That, in my respectful submission, would be irrelevant,
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of this religious book? It was written in the Middle Ages, wasn't it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think so, My Lord, and it was produced on the 30th of October and 4th of November, 1931, by Dr. Bischof. ship will have it in mind -- is the files of the disciplinary proceedings in the matter of Streicher at the disciplinary court at Munich. "The documents requested herein will be used to prove the following facts: that he was not dismissed from his profession because of indecent assault but on political grounds and granted a part of his salary."
I myself don't see the relevance of it, but perhaps Dr. Marx can inform the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it charged against him in the Indictment?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is nothing about his criminal record other than anti-Jewish grounds.
THE PRESIDENT: In that connection the Prosecution agreed to strike out any reference to that indictment, didn't it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not sure that it is the same incident, but the Prosecution did agree to strike out the only reference to it that appeared in the record, to my knowledge -- to any reference to a matter of that kind. That was as to the treatment of certain boys in prison.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I, so as to clarify the matter, make a statement. The Defense of the Defendant Streicher applied to have this file brought up for the following reasons: missed from his position because of indecent behavior or crimes. That makes it necessary to have that file at hand, because that file will prove that Streicher was not dismissed because of indecent or immoral conduct from his position in a school but because of his political attitude. That is one point. And quite apart from that we have that affair for which Lothar Streicher was supposed to be a witness.
That was the matter mentioned in the report of the Goering commission.
It referred to those three delinquents who were visited by Streicher and on which occasion he was supposed to have carried out indecent manipulations or gestures.
I am now coming to the question relating to Dr. Bischof. Mr. President, this matter is the following: Streicher is being accused that he, with reference to quotations from the Talmud or quotations referring to the ritual murder, either consulted incorrect translations or that he did not ascertain facts and acted negligently.
THE PRESIDENT: When you say, Dr. Marx, that he is being reproved with that, there is no such charge in the Indictment. There has no such charge been made in the course of the case of the Prosecution. The charge against him is that he provoked the German people to excesses against the Jews but not by misquoting some Jewish book but by referring to Jewish books of the Middle Ages.
DR. MARX: May I permit myself to draw your attention to the fact that the Prosecutor Sir Griffith Jones, when he brought the case of Streicher before the Tribunal, referred to that point explicity and accused Streicher that here, against better knowledge, he had quoted passages from the Talmud; consequently, it is important that this file against Holz is consulted, since the witness Dr. Bischof states how these quotations came into existence and this Dr. Bischof is a recognized expert, but, Mr. President, the whole matter could probably be abbreviated if the prosecution would make a statement today that this whole matter regarding the ritual murder will not be made a subject of the prosecution and indict ment.
This would elimintate a momentum from the trial, which would only delay the proceedings in any case and which could not play an important part against the defendant and which has nothing to do with the actual indictment.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want to make that position perfectly clear. The important point in the case for the prosecution is the use of the suggestion against the Jews, that they committed ritual murder. If someone takes out of a book in the Middle Ages and reproduces it so that it will be understood by the ordinary reader as being a practice of Jews or a reason for disliking Jews, then the prosecution say that that is an evil method of stirring up hatred against the Jews. Whether anyone can find in the Jewish book in the Middle Ages some remark about ritual murders is really inmaterial. The gravemen of the case for the prosecution is using the ritual murder accusation as a method for stirring up hatred against the Jews today. That is the case which the defendant has to meet.
DR. MARX: I beg your pardon.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider the application.
DR. MARX: I beg your pardon, but perhaps, may I consider it necessary -may I be allowed to refer very quickly to a statement made by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe? The position is that that special edition of "Die Stuermer" is referring to a trial which took place in 1899 at Piseck, in Moravia or Bohemia, and during which this question played an important part. It isn't that the Defendant Streicher had referred to medieval superstitions, therefore, but that he dealt with material coming from modern legal history, using material which, of course, the genuineness of which I cannot establish but which I cannot simply disregard as being incorrect and which, I think, the Tribunal would have to investigate.
That is the reason why I an saying that this entire matter ought not to be touched at all, since we are here concerned merely with the question whether Streicher was acting to the best of his knowledge or not and if he can say trials of that kind have taken place and the judges were not unanimous, then you cannot say he acted against his better knowledge. T hat, I think, is the vital part of this matter; in other words, I personally would prefer to have the whole matter eliminated and that the prosecution would be prepared to drop this whole complex matter fromtheir part of the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider the application.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next one on the list that I have, my Lord, is an application by the Defendant Goering for a Major Buechs, spelled "B-U-E-X". I asked Dr. Stahmer and he was good enough to tell me that that was the same gentleman who was asked for as a witness by the Defendant Jodl. Under the spelling of "B-U-E-C-H-S." I understand the Tribunal have granted him as a witness to the Defendant Jodl and Dr. Stahmer will have the opportunity of asking him the questions then.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, I agree.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next is an application by the Defendant von Ribbentrop. He requests Herr Hilger as a witness. The grounds of the application are that Dr. Horn and the Defendant Ribbentrop, if I may just explain, the grounds of the application were that Dr. Horn and the Defendant Ribbentrop found that the witness Gauss, for whom he had asked, was not able to give as much assistance as had been expected and that they desired this witness Hilger in addition. The view of the prosecution is that the defendant should have either Hilger or Gauss as a witness and an interrogatory to the other one, and we have no objection to the witness Hilger being brought to Nurnberg for consultation.
DR. SIEMERS: Dr. Siemers, at this moment deputizing for Dr. Horn, the defense cousnel for the Defendant Ribbentrop. Actually, I was going to ask Sir David to put this matter back for a minute since Dr. Horn asked him to come here himself. We, the defense counsel, have not been informed which applications were going to be dealt with this morning, which is the reason why Dr. Horn isn't present at this moment but I think that, with the permission of the Tribunal, the matter can be dealt with now, as far as I know, but I have to speak without prejudice.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not know what you mean about not being informed about these applications. I made the statement yesterday that all supplementary applications for witnesses and documents would be taken this morning. I don't understand your saying you didn't know what would be done. The Tribunal has no objection to it being taken later when Dr. Horn is here, if he comes in time.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, but does that mean that if Dr. Horn does not come soon enough--I am willing to settle the matter on his behalf as far as I have the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant von Papen was the next one.
DR. MARX: Yes. May I apologize, Mr. President, but may I please make one very brief statement? Streicher just informs me that he wishes us to state that he longer wishes the witness Lothar Streicher to be called. If, therefore, the calling of that witness is to be considered, then I herewith state that the defense no longer wishes to have him called -- Lothar Streicher, I am referring to.
THE PRESIDENT: Hasn't that been allowed -- Lothar Streicher?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: He was the witness who was not to be allowed on condition that the prosecution applied to strike out the passage and we agreed to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you dealing with von Papen ?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: The next is an application for the Defendant von Papen.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Sir David. Has that letter about withdrawing the statment about the witness Lothar Streicher been read into the record?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I don't know if it has been read into the record. It has been sent to the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: It better be put in as a document.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: If your Lordship pleases. My Lord, the next is the application for the Defendant von Papen, who requests that the witness Josten, who has been approved by the Tribunal as a witness, be changed to an affidavit, which counsel already has, and Dr. Kubuschok requests that Krell be allowed as a witness. My lord, the position with regard to Kroll was that the prosecution submitted that he was not relevant but the Tribunal allowed interrogatories for Kroll and, therefore, the prosecution accept the decision of the Tribunal that he is therefore relevant, and on that basis, as Dr. Kubuschok is dropping one witness, we feel that we can't object to his being brought as an oral witness, as the Tribunal has decided that his testimony is relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and as to Josten, has the affidavit been submitted to you?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, I have just received it back with a signature affixed to it. The witness has just appeared and he just signed the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: All I am thinking of is that the prosecution won't hereafter want to have him called for cross examination.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: We haven't seen the affidavit yet, my Lard, I am sorry. I will look into that.
THE PRESIDENT: The result of that would be that both witnesses would have to be here.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I appreciate that, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: I was taking it that Dr. Kubuschok meant an affidavit and not an interrogatory.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, an affidavit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Perhaps, my Lord, the Tribunal would postpone a decision on this point until I have had a chance of considering the affidavit and then I will communicate with Dr. Kubuschok and with the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: May I, Mr. President, bring up yet another case. Originally the witness von Tschirschky had been granted by the Tribunal, who is at present in England. The witness has written to the Tribunal, stating that it is difficult for him to be absent or leave England for the moment and has requested that his evidence is to be collected in writing. I am agreeable to this and I have drafted an interrogatory which is now being offered to the Tribunal. This, again, would make another witness superflous, Tschirschky, as well as Josten, so that I should be very grate ful if the witness Kroll could be granted as an oral witness, since we have now savid a considerable amount of time.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you have no objection to that?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I have no objection to that. I may have to consider certain cross interrogatories as to the witness but that won't affect the position of Dr. Tschirschky. Hitler's letter to Rosenberg dated 1924. This document is in regard to Rosenberg's anti-semitic attitude. As far as I know, the Prosecution does not have any of these documents but Dr. Thoma can explain what he wants. I have no objection to the presentation of these documents if they have them or if they can be found.
DR. THOMA (Counsel for the Defendant Rosenberg): Mr. President, may I first draw your attention to the fact that my evidence -- my offer of evidence regarding a letter of Rosenberg to Hitler in which Rosenberg is asking that he is not to be made a member of the Reichstag; this letter has since been handed to me. With that, this application has been settled. Secondly . . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment Dr. Thoma. Do you withdraw that application because you have that letter, do you not? You said "With that the application has been settled." Do you mean that you withdraw that application?
DR. THOMA: Yes. No, no, Mr. President. The Tribunal has already permitted me to offer that document if it could be found. That letter has since been found. Furthermore, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that the document in which Rosenberg is writing to Hitler asking him to be relieved from the position of editor-in-chief of the Voelkischer Beobachter has not yet been received. Thirdly, may I ask the Tribunal that two further documents are granted me. Two documents, which, during interrogation, have already been shown to Rosenberg, the first of which is a decree from Hitler to Rosenberg dated June, 1943, in which Hitler is instructing Rosenberg to confine himself on principle matters regarding Eastern . . . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, you are dealing now with applications which are not in writing?
DR. THOMA: Oh yes, they are in writing. I have submitted them in writing
THE PRESIDENT: I have only got two applications here as far as I can see.
One with reference to Hitler's letter to Rosenberg dated 1924, and the other with reference to three books about Jews. These are the only two applications I have got.
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I have made these applications during the open sessions, and as far as I know so far as they were made formally they have been submitted in writing to you. To two of them I have received a reply, but for two more, the reply is still outstanding. May I request the Tribunal, therefore, that I may repeat these two applications again.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you will be allowed to if you will make them clear. You ask for two further documents, the first only I understood you to say, was a decree dated June, 1943. Is that right?
DR. THOMA: That is correct, sir, and the next document is a letter from Hitler to Rosenberg in which Hitler informs Rosenberg of the reasons why he does not wish to work in the Reichstag and why he does not wish to cooperate in the elections. But I do recall that I have submitted that application in writing and may I repeat it now?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the application will be considered. Are you referring to the document of 1924, the letter from Hitler to Rosenberg dated 1924?
DR. THOMA: Yes, 1923 or 1924. And then, Gentlemen, I have to make one principle application regarding the question of anti-Semitism. I have asked, in that connection, to have a certain amount of literature on historical questions concerned with the question of why the Jewish problem has existed in Germany since the 8th century, and why the persecution of the Jews persisted in Germany throughout the centuries. I want to establish that in connection with that evidence, we are concerned with some tragedy which we cannot rationally understand. By producing evidence from both Jewish literature and Christian theological literature, I want to prove that we are not concerned with the face that the German people have been reared and led on to exterminate the Jews, an that the influence of the National Socialist Party was such that the German people were made to hate the Jews, but that we are here facing irrational matter and both the Jewish and the Christian literature recognize that fact.
between Jewry and the German race did exist, but purely on an intellectual level, and I am referring to Moritz Goldstein, who said, in 1911, that the Jewish population in Germany are administering the intellectual process of the German people. We are concerned with the problem of which part the role of Jewry has been placed, and I want to establish why such a controversy has existed. I intend only to quote literature in this connection, but I believe that my statement would not be sufficiently credible in my final address if I could not quite recognized articles in that connection and that is my problem. That is what I am concerned with.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, your applications will be considered.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL_FYFE: The next application is on behalf of the defendant Speer who requests a number of documents dealing with the Central Planning Committee. I have not actually had the opportunity of checking these with the exhibits, but I believe that they are the same ones which were put by Mr. Justice Jackson to the Defendant Goering in cross-examination, and if they are then they are all exhibits and they are documents which the prosecution have. These documents also relate to the Defendant Speer. If he does not have them, then we should do our best to give them copies.
THE PRESIDENT: You said they had been put to the Defendant Goering in cross-excamination? If they have been put to the Defendant Goering, then they should be exhibits . . . .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, your Lordship, they should be exhibits. I have not had the opportunity of checking them, but if they have been presented in Court they must be exhibits.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Sir David. All right, go on.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next one is on behalf of the Defendant SeyssInquart for interrogatories to be submitted to the Tribunal. This regards Dr. Veberreiter who, if the Tribunal will remember, was Gauleiter of one of the outstanding Austrian Gaus, and a collaborator in the National Socialist Movement in Austria. I have no objection to this interrogation being submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: I gave permission for an affidavit to be submitted a day or two ago. . . .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was for another Defendant. The only question is to the form and special interrogation.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you seen the interrogatory?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: They have been deposited before us.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, My Lord; I had seen them. It is my mistake. Dr. Kubuschok right here comes into the picture once or twice. I had seen this application. And the only objection the Prosecution felt was in the somewhat leading form of the questions that were put, and perhaps my friends, Mr. Dodd and Colonel Baldwin could have a word with Dr. Kubuschok or whoever represents Seyss-Inquart, before they are actually delivered.
THE PRESIDENT: Very Well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL_FYFE: The next one is an application in regard to the Defendant Sauckel. Dr. Kubuschok tells me there is another application on behalf of Seyss-Inquart which wasn't on the form in front of me. (Addressing Dr. Kubuschok): Perhaps you would develop that.
DR. KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for Defendant Seyss-Inquart) The Defendant Seyss-Inquart is requesting your permission to submit a questionnaire or interrogatory to the witness Bolle. The examination of that witness has been refused by the Tribunal for the reason that this is cumulative evidence. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart begs to repeat his application to have those questions clarified, this time only by means of an interrogatory. The witness cannot be spared. In particular, the subject of his statements cannot be dealt with by other direct witnesses. The other witnesses which have been named in this connection can only state that they have been told by Bolle regarding the actual events. Bolle is the only man who can make statements based on direct knowledge.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, if other witnesses who have been granted are going to give what we call hearsay evidence, from what they heard from Bolle, why wasn't Bolle asked for instead of one of these other witnesses?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I do hot know what intentions my colleague who was defending Seuss-Inquart was pursuing. All I know is that he has asked for two other indirect witnesses. But I am told the only direct witness to the event can be Bolle, since it is to be expected that other witnesses for whom this matter is not quite so important -
THE PRESIDENT: Did you want to say anything about it, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Tribunal will remember that I informed the Tribunal that all the interrogatories to Bolle were the same as interrogatories administered to another witness, van der Wense, except two, which I think dealt with the requisitioning of lorries and about which there could be little dispute. It seemed to the Prosecution therefore that here was clear proof that this witness was entirely cumulative. The interrogation is the same, word for word, as the interrogation to the witness, van der Wense.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: That was probably not expressed clearly in the original application, namely, that those witnesses can only testify what they have heard from Bolle. In fact, we are here concerned with instructions given by Bolle personally, and he is the man who can testify to that; but if necessary we will agree that the subject of that evidence could be crossed off, as far as the other witnesses are concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless the matter can be agreed upon, the Tribunal can scarcely decide on it without seeing the interrogatory to Bolle and the interrogatories to these other witnesses. Would it meet the case if we were to grant this interrogatory on the condition that if it appeared subsequently that other interrogatories when considered with this one were cumulative, they might be disregarded?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, as far as I am concenred.
THE PRESIDEN: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next is the Defendant Sauckel, and Dr. Servatius and Mr. Roberts of my staff have been considering this carefully together. Dr. Servatius is not here. Perhaps Mr. Roberts can tell the Tribunal how far they got.
MR. ROBERTS, K.C: Dr. Servatius submitted a list of about 90 documents, a formidable number; but most of them are short extracts from various decrees and orders relating to the employment of labor, and it is difficult to find any reason for objecting to them. Dr. Servatius at my suggestion agreed to take from his list about ten or 15 as cumulative. There are about four documents relating to alleged ill-treatment of workers in the hands of the enemies of Germany, to which I have objected on the ground that they are not relevant, and as to those documents a decision of the Tribunal will be necessary on the question of principle.
My Lord, as Dr. Servatius could not be here today -- as I understand -perhaps we could discuss the matter with the General Secretary on his return at the beginning of next week, so that the matter could then be put in a convenient and more or less agreed form to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Then you haven't been able to make any agreement about the witnesses, have you?
MR. ROBERTS, K.C: My Lord, I thought the position as to the witnesses was this: That Sir David some weeks ago discussed it before the Tribunal and Dr. Servatius discussed it and Sir David conceded the calling of six witnesses and interrogatories from a number of others. That was considered by Dr. Servatius and he submitted his final and much-reduced list of eleven witnesses, and that I handed to an official of the Tribunal, and I understood that that has been before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you the date there? Is it the 4th of March, 1946
MR. ROBERTS, K.C: I have a document before me in German -
THE PRESIDENT: I see. And the Prosecution's -
MR. ROBERTS, K.C.: And the Prosecution's position was fully stated by Sir David when these matters were being considered before, and it would be now really for the Tribunal, I think, to decide on those two contentions -- one for six witnesses and one for eleven. What their decision should be -
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, that takes us to the end of the listed ones. There were some that were received later.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FIFE: There is one from the Defendant Frank who requests interrogatories to Ambassador Messersmith. That was granted by the Counsel's Tribunal, and in an executive session.
It was not requested in/consolidated applications, but heard in open court. There is obviously no objection to that in principle, that the Prosecution are aware of.
Then the defendant von Ribbentrop requests the book "America in the Battle of the Continents", by Sven Hedin -
THE PRESIDENT: Other Defendants have administered interrogatories to Mr. Messersmith, have they not?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FIFE: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the answers been received yet?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FIFE: They haven't been received, I am told.
THE PRESIDENT: How long is it since they have been sent off?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FIFE: I will find out, My Lord. (Short pause). February 21.
THE PRESIDENT: You have seen these interrogatories, the ones now suggested by the Defendant Frank?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not sure.
THE PRESIDENT: There are about five of them.
SIR DAVID MAXWELI-FYFE: The position is that we got them yesterday and they are still being discussed between my Delegation and the American Delegation. They actually haven't come to me yet.
THE PRESIDENT: we had better consider this.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next is an application by the Defendant, von Ribbentrop, who asks for the book "American in the Battle of the Continents" by Sven Hedin. That must be subject to the general use of books, and if there are passages that the Defendant wants to use, if he will tell me the passages then we can deal with their relevance when the individual passage comes up.
THE PRESIDENT: That also will be considered.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If your lordship pleases. Then there is an application on behalf of the Defendant Schacht for the book "Warnings and Prophecies" by the late Lord Rothermere. The same, I submit, should apply to that. Any passages desired to be used can be extracted and shown to us and then their relevance considered when use is attempted to be made of them. Dr. Dix made agreement to that. Neurath. I understand that he wishes copies of the interrogations of Dr. Gauss, who is the gentlemen who is mentioned as a witness for the Defendant von Ribbentrop. The general ruling of the Tribunal has been, as I understand it, that the Defendants are only entitled to copies of interrogations which are going to be used against them, that is, their own interrogations, and it would be an extension of the rule which might lead us into general difficulties if this were extended to copies of the interrogations of other witnesses. Therefore the Prosecution object in principle to that.
But as I gather that Dr. von Luedinghausen wants it for the purpose of preparing the case, if he would care to come and see me or my staff, perhaps it could be conveyed to him and indicate any matters on which we can help him, we will be very pleased to discuss them with him.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is Dr. Gauss?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In Nurnberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Can't Dr. Luedinghausen come here?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I would welcome that.
THE PRESIDENT: If there is no objection to that, that will ease the situation. Both courses appear appropriate, that Dr. Luedinghausen could perhaps see you -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: -- with reference to interrogatories and see Dr. Gauss in the prison here.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I welcome both of these courses.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. That concludes the matters.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As far as Ribbentrop is concerned -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, acting for Dr. Horn, perhaps you could deal with that application with reference to Hilger.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes. I am certainly prepared to do that, but since I haven't been able to talk to Dr. Horn I must ask the Tribunal that by my statement Dr. Horn is not going to be prejudiced. legation in Moscow during theperiod when negotiations for a pact were conducted between Germany and Russia and until the outbreak of the war between Germany and Russia. He is therefore the person who is well informed about the attitude of von Ribbentrop and therefore of great importance as a witness. important witness, since Dr. Horn had asked for Ambassador Gauss. Dr. Horn has withdrawn, as far as I know, his application for Dr. Gauss and only wishes, in reference to some less important points, to submit to him either an affidavit or a questionnaire. I assume that Sir David will agree to that solution if I submit it in that form.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: Sir David has just very kindly expressed his agreement to that course.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I agree, My Lord, as I suggested, that if this witness Hilger is called as an oral witness an interrogatory be administered to the witness Gauss.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
That is all, isn't it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn to consider these matters.
(The Tribunal adjourned until Monday, March 25, 1946 at 1000 hours)
THE MARSHAL: May it please the Court: The Defendants Streicher and Ribbentrop are absent from this session.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl.
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Hess): Mr. President, on Friday last I stated that from the first colume of the document book I will not read anything. That does not mean, however, that in my brief I shall not refer to one or the other document. The question arises whether, under these circumstances it is not necessary to take these documents which I will reler to and will no read now and to submit them in evidence to the Fourt, or whether it is sufficient if these documents are copied in the document book. I would be grateful if the Court would help me in deciding this question.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL_FYFE: My Lord, I have a suggestion to make that the Tribunal take these documents de bene esse at the moment and that when Dr. Seidl comes to make his final speech then any point as to admissibility can be discussed. With regard to the third book, for example, that consists of a number of opinions of various politicians and economists in various countries The Prosecution will, in due course, submit that these have no evidential value and in fact relate to a matter too remote to be relevant. But I should have thought the convenient course would have been to discuss that when we find what ultimate use Dr. Seidl makes of the documents, at the moment letting them go in, as I suggest, de bene esse.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal think that you should offer these documents in evidence now, and that they should be numbered consecutively. Probably the best way would be with the letter "H" in front of them -- H-1 and so on -- and that then, as Sir David says, as they are being offered all together, objection, if necessary, can be taken to them at a later stage -- objection on the ground of admissibility or relevance.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Sir. I want to refer once more to Volume I of the document book. The first matter of proof is a speech by the Defendant Rudolf Hess made on 8 July 1934. This document will have the number H-1, page 23 of the document. The second document can be found on page 27 of the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, to what issues has this speech got relevance?
DR SEIDL: The speech of the 8th of July 1934-- is that it?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, it is the one on Page 23. It is 8 July 1934.
DR. SEIDL: Yes. Mr. President, this speech deals with the question, peace or war. Since the accusation has been made against the Defendant Hess that he participated in the psychological preparation of aggressive war, and since he is accused of being a participant in the conspiracy, it seems to me important to illustrate the attitude of the Defendant Hess toward the question of a war, and it seems to be relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, We will allow you to read it.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I do not intend to read this speech now. I only want to submit the speech in evidence so as to have the opportunity later in my speech to refer to it, if necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SEIDL: From the first volume of the document book I will read nothing I only want to mention the individual documents and put them in evidence.
I pass to Page 28 of the document book. Here we also have a speech by the Defendant Hess, which he made on the 27th of November 1934. The number of this document will be H-2.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you mean 27 or 28 ? The speech of the 8th of December 1934 begins on Page 27.
DR. SEIDL: Before that there is on Page 27 -- yes, that was marked here incorrectly. a speech -- from the 17th of November 1938--1935, I'm sorry. It is Page 31 of the document book H-3. 11th of October 1936, H-4. Then a speech of the 14th of march 1936, page 33 of the document book, Exhibit H-5. The next exhibit is on page 35 of the document book, a speech of the 21st of March 1936, Exhibit H-6. Exhibit H-7 is a speech on page 36 of the document bock. Exhibit H-8 is a speech of the 6th of June 1936, on page 40 of the document book.