1947-06-28, #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 28 June 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom 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 if the defendants are all present in court.

THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court with the exception of the defendant Oberheuser, who is absent due to illness. Medical certificate will be presented at the earliest possible moment.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court, save the defendant Oberheuser, absent on account of illness according to Medical certificate by the Prison Surgeon.

Counsel may proceed.

Dr. Sauter, I do not find that your Supplemental Document Book III has been made available to the Tribunal. I wonder if it is here for the defendant Ruff.

DR. SAUTER: Just a moment.

MR. HARDY: Supplemental Book III for the defendant Blome you mean, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Ruff.

MR. HARDY: That has already been introduced as Exhibit No. 20.

THE PRESIDENT: The documents which you propose to offer in behalf of the defendant Ruff begin with his Document Book IV, is that correct?

DR. SAUTER: That is right, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, proceed.

DR. SAUTER: As counsel for the defendant Ruff I shall begin putting in the documents in his Supplemental Volume IV. The first one in this volume is Document No. 22, which will be Exhibit No. 21.

MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor, Dr. Sauter calls to my attention that he has three further documents to introduce in the case of Blome. And, it is suggested, inasmuch as the record yesterday ended up with documents of Blome, that today he continue with the three documents of Blome and then start Ruff. In that way the record will have some continuity.

THE PRESIDENT: Excellent suggestion. Counsel will proceed with finishing the documents Blome. Have these documents been furnished to the Tribunal? Does the secretary know, or are they available? The Tribunal does not have these documents you mention, counsel.

DR. SAUTER: In order to be perfectly sure I have brought the necessary number of the English translation with me and can give them to you without any difficulty.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, counsel.

DR. SAUTER: I shall then say the rest of what has to be said in the Blome case. Previously I put in Supplemental Document Book IV in the Blome case which contains three continuous documents, namely 24, 25, and 26, all of which pertain to one subject. These are excerpts from several annual volumes from the Medical Journal entitled "The Philippine Journal". The have dealt with these excerpts already in the Rose case, and when Professor Ivy was on the stand, who also made statements about those experiments which are mentioned in this Philippine Journal — the experiments carried on by Strong. In the session of 21 March I gave no exhibit number to these documents 24, 25, and 26, because at that time there was no translation of them and the Court ruled that it would be expedient to give them an exhibit number after the translation was ready.

They have now been translated and I new give these Blome documents 24, 25, and 26, the common exhibit number 18 for ail three of them. This deals mainly with those experiments — the plague experiments — that were already dealt with in the hearing of Blome and the witness Dr. Rose, so that I need not say anything further about these documents.

THE PRESIDENT: Then Doctor, I understand that your Document Book, Supplement IV, will be marked Blome Exhibit 18. That covers your entire Document Book Supplemental IV, is that correct?

DR. SAUTER: Yes, and all three documents will have the exhibit No. 18.

THE PRESIDENT: There are no other documents in that book except the three you have referred to?

DR. SAUTER: That is correct, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. SAUTER: That definitely concludes my defense of the defendant Blome and I proceed now to putting in the further documents for the defendant Ruff. So far, documents up to Document 21 have been put in. I shall now begin with Supplemental Volume 4, containing, first of all, Ruff Document #22, which receives Exhibit No. 21. These are minutes put in the other Military Tribunal, of which I here have a certified copy. This is the record carried by the director of a criminal institution by the name of Strelow, who was employed during the Hitler Regime in a prison in Berlin. In his affidavit, which the Secretary General has, he states that in the Prison Ploetzensee in Germany, experiments were carried on with poison gas during Hitler's regime but only on crimina criminals and not on political prisoners, and only on volunteers who had been condemned to death; in addition, he says that these matters were kept so strictly secret that even the prison officials knew nothing of them unless they were immediately concerned in them. That is the contents of document 22, Exhibit NO. 21, which the Secretary General has in his possession and which was put in evidence in Case No. 3.

My next document is document No. 23, which will be Exhibit 22. The original of this sworn statement by a witness is to be found with the General Secretary, Miss Mandellaub, who has certified the correctness of the signatures thereon. This is the testimony under oath of the former medical inspector of the Luftwaffe, Professor Hippke, in sessions of the American Military Tribunal II of 7th and 11th February 1947. I have taken excerpts from this testimony, which is very long and which I shall not read and which I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice. I have extracted from this long testimony a few salient facts; primarily, the fact that only volunteers were used in the Ruff-Romberg experiments and these volunteers were all criminals; secondly, that Ruff did not act on his own initiative in these experiments but only on orders from his highest superior; thirdly, that in the opinion of the highest medical inspector in the German Luftwaffe, these high altitude experiments by Ruff and Romberg were absolutely necessary in order to clarify a problem that was particularly important to Germany at that time and to the air forces of every country at that time; and, finally, that the way in which these experiments was carried out was in keeping with all the tenets of humane behavior. I ask the court to take notice of this document but shall read nothing from it. These are the 2 documents in Ruff Supplemental Volume 4 and now I come to Ruff Supplemental Volume No. 5, which contains documents 24, 25, and 26. Document No. 24 will be Exhibit No. 23. This is a list of the penalties to which Vieweg was subjected. The original is with the Secretary General who made the original available to me only for a few days so that I might make this copy and have it certified.

MR. HARDY: As I understand it, the original is in the hands of the Secretary-General?

DR. SAUTER: That is right.

MR. HARDY: Then I suggest that the original be made available to the Clerk of this Court as an exhibit before this Tribunal, your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: The secretary will procure from the office of the Secretary General the original record referred to by counsel for the defendant Ruff — Document No. 24.

DR. SAUTER: I asked at that time to be able to keep the original so that I could put it to the Tribunal but I was told that I would have to return the original to the Secretary General because on the original there is a note by the German police authorities that after the original had been used it should be returned to the German authorities in Hanover. That is the reason why the General Secretary would not let me have the original.

THE PRESIDENT: Under those circumstances the original should not be introduced in evidence but a photostat made.

The secretary will procure the original for production before the Tribunal for examination and bring a photostat of the document, if any has been made. If none has been made then one will be procured.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the secretary will have considerable difficulty finding if it has been returned to the German authorities.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, if it has been returned, of course it is not now available in the office of the Secretary General; but the secretary will ascertain whether or not it has been returned and, if the original is in the office of the Secretary General, produce it before the Tribunal for examination.

DR. SAUTER: For the information of the Secretary General, I received the original from Miss Benford at that time and I gave the original back to Miss Benford after I had made my copy.

MR. HARDY: Doesn't Dr. Sauter have anything to offer as an exhibit — a certified copy of it signed by perhaps the Secretary General, or authenticated by himself?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the document bears a certification by Dr. Sauter.

MR. HARDY: He does not have an Exhibit, your Honor, he merely has copies of document books.

THE PRESIDENT: This certificate apparently reads:

I herewith certify the above extracts from the criminal record as a true and correct copy of the original before me.

MR. HARDY: He does not have an exhibit, as such, to offer to the Court at this time as an exhibit; he only has copies in these document books.

DR. SAUTER: That is the only way I can do it, your Honors. If I received an original from the Secretary General I would have to give it back the next day or the day after. I can only make a copy; otherwise there is nothing I can do.

THE PRESIDENT: Somewhere there must be an original certified by Dr. Sauter over his original signature that this is a correct copy; Dr. Sauter must have signed something because this is a copy of his signature.

This matter will not be at all difficult of adjustment and we might wait until the morning recess and then straighten it out.

MR. HARDY: But in this case, your Honor, the Prosecution is very interested in seeing the original document or a certified copy of it, certified by the proper authorities.

THE PRESIDENT: If the original document is still available here a messenger can go immediately to the office of the Secretary General and ascertain whether or not it is there, or with Miss Benford, I don't know where it would be. The Tribunal is also interested in seeing the original if it is available.

DR. SAUTER: Let me say the following regarding this document. This Mr. Vieweg who was here heard and was heard in Dachau, manifested a remarkable memory regarding what had happened in Dachau but his recollection was particularly confused about his own life.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, counsel, this document is clearly admissible in evidence as an exhibit. The only thing that is new under discussion is some matter of mere process that surely can be adjusted with a little time. I suggest that counsel proceed to the next document until we hear word from the Secretary General concerning the original of this document.

MR. HARDY: It is agreeable with me to mark it Exhibit No. 23 and admit it provisionally; and if there is any objection on my part later I can raise it and if I do not raise it we will assume that the document is admitted as Exhibit No. 23.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. That procedure will be followed. It will be marked exhibit 23, admitted provisionally, subject to further examination of the original record.

DR. SAUTER: This list of convictions for Vieweg I have put in order to show you that this man committed outright perjury and that his testimony as a whole is to be regarded with the greatest of suspicion.

From this record of convictions it can be seen that this man, who said he could not remember having been previously sentenced, had nevertheless received no less than five previous convictions, one of which was five years in the penitentiary and five years of loss of Civil rights. This witness volunteered and was called by the Prosecution, and in this Document No. 24, Exhibit 23, he is shown up in his true colors.

I go now to the next document. This is Document No. 25 and will be Exhibit 24.

This is an affidavit by Dr. Werner Loeckle of 2 May 1947 properly certified by the Police Headquarters in Frankfurt. This Dr. Loeckle states in his affidavit that an assignment to Dr. Ruff's institute was never given by him. This is a matter of some importance in judging Ruff's position in his institute.

The next one is Document 26, Exhibit 25. This is an affidavit by Professor Karl Luerenbaum of 30 April 1947 correctly certified by the authorities in Honnef on Rhine. This affidavit concerns itself with the same problem as the foregoing affidavit; namely, the fact that a branch office of the DVL, that is the German Research Institute for Aviation, ever existed in Dachau and moreover, that all the research assignments to Dr. Ruff were ordered by the Air Ministry so that it wasn't Ruff's personal interest in such matters that got him these assignments. Those are the documents in Document Book Number 3, and now I come to Document Book Number 6. This contains Document Numbers 27 to 31.

Document Number 27 is an affidavit by Professor Seewald and is Exhibit 26, dated 19 May 1947. It has been correctly certified by the local police. I ask the Tribunal to take notice of it. This affidavit also certifies that there was no branch office of the DVL in Dachau.

Now, an affidavit by Otto Fuchs who has already put in an affidavit on another subject. This affidavit is of 19 May 1947 and has been correctly certified by the Mayor of Dachau. I ask the Court again to take notice of this. I shall not read it into the record. It too concerns itself with the fact that there was no branch office of the DVL in Dachau and that there was no assignment inside to this research institute.

The sixth document concerns itself with a quite different field, Document 29, Exhibit 28. This is an affidavit by Dr. Wilhelm Hornberger of 21 May 1947 which also has been certified by the competent authorities in Tuebingen. In view of its length I ask the Tribunal to take notice of its contents, and I shall not read it. I can give you a brief synopsis of the contents.

Dr. Hornberger, who has been working at the Aero-Medical Center in Heidelberg for two years is probably the first specialist in Germany in the field of pressure fall sickness regarding which we have already heard many details here. Dr. Hornberger concerned himself with those problems both for the German air force and in the Aero-Medical Center. This is his specialty, and he makes statements regarding an assertion that was also made here by the prosecution; namely, that pressure fall sickness could only be caused by the formation of bubbles in the blood circulation system, and he says that the same thin can happen by the formation of gas bubbles in the tissues rather than in the blood circulatory system. He says that the injury can be caused by bubbles in the circulatory system only when an occlusion is formed and thus stops the flow of blood. I don't want to go into the medical aspects of this. The defendant Ruff has himself expressed his opinion on this matter, and also Dr. Ivy who is a specialist, and they have pretty well substantiated what Dr. Hornberger here states. Therefore, I ask the Tribunal to take notice of those highly complicated scientific data to be found in this affidavit of Hornberger.

Now comes another affidavit, namely, one by Dr. Matthes.

THE PRESIDENT: This affidavit, the one by Hornberger, you assign the number Exhibit 28, I assume?

DR. SAUTER: Yes. The next document is Document Number 30 which will be Exhibit #29. This affidavit by Dr. Matthes of 6 June 1947 has been correctly certified by a German notary. Matthes had previously put in an affidavit which he now supplements with the affidavit, the original of which I have just given the Secretary General. This affidavit concerns itself with the question when the low-pressure chamber was moved from Dachau back to Berlin, and the answer of this question will give the definitive answer to the question when Ruff-Romberg experiments were finally concluded. Matthes confirms that at the beginning of June, 1942 the low-pressure chamber was taken back to Berlin, and he says moreover that the damage to the barometer, regarding which a witness here testified, was not at the end of May 1942, but quite a while previous to that, and that the damage was repaired long before May of 1942.

In order to save time I shall not go into this matter either, but put in my next document, Document Ruff Number 31, which will be exhibit Number 30.

This is an affidavit by General Adolf Galland of 1 June 1947 which has been correctly certified by a German notary public. This Adolf Galland was perhaps the best known German fighter pilot and, at the end, the chief of all pursuit plane organizations. Therefore he is a man of particular authority in judging the question whether and to what extent the experiments carried on by Ruff and Romberg helped to solve the problem of rescue from high altitudes, and to what extent and whether they were necessary for German aviation and for aviation in general. This particularly competent fellow says here in his affidavit that in his opinion Ruff's and Romberg's experiments in Dachau were absolutely necessary to the interests of the Luftwaffe and aviation in general and it was necessary also that they be carried out at maximum altitudes, much higher than 12,000 meters, but he doesn't say whether the maximum height is 15,000 or 20,000 meters or any other specific number of meters.

From this very interesting, and in my opinion very important, affidavit I shall read nothing, but I draw it to the attention of the Tribunal. The next document is the last one in this document book Ruff number 6, Document 32, Exhibit 31. This is a document that was put in when Ruff was being heard; namely the work record of the foreman Karl Fohlmeister. I should be only too happy to show you the original of this work record but I am somewhat embarrassed in this because just a few days ago this foreman Fohlmeister wrote me asking me to return the original to him because it also contained a number of private entries covering many years, and he needed the book again. I just showed the original of the book to the prosecutor and pointed out to him the two passages in question and asked him to convince himself that the copies in this document book number 6, Exhibit 31, Document 32, exactly correspond to the original.

MR. HARDY: If your Honor please, I am unable to do that because of the lack of knowledge of German. However, before doing that, we have nothing before the Tribunal to indicate the authenticity of this document, where it came from what it purports to be. The prosecution doubts what it is, and according to the regulations of the Tribunal the manner in which documents should be submitted here, if they are German original documents, they should be properly authenticated with a descriptive certificate, if necessary. This document is clearly inadmissible in evidence in this form.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, was there any direct testimony concerning this book? I have a recollection of some time book having been referred to by someone. May be this might be another one.

MR. HARDY: It was referred to in defendant Ruff's examination, but he had never seen the book before, Your Honor. This a book of an entirely different person.

THE PRESIDENT: I wasn't sure what the testimony was, but I remembered something. It was the testimony of the defendant Ruff.

DR. SAUTER: This is exactly the same book. I put it to the witness at that time, and at that time asked the prosecuting attorney to assure himself of the authenticity of it, and at that time again he said that he didn't know enough German to do so. That is, however, not necessary because whether I talk German or English makes no difference. Anybody can see whether the book was actually written at that time or whether it was just made up lately.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, that isn't the purpose of my objection. At the time this was used in the defendant Ruff's examination it wasn't offered in evidence. At that time it wasn't appropriate for the prosecution to object, but at this time it is being offered. I am not objecting to it as being in the German language; I am objecting to the document as it is not properly authenticated. I don't know but what this might be a book of some workman working in some other institute.

There is no way to —

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any affidavit by the foreman Fohlmeister?

DR. SAUTER: Yes, of course, there is. That's the next document I am going to put in. Perhaps discussion of this book, exhibit #31; can be postponed until that affidavit has been brought to the attention of the Tribunal. Perhaps then the prosecutor will adopt a different point of view.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Consideration of this exhibit will be delayed.

DR. SAUTER: I turn now to my next document. This is in supplemental document book number 7.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal has not received that document book.

DR. SAUTER: I know that, your Honors. This affidavit is dated 11 June 1947 and I received it only four days ago. Three days ago I sent the copies in for translation with a request for a rapid translation but, of course, it hasn't been translated yet. I ask permission to be able to tell you the contents of this affidavit. That will then conclude the complete presentation of my defense and will give me —

THE PRESIDENT: Supplemental Document Book 7 contains merely one affidavit?

DR. SAUTER: That is so, yes, an affidavit by this chap, Fohlmeister, the man who kept this work record for years on end, in his affidavit, testifies to the authenticity of this work book so that you will then be in a position to rule on the admissibility of that book.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the original affidavit then is present in Nurnberg in some office being translated?

DR. SAUTER: I have the German original here. Copies of it are in the translating branch.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, that can now be considered. We can consider the offer of that exhibit at this time.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I might inquire as to the fifth paragraph of this document. Whose handwriting is this in the light blue ink? It is a different handwriting that the signature of the affiant.

DR. SAUTER: That is different ink, but the handwriting is the same. Both handwritings are those of Fohlmeister who, at the end of paragraph five, signed the affidavit and the whole thing is certified by a notary public in the District of the Kammergericht Berlin, Kurt Werner Hein, so the prosecutor will not be in a position to state that this hadwritten addition which is paragraph five is not identical with the handwriting of the rest of the document.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary will pass the original affidavit to the Tribunal for examination.

MR. HARDY: I might note, Your Honor, that the light blue ink is put in apparently after the notary or after the affiant or either before, because the affiant's signature and the notary's signature are in the same color ink. Your Honor, I withdraw my objection to the note book if this affidavit is admissible in evidence as such. It is properly authenticated. I was merely questioning concerning paragraph number five. However, I do suggest that the work book be given to the court interpreter and ask him to interpret these words written in German for me please.

DR. SAUTER: You have the translation as document —

THE PRESIDENT: Concerning this exhibit and the reference by counsel for the prosecution to the fact that paragraph five is written in a different color ink, the Tribunal has examined the original affidavit. The signature of the affiant Fohlmeister appears below four lines of handwriting in a different color ink, but that signature of the affiant is in the same color ink that the signature of the affiant is written.

Now, if the addition in the lighter colored ink, light blue ink, had not been written prior to the signature of the affiant on page two of the affidavit, it would be a very curious coincidence that the affiant had signed far enough below the last line of typewriting to allow just those four lines in ink to have been written in afterwards.

Prima facie the affidavit appears to be perfectly regular in form. Unless counsel for the prosecution desires the affidavit to be read into the record by the interpreter —

MR. HARDY: Obviously the light blue ink is in the same handwriting as the affiant, but the typewritten line above the light blue ink ends the affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: The mere question is whether these four lines in ink were written before the affidavit was made. The affiant may well have added something to the affidavit before it was sworn to, even though the form of the typewriting apparently concludes the affidavit.

MR. HARDY: But I am talking about the sentence before the ink, as a concluding sentence to an affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: I understand that, but still there is nothing to prevent an affiant from adding a paragraph after the typewriting if he adds it before he swears to it before the notary.

MR. HARDY: If those circumstances are true, that is correct, your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: And the position of the signature of the affiant on page two of the affidavit indicates that the ink was written before he signed it, and that signature being written in the same ink which he signed the affidavit, apparently before the notary. The affidavit may be admitted, and I take it, counsel for the prosecution, this removes your objection to the other exhibit, the extract from the time book?

MR. HARDY: Yes, Your Honor.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, let me say the following regarding this last affidavit. I wrote first of all to Fohlmeister to have him certify the entry in the work record, and those are the points that Fohlmeister first takes up in his affidavit. Then in a second letter I asked Fohlmeister whether he knew why the witness Matthes went to Cologne. Then, in answer to this last question, Fohlmeister put down his number five in this affidavit and if the first four are typewritten and the last, namely, number five is in ink, the explanation of that is that the inquiry that led to number five came much later than the inquiry that led to the first four paragraphs.

Now, Mr. President —

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is satisfied. Ruff's Document Number 32 contained in his supplemental document book 6 is admitted as Ruff Exhibit 31. The affidavit of Karl Fohlmeister which has been examined by the Tribunal, and which I assume would be Ruff Document 33, is admitted in evidence as Ruff Exhibit 32. The translation, of course, will be filed when it is ready.

DR. SAUTER: Then I may take the original of this work record with me and return it to Herr Fohlmeister. I am quite willing to leave it with Mr. Hardy, for a few days if he wishes but I ask then that it be returned.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the prosecution desire to examine the document? The prosecution may keep it for a few days if you desire.

MR. HARDY: I will have one of my analysts look it over, your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, counsel.

DR. SAUTER: That concludes my defense of the defendant Ruff.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal notes that the counsel for the defendant Ruff has concluded his defense.

MR. HARDY: I suggest, your Honor, that when Dr. Sauter gets his work book returned to him that he make extracts of the two entries and have them certified and file them as an exhibit so that the Secretary General's office will have an index file for that particular exhibit.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Counsel for defendant Ruff will comply with the suggestion made by the prosecution.

DR. SAUTER: They are already in. They have already been put in as a document.

THE PRESIDENT: I understand, but does counsel for the prosecution desire a photostat made of those two entries?

MR. HARDY: It is my understanding that the Secretary General does not have an exhibit folder as such with that number as it is not an exhibit until he has a folder with the exhibit in it.

THE PRESIDENT: The formal original exhibit must be prepared.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. Hardy has the document, so how can I give it to the Secretary General?

MR. HARDY: I thought I made myself very clear that when I returned the document to him, it will be necessary for him to make extracts of the two entries, have them certified to be correct and true extracts of the entries in the document, typed on to a piece of paper, put in to a folder and given an exhibit number, and turned over to the Secretary General.

THE PRESIDENT: For the record before the Tribunal, for the copy of that exhibit in the document book, it would appear that that has already been done. Of course, whether it has or not we are not advised but the record is complete before the Tribunal.

DR. SAUTER: Of course, that was all taken care of long ago.

MR. HARDY: The Secretary General does not have a folder marked Exhibit 31.

DR. SAUTER: The best thing to do would be for the prosecutor to take a photostatic copy of this book and give the original back and then everything would be all right.

THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit, Document 32, as it appears, Ruff supplement 38, on page 111, purports to be a copy of these memoranda. It bears on the face of the paper:

I herewith certify that this is a correct copy of the extract of the original before me, Nuernberg, 12 June 1947. /s/ Dr. Sauter.

MR. HARDY: That will be necessary for Dr. Sauter to take one of those mimeographed copies and sign it and put it in the Secretary General's office. I am taking the position of the Secretary General, not the prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel is correct. If no original to that certificate has been filed with the Secretary General, counsel for the prosecution is correct, that should be done.

JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Sauter, will you please turn to Document Book for Ruff, Supplement #6, Document 32, as it appears in your document book?

DR. SAUTER: Yes, I have it.

JUDGE SEBRING: Let's see it. Hold it up, please. Now, where, Sir, is the original paper that was signed by you on this exhibit?

DR. SAUTER: At the moment I cannot tell you. I assume that it has been turned in somewhere.

The document itself is here in the possession of the prosecution. The original of the document is now in the possession of the prosecution.

JUDGE SEBRING: I mean the certificate that you made and put your name to, the copy of which now appears in the document book.

DR. SAUTER: This is always given to the Secretary General with the request for translation and that is the document that has my original signature. I give this document to the Secretary General with the request for translation.

JUDGE SEBRING: And such a document was given to the Secretary General and it was from that that this mimeographed copy was made?

DR. SAUTER: Of course, with four copies; but if this seems so important I can again put the thing in with my personal signature. I am only too happy to do so, should that seem expedient.

JUDGE SEBRING: The only question is, Doctor, that, according to the secretary of this Tribunal that original document bearing your signature does not seem to be with the Secretary General. It would be a very simple matter for you to sign another copy and hand it to the Secretary General because his record must be complete. That is the only difference.

DR. SAUTER: I shall only be too happy to do so.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, Secretary General, Major Hatfield tells me he has seven exhibits missing of the documents introduced this morning. He does not have seven exhibits in his files.

THE PRESIDENT: During the morning recess which I think we will take now before we open another case, investigation can be made at the office of the Secretary General to find out if those original documents are there.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the original documents have no occasion to be there. When prosecution or defense counsel introduces a document they carry the original document or certified copy with them to the Tribunal at the time of introducing the document, affidavit or German original document the documents are merely for the convenience of Tribunal and for the prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: I understand but I thought these documents were made for the office of the Secretary General, that those are for the translation division.

MR. HARDY: I never have given the major here his copies for the true exhibits.

THE PRESIDENT: The exhibits must be filed, of course, During this morning recess investigation can be made as to where or not the exhibits are there because these original must be filed with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal will now be in recess.

(A recess was taken.)