1947-06-19, #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 19 June, 1947, 0930, Justive 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 whether the defendants are all present in Court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are all present in Court?
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note the presence of all the defendants in Court.
I should like to ask the Prosecution if they have any idea concerning the number of witnesses who will be called by the Prosecution in rebuttal?
MR. HARLY: Off hand, Your Honor, I can recall that I intend to call perhaps five more witnesses in rebuttal in behalf of the Prosecution. Those witnesses will not take more than an hour on direct examination on each occasion. There may be more or there may be less, but I should say approximately five.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal was only inquiring for an approximation of the time. It is necessary that the Tribunal expedite the close of the evidence to the greatest possible extent. The Tribunal will be in session at least Saturday morning. Whether or not an afternoon session will be held Saturday will be announced later. Counsel may proceed with the examination of the witness.
The witness is reminded that he is still under oath.
DR. HAAGEN (Resumed)
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY DR. TIPP:
Q: Professor, yesterday we stopped when we were discussing Document No. 127, page 94 in Document Book 12. We last discussed the way in which you tested the effects of your vaccine against the disease itself, that is the anti-infectious immunity and also what plans you had for the future in this direction. Perhaps by way of transition you could clarify this concept in two or three sentences?
A: To prove anti-infectious immunity we have two possibilities. One, of course, is observation of the vaccinated person during an epidemic. The other is a laboratory procedure, which I may, perhaps elucidate briefly.
This group of those already twice vaccinated was given a third subsequent vaccination of the cultural vaccine. This third vaccination was not carried out in order to give additional protection by way of vaccination, rather its purpose was by serological means to ascertain any changes in the titer values after the entrance into the body of the antigene. We are here not interested the effects of the pathogenic components, but only the effects of the antigenic components. Since the purpose of the third vaccination was not immunization but rather a test of immunization, I had no misgivings, following the example of other authors in speaking of this as an infection or subsequent infection, but I must again emphasize that this vaccine contained no components pathogenic to human beings of, after this renewed introduction are formed, which will manifest itself in a new increase in the titer values as determined by the Weil-Felix reaction, this proves that the body had not been completely immunized theretofore. The body tissues reacted by manufacturing new anti-bodies which then entered into the blood. If the titer value in this subsequent inoculation remains unchanged, then we can draw the conclusion that the organism has complete immunity. The tissue formed new anti-bodies, and therefore none appeared in the blood. That is a synopsis of what I said yesterday.
Q: Then Professor you say that the subsequent infection, mentioned in Document NO 127, with virulent typhus germs was to be a subsequent vaccination with your virulent, that is to say living, typhus virus vaccine which was not pathogenic for human beings, is that correct?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: Then you make synonymous the two terms, "subsequent infection" and "subsequent inoculation"?
A: Yes.
Q: And I asked you yesterday whether the interchange of these two words or concepts was a special on your part, or whether the interchange of these two words or concepts can be found in literature; you answered this question in the affirmative saying that the interchange of these words was customary in literature, and to prove this you cited a French paper. Now, Witness, you speak French, and consequently it is to be expected of you that you might have used French terms here, but it is not to be expected that the Tribunal or the other defendants and defense counsel are so familiar with French as to understand these technical terms. Therefore, it would be expedient if you would briefly repeat in simple German what it was you stated yesterday using the French terms.
A: I said as a model for 'the terminology I used I had taken another authors, and I mentioned as an example a paper by the French scientists, Blane, Noury, and Baltazar, in the publications of the French Academy of Science. This is a volume 201, page 1226 of the year 1935. I shall repeat the title once again in German; "Presence and premunition in the course of typhus exanthematicus and in the course of an inapparent infection from a virus combined with gall." Again a brief excerpt from text:
Nine of those vaccinated were tested by being given an infection with pure virus.
In the others words, the authors are here equating infection and inoculation. They continue:
From numerous later experiments we found out that the vaccine virus remained in the organism for 25-30 days. The subsequent inoculation was administered at the time when the vaccinated persons had a hidden infection. From comparison it was ascertained that a virus killed with phenal had no effect on a virulent infection.
I believe that is all I have to repeat of this particular work. Now, if one looks at this paper critically, one sees immediately that the authors undertook an infection with a pathogenic virus. In other words, they did exactly what we are charged with having done here, namely infecting human beings with a pathogenic virus. I have said several times that such experiments with pathogenic virus were not undertaken by us.
MR. HARDY: I presume, Your Honor, that the defense counsel will have these excerpts in French translated into the English and German languages and submitted to the Tribunal, in accordance with the instructions of the Tribunal yesterday.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I did not understand the Tribunal to request that this should be put in evidence. I thought the Tribunal said if I wished to submit it I could do so. If, however, it was the wish of the Tribunal, I shall have the document put in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel correctly understood the suggestion made by the Tribunal. Does the prosecution desire that this be translated and made a part of the record?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, it seems they are making quite an issue of it. I think it would be well that it be translated into the English language so that we can interpret it in our briefs as well as Dr. Haagen's interpretation.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the defense counsel will comply with the suggestion made by the prosecution.
DR. TIPP: Very well, Your Honor.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q: Professor, I think the subsequent inoculation question has been definitely clarified by now. I should like to take up in Document NO-127the further conception of what you stated there. You write:
This time 150 persons will be used for the vaccination and 50 for the control inoculation.
Then, you also write that illnesses must be expected. Now, what do you mean? The prosecution understands under the concept "control inoculation" persons who were not vaccinated and were then given the disease so that they could be compared with the persons who had received vaccinations Tell us whether you used the term "control persons", let us say, in the same way as Ding used it. Tell us just what you did mean by the term "control persons" and what your plans were?
A: First of all, let me say that this was only a plan and that vaccination was never actually carried out.
I intended the following: I wanted to vaccinate two groups of 150 persons twice in the normal way, namely, by intramuscular injection. This group, after a lapse of four weeks, was to be given a subsequent vaccination through scarification, such as is carried out in smallpox vaccination and which I explained yesterday. This scarification was to be a third inoculation to test the immunizing effect on the first two, as I also described yesterday. Now, the control group for this was to have a single vaccination, using the scarifying method. This would have made it possible to test the scarification reactions of those who received the third subsequent vaccination with the results of those who received only the single scarification vaccination. Thus, when I speak of the group of non-vaccinated persons, I am speaking of this latter group, namely, the people who received only one vaccination with the scarification method, those who had received no previous vaccination, so we would have to count on the reaction to the vaccination.
This is what I mean when I say here in this document that we must count on sickness. These sicknesses I refer to are, of course, the reactions to the vaccinations, but, of course, they are not any such thing as a manifest typhus disease itself, which of course our attenuated vaccine could not produce.
Q: Witness, you just told us this sickness referred to was a reaction to the vaccine, in other words, a fever, headaches, fatigue, etc, such symptoms as are well-know to everyone who has been vaccinated. Then, why do you speak of sickness at all in this letter, if these are simply the reactions that are to be expected from the vaccination?
A: My letter was probably read only by laymen, who would probably have no idea what the term "reaction to vaccines" meant. It was therefore easier to speak of sickness. Moreover, these prisoners were being used for work and were not to be kept away from work any longer than was absolutely necessary. Since I did not have enough experience with vaccination by scarification, I did speak of the possibility of such a reaction in order to be absolutely covered.
Since the inoculations did not take place, we do not, of course, know whether there would have been such reactions.
Q: Professor, if I understand you correctly, the anti-infectious effect of your vaccine was tested by you, in the way you have just described, in the course of your first vaccinations in December of 1943 and January of 1944 in Natzweiler. Was this planning that is described in Document NO-127 essentially different from the work that you had previously carried on in Natzweiler?
A: There was no fundamental difference; the only difference was that the vaccine had been stored away for a longer time in the second case, so that we anticipated that the vaccine would have matured further; thus we could expect a further reduction in the reaction to the vaccine, but it could be proved only in practice to what extent this would actually be the case. This again was a testing of the tolerability of the vaccine.
Q: Do I understand you to say that these plans were never put into effect and that in January of 1944 was the last time you carried out inoculations in Natzweiler?
A: Yes, no further vaccinations were carried out in Natzweiler.
Q: Now I shall have to turn back to the testimony of the witness Edith Schmidt. On 9 January 1947, page 1378 of the English transcript, Edith Schmidt said that your vaccinations in Natzweiler were continued until July of 1944. Now, did you make many trips to Natzweiler in the summer of 1944?
A: Yes, I was in Natzweiler several times during the epidemic in the summer of 1944. I went to the camp at irregular intervals to assist the doctors who were combatting the epidemic there, which had reached considerable proportions. I did so to deliver the delousing apparatus, which has already been mentioned, but no vaccinations were being administered at that time. That was prevented by, among other things, the fact that I had many military duties and as consulting hygienist simply was not in a position to spend the time carrying on observations in Natzweiler.
Therefore I had no time to carry out inoculations.
Q: But, Professor, Fraulein Schmidt said that you went to Natzweiler with all your material and from this she drew the conclusion that further inoculations were carried out.
A: It is true that in my trips to Natzweiler I took material with me. These were packages of phenol which were to serve for the sterile extraction of blood for the Weil-Felix reaction. This test was carried out by us during the course of the epidemic. The doctors at the camp had no test tubes and no sterile apparatus for taking blood tests, and that is why I took this material with me, and this is the material that Miss Schmidt saw me taking along, although it bore no direct relationship to the typhus laboratory.
DR. TIPP: May it please Your Honors, the witness Schmidt herself said during her testimony that she merely concluded that the inoculations were continued at Natzweiler, but she did not say that she had any knowledge of her own on this fact.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q: One question that arises from your testimony yesterday, witness. You said that you had no virus strain in Strasbourg that was pathogenic for human beings. Where did you get your Rickettsia strain of lice typhus with which you manufactured your vaccine?
A: This lice typhus strain was a virus sent us by Professor Giroud from the Institut Pasteur in Paris; this typhus virus had gone through several animal passages and it was sent to us in this form from Paris. This was the only laboratory strain that we had.
Q: Professor, wouldn't it have been very easy, or at least a layman imagines this to be so, to breed a strain pathogenic for human beings, or can that not be done so easily in the laboratory?
A: Well, perhaps the layman thinks it is very easy to obtain a strain pathogenic for human beings, but we know from literature that this doesn't seem to be quite so easy. If one wishes to have such a strain, then one must catch the infected persons at a very early stage.
Q: Professor, you are using the term "infected persons". What do you mean by that? Do you mean real, actual cases of typhus, or do you mean artificially infected persons?
A: I mean natural cases of actual typhus. As I was saying, in general one does not know when the actual infection began.
The infected person reaches the clinic only after the disease has progressed into a relatively late stage. At this point in the course of the disease, unfortunately, the Rickettsia virus is no longer in the blood but has already taken up its residence in the tissue. Thus an extraction of blood and passage through animals succeed in only a very small percentage of the cases, and only in early cases. Thus you will see that transmission is not so easy and does not always achieve its goal. A really successful transmission to animals — this we also knew from literature — can usually be done only if a human being is used so that the virus is passed through the human organism first. In other words, it isn't so easy.
Q: Then I can sum up as follows: You had no strain pathogenic for human beings. Further, neither in Natzweiler nor in Schirmek did you carry out experiments in which you infected prisoners with a living virulent virus that was pathogenic for human beings. You simply used your living, that is to say, virulent, virus in Schirmek and Natzweiler for purposes of protective vaccination. Furthermore, you said that the experimental aspects of your work consisted in testing the tolerability of the vaccine and that you collected further data for the study of typhus vaccine production, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, Professor, I turn to the next point, namely, the research assignments that you received. At the very beginning of your testimony you said that your typhus research rested on your own initiative and that to receive aid, particularly financial aid, in this research you applied for research assignments, is that correct?
A: Yes, it is.
Q: Would you please tell us again from whom you received these assignments?
A: Some of them I received from the Reich Research Council, others from the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe.
Q: Perhaps we had better turn back to Document NO-137. Document Book 12, page 76.
This is your application to the rector of the Reich University Strasbourg, 7 October 1943, in which you ask that your institute be accepted as a military installation. Will you please take a look at this document and tell us how it came about?
A: This application is based on a circular letter sent out by the Reich Ministry of Education to the rectors of all the universities. In this circular letter we were asked to state whether our institutes were militarily necessary, to decide whether or not we should receive corresponding assistance. Here is an application for a research assignment under No. 2 here from the Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate, namely, a research assignment in typhus vaccines. No. 4 is another typhus application. It was issued by the Reich Research Council. Again the subject is typhus, and this is a purely research assignment.
Q: Professor, one question about this last point. This application of the Reich Research Council bears the note "top secret". Why is this top secret?
A: That I can't tell you, but I assume that during the war such themes were handled as top secret and were given preference in terms of priority of raw materials, and so forth. I can't give any other reason. They received a very high priority rating.
Q: Then you don't think, Professor, that there were any reasons for maintaining secrecy in this matter?
A: No, I don't, and that can be seen from the fact that the results of this work were subsequently published.
Q: I am, of course, particularly interested in No. 2, the assignment you received from the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe. Tell me, Professor, which Referat of the Medical Inspectorate took care of the typhus assignments, and with whom did you carry on negotiations?
A: The Hygiene Referat was the one I negotiated with. This was the Referat that concerned itself with virus questions. I negotiated first of all with Professor Rose, as he has said several times, then with Dr. Atmer. He was the Referent for Hygiene. And then I spoke with the man in charge of the funds, Amtsrat [Councilor] Grinzel.
Q: You said that you negotiated with Rose as consulting hygienist and with Atmer as the competent Referent. However, as you can see from this document, the research assignments all bear the file number 55, and also the Referat number 2 II B. These are the numbers of the Referat for aviation medicine. Consequently the prosecution has assumed that Dr. Becker-Freyseng had something to do with the giving of these assignments, because he was the competent Referent in the Referat of which this is the file note. What do you have to say about that?
A: As scientist and consulting hygienist I really concerned myself very little with file notes and such matters. Consequently I cannot give you any really satisfactory information on this point. I do know that the file note 55 always meant research, because it always appeared on research assignments. And I do know that all applications for research were worked on by the Referat for Aviation Medicine. But since I didn't belong to this agency, I didn't concern myself with the red tape that went on inside the Medical Inspectorate. I simply went to Mr. Atmer or to Professor Rose if I wanted their support.
Q: Professor the Prosecution has asserted that you received orders from Dr. Becker-Freyseng, to carry out your research assignments. Did you?
A: No. I never received an order. I can't imagine how such an order or even instructions for scientific work could have been worded. I don't think that any of the gentlemen there had such insight into this work as to have enabled them to give me any instructions. In addition, research cannot be directed according to orders or directives, because the path that is to be taken is precisely what the research man is trying to find out.
Q: Then, Professor, I understand you to say that you received no orders from the Medical Inspectorate in this direction. Was your work supervised by the Medical Inspectorate or, more specifically, were you checked on in detail in the course of your work by the Medical Inspectorate?
A: You cannot speak of any such thing as supervision or checking on my work. They did not have thorough enough knowledge. Of course, the gentlemen in the Medical Inspectorate were interested in the progress the work was making, and I spoke about it with several gentlemen, for example Professor Rose, as he himself has said.
Q: Well, Dr. Becker-Freyseng said here on the stand that he visited you once in your Institute in Strasbourg in July 1944. This visit has been touched on briefly during your testimony. May I ask you now when you first made Dr. Becker-Freyseng's acquaintance?
A: I had heard of Dr. Becker-Freyseng and knew that he was subordinate to Professor Anthony in the Referat for Aviation Medicine. I made his personal acquaintance on a trip from Heidelberg to Freiburg in Bresgau, in June or May of 1944, and then Dr. Becker-Freyseng visited me the end of July 1944, at Professor Schroeder's suggestion, in order to discuss with me the problem of acquiring experimental animals. He was to find out my specific wishes in this matter, because at that time he was in charge of acquiring experimental animals in the Medical Inspectorate Dr. Becker-Freyseng had connections with Dr. Suchalla, who was breeding animals on a large scale, and he wanted to mobilize this man's energies for me.
This, however was not done in Strasbourg, but Dr. Suchalla visited me in Oberschreibergau, where we discussed setting up the necessary apparatus for breeding and where he promised to provide me with the necessary animals. Dr. Suchalla visited me then, because Dr. Becker-Freyseng could not give him any full satisfactory information about my needs and requirements.
Q: You also mentioned a visit by Professor Schroeder. Can you tell us when this visit was?
A: At the end of May 1994, Schroeder visited me in Strasbourg and spent a few hours with me in the Hygienic Institute.
Q: Perhaps you could tell us what happened during this visit?
A: It went in the way any visit from a high military chief would take place. I showed him through the Institute, particularly the animal section, which interested him greatly; then we had a conversation in very general terms that concerned itself with my scientific work.
Q: At these visits from Dr. Becker-Freyseng and Prof. Schroder, was there mention of the fact that you had carried out or intended to carry out experiments in Natzweiler or Schirmek?
A: No, I don't think so. At least I can't remember any mention of that.
Q: Now, Professor, regarding these research assignments, you said that you received no orders as to how the assignments were to be carried out — you received no commands or directives. You said that they were not supervised and that you spoke neither with Dr. Becker-Freyseng or Professor Schroeder about details, such as the vaccinations in Natzweiler or Schirmek. Now to return to the research assignments. Undoubtedly you reported on them, didn't you?
A: Yes. It was, I believe prescribed that every quarter or semi-annually a report was to be sent in on the progress that one's research was making.
I was very irregular in meeting this requirement, which is quite understandable because one cannot procedure results, at any prescribed date, of the sort that one can report on. Now and then I did sent interim reports to the Medical Inspectorate, but I did not abide by that directive very often. It was, for purely factual reasons, impossible to give reports on specified dates.
Q: Can you tell us what the contents of these interim reports were?
A: In general, leaving out all the details, we described the progress the work was making, My reports were sent in, first of all, when I was specifically asked to send in a report; or secondly, when I had used up all my funds and had to give some reason for wishing additional funds. These reports were much the same in form as the one here to the Reich Research Council. In other words, they were very general in form.
Q: Witness, the Prosecution has asserted that from your interim reports the fact could be seen that the inoculations, or the experiments, as the Prosecution calls them, were carried out on prisoners. Did you mention any specific details in your interim reports?
A: In these interim reports I certainly did not mention any specific details, if only for the reason that no researcher gives information on his plans and results before the work is concluded. The only thing that could interest the Medical Inspectorate in this matter was when I could begin large-scale manufacture of the vaccine, and it was not necessary to go into details in order to give them this information.
Q: Professor, none of your interim reports to the Medical Inspectorate are here in evidence. However, there are many documents referring to yo-r typhus research as such. We want to go through these documents to find out whether there is anything in them that you carried out experiments on human beings. You wrote to Hirt, as we have already seen, but we can ignore that because that does not concern the Medical Inspectorate. Do you agree with me?
A: Yes. That is true. What I sent to Hirt was copies of letters I had sent elsewhere.
A: Then, witness, please turn in Document Book 12 to page 86. This is a letter from you of the 27th of April 1944, to the Reich Minister of Aviation and Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe — in other words, to the Medical Inspectorate. This is Document NO-302, Exhibit 302. This document is pretty long, Professor; perhaps you could just tell us briefly what it is about and specifically tell us whether there is any indication in this document that you inoculated prisoners experimented on human beings.
A: I have this document before me. It is simply an opinion on a vaccine production by a firm. This letter mentioned here of 8 January 1944, does not seem to be here, nor can I remember what it said, but it can be seen from this document here what the subject must have been. I was asked to test this vaccine because there were doubts as to its efficacy. This vaccine was a killed virulent from the Behring Works. On contrast to the vaccine of Koch, Gildemeister, and myself, this vaccine used not only the irtelline sac but—
Q: Witness, I don't think the details are of interest to the Tribunal. This, then was a vaccine manufactured, by somebody else, the Behring Works, and you were to test it. Now, how were you to test it and how did you test it?
A: The testing was carried out in the laboratory. It was ascertained microscopically whether the vaccine manufactured by the Behring Works contained more or less Rickettsias than the vaccine made according to our specifications.
Q: I believe that is enough for this point. Then the testing was carried out in the laboratory?
A: Yes, in the laboratory and with the aid of a microscope.
Q: And the result of this test is set down here in this letter?
A: Yes.
Q: Then this letter has nothing to do with any inoculations or experiments?
A: Nothing at all.
Q: Then let's turn to page 98, the next document, Document NO-131, Exhibit 309, a letter of 29 August 1944, Saalow, from the High Command of the Luftwaffe. It bears the file number 55 and the Referat notation "2IIB". It is addressed primarily to you. It refers to a letter of 21 June 1944 from you. Can you recall what that letter had in it? It was not offered in evidence.
A: No, I can't, but from this letter here I can more or less reconstruct what it must have been. I assume from this, as can be seen from Number I, that I am requesting additional funds for typhus research. When so doing, as I have said, I always sent in brief reports on my work. I gather from paragraph 2 and 4 that I wrote that my work was proceeding satisfactorily that the vaccine had already been testes in practice and had proved its efficacy, namely, in Natzweiler in the summer of 1944 during the epidemic there. I mention this because during that epidemic our vaccine had proved itself.
Q: Then there is discussion of setting up a manufacture for vaccine, and you have already said that you intended to undertake this manufacture in your institute at the request of the medical Inspectorate.
I believe that we can skip that point now, but I am afraid I have to bother you again about tins file number. Again we have the file number 55, and this time the Referat additional notation "2IIA."
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, when you read that series of numbers before you read "2IIB." On the Tribunal's copy it is "2IIA."
DR. TIPP: This document, Your Honor, bears the notation "2IIA" whereas the former document bore the number "2IIB". NO-131 has the number—
THE PRESIDENT: The translation seems to be "B."
THE INTERPRETER: My fault, your Honor.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q: From this file notation, witness, the Prosecution has drawn the conclusion that all the contents of this letter, numbers 1 to 4 were worked on by Dr. Becker-Freyseng, the Referent for Aviation Medicine.
What do you have to say to that?
A: To that I can only say that this was a hygiene matter and, in my opinion, must have been worked on by the Referent for Hygiene; namely Atmer, or at best by the consulting hygienist, Prof. Rose.
Q: The Prosecution lays great weight on paragraph IV in this document. This paragraph reads, and I quote:
The report of 21 June 1944 in which the investigations at Natzweiler are mentioned should have been sent as secret.
From this the Prosecution draws the conclusion that in your letter of 21 June 1944 there must have been some mention of experiments or inoculations in the concentration camp of Natzweiler. Can you explain that, witness?
A: This report dealt with a typhus epidemic, as you can see from paragraph III in this letter, and typhus epidemics in any camp were to be reported on as secret. That was a general directive.
Q: Then, witness, you say that this request for secrecy has nothing to do with any experiments in a concentration camp.
A: No, as I said, the fact that there was a typhus epidemic in the camp was enough reason for having the matter kept secret.
Q: Now, witness, let's turn to Document NO-132 on the next page of the document book, a letter from you dated 19 September 1944, to the High Command of the Luftwaffe, Chief of the Medical Service. The reference is the document we just discussed, namely, NO-131. This, then, is your reply to that letter. Who in the Medical Inspectorate received letters of this sort?
A: This again is a hygiene matter, and I know for certain that these were handled either by Dr. Atmer, who was the Referent for Hygiene, or by Prof. Rose, the Consulting Hygienist.
Q: Now, witness, in conclusion, regarding these two documents, you said that this typhus epidemic and thus also your investigations were carried out in the concentration camp of Natzweiler, but here in Document NO-132, you speak of the camp as such.
A: That is to be traced back to my duty to maintain secrecy. I could not give precise details.
Q: In other words, you didn't mention the fact that Natzweiler was a concentration camp?
A: No. I did not.
Q: That concludes the discussion of the interim reports, and now I shall turn to your final reports. What sort of reports did you have to turn in when a piece of work was finished?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, how long will your further examination of this witness continue?
DR. TIPP: I think I shall be done by the intermission.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean you estimate fifteen minutes further? The Tribunal will now be in recess for a few minutes.
(Thereupon a recess was taken.)