The neighborhood where the couple was to be searched was surrounded by a police command which was called together very quickly. The couple was arrested and soon it was handed over to the Special Court for sentencing. At that time some special courts outside of Nuernberg, in an unusual need to save time, had made time records, that is, to the effect that between the seizure of the criminals, the sentencing, and the execution of the sentence, that the tine spent between them was supposed to be as small as possible.
Nuernberg now, at that time, with its chief public prosecutor Denzler, also was ambitious to demonstrate here how quickly in Nuernberg one could be put from life to death and the Special Court under the presiding judge Rothaug was put into the service of that ambition.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One moment, witness. Does the Court wish to take the morning recess at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: We will take the recess at this time for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. KOESSL: (Attorney for Defendant Rothaug) May it please the Tribunal, very fortunately I am finding myself forced to state that the defendant Rothaug is not in a position sufficiently to attend these proceedings, and to remain in this courtroom, since he is suffering too much pain, having had tremendous stomach pains during the entire night as well as vomiting and having been unable to sleep; to sit down is causing him much too much trouble; and, therefore, I beg to ask you, Mr. President, to make an order to the effect that the defendant Rothaug may again return to the hospital.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you at this time requesting permission on behalf of your client, Dr. Rothaug to be absent during the further examination of this witness?
DR. KOESSL: Yes, your Honor, I am making the request to this Tribunal that the examination of the witness should be continued without the defendant Rothaug in attendance.
THE PRESIDENT: Your request on behalf of the defendant Rothaug will be granted at this time; and the cross examination of this witness will be governed by the ruling that was made last Saturday.
DR. KOESSL: Thank your.
(CROSS EXAMINATION? Dr. FEBER, continued) BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Dr. Feber, will you continue with your description of what happened in the Heller case.
A The case Heller had a special peculiarity in its proceedings before the Special Court, in as far as similarly as during the summer of 1937 and this already happened with consultation of high departments of the party, for this trial went on its way; just as in the case in 1937, which I may describe later by request of the prosecution. In this case of Heller, too, Gauleiter Streicher was invited to attend the sessions of the Court; the sessions took place on a floor above the very room in which we are now, namely, in Room 600, and Gauleiter Streicher was seated with his Adjutant Koenig in the first row, wearing a uniform, and there were several other big people from the party also in uniform who were representing the Propaganda Department of the Gau; there was a generous sprinkling of police, if they weren't concerned with the case, as spectators, and the large hall was filled to the last place.
During the proceedings there were several recesses, during which the crowd had sufficient opportunity to discover just how much Gauleiter Streicher personally was concerned himself with the proceedings and sentences in this case.
Q Dr. Feber, you speak of Gauleiter Streicher being in the audience in the Heller case.
A Yes.
Q Was that Gauleiter Streicher the same Gauleiter Streicher who was the editor of the "Der Stuermer?"
A Yes, that is correct; the same Streicher.
Q Continue.
A During the proceedings in this case it had become known that the acting county court medical officer, Dr. Kunz, had discovered that the mistress of Heller, who participated in this perpetration, was pregnant; and that, therefore, a death sentence which was to be expected could not be carried out, since it was the ruling of the penal code that this should not be carried out. Gauleiter Streicher vividly interested himself in this and attempted to influence this decision through the Chief Public Prosecutor Denzler, to the effect that the medical officer would refrain from stating that this woman was pregnant.
Q Dr. Feber, may I interrupt -- you said that there were two defendants in the Heller case; did you not?
A Yes, there were two defendants. Heller was indicted and the girl friend was involved.
Q I see. Was the defendant Heller Jewish?
A No.
Q Was his girl friend Jewish?
A No.
Q Then why -- let me withdraw that; then, how do you account for the fact that Gauleiter Streicher was so interested in the case?
A Gauleiter Streicher was interested to see to it that a Special Court was sitting in his Gau, in his district, which in rapid succession would quickly deal with the do away with such apparent criminals; and. which, between the announcement of the findings and the carrying out of the sentence, would allow the shortest possible time to elapse. Consequently, Gauleiter Streicher was here, in person, making efforts that any questions of reprieve, which of course had to be asked for, could be settled as quickly as possible so that during the same night, before midnight, the sentence would be carried out, such as a death sentence in which Streicher was interested, and which was contrary be the rules and regulations, in which he conspired with his adjutant Koening.
Q Dr. Feber, ever what district court areas did the Nurnberg Special Court have jurisdiction?
A The Special Court in Number had jurisdiction for the Supreme Court district Numberg, which comprised the county court district, Nurnberg, Fuerth, Auberg, Ansbach, Regensburg, and Rielen in the Oberpfalz.
Q. What would you estimate is the geographical portion of Bavaria represented by the towns and counties that you have just enumerated.
A. Actually the Gau of Franconia was the smallest Gau within the organization of the Reich, but the court district Nuernberg was extended to two further Gau territories, namely, in Scheinfeld, Lower Franconia, and the district of Bayreuth/Oberpfalz, so that we would be entitled to say that north of the River Danube, besides the special court Bamberg with two subdivisions at Wuerzburg and Bayreuth, Nuernberg controlled at least half of the Bavarian share north of the River Danube.
Q. Dr. Feber, did the Special Court in Nuernberg ever sit in session outside of Nuernberg?
A. The Special Court Nuernberg, after Rothaug came into office, held sessions regularly in the county court districts, which were part of the special court area, and that was not only in the seats of the county courts, but if possible in the buildings of county courts in the most far distant corners of that area, for instance, where the special court sessions were held at Rothenburg on the River Tauber just as much as in the Bavarian Forest.
Q. Why did the Special Court Nuernberg travel to these far off towns and sit in session there?
A. Although there was a pronounced wish from witnesses and defense counsel that these far travels from places like Straubing or Weiden to Nuernberg should not have to be made, nevertheless, as years went by the fact became apparent that it was a question of political tendencies which were the cause for Rothaug to travel to these far removed parts. This is shown by the fact that in places like Cham, for instance, he got into touch with political leaders, such as Kreisleiters of the NSDAP, with whom he established the most personal type of contact, by which means he achieved propagandistic effects on his trips that, of course, could not have in Nuernberg. Tor instance, the circle of visitors who would come to sessions in Nuernberg would in no way be as well informed pertinently and factually as parts of the population in the flat country.
Q. A moment ago you mentioned Cham. I take it that that is a town in Bavaria. Is that so?
A. In Bavaria. That is Cham in the eastern territory, in the Bavarian woods.
Q. In 1939 do you remember a case over which the Special Court from Nuernberg president in Cham which involved a defendant named Schlamminger?
A. In this case, which concerned the case of Schlamminger et al, who had been accused - and incidentally I myself collaborated in this case as prosecutor - that for political reasons they had acted against a local police official and a locak teacher against whom they had made an attempt by means of a rifle.
Q. What do you mean, "political reasons"?
A. During this trial, during this case, particularly from amongst people who were politically interested in this case, and by that I mean the class of officers that came particularly, shots fired at night against the apartment of the Ortsgruppenleiter in the NSHA could be attributed to the fact that the people involved were feeling that they were under pressure by those sources and felt that they were politically prosecuted.
In order to have a law against such people and in order to have a law effected which would cover such perpetrations it was necessary to establish that the deed was due to political motives.
Q Dr. Feber, you have stated that Rothaug -- Did the Tribunal knock? You have stated that Rothaug took the Special Court from Nuremberg to sit in session in these various towns and areas which you enumerated. Did you ever accompany the court on those trips?
A Not just once, but often.
Q Then what did you observe was the impression from the bench that Rothaug sought to create in these trips to other towns?
A I have already stated during my introduction when I was talking about these journeys, that to begin with, the important point was that educational measures, political educational measures, should be effected on the spot. At least that was how Rothaug understood his activity as chairman during such outside sessions. The character of these so-called political educational measures became even more obvious, and even obvious to the people, because during such outside sessions, particularly at Neumarkt or Cham, most of all, Amberg, the Kreisleiter offices and the local group leaders ' offices were represented by their chief, and as Rothaug would put it, because the point was, and because he was aiming at it, that it should, be shown to these people on the spot that a sentence from the point of view of philosophy and based on the reasons of the NSDAP should be made palusible, or the people wouldn't understand it if just for having made some statement of some sort a comparatively high sentence was pronounced. Consequently he wanted it that the connections between the Special Court, particularly his activities in the party should become prominent. 1332
Q After the beginning of the war in September, 1939, while as you have stated, you were still Prosecutor before the Nuremberg Special Court, did you notice any change in Rothaug's attitude as a judge?
A If I were to be in Rothaug 's position in the Special Court, and if I were to imagine it at the moment when war broke out, then I would have to state that at that instant, at that moment he already had officially as well as based on the reactions outside of his official sphere that the laws based on the emergency situation only added to the means he already had in order to try out his work, as ho put it, in the interests of the political movement of the Party and on behalf of the mission. I should only like to say in this connection that at the beginning of the war he had been the chairman of the Court of the Assizes. He was President of the Special Court, and he was the President cf a penal court, a criminal court, when war came, laymen were removed from the juries, so that the jury court was dropped, the work transferred from his hands by his request to another lay member of the Party, and he retained for himself his work in the Special Court as being some such type of work within the war work which was going on. bar brought with it a wealth of laws and extentions of penalties, particularly the death penalty, which was made possible at the beginning, that is September 1939. he were, of course, concerned with a change of course of the Special Courts which both to the Special Court in general, but also as far as Rothaug's personality is concerned, got them the worst possible reputation.
Q After the passage in 1939 of these now laws in the field of criminal law that you have mentioned, did Rothaug ever voice an opinion to you about these new laws?
A Yes, official contact with Rothaug because I was returned from prison duties to prosecution duties and until the end of 1940 I was a prosecutor, thus being once again in a position to observe Rothaug and his attitude toward law, particularly the manner in which he handled them. And, on that occasion I remember as far as laws were concerned, particularly those decrees for the combating of enemies of the people, the law against special criminals and such, which at that time in 1939 when the war decrees appeared, he was favorably disposed toward them. For instance, he had the essential means at his disposal in order to proceed against criminals and the paracites of war crimes in the manner that was best. His inclinations were always toward the more severe and never toward the more mild handling.
Q Do you know the purpose of the law against undermining German defense (Wehrkraftzersetzung)?
A Yes, I know that.
Q What was the purpose of that law?
A That law which the prosecutor is referring to is in a special publication for laws of war emergencies, and is here concerned with a rule in paragraph 4 -- correction paragraph 5, which listed punishment for such persons who dodge the emergency calling up and those who evaded the armed service, which also included punishment for those who by either word-
Q (Interposing) May I interrupt. True, you are enumerating things which the law says on its fact, however, that is not the question I asked you; I asked you what the purpose was of that law? What did it seek to accomplish?
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I object to putting this question to the witness. The witness is not going to speak about facts, but he is going to produce an argument.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection made and the reason for it seems to the Court to be sound.
Q Dr. Feber, enumerate briefly the laws passed after the beginning of the war in 1939, that expanded the Special Court's jurisdiction in the criminal cases?
A Right at the beginning a number of laws were brought upon by the war, such as the war economy decrees, the decrees against a nation the decrees on the guilty criminals, keeping occupied at the beginning of war, and which gave cause that indictments were predominately made by tho Special Courts, exclusive jurisdictions for all Special Courts was not contained in these decrees in as far as in accordance with the severe criminal decree. Those were only to be brought before the Special Courts.
Q In these laws that were actually passed in 1939, that you have just mentioned, was the death penalty mandatory in any of them?
A The laws which I have just referred to, the death penalty is mandatory to a rather modest decree. The criminal and the public enemy had to be dealt with as for looting was concerned and as far as larceny was concerned, under paragraph 3. For this reason in accordance with all laws, the situation of the case was decisive. In other words in very serious cases, under paragraph 2 of the Public Enemy Code, it was left to the Tribunal whether they were to impose the death penalty or not.
Q In other words, with the exceptions that you made a moment ago, Rothaug was not forded to pronounce the death sentence under these statutes, is that true?
A Rothaug, as a matter of principle, was free to act with the Tribunal even when the death penalty was compulsory or the extent of it.
DR. KOESSL: Your Honor, I object to that question, and I move to have the question and answer stricken from the record because the testimony of this witness is not based on facts, but on a very general opinion, and even sufficiently limited in order to be called irrelevant.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems that the law to which we have access to indicate that this speaks for itself.
We are, of course, very much interested in the attitude of the defendant Rothaug. The manner of administering an oath in Court, and all those things should be the subject of inquiry.
INTERPRETER (Frank): Would you mind repeating it again, sir; we didn't get it, I am afraid.
THE PRESIDENT: The laws to which the witness has referred to and which have been, in fact, introduced in evidence, are plain in their language, they speak for themselves. They showed the latitude Rothaug had in imposing a light or heavy sentence or the death sentence, and those are matters that are not the subject of expert opinion. On the other hand, Rothaug's attitude toward the laws the things he said about them, and the manner of administering them, are important to this Tribunal, and those are proper subjects of inquiry.
Q Dr. Feber, as I remember your testimony earlier, you were a prosecutor before the special Court in Nurnberg as late as 1940; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q In 1940, in your capacity as prosecutor do you remember a case before the Nurnberg special court at which case the presiding judge was Rothaug, involving a defendant named Geishauser?
A Yes.
Q Would you describe what you observed in that case?
A That is the case where a considerably aged German had been arrested late one afternoon when he was on the way from his residence to the locality of the local police. When on the way, the policeman had the arrested person following him and when they came to a wooded part, and at that point Geishauser drew a knife and stabbed the policeman, and he went back so that he fell to the ground. That was the case I think we are talking about.
Q In that case, Geishauser, what criminal statute was involved?
A The case, Geishauser, I, myself, served the indictment as a prosecutor. Following the results of the investigation previously made, and based on the point of view that this was an action -- a violation of a law for guaranteeing of legal peace, and in application of the ruling, that he had undertaken to kill a police officer.
Furthermore, the indictment contained a part, according to which there was an attempted manslaughter, and as far as further details are concerned I cannot remember them with regard to the indictment. At any rate, following this action, the indictment was put before the Special Court, and it was on the basis of that indictment that the proceedings of the Geishauser case was started.
Q Would you describe the physical characteristics of the defendant?
A Yes, in the Geishauser -- the thing that was of extraordinary significance was that Geishauser was of considerable ago, approximately 70 years old, and that on the very day when he committed the deed, he had consumed not a large amount of alcohol. The expert medical man who had examined Geishauser, stated that Geishauser was or had been fully in control of his actions, and this falls under paragraph 51 of the Penal Code, so that mitigating circumstances of this alcoholic consumption could not be claimed. This is a borderline case. During the proceedings a woman witness appeared who testified to the Tribunal that Geishauser had swayed when walking along, and that Geishauser, according to her views, and she was the daughter of an inn keeper, had at any rate, been under the influence of alcohol. I can remember very well that the examination of this particular witness, through Rothaug, was the most extraordinary mocking point, characteristic point of the entire proceedings, because it was depending upon this testimony whether the expert testimony of Dr. Schumacher would be used.
Rothaug subjected the witness to considerable pressure upon the point whether she was trying to be sufficiently an expert before the Tribunal regarding the question of who was drunk and who wasn't and what her measures of experience were -- her personal measures of experience were in that respect. Consequently, in the course of this testimony and examination the woman witness departed from the testimony she had previously put on record during the pre-trial investigation so that Rothaug, at a certain point, you can say, triumphed over this witness but with that, the medical officer's, statement -- Dr. Schumacher's statement in the main point was recorded and it is not that the Tribunal -- the Court assumed that the condition -- for the full application of the law of guarantee of legal peace were in existence.
Q You state that Rothaug "triumphed" over this witness through the use of pressure. Can you describe the manner in which Rothaug exerted that pressure?
A This can only be explained by saying that psychologically he over-powered such a simple woman from a rural atmosphere. She had a larger field of vision and quoted against her which were able to shake such a witness. I can recall that Rothaug, for instance, put the question to this witness when, according to her idea, some one was so intoxicated that he no longer knew what he was doing. I think this woman was hardly past here twentieth year and that such a person would become uncertain at such a point and that she will begin to retreat from her previous testimony and from the impression which she had previously stated and when the immediate arrest had taken place, that is certain and Rothaug apparently would not allow matters to be brought to him or come to him but would more or less attack -- assail a witness and scream at them, possibly by putting it to them that it would penetrate quite simply that someone was about to help someone else and lie on some one on his passing on that connection he would use that expression:
"Itsn't my job to have lies told to me especially," and that is how, psychologically speaking, he managed to gain an advantage by which the witness became uncertain and evidently would concede the point that had previously -- that had been the opinion of a simpleton and that's the Tribunal's opinion which is the correct one.
Q You say that Rothaug screamed at witnesses?
A Yes.
Q Did he do that often?
A It would be seen that the form which was used against the witnesses who were made to talk by Streicher might be used even to keep them silent and that happened frequently which wasn't exactly fitting, the idea, according to which Mr. Rothaug was about to say a case, namely, the doctor.
Q Did Rothaug in your presence in Court abuse witnesses?
AAt this point I should like to quote a case as being particularly not worthy because it entailed insults of a defendant of that particular instance in the presence of Gaulieter Streicher where political abuses of a defendant took place. A defendant who at that time was a clergyman. This was early as 1937. That was the first large case and was prosecuted in Hall No. 600 when there were prosecuted against two Catholic priests supposedly because of moral crimes and in the presence of the Gaulieter Rothaug Take No 10 page 3, - M - 31 March 1947 - Burns - GJ yelled at one defendant, "Shut up, you son of a bitch."
Q What was the name of that case? Who were the manes of the defendants?
A The case of the defendant priests were Schmidt and Fasel was the name of the other one. Schmidt's trial was in 1935 in the Jury Court No. 600.
Q Returning to the Geishauer case -- had Geishauer any previous convictions?
AAccording to my recollection proceedings were pending against Geishauer which had been previously penalized on the penal register because of a sexual crime against a girl under the age of twelve. I am not at this moment absolutely certain in my recollection but there had either been a report from the lover of his wife or had been from his wife herself, who reported that sexual crime of Gieshauer against this child, at any rate, this apply to a part of the proceedings we had talked about.
Q What was the extent of the injury inflicted upon the policeman by the defendant Gieshauer?
A The wound inflicted upon the policeman amounted to a stab about as deep as a finger is long -- a stab in the back which was not fatal and the policeman recovered completely. He appeared as a witness during the trial.
Q You say, that the policeman for whom Gieshauer was indicted as stabbing later recovered completely and attended his trial; is that correct?
A Yes
Q Now, what sentence in that trial did Gieshauer received?
QA Gieshauer was sentenced to death upon application of the decree against violent crimes and the decree for violations against the law of the grantee for legal peace and was based up NO 3Take No 10, page 4 - M - 31 March 1947 - Burns - GJ on other regulations or attempted murder or attempted manslaughter I think it was manslaughter.
Q Was Geishauer in fact executed?
A Yes, the Ministry refused to grant mercy and he was executed in January 1940 or 41. I think it was 1940. January 1940. In January 1940 Geushauer was executed.
Q In the same year 1939 do you remember another case at the Nuernberg Special Trial Court during the trial of which Rothaug presided in which the defendant was named Englbauer?
A Yes.
Q Would you describe that case and the officials connections with it.
A The case Englbauer was indicted as an assault upon a woman worker who, after having received her wages at the end of the week was on her way form the railway station to her residence of at Neumarkt and as she said herself was attacked by an unknown person who tore her handbag out of her hand and robbed of one week's wages. The policeman directed the investigation against Englbauer. He was a person of very bad repute who lived in Neumarkt and proceedings against Englbauer were actually carried out in the town of Neumarkt in an atmosphere externally which I imagine it was, let's say, sensational.
There is an estate outside Neumarkt. There is a large hall set aside for public meetings and for sports meetings, indoor sports meeting. In this building was the hall in which the proceedings were carried out after Rothaug, together with the Police Chief, Birk, of this town, agreed upon the place and time for the trial. This was particularly necessary, because the prison at Neumarkt was situated next to the court building in the center of the town. Since Englbauer had to be escorted by a policeman and taken into the sessions in the morning and in the afternoon respectively had to be taken back, this was a walk of torture because this was through the middle of the town of Neumarkt.
If I may continue, the other peculiarity of this case was that there were only indications on a very broad basis as to his guilt, because neither the moneybag nor the purse of the attacked person had been found in his possession. That Englbauer, only Englbauer, and no other person could be the perpetrator, was comparatively far-fetched.
Q Dr. Feber, you say you served the indictment on Englbauer in that case?
A I prepared the indictment and represented the Prosecution during the proceedings.
Q Under what statute was Englbauer indicted?
A I indicted Englbauer from the point of view of perpetration against property of others, under paragraph 2 of the Public Enemy decree. According to the report from the police authorities, the location where the assault took places, was subject to influences, the blackout influences of the hospital at Neumarkt.
Q In other words, you said, have you not, that Englbauer was indicted for violating a Public Enemy decree and taking advantage of the black-out conditions? Is that correct?
A That is correct, yes.
Q Was there any evidence introduced in the defense of Englbauer to show that the conditions under which he snatched the purse were not black-out conditions?
A Yes. Englbauer's defense claimed that the attack took place on a small road going off the Nuernberg-Neumarkt main road, where under normal conditions, let us say in peace time, darkness would have existed in any case. Therefore, the question of a blacking out of the scene of the crime was out.
Q Was the evidence you have just described, namely, evidence indicating that there were no black-out conditions at the place where the defendant was charged with snatching the purse? Was that evidence, in fact, introduced and admitted into court?
A The president of the Court, Rothaug, together with the Chief of the Police at Neumarkt, had convinced himself where the assault had taken place. And, he, himself, with his own eyes had been in a position to measure the distance, and circumstances of the lighting conditions of the road.
The acception or non-acception of a black-out was the decisive defense question in Englbauer's case. This evasive possibility was reduced by Rothaug. It was, in fact, blocked by Rothaug because he introduced the argument that residents in a building adjoining the hospital at Neumarkt had not by any means been in a condition to open the window and to give any type of help to the woman who was screaming for help because of the anxiety connected with penetrating into the darkness from the open window. They remained from doing so. This was possibly -- no I do not know because I was not the judge in this case -the final argument quoted by Rothaug which would lead to the acceptance of the blackout argument.
Q Dr. Feber, was any evidence submitted by the defense in the Englbauer case to show that the scene of the crime had nothing, whatever, to do with a blackout condition? Was such evidence accepted and admitted by the Court?
A The Defense counsel did not submit anything other than photographs which the police had previously submitted. The defense counsel pointed out the local conditions which existed.
So far as that direction was concerned, defense counsel did what he could have done as far as that was concerned. Rothaug, as presiding judge, did not, in any way, restrict him.
Q At the time the Englbauer case was tried, what was the maximum penty that man could get for snatching a purse in broad daylight?
A If you are not basing your question on the Public Enemy Decree, street robbery according to the German Penal Code, can be punished with a penitentiary sentence. A minimum penalty is described, but not a maximum penty. The minimum penalty is 15 years.
Q What sentence did Englbauer receive?
A Englbauer was sentenced to death. An extraordinary fact, was the legal administration had him transferred to Berlin where the sentence was executed.
Q Did you read Rothaug's legal opinion in that case, or did you hear him read his reasons for the sentence?
A I know the findings which were filed in the Englbauer case because I had to concern myself with the reprive which was applied for when the sentence was submitted.
Q According to the record of the case to which you have just referred was the condition of a blackout at the time Englbauer is alleged to have stole the purse proved beyond a reasonable doubt?
A Upon the assumption that this assault was carried out, when black conditions did exist? There were objections against assuming a blackout condition, and they were considerable.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Court please, the Prosecution suggests, respectfully, that this is a good time to break off.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, The Court will recess at this time until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION "The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 31 March 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. FEBER - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Court please, Dr. Brieger has asked for a few moments at this time to discuss the committee's functions of which he is a member with regard to matters of translation, etc. If that is agreeable -
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honors, due to the confidence and good-will of my colleagues. I have been appointed as spokesman for the defense counsel of Tribunal III. This morning I was unfortunately not able to appear for the session on time although I was in the building since eight-thirty a.m. since, I had to discuss important matters with Mr. Wartena. I have now been informed that the Tribunal discussed this morning the suggestion which was made here by the prosecution regarding the examination of witnesses, and, as far as we are concerned with witnesses who are in the Voluntary Witness House, I would like to point out in this respect that I have been informed such a suggestion by the prosecution had been submitted. Since Saturday I have made efforts to procure one copy of the text of the number of copies which have been made avail by the prosecution. Only a few minutes ago did I succeed in procuring such a copy. My colleagues of the Defense and I are in agreement that we are concerned with such an important suggestion that it seems to be absolutely necessary for us that every Defense Counsel should be furnished with one copy of this suggestion, and that thereupon it will be necessary for us to confer in detail which will be our final attitude in this matter. I hope to be in conformity with the desires of the Prosecution and that they agree that there is no special rush in this matter. Nevertheless, I shall make every effort to accomplish these matters as quickly as possible. However, considering the entire situation, especially in view of the holidays this week, and furthermore in of the fact that one or the other of our colleagues has to go home probably during the holiday, I would like to ask that we will be allowed a time of about two weeks before we have to make our statement...state our attitude.