1947-06-18, #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 Nurnberg, Germany, on 18 June 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.

The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.

Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.

There will be order in the court.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that all the defendants are present in the court?

THE MARSHAL: Hay it please your Honors, all the defendants are present in the court.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all defendants in court.

The witness is reminded that he is still under oath and is also reminded that he need not answer any question which he feels would incriminate himself.

Counsel may proceed.

EUGEN HAAGEN — Resumed
DIRECT EXAMINATION — Continued

BY DR. TIPP (Defense Counsel for defendants Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng):

Q: Professor, yesterday afternoon we stopped with your general work. Now, I should like to go on to the individual experiments with which my two clients are accused. First, I should like to discuss your work in the field of influenza. Professor Schroeder and Dr. Becker-Freyseng are accused of allegedly criminal human experiments in this field. There is no evidence of this in the documents and I therefore do not know on what the prosecution bases its assertions, but I can assumed that the connection between my two clients and such allegedly criminal experiments is supposed to have been through your person. Will you please describe briefly to the Tribunal how the work in the field of influenza came about and what work you carried out in detail?

A: First, I must protest energetically against the charge repeatedly raised by the prosecution that I carried out criminal experiments on human beings. I have found this several times in the documents.

My influenza work goes back to 1935 and 1936. The nature of the influenza germ was debated for decades. The so-called "Pfeiffer" bacillus was, for years, considered the cause of influenza, but in the big epidemic of the first World War, where there were millions of cases, the opinion began to prevail that influenza was caused by a virus-like germ, but only when virus research had reached a certain level — that was after the World War, in the 1930's — could we systematically begin to try to discover the cause of influenza. In several countries, first in America, it was possible to isolate a filterable, invisible virus, the specific qualities of which were soon ascertained by animal experiments. Attempts to breed this virus followed, and a number of immunology works. In approximately 1936, we heard the first news, again from America, that it had been possible to develop a living virus vaccine against influenza, and soon we could begin to realize and practice the plan —

MR. HARDY (Interrupting): Nay it please your Honor, it doesn't seem to me that it's necessary to go back to the years 1936, 1937 and 1938 and discuss the whole development of the influenza problem. The question here is whether or not Dr. Haagen experimented on human beings with influenza in a concentration camp, whether or not they were volunteers, and whether or not he received orders from the Medical Inspectorate, if Dr. Tipp is interested. I don't see any reason to discuss the whole history of influenza. The point is as simple as that.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness may continue. This preliminary talk should not consume too much time, but he may make some preliminary explanation if he desires.

THE WITNESS: (continuing answer) I had intended to be brief anyhow, but I believe in the interest of what will follow it is necessary to give a brief introduction.

Successful vaccinations were performed in America, — in America, England and other countries. This question interested us in Germany too, of course. In 1936 I succeeded in isolating a good virus strain from an influenza case which became known as the Blau strain, and the viscosity which I proved in an experiment on myself. Then we went on to develop a vaccine. I carried out the first work while I belonged to the Robert Koch Institute. The work was continued in Strasbourg. In the winter of 1943-1944, which was the year when there was very serious influenza epidemic in England, we were able to perform prophylactic vaccinations. The epidemic, as usual, went from the west to the east, so that we had to expect the epidemic to spread to Germany. At the request of the Director of the Medical Clinic, and that is in Strasbourg, Professor Stein, we inoculated about 200 persons of the clinic personnel with this influenza vaccine. There were only very slight reactions observed with a part of the persons who had been vaccinated, which did not, however, reduced the working efficiency of these persons in any way. At the same time I vaccinated in the Schirmeck concentration camp about 20 women who worked in an especially dangerous spot, and that is to say they were taken from various barracks to their working places, and in this way if the first influenza cases occurred they would be in danger themselves, but more especially that they would carry the germs to the other barracks. So that there was an outspoken need of immunization here for this group. Here again there were no reactions which in any way effected the working ability of these women.

Q: Professor, how did the developmental work for this vaccine take place?

A: Well, vaccine production was essentially based on the experiences gathered in other countries. There were Francis and Mengal in America, and other scientists.

Q: Thus, if I understand you correctly, you had a vaccine which was proved in practice, you took it from literature to produce your own vaccine?

A: Yes, we used the experiences gathered from the publications of other authors.

Q: Now, before the vaccine was used in practice, did you carry out animals experiments on yourself?

A: Yes, of course, we did. The immunity studies were performed on myself and experiments on myself and my laboratory personnel to test the effectiveness of the tolerance, especially of the vaccine. We did this for our own protection because we expected influenza, and because then we would no doubt be in very close contact with the germ.

Q: Now, the decisive question, Professor, which will interest the prosecution most; to prove the immunization effect of this vaccine did you ever perform experiments by first vaccinating with this vaccine and then testing the effect by the introduction of the pathogens virus?

A: No, we never performed such experiments. I do not know what the purpose of such experiments could have been. I may point out the procedure of Hirst we have been able to test the immunity quite clearly through laboratory methods.

Q: Then in conclusion, Professor, I can say you worked in the field of influenza, you produced vaccine according to the procedure published by foreign officials, you used in practice in small amounts as animal and self experiments, and the experiments which are under discussion here were not performed by you in this field, is that true?

A: Yes, that is true. We never performed experiments such as are mentioned here by the Prosecution, but we performed the vaccinations which are known the world over for years.

Q: Now, a formal question, Professor, from the document NO-137 which was discussed yesterday we see that you received a research assignment from this field; you told us yesterday that this was a research assignment in the real sense, that is research on the disease itself. Now, I should like to ask you, did you receive a production assignment from the Medical Inspectorate to produce vaccine?

A: No, we never received an assignment to produce vaccine from the medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe.

Q: Did you report the results of this work, your research assignment, to the medical Inspectorate?

A: I no doubt sent the customary reports. That was in the conditions when a research assignment was issued.

Q: With whom, Professor, did you speak within the medical Inspectorate about your work?

A: In general I spoke to the Consulting Hygienist, to the Chief of the Medical Service, Professor Rose, and to the competent gentleman in the hygiene refer at, that was Stabarzt [Staff Physician] Attmer at that time, and the money question I talked over with the administrative officials, that was Amtsrat [Councilor] Wenzel.

Q: Did you talk to Professor Schroeder about your work?

A: Yes, I am sure that I must have talked to Professor Schroeder about this work. I told him more or loss what I have just described.

Q: Can you tell us when these conversations or one of these conversations took place?

A: I believe definitely that that was at the end of hay 1944 when Professor Schroeder visited me in my institute at Strasbourg. And I remember I told him my wishes about obtaining animals, obtaining materials, but I cannot remember all the details of the conversation after such a long time.

Q: Did you talk to Dr. Becker-Freyseng about this subject, witness?

A: That is possible of course, especially in connection with the obtaining of animals. That was a big problem for me. Dr. Becker-Freyseng dealt with this question when, —I think it was in July 1944 when he visited me in Strasbourg. Of course I told him my worries about animals.

Q: Now, one basic question, on this occasion, professor. You said before something about the Hygiene Referat, and as referent is mentioned Stabarzt Attmer; can you perhaps explain in which Referat of the medical Inspectorate your work was dealt with?

A: That can really be seen from my own activity as well as from the name of the referent. I worked on hygiene questions, and a competent referent for hygiene at the time was Stabarzt Attmer.

Q: Professor, the prosecution holds the point of view that Dr. Becker-Freyseng was the competent man in whose Referat hygiene matters were dealt with, and that according to the prosecution you supervised and directed this work?

A: I personally know nothing about that. At any rate I dealt only with Stabarzt Attmer, who did this work in the hygiene referat. That was more or loss the first authority for me and if I wanted to go to a higher authority I went to the Department Chief. If I wanted to go to a still higher agency I went to the Chief of Staff in the Inspectorate, and finally to the inspectorate of the Medical Service. In all the years when I had official business to do with the Medical inspectorate, I never had any dealings with Dr. Becker-Freyseng with the exception, as I said, of obtaining animals, but this question only became acute in the summer of 1944.

Q: I shall now leave this subject, witness, and go on to the next charge of the indictment to be dealt with, jaundice experiments. Professor Schroeder and Dr. Becker-Freyseng are charged wish responsibility for experiments on epidemic jaundice, which, according to the Prosecution, were performed in the concentration camp Sachsenhausen by Dr. Dohmen and you and also in the concentration camp Natzweiler by Dr. Dohmen and you. I should like to ask you, Professor, first of all to describe your work in the field of epidemic jaundice; please keep the introduction as brief as possible.

A: In 1941-42, I have to say first of all, we received the first reports about the threat of epidemic jaundice, especially in the eastern theater of war, that is in the Balkans and Russia. From a study of this disease, I already knew that the cause may be a filtrable virus and since I saw certain connections between influenza and hepatitus epidemica, therefore it was obvious that I should perform ethnological tests on hepatitis epidemica. This was in collaboration with Professor Kalk, who gave me material from his military hospitals, but since it had to travel for some time it did not prove of value. Then I relied on the clinic in Strassbourg and received material from Professor Stein, the director of the internal clinic there and through the mediations of the chief physicians of the research hospital in Strassbourg they gave me the necessary material for my first tests.

Q: You spoke of material, witness; will you please tell the Tribunal what material it was and how this material was obtained?

A: It was essentially the eliminations of the patient's liquid from their stomach, intestines, gall and urine and finally blood tests as well as liver punctures.

Q: You said that the material was obtained in clinics from patients; now how was this material obtained, witness?

A: It came from jaundice patients, who had been admitted to the clinics in question. It was obtained by the clinicians there, according to the diagnostic procedure customary throughout the world, from the patients.

Then we used this material on animals, primarily mice and rats. The mice developed a very characteristic symptom, especially of the liver and with the material thus obtained we were able to isolate a virus strain or several virus strains, which could continuously be cultivated on mice. The animal material by Professor Buechler in Freiburg or that received through the pathology diagnosis, he was able to check our findings, he isolated a virulent virus there, about the characteristics of which, I will say only as briefly as possible, The main thing was that its filterable filter, which leaves no bacteria through and in the mouse it causes characteristic changes in the liver, kidneys and lungs and was made visible microscopically for the first time by me.

Unfortunately because of the war conditions this work could not be published, but it is now printed. The virus can be built in mice and also in tissue cultures and which is important for our consideration, it is apparently limited on the one hand like the typhus germ in the feces and on the other hand like many lung diseases through the discharge of that as means of transmission. We have to consider the disease, also the origin of transmission. The English term would be "airborne". For the epidemiological significance that was a very important fact. That essentially covers the hepatitis work as performed in my institute.

Q: Now before I go on to the alleged experiments, Professor, a preliminary question; the Prosecution has submitted a number of documents maintaining that hepatitis is a very dangerous disease which brings about cases of death on human beings; can you tell us something about that Professor?

A: I am not a clinician myself. As far as I know from literature, however, and from reports of experience gained in this war, I can say that as far as mortality, the disease is not dangerous, I know of no definite death, however, epidemic jaundice has great epidemiological significance, since the conditions under which it is transmitted are more or less unknown.

We have seen in the troops, that in many units 50% to 60% of the men contracted hepatitis which, of course, greatly diminished the effectiveness of the troops. We have also seen that the disease is carried home and that after recovery the germ remained a considerable period of time in the body, so that when the disease is overcome, the individual is a carrier of the disease and can become dangerous. It was very important to determine the method of transmission of hepatitis. I have already said that certain conclusions could be drawn from our work. For example, that the virus is found in the intestines show that the possibility of transmission through feces and sputum existed. For this reason alone there was a great need to find not only the cause of the disease, but also to clarify the method of transmission.

Q: So far you have told us, Professor, that your work covered the causes of the disease and also the method of transmission. On this latter point, the prosecution has alleged that you and Dr. Dohme in the concentration camps Sachsenhausen and Natzweiler carried out experiments, first to discover the causes of jaundice and second to determine the method of transmission and thirdly to test a vaccine. The prosecution has alleged that experimental subjects in these two camps were infected with epidemic jaundice; what have you to say about that?

A: I can only say that no such experiments were performed by me or at my institution either in Natzweiler or Sachsenhausen.

Q: Fitness, to prove their assertion, the Prosecution has submitted essentially only one document. This is an affidavit by Dr. Rudolf Brandt. It is in document book 8 on page 1 of the text. I should like to quote number five on page 2. It is document No. 371, Exhibit 186.

I shall quote No. 5:

Dr. Eugene Haagen, Oberstabsarzt [Chief Medical Officer] and consultant in hygiene for the Luftwaffe, had also been doing research work at the Natzweiler Concentration Camp in an effort to discover an effective inoculation against epidemic jaundice.

As I recall, Dr. Dohman collaborated with Haagen in 1944, at the Concentration Camp Naztweiler and experiments on involuntary human beings were conducted which resulted in deaths.

Witness, will you please comment on this statement of Dr. Brandt?

A: I have the document here with this statement and testimony of Dr. Brandt. I must say that from the beginning to the end this statement is untrue. Neither I nor Dr. Dohmen, nor both of us together, ever performed any human experiments with hepatitis epidemica; I never performed any such transmission experiments.

Q: Witness, the Tribunal remembers that when Dr. Brandt was examined as a witness he withdrew his affidavit on this point. He said that he had no knowledge of his own on the subject, that he was merely expressing assumptions and conclusions.

Next question, Professor. Did you collaborate with Dr. Dohmen in the field of hepatitis epidemica?

A: No; there was never any collaboration with Dr. Dohmen in this field.

Q: But Dr. Dohmen was in Strasbourg once. What was the reason for this visit?

A: Dr. Dohmen is an old student of mine. In 1934 he worked in the Reich Health Office and I acquainted him with the methods of virus research. In Hamburg he continued to work on virus diseases, and it is no doubt primarily on the basis of his own experience as a military doctor during the war that he became interested in the cause of hepatitis epidemica. He worked at the Robert Koch Institute in this field. I need not go into that work any further.

In the years 1942-1943 he delivered lectures on various occasions I believe at the Vienna. Medical Society and also at the meetings of the consulting physicians of the Wehrmacht, which have been mentioned here. I noticed various differences, and I was interested in clarifying these differences. On the occasion of a preliminary discussion in Hohenlychen at the meeting of the consulting physicians in May of 1944, I repeatedly expressed my opinion to other colleagues, my regret that I had not been able to consult with Dr. Dohmen on this important subject, that we had been working in what I might call splendid isolation. It seemed to me that he had made considerable advances in the field of investigating the causes, but experience and precaution made it seem advisable to me to compare our findings.

Thereupon I issued an invitation to Dr. Dohmen to come to Strasbourg so that in the laboratory there we could discuss and clarify the debatable points.

Q: Professor, will you please look at document NO-299, Exhibit 190? It is in Document Book VIII, on page 8. It is a letter from you dated 12 June 1944 to Generalarzt [General Physician] Professor Dr. Schreiber, Academy of Military Medicine, Berlin. You write that through this letter you are renewing your invitation to Stabsarzt [Staff Surgeon] Dr. Dohmen. I assume that this is the invitation you were just mentioning; is that right?

A: I have this letter here. Professor Schreiber was the decisive personality in epidemic research at that time. I sent the invitation to Dr. Dohmen in writing through him. I was repeating an invitation which I had already given orally.

Q: Now, before I go on to Dr. Dohmen's visit, I have two more questions on this Document NO-299. You write in the second paragraph that Professor Schreiber should give you several thousand mice, or obtain them for you. Can you please tell us why you needed so many mice?

A: I have already said before, when I was speaking of Professor Schroeder's and Dr. Becker-Freyseng's visit, that our animal experiment work required large numbers of animals, Our own breeding material was not adequate; I had to look around to see where I could get animals, in this case for hepatitis, in order to transfer the material from the patients and to breed the isolated virus by animal passage, to keep the virus strains alive.

Q: Now another point on this document. In the last paragraph you inquire whether hepatitis research will be carried on in the future out of funds of the Reich Research Council or whether you are to ask for further funds from the Medical Chief of the Luftwaffe. Did you later obtain money from the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe for hepatitis research?

A: No, I never obtained funds from the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. The research work was carried out on the basis of an assignment and with funds supplied by the Reich Research Council.

Q: Now, to go back to Dr. Dohmen's visit, did Dr. Dohmen actually come to visit you in Strasbourg?

A: Yes, Dr. Dohmen came about the middle of July, 1944, for a few days. We discussed our animal experiment work and other laboratory work.

Q: On this occasion did you visit the concentration camp Natzweiler together with Dr. Dohmen, witness?

A: No. I am sure that Dr. Dohmen was never in Natzweiler. I was never there with him, and if he had been there alone I am sure I would have heard of it.

Q: Professor, on this occasion, or perhaps later, did Dr. Dohmen say that he had carried out experiments in the field of epidemic jaundice in the concentration camp Sachsenhausen?

A: I can not remember Dr. Dohmen speaking to me of the planning of execution of such a human experiment in Sachsenhausen.

Q: Then I should like to show you a prosecution document, again from Document Book VIII, on page 3. It is Document NO-010, Prosecution Exhibit 187. It is a letter from the Reichsarzt [Reich Physician] SS and Police, signed by Dr. Grawitz, dated 1 July 1942. I do not intend to read this letter, but it says that in order to promote virus research it is necessary to transfer the virus to human beings and that Dohmen is to carry out these things in the concentration camp Sachsenhausen.

Do you know anything about this letter or this incident?

A: I have this letter before me. I do not know this document and I do not know anything about the whole incident.

Q: You just said, witness, that hepatitis epidemica is not a dangerous disease, but Grawitz, in this document, says that eight persons condemned to death are to be used as experimental subjects because it is to be expected that there will be cases of death. You have already expressed your opinion on this point, but I want you to comment on this assertion of Dr. Grawitz'.

A: This assertion of Dr. Grawitz' merely proves quite clearly that there could not have been any expert involved in the matter, and not Dr. Dohmen either, because any doctor who ever worked with hepatitis knows that the contagion is not so great that, on the basis of experiments on eight persons, one can obtain a valuable result. And as I said before, I never heard of any deaths from hepatitis, so that as far as mortality is concerned I must call it a non-dangerous disease.

Q: You have already said, Professor, that when Dohmen visited you in Strasbourg you did not visit the concentration camp Natzweiler and certainly did not perform any human experiments. I understood you correctly, did I not?

A: Yes, that is true. I shall repeat that there was no visit together with Dohmen to Natzweiler, and that no human experiments were performed there.

Q: I must correct myself on Document No. 010. I said the letter was dated the first of July 1942, but it is really the first of June, 1943. Now to go back to the human experiments. The Tribunal will remember the witness Edith Schmidt testified for the Prosecution here. She testified on the 9th of January 1947, Page 1378 of the English record. She said that in the field of hepatitis epidemica only laboratory work was carried out, but no human experiments. According to this testimony no human experiments were performed, at least not by you. And you knew nothing about other people performing such experiments. But the prosecution said that such experiments were planned, and submitted a number of documents. First of all, will you please tell us your own knowledge of the planning of human experiments in this connection.

A: First I should like to repeat that I personally know nothing of any human experiments with hepatitis epidemica in Germany. I know, however, that experimental transmission of hepatitis to human beings was performed in England as well as in America. It is true that after the animal experiments were completed it has to be tested on human beings, how the transfer of hepatitis epidemica really occurs. As far as I remember, this work was first discussed in the hepatitis meeting at Breslau in 1944. This meeting was in June, 1944, under Generalarzt Prof. Dr. Schreiber. I have already said that he was in charge of epidemic research in the Reich Research Council. In this respect I should like to say he was the leading man in this field. At this meeting the hepatitis working in practice consisted of the internist Prof. Kalk, then Pathologist, Prof. Buechler in Freiburg, the surgeon, Prof. Zugschwert in Strasbourg, and myself. This collaboration of four medical officers of the Luftwaffe was purely a coincidence. The 5th colleague in what I have heard was a conspiracy of the Luftwaffe was Prof. Stein in Strasbourg, who was an Oberstarzt [Colonel, Medical Corps.] in the army and a consulting internist in the army. Following this hepatitis meeting, a correspondence went on between Gutzeit, who was the consulting internist of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Army at the time and who, as a clinician, was in a leading position in hepatitis research, between Gutzeit and myself.

Q: Witness, will you please look at Document 8 Page 11, Prosecution Document NO-124, Exhibit 193. It is a letter with the head "consulting internist to the Chief of the Army Medical Service, 24 June, 1944." It is signed by Oberstarzt Gutzeit. The letter is addressed to you. I assume that you are thinking of this letter when you think of correspondence between Gutzeit and yourself. Is that so?

A: This letter of the 24th of June 1944 from the consulting internist of the Army Medical Inspector I have before me. This is the letter I mean. Gutzeit refers to his statement at the hepatitis meeting in Breslau and he had said that the final proof of the nature of the germ, the various types of virus which had been found, was not final, and that for this purpose one had first to transfer the virus, since only in this may could the etiology and the method of transmission be clarified. He also said that he would make the preparations for such human experiments. At the time he did not know any details specifically about the nature of the experimental subject.

Q: Well, Professor when you received this letter you probably wondered what experimental subjects Mr. Gutzeit was thinking of. Can you tell us what kind of experimental subjects you think Mr. Gutzeit had in mind?

A: I knew that Prof. Gutzeit had an opportunity to obtain the soldiers or students or members of his clinic for these experiments. I do not know whether Prof. Gutzeit actually carried out experiments of this nature. In any case, Dr. Dohmen, when he visited me in Strasbourg in July 1944 told me nothing about it.

Q: Now, witness, about your own planning after —

THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me it would be profitable if you would confine the examination of this witness more nearly to the charges against these defendants, or some of them.

We have heard a great deal about other people. I don't know what the witness is about to testify to, but so far there has been comparatively little concerning these defendants. Can't you bring out such matters that we desire directly concerning the issues before the Tribunal?

DR. TIPP: Mr. President, that is because the Prosecution has not explained on what the charges against Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng are based. I do not know which documents are intended to be used against Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng. If Mr. Hardy will explain the individual documents that pertain to the charge against my client, I will be glad to limit my examination to that extent. It is not my fault. It is because the Prosecution has not clarified this point. I am now coming to the Kalk-Haagen letters which were submitted. It was not said what they were intended to prove, and, which is more important, against whom they were intended to be proof. Perhaps Mr. Hardy can help me on that point. Otherwise, I might omit some document which could possibly affect one of my clients.

THE PRESIDENT: I am of the opinion that there is some truth in what counsel says. Can the Prosecutor clarify any of these matters?

MR. HARDY: I have no comment in this respect, Your Honor. I think the record and the document speak for themselves. I might request, Your Honor, that I might be permitted to see the notes that Dr. Haagen is testifying from?

THE PRESIDENT: For what purpose? What is your reason for that request, counsel?

MR. HARDY: Because I have a feeling that the notes he is testifying from could contain questions and answers exactly the same as the notes I see before me on this podium, and I would like to compare them, merely for my own satisfaction, to compare them to see if these answers were all made out before hand.

DR. TIPP: It is a matter of course, Mr. President that such a complicated scientific subject I could not present without very careful preparation.

Defense witnesses as well as Prosecution witnesses have made notes beforehand. Actually how it is done, I think, is the business of the defense counsel. I don't think that Mr. Hardy has the right to see the notes. He can merely object to the witness reading, and he has not done so.

THE PRESIDENT: If Counsel for the Prosecution is of the opinion that these notes which the witness is using from the stand were prepared by somebody else or counsel, he may cross examine him on that matter.

MR. HARDY: I wish to call to the attention of the Tribunal that these notes were obviously prepared by defense counsel. They contain the questions and proposed answers to each question and they are numbered up into the hundreds. If the Tribunal desires to look at them, they can see for themselves precisely just what I am referring to. I have no desire to cross examine on them, but they are more than notes which we use in American law to refresh the recollection of a witness. They are precise and contain a sufficient amount in them so that the answer on the notes could be the answer to the question. And if the Tribunal looks them over closely we could dispense with the entire testimony of Haagen and introduce these notes, if Haagen will maintain that each answer therein will be the answer he will give from the stand. It will save two days of time. The notes will go in as a document or an affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: I was wondering why this testimony could not be given in the form of an affidavit. The Tribunal will now be in recess for a few minutes.

(A recess was taken)