Exhibit number 87 was the lawyers' Letter, which I understand the Tribunal has said it will yet reserve its ruling upon. Exhibit number 88 was the document which referred to the case of the Jew Luftgas. Exhibit number 89 was the document which was referred to, a letter of Dr. Thierack, saying that there would be Lawyers' Letters. The Secretary has returned to me number 89, I am sure that that is in evidence. If the Tribunal wants us to keep possession of document 87, which is in dispute, we will do so, but I am quite sure that there was no objection to Exhibit 89 being received in evidence. The discussion was as to whether or not it was sufficient to justify the receipt in evidence of Exhibit number 87. So I would like to return to the Secretary Exhibit number 89.
THE PRESIDENT: The final ruling will be withheld on both 87 and 89.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Both 87 and 89.
Now may I ask the Tribunal, for the advantage of the prosecution counsel and the Secretariat, when the Tribunal reserves a ruling, may we nevertheless consider that the exhibits are in the hands of the Secretariat of the Tribunal, or shall the prosecution take physical possession of those exhibits? I mean, I think we must know where they belong so that some one can be responsible for them.
THE PRESIDENT: They should be in the possession of the Tribunal in order that the Tribunal may make further studies of those matters before they can rule upon them.
MR, LaFOLLETTE: Yes, so the Secretary can understand that where documents have been introduced and accepted with qualifications, they are in the possession of the Secretary General for the benefit of the Tribunal?
THE PRESIDENT: Correct.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Thank you.
MR. KING: The prosecution will now introduce NG-497 which, when formally offered in evidence, will become Exhibit 92. It is to be found on page 18 of the English book 1, Section D, and page 25 of the German text.
It is a letter dated 17 November, 1942, addressing to the Presiding Judges of the Courts of Appeal and to the General Public Prosecutors.
"Re: Judges' Letters:
"I request to deliver the Judges' Letters also to all commissioned judges or public prosecutors, furthermore to the associate judges and assessors who hold a commission as judges or public prosecutors. The Judges' Letters become personal property of the judges and of the public prosecutors. They will be carefully locked up to avoid that they get into the hands of unauthorized persons. The receivers are subject to official secrecy so far as the contents of the Judges' Letters are concerned."
Signed, "Dr. Thierack."
There are also other notations on that document, but the prosecution does not at this time desire to read those. We now offer in evidence as Exhibit 92, the document NG-497.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence, and we will take our usual afternoon recess for 15 minutes at this time.
(A recess was taken).
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: May it please Tour Honors, with reference to Exhibit No. 87, although no notice has possibly been given, I would like to be sworn as a witness and be permitted to testify, if defense counsel are "willing to waive the 24-hour rule.
BY JUDGE BRAND: Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth, so help you God?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I do.
My name is Charles M. LaFollette. I an Deputy Chief of Counsel in the Office of the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes. I have in my possession a printed document, in German, which by comparison is an exact duplicate of the photostatic document introduced by the Plaintiff as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 87.
This original document was obtained by me from the desk of Dr. Jacoby, attorney, Chief of Counsel, who has to my knowledge and belief never been inside of the Ministry of Justice of the Third Reich during the regime of Dr. Thierack as Minister of Justice, from which I conclude that he did not obtain an undistributed copy of this original typed copy of Document NG 260, which is Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 87. It was in his possession and obtained by me from a man who so far as I know, and I reliably and firmly believe, could not have obtained the original except from some one to whom it had been distributed. I am willing to submit to crossexamination.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. KUBUSCHOK (Attorney for defendants Von Ammon, Schlegelberger):
Q. I don't understand clearly what designation of office Mr. Jacoby has.
A. Mr. Jacoby is an employee of the Office of Chief of Counsel, in the Ministry Division, here in Nuernberg. He is an attorney employed in that office of Chief of Counsel in O.C.C.
Q. Was he at any time during the years 1944 and 1945, was he at any time attorney in Germany during the years 1944 and 1945?
A. He was not.
Q. In other words, he could only have received the document through official channels, that is to say, from the documents of the Ministry of Justice where they had been collected.
A. That, I think, Doctor, consists of arguing with me, but my con clusion is that he got the document from a German lawyer who had received it.
I do not know the German lawyer's name who received it; he didn't say, but since you asked me, he was never in the inside of the Ministry of Justice at any time to my knowledge, nor was he ever in Berlin employed as part of an American team seeking out evidence, from which I would conclude that he did not get this document as an undistributed document from out of the office of the Ministry, but that since he obtained it, it must have come from some one to whom it had been distributed.
Q. That is only a conclusion on your part, but not information received by Mr. Jacoby, is it?
A. You are quite right. You are quite right, except I didn't first state the conclusion. You ***rst stated the conclusion that he must have gotten it out of the Ministry of Justice and let me state my conclusion. I stated facts - that I have the document that Mr. Jacoby had, and that he had never been inside the ministry of Justice.
Q. What other facts led you to conclude that Dr. Jacoby on a later date than his official function had received this document after it had been in the Reich Ministry of Justice or at another place to which the Reich Ministry of Justice had sent the files and had been found there?
A. There is no fact of that kind, which I quite agree. I simply stated what I know, and leave it to the Court to draw the conclusion that Jacoby had no opportunity to be in the Ministry of Justice to get this at any time during the time that the defense said it was never distributed. I simply state what I know. I don't try to state conclusions, and I stated no conclusions until you **ew one. Then you opened the gate for me to conclude and I concluded that this is a distributed document. You may conclude otherwise; it is up to the Court.
Q. Did Dr. Jacoby have access to all official documents, that is to say, letters and documents which had been confiscated or which belonged to the Ministry of Justice?
A. I can't go that far. I would not say that he didn't; I don't know that he did have.
He night well have had, but I don't know that he didn't. I won't say that he didn't.
Q. Is Dr. Jacoby still here?
A. Yes, he is here.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further cross examination?
BY DR. SCHILF (Attorney for defendants Klemm, Mettgenberg):
Q. If I understood you correctly, witness, Dr. Jacoby is alleged to have received that copy from an attorney, a lawyer. May I ask whether Dr. Jacoby told you about that fact?
A. I think that you didn't follow me very closely. I tried to be very careful and state no conclusions as to when Dr. Jacoby got the document from, except the facts from which I conclude that he could not have gotten an undistributed document from the Ministry of Justice, and until Dr. Kuboschok wanted to draw conclusions I only stated the facts. I again state the facts that to my knowledge he was never in the Ministry of Justice, nor was he ever in Berlin going through the files of the Ministry of Justice. I also do not say that he could not possible have seen some of those files that were brought here. I also say that I don't know, so far as my knowledge is concerned, he did not.
Q. The possibility is to be left open then that this copy was not given to Dr. Jacoby by an attorney, the German attorney?
A. The possibility is quite open. I only stated that when Dr. Kuboschok also stated the conclusion that it didn't come from a German attorney as a possibility, except I stated facts from which I assume the Court can conclude that Dr. Jacoby was not inside the Ministry of Justice.
DR. SCHILF: I have no further questions to the witness.
A. I would like to say to the Court and counsel that I am simply trying to speed things up. Dr. Jacoby two weeks ago had a very serious heart attack and I didn't want to subject him to going on the stand. I have stated what facts I know. I hold the instrument in my hand, and that is all I have to say.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions?
DR. SCHILF: I have no more questions to this witness, but Mr. President, I should like to make a motion to call Dr. Jacoby as a witness as soon as his health will permit that, only to put the question to him as to whether he has received this copy from an attorney. That is to be considered my motion about which the decision nay be reached, provided that Dr. Jacoby is in a position to appear here as a witness.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If it please Your Honors, I would like to discontinue being a witness and proceed to be a lawyer.
(Witness excused)
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Having now resumed the role of attorney, I simply say that I have attempted to aid the Court in speeding up the proceedings.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask a question? Is there any question with reference to the signature of Dr. Thierack on these two exhibits? Are they only printed signatures?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The signature on the documents which I hold in my hand and the photostat I think are definitely the same. I am advised that Dr. Thierack's signature does not appear on the document of initials but we put it in. I call the Court's attention to the fact that here is a printed document coming from the Ministry of Justice, with a signature of Thierack at the bottom. I think there is a very great presumption that is an official signature or a mechanical reproduction of the official signature.
THE PRESIDENT: There seems to be sufficient evidence before the Tribunal that Document 260 bears the genuine signature of Dr. Thierack.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Do we understand then that the Court has permitted Exhibit No. 87 to be introduced into evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: I have a further comment to make on that. Both documents 260 and 496 seem to bear the genuine signature, in the original of Dr. Thierack, the Minister of Justice. Our ruling, therefore, is that both of those documents are competent evidence as a declaration of policy on the part of the Ministry of Justice. We do not yet see sufficient evidence to convince us that they were distributed to lawyers. but as evidence of a declaration of policy on the part of Thierack as Minister of Justice, and for that purpose only they will be received in evidence at this time.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes, subject to the thought that we may produce an affidavit, which we will produce, we will go ahead pending the preparation of the affidavit of the German lawyer who actually received the similar one to which I held in my hand.
THE PRESIDENT: The role will still be offered to both prosecution and the defense for further evidence on this point.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Thank you.
MR. KING: The prosecution desires tointroduce the document NG-498, which when formally offered will become Exhibit No. 93. This document is to be found on Page 20 of Document Book 1-D in the English Text and Page 26 in the German text. We would like to read the principal paragraph. The letter is dated: "Berlin 17 November 1942." Addressed: "To the Presidents of the Courts of Appeal and the Chief Prosecutors, in Karlsruhe, Cologne and Zweibruecken."
"Re: Judges' Letters:
"May I ask you to make it a habit to give the judges and prosecutors in Alsace, Lorraine and Luxembourg, too, an opportunity to acquaint themselves with the 'Judges' Letters.' In cases where judges and prosecutors are suspected of political unreliability, they are to be exclude in a suitable manner from the list of subscribers to the 'Judges' Letters.
"Signed: Dr. Thierack."
We now offer in evidence as Exhibit 93, the Document NG-498.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The prosecution now desires to introduce into evidence three documents from the editor -- or at least the compiler -- of Judges' Letters, Dr. Schmidt-Leichner. We do not wish to read the context of these letters except to point out that they are requests submitted to the Courts of Appeal and the Chief Prosecutors for material to be supplied for forthcoming publications of the Judges' Letters. These documents are to be found beginning on Page 70, Document Book 1-D, on Page 71 and on Pages 72 and 73. It will probably clarify matters to introduce them separately. We now offer in evidence as Exhibit No. 94, the Document NG-502.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: We also offer formally in evidence as Exhibit No. 95, the Document NG-501.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is that found?
MR. KING: That is found on Page 71 of Document Book 1-D, 101 in the German text.
THE PRESIDENT: I take these are parts of one exhibit number -these four pages in the book?
MR. KING: No, Your Honor, these are three separate documents which will bear separate exhibit numbers. We merely introduce them together because they are pertaining to the same subject and we do not wish to read the contents of them.
THE PRESIDENT: That No. 501 will be Exhibit No. 95.
MR. KING: The prosecution formally offers as Exhibit No. 96, the Document NG-503, which in the English text is to be found on Page 72 and in the German text on Page 102. Do I understand, Your Honor, that Exhibit No. 96 is received in evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit No. 96 will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: Thank you. The prosecution will now introduce the Document NG-510, which will when formally offered, become Exhibit No. 97.
This is to be found in the English text of Document Book 1-D, beginning on Page 108, and in the German text beginning on Page 157. We would like to read the first paragraph of that letter and a portion of the second paragraph beginning on Page 108. It is a letter signed by Thierack, dated Berlin 8 March 1943, and it's addressed to: Public Prosecutors and Presidents of Several Courts. We will not go into detail at this time.
"Re.: Method of criminal proceedings for public undermining of fighting morale (Article 5, para. No. 1, para. 2 of the Special War time Criminal Procedure decree of 17.8.1938, Reich Legal Gazette 1939, page 1455-)
Criminal proceedings for publicly undermining the fighting morale now come under the competence of the People's Court (para I of the decree to supplement and alter the competence decree of 29 January 1943, Reich Legal Gazette I, page 76 -). Senior Public Prosecutors will submit without delay such criminal cases to the Senior Reich Prosecutor with the People's Court for the examination of his competence.
Doubts are often raised as to whether statements made by defendants should be punished under Article 5 of the Special War time Criminal Procedure Decree, the Law against malicious political acts or Article 134 of the Reich Criminal Code. In all cases where a charge under the latter legal provision is made too, I would ask the Senior Public Prosecutors not to submit the details to the Senior Reich Prosecutor with the People's Court. They should report to me in the normal way concerning the question of ordering criminal proceedings, or consenting to criminal proceedings under the law against malicious political acts, or Article 134 b of the Reich Criminal Code."
There follows certain citations which we will not read. We now formally offer as Exhibit No. 97 the Document NG-510.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
The Prosecution now would like to introduce the Document NG 071, which when formally offered will become Exhibit 98. This is to be found, it is a rather lengthy document, beginning on page 110 of the English Document Book 1-D; and it is on page 159 in the German text; I believe.
We call the Court's attention to the fact that the first page is merely a cover page, and it indicates that it is a report from the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, and it is a secret document to be submitted to the Reich Minister. And, there is a note in the box which says:
"This report is strictly for the addressee personally and contains no material transmitted un-reviewed in order to leave them their character of fresh news."
It is dated Berlin, 5 September 1942.
We would like to read a portion of the document beginning on page 111, under Roman Numeral IV:
"Administration and Law. Reports on the control of penal jurisdiction.
"Under the impression made by the Fuehrer's Reichstag speech of the 26 April 1942 and by the general criticism of penal jurisdiction, the former leadership of the Reich Ministry of Justice had, according to additional clauses already previously existent, been persuaded to reinforce the so-called control of penal jurisdiction. This control consisted in an extensive participation of the Ministry and of the magisterial supervisory officers and higher provincial court and provincial court presidents in the arbitrament individual criminal judge on the principle that, especially in criminal cases with a political implication, the judge must receive assistance when pronouncing a sentence. Actually, it involved then a substantial extension of the already existing consultative obligations of the bodies of attorney generals to the Ministry, and, on the other hand, the introduction of a consultative obligation also in the relations of the Tribunals to the Minist "According to numerous reports from the whole territory of the Reich, these measures have met with an extremely dissentient reception among juri circles.
The complete break with the hitherto prevailing conception of magisterial independence which the control of penal jurisdiction meant is said to have been, to a certain extent, very unfavorably commented upon with the magistrature.
In certain cases, this is even said to have led to outspoken judgements against the National Socialist State which allegedly wishe to suppress magisterial independence in order to surrender justice to a right of control by political headquarters. The origin of this attitude on the part of certain judges in this respect is always the conventional conception of magisterial independence according to which the judge was exclus subordinated to the written law and therefore did not need to follow any directives, even of the most general character, that may be issued by the administration of justice with reference to any precise line of conduct in jurisdiction.
"Politically enlightened judges have likewise, according to the reports viewed the control of jurisdiction with misgivings. In this, they have indeed not so much perceived a danger for magisterial independence,-for it clear to them that its implication up to now, namely exclusive subordination of the judge to the law, has been deeply altered to suit the National Socialist juridical philosophy, as in the fact that the obligations to the National Socialist ideology must have precedece on the obligations to the la if jurisdiction was not to be in opposition to the political objectives of the nation's leadership. Since jurisdiction in the National Socialist State has important political tasks to fulfill, a certain influence on the judges must be made possible in the form of instructions on important political viewpoints which the individual judge cannot grasp outright by himself."
We now skip three paragraphs, beginning on the bottom of page 112 in the English text:
"The following example extracted from a series of similar cases is characteristic of the situation created by the introduction of the control of jurisdiction.
"Roaming about at night in his place of domicile for several months, a Polish civilian workman stole from gardens and adwelling places, money, num* articles of underwear and clothing as well as other articles of daily utili* As the competent Special Court established, he had carried this out under cover of the blackout.
"In line with provisions introducing reporting as a duty, the head of the competent Higher District Court had brought the case by telepyone to the knowledge of the Reich Ministry of Justice. In its reply to the telephone message the Ministry advised the following day that probably the death penalty was not deemed necessary for the Pole. That in any case the public Prosecute would receive explicit instruction before opening of the court hearing as to the penalty which should be asked against the Pole. The Ministry thereu* instructed the Public Prosecutor to propose ten years of particularly rigid confinement in a place of detention.
"The Court ruled accordingly. As reported, the hypotheses under which this verdict ook place, as well as the degree of the sentence itself, met wi* lively criticism on the part of Jurists politically elucidated. On the other hand, it caused concern last by directing the administration of justice in s** manner the judge might from the outset be relieved of personal responsibility for his verdict. Inasmuch as in very great number of cases it becomes known * the Court that the public Prosecutor is being supplied with instructions regarding the application for criminal proceedings it merely needs to comply with the request of the Public Prosecutor, thereby evading embarrassment which might possibly result from a mistrial through reference to the concept of the Ministry. On the other hand, the case as described illustrates that the succ** of such control stands and falls with the person to whom such control is entrusted. If confusion prevails in the Ministry itself as to the line which administration of justice should follow in regard to the Pole, there natural is no guarantee that mistrials are excluded through the concept of control. The verdict in the case under consideration must be considered a faulty judge ment; because under prevailing conditions there is no justification for the leniency which it expresses on behalf of a Pole who commits crimes under the cover of the blackout.
"In connection with this and a series of similar cases reports of judge whom this development fills with serious concern stressed over and over again the need for informing the body of judges about the great goals of the leaden of the State.
At the present time there is but a comparatively small number of judges who make an earnest endeavor to analyze the State political necessities as such, and the political foundation for the administration of justice. Unfortunately, it has so far been a fact that any civil servant in the administration who just passed his second state examination in law has been more fully informed about the political goals of the State leaders and the political opportuneness then perhaps any president of a senate."
That is all of this document that the Prosecution wishes to read at the time. We, therefore, offer formally, as Exhibit 98, the Document NG-071.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER (for defendant Dr. Rothenberger): I protest against to admission of this document into evidence for the following reasons: Obvious it is, at best, a document which deals primarily with penal law, the influence and the control of penal justice from the point of view of the State political.
This letter which obviously contains a tremendous amount of details, receives its basic information from an anonymous source, in that in many instances it reads, for instance on the front page, the first paragraph of document, of the frequent report of judges, considering the control of penal administration a critical factor. In consideration of this factor of amenity is hard to control and many reports of facts which are incorporated here bear close scrutiny of the authenticity of this document is desirable.
May I point out that from this document it can not be seen what Ministry of the Reich was supposed to have received this letter and from the end of this document, the last page, on page 165 of the German copy, I do not know the number of the English copy, the page number, there is no signature to be seen. For that reason also the relevancy of this document has to be objected to by me.
MR. KING: Your Honor, we should like to point that this document came to us in the course of systematic document search in Berlin and el where and it is covered under the various paragraphs in the Coogan affidavit As we pointed out at the outset the report purports to be and upon examination of a photostatic original it does indeed seem to be a report from the Child the Securities Police and of the SD. It is true that as counsel has pointed out, it isn't signed. It is also true as is evident from an examination of original and the mimeographed copy as well, that it is not entirely complete However, we think that it is obviously a part of an official report. It also shows on its face to have been a report by these organizations and we feel as such it certainly has some evidentiary value. We therefore would like to offer it as Exhibit 98.
DR. GRUBE: Dr. Grube for the defendant Lautz. I consider it necess to point out some more doubts in connection with this document. On the first page of this document it can be seen the following remarks3 this report is certainly and contains material and information which, on account of its actuality has been transmitted without further examination. It can be seen from that there are not guarantees given to the statements in this document are absolutely correct in detail.
MR. KING: Your Honor, with reference to that, it seems to us that reasons he has given, not only do not detract from the importance of the do* ment but actually add to it because it is -- if it is, as purported, an unedited document, a report from the SS and the SD, it means that it went direct from the person making the report to the Minister who received it. F* that reason we feel it has even more probative value than it would if it have been an edited copy. Perhaps the Court would like to examine the protestant original?
THE PRESIDENT: It is true that no particular authentication has be proven in this case but it also seems from the affidavit of Mr. Coogan that this is a captured document found in the Archives of the German Reich and being true would have some probative value, not so much as if the authors was known but, nevertheless, as a captured document it has been the dispose of the International Tribunal and other Tribunals to accept all captured doc ments found in the possession of the German Reich.
We therefore, receive it for what it's worth.
MR. KING: May I ask the Court now to turn to Document Book 1-E; the next series of Documents which the prosecution will present will be taken from that book.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you again state the document number?
MR. KING: I am sorry. I haven't advanced that far, your Honor. The prosecution at this time would like to introduce the Document NG-466, beginning on page 25 of the Document Book 1-E. I believe that's page 19 of the German test. This will become, when formally offered, Exhibit 99. This is a letter dated 15th October 1939 addressed to the Court of Appeals:
To the Court of Appeal Public Prosecutors at the Courts of Appeal (inducing Ostmark and Sudentenland).Concerning:
Establishment of a Special Section The increase in crimes falling under the jurisdiction of the Special Courts, requires special measures to strengthen the striking power of the crimind law.
Therefore I established at the Reich Ministry of Justice a Special Section immediately subordinate to the chief of division III for all criminal matters concerning the competency of the Special Courts, Excepting the Special Section's competency in such cases as:
a) a crime or an offence denoted in the law against malicious attacks on the State or Party and for the protection of Party uniforms of 20 December 1934 Reich Law Gazette I page 1269
b) an offence against paragraphs 134-a and 134b Reich Penal Code
c) a contravention, denoted in paragraph 4 of the decree for the Protection of the People and the State of 28 February 1933 (Reich Law Gazette I, page 83)
d) a crime or an offence denoted in paragraph 8 of the law against treason of the German economy of 12 July 1933 (Reich Law Gazette I page 360 -).
I appointed as special section consultant the District Court Prosecutor von HAACKE.
"I ask the Court of Appeal Public Prosecutors to establish in their turn a Special Section for their sphere of activity at the offices of Public Prosecutor at the Court of Appeal and to notify me of the name of the section consultant within 2 days. These special section consultants who have to be appointed special advisers have to start work immediately.
On 24 October, 1939 at 0900 hours they have to be present at the Reich Ministry of Justice to receive instructions."
MR. KING: The prosecution now formally offers Exhibit 99 or rather the Document NG- 466 as Exhibit No. 99.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: As Prosecution's Exhibit 100 we desire to offer formally in evidence the Document NG-674 which is to be found on page 28 of the English text Document Book 1-E and page 21 of the German text. We do not wish to read any portion of that document.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May it please, your Honors, I would like to refer to the probative value of Exhibit No. 98 which was just introduced, out of Book D, at page 110, Book D. That was the Exhibit 98.
I should like to read to the Court from Exhibit No. 42, which was introduced into evidence by the prosecution on March 6, and is found at page 85 of English book 1-B. It is NG-219. I will read slowly, and I think the interpreter can follow:
"The reciprocity contained in the Executive Order of the Reich Ministry of Justice concerning the cooperation of the justice authorities with the Security Service of the Reichsfuehrer SS of 3 August 1942", the agreement of 3 August 1942, "(German Justice S. 521), is only very conditional. The Justice works openly, and the Security Service secretly. So, as a general rule, the justice is not at all informed of the work which is being carried out by the Security Service and is there fore also not in the position to request information. It is usually accidentally informed about such investigations."
I think that exhibit has also probative value in consider ing the character of Exhibit 98, which was from the Security Service of the Reichsfuehrer SS. In other words, I don't believe that it is competent, I mean, that it is a very strong argument for the defense counsel to object to the secrecy of anything that comes from the Reichsfuehrer SS, whereby from its very nature it worked that way, as this document indicates.
MR. KING: The prosecution would like to introduce at this time, and offer formally in evidence, document NG-346, which exhibit will become No. 101. This is to be found on page 51 of the English text, and on page 48 of the German.
THE PRESIDENT: Fifty-one of what book?
MR. KING: Of book 1-E, Your Honor.
The next document which the prosecution desires to introduce is NG-687, which is to be found beginning on page 73 of the English text, and, if my information is correct, on page 48 of the German text, of document book 1-E. My information as to its source in the German text may be incorrect. However it is document NG-687.
I am informed from the translating booth that it is also found in the German text on page 73.
The prosecution does not desire to read from this document at this time, so we offer it formally in evidence as Exhibit 102.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence, and at this time we will supply an ommission of a moment ago. We also receive in evidence Exhibit No. 101.
MR. KING: Thank you.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: May it please your Honor, the prosecution has been completely fair with this Tribunal and defense counsel. We have up to this time presented every bit of evidence that we could present under the rules and which is in shape to be presented. By the very documentary character of this evidence, a tremendous amount of work has to be done to keep the English books straight, to coordinate the English translations with the actual exhibits and, as we have seen, to get the German books often, even in shape where the job should be only to directly typewrite from the German documents.
We have distributed today book 2, which we assume will reach the Bench today, and should reach defense counsel today. In connection with book 2 we want, in order to present a coordinated pattern, documents and cases which will be in book 3. Book 3 is one and a half times as large, at least, as book 1, which we have been working with, and which came out in five parts.
Without handicapping the prosecution tremendously, as a result of our original inspection of the English documents, and requiring us to work long hours and then to run the risk of repeatedly asking the Court for temporary recesses, we would like to have the balance of this week to prepare that document book 3 and the documentation in it, so that it can be presented in an orderly manner, and we hope, and we will use every effort to make the presentation go forward smoothly, and also to clean up, where we find them, errors in the German book so that defense counsel will not be handicapped or taken undue advantage of.
For that reason I very respectfully, but at the same time urgently to the point of almost pleading, ask the Court that we recess until next Monday so that we may have time to do the job that we can do without having to work almost sixteen hours a day to get the job done; and I don't believe that any real time will be lost in the presentation of this case, because I have no disposition to delay it, I assure you.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire at this time whether you have introduced all of the documents included in book 1-A, B, C, D, and E?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honor, I would say there are not more than ten, and probably a half dozen which, because of various troubles, have not been put in. But there are quite few. We have completed everything that we could in book 1, and we have held back nothing. The only thing is that certain exhibits themselves, the actual photostats, have had to be rearranged. That has caused a rearranging of the document book, the English text, for instance, and the German text, which could not be served, under the rules, on defense counsel in time. Other than that, we have put in everything that is available.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is only to determine, not to foreclose the prosecution against any documents that have not yet been put in. But they are getting a little voluminous and we wanted to know whether we could file them away, that is all.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I am afraid you cannot, as much as I would like to accommodate the Court. But we will make a special effort to get that out of the way.