Every young couple wanting to get married must submit a health certificate. We have achieved by the laws for the protection of the race (Rassenschutz) that the German people do not mix with Jews anymore and do not beget inferior descendants. All these ideas help our people to recover physically and mentally. The National Socialist government also had, since 1933, fought against habitual and professional criminals with absolute severeness and harshness. The problem became a burning one during the war. We must be clear that war not only brings with it a positive selection but also a negative one. A positive selection; Those who like myself, took part in the First World War and have also participated in this war know that in a unita company, a battery, a detail--it was always the same men who volunteered whenever there was a special operation, an assault detachment or a dangerous patrol. They were the idealists of the company, of the battery, of the detail, of the battalion. Naturally, these men were the first to fall. For indeed, war releases unsuspected forces in a nation, but at the same time, the inexorable fate of war sweeps away the best first of all."
Perhaps Your Honors are as tired as I am.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you pause at this moment?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I could pause at this moment and pick up again.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take a recess for 15 minutes at this time.
(Short recess taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I am reading from Document No. 273, Document Book No. 1-A, page 98, the eleventh sentence from the top of the page in the English translation, beginning as follows:
"But while our best men are on the front, protect the nation, and try to achieve at the cost of their own lives the goals that the authorities of the country arc obliged to pursue in order to preserve the life of that people, we have here at home, in the prisons, people who have been sentenced to life imprisonment, to fifteen years, to ten years, to five years in prison, who are not sent to the front and thus save their lives. Fellow citizens, that must not be. It is not acceptable that on the front the idealist comes to his death while in the interior of the country all the rabble of inferior value is preserved. I will give you an example: if during winter I should issue a decree in a prison where people are kept in order to safeguard the community, that is to say asocial rabble: "Those inmates are now to sleep on plank beds, outside in the prison courtyard", for two weeks and they freeze, the whole people would consider me as a criminal, and rightly so. I cannot do that, I am not allowed to. But the same people understands that our soldiers should sleep outside at -30 to -40 degrees F. without any protection, in the winter steppes of Russia. Here is a discrepancy which must disappear. And therefore I have seen to it that those people shall no longer be employed for any sort of work that is not dangerous. The most dangerous tasks are just the thing that is for them. Now today, when thousands of these people are carrying supplies in the far North or building roads, I cannot help it if some of them die. But at least they are of some use.
Now, how is it with those who have been punished and have then left the prison? Some of them of course find the way back to honesty; but many more cannot do so, nor do they want to. And, fellow citizens, it is a danger to have in the German people the idealists dying while the asocial members of society are growing more numerous. It is a danger which it is my responsibility to ward off, a question for the solution of which I am accountable to my people.
Here too I will give you some examples taken from real life. If a man has always been a thief since his youth, if he has been reprimanded or condemned to a light punishment and as he grows older has stolen again and again, has got into jail and them the penitentiary; if that man is now set free, let us say with five or ten jail sentences behind him, and again commits another theft, even if it is only one little one, this conclusive evidence that it is impossible to reform that man, that he is a parasite on the community. Nowadays, in wartime, he is a malignant growth on the people, a saboteur. And if another one has a tendency to indecent assaults and has laid hands upon children five or six times, and imprisonment has failed to cure him - if he then again lays hands on a child, perhaps after two of three years of freedom, led us say upon an eight-year-old girl, then he will not be condemned to hard labor, but has deserved death. Guilt and expiation are no doubt the ethical basis of a sentence, but the community has to be taken into consideration first; in fighting crimes, especially during a war. In such a case the penal law is part of the hygiene of the people, just as those great laws for the protection of hereditary health and laws for the protection of German blood.
That man is a saboteur who is guilty of looking even trifles, or who steals a suit or a pair of boots in a town in which peaceful homes have just been bombed by our enemies. We cannot run the risk of letting these people repeat their deeds. Whoever enriches himself in any way at the expense of people in want and distress in a time when the necessities of life arc scarce, or who, as a black marketeer, profits by these hard times when everything should be justly distributed, has forfeited his life."
I now go to the bottom of page 100, the last paragraph:
"I should like to treat of still another question. I know it will be difficult, but I want to speak openly to the people. You all know the law forbidding malicious political acts, and you know what it means. People like to gossip and discuss their leaders. This is natural and I have nothing against it, but it should not be done in an indecent manner.
Some of these rumors are dangerous, some are not. Most of them are very stupid, so obviously stupid, in fact, that they stink. Here too we must find the correct criterion."
I now go to page 102, four lines above the insert 20 of the original in the English translation, beginning: "It is not that we are afraid of these.....
"It is not that we are afraid of these rumors, or that it is important to me that they do not circulate. On the contrary. I say again and again the people want to talk, it ought to talk, and they like too to tell each other things. However, when the times get bad, when one recognizes that a hostile attitude toward the state is at its root, then one had to do something about it. One who, like myself, has had to preside over the People's Court for 6 years, knows about these things.
My fellow citizens, we are not fighting in three dimensions, we are fighting in four dimensions. We are fighting on the water and under it, secondly in the air, thirdly on the earth; and fourthly, we are fighting yet another enemy, who is much more dangerous, because it is more difficult for us to catch him; it is the enemy propaganda. And one who must, in his line of duty, listen to this dirty enemy propaganda on the radio and then experience that the propaganda which has just been trumpeted by the London radio station returns as an echo out of the people, he knows first, that in this case somebody rest have listened to the enemy and second, that here the enemy propaganda is being used in some way against the nation or the government. Here we must be hard, It is not as if we were worried that the people would be influenced by this babble, which our enemies still consider necessary.
But it is a well-known phenomenon that something which is repeated so and so often finds a certain credence. Out of that rumors detour as in the case of the eggs, which increased up to 300. Indeed, it has already been necessary for the Fuehrer to take a stand himself on such nonsense. In one of his last Berlin speeches he had to say provoking the laughter of the entire Sportpalast: "Here stands someone who is said to have shot himself, I am said to have shot him.
Now, what is the truth?" There is no better way than to ridicule such babble. If, however, the babble is so malicious that one recognized enemy propaganda, then we Justice officials have to intervene, and intervene in an energetic way. We do not want to follow the course of 1918, nor do we want to fall into the pit prepared by the people from over there."
That is all I shall read from that document. I offer to introduce in evidence Prosecution's Exhibit No. 25.
THE PRESIDENT: There are no objections to the document; the document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Document No. 415, page 108, Document Book 1-A, will be offered as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 26, when offered. This is a speech -- from page 108 I am reading -- a speech by State Secretary Dr. Rothenberger, of the Reich ministry of Justice, Berlin, made on 17 February, 1943, in Lueneburg.
"Speech by State Secretary Dr, Rothenberger of the Reich Ministry of Justice, Berlin, made on 17 February 1943 in Lueneburg.
"Deputy Gau Leader, dear Comrade.
"On 20 August 1942, the Fuehrer ordered our new Reich Minister of Justice to build up a strong national socialist judicial administration. Evidently there did not exist one so far, and we could have started our work by working out the proposed laws in Berlin and you would have read about this reform some day in the Reichsgesetzblatt. We have purposely not chosen this procedure since we believe that this is not same secret science, but that these problems are of direct concern to you."
I now gp to the bottom of page 108, beginning on the fourth line from the bottom of the English translation:
"The fact is that we still live in a time of revolution and that the world - it may justly be said since 1914 - is undergoing a change as seldom in history. And the cardinal point of this change is National Socialism."
I now go to page 109. It is actually the first grammatical paragraph on this page. It is the second paragraph from the bottom, and begins with the word. "Thus" !
"Thus begins now for the German judicial administration the second decade. The beginning was made on the 26 April 1942, the day on which the Fuehrer, acclaimed by the Reichstag, strongly criticized, the judicial administration before the whole world, and on the 20 August which was the consequence of this 26 April, on which day an incongruity in the German judicial administration was remedied with one stroke, vis, the incongruity: The Party on one side, the State on the other side. You know that the Reich Minister of Justice is not only the State's supreme authority of German Justice, but also the supreme authority of the Party as chief of the National Socialist Jurists' League."
Will you please turn on Page 112 of the English document book 1-A. And, it begins on the seventh line from the top:
"Of primary importance during wartime is of course the penal law.
Penal law has only one aim: to gain the victory and to keep up the morale in the homeland. This means that the administration of penal law must be severe and just. By severe I mean the problem which the Deputy Gauleiter has already started to discuss, that is the elimination of asocial and inferior persons. Each nation is composed of three sectors: the large middle class of more or less average, mostly somewhat indifferent people. The other, right sector, those are the brave ones, the faithful ones, who always sacrifice themselves, they are the best ones of the nation. It is very regrettable that by the long duration of the war this sector is becoming very much smaller. And we should not see now that the small left sector -which forms a part of every nation, the asocial and inferior characters are ruthlessly annihilated we would preserve these people for years, and by the end of the war they might perhaps outnumber the others. That must be prevented. And in the same degree as one has to be severe and brutal against these asocial characters in the administration of penal law, one has to be generous non-bureaucratic, and lenient in cases where one has to deal with people who are all right and who have trespassed for once." I offer to introduce into evidence, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 26.
DR. MANDSCHNEIDER (for the defendant Rothenberger): I should like to make a statement concerning this document; that is, a request for supplementary material to be read from the document. It refers to the following page: First, on page 117, that is, the German figure and of the document. It is on the bottom of page 117 of the German document and it says -- If the President will permit, I will read this myself;
"It is in the nature of judicial a ministration that the parties concerned are not always absolutely satisfies. And above all there might be many among you who, when antagonistic to your ideology, because previous to the seizure of power justice was on the opposing side. And perhaps some of these men adhere still today to the conclusion we seized power without justice or even against justice."
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I would just like to know where this appears in the English document book?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: On the first page of the document book, I am told sir.
THE PRESIDENT: If you are able to give us the number in the English translation, we will be able to follow it better.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: It seems to be on page 108.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it would be better to begin over so that we can follow you as you go through it, but I do not know just where on the page you began.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I cannot tell, Your Honor, until I hear it over the phones and I how to pick it up then.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I will continue then.
"And perhaps same of these men adhere still today to the conclusion we seized power without justice or even against justice. Why should we not also build up a Great German Reich without a strong Justice. That, however, is a very serious error." And, the second passage which I should like to read is on page 120 of the German document.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us see if we can locate that in the English copy, if possible.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: It is the passage that begins with the sentence: "This feeling for justice of our people is one of the reasons which made it quite clear to the Fuehrer --"
THE PRESIDENT: If we knew the number of the page in the English translation, it would of great service to us.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honor, that is on the bottom of page 3 or 110. It begins with: "This feeling for justice." It is at the very bottom of the page.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: "This feeling for justice of our people is one of the reasons which made it quite clear to the Fuehrer that we must build up a strong judicial administration now in the midst of the war; because to him it is self-evident that the German people is shouldering the heaviest burdens under the conditions:
Equality of treatment, equality of burden and justice for all."
And, the last phrase -- no, that is the last phrase which I wanted to read.
And, then may I point out the following; From the document it cannot be seen from what newspaper this excerpt was taken such as was shown in the case of other excerpts. And, in order to check on that speech, the defendant Rothenberger requested, through me, to receive this information from the representative of the Prosecution. Secondly, we have found out that this speech is not complete. The end is somewhat abrupt and the defendant Rothenberger remembers quite well that speech also deals with other subjects. From the point of view of the Defense, it seems to me to be necessary in order to be able to check on the entire contents of this document, and with the information, where it came from and the newspaper which it had been published in, so as to know or to present the entire contents of that speech.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May it please your Honor as to the first request, certainly the Counsel is Well within his rights. I had not observed that we had not indicated from what paper this excerpt was taken. As to the second, under the policy approved by the Tribunal, by permitting him to read, I think there is some merit, although I do point out that once we had shown an excerpt, if we limit it in the document, then I do not believe that we should be required to furnish the whole speech. That would be a part of the defense in chief. I do think that we are certainly obligated to furnish the reference from which the speech was taken so that the defendant and his Counsel may identify what we might have chosen to leave out. However, I do not believe we are guilty of either bad faith or bad practice in presenting that part of the speech we thought pertinent to this case. I shall be very glad to furnish Counsel this information as soon as I can acquire the source from where this document was obtained.
THE PRESIDENT: The prosecution has indicated that they have endeavored to get the source of this speech and the place where it has been published. We think that is a very reasonable request to be made and no doubt it will be furnished. Concerning any additional matter which might not be published in that same newspaper or wherever it is published, that would be a too greater requirement to be made but if counsel had any additional to that matter they surely ought to be permitted to put it in.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May I address the Court for a minute? Always as we start these proceedings we find difficulties in getting our documents together and getting the document room accustomed to working with us. We could go on for short time but I believe we will make more progress if the Court, although it is an hour early, will permit us to recess now and perhaps we could meet tomorrow at a quarter of ten. I call attention of the bench and it is only a suggestion worked out by the practicalities of living and working in Nurnberg, that transportation isn't always the best for many of us and our secretaries and when we meet at nine thirty we can hardly get here much before nine or our secretaries before nine and eat so that if we could have fifteen minutes normally in the morning and I have such a request at this time. If we could recess now I believe that we will make more progress for the Tribunal and make more progress in this case. That is, of course, we will abide by the decision of the Tribunal. I merely state what my position is at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is perfectly willing to recess at this time and meet at 9:45 tomorrow morning. Is it the request to meet every morning at that hour?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I think in my present feeling that it might be wise but I only make it now as a special request for tomorrow and I think we can see how the things work out. If I make a general request perhaps I will make it in writing and rather extensively give reasons.
THE PRESIDENT: We will grant the request for tomorrow morning and consider the other matter at another time.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, sir. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess at this time until tomorrow morning at 9:45.
THE MARSHAL: Military Tribunal No. 3 is recessed until 9:45 tomorrow.
(a recess was taken)
Official transcript of the American MilitaryTribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Jopef Alstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 7 March 1947, 0946-1630, 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 court.
THE PRESIDENT: The marshal will ascertain whether the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in court with the exception of defendants Rethaug and Engert, who are absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May it please Your Honors, the last exhibit which was out in yesterday, Prosecution Exhibit No. 26, NG NO. 416, which was page 108 of the document book, was the exhibit with reference to which counsel for the defendant Rothenberger asked information and made certain observations and objections, as I recall, the basic one being that the exhibit appeared to end abruptly and that there was no indication on the exhibit as to what paper or publication it had appeared in or before what group it had appeared. I now have two photostatic copies of the original exhibit and I have this information with reference to the validity and competency of this exhibit and where it appeared.
It appeared in a folder entitled "Reichsjustizministerium of the Staatsekretaer Dr. Rothenberger". It is now at the Ministerial Collection Center, Camp Mahogony at Finsterberg. That was where it was first taken. It is now in the Reichs Central Office in Berlin.
The information, or rather, the exhibit, indicates that it was an office copy of a speech which the defendant Rothenberger had prepared and given at Lueneburg, but the text ends where it does because that was all of the conies of this speech which were obtained through the regular processes by which these exhibits have been obtained, so that consequently there is no further text to the speech, to the knowledge of the prosecution, in existence.
That accounts for our inability to furnish any other part of the text that the defendant Rothenberger, through his counsel, indicated he thought was not part of the exhibit. That also takes care of the matter of our furnishing the group or the newspaper in which it was published. We have furnished exactly what the original exhibit, in German, indicates - photostatic copies that I am very glad at this time to furnish to counsel. And may I explain to counsel that there are two photostatic copies because the photostating was not good. Between the two of them you will get a full good photostat.
Now while I an here on that subject I would like to ask the court to modify its ruling of yesterday with reference to permitting the defense to read parts of exhibits after the prosecution has finished. I did not state my position adequately enough, I think, to the Court yesterday. I would like to state it more adequately this morning and, of course, subject to the control of the Court we have no objection to any defense counsel stating any objection to it.
When the exhibit is introduced that is the record of the case. The reading of portions of the exhibit which the prosecution indulges in is largely for the purpose of advising the Court, as the instrument goes in, of what the character of the instrument is and part of its substance. The situation I don't believe is analagous to that which prevails in stateside practice where a party attempts to read into evidence only part of an exhibit and withheld the rest. Under those circumstances I am acquainted with the rule, and it is a very proper one, that he may be required either by the Court or the opposing counsel may be permitted to introduce part of the document which he is attempting to withhold. However, that is not true under these circumstances.
We offer and introduce into evidence the full document. The reading is purely for the purpose of the Court. For that reason, when in reading the record as an indication to the Court, we feel as to whether the Court wants to go to the document book and give further attention to all of the document, if immediately thereafter there appear certain parts of the document read by the defendant, the prosecution, I feel, is somewhat handicapped and an orderly presentation of the record is net there, because the defendants have full opportunity when offering their case in chief under the same method of calling to the attention parts of that exhibit which is already in the record, or reading part of it.
So that I respectfully point out the reasons why I are asking the Court to modify its ruling of yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will not modify the order, and I will state the reasons why. Of course the entire exhibit is in evidence, what opposing counsel wants as well as what the prosecution desires, But the whole purpose of evidence is to advise the Tribunal as we go along, and that entire exhibit doing before us, if that is not called to our attention by opposing Counsel, we would be required to search for it.
We think it is the province of opposing counsel to aid the Curt in that way, to call to our attention anything that opposing counsel feels is important to the defense. Now, all of that is within reasonable limits. If it were sought to read a long document where only a small portion is real by the Prosecution, we would not permit it. But within reasonable limits, and these limits have not been exceeded in this instance, we will not modify the ruling unless something occurs to call for a modification.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: May it please Your Honor, I accept, of course, the ruling of the Court, but I would like to call the attention of the Court under the ruling that it made, the necessity of be ring in mind when it finds in the case in chief excerpts from documents read and consequently emphasized by defendants' counsel, that if there should do self-serving elements in there that they would much better have appeared in the defendant's case in chief. I understand the reason fer the Court's ruling. I just don't want to be bound, as the Court roads to so-called "plaintaiff's case" by these excerpts that might not do accurately transcribed, perhaps, in the record, so that they might appear to be running along to do these things which the plaintiff had emphasized. Of course, all tie document is in.
JUSTICE BRAND: We are not under misapprehension about that portion Of your statement. We understand the whole document is in, and we are not invoking the rule that when a part of a document is introduced in evidence the opponent may introduce the other part. We are simply invoking the rule that when you introduce an entire document,within the discretionary Units of the Court, we are entitled to -or the defense are entitled, rather, to call to our attention portions of your exhibit.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I understand that. I just want to be sure that as the transcript develops, and I hope the stenographers will clearly note these parts which are read by the prosecution and those parts which are read by the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: I agree with what Judge Brand has said. I also want to approve of your argument that they could not be permitted to have self-serving declarations. If they should appear at any time, we will promptly rule then out.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Thank you. At this time, Your Honor, Mr. Woeleyhan will proceed with the case.
DR. SCHILF: Counsel for Defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg. Mr. President, may I call the attention of the Tribunal to one point? Yesterday the Tribunal decided in case a document should be presented only by excerpts and read in excerpts by the gentlemen of the Prosecution, then the Defense, if it would like to have other parts read, could immediately to so. They could point out the necessary pages to the Tribunal.
During the last few days, and I do not wish to emphasize that the documents have been presented too late, we have received a very large number of documents, five and six volumes, with thousands of pages. It was not important to us before they were presented in court to go through all these volumes in order to be able to examine what parts the Defense would like to have read. Practically, this is a great difficulty. If the Prosecution announces the submission of an exhibit, for instance, Exhibit Number 25, which may consist of 20 pages, and of these 20 pages, only three or four passages are read; then Defense counsel at once has to look through the remaining pages in order to ascertain what he would like to have read later.
For that reason, I should like to make the suggestion that the Defense on its part be permitted to include those passages which Defense wants to have read in the Document Book of the Defense during their case. If this is not done, the practical difficulties will be too great. There will also be a delay due to the fact that after each document is presented by the Prosecution, the Defense counsel will immediately have to get to the microphone and announce which passages he requests be read.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems counsel who is addressing the Tribunal is in perfect harmony with the Prosecution. There will be no difficulty about reading any of these documents when the Defense Counsel come to their case. That is what I understand you are now asking to be permitted to do.
DR. SCHILF: Yes, Mr. President. I am asking that we should be permitted to include those passages which the Prosecution is not reading in our case, if those passages are deemed material. I ask that we be permitted to include relevant passages in a document book.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibits are admitted in their entirety. They are already in evidence. Even so, when it comes to the Defense, Defense Counsel can emphasize them by reading them if they so desire. Is that not satisfactory?
DR. SCHILF: If that is the case, then it could appear also in the record?
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, what I said is subject to the qualification that it must be competent evidence and not merely self-serving declarations on the part of the Defendant.
DR. KUDOSCHOK: Counsel for the Defendants Schlegelberger and von Ammon. The position of the Prosecution makes a necessary decision on the following point: If a very large exhibit is submitted by the Prosecution and if from this exhibit only certain passages have been read, what is considered proof? Only the portion of the exhibit which has been read or the entire document?
The International Military Tribunal had, in consideration of the great length of the individual documents, decided the question to mean that only that should be considered in evidence as was read into the record. I believe that, practically, it could net be handled any differently and I ask you to consider the following example:
A very long speech is presented as proof. The speech concerns 10 different questions. The Prosecution is interested only in one. Nine ether questions are net interesting to the Prosecution. If, however, the entire speech could be used as proof, then the Defense would have to quote all nine points and very carefully rebuff them. The length of the proceedings would be increased. Therefore, I ask that a decision be made, just as was the case in the International Military Tribunal, that in case of such documents, only that part which was read into the record should be considered evidence by the Tribunal.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: May it please Your Honor, I am not prepared to say definitely, but I have just been advised that after the ruling of the International Military Tribunal to which Dr. Kubeschok refers, there was a change.
I make no point because I am sure he is speaking in good faith. And I am sure I am the information given me was in good faith.
Again I would like to point out that we are funning into the difficulties that I anticipated when I asked the court to change its ruling. I think it will be endless and needlessly boring to the Court, as the Court indicated itself yesterday, to read the biographical affidavits of those Defendants.
If a ruling such as Defense Counsel now asked for should be made, of course, we can comply with it, but it will tax the physical powers of the Court and counsel and will certainly, in my opinion, very unduly prolong these proceedings. An exhibit, when in the record, is there. I would even say that it could be possible and we would have had adequate results, if the Prosecution simply introduced its exhibits one after another as it does in a stateside proceeding, and leave it to the Court to determine.
The only purpose of the interjection cf excerpts, and possibly some observations with reference to them which would normally be rather poor stateside practice, is that the document speaks for itself. We would not exceed that limitation. We will not attempt to interpret the document, but certain parts, I think, will give the Court a sense cf some coordination cf the proceedings.
However, if nothing is to be considered by the Court, except what is read, or if we to have too much interjection of the reading of documents, then the Prosecution will, as much as it hates to extend the time of the Court, simply stand here and read word for word every document if it takes until next January and the Congressional appropriations hang on that long.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Counsel for Defendant Rothenberger. Mr. President, may I for the Defendant Rothenberger, make a few short remarks also for practical reasons and reasons of procedure?
In order to say it straightaway, I am of the opinion that the decision of the Tribunal yesterday is definitely reasonable and economical.
If an exhibit has been submitted by the Prosecution, the question arises at the time it is read, "What kind of an exhibit is that?"
That it is desirable to us to accept an entire document as an exhibit, there is no doubt. All of us in connection with this trial would get into great difficulties if we should try to determine what parts of these documents should be evidence and what parts should not be evidence. For this reason, I am of the opinion that the entire document has to be considered as an exhibit and accepted as such.
What is tho consequence of that opinion? If the prosecutor reads from the document, then the defense, of course, has the same fundamental interest in it that also those parts of the document should be brought to the attention of the Tribunal in which the defense is interested. Only thereby, will it be justified to consider the entire document as exhibit and as proof, and therefore it is likewise necessary, and in spite of the fact that ii delays tho procedure, it must be taken into account that the defense should have the opportunity immediately after the presentation by the prosecution to read those passages which are of interest for the defense. May I point out that if the entire exhibit is submitted, those question, for instance, as to whether that document is only a draft or an authentic publication within publication of the Ministry or an office or anything of that kind, that these questions are still left open for the defense: because the fact that it has been accepted as exhibit can not possibly mean that the defense should not have the possibility, by later investigations, to ascertain what the character-the nature--of such a publication or such an exhibit is; whether, for instance, it was only a draft of little consequence or an authentic text actually presented. I, as counsel for the defendant Rothenberger, consider this important, also for the very actual reason of his speech at Lueneburg, and for this reason I should like to ask in conclusion that the Tribunal leave the decision as it was made yesterday in order to have the probative value of the entire document available for the prosecution as well as for the defense, and to give the opportunity to both to read immediately all those passages which are of interest for them. If it is a very extensive document in practice, I should suggest the solution that in such an extraordinary case, where the defendant cannot immediately make a decision as to what should be read, that the defendant should have the right, in order to save time for the procedure and read only the most essential passages, to read those passages the next day.