Transcript for IMT: Trial of Major War Criminals

DR. KRANZBUEHLER: I have no further questions of the witness, Mr. President.

BY THE PRESIDENT:

QIn the interrogation of the defendant Doenitz he said that Godt and Hessler, that is you, is it not?

Q -- told him:

"Don't make this wireless. You see, one day there can be a wrong appearance about it, there can be a misinterpretation of that."

Did you say that?

AI do not remember this. We very frequently, as consulting officers when orders were drafted we had to contradict and did contradict but I donot remember in this case whether Admiral Godt and I said that.

Q.Then later in his interrogation the defendant Doenitz said:

"I am completely and personally responsible for it (that is that order) because Captain Godt and Hessler both expressly stated that they considered the telegram as ambiguous or liable to be misinterpreted."

Did you say that this telegram was ambiguous or liable to be misinterpreted?

AI do not remember that point. I do not believe that I considered this telegram to be ambiguous.

QAnd lastly the defendant Doenitz said:

"I would like to emphasize once more that Captains Godt and Hessler both were violently opposed to the sending of the telegram."

Do you say you were not violently opposed to the sending of the telegram?

AIt is possible that we were against the sending of this wire for we did not consider it necessary once again to refer to it.

Q.Did you say anything to the defendant Doenitz about this telegram at all?

AAt the drafting of this telegram this was discussed. In the course of time many hundreds of wireless messages were drafted by us so that it is impossible to remember just what was said at each time.

QYou began your answer to that question:

"At the drafting of this telegram --."

Do you remember what happened at the drafting of this telegram?

A I can remember only that in the course of the so-called "Lakonia" incident we sent many wireless messages and received many in return; that many wireless messages were drafted; that beyond that the operation of U-boats was going on in the Atlantic so that I cannot recall details at the drafting of this wireless.

QYou said now that it was possible that you and Admiral Godt were opposed to the sanding of this telegram. Is that your answer?

AIt is possible but I cannot say that.

THE PRESIDENT:Very well Dr. Kranzbuehler, the witness can retire.

DR. KRANZBUEHLER:Mr. President, this morning I had already advised the Prosecution that 1 will not wish to call the fourth witness and that is Admiral Eckhardt. Therefore, my examination of witnesses has been concluded.

THE PRESIDENT:And that concludes your case for the present?

DR. KRANZBUEHLER:The conclusion of my case but with the permission of the Tribunal I would like to clarify one question which deals with documents.

The Tribunal has refused all documents which refer to the topics countermand, central ports and "Navicertsystem". These questions are of great significance for my case as I will present it later on.

May I interpret the resolution of the Tribunal to the effect that these documents may not be used now as proof but that later on in my legal exposition I may have permission to use these?

THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Kranzbuehler, the Tribunal thinks that is a question which may be reserved until the time comes for you to make your speech,

DR. KRANZBUEHLER:Thank you , Mr. President. Then I have concluded my case.

THE PRESIDENT:We will adjourn now.

(The Tribunal adjourned until 15 May, 1946 at 1000 hours.)

Official transcript of the International Military Tribunal in the matter of:

The United States of America, the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, against Hermann Wilhelm Goering et al, Defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany on 15 May 1946, 1000-1300, Lord Justice Lawrence presiding.

MR DODD: Mr. President we are prepared to have the witness Puhl. Perhaps I misunderstood -

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes.

EMIL JOHANN RUDOLF PUHL, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:

QWill you state your full name?

AEmil Johann Rudolf Puhl.

QWill you repeat this oath after me:

I swear by God the Almighty and Omniscient that I will speak the pure truth and will withold and add nothing.

(The witness repeated the oath)

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SAUTER:

QWitness Puhl, sometime ago you were the vice, president of the Reichsbank?

QIf I am correctly informed then, you were a member of the Directorate of the Reichsbank at the time when Dr. Schacht was there?

QWhen Dr. Schacht left, you were, on of the few gentlemen who remained in the Reichsbank?

QAnd then, following a suggestion by the Defendant Funk, Hitler made you the the acting vice president of the Reichsbank?

QWhen was this?

AThat was during theyear of 1939.

I see, '39. You stated that you were acting vice president.

I presume that this was due to the fact that the Defendant Funk wasn't a banking expert whereas you were, and that Defendant Funk, apart from that, was also in charge of the Reich Ministry for Economics?

AYes, but there was another reason which was decisive, and that was the separation of the powers who were handling the business and who were handling personnel.

QThe actual conduct of the business, therefore, was your job, wasn't it? Thus the name of Acting Vice President?

AYes, but may I make a few statements on that?

QYes, but only if it is necessare in the interest of our case,

AVery well. The conducting of the business of the Directorate of the Reichsbank was divided up amongst a number of members of the Directorate. Every member had full responsibility for his sphere. The Vice President was only the figure head, whose, main job was to be in the chair during the meetings and to present the President on any important occasions; and also he had to deal with the economic and bank policy.

QWitness, the present Defendant Funk, as early as December, has referred to you as one of his witnesses. You know that, don't you? And Accordingly, you were questioned at the camp where you are now residing, at Baden-Baden?

AYes, at Baden-Baden.

QOn the 1st of May?

QAnd two days later you were again interrogated?

QThat was on the 3rd of May?

QDo you know why these matters which you were asked about on the 3rd of May weren't dealt with during the interrogation on the 1st of May?

AI have before me here the affidavit dated the 3rd of May.

QThat deals with these businesses with the SS, doesn't it?

A Yes. But I was also questioned on the 1st of May, but only very briefly.

On the 3rd of May they came back to ask more thoroughly regarding this subject.

QDuring your interrogation on May the 1st those businesses of the Reichsbank were not talked about, were they?

QDid you mention them?

AA short statement was compiled.

QYou mean during the interrogation of May the 1st?

A Yes. At any rate, during are interrogation on the 3rd of May a thorough record was prepared of matters which had briefly been touched on before.

QI have got your interrogation of May the 1st before me. I read through it today and nothing is mentioned regarding the businesses with the SS. As far as I can see, there is nothing in it about that. The matter you are now mentioning must have been a further interrogation?

MR. DODD:Mr. President I think perhaps I can be helpful in this apparent confusion. The interrogatory which was authorized by the Tribunal was taken on the 1st of May, but on that same day, and independent of these interrogatories, a member of our staff also interviewed this witness. But it was a separate interview. It wasn't related to the interrogatory, and I think that is the source of the confusion.

THE PRESIDENT:Very well. BY DR. SAUTER:

QThese businesses with the SS, were you interrogated about them twice?

ADuring the days about the 1st of May, yes, twice.

QHave you got the affidavit which you made on the 3rd of May, according to your recollection?

QThat is the affidavit which deals with this business with the SS?

ACorrect.

QIs it true, what you have said in that affidavit?

QWitness, since the 3rd of May have you been once more interrogated about this matter?

AYes, here in Nurnberg.

QWhen was that?

ADuring these last few days.

QI see. Today is Wednesday. When was this?

AFriday, Monday, Tuesday -- yesterday, Q Regarding this very matter?

QHas someone shown you a film yet?

AYes, once or twice -- once.

QHad you seen that film before?

QThe matters shown in that film, did you recognize them quite clearly?

QThe reason why I am asking you, Mr. Puhl, is because, as you know, the film takes place very quickly and it is a very short film, and for that reason the prosecution showed it twice in this Court room so that the pictures shown in this film could be recognized reliably. Did the single showing of that film make it possible for you to become clear about the subject of the film?

A Yes.

QIn that case will you tell me what you have seen?

AWell -

QOnly what you have seen in the film, or what you think you have seen in the film.

AYes. The film was taken outside the steel safes of our bank at Frankfurton-Main. The other safes were shown behind the glass doors. They were the locked cases and containers which had been apparently found there. It was a usual picture which such strong-rooms would present. Before these safes there were several containers which were opened, of which one could see, roughly, what the contents were -- pearls, jewels, bank-notes and watches.

QWhat sort of watches?

ALarge alarm clocks.

QDidn't you see anything else in the film?

AApart front these things, you mean?

QWell, apart from these valuables, didn't you see anything else that might have been kept there?

ANo, only these valuables.

QPlease go on.

AOn that occasion I noticed that in addition to these valuables there were coins, apparently silver coins, and also that amongst these valuables there were bank-notes, apparently American bank-notes. It was astonishing that these things were given to us for safe-keeping, because if they had been known to our original then no doubt there would have been a surrender of the bank-notes to the foreign currencies department since, as you Know, there was a general order to hand over foreign currency. But apart from that it was known to our officials that foreign bank-notes particularly were extremely rare and sought after. Something similar applies to the coins. They, too, really ought to have been handed over to the currency accounts, that is to say, they should have been purchased through the accounts of the Reich.

QThat is what you noticed, is it?

QAnd didn't you notice anything else?

Q Witness, in that manner valuable articles were supposed to have been kept in the Reichsbank, valuables which had been given to the Reichsbank for safekeeping.

And now I have been asking myself whether your Reichsbank might really deal with valuables and in safe-keeping by looking after them in such a manner as you have seen from that film. That is why I am interested in the question. Do you know, as the acting vice-president of the Reichsbank, how, for instance, in Berlin or how in Frankfurt where this film was taken, such, goods were meant to be kept in the strong-rooms and such valuables?

AYes. the picture of the safe installments in Berlin were similar to that in Frankfurt as it would probably be in any large bank. These matters which we called closed deposits were kept in closed containers for which we made room, and that space was paid for in accordance with its size.

QFor instance, in Berlin, or let's say in Frankfurt, were these matters kept just as it was apparent from that film?

AIn the case of the film I had the impression that the matters -- the things -- which we are now talking about had been put there particularly for the purpose of being photographed.

QYou perhaps recollect that, for instance, there might have been a sack which was shown which had the inscription, "Reichsbank, Frankfurt."

AI can say that I did see as sack which had the word, "Reichsbank", on it.

I am not sure whether it stated "Reichsbank" Frankfurt," on it, but I know it had "Reichsbank" on it, and that is why I thought the film was taken in Frankfurt, which is something the Prosecution had confirmed

MR. DODD:There have been two mistakes of some slight importance already. We didn't show the film twice before this Tribunal and what bag doesn't bear the legend, "Frankfurt." It simply says, "Reichsbank," And it was Schacht film that was shown twice here, because it moved rather quickly.

QWitness, in replying will you please continue to reply to my questions. My question is this: Did the Reichsbank have gold and such things in such sacks as this?

AThe way I understand the question is, if persons would deposit anything with us then their things would be deposited in sacks, is that what you meant to ask?

QI don't know how you handle them -

A The way we handle them is -- the name says that we had closed deposits.

Of course, that can be a sack which is closed; that is perfectly possible.

QWell, what I saw in banks in Munich, Witness, was that things which were being deposited in an increased measure during the war were always kept in close boxes or cases so that generally the bank wouldn't know at all what might be contained in the cases or boxes. Its that different with you?

ANo, it was just the same, and the remarkable thing about this sack is that it bears the word, "Reichsbank." Quite obviously that must be one of our sacks and not a sack belonging to a third party.

QSo that if I may repeat this, to avoid, any doubt, you too would look after such closed deposits by keeping them in some closed container?

QOr they went to the safe or strong-room.

AThe "or", Mr. Counsel, might be misleading. Closed containers went to the tresor, the safe room. There you found steel chambers where these containers or boxes were deposited. And quite independent from that arrangement, we had the arrangement of so-called "open deposits." They were such deposits where right from the beginning an administration of the goods had been arranged, and these safes were in quite a different part of the building from the so-called main safe

QThese open deposits don't apply to our case, do they?

QNow, I shall come to the deposit of the SS. That deposit -- or these deposits weren't in Frankfurt but presumably in Berlin at the Central department.

QNow, I should like you to tell me about the discussions the Defendant Funk had with you regarding the deposits of the SS and to give me information about it. Witness, I should like to ask you to think very carefully about every answer and to examine your recollection every time you give an answer. Of course, I shall give you necessary time. First of all, I shall ask you, what did you and the Defendant Funk discuss when for the first time you were talking about this deposit of the SS?

AI am referring to my affidavit of the 3rd of May in this connection. The talk I had with Mr. Funk was extremly simple. It dealt with the fact that the SS had asked that they might use the arrangements in our Bank regarding deposits of valuable articles for which -- as it was said, they hadn't sufficient space in the cellars of their houses.

Perhaps, so as to complete the story, I may add that "SS" always means the economic department of the SS in this connection.

QWhat did Funk talk about at the time? Please, will you tell me whether he said exactly what should be kept?

AHe mentioned valuables which the SS had brought in from Eastern Territor ies and which were now in their collars and for which the SS desired safe-keepin to be carried out by us.

QBut the Defendant Funk, did he tell you in detail what these valuables were?

ANo, not in detail, but generally he said that they were valuables like gold, or silver, jewels and foreign currencies.

QGold, jewels, silver. I see.

AAnd may I add that gold and foreign currencies were, of course, to be surrendered to the Reichsbank in any case.

QGold or currency or jewels. I see. And that was supposed to be confiscated in the Eastern Territories?

QDid the Defendant Funk tell you anything more in detail at the time as to why this confiscation had been carried out or whose articles they were that had been confiscated?

ANo, that wasn't mentioned. The talk, as I already said, was brief, and then it was interrupted.

QWhat did you reply?

AI said that this sort of business, since it was coming from the SS, was at least uncomfortable for us, and I stated that I had objections. And perhaps I may add here that in connection with such matters we were always rather reticent about such matters, particularly when they were matters which had to be dealt with by the foreign currencies department, customs department, or whenever any such official came to us.

Q What was the actual reason why you had objections, particularly to the case of the SS?

ABecause it was impossible to know what results and conclusions such a business connection might produce.

QBut, witness, that answer isn't sufficient for me. Does it mean -- it is connected with the fact that you or the defendant Funk didn't want to have anything to do with the SS at all or was there some other reason why you stated objections?

AYes. The first part of your question must be answered with "no". A principal opposition didn't exist; it couldn't exist because, after all, every German organization or institution had the local right to use the services of the Reichsbank. These special affairs and matters, however, which were confiscated, were similar to the confiscations carried out by the foreign currency department for instance, and they were uncomfortable because one never know just what the far-reaching effects might be.

QSo that, if I understood you correctly, that you had certain objections which you voiced. Please correct me if I state this wrongly. You raised objection because this sort of business might be somewhat uncomfortable for the Reichsbank and because it wasn't within the normal type of business you were doing and because you weren't any more keen on it than, for instance, you were keen on deposi made by the customs authorities or foreign currency authorities, which were confiscated; is that the reason?

AYes. But this conversation of our will have to be continued a bit more. It was said, you see, that one ought to assist the SS in handling the things Which they were depositing. It was clear from the beginning, and it had been said that foreign currency, and I think also stocks and shares and gold coins and such, you contained in these deposits and that the SS people didn't quite knew how to deal with these things.

QDid these articles arrive afterwards?

AYes; but then there was an intermediate situation which you must talk about. This conversation has been finished; and now the head of the economic department of the SS, whose name was Pohl -

QObergruppenfuehrer Pohl?

A Yes, Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl. He came to me. I asked him to came to my office, and there he told me, or repeated something which I had already known -he told me that he would like to see if we would as soon as possible take over these valuables.

QAnd what did you say?

AI confirmed what was discussed and I said "Please, will you name the of ficials from your department and I shall inform our department and they can discuss the technical details of the deal."

QAnd, if I may fill in the gap, what did the defendant Funk say? You've just mentioned, in connection with the first conversation, that you didn't want to take those things over because one might have a lot of trouble with such thing

AThis became subject to the somewhat wider conception of things which meant helping the SS, particularly -- and this must be emphasized -- since the matters were coming in for the account of the Reich.

QWas anything mentioned regarding the fact that these things particularly gold, should be utilized by the Reichsbank; lot's say melted down?

ANo, no, not in detail. It was merely said that the officials of the Reichsbank would offer their good services to the SS.

QBut I don't quite understand you. The good services mean that officials from the Reichsbank would take care of these valuables and would lock them away?

QWere the services of your officials gone beyond that?

AYes, they were. They should because the SS people were to arrive and they would remove from the containers whatever was due to be surrendered.

QYou mean, for instance gold coins?

QForeign currency?

QI see, and all that.

So as to come back to the question I've already put, did you see what arrive. Did you see what the SS actually delivered?

AI, personally, no. This episode happened far from my office and in quite a different building downstairs, in the strong-rooms where I, as vice president wouldn't normally go at all.

Q As vice president did you go frequently into these safe-rooms or strong-rooms?

AIt was a habit of mine to go occasionally, perhaps sometimes every three months or even more seldom, and to walk th rough the strong-rooms whenever there was cause for that, say, for instance, when a visitor had to be conducted or when some new installation was to be discussed; when, in other words, something happened which would go beyond the normal business of the cashiers and strong-room personnel.

QBut you had nothing to do with that part of the Reichsbank as vice president?

AOf course not, no.

QAnd the same question witness, I want to put with reference to defendant Funk to you. Defendant Funk, who, in addition to everything else, was only half working in the Reichsbank, did he often go to the strong-rooms; if so, how often and for what reasons, and would he have seen what had been handed in by the SS?

AThe answer to that one is that occasionally Funk, too, would have gone to the safes, also on some special occasion, for instance, foreign visitors, or some such matter; how often is something I can't know. And whether he's seen the SS depositing something, I can't know either. It depends on whether the cashiers who were taking him around had pointed it out to him.

QAnd, witness, did you, yourself, see the things which came from the Reichsbank -- I beg your pardon, I didn't mean Reichsbank; I meant the SS Did yousee them yourself?

ANo, never.

QDid you believe that defendant Funk had seen them?

AWell, I can't, of course, know that, but it depends on whether the cashiers pointed out particularly that there is the deposit of the SS.

QWell, then, perhaps if I guess correctly, then you can't give us any information regarding how these SS matters were being kept, where they were stored or where their boxes were?

ANo, I don't know that.

QDid you talk about this whole business of the SS deposit more often, still more frequently, to Funk?

AAs far as I can remember, hardly, but it's probably the case that I would talk to him a second time, after Pohl had been in to see me.

It was, of course, my duty and my task to inform Mr. Funk about everything that happened.

QWere there discussions amongst the directors of the Reichsbank and was any special significance attached to it so that one might have had any cause to discuss this affair more frequently, or was that just an unpleasant sort of sideline?

ANo. During meetings of the directorate there were reports at the beginning about this matter, but that wasn't mentioned again.

QAnd you can, therefore, not recollect that later on you talked about it to Funk again but, if I understand you correctly, then it might be that, after the talk you had with the SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, you briefly referred to the matter again? Have I understood you correctly?

QNow, witness, in your affidavit you are saying that amongst the articles which had been deposited by the SS -- this is under figure 5 by the way -- there were Jewelry, watches, spectacle frames, gold fillings, apparentl gold fillings means teeth or something like that, and other articles in large quantities, which the SS had taken away from Jewish victims in concentration camps and some other persons. How do you know that?

AI know that from my interrogation at Frankfurt.

QApparently you know it, therefore, because when you were interrogated in Frankfurt and after you had been apprehended you were told this?

AIt was shown to me.

QI see, it was shown to you. Earlier, as long as you were free and as long as you were vice president of the Reichsbank, you didn't know that?

ANo. And I want to repeat it again. We in the directorate never discussed the matter because it wasn't of any political currency or bank political significance.

QWitness, if at that time in 1942, you had known that these were articles which the SS had taken away from numerous concentration camp victims, would you have taken care of these things?

ANo, but in that case we would have brought about some decision regarding the attitude of the bank as a whole which should be adopted.

QWho would have made the decision?

AThe directorate of the Reichsbank as a body, and that decision would have been put before the president for his signature.

QHave you any idea -- you see, earlier this is something I must first of all deal with -- earlier on your affidavit is not expressed very clearly -- you see, earlier you had said that you had knowledge of this because the SS personnel tried to change this material for cash; today you are saying that you only heard about it after you were taken prisoner. Apparently, if I understand you correctly, there must be -

THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Sauter, I do not understand why you say earlier. It is the sentence whichfollowed the sentence which you put to him.

DR. SAUTER:Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT:Why do you say earlier?

DR. SAUTER:In his affidavit, and if the wording of the affidavit is correct, if there aren't any misunderstandings -

THE PRESIDENT:What I am pointing out to you is that the first sentence roads like this: "The material deposited by the SS included all these items taken from Jews, concentration camp victims, and other persons by the SS." And then it goes on, "This was brought to our knowledge by the SS personnel who attempted to convert this material into cash." What you are now putting to him is that that acceptance was put to him earlier. At least that is what I understood you to say.

DR. SAUTER: No, today the witness has said that the fact that these things had been taken from concentration camp victims had not become known to him until he was interrogated at Frankfurt.

The affidavit, however, must be interpreted, in my opinion, as saying, or as if he wanted to say at the time that he had had such knowledge before his arrest and through the SS personnel. That is apparently not true. It is for that reason that I have asked the witness if this expression in the affidavit is not a misunderstand.

THE PRESIDENT:Go on. BY DR. SAUTER:

Q.Now, then, witness, if I can repeat this, it is correct, then, that the fact that these articles had belonged to concentration camp victims is something you only heard of during your interrogation?

A.Yes.

Q.And when did you know what was contained in these deposits; or, to pick out one thing, that there were gold teeth? When did you hear about that?

A.I did not hear about it at all when I was in my office. No reports from the cashier's office or the safe room were made to the Directorate regardint the details of this transaction.

Q.So that this matter did not become known to you until you were arrested?

A.The details, yes.

Q.I see. Thank you. Now, you mention some agreement that, according to Funk's statement, Himmler, the Reichsfuehrer of the SS, had made with the Reich Ministry of Finance. What do you know about this agreement?

A.That is the same thing which I mentioned before. It was clear from the beginning that the value of these things that were deposited with us was to be credited to the Ministry of Finance.

Q.Not the SS?

A.No, not the SS?

Q.Why not? The SS were the depositors, were they not?

A.Yes, but they were representing the view that their actions were being carried out in the name of and on behalf of the Reich and for the accounts of the Reich.

Q.Witness, do you know anything about the fact that these valuables which had been obtained in the East by some means or other, confiscated or through robberies perhaps, that they were, financially speaking to be placed at the disposal of the Reich Ministry of Finance?

A.I did not quite understand the question. Are you referring to these very articles or confiscated articles in general?

Q.All valuables. I am here thinking of gold and foreign currency and such. All these valuables which had been got hold of by the SS in the East. Were they all to be placed at the disposal of the Reich Ministry of Finance and not the Reichsbank?

A.Their value was redited to the Reich Ministry of Finance.

Q.In this connection, witness, I should like to show you two accounts. I don't know, have you seen them?

Q.They are two accounts from the Cashier's office of your bank. Perha you can hadn it up to the witness, I should like you to have a look at them first of all, and then I should like you to tell me whether you had known, up to now, what this matter was all about.

A.These two photostatic copies I have seen before during my interrogations.

Q.Not earlier?

A.No, not earlier. These photostatic copies show something which was just discussed; namely, that the value of these articles was to be credited to the Chief Reich Cashier's Offic . That is the department in the Ministry of Finance.

Q.So that apparently this is in some way connected with this agreement, of which you have heard at some store, and this is due to the fact that eventually all these things belong o to the Reich Ministry of Finance and the Reich?

A.Yes, correct.

Q.I have one more question on the same subject. witness, I am interest in whether here, too, there is some misunderstanding.

In the affidavit there is the sentence according to which Funk told you that this matter, as it says here, should be kept absolutely secret.

You did not mention this point at all to us today, although you have the affidavit before you. What are you saying today? Is that true or is it a misunderstanding?

A.You mean the keeping of it secret? No; of course these matters were meant to be kept secret. After all, keeping secret applies to everything tha happens in a bank.

Q.Witness, that explanation does not quite satisfy us. During your interrogation of 3 May, did you say what is contained in this document; namel that the matter was to be kept absolutely secret, or did you express yourself differently?

A.No, the wording of the affidavit is correct, the matter was to be kept absolutely secret.

Q.But why?

A.Why? Because such matters are usually kept secret and are not publi ed, particularly since these things were coming from the East, and I am repea ing what I said before, and because our attitude regarding the confiscated articles was always that of trying to keep out of these matters altogether.

Q.Was it noticeable to you; id it strike you that the defendant Funk mentioned the keeping secret of this, or was that nothing unusual?

A.No, it was not anything unusual. It merely became clear from the conversation that if the confiscated articles of the Currency Department and the Custums Department were to be accepted by us, then these matters would ma it urgent that they should be kept secret.

Q.But the way you are describing the affair, witness, seems to indicate that you, on one hand, considered the business to be perfectly legal, and you yourself are saying that it was perfectly legal; on the other hand, you were considering secrecy, which to you as an old banking expert was a matter of course, and, of course, the question arises, Why was the matter of keeping these things secret discussed at all?