where it originated. This list consequently does not have any probative value. The objection is raised especially because it cannot be seen where this prisoner provided he prepared the list himself, where he had this very detailed knowledge being in the camp. I therefore believe that this document cannot be used until the person who made this list has been identified or after it has been established that this list was covered by a declaration under oath.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask counsel a question?
MR. KING: Certainly.
JUDGE BRAND: I understood counsel for the defense to suggest that it appears, from the face of this exhibit, that it is a statement made by a prisoner. Does that appear from the exhibit?
MR. KING: One moment, please.
Your Honor, it does appear on the face of the document, both from the date--20 July 1945-- and the fact that it is at Camp Teichhof, where ever that may be, that this individual probably was a prisoner of war at the time the statement was made. It seems to the prosecution, however, that as the Ministerial Director, the individual who has signed this letter, Schneller, certainly was in a position to know something about the number of judges who were dismissed. The document itself, on its face, qualifies that. He says, in the last part of the first paragraph, that there arc probably some omissions and he can't remember all of them, but with that exception we believe the document does have probative value and should be admitted for what it is worth in that respect.
JUDGE BRAND: Who do you claim is responsible for the portion that you read, the foreword?
MR. KING: That appears to be the Ministerial Director Schneller, who has signed the paragraph preceding the foreword.
JUDGE BRAND: Is there any probative value at all in this case for that portion of the exhibit which is merely a list of names of persons, none of whom are defendants in this case? In other words, I wanted to know if your only claim is not limited to the foreword portion which you read.
MR. KING: Your Honor, you have the book before you. If you will turn to page 136 in the English text, you will note that the Ministerial Director Schneller has given certain reasons why, in his opinion, the individuals were transferred. It is those reasons, under the column "Remarks" on the extreme right, which we think have a certain probative value, that it ought to be placed before the Court for its consideration.
JUDGE BRAND: But the names of the individuals dismissed are comparatively immaterial, are they not?
MR. KING: That is correct, Your Honor.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: With only this exception, Your Honor. If we had not furnished names of people dismissed, then you might well say that we were pulling names out of the air. These are definitely people who can be identified and ascertained, and are possibly known.
We feel that this document has probative value and that the weight which the Tribunal will care to attach to it, and the defendants against whom it may eventually be considered to have probative value, is some thing the Tribunal can later determine. But we think it has sufficient probative value to go in at this time.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The covering letter to Captain Ryan shows in no manner that the signer, Ministerial Director Schneller, prepared this list himself, nor does it show whether the first pert of the legal statement originates from himself. A document cannot have probative value when we have no knowledge about the origin of the document. It should be easily possible for the prosecution, through a question, to determine and to bring forth a statement whether, in effect, Ministerial Director Schneller prepared this list himself and whether he endorses it.
The question is important because the defendants, as regards a list comprising a number of persons, do not have any possibility at this time, on their part, to make certain findings. Consequently, they must now rely on the rights coming to them under the procedure to raise an objection against this list.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem that the important question is whether this document is properly authenticated. It is signed, apparently, by Schneller, but it is doubted that Schneller in fact signed it.
MR. KING: If Your Honors will note, on page 140 of the English test there is subscribed, after the last entry of assistants dismissed, again the signature of Schneller. The date corresponds to the date of the covering letter, which appears on page 134. But perhaps of more significance is the additional note in the lower left-hand corner, which states that it was reproduced by the Legal Division of US Group CC, 1 August 1945, which is, as Mr. La Follette points out, covered by the Coogan affidavit introduced in evidence yesterday.
JUDGE BRAND: What would counsel have to say with reference to the suggestion that in the letter which appears to be signed by Schneller, on page 134, Schneller apparently vouches for the information contained in the list?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I would say that that is subject to two interpretations, one of them certainly consistent with the fact that Schneller signed it. It may be that the man is simply saying "I vouch for this list" as an extra statement of the veracity of the list. It does not necessarily infer that he is vouching for some list that some one else handed to him. It is very consistent with a manner of speaking in which a person, having already signed something, goes on and makes a list and says, "I vouch for the facts which are in this list."
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem that the answer to that is that Schneller's name appears at the end of the list.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Which he preceded by saying "I vouch for the list, and now I have signed it."
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that it has some probative value. If there are further doubts to be thrown about the authenticity of the document, defense counsel will probably be able to develop that.
DR. GRUBE (Counsel for the defendant Lautz): The ruling of the Tribunal in this case is of principal importance for us. The Tribunal permits, in this case, that a simple letter is admitted as probative evidence. We receive daily, from witnesses testifying for us, letters which likewise contain a great deal of material in favor of the defendants. Up until this time we were not permitted to make use of such material except in the form of an affidavit; the form of an affidavit was very strictly handled.