A. Fifteen months passed until the trial. About a year later there was the denunciation because of this transfer of the Pole.
Q. About a year elapsed, then, before you were arrested, and then three or four months after that until the trial took place, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is how it was.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The witness may be excused, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
(Witness excused)
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, while we are waiting for the witness Hecker, the prosecution would like to introduce at this time, as Prosecution Exhibit No. 427, the affidavit of Robert Hecker, Document NG-1401. We are advised that this has been properly distributed.
JUDGE BRAND: Will you give that again, please?
MR. LAFOLLETTE:NG-1401, Exhibit 427.
THE PRESIDENT: Where will that be located in the document books, if I may ask?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honors, it would be my thought that it could be put in either document book IV or VII, as the Court saw fit, or in the supplement books which will be shortly distributed, IV or VII. It is not a separate document.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we want to be uniform, so let's have it one and not either.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Well, Mr. Wooleyhan advises me it probably goes more properly in VII then in IV; either in VII or in the supplement to VII. There will be a supplement book VII introduced next week.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I offer the document as Prosecution Exhibit No. 427.
JUDGE BRAND: I have a note here, which appears to be wrong, that Exhibit 427 was NG-204, to go into Book IX-B. Will you correct me on that?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, I recall that now. That had been given as exhibit number 381, NG-204. There was a page or two missing and it was brought back in and reintroduced in its correct form, but it took its old exhibit number.
JUDGE BRAND: I see.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I haven't heard the ruling of the Court. Is the document accepted?
THE PRESIDENT: Has the document been passed up?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be received in evidence.
(ROBERT HECKER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows.)
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The witness will testify in German, Your Honor.
JUDGE BRAND: Witness, will you raise your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q You're the same Robert Hecker who has previously testified in this case?
A Yes, I am.
Q You're also the same Robert Hecker who executed an affidavit on the general subject of the affair at Sonnenburg on the 2nd day of May 1947?
A Yes.
Q Will you just review for a minute for the court what position did you hold in the Ministry of Justice late in January and early in February 1945.
AAt that time, January-February 1945, within the group, Infliction of Punishment, I was in charge of the quartering and the transfer of prisoners from one institution to another.
Q I ask you whether or not sometime in January 1945 you received any information about preparations for the evacuation of Sonnenburg Prison, should that become necessary?
A Yes. In the following way I found out about it: one day I happened to be with the General Public Prosecution at the Kammergericht--at the Prussian Supreme Court of Appeal--and he told me that because it might be necessary to evacuate Sonnenburg preliminary discussions had been carried on, therefore, but that he was not permitted to tell me any details about it; that he had discussed this matter with the Under State Secretary with regard to the measures to be taken but that he had misgivings, and therefore he would like to suggest to me that I should discuss this matter sometime with the Under State Secretary.
Q Just one minute. What State Secretary? What is his name?
A With the State Secretary Klemm. Then I had myself announced in the State Secretary's office; however, I was not called during those days.
Q Did you learn anything about this matter then later in the last part of January 1945?
A Yes. Whether that was at the end of January, I don't know; but it may have been around that time. When I was the official on duty one night, we got a telephone call from the director of that institution that an advance of the Russians was about to occur and that the Russian tanks had a break-through and that within the shortest period possible a decision would have to be made as to whether the institution was to be defended. Thereupon, I immediately telephoned Minister Thierack in his home and asked him for instructions. Minister Thierack stated that the institution would have to be defended. Thereupon, I again called the institution and informed the people of this decision, and in so doing I said that I had certain misgivings in regard to military measures on the part of the officials of the institution. Therefore, in as far as possible it was to be avoided, to call the enemy's attention in any way whatsoever to the prison when he would pass with his tanks through the town of Sonnenburg. The director of the prison then asked what further measures he should take if the occasion should arise. Thereupon, I called the Generalstaatsanwalt--the General Public Prosecutor--at the Kammergericht--the highest Court of Appeals of Prussia and I wanted to ask him what instructions he had issued. I found out that the General Public Prosecutor was at that time in Brandenburg. The official--the Referent--who was present, a first prosecutor, told me that according to the instructions which had been issued, the police was supposed to be informed in case of an evacuation. When the prison called again later on, the Vorstand--the presiding officer--told me that there was no more immediate threat to the prison.
Q This was the official of the prison now, you're speaking of?
A Yes, that is correct. Then on the next day I heard that the news which at first was so alarming was very much exaggerated and that for the time being, one could not yet tell whether an immediate evacuation would become necessary.
A few days later, however, another expert of our division told me that during the night he had a conversation with the Sonnenburg Prison and that the prison had been evacuated.
Q Excuse me, just a minute. Will you give the name of that official, if you recall it?
A Yes. That was Ministerial Counsellor Eggensberger. Ministerial Counsellor Eggensberger then also put down in writing a notice after he had discussed the matter with the General Public Prosecutor, a copy of this notice I also received. In this notice, it was stated that in regard to the evacuation of the prison, discussions had taken place between the General Public Prosecutor at the Kammergericht and the Reich Defense Commissar, the Gauleiter of the Province of Brandenburg; and that during these discussions it had been decided that the only part of the prisoners should be transported away. The rest of the prisoners were supposed to remain in the prison and there to be transferred to the police before the Russians would capture the prison.
Q Excuse me. When you say "police", was it the regular police or was it the Gestapo, or do you not remember?
A That was the Gestapo. On the basis of this agreement, a part of the German prisoners was then transferred while the officials of the prison and the rest of the German prisoners and furthermore the Polish prisoners, which had been transferred there from a prison in the GRV Posen, together with the director of that prison, had left the prison and had marched on foot through Brandenburg to another prison. They were on their way.
Q Was this agreement, as I understand, between the General prosecutor and the Reich defense commissar and the Gestapo--was this the agreement to which the Under Secretary Klemm was also a party?
A Yes. This was, according to the notice, discussed and the agreement was reached between the two offices:
that of the General Prosecutor and that of the Under State Secretary.
Q And the last information that you got was in the form of notes which were given you in the morning by Ministerialrat Eggensberger who had been on night duty the night before you talked to him, as that right?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q And to the best of your recollection as to the time, is that this was late in the month of January or early in the month of February 1945, is that correct?
A The exact point of time, I cannot remember any more, but it was the time when the battles were around Kuestrin. That must have been about the end of January.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Now, if your Honors please, so that we may also make some progress -- on May 1st the Prosecution introduced Document NG-737 as Prosecution's Exhibit 416. That was a separate document and it was the affidavit of the witness Hecker, and dealt with matters of Nacht and Nebel proceedings, or the closing negotiations on those, as I recall, late in the war. There was, of course, no cross examination on that affidavit. I know that Defense Counsel generally wants to cross examine, and I noticed a note today that Dr. Haensl had served notice that he wanted to cross examine on the basis of that affidavit. Now, I don't want to talk too long, but I want to make certain things clear. Previously, on April 18th, the Prosecution introduced Document NG-1008, as Exhibit 277; that was in Book IV-C, at page 17. In connection with that affidavit the witness Hecker has testified and been cross examined; so that we will not object to a cross examination of this witness now not only on the basis of this affidavit 1401 and this testimony, but also on the basis of the affidavit on the general subject of Nacht and Nebel, and we hope that that can all be done at this time. But we would, of course, be forced to object to further cross examination on the prison transfer affidavit which was given much earlier.
Having stated the position of the Prosecution and the reasons for it -- which I believe are fair -- I now turn the witness over to the Defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense Counsel may proceed with the cross examination along the lines of the suggestion of the Prosecution at the moment; that is to say, no further cross examination on Document 1008.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHILF: (Counsel for Defendants Mettgenberg and Klemm)
Q With the permission of the Court, I begin the cross examination first of all about the affidavit which was submitted today, NG-1401, Exhibit 427. Witness, the facts which you testified to orally, on the main, you had already stated in it's basic lines in this affidavit of 2 May 1947.
A. Yes.
Q Just now you told us, in order to supplement it, that the first telephone call conversation you had with Thierack, was during the night of 30 January 1945. In your affidavit it says literally, and I quote: On page 1 -- 1 suppose that it was during the night of the 30th January 1945 when I as official on duty in the Reich Ministry of Justice received a telephone call from Sonnenburg. What reasons do you have for saying that this telephone conversation during that night, which was previous to your telephone conversation Thierack, might have been on the 30th of January 1945?
A It was, without any doubt, during the year 1945, and it was during the time when the Russians were advancing against the Province of Brandenburg, and the battles were around the fortress Kuestrin. These battles must have been about the time January or February. Of Course I cannot remember the exact day or date, but it must have been around that time approximately, and since I was told that 30th of January was the day when I had talked with Sonnenburg in person, I assumed that that was that day, without remembering any definite date. I can only say that it must have been approximately at that time.
Q Witness, I am not quite clear on this point. You say, if it says here -- and by that you mean your own affidavit -- that during the night of 30th January 1945, it must have been so. But you, yourself, made this affidavit, or would you like to clarify what you have just stated that it must probably be correct.
A I was told that on the 30th January I was called on the telephone; I say, and I said that could be right, because it must have been approximately around that time.
Q And may I ask you who told you that were called on the 30th of January?
A During my interrogation I was told that on the 30th of January I was called on the telephone.
Q That is when you made out this affidavit during the interrogation?
A Yes, during my interrogation I was told that I was called on the 30th of January, and I was asked whether this date could be correct, and thereupon I said "yes" that may be, without my being able to say exactly whether it was the 30th of January or any other day.
Q Thank you very much. Who called you from Sonnenburg; was it the director of the prison himself?
A Yes.
Q Can you still remember the name?
A I believe Buechner, Regierungsrat Buechner, I believe.
Q Can you say something about the following: Was something said as to this telephone call on the 30th of January, 1945 which was made by Buechner -- did the interrogating officer who interrogated you inform you of this; did he make any statement a bout this?
A He did not mention the name; he only said that I was supposed to have received a telephone call and whether I knew anything about the matter, and according to his documents he knew that I was called by the Sonnenburg prison, and that I had discussed this matter with them.
Q That is, the interrogator only referred to documents which he had in his possession?
A Yes, he said he had the documents; Yes.
Q Then, a few days later, that is what the affidavit says, you spoke with Eggensberger?
A No, a few days later Eggensberger informed me that he had a renewed telephone conversation during the night; I discussed the matter with him the next day already.
Q No, I mean, this information you received from Eggensberger, as you described it, that was supposed to have taken place a few days later, and the conversation during which Eggensberger is supposed to have told you that the prisoners had already been evacuated.
A Yes.
Q Can you tell us what your conception of a few days is; a few days is somewhat indefinite; was it five, eight, or ten days?
A Today it is very difficult to say from my memory, but If I tried to think back, I believe it was probably three to four days later, without being able to say so with certainty.
Q Witness, you were in Department Five of the Ministry, that is Strafvolzug, execution of sentences, and apparently you also were at that time in charge of the difficult problems of the transfer and evacuation of prisoners.
A Yes.
Q When at the time you were on night duty, you received this telephone call, you were not by chance a man who did not know anything about these matters, but actually you were the expert in that field.
A Yes.
Q If you were an expert for these questions, these problems, then you must also have heard that already in the middle of January an order by Himmler was issued.
A No.
Q In order to refresh your memory, I shall tell you some of the details. Himmler was around the turn of the year 1944 - 1945 Oberbefehlshaber, commander in chief of the so-called Vistula Army; do you remember that?
A The time I don't remember, but that he did become that I do remember.
Q Himmler then as commander in chief of the Vistula Army, immediately following his appointment, as far as I am informed, in the middle of January he issued an order to the population, as well as to all the civilian authorities stating that within the area in which the army was operating, that is the so-called operation area any kind of evacuation even for civilian population was forbidden. The reason for this was that in order to strengthen the defense very quickly he also needed the prisoners of the penitentiary Sonnenburg which he intended to use for defense work.
Since you were an expert in this question, I assume that you heard something about this matter?
A. No, I never heard anything about it. Even now after you tell me all this I don't remember.
Q. Did you, even if only as a rumor in the Reich Ministry of Justice, around the same time hear that the Minister, Thierack, had given up the authority to issue orders about Sonnenburg?
A. No.
Q. Witness, if you don't know that, may I remind you that a few minutes ago during the direct examination you spoke about it, that Thierack during these nightly telephone conversations told you that the peneitentiary Sonnenburg would have to defend itself, and further on you told us that during the second conversation with the director of the penitentiary you personally said on your own that you had misgivings that the penitentiary should take military measures.
A. Yes.
Q. I am now asking you, could Thierack, the Minister of Justice, issue instructions to anyone to defend a building, to put a building or a group of people in a condition of military defense?
A. The question was this: If troops which were advancing toward the penitentiary should try to liberate the prisoners, measures against this would have to be taken. This question was occasionally discussed even before during discussions within the Ministry.
Q. "Measures" is a general term. You yourself realized at that time that they were military measures that were in question, defense measures that were connected with tactics, etc.
A. Yes.
Q. And you yourself discussed this question with the director of the institution, so there were questions of tactics of battle, or something like that, and I am just asking you whether in his sphere, in the military sense, Herr Thierack could issue any orders.
A. Well, it was this way. The general order was to defend all this, all of the localities and so forth, and the possibility did exist that the officials of the institution, who did have rifles, when the troops tried to occupy the penitentiary, the officials themselves would make use of those weapons.
Q. You said that there was a general directive for the defense of these localities?
A. Yes, that was in the newspapers. It had been published that, well, that the localities were to be defended. That was what had been announced at that time.
Q. Was this directive issued by the director Thierack?
A. No.
Q. By whom?
A. If I remember correctly, the order had been issued by Goebbels, Himmler, and Keitel. I think so.
Q. Goebbels too?
A. That is how I remember it. Of course, at this time I cannot say anything with certainty about it but I remember that those three issued it.
Q. That was probably Goebbels in his capacity as Reich Defense Commissar.
A. No, not Reich Defense Commissar, because he was Reich Defense Commissar only for Berlin itself.
Q. Witness, my question is really so clear. I only want to ask you, did a civilian, the minister in charge of a civilian authority, have the possibility to organize military resistance, to issue military orders?
A. No, the question is whether the institution as such could offer resistance or whether they should just let them occupy the penitentiary without offering resistance. He could offer his opinion. He could not issue military orders but naturally he can tell the officials, can't he, that if an attack is made then defend themselves.
Q. You said that he could state his opinion. Does the Minister of Justice thus issue military orders? Could he do that?
A. No, he could not do that.
Q. This question I have discussed with you in order to refresh your memory. You yourself said on direct examination that Thierack had told you the institution was to be defended.
A. Yes.
Q. That is meant in a military sense?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you believe that what he told you during the night was an order issued by Thierack or whether it was an order of a military authority which was given via Thierack?
A. I assume that he made this decision on the basis of the directives which the different offices to whom he was subordinate, well, let's say the Reich Defense Commissar or it might be any military office, that he had been informed by these authorities and that thereupon, within the framework of these instructions which were known to him, he made this decision.
Q. These questions which I have just discussed with you did not give you a possibility to remember that Sonnenburg was within the operational district and was put immediately under a military order of Himmler?
A. No, I don't remember that.
Q. I now have a further question in regard to the conversation that you had with Thierack during that night. Are you able to give the conversation in somewhat more detail?
A. Yes, the telephone call was in the following form. The decision would have to be made in one quarter of an hour as to whether the institution was to be defended if the occasion arose and how it should act if the Russians should go through Sonnenburg. Thereupon the Minister answered briefly, "The institution is to be defended." That was not a long conversation because during the night it is not the usual thing to carry on long conversations.
Q. I only wanted to know whether it was a very brief conversation.
A. Yes, it was a very brief conversation.
Q. In your affidavit you then described the further telephone conversations that took place during the night. The next one - I would like you to correct me if I make any mistakes - the next one was apparently a new telephone call from Sonnenburg.
A. No, I believe that first of all after I talked with Sonnenburg I tried to speak with the General Public Prosecutor of the Kammergericht.
Q. But that would not be in agreement with your affidavit. I am therefore forced to read this to you. The affidavit is Exhibit 427. At the bottom of the first page in the German it says the following: "Thereupon I again got in touch with the penitentiary in order to inform them of the decision of the Minister."
A. Yes. The matter was as follows: That, of course, I immediately registered a call to Sonnenburg. In the meantime I must have made the call to Berlin because that went much faster, until I again could get in touch with Sonnenburg. At first, of course, I registered the call to Sonnenburg, but as far as I know, without being able to reconstruct it in sequence, in the meantime, before I got the line, I had the conversation with the Kammergericht.
Q. Then I have to read you a further part of your affidavit. "An hour later there was another telephone call from Sonnenburg that possibly there would be no breakthrough as yet. They asked whether the evacuation should be carried out." Now, you say in your affidavit, "Thereupon I again called the Kammergericht in Berlin in order to get in touch with the General Public Prosecutor Hansen, but I only got the First Public Prosecutor, who was on night duty."
A. Yes. The affidavit says that I again called the General Public Prosecutor. I had already called him once. Of course, during such a night I called several times and in the meantime the General Public Prosecutor in Brandenburg had been reached, and he was again in Berlin.
Q. Witness, I want to get this quite clear. You stated in your affidavit - without reading it I'll sum it up. First you called Hansen; nobody was there. Then you spoke to Thierack on your own initiative.
Then Sonnenburg called you, and then the General Public Prosecutor was not there, and you spoke to the First Public Prosecutor. That is how you stated the succession in your affidavit. Do you want to correct your affidavit?
A. The question as to how often -- I know only that during the night I had a number of telephone conversations with Sonnenhurg, as well as with the Kammergericht. The exact succession of the telephone calls I don't know. I know only one thing with certainty, that my first conversation-
Q. You were interrupted, witness. Please continue.
A. Yes. My first conversation was to the Minister of Justice in order to get my instructions. Then I immediately put in a call to Sonnenhurg, and then during the course of the night I repeatedly spoke to Sonnenhurg penitentiary; partly in the meantime I also tried to get a competent person in the Kammergericht who had to make the decision, and I tried to get in touch with the General Public Prosecutor himself. What the succession of the individual conversations was, that, of course, I cannot remember any more today with certainty. These conversations took place during the night, and I carried them on during the night.
Q I only wanted to ask you for the reason that in your affidavit the words, "Thereupon, appears repeatedly and from that a logical succession could result.
A Yes. I repeat again that I am referring to the fact that this was the second conversation.
Q In reality, it was not quite as clear as you wrote it down here in your affidavit. I wanted to ask you for the name of the first public prosecutor at the General Public Prosecutor's Office.
A I don't know his name. He told me only -- and this I do remember -that he on his part was in touch with the office of the police -- that is, the Gestapo; that he had touch with them for official reasons, had contact with them, and that he had to deal with that office. And that, therefore, surprisingly, he know about this matter of Sonnenburg, while, as a rule, most of the people didn't know anything about this affair -- but he knew it. But what his name was, I don't know. I can't tell you that because otherwise I had nothing to do with him. In any case, it was none of the experts of the department V of Strafvollzug; it was an expert of the socalled Strafabteillung (Penal Division). And I don't know that by name. It was evidently none of the experts in division Strafvollzug (Penal Execution) at the General Prosecutor's Office.
Q This First Public Prosecutor made a statement that he knew something about it, that the matter had already been settled by the Gestapo?
A Yes, it was -- No. Whether it was settled with the Gestapo -- he said the Gestapo was to be informed about it -- and the correct thing would be that the Gestapo would be informed in such a case.
Q In this conversation, was it perhaps discussed that the penitentiary Sonnenburg was to be subordinated to the military order of Himmler?
A No, No. I know that for sure. This matter was neither mentioned in the conversation with Sonnenburg nor in the conversation with the First Public Prosecutor. That I can say with certainty. I do not want to deny that such an order existed, but I didn't know about it.
Q Now, in the chronological succession of your conversations you thereupon again called the director of the penitentiary in Sonnenburg on the telephone. In any case, according to your affidavit, you say "Thereupon, I told the director of the prison, that I could not permit an evacuation, after the minister had said that the prisoners should remain there.
A Yes.
Q I did not quite get that. You said that the last conversation during the night which you had with Sonnenburg is apparently in agreement with the first conversation when you had already informed them of the decision of the ministers that it should be defended?
A Yes, it was like this: That the penitentiary again asked me during the night once more whether they could evacuate, and thereupon I said, No. During one of these conversations the director of the institution again asked whether they could start to evacuate, that now the possibility was there to evacuate because when the inmediate danger -- because at first when the immediate danger for the institution was there, they could not carry out an evacuation. But later when the news became known the situation was of such a nature that an evacuation during the night would have been possible to carry out, and he asked whether they should start -- I stated that that could not be done according to the directives which had been issued.
Q Did you tell the director of the penitentiary anything about your conversation with the prosecutor, that already some kind of an agreement with the Gestapo existed?
A He knew about that. He, himself, was present at these discussions and the General Public Prosecutor had seen him quite frequently, and he, himself, discussed with the prosecutor the measures which would have to be taken in the case of an evacuation, with the director.
Q With the director of the institution?
A Yes, the director of the institution was informed about it. He had been instructed by the General Public Prosecutor.
Q But something is quite unclear and it still remains unclear: Why did he call altogether: "Should I evacuate, or not"? For if already before, as you say, in repeated conversations with the General Public Prosecutor, in Sonnenburg, he had discussed all the measures which were to be taken, and had been informed about them, then I do not understand how he could call several times and could ask, "May I evacuate?" He had instructions before that already to hand the people over to the Gestapo?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honors, I object to this for the constitutional argument with witness and not in an attempt to elicit facts. It constitutes an argument with the witness as to conclusions and the state of mind of a man, and does not attempt to elicit facts. I object to the question as clearly improper.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the question is objectionable. The situation was changing from hour to hour during the night and it isn't strange that there would be other conversations, and I think the question is objectionable.
It will be sustained.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Witness, who told you that the director of Sonnenburg was, as you said already, long before this decisive night, in discussions with the General Public Prosecutor, Hansen; and that he had discussed that certain people, or all of them, wore to be transferred to the Gestapo?
A Well, during the night I discussed this with him, you see, and I told him that the Prosecution at the Kammergericht was supposed to inform the Gestapo that the case for a evacuation had arisen now. And on this occasion he told me that he had already discussed this matter with the General Public Prosecutor, and he had the instructions, if the case should arise.
Q That is, before that night already, it had been determined what the director of the institution should do in case of an evacuation?
A Yes, he had his instructions without one knowing them in detail.
Q These questions which I am putting to you, witness, are put only because I personally can not understand how, in your affidavit, at the end of your affidavit, you can state "thereupon" -- that is, after the conversation with the First Public Prosecutor at the General Public Prosecutor's Office -- "I told the director of the Sonnenberg penitentiary I could not agree to an evacuation after the minister had said that the prisoners should remain."
If one reads this without any prejudice or preconceived ideas, one would get the impression that they should all remain there. That is, all the prisoners should remain there, and that the matter which Hansen had discussed with the director of the penitentiary before and had agreed about with him, and the matters you discussed during the night with Hansen before were not important any more. Is my conception correct?
A Yes, the facts were as follows. During the night, first of all, we were only concerned with the decision as to whether an evacuation was supposed to take place during the night -
Q May I interrupt you? Were all of the prisoners supposed to be evacuated?
A The director of the institution had asked whether he and his officials were supposed to evacuate all of the prisoners; and in answer to that I said that I could not give my approval to this. After the minister had informed me of his decision. And in saying so I was basing myself on the fact that I did not have the documents, or knew what detailed measures were supposed to be taken, and therefore, I myself, could not interfere in this matter without having first discussed the matter somehow with the General Public Prosecutor, and I did not want to forestall the General Public Prosecutor. I did not know the detailed instructions which had been made for an evacuation.
Now, suddenly, the director of the penitentiary came during the night and said "I want to evacuate all of the people. This is the moment the enemy is not so near yet that it would be impossible. I want to evacuate." And thereupon I said I could not give my approval.