It was the effort of the Administration of Justice in general to regain lost ground, and in that way it was intended to regain again for Civilian Administration of Justice a part of the Wehrmacht jurisdiction which had been separated from it. But it was particularly important in this connection that those things which the Military Judiciary would have to give up again to the Civilian Administration of Justice, would also have to have been given up by the Police and SS judiciary, because they could not be excluded from that, and this was the actual aim -- to again do away with that limitation of the sphere of the Administration of Justice which had developed since 1933. Friedrich and I did not carry on other correspondence in this matter as far as I know.
Q. We have also exhauseted that subject. Now I come to the next point. The prosecution also wants to make you responsible for -- in their assertion -- illegal measures in civil cases. So far we had occasion only to speak of penal cases as far as you were Under Secretary. Now we come to a subject which concerns itself with civil cases, civil litigations. Please first state briefly to the Tribunal to what extent you, in the Ministry of Justice, had to deal with these civil cases; that is, civil litigation.
A. In accordance with my entire career I was mainly a penal lawyer. I had first to make special efforts to get into civil legal cases. Therefore, in regard to Division VI, Civil Law, and VII that was Public Law, and Commercial Law, I gave them especially frequently the opportunity to report to me. Therefore, Herr Altstoetter reported to me, and we spoke a great deal, especially about that problem that the Administration of Justice would not be deprived of even more fields, and that the constitutional institutions would remain, and should be expanded. Altstoetter in particular came to me frequently, especially if he had not succeeded with his suggestions with the Minister, that is, he came to me in addition to going to the Minister -- then he reported the matters to me again so what I should try to bring about a turn of events, but I very seldom succeeded.
Q. The prosecution has submitted against you Exhibit 452, NG790, in Supplementary Volume V III. This concerns a letter of the Reich Minister of Justice of 22 August 1944, to all presidents of the District Courts of Appeal. The letter, as you see, bears your signature. Will you please comment briefly?
A. I saw this circular after it was issued. I did not have to criticize ---
JUDGE BRAND: You didn't tell us the Exhibit number.
DR. SCHILF: 452. On page 7 of the list which I have given to you, the sixth number ....
A. This circular decree gave no cause for misgivings because in 1944 very few trials were still Tending altogether, and it was a security measure that these trials should be handled especially carefully.
Q. In addition, Exhibit 453 was submitted against you, NG-900, also in Supplementary Book VIII. This concerns a document which treated s-called complaints of decent of Jews. The decisive question in this document is whether you, from the letter which is contained in this document, which was written by the Chief of the SD and the Security Police, could gain the conviction that Jews should be exterminated. If you have the document in front of you -- it (consists of several letters -- the first is of 3 May 1944, there the Chief of the SD writes to the Reich Minister of Justice in this letter, and the subject is a request for information about reports regarding Jews. Please comment on this.
A. In regard to the first question I can only repeat what I have already stated in regard to Exhibit 348. No such thought ever occurred to me. Moreover, I only saw the introductory letter of this document on which the Minister had written "V" -- which meant "Vortragsanerdnung", schedule of report. With that, the matter was taken out of my sphere of activity.
Q. Furthermore, the prosecution submitted in this connection Exhibit 457. That is NG--666, in Supplementary Volume V. Here we are concerned with a circular decree which concerned the testing of the legitimacy of a marraige, the testing by a father of a child, with the assertion that he was not the father , and the child was illegitimate. In such proceedings the prosecution was supposed to take part. Would you please comment on this letter of 33 December 1944, a letter by the Minister to all general public prosecutors.
A. As far as I remember I did not see that circular decree at the time. However, if I had seen it I would have approved it for it concerns only the control that the authorities themselves would not conduct trials that were unimportant to the war effort.
Q. Was this just purely a war time measure in order to avoid trials and save personnel ?
A. Only this measure for saving personnel was the purpose of this circular decree.
Q. In conclusion I have to talk with you about Exhibit 460 in regard to your activity in civil matters. Exhibit 460 is NG--891, also in Supplementary Volume V. This is a letter by the Minister, of 11 November 1944, to the presidents of the District Courts of Appeal, and concerns the question as to how illegitimate children of foreign female workers who were working in Germany should be treated. Would you please comment on this, too?
A. The Minister of Interior had issued these directives of 5 September 1944. The Ministry of Justice had to undertake something so that the presidents of of the district Courts of Appeal could inform the judges on the question of guardianship. At this time I can no longer state whether I saw that circular decree of the Ministry of Justice at the time, but I don't believe I did.
Q. With that we have discussed all questions which concern your activity in the field of civil Administration of Justice.
The final subject I have to discuss with you now concerns the activity which was also emphasized in the indictment, namely, your activity in Division II. The indictment asserts that in Division II in educational questions and in personnel matters you had followed a line which was not in accordance with the principles of a constitutional state. Please give the Court a short insight into your activity in Division II, and to what extent you worked there in comparison with your other activities as Under Secretary.
A. As Under Secretary I was at the same time Chief of Division II, in which the questions of examination and training were dealt with. In this Division I did not only have a supervisory activity, but worked on some individual matters and suggestions and I also worked just as a Division Chief. In fact, Division II during the years 1944/1945 differed entirely from the Justice examination office of the years 1933-1939. The two no longer had any similarity to each other. The Training Camp for young jurists, Hanns Kerrl had been closed in 1939, and the land had been sold.
I myself was an opponent of this camp idea and Thierack was also. In 1944-1945 the times demanded the solution of quite different problems than had existed formerly, first of all an abbreviated examination had to be carried out for men who were supposed to become soldiers, and also for candidates who had been discharged by the Wehrmacht because they were wounded or sick and had lost a great deal of time due to their military service. These shorter examinations which were, therefore, introduced required that the examination and the questions in the examinations were completely worked over and newly set up. The requirements could not be as high as they were during peace time. The examination thesis of purely historical contents were eliminated entirely. An absolutely catastrophic lack of legal literature prevailed. If the aspiring lawyers wanted to prepare themselves scientifically at all we had to procure commentaries and so forth and we instituted libraries in the district courts of appeals for these candidates. That was a very difficult task. We instituted the work communities for practicians in the universities for the students who had come out of the war as mature men would not be offered only theory at the universities. A special work, however, was created for division II through the new curriculum order, the Ministry of the Interior made requirements for administrative training. All of this had to be controlled and regulated. I only outlines this work in large outlines. Of political training or examinations one could no longer talk about in 1944 or 1945. It would have seemed ridiculous to me to try to undertake anything in this regard with men who had proved by their employment in the war that they worked for Germany.
Q HerrKlemm; the Prosecution has submitted exhibit 432, that is NG 789, document Book I, supplement, and wanted to assert by so doing that in the training questions you were supposed to have pursued points of view which did not concern the administration of justice, the constitution and law at purely national socialist matters. This concerns only a house regulation of the ministry of justice and is dated 17 December 1943.
We know that on 17 December 1943 you were not yet under-secretary but the decree must have been submitted to you later because it bears your signature, exhibit 432.
THE PRESIDENT: It is called to my attention that the date is 1942 in that exhibit.
DR. SCHILF: That must be an error, Your Honor, the date must be 17 December 1943. This is the date it bears in the German document as introduced.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps the matter should be checked up. Apparently the document books are different as to the date. We can do that later.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Well this ruling by this house regulation has a previous date and although it was issued before you started your duties as undersecretary, it bears your signature. Would you please comment on this?
A Meinhoff belonged to Division 6 and I saw him there once or twice. He reported one or two matters to me which belonged in his department, in this division 6. During my time as under-secretary Meinhoff was in division 2. We neither had the time nor the opportunity to work on such matters as Meinhoff had dealt with in division 2.
Q This ministry ruling contains the instructions that aspiring judges or jurists in hereditary, national and criminal biological questions should be more thoroughly instructed. Is the statement which you just made to be understood to the effect that this was never carried out practically?
A No, I don't know anything about that.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that exhibit initialed by the defendant Klemm?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, Your Honor.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q As Chief of division 2 and also as under-secretary you had to deal to a certain extent with personnel questions. You have already mentioned this in passing.
I am asking you quite generally what attitude did you take particularly as undersecretary represent in personnel matters and what was the expression of your attitude, what was the result?
A I have already told that up to a certain limit I was independent in personnel matters. In my policy in regard to personnel matters I never let the usual national socialist point of view guide me, the length of service in the party, activity in the party, the attitude towards the party press and general superficial external circumstances. It was often also that I liked the non-party member more than those who had only entered the party out of opportunism and because it was the thing to do. In my policy in regard to personnel matters I wax particularly interested in the technical achievements and the character of the persons, the length of the membership in the Nazi party did not play any part for me. Already at the time when I was in Saxony I had become very careful because, particularly among these people, there were frequently some who were not very good in their professions, were not worth much professionally, and, therefore, before 1933 they had entered the Nazi party because this did not involve a risk for them in their professional careers where they could not advance anyhow because of their inefficiency. In considering promotions I thought first of the person and his ability as far as I could see that from the files. However, on the other hand in the case of a younger person I recognized once in a while that he fulfilled these prerequisites. If he did so I did not follow the general directives in regard to age and so forth, but I suggested sometimes a younger person for promotion especially.
Q Herr Klemm you do not have to cite examples. I shall have an opportunity to prove by documents that there were cases in which you actually gave evidence of these principles of your policy in regard to personnel matters. I believe that we have now discussed exhaustively all of the charges of the Prosecution and which the indictment raised against you, May it please the Tribunal, my direct examination is concluded.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have documents which you propose to offer now?
DR. SCHILF: Unfortunately I do not have them yet, Your Honor. More than ten days ago I have already handed in my document book for translation, but so far it has not been returned to me. I do not consider it practical to submit the documents without having the English translation available but I hope that in the beginning of next week I shall receive the document books translated into English, and then I would submit my documents at the beginning of the week.
THE PRESIDENT: Shouldn't counsel for the Prosecution have the benefit of the document books relative to the defendant Klemm before cross examining? What is the attitude of the Prosecution on that natter?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honor, may it please the Tribunal. To the fullest extent that it is possible we would certainly like to have the advantage of these document books before we have to engage in cross examination of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: There may be others who want to directly examine the defendant, counsel for other defendants who desire to conduct direct examination. That may be done at this time.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHWARZ: (Attorney for the Defendant Petersen)
Q May I begin the direct examination on behalf of the defendant Petersen. Witness, you were Oberfuehrer in the SA and in that capacity you were also legal advisor in the Adjudantur, in the Adjutant's office of the Chief of Staff of the Supreme SA leadership and you worked whenever needed in that capacity. Is it correct that you knew the defendant Petersen personally?
A Yes, I knew Petersen.
Q Did the defendant Petersen ever participate in a discussion or conference in which you took part either as Chief of Group III-C of the Party Chancellory or as Under Secretary of the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A No, Petersen was in charge of the Personnel Main Office of the Supreme SA leadership and had nothing to do with the work which I had to deal with.
Q Did the defendant Petersen at any time during which you were in the Party Chancellory in chief Group III-C or later as Under Secretary in the Reich Ministry of Justice, in writing, or orally, directly or indirectly, have contact with you?
A No.
Q In what manner and to what point of view during your activity as Under Secretary was the selection and appointment of honorary associate judges of the People's Court to be taken?
AAs I have already described it, the individual organizations were requested to name people and at that time the main point of view was that they should be professionally able to participate in meetings of the sessions of the People's Court, especially that they should be available locally geographically.
Q Did this examination also go as to their attitude be made a prerequisite?
A The units, that is, the branches of the party were informed that Court No. III, Case No. 3.they were only supposed to take out decent and reliable people who were worthy of being associate judges of such a high court.
Q Can you tell me how many honorary associate judges there were on the People's Court at the end of your activity as Under Secretary without consideration of the losses which had resulted and which were not determined at that time?
A I cannot even state that approximately because I don't know who of the associate judges was at the Front or had died in the meantime or died in action and who was professionally able to participate in these sessions. I have no inside into that.
Q During your activity as Under Secretary in The Reich Ministry of Justice were instructions ever issued to the honorary associate judges on the People's Court?
A Never. In the same way as they were never issued to the judges themselves.
Q Did the honorary associate judges also receive the so-called Thierack Richterbriefe, judges' letters?
A Only those who were members of the Administration of Justice by their main profession; others not.
Q Thank you very much.
BY DR. DOETZER: (Attorney for the defendant Nebelung)
Q Witness, yesterday, if I remember correctly, during your examination by Dr. Schilf you stated your opinion exhaustively in regard to the People's Court. If I understood you correctly you said that you heard complaints about Freisler's conduct of trials and his jurisdiction only. Now, I would like to ask you the following: In the legal press by legal scientists or practicing lawyers, was any doubt ever raised as to the fact that the People's Court was a regular court?
A That never happened because it had expressly been regulated by law.
Q I assume that you read the scientific legal literature and the voices of the practicing lawyers and I, therefore, ask you furthermore Court No. III, Case No. 3.whether in this literature a doubt was ever raised as to the fact that the members of the People's Court who were composed of professional judges and especially selected honorary judges could endanger the independent and unprejudiced nature of a court?
A I never read or heard anything about that, particularly since the relationship of having two professional judges and two honorary judges that existed for decades already, already before 1933. I remember only of the jury court.
Q Witness, I assume that you are familiar with the rules of procedure of the People's Court. May I in this context ask you whether legal theories or practicing lawyers from the time that the People's Court was instituted mentioned that these rules of procedure endangered the basic privileges of a defendant?
A I never saw anything of that kind.
Q Witness, how often did you correspond with the defendant Nebelung before you met him here in the defendant's dock or how often did you speak to him or have anything to do with him officially in former times?
A I did. not correspond with Nebelung at all. During my activity as Under Secretary I was never in the People's Court and in the Reich Ministry of Justice in 1944 and 1945 I saw Nebelung one single time and on that occasion I met him too.
Q Can you remember, witness, about what time this happened?
A That must have been in the fall of 1944.
Q Perhaps you still remember the month?
A It must have been after the trials, about the 20th of July, that is, I estimate about September or October.
Q Where did you meet him?
A I came into the room of the Minister and there Nebelung was sitting in the room and when I entered there was a rather excited conversation going on, although it had been concluded. Nebelung and the Minister, I noticed, had had an exciting conversation when I entered and Court No. III, Case No. 3.when we had introduced each other Nebelung again started this conversation and he requested than that he be transferred from the People's Court.
Q Did you speak to Thierack about the contents of this conversation subsequently?
A No.
Q Why did you not do that?
A Thierack did not start on his own initiative to tell me what he had discussed with Nebelung and there was no point in asking him about it if he did not start on his own to toll about it.
Q Witness, at that time already, when you met Nebelung, was it known to you or did you later hear about it that the defendant Nebelung was in a sharp contrast to Freisler?
A There were difficulties and differences of opinion between Freisler and Nebelung. That I was told in the Ministry. However, without details.
Q Witness, do you know why the Senate President at the People's Court Nebelung who is a defendant here was transferred to the People's Court?
A I do not know the exact details about that either. I also don't know, I was told but I don't know by whom, in the Ministry I was told, that Nebelung had difficulties with his Gau leader.
Q Did the transfer of Nebelung mean that Nebelung who up to then had been President of the District Court of Appeal in Brunswick, his transfer to a Senate of the People's Court, did that mean demotion?
A I believe yes. I cannot say it was so by dint of his position but at least in regard to his activity.
Q To that extent you thus agree with the statements of the prosecution witness Doebig who spoke about his own transfer as Senate President as a demotion?
A Yes.
Q Thank you very much.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
BY DR. SCHUBERT: (Attorney for Defendant Oeschey)
Q Herr Klemm, you have told us that you were chief of Division III-C in the Party Chancellory. From your activity there, are you familiar with a regulation which was issued by the deputy of the Fuehrer and according to which Gau legal offices of the Party who were also later called Gau legal consultants, received complaints by Party officers about the administration of justice, attacks on measures taken by the Administration of Justice, criticism of legal opinions and similar matters, and were not allowed to handle these matters directly with the offices of the Administration of Justice but after clarifying these facts had to report immediately to the Party Chancellory?
A. I cannot any more state with certainty whether the Party Chancellery or the Reich Legal Office issued such a regulation, but in the final result it's the same. These offices were forbidden to get in touch directly with the justice authority, especially with the highest Reich authorities. If they planned to do so they were supposed to address themselves to the Party Chancellery. Department III of the Party Chancellery had been reserved the right to be in contact with the highest Reich authorities.
Q. If I understood you correctly, the Gau Legal Offices or the Gau Legal Consultants thus had to make reports of that type to Department III of the Party Chancellery, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct in regard to this regulation, after August '42, after the Reich Legal Office had been abolished.
Q. To whom were the reports addressed before 1942?
A. To the Reich Legal Office in Munich. That was under Frank.
Q. Herr Klemm, if the Reich Legal Office received a report of that nature and thereupon wanted to take further steps with the highest Reich authorities, could it do do directly or did it in turn have to address itself to the Party Chancellery or before that to the Deputy of the Fuehrer?
A. I have to phrase that as follows. The regulation was that the Reich Legal Office had to get in touch with the Staff of the deputy of tho Fuehrer; later, that was the Party Chancellory. In order not to leave it up to the Party Chancellory, however, the Reich Legal Office, and especially Frank, did quite frequently not comply with those regulations although they existed.
Q. Herr Klemm, if reports of that nature arrived, were they then dealt with in the Party Chancellery by you or in any case by your division?
A. That all depended. If they were purely legal questions, they came to me, into the Legal Group III-C. If for example, however, they were concerned with personnel matters of the Administration of Justice then they went to Group III-P.
Q. Herr Klemm, I would like to formulate an example. If a certain sentence of a judge or the jurisdiction of a judge or of a court was attacked, did that then go to your division or through Division III-P?
A. That had to come to me to Group III-C, but that in particular is not a good example for this was not certain. It did happen that such a matter was not referred to Division III but to Division II by the registry office, and Division II then tried, through the local Party office, to influence the judge by means of this mistake. We then had to straighten this out because it belonged in the sphere of Group III-B, the legal group.
Q. One final question, Herr Klemm. Since the summer of 1940, have you ever seen a complaint or report from the Gau Legal Office or the Gau Legal Consultant in Nuernberg? Did you ever receive such a complaint?
A. I came to Munich only in '41 and I never received such a report from the Gau Legal Consultant or the Gau Legal Office in Nuernberg.
Q., I have concluded my examination.
BY DR. ORTH (for defendant Altstoetter):
Q. Witness, what attitude did the defendant Altstoetter have principally on legal questions, in reports to you or to Minister Thierack?
A, I already indicated that before that it was Herr Altstoetter in particular who most energetically represented his point of view against Thierack and he was constantly interested especially in having the law abiding idea preserved and that no interference into the competency of the administration of Justice was to be taken or that we even gave it up voluntarily.
Q. Did Altstoetter, if Thierack did not want to comply with his opinion, give in to the Minister or what did he do in order to make his point of view prevail?
A. The means which Altstoetter used were different ones. I explained already before that either he again tried to inject me into the matter or he again tried two or three more times to report the matter again to the Minister, but frequently it occurred also that he offered Thierack to resign by again becoming a soldier, and thus he would resign as chief of that division.
Q. Do you remember individual cases in which Altstoetter with success opposed the requirements of the Minister or the Party offices?
A. There were several cases and large problems in which Altstoetter offered resistance. I recall one case in particular in which a Fuehrer instruction was concerned which Thierack wanted to obey. Altstoetter, however, opposed it to such an extent that this matter was again discontinued. This was a question of guardianship. The fuehrer had been informed about this matter absolutely one-sidedly by his Chief Miliatry Adjutant, General Burgdorff, who had taken - the part of an acquaintance of his from his officer's circles. On the basis of this one-sided presentation, the decision that Hitler made was wrong. Altstoetter spoke to the Minister for such a long time until he succeeded in having the Minister agree that he could speak with General Burgdorff about the matter, and he also convinced the General so that the General promised him to inform Hitler again. This instruction of Hitler was revoked.
Q. What was Altstoetter's attitude toward the so-called divorce for soldiers missing in action, Vermisstenscheidung?
A. That evoked violent battles with Thierack, They wanted to achieve that a divorce could be pronounced against somebody who was missing in action. Altstoetter was opposed to that idea and resisted it violently. Thierack wanted to make it possible, but Altstoetter succeeded in having this idea revoked. I remember that this is one of the matters in which I had to second Altstoetter's move.
Q. What was Altstoetter's attitude in regard to Himmler's request to appoint a notary for the Lebensborn--for the secret judgment?
A. Altstoetter refused this and also defended this refusal with success.
Q. During your activity as Under-Secretary, did you ever find anything about it that Division II had to deal with NN-cases?
A. No, I never found out about it.
Q. Do you remember that Thierack once required Division VI should issue a special regulation in regard to divorces between Jews and Aryans which were to the disadvantage of the Jews, and what was Altstoetter's attitude in regard to this request?
A. This too was one of those plans of Thierack which was foiled only by the resistance offered by Altstoetter and also to delay the treatment.
Q. Thank you. I have no further question.
THE PRESIDENT: We will inquire what other defense counsel desire to examine the witness in chief? (no replies) It appears there are no others. We will take our afternoon recess at this time of 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court-room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your Honors, please, this witness started to testify, as I recall, Friday afternoon -- there were a few questions late Friday afternoon; he has testified on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday. During all that time it has been necessary for me to be in the court-room.
Also it is the unfortunate situation of the translation facilities here. It has been impossible for me to have seen any of the document books in connection with his defense by which to possibly measure his testimony. That may not be too serious, but I do respectfully urge the Court, although I understand the Court's interest in an expeditious trial, that I be given until Monday morning to begin the cross examination of this witness.
I have taken -- maybe too voluminous -- but a hundred and some odd pages of long hand notes which I must go through; I believe, otherwise, if I stand here at the podium and try to organize those notes as I cross examine, I am afraid I will delay the Court much beyond its capacity and its patience.
I respectfully ask that I be permitted to begin the cross examination on Monday.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schilf, do you expect to be able to submit some or all of the document books in English by Monday morning?
DR. SCHILF: Mr. President, unfortunately I am not in a position right now to make a statement. Day after day I have inquired at the Defense Center for my document books, and every time I received the answer that they have no influence either; therefore, I cannot say today whether on Monday I will have the English translations at my disposal. I asked day after day but I was only told that I would just have to wait. I know that the Translation Branch has been very busy at the time; particularly with the closing statements in Case No. I; they had a date line, and the Translation Branch apparently interrupted the work on our case and translated the twenty-four closing statements for Case No. I first.
I regret that very much. I, on my part, have done everything possible in order to produce the documents in time.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. LaFollette, will you be ready to cross examine in any event Monday morning?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You may open your cross-examination on Monday morning, and I presume you should reserve also the right to cross examine further when you have seen the English document books?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, I will want to ask that after I finish with what I can do beginning Monday morning, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there anything else to come before the Tribunal this afternoon?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: There is nothing else that the Prosecution has to present.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until Monday morning at the usual hour, at 9:30.
(Thereupon a recess was taken until 0930 hours, 14 July 1947)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Altstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 14 July 1947, 0930-1630, The Honorable James T. Brand, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III. Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if all of the defendants are present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant Engert, who is absent due to illness, and the defendant Rothenberger, who is absent.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Defendant Rothenberger applied for and received, informally, permission for the defendant Rothenberger to be temporarily absent today in order that he might consult with his counsel. The defendant Rothenberger is therefore excused for today, and this excuse, or this permission to be absent, was conditioned upon the ability of counsel to make arrangements with the proper police authorities for a conference.
The proper notation will be made.
Is the prosecution ready to cross-examine the defendant Klemm?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, there is just one other matter for possibly my convenience. Several times I have been asked by Dr. Marx whether I know anything of the disposition the Tribunal is prepared to make in the matter of Engert. I have advised Dr. Marx that I do not, that I have never seen the reports, but possibly if the Court would care to say anything or could, for the record at this time, it would advise Dr. Marx and save me from being forced to tell him I know nothing.
THE PRESIDENT: In response to the questions which the Tribunal propounded, to the medical experts after their first enigmatic report, they have made a further report and in that report there appears to be considerable discrepancy between the views of the American and German physicians.