If it has not been done, it shall be done directly. It may have been overlooked.
THE PRESIDENT: I had a letter back from Mr. Justice Jackson saying that it should be done.
MR. DODD: Yes, I recall it.
THE PRESIDENT: And I will be glad if you will verify that it has been done.
MR. DODD: I am afraid I must say that if it hasn't been done, it is probably my fault. I recall the Justice handing it to me, and I think I passed it to Colonel Taylor's organization, but I will check up on it and see that it is delivered.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be an appropriate time for it to be done, I should think, during the course of the argument on the organizations, if it hasn't been done.
MR. DODD: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: And an affidavit accompanying it, showing how it has been made up.
MR. DODD: Very well, your Honor.
Lt. Margolies tells me he thinks it has just been sent a few days ago, but he is not certain.
THE PRESIDENT: He thinks it has been done?
MR. DODD: He thinks so, but we will look into it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Then, tomorrow morning at 10:00 o'clock counsel for the Prosecution will be ready, will they, to argue the case of the organizations which they asked to be declared criminal under Article 9 of the Charter?
MR. DODD: The Prosecution is prepared to be heard tomorrow morning at 10:00 o'clock on that.
THE PRESIDENT: And counsel for the various organizations are prepared to argue against that?
Then it is understood that at 10:00 o'clock tomorrow the Tribunal will sit for that purpose and will continue until the argument is concluded.
DR. KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for the Reich Cabinet): The counsel for the organisations are ready, according to the suggestion of the Court, to enter in the discussion of the case against their clients tomorrow.
The Prosecution has supported them in so far as they have presented the basic document for the accusation. it be discussed tomorrow, but that these new legalistic questions should be discussed, in so far as they are relevant, for the examination of the extent and the relevancy of the matters of proof, the defense counsel for the organizations will be very glad if the prosecution will make available to us the speech which they are going to make on legal questions, since we would like to answer immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know, but we haven't had any copy of any written argument presented to us. I don't/whether counsel for the Prosecution would say whether they have any written argument.
MR. DODD: Well, Sir David can say much better for himself. What I was going to say is what I said previously, that I am informed that he has already presented his outline to both the Tribunal and to counsel.
Mr. Justice Jackson is still working on his remarks, and while he did hope to submit a draft, late communications were received only this morning from interested persons in the war Department that have made it necessary for him to work right up to now, and therefore we are faced with the practical difficulty of not having a prepared statement to submit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, I have prepared two appendices which endeavor to cover the first two points in the Tribunal's statement of January, the elements of criminality and the connected defendants mentioned in Article 9 of the charter. I have arranged that copies in German should be given to all the defense counsel. I hope everyone has got a copy. I have also arranged that copies be submitted to the Tribunal. and in some cases to the documents on each of the points, and I am afraid that is in English, but it is reference to paragraphs, so it shouldn't be difficult for the defense counsel to fit it into their document.
Justice's speech and mine. What, I intended to add was largely on the facts which I have endeavored to put before the defense counsel already, but if the defense counsel for the organizations would care to hear informally what is the sort of general line, I should be very pleased to tell them if it would be any help. I want to help in any way I can.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 28 February 1946 at 1000 hours);
Official transcript of the International
DR. HORN (Counsel for Defendant Ribbentrop): Mr. President, when on Monday I made my motion to call the witness Winston Churchill, and when I wanted to bring grounds, the Court asked me to present that in writing so that the Tribunal may make a decision. been made, on the 26th of February, before the Tribunal has received my written statement. I assume that there must be a mistake, and I ask the Tribunal, under consideration of the reasons for my written motion, to reconsider that question.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will reconsider the matter. Do you propose, Mr. Justice Jackson, to argue first on the question of the organizations?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If that is agreeable to the Tribunal. We are taking up, as I understand it, the deferred subject of the rules which should guide in governing the criminality of organizations, partly upon our initiative and partly in response to the questions propounded by the Tribunal. difficult problems of law and administration. Being the first such surrender of an entire and modernly organized society, precedents and part experiences are of little help in guiding our policy toward the vanquished. whole people certainly must include a duty to discriminate justly and intelligently between the opposing elements of that population which bore dissimilar relations to the policies and conduct which led to the catastrophe. This differentiation is the object of those provisions of the Charter which authorize this Tribunal to declare organizations or groups to be criminal. essential to its interpretation and application.
surrender was that the state itself played only a subordinate role in the exercise of political power, while the really drastic controls over German society were organized outside of the nominal government. This was accomplished through an elaborate network of closely knit and exclusive organizations of selected volunteers, both bound to execute without delay and without question the commands of the Nazi leaders. subdivided into little Nazi principalities of about fifth households each, and every such community had its recognized Party leaders, Party police, and its undercover spies. Those were combined into larger units with higher ranking leaders, executioners, and spies, the whole forming a pyramid of power outside of the law, with the Fuehrer at its apex, the loval Party officials constituting its broad base, which rested heavily on the German population. Def endants alone. A thousand little fuehrers dictated; a thousand imitation Goerings strutted; a thousand Schirachs incited the youth; a thousand Sauckels worked slaves; a thousand Streichers and Rosenbergs stirred up hate; a thousand Kaltenbrunners and Franks tortured and killed; a thousand Schachts and Speers and Funks administered and supported and financed this movement. hamlet. The Party power resulting from this system of organizations first rivaled and then dominated the power of the state itself. The primary vice of this web of organizations was that they were used to transfer the power of coercing men from the government and the law to the Nazi leaders. Liberty, self-government, and security of person and property do not exist except where the power of coercion is possessed only by the state and is exercised only in obedience to law. The Nazis, however, set up this private system of coercion outside of and in immunity from the law, with Party controlled concentration camps and firing squads to administer privately decreed sanctions. were enabled to seize property and take away liberty and even take life itself.
extremes of the Nazi movement. They served chiefly to exploit mob psychology and to manipulate the mob. Multiplying the numbers of persons in a common enterprise always tends to diminish the individual's sense of moral responsibility and to increase his sense of security. The Nazi leaders were masters of this technique. They manipulated these organizations to make before the German populace impressive exhibitions of numbers and of power, which have already been shown on the screen. These were used to incite a mob spirit and then riotously to gratify the popular hates they had inflamed and the Germanic ambition they had inflated. They provided the systematized, aggressive, and disciplined execution throughout Germany and the occupied countries of the plan for crimes which we have proven. The flowering of this system is represented in the fanatical SS General Ohlendorf, who told this Tribunal without shame or trace of pity how he personally directed the putting to death of 90,000 men, women and children. No tribunal ever listened to a recital of such wholesale murder as this Tribunal heard from him and from Wisliceny, a fellow officer of the SS. Their own testimony shows the SS responsibility for the extermination that organization welcomed and discharged methodically, remorselessly and thoroughly. These crimes with which we deal are unprecedented, first because of the shocking numbers of victims. They are even more shocking and unprecedented because of the large number of people who united to perpetrate them. All scruple or conscience of a very large segment of the German people was committed to the keeping of these organizations, and their devotees felt no personal sense of guilt as they went from one extreme to another. On the other hand, they developed a contest in cruelty and a competition in crime. Ohlendorf from the witness stand accused other SS commanders, whose killings exceeded his, of "exaggerating" their figures which imposed upon passive, unorganized and inarticulate Germans the same burdens as upon those who voluntarily handed themselves together in these powerful, and notorious gangs. One of the basic requirements both of justice and of successful administration of the occupation responsibility of our four countries, is a seggregation of these organized elements from the masses of Germans for seperate treatment.
this web of organized bodies in the midst of post-war society would be to foster the nucleus of a new Nazidom. These members are accustomed to an established chain of centralized command, they have formed a habit and developed a technique of both secret and open cooperation. They still nourish a blind devotion to the suspended, but not abandoned, Nazi program. They will keep alive the hates and ambitions which generated the orgy of crime we have proved. These organizations are carriers, from this generation to the next, of the infection of aggressive and rughless war. The Tribunal has seen on the screen how easily an assemblage that ostensibly is only a common labor force can be in fact a military outfit training with shovels. The next war and the next pogroms will be hatched in the nests of these organizations as surely as we leave their membership with its prestige and influence undiminished by condemnation and punishment. consider the demoralized state of German society. It will be years before there can be established in the German State any political authority that is not inexperienced and provisional. It cannot quickly acquire the stability of a government aided by long habit of obedience and traditional respect. The intrique, obstruction, and possible overthrow, which older and established governments always fear from conspiratorial groups, is a real and present danger to any stable social order in the Germany of today and of tomorrow. retribution, it is obvious that it could not overlook these organized instruments and instigators of past crimes. In opening this case, I said that the United States does not seek to convict the whole German people of crime. But it is equally important that this trial shall not serve to absolve the whole German people except 22 men in the dock. The wrongs that have been done to the world by these defendants and their top confederates was not done by their will and their strength alone. The success of their designs was made possible because great numbers of Germans organized themselves to become the fulcrum and the lever by which the power of these leaders was extended and magnified.
If this trial fails to condemn these organized confederates for their share of responsibility for this catastrophe, it will be construed as their exoneration.
But the Charter was not concerned with retributive justice alone. It manifests a constructive policy influenced by exemplary and preventive considerations. The primary objective of requiring that the surrender of Germany be unconditional was to clear the way for a reconstruction of German society on such a basis that it will not again threaten the peace of Europe and of the world. Temporary measures of the occupation authorities may, by necessity, and I mean no criticism of them, have been more arbitrary and applied with less discrimination than befits a permanent policy. For example, under existing denazification policy, no member of the Nazi party or its formations may be employed in and position, other than ordinary labor, in any business enterprise unless he is found to have been only a nominal Nazi. Persons in certain categories whose standing in the community is one of prominence or influence, are required to be, and others may be, denied further participation in their businesses or professions. It is mandatory to remove or exclude from public office and from positions of importance in quasi-public and private enterprises persons falling within about 90 specified categories deemed to consist of either active Nazis, Nazi supporters, or militarists. Property of such persons is blocked. of this Charter, that a permanent long-term program should be based on a more careful and more individual discrimination than was possible with sweeping temporary measures. There is a movement now within the Control Council for reconsideration of its whole denazification policy and procedure. The action of this Tribunal in declaring, or in failing to declare, an accused organization criminal has a vital bearing or this future occupation policy. Tribunal and its judgment to identify and condemn those Nazi and militaristic forces that were so strongly organized as to constitute a continuing menace to the long-term objectives for which our respective countries have spent their young lives.
It is in the light of this great purpose that we must examine the provisions of this Charter. without some modification, be adapted to this task. No system of jurisprudence has yet evolved any satisfactory technique for handling a great number of common charges against a great multitude of accused persons. The number of individual defendants that fairly can be tried in a single proceeding probably does not greatly exceed the number now in your dock. Also, the number of separate trials in which the same voluminous evidence as to a common plan must be repeated is very limited in actual practice. Yet adversary proceedings of the type in which we are engaged are the best assurance the law has ever involved that decisions will be well considered and just. The task of the framers of the Charter was to find some way to overcome the obstacles to practicable and early decision without sacrificing the fairness implicit in hearings. The solution prescribed by the Charter is certainly not faultless, but not one of its critics has ever proposed an alternative that would not either deprive the individual of all hearing or contemplate such a multitude of long trials that it would break down and be impracticable. In any case, this Charter is the plan adopted by our respective governments and our duty here is to make it work. of the general issues which would be common to all individual trials from the particular issues which would differ in each trial. The plan is comparable to that employed in certain war-time legislation of the United States dealt with in the case of Yakus v. United States, in which questions as to the due process quality of the order must be determined in a separate tribunal and cannot be raised by a defendant when he is defending on indictment. Those countries which do not have written constitutions and constitutional issues may find it difficult to follow the logic of that decision, but essentially the plan was to separate general issues relative to the order as a whole from specific issues which would arise when an individual was confronted with a charge of guilt.
in one trial before the International Military Tribunal, and in that trial every accused organization must be defended by counsel and must be represented by at least one leading member, and other individuals may apply to be heard. Their applications may be granted if the Tribunal thinks justice requires it. The only issue in this trial concerns the collective criminality of the organization or group. It is to be adjudicated by what amounts to a declaratory judgment. It does not decree any punishment either against the organization or against individual members.
The only specification as to the effect of this Tribunal's declaration that an organisation is criminal is contained in Article 10, which, if you will bear with me, I will read:
"In cases where a group or organization is defendant criminal by the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any signatory shall have the right to bring individuals to trial for membership the man before national, military or occupation courts. In any such case the criminal nature of the group or organization is considered proved and shall not be questioned." declared flatly that membership in any of these rared organizations is criminal and should be punished accordingly If there had been such an enactment, it would not have been open to an individual who was being tried for membership to contend that, the organization was rat in fact, criminal, The framers of the Charter, acting last summer, at a was before the evidence which has been adduced here was even available to us, did not care to find organizations criminal by fiat.
They loft that issue to determination after relevant facts were developed by adversary proceedings. Plainly, the individual is better off because of the procedure of the Charters, which leaves that finding of criminality to this body after hearings at which the organization must, and the individual may be represented. It is at least the best assurance that we could devise that no mistake would be made in dealing with these organizations. are not on trial in the conventional sense of that tern. They are more nearly under investigation as they might be before a Grand Jury in Angle-American practice. Article 9 recognizes a distinction between the declaration of a grow or organization as criminal and "the trial of any individual member thereof." The power of the Tribunal to try is confined to "persons," and the Charter does not expand that term by definition, as statutes sometimes do, to include other than natural persons. The groups or organizations named in the Indictment were not as entities served with process. The Tribunal is not empowered to impose any sentence upon them as entities. For example, it may not levy a fine upon them even though they have property of the organization, nor convict any person because of membership. proceedings against anyone. It provides only that the competent national authorities shall have the right to bring individuals to trial for membership therein. It was not deemed wise, on the information then available, that the Charter should regulate subsequent proceedings. Nor was it necessary to do so. There is a continuing legislative authority, representing all four signatory nations, competent to take over where the Charter leaves off. Legislative supplementation of the Charter, of course, would be necessary in any event, to confer jurisdiction on local courts, to define their procedures and to prescribe different penalties for different forms of activity.
Fear has been expressed, however, that the Charter's silence as to future proceedings means that great numbers of members will be rounded up and automatically punished as a result of a declaration that an organization to be criminal.
It also has been suggested that this is, or may be, the consequence of Article II, 1(d) of Control Council Act No. 10, which defines as criminal, "membership in categories of a criminal group or organization declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal." A purpose to inflict punishment without a right of hearing cannot be spelled out of the Charter, and would be offensive to both its letter and its spirit. And I do not find in Control Council Act No. 10 any inconsistency with the Charter. Of course, to reach all individual members would require numerous hearings. But they will involve only narrow issues; many persons will have no answers to charges if they are carefully prepared, and the proceedings should be expeditious, non-technical, held in the locality whore the person accused resides, and, incidentally, may be conducted in two languages at most. membership in a criminal organization, he is entitled to a hearing on the facts of his case, The Charter dose not authorize the national authorities to punish membership without hearing it gives them only the right to "bring individuals to trial". That means what it says. A trial means there is something to try.
The Charter denies only one of the possible defenses of an accused; he may not relatigate the question in a subsequent trial whether the organization itself was a criminal one, Nothing precludes him from derying that his participation was voluntary and proving he acted under duress; he may prove that he was deceived or tricked into membership; he may show that he had withdrawn or he may prove that his name on the rolls is a case of mistaken identity.
criminal, of course, implies a genuine membership involving the volition of the member. The act of affiliation with the organization must have been intentional and-voluntary. Legal compulsion or illegal duress, actual fraud or trick of which one is a victim has never been thought to be the victim's crime and such an unjust result is not to be implied now. The extent of the member's knowledge of the criminal character of the organization is, however, another matter. He may not have known on the day he joined but may have remained a member after learning the fact. And he is chargeable not only with what he knew but with all of which he reasonably was put on notice. good faith. Prosecution under this declaration is discretionary and if there were purpose on the part of the Allied Powers to punish without trial, it would have been already done before this Tribunal was set up, and without waiting for its declaration. We think the Tribunal will presume that signatory powers which have voluntarily submitted to this process will carry it out faithfully. declared criminal. This language on the part of the Control Council recognizes a power in this Tribunal to limit the effect of its declaration. I do not think, forreasons which I will later state, that this should be construed or availed of to try here any issues as to sub-groups or sections or individuals which can be tried in later proceedings. It should, I think, be construed to mean, not the sort of limitation which must be defined by evidence of details, but limitations of principle such as those I have already outlined, such as duress, involuntary membership, or matters of that kind, which the Tribunal can recognize and deal with without taking detailed evidence. It does not require this Tribunal to delve into evidence to condition its judgment, to apply only to intentional, voluntary membership. This does not supplant later trials but the declaration of this Tribunal guides them.
severance of the general issues common to many cases, from the particular issues applicable only to individual defendants for litigation in separate Tribunals specialty adapted to the different kinds of issues, is lacking in reasonableness or fair play. And while it presents unusual procedural difficulties, I do not think it presents any insurmountable ones. I will discuss the question of the criteria and the principles and the precedents for declaring collective criminality before coming to the procedural questions involved. organizations is, in its large outline, old and well settled and fairly uniform in all systems of law. It is true that we are dealing here with a procedure which would be easy to abuse and one often feared as an interference with liberty of assembly or as an imposition of guilt by association. It also is true that proceedings against organizations are closely akin to the conspiracy charge which is the great dragnet of the law, rightly watched by courts lost it be abused. necessary to treat some organizations as criminal. Not even the most tolerant of governments can permit an accumulation of private power in organizations to a point where it rivals, obstructs or dominates the government itself. T do so would be to grant designing men a liberty to destroy liberty. The very complacency and tolerance as well as the impotence of the Weimar Republic towards the growing organization of Nazi power spelled the death of German freedom.
Protection of the citizen's liberty has required even free governments to enact laws making criminal those aggregations of power which threaten to impose their will on unwilling citizens. Every one of the nations signatory to this Charter has laws making certain types of organizations criminal. The Klu Klux Klan in the United States flourished at about the same time as the Nazi movement in Germany. It appealed to the same hates, practiced the same extra-legal coercions, and likewise terrorized by the same sort of weird nighttime ceremonials. Like the Nazi Party it was composed of a core of fanatics, but it enlisted the support of respectabilities who knew it was wrong, but thought it was winning.
It eventually provoked a variety of legislative acts directed against such organizations, as organizations. outlawing certain organizations. A recent example was the Act of 28 June 1940, in which the Congress provided that it shall be unlawful for any person, among other things, to organize or help to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons to teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any government in the United States by force or violence, or to be or become a member of, or affiliate with, any such society, group or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof. analogous offenses. An example is to be found in the act of California dealing with criminal syndicalism, which, after defining it, makes criminal any person who organizes, assists in organizing, or is or knowingly becomes a member of such organization. membership therein are old and consistent with the Charter.
One of the first, is the British India Act No. 30, enacted in 1836, which, among other things, provides:
"It is hereby enacted that whoever shall be proved to have belonged either before or after the passing of this Act to any gang of thugs either within or without the territories of the East India Company shall be punished with imprisonment for life with hard labor." violence. of 1799, the Seditious Meetings Act of 1817, the Seditious Meetings Act of 1846, the Public Order Act of 1936, and Defense Regulations 18 (b). The latter, not without opposition, was intended to protect the integrity of the British Government against fifth-column activities of this same Nazi conspiracy. criminal gang. Criminologists of the Soviet Union call this crime the "crime of banditry", a term altogether appropriate to these German organizations. General Rudenko will advise this Tribunal more in detail as to the Soviet Law. Membership of the criminal gang is a crime in itself. My distinguished French colleague will present you more detail on that. of the signatory powers, was governing here, but it is clear that this is not an act or a concept of a single system of law, that all systems of law agree that there are points at which organizations become intolerable in a free society. Nazi regime, which, of course, suppressed all their adversaries ruthlessly. However, under the Empire and the Weimar Republic, German jurisprudence deserved respect, and it presents both statutory and juridical examples of declaring organizations to be criminal. Statutory examples are:
The German Criminal Code enacted in 1871. Section 128 was aimed against secret associations, and 129 was directed against organizations inimical to the State. constitution of the Reich.
Section 128 of the Criminal Code of 1871 is especially pertinent. It reads:
"The participation in an organization, the existence, constitution, or purposes of which are to be kept secret from the Government, or in which obedience to unknown superiors or unconditional obedience to known superiors is pledged, is punishable by imprisonment." the organizations with which we are dealing here than this German Criminal Code of 1871. obedience to unknown superiors or unconditional obedience to known superiors is pledged. It is exactly the sort of danger and menace with which we are dealing. criminal prosecution. Under the Republic, in 1927 and 1928, judgments held criminal the entire Communist Party of Germany. In 1922 and 1928, judgments of the courts ran against the political Leadership Corps of the Communist Party, which included all of its so-called body of functionaries. This body of functionaries in that organization corresponded somewhat in their powers to the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party which we have accused here. The judgment against the Communist Party rendered by the German Courts included every cashier, every employee, every delivery boy and messenger, and every district leader. In 1930 a judgment of criminality against what was called "The Union of Red Front Fighters" of the Communist Party made no distinction between leaders and ordinary members. judgment of the German Courts was rendered that the whole Nazi Party was a criminal organization. Evidently there was a lack of courage to enforce that judgment, or we might not have been here. This decision referred not only to the Leadership Corps, which we are indicting here, but to all other members as well. The whole rise of the Nazi Party to power was in the shadow of this judgment of illegality by the German courts themselves. the theory that all members were held together by a common plan in which each one participated even though at various levels. Moreover, fundamental principles of responsibility of members as stated by the German Supreme Court are strikingly like the principles that govern our Anglo-American law of conspiracy.
Among the statements by the German courts are these:
"It is a matter of indifference whether all the members pursued the forbidden aims. It is enough if a part exercised the forbidden activity."
And again: "It is a matter of indifference whether the members of the group or association agree with the aims, tasks, means of working and means of fighting."
And again: "The real attitude of mind of the participants is a matter of indifference. Even if they had the intention of not participating in criminal efforts, or hindering them, this cannot eliminate their responsibility from real membership." of criminal conspiracies, and their criminality is judged by application of conspiracy principles. The reason why they are offensive to law-governed people has been succinctly stated by an American legal authority as follows, and I quote from Miller on Criminal Law:
"The reason for finding criminal liability in case of a combination to effect an unlawful end or to use unlawful means, where none would exist, even though the act contemplated were actually committed by an individual, is that a combination of persons to commit a wrong, either as an end or as a means to an end, is so much more dangerous, because of its increased power to do wrong, because it is more difficult to guard against and prevent the evil designs of a group of persons than of a single person, and because of the terror which fear of such a combination tends to create in the minds of people."
The Charter, in Article 6, provides that "Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan."
law of conspiracy.
of conspiracy which, if proved, makes them responsible for the acts of others in execution of the common plan. terms of "conspiracy" alone. The crimes were defined in non-technical but inclusive terms, and embraced formulating and executing a common plan, as well as participating in a conspiracy. It was feared that to do otherwise might import into the proceedings technical requirements and limitations which have grown up around the term "conspiracy". There are some divergences between the Anglo-American concept of a conspiracy and that of either French, Soviet, or German jurisprudence. It was desired that concrete cases be guided by the broader considerations inherent in the nature of the problem I have outlined, rather than to be controlled by refinements of any local law. there is no reason why every member of any Nazi organization accused here could not have been indicted and convicted as a part of the conspiracy under Article 6, even if the Charter hadnever mentioned organizations at all. To become voluntarily affiliated was an act of adherence to some common plan or purpose. groups; admittedly, their members were united for action. In the case of several of the Nazi organizations, the fact of confederation was evidenced by formal induction into membership, the taking of an oath, the wearing of a distinctive uniform, the submission to a discipline. That all members of each Nazi organization did combine under a common plan to achieve some end by combined efforts is abundantly established. obviously those which would test the legality of any combination or conspiracy. Did it contemplate illegal methods or purpose illegal ends? If so, the liability of each member of one of these Nazi organizations for the acts of every other member is not essentially different from the liability for conspiracy enforced in the courts of the United States against business men who combine in violation of the anti-trust laws, or of other defendants accused under narcotic drugs laws, sedition acts, or other Federal penal enactments.