MR. LA FOLLETTE: I am advised by Mr. Einstein that he went to the Defense Center to talk to one of these witnesses and was told there that he could not talk to the witness. And they are our witnesses. That is my information.
THE PRESIDENT: If it's necessary to make any order to that effect, the order will be made. You do have the right, without an order, to talk to these witnesses. They are your witnesses. There is no question about that.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I appreciate Your Honor's stating that the order will be made. We may have the right, but in the absence of a statement from this Tribunal, it's a right that we can't exercise without unpleasantness; so if the Tribunal directs the Defense Center of our rights, it will be official.
DR. BRIEGER: May it please the Tribunal, may I ask the Court if I amy first of all be permitted to state my own opinion in regard to the application of Mr. La Follette before the Court makes its ruling. In view of my entire attitude toward Dr. Wizigmann, I had to take considerations of a professional nature. Dr. Wizigmann himself is a very busy defense counsel in criminal cases, and, as far as I remember, he has already tomorrow to be in a very extensive trial, either in Ulm or in the surrounding vicinity of Ulm; the day after tomorrow he has another trial. On the other hand, Dr. Wizigmann arrived here one day too early, for the defense counsel center had summoned him already for Monday, without knowing at the time that the Court would be kind enough not to hold a session on Monday. Dr. Wizigmann, therefore, is under very big pressure of time, so much so that hours are important to him. Therefore, I told him yesterday that if I could do him a favor in any say, I would like to spare him having to appear here today. Then, last night we worked until the late hours of the evening, we discussed his statement which he finally made, because it was his urgent wish to leave again early today. If it is at all possible, he must make the twelve o'clock train now, and it will mean great difficulties for him if he cannot leave at noon, especially since the train connections are very bad and the next train leaves only tonight. Apparently he still also has to make preparations for his extensive trial tomorrow.
Now, in order to clarify matters completely for the Court, I, on my part, state that I received an affidavit from Dr. Wizigmann, which at a given time I shall submit as a so-called cross examination to the Curt. I started from tho idea that in my entire behavior I kept absolutely within the rules as far as they were known so far to us Defense Counsel; especially since I discussed these matters with one or another of my colleagues, I may say that this is the general conception among the Defense Counsel of Tribunal No. III. If now the Tribunal should make a ruling, I would have to ask, and I would attach a great deal of importance to it, that such a ruling should refer merely to the future, but not the past. If, Mr. LaFollette states now, that the witness Dr. Wizigmann is still needed in order to identify the indictment, I have to say in respect to that -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Brieger, time is running on. This witness may stand aside and let that witness testify and make his train unless the examination would be unusually lengthy. Now, certainly the Prosecution has a right to produce that witness to qualify that particular Exhibit 1253.
DR. BRIEGER: In regard to this exhibit, Your Honors, I have in the meantime again looked at the affidavit, and since Dr. Wizigmann told me yesterday that he himself had given it to the Prosecution, in this regard, the circumstances have changed considerably; I no longer have any misgivings, and I do not want to object to having the indictment submitted to the Tribunal in its entirety.
THE PRESIDENT: You withdraw all objections for that indictment?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, everything, especially in view of the fact that I would like to have Dr. Wizigmann leave by train today, this noon. Now, another point I want to object basically and with decisiveness, that for the manner of carrying on this trial any financial considerations should be of importance; if they should play any role, even to a very small extent, I am immediately ready, even today, to hand to the Prosecution a check in which I shall pay them for all their expenses to the last sandwich that Dr. Wizigmann may eat at the voluntary guest house, because I do not wish that these matters should again and again play a role here.
JUDGE BRAND: I think Dr. Brieger is probably familiar with the works of Shakespeare in which he says, "He thinks he protesteth too much". The only argument which has been made seems to me to apply to a matter of the convenience of the witness.
DR. BRIEGER: That is right.
JUDGE BRAND: From that standpoint, it also seems to me that the convenience and the regularity of the trial here must be of the first consideration and importance.
DR. BRIDGER.: Yes.
JUDGE BRAND: I am sure that Counsel doesn't want to indicate by his almost tearful protestations that he is afraid to have this witness cross-examined?
DR. BRIEGER: No. That is really not the cause of my protest, Your Honor, but I have promised the witness already yesterday that I would try to persuade the Court that he shall be dismissed by noon. May it please the Court, if I could tell the witness immediately -- nowthat he can leave, I am convinced that he can still make his train.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, first I assume -
THE PRESIDENT: We have now consumed ten minutes of very valuable time, and I supp so that the train will pull out just the same as if we hadn't used up that time, but this witness is subject to crossexamination, surely. How long would it probably take for such crossexamination as you might desire?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Your Honor, it is of course impossible for me to answer that, because I do not know to what extent the witness has changed his story in his counter-affidavit; I, of course, have net seen it.
THE PRESIDENT: The affidavit has not been submitted to the Prosecution?
Mid. LaFOLLETTE: No, I have only been advised that he has made a counter-affidavit. I would offer an alternative, that if Dr. Brieger wants to call this witness as part of his defense later, and he may be cross examined then -- again I have no objection. I do object, fundamentally to bringing a witness here -- and I am not concerned about the expenses, and Dr. Brieger knows that -- and then using a counteraffidavit. It seems to me it is completely contrary to all understandings that we had, and I do not believe there is just grounds for the use of the counter-affidavit under those circumstances.
THE PRESIDENT: I suggest that this witness stand aside and we call this other witness to the stand. If we get through with him in time for him to make his train, that will be fine; if not, he will have to suffer that inconvenience. Do you desire to call him now?
If you do, we will order this witness to stand aside.
DR. BRIEGER: I don't want him now.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: But if he doesn't want him now, I shall object to the use of the counter-affidavit. I serve notice now.
The witness may be called during the defense and still be considered a Prosecution witness, if he wants to do that, I do not have any objection to that, but I shall object to the use of a counter-affidavit under these circumstances.
DR. BRIEGER: I believe that Mr. LaFollette is overlooking an essential point, a principle of procedure. It would be possible that at a later time I shall call the witness as my witness, but I ask Mr. La Follette to consider that at the same moment every word which he has stated in the Prosecution affidavit I thereby accept as true.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I didn't say that; I only said that during the presentation of Cuhorst's defense this witness could be called for crossexamination, and I would be willing to treat him as such, but I do object on the grounds that I have stated to the use of a counter-affidavit under any circumstances.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me we are taking time for argument which isn't promoting the matter at all, but this Tribunal desires to give everybody a fair trial, but it also desires to have an orderly trial. Now, this witness has given a counter-affidavit; the Prosecution is certainly entitled to cross-examine him upon that. You will remember -- I think you all remember -- how particular we were a few days ago to have these witnesses examined now before the Prosecution rests. They yielded to that, and the defense must also yield to e cross-examination of this witness. Now, if you can dispose of him within the next twenty minutes so that he can make his train, that will be fine; if not, he will have to remain hero until he has been cross-examined. If you are willing to waive the right of cross-examination and forego the affidavit that has been prepared, but not submitted, and concerning which the Tribunal knows nothing, and tho Prosecution knows nothing, and the Defense wants to waive cross-examination of this witness, and waive the right to introduce their counter-affidavit, then that will end the entire matter.
DR. BRIEGER: The counter-affidavit which I received from the witness of the Prosecution, I want to keep that; I see no reason to waive the right to introduce it.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: When over it is offered, I shall object, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: If you want to call this witness, we will let this witness stand aside. If you don't want to, then he will have to be hero this afternoon. He is hero, and he will have to remain.
DR. BRIEGER: I am ready, Your Honor, to call the witness, but I cannot guarantee that he is still outside. I can only hope that the Prosecution has asked him not to leave.
THE PRESIDENT: We have lost fifteen minutes unnecessarily here, and if he is gone, he will have to come back.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honors please, while we are waiting, technically may I now offer the balance of Exhibit 465.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, this affidavit will be received , include ing the indictment because no objection is now made to it.
What is the Exhibit number, so that the record may show.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: 465, Your Honor.
Lugen Wizigmann, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE BLAIR:
Hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath.
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE BLAIR: You may be seated.
EXAMINATION BY DR. BRIEGER:May it please the Court, may I begin my cross examination.
Q Witness, may I ask you to state your name?
A Eugen Wizigmann.
Q Witness, I am referring to the affidavit which you swore to on the 11th of April 1947, and which is known as document NG 1253, and wag introduced by the Prosecution here in Court. Witness, which one of the three defendants Skovron, Pdulic or Potschivalschek, did you defend?
A Potschivalschek.
Q Were you, as a defense counsel appointed by the court, or were you privately appointed by the defendant?
A I was privately appointed defense counsel.
Q Witness, in your affidavit, you pointed out that your client at the suggestion of the presiding judge, in other words, Cuhorst, was shackled, and furthermore, you pointed out that he was shackled because he tried to attack Skovron; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Were your assumptions regarding the sentence for your client influenced in any way by this?
A That did exercise a certain influence because I thought if my defendant is treated in such a way, that does not leave a favorable supposition for the result of the treatment.
Q In other words, do you mean to say that you could not count without any doubt upon an acquittal?
A I never did that in the Special Court cases.
Q May I moreover know what plea the Prosecution made in regard to your client, Potschivalschek?
A I do not know, one year or two years in the penitentiary.
Q May I know what the sentence which Cuhorst pronounced in regard to your client, was?
AAcquittal.
Q Taking advantage of the interest of you defendant, did you feel yourself limited by Cuhorst?
A No.
Q May I know in what way you acted in favor of your client?
A I pointed out that my defendant could only be charged by the statement of his co-defendant, and for that reason a conviction could hardly take place, since he, through his boss, where he worked, had received an absolutely favorable testimony, I stated that on the one hand one could not apply for the death sentence against a codefendant, and on the other hand consider him a creditable witness against co-defendant.
Q In other words, according to your own feeling too, Skovron was heavily charged, and, therefore, he was in no sense of the word creditable?
A I do not want to say, yes, without any qualifications in answer to this question. Of course, he was involved in the meaning of the indictment; and, as a defense counsel in this case, I had, in favor of my client, to state that he was not creditable.
Q This is a conception which the court followed?
A Yes.
Q And, they stated it in their opinion, too?
A Yes.
Q Witness, how many defendants were involved?
A Three.
Q That is Skovron, Potschivalschek, and Pdulic?
A Yes.
Q Of what nationality were the three?
A Skovron was a Pole, Potschivalschek was a Slovene, and Pdulic was a Serbian.
Q In other words, all three were foreigners?
A Yes.
Q During the trial did any question come up as to whether they were foreigners who had come to Germany voluntarily or by force?
A I do not remember that; I do not believe that came up.
Q Witness, I am speaking about Pdulic; what plea did the prosecution make in that case?
AAs far as I know the death sentence.
Q And, what was the sentence?
A Four years in the penitentiary, if I remember correctly.
Q Witness, since yesterday, you again had the opportunity to read the indictiment together with me, do you remember that Skovron, to a large extent committed a crime, by taking advantage of the blackout?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I ask the answer to this question be stricken for the reason the indictment speaks for itself.
THE PRESIDENT: He is cross examining the witness; it is cross examination.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: He said he examined the indictment, and he asked him what the indictment stated, your Honor, and I object to it.
Q After it appears from the indictment that the crime to a large extent was committed by taking advantage of the blackout -
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Same objection, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: In any event, that is an affirmative statement; it is not a question.
Q Then I would like to ask you this: Witness on the basis of the fact, which the defendant is charged in the indictment, and furthermore on the basis of the result of the oral examination, did you consider the death penalty possible against Skovron; that is, was it legally admissible?
A I cannot deny that. Of course, on the basis of the legal regulations, the laws.
Q To what legal regulation could they refer, in addition to the Criminal Code.
A To the decree of public enemies.
Q Under which point of view was it witness?
A That the crimes and derelict were committed under the protection of the blackout.
Q Witness, you were the decrees against public enemies, which had to he applied also in connection with concrete penal regulations, that is here with the Criminal Code was it here in regard to this regulation important whether somebody had been previously sentence already.
A I do not think so.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I object, your Honor, the indictment speaks for itself again.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not see that the answer hurts.
DR. BRIEGER: Shall I repeat my question?
THE PRESIDENT: No, the question has been answered.
Q Will you repeat your answer, witness?
A I said, "I do not think so."
Q Witness, did the court have the possibility, in regard to the acts which Skovron committed at the age of less than 18 years, that is, as a juvenile, to consider them in pronouncing a sentence?
A I suppose so, but here I am not quite sure of my statement.
Q Witness, how long did the trial last?
AAbout two hours.
Q How long did the consideration of the court last after that?
A I believe a half hour.
Q How long did the pronouncing of the sentence last, and the opinion?
A I cannot remember that but, in any case, not very long.
Q It was not so that you could say so. As I said, I do not remember that.
DR. BRIEGER: Thank you very much witness, that is all.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I have no questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schubert, did you want to interrogate this witness?
DR. SCHUBERT: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Bring back the other witness, please.
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Court: Just now, from the statements of Mr Lafollette, which took place before the examination of this witness, I heard to my regret, that the prosecution had difficulty in speaking with the witnesses who were brought here for purposes of cross examination. Personally, I did not know about these difficulties and I believe that no one of my colleagues knows anything about that either. I suppose that these difficulties were brought about by an error. Yesterday, I happened to see the summons which a witness had received, which consisted of a telegram. On this summons it said, "You are summoned as a witness for the defense.". Obviously the gentleman of the Defense Center have formed an erroneous opinion that these witnesses are not witnesses of the prosecution, but witnesses of the defense. I do not know whether that is the reason, but it is possible. In any case I want to state that the defense counsel themselves have not taken any steps to that effect and I am very sorry that the prosecution had any difficulties of any kind which, naturally, should have been avoided on our part.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I have no feeling that defense counsel were responsible; there was a mis-understanding in Defense Center, and I ask the Court to advise the Defense Center that they are under misapprehension. Of course, I have no feeling that defense counsel are responsible.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed with the examination of this witness.
BY DR. KOESSL (for the defendant Rothaug) Q.- Witness, were the factual determinations in the Katzenberger case carried out with the necessary conscientiousness?
A.- That the determination of the facts - that is, the working out of the individual circumstances - were carried out conscientiously I cannot deny.
Q.- Do you know with certainty that in the Katzenberger case Rothaug gave you directives for the plea?
A.- Rothaug frequently, even in non-political cases, gave me hints for my plea. That, that happened also in the Katzenberger case I can not remember any more today with absolute certainty. But I do know with certainty that before I made my plea I was in his counsel chamber. On the occasion of my examination the witness Ferber was confronted to me, he stated that Rothaug had given me instructions of that kind also in this case.
Q.- In your affidavit you are speaking of the most atrocious outbreak of hate against Jewry. What discussions were you thinking of in making this statement?
A.- I can no longer remember details. We are here just concerned with statements which Rothaug made in the framework of the opinion -- above all, in connection with the explanation of the reasons for the supposition that this was a case of special severity under the Decree Against Public Enemies.
Q.- Now, we shall go over to the case of Durka and Strus. The Durka and Strus case was, according to your statement, carried out with the expeditiousness usual in civilian courts martial. -- Was the quick sentence in accordance with the general directives, or was that only done at the urging of Rothaug?
A.- There was a general directive issued by the Ministry of Justice which was originated by Freisler or Thierack, and which required that the Special Courts should deal suitable cases with the quickness of a civilian courts martial. That in the case under consideration Rothaug was the driving force I do not believe. However, he did whatever was in his power in order to bring about the expeditious carrying out of the trial to a sure end as far as he had anything to say about it.
Q.- Through the expeditious manner of the handling of the trial were exact determinations limited?
A.- No, the facts in this case, too, were found out with thoroughness. I still remember the case very well. It concerned two Polish women who were accused of arson in an armament industry. One of the Polish women confessed and I remember with certainty that she also confessed before the Court. The other witness denied before the court that she committed arson.
Q.- You just said the other woman witness. Did you mean the other defendant?
A.- I have to correct myself... The other defendant denied before the court that she committed the crime. The problem of this trial was, should the confession of the one defendant be given such credibility that by means of it the co-defendant who denied the crime would be charged also by means of this confession. To that effect, during the examination of this defendant all psychological possibilities were exhausted in order to clarify whether motives of hatred and of enmity against the co-defendant were the cause for the testimony which was against her. After the submission of the evidence had been completed I arrived at the conviction that the confession of this defendant had to be considered credible also to the extent of - by means of it - convicting the co-defendant who denied the crime.
During a recess - possibly during the consideration of the sentence -- I spoke to the General Public Prosecutor Dr. Bens who was present in the court room, I believe, with Oberlandesgerichts President Doebig and Bens, who adressed me, suggested that we should again examine the truthfulness of the confession of the one defendant by having another witness called I believe the investigating police official Q.- Did this happen?
A.- Yes, even though I personally had already made my opinion unequivocally I followed the instructions that I was given - as was my duty to do - and I informed Rothaug that the examination of this witness was still desired. Rothaug agreed. The witness was called. He confirmed... I wand to correct myself... he gave his testimony - and the result was that the very last doubt in the correctness of the confession of the one woman defendant was now also eliminated.
Q.- One further question. Do you remember that the court had a document before them, in which both the defendants confessed the crime and gave patriotic motives for their crime?
A I do remember something about this; I believe that is correct.
Q As to the crime directed against the factory, was that classified as a damaging of defensive materials?
A The damage which was actually done was not very large, but the danger which was brought about for the factory through this deed was very large. According to my firm conviction, which I had then and still have today, it was an unequivocal act of sabotage which, especially during time of war, would probably be punished by death in most countries.
Q Now, I want to come to the Wendel sentence. Do you know whether Rothaug, in the Wendel case, was outvoted by his associate judges in the first sentencing?
A I did not participate in the discussions leading to that sentence and therefore I cannot answer the question directly. However, I believe I remember that in the discussions before the plea he expressed the thought that the matter was atoned for sufficiently by a penitentiary sentence of some length, but I cannot say that with one hundred percent certainty.
Q In the Kleinlein-Schaller case, you speak about a letter by Rothaug to the Prosecution. Was this letter an intervention in the competence of the Prosecution, which was not admissable under the code of legal procedure?
A That is also a legal question of procedure of a trial; it is difficult to decide. I do not consider it inadmissable, but it was absolutely unusual.
Q As the Prosecutor, how did you evaluate this letter?
A I could regard it as a request for submission of a supplementary indictment, or as a hint to the effect that during the trial a change of the legal point of view would take place.
Q Can you still remember that the General Public Prosecutor, one entire week before this letter which Rothaug wrote, had issued instructions according to which the death penalty against Schaller had been applied for?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, I object to the way this question is phrased in that he has gone far beyond describing what the question or the letter might have been and is stating the answer. That question can be asked the witness in a much less leading manner.
THE PRESIDENT: It is cross-examination. Objection overruled.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q I will repeat my question. Can you still remember that the General Public Prosecutor, an entire week before the letter which Rothaug wrote, directed instructions to the Senior Public Prosecutor to ask for the death penalty against Schaller; and, in regard to Kleinlein, to make the plea for a death penalty dependent upon the result of the trial?
A The matter does not sound strange or foreign to me, but I do not have a certain memory of it.
Q Can you identify a document of the General Public Prosecutor as such? I mean, would you know a document of the General Public Prosecutor here?
A Yes.
Q I am asking you whether the document I just handed you represents a letter from the General Public Prosecutor in Nurnberg, and I request you to state on which day it was written, who signed it, and who certified it.
A This is without any doubt a copy of a regulation of the General Public Prosecutor to the Senior Public Prosecutor. It is not originally signed, but the signature of the General Public Prosecutor, Dr. Bens, is certified. As a rule the instructions of the General Public Prosecutor were given to us in this form.
Q Please state what the date of this instruction is.
A The document has the date 13 January 1943.
Q Who composed it? The letterhead states it is from whom?
AAs I have already said, it came from the General Public Prosecutor.
Q To whom is it directed?
A To the Senior Public Prosecutor, the Oberstaatsanwalt.
Q Who signed it and who certified it?
AAccording to the certification, it seems to be the signature of General Public Prosecutor Bens. It is certified by Kolb, who was an employee of the Justice Department, who put the stamp on it.
Q Please read these two sentences here (indicating).
A I am reading as you desire: "The decision as to whether it is absolutely necessary to apply for the most serious or the heaviest penalty against the twenty-year old defendant will have to be left to the main trial."
Q And the next sentence?
A "On the other hand, in my opinion it has to be seriously considered whether the death penalty should not be asked for against the co-defendant Schaller."
Q Thank you. I am now coming to the Ketterer case. From what points of view could Ketterer, because of his deed, be sentenced to death at that time?
A Since I do not have the file before me I cannot answer this question clearly. Probably he could be punished by death as a dangerous habitual criminal as well as a public enemy.
Q In your affidavit you write that the directives of the Reich Ministry of Justice had not been reported to you. Therefore, I am asking you whether it was a task which Rothaug was supposed to take care of, to inform you about the directives of the Reich Ministry of Justice.
A In regard to the first question, I said already that I do not recall the case sufficiently well enough as to whether I actually did not receive the directive. I gathered that from the report which is in the files, and which I had addressed to the General Prosecutor, in which I had stated the facts which are in my affidavit.
In regard to the second question, it was, of course, not the task of Rothaug to forward directives of the Ministry to me, for such directives normally went via the General Public Prosecutor in exceptional cases immediately from the Ministry to the Oberstaatsanwalt, the Senior Public Prosecutor, but not via the presiding judge of the court.
Q All right. In regard to the case Horn, I want to ask you, did this sentence in the Horn case conform to the general line of the jurisdiction of that time in regard to stealing from the field post?
A In this case it is important to consider at what time, this happened, especially in the field of thefts from field posts, strong guidance by the higher authorities of justice took place. Originally, only in cases of thefts and embezzlements of one hundred and more letters or packages, in the normal case, if no special reasons for the prosecution or defense appeared -- I am saying that only in embezzlements of more than one hundred pieces should the death penalty be asked for. This figure was lowered more and more in the course of time, and finally, if twenty letters or packages were stolen or embezzled, the death penalty was asked for according to the directives, and probably also according to the general jurisdiction which prevailed.
Q During your activity as prosecutor, in your attitude toward the clemency question did you always take into consideration all points of view which spoke for the convicted person?
A I regarded it as my natural professional duty and of my conscience to take into consideration all the points of view which spoke in favor of a convicted person and to incorporate them into the draft of the clemency report, because only in that way could a just decision about the pardon be assured.
Q Can you remember cases in which sentences of the Special Court were quashed by means of clemency proceedings?
A Yes, I remember several such cases.
Q Can you remember whether the defense asked for the reopening of a case in favor of a defendant?
A The method of reopening a case was repeatedly used by the defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess at this point.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Court, I wanted to put only one more question, and after that I would be finished with this witness. May I be permitted to do so?
THE PRESIDENT: You may.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Can you remember that authorities outside of this Special Court, such as the Senate of the District Court of Appeals, in answer to a complaint, approved the sentences of Rothaug?
A That was conceivable in cases in which the reopening of a case had been applied for and the Penal Chamber had either regarded the reopening of the case inadmissible or had in any other way refused it. The matter went, by way of complaint, to the President of the District Court of Appeals and he, on his part, considered the complaint. I do not recall any case in which, by means of the Penal Chamber or the Senate of the District Court of Appeals, the quashing and examination of a sentence had been ordered by means of regular procedure. However, I cannot exclude the possibility, I just do not remember it.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you. I have no further questions.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, I have a couple of re-direct questions I would like to ask the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: I think, then, we had better recess at this time, and for certain reasons we will recess until two o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours)