conferred upon the Tribunal, and I would think that that would be a rather drastic expansion of its powers.
THE TRIBUNAL (M. DeVabres): I would like to thank Mr. Jackson for his answers to my questions.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
(Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe approached the lectern).
THE PRESIDENT: Did you want to add a reply or did you come in order that we might ask you some questions?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL*FYFE: First, if the Tribunal will allow me, there are three or four points on which I should like to add a word.
The first point that Dr. Kubuschok made was that the procedure of asking for a declaration against the Organizations was objectionable for two reasons: 1, because if was founded on the limited phenomenon in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence that a corporation may be convicted in certain limited spheres; and secondly, that the Organizations were in fact dissolved some time ago. which underlies this portion of the Charter, It is really based, in my submission, on a doctrine found in most systems of law, either res adjudicata or the concept of the judgment in rem as opposed to the judgment in personam. That is, that it is in the general and public interest that litigation on a particular point should not be interminable, and that if the apporpriate Tribunal has come to a decision on a point of general interest and importance, that point should not htereafter be litigated many times. had the advantage of evidence dealing with the whole period and functioning of the Nazi conspiracy, is the appropriate and indeed the only suitable tribunal for deciding the question of criminality. It is a prospect which would be quite impracticable and beggars the imagination as to time, to consider that every military government or military court should decide one after the other the question of criminality of great organizations like these. And therefore we have in the Charter adopted the procedure that that preliminary question will be decided once and for all by this Tribunal. irrelevant. what is important is, what was the nature of the Organizations when they did function? And that is the issue which the Tribunal has to determine. we submit that it is a clear implication, if not indeed expressly within the wrods of Article Nine, that it must be at the brow of the individual defendants that the question of this criminality should be decided, and we say that apart from considerations of practicality that the wording of Article Nine is a clear guide against separation of these issues as suggested by two or three of the Defense Counsel.
No. 10. Dr. Kubuschok made the point that this procedure really acted entirely against the individual. There are at least two answers. The first I have endeavored to give as to the legal concept behind the idea of a declaration; second, the one which has been canvassed before the Tribunal, as to the rights of Defense. May I say that, in my submission, membership in a organization is a question of fact and therefore these decenses of duress, fraud or mistake -to take three examples -- must clearly be permissible and good defenses on that question of fact. The third is that every document such as the Charter -- the same would apply to every piece of legislation -- contemplates intelligent and reasonable administration in carrying out its requirements, and it would be, in my submission, idle to take the view that where you have a permissive enactment like Law No. 10 -- and it is clearly permissive as to prosecution -- that intelligent administration should prosecute every one who could be prosecuted under the Act. in my submission -- to decide or interpret on an extremely unlikely hard case. estingly put forward by Dr. Servatius and mentioned a few moments ago by the learned French Judge. soever. There is a clearly judicial function, and I want to make it clear: I do not qualify it by "quasi-judicial" or any qualification at all. It is a simple judicial duty. The first portion of that duty is to define what is criminal. In my submission, as Jr. Justice Jacson argued yesterday, that presents no difficulties. It occurs in Article Nine, three articles after Article Six, and "criminal" in that context means an organization whose aims, objects, methods or activities involved the committing of the crimes set out in Article Six.
evidence to decide whether there is evidence of these crimes committed by the organization or being the aim or object of the organization as I have stated. But I respectfully ask the Tribunal to hesitate long before it accepts the argument of Dr. Servatius that this Tribunal should decide the interpretation of criminal on its own a priori basis, to use Dr. Servatius' own words, of politics and ethics. That would be introducing a new, dangerous, and unchartered factor into the trial. There is, in my submission, a clear line of guidance for the judicial approach, and nothing in the Charter to support the prima facie unexpected idea that it should delegate to itself legislative powers. Dr. Kubuschok drew on the question of criminality as a ground for deciding the relevance of evidence, his first conclusion was that the organization in question, according to its constitution or charter, did or did not have a criminal aim or purpose. the limitation to charter or constitution. The criminal aim or purpose may be shown by the declarations or publications of the leaders of the organization, and also, as I submitted, by the course of conduct in method and action. I agree with Dr. Kubuschok that aim or purpose is the first test, but I do not agree with his limitation as to gathering it. within or in connection with the organization or were not committed continuously over a period. The first part of that would seem fairly clear, that if the crimes were not committed within or in connection with the organization, the organization is obviously not in a very favorable position. But I first answer the second part by saying that it does not come into the picture of this case that there is any instance of isolated crimes with regard to every organization. The crimes alleged are, in fact, spread over the period alleged in the indictment, but I suggest that the adoption of such a criterion does not really help. One comes back to the first point of Dr. Kubuschok, that aims or purposes as disclosed by declarations, methods, or activities, is the primary and most important test.
The, the third point that Dr. Kubuschok makes is that an appreciable number of members had no knowledge of the criminal aims or of the continuous commission of crimes.
I endeavored to stress, as did Mr. Justiced Jackson, that the Prosecution's test is constructive knowledge. That is: Ought a reasonable person in the position of a member to have known of these crimes? And that really is the answer, in my respectful submission, to the relevance of individual knowledge of one particular member. large number of people bade a habit of sticking their heads in the sand and endeavoring to abstain from acquiring knowledge of things that were unpleasant. In my respectful submission, that sort of conduct on the part of a member wouldn't help him at all, and the only answer to that is to adopt the test which we have suggested: Ought a person in that position reasonably to have known of the commission of the crimes?
Dr. Kubuschok's fourth point is that an appreciable number of members or certain independent groups joined the organization under compulsion or illusion or superior orders. Shortly we answer that by saying that that is only relevant to the defense of an individual member in the subsequent proceedings, and, of course, it is only a defense where he can show that he has taken no personal part in the criminal acts. Then, the last point which Dr. Kubuschok made was that an appreciable number of members were honorary members. Again we say that that is only relevant to the defense of the individual member, and it does not really alter or increase the defenses open to him.
The only ether point of Dr. Kubuschok's which I do think requires mention is that in considering how evidence could be presented, he said that certain rights of defense ore universal. The first of these which he claimed was. direct oral testimony, and he said that each individual defendant should have this right. He then admitted that that was practically impossible and suggested as a solution that we must typify, that is, that representatives of groups in the various camps should make affidavits showing what percentage took part in criminal actions or knew about them.
the Charter that members of the organization are entitled to apply to the Tribunal for leave to be heard, but the Tribunal shall have power to allow or reject the application.
As a point of construction no less than of sense, there would have been no point in giving the Tribunal the power to reject the application if it were illicit that everyone should have the right to be heard. what line and what course shall be taken to procure the evidence. The Prosecution, through Mr. Justice Jackson, has indicated that it makes no objection to any reasonable form of collecting relevant evidence. What the Prosecution objects to is evidence being tendered on the issue before the Tribunal which is only relevant to the question of individual innocence or guilt of the member. number of points raised by the other counsel for the defense. I hope they won't think that it is any disrespect to their arguments that I have not dealt with them, but I know that the Tribunal wishes to ask certain questions, and I don't want to trespass in that time. I only want to deal with one point because it kills two birds with one stone that have been flown against our argument in this case.
It will be remembered that when I dealt with the SA yesterday, Dr. Seidl -and I am sorry he is not here -- raised the question that the defendant Frank was not a member of the SA; and Dr. Leoffler, in dealing with the SA today, raised the question that its activities no doubt did not really extend after 1939, and not importantly after the purge in 1934. Archiv, for April 1942, and as it is very short and deals with these point I venture to read it to the Tribunal so that it may appear on the record. At page 54 it says:
"SA Unit, General Government.
"At the order of the Chief of Staff of the SA, there took place the foundation of the SA Unit, General Government, whose command General Governor SA Obergruppenfuehrer Dr. Frank took over." dence shows, that with regard to the SA, no less than any other of the organizations, the prosecution have provided evidence of crimes reaching over the period which they have stated. because I don't want to shorten unduly the time, if the Tribunal wishes to ask me any questions.
THE PRESIDENT: I think there is only one question that I should like to ask you. As I understand it, you say that the prosecution have proved facts from which one must conclude that every reasonable person who joined any of these organizations would know that they were criminal.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL_FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You would agree, would you not, that proof of any fact which went to contradict the facts from which you have presumed knowledge of criminality could be proved by the defense?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly. If the defense wought to prove, to take an extreme example, that the conduct of the SS with regard to, first of all, concentration camps, and secondly, killing Jews and political commissars on the Russian front, despite the vast territory over which these crimes have been proved to have been carried on, was done in such a way that nobody know about it -- if there was relevant evidence on that point, then they could call it, on the general point that it wasn't a matter of imparted constructive knowledge, but of memory.
THE PRESIDENT: I only asked you that question because there were certain observations of Mr. Justice Jackson which did not seem altogether to accord with the answer which you have just given.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think that as I understood MR. Justice Jackson, he was saying that it might not be relevant to prove that one member did not know of the crimes, and I thought that our two approaches really did fit in with each other.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): I take it then, Sir David, that you would say that evidence with respect to general knowledge by any very substantial segment of an organization would be relevant, would it not?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, it would be relevant if it were not absurd. I mean, a dis claimer of knowledge of certain acts may be so absurd that the Tribunal should not take the time of inquiring into it.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): But my point was this. You have said that evidence with respect to general knowledge over a whole organization would clearly be relevant.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL_FYFE: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): And now I ask you whether that would not be true with respect to any substantial segment of an organization such as the Waffen SS.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL_FYFE: I am trying to relate it to the practical position. That is where I find it very difficult.
Now to take your example, it is difficult to imagine -- let's take four divisions that were very well known: The Totenkopf, the Polizei, Das Reich, or the 12th Panzer Division. I should have thought that, as a matter of discretion, if it were sought to show that these divisions, about which there is so much evidence as to their participation in crime, did not know of the crimes, the Tribunal would be right in rejecting that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): Well, the question would come up more whether the acts of the members of certain divisions were know generally throughout the whole Waffen SS, would it not?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: with the greatest respect, I find it very difficult to see how the knowledge or absence of knowledge of a particular division in the Waffen SS could affect the question of criminality of the SS as a whole.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): Well again, I am not asking you as to knowledge in a particular division; I am asking you as to general knowledge, throughout the entire Waffen SS, of the acts of a particular unit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, if some one is prepared to say, "I knew every division of the Waffen SS, and in my opinion no one in the Waffen SS had any knowledge or had any opportunity of knowing of the crimes", then the evidence would be admissible. Its weight would be so negligible that I should submit it would not detain the Tribunal long. for his evidence, to say "I can speak; I Seidl-- and I am sorry he is not here--raised the question that the defendant Frank was not a member of the SA; and Dr. Loeffler, in dealing with the SA today, raised the question that its activities no doubt did not really extend after 1939, and not importantly after the purge in 1934.
Das Archiv, for April 1942, and as it is very short and deals with these points I venture to read it to the tribunal so that it may appear on the record. At page 54 it says:
"SA Unit, General Government.
"At the order of the Chief of Staff of the SA, there took place the foundation of the SA Unit, General Government, whose command General Governor SA, Obergruppenfuehrer Dr. Frank took over." evidence shows, that with regard to the SA, no less than any other of the organizations, the prosecution have provided evidence of crimes reaching over the Period which they have stated. because I don't want to shorten unduly the time, if the Tribunal wishes to ask me any questions.
have the ground and the opportunity of speaking on the general position", then I don't see how the Tribunal could exclude it.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): The matter is very practical because we have to advise counsel for the defendants what material they can introduce, and do that very soon.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): Now let me ask you a few other questions. criminal organization as of January 30, 1933, when, if I remember correctly, there were only three members of the Nazi Party who were in the Cabinet: Goering, Hitler, and Frick. Do you think that if three out of a very much larger number, some twenty odd, could be said to be part of a criminal organization, that that makes the entire Cabinet criminal?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, on the facts. It must be remembered that Hitler had refused to take office as Vice Chancellor during the months before that, before the date that you put to me. He had refused on the ground that as Vice Chancellor he would not be in a position to carry out his Party program. On that basis the defendant von Papen and Hitler negotiated, and Hitler came into power on the 30th of January. Cabinet knew that they were forming part of a cabinet in which Hitler was going to work out his program, as has been declared on so many occasions. That is the first point. Papen did join in introducing the Nazi conspirators into the Government with that knowledge and with the purpose of letting them have their way in Germany.
The same must go,--it hasn't been investigated to the same extent, because they are not defendants, but the industrialists and the Party were acting with them in the Reich Cabinet. They must be taken to have known, just as Gustav Krupp knew and supported, just as Kurt von Schroeder knew and supported the aims of the Nazis whom they introduced and cooperated with in the government. the defendant Goering, Frick, and Dr. Goebbels, whom I think became Propaganda Minister either at the same time or very shortly afterwards--show that these people, they have shown it by their acts, were not persons to take second place.
They introduced at once the Fuehrerprinzip into operation in the States, and those otherpeople in the Cabinet at that time accepted the Fuehrerprinzip and united in placing Hitler and the Defendant Goering, and the other conspirators, in the position of power and authority which enabled them to carry out their monstrous crimes that are charged against them. became Plenipotentiary for War Economy and began the preparation for the economic side of the creation of Germany's war potential. deliberately -- and the same applies to the defendant von Nourath. It is the whole case of the prosecution, as to the case against von Neurath, that he sold his respectability and reputation to the Nazis in order to help them buy with that reputation and respectability, a position of power in Germany, with the conservative circles in Germany, and with the diplomatic circles in Europe with whom he came in touch. at that time was so totally effected with the criminality which we suggest in this case.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): In relation to the political leaders, let me ask you this, Sir David. of political leaders of lower grades to show that as a group they were informed of plans to wage aggressive war or to commit war crimes or crimes against humanity? In other words, I take it there is some obligation to show that information. Does that rest simply on the fact that these crimes were being perpetrated, or is there any evidence of that information?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is evidence, and if I might just indicate the kind of evidence there is -- On the first stage of the acquisition of totalitarian control in Germany, which is the first stage in the conspiracy, apart from the Party program there are the extracts from the Hoheitstraeger Magazine; you remember, Hoheitstraeger is all the political leaders.
On the anti-semitic part of that, there are documents, which are United States Exhibit 240, and United States Exhibit 332, which are shown in the transcript at pages 1622 and 1649.
On the question of war crimes against allied airmen, you will remember that a document was circulated to Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, Kreisleiter, with instructions that Ortsgruppenleiter were to be informed verbally with regard to the lynching of allied airmen. That document is PS-057, shown in the transcript at page 1627. And that the hint was taken by at least one Gauleiter is shown by Document L-154, United States Exhibit 325, at page 1628. orally to Gauleiters, that the police are not to interfere in the clashes between Germans and aviators.
That is R.-110, United States Exhibit 333, shown at pace 1624. There is a speech by Goebbels inciting the people to murder allied airmen, which is shown at page 1625. Similarly, with regard to foreign labor, there is a telegram from Rosenberg to Gauleiters asking them not to interfere with the confiscation of certain companies and banks.
There is Jodl's lecture to Reichsleiters and Gauleiters at a later stage. There is an undated letter from Bormann to all Reichsleiters and Gauleiters, informing them that the OKW had instructed guards to enforce obedience of prisoners of war refusing to obey orders, if necessary with weapons.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): Sir David, if I may interrupt you for a moment. I was familiar with the evidence with respect to the Gauleiters and Reichsleiters. My question, you will remember, was addressed to the lower levels, the Blockleiters.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I think one can summarize it that even as far as lower levels are concerned you have the four points: You have Mein Kampf, the Party program, Der Hoheitstraeger, and the fact that conferences were constantly held throughout the organization. of allied airmen, and I think I mentioned the letter from Bormann to the Reichsleiters, Gauleiters, and Kreisleiters about assisting in increasing the output of prisoners of war. Also, there is an instruction from Bormann down to Kreisleiter, about the burial of Russian prisoners of war. There is a decree for insuring the output of foreign workers that goes down towards Gruppenleiter.
All these matters are in evidence, and we submit that there is particul* evidence on practically every point. And on the general point, as I said, you have these publications, coupled with the evidence that conferences were held, apart from the general Fuehrerprinzip which would, and did, make the Zellenleiter and the Blockleiter the final weapon for securing that the people acted in accordance with the leader's wishes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): Let me ask you just two questions, and th I will finish with regard to the SA.
Would you say that a member of the SA who had joined, let us say, in 1921, and resigned the next year was guilty of conspiring to wage aggressive war and was guilty of war crimes?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, in this sense. If I may recall, I answered a question that you were good enough to put to me a day or two ago as to when the conspiracy started. A man who took an active and voluntary part as a member of the SA in 1921, certainly, in supporting the Nazi Party, was supporting the published program of the Party whichhad the aims which you have just put to me. getting rid of the dicta of Versailles, the Anschluss, getting the Germans back to the Reich, which, of course, is only a polite way of saying destroying Austria and Czechoslovakia. to you the other day, that it was an essential tenet of the Nazi Party that they should disregard the life and safety of any other people who stood in the way of the securing of their ambitions. A person who deliberately joins an organization with that aim, and with that aim getting more and more clearly related to practical problems as week succeeded week, was taking part in a first essential step of involving mankind in the miseries that we have seen; because it is that tenet, applied to every facet of human life and human suffering, which has caused the crimes which this Tribunal is investigating.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): Well, I can see how you might say that with respect to conspiracy in war crimes, but I want to be perfectly clear also that you say, on the substantive crime of committing war crimes, that a man joining the SA in 1921 and leaving in 1922 would have committed those war crimes in the beginning of 1939.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If you put to me the substantive war crime, I respectfully remind you that under Article 6 the last words are: "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 person in the execution of such a plan."
them responsible for the crimes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): Now only one other question.
What do you contend was the function of the SA after the Roehm purge?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL_FYFE: The function was still to support all Nazi manifestations in the life of Germany. You remember that Dr. Loeffler was careful to accept, very frankly and fairly, the 10th of November, 1938. And I gave another example of how they were informed in the Government General We have also given examples which I think you will find in my appendix of the participation--a limited participation but still a participation--in the war crimes and crimes against humanity. were three million people who had come into the organization, which had providwd the force to bring the Nazis into power; and it had the forceful size of bringing the Nazis into power in those days. They were then joined by two and a half million people, which brought their numbers up, at that time, very high. They wont down again later on, but they were high in 1939, and they provided a great immoral force behind the Nazi Party.
They provided strong support, and were ready on all occasions; whenever a demonstration had to be staged, the SA were there to give their support. They were an essential instrument for maintaining the Nazi control over the German Reich.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): I take it, then, that the function, in your opinion, did not change in substance after the purge? Would you say that?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The aim didn't change. It didn't need to do half as much, because, of course, by the end of 1933 all the other political parties were broken. Part of the SA's original task, as I think Dr. Loeffler put it, had been to safeguard the defendant Goering when he was making a speech -- I should have put it that it was to prevent the other people having a free run when they made speeches -- and dealing with the clashes between the various groups. That was unnecessary, because all political opposition had been destroyed. Therefore they became rather -- I forget the exact term, but sort of cheer-leaders or a collection of people who would always be ready to give vociferous support. with regulated cheers. It became more supporting, rather than dealing with opposition, but essentially the aim was the same, to keep the grip.
THE PRESIDENT: It is now nearly quarter past five. Do you think that this discussion can be closed this evening before six o'clock?
DR. DIX (Counsel for defendant Schacht): Mr. President, I believe that in five minutes I can be through with my question.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Do any of the other prosecutors wish to add anything?
GENERAL RUDENKO: I would like to make a few short remarks, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: How long do you think you will be, General Rudenko?
GENERAL RUDENKO: I think about ten minutes; no more.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the French prosecutor wish to add anything?
M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: I have nothing to add.
THE PRESIDENT:ADr. Dix, what I really want to know is whether there is any prospect of our finishing this discussion tonight.
General Rudenko wishes to speak for about ten minutes, and if the defendants' counsel -of course, you will understand that a discussion of this sort, an argument of this sort, can't go on forever; and in the ordinary course one hears counsel on one side and counsel on the other side, and then a reply; one does not go on after that. Do you know how many of the defendants' counsel want to speak?
DR. DIX: Mr. President, I know that.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the best thing would be if we were to adjourn now and to sit in open session tomorrow, and then we shall probably be able to conclude this argument in about an hour. Do you agree with that, General Rudenko?
GENERAL RUDENKO: I agree.
THE PRESIDENT: Do defendant's counsel think we shall be able to conclude it in about an hour tomorrow morning.
(Several counsel nod affirmatively)
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; we will adjourn until ten o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 2 March 1946 at 1000 hours) Official transcript of the International
GENERAL RUDENKO (Counsel for the USSR): May it please your Honors: please allow me to make a few supplementary remarks concerning the criminal organizations, a problem with which the Tribunal has occupied itself during the past day. of this problem. state that the criminality of the organizations would automatically entail the bringing to trial, and, all the more, the condemnation of all the members of these organizations. On the contrary, the Charter contains a definite indication of a contrary character. trial, that the. national courts have the right, but are not Obliged, to bring to trial members of the organizations which are considered criminal. Consequently, the question of the problem of the trial and of the punishment of different members, single members, of criminal organizations depends exclusively on the national courts. Charter of the Tribunal is limited only in one regard: the national courts cannot deny the criminal character of the organization when this criminal character has been admitted by the Tribunal. There are no further limitation on the legal sovereignty of the contracting parties. of the criminality of an organization would not automatically entail the mass condemnation of all the members of this organization. That is simply fantastic. And I would like to add that this remark is based, not on a legal foundation, but on something quite different.
A legal problem is also based on a misunderstanding. One of the Counsel for the Defense, Dr. Servatius, was speaking of the legislative authority of the Tribunal.
The authority of the International Military Tribunal, organized by four states to defend the interests of all freedom-loving peoples, is enormous, but this Tribunal, as a legal organism, does not possess any legislative authority and cannot possess this legislative authority. Tribunal is only utilizing the right which has been entrusted to it by the Charter -- to solve independently the question of the criminality of the organizations. acquires the importance of a law, but that is the quality of every verdict. of the Charter regarding the criminal organizations are legal innovations. In a certain sense this is true. The innovation consists, first of all, in the fact of the creation of this International Military Tribunal. Another innovation is the Charter and all its articles. But if the Defense Counsel considers it possible to deplore this fact, I would think that it would be quite opportune to remind them of the causes of these legal innovations. their associates are unprecedented in the history of mankind. These crimes provoked the necessity to discover new legal measures, in order to defend the world liberty and the lives of peoples against future crimes. Moreover, the powers which created the Tribunal, and all peace-loving peoples, remain true to the ideals of law and of the principles of justice. Therefore, the responsibility for participation in criminal organizations will only be established when personal guilt has been established. National courts will decide the concrete problems of individual responsibility problem. It was stated here that several organizations of the SS did not follow criminal objectives. It is difficult to find neutral organizations in this mechanism. Thus, the Defense Counsel for the SS, Dr. Babel, mentioned scientific dog trainers created by the SS. One must consider that this was an organization with public utility. It appears that the scientific dog trainers taught the dogs to attack people and to tear to pieces the victims.