1947-03-14, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 14 March 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1. Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all defendants are present in court with the exception of the defendant Oberheuser who is absent on account of illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the defendant Oberheuser who is excused on account of illness, being in the hospital.
Counsel may proceed.
KURT BLOME — Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the defendant Blome):
Q: Professor, I would like to remind you that today you are also under oath. Yesterday you told us before the court adjourned about the Reich Research Council, and you told us that within the Reich Research Council there were department leaders and plenipotentiaries. I would like to know today how the Reich Research Council worked. As far as I know, the Reich Research Council brought orders and gave them to various scientists. Is that true?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you give us a detailed account of how these orders were given out? What I am interested in is — I would like to have clear information — did the Reich Research Council as a central office make any inquiries about the problems of, for instance, food, and questions of the army, and on the basis of these examinations did they give out orders?
This would have been one possibility. The other possibility is this. Did individual research workers who dealt with any problems — did these men approach the Reich Research Council and did they report about the problems with which they were dealing with at this time, and which problems they tried to examine in the future? And did these scientists on their own accord ask for permission or make the proposal that they, or their assistants or their institutes, be ordered to examine these questions and be financed by the Reich Research Council?
These Questions, Professor Blome, I would like you to answer clearly, so that the Tribunal has a clear idea about the way the Reich Research Council worked and its tasks.
A: I only know about the last case. I know no cases in which the Reich Research Council by itself had dealt with the source of these problems or decided which problem was important, and had approached the scientists themselves and asked them to work on these problems. In my own sphere I only know cases in which scientists and research workers or institutes applied to the Reich Research Council, or approached me directly and asked me to give them a certain order and financial and personal support.
Q: So it was, as a rule, that the initiative came from the outside, from the scientists and the institutes, to the Reich Research Council?
A: Yes.
Q: And how was the order given? Did the specialist leader (Fachspartenleiter), viz. the departmental leader or the respective scientific control, the individual specialist leader who was an expert, give these orders himself, or did the entire Reich Research Council or a major section of it have to meet in order to decide these orders? How was this, Professor?
A: No. On the basis of such requests no sessions or discussions took place. It was rather a matter of the specialist leader, or the plenipotentiary, to give these orders. In this respect he was only responsible to Goering. There was no possibility of objection or protest on the part, of the management or on the part of the President's Council.
I may quote an example. One day Dr. Conti approached me; I should give a certain order to such and such a scientist. As I did not agree with this particular order, I refused to give this order, for nobody could give me orders except Goering.
Q: When such a request arrived, which, for instance, came into your province, then you decided yourself, personally, either to give this order or to refuse to do so, or you discussed this natter with the applicant?
A: Yes.
Q: Is it also correct to deduce from your statements that the chief of one department—shall we say Geheimrat Sauerbruch, for Classical Medicines—was absolutely working on his own and had nothing to do with the chief of another department. For instance, he had nothing to do with your own department for cancer research? And that one plenipotentiary director of a specialist section was not even enlightened about the tasks of another department.
A: What you say is true. What the one did, was not the other's concern. I had no possibilities to tell Sauerbruch anything about his own matters, and he had no possibility to tell me what to do. Only about the entity of all assigned tasks of all specialist leaders (Fachspartenleiter) and plenipotentiaries an orientation of the entire Reich Research Council took place; that happened every six months every director of a specialist section gave a general report about the tasks, given him. Those orders were collected and printed and copies were sent out to all concerned.
Q: Was the purpose of these summaries—was the purpose to inform the individual responsible official, as for instance, you or Geheimrat Sauerbruch, what assignments were given by other members of the Reichs Research Council so that the same problem was not given out in different assignments to different scientists, or did this orientation, given from time to time, serve another purpose too?
A: I should like to correct one expression which you used. You used the word "official." We were no officials of the Reich research Council; we were not paid for our activities. Our work was honorary. I have never received a penny from the Reich Research Council—not even so-called per diems. That I would like to say in order to correct your expression "official."
As far as these reports were concerned, their purpose was mainly, in my opinion, to inform Goering and the members of the President's Council, generally. It was not the purpose of these reports to give information in order to prevent the individual plenipotentiaries would prevent overlapping in giving assignments. The purpose of the new-organization of the Reich Research Councel under Goering was to transfer these various spheres to responsible individual men in order to avoid overlapping. I shall give an example: Geheimrat Sauerbruch was responsible for the whole sphere of medicine. A second man responsible for medicine, apart from special assignments, such as War and Epidemics Research did not exist. Therefore, it was determined that, with the exception of baby welfare and cancer research, all orders within the Reich were centralized in the office of Sauerbruch. The same was true for all the other fields.
Q: Witness, if we follow up the routine in the Reich Research Council, so that application like it was in the translation came from the outside to the Reich Research Council. The Reich Research Council gave out, through you, an assignment, a research assignment. On order, the scientist, the research worker or the Institute received the monies for carrying out of these research assignments. Was that all the Reich Research Council had to do with it—or what happened then? Perhaps I could ask you what did the receiver of the research assignment do, and what was his task?
A: First, one got acquainted with the man who was to receive this order and only gave out this assignment if one was certain that the man concerned really worked in this sphere. Apart from this, the man concerned was under duty — I think, every three months; I don't exactly remember — to give a working report to the Reich Research Council, to the parties concerned in the Reich Research Council.
On the basis of this report, I could convince myself whether it was really worked out; whether the work was successful. And, therefore, I had two possibilities: I had the possibility, if necessity arose, to withdraw this research assignment.
Q: What happened then, witness, with these reports? For instance, which were given to the persons concerned, and to whom you reported —
A: The reports I made use of for my full report which, at regular intervals, I had to submit to the Reich Research Council; and it was not a matter of secret assignments. The research worker concerned was not told how far he was to make value of these assignments. For instance, in the clinic of Professor von Eicken in Berlin, if there was an order in this clinic about throat cancer, it was certain that the scientists concerned published this report in magazines, and gave it thus to the scientists and doctors.
Q: Therefore, it was not the case that, for instance, the whole Reich Research Council met every month — or department within the Reich Research Council — and discussed the current results, and consulted about them and decided how these results — for instance, in the interest of all management concerning profession of arms — or other purposes could be made use of. Was this the case or not?
A: No; not in this particular way. In bigger intervals there were sessions of the Reich Research Council. During all this time in which I was a member of the Reich Research Council, there was not a single time it happened that Goering, himself, appeared. He said he would come on occasions but he never arrived. The sessions took part in the following manner: The director of specialist sessions reported about their current work, and in these sessions — to these sessions, the members of the presidium council were invited.
And, I regret to say, that part of these men had no interest in these sessions at all because they just did not come. I could imagine, of course, that if, for instance, the plenipotentiary for high frequency research reported — had to report about new results — at such a session, and the Reich Post minister or his deputy had taken part in such a session, that certainly new results would have been made use of, so far as it was in the interest of the Reich Post Ministry or the Information Office.
Q: I would like to ask you a last question about the Reich Research Council, witness, concerning the importance and the significance of the charge of the Prosecution about conspiracy. This is the main reason why we are dealing with the Reich Research Council so explicitly. When those research assignments were given out to individual research-workers, or to institutes, was special care taken about the receivers of those assignments being Party members or members of formations like the SS, or was it necessary that they were politically sound, or according to what principles in personnel direction were these assignments given out? Would you like to say something about this matter?
A: We, as directors of specialist sections, would have been fools if we had given out these assignments according to political views. Political views were not concerned in this at all — the main point was the ability and efficiency of the research worker.
Q: And if I leave this special sphere now I should like to know one thing more. What you have told us now, was that the whole activity of the Reich Research Council — the giving out of assignments, the financing of same, the receiving of reports, etc., — or had the Reich Research Council other purposes and if so, which?
A: I know nothing about additional tasks of the Reich Research Council and I also do not know what other tasks could have been dealt with by the Reich Research Council.
Q: So these, therefore, were the only tasks of the Reich Research Council?
A: Yes.
Q: Apart from this activity within the Reich Research Council did you have other tasks to perform, witness? In 1943 you became Plenipotentiary for Cancer Research, which was an honorary office and which was somehow in connection with the Reich Research Council. I would like to know how it was that just you received this special order for cancer research. Since when and in what way did you deal with the cancer research and how was it that you were interested in it?
A: The cancer problem had always interested me. Since 1935, apart from the problem of tuberculosis, I had become interested in the cancer problem. In 1936, perhaps it was 1935, I was a member of the German delegation which was led by Geheimrat Borst which took part in the great International Congress in Brussels for cancer research. At the same time I founded the Council for Inflammation Research in Mecklenburg; under collaboration of Mr. Lasch. This was the first time that in a country with homogeneous population any cancer research was dealt with in the statistic. I would like to draw the attention of the interpreters to the word "krankenstatistiks." This means statistics of sick people. This was the first time, unlike all other statistics in the world, so-called mortality statistics, hospital statistics, and success statistics — this was the first time, as I said, that statistics were made about the fate of cancer which dealt with every case of cancer disease within the country. In spite of the fact that there was no authoritative notice that every case of cancer had to be reported, through a special service which I created in Mecklenburg, every case of cancer in the country, from its report until death, was registered and was differentiated within certain questions. All questions were taken into account which had come up in the scientific literature as received on cancer. The voluntary collaboration of university professors; directors of institutes, chiefs of hospitals, and all the practicing physicians within the country, promised such success that I planned the same sort of institution for Saarland, for Saxonia-Anhalt, and for the country surrounding Vienna, and I actually created these institutions. Thus, all cases of cancer were being dealt with in a way that had never been done before. To make use of all material, a large number of questionnaires were filled out, but our adversaries were taken by surprise from Russian part in 1945 and the material would not be returned; but I hope that in the future there will be a possibility to make use of all this material as it will be a service to humanity.
In 1937 Geheimrat Borst elected me into the directory of the Reich Council of Cancer Research, of which Geheimrat Koenig was a member from Wuerzburg, and Professor Huettner in Berlin, apart from Borst himself. We signed for the internationally recognized scientific magazine for cancer research. As there is no disease which has as many causes as cancer and which has been dealt within so much literature and on which so much research has been done, I made a special study of the whole sphere of cancer and arrived at the result that the creation of a central institute for cancer research would become necessary. Large sums were necessary for the financing of this and we had the support of Professor Loenne in Dusseldorf until the beginning of the war; 50,000,000 marks were given over to me from voluntary sources within the industry and we expected to increase this to 150,000,000 marks. The war ended my plans suddenly. In spite of this I attempted to proceed further. In 1940 I sent a memorandum to Hitler, and Hess and Bormann told me, by order of Hitler, that after the war I would be able to found a central institute which I had asked for. I had asked for the sum of 350,000,000 marks from Bormann and said that this was the necessary amount. Hitler told me, through Bormann, that the amount was a negligible matter and that the material and sums which I needed would be put at my disposal. As I did not want to wait for the end of the war, in 1942 I founded the institute for cancer research and had it financed within the Reich Research Council; the institute became one of the formations of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. Gauleiter [District Leader] Greiser, in Wartheland, who had heard of my plans, offered all possible support providing that this institute would be built in his own country. I accepted his offer and received for the foundation of a temporary institute that little estate (Nesselstedt) which was a part of government property. This little estate was near Posen.
We will come back to this later in connection with the intended research for the fighting of biological warfare methods.
On the 1st of June 1943 I took over this Nesselstedt officially. I must also mention that this Central Institute for Cancer Research, which I had founded — after I had been made the Plenipotentiary for Cancer Research, I was elected as a leading leader of the Reich Research Council.
Q: Professor Blome, in this book which I offered to the Tribunal as Exhibit No. 1, which bears the title "The Doctor in Warfare", which is a kind of autobiography, you deal with this cancer problem. I would be interested in knowing, in order to realize the importance of cancer research, what your opinion is as a specialist. How many people in Germany died of cancer, not considering those cases in which the diagnosis of cancer could not be stated exactly?
A: At that tine when I started my cancer statistics most people were of the opinion that tuberculosis had the first place in the mortality statistics. I proved then beyond doubt that death through cancer took the first place in the statistics of mortality.
Perhaps I could make an additional explanation. The life expectancy of a human being is over 60 years. Therefore, more than half of all human beings live to the age of much more than 45. Of these people who live to an older age than 45 every sixth or seventh person dies of cancer This can be proved. These are not only a lot of German statistics but the same can be seen from statistical reports of the United States of America.
It is therefore quite evident that cancer is the most terrible disease which humanity suffers from. First, death by cancer is far from agreeable; mostly that death is connected with long and bad suffering. Secondly, the solution of the cancer problem, also from the point of view of the social question, is very important. Of course, one must consider especially in this age that many people die when they are still necessary for the education and the well-being of their children. These children live without parents and at an age when they need their parents especially as cancer takes the first place in mortality statistics and because, from the social point of view, it presents such a huge problem, because of these reasons I had decided to work on the solution of this problem which was so important.
And you, Dr. Sauter, are quite correct if you draw the attention of the Tribunal to this book, because the last chapter of my book shows that my last aim was, as far as it was within my power, to work towards a solution of this problem.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, is it correct that regarding your efforts —
THE PRESIDENT: This examination has run, for some time, far beyond the field of evidence in this case. The Tribunal does not desire to unduly limit witnesses. The witness may tell what he has done but these extensive excursions into fields wholly unconnected with this case has really, in this instance, gone far enough. The book which the witness has written is in evidence and is before the Tribunal. I think that the examination should be more nearly confined to the case at bar.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q: Witness, I begin with another chapter now, which I would have arrived at in any case. Is it correct that, regarding your efforts towards the fighting of cancer in 1942, you were offered the job of professor and received it with the order to deal with the assignment of people's diseases?
A: Beginning in 1942, on account of my work in dealing with people's diseases, I was nominated as professor honoris causa on the medical faculty in Berlin.
Q: Witness, you received another research assignment which was called a secret research assignment; that is, the research assignment of biological warfare. This assignment was dealt with explicitly by the prosecution. I would like to ask you, therefore, to give a short account of your work within this secret assignment and what general activities were yours in order to deal with this assignment.
A: With my nomination as Plenipotentiary for Biological Warfare the secret assignment was connected with research on defense against biological warfare.
The purpose of this order was the connecting and the making active of the fields which were dealt with by the Wehrmacht as two different ones. The three provinces were human being, animal, and plant.
Q: When did you receive this research assignment?
A: Together with my nomination as Plenipotentiary, which must have been 1943.
Q: Witness, the book "The Doctor in Warfare" has been mentioned "Arzt in Kampf" — which is Exhibit No. 1. The book came out in 1941, at a time when Germany had huge military successes in the East and West. You did not mention the second World War in this book. How is that?
A: I wrote that book in 1940 and I finished it in 1941. In this book I deal with my own experience in the World War — I mean, the first World War — and the later time until 1939. Whoever reads this book will be able to state, concerning my life and my activities, that I developed my life from the military side to the side of science and research. In the course of my activities in health policy my highest aim had crystallized itself, as I have mentioned before, to use my influence and my ability for the fighting of people's diseases. If I made these tasks the main aims of my life, it is obvious that a war can only hinder or destroy these aims.
I did not think the war necessary just because of the Polish corridor — whoever started this war. I hated the second World War from its very beginning. When our people began to recover from the last 30 years, a new war arises which is going to destroy again. I know the significance of war only too well. I fought in the first World War as a front officer in the first line. I was wounded five times. I say this to convince you that I know what the horrors of war are. Therefore I abhor war, and I see its necessity only if my own people are attacked. In my book I have not mentioned the second World War with a single word because I did not know and I have no attitude toward this second World War, because I doubted that this war could not have been prevented.
Q: Witness, I would like to ask you one question in connection with the charge of conspiracy. Which of the defendants have you known before, and how? Did you know them well or only superficially?
A: Ten of the defendants I did not know at all. The others I knew. During this war I had nothing to do with the following gentlemen: Schroeder, Genzkon, Gebhardt, and Weltz. There remain therefore Karl Brandt, whom I met about six times. Handloser I had to do with three times during this war. I met Rostock three times in conferences, but I had nothing to do with him directly, Rudolph Brandt I saw twice during my visits in Himmler's office, but I had nothing to do with Rudolph Brandt, except that Rudolph Brandt during the war by order of Himmler, wrote one or two letters to me when I complained to Himmler about the lack of organization in the fight against foot and mouth disease generally. I saw Mrugowsky three times. Once just shortly in Grawitz's Office, once he visited me, and once I inspected his institute. I saw Sievers more often, especially within the Reich Research Council. Our meetings were generally very short. Rose I met three times during this war and Brack once.
Q: Witness, as you mentioned those people you did not mention Dr. Pokorny Did you know him, Pokorny?
A: No, Pokorny I did not know. He was one of the ten whom I did not know
Q: With which of the defendants whom you know did you discuss experiments on human beings of the kind that are being dealt with in this trial?
A: Only with Sievers.
Q: You did not discuss it with other defendants, even if you knew them?
A: No.
Q: Also the euthanasia program is charged. You are charged with having talked about this with the defendant Brack. When and where was this, and why? Please be short, because we must deal with this point later.
A: I did not speak about the euthanasia program with the defendant Brack. Brack was once at a meeting which was under the leadership of Dr. Conti. I think that must have been 1941, in Munich, and dealt with these questions shortly.
Q: What was your own point of view on the question of euthanasia? Please tell us about that quite shortly.
A: Immediately after the meeting I went to see Dr. Conti, and I asked him again that we of the Reich Physicians leadership should also deal with these question, but this time Dr. Conti refused such contacts, and he said that we of the Reich Physicians leadership, had nothing to do with such matters.
Q: Now I would like to deal with the point of conspiracy. Did you talk to Hitler or Himmler or Bouhler, who was, as we know, responsible mainly for the euthanasia program, and had you any discussions about this theme?
A: I did not talk to Hitler during the whole war. I never spoke with Himmler and Bouhler about the euthanasia program. I did not speak to Bouhler during the war, and with Himmler I first came in touch officially in the late summer of 1943 when the so-called euthanasia, action had already been stopped.
Q: Witness, the Prosecution in Document Book 4, Page 11, the document book about malaria experiments, a document No. 065, submitted by the Prosecution under the number 127, has submitted this affidavit of the SS Obergruppenfuehrer [Senior Group Leader] Pohl, who was mainly responsible for the concentration camps. In this affidavit of 23 July 1946 Pohl speaks and replies to a question to the fact who were the consultants to Himmler about these questions; and in an affidavit of 23 July 1946 he says verbally that Himmler had enough opportunity to discuss matters with gentleman of his staff and his surroundings about medical questions, and I am sure he did that. That is the end of the quotation. And Pohl mentions other consultants such as, for instance, Conti. I ask this because you were the deputy of Conti. Did you belong to these consultants of Himmler and did you hear about these matters or not?
A: No, I was not one of these consultants, and I do not believe myself that in general Dr. Conti was one of them, because I know from Himmler personally that he did not like Conti. He told me about Conti and made abusive remarks about him which were certified by people like Stumpfegger. I also know that there was one former co-student of Himmler who told me that Himmler made abusive remarks about Conti at a time when Gerhard Wagner was still alive. I also know that Himmler was not in favor of Conti succeeding Gerhard Wagner.
Q: Also on the point of conspiracy I present you with the following: In May 1944 the 4th meeting of the Consulting Physician of the Wehrmacht took place in Hohenlychen, which we have heard about a lot here. The themes which were dealt with on this occasion, and which partly dealt with experiments we have heard about from Dr. Eischer and Dr. Gebhardt. Were you present at this meeting, Witness, and did you hear the speeches and reports about these experiments?
A: No, I principally avoided sessions and meetings in which Conti took part.
Q: Under document No. 619 the Prosecution in Document Book No. 10 about experiments with sulfonamides, a participation and billeting register has been submitted, Document Book of the Prosecution No. 10, Page 97, and in this register under No. 38 is mentioned Conti, SS Gruppenfuehrer, Staatssekretaer, and then the quarter where he was billeted. And under 38-A is a strange not, then only one of its kind, where it says that cooperation, Staatssekretaer Conti, Kurhetel. The name of this assistant has not been mentioned. There could be the suspicion that perhaps you were this anonymous assistant in this register.
A: No, the so-called assistant is not myself. I have already said that I principally did not go to meetings in which Conti was present. I did not do so on principle. Also I was not Conti's assistant without which Conti never traveled. Therefore, it must have been one of the personal referents or adjutants of Professor Conti who participated in this meeting.
Q: Dr. Blome you yourself in this registry of the participants of the Hohenlychen meeting are not mentioned at all, but under No. 101 of this register is mentioned one SS Obersturmbannfuehrer [Lieutenant Colonel] Dr. Gross, and in reference to this Dr. Gross, the Prosecution has, as you remember, stated on the 2nd of January this Dr. Gross had been the person who had been ordered to support the defendant, Dr. Blome, in his work about biological warfare, and it states further I believe that we will find this work which was to be supported by you also, dealt with the assignment of inmates of concentration camps, Dr. Gross became the assistant of Dr. Blome. This is the end of the quotation.
If this assumption of the Prosecution is correct, then a suspicion is near that Dr. Gross informed you about the results of the meeting in Hohenlychen. What have you to say to this point?
A: This must have been a mistake of the Prosecution in the form of a reading mistake because if the Prosecution had read what it says in the context, it could have stated and found out that in this meeting it was an Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Gross, because the man who was my assistant was only a Sturmbannfuehrer [Major]. The participant of this meeting, the Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Gross, can only have been the chief doctor of the SS hospital in Riga who had nothing whatever to do with me, whom I do not even know. It would be a good idea to interrogate Mrugowsky and Poppendick in their cross examination.
Q: Witness with reference to the point of conspiracy, I remind you of the records within their document book No. 3 of the Prosecution about freezing experiments, page 68. This document 401, document of the Prosecution No.401, Exhibit 93, a record about a scientific discussion of the 27 October 1942, in Nurnberg. This is the famous meeting about freezing experiments. Were you present at this meeting and did you hear about these horrible Dachau freezing experiments which Rascher carried out in Dachau?
A: I was neither a participant in this meeting nor did I hear any reports about this meeting.
Q: You remember, Dr. Blome, that in connection with this report about the freezing meeting, so to speak, of October 1942, the Prosecution made the point that the Reich Physician Leader, Dr. Conti, was in this meeting, which can be proved, and that the Prosecution said that you had been the deputy, a subordinate of Dr. Conti, and, therefore, you certainly would have been informed by Dr. Conti about this. Do you still say that you have never known anything about these matters?
A: Yes, I still say the same. The assumption of the Prosecution can be understood, but the Prosecution ought to know by now how unpleasant the relationship between Conti and myself was, and I would like to explain with reference to this point that in the year 1941 to 1943, I only corresponded with Conti and did not talk to him without a greeting and without a title to the letters, and that in this relationship Conti should have informed me about such secret matters. This can hardly be assumed.
Q: Witness, at the same time, in the end of November and at the beginning of December, 1942, there was also a meeting in the military medical Academy in Berlin which took place and before that a discussion in St. Johann in the Tyrol about mountain physiological questions, and these freezing experiments were mentioned and were discussed.
Were you present at these meetings which I have just mentioned, or did you in any way during this war hear about these discussions and know anything about them?
A: I neither took part in these meetings, nor did I even know about these meetings and the so-called mountain physiological institute in St. Johann. I only heard about it in Nurnberg. I had not known anything about its existence before.
Q: With reference to the point of conspiracy I would like to know your relationship with Dr. Rascher. How did you get to know him and when?
A: I met Dr. Rascher through Mr. Sievers. This was in the late summer of 1943 when Sievers received the order from Himmler to discuss an allegedly new cancer drug in which Dr. Conti and Dr. Luetzelburg had taken part. I invited these gentlemen for a further discussion into my office and in this discussion Professor Holz also took part on my initiative.
Q: What impression did you gain from Dr. Rascher as a doctor and as a person?
A: Rascher made a favorable impression on me to start with but without question he was a so-called bluffer. He is a man who undertakes to make an impression, a good impression for a short or a long period, to pretend to have good qualities and good knowledge of things without there being any very positive qualities. Later on he got annoyed with a certain tendency for business, Rascher wanted to take part financially in the production of the blood coagulation drug and polygol, and tried to get me to take part, which, of course, I refused, and I told him that it was not the matter of a doctor to make use of medical knowledge in a financial way and in the way of production.
THE PRESIDENT: At this time the Tribunal will be in recess.
(A short recess was taken)