It concerns such cases in which, according to an investigation made in this camp, it is found suitable to segregate the culprit, owing to confirmation of suspicion, and to transfer him to the SD.
Previous to any publicity in the press, by radio, etc. it must be ensured that name, unit, place of crime and other detailed circumstances present a perfectly clear picture, whose publication may effect the intended result of deterring from further murders. In this connection, the formulation of publication should make allowance for the circumstance that enemy protests of all kinds are to be expected. Therefore, and in agreement with the Chief of the Security Police and the SD and with the Director of Censorship, it is intended that, prior to any publication, and until further notice, an agreement is to be reached between the High Command of the Air Forces, the Operations Staff of the Armed Force, the Foreign Office, and the SD, in order to settle facts, date and form of publication.
You are requested to confirm, if possible not later than 18th inst., that you agree with the above principles as well as with the procedure intended for publications."
We not turn to page 8 of the document which has been circulated. This is a letter dated Salzburg, June 20, 1944. It is a secret Reich matter, and is labeled a draft. It is:
"To the Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces.
"Subject: Treatment of enemy terrorist airmen.
"The Foreign Office agrees to the intended measures as a whole notwithstanding the clearly palpable objections from the view of foreign policy and international law.
"Examination in detail should differentiate between cases of lynching and cases of special treatment by the SD.
"I. In cases of lynching, a sharply defined establishment of criminal facts, according to paragraphs 2-4 of the letter of June 29th, is not very important. First, a German authority is not directly responsible; death has already taken place before some German authority deals with the matter. Further the circumstances will be such, as a rule, that it will not be difficult to represent the case in a suitable manner on publication. Accordingly, in cases of lynching, the principal aim will be to deal suitably with the individual case on publication.
"II. The procedure suggested for special treatment by the SD with subsequent publication, would only be defensible if Germany would openly repudiated at the same time, and in this connection, the obligations under International Law which are in force now and which Germany still recognizes. When an enemy airman has been apprehended by the armed forces or by the police and been transferred to the Airmen Reception Camp Oberursel, his legal status has become co ipso that of a POW. Concerning the criminal prosecution and sentencing of POW and the carrying-out of death sentences against POW, definite rules have been established by the POW agreement of July 27, 1929, such as e.g., paragraph 66,..."
Here, he is referring to the Geneva Convention.
"which provides that a sentence of death may be carried out no sooner that three months after notification cf the death sentence to the protecting power in paragraph 63; sentencing of a POW, only by the same courts and according to the same procedure as applicable to members of the German armed forces.
These regulations are so precisely worded that it would be hopeless to try to veil any infraction thereof by a clever form of publication of individual cases. On the other hand, the Foreign Office can not recommend a formal renunciation of the POW agreement on this occasion. A way of escape would be the following viz. that suspect enemy airmen should not be allowed at all to have the legal status of POW, that means that one should tell them immediately on capture, that they were not to be considered as POW., but as criminals, that they be handed over, not to authorities competent for POW, such as a POW camp, but to the authorities competent for the prosecution of criminal acts, and that the then be sentenced in special summary judicial proceedings. If, during the interrogation under these proceedings, the circumstances prove that this special procedure is not applicable to the case on hand, then in individual cases the concerned airmen could afterwards be given the legal status of POW. by transfer to the Airmen Reception Camp at Oberursel. Of course, even this opening would not prevent Germany from being blamed for infractions against valid agreements, and perhaps even not the taking of reprisal measures against German POW. Anyway, such an opening would enable us to keep to a clear viewpoint and free us of the necessity of either openly repudiating valid agreements or of making use, on publication of every single case, of excuses which nobody will believe."
The last portion of this document which we want to read appears on page 1 It is dated July 5, 1944. It is a secret command matter, entitled:
"Notes concerning 'terrorist Airmen'.
"In the noon conference cf July 5th, the Fuehrer decreed as follows:
"According to press reports, the Anglo-Americans intend for the future, as a reprisal action against 'V 1', to attack from the air also small places without any economic or military importance. If this information is true, the Fuehrer desires publication through radio and press that any enemy airman who participates in such an attack and is shot down during it can not claim to be treated as a POW, but will be killed as soon as he falls into German hand This measure is to apply to all attacks on smaller places, which are not military, communications, nor armament objectives, etc.
, and which accordingly have no significance from the point of view of the war.
"For the time being, no measures are to be taken, but only to be discussed with WR and Foreign Office."
THE PRESIDENT: That last part did not seem to come through in German.
MR. KING: May I inquire of the interpreters if a translation was made of the last part? The Counsel for the Defense apparently did not receive any part of that. I would like to inquire whether the Defense Counsel has the German transcript of that which was just read.
(Indication of an affirmative assent by Defense Counsel.)
THE PRESIDENT: In that event it would not seem very important whether it came over the wires or whether you read it from the manuscript.
MR. KING: We might explain for the benefit of the Defense Counsel, who apparently did not get the reading through their earphones, that we read the last document from NG-149, which is dated July 5, 1944, and is a summary of a conference of July 4th held by Hitler.
In view of the fact that the Defense Counsel has a copy, and that we read it in its entirety, it would not seem necessary to repeat it because of the mechanical difficulty.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it for granted that the Defense Counsel has heard what you said at this time?
MR. KING: I assume so from their lack of response, Your Honor.
We come now to the question of the admission of Documents 108, 109, and the document which we have just read, NG-149, as Exhibit 110. The Court will recall that on Document 108, Thierack's initials appear. We said at the time the document was introduced that we merely wanted to show that the document had come to the attention of Thierack. Exhibit 109 contains handwritten by Thierack and the initials of Klemm which have certain significance which the Prosecution, will in due course, refer to again.
And, Exhibit 110, which is Document NG-149, which provides certain background, and which perhaps helps explain the Exhibits 108 and 109.
We, therefore, at this time ask the Court to receive in evidence the three Exhibits, 108, 109 and 110.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands that no question is made that the document was, in fact, initialed by Klemm?
DR. SCHILF: (for defendant Klemm): I have not had the opportunity to have the photo copy of Exhibit 108. I would like to request the Prosecution, as an exception, to let me have a photo copy of Exhibits 108 and 109, so that when we are working on this case we will not have an inadmissible copy, but that we will have the photo copy; that we will have them before us and we will see from them, we will gather the conclusions and we will see that they are correct. If it does not make it too difficult for the Prosecution, then I believe that one photo copy for these two exhibit numbers could be submitted.
MR. KING: The Prosecution would be very glad to furnish one or more copies of the exhibits if the Defense Counsel so desires them, Exhibits 108 and 109. There is no reason at all why this can not be done, and it will be done as quickly as possible, probably within the next day or so.
THE PRESIDENT: I should like to repeat my question. Is that a question raised that Klemm actually initialed this document?
DR. SCHILF: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is questioned, is it?
DR. SCHILF: The initials are correct; the initials are correct.
JUDGE BRAND: On which exhibit are the initials?
MR. KING: On 109, Your Honor. It might be helpful to the Court if we passed up the photostatic copy.
(Document submitted to Tribunal)
If the Court will notice, in the upper right-hand corner the initials "KM" or "KL" appear.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem to the Tribunal that if this document is actually initialed by Klemm and that it has therefore been brought to his notice, it has some probative value, not as much, of course, as if he had made some order concerning it. However, the mere fact that he had seen it gives it some probative value, and therefore it is admissible.
We will therefore receive all three exhibits in evidence at this time.
MR. KING: We had hoped this morning to clean up, with the exceptions of one document, the exhibits represented in the series of I document books. We have had certain mechanical reproduction difficulties, and we have not been able to do that. The fact is that only document book I-b is now complete and may be considered as such. The others have one or more documents left to introduce into evidence, and we will do that at the very first opportunity. We may be able to accomplish some of that right after lunch. In any event, we will do it as soon as possible.
Since we are now about ready to begin with the presentation of document book II, it might be well to recess at this time an then take up with document book II, unless these other documents from book I are ready at that time.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: May it please Your Honors, I would like to say to the Court and to defense counsel that we are not unduly critical of the mechanic aids that we have received, but we had every reason to believe that on this day we would find, by reason of the things that we had previously done, that this book could be cleared up.
These things continue to happen, and it seems to be part of the trial of these cases. We are sorry. I mean, I want the Court to understand that we ourselves have not broken faith with the Court. We have been working during the time that we were away but these things do occur, and, without placing blame, I just say that they occur.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will recess at this time until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours).
AFTERNOON SESSION
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. KING: May I ask the Court and counsel and the staff to turn to Document Book C -- I am sorry, Document B -- B-1, to Page 59 in the English text. That would be Document NG-388. I believe I am correct in stating that that document is complete in both the English and German texts. This is a letter dated Hamburg, 6 September 1941. It is to the State Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger, the Reich Ministry of Justice. Subject: Report on general situation.
I would like to turn in the English text to Page 61, which is page 3 of that document, and read the one paragraph under II on that page.
"In order to smooth over tension sometimes existing between the Secret State Police (Gestapo) and the judges of the Penal Courts, I have agreed with the Higher SS and Police Leaders that the concentration camps located in my district be visited by judges working for the political Penal Courts. The first very extensive inspection of the concentration camp in Neuengamme took place recently. In a free discussion with the camp commander many mutual understandings --" it says here -- "were removed." I am sure that is to be "misunderstandings." "I recommend this procedure for other districts also."
Subject to clearing up that one sentence we would at this time offer in evidence as Exhibit 111 Document NG-388.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence subject to that understanding.
MR. KING: May we have the record show that the original photostatic copy which we are about to send up to the Secretary General shows "misunderstanding" to be the correct word.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: This is your Exhibit 111?
MR. KING: 111 is correct.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, with the acvent of Document Books 2 and 3 the Prosecution enters a new phase of its case. Before offering Document NG-715 in evidence, the Prosecution has a few descriptive words about that document to say.
DR. SCHILF: (Counsel for Defendants Mettgenberg and Klemm): May it please the Tribunal, I take the liberty before the Prosecution commences with Document Books 2 and 3 to make a few remarks to Document Book 1, so that when we now discuss further document books, that the matters that are necessary for the defense in regard to Document Book 1 will be mentioned.
I regret that I have to request you again to return to Document Book 1. The first matter to which I have to refer is Exhibit 68. Exhibit 68 has the number NG-159. This is in Document Book 1-E, and in the German Document Book page 175. I regret that I can not say on what page of the English Document Book it is. I request the interpreters to find it first in the German Document Book, that is 175 of the German text. In the second paragraph, page 6. It is Document Book 1-B, page 170 in the English Document Book. That is NG-159. That is the letter of the 9th of September 1942. Reichministry of Justice, to the President of the People's Court. That is the second paragraph. It begins: "It was clearer in the case of the People's Court than--". The sixth line of this paragraph in German, the sentence begins as follows: "For this reason you must have every charge submitted to you, that is, recognize those cases in which it is necessary in confidential and convincting discussion with the judge competent for the verdict to emphasize what is necessary from the point of view of the State." As the Prosecution noticed, incidentally, in making its presentation of this document, it seems the adjective "vertrauensvoll", full of confidence, through the translation into English, seems to have been distorted somewhat in its meaning. "Vertrauensvoll the German word, means not confidential, that is, not secret or under the oath of secrecy, but as an open discussion for the purpose of convincing. That is the way it has been used. That is the meaning of the German text. And as I have been told, the possibility exists that this work has not been translated in its proper meaning into English.
The second point which I would like to mention at this time is in Exhibit 42. That is again Document Book 1-B. It is on Page 95 in the German, page 84 in the English. This document, No. 215, concerns the collaboration with the SD. In the second -- that is, on page 3 of this particular document, there is a copy of an excerpt from the camp report of the General Public Prosecutor in Jena of 30 September 1943.
It is NG-219. May I ask whether the English translation is there?
MR. KING: May I interrupt for one moment? I understand that the defense counsel is addressing himself to Document NG-215, which is to be found on page 163 of Document Book 1-B, is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: We understand it is 219 at page 84 of the English Book 1-B. I think defense counsel probably was in error in erroneously stating it was 215 when he meant 219.
DR. SCHILF: I meant 219. May I continue? The third page of this sequence contains this copy of an excerpt. Here the German Administration of Justice in the third part of the German text. I would like to read it in order to be able to clarify it. The third page in the German document book after the beginning of document 219.
The text is:
"The reciprocity contained in the Executive Order of the Reich Ministry of Justice concerning the corporation of Justice authorities with the SecuritySerbice, the SD of the Reichsfuehere-SS of 3 August 1943."
The following words are not interesting.
In the journal, "German Justice" we have examined this quotation and we have found out that this quotation must beincorrect. In the journal, "German Justice" 1943 and also in the year 1944, the general decree which is mentioned here of the Reich Ministry of Justice has not be published. That would impair the probative value of this excerpt very much.
I am not in the position and it would not be up to me, also, to examine where and whether this general Executive Order appeared in the journal "German Justice."
I would also like to add the following in this connection. The events must have been before the year 1943, that is not as it is said in this document which I just read, in 1943, but in 1942. That can be seen from Exhibit 98. Exhibit 98 was submitted in Document Book 1-D. It is on Page 159 of German Document Book 1-D. There was discussion about this document before. It is a piece of printed material from the chief of the SD, 3 September, 1942. The Chief of the Security Police sent this memorandum, obviously, to several Reich Officers and the particular one submitted by the Prosecution has the remark "RK" on it. That is Reich Kanslei, Reich Chancellery and it is from 9 September 1942. The evidence material submitted has on the first page several handwritten marginal remarks from which it can be seen further that this memorandum was received by the Reich Chancellery.
The stamp which is on this document is evidence of this and it shows that this material was not examined carefully. When this document was discussed previously, it was unfortunately, not clarified that the Reich Ministry of Justice did not have anything to do with document.
The stamp of receipt and the handwritten notes which also showed some names, show unequivocally, that this memorandum did not go beyond the Reich Chancellery, that is not via the Reich Chancellery to the Reich Ministry of Justice. It could not have gone that way.
To that extent, I also want to object to the probative value against the Reich Ministry of Justice or its members. I would like to request that the gentlemen of the Prosecution make some remarks in regard to this document once more, remarks in regard to the Reich Ministry of Justice or the defendants from the Reich Ministry of Justice, and show us how they are connected with this document, or how the Prosecution would like to connect them with this document.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I would like to inquire whether Colonel Nesbitt has Document Book 1-D at his desk?
COLONEL NESBITT: Yes, sir.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: May I borrow it please?
In the first place, there was a slight misunderstanding. I thought Dr. Shilf has said 1-B. I was looking at 1-B during all of his remarks. I would like to have a minute to look at 1-D. We did not bring it because 1-D had already been admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: May the Tribunal make a suggestion?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: When this document was received in evidence, it was stated at the time that it would be received as a captured document for what it was worth. The value of it is argumentative. To whom it applies, is argumentative.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Exactly. The weight to be given to it is something for the Tribunal to determine.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a point of argument. Defense counsel can argue that point properly.
MR. La FOLLETTE: As I recall, the other question which Dr. Shilf has presented is the question which will naturally arise more often. That is the question of disagreement as to proper translations. I think under the circumstances, he was well within his rights and he acted at the proper time in pre senting his objections to what he considered to be improper translation. Eventually, I think that is an extra que stion of fact which exists in trials of this kind. The Tribunal either of its own motion after consultation with other Tribunals who have handled this question or possibly by a conference between attorneys for the Prosecution and the Defense would decide the issue. A method might be worked out using the office of a Commissioner. Otherwise these questions of disagreement in translation may be settled in an orderly manner. My point is that I think Dr. Shilf was quite right since we have no rules now in pointing out what he considered to be an incorrect translation. I do not believe that eventually , we will be able to settle these matters at the podium. I understand all he was doing was pointing out what he considerd to be an inaccurate translation. It might be well for us to consider within the next few days either among ourselves or at the implication of the Tribunal an orderly method of at least presenting to the Tribunal some factual background by which it can determine whether our translation is correct or whether the translation which defense councel believe is correct is the one which they will follow.
DR. SHILF: I think that the suggestion made by Mr. LaFollette is very good. Only so far we have not yet had the opportunity to compare the documents before they were read. We could not compare the English and German documents because the Defense gets only the German copy of the document, not the English.
Therefore, I would like to say in addition to the suggestion made by Mr. LaFollette, that with the German document books, we should receive at least one copy of the Englisk. Otherwise we can notice mistakes in translation only here during proceedings. It was only by chance that I noticed it because Dr. Mottgenberg who heard the English translation also saw the German translation lying before him. He noticed it that way.
Therefore, I believe that my request is proper that at the same time we receive the German text, we should also be give a copy of the English. At least then we could look over a large amount of the material before it is presented and we might be able to reach an agreement with the gentlemen of the Prosecution.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May it please Your Honors, there seems to be, apparently, a lack of adequate service for defense counsel in this Tribunal from the Defense Center, because we are required to send four English copies as well as 16 German copies of the Document Book to the Defense Center for the benefit of the defense counsel so that they may do just what Dr. Schilf wants to do and which is obviously fair. We have a receipt here that it was received. I certainly don't want to show bad faith to Dr. Schilf, but I simply say that when we deliver them to the Defense Center that the obligation is for the Defense Center to see that each counsel is furnished with those four copies; and perhaps if I may also suggest, since the Secretary General's office in the Defense Center in a sense is a service branch of the Tribunal, I would request the Tribunal to cause investigation to be made as to why the defense counsels are not being properly served.
THE PRESIDENT: There is still the open question as to how we are going to settle matters of the disputed meaning of certain words. I wonder if that can be worked out by agreement between the prosecution and defense counsel. If not, we will have to make some rule.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: With the permission of the Court, we will try to confer. May I suggest now, if the defense counsel will appoint from their members a committee not to exceed three, we will try to arrange time within the next day or so to meet with them, and with an interpreter if we need one, so that we can attempt to work out an orderly method of resolving these questions of translation.
On the question of the books, I am deeply sorry that you haven't been receiving them, but we have been sending them to the Defense Center.
THE PRESIDENT: May I make the further suggestion that instead of bringing these matters up one at a time that if the defense counsels will make a notation of the words where they question the translation, it can be taken up properly, and if there is a disagreement about them-
MR. LaFOLLETTE: That was one of the methods that we had in mind that we might be able to devise. Mr. King would like at this time to also present to the Court the prosecution's position on the specific objections made by Dr. Schilf to NG-219, which is Exhibit 42, I believe.
MR. KING: As I understood Dr. Schilf, there were two questions in connection with NG-219 that he wanted clarified. Perhaps one of them, at least, falls in the matter discussed a moment ago re the question of appointing an ex-officio committee to get together on translations. However, I think in view of the other question to be determined, we might discuss the question of translation in this case only at this time. He pointed out that the date--I am reading from Page 85 of the English Book now--that the date of 3 August 1943, as it appeared in the German text, must be incorrect, and he gave his reasons for so believing. The English Book does state 3 August 1942, and since the matter came up, we have had it checked and it is indeed 3 August 1942.
He also raised a question as to whether it was to be found in the source as cited. The Deutsche Justiz, the German Justice, is 521. We would like to say in clearing this matter up that it does appear in Deutsche Justiz for 3 August 1942. If defense counsel wishes, we would be glad to make that copy of Deutsche Justiz available for checking, although I believe they probably have access to it as well as we.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: To resume about the introductory remarks to be made concerning Document Books 2 and 3: Document Book 2 has been delivered both to the bench and to the defense for sometime now, as has the first two or three series in Book 3. Book 2, which is really one document, namely, NG-715, deserves a word of description and explanation. The prosecution intends to offer Document Bock 2 in evidence as an exhibit of itself. It comprises some approximately 40 statutes from the official German statutory organ of publishing legislation, namely, the Reichsgesetzblatt. Also, there are two or three excerpts from the German equivalent of legal texts or law review articles. The reason it's presented in this form rather than each statute or excerpt of a statute separately, for even without relying upon judicial notice, which is rather doubtful in a case of this kind, the prosecution has chosen this method of putting into evidence and discussing German legislation mainly because of its handy quality for presentation technique.
It offers an ability to go directly from the statute to the cases and ministerial action involved, which means going from Book 2 to Book 3 with the minimum of effort.
To be sure that the defense was not prejudiced in any way by getting up German criminal legislation in this form, the defense's version of Document Book 2 was a German translation of the index of the book giving the accurate statute citations and the official German title of each law. In addition, the prosecution undertook to furnish the defense, to the extent of the library's facilities, with one complete set of the Reichsgesetzblatt and legal text books which are cited. The only other available set was furnished to the interpreters so that they might render an accurate German version of what we may read. We, therefore, thought that any slight difficulty imposed on the defense by requiring them to go from their index to the actual statutes themselves is outweighed by the tremendous physical advantage to the prosecution of having all the English expertly bound into one handy reference book. Is there any objection by the defense at this time to the statutes as presented in this manner?
DR. BRIEGER: Dr. Brieger for the defendant Cuhorst. I do not have the lists with me today, in the meantime however, I have already found out that this list is not quite complete. There have been some laws left out which, particularly in our case, have importance for one or the other of the defendants. Therefore, I shall use one of the future sessions in order to point out these emissions to the Tribunal.
DR. SCHILF: Dr. Schilf for the defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg. We have the table of contents. We have received it. And in my opinion, when we take cognizance of these laws, we have to have the table of contents in front of us.
Before the prosecution however quotes from these laws or reads them, I would like to request that they tell us to what extent they intend to quote from these laws, for I cannot assume that these laws will be read in their entirety: For Page 1 is the Constitution of the German Reich of the 11 of August 1 1919. That is a thick book of over 180 paragraphs. It would be sufficient for us if the prosecution would, when it is quoting from these laws, tell us the articles or the paragraphs of the law which they intend to read. Then we would have the opportunity to read them afterwards. In order to avoid long discussions, I would like to make this request right at the beginning so that we can find the place from which the prosecution intends to quote, exactly and quickly.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The prosecution wishes to state at this time that we of course had always assumed that any excerpt that we may read from any German statute will be carefully designated in the record as to section, paragraph, title, to give you every assistance in going to your own statute books and finding it.
With regard to the remark by counsel as to possible omissions or errors in the translation of these statutes, might I suggest that like other translation or omission errors, if you will but submit a list to the prosecution after Court as to what omissions or errors you find, I think that mechanical problem can be worked out to our satisfaction without taking court time for it.
Are there any questions from the Tribunal before the prosecution offers Book 2 into evidence, as to its form or conception or the method it employs?
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I said, Your Honor, does the Bench have any questions we can clarigy further as to the method of preparation or what this book's purports to be?
THE PRESIDENT: We have had no opportunity to study it and therefore we have no suggestions at this time.
DR. BRIEGER: (Attorney for Defendant Hermann Cuhorst) I am referring to the things which the Prosecutor has just mentioned.
I would like to submit to the Prosecution such a list; however, if the Table of Contents which we have will be submitted as a document, then I request to have the right reserved to me that I shall be allowed to submit this list not only to the gentlemen of the Prosecution, but at the earliest opportunity also the same to the Honorable Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Referring to the objection made by Dr. Brieger, representing Cuhorst, we understand that the objection made by Dr. Brieger was that there were other statutes that they might want to have introduced, and as to that, the Tribunal feels that they can introduce them at the proper time. The Prosecution could only be required to introduce those that are favorable to it; Defense Counsel can introduce any others at the proper time that applies to them.
DR. BRIEGER: I would assume and could understand that the high Tribunal and in view of the large amount of material, and in particular the large amount of material laws, would recognize the necessity to familiarize themselves at an early time with these extensive laws, and, therefore, could be of service to the high Tribunal if I could submit the supplementary list at the earliest possible opportunity.
THE PRESIDENT: It is entirely agreeable to the Court if the Prosecution is willing to submit additional statutes.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One further remark, NG-715, after this document is offered, and, if the Court please, admitted, NG-715, we will continue to refer to it countless times in the next few days with reference to various documents in Book III; that is, we will attempt to correlate, statute by statute, what is set forth in Book II with cases and other evidence to which that particular statute may relate. In Book III there will be a constant cross-reference, so we will continue to refer to that exhibit even after it has been introduced. One further remark. All of the statutes in Document Book II, with the exception of two or three, legal commentaries from legal text, were found originally published in the Reichs Gestz Blatt. It is the Prosecution's understanding, subject of course to correction by the Defense, for after all this system of law is not our native one, that the Reichs Gestz Blatt is the authoritative organ for publication of legislation throughout the Reich, and has been so throughout any year that might have been touched upon in the evidence in this case.