at Dachau, it has already been covered.
No. 6 concerns the affidavit on the witness Dr. Stuckart, which he signed for the American prosecution on November 21, 1945, and, I also could ask this witness about these questions when he would be called, and an examination would be shortened when I could read this affidavit, which was made for the American prosecution. Bohemia and Moravia, I would like to submit document No. 1368 on "To the Bitter end." I found out about this book from an excerpt which appeared on 26 February 1946 in the "Sueddeutehe Zeitung" and have been interested in the details of, that was about 30 June 1934. This excerpt shows that there is a remark shown that for the incidents of 30 Jund 1934, the responsibility was taken from Frick, and sent to Goering and Himmler. The book will bring also other details out concerning these points, because Gisevius at the time was an expert on matters of police for the Reichsminister of the Interior. I would like to therefore present the book at this time.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I might say, I don't think that there is much between Dr. Pannenbecker and the prosecution. I might run through the documents asked for. In the book "We Build Up", if Dr. Pannenbecker will indicate the excerpts he is going to use, the prosecution will have no objection to his quoting from them, and the same with regard to the quotations from Mr. Gunther's book "Inside Europe". In paragraph 2 of the document 779 PS, the excerpt from a newspaper, the document 775-PS, to these there are no objections. The files of the police division are not in the hands of the prosecution. If we do get any of them, then we shall let Dr. Pannenbecker know. So far as the letter from the former Deputy Wulle is concerned, there is no objection to that. I have not seen any letter as yet, but there is no objection to it in principle. With regard to No. 4, I think there is some misunderstanding there. That is, document L-83. The affidavit of Seger is before the Tribunal as US Exhibit No. 234, and the statement with regard to the defendant Seger was that the defendant Frick said to him: "Don't worry, when we are in power, we shall put all of you guys into concentration camps." This was alleged in the affidavit as said by Frick to Seger during the course of a conversation.
It is not alleged to have been said in a conference of Foreign Committee. Then No. 5, I say I have got the shorthand notes, and it will be shown to Dr. Pannenbecker. As to No. 6, I understand that Dr. Stuckart is going to be called. Of course, the affidavit can be put as to him, and we can verify its truth. The document 1336-PS will be put at the disposal of the defense and they can make such use of it as they desire. I think that covers the documents. So far as this Dr. Gisevius book, I understand that Dr. Pannenbecker has not a copy of that. Perhaps the Tribunal will see that a copy can be obtained for him. I do not know whether we have a copy. The prosecutor will see what we can do and to see that a copy is available.
DR. PANNENBECKER: May I say as to No. 4, Dr. Seger. As to that document may I make a short remark. Maybe it could be clarified by an interrogatory whether Frick has made this statement in his capacity as Chairman of Foreign Affairs Committee, or not. That is, to say, whether that statement is in the stenographic minutes or not.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I understand that it was not in the minutes. I would not be in the minutes because Dr. Seger alleges that it was made during the course of a conversation, and not in that committee.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will continue tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock, if possible, with the further applications for witnesses and coeuments, which the Tribunal understands have been lodged on Friday evening.
(*--* Tribunal adjourned until 5 March 1946 at 1000 hours.)
Military Tribunal in the matter of: The
THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make.
The attention of the Tribunal has been drawn by Dr. Hans Marx, one of the German counsel appearing in this case for the defense, to an article which was published in the newspaper Berliner Zeitung for February 2, under the heading of "A Defense Counsel". The article, which I do not propose to read, criticizes Dr. Marx in the severest terms for an error of his cross examination of a witness, when he deputized for Dr. Babel on behalf of the SS. The article suggested that in asking the question he did, he was behaving most improperly, that he was expressing private and personal views under the guise of acting as counsel, and that his proper course was to remain silent in view of the character of the evidence. on to threaten Dr. Marx with complete ostracism in the future and does so in language both violent and intimidating. cannot be tolerated. The right of any accused person to be represented by counsel is one of the most important elements in the administration of justice. Counsel is an officer of the Court and he must be permitted freely to make his defense without fear from threats or intimidations. In conformity with the express provisions of the charter, the Tribunal was at great pains to see that all the individual defendants and the named organizations should have the advantage of being represented by counsel, and the defense counsel have already shown the great service they are rendering in this trial, and their conduct in this regard should certainly not leave them open to reproach of any kind from any quarter. court and will be zealous to insure that the highest standard of professional conduct is maintained. Counsel, in discharge of their duties under the Charter, may count upon the fullest protection which it is in the power of the Tribunal to afford.
In the present instance the Tribunal does not think that Dr. Marx in any way exceeded his professional duty. bearing on the die administration of justice that they have asked the Control Council for Germany to investigate the facts and to report to the Tribunal. I call upon counsel for the Defendant Streicher.
DR. MARX (Counsel for defendant Streicher): Mr. President, the defendant Stricher is indicted on two points: Point 1, that he was active in the planning and conspiracy of aggressive war; and 2, crimes against humanity. that we do not have to bring proof because Streicher, during the whole of this proceeding, was never mentioned in a single document, and as to participation, so far as conferences with Hitler were concerned, he was not present and it cannot be proved that he was. With this line of thought I did not see fit to bring any proof. to call the wife of the defendant Streicher, Mrs. Adele Streicher; I would like to call her as a witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wonder if it would be convenient for me to indicate the views of the prosecution on these witnesses; there are only six of them. Then perhaps Dr. Marx could make his comments on my remarks.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Tribunal will see that there are six witnesses, and if it would take them, in my order, it would indicate the point of the prosecution. and apparently the defendant's principal lieutenant. and is alleged to be able to give evidence as to the speeches of the defendant.
Number 2, Herrwerth, was the defendant's chauffeur, and he speaks as to one point, really, namely, the defendant's annoyance at violence being used on the 10th of November, 1938.
And number 6, Dr. Strobel, who is a lawyer, speaks as to the same point, the disapproval expressed by the defendant in December 1938 as to the measures taken in November.
Then there are two members of the defendant's family: Frau Stricher, who was his secretary from 1940 to 1945; and his son, Lothar Streicher.
the defendant's principal lieutenant, and on the suggestion made by Dr. Marx, that he can speak as to whatDr. Marx calls the defendant Stricher's basic attitude on the Jewish question. There are a number of matters on which he is said to be able to speak, to which the prosecution would object as irrelevant. However, the time for so doing is later. been present at meetings where Stricher spoke, from the early days. To that also, the prosecution would not make objection, but they draw attention that in the early applications Herr Wurzbacher was said to be able to speak to the boycott in 1933 and the events of November 1938. Therefore, the prosecution respectfully remind the Tribunal that he can speak as to the events in 1938 and, in the view of the prosecution, it is not necessary to have oral testimony to repeat that point. They therefore suggest that with regard to Herr Herrwerth, the defendant's chauffeur, who really speaks as to one main point--that the defendant showed anger with regard to the events of 1938--an affidavit would be sufficient. They suggest the same course with regard to Dr. Strobel, who is the attorney who is mentioned. that it is said that Frau Stricher was the defendant's secretary during the period from May 1940 to May 1945. The gist of the case against this defendant is, of course, at a much earlier period, both before and immediately after the rise to power. from Frau Streicher is really a description of the life of the defendant during the war years, and they suggest that that, again, be covered by an affidavit. of the defendant. If I may remind the Tribunal of how the matters mentioned in regard to him come into the case: In a report of the Goering Commission into the matters of aryanization, the question of corruption in regard to that, part of the report stated that this 5-*ar-M-MC-2-1 defendant paid a visit to three boys in prison and that certain disgusting and cruel actions took place.
The prosecution, of course, submit that that is not really a matter of relevance to the charges against the defendant, but they realize that it is a highly prejudicial matter; it has been road and the bad effect has gone out of that evidence. Therefore, they feel that it must be a matter for the Tribunal, and the prosecution, having put in the report including that, ought not to take an objection, except to point out that it is not strictly relevant. However, if the Tribunal feel that this defendant ought to have the advantage of his son to counteract that account of very unpleasant matters, the prosecution would not take any objection, although they are bound to point out that it is not strictly relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: In the view of the prosecution, would an affidavit be suitable in that case?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, that is the line the prosecution would suggest. tion would make no objection to Herr Hiemer and Herr Wurzbacher giving oral evidence, and to affidavits from the other witnesses.
DR. MARX: I beg to differ in a few respects from Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. The prosecution seems to be of the opinion that the testimony to be given by Mrs. Adele Streicher could not be of a special relevance. But I would like to state the opposite view, that this witness, who for five years--that is, from 1940 to 1945--was in the direct proximity of the defendant, handled the entire correspondence of the defendant and knows especially and particularly what relations Streicher had during the entire period of the war. Streicher had no connection or relation to any of the important figures of the State or of the Party while he was interned on his estate. There was no exchange of letters nor an exchange of ideas with Hitler, nor with Himmler or or Kaltenbrunner, Heidrich, or whatever the names of the other important personalities may be. role whatsoever; he had no authority whatsoever.
and stress the presence of this witness, because otherwise the most important interests of my client would be damaged. I, therefore, humbly suggest that Mrs. Streicher's presence before the Tribunal be granted, so that important questions may be put.
The same also applies to the witness Herrwerth. We cannot say that this witness can speak about unimportant matters or about insignificant incidents. On the other hand, we are concerned with proceedings or incidents of a significant nature. This man Herrwerth was present on the night of the 9th to the 10th of November, when the SA Group Leader von Obernitz reported to the then Gauleiter Streicher that demonstrations against the Jewish population were being planned. He knows, therefore, on the basis of his personal experience, what took place between these two men, what their conversation was, and he knows that Streicher was opposed to this demonstration.
of order. Streicher took a definite stand against the will and the directive of the Fuehrer, as far as this demonstration against the Jewish population was concerned. There can be no doubt that we are concerned with an incident of great importance and significance. It is clear that if at that time Streicher who was bedridden at the time was visited in his room, Streicher if he took the stand that he did at that time, was without doubt as we have shown him to be, and I respectfully submit that Fritz Herrwerth be called as a witness before the Tribunal, so that he can be cross-examined by me and also by the Prosecution. to be in agreement. And as far as Wurzbacher is concerned, also. Wurzbacher is at present -- as I would like to remark at this point -- in the camp at Moosburg, and that is Camp No. 10. Streicher puts a special bearing on the point that this witness can show that a statement or claim made in the Goering Report is not true and that the Defendant Streicher at that time did not make any immoral gestures at that visit in the jail. this point and that this report will not be used as the theme of the speech, then I could agree to the point not to call this witness. If the opposite is the case, however, I consider it my duty to save the honor of my client and to insist on having this witness called before the Tribunal. suggest that my request be granted.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On that last point, My Lord, I have indicated from the Prosecution that that incident is not relevant to the charges against the Defendant Streicher. The Prosecution, of course, produced the report and I thought 1 had made it clear to the Tribunal that it is one of these collateral matters that do come in and the Prosecution for that reason would not oppose an affidavit from Lothar Streicher. But the main case of the Prosecution against this Defendant is on the stirring up and consistent incitement of the persecution of the Jews.
I don't think I can put it further than that. But I hoped I had made clear that the incident was not one that was relevant upon any other issue. The report under discussion was on the The Aryanization of Jewish Properties, and that was a passage in the report. The report itself is relevant on persecution.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that matter.
DR. MARX: May I make a few additional remarks, Mr. President? Streicher, is a part of the report of Goering and it can hardly be treated separately from the rest of the context. For this Goering Report seems to have been made, according to the Defendant, by a man who wished to do him damage, a man from whom he had received many favors. Later, however, they became enemies and this Goering Commission which was originally concerned with other aims, was not concerned with doing a bad turn to the man who was now hated by Goering. had sadistic tendencies and make remarks like that about him in the presence of others and have those remarks circulated. For that reason specially, the Defendant is especially interested in having the untruth of this statement demonstrated in public and making the truth known. High Tribunal. be quite willing to agree with Sir David if I didn't have special misgivings in this direction also.
Through this attorney we hope to prove the following points: Some time -perhaps three weeks after the early part of the 9th or 10th of November 1938 -Streicher addressed a meeting of the Juridical Society at Nurnberg and in this public address before attorneys and legal men Streicher showed his attitude as far as the incidents of the 9th and 10th of November, 1938, were concerned, and showed distinctly that he was opposed to the demonstrations and to the burning and firing of synagogues.
Attorney Strobel was at that time, as he said, surprised that Stretcher in this public manner took an attitude and position against Hitler and did not wish to conceal the fact, and that as far as Obernitz was concerned he did not wish to participate or have anything to do with this demonstration and that he considered the whole demonstration and everything connected with it as a mistake. And the testimony of Strobel can be of greater importance than that of the chauffeur, Herrwerth, for as far as Herrwerth is concerned, the Prosecution can show and state the Defense that Herrwerth was an employee of the Defendant and may have his interests in helping a former employer; but this motive is not present in the case of the attorney, for Strobel in a writing -- a piece of writing which he addressed to the Tribunal -- showed his disinclination against the Defendant and only mentioned this incident in a parenthetical manner. especially in this case, whereas the witness Herrwerth might be said to be not entirely dis-interested. And I therefore humbly suggest that Attorney Strobel be summoned before the High Tribunal so that a direct questioning of this witness, by both Defense and Prosecution, can be had.
THE PRESIDENT: That concludes your witnesses, does it not? Now you can turn to the documents. No documents? Very well, the Tribunal will consider your applications.
DR. MARX: I beg pardon, My Lord. Mr. President, may I have a word please? Up to now it has not been possible for me to gather all the documents which we need, for there are a number of newspaper articles which I would like to bring to the attention of the high Tribunal, and I ask for the possibility of submitting the list of documents later on. I will get in touch with the Prosecution beforehand as to which documents are to be deleted and which are to be of value.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Marx, the Tribunal will have no objection to your getting in touch with the Prosecution with reference to documents later on, but you must understand that no delay can be permitted.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Sauter would allow me, I would like to say that, with regard to these applications, there is so little between the applications and the views of the Prosecution that it might shorten matters if I were to indicate the views of the Prosecution, and then Dr. Sauter could add anything he has to say. I could be extremely short, but I don't want to supplant Dr. Sauter if he has any objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that meet with your view, Dr. Sauter?
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for Defendant Funk): That I put these requests orally and that the Prosecution will reply then?
THE PRESIDENT: I think Sir David meant that he should indicate any objections which he has first, and then you could explain your view.
DR. SAUTER: I quite agree, My Lord.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal please, the witnesses fall into four groups. The first group is three witnesses from the Ministry of Economics, Nos. 1, 2 and 10 on the list. As I understand Dr. Sauter, he wishes to call No. 2, Herr Hayler, as an oral witness, and to have affidavits from the witnesses Landfried, No.1, and Kallus, No. 10. The Prosecution have no objection to this course, except that with regard to the witness Landfried they may have some observations to make on the form of the interrogatories, which could no doubt be settled with Dr. Sauter, and then put to the Tribunal for their approval.
Secondly, they want to reserve the right to apply to put further cross-interrogatories. Apart from that, which I submi are really minor points, they agree with that suggestion.
The second group is two witnesses from the Reichsbank, No.5, Herr Puhl, and No. 7, Herr Schwedler. Again, as I understand Dr. Sauter, he wants an affidavit in the form of answers to questions. The Prosecution have no objection to that, only again they reserve the right to apply for crossinterrogatories, if necessary; if the answers take a certain form, they might have to apply to the Court that the witness be brought for cross-examination. They simply want to reserve that right, but, of course, they can't take their position until they have seen the form of the answers.
Then, the third group consists of one witness, who is Dr. Lammers, who has been called by most of the Defendants orally, and there is no objection to that, and the Prosecution suggests that Dr. Sauter will put his questions to Dr. Lammers when he is called by the other witnesses.
Then, the fourth group is a general one. There is Herr Oeser, who is an editor, No. 6; Herr Amann, No. 8; and No. 9, Herr Roesen; and lastly, No. 4, Frau Funk. As I understand it, with regard to all these witnesses, Dr. Sauter wishes either an affirmation or an affidavit. The Prosecution makes no objection to that, with the same understanding that they reserve their rights to put cross-interrogatories or to ask the Tribunal to summon any of them as witnesses, if any point emerges. Subject to the reservation of these points, there is nothing between us, because the result is, if I have understood it all correctly, that Dr. Sauter is asking for two oral witnesses and eight sets of interrogatories?
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, don't you draw any distinction between an affidavit and interrogatories?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I do, certainly. But, My Lord, Dr.
Sauter has shown that in most of the witnesses he has given the interrogatories which he is putting. Apart from Dr. Lammers, who, of course, will be dealt with orally, because he is being produced as a witness, and I understood that when Dr. Sauter says affidavit he means an affidavit in the form of answers to questions, such as those he has set out in the appendix.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, Sir David, so far as the Prosecution are concerned, they would take the line that you have suggested, meaning, by an affidavit, interrogatories and, if necessary cross-interrogatories?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Yes, Dr. Sauter?
DR. SAUTER: Gentlemen, I am quite in agreement with the suggestion of the Prosecution as far as particulars are concerned, and as far as the matter of the interrogatories is concerned, I will personally deal with the members of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment. Dr. Sauter, perhaps you could tell us, dealing, for instance, with No. 6: You say there "I have in hand an affirmatio from this witness with a supplement thereto." Does that mean answers to interrogatories, or does that mean an affidavit, a statement. Have you got the passage?
DR. SAUTER: Yes. As far as No.6 is concerned, I have an affidavit from this witness, Albert Oeser, and this affidavit will be produced and submitted to the high Tribunal, as well as my document book. But I wish to point out at this time that I do have this affidavit at present, and I will submit it at a later date when I am presenting my full case.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sir David, that isn't quite the same as interrogatories. I don't know whether you have seen the affidavit. I mean, it may be that at a later stage you would want to cross-examine or to put crossinterrogatories to that witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, that would be so, your Honor. I must reserve the right, until I have seen the affidavit, to do that. The ones that are attached to Dr. Sauter's application are all in the interrogatory form, but where the document is in the form of a statement, the Prosecution would hav to reserve these rights. Really, one can't make any declaration until one has seen that.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, this affidavit of the witness Oeser, No. 6, I will, of course, submit in ample time and submit it to the Prosecution so that the Prosecution may have ample time to draw their conclusions and to see whether they wish to cross-examine him. That, of course, I am taking for granted, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is that particular witness? Where is he?
DR. SAUTER: That is witness No. 6, My Lord?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but where is the man? Where is he at the present moment? Is he in Nurnberg or where?
DR. SAUTER: No, I do not believe that he is here. He is at Schramberg in the State of Baden, in the Black Forest in the State of Baden, near the Rhine. That is quite a distance from Nurnberg. And beyond that, Mr. President, the points upon which he is to verify are relatively insignificant, that it would hardly pay to have the witness come personally to Nurnberg. I personally do not know the witness, but he was called to my attention through a friend and I was informed that he could give favorable testimony for Funk and in that way I obtained this affidavit which I will submit in due time.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to the documents, My Lord, the first one is a biography of the defendant Funk. The extracts were submitted as part of the Prosecution's case. I ask that Dr. Sauter intimate what passages he desires to use and then the Prosecution can make such objections or comments as may or may not be necessary. for the record of the Dachau trial and of the evidence of the witness Dr. Blaha. The American Prosecutors will be pleased to show Dr. Sauter the report that they have of Dr. Blaha's evidence at that trial. Sauter will intimate what they are and what he intends to use, the Prosecution will consider them. Prima facie they would be a relevant matter.
And with regard to No. 4, the copy of the newspaper with a report of the defendant's speeches, that again would prima facie be relevant and we shall look into it. It is very unlikely that there would be any objection, but we shall look into it, and, if necessary, deal with it when Dr. Sauter makes his presentation.
THE PRESIDENT: Has Dr. Sauter the newspaper?
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the newspaper mentioned under No. 4, and also the speeches mentioned in No. 3 are in my possession. I will not use the entire text of the speeches in my brief.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you would be prepared to indicate to the Prosecution the passages in your Document 1, and the passages in 3 and 4, which you wanted to use so that they can have them translated.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, My Lord. I will just take a few pages, perhaps two or three, out of the book mentioned under Point 1, and I will also take those passages out of the speeches and out of the newspaper and I will include them in the document book and submit them to the Prosecution for purposes of translation. As far as the trial of Dachau is concerned, this request is taken care of by the position taken by the Prosecution yesterday regarding Frick and I can use the material mentioned yesterday.
THE FRESIDENT: Very well. Then I call upon counsel for Dr. Schacht.
DR. DIX (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): I am in the fortunate position to be able to tell the High Tribunal that I believe that Sir David and I can agree on the proof materials, including those which I will take back or those which I will submit. We have already reached an agreement and in order to facilitate matters, I would like to point out, first of all, which requests of my list are to be deleted, which I will limit, so that at the end we will have the balance of those I would like to have requested. I will delete request No. 5, for the testimony of Dr. Diehls. I found out yesterday that Dr. Diehls is being called as a witness for other members and the request was put in yesterday. If the High Tribunal will order the appearance of Diehls, I would like to reserve the right to question him if and when he is called, but I personally do not insist on his being summoned.
Then I would like to call to your attention No. 6, Colonel Gronau; No. 7, that is Mr. Van Scherpenberg; No. 8, State Secretary Carl Schmidt;
No. 9, General Counsel Dr. Schniewind; No. 12, General Thomas of the Armament Staff; No. 11, Dr. Asmis Walter; No. 12, Dr. Franz Beuter; and No. 13, Dr. Berckemeyer. As far as all of these witnesses are concerned, I am quite content with an affidavit and I appreciate fully that these affidavits will be submitted by me to the Prosecution and I am also cognizant of the fact that the Prosecution will have the right to have these witnesses summoned for pruposes of cross-examination.
be summoned personally; that is, witness No. 1, Dr. Gisevius; witness No. 2, Mrs. Struenck; witness No. 3, the former Reichs Bank Director Vocke; and witness No. 4, the former Director of the Reichs Bank Ernst Huelse. As far as these four witnesses are concerned, I must insist on their personal appearance and emphasize it very strongly. The defense of Schacht cannot be carried on successfully without their personal testimony. And I would like to put my reasons in each case. Testimony to be given by these witnesses is not in any manner cumulative. One witness, for instance, will know things which the other witness will not know. Witness No. 3, Vocke, and No. 4, Huelse, were the chief colleagues of Schacht and the Reichs Bank and in the International Bank at Basel. They, therefore, know of proceedings and connections which Schacht may not be able to recall in all their particulars and, therefore, the questioning of these witnesses cannot be carried on through an interrogatory because he cannot put the relevant questions. These witnesses must have the opportunity to give us a comprehensive statement and the knowing of particulars which Schacht does not know or cannot recall.
The same point applies for witness No. 1 and 2, Gisevius and Struenck, who knew of the riot plans of August 1938 and after that the conspiracy against Hitler which took place up until 1944.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal-
THE PRESIDENT: The translation in English and one of the other translations is coming through together.
Yes, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, Dr. Dix and Professor Krans and my colleagues yesterday were good enough to indicate their proposals which Dr. Dix suggested to be put beforehthe Tribunal, and the Prosecution felt that by limiting all the witnesses on the first point and point 2, Dr. Dix was making a reasonable suggestion. The Prosecution, of course, reserve all rights as to the relevancy of the various points set out as to these witnesses, but they felt that that, as I say, was a reasonable suggestion. On the Nos. 3 and 4, means that the defense are limiting all the witnesses,oh the general economic course of conduct of the defendant, and again the Prosecution felt that that was a reasonable suggestion. With regard to the others, the Prosecution must, as I have said and Dr. Dix agreed, must reserve all rights, by way of cross-interrogatories or of asking that the witness should be summoned, but the Prosecution felt that they could only be in a position really to decide what their rights and cause should be when they had seen the affidavits that were put in.
That is the reasoning of the Prosecution in the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: As to documents, Dr. Dix?
DR. DIX: Regarding the documents, I would like to remark generally that when I mention books or speeches, such as are pointed out in No. 2, I do not wish the Court to assume that I intend to present large extracts before the T ribunal. We will only be concerned with very short quotations and these quotations will be -
THE PRESIDENT: The best course would be for us to adjour now and then this mechanical defect will be remedied.
(A short recess was taken)