The document shows that the assertion that that clergyman had made statements undermining military morale was based on the testimony of Gestapo witnesses, and that it was due to the attitude which the defendant Lautz took that the credibility of those witnesses and their testimony was shaken. Furthermore, the document shows what difficulties and struggles there were with the Gestapo when the defendant Lautz began to play a part in this matter.
I offer this document as Exhibit 234.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: The next document is No. 64, on page 83 through 85 of the English book. It is an affidavit by the clergyman Dr. Borngaesser, who in Exhibit 234 was mentioned as the person against whom proceedings had been instituted. Clergyman Borngaesser in his affidavit says that Chief Reich Prosecutor Lautz was helpful in every way and that he, the clergyman, wanted to say that he owes to Lautz' intervention that he is still alive.
I offer this document as Exhibit 235.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: The affidavit Wolcker also deals with the case of clergyman Borngaesser. It is on page 86 through 88 of the English document book.
I offer this document as Exhibit 236.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 117, on pages 89 through 92 of the English document book, contains an affidavit by Professor Dr. Richard Lange, of Jena. Dr. Lange, who at present teaches at the University of Jena, in Thuringia, that is to say in the Russian zone, is the nan who drafted the new penal code for the land of Thuringia in the Russian zone.
In his affidavit Dr. Lange described Lautz' character. I may point out that Dr. Lange states "Lautz generally and by myself too, was considered a very able, efficient, conscientious and correct civil servant. He was by his nature against National Socialism." Dr. Lange further says "Lautz tried to put up with National Socialism by adhering strictly to formal law. He carried out the instructions which he received from the Ministry of Justice correctly, but as far as I was able to observe, he never went beyond those instructions; nor, did he ever take any initiative in that direction." He further describes cases of undermining of military morale and of the witnesses heard, which if it hadn't been for Lautz, would have come to a fatal end for the defendants, in particular because witnesses had been called which had been interrogated by tho Gestapo, were carefully examined for their credibility. I think it will be of interest to know that Lange points out that Lautz expressed to him his wish to become a professor at a university to avoid to have anything further to do with the Reich Prosecution office.
I offer this document as Exhibit 237.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document No. 134, on pages 93 and 94 of the English book, is an affidavit by Professor Doctor Hildegard Brouwer of Stuttgart. This deals with a case of undermining of military morale; a case which was also mentioned in the affidavit by Prof. Dr. Lange of Jena.
I offer this document as Exhibit 238.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 154, on pages 95 through 100 of the English document book, is an affidavit by Ernst Breidenbach.
In his affidavit he describes the Both case. Both was the director of the Evangelical society in Frankfurt on the Main. He was arrested by the Gestapo because he was alleged of having sent leaflets undermining military morale to young men who were members of the society and who were fighting at the front. In his affidavit Broidenbach states when he heard of that case he approached Ministerial Director Sack; that is the same Sack whose name has been mentioned here several times and who was a friend of the defendant Lautz. Breidenbach states that Sack referred him to Lautz. Breidenbach says that Lautz made every effort to have the case thoroughly examined. The result mas that the case was not tried by tho People's Court, but in Frankfurt; and the outcome was a minimum sentence passed for purely formal reasons. I believe it is of interest that Breidenbach states that Lautz had told him that in effect there was no alternative for him but to remain at his post. He believed it was his task to pretend that he were a good National Socialist. In that way he was able to help a great many people and he had already saved the lives of many people, including officers. Breidenbach adds that Dr. Sack confirmed that to him later.
I offer this document as Exhibit 239.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: Your Honor, in my Document Book IV-B there mas an affidavit by Roinecke. The other documents in Volume IV-B have already been introduced. The Roinecke affadvit at that time was rejected because the prosecution objected to its receipt for the reason that Roinecke was available as a witness, as he mas at the prison here. Now, my colleague Dr. Aschenauer pointed out yesterday that Reinecke is not available as a witness because at the moment he is in the hospital.
May I ask the Tribunal to make a ruling whether in view of the situation it is not possible for me to offer the Reinecke affidavit in Volume IV-B and have it accepted as an exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: Was it given a number when we were handling Document Book IV-B?
DR. GRUBE: Not to my knowledge. It is Document 116 in Volume IV-B. The exhibit number would be 240.
THE PRESIDENT: What page of Book IV-B?
DR. GRUBE: Pages 63 through 65. My document number is 116.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of Counsel's statement, we will receive the affidavit. Let it be marked Exhibit 240.
DR. GRUBE: I now offer documents from my Document Book V.
THE PRESIDENT: Book V?
DR. GRUBE: Book V. The documents in Book V deal with the assertion of the prosecution here that the German courts and the German prosecutors have applied laws which were inhuman, and which were contrary to the general principles of the penal law, such as they are laid down in the penal codes of all civilized nations. Document 162, on pages 1 through 3 of this document boom, contains extracts from an essay by Thomas Paine from an essay on the rights of man.
I offer this document as Exhibit 241.
THE PRESIDENT: I am very familiar with that old essay. It will be welcome. That is Exhibit 241.
DR. GRUBE: 241.-Document 121, an pages 4 and 5 of the document book V, contains extracts from the book by Professor Gustav Radbruch "Initiation to Jurisprudence."
That book points out that actual law changes from nation to nation, from generation to generation, from period to period, it is interpreted differently by every human being according to his class and political views and ideology. The views on law are in fact just expressions of the class struggle of the time.
I offer this document as Exhibit 242.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 189, on pages 6 through 10, contains extracts from speeches by Lenin and Stalin on the state. I should like to quote the first sentence from the speech by Stalin in the year 1919. He says, and 1 quote: "The state is a machine for the maintenance of the rule of one class over another." On page 8 of the document book there is an extract from a speech by Stalin which he made in the year 1939. Stalin points out what was the first function after the October revolution, and he says "The first function was to suppress the classes which had been overthrown in the country. In that way our state, in a way reminds one of the former states whose function it was to suppress these that offered resistance; but it was the basic difference that our state suppressed the minority of the exploiters in the interests of the working majority which had been exploited, whereas former states suppressed the exploited majority on behalf of the exploiting minority." Stalin then deals with the second phase of Russian policy, particularly the liquidation of capitalist elements. I offer this document as Exhibit 243.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 159, on pages 11 through 14 of the English document book, contains extracts from the declaration of the rights of the working and exploited people, confirmed by the Third Soviet Congress on 23 January, 1918. It is interesting to note that on page 14, of this document book there is a statement to the effect that this declaration of the rights of men in the Soviet Union says that power must belong exclusively to the working masses.
I offer this document as Exhibit 244.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 160, on pages 15 through 21, contains extracts from the Constitution of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic in the version of 1925. May I draw your attention to numeral 14 of the document that is on page 19 of the document. There it says: "guided by the interests of the workers, the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic denies the individual and the individual groups the rights which conflict with the interest of the Socialist Revolution.
I offer this document as Exhibit 245.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 93, on pages 22 to 25 in my document book that is in the English text, contains extracts from the conference of the committee for criminal legislation of the Reichstag for the draft of the penal code in the year 1928. That conference dealt with the efforts of the communist party, among other subjects. It is shown that those efforts of the communist party were in accordance with the exhibits contained in Document Book V, and it also shows that already at that time, that is to say in the year 1928, the work of the communist party was considered as constituting high treason. I offer this document as Exhibit 246.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 161, on pages 26 and 27, again contains extracts from the work by Thomas Paine, the Rights of Man.
May I draw your attention to the last sentence of this document where Paine states "What is considered good and right in one century may be considered wrong and unsuitable in another century."
I offer this document as Exhibit 247.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 65, on page 28 of my document book in the English text, is an excerpt from the book, The Com an Law of England and North America, by Holmes, member of the Supreme Court of the U.S. in Washington. Holmes says, and I Quote: "The first requirement for a stern, sound legal system is that it be in accordance with the sentiment and demands of the community, whether these be right or wrong."
I offer this document as Exhibit 248.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 69, on pages 29 and 30 contains extracts from an essay by reisler. He points out that particularly in time of war, penal law has a preventive character.
I offer this document as Exhibit 249.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 66, on pages 31 to 33, also contains extracts from the book bv Holmes -- Comman Law of England and North America. Holmes, too, takes the view that the purpose of penal law is a preventive one. May I refer you to a quotation oh page 43, that is on page 32 in the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: We regret that there is a gap. The last page is 30; the next page is 34. The Holmes' document apparently is missing.
DR. GRUBE: I shall withdraw it for a moment, and I will introduce it later on, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You save Exhibit No. 250 for that Exhibit.
DR. GRUBE: Thank you, your Honor.
On page 36 of the English text, you will find Document 153. That is an excerpt from the paper published by the American Military Government, Die Neue Zeitung. It is the issue of 10 February 1947. It contains a report from Washington and this report emphasizes that President Truman said that an international law on human rights is needed. Until such international law had been established, there could be no peace. I offer this document as Exhibit 251.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 151 also contains a newspaper report. It shows that under the presidency of Mrs. Roosevelt, a Commission for human rights had been set up. That Commission had the task to lay down human rights in the shape of laws which are to be ratified by all member states.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give us that again? What document number?
DR. GRUBE: The Exhibit No. will be 252.
THE PRESIDENT: The document number?
DR. GRUBE: The Document number is 151. On page 38 of the English book.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you skipping your Document 153?
DR. GRUBE: Yes, I am leaving that out.
THE PRESIDENT: 253 was received as Exhibit 251, Document 253?
DR. GRUBE: Document 253 becomes Exhibit 251.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right.
DR. GRUBE: Your Honor, I believe we have had a misunderstanding.
I have skipped document-
THE PRESIDENT: You skipped Document 153.
DR. GRUBE: No, Document 253, is the one I have skinped. That is on pages 34 and 35, and I am introducing Document 153 as Exhibit 251.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood you to make a statement concerning something from the New York Times. Isn't that Document 253?
DR. GRUBE: No, I said that I was skipping 253 and I have just been talking about Document 153.
That is the report in Neue Zeitung that international. law was required. That document is on pages 36 and 37.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment now. Your Document 253 we eliminate?
DR. GRUBE: Yes, that is the one I am skipping.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. You are offering Document 153.
DR. GRUBE: I am offering that with the Exhibit No. 251.
THE PRESIDENT: Document 153 is received in evidence as Exhibit 251.
DR. GRUBE: Yes, Your Honor. The next document has the number 151. On pages 38 through 41. I had already spoken about that document.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received as Exhibit 252.
DR. GRUBE: Document 152 on page 42 also contains a newspaper report about the UNO-Commission of human rights. This newspaper report shows that at a meeting of the Commission, the Russian delegate opposed several suggestions which he considered to be unnecessary, off the point, or not in conformity with the international law. I am offering this document as Exhibit 253.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 190 on pages 43 to 45 contains extracts from the periodical, the Amerikanische Rundschau, American Review. It contains extracts from an article by Dexter about a UNESCO meeting and I quote:
"The depth of the abyss between the Communist point of view and the Western point of view on cases such as concerning freedom of speech was then illustrated if possible even more definitely than ever before." Dexter then says: "the gulf in respect of human rights between the Western powers and the East is considerable."
I offer this document as Exhibit 254.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: The last document from book V is number 67. The prosecution orally has made statements on the term "murder" in the sense of penal law and in making its statements, had referred to Holmes and James Stephen.
Document 67 contains extracts from Hilme's book. It deals with the question of the meaning of the term "murder." I offer this Document as Exhibit 256.
THE PRESIDENT: What did you do with your document 293?
DR. GRUBE: Your Honor, Document 293 contains a verdict by the Military Court in Strasbourg. I introduced that when I introduced other document book. O only mentioned it again in the index here because it belongs into this contex, just as the prosecution has done in some other cases.
THE PRESIDENT: Your Document 67 is not in our book. The quotation from Holmes is not in our book.
DR GRUBE: All right, your Honor. I will produce it later on.
THE PRESIDENT: You will reserve Exhibit 255 for that document.
DR. GRUBE: Thank you, your Honor. Your Honor, for the moment I have finished my presentation. I have another four or five affidavits which I shall or sent later in a supplementary volume.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there other document books which can be presented this morning?
I think a word of comment upon an old subject may be helpful. I refer to the extent to which counsel explains and summarizes the documents as they are received. The Tribunal has no disposition at all to limit counsel in any way which could in any effect the fair presentation of his case. I merely want to point, out that the mechanical difficulties of keeping track of all these exhibits as they are introduced are so great that unless you have supermen as members of the Tribunal, which you have not, it is physical impossibility for us to direct our thought carefully and earnestly to the substance of the exhibits when they are thus hastily presented to us.
Now some of these exhibits merit very careful and very thoughtful consideration. We simply can't get the substance of them from the brief statements that you make, so I am sure that I am doing you no injustice in suggesting that the briefest summary, in other words a description of what the document is, is about all that we can grasp on the moment as you introduce your exhibits, and you will have to depend upon our good faith to examine them with great care when we have time to absorb their contents.
I am sure you understand the difficulties involved.
DR. DOETZER: May it please the Court, Dr. Doetzer for the defendant Nebelung. I have one document book; the second document book only contains a few document books and that I shall only be able to present later. I do not intend to read anything from my document books. I am of the opinion that each document speaks for itself. Only in the case of two documents I wish to make a brief explanation from the technical point of view. I am referring to page five of the English book where it says that the signature was not affixed in the presence of a notary, but in the presence of the President of the District Court of Appeal at Brunswick. I have had a change made, though. This document has been signed an affidavit before a notary public. I have the original with me. The same applies to page 28 of the English book.
There too, it applies that the affidavit was afterwards given in the presence of a notary public.
THE PRESIDENT: May we wait until we get the document book, please?
DR. DOETZER; Yes, your Honor.
Your Honor, may I just repeat what I have said? On page five, would you note please that the affidavit was given before a notary public? The same applies to page 28. My documents one to twenty-five are contained in this document book. These documents are to bear the Exhibit Numbers 1 to 25. All exhibits have been examined by the Prosecution and the Prosecution tells me that they have no objections. Before I offer these exhibits, I should like to remark on them briefly. All Documents do not refer to the work of my client as President of the Senate with the People's Court.
In so far, I take the same view as the prosecution. The evidence presented by the prosecution has resulted in my having formed a picture which I do not intend to refute.
In the other evidence presented here by the prosecution, the prosecution deals with the work of my client as attorney and notary, as President of a District Court of Appeal, as Ortsgruppenleiter, leader of a local group of a party, and as soldier.
The documents which I am about to present show clearly what was the attitude of the defendant Nebelung when he held these various functions. My documents also show the length of time which the defendant spent at each of these posts. In view of those facts, I believe that there is no need for my client to testify in the witness stand as that will also help to expedite these proceedings. I therefore offer Nebelung exhibits 1 through 25 to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 1 to 25 inclusive are received in evidence, They will receive the same Exhibit numbers which they now bear as document numbers.
DR. DOETZER: As I said, Your Honor, my document book 2 is not yet completed. It will be a very small volume and it contain only a few documents which I took from the personnel file of the defendant. As soon as I receive the volume, I shall introduce it. I have concluded the presentation of my evidence.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: The Prosecution has two additional documents in the case Nebelung which we would like to present at this time. The first document which is NG-2133 is a situation report from President Nebelung of the Court of Appeals in Brunswig, addressed to the Minister of Justice and dated November, 30, 1943. This document is introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 566.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: The next document which is NG-1904 is a file containing the indictment, the verdict, and other papers in connection with the trial and execution of a Czech national Nohavicka, tried before the Fourth Senate of the People's Court over which the defendant Nebelung presided. The verdict in this case is signed by the defendant Nebelung. That document is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 567.
THE PRESIDENT: We appreciate that you had expected the opportunity to cross-examine.
MIS ARBUTHNOT: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: But in view of the offering of these exhibits at this time, the defense must have opportunity to meet them if they desire to do so.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: I understand that, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibits are received.
Are there more document books to be presented this morning?
DR. KOESSL: May it please the court, I wish to present document book 2, 3 and 4 for the defendant Rothaug. Document Book 5; I intended to present together with a supplementary volume, with which it is connected.
THE PRESIDENT: Which book will you introduce first?
DR. KOESSL: Document Book II for Rothaug.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the last exhibit number of Rothaug documents?
DR. KOESSL: The last exhibit number was 53 in Book VI. In Book II, the first exhibit number will be No. 54, May it please the Court, I shall now start with my Document Book II.
The first document I wish to offer is Rothaug document number 79, and the Exhibit number is 54. This document deals with the legal position of the investigating judge is also dealt with in document number 80, and I offer document 80 as Exhibit 55.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 54 and 55 are received.
DR. KOESSL: In Exhibit No. 55 the legal basis for the competency of the investigating judge in connection with the interrogation of Katzenberger and Seiler is explained, and also in connection with the arrest warrant which was issued for Katzenberger.
Document No. 81, which I offer as Exhibit No. 56, deals with the legal basis for the code of procedure to which Groben referred when he issued the warrant for Katzenberger's arrest. I should merely like to point out that Article 123 of the Code of Procedure, which plays an important part, is especially declared applicable if the warrant, as here, was issued before the indictment was filled.
I offer document No. 81 as Exhibit 56.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit received.
DR. KOESSL: Document 82 feals with Article 124 of the Penal Code of Procedure, and that is expressly declared not to be applicable here. It deals with the Untersuchungsrichter, and one must not get mixed up between the concept of Untersuchunssrichter and. Ermittlungsrichter, Examining Judge and Investigating Judge. I offer document No. 82 as Exhibit No. 57.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
Document No. 83 contains Article 112 of the Penal Code of Procedure which lays down what the prerequisites are for issuing a warrant for arrest. I offer document No. 83 as Exhibit No. 58.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 84 refers to the contents and the purpose of the interrogation of a defendant. I offer document No. 84 as Exhibit 59.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 85 deals with the so-called instruction concerning and it was Groben who occupied himself with that a great deal. I offer Document No. 85 as Exhibit No. 60.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 86 contains the basic provisions for the right to appeal under Article 304 of the Penal Code of Procedure. I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that exphasis is laid on the decisions and rulings by the local court judge, and that includes the issuance of a warrant for arrest by the investigating judge. I offer document No. 86 as Exhibit No. 61.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 87 contains Article 306 of the Penal Code of Procedure, which lays down quite clearly what the attitude of the judge is to be in his decisions are contested by appeal. I would draw your attention to the principle of expedition which is laid down in this article, further to the fact that the complaint-procedure is dealt with exhaustively and forms a self-contained whole, and I would also point out that special emphasis is placed on the importance of the decisions made by a local court judge during preliminary proceedings. I offer document No. 87 as Exhibit 62.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 88 shows the possibilities of development, and the duties of the investigating judge in arrest proceedings. I offer document No. 88 as Exhibit No. 63.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 89 solves the problem as to what the immediate steps are which the investigating judge in his independent position concerning warrants for arrest, as soon as he is convinced that the warrant is not, so is no longer justified. In Section 2 of this Article 306 it is laid down that the investigating judge himself must revoke the warrant if there has been an appeal and if he, the judge, thinks that the appeal is justified. I offer document No. 89 as Exhibit 64.
Document No. 90 deals with the general situation of the judge in connection with his functions regarding issuing warrants for arrest. I offer document No. 90 as Exhibit 65.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibits are received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 91, which I shall offer as Exhibit 66, deals with the concept and the importance of the witness under German law.
Document 92 explains the procedural basis on which the witness Seiler was interrogated, and it quite clearly solves the question as to what the position of the investigating judge is when an application is made that a witness should be interrogated under oath. I offer document No. 92 as Exhibit 67.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 93 deals with Article 65 of the Penal Code of Procedure, which gives accurate provisions concerning the conditions under which a witness may, by way of an exception, be taken under oath before the trial, and those conditions have to be examined by the judge. I offer document No. 93 as Exhibit 68.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 94 deals with cases where a witness on no account may be examined under oath. I offer document No. 94 as Exhibit 69.
Document No. 95 contains the substantive provisions concerning the facts of aiding and abetting, under the Reich Penal Code. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 70/
Document No. 96 contains the prevailing opinion -
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 69 and 70 are received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 96 deals with the prevailing opinion on the question when there is a suspicion of aiding and abetting within the meaning of the Penal Code. I offer document No. 96 as Exhibit 71.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 97 deals with an appeal, such as was made in the Katzenberger case, with reference to the arrest warrant. Articles 304 and following are intended to show as self-contained the regulations when and under what conditions and by whom in the appeal procedure the prosecution may be heard. Those cases are particularly emphasized in the law. Articles 308 and 309 show that only the court which deals with the appeal may hear the prosecution, but is not obliged to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, in hopes that the Tribunal will not construe my suggestion as prejudicial in any way to the defense -- which I certainly don't intend -- I would suggest that in putting the Rothaug documents in evidence a more expeditious manner or method be adopted, in view of the fact that I have no objection to any of these documents, with the exception of eight. If the court would permit me, I could very briefly state my objections to those eight documents and the rest could go in numbered serially without any further mention.
THE PRESIDENT: We would be glad to know what exhibits you object to.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In document Book II, I object to the last five documents in that book, dealing with the Kraeutlein case, as immaterial and irrelevant to any issue raised against the defendant Rothaug in that, as Dr. Koessel assures me and from my own reading, it seems they are in there to illustrate a case that was handled impeccably.
IN book III, I object to Rothaug documents 169, 172, and 26, which are found on the second page of the index.
JUDGE BRAND: 169, 172 and what is the other one?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: 26, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: In what book?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In book III. These 3 documents deal with Nazi propaganda concerning alleged Polish atrocities in the beginning of the Polish campaign in August and September 1939. Because it is Nazi propaganda of the vilest sort I object to this Tribunal being made a sounding board for that propaganda, and I object to it as being incompetent. With those exceptions I have no further objections to any Rothaug document in Books II, III, IV, and V-A which are all the English books that have been distributed to me.
DR. DOESSEL: May it please the Tribunal, I think that in the case of Book No. II, a short connecting text is necessary, because it deals almost exclusively with articles from laws, and these legal provisions have to be submitted in some context, in order to explain why they are submitted. I shall be as brief as possible, Your Honor. I had come to Document No. 97 -
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Court please, I had an objection that has not been ruled on. I would ask counsel to wait, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Your objection is to eight of the documents. Is that the objection you refer to?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor, that plus my suggestion as to the method of introducing the rest.
THE PRESIDENT: Your suggestion isn't an objection.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, I realize that.
THE PRESIDENT: We would very much welcome the acceptance of that suggestion, but we will not compel the defense counsel to accept it. If we are able to ascertain what the relevancy of a document is, Dr. Koessel -
DR. KOESSEL: First the Prosecution objected to the submission of the documents in the Kraeutlein case. The case Kraeutlein -
THE PRESIDENT: I think we will shorten this up in this respect. You are going to offer all of these documents in Books 2 and 3?
DR. KOESSEL: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: There are objections only to eight of them.