The Praelat Dr. Krautz, president of the German Charity Association Caritas, writes on page one of the letter of the 21st of January at the bottom:
"I therefore was pleased when Professor Dr. Handloser was called to head the Medical Inspectorate since I know that he and his family are religious Catholics and that he in no way was inclined to hide that fact. I was not disappointed. His official environment made me realize soon that he not only felt very kindly toward the Catholic members of orders and to the deaconesses, but also that he above them preference since they were nursing for religious grounds."
Then, at the bottom it says: "Later I was always able to notice that in the most important points of contact between the sisters and the doctors men were almost always used who heeded such last desires. I always was very grateful for that and I attribute this almost frictionless conduct of the war nursing service above all to the expressed supreme will of the Medical inspector Professor Dr. Handloser. Without having had an opportunity to gain insight into his personal conduct, I was told repeatedly that Professor Handloser is a convinced Catholic and that he expressed that at every opportunity. Many heads of the orders, whose sisters were employed, told me that, in contrast to the continuous chicaneries which the NSDAP inflicted on the sisters and choir headquarters, Professor Dr. Handloser was governed by professional ethics which revealed an inner greatness because it was based on lasting values.
"On the basis of my experience I consider it impossible that Professor Dr. Handloser could have adopted any steps or measures or admissions which were in conflict with his conscience and his professional ethics. Dr. Kreutz, Prelate."
Now, in connection with this document I must add that the Prelate is an Apostolic Protonotar; that he asked that his signature not be certified by a notary. I ask that in view of the origin of this letter this fact will not limit the value in evidence.
MR. HcHANEY: The prosecution must object to this document and ask that the words which Dr. Nelte has read from it be stricken from the record. I would like to observe first that I would appreciate Dr. Nelte's offering the document before he begins reading it. It is very difficult for the prosecution to make a sensible objection when he just refers to document on a certain page and proceeds to read it without offering it and giving us an opportunity to object.
I think this document is clearly inadmissible because it is not in the form of an affidavit; it is not sworn to, nor is there any statement on the part of the writer of the letter that he has any objection to making an oath. This is nothing but a latter in reply to one written by Dr. Nelte himself apparently. I certainly think it is inadmissible.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, Document Book 2 has been in the hands of the prosecution for one week. I did not call this letter an affidavit. I cannot call it an affidavit. According to Ordinance 7 the Tribunal can admit any document, even if it is not certified by a sworn statement. What value you assign to this, to the contents of this document is another question. I ask that this document be admitted as such.
THE PRESIDENT: The offered exhibit states that it is written in reply to a letter fr a Dr. Nelte of January 4. If Dr. Nelte would submit a copy of the letter which he wrote to Dr. Kreutz there would be before the Tribunal something upon which the Tribunal could rule. A letter in the form in which Document HA-39 is now before the Tribunal is clearly inadmissible, being merely a letter. If Dr. Nelte can submit a copy of the letter to which this is in answer, the Tribunal would then rule upon the admissibility of Document HA-39.
MR. McHANEY: I would ask the Tribunal to instruct Dr. Nelte henceforth to made his offer before reading the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, both for prosecution no defense, will follow the plan outlined now by counsel for the prosecution; that is, a document should be offered to the Tribunal by number, volume and page so that opposing counsel may have an opportunity to examine the document and refamiliarize himself with it before the document is begun to be read in the record.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President -
THE PRESIDENT: Before proceeding further, the Tribunal will be in recess.
(Recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, in connection with the petition of Dr. Nelte to recall the witness Fuerler or to submit an affidavit by the witness, the prosecution strenuously objects to any such procedure. We submit again that the witness was on the stand here, he was elaborately examined by defense counsel and was cross-examined by the prosecution. There was redirect examination by defense counsel, and he had ample opportunity to clarify any statements made on cross-examination.
I further suggest to the Tribunal that approval of any such procedure as this would tend to create a precedent that any witness who has been impeached, or might tent to have been impeached, could be so recalled after consultation with the defense counsel, and it would go on forever. Therefore, the prosecution respectfully requests that this recalling of the witness Wuerfler or submission of this affidavit he disapproved.
INTERPRETER: Will the prosecutor please repeat the last sentence?
MR. HARDY: The prosecution respectfully requests that the recalling of the witness Wuerfler or the submission of an affidavit from this witness be disapproved.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands the position of the counsel for the prosecution. It rules that counsel for the defendant Handloser may recall the witness Wuerfler for examination upon this one particular point. The witness, of course, will be subject to recross-examination by the prosecution. The weight of the testimony of the witness will before the Tribunal to determine.
MR. McHANEY: In view of the Tribunal's ruling, unless the Tribunal itself wishes to hear the witness or unless there is any compelling reason on the part of defense counsel to have him appear personally, we mill agree to the admission of the affidavit rather than take the necessary time of recalling him. I don't think we have any questions to put to him.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the defendant Handloser may either recall the witness or submit the affidavit, as he pleases.
DR. NELTE: Since this case has already taken up so much time, believe that my presentation of the affidavit will be sufficient, specially since, as I have previously stated, the affidavit does not contain any new facts but is only an explanation of the facts to which the witness testified.
General Secretary, I have given you the German copy of this affidavit, and it has now been handed to the President. With the permission of the President, I shall now read this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: What number does counsel for the defendant assign to the affidavit?
DR. NELTE: I want to submit this affidavit as document No. HA-55 and it will be exhibit -- In this case I must ask the President his. The statement by Prelate Dr. Kroutz was temporarily admitted as Exhibit 41, or is this exhibit to be withdrawn until I have also presented my letter?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may withheld the exhibit -
DR. NELTE (Interposing): No. I wanted to ask you to admit it temporarily, with the reservation that I shall subsequently present my letter also.
THE PRESIDENT: The Counsel may reserve the Exhibit until they are finally ruled upon, and then assign them numbers.
DR. NELTE: Very well, your Honor.
I am now submitting temporarily the letter of Dr. Kroutz as Exhibit 41, and the affidavit by Paul Wurfler will become Exhibit 42. Dr. Wurfler's statement is as follows:
"Todays questions of the Prosecutor, under the unusual circumstances of the cross examination, on the occurrence of 11.9.42 (Dr. Rascher's intended *nference with the State Secretary) which was brought to my notice and slipped from my memory, and on the difference between Romberg's report and my recollection left me no peace. The question constantly arose for me upon which the difference could be based, and I came to the following result.
"As I have stated, I was called by telephone from my strenuous work to conference which was unknown to me and which had been ordered by the State Secretary. Precisely this circumstance that I was called by telephone, have me, in my opinion, the possibility of clarification. It resulted from his that I was not invited. I was apparently informed because no represenative of the Sanitary Inspectorate of tho Luftwaffe was present. As soon as I could free myself, I drove from the office in Templehof to the Reich Air Ministry. As I know for certain that I did not see the film, I can only have arrived after the film had come to an end. The discussion, of which **poke, covers Dr. Romberg's exposition of the facts according to which **. Rascher refused to give me any information. As, for the reasons stated, was in a hurry and I drove off shortly afterwards.
"I am ready to state this as a witness."
The affidavit is signed, "Paul Wufler".
I now continue to present my documents. I am now coming to a letter, a certificate of the Chief of the order of the Benedictines. I present this document because this man also did not want to have this statement certified because he assumed that his statement as a high official of tho clergy would be sufficient. I do not know if the Tribunal will make the same ruling in his case as it did in the presentation of the letter by Dr. Kroutz.
In that case, I would withdraw the presentation at this time, and I would submit it at the same time with my initial letter, at a later period of time.
MR. MCHANEY: The Presecution offers the same objection to this documents. I also state now in order that there will be no element of surprise, that we will raise the same objection on the presentation of whatever letters Dr. Nelte may there have written from these people. I do not think that the Tribunal should make the praxis here so liberal that we can engage in some sort of mail order business for evidence here. The Prosecution has on several occasions presented documents which were certainly in much better form than this and they were rejected, and I refer particularly to three statements obtained by the duly constituted police officials in Austria. As a result which the Prosecution had to go to a great deal of trouble and effort to secure oaths to these statements. I think, in view of the liberal ruling of the Tribunal, with respect to the defendant's affidavits, that this procedure should be followed and that the letters should not be admitted.
DR. NELTE: May it please the Tribunal, I want to state briefly that those are certificates of a special kind. I understand that the Apostolic Prenetary is a notary in the official position with the catholic church, and maintains the point of view that he has the same authority as any other notary to make certain records, and that he believes that they will have an official character which a letter will also have in a private character. I only want to point put this again that the Prior of the Abbey Maria Laach had this authority. The same a plies to the Prior of Abbey Maria Laach.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that the Exhibit, the letter from the Apostolic Prenetary is not admissible in the present form; that it should either be made as a statement in lieu of the oath or properly verified and sworn to before some person with authority to administer an oath. The more fact that a person has authority to swear somebody else, to administer an oath, does not confer upon that person authority to administer an oath to himself. So, the Tribunal rules that those letters will not be admissible until prepared in proper form, according to the rules of this Tribunal. The Counsel may offer them at some later date if they are presented to the Tribunal in a form that complies with the rules.
* Feb 47-M-FJC-10-3- Beard Court No. 1
DR. NELTE: The defendant Handloser has been charged by the prosecution on the basis of his organizational responsibilities. The Prosecution accuses Professor Handloser of having had knowledge of incidents which should have caused him to intervene. The defendant has denied having had such knowledge. with regard to this fact, the question is very important if you affirm the **racity of the defendant. I believe that he has proven his veracity on the witness stand. However, in order to support it and to strengthen it, I have to present several testimonies which give proof of the character of the defendant, of his attitude as a human being and a physician, so that you will see that the impression which he was won, and which he has explained to you, here on the witness stand, also corresponds to his attitude toward the world, and his previous behavior. In this connection, I present the affidavit by Professor Siegmund, which has been properly certified. It is no of tho few documents which I will road in its entirety because it really gives a true picture of this man; a picture which is rarely given in such a *anner by anybody. This is document HR 47. You will find it in document book Roman numeral III, on page 11, and I request that it be admitted as Exhibit 43.
"I -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Just a moment counsel. I do not find that document indexed in document book III.
DR. NELTE: In the English document book there has been a typing mistake made, it should read page 11 and not page 8. You will find it in the third art of the index, the affidavit of Professor Siegmund, dated 29 January 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: I misunderstood the Counsel. He is referring to document Handloser 47, is that correct?
DR. NELTE: Yes, it is document HA-47, an affidavit by Professor Siegmund
THE PRESIDENT: I understood the Counsel to say HA-43.
DR. NELTE: This document HR-47 will become Exhibit 43.
JUDGE SEBRING: Doctor Nelte, on page 11, the document is HA-48.
DR. NELTE: This is also a typing mistake in English and I want to correct it at this time. The original is HA-47.
THE PRESIDENT: There has been an error in this document and on the index page. We have it straightened out now and the Counsel may proceed.
DR. NELTE: I will read the affidavit.
Copy! Exh. 39 Doc. HA 48 Pathological Institute (21) Muenster (Westphalia) Westring 17 Director:
Professor Dr. H. SIEGMUND For submission to the American Military Tribunal I in Nuernberg I, Professor Dr. med.
Herbert Siegmund, depose herewith under oath the following facts, which are known to me from my own knowledge:
My name is Herbert Siegmund. I was born on 14 April 1892 in Rybnik, Upper Silesia, reside at present in Muenster, Studtstrasse 17. I am a licensed physician and specialist for pathology; and since 1 August 1942 I have been a professor at the University of Muenster and director of the Pathological Institute, after having previously been professor and director of the Pathological Institute at the University of Kiel since 1 October 1935, and before that at the universities of Tuebingen and Cologne. I am chairman of the medical and dental examining board at the University of Muenster. At the same time I am the head of the working association for paradentosis research, an honorary member and honorary president of the ARPA Internationale (International Working Association for Paradentology with its seat in Geneva). Furthermore I am honorary member of various German and foreign scientific societies, especially the French working association and the Danish working association for paradentology, as well as the German Society for Dental, Mouth, and Jaw medicine.
I met Professor Dr. Handloser through my scientific work in the sphere of paradentology and my research on burns; as far as I remember it was in 1934 or 1935 in Stuttgart, where he was stationed on military service. At that time I repeatedly discussed with him scientific questions which revolved around the problem of paradentosis, heat stroke and sunstroke.
Furthermore I repeatedly met him, after his transfer from Stuttgart at scientific meetings of German physicians and of German dentists, and I then got to know him more intimately and personally and as a human being. During the war he was Army Physician of the Liszt Army, to which I was during that time attached as Consulting Pathologist to the Army Physician. During the position a warfare in the Eifel in the autumn and winter of 1939/40, as well as during the advance through France as far as Dijon, I was in constant touch with him on official duty as well as privately. When, after the end of the French campaign, the Liszt Army was transferred to Poland, I continued my work as Consulting Pathologist under Professor Handloser until he was transferred to the Army Medical Inspectorate. Later on I attended numerous meetings at which I kept meeting Prof. Handloser. After having become Rector of the University of Muenster, I met him repeatedly on official duty with regard to the training of medical officers and the transfer of the medical faculty of the University of Muenster to Bad Salzuflen, I know him very well, as a soldier and also as a physician and as a human being, and that for a period of approximately 12 years. He was an exemplary soldier. He was very strict in his demands on himself and his subordinates. He was an exemplary worker, excellent organizer, sparing in his recognitions, and just in his punishments. The medical units under his command, therefore, did exemplary work, during reconstruction and organizing in times of inactivity as well as during mobile and positional warfare. Professor Handloser always personally inspected the work of the medical formation under his command and never spared any trouble or trips in order to fulfill his duty.
Prof. Dr. Handloser had an excellent professional training in the branch of internal medicine at the University of Giessen. He therefore surpassed the majority of other active medical officers by his outstanding ability in the entire sphere of medicine. His interests were in no way exclusively and mainly directed toward internal diseases, but he was also to a large degree and very successfully, interested in all questions of war surgery and hygiene as well as in the health service of the troops.
He personally undertook the scientific treatment of a group of trichinosis cases, the solving of which problem is to a high degree due to him. (Spring of 194). He endeavored to put all results of medical science at the service of the wounded and sick as quickly as possible and consequently showed great interest in scientific work and endeavors. Thus at an early date he recognized the importance of dental illnesses for the troops, their efficient treatment and prophylaxis and therefore took an active part in the work of the Working Association for Paradentesis Research. He was especially interested in the further training of his medical officers, always in the sense that as capable physicians as possible and as proved methods as possible be put at the service of the soldiers who were under his command and entrusted to him. During the positional war already he organized training courses for medical officers, during which all practical problems of medicine and medical service were discussed by outstanding experts. After the end of the French campaign he had his Consulting Medical Officers bring the medical and practical experiences of the physicians of the entire Army area to the knowledge of all physicians of the troops at a scientific meeting. He himself joined in the discussions and declined all half measures and all opinions and medical cures which had not been sufficiently proved.
He assisted the Consulting Physicians to a great extent in their responsible assignment. As Army Medical Inspector, he was especially suitable because of his extensive medical knowledge, his acknowledges outstanding organizational talent, and his imperturbable strong personality.
His appointment to this high position was generally welcomed. It also cannot be denied that under his supervision the Army Medical Service was much improved and that outstanding medical work was done in all theaters of operations. It is essentially due to him that during the Russian winter of 1941/42 incisive measures were ordered for preferential hospitalization and transportation of wounded soldiers and that the problem of freezing and of protection against cold was immediately investigated with all available means and forces. He was responsible for generous measures in connection with the diagnosing and combatting of typhus; he also gained the greatest and undeniable merits in combatting malaria, war nephritis, contagious jaundice, and other war epidemics. By establishing an Army Mountain Medical School he attacked the specialties of the medical care of mountain troops from the medical and scientific side; by creating a working association for the investigation of paradental damage in the army, the meetings of which he directed himself as a rule, he sponsored extensive investigation on the increase of bleeding of the gums and tooth injuries which had occurred during the war in various theaters of operations. As Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service he took a special interest in the training and advanced training of medical students and the younger medical officers.
Repeatedly I have had occasion to discuss confidentially with Professor Dr. HANDLOSER questions of the medical training, of the fundamental attitude of the active medical officer, of the profession of medicine, and of medical research and science, I have seldom met a person filled by such a sense of duty and responsibility as Professor HANDLOSER, The same high requirements he asked of himself he also asked of the medical officer and of the physician. His supreme principle was always: never to do any harm. I still remember excited discussions on the introduction of sulfonamide prophylaxis for combat units, on the efficacy of a preserved blood or of other means of replacing blood, on the necessity of a prophylactic tetanus vaccination in cases of burns and freezing, on the possibilities of a protective vaccination against typhus and typhoid fever.
In all his speeches and discussions Professor HANDLOSER always demonstrated the highest ethical conception of the medical profession, which in the last analysis was borne out by his deep religious feeling. Professor HANDLOSER refused all uncertain and life-endangering investigations and experiments sharply. He repeatedly pointed out that his soldiers and human beings in general were no guineapigs, and permitted treatment only if he was convinced of its reliability and innocuousness. For instance, in connection with research on the pathological anatomy of hepatitis epidemica, he expressly prohibited liver puncture of jaundice patients which I had proposed in order to obtain a diagnosis and scientific research on this disease in my field of duties of the southern armies. I consider it absolutely unthinkable that he approved or ordered experiments on political prisoners or prisoners of war. His respect for the human body went so far that he even considered autopsies, which I had to conduct and to supervise as consulting pathologist, justified only in the strictest scientific spirit and under the most urgent military necessity. In speeches he repeatedly called the attention of the medical officers to the importance of the valuable human material which was entrusted to them in the treatment of the sick and wounded. It is probably known only to a very few people that one of Professor HANDLOSER's most essential characteristics is his profound religiosity. In spite of his optimistic attitude toward life he has devoted much attention to metaphysical problems and condemned most decisively the intolerance of National Socialism toward the religious communities. It is known to me that his appointment to the position of Army Medical Inspector as well as to that of Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service was rendered much more difficult because of his never denied membership in the Catholic Church and his faith and that expecially certain circles of the highest SS leadership made great difficulties for him even during his period in office. In spite of his high position, Professor HANDLOSER was by no means persona grata with the supreme command of the Army and with the High Command of the Wchrmacht.
He was absolutely opposed to the ideology of National Socialism. To his closest friends he voiced considerable objections to the leadership of the state and the war and to leading personalities (as far as his high official position could permit him at all to talk about such matters). For his part, he always did all he could to correct unscientific and unexpert actions. He was an exemplary Army Physician and Army Medical Inspector, to whom the German soldier and the wounded or sick enemy owes the greatest gratitude. As much as he was feared because of his strictness, he was esteemed by the whole medical officers' corps because of his objectivity and justice.
I am not related to Professor HANDLOSER, either by blood or marriage, and I am in no way obligated to him on account of personal advantages.
I esteem him as a man of honor and a zealous German soldier and a critical scientist.
"I have been confirmed in my position as professor of the University of Muenster by ordinance of the military Government of 9 October 1945 and de-nazified by all German committees."
I request that this document be admitted as Exhibit 43.
A picture of the character of the defendant Handloser as medical officer and human being is given by Document HA-41, located on page 62 of Document Book II, which I now offer as Exhibit 44. It is on affidavit of Generalerzt Dr. Jaeckel who has been very close to the defendant for many years. I did not want to read this document but I request that it be admitted as Exhibit 44 and that it be included in the record.
May I continue?
THE PRESIDENT: Continue.
DR. NELTE: The next document is Document HA-45 on page 68 of Document Book II. It is an affidavit by 20 general physicians (Generalarzt) of all branches of the Wechrmacht. It is testimony by all those physicians in the highest positions of the medical service do the Chief of the Medical Services, Handloser. I am offering this document as Exhibit 45, without wanting to read it.
I am further offering the affidavit by the well known GeneralOberst Halder, who was Chief of the General Stuff of the Army and a superior to the defendant Handloser, dated 1 February 1947. This document HA-54 in the supplement of today - HA-54. I only want to present this document as evidence. Also the affidavit of General Field Marshal List .....
THE PRESIDENT: Document HA-54 would be Handloser Exhibit 45-46, which?
DR.NELTE: It would be Exhibit 46. The affidavit of General Field Marshal List, HA-53, Document Book III, on page 33, will become Exhibit 47.
THE PRESIDENT: Please give the Tribunal the number of that document again.
DR. NELTE: It is Document HA-53, on page 33 of Document Book III. It will became Exhibit 47.
The affidavit by Dr. Drexler is a remarkable affidavit. It is located on page 47 in Document Book II. It is Document HA-33....
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, you are preceding a little too fast. We have net succeeded in numbering our documents yet, due to the fact that the last document mentioned was neither indexed or paged. The **at we have is your Exhibit 47, HA-53. Will you give us again the next number of your next exhibit -- the number of your next exhibit?
DR. NELTE: It will be Exhibit 47. May it please the Tribunal, this is Document HA-53, which will become Exhibit 47.
THE PRESIDENT: We have that, counsel.
DR. NELTE: Then I said that the next document is a remarkable affidavit. It is a letter which was not addressed to me ...
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, if you will in the first instance when producing an exhibit, give us the number and the page, the document number and the document book, we can then find that document immediately before you proceed to describe it, which will be an advantage to the Tribunal.
DR. NELTE: It is Document HA-33 in Document Book II, page 47, and it is to become Exhibit 48. The document is a letter which Dr. Drexler sent to the wife of the defendant Handloser and she passed on this letter to me and I requested Dr. Drexler to have his letter certified and I am new presenting it in this form to the Tribunal. I do not want to touch the personal matters in this letter but I only want to present the individual examples to you which are contained in this letter in or order to clarify the personality of Handloser. Starting on the bottom of the second page of the document you will find the following statement:
"His attitude toward the former enemy is shown by small things:
"1) , In Poland and France, as Generaleberstabsarzt, he was satisfied with inferior quarters. In both countries he refused to let Pelos or Frenchmen the put out of their apartments or houses if he lived in the house. In Besancon, for example, he did not even permit an unused bed to be brought from the next house so that the entire staff of the army physician (Armecarzt) could be billeted in one empty house.
"2), When, in the campaign in the West, 3 American nurses were captured with a French medical unit, it was thanks to his efforts that these nurses wore immediately sent to Switzerland.
"3), In the French hospitals he saw to it that German medical supplies were made available to the French wounded. In order tc aid the French doctors in the French army hospitals, and in order to guarantee the best possible care for the wounded, he sent, after personal inspection, his subordinate 'consulting Physicians' (university professors of surgery, internal medicine, hygiene, etc.) to the French hospitals and had them help and work there. If wounded prisoners of war were brought to German field hospitals, he did not have the patients separated according to friend or fee, but only according to tic typo and severity of tie wound or the sickness."
I am presenting this document as Exhibit 48 and request that it be admitted.
I am now presenting some personal documents about the character Professor Handloser.
First of all, a statement by Dr. Wolter. That is document HA-36, on page 51 of Document Book II. I offer it as Exhibit 49 without reading it.
I then come to an affidavit by Dr. Stengele; that is Document HA-31, on page 44 of Document Book II. I offer this affidavit, which was taken before me, as Exhibit 50.
Mr. McHaney: The Prosecution objects to Document HA-31 on the ground that it was not sworn to before Dr. Nelte. The statement was apparently written on the 1st of December 1946, and has a notation that "I recogneze signature of Dr. Stengele and certify the contents of the affidavit" signed Dr. Nelte, Nuernberg, 3 January 1947. If I understand the ruling of the Tribunal with respect to defense affidavits, it requires that the affiant be administered an oath or make a statement in lieu of an oath before the defense attorney himself and in his presence, or before a notary public. That has not been done in this case.
Dr. Nelte: May it please the Tribunal. This affidavit was received by me on 1 December 1946. Later on Dr. Stengele visited me in person and according to German law procedure, that is, in a case when a witness comes to us with a signed affidavit, I considered it sufficient and I think it corresponds to the requirements of the Tribunal, that I have had the signature of Dr. Stengele recognized and I nave confirmed the contents of this affidavit. I believe that this affidavit meets the requirements of this Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal notes that the last line of the document reads "I have made this statement under oath." Does counsel state that the witness, in counsel's presence, affirmed that this statement was made under oath?
DR. NELTE: The witness has certified in front of me that this affidavit of 1 December 1946 was an affidavit under oath.
THE PRESIDENT: The document offered will be received in evidence. Will you please give the Tribunal again the number of the document--the exhibit number?
DR. NELTE: This is Document HA-31 and it is contained on page 44 of Document Book II.
It is offered as Exhibit 50.
THE PRESIDEDT: The Exhibit is admitted in evidence. In view of the ruling of the Tribunal upon the letter from the pretonetary, it is my understanding. that HA Document No. 55 would now receive the permanent number HA Exhibit 42. If I remember correctly that number was left assigned to this document provisionally. Is that correct, counsel?
DR. NELTE: That was Exhibit 41. It was the affidavit by the protonotary Dr. Kreutz. It was Document HA-39. It was Exhibit 41.
THE PRESIDENT: And the document offered this morning by the witness, Hail Wuerfler, has been assigned Handloser Exhibit 42?
Dr. NELTE: HA-55 is Exhibit 42.
THE PRESIDENT: That is my understanding. I wanted to be sure that was correct.
The Tribunal will now recess until 1:30 O'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 20 February 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SEIDL (For the defendant Oberheuser): Mr. President, the defendant Dr. Oberheuser asks in view of her state of health to be allowed to remain away after the recess and a medical certificate will be submitted later.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Oberheuser may be excused from attendance in court after the afternoon recess. Counsel may proceed.
DR. NELTE (Counsel for the defendant Handloser): The next document in this connection is Document HA 30 in Document Book 2, page 43. This is the testimony of Professor Dr. Voit, director of the Medical Clinic in Mainz. This is an affidavit from a time when the ruling of the Tribunal about the form of such affidavits had not yet been issued. I have asked this Professor Dr. Voit to send me the formula which the Tribunal has requested for such affidavits and ask to submit this provisionally as Exhibit 51. The described formula will be submitted later.
MR. MCHANEY: It seems to me it might be preferable if Dr. Nelte just submitted the document as a whole at a later date. In that way it will relieve us of the responsibility of checking back on these documents that have been admitted provisionally. I am afraid in some cases might overlook some of these deficiencies and I would ask that the document be held without being offered until such time as it is in proper form.
DR. NELTE: I believe that I can assure Mr. McHaney that they will not be overlooked. I have noted down that there are four documents which require the new form. I point out expressly that this document corresponds to the formula which had been previously valid; that is, there is this delay only because a new ruling was made.
THE PRESIDENT: If I remember correctly, prosecution offered a number of documents in this manner. I think that counsel for the defendant may offer these provisionally with the record to be supplemented later. Counsel may proceed.