(No response).
If not, the Tribunal understands that no further request is being made for copies of the interrogation records, and we also understand, maybe wrongly that no further objections are made as to the sufficiency of the indictment at this time. Am I right about that?
(No response).
On that assumption, we will adjourn the meeting of this Tribunal, and we will reconvene tomorrow morning at 9:30 o'clock in room 295.
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 6 March 1947, 0930, Justice Marshall presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 3. Military Tribunal 3 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court?
TEE SECRETARY GENERAL: Your Honor, all of the defendants are present except Rothaug and Engert.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the record show that all defendants are present except the defendants Rothaug and Engert and they are absent by application of their counsel and by permission of the Tribunal. Is the prosecution ready to proceed with the case?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, we are ready, Your Honor.
TEE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May it please Your Honors, I think the Court is acquainted with the statement that if you would resort to only one document you engaged in plagiarism and if you resort to many you engage in research. This is a form of plagiarized research that I am about to proceed with. Certain proceedings have been developed for laying the basic grounds for the presentation cf evidence and Mr. Schiller of the OCC, who was connected with the initial trial in Tribunal No. 1, has been kind enough to let me have the benefit of his experience so I want to give credit to him and to others who have gotten this up in the sense--
THE PRESIDENT: It is excusable since that tribunal followed the procedure of Tribunal No. 1 also.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, sir, Thank you, Your Honor. Before beginning the presentation of evidence it might be well to explain the method whereby documents have been procured and processed for the purpose of presentation in evidence by the United States as well as the procedure which we, with the Tribunal's approval, propose to follow throughout the presentation of these documents.
When the United States Army entered German territory, it had specialists, military officials, whose duties were to capture and preserve enemy documents, records and archives. Such documents were assembled in temporary document centers. Later each army established fixed document centers in the U.S. Zone of Occupation where these documents were assembled and the slow process of indexing and cataloguing was begun. Certain of these U.S. document centers in the U.S. Zone of Occupation have since been closed and the documents assembled there sent to other document centers. Upon the creation of the I.M.T. field teams under the direction of Major William H. Coogan were organized and sent out to the various document centers. Great masses of German documents and records were screened and examined. Those selected "were sent to Nuernberg to be processed. These original documents were then given trial identification numbers in various series. The name, style end series being designated by the letters "PS", "L", "R", "EC", and "C". indicating the means of the acquisition of the documents and each series were listed numerically. The prosecution in this case will have certain occasions to introduce in evidence documents processed under the direction of Major Coogan. Some of these documents were introduced in evidence before the I.M.T. or Military Tribunal 1 and 2 and some were not. This Tribunal is required by the provisions of Art. 9 of Ordinance 7 to take judicial notice of those documents which were introduced before the I.M.T. or before military Tribunal 1 and 2. However, in order to simplify the procedure we will introduce photostatic copies of such documents to which will be attached a certificate by Mr. Fred Niebergall, the Chief of the Document Control Center of OCC, certifying that such documents were introduced in evidence before the I.M.T. or the Military Tribunal and that it is a true and correct copy thereof. These documents have been and will be made available to the defense just as in the case of any other documents. As to those documents processed under the direction of Major Coogan which were not used in the case before the I.M.T. or in Military Tribunals 1 and 2, they are authenticated by the affidavit of Major Coogan, dated November 19, 1945.
This affidavit is the basis of authentication of substantially all documents used by the Office of Chief of Counsel before the I.M.T. It was introduced in that trial as U.S. Exhibit No. 1. Since we may use certain documents processed for the I.M.T. trial, I would now like to introduce the Coogan affidavit as Prosecution Exhibit No. 1, to authenticate such documents. The exhibit is also found at page 1 of Document Book 1. This affidavit explains the manner and means by which the captured German documents were processed for use in war crimes trials. I shall not read it as it is substantially the same as the affidavit of Mr. Niebergall to which I shall come in a moment. At this time I desire to offer it as Prosecution Exhibit No. 1. I Ask that the exhibit be considered as offered in evidence but I shall not read it at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it for granted that a copy of this has been furnished to each of the defendants?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be no objection. It will be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I now come to the authentication of documents processed, not for the I.M.T. trial, but for subsequent trials such as this one. Some of these documents have been introduced in evidence and have thus been covered by me previously in what I have previously said. All other documents processed for subsequent trials but not yet introduced in evidence are authenticated by the affidavit of Mr. Niebergall which will be found at page 6 of Document Book 1 and which I now offer in evidence of the Prosecution Exhibit No. 2. This affidavit explains the procedure of processing documents by the OCC for War Crimes. I desire to read it.
JUDGE BRAND: Which affidavit is this?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: This is Mr. Fred Niebergall's. I shall read from the original document. I shall read the original affidavit and make the formal offer at the conclusion.
"Affidavit -- 3 December 1946.
"I, FRED NIEBERGALL, A.G.O. D150636, of the Office cf Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, do hereby certify as follows:
"1. I was appointed Chief of the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, Office cf Chief of Counsel for War Crimes (hereinafter referred to as "OCC") on 2 October 1946.
"2. I have served in the U.S. Army for more than 5 years, being discharged as a 1st Lieutenant, Infantry, on 29 October 1946. I am now a reserve office with the rank of 1st Lieutenant in the Army of the U.S. of America. Based upon my experience as a U.S. Army Officer, I am familiar with the operations of the U.S. Army in connection with the seizing and processing of captured enemy documents. I served as Chief of Translations for OCC from 29 July 1945 until December 1945, when I was appointed liaison officer between defense Counsel and Translation Division of OCC and assistant to the executive officer of the Translation Division. In my capacity as Chief of the Document Control branch, Evidence Division, OCC, I am familiar with the processing, filing, translation, and photostatting of documentary evidence for the United States Chief of Counsel.
"3. As the Army overran German occupied territory and then Germany itself, certain specialized personnel seized enemy documents, records and archives. Such documents were assembled in temporary centers. Later fixed document centers were established in Germany and Austria where these documents were assembled and the slow process of indexing and cataloguing was begun. Certain of these document centers have since been closed and the documents assembled there sent to other document centers.
"4- :*: repaying for the trial before the International Military Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "IMT") a great number if original documents, photostats, and microfilms were collected at Nurnberg, Germany. Major Coogan affidavit of 19 November 1945 described the procedures followed. Upon my appointment as Chief cf the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, OCC, 1 received custody, in the course of official business, of all of these document except the ones which were introduced into evidence in the IMT trial and are now in the IMT Document Room in Nurnberg.
Some have been screened, processed and registered in accordance with Major Coogan's affidavit. The unregistered documents remaining there have been screened, processed, and registered for use in trials before Military Tribunals substantially in the same way as described below.
"5. In preparing for trials subsequent to the IMT trial personnel thoroughly conversant with the German language were given the task of searching for and selecting captured enemy documents which disclosed information relating to the prosecution of Axis war criminals. Lawyers and Research Analysts were placed on duty at various document centers and also dispatched on individual missions to obtain original documents or certified photostats thereof. The documents were screened by German speaking analysts to determine whether or not they might be valuable as evidence. Photostatic copies were then made of the original documents and the original documents returned to the files in the document centers. These photostatic copies were certified by the analysts to be true and correct copies of the original documents. German speaking analysts, either at the document center or in Nurnberg, then prepared a summary of the document with appropriate references to personalities involved, index headings, information as to the source of the document, and the importance of the documents to a particular division of OCC.
"6. Next, the original document or certified photostatic copy was forwarded to the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, OCC. Upon receipt of these documents, they were duly recorded and indexed and given identification numbers in one of six series designated by the letters: "NO", "NI", "NM", "N* "NG", and ***** indicating the particular Division of OCC which might be most interested in the individual documents. Within each series documents are listed numerically.
"7. In the case of the receipt of original documents, photostatic copies were made. Upon return from the Photostat Room, the original document were placed in envelopes in fireproof safes in the Document Room. In the ca of the receipt of certified photostatic copies of documents, the certified photostatic copies were treated in the same manner as original documents.
"8. All original documents or certified photostatic copies treated as originals are now located in safes in the Document Room, where they will be secured until they are presented by the Prosecution to a court during the progress of a trial.
"9. Therefore, I certify in my official capacity as herein above stated, that all documentary evidence relied upon by OCC is in the same condition as when captured by military forces under the command of the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces; that they have been translated by competent qualified translators; that all photostatic copies are true and correct copies of the originals, and that they have been correctly filed, numbered, and processed as above outlined.
Signed, "Fred Niebergall, Chief of Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, OCC."
I now ask that Exhibit No. 2 be considered as introduced in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The Niebergall affidavit is in substance the same as the Coogan affidavit. The Niebergall affidavit has been accepted by Military Tribunals 1 and 2, and now by this Tribunal, I think, as sufficient authentification of the documents used by the prosecution in those cases. In addition to the Coogan and Niebergall affidavits, the prosecution in this case will proceed the same way as in cases before Military Tribunals 1 and 2. It will attach to each document submitted in evidence, other than the self-proving documents such as affidavits signed by defendants, a certificate signed by an employee of the Evidence Division of the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, reading, for example, as follows:
"I , Patricia Radcliffe, of the Evidence Division of the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, hereby certify that the attached document, consisting of one photostatic page and entitled 'Letter from John Doe to Richard Roe,' dated 19 June 1943, is the original of a document which was delivered to me in my capacity, in the usual course of business, as a true copy of a document found in German archives, records, and files, captured by military forces under the Supreme Command, Allied Expeditionary Forces. To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the original document is at the Berlin Document Center."
In the case before Military Tribunal 1, objection was made to the introduction into evidence, other than as admissions against interests, of affidavits sworn to before civilian employees of the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes on the ground that no showing had been made as to the authority of such individuals to administer oaths.
Subsequently, these affidavits were admitted into evidence upon the submission by the prosecution of a certification by Brigadier General Taylor, Chief of Counsel, for War Crimes, showing the authority of the individuals in question to administer oaths and properly to attest affidavit.
In order to prevent such an objection in this case, the Prosecution desires to offer in evidence a certificate by Brigadier General Taylor, Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, showing the authority of certain employees of OCC to administer oaths, and the date of the authorization.
This affidavit I am advised, is not in the document book, but it has been distributed, under the rules, to all parties concerned, as required by the rules of the Court.
I would like to offer in evidence, as Prosecution Exhibit No. 3, the certificate of General Taylor referred to, accompanied by documents evidencing his authority.
With the permission of the Court, I will read only the certificate first before making the offer formally, and not the accompanying documents, which are quite long.
"This certificate is made for the purpose of showing the authority of certain of the personnel of the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes to administer oaths and properly to attest those affidavits which will be offered in evidence before the Military Tribunal in Case Number 3 in United States vs. Josef Altstoetter, et al. pursuant to Executive Order 9547, 2 May 1945, attached hereto as Tab A, Executive Order 9679, 16 January 1946, attached hereto as Tab B, Memorandum No. 15 of the Office of Chief of Counsel, 20 March 1946, attached hereto as Tab C, General Order No. 301 of the Military Governor, 24 October 1946, attached hereto as Tab D, and letter USFET 24 October 1946, attached hereto as Tab D, and letter USFET 24 October 1946, subject: Appointment of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, attached hereto as Tab E, I am authorized and have been since 29 March 1946 to prepar and prosecute charges of atrocities and war crimes against the leaders of the European axis powers and their accessories. In the discharge of the responsibilities conferred on me by the above-mentioned orders and instructions I have authorized and detailed members of my staff who are engaged with me in preparation and prosecution of cases, including attorneys, interrogators, and other investigators and agents of the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes to conduct interrogations and investigations and in the course cf such interrogations and investigations to administer oaths, Among those whom I have authorized to conduct interrogations and investigations and to administer oaths, with the effective date of their authorization are the following personnel of Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes." Eight names are included in the certificate,which I shall not read. Signed Telford Taylor, Brig. General, US Army, Chief of Counsel for War Crimes.
I offer Prosecution Exhibit No. 3 and ask that it be considered introduced into evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: We hear no objection, and it will therefore be received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Mr. President, I would ask you to forgive me if I interrupt at this moment the speech by the Prosecutor. I do not at this time want to make a formal motion, but I am asking the Prosecution and the Court to note a serious and very grave error, as well as to correct it.
I am the defense counsel for the Defendant Rothenberger. Dr. Rothenberger, that table shows which is in front of the Tribunal, according to that table, Departments 3,4,5, and 15 were directly in his charge.
In fact, all departments which I mentioned just now as being under Dr. Rothen-berger were never under his charge, but they were immediately under the charge of the Reich Ministry of Justice, Dr. Thierack, who immediately after Dr. Rothenberger acceded to office, took those departments under his own charge. Besides, the period of office of Dr. Rothenberger did not go on until the year 1944, but until 1943.
Finally, I should like to point out that all the penal courts were never in charge of the defendant Dr. Rothenberger, but only the civil courts.
I emphasize that what I said just now at this phase of the proceedings because I realize that by that I am not presenting a motion of evidence, but I assume in complete agreement with the Prosecution I wish to present that an error, which if it goes on for days or for weeks, can be fatal for all of the defendants in this trial. Therefore I would like to ask, in agreement with the Prosecution, to have the whole proceedings on an objective basis from the very beginning, that this table should either be corrected accordingly, or that a now table concerning the defendant Dr. Rothenberger should be made which shows correctly the responsibilities of the defendant and shows which courts were under his jurisdiction and also shows his period of office correctly.
I would like to refer you to Document NG 195, for the information of the Prosecution, which says. The Ministry announces that on 6 January 1944 a discussion - that is after the dismissal of Dr. Rothenberger - he said that now departments 3,4, and 5 would be under the Under Secretary of State. That is, these departments previously were not under the direction of the Under Secretary. This document of 6 January says the ordinance of 27 January 1942 is cancelled herewith.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: May it please Your Honors, generally because of my ineffected ability to hear through these things, at least to think when I hear through them -- but I think that I sense the basic objection of counsel, that if there was an error in this chart it shouldn't hang in the court room indefinitely.
We can argue that, I think, later when we get to it. Obviously, counsel is properly attempting to protect his client. But certainly at this stage of the proceedings before we have made any effort to offer the document which will support the chart, the request, I think, at this time is certainly premature. We will not, in fairness, delay indefinitely.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal feels at this time that the objection; however well it might be founded, is premature. All that is being presented at this time is preliminary, and we think the preliminary matters should be gotten out of the way; that before we come to anything substantial in the trial, if inaccuracies or errors are found in this chart, they should of course be remedied and an opportunity will be offered for the purpose. But for the moment we prefer questions of preliminaries all gotten out of the way before that question is made.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The Tribunal's decision is consistent with the Prosecution's ideas. We will not go extensively into evidence in this case before we introduce evidence that, we think, will substantiate our chart. We don't intend to have it hang here till the end of the trial before we do something about it.
May I check back where I was reading? Is it difficult to find it? For the benefit of the stenographers I will go ahead and read.
All of the affidavits witnessed by the individuals were made within the period of time within which they had such authority. Military Tribunal 1 also indicated that it wished the positions cf the person administering the oath to be set forth in the affidavit. The Prosecution has checked all the affidavits which it proposes to offer in evidence in this case and added this information to the original affidavits which will be introduced as Prosecution exhibits. Thus the translations into English and copies in German of these affidavits which were prepared previously will not show these additions. During the authentication of documents to be presented in this trial I come now to the distribution thereof. The Prosecution has made available to the Defendants Information Center thirteen mimeographed copies in German of the great bulk of the documents which will be used in our case in chief, and an index by document numbers has also been provided.
In addition, the Prosecution has prepared document books in both German and English, arranged substantially in the order in which they will be presented in this court. Each document book contains an index giving the document number, description, and page number. A master index to all the document books is contained in Document Book 1. Sixteen copies of the German document books will be filed in the Defendants Information Center at least twenty-four hours prior to the time that particular material will be introduced in court.
In addition to photostatic copies of these documents furnished to the Defendants' Information Center, six copies of the German Document Books will be given to the Secretary General, of which two copies will contain photostats only. Document Books will also be made available to the Interpreters and court reporters.
The English Document Book will contain certified translations of the documents in the German Document Books. The Document Books will be numbered and indexed identically in both English and German versions. It has been agreed that it will be sufficient for Defense Counsel if four copies of the English Document Books are given to the Defendants' Information Center, at the same time the corresponding German Document Book is delivered. Six copies of the English Document Books will be given to the Secretary General, four of which will be for the Tribunal. Sufficient copies will be made available to the interpreters and court reporters.
Copies of all documents introduced in evidence will thereafter be supplied to the press. He Prosecution may have occasion to use documents which have just been discovered and are not in document books. In suck cases, we will try to have copies in the Defendants' Information Center a reasonable time in advance of their use in court. The Prosecution when presenting his document in court will physically hand tho original, or certified copy serving as the original, to the clerk of the Tribunal and give the document a Prosecution exhibit number.
As all of the Prosecution's documents will be translated into German, we will follow the practice before Military Tri bunals 1 and 2 of dispensing with the reading in full of all documents or portions of documents. This had to be done in the International Military Tribunal Trial as only through that method were translations available in all four languages in which that trial was conducted.
But such a necessity is not present. The Prosecution will read some documents in full especially in the early stages of the trial, but we will endeavor to expedite matters by summarizing documents when p*ss i*l*, or otherwise calling the Tribunal's attention to such passages therein as are deemed important and revelant.
I would like to add my own observation here. I have been trying , for myself, to turn much of this procedure into some camparabel understandable relationship to what we do in the practice to which most of us are accustomed. In a sense, I believe, I understand this better and I offer this to the court with the thought that it might be benificial. This is a mass identification. We are accustomed in trials in the states to have witnesses present to identify the documents . The provisions for relaxing the rules of competency arose of necessity for the reasons we discussed yesterday in the opening statement. That is a feasible provision. Since the rules of competency governing the identification to which we are accustomed have been relaxed, in a sense, what we have done is to identify these documents through affidavits.
Authentication, in a sense, for all documents, has now taken place, Normally, in the states, this would take place as each documentary piece of evidence was introduced. That is the way I fool about this.
The Prosecution will of*".r os Prosecution Exhibit dumber 4, a chart certified by the Defendant Schlegelberger which is the basis for the chart which hangs on the wall in this courtroom. It is Document Number NG-774 and is found in Document Book Number 1-A. It is just before Page 9.
Your Honors, I would like to call the attention of the Court to the certificate male by the Defendant Schlegelberger.
It is at the bottom of the chart. I am going to read the English translation:
"I, Franz Schlegelberger declare under oath that I was a Secretary of State of the Reich Justice Ministry and as such I was very familiar with the organization of the Ministry. I have examine this chart and confirm that to the best of my knowledge and belief this (it) is a correct and true partial rendition of the Reich Justice Administration. (added in ink) with the following limitations: I cannot tell you for sure if Mr. von Ammon was in Department III. I am--"
"Only"is stricken.
"* not familiar with the personnel of the drumheadcourt-martials and special-court-martials."
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. Prosecutor, did you say this chart is identical to the one on the wall?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: That is correct , Your Honor.
It will be noted that certification is sworn to by Peter Beauvais. I am entitled to say that in the certificate of General Taylor that I just introduced, Mr. Beauvais is one of the persons entitled to acknowledge sworn statements.
I want to point out that the document on the wall does not have on it certain diagonal lines which Your Honors will not on NG-774. The dotted lines are there, but the diagonal lines from the Reich Chancellory Chief Lammer and from Party Chancellory Chief Bormann to the Reich Ministry of Justice, which are on the chart, have not been placed on the wallchart.
By the same token the diagonal lines under Section III running to Section I have not been placed on the wall chart. We will make those connections by subsequent proof. I only make this point because I do not want it to seem that we have deliberately attempted to overreach the Defendants by putting things on here which ware not contained on the wall chart.
I now offer to introduce into evidence, Prosecution Exhibit Number 4, a chart, which speaks for itself. It is certified by Defendant Franz Schlegelberger.
THE PRESIDENT: We will first hear from Counsel for Mr. Schlegelberger.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Defense counsel for Schlegelberger and von Ammon. This table, under the box, Secretary, does not say in detail reproduce the photostatic copies which Schlegelberger signed. It is not an exact reproduction. The original and photostatic copy show the handwritten addition. In this department under State Secretaries, Schlegelberger, Civil law, 1939 until 1942. In effect, Schlegelberger was only state secretary for civil law not for penal law. For that reason, he in his statement made this addition in handwriting as is shown in the photostatic copy. That addition has not been added to the table.
The error perhaps arose because Schlegelberger, before signing, made this addition and the Prosecutor has in his hand the original copy which does not have that addition. At any rate, the criminal which I hold here, or the Photostatic copy which hold in my hand shows this addition in handwriting.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, I find that the words "civil law" under State Secretary are found in the photostat, the English photostat. I had not seen it. The omission of that as to Mr. Schlegelberger, for the period which he asserts, the date is shown there; if it is not shown on the chart, we will gladly amend the chart to conform. That is an inadvertent omission. We have no desire that the court lock at the chart all day long and not see that.
However, the chart is not evidence and if the court has knowledge of it and feels that the knowledge that it has, which I feel from the evidence will not in any way be influenced by what is on the chart, the court, of course, may feel we need not make the change. We have no disposition in any way in which to affect anyone on the picture.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. La Follette, it's really difficult to get the translation with accuracy. I will be glad if you will point out where the difference is in your own English language, if you will.
MR. La FOLLETTE: I can't get away from the microphone so that the counsel can hear. We have at the top "Hitler," and on the line down it says, "Reich Ministry of Justice," in the block, and right below that block is one that says, "State Secretaries." There are three names in there: "Schlegelberger, 1930 to 1942, Rothenberger, 1942 to 1944 and Klemm, 1944 to 1945." In the Exhibit 4 which we have offered, Your Honors will notice that below Schlegelberger in the state Secretary block is typed the words "Civil Law and that is in German in the defendants' chart which we certified. We inadverdently omitted it on the wall. That is as far as I gather now, the chief bone of contention. My point is that since Your Honors have the exhibit, I do not believe that the court will be adversely influenced against the defendant Schlegelberger through the chart because the chart isn't evidence; on the other hand, if the court feels that for its protection, in a sense, we should in some way get a line on there and put "Civil Law," as is indicated on the exhibit, we would be glad to do that. I think it's a pure technical matter.
JUDGE BRAID: The fact is, is it not, that the objection is not made to the exhibit which is offered in evidence, but the objection is made to the chart on the wall which is not offered in evidence?
MR. La FOLLETTE: That is what I understand and I believe I have properly stated the counsel's position.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask one more question? It appears that Division on the left on the wall read II, IV, and V.
MR. La FOLLETTE: They read III, IV and V, but form the position that the court sits, I can well understand that you can see only two strikes there. That is a matter of it being pretty small and looking at it as an angle, but they are III, IV, and V.
THE PRESIDENT: I assume there are other counsels who have other objections?
MR. KUBUSCHOK: Counsel for von Ammon. I refer to the handwritten addition in the statement by Schlegelberger, to the last sentence Schlegelberger says, "i cannot remember whether Mr. von Ammon was in Department III." In effect, von Ammon was in Department III, but only for one month and that in fact in January 1941--only January 1941. From the table, one could believe that he spent all the time of his employment at the Ministry in Department III. That is not so. In effect, he was there only for one single month and that was in January 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal feels that this is competent evidence against Mr. Schlegelberger and to any other defendant who is making no objection. If there are defendants who do make objections, it seems they will have their opportunity when it comes to their defense to show any facts other that those here.
MR. La FOLLETTE: That was my thought exactly as to the proper procedure. No have a chart signed by Schlegelberger. Dr. von Ammon is now concerned--he says he is not sure. As far as our case in chief is concerned, I think we are entitled to have this exhibit admitted in evidence. Then when tho defendants make their defense, then they can object to it. I do not feel that this Tribunal composed of judges capable of objective study of what the evidence is, will be adversely affected by the chart. We would like to have the chart there because occasionally. certainly as to all that which is not in dispute, we may find it more easily to refer to than to ask Your Honors to got out Exhibit IV all the tho time. For that reason, I ask that it be introduced into evidence at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems that the objection just made does not refer to the words on the chart being admitted, but to the language of the affidavit of Mr. Schlegelberger insofar as he makes statements about von Ammon. Am I right? (Mr. Kubuschok nods affirmatively) So as to that point, I still say that I think that can all be met in the defense.
LA FOLLETTE: I am sure it can.
MR. HAENSEL: Defense counsel Karl Haensel for Joel. I have a principle objection to raise against this table. We are here apprising an event which lasted from 1933 until 1945. This table contains some dates, and these dates appear at a spot where they can be misinterpreted. Yesterday, the prosecution gave us a document in which contained tables of the German Reich Ministry offices. If one looks at these tables and compares them with this table, one immediately finds that this table is not a simplification and is not a table which clarifies the organization, but it represents an attempt optically to show matter which can only be shown in a film which shows the events one after another. And this table reduces them to one picture, and that can. not be done. The fundamental mistake on the table is that on top it does not bear a date according to what year it made out this documentation because the Ministry in the years between '33 and '45 was several times fundamentally reorganized. I set forth the department. I have not the documents with me, but I can present such documents after the break. In 1942, German justice was reorganized. Department IV used to Department III, etc. New departments were established, as for example XV. In '34-'35, the organization was completely different from what it was in the year '45, and this is not only formality but it is important for tho question of guilt for the various defendants; in fact, it is of fundamental importance. The Ministry before Thierach and the Ministry after Thierach can not be put in one table like that. Therefore, if one looks at this table, there are abbreviations through which the understanding of the events is made much more difficult. There are also direct mistakes as concerns the situation, as you see it now.