Produced by Malcolm Farmer, Lesley Halamek and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.

VOL. 108, APRIL 27, 1895.

_edited by Sir Francis Burnand_

[Illustration: CLASSIC QUOTATIONS ILLUSTRATED.

(_For the Use of Schools._)

EXAMPLE I.--"AMARI A-LIQUID."]

THE LATEST CRAZE.

(_A Dramatic Study of Cause and Effect._)

SCENE--_Interior of a Private Box at a Popular Theatre._

_Enter_ ANGELINA _and her people_.

_Paterfamilias._ Well, now that we are here, I hope you are satisfied.
As for myself, I hate these problem plays.

_Materfamilias._ They are entirely the vogue just now, and we must see
them. What everybody does we must do.

_Angelina._ So I told EDWIN--I should say, Mr. DOMUM--when he
complained of our going.

_Mater._ Of course. We have to follow the fashion.

_Pater._ Hush! You must not talk any more, see the curtain has risen.

    (_Five minutes pass._)

_First Heroine_ (_on the stage_). And so, my dear, my marriage was
an utter failure. The monotony of the life was terrible. My husband
anticipated my every wish. The tameness was too awful for words, and
so I left him.

    [_Loud applause._

_Mater._ (_to her husband_). Ah, I never left you, RICHARD!

_Pater._ (_to his wife_). Nor I you, BRIDGET!

_Angelina_ (_aside_). I suppose married life must be very wearisome.

    (_Ten minutes pass._)

_Second Heroine_ (_on the stage_). And now I will tell you the secret
of my life. I never loved my husband. He gave me all I required--fine
clothes, sparkling jewels, an opera box. But his presents were insults
in disguise, and I left him.

    [_Loud applause._

_Pater._ I did not insult you by handing you too many gifts, BRIDGET?

_Mater._ Indeed you did not, RICHARD. In fact, I think you carried
your abstention too far.

_Pater._ Not at all. See, after these many years, we are devoted to
one another!

_Angelina_ (_aside_). Failure of Marriage Number Two! Weddings seem to
be mistake!

    (_Two hours pass._)

_Third Heroine._ I tell you, my Lord Bishop, that I have never
regretted leaving you. Twenty years ago you were a young curate,
and you spoilt our married life by your indulgence. You let me have
everything I wanted. No, my Lord, I will hear no more.

_Angelina_ (_aside_). Another matrimonial failure! I really must have
a good think over it.

_Pater._ (_to_ Mater.). Well, I hope you are satisfied!

_Mater._ (_to_ Pater.). Awfully depressing, but I don't see what harm
it can do to anyone.

    (_An hour passes._)

_Angelina_ (_writing in her own room_). "Dear EDWIN, I call you by
your christian name, for the last time. I can never be yours. I am
convinced from all I have heard that marriage is a failure. Sincerely
yours, ANGELINA."

    [_Scene closes in upon a flood of tears._

HEXAMETERS TO DATE; AND A PREHISTORIC PEEP.

    [Mr. FLINDERS PETRIE has just excavated the city of Ombi on
    the Nile, and vindicated JUVENAL'S geographical reputation.]

  _ECCE novi'st aliquid_ (_per FLINDERS PETRIE Magistrum_)
  _Ex Africâ semper!_ Quite like some arch-humourist rum,
  Playing with tombs and skulls, he unearths fresh funny surprises,
  Scandals of Athor's "past," or long-veiled secrets of Isis.
  Now this gravedigger-_Yorick_, this Egypt's new ABERCROMBY,
  Scores yet another conquest--he's found out JUVENAL'S Ombi,
  Found out the next-door neighbours of Nile-washed Tentyra (you will
  See in the Fifteenth Satire their truceless, truculent duel).
  Thus they lived some ages B.C. (in the thirtieth cent'ry),
  Cannibals, six feet high, and long-legged Libyan gentry,
  Buried _à la_ trussed fowl, with heads on which wavy brown hair
          rose;
  These were the folk who once made things pretty hot for the
          PHARAOHS.
  Dig then, PETRIE, away 'mid potsherds, mummies, and cinders,
  Delve on, and add fresh towns to the underground kingdom of
          FLINDERS!

OUR BOOKING-OFFICE.

Hearty congratulations from the Baron and his assistants to Mr. H. W.
LUCY on his delightful life of Mr. GLADSTONE (W. H. ALLEN & Co).
No one certainly has had better opportunities than TOBY, M.P., for
studying the great statesman in all his varying moods; and it may be
affirmed with equal certainty that no other man (or dog) could have
used his opportunities to greater advantage for the benefit of the
public. There are in this little volume a tone of easy yet scholarly
courtesy, a fine literary touch, and a marvellous power of condensing
details into one vividly descriptive sentence. It is an admirable
piece of work, which, seeing that it only costs a shilling, ought to
be sure of a popularity fully equal to its high merits.

"Bravo TOBY!" says

[Illustration: THE BARON DE BOOK-WORMS.]

CHANGE OF DESCRIPTIVE TITLE.--In the Egyptian explorations, the
results of which, so far, have been recently given in Professor
PETRIE'S lecture, reported in the _Times_ of Thursday, April 18, the
lecturer tells us how he was accompanied in his researches by Mr.
GRENFELL, "The Craven Fellow." How doubly plucky of Professor PETRIE
to proceed with such a companion so extraordinarily timorous as is
expressed in such a _sobriquet_ as "The Craven Fellow." However, he
belied his name by showing such pluck and perseverance in rendering
assistance to the Professor as will entitle him to explain himself
as "_Late_ the Craven Fellow," but _now_ "the C. F., or Courageous
Fellow."

[Illustration: THE JAP IN THE CHINA SHOP.

_Master of the Situation_ (_loq._). "NOW THEN, YOU PIG-HEADED OLD
PIGTAIL, OPEN YOUR SHOP--AND HAND ME THE KEYS!"]

[Illustration: SCORCHING.

_First Countryman_ (_to third-rate Amateur Jock, whose mount won't
have the Fence_). "NOW THEN, SHOVE 'IM AT IT AGIN, MISTER! WHOI DENGED
IF OI WOULDN'T JUMP THAT 'ERE LITTLE PLACE WI' A JACKASS!"

_Second Countryman._ "MAYBE YER WOULD, MA LAD; BUT YER SEE THAT 'ERE
'OSS DON'T SEEM TO CARE ABOUT JUMPING WI' A JACKASS!"]

THE JAP IN THE CHINA SHOP; OR, THE NEW "OPEN SESAME."

    ["China, properly opened up, would be an El Dorado for
    mankind.... The true conquest effected by the war is the
    conquest of the right to a market, and that apparently on an
    enormous scale."

  _"Daily News" on the terms of Peace between China and Japan._]

_Little Jap loquitur_:--

  Come, wake up, old chap! I'm the go-ahead Jap.
    _Open Sesame!_ Yes, that's the word, JOHN!
  In your den you would stop, or e'en shut up your shop,
    Your proceedings are highly absurd, JOHN!
  Spite your bounce and your boast, I have got you on toast,
    And thereby, friend JOHN, hangs a _big_ tale.
  When your carcase I'd wake, I have only to take
    A sailor's round turn at your pigtail!
      Your notion of shopkeeping's shutter and key.
      Since you don't know their use, hand 'em over to _Me_!

  For thousands of years your pride and your fears
    Have muddled your market completely.
  Ah! would you, old slug? But a twist and a tug
    Bring you up to your bearings most sweetly.
  'Tis no use to kick! You will have to move slick,
    Now you've got in the hands of Young Jappy;
  Don't you get in a scare for your crockery ware.
    Rouse up, open shop, and be happy!
      Afraid? Superstitious? Oh, fiddle-de-dee!
      Throw open your markets, and leave it to _Me_!

  For ever so long you've been going all wrong.
    Your Empire is under a shadow;
  But well opened up, by ships, railways, and KRUPP,
    It will turn out a true El Dorado.
  _Don't_ fly to your door! Eh? your pigtail is sore?
    You think me a cocky invader?
  Why you'll find in the end I'm your very best friend,
    When I force you to be a free trader.
      Blow your grandfather's bunkum, you Heathen Chinee!
      Take down all your shutters, and hand _me_ the key!

  For _my_ use alone? you inquire with a groan.
    Oh, dear! you _must_ be an old duffer!
  Excuse me this wink,--but what do _you_ think?
    Do you hold "Outside Devils" will suffer
  The Flowery Land to be locked by my hand,
    Any more than by yours, in their faces?
  Pig-headed old Pigtail, I fancy I know
    How to get into Europe's good graces.
      So pay up my millions, you Heathen Chinee!
      Throw open your market, and _hand me the key_!

"STRANGE DISAPPEARANCES."

The four strangers were gathered together in the all-but-deserted
inn. They were forced to enter into conversation, because the solitary
periodical taken in by the landlord had been read from title to
imprint by everyone of them.

"A strange article," said the first, as he laid down the _Lancet_.
"And so men disappear entirely for awhile, and then come back to their
homes and profession as if nothing had happened."

"Extraordinary," murmured the second. "I see that the scientific
publication you have just relinquished suggests that the cause
of these hurried exits partake of the nature of post-epileptic
phenomena." And then the talk went on. The four strangers dined
together, supped together, and on the following morning partook in
company of breakfast. The waiter, at about eleven o'clock, presented
each of them with a note. It came from the landlord, and was full of
figures. A weird look appeared on their faces.

"We must move on," said one of the quartette; "but as the staircase is
steep, let us descend by the window."

The no-longer-perplexed strangers adopted the suggestion, and gently
sliding down a rope, were soon quit of the inn. They walked together
for about a quarter of a mile, and then coming to four cross-roads,
scattered.

"Dear me," said the landlord of the inn, when he once again found
himself alone. "Their disappearance is most strange. I am inclined
to agree with the _Lancet_, 'that the phenomenon remains striking
and mysterious, interesting in its psychological aspect, but in its
concrete form full of practical and medico-legal difficulties;' and,
believing this, I must write to the proper authorities." And he sat
down and composed two letters. One he addressed to the President of
the Royal College of Physicians, and the other to the Editor of _Hue
and Cry_.

BLIND ALLEY-GORIES.

BY DUNNO WÄHRIAR.

(_Translated from the original Lappish by Mr. Punch's own Hyperborean
Enthusiast._)

NO. II.--THE ILLUSTRIOUS STRANGER.

The sky was darkened by swart birds, with tufted tails, and a look in
their clay-coloured eyes as of millions of stifled croaks; the rain
fell in grizzled sheets like the streaming hair and beard of some
Titanic lunatic, and the thunder boomed over the town as if it had
just discovered another epoch-making novel.

Night fell; I lit my lamp and closed the shutters, drew my curtains,
so as to shut out any gleaming cats' eyes that might be peering at me
through the chinks, and mixed myself a tumbler of hot punch.

As I finished it, a wild piercing shriek rose from the universe, as
though someone had run a pin into the Great Unknown, and a shining
blue-white ball came down the chimney and burnt a hole in the
yellow-green gloom of my hearthrug.

I looked up; a strange man was sitting right in front of me. His
crested hair had a blue-white gleam, like the electric light in a
mountain hotel when the storm is nearly ended; it stuck out in a
spiral fringe round his cheeks and chin; his mouth was prim like a
purse; but his spectacles twinkled with laughter like the new ferrule
on a gingham umbrella.

"I am the Shaker of Society's Pillars, I have discovered that the Tree
of Knowledge of Good and Evil bears nothing but rotten apples. There
are milestones on the Bergen road--but I can see through most of them.
I am the New Generation knocking at the old stage-door. I am also
the Dramatiser of Social Conundrums to which there will never be any
answer."

Time passed--a second or an hour. I began to wish he would go.

"I am the great Wizard that has ennobled and purified Humanity by
showing that they are all the morbid victims of a diseased heredity.
The great fire at Christiania was _not_ the fire in which _Mrs.
Solness's_ nine dolls were burnt. I am he who has emancipated Woman by
convincing her that she has the _right_ to be hysterical."

Again time passed--an hour or a second. I fancy I must have dropped
off to sleep.

[Illustration: "I fancy I must have dropped off to sleep."]

"I am he who has broken through the conventions of the
well-constructed drama. When we lived at Drontheim, BERNICK'S gander
was stolen by tinkers. I am the original eld, and also the child who
instructs the grandmotherly critic in the art of sucking problematic
eggs; but I, too, am a master-builder of magnificent bathos."

And again time passed--a second or an hour. I wondered whether he had
come to stay the night.

"Read, I am called 'dramatic'; acted, I am called 'impossible.'"

With that the cock crew. The stranger had flown before I had an
opportunity of asking him his name or asking him to look in again some
evening.

I was rather sorry, for he seemed to have a flow of agreeable small
talk, though it was perhaps a little egotistic.

THE WOULD-BE SOLDIER'S VADE MECUM.

_Question._ Why did you become a member of a Volunteer corps?

_Answer._ With the intention of strengthening our national defences.

_Q._ Then you think such a proceeding patriotic?

_A._ Not only patriotic, but necessary.

_Q._ You probably have some recollection of the French collapse in
1870-71?

_A._ Yes; but I have been chiefly influenced by considerations of a
mathematical character.

_Q._ Make your meaning plainer.

_A._ I mean that it stands to reason that as only a small percentage
of our people are trained to arms, and ninety-six per cent of our
neighbours are converted into soldiers, the latter, in the case of a
quarrel with us, would have the upper hand.

_Q._ And you think a quarrel entailing the arbitration of the sword
might be sprung upon us at any moment?

_A._ Precisely; that is entirely my opinion.

_Q._ And, consequently, you take a serious view of Volunteering?

_A._ Assuredly, or I would not give up most of my leisure time to
master drill in all its branches.

_Q._ Do you obtain any social advantages by wearing the uniform of a
Volunteer?

_A._ No; on the contrary, the grade of a private in the long run
causes considerable expense; and the commission of an officer is
inseparable from large expenditure and a loss of self-respect.

_Q._ Why is the holding of a commission of a Volunteer officer
"inseparable from a loss of self-respect"?

_A._ Because, in the general estimation, the holder of a commission in
the Volunteers is worthy of ridicule, pity, or contempt.

_Q._ Can you give the reason for this impression?

_A._ It is probable that it has been created by the consideration
that a Volunteer officer is chaffed by his friends, sneered at by his
enemies, and mulcted of much money by his comrades.

_Q._ Then a Volunteer officer or private usually joins the force from
the most patriotic of motives?

_A._ Certainly. Nine-tenths of the rank and file and their commanding
officers wish to qualify as soldiers capable of repelling a foreign
invasion.

_Q._ And this being so, they do not wish to spend three or four days
of training in practising "marches past" and other man[oe]uvres of a
more or less ornamental character?

_A._ Quite so; not even when the practice terminates with a review in
a royal park, and a salute performed to the strains of the National
Anthem.

_Q._ Nor do the Volunteers desire to be made into a raree show?

_A._ Not even to make a cockney Bank Holiday.

_Q._ And if you are told that this is the sort of thing that the
Volunteers want, what do you reply?

_A._ Nonsense.

_Q._ And if it were added that more serious work would be unpopular,
what would be your suggestion?

_A._ Try and see.

MEM. FOR VETOISTS.--It is the question of "tied" houses which makes
the compensation question so knotty.

RAILWAY BALLADS.

I.--THE EXPRESS TRAIN.

  A gruesome tale I tell of the
  West-Eastern Railway Companee.
    "Its virtues few, its faults a score"--
    (I quote the view held heretofore).

  The chief among its faults, you see,
  Is sad unpunctualitee.
    Now, gentles all, list what befel
    AUGUSTUS HALL, of Camberwell.

  The Fates were stern, the world unkind;
  And this, I learn, unhinged his mind.
    _Che sarà, sarà!_ Think how sad!
    His evil star it drove him mad!

  "If life has no more joy to give,"
  Quoth he, "I'll go and cease to live.
    Nor yet delay an hour to dine,
    But straightway lay me on the line.

  "The train now due will end distress--
  So haste thee, Two o'clock Express!"
    With that he'd gone, nor stayed to snack;
    But climbed upon the railway-track.

  He waited now two hours--not less;
  And yet, I vow, came no express!
    And he had nought his pangs to ease.
    He wished he'd brought some bread and cheese.

  He had to fast. He fain would sup.
  The hours flew past. He sate him up.
    "'Tis strangely late. I should not mind--
    I'd gladly wait--if I had dined.

  "If I'd a joint that I could carve,
  I'd strain a point; but here to starve!!
    May I be hung if e'er I see
    Such gross unpunctualitee!

  "No gentleman can now depend
  On any plan to plan his end."
    Twelve hours or more he waited thus.
    "A train?" he swore; "an _omnibus!_

  "It tarries yet all through the night,
  And helps to whet my appetite!"
    His hunger grew inside his chest;
    With nought to chew, he was--_non est_.

  Two days pass by, and then we find
  The train draw nigh, three days behind!
    Directors sigh, deplore, and frown;
    And fine the driver half-a-crown.

  "But had I been on time," JACK said,
  "HALL'S death, I ween, were on my head."
    "Quite true, good JACK! Our conscience pricks.
    We hand you back your two-and-six!"

_Envoi._

  Now that is all I have to tell
  Of Mr. HALL, of Camberwell.

[Illustration: THESE DULL TIMES.

_Lady Gushton_ (_always so agreeable_). "AND THE MAGNIFICENT PICTURES
YOU HAD HERE LAST YEAR,--HAVE YOU GOT THEM ALL STILL?"

_Mr. Flake Whyte_ (_sadly_). "YES; I HAVE THEM ALL."

_Lady Gushton._ "HOW VERY NICE! IT IS SO HARD TO PART WITH ONE'S OWN
PICTURES, IS IT NOT?"

_Mr. Flake Whyte_ (_with much feeling_). "AWFULLY, AWFULLY HARD!
SOMETIMES IMPOSSIBLE!"]

ROBERT AND THE COUNTY COUNSELLS.

BROWN and me has been a having sum rare good fun lately. We has
managed to see and hear a good deal about the County Counsellers, and
werry emusing we finds em to be. They suttenly does manage to quarrell
among each other more than I shood have thort posserbel. There's
a depperty Counseller among em who will tork whenever he gets a
hoppertunity, yes and keeps the pot a biling, as BROWN says, for
nearly arf a nour at a time, and then finds hisself beaten into a
cocked at, and so has to sit down, while the others has a jolly larf.

Ever so many on em belongs to the Tems Conserwancy, and so we are
offen hearing of their going up the River, when there's two much water
there, and hoffering to show the poor natives how to get a lot of
it away, but from what I hears they don't seem for to be werry
sucksessful.

Too or three on em went to the Boat Race the other day and took ever
so many Ladies with em, and jolly nice dinners they had on bord after
the Race was over and there wasn't no more fear of no more rane, which
had rayther spylt the morning.

It's reel good fun to hear the Counsellors tork about the Copperation
nowadays! such a difference to what it was about a year ago! Then it
was all bragging and boasting, now it's all begging your pardon, and
arsking your grace, and it shant occur again! I never thort to see
such a change, and it's really werry emusing. The two places where
they speshally seems not at all at their ease are the Court of Common
Counsel and the Manshun House; and in both of these honnerd places
the few as wenters in do look uncumferal indeed! and the reel natives
don't show them no pitty! not a bit of it, but takes a quiet larf
whenever they gits a good chance.

I've herd as one of the Counsellors has been herd to say as there are
no less than three on em in the House of Commons, each of em quite
equal to the late Speaker, if not shuperior to him, and that it was
only beggarly jealousy as prewented them giving them a fare chance!

The same honorable Gent has been herd to say that the County
Counsellors was much shuperior to the City Copperation, for it was
only last Toosday as they agreed, without a word of remonsterance, to
raise no less than two millions of money from next year's rates!

I wunder if it's all trew!

ROBERT.

THE NEWEST NUISANCE.--The woman with a past before her.

[Illustration: PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT.

"COOT-NIGHT, MRS. PROWN. I HAF TO SANK YOU FOR DE MOST BLEASANT
EFENING I HAF EFFER SCHBENT IN MY LIFE!"

"OH, DON'T SAY THAT, HERR SCHMIDT!"

"ACH! BOT I _DO_ SAY DAT! I _ALVAYS_ SAY DAT!"]

THE NEW CONDUCTOR.

["You have been elected by a majority of the House. You are the
representative of the whole House."--_Report of the Right Hon. Arthur
Balfour's speech on the election of Mr. Gully as Speaker._]

_Mr. Punch to Mr. Speaker._

  If the Second Fiddle's satisfied, you're all right with the First!
    The Harp may heed your _bâton_, and as for the Big Drum,
  When it booms out on the night with a loud sonorous burst,
    That makes the whole proscenium shake and hum;
  What matter if the clatter, and the bang and bump and batter,
                          Keep but time?
  If they're docile to your nod, and obedient to your rod,
    The New Conductor's post will be prime!

  The Orchestra has doubtless been a little bit at odds,
    And what should bring forth harmony has fallen into row;
  But, good gracious! there were shines sometimes among the Olympian gods,
    And the noisy ones look milk and honey _now_.
  The brazen and the windy both outdid Wagnerian shindy,
                          For a while;
  Now there's calm at wings and middle, and even the First Fiddle
    Veils his virtuous indignation with a smile:

  The _tutti_ did go wrong, all the parts appeared at strife,
    They liked the Old Conductor, were in doubt about the New;
  And WH-TBR-D'S tootling piccolo, and WH-RT-N'S wry-neck'd fife,
    Went decidedly a little bit askew.
  But, in spite of blare and blether, they're now going well together,
                          String and reed,
  Parchment, and wood, and brass; and it yet may come to pass
    That the New Conductor's _début_ will succeed.

  The Old Conductor's style was perfection, there's no doubt,
    Impossible to beat, and extremely hard to follow;
  But the new one seems to know pretty well what he's about.
    A Mercury _can_ play, though no Apollo.
  So let us cheer all round, as he makes his bow profound!
                          Tap, tap, tap!
  Go the fiddle-bows, in proof that, while welcome shakes the roof,
    The orchestra agree to cheer and clap!

  Sir, that St. Stephen's Orchestra is mighty hard to lead:
    Needs mastery, and dignity, and coolness, and fine ear,
  Great was the _bâton_-wielder 'tis your fortune to succeed;
    But tackle your big task, Sir, without fear!
  _Punch_ trusts the name of GULLY on Fame's roll will not shine dully
                          At the end!
  Now tune up string and bow, let the New Conductor know
    That he finds in each performer a fair friend!

PARTY POLITICS.

_First Man_ (_conciliatory_). You're a Tory?

_Second Man_ (_also conciliatory_). Well, no. I'm a Unionist. Yes, a
Unionist. Certainly I don't approve of Home Rule----

_First Man._ Don't say that. I think well of Home Rule.

_Second Man._ Oh, do you? Well, I agree with the Liberals in some
ways.

_First Man._ Come to that, in some ways I agree with the Tories. Now
take Disestablishment.

_Second Man._ Ah, that's just one point where I disagree with the
Liberals.

_First Man._ Well, you may be right. But I should be a Tory if they
supported Home Rule.

_Second Man._ And I should be a Liberal if they didn't want
Disestablishment.

_First Man._ Now, CHAMBERLAIN----

_Second Man._ Ah, yes. CHAMBERLAIN----

_First Man._ He opposes Home Rule.

_Second Man._ He supports Disestablishment.

    [_Left mutually abusing_ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

FASHIONABLE INTELLIGENCE.--"The LORD LIEUTENANT was present at
Punchestown for the races. His Excellency and the house party from
the Viceregal Lodge, which included TOBY, M.P., met with a hearty
reception." Naturally. If TOBY, M.P. was not made welcome at _Punch's_
town, who should be?

CITY NOTES.--_The latest Crushing Report._--The Londonderry Mine.

[Illustration: THE NEW CONDUCTOR.

"YOU HAVE BEEN ELECTED BY A MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE. YOU ARE THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE."

_Report of the Right Hon. Arthur Balfour's speech on the election of
Mr. Gully as Speaker._]

[Illustration: A BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENT.]

TRADE BETRAYED.

_Returned Anglo-Indian Colonel_ (_to friend of his boyhood_). Either
your climate is colder than it used to be, or your coals throw out
less heat. Which is it?

_His Friend._ Oh, it's the coals. Rubbishy things, rather. Come from
Tomsk in Siberia.

_R. A.-I. C._ Siberia! They ought to be sent there! But aren't English
coals good enough?

_His Friend._ Oh, yes, they're _good_ enough. But then, you see,
they're dear. That's the result of the last coal strike.

_R. A.-I. C._ Oh, I heard about that at Bangalore. Then how about your
razors? I bought one yesterday in the Strand. If you believe me, I've
only used it once and it's blunt already.

_His Friend._ "Made in Germany," no doubt. The trade's gone over
there, they say.

_R. A.-I. C._ And boots, now. Why has the pair I got in the City a
month ago split open in two places?

_His Friend._ _That's_ the late boot strike. Cheap American goods have
ousted the genuine British article.

_R. A.-I. C._ (_meditatively_). Ah--heard of the boot strike too at
Bangalore. But I didn't find my bootmaker charged me any less than in
the old days for 'em. Tell you what, there's only one thing that will
save England.

_His Friend._ What's that?

_R. A.-I. C._ Why, a new kind of strike altogether. Why shouldn't the
strikers _strike striking?_ Eh?

_His Friend._ That never struck me.

    [_They part pensively._

MY PIPE.

  I do not now attempt to sing,
    With laudatory phrases,
  That now, in verse, quite hackneyed thing,
    Which poet, painter praises:
  Beloved by TURNER, CLAUDE, or CUYP,
  The excellent tobacco-pipe.

  Nor yet of bagpipes do I write,
    Pan's pipes with Punch and Judy,
  Or organ ones, because you might
    Read books on them, from MUDIE,
  In varied tongues, in varied type--
  On any sort of music pipe.

  Nor, plagued of late however much
    By bronchial affections,
  Do I propose just now to touch,
    With medical reflections,
  On what Jack Frost delights to gripe,
  My choking, wheezing, sore wind-pipe,

  Nor am I speaking now of wine,
    Nor yet, from MARRYAT learning,
  Of what the Cockney would define--
    Poor A as ever spurning--
  "The sime in nime, but not in shipe,"
  The pipe of port; the boatswain's pipe.

  No! Now I sing--but not with praise,
    To praise it would be rummer
  Than any other sort of craze,
    Excepting in a plumber;
  I am not such a fool, a "snipe,"
  As says the Bard--my water-pipe.

  For weeks I could not get a drop
    Of water, it was frozen;
  When thus congealed the thing would stop,
    I spoke as would a boatswain.
  For seamen's oaths the time was ripe,
  I here translate them--Hang that pipe!

  Then suddenly, of course at night,
    There came a sudden splashing,
  And I, in most unequal fight,
    About my bedroom dashing,
  With sheets and towels tried to wipe,
  Or check, the flood from that vile pipe.

  You would not say that frost is fine,
    So exquisitely bracing,
  If you had had a pipe like mine,
    Your ruined home defacing;
  On carpet, stain; on paper, stripe;--
  Oh, blow that beastly water-pipe!

SONG OF THE PEACE TERMS (SUNG TO CHINA).--"Oh, Let us be Jappy
together!"

[Illustration: PARLIAMENTARY "LIBERTY MEN" COMING ABOARD AFTER TEN
DAYS' LEAVE.]

A SONG OF SPRING.

  Oh, painters, you who always "come
    Before the swallow dares, and take
  The winds of March"--till May--with some
    Atrocious smell of paint, and make
  The streets in such a shocking state, you
  Are quite a nuisance--how I hate you!

  How can I wear in peace a neat,
    Silk hat, and coat of decent black,
  When, passing you in any street,
    Your paint may tumble on my back,
  Or I may smash, which might be sadder,
  My hat against your sloping ladder?

  How can the spring delight my mind,
    How can I like the budding trees,
  The butterflies of any kind?
    A Painted Lady could not please
  In any way the mental man,
  Were I a painted gentleman.

  How can I like the balmy air,
    How dream of violets in bloom,
  When paint-pots swing aloft and scare
    With visions of impending doom?
  I'm mad and hot--quite crimson madder--
  With dodging each successive ladder.

TO A BANTLING.

(_Lines written to a Lady who "Banted."_)

  Some rhymes to make you laugh? I can't
    Drop, Wegg-like, into rhyme instanter.
  It's easiness itself to bant,
    Comparatively hard to banter.

  The many pretty things I'd say,
    The pleasant thoughts I'd like to utter,
  I may not do, it seems to-day--
    You scorn the bare idea of _butter!_

  "Sweets to the sweet." Not long ago,
    Why chocolates--you'd gladly greet them.
  Now you've abandoned them, and so
    You never (hardly ever) eat them.

  To see you drink hot water--that
    The very stoniest heart would soften,
  You evidently think it flat,
    You're in it--aren't you--much too often?

  Yet whether 9st. 12, as when
    You weighed that day at Margate Station,
  Or 10st. 7, or 7st. 10,
    _I_ can't pretend to indignation.

  To bant from early morn till late
    May be, of course, supremely right of you;
  But if you feel oppressed by weight,
    Would it not do if we made light of you?

  Though that I swear I will not do,
    Let others, if they like, make bold to--
  I merely write these rhymes for you,
    I _always_ do just what I'm told to!

  But if you cease to peak and pine
    (For Time the Banting Conscience hardens),
  You will not fail to drop a line--
    My chambers are in Temple Gardens.

SEXOMANIA.

_By an Angry Old Buffer._

  "When ADAM delved and EVE span,"
  No one need ask which was the man.
  Bicycling, footballing, scarce human,
  All wonder now "Which is the woman?"
  But a new fear my bosom vexes;
  To-morrow there may be _no_ sexes!
  Unless, as end to all the pother,
  Each one in fact becomes the other.
  E'en _then_ perhaps they'll start amain
  A-trying to change back again!
  Woman _was_ woman, man _was_ man,
  When ADAM delved and EVE span.
  Now he can't dig and she won't spin,
  Unless 'tis tales all slang and sin!

[Illustration: DOMESTIC TROUBLES.

"WHAT IS IT, NURSE?"

"IF YOU PLEASE, MA'AM, THE CHILDREN _WILL_ MAKE SLIDES ON THE FLOOR
WITH TAPIOCA PUDDING!"]

OSTRICH FEATHERS.

    ["The magnificent ostrich at the Zoological Gardens, presented
    by the QUEEN, has recently died from lung-disease."--_Daily
    Paper._]

  My eyes are wet with dewy tears,
    That will not cease to flow.
  Like MARY'S little lamb, my grief
    Somehow is sure to go
  Wherever I do. It all comes
    From something that I've read,
  The ostrich that I loved so well
    Fell ill, and now is dead.

  "Magnificent" indeed, it was.
    I never ceased to take
  A pride in its magnificence
    For its own special sake.
  But added unto this there was
    An extra joy. I mean
  That loyalty asks ardour for
    A present from the QUEEN.

  Oh! ostrich. I have often thought
    Your smile childlike and bland,
  And speculated if it's true
    That right down in the sand
  You really _do_ conceal your head.
    But even though that's wrong,
  It seems without a lung for life
    You could not live for long.

  My wife and I delight to hear
    Our wee girl's merry laugh,
  As she's astride the elephant
    Or feeding the giraffe.
  But ostrich--regal, lung-gone, dead!
    When we are at the Zoo,
  My wife's best hat will always serve
    To turn my thoughts to you.

CARMENCITA.

(_An Impression._)

  "O east is east, and west is west
    And never the twain shall meet."
  And the dance of Spain is one of the twain
    To the English Man in the Street.

  We love the trick of the lofty kick
    And the muscular display
  Of the nymph who has leapt at a muslin hoop
    And stopp'd in her flight half-way.

  A plain, blunt girl in the stormy swirl
    Of accordion pleats and laces,
  Tho' she cannot dance, if she spin and prance,
    Is numbered among the Graces.

  For heel and toe our hearts can glow
    And the feats of the rhythmic clog,
  And a poem of motion wells forth in the notion
    Of a Serpentine Dancing Dog.

  But the dancer's art, of her life a part,
    A song of the wordless soul
  With a tale to tell, like the music's swell,
    Too large for the word's control,

  _That_ goes not down in London town
    Where dogg'd conventions stick,
  And dancers still must charm with frill,
    Or "make shymnastic drick."

  As the jungle king with his wrathful spring,
    To the lamb that aptly bleats,
  As the trumpet's blare to the palsied air
    Of that which plays in pleats,

  So is east to west, with its sun-born zest,
    With fire at the quick heart's core,
  And passions bold as the ardent gold
    Of the sun on a southern shore.

THE BALLAD OF THE KAISER'S MERCY.

(_In brief._)

  "The sovereign'st thing on earth
  Was parmaceti, for an inward bruise."

      _Henry the Fourth_, Part I., Act i., Sc. 3.

  A quarrel, anything but pretty,
  Cannot be healed by parmaceti.
  But honour, bruisèd in the leg,
  Finds sovereign solace in an egg.

REFLECTIONS OF A STATESMAN.

_Saturday._--Things looking queer. Leamington in a ferment, Tories
denouncing _me_. Like their impudence. Must order ARTHUR BALFOUR to
stop this nonsense, and bring rebels to reason. I shall want Hythe
thrown into the bargain. BALFOUR must write more letters. If our
little lot are to get nothing out of all this, what's the use of
having sacrificed principles and COURTNEY? Obviously none. JESSE
COLLINGS quite agrees. Says the Tories will repent, when it is too
late, of having refused to submit to the greatest, wisest, most
generous and noblest statesman of this or any other age, past
or future. Wonderful amount of sense in JESSE. Shall make him
Governor-General of India, or First Lord of Admiralty.

_Monday._--Have seen BALFOUR. Says he can do nothing at Leamington.
Wanted me to withdraw Liberal Unionist candidate. ME! The mere notion
ridiculous. Told him so. Also asked him how about Compact. He said
"Compact be ----". At this moment GOSCHEN came in, and interrupted.
BALFOUR said missing word was "observed." GOSCHEN full of sympathy,
but said he could do nothing. Shall not allow him to be Chancellor of
Exchequer again. Shall be Chancellor of Exchequer myself. Letter
in _Times_ from GEOFFREY DRAGE, saying kind things about me. Rather
patronising, but well meant. Shall make DRAGE Home Secretary.

_Tuesday._--Letter in _Times_ from Lord TEYNHAM attacking me on
account of vote on Welsh Disestablishment. Even a fool of a lord
might know a man can't wriggle out of everything, and can't please
everybody. Have written to SALISBURY ordering him to throw TEYNHAM
into the Tower as soon as Unionist Government in power. If he refuses,
shall accept Premiership myself and execute TEYNHAM on Tower Hill.
Leamington still raging. If this goes on shall march at head of
Birmingham Fencibles and rase Leamington to the ground--all except
three houses said to belong to Liberal Unionists. That'll teach them
to oppose _me_.

_Wednesday._--Letter in _Times_ from BYRON REED. Says I'm not so bad
as they want to make me out. Nice sensible fellow BYRON. Shall make
him Minister of Agriculture. Have sent ultimatums to SALISBURY,
BALFOUR, AKERS-DOUGLAS, MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, and CHAPLIN, ordering
them to retire from public life. Shall run the show on entirely
different lines with AUSTEN and JESSE to help me. Have heard from
editor of _New Review_, who refuses to disclose name of author, of an
attack on me. Have sent HENRY JAMES to editor with new patent rack
and thumbscrews. But there, my name's easy. Never could bear malice.
Always forgive everybody.... Notes from SALISBURY, BALFOUR & CO. They
refuse to retire. HENRY JAMES returns. Editor broke rack and threw
thumbscrews out of window. A very rude man, HENRY JAMES says. GULLY
elected Speaker. I'm off to Birmingham.

  * * *

_Later._--Letter from HART DYKE in the _Times_. A good fellow, HART
DYKE. But why, in the name of screw-nails, should they all presume to
patronise _me?_

  * * *

Letter in _Standard_ from STANLEY BOULTER. Must stop that kind of
nonsense. Leading article in _Standard_. Usual futilities: "We fully
recognise loyal services, but on the present occasion," &c. Shall
refuse peerage and retire to Central Australia with JESSE to found a
Me-colony. Sick of the whole show.

QUEER QUERY.--ANY ADVANCE?--I see that at the Shop Assistants'
Conference at Cardiff it was said that what shop-workers ought to go
in for was a "Forward Policy." Surely this must be a mistake? If there
is one thing that everybody objects to, it is forward young men and
women behind the counter. One often hears the shop-walker say, "Will
you come forward, Miss JONES, and serve this lady!" And perhaps _that_
was what the Cardiff people were thinking of. Can this be the true
explanation? I sincerely hope so; I don't want a "forward" young
person, a sort of "independent labour party," slamming down goods for
_me_ to inspect!--ALARMED.


SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly. You will see that I did not trouble
you with it all, but it says what I had already put to you earlier, that
the Nacht und Nebel Decree had become superfluous as a result of the
terror and sabotage decree, and that the Wehrmacht Legal Department had
presented these things for discussion.

Now, can you give us any answer as to why these 24,000 unfortunate
persons who had been sentenced should be handed over to the tender
mercies of the SD?

KEITEL: I must say that I am surprised by the whole incident. I did not
attend the conference, and apparently I did not read the note since, as
a matter of principle, I always marked every document which had been
presented to me with my initials. I am not acquainted with the figures
quoted; this is the first time I have seen them; I am not acquainted
with them and I do not remember them, unless another order was...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will give you something which you have read.

KEITEL: As regards the facts about which you ask, I must answer in the
affirmative. I do not know the figures, only the facts.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you cannot answer my question. You cannot
give us any reason as to why the Wehrmacht and these other offices were
sending the 24,000 people, who had been sentenced by ordinary courts,
over to the SD? You cannot give us any reason for that?

KEITEL: No; I may say that up to a point I can. I think “SD” is a
misinterpretation. I think police custody was meant. That does not mean
the same thing.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly not.

KEITEL: I do not know if it might have been the same thing.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Surely you have been at this Trial too long to
think that handing people over to the SD means police custody. It means
a concentration camp and a gas chamber usually, does it not? That is
what it meant in fact, whether you knew it or not.

KEITEL: I did not know it, but it obviously led to the concentration
camp in the end. I consider it possible; in any case, I cannot say that
it was not.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the last paragraph but one refers to the OKW.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, I am just coming to that.

[_Turning to the defendant._] If you will notice that, Defendant, two
paragraphs below the one I put to you it states:

    “As the OKW is not particularly interested in trying the minor
    matters still remaining for the military tribunals, they are to
    be settled by decrees to be agreed upon by local authorities.”

It is quite clear that your office was deeply concerned in this
business, was it not, Defendant?

KEITEL: I do not know exactly what it means, but it was obviously
mentioned at that conference.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, before I put the next document, I want you
to realize how we have been going. We started with the Nacht und Nebel
Decree, which disappeared, and we went on to the Terror and Sabotage
Decree. We then proceeded to acts which were less than terror and
sabotage, but were criminal acts under the rules of the occupying power.

I now want you to consider what was done to people who simply refused to
work. Would you look at Document D-769? That is Exhibit GB-304. That is
a telegram from Luftwaffe General Christiansen, who was in the
Netherlands, Commander of the Air Forces in the Netherlands, through his
Chief of Staff.

Now listen to this:

    “Owing to railway strike, all communications in Holland at
    standstill. Railway personnel does not respond to appeals to
    resume work. Demands for motor vehicles and other means of
    transport for moving troops and maintaining supplies are no
    longer obeyed by the civil population. According to the Führer’s
    decree of 18 August 1944”—that is the Terror and Sabotage
    Decree, which you have already had—“and the supplementary
    executive instructions of the Chief of the OKW”—which we have
    already seen—“troops may use weapons only against persons who
    commit acts of violence as terrorists or saboteurs, whereas
    persons who endanger the security or tactical preparedness of
    the occupying power in any other way than by terrorism or acts
    of sabotage, are to be handed over to the SD.”

Then General Christiansen comes in with this:

    “This regulation has proved too complicated, and therefore
    ineffective. Above all, we do not possess the necessary police
    forces. The troops must again receive authority to shoot also,
    with or without summary court-martial, persons who are not
    terrorists or saboteurs in the sense of the Führer’s decree, but
    who endanger the fighting forces by passive resistance. It is
    requested that the Führer’s decree be altered accordingly, as
    the troops cannot otherwise assert themselves effectively
    against the population, which in its turn, appears to endanger
    the conduct of operations.”

Now, Defendant, will you agree that shooting, with or even without
trial, railway men who will not work, is about as brutal and cruel a
measure as could well be imagined by the mind of man? Do you agree?

KEITEL: That is a cruel measure, yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What was your answer to that cruel measure?

KEITEL: I cannot say. I do not recollect the incident at all, but
perhaps the answer is there.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, look at the Document D-770, which is, I
think, your answer; it is Exhibit GB-305. You will notice on the
distribution list that that goes to the Commander of the Armed Forces in
the Netherlands, and further to the signal which we have just been
looking at. Now, you say:

    “According to the Führer’s order of 30 July 1944, non-German
    civilians in the occupied territories who attack us in the rear
    in the crisis of our battle for existence deserve no
    consideration. This must be our guiding principle in the
    interpretation and application of the Führer’s decree itself and
    the Chief of the OKW’s executive decree of 18 August 1944.

    “If the military situation and the state of communications make
    it impossible to hand them over to the SD, other effective
    measures are to be taken ruthlessly and independently. There is,
    naturally”—and I ask you to note the word “naturally”—“no
    objection to passing and executing death sentences by summary
    court-martial under such circumstances.”

I can not remember, Defendant, whether you have ever had an independent
command yourself or not. Have you? Have you had an independent command,
apart from your division? I think that was the last independent command
you had. You have not had an independent command yourself, have you?
Don’t I make myself clear?

KEITEL: I did not understand. What do you mean by “independent”?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I mean that you have not been a commander or
chief of an army or army group yourself, if I remember rightly, or of an
area, have you?

KEITEL: No, I have not.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I ask you to put yourself in General
Christiansen’s position. That answer of yours was a direct
encouragement, practically amounting to an order, to shoot these railway
men out of hand, was it not? “To take other effective measures
ruthlessly and independently.”

KEITEL: That is explained by the form of summary court-martial. It is
not left to the discretion of the individual; jurisdiction of summary
court-martial was provided.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just look at the way it is put, Defendant. I
suggest to you that it is quite clear. One sentence states: “If handing
over to the SD is impossible, owing to the military situation and the
state of communications, other effective measures are to be taken
ruthlessly and independently.”

Then, the next sentence: “There are, naturally”—look at the word
“naturally.” I suppose that it was “natürlich” in German. Is that
correct?

KEITEL: I have not the word “natürlich” here. Two words, so far as I can
make out, have been inserted.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But it says: “There are, naturally, no
objections to passing and executing death sentences by summary
court-martial procedure.” What you are saying is that, of course, there
is no objection to a summary court, but you are telling him, in addition
to that, that he is to take effective measures ruthlessly and
independently. If General Christiansen had shot these railway men out of
hand, after getting that letter from you, neither you nor any other
superior could have blamed him for it, could you?

KEITEL: According to the last sentence, he was obliged to carry out
summary court-martial procedure. It says: “There are no objections to
the executing of this sentence by summary court-martial under such
circumstances.” That is how I meant it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But what did you mean by “effective measures to
be taken ruthlessly and independently”? What did you mean by that, if it
was only an ordinary summary court procedure?

KEITEL: Not apart from summary court procedure, but by means of the
same. That is what the last sentence means. It is already unusual to
appoint a summary court-martial in such cases.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, even on your basis, to use a military
summary court to shoot railway men who will not work is going rather far
even for you, is it not? It is going rather far, isn’t it?

KEITEL: That was a very severe measure, yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you tell the Tribunal that when you make all
these additions, taking you through the chain of additions that you make
to the order replacing the Nacht und Nebel Order, of which you
disapproved, do you say that you went to Hitler for every one of these
executive orders and answers that you made?

KEITEL: Yes. I went to him on the occasion of every one of these orders.
I must emphasize the fact that I did not issue any of these orders
without previously submitting it to the Führer. I must expressly point
out that that was so.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I think a misunderstanding has crept into the
translation. The translation interprets “Standgericht” as summary court.
I do not believe that the words “summary court” reflect accurately what
we understand in the German language by “Standgericht.” I do not know
just what you understand in the English or American language by “summary
court,” but I can imagine that this means some summary procedure.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I was taking it in favor of the Defendant that
it meant the court he referred to yesterday, one officer and two
soldiers. I was taking that. If I am wrong, the Defendant will correct
me. Is that right, Defendant?

KEITEL: I described this Standgericht (summary court-martial procedure)
briefly yesterday, and the criterion of a summary court-martial was that
it was not always necessary for a fully trained legal expert to be
present, although it was desirable.

THE PRESIDENT: While you are on the subject of translation, the
Defendant seemed to suggest that there was no word in the German which
is translated by the English word “naturally.” Is that true?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I had it checked and I am told that the
translation is right.

THE PRESIDENT: There is a German word which is translated by
“naturally”? I should like to know that from Dr. Nelte.

DR. NELTE: I am told that a false conception or false judgment might be
produced in this connection since in British and American law a summary
court has no right to pass sentences of death. I am told that a summary
court...

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, Dr. Nelte, I did not ask that question. The
question I asked you was whether there was any German word which is
translated into English by the word “naturally.” Is that not a clear
question?

DR. NELTE: In the German text it says “under such circumstances, of
course.” I think the English translation is incorrect in using the word
“naturally” and in putting it after “in these circumstances” instead of
at the beginning, so that one is led to conclude that it means, “there
are naturally no objections (es gibt natürlich keine Einwendungen),”
whereas the German text says, “Against the passing and executing of
death sentences by summary court procedure there are—under such
circumstances, of course—no objections (Gegen die Verhängung und
Vollstreckung von Todesurteilen im standgerichtlichen Verfahren bestehen
unter solchen Verhältnissen selbstverständlich keine Bedenken).”

THE PRESIDENT: Then the answer to my question is “yes.” There is a word
in the German which is translated “naturally.”

DR. NELTE: Yes, but the words “naturally” and “under such circumstances”
are separated in the English version, while in the German version they
belong together. “Naturally” refers to “under such circumstances.”

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now I want to come to another point. You told us
yesterday that with regard to forced labor you were concerned in it
because there was a shortage of manpower and you had to take men out of
industry for the Wehrmacht. Your office was concerned with using
military forces in order to try and round-up people for forced labor,
was it not?

KEITEL: I do not think that is quite the correct conception. The
Replacement Office in the High Command of the Wehrmacht...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If you are going to deny it, I put the document
to you. I put General Warlimont’s views to you and see if you agree. I
think it saves time in the end. If you look at Document 3819-PS, which
will be Exhibit GB-306, Page 9 of the English version. It is the report
of a meeting at Berlin on 12 July 1944. You have to look on through the
document after the letters from the Defendant Sauckel and the Defendant
Speer, the account of a meeting in Berlin. I think it is Page 10 of the
German version. It starts with a speech by Dr. Lammers and goes on with
a speech from the Defendant Sauckel, then a speech from the witness Von
Steengracht, then a speech from General Warlimont: “The Deputy of the
head of the OKW, General Warlimont, referred to a recently issued Führer
order.” Have you found the portion? I will read it if you have.

KEITEL: Yes, I have found the paragraph “The Representative of the Chief
of the OKW...”

    SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: “The Representative of the Chief of the
    OKW, General Warlimont, referred to a recently issued Führer
    order, according to which all German forces had to participate
    in the task of raising manpower. Wherever the Wehrmacht was
    stationed, if it was not employed exclusively in pressing
    military duties (as, for example, in the construction of coastal
    defenses), it would be available, but it could not be assigned
    expressly for the purpose of the GBA. General Warlimont made the
    following practical suggestions:

    “a) The troops employed in fighting the partisans are to take
    over, in addition, the task of raising manpower in the partisan
    areas. Everyone who cannot give a satisfactory reason for his
    presence in these areas is to be recruited by force.

    “b) When large cities are wholly or partly evacuated on account
    of the difficulty of providing food, those members of the
    population suitable for labor are to be utilized for labor with
    the assistance of the Wehrmacht.

    “c) The refugees from the areas near the front should be rounded
    up with special vigor with the assistance of the Wehrmacht.”

After reading this report of General Warlimont’s words, do you still say
that the Wehrmacht...

KEITEL: I am not aware that the Armed Forces have ever received an order
mentioning the rounding-up of workers. I would like to say that I know
of no such demand and I have not found any confirmation of it. The
conference as such is unknown to me and so are the proposals you
mentioned. It is new as far as I am concerned.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is quite clear that General Warlimont is
suggesting that the Wehrmacht should help in the rounding-up of forced
labor, isn’t it?

KEITEL: But as far as I know it has never happened. I do not know that
such an order was given. According to the record, this is a proposal
made by General Warlimont, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, perhaps in those circumstances you should read
the three lines after the passage you have read.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I should. The next line:

    “Gauleiter Sauckel accepted these suggestions with thanks and
    expressed the expectation that a certain amount of success could
    be achieved by this means.”

KEITEL: May I say something about that? May I ask that Gauleiter Sauckel
be asked at a given time whether and to what extent troops of the Armed
Forces did actually participate in such matters. It is not known to me.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No doubt the Defendant Sauckel will be asked a
number of questions in due time. At the moment I am asking you. You say
that you do not know anything about it?

KEITEL: No, I do not recollect that any order was given in this
connection. I gather from the statement by Warlimont that discussions
took place.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now I want to ask you a few questions about the
murder of various prisoners of war. I want to get it quite clear. Did
you mean yesterday to justify the order for the shooting of Commandos,
dated 18 October 1942? Did you wish to say that it was right and
justified, or not?

KEITEL: I stated yesterday that neither General Jodl nor I thought that
we were in a position, or considered it possible, to draft or submit
such a written order. We did not do it because we could not justify it
or give reasons for it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next question that I put to you is this: Did
you approve and think right the order that was made that Commandos
should be shot?

KEITEL: I no longer opposed it, firstly on account of the punishment
threatened, and secondly because I could no longer alter the order
without personal orders from Hitler.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you think that that order was right?

KEITEL: According to my inner convictions I did not consider it right,
but after it had been given I did not oppose it or take a stand against
it in any way.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You know that your orders had contained
provisions for the use of parachutists being dropped for sabotage
purposes, don’t you? Your own orders have contained that provision of
parachutists being dropped for sabotage purposes. Don’t you remember in
the Fall Grün against Czechoslovakia? I would put it to you if you like,
but I would so much prefer that you try to remember it yourself. Don’t
you remember that your own orders contained a provision for parachutists
being dropped for sabotage purposes in Czechoslovakia?

KEITEL: No.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You don’t?

KEITEL: No, I do not remember the order.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I refer you to it. My Lord, it is Page 21 and 22
of the document book.

KEITEL: Which document book, please?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. It ought to be your first document book,
and quite early on. It is part of the Fall Grün, which is Document
388-PS, and it is Item 11. I think it is somewhere about Page 15 or 16
or 20. You remember the Schmundt minutes and then it is divided into
items.

The Tribunal will find it at the foot of Page 21:

[_Turning to the defendant._]

    “For the success of this operation, co-operation with the
    Sudeten German frontier population, with deserters from the
    Czechoslovakian Army, with parachutists or airborne troops, and
    with units of the sabotage service will be of importance.”

KEITEL: May I read the paragraph that I think you mean?

SIR DAVID. MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes; it is headed “Missions for the Branches of
the Armed Forces...”

KEITEL: “Missions for the Branches of the Armed Forces.” It states:

    “For success, co-operation with the Sudeten German frontier
    population and the deserters from the Czechoslovakian Army, with
    parachutists or airborne troops and with units of the sabotage
    service can be of importance.”

These parachutists and airborne troops were in fact to be set to work on
frontier fortifications, as I explained yesterday, since army
authorities believed that the artillery resources at our command were
insufficient to permit our combating them with artillery.

This does not mean parachutists or saboteurs, but actual members of the
German Air Force, and the sabotage service is mentioned at the end.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The sabotage service must be people who are
going to do sabotage if they are going to be of any use, must they not?
They do sabotage, don’t they?

KEITEL: Undoubtedly; but not by means of airborne troops and
parachutists, but through saboteurs in the frontier areas who offer
their services for this kind of work. Yes, that is what they are
thinking of. We had many such people in the Sudeten region.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not going to argue with you, but I want to
have it clear. I now want to come to the way in which this order of the
Führer was announced. You will find the order—the Tribunal will find it
on Page 64—but what I want him to look at if he would be so kind, is
Page 66 of the book, Page 25, Defendant, of your book. The second
sentence of the Defendant Jodl’s “To the Commanders” about this order.
That is on Page 25, and Defendant Jodl says: “This order is for the
commanders only and must not under any circumstances fall into enemy
hands.” Was that because you and the Defendant Jodl were ashamed of the
order, that you had this secrecy provision put on it?

KEITEL: I have not found it yet, and I would like to know the
connection. Page 25 is a teletype letter.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: From the Oberkommando Wehrmacht, dated 19
October. Now have you got it, the second sentence?

KEITEL: Dated 18 October 1942?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: 19 October, issuing order of the 18th. “This
order is for commanders only and must not under any circumstances fall
into enemy hands.” Was that because you were ashamed of the order, that
it was put like that?

KEITEL: I have not seen the letter and I think General Jodl should be
asked about it. I do not know the contents, but I have already stated
the opinion of both of us. I cannot give you the reason.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You can’t give me the reason for this secrecy?

KEITEL: I do not know the motives behind it and I would ask you to put
this question to General Jodl. I have not seen it. But I have already
stated my own views and those of General Jodl.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, I want you to look at the way that
even Hitler expresses it with regard to this. If you look—I guess it is
Page 31 in our book. It is a report from Hitler wherein he says:

    “The report which should appear on this subject in the Armed
    Forces communiqué will state briefly and laconically that a
    sabotage, terror, or destruction unit has been encountered and
    exterminated to the last man.” (Document Number 503-PS)

You were doing your best—and when I say “you,” I mean you collectively,
Hitler, yourself, and Jodl and everyone else concerned. You were doing
your best to keep quiet about this, about anything being known about
this order, weren’t you?

KEITEL: That was not my impression; on the contrary, in every case we
subsequently published the facts in the Wehrmacht orders, the Wehrmacht
report. It is my recollection, namely, that in the Wehrmacht report we
stated that such and such an incident had occurred, followed by such and
such consequences. That is my recollection.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am now only going to ask you to look at one
document further on, because in that regard, you remember, after the
Soviet Union tried certain people at Kharkov, when you were trying to
get up some counterpropaganda—now, look at this document, about these
executions, it is Page 308, Document UK-57. You have got a copy of it. I
am going to ask you about only two incidents. You see it is a memorandum
and the passage that I want you to look at is Number 2, the fourth
memorandum, Paragraph 2, which is headed “Attempted Attacks on the
Battleship _Tirpitz_.” Do you see that?

KEITEL: Just one moment, I have not found it yet. Battleship _Tirpitz_,
oh, yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Have you got it? Just listen, now:

    “At the end of October 1942 a British Commando that had come to
    Norway in a cutter, had orders to carry out an attack on the
    Battleship _Tirpitz_ in Drontheim Fjord, by means of a two-man
    torpedo. The action failed since both torpedoes, which were
    attached to the cutter, were lost in the stormy sea. From among
    the crew, consisting of six Englishmen and four Norwegians, a
    party of three Englishmen and two Norwegians were challenged on
    the Swedish border; however, only the British seaman in civilian
    clothes, Robert Paul Evans, born 14 January 1922, in London,
    could be arrested and the others escaped into Sweden.

    “Evans had a pistol pouch in his possession, such as are used to
    carry weapons under the armpit, and also a knuckle duster.”

And now the next page:

    “Violence representing a breach of international law could not
    be proved.”

Did incidents such as that, under this order, come to your attention?

KEITEL: I do not remember the actual incident, but I can see that it has
been reported by the department.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now you have told us that you have been a
soldier for 41 years; that emphasizes your military position. What, in
the name of all military tradition, has that boy done wrong by coming
from a two-man torpedo to make an attack on a battleship; what had he
done wrong?

KEITEL: No, this is an attack against a weapon of war, if carried out by
soldiers in their capacity of members of the armed forces, it is an
attack made with the object of eliminating a battleship by means of
sabotage.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But why, why should you not if you were prepared
to go on a two-man torpedo for an attack against a battleship, what is
wrong with a sailor doing that? I want to understand what is in your
mind. What do you, as a man who has been a soldier for 40 years, what do
you see wrong for a man doing that, towing out a torpedo against a
battleship? Tell us. I cannot understand what is wrong.

KEITEL: This is no more wrong than an attack with an aerial bomb if it
is successful. I recognize that it is right, that it is a perfectly
permissible attack.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, if you did not see that incident I
will not go through putting the others in, as they are all just the
same, men in uniform coming up to the Gironde to attack German ships.

What I want to understand is this. You were a Field Marshal, standing in
the boots of Blücher, Gneisenau, and Moltke. How did you tolerate all
these young men being murdered, one after the other without making any
protests?

KEITEL: I have stated here in detail my reasons for not making any
further resistance or objection; and I cannot alter any statement now. I
know that these incidents occurred and I know the consequences.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But, Field Marshal, I want you to understand
this. As far as I know, in the German military code, as in every
military code, there is no obligation on the part of a soldier to obey
an order which he knows is wrong, which he knows is contrary to the laws
of war and law. It is the same in your army, and our army, and I think
in every army, isn’t that so?

KEITEL: I did not personally carry out the orders of 18 October 1942. I
was not present either at the mouth of the Gironde or at the attack on
the battleship _Tirpitz_. I knew only that the order was issued,
together with all the threats of punishment which made it so difficult
for the commanders to alter or deviate from the order on their own
initiative. You, Sir David, asked me yourself whether I considered this
order to be right or to serve any useful purpose and I have given you a
definite answer: that I could not have prevented the action taken at the
mouth of the Gironde or in the case of _Tirpitz_ if I had wanted to.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You see my difficulty. I have given you only two
cases; there are plenty more. There are others which occurred in Italy
which we have heard. The point I am putting to you is this: You were the
representative; that you have told us a hundred times, of the military
tradition. You had behind you an officers corps with all its...

KEITEL: No, Sir David, I must deny that. I was not responsible either
for the Navy or for the Army or for the Air Force. I was not a
commander; I was a Chief of Staff and I had no authority to intervene in
the execution of orders in the various branches of the Armed Forces,
each of which had its own Commander-in-Chief.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We have heard about your staff rank, but I want
to make this point perfectly clear. You were a Field Marshal, Kesselring
was a Field Marshal, Milch was a Field Marshal, all, I gather, with
military training behind them and all having their influence if not
their command, among the Armed Forces of Germany. How was it that there
was not one man of your rank, of your military tradition, with the
courage to stand up and oppose cold-blooded murder? That is what I want
to know.

KEITEL: I did not do it; I made no further objection to these things. I
can say no more and I cannot speak for others.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, let us pass if you can say no more than
that. I want to see what you did with regard to our French allies
because I have been asked to deal with some matters for the French
Delegation.

You remember that on the Eastern Front you captured some Frenchmen who
were fighting with the Russians. Do you remember making an order about
that? You captured some De Gaullists, as you called them, that is Free
French people who were fighting for the Russians. Do you remember your
action with regard to that?

KEITEL: I recollect the transmission of a Führer order in regard to the
surrender of these Frenchmen to their lawful government, which was
recognized by us.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is not, of course, the part of the order I
want to put to you.

    “Detailed investigations are to be made in appropriate cases
    with regard to relatives of Frenchmen fighting for the Russians.
    If the investigation reveals that relatives have given
    assistance to facilitate escape from France, then severe
    measures are to be taken.

    “OKW/Wi. Rü is to make the necessary preparations with the
    respective military commander or the Higher SS and Police Leader
    in France.—Signed—Keitel.”

Can you imagine anything more dreadful than taking severe measures
against the mother of a young man who has helped him to go and fight
with the allies of his country? Can you imagine anything more
despicable?

KEITEL: I can think of many things since I have lost sons of my own in
the war. I am not the inventor of this idea; it did not originate with
me; I only transmitted it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You appreciate the difference, Defendant,
between the point which you made and the point which I make. Losing sons
in a war is a terrible tragedy. Taking severe measures against a mother
of a boy who wants to go and fight for his country’s allies, I am
suggesting to you, is despicable. The one is a tragedy; the other is the
height of brutality. Do you not agree?

KEITEL: I can only say that it does not state the consequences of the
investigations and findings. I do not know.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, if that is all the answer you can make I
will ask you to look at something else.

KEITEL: No, I should like to add that I regret that any families were
held responsible for the misdeeds of their sons.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I will not waste the time by taking up the
word “misdeed.” If you think that is a misdeed it is not worth our
discussing it further. I just want to protest against your word.

Now, let us see; that was not an isolated case. Just look at Page 110
(a) of the document book which you have, Page 122. This is an order
quite early on 1 October 1941.

    “Attacks committed on members of the Armed Forces lately in the
    occupied territories give reason to point out that it is
    advisable that military commanders always have at their disposal
    a number of hostages of different political tendencies, namely:

    “(1) Nationalists,

    “(2) Democratic-bourgeois, and

    “(3) Communists.

    “It is important that these should include well-known leading
    personalities, or members of their families whose names are to
    be made public.

    “Hostages belonging to the same group as the culprit are to be
    shot in case of attacks.

    “It is asked that commanders be instructed
    accordingly.—Signed—Keitel.” (Document 1590-PS).

Why were you so particular that, if you happened to arrest a
democratic-bourgeois, your commanders should have a sufficient bag of
democratic-bourgeois to shoot as hostages? I thought you were not a
politician.

KEITEL: I was not at all particular and the idea did not originate with
me; but it is in accordance with the instructions, the official
regulations, regarding hostages which I discussed yesterday or on the
day before and which state that those held as hostages must come from
the circles responsible for the attacks. That is the explanation, or
confirmation, of that as far as my memory goes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you agree with that as a course of action,
that if you found a member of a democratic-bourgeois family who had been
taking part in, say, sabotage or resistance, that you should shoot a
number of democratic-bourgeois on his behalf? Did you approve of that?

KEITEL: I have already explained how orders for shooting hostages, which
were also given, were to be applied and how they were to be carried out
in the case of those deserving of death and who had already been
sentenced.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am asking you a perfectly simple question,
Defendant. Did you or did you not approve of a number of
democratic-bourgeois to be taken as hostages for one
democratic-bourgeois who happened to be...

KEITEL: It does not say so in the document; it says only that hostages
must be taken; but it says nothing about shooting them.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would you mind looking at it since you corrected
me so emphatically? Depending upon the membership of the culprit, that
is, whether he is a nationalist, or a democratic-bourgeois or Communist,
“hostages of the corresponding group are to be shot in case of attacks.”

KEITEL: If that is in the document then I must have signed it that way.
The document referring to the conference with the commanders shows
clearly how it was carried out in practice.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now answer my question. Did you approve of that?

KEITEL: I personally had different views on the hostage system, but I
signed it, because I had been ordered to do so.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You say you had a different view. Will you just
look at a letter from Herr Terboven, who was in charge in Norway,
Document 870-PS, and it is Page 85, 71 (a), RF-281. This is a report
from Terboven for the information of the Führer and I want you to look
at Paragraph 2, “Counter-measures”, Subparagraph 4. Do you see it? Have
you got it, Defendant? I am sorry, I did give you the number; probably
you did not hear it, 71 (a), Page 71 (a) of the document book. So sorry
I did not make it clear. My Lord, I am told that this has been put in by
the French Prosecution as Exhibit RF-281. I gave it a GB number, as I
recall.

THE PRESIDENT: What number is it?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: RF-281.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Do you find Section 2, Paragraph 4? That
is:

    “Now I have just received a teleprint from Field Marshal Keitel,
    asking for a regulation to be issued, making members of the
    personnel, and, if necessary their relatives, collectively
    responsible for cases of sabotage occurring in their
    establishments (joint responsibility of relatives). This demand
    serves a purpose and promises success only if I am actually
    allowed to perform executions by firing squads. If this is not
    possible, such a decree would have exactly the opposite effect.”

Opposite the word “if I am actually allowed to perform executions by
firing squads” there is the pencil note from you, “Yes, that is best.”
So that is a third example where I suggest that you, yourself, are
approving and encouraging the shooting of next of kin for the act of
some member of their family. What do you say to that, your own pencil
mark?

KEITEL: I did make that marginal note. An order given in this matter was
different. A reply was given which was different. I wrote that note.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is what I wanted to know. Why did you write
this remark, “Yes, that is best,” approving of a firing squad for
relatives of people who had committed some occupation offense in Norway?
Why did you think it was best that there should be a firing squad for
the relations? Why?

KEITEL: It was not done and no order to that effect was given. A
different order was given.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is not what I am asking, and I shall give
you one more chance of answering it. Why did you put your pencil on that
document, “Yes, that is best”?

KEITEL: I am no longer in a position to explain that today, in view of
the fact that I see hundreds of documents daily. I wrote it and I admit
it now.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Of course, unless it means something entirely
different from what you have written, it meant that you approved it
yourself and thought the best course was that the relations should be
shot by a firing squad.

I think Your Lordship said that you wished to adjourn.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not finished, My Lord. I have a few matters
for Monday morning.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the defendant can return to the dock, and we will
proceed with the other applications.

[_The defendant left the stand._]

Sir David, shall we deal with these applications in the same way as we
have done before?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord. The first one that I have is an
application on behalf of the Defendant Kaltenbrunner for a witness
called Hoess, who was former Commander of the Auschwitz Concentration
Camp. My Lord, there is no objection on the part of the Prosecution to
that.

THE PRESIDENT: So that is the application which has to be made by a
great number of the defendants’ counsel.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Oh, yes, Your Lordship is quite right.

My Lord, as Commandant of the Auschwitz Concentration Camp, the
Prosecution feel that he could contribute to the information of the
Tribunal, if no objection is forthcoming.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, I see that you are among the counsel who
applied for him. Is there anything you wish to add about that?

DR. STAHMER: I have nothing to add to my written application.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Then the Tribunal will consider this, you see,
after you have dealt with them.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the next one is Dr. Naville. Dr.
Naville was allowed as witness to the Defendant Göring, provided he can
be located. He has been located in Switzerland and I understand he has
informed the Tribunal that he sees no use in his coming here as a
witness for Göring, and he is now asked for by Dr. Nelte, Counsel for
Keitel, to prove that prisoners of war had been treated according to the
rules of the Geneva Convention, Dr. Naville having been a representative
of the Red Cross. Dr. Nelte, I am told, will be satisfied with an
interrogatory, and the Prosecution have no objection to an
interrogatory.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte?

DR. NELTE: That is correct; I agree, providing that I am allowed to put
my questions to Dr. Naville in writing.

But may I add something here, not to this application to present
evidence, but with reference to another application, which I already
submitted to the Prosecution through the Translation Division yesterday
or the day before. My application, to admit Hitler’s stenographers as
witnesses was rejected by the Tribunal as irrelevant. I have now
received a letter and an affidavit from one of these stenographers, and
in that affidavit I find a passage which refers to Keitel’s attitude
towards Hitler at interviews and conferences with him.

Public opinion has criticized the defendants as being in the habit of
quoting dead men whenever they want to say anything in their favor; and
similar statements have been made in this Court. The Defendant Keitel
requests that the part of the affidavit which I have already submitted
and which I intend to submit, be admitted as an affidavit so that the
witness can still be rejected and yet it will be possible for me to
submit that passage of the affidavit with the agreement of the
Prosecution.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Nelte, My Lord, will submit the passage,
we will consider it, but I have not had the chance of doing it up until
now.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you will carry out that course and if you want,
there is no objection to it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Very well, you will let me have it, a copy of
it?

DR. NELTE: Certainly.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the next application is on behalf of
the Defendant Von Schirach, a request to submit an affidavit of Dr. Hans
Carossa. The gist of the affidavit is that the defendant tried to keep
himself independent of Party directives in matters of literature and art
and that, while Gauleiter in Vienna, he repeatedly intervened on behalf
of Jews and concentration camp inmates. My Lord, the Prosecution have no
objection to an affidavit being filed.

The next is an application on behalf of the Defendant Funk for
interrogatories to be submitted to Mr. Messersmith, dealing with Funk’s
relation to the Party and his work in the Reich Ministry of Propaganda.
My Lord, the Prosecution have no objection, but remind the Tribunal that
the Defendant Funk has already, on the 15th of March, asked permission
to submit another affidavit to Mr. Messersmith, dealing with Mr.
Messersmith’s affidavit. The Prosecution did not raise any objections,
but the Tribunal has not, as far as we know, granted that yet. So I
wanted the Tribunal to know there was a previous request...

THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean an affidavit or interrogatory on the 15th of
March?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Interrogatories.

THE PRESIDENT: Interrogatories? Surely we must have dealt with it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, that is the information that my office
had. They have not seen the...

THE PRESIDENT: I see.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In case the Tribunal had not dealt with it, we
want to point out that there is one outstanding. We have no objection to
either.

Then the Defendant Rosenberg requests Hitler’s decree to Rosenberg of
June 1943. There is no objection on the part of the Prosecution. I am
told that we can not trace any previous application but the position at
the moment is that we haven’t any objection to it.

Then, My Lord, the next is Von Neurath, an application for a
questionnaire for Professor Kossuth, long a resident of Prague. Really
they ask for interrogatories. My Lord, there is no objection to
interrogatories.

Then, My Lord, there is an application in reverse, if I may put it so,
from Dr. Dix on behalf of the Defendant Schacht, the downgrading of Herr
Huelse, who was drafted as a witness, to an affidavit. My Lord, we have
no objection to that.

DR. DIX: This is the witness Huelse. He was granted to me as a witness.
In order to shorten and simplify the proceedings, I have decided to
forfeit the right to hear the witness because there was an affidavit. I
have received the affidavit. While my application to dispense with the
witness was pending, however, the witness arrived in Nuremberg. He is
here now, and I think therefore, that it will be best for him to stay
and for me to be allowed to examine him by confronting him with his own
affidavit, asking him to confirm it, and then put some additional
questions to him. I think that would be much more practical than having
the witness here to no purpose, sending him back again and retaining
only the affidavit. My purpose, in any case, was partly to avoid the
complications connected with getting him here.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you withdraw the application to have the
affidavit...

THE PRESIDENT: Is the witness Huelse a prisoner or not, or an internee?

DR. DIX: He is a free witness. He is not in detention and he is free to
move about Nuremberg.

THE PRESIDENT: Can he remain here until the Defendant Schacht’s case
comes on?

DR. DIX: I hope so. He has told me that he can stay and that he is
willing to do so.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, we have no objection. The Tribunal has
already granted him as a witness. If Dr. Dix wants him as a witness, of
course we have no objection to it.

The next one is an application on behalf of the Defendant Streicher, for
an affidavit from a Dr. Herold. To put it quite shortly, the Prosecution
suggest that it should be interrogatories rather than an affidavit and
on that basis we would make no objection.

My Lord, there is only one thing I have to say. I had a most useful
discussion with Dr. Dix last night, following out the Tribunal’s
suggestion of going through the documents. Dr. Dix was most helpful in
explaining the purpose of his documents and what they were. I do suggest
that if any of the Defense Counsel when they are explaining the
documents would also care to explain the purport of their witnesses—I
do not want to embarrass them in any way—but if they would voluntarily
explain the purport of witnesses, either to Mr. Dodd or myself, we might
be able to save them a great deal of time, by indicating whether the
evidence of that witness would be agreed to or might be the subject of
objection.

I only throw it out now, as we are going to meet over the documents, and
if they would extend it to witnesses, I am sure we could achieve a most
profitable co-operation.

THE PRESIDENT: You are suggesting, Sir David, are you, that they should
explain to you the nature of the evidence which the witness was going to
give?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: And if the Prosecution were not going to dispute it, that
it might be incorporated in an affidavit?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, that we could probably dispense with the
witness, and probably incorporate that in an affidavit. Of course, I
have been told the general purport of the witness, because I attended on
the application, but if they could elaborate on it a little more as it
often happens when they see the witness and let me know what the scope
of the witness’ testimony would be, I could probably concede, either in
whole or in part, and save them a lot of work and the Tribunal a lot of
time.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the Tribunal would like to know whether the
defendants’ counsel think that is a possible course, whether it might
lead to some shortening of the defense. Could Dr. Dix possibly tell us
whether he thinks it would be possible?

DR. DIX: Of course, I cannot make any statement on the views of my
colleagues, since I cannot read their minds. All I can say at the moment
is that I will recommend to my colleagues, as unusually helpful and
practical, the kind of conversation which I had the honor of having with
Sir David yesterday. Personally, I think that my colleagues too will
agree to this procedure unless there is any particular objection to it,
which is, of course, always possible. I cannot say any more at the
moment.

THE PRESIDENT: You understand what Sir David was suggesting, that such a
conversation should apply not only to documents but also to witnesses
and if you could indicate rather more fully than you do in your
applications what the subject of their evidence was going to be,
possibly the Prosecution might be able to say in those circumstances
that upon those matters they should not propose to dispute the evidence
and therefore it might be incorporated in an affidavit?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, if Your Lordship allows me to
interject, if they care to bring a statement on a particular witness’
testimony, the Prosecution would, I am sure, in many particulars be
prepared to say, “Well, you produce that statement on that point and we
will admit it, without any formality.”

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps, Dr. Dix, you and the other counsel for the
defendants could consider that matter.

DR. DIX: I have understood it to be exactly as Your Lordship has just
stated it. I discussed both the witnesses and the documents with Sir
David and that was very helpful; and in that sense I will...

THE PRESIDENT: If that is all we need do at the moment, then...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the Tribunal will adjourn.

      [_The Tribunal adjourned until 8 April 1946 at 1000 hours._]

                           TRANSCRIBER NOTES

Punctuation and spelling have been maintained except where obvious
printer errors have occurred such as missing periods or commas for
periods. English and American spellings occur throughout the document;
however, American spellings are the rule, hence, “Defense” versus
“Defence”. Unlike Blue Series volumes I and II, this volume includes
French, German, Polish and Russian names and terms with diacriticals:
hence Führer, Göring, Kraków, and Ljoteč etc. throughout.

Although some sentences may appear to have incorrect spellings or verb
tenses, the original text has been maintained as it represents what the
tribunal read into the record and reflects the actual translations
between the German, English, French, and Russian documents presented in
the trial.

An attempt has been made to produce this eBook in a format as close as
possible to the original document presentation and layout.

[The end of _Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International
Military Tribunal Vol. 10_, by Various.]