Citation and Use
All persons are granted a limited license to use and distribute this transcript, subject to the following conditions: No fee may be charged for use or distribution.
Publications and research reports based on this transcription must cite it appropriately. The citation should include the following:
We request that users send us a copy of any publications, research reports, or educational material making use of the data or documentation. Printed matter should be sent to:
Joel Samaha
Department of History
University of Minnesota
614 Social Sciences
267 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Send all electronic material to samaha@umn.edu
Cover Sheet
STENOGRAPHIC TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Before the
MILLITARY COMMISSION TO TRY PERSONS
CHARGED WITH
OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR AND THE
ARTICLES OF WAR
________________
Volume XII
Pages
1927 to 2114
[1927]
[The
original ‘Table of Contents’, page 1927, is missing—this page is reconstructed
from the record]
CONTENTS
MOTION OF BURGER FOR VERDICT OF NOT
GUILTY
By Colonel Royall 1930
REPLY TO MOTION OF BURGER FOR VERDICT
OF NOT GUILTY
By The Judge Advocate General 1953
|
Name
of Witness |
Direct |
Cross |
Redirect |
Recross |
|
Herbert Joannes Wilhelm Godhelp Haupt |
1963 |
2005 |
|
|
|
by Colonel Dowell |
1998 |
|
|
|
EXHIBITS
|
Prosecution |
For
Identification |
In
Evidence |
Read
in Record |
|
P-256 Photograph of Mr. Kappe |
2041 |
|
|
|
P-257 Photograph of Paul Schmidt |
2042 |
|
|
|
P-258 Photostatic copy of hotel registration |
2057 |
|
|
|
P-259 Photostatic document |
2059 |
|
|
|
Defendants’ |
|
|
|
|
D Photostatic copy of a telegram dated |
|
2004 |
|
--ooOoo--
1928
STENOGRAPHIC TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Before the
MILLITARY COMMISSION TO TRY PERSONS
CHARGED WITH
OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR AND THE
ARTICLES OF WAR
________________
The Military Commission appointed by
the President by order dated July 2, 1942, met, in room 5235 Department of
Justice, at 10 o'clock a. m., to try for offenses against the Law of War and
Articles of War, the following persons:
Ernest Peter Burger, George John Dasch, Herbert Haupt, Heinrich Harm
Heinck, Edward John Kerling, Hermann Neubauer, Richard Quirin and Werner Thiel.
PRESENT: Members of the Military Commission, as follows:
Major General Frank R. McCoy,
President,
Major General Walter S. Grant,
Major General Blanton Winship,
Major General Lorenzo D. Gasser,
Brigadier General Guy V. Henry,
Brigadier General John T. Lewis,
Brigadier
General John T. Kennedy.
As Trial Judge Advocates:
Honorable Francis Biddle,
Attorney
General of the
Major General Myron Cramer,
The
Judge Advocate General,
Colonel P. Granville Munson,
Colonel John M. Weir,
Colonel Erwin M. Treusch,
Major William T. Thurman,
Officers
of the Judge Advocate General's Department.
Oscar Cox,
Assistant
Solicitor General of the
As Provost Marshal:
Brigadier
General Albert L. Cox.
1929
As Counsel for the Accused except
George John Dasch:
Colonel Cassius M. Dowell,
Colonel Kenneth Royall,
Major
Lauson N. Stone.
As Counsel for the Accused George John
Dasch:
Colonel
Carl D. Ristine.
- - - - -
PROCEEDINGS
The President. The Commission will open.
Colonel Munson. If the Commission please, I shall now swear
as a member of the guard Sergeant Herman Lamberger.
Sergeant Lamberger, the Commission
requires an oath of secrecy of all those who are in the hearing room or who may
otherwise become acquainted with the proceedings of this Commission; and the
Commission instructs me to in from each person taking that oath that violation
of it may result in contempt proceedings or other proceedings of a criminal
nature. In taking the oath, you
understand that to be the fact?
Sergeant Lamberger. Yes.
Colonel Munson. The, please raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear that you will
not divulge the proceedings taken in this trial to anyone outside the courtroom
until released from your obligation by proper authority or required so to do by
such proper authority?
Sergeant Lamberger. I do.
Colonel Munson. May the record show, also, that I have on
this date administered the oath of secrecy to Miss Nole H. Bell of the Judge
Advocate General's office.
The full personnel of the Commission
is present, the eight accused are present, the full personnel of the prosecu-
1930
tion
except Mr. Rowe is present, the full personnel of the defense except Captain
Hummell and Captain Bruten is present, and the reporter is present.
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission, is it in order
for me now to bring up the motion of the defendant Burger for a verdict of not
guilty?
The President. Yes, it is in order.
MOTION OF BURGER FOR VERDICT OF NOT
GUILTY
Colonel Royall. As was stated to the Commission yesterday,
counsel for the defendants, and particularly counsel for the seven defendants
other than Dasch, dislike very much to impose upon the time of the Commission
in matters that apparently do not accomplish anything. It has not been our purpose during this case
to present any contention that is not thoroughly consistent with the law under
which we are accustomed to practice; in fact, I think in most instances that
has been admitted by the prosecution.
Our various positions have been overruled because of a variation from
the ordinary and generally accepted methods of procedure.
The President. May I interject and inquire whether you mean
in courts-martial or in the military commissions?
Colonel Royall. In both, sir, because in the case of the
confessions particularly we think that the Manual for Courts-Martial fully
supported our position.
A Member. I do not think that counsel understood the
President's question.
The President. I just interjected; I did not want to
interfere with counsel's argument. It
just occurred to me to ask the question whether you considered that your
statement
1931
applied
both to the procedure of the courts-martial and the military commissions.
Colonel Royall. No, I did not, sir; I think I did not
understand your question correctly. I
think that most of the questions upon which we have addressed the Court have
been questions where the ruling would have been favorable to us either in a
court of justice or before a court-martial and that the variation has been
because of the wording in the Presidential proclamation. Of course, I understood--and the Commission
so advised us at the outset--that there would be some variation. It is rather difficult to judge what that
variation will be because none of the counsel of defense have had experience,
except in my case largely in courts of law, and in the case of colonel Dowell
in both, but largely before courts-martial.
It has never been our effort to make
any captious objections or to take any captious positions. I cite to the Court the fact that we tried in
every way possible to expedite the admission of confessions in the instances
where our clients did not contend that there were some special circumstances;
and in the admission of physical evidence where our clients or the particular
client concerned said there was no question about it. That was in almost every instance in the case
of physical evidence; and in the case of stipulations, in several instances to
avoid the necessity of repetition as to the contents of documents.
I think, further, that we have
manifested our intention not to delay this Commission unduly by the fact that
the cross-examination of the defendants whom we represent in this case
1932
bears,
I think, the smallest ratio to the length of the direct examination of any case
in which I have ever appeared.
May it please the Commission, the
prosecution in this case--and I use that term broadly to include the F. B. I.
also--has seemed to us to take the position--I may be charging them improperly;
if so, they can correct me at the proper time--that the only solution of this
case is for all the defendants to be adjudged guilty, leaving any relief which
might be afforded them to the question of Presidential discretion. I say that for this reason: We have the instance of the defendant George
Dasch, who certainly on the basis of his own statement--I do not represent
Dasch, so I can talk about it in that connection rather abstractly--in guilty
of nothing, with the additional admission of the F. B. I. agents that they
certainly at first and at the time I am speaking of believed him. In spite of that fact, he was urged to come
in to this Commission and enter a plea of guilty, when at least one of the
group of men who urged him to do so admitted on the stand that he did not think
Dasch was guilty, in effect, having the idea that sufficient relief would be
afforded by Presidential action.
If that is equally applicable to the
trial of this case, we are just going through waste motions. I am sure it is not. We are not interested--I am sure the
Commission is not interested--in doing what somebody said in a case down in my
country: “Just give him a fair trial and
then convict him.” We are not interested
in going through motions.
When we make this motion this morning
on behalf of the defendant Burger, we do so with the firm conviction that from
1933
a
legal standpoint he is entitled to a verdict of not guilty. It seems to me that this motion is an
essential one. It seems to us that if
this case is to be tried in an effort to reach the truth--and we believe it
is--there is no escape from a verdict of not guilty at this stage of the case
for the defendant Burger. Of course, if
the prosecution's attitude is that we ought to go through and say that
everybody is guilty and let the President pardon, I am talking to no purpose;
but I am sure that that is not the disposition of this Commission.
May it please the Commission, it has
been suggested by the eminent and competent Judge Advocate General that we wait
and decide this thing after all the evidence is in. That is not why the Manual for Courts-Martial
provides for a motion for a verdict of not guilty at this stage. That answer could be given to every motion
for a verdict of not guilty. Unless the
Commission proposes to disregard that provision of the Manual for
Courts-Martial--and I do not believe that you intend to do so; if you do, you
can tell me now and I will stop my talk--unless you plan to vary the procedure
of the Manual for Courts-Martial and disregard that express provision that a
motion for a verdict of not guilty may be made at this time, then we are
entitled to have it considered now and not have a casual remark by counsel for
the other side turn it over to the end of the case and not have it considered
now.
There are several practical reasons,
aside from our legal rights, why this matter should be determined at this
time. I am going to mention at lest two
of them, perhaps more. This is in answer
to the position which the Judge Advocate General
1934
has
taken in the case of the motion of Dasch and other.
If upon the evidence now before the
Commission Burger and Dasch, or either of them, are entitled to a verdict of
not guilty at this stage--and we are entitled to have it considered at this
stage--it would serve a very practical purpose of greatly shortening the trial
of this case. I do not think you ought
to shorten it unless it is in the interest of justice. But in answer to the suggestion that we wait
until the end, I want to say to this Commission that we would waste a
considerable amount of time if we were to let the defendant Dasch take the
witness stand and give him, as the Commission would have to give him, free rein
to answer the questions and give his explanations of the questions that would
be propounded to him. In his statement
he talked for 254 pages without cross-examination. I certainly would hate to go into that matter
if he is entitled to be dismissed at this time.
That is no reason for granting the
motion and is not urged as a reason for granting it; but it is an answer--a
practical answer--to deferring the matter to the end of the case just in order
to defer it.
Then, there is another situation which
affects Colonel Dowell and myself to some extent. We were brought into this case, of course,
without any volition of our parts. I do
not say that as apologizing for appearing; we are proud to be able to defend
these men and have no qualms of conscience or regrets about doing so, and we
shall assert what we believe are their sound defenses. But we are in a position of representing
Burger, on the one hand, and the six other defendants, on the other. So far there has been no conflict developed
1935
between
what Burger says and what the others say, because every confession of every
defendant--Dasch and the other six--corroborates fully Burger's story, as we
see it. But it is perfectly conceivable
that during the trial for this case conflicts might develop--I know of none
that will--which would put Colonel Dowell and myself in a very embarrassing and
unenviable position of having to choose between clients. If it were a civil court proceeding, the
escape would be easy: we could ask for
different counsel for every one of these defendants; but we hardly had that
election here.
It now appears that if Burger is
entitled to a dismissal of this action--and we believe he is--then he ought to
have that motion granted as to him at this point, for the two practical reasons
I have suggested.
There is another consideration. The prime duty of any judicial commission--and
I say this not attempting to instruct this honorable Commission in its duties,
because I am sure they feel them and know them better than I could express
them--is to draw distinctions when those distinctions do arise. The whole system of American justice is
contrary to drawing innocent men into a conviction when the facts justify a
distinction between defendants. That is
the borderline between mass action and judicial action.
We think that in this case there is a
very real distinction between the defendant Burger--and I shall include the
defendant Dasch in that--on the one hand, and the other six defendants, on the
other. Even in making that statement, I
am running the risk of being derelict in my duty to the other six, but I have
got to make it now, because we
1936
are
in a position where we have got to state the facts to the Commission and else
the distinctions that the evidence shows.
I hope we shall not have to be in the position of drawing that
distinction throughout this case, because it is unfair to us and unfair to the
clients who are relatively more likely to be guilty. We do not think anything could demonstrate
more clearly the fair and judicial nature of this entire investigation, not
only in our own minds but in the ministration of justice in general, than to
have it know that this Commission did draw distinctions where the evidence
warranted it.
1937
Now, one other preparatory remark
before I get into the evidence in this matter.
We have been the dubious beneficiaries of the reasonable-man test which
was prescribed for this Commission, and which they have to follow. I am not saying that critically. They have to follow it, and we were advised
it would be followed. But wherever that
test imires to our benefit, we want the benefit of it also, and this is the
first occasion--the very motion--where we ask that, since that rule has been in
the discretion of the Commission--and I admit that it was a sound discretion,
because we are not here to criticize--that discretion be exercised in a similar
manner in looking over the testimony as relating to the defendant Burger.
I do not think that when we ask for a
verdict of not guilty it violates the Court Martial Manual provisions which the
Judge Advocate General has cited and will possibly refer to again; but if those
provisions conflict with the reasonable-man view, then we ask that the
reasonable-man view be herby applied.
Now, we have a situation in Burger's
case where the prosecution has put in his confession. It was the first confession offered. It was the confession upon which the
prosecution relied to lay the basis of its case; and no one can doubt the fact that
if that confession is true, Burger is guilty of nothing under these charges.
I realize that the prosecution does
not have to accept every word of that confession, and neither does the
Commission, but I do say to you that if it is not accepted there must be some
reason for not accepting it, and that must appear from
1938
evidence. And we fail to see in the evidence any reason
why it should not be accepted.
In the first place, in the case of
Burger and not in the case of any other defendant, he was tendered to the
prosecution and to this Commission for questioning, without any limit upon the
scope of that questioning; and the view of a reasonable man must be that if
there was any feature of his confession which was subject to attack or
cross-examination, he would have been attacked or cross-examined.
It is not an answer to say that they
are not bound to use our defendant, because they asked for him. They not only asked for him in what we think
was a violation--and I am sure unintentional, and there is no reflection on the
Attorney General--of the Court Martial Manual;
they made him stand up here before the Commission and say he was not
going to testify, at that time. He said
at that time. I will explain why that
was. We had to take a position as to the
other defendants.
They asked for him, and when they had
before them the evidence of his own confession, all the physical evidence, all
the other confessions which had been admitted by the Commission against him,
they yet did not ask him a question or cross-examine him in the slightest. If that does not convey to a reasonable man
the impression that that confession is true, I do not know how you can convey
it.
There may be some very small details
on which recollections differ--immaterial details--no eight men can tell any
episode, harmless or harmful, verbatim alike--but in no confession, we say, of
any defendant, including that voluminous confession of Dasch, is there any
indication that Burger is not
1939
telling
the exact truth in his confession. And
mind you, those eight confessions were taken at different times, without knowledge
by one that the other had been given.
We argued yesterday that those
confessions were not admissible against the others. We were there faced with a problem of
conflict of interests. We realized that
every one of those confessions helped Burger.
If we had been appearing for him alone, we would have let them all in,
without any question. We also realized
that they were harmful to some of the other defendants--to most of the six
other defendants--in some respects, and we had to take the position of the
six. As far as Burger is concerned,
those confessions corroborated him wherever they touched upon his
testimony. They corroborated him as to
the concentration camp, to his mistreatment there, to his expressed hostility
in
It was corroborated by every one of
those confessions. It was corroborated
further by the F. B. I. Agent Lanman, who said, without qualification--there
was a little qualification in Dasch's statement--that after all his investigation,
that after all his checks and double checks, he considered Burger's statement,
to quote him rightly, a frank statement.
It was further corroborated by the
evidence of the Coast Guard as to the conduct of Burger before he knew the Cost
Guard was there, and I am coming to that later.
It was further Corroborated by the
fact that, without a
1940
lot
of matter unrelated to this case, Burger gave so much the clearest,
straightest, most direct and complete information about this matter, without
braggadocio--much more than any other defendant--without concealment--so much
so that the prosecution started their case by putting that in evidence.
It was corroborated by the further
fact, may it please the Commission, that if the prosecution, with their ability
and their facilities for getting information, could have brought one single
witness from anywhere to prove that anything in Burger's statement was false,
you know they would have done so.
It was corroborated finally by another
circumstance that has been called to you attention by Colonel Ristine in his
argument--that in the case of Dasch it was suggested that there was something
about a six months' sentence for his offense.
I have forgotten the details. I
do not want to try to quote it.
Of course, if Dasch was telling the
truth about it and was to get six months, according to his statement, Burger
was acting with him. So that would be
equally applicable to Burger, though we did not ask anybody what they promised
Burger. Burger did not make any
contention that he was promised anything or was forced to do anything. He came in there, and there is his
statement. But if that were applicable
to Dasch, it would certainly indicate that they did not think Dasch had done
anything, and it certainly would have been more applicable to Burger, because
Burger's contention we think is more favorable than Dasch's although we are not
inferentially
1941
or
otherwise arguing against Dasch's position.
It is our view that if we were trying
the case in a court of law the prosecuting officer would not ask for a
conviction of Burger on this evidence in any court. These gentlemen are circumscribed about
that. As I understand the court martial
procedure--and if I am wrong I want to be corrected--the prosecuting judge
advocate cannot rise and tell the Commission whether to render a verdict of not
guilty or not.
In most civil courts the solicitor or
prosecuting officer can rise and say, “May it please the Court, I would like to
take a nolle pros or a verdict of not guilty in this case.” They cannot do so here, as I understand the
procedure. That is a matter for the
Commission. But I say to you that if
this was a civil court--that is, a criminal court in a civil jurisdiction--that
course would almost certainly be followed, in our opinion.
Now, let us look at the essence of the
Burger argument on the facts. In each of
these offenses there must be a criminal intent.
In the absence of an intent to carry out any criminal plan, each of these
charges would fall. That is
axiomatic. It does not take any argument
to show that. In other words, if Burger
came here with the intention merely of getting back to the
What do we have on that in
evidence? Burger states definitely,
specifically, categorically, that he never intended, in
1942
commit
any criminal act or to carry through this proposed plan. He said that to Lanman, and Lanman says in
his opinion he was frank when he told him that, as he was when he told him
everything else in the statement.
That statement of Burger appears on page
66 of his confession and on page 494 of the printed record.
Now, nobody has said that that was not
his intention or has inferred, as I see it, that that was not his
intention. What I mean to say is that no
other accused has said that Burger intended to commit any crime. One accused, through his confession, has
stated that he did not intend it, and that is Dasch. Three accused, through their confessions,
have stated they did not have any idea that he intended to go on with it,
because of his mistreatment, and there is no evidence to the contrary.
That brings us to this. Are there any circumstances in this matter
that point to his statement being untrue?
Let us look at the circumstances and the history of this. Burger was a member of the old S. A., which I
believe is the same thing as Storm Trooper--I can't get those exactly in my
mind, although I have read enough about them in these statements--and they were
the group that was purged by Hitler at the time of the murder of Roehm. They were the ones who, as Burger says--and
you know that of common knowledge; it is now history--fell in membership from
millions to a few thousand as a result of that purge. That is the group that the Gestapo has
continued to hound, and that is common knowledge.
Burger belonged to that group. He was seized and put in a concentration camp
for what he says was a false accusations
1943
but
whether false or not, he stayed there for seventeen months, where he was
terribly mistreated, kept in a room with sixty people, permitted to go out one
hour in fourteen days, beaten, underfed.
No man forgets a thing like that.
He will never forget it.
That was so clearly known that these
independent confessions put in by the prosecution stated that it was announced
at the school that he had been in the concentration camp, and that at least
four of theses other defendants were privately told to watch Burger for any
false move.
1944
They
recognized that he had scars and they were counting only upon the fact that he
might try, as he pretended to try, to rehabilitate himself with his party. As Dasch says in his own statement, page 130
of the statement, Burger told him he was a damned fool, or something like that,
not to pretend that he was trying to rehabilitate himself and wait until he got
to
The last evidence comes from
statements that the prosecution has put in evidence, independently given by
those men without any knowledge of what Burger had said or what he was going to
say. He was told, further, that while he
would be given an opportunity to come to
Let us apply the doctrine of
reasonable men. How would any reasonable
man have reacted to that situation? He
was an American citizen, a citizenship which he had never renounced. He saw an opportunity to get out of
He was further told that if he
returned to
1945
have
been any incentive or reason to go on with the plan; and when Burger tells you
that under those circumstances he never intended to go through with this, he is
stating what any reasonable man would have been bound to believe, we contend.
He had tried to return to
Corroborated by others, not only by
Burger's statement, is the fact, from statements by others, that he was talking
to Jews over there and, as he says, getting messages from them to take back to
this country. That is corroborated by
other statements. So much so that he was
regarded with suspicion; so much so that when they apprehended Haupt, the first
involuntary expression he made was “Burger turned us in”--before he knew
anything about it, before he knew that there was any apprehension of anybody
except himself. He said, “Burger is the
man that must have turned us in.”
He consistently used his own
name. Haupt used his in a way, but there
was a discussion about some alias.
Burger used his own name.
In spite of the opportunity to do so,
he made no effort to harm the Coast Guard man.
He gave his wife the password before leaving, so he could communicate
with her, in violation of his orders.
Then he comes to
1946
It
might be urged--it has been intimated by some question in the case of
Dasch--that possibly when the Coast Guard man came on the scene they formulated
this intention. But that did not have
anything to do with what he did in
I would like to say this,
parenthetically. We cannot try a man
here, as reasonable men, on doubts as to what he might have intended or what he
might have done. We are trying
1947
a
man for a serious offense; and when the evidence shows, corroborated by other
circumstances, that he was telling the truth, the matter ought to be dismissed
as to him.
He told you about the articles he
dropped along the beach. He did not even
know that the Coast Guard had reported anything when he made his
statement. Lanman said that when Burger
made his statement he did not know anything about the Cost Guard having found
anything, the boxes or anything else, and yet he told exactly what had been
dropped along the beach, without any knowledge that the Coast Guard had
reported anything. Lanman said he did
not have any such information when he gave that statement. The coast Guard witness on pages 112 to 127,
and 129 and 130, of the record, corroborate it.
Up to the time they met the Coast
Guardsman his story and Dasch's are not necessarily entitled to the same
weight. From that point on they
are. The distinction--and I am not drawing
it to the detriment of Dasch--the distinction between Dasch's case and Burger's
case is that Burger, as shown by the independent statements of all these
others, abandoned this plan before he left
From this point on they are very
similar. I do not want to go into that
in any great detail, because Colonel Ristine has covered it form the time thy
got to
1948
facts
from that time on are the same; and that corroborates both of them.
In the first place, Burger was present
when the telephone conversation was had with the F.B.I. And here I pause to say that Dasch's story
and Burger's, after they reached this country, have been inferentially questioned
because of the delay in reporting the matter to the F.B.I. Why did they not report it right on that
day? There is no use not to meet those
things frankly and fairly and to discuss them.
Burger's explanation of that is
entirely simple. Burger came over here
under suspicion. He was not the leader
of his group. He had no authority over
Heinck or Quirin. If fact, Quirin was
the assistant leader of the group, according to the statement. He was subject to the control of Dasch. Under these circumstances with regard to his
own safety he had to move mighty cautiously, because his life was in his
hands. He did not come over here, may it
please the Commission, to wage any war propaganda against Nazism. He came over here to get away from the
torture and mistreatment in
1949
torture
chamber. So he had to move mighty
cautiously, and with two men over him in his group he had to wait on Dasch to
take his time to make his propaganda, or whatever his purpose was. It seems to me that that was his purpose, and
therefore that delay I do not think is a circumstance worthy of any
consideration, because the motive of Burger was just to protect himself and to
get out of Germany and to get to this country.
What did he do to indicate that? He went to a leading hotel and registered in
his own name, knowing that they had a record of him over here as an American
citizen. He misinformed the other boys
as to where he was registered. He did
not want them to have too close a watch over him. They finally found out, but at first he told
them the wrong hotel. They say so
themselves. The others suspected him
because--and this is another little circumstance--the first thing Quirin and
Heinck did when they found out where Burger was, was to start opening drawers
to see what was in them, and they found this letter from Dasch and read
it. He got away, out on the street where
he would be safe as quickly as he could.
He knew from one of Dasch's letters that Dasch had gone to
1950
The letter was not so specific as to
say, “I am going to turn you in,” but it could mean but one thing to
Burger. He did not attempt to go
anywhere or to get out of the way of anything.
He did not give any aliases. He
did not call himself by some other name, as every one of these other defendants
had done at one time or another, including even Dasch. He knew they has a record of him in America,
and he registered and stayed under his own name and remained in a leading hotel
within a block of the Pennsylvania station, without attempting to get away from
anybody. When they came he gave these
people, as I said before, the fullest information that anybody has given about
his case. Not any hooey, not any
concealment, not any propaganda, but facts.
He gave them facts fully and freely without hesitation of any kind.
That statement, I do not believe
anybody could deny, is the best and most accurate statement by far that has
been put in this record. It was put in
the first for that reason.
1951
I want to call attention to one very
interesting part of that statement which serves to corroborate him
further. We have been sitting here with
these defendants--the Commission and counsel--for eleven days, observing them
and watching them. Some of them may be
going on the stand; we do not know.
Burger is not, because we think you are going to give him a verdict of
not guilty, though we will tender him again.
But there is nobody in this courtroom who can give as accurate a
description of these men as Burger gave.
What does that show? It shows that he had been observing
them. His observation could not have any
relation to carrying out the plan. He was
observing them for his own protection, to identify them, because he knew that
when he quit, his life would be in danger from every one of those men. He did not know. He might have suspected Dasch was with him,
or he might have known that. But as to the
others, he knew that while they had no orders to liquidate, as the saying is,
his life would be in danger through those men.
So, he observed them to the minutest detail, and he gave a description
there in a cell or a hotel room, removed from them, that would do credit to
anybody who saw them and drew a picture of them.
May it please the Commission, those
are the circumstances that the record shows.
I fully believe--I do not say this for the purpose of putting anybody on
the spot--that the contribution which Burger made to the information and facts
of this case in his splendid statement was the most sensible and concrete
contribution that was made to the apprehension of the men and the solution of
this problem That fact does not entitle
him to a verdict of not guilty. I am not
urging it. I just throw that in. But what does entitle
1952
him
to a verdict of not guilty is his statement that in Germany he formulated the
plan of merely using this to get out of Germany in order to escape the
concentration camp, and the fact that it is corroborated by every bit of the
evidence in this case and corroborated by the offer of him for examination and
an opportunity to see if there is anything wrong with his story.
May it please the Commission, I am
sorry that I have talked so long. I said
I would talk for 45 minutes, and I have talked for an hour. But I did not to so primarily for the purpose
of impressing the Court with the fact that this verdict should be granted as a
formal matter. We are not doing it as a
formal matter. We sincerely trust that
applying the test of reasonable men to this situation, so far as the defendant
Burger is concerned, you should accept his confession as true, put in by the
prosecution and corroborated by every circumstance and fact; and accepting it
as true as to him, we think that you should render a verdict of not guilty and
let the case proceed expeditiously--and we think Dasch has an excellent
argument in the same way--to a conclusion as to the other men, whose
considerations are entirely different. I
hope that that is the last time I will have to say that, because it is not
quite fair to them. But we have got to
be frank with the Commission on the evidence before it, and we trust that that
problem will be solved by the dismissal of the action at this point, so far as
Burger is concerned.
The Judge Advocate General. May it please the Commission
The President. The Judge Advocate General.
1953
REPLY TO MOTION OF BURGER FOR VERDICT
OF NOT GUILTY
The Judge Advocate General. Counsel for the defendant Burger has made a
very excellent argument if it were made at the close of the entire case. The question of what is to be adduced from
the various actions of this accused of what he has done, what he has said, or
what he has confessed to, are questions that should be considered by this
Commission when it is considering and weighing the evidence.
The prosecution still insists that
according to the Manual for Courts-Martial, to which counsel has referred, the
question of the balancing of the evidence, the weight of the evidence, or
anything of that kind, is not for the consideration of this Commission at this
time.
Before I go back to that, I do want to
say one other thing that the counsel has referred to, and that is that the
prosecution is somewhat tied down and cannot request the Commission to enter a
nolle pros., and we are bound to submit the case to the Commission. To this extent I should like to correct
defense counsel.
Of course, we cannot dismiss a charge
or a specification without the approval of the convening authority. But when we once get into court and we feel
that we have not the evidence to support a charge or a specification, and a
motion for a finding of not guilty is made, the prosecution and trial judge
advocates have the right to say to the court or commission that they agree with
the defendants or the accused, whichever it may be, and think that the court of
commission would be justified in coming to such a finding. But we are
1954
not
in that position right now, and we are asking for the Commission to consider
all the evidence.
Going back, I think that after this
long conversation--perhaps not a conversation but a dissertation on the part of
Colonel Royall--we should consider just what this motion is. It is not a motion for the convenience of the
Commission, to reduce the time of the trial, or for the convenience of counsel
for the accused in the conduct of their case or cases of the various defendants. It is simply a motion on the strict legal
principle whether or not there is any reasonable construction of inference from
the testimony that has been admitted here that points toward the guilt of this
particular defendant. The same argument
applies to the defendant Dasch.
Counsel has quoted the Courts-Martial
Manual; I want to quote it, too. I read
from page 56, Rule 71 d:
“If
there be any substantial evidence which, together with all reasonable
inferences therefrom and all applicable
presumptions, fairly tends to establish every essential element of an offense
charged or included in any specification to which the motion is directed, the
motion as to much specification will not be granted.”
I submit that the prosecution has done
that. The statement is made:
“otherwise
those inferences reasonably deducible from the testimony which are most
favorable to the prosecution must be accepted by the court”--
in
this case by the Commission.
1955
In view of that rule as laid down in
the Manual for Courts-Martial and by the courts, the prosecution at this time
does not desire or intend to enter into argument with counsel for the accused
as to the merits of the case, as to the facts, or anything of that nature. The question is simple whether or not under
the circumstances the prosecution has submitted evidence against this accused
which in its most favorable light makes out a prima facie case.
As a matter of fact, the evidence
shows that Burger, who was a soldier of the German Reich, or at least was an
agent thereof, crossed into our lines carrying dynamite and other explosives
and operated under orders to destroy and sabotage our wartime facilities. That in itself raises a clear presumption of
guilt. The accused Burger has not in any
sense of the word overcome that presumption of guilt. He has attempted by his confessions to lay
the foundation for his defense that he never did intend to do it, but the fact
remains that he did come through our lines, that he did bring in dynamite, and
that he did assist other in doing so.
I just want to refer again to the
statement of law as to confessions, for it is applicable at this particular
time. It is the same rule I read
yesterday. It is expressed in different
words, but the meaning is the same, not only in Wharton's Criminal Evidence but
also in Underhill's Criminal Evidence and American Law Reports, Annotated.
“It
is also well settled that if a confession is made under such circumstances as
to authorize its admission in evidence the accused is entitled to have the
entire conversation, including any exculpatory or
1956
self-serving declarations connected
therewith, also admitted. However, it is
for the jury to say what weight shall be given to the several parts of the
statement, as they may believe that part which charges the prisoner and reject
that which tends to exculpate him.”
It is the province of this Commission
to accept or reject as much of these confessions as it sees fit. What the Commission will do at the final
termination of this case, when the evidence is all in, is one thing. At the present time I wish to insist again
that the obligation of the Commission is to give to the evidence of the
prosecution its most favorable inference, and that is that the charges are
proved prima facie as charged.
Even if Burger had such an intention,
which we do not admit, he violated the law of war under Charges 1, 2, and 3 by
aiding and assisting others who did have such intention, with reason to believe
that they would carry out that intention.
Suppose, for example, that before this
week was over, and Burger had given all this information that he had, a bridge
or something else had been blown up by one of theses other men who came over on
the same submarine with him. Could we
say that he was not guilty under the circumstances? Or would any court acquit him under such
circumstances? Most certainly not. Similarly, under Charge 4, he was guilty
conspiring with these men to do it.
Then, there is another thing in that
connection, on which I think we do not need to spend much time at present, and
that
1957
is
that even though he might have intended, there is no evidence that he could not
have changed his mind at any time between the time he got there, the time he
arrived here, and the time he was apprehended.
So, altogether the intent of this
motion at the present time, on the present state of the evidence--the situation
of this motion at the present state of the evidence--and I want to insist on it
again, if I may--is that the prosecution has presented the evidence as to how
he came over here and the circumstances of his coming. We have put in his confession. In that confession he does make exculpatory
statements, which are for the Commission to consider later, but not under this
particular motion. It is for that reason
that we do not care to go into and discuss the evidence further at this time
and take up the Commission's time.
The President. Mr. Attorney General, we should be very glad
to hear from you.
The Attorney General. I think General Cramer has covered the
situation admirable for us. I do not
think I could add anything, may it please the Commission.
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission: Of course, if the Commission is going to take
the view that a motion for a verdict of not guilty cannot be made at this point
of the case--and I do not believe it will--the Judge Advocate General's
argument is sound. But unless this
provision of the Manual for Courts-Martial is to be utterly disregarded, we are
entitled to have this motion considered as outlined in this Manual. Of course, the answer of the Judge Advocate
General is the easiest one to make, because it would have been
1958
exceedingly
difficult for him to have answered our argument upon the evidence before the
Commission; we think it is unanswerable.
We conceive that he did not want to undertake to do that.
The Judge Advocate General. We shall answer that at the proper time,
Colonel Royall.
Colonel Royall. I have no apologies to make for that remark,
because I do not believe that this argument can be answered on these facts.
The Manual for Courts-Martial
expressly say:
“At
the close of the case for the prosecution and before the opening of the case
for the defense the court may, on motion of the defense for findings of not
guilty, consider whether the evidence before the court is legally sufficient to
support a finding of guilty as to each specification designated in the motion.”
That is the provision under which we
are proceeding. It does not say “at the
end of all evidence”; it says “at the end of the prosecution's evidence.” It continues:
“If
there be any substantial evidence which, together with all reasonable
inferences therefrom and all applicable presumptions, fairly tends to establish
every essential element of an offense charged,”
there
should not be a verdict of not guilty.
1959
Now, although the Judge Advocate
General said he did not wish to discuss the facts in this case, he did discuss
them to the point of saying that there is no doubt about the fact that they
brought theses explosives ashore. We
will admit that was shown. I started out
by admitting that.
However, every one of the charges
includes as an essential element of it the purpose on the part of the defendant
to commit acts of sabotage:
Specification 1 of Charge 1: For
the purpose of committing acts of sabotage.
Specification 2 of Charge 1: For
the purpose of committing or attempting to commit sabotage. Charge 2:
For the purpose of destroying and saboting war industries. Charge 3:
For the purpose of committing sabotage and other hostile acts. The fourth is conspiracy of the others, which
relates to that language.
Therefore, an essential element of
this offense is the purpose or intent, and the prosecution has got to establish
it by reasonable inference at this time.
Now, maybe I improperly sense that some of the members of the Commission
would attribute to the Judge Advocate General any view other than that which he
expresses. I have just as much respect
for him as any member of this Commission, but he is entitled to no more
consideration in the presentation of the prosecution's case than we are in the
presentation of the defendant's case.
That is the theory of the court
martial trial or a trial before a military commission, and nothing that I say
is intended as any disrespect to him, but I do say that when this court martial
manual., which is his guide and our guide, so far as we know, says that every
element of the offense must be proved by reasonable inferences, it means that;
and we say that with the
1960
facts
which we have called to you attention, with the reasonable inferences--and they
are the words of the Court Martial Manual, and they are similar to the words of
the order of the President--it is impossible upon this evidence to find a this
stage any intent by the defendant Burger or any purpose such as is charged in
those bills.
Now, he says something might have
happened because of the others. Well,
there are two answers to that. In the
first place, nothing did happen. In the
second place, the uncontradicted evidence shows that it was agreed that nothing
would be done before July 4th or 6th. So
that, it seems to me, completely answers that argument.
We are relegated to whether the
prosecution by reasonable inferences has proven a criminal purpose on the part
of the defendant Burger.
The President. The Commission will close.
(The Commission was then
closed. When it reopened the following
occurred:)
The President. The Commission is open.
Colonel Munson. All the personnel who were present before the
Commission was closed are again present.
The President. The Commission took cognizance last night of
the request of the defense counsel Colonel Royall that we should suspend ruling
on the motion of Colonel Ristine, representing the defendant Dasch, until this
morning, after he had made his motion with regard to the defendant Burger. So that the Commission in its ruling now
rules first with regard to the motion of the defense counsel representing
Dasch, and rules that the motion is not sustained.
1961
It also now rules in regard to the
motion of the defense counsel on behalf of the defendant Burger that the motion
is not sustained.
No motion was made excepting for the
defendants Dasch and Burger.
Colonel Royall. You will recall yesterday we did make a
motion as to the separate charges and the Commission ruled on that yesterday,
before we started the argument of the Dasch case. I think that is correct.
The President. Yes.
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission, it might be of
interest to the commission and also to the prosecution to know that, so far as
possible, we intend to present the evidence of the various defendants in the
following order: The evidence first
relation to Haupt; next, Neubauer; next, Thiel; next, Kerling. That is the so called
Following that we intend to present
the evidence of Heinck and Quirin.
And now, since we must do so, the
evidence of Dasch and Burger we will add at the end.
Colonel Ristine agrees that that order
is satisfactory to him.
We desire first to call to the stand
the defendant Herbert Hans Haupt.
The President. Will the Judge Advocate please check on me in
case I omit anything that should be made plain to the witness?
The defendant Haupt will please
rise. It is my duty to tell you that you
have the legal right now to do any one of
1962
several
things, just as you choose. First, if
you want to do so, you may be sworn as a witness and testify under oath in this
case, like any other witness; or, second, if you do not want to be sworn as a
witness, you may, without being sworn, say anything about the case to the
Commission which you desire--that is, make what is called an unsworn
statement--or you may, if you wish, file a written statement with the
Commission; or, third, you may, if you wish, keep silent and say nothing at
all.
If you do take the witness stand and
fail to deny or satisfactorily explain any of the alleged wrongful sets about
which you testify at all, about which any evidence has been presented against
you here, such failure on your part may be commented on to the Commission by
the Trial Judge Advocate when he presents his argument to the Commission at the
end of the trial, and the Commission can take it into consideration in
determining whether you are guilty or innocent of the offenses.
Do you understand fully all that I
have said to you so far?
Mr. Haupt. I do.
The President. Knowing these various rights, take time to
consult with your counsel, and then state to the Commission which you will do.
May I ask counsel if he has also
explained this?
Colonel Royall. I have not in that exact language, but I have
told him of his various rights; and he, unless he has changed his mind since I
first talked to him, desires to take the stand as a witness. I will now, however, ask him again.
He says he does desire to take the
stand.
The President. Colonel Munson, may I inquire, since these
1963
defendants
are being tried together, is it your opinion that this should be read to each
one of them, if he should take the stand, or is this explanation in their
presence sufficient?
Colonel Munson. I think it would be sufficient, sir, in their
presence, if they all understood and heard what was said and if they will so
state.
The President. It is the sense of the Commission that it
will be put to each one of them seriatim.
You may take the stand.
Colonel Munson. Hold up your right hand. You swear that the evidence you shall give
now on hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Mr. Haupt. I do.
HERBERT JOANNES WILHELM GODHELP HAUPT
was
called as a witness and testified as follows:
Questions by Colonel Munson:
Q. What
is your full name?
A. Herbert
Joannes Wilhelm Godhelp Haupt.
Q. You
are on of the accused in this case?
A. Yes.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by Colonel Royall:
Q. Mr.
Haupt, how old are you?
A. 22.
Q. Where
were you born?
A.
Q. At
what age did you and your parents come to this country?
A. I
came to this country with my mother at the age of five.
1964
Q. How
long did you live here?
A. I
lived in this country seventeen years.
Q. Are
your parents American citizens?
A. They
Are.
Q. When
were they naturalized?
A. My
father was naturalized about 1930 and my mother in 1940.
Q. From
the time that you arrived in this country until the present date how many times
have you been to
A. None
at all.
Q. I
say, up to the present time.
A. Oh,
up to the present date? Once.
Q. Where
did you live from the time you were 5 years old until the summer of 1940?
A.
1965
Q. Did
you live in the same vicinity during that period, or where did you live in
A. In
the same vicinity.
Q. What
was your occupation before you left
A. I
was an apprentice optician.
Q. By
what company were you employed?
A. Simpson's
Optical Company, Chicago.
Q. How
long had you been working for them?
A. About
two and a half years.
Q. What
were your duties? What did you do at the
Simpson Optical Company?
A. I
worked on government orders, camera lenses and microscopes.
Q. When
in 1940 did you leave
A. I
did not leave
Q. In
1941, was it?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. The
other references I have made to 1940, then, should have been 1941. Is that when you left?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. When
in 1941 did you leave
A. June
16.
Q. Where
did you go?
A. To
Q. What
were the circumstances which led up to your leaving
A. I
was associating with a girl named Gerda Stuckmann, and my folks objected to my
going with her, and her folks objected to her going with me, because I was
younger, and she
1966
became
pregnant and I didn't know what to do, so I talked to two friends of mine and
left for
Q. What
were you intentions as to where you were going when you left
A. I
took a letter along from the Pan-American Club introducing me to somebody in
Q. What
sort of work were you planning to do in
A. I
was planning to go on a plantation.
Q. Where
did you go?
A. I
went to
Q. How
did you travel from
A. In
a 1933 Chevrolet.
Q. Did
you communicate with your parents on route to
A. I
did. I sent them card from
Q. Where
did you go in
A. I
went to
Q. What
efforts did you make to go from
A. I
went to a legal advisor, first, in
Q. When
you left
A. I
was going to
1967
Q. Did
you have any intention at that time of going to either
A. No,
sir.
Q. Who
in
A. Most
all my friends knew, and the person who gave me the letter from the
Pan-American Club, and a Lieutenant down at work who questioned me why I was
going down, and I explained to him why; and my boss down at work ,and the
superintendent.
Q. Did
your parents know that you were going to
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. You
spoke of some lieutenant know that you were going to
A. He
was a lieutenant who occasionally came into our shop because we were doing
government orders.
Q. Do
you know what department of the government he was with?
A. No;
I do not.
Q. Do
you know whether or not he was in the Ordinance Department?
A. Yes;
he was in the Ordnance.
Q. Do
you remember his name?
A. Lieutenant
Page, I guess.
Q. What
was your conversation with him in reference to your trip to
A. He
told me I would find conditions are not very good down there.
Q. Who
told you that?
1968
A. This
lieutenant.
Q. What
did you tell him, first, about going?
A. That
I wanted to go and see
Q. What
did he say to you about that?
A. That
conditions are not very good down in
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission, if there is no
objection on the part of the prosecution, I desire to state that it is our
intention to offer later in evidence the report of this Ordinance officer. I would like to offer it now, because the
testimony relates to it, but it has not yet arrived from the Ordnance
Department.
Questions by Colonel Royall;
Q. In
addition to that conversation with this Ordnance officer, you say you talked to
whom else at your plant?
A. I
talked to the owner of our plant.
Q. What
is his name?
A. Mr.
Hagan.
Q. Did
you discuss it with Mrs.
A. Yes,
sir; I did.
Q. Who
is Mrs.
A. The
mother of the best friend I had in the
Q. What
was his name?
A. Larry
Jordan.
Q. Did
you discuss it with Larry?
A. Mr.
Larry is a Sergeant in the Army, and he was not at home at the time.
1969
Q. Do
you know where Larry is now?
A. He
is reported missing in the
Q. Did
you discuss it with anyone else?
A. I
discussed it with my girl friend.
Q. That
is--
A. Miss
Gerda Stuckmann.
Q. Did
you tell her where you were going?
A. I
did.
Q. Do
you recall anyone else that you discussed it with specifically; that is, by
name; or do you recall anybody else?
A. I
discussed it with nearly all of my friends.
Q. Coming
back to your situation in
A. I
sent my mother a letter from
Q. Was
that your intention at that time?
A. It
was.
Q. When
you went to
A. I
left them home because you did not need much clothing down in the tropics.
Q. What
else did you leave?
A. My
watch and ring and all of my personal belongings, a few things.
Q. Where
were your personal friends at that time located? Where were they living?
A. In
the
Q. What
part of the
A. Mostly
1970
Q. You
say some friends went with you. Who went
with you?
A. Wolfgang
Wergin and Hugo Troesken.
Q. Do
you know where Troesken is?
A. Troesken
is here in the
Q. You
do not know where, though do you?
A. I
believe he is in
Q. Where
was Wergin the last you knew of him?
A. In
Q. What
happened in
A. My
money was just about gone, and we used to eat in the Lopez restaurant in
Q. Did
you know him before?
A. No.
Q. How
did you happen to meet him?
A. I
met him while eating in the Lopez restaurant.
Q. What,
if anything, did you say to Sass about your condition of lack of finances and
your inability to get to
A. He
told us of a place where we could live cheaply, and we moved to where Hans Sass
was living. I told him I could not get
any money and could not get any work and he told me he would introduce me to a
Von Wallenburg who could be able to get me a job or a visa or something. Three or four days later at the same
restaurant Hans Bass brought Von Wallenburg there, and he turned out to be an
official of the German Consulate. He
told me it was impossible to get a passport
1971
going
on to
Q. How
long had you been in
A. About
three weeks.
Q. About
how long thereafter did you first meet Von Wallenburg?
A. About
a week.
Q. What
else did Von Wallenburg say to you?
A. We
had a discussion and I said the only thing I could do--"I haven't any
money"--would be to go back to the United States, and he offered me a job
in a monastery in Japan, but I would have to pay back the trip and the train
fare and the boat, too, when I was working in the monastery.
Q. Before
that occurred had you written to anyone else in the
A. Yes,
I had; to my uncle.
Q. Did
you accept Von Wallenburg's proposal to send you to the monastery?
A. I
did.
Q. Where
was the monastery located?
A. In
Shingasaki, in
Q. Up
until that time had you made any plans to go to
A. No,
sir; I had not.
Q. Had
you any intention of going there?
A. No,
sir.
Q. Did
you go to
A. Yes,
sir; I did.
Q. At
the time you were talking to Von Wallenburg
1972
was
anything said by him with reference to going anywhere except to
A. No,
sir.
Q. When
you went to Japan what occurred in connection with your work there and your
location there?
A. When
we arrived in Japan they took our passports away from us and issued us a
permit, the Japanese police and three or four officers from the German
Consulate, and they took us to a hotel in Yokohama, the New Grand Hotel, and
then next thing they issued us a pass going to Tokyo. We went to Tokyo and went to the German House
in Tokyo, and they gave us 100 yen to live for the first week, and then took us
to Shingasaki to take a look at this monastery, which turned out to be a labor
camp, and the conditions there were so bad, and they had so many sick and
everything, that my friend and I decided we wouldn't work there. We went back to
Q. What
did they then tell you?
A. They
told us they could give us money for another week, and they issued us 100 yen
and my friend and I went up to the mountains where we could live more cheaply.
Q. What
did you do there?
A. We
stayed there for two days and received a telegram from
Q. Did
you know why they sent for you at that time?
A. No,
sir.
Q. What
did you do when you got to
A. We
were called to come to the German House, and
1973
spoke
to a fellow who used to be steward on the German ship
Q. Did
he say where you were going to sail?
A. At
the time, no, sir.
Q. What
did you do?
A. They
told us to pack our things and be ready the next morning to leave for Kobi, and
in arriving at Kobi we arrived in the evening and they put us in a taxicab and
rushed us off to the seashore where we were brought upon a German liner
Sohornhorst.
Q. When
did you first learn where the liner was going?
A. That
liner was not going anywhere, sir; it stayed in Kobi.
Q. Why
did you agree to go on that ship? What
led you to make that decision?
A. There
wasn't anything else to do. We would be
vagrants in
Q. How
long did you stay in
A. Approximately
one month.
Q. Where
did you go when you left Kobi?
A. We
were on the Sohornhorst about three weeks, being trained how to become sailors,
and in navigation, and then
1974
we
were put on another German liner, the Elsa-Esburger, and taken out to sea,
still not knowing where we were going.
Q. What
did you do on the trip?
A. On
the Elsa-Esburger we did not do a thing, but some days later we met a German ship
out in the
Q. Did
you get on the German ship there?
A. We
got on the German ship.
Q. When
was the first time you learned that the ship was going to
A. After
we were past the
Q. When
was that? How long after you left
A. About
three weeks.
Q. Where
did you go then?
A. We
sailed around Cape Horn and went to
Q. While
you were in
A. Yes,
I did; I sent them a telegram telling them I was in
Q. Did
you tell them anything else about your plans?
A. I
didn't have any plans at the time.
Q. When
did you land in
A. We
landed in
Q. Is
that the first news you had of
A. Yes,
sir. That was Hitler's speech.
Q. What
did they do with you when you got to
1975
A. All
the other sailors were allowed to go on shore, but my friend and I had to stay
on the boat, and the military police and Gestapo came on board to examine our
papers, and we had an oral examination.
Q. You
spoke of your friend. Whom are you
referring to?
A. Wolfgang
Wergin.
Q. That
is one of the two boys that left the
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. What
had happened to the other boy?
A. The
other boy had accepted a job from a Customs official on the border of
1976
Q. You
say everyone was permitted to leave the boat except you and Wolfgang Wergin?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. What
reason was given to you for your being detained on the boat?
A. They
didn't know whether we were Germans or Americans, and they didn't know why we
came from
Q. What
did you do after you left
A. We
stayed on the boat for three days, and then they sent a man along with us to
Q. Then
what did they do with you?
A. They
gave us a pass to go to
Q. Why
were you going to
A. To
check our papers again.
Q. What
happened there?
A. There
they checked our papers, and they asked us where we wanted to go, my friend
going to East Prussia, and I going to my grandmother's in Stettin. They gave us money for the train, and we
signed for it.
Q. You
obligated yourself for the expenses up to that time and the money they had
advanced you; is that right?
A. From
Q. When
you went to your grandmother's, did you have any other plans for yourself?
A. I
did. I was going to start work as an
optician.
Q. Where
did your grandmother live?
A. In
1977
Q. What
did you do there with reference to an effort to obtain work?
A. First
of all, I had to register with the police in
Q. Did
you get a working card?
A. No,
I didn't.
Q. Why?
A. I
didn't receive a working card because, first of all, I wasn't a member of the
Party; in the second place, they didn't know if I was American or German, and I
couldn't work as an optician.
Q. How
many relatives--class relatives--do you have in
A. My
grandmother, four uncles and aunts.
Q. At
that time did you intend to stay in
A. Until
the war was over, and then come back to the
Q. Why
did you intend to stay there until the war was over?
A. Well,
you can't get out of
Q. What
other effort, if any, did you make to obtain work while you were at your
grandmother's?
A. I
made quite a bit of effort. I went down
to the police, and I went to the Ausland organization in
Q. Were
you able to get work?
A. No,
I was not.
Q. What
did you then do?
1978
A. Well,
I stayed home by my grandmother, and I was bothered every second day by the
police and Gestapo.
Q. What
did they do?
A. They
sent me letters to come down to see them.
I went to the Gestapo four times in one week and had to give statements.
Q. What
sort of statements did they ask you for?
A. How
many fillings I had in my teeth, where I got them, and write statements about
my folks--if they are Americans or Germans.
Q. Did
anyone else see you or interview you except the Gestapo during that period?
A. Yes,
an organization in
Q. When
did you first receive any information or request to go somewhere else besides
A.
I received a letter from the editors of the Kaukasus.
Q. You
had better spell that for the reporter.
A. K-a-u-k-a-s-u-s.
Q. What
was that?
A. As
far as I knew at the time, I gathered it was a paper written for the soldiers
at the front--in the Russian front.
Q. What
did the letter say?
A. The
told me to come to
1979
Q. With
reference to that trip, what had happened that would justify a story? What had happened of an interesting nature to
you?
A. Breaking
the British Blockade--running the British blockade.
Q. What
happened in connection with that, so far as you were concerned? What had you done in connection with the
blockade?
A.
I worked on the ship as oiler and lookout, and also on deck, changing the looks
of the ship.
Q. Did
the German Government give you anything for running the blockade?
A. Yes,
they did. I received two medals through
the mail.
Q. Did
you ever wear them?
A. No,
sir, never worn.
Q. Did
you in response to the request to go down to
A. To
Q. Did
you go?
A. After
the first letter I had, I didn't go to
Q. Did
you go later?
A. I
received a telegram later and went to
Q. Where
did you get the money to go down there?
A. I
borrowed it from my relatives.
Q. What
did you do when you went to
A. I
went up to an office on 6??
1980
met
Walter Kappe, who asked me about my trip to Germany and had a girl there write
it down, and he gave me a hundred marks--120 marks--and told me to go back
home.
Q. What
happened to you after you got back home?
A. I
was home for approximately two weeks and received another telegram from
Q. For
what purpose did you think you were going at that time?
A. To
tell some more of the story, or something--something to do with it.
Q. Had
any other suggestion been made to you up to that time by Kappe or anyone else
with reference to your trip to
A. No.
Q. What
did you do on the occasion of you next trip to
A. I
went in to see Mr. Kappe again, and he said that he was a lieutenant in the
German Army, and he had an offer to make to me.
Q. Go
ahead and tell what happened there.
A. He
said if I noticed I couldn't work in Germany and that I wasn't trusted, and I
think my mother's brother, Otto Froehling--No--my mother's brother, Otto
Froehling, is in a concentration camp, and my father's brother had been, and
the only way I could every amount to anything was to go back to the United
States.
Q. What
else did he say?
A. At
that time nothing.
Q. What
did you do in consequence of what he told you?
1981
A. I
said I would go back to the
Q. Did
he tell you at that time the purpose for which you were to go to the
A. No,
sir.
Q. Did
you talk with anybody else there except Kappe?
A. The
first time I was there; the second time, no, sir.
Q. When
did you go back again, or did you go back again?
A. I
went back. He told me to return home,
and the next time he would call for me I should bring my belongings to
Q. Had
you ever know Dasch before?
A. No,
sir.
Q. What
transpired then between you and Dasch?
A. We
were talking about the
Q. What,
if anything, did Dasch say to you at that time about your purpose for coming to
A. Nothing. Dasch said he was working together with Mr.
Kappe.
Q. That
is all?
A. That
is all.
Q. Then,
when did you next return to
A. Shortly
after Easter.
Q. What
happened at that time?
A. At
that time I met the other defendants at Ranke
1982
Street,
No. 6.
Q. Who
else was there besides these other defendants?
A. Walter
Kappe and Reinhold Barth.
Q. What
happened at that time?
A. At
that time they told us we were going to go out to a--How did he say? To a farm in
Q. In
the meantime, what had happened to Wergin, your friend?
A. Well,
the second time I was to see Kappe, I told Kappe I had a friend who came across
with me, and he says he knew, and he said that Wolfgang—
Q. (Interposing)
That is Wergin?
A. Wergin--will
be held in
Q. Did
you see Wergin after that?
A. No,
I didn't; not after that.
Q. Then
you went to this school. Did you know
the purpose for which you were going at that time?
A. Not
until I got to the school, no, sir.
Q. What
did you learn than?
A. That
the purpose of the school was to teach us how to sabotage.
Q. Did
you attend the school?
A. Yes,
I did.
Q. Why?
A. To
get back to the
Q. Did
you at that time intend to carry out any of the
1983
plans
that were taught you in school?
A. I
intended to carry out none of the plans over.
Q. Why
were you going to the school, then?
A. Because
it was the only possible way to get back to my folks.
Q. Did
you know of any other way to get back to your parents?
A. None
whatsoever.
Q. How
long were you at the school?
A. Approximately
three weeks.
Q. Without
giving any details as to what your course of instruction was, what were you
taught as to the purpose of this school and the groups that were attending it?
A. To
sabotage chiefly aluminum--aluminum works, railroad works, and canal locks.
Q. What,
if anything, was taught to you about firearms?
A. We
practiced firearms--shooting--pistol shooting--one or twice, and it was told us
that we would not take any firearms along and we should not use any.
Q. Were
any instructions of any kind given to you with reference to harming or hurting any
person on this mission?
A. We
should not harm or should not hurt anybody.
Q. Who
told you that?
A. Walter
Kappe and Reinheld Barth.
Q. Were
any instructions given you about getting any military or other information and
transmitting it to
A. No,
sir.
Q. Were
any instructions given you with reference to spying of any kind?
1984
A No,
sir.
Q Did
you study secret writing?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Were
you told to the purpose of your instruction in secret writing?
A Yes,
we were told if we wanted to communicate with one another in such a way we
could not write it in open letter, we were to use secret writing.
Q Testimony
has been produced in this case with reference to some handkerchiefs. Did you know anything about them?
A No,
sir, I didn’t.
Q Were
you given any information about them at all?
A No,
sir.
Q You
had no handkerchiefs with writing on them?
A No,
sir.
Q Did
you carry with you in any way any address in
A No,
sir.
Q Were
you given any instructions with reference to communicating with anyone in
A No,
sir.
Q In
your presence was anyone in the group given instructions to communicate with
anyone in
A No,
sir.
Q You
have stated that you were going to school for the purpose of getting back to
A I
had a vacation for approximately 12 days, and I
1985
went
home to my grandmother’s, and I gave her a letter to give to my mother--to send
to my mother, rather--after this was is over, in case something happened to me
in the U boat or while landing in the United States on my purpose of coming
over here.
Q What
was the attitude of the other man with reference to you? The other defendants?
A I
was not very much trusted.
Q What
did you observe in that connection?
A On
the U boat, nothing; but in
Q Were
you a member of the Nazi Party?
A No,
sir.
Q Have
you ever been a member?
A No,
sir.
Q Were
you given specific orders before you landed in
A Yes,
I was told not to go home to my parents, because that is the first place where
they would catch me; not to see any of my old friends; not to see my girl
friend. That is about all.
Q Where
and when were those instructions given to you?
A They
were given to me in
Q That
is, the defendant Edward Kerling?
A Yes,
sir.
Q What
was told you about the name you should use in
A I
had one false registration card made out by George Dasch in my own name, which
later on in Paris Walter Kappe took
1986
away
from me and gave me another one with the name of
Q Did
you use the name
A No, sir.
Q What
name did you use in the
A I
used my own name.
Q When
was the first occasion you had to give or use a name after you landed from the
submarine?
A In
the Hotel Wayflower at
Q When
you registered there?
A Yes,
sir.
Q How
did you register?
A Herbert
Haupt,
Q Where
did you go from
A I
went straight home to
Q I
believe you said you had been told not
to go to your parents?
A I
did.
Q Did
you see your friends?
A I
did.
Q Did
you see your former employers?
A I
did.
Q Did
you see Gerda Stuckmann?
A I
did.
Q While
you were in
1987
registering
in the hotel? Did you purchase anything
there?
A Yes,
I purchased a wrist watch and had to give my name.
Q And
initials?
A My
name and the city where I came from.
Q What
name did you give there?
A My
own name and
Q Herbert,
at the time you embarked in the U boat and at the time you landed from the U
boat in this country, did you intend to commit any acts of sabotage?
A I
never intended to commit any acts of sabotage.
Q What
did you intend to do?
A I
intended to go home to my folks and about the 6th of July go up to
the F.B.I.
Q Why
did you say the 6th of July?
A Because
I didn’t know where any of the other fellows were, and I found out from Herbert
Neubauer that they were coming to
Q Did
you tell anybody in the group what you planned to do?
A Do,
I did not.
Q Why?
A Well,
it would sort of endanger us.
Q When
you got to the
A I
went to
Q With
whom?
A Alone.
Q Where
did the others go?
A To
1988
Q The
other three?
A Yes.
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission, it is now
The President. We shall recess until
(At
1989
AFTER RECESS
The commission reconvened at
The President. The commission is open.
Colonel Munson. The full personnel which was present at the
close of the last session of the Commission is again present, and Captain
Bruton of the defense counsel has come in since that time.
Corporal Frank Rooney, the Commission
instructs me that every person who is present in the courtroom must take an
oath of secrecy and to inform persons taking that oath that any violation of
the same may result in punishment by contempt proceedings or by other
proceedings of a criminal nature. In
taking the oath, you understand that to be the fact?
Corporal Rooney. Yes, sir.
Colonel Munson. Will you hold up your right hand? You solemnly swear that you will not divulge
the proceedings taken in this trial to anyone outside the courtroom until
released from your obligation by proper authority or required so to do by such
proper authority, so help you God?
Corporal Rooney. I do.
HERBERT JOANNES WILHELM GODHELP HAUPT
was
recalled as a witness and, having been previously duly sworn testified further
as follows:
Colonel Munson. The accused Haupt is reminded he is still
under oath.
The Witness. Yes, sir.
The President. Do I understand that the defense has
1990
completed?
Colonel Royall. No, sir.
We have not completed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION--RESUMED
Questions by Colonel Royall:
Q Mr.
Haupt, I believe you already stated before the
A That
is right, sir.
Q Did
any of the other defendants, while you were at
A I
have heard it mentioned only once or twice in the hotel at
Q Was
there any occurrence in connection with any gold certificates?
A Yes,
there was.
Q I
wish you would tell the Commission just what happened with reference to those.
A Gold
certificate bills were found, in $400, that we were to have in our pocket as we
landed, and we pointed out to Kappe that these bills would focus attention on
us right away and that we would be apprehended, and everybody was very nervous,
and Kappe stated that it is nothing to get excited about and he didn’t have the
responsibility of examining that money or furnishing that money to us.
Q Did
you at any time after you got to the
A No,
not exactly.
1991
Q Did
you discuss the fast that you were not going on with the plan? Did you discuss that with any of the defendants?
A Yes,
I did.
Q With
which one?
A Herman
Neubauer.
Q When
did you discuss that with Neubauer and where?
A I
discussed it twice with him, once in the
Q When
was that?
A The
date I cannot recall. It was the
Wednesday--the first Wednesday after landing in
Q And you landed on what day?
A We
landed a week prior to that.
Q On
a Wednesday?
A On
a Wednesday.
Q And
this was the next Wednesday?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Now,
did you ever discuss with any other person the fact that you were not going to participate
and did not intend to participate in the sabotage plan?
A No,
sir.
Q You
did not discuss that with anyone else?
A No,
sir.
Q Now,
when you got back to
A I
did.
1992
Q When
did you register?
A I
came to
Q Did
you make any efforts to obtain work
A I
did.
Q To
whom did you apply for work?
A Superintendent
of Simpson’s Optical Company.
Q Who
was that?
A Mr.
Andreas Grunau.
Q Were
you successful in getting the promise of a job?
A I
was.
Q Now,
did you see Gerda Stuckmann upon your return to
A I
saw her two days after I came to
Q What,
if anything, transpired between you and Gerda with reference to a possible
marriage?
A We
talked over the point of her having had a child and the child having died, and
we decided to get married.
Q In
accordance with that decision, what did you do to arrange for the necessary
blood tests?
A Gave
Miss Stuckmann ten dollars and told her to go get her blood test, which she
did.
Q I
believe you purchased an automobile after you got to
A I
did.
Q What
money did you use for that purpose?
A The
money that I brought along from
Q How
much of it did you use for the payment on the automobile?
1993
A Four
hundred sixty dollars.
Q Now,
why did you buy the automobile?
A First
to have an automobile and then to take a honeymoon with Gerda.
Q Had
there been originally a plan proposed before you landed for you to buy an
automobile and use it in connection with the sabotage operations?
A No,
not to buy an automobile, sir.
Q What
instructions or suggestions had been made to you before you landed in
A The
instructions I had were to get my automobile--I had a 1941
Q Who
told you that?
A Those
instructions were from Kappe in
Q And
who was in charger of your group?
Kerling?
A Yes,
sir.
Q What
did Kerling say to you on the U-boat with reference to Kappe’s instructions
about the use of your automobile?
A We
listened to the radio on the U-boat and we heard of the gasoline shortage and
we heard it was impossible, and Kerling says that that idea would have to be
dropped.
Q So
when you landed in the
A No,
sir.
1994
Q Did
the purchase of your automobile have connections with such use?
A No,
sir.
Q You
had learned on the U-boat that the gas rationing was in effect on the eastern
seaboard, had you?
A I
heard that, yes, sir.
Q And
Kerling had so learned?
A He
had heard that the gasoline was to be rationed all over the
Q And when you bought your automobile you knew that
the gas rationing was in effect in
A Yes,
sir, I knew that when I was in
Q And
on the eastern seaboard?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now,
did you tell any F.B.I. Agent at any time that you had purchased this
automobile for use for sabotage purposes .
A No,
sir.
Q Some
mention has been made of the fact in the testimony that Kappe knew the address
of your uncle, Walter Froehling.
A He
did, sir.
Q Did
you give him that information?
A No,
sir. I had the address of my uncle,
Walter Froehling, when I left for
Q Kappe
gave you that address, didn’t he?
A He
told me the address and I marked the address down.
1995
Q What
kind of automobile did you buy?
A 1941
used
Q Coach
or what?
A Sport
coupe.
Q What?
A Sport
coupe.
Q What
did you tell your mother with reference to your return to
A I
told her of my whole trip and the trip back to the
Q Did
you tell her that you were supposed to or instructed by others to work for the
German Government?
A Yes,
sir, I did.
Q Did
you tell her that you had received money from the German Government?
A I
did.
Q Did
you tell her the nature of the work you were supposed to do?
A I
did not.
Q You
did not?
A No.
Q Now,
when you were in
A I
was followed by the F.B.I. twice.
Q When
were those occasions?
A The
first time I was followed was about three days before I was apprehended by the
F.B.I., and the second time I was followed was the evening before I was
apprehended by the
1996
F.B.I.
Q After
you learned that you were being followed did you make any effort to escape from
A I
did not.
Q Now,
you spoke a moment ago of not having told the F.B.I. that you had purchased the
automobile for use in connection with the explosives.
A I
had not told them that.
Q Did
you hear the statement that you gave the F.B.I. read in court?
A I
did.
Q Did
you observe that there was nothing in that statement with reference to your
having told them that, or do you recall?
A I
did.
Q Do
you remember whether it was or not?
A It
was not.
Q It
was not. What method was followed by the
F.B.I. in questioning you preparatory to these statements which you signed?
A Well,
first they questioned me for approximately about two days on my whole trip from
Chicago to Germany and back, and then they came in and said that they were
going to take a statement, and the dictated, and I was allowed to correct them
or object to anything in the statement.
Q I
notice that some of the matters about which you have testified today, with
reference to your intention and certain other facts, were not included in the
statement. Did you tell the F.B.I.
certain matters that they did not put down
1997
in
the statement?
A I
told the F.B.I. that and also told the F.B.I. Men who were watching me when I
was in apprehension in
Q Did
you tell the F.B.I. all the facts you have told here today with reference to
your intention to come back to
A I
did.
Q Now,
with reference to your apprehension in
A I
told the F.B.I. that Peter Burger had beat me to it. I told them that I knew all the time that
Peter Burger would turn us in, because he had been in a concentration camp and
had told me about the horrors he suffered and the horrors he had seen other
people suffer in the concentration camp in
Q Did
you ever hear the defendant Burger in
A Many
times.
Q What
did he say?
A He
said they are the people that he hates more than anything else on earth, that
his wife lost a child because of the treatments of her by them.
Colonel Royall. I would like to ask permission of the
Commission for Colonel Dowell to ask a few questions of this witness.
1998
Colonel Dowell:
Q You
say you were working for the Simpson Optical Company at the time you left
A Yes,
sir.
Q Do
you know who was president of that company?
A Mr.
Q Did
you tell Mr. Eagan or anyone else at the company why you were leaving?
A Yes,
sir; I did.
Q Whom
did you tell?
A I
didn’t tell Mr. Eagan the real reason I was leaving, but I told employees at
the Simpson Optical Company, the people I worked with, why I was leaving.
Q Did
you tell Mr. Eagan where you were going?
A I
did.
Q Where
did you tell him you were going?
A I
told him I was going down to
Q Did
you make any effort before you left
A I
applied for a
Q Why
A Because
this letter I had was referring me to somebody in
Q What
step did you take in the direction of getting that passport?
A I
applied at the old post office in
Q Did
it involve the payment of any fee of any kind?
1999
A I
paid $10 for the passport, which I never received, and my mother received $9 in
return.
Q Why
did you not receive it?
A That
I don’t know, sir.
Q I
think you have stated that two companions left
A Yes;
I did.
Q One
was named--what were the names, again?
A Wolfgang
Wergin and Hugo Troesken.
Q You
stated that Hugo Troesken never got to
A That
is right.
Q Why
was that?
A When
we were on the border & customs officer offered any one of us a job to
drive an automobile to
Q There
was only one job offered?
A That
is right.
Q Have
you seen Troesken since?
A I
have not.
Q After
you arrived in
A I
did.
Q With
what result?
A I
went to Villa Obregon to try to get employment, but I couldn’t, with my tourist
card; and I tried to get employment in
Q How
much money did you have when you left
A Approximately
eighty dollars.
Q Did
you write home from
2000
A I
did.
Q How
many times?
A I
think, once or twice. I received a
letter from my mother asking why I didn’t write; and I had written, but I don’t
know how many letters she received.
Q Did
you receive that while you were in
A I
did.
Q And
your mother knew where you were?
A She
did.
Q Did
you communicate by letter or by card with your mother?
A I
communicated by letter and sent one telegram.
Q Do
you remember the occasion of your sending the telegram?
A Yes.
Q What
was the occasion?
A It
was my mother’s birthday.
Q What
date was that?
A The
29th of June.
Q How
did your money hold out if you were not working down there?
A The
money held out for a while, and then we didn’t even have enough to drive the
automobile any more.
Q Have
you any idea why you could not get work in
A Because
of our tourist pass. People with tourist
cards are not allowed to work in
Q Referring
to the communication after you had reached
2001
asking
you to come to
A Walter
Kappe.
Q You
have mentioned Reinhold Barth as being associated with Kappe in the work that
he was doing in
A Yes,
sir.
Q Do
you know who Reinhold Barth is, and can you identify him in any way?
A Reinhold
Barth is an engineer and he is a relative of George Dasch.
Q Do
you know what the relationship is?
A I
do not.
Q You
have stated, I believe, that your real intention was never to carry out your
instructions as to sabotage?
A That
is correct; never.
Q Did
you communicate that to anybody while in
A To
my grandmother.
Q No
one else?
A And
my uncle and aunt living with my grandmother.
Q Are
they German citizens?
A They
are.
Q Has
your father or mother ever been a member of the Nazi Party?
A Never.
Q Of
any German organization of any kind?
A Yes. My father was a member of the Shubert Sing
Society, of which I was also a member; and my father was a member, and still
is, of the German Day organization in
Q Just
what are those organizations?
A The
first organization is a singing society, and the
2002
second
organization is an organization which, as far as I can see, is a full American
organization.
Q Has
your mother ever been a member of any organization of that kind?
A She
has not.
Q You
have mentioned that you were given a fictitious name, that of Larry Jordan.
A Yes.
Q Who
gave it to you?
A Walter
Zappe.
Q Where
did you get it?
A He
gave me that name in
Q That
you should adopt a different name, not Larry Jordan?
A No;
I should adopt Larry Jordan.
Q Where
did you get the name?
A You
probably don’t understand me. He told me
I should adopt another name, not my own.
I had a registration card made out by George Dasch, in my name, and when
we got to Paris Walter Kappe changed his mind, for some reason or another, and
told me I should adopt another name. He
gave me another registration card, and he made that card out in the name I
wanted, and I stated “Larry Jordan.”
Q Why
did you give that name?
A It
was the first thing that came into my mind.
2003
Q You
had known Larry Jordan and been friendly with him in
A We
were the best of friends in
Q Where
did his parents live; do you know?
A
Q Why
did you not use that name when you got back to the
A For
the simple reason that that would be a crime, another crime.
Q You
have stated that there was general excitement in the crew upon the discovery
that some of the money consisted of gold certificates.
A There
was.
Q Were
you excited along with the rest?
A I
was; I felt badly about it along with the rest.
Q Why?
A Because
we would be apprehended right away, the minute we landed.
Q You
mentioned that Miss Stuckmann, your girl friend in
A We
were planning to get married.
Q Is
such a test required by
A It
is.
Q I
will ask you again: Where did you say you sent the telegram to your mother on
her birthday? Where did you send it
form?
A I
sent it from
2004
Q I
hand you a paper and ask you if you recognize it. If so, state what it is.
A I
do. It is the telegram I sent my mother
from
Q You
mean, it is a photo static copy of it?
A That
is right, sir.
Colonel Dowell. I offer this photo static copy of a telegram
in evidence.
The Attorney General. No objection.
(Photostatic
copy of a telegram
Dated
Haupt,
was marked Defendants’
Exhibit D and received in evidence.)
Questions by Colonel Dowell:
Q In
what language is that telegram worded?
A It
is in German.
Q Will
you read it in German and then translate it?
A There
is one word misspelled. Shall I read it
the right way?
Q Which
word is misspelled?
A “gleuckwienche.”
Q How
is it spelled there?
A Instead
of a “u” it is spelled “ie.”
Q The
“ie”should be “u”?
A Yes,
sir.
Q All
right. Read it as if the “ie” were
“u”. (The witness read in German
telegram marked Defendants’ Exhibit D.)
Q And
the translation is what?
A “Heartiest
greeting on your birthday.
“Your son, Herbert.”
2005
Q The
date is what?
A
Q Does
it indicate there from what place it was sent?
A Villa
Obregon, Mexico.
Colonel
Dowell. No further questions.
The President. Colonel Ristine, do you have any
questions?
Colonel Ristine. I think not, if the Commission please.
The President. Has the prosecution any questions?
The Attorney General. Yes, may it please the Commission.
CROSS EXAMINATION
Questions by the Attorney
General:
Q You
heard, Mr. Haupt, your statement when it was read in court?
A Yes,
sir.
Q You
followed it pretty closely?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Was
it correct?
A It
was, except quite a few of the statements I made to the F.B.I. were not
included in my written statement.
Q So
far as it went, it was correct, but it did not include everything; is that
right?
A Yes,
as far as I could remember, it was correct.
Q What
did it not include?
A It
did not include quite a bit of what I told the F.B.I.
Q I
wonder if you can tell us what it did not include.
A It
did not include my trip out to sea; that I didn’t know that I was going to
Germany until I was out to sea, and the only reason they didn’t tell us was
because we were on shore and we could have went to any bar and talked
2006
to
anybody in there and disclosed that we were going to
Q Where
were you when you were on shore?
A In
Kobi. And so that is the only reason why
they didn’t tell us where we were going.
They didn’t tell us we were sailing for
Q Who
did not tell you?
A The
German officials, until we were actually on the merchant ship that was going to
Q What
else did the statement exclude?
A It
excluded my intentions, of why I came over here. It excluded that I left my clothing here and
that I never had any idea of going to
All
of that I would have taken along, because if I was going to Germany we would
have to pass through a winter when I would probably need a winter overcoat; and
I had no winter clothes and no suits or nothing along.
Q And
that was part of what you told the F.B.I.?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Which
agent did you tell?
A I
told both agents.
Q Which
agents?
A Special
Agent Hirsh and Special Agent Rice, and I also--
Q Just
a moment. Were they together when you
told them that?
A I
think so; I am not sure.
Q You
are not sure whether or not they were together?
A I
am not sure.
2007
Q Which
one did you tell first?
A I
guess I told it to them when they were both there.
Q You
think they were together?
A I
think they were.
Q When
was it that you told them that?
A I
told them that nearly continuously every day that I was with them.
Q Did
you tell any other agent that?
A I
told the F.B.I. agents—I don’t know their names--who were the guards in
Q You
do not know their names?
A No,
sir.
Q What
you are now speaking of is with respect to your intentions never to go through
with it? Is that what you are speaking
of--the things you say you told them?
A What
we are now speaking of is my intentions of not going to
Q What
else did the statement omit?
A That
I never had any intentions of going through with sabotage.
Q Let
us stop on that for just a moment. You
say you told the agents that also?
A I
did.
Q Whom
did you tell that?
A I
told it to Special Agent Hirsh and Special Agent Rice.
Q Together?
A I
believe so.
Q You
are not certain whether or not they were to-
2008
gether?
A They
were together; yes, sir.
Q When
was that?
A
I told them that on the train going from
Q Who
else was there when he said he was awfully sorry? Did any other agent hear that?
A No. Mr. Hirsh was there alone.
Q Did
you tell them on any other occasion that you never had any intention of going
through with this?
A Yes;
I told them that in
Q They
did not leave that out of the paper, too, did they? Was that left out of the statement?
A No;
that was in the statement.
Q I
suppose that when you read the statement when I was first presented to you to
be signed, you read it over carefully, did you not?
A Yes,
sir.
Q And
did you then notice that your expressions of intention had been left out?
A Well,
they phrased the statement that way.
Q Wait
just a minute. Answer the question. I want
2009
to
get what you actually did. You read the
statement over practically as it was given to you, and you made some
corrections in it, did you not?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Did
you notice that the intentions as expressed to them of not going through with
this job had been left out of the statement?
A I
noticed when I read the statement that I was not going through with the
job. That is what I said in the
statement.
Q Perhaps
you did not understand my question.
A Perhaps
if you re-phrase it.
2010
Q The
statement was given to you to read over, was it not?
A It
was.
Q Did
you notice that your statements to the F.B.I. with respect to your never
intending to go through with this job had been left out of this statement?
A I
don’t know whether they were left out or not.
Q Wait
a minute. You have not yet answered my
question. Address yourself to the
question. Listen to what I am saying. You read the statement over?
A I
did.
Q You
made corrections, did you not?
A I
did.
Q You
have testified that you said to the F.B.I. that you never intended to go
through with this job?
A I
did.
Q Was
that your statement?
A That
I can’t remember—whether it was in the statement or not.
Q It
was a very important matter to you, was it not?
Colonel Royall. Objection to counsel’s arguing with the
witness.
The Attorney General. I do not think it is arguing with the
witness. I asked him if it was a fairly
important matter.
The Witness. It is.
The Attorney General. This is cross-examination, Colonel Royall.
Colonel Royall. I know it.
2011
Questions by the Attorney
General:
Q It
was an important matter?
A Certainly
it is.
Q How
many statements did you sign?
A I
signed two statements.
Q Two
statements?
A Yes.
Q In
each instance you did not notice whether or not those expressions, that you
never intended to go through with it, had been left out, did you?
A The
second statement was a statement made about William Wernecke and my relations
to him here in the
Q I
didn’t ask you that.
A It
had nothing to do with my involvement in this.
Q Did
you say to the F.B.I. When you had
signed this long statement, the first part dated June 28--did you remonstrate
with them because they had not put the whole truth into this?
A No,
I thought that is the way they wanted it.
Q Oh,
you were not giving the statement as it was; you were trying to give it to them
the way they wanted it?
A No,
they phrased the wording of the statement, and many times when I wanted to
change it, they said, “It doesn’t make any difference.”
Q I
am not speaking of the phrasing; I am speaking of the substance. Did you tell the agent when you signed the statement,
“This does not contain a lot of things I told you?” Did you say that to him?
2012
A No,
I didn’t.
Q Did
you make any remonstrance about this statement having anything at all left out?
A No,
I didn’t.
Q At
no time?
A Not
to the F.B.I., no sir.
Q Well,
to whom did you remonstrate if you did not to the F.B.I.? Nobody else had taken statements, had they?
A No,
but after I heard Dasch’s statement, and so complete--they didn’t ask me for a
complete statement.
Q Oh,
after, in court, you heard Dasch’s statement, you then thought that the F.B.I.
statement had not been complete enough; is that it?
A My
statement was not complete according to the F.B.I. No, sir, it was not.
Q What
do you mean by “according to the F.B.I.”?
A That
is the way they wanted the statement.
They phrased the statement, and I didn’t phrase the statement. They listened to my story. I told them the story exactly as I have told
it in court now, and after my story was told, the F.B.I. brought in a stenographer--
Q (Interposing)
Who took it down?
A (Continuing)
--and then I didn’t tell my story again.
Special Agent Hirsh--Special Agent Rice told the story to his
stenographer, and as he went along, I could correct him or object to his
phrasing.
Q You
made a good many corrections in this statement, did you not?
A Mostly
spelling--only spelling.
2013
Q Haupt,
when did you leave
A I
left
Q I
just do not understand why you left. I
wonder if you would tell us again why you left.
A The
real reason why I left Chicago was because I was going around with a girl named
Gerda Stuckmann, who was a girl my folks objected to, and Gerda Stuckmann’s
folks objected to my going with her because I was so much younger than she was.
Q She
was going to have a baby?
Colonel Royall. Objection.
May it please the Commission, the witness is being interrupted in his
answers. The Attorney General asked him why,
and I think he should be permitted to complete his testimony without being
interrupted.
Questions by the Attorney
General:
Q All
right. Finish your answer. I did not mean to interrupt you. I am sorry.
A The
girl came and told me she was pregnant and that I would have to marry her. At that time, my mother was in the hospital,
and I didn’t know what to do. I couldn’t
tell my folks, so I decided to go away.
Q Do
I understand that you left her because you might have had to marry her?
A Because
of what my folks would think--of the shame it would bring upon my family and
the trouble it would bring.
Q What
would bring trouble upon your family?
Your marrying her?
A It
would bring shame.
2014
Q What
would bring shame?
A My
having a child out of wedlock.
Q Oh,
you were afraid you would have to marry her if you stayed, and that would cause
shame; was that the reason?
A Because
of her condition and the way she had been talked about at the time.
Q Then,
you left so that you would not have to marry, because it would cause shame if
you did; is that right?
A That
is right.
Q You
saw her before you left, did you not?
A I
did.
Q How
many times did you see her before you left?
A Well,
I saw her for two years before I left.
Q No,
I mean after she was pregnant.
A I
saw her three days or two days before I left.
Q How
many times?
A Once.
Q Just
once? For how long?
A Three
days before I left.
Q How
long were you with her?
A About
two hours.
Q You
talked to her for two hours, and you told her why you were leaving her?
A I
did not.
Q Did
you tell her you were leaving?
A I
did.
Q Did
she ask you why you were leaving?
A She
did.
Q What
did you tell her?
2015
A I
told her I wanted to see
Q You
told her you were going to
A She
wanted to come along.
Q Didn’t
she object to your leaving her?
A Yes,
she did. She wanted, then, to come
along, and so I told her I would probably send for her if I made good down
there.
Q Did
you tell her you expected to come back pretty soon?
A I
wrote her a card.
Q Did
you tell her you expected to come back pretty soon?
A I
did not.
Q What
did you tell her about coming back?
A We
didn’t talk about that; I just told her I was going to
Q You
did not discuss whether you were coming back?
A No. She figured I would be back in three or four
weeks.
Q She
did not ask you when you would be back?
A No. She spoke to some friends.
2016
Q She
spoke to some friends but did not ask you when you expected to come back; is
that right?
A No,
because she thought I was sending for her--I was going to send for her if I
would get work in
Q You
told her you would send for her?
A She
made me promise; otherwise she would have had me stopped.
Q You
had promised to send for her?
A If
I made good in
Q At
what time was the baby born?
A I
don’t know when the baby was born.
Q When
was it expected at that time? Do you
know that? How long had she been in this
condition?
A Four
months.
Q Did
I understand you to say that you had $80 when you reached Mexico Cit?
A About.
Q You
personally had that, or the crowd had that?
A No,
I personally had that.
Q How
long did you live in
A Three
weeks.
Q Was
it then substantially gone?
A My
money was gone, yes, sir.
Q You
had been to the American Consulate in
A In
Q I
asked you if you went to the American Consulate.
A I
did not.
Q When
your money was gone, were you planning then to
2017
go
back, if you could get back?
A They
were--my plans were to, first of all, stay away from the girl until everything
died down.
Q When
your money was gone, were your plans to go back to
A My
plan was to get a job in
Q You
found you could not get a job in
A That
is right.
Q Then
you planned to come back immediately?
A No. I met this fellow Hans Sass.
Q Then,
you never planned to come back to
A If
I would not have got this other opportunity to get a job at a monastery, I
would have come back.
Q Put
you preferred to get a job in a monastery in
A If
I would have returned to the
Q I
said, Did you prefer to get a job in a monastery in
A I
did at that time.
Q I
suppose that was the reason why you did not telegraph your family for any money
to get back?
A No,
the reason I didn’t telegraph my family for any money was because my mother had
just undergone a very serious operation, my car was not paid for, the doctor
had to be paid,
2018
and
my father was occasionally sick; in fact, I was going to send them money if I
was working, not try to get money out of them.
Q Why
did you not go to the American Consul?
A I
met a man in
Q (Interposing)
What was his name?
A That
I can’t tell you. He asked for a
handout. He had gone to the American
Consulate. He was a Mexican from Texas,
and he said the American Consulate had said to him that they have no funds
whatsoever there to send people back to the United States, and he asked me for,
I guess, five dollars, or something, so he could get to the border at Laredo,
and I couldn’t give it to him at the time, and I gave him money so he could feed
his wife. He had his wife and children
sitting near--
Q (Interposing).
You have answered the question.
Colonel Royall. Wait a minute.
The Attorney General. He has answered the question.
Colonel Royall. I do not know whether or not he has. I think the witness is the best judge of
whether or not he has answered the question.
The Attorney General. I shall be glad to have you object whenever
you wish to.
Colonel Royall. I am objecting to your interrupting the
witness right now, because he did not sound as though he had finished his
answer. He may have, but I think he
should be permitted to continue until he has finished his answer.
The President. Please repeat the question.
2019
The Reporter (reading):
“Question. Why did you not go to the American Consul?
“Answer. I met a man in
“Question
(interposing). What was his name?
“Answer. That I can’t tell you. He asked for a handout. He had gone to the American Consulate. He was a Mexican from Texas, and he said the
American Consulate had said to him that they have no funds whatsoever there to
send people back to the United States, and he asked me for, I guess, five
dollars, or something, so he could get to the border at Laredo, and I couldn’t
give it to him at the time, and I gave him money so he could feed his
wife. He had his wife and children
sitting near--”
The Attorney General. Obviously none of that answer is at all
responsive to the question. I have
simply interrupted him in a discourse.
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission, the question
which he was interrupted twice in answering was, what was his reason for not
going to the American Consulate? When a witness
is asked, “Why?” he is entitled to tell you why if it takes an hour to do
it. This witness may have finished his
answer; I cannot tell. I know that he
was interrupted in the middle of a sentence.
I should like him to be permitted to give his reasons why he did not go
to the American Consulate, if he has not finished doing so.
The President. He will be permitted to continue his
2020
answer
to the question.
Questions by the Attorney
General:
Q Did
you finish your answer?
A There
were only two words there. His wife and
children sitting on a bench by a statue in
Q I
take it, then, that you had, before you talked to this man, planned to go to
the American Consulate?
A
I had thought of it.
Q For
what purpose?
A For
getting back to the
Q So,
at that time you did think of getting back to the
A I
did, but I thought it over again. They
didn’t issue my passport to go down to
Q And
because this handout had told you they didn’t have any more money?
A He
told me that they didn’t have any money at all.
Q That
was the reason why you didn’t go to them at all? Because the handout had told you that?
A Because
of that reason and the reason I had.
Q You
went from
A I
went from
Q Did
you buy the ticket to
A I
did not.
Q Who
bought it?
A I
don’t know who bought it; it was given to me.
Q You
told the German officers, I understand, that you
2021
wished
to go to
A They
weren’t German officers--or I guess they would be. It was an official of the Consul, von
Vollenburg.
Q Was
he a member of the Consulate?
A I
didn’t know at that time if he was, when I spoke to him, or not.
Q Where
was he? In the Consulate’s office?
A No. It was in a restaurant--at Lopez
Restaurant--in
Q You
just assumed he was connected with the Consul, or did he tell you that he was?
A No,
he told me--this Hans Sass introduced him to me and spoke to him about getting
a job in Mexico, and he says there was a man named Nicholas Deeke in Mexico had
a big sausage factory, and if I had other papers, I could get a job there; but
he cant get me a job because I have only a tourist card.
Q I
wish you would listen to my questions.
Perhaps we would get along a little more quickly. Did he tell you whether or not he was
connected with the Consulate?
A No,
he didn’t.
Q Never?
A He
never told me, no.
Q So,
you assumed he was?
A He
never told me, no.
Q So,
you assumed he was?
A Later
on I assumed that he was--the second time I met him.
Q He
brought you the ticket for
A No,
I went to get the ticket for
2022
Q Who
gave it to you?
A He
gave it to me in the office--in the Nippen Steamship office.
Q Did
you go to the German Consulate at all?
A In
the German Consulate? No.
Q Did
he tell you who paid for that ticket?
A He
did.
Q Who
did pay for it?
A He
told me the German Consulate paid for my ticket.
Q Tell,
did the German Consulate pay for a ticket for you so that you could go to
A It
was not a Japanese monastery.
Q At
that time you assumed it was, did you not?
A No,
he told me it was a monastery of German monks and that people were working
there on the farm and plowing and so forth.
Q Von
Vollenburg was the one who gave you the ticket, I think you said.
A He
was.
Q Did
you tell von Vollenburg that you wanted to go to
A I
did not.
Q Did
he think that you wanted to go to
A He
might have. That is what I told the
F.B.I. by the statement he made.
Q Who
made?
A By
the statement he made.
Q What
was the statement he made?
2023
A He
said, “As you know, there is war with
I
said, “Yes, I know.”
Q You
thought that von Vollenburg believed you were trying to get back to
A No,
I just answered that. By this statement
I told the F.B.I. that I drew the conclusion from that statement.
Q Aside
from what you told the F.B.I., don’t you think von Vollenburg thought you were
trying to get to
A He
might have; I don’t know.
Q You
don’t know?
A I
don’t know; he has never mentioned it.
Q What
kind of papers did they give you besides the passport? Any other papers?
A I
had no other papers.
Q By
whom was the passport issued?
A The
passport was issued by the German
Q Did
anybody else stamp it? Did the Japanese Consul
stamp it, for instance?
A As
far as I know, von Vollenburg took it over to the Japanese office to have it
stamped.
Q Didn’t
you have to sign any papers to get the passport?
A I
had to make out a certain paper for the passport, yes.
Q It
had a lot of questions on it?
A Age.
Q Age
and nationality?
2024
A Nationality.
Q What
did you state your nationality was?
A American.
Q Did
it occur to you as at all odd--
The Attorney General. I will withdraw the question.
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Did
the American Consul visa this passport?
A He
did not.
Q Did
it occur to you at the time as being unusual that the American Consul should
not have visaed or issued a passport to an American or have anything to do with
it?
A American
consuls issue no passports out of the
Q So,
it did not occur to you as odd that no American consul should have had anything
to do with the paper? What had the
German Consul to do with this?
A This
passport was issued from the German Consulate.
Q In
Mexico City?
A In Mexico, D.F.
Q You
were not a German--
A (Interposing) Pardon?
Q Going
into
A Not
going to
Q I
do not quite understand the relationship of the German Consul to the
passport. Why should he had issued it?
A Well,
I told why he issued that passport.
Q Well,
I do not yet understand. You were an
American in
A He
is the man who arranged the work for me in
2025
and
he got this job for me in
Q He
may have arranged the work, but did he sign the passport or issue it at the
German Consulate?
A Yes,
he did.
Q I
still do not understand. I may be very
stupid. You were in
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission: I think that is
a question of law or argument. The
witness said that he did not know except that he signed the passport. The Attorney General is either arguing with the
witness or is asking a question of law, either of which is incompetent.
The Attorney General. Does Colonel Royall object?
Colonel Royall. Yes.
The Attorney General. I should like a ruling on it.
The President. Please read the question.
The Reporter (reading):
“Question. I still do not understand. I may be very stupid. You were in
The President. I think that question can be asked.
Questions by the Attorney
General:
Q Would
you answer?
A I
have answered it, sir.
Q Please
answer it again.
A I
received a German passport from von Vollenburg at the same time I received my
ticket to
2026
Q I
did not ask you whether you received it from Von Wallenburg.
The President. Please read the question to the witness
again.
The Reporter (reading). “I still do not understand. I may be very stupid. You were in
The President. Now, listen to that question. Read the latter part of the question again.
The Reporter (reading). “You were in
The Witness. The German Consul gave me a passport and gave
me a ticket to go to
Questions by the Attorney
General:
Q You
know the German Consul signed the passport?
A I
don’t know who signed the passport.
Q Didn’t
you look at it?
A Yes. It was signed in a handwriting, but I don’t
actually know who signed it.
Q You
know the title of the official who signed it?
You know that the German Consul signed it?
A The
German Consul in
Q Why
did you think the German Consul signed it?
Did it occur to you to think about it?
A Because
the passport would be void if it was not signed.
Q By
the German Consul?
2027
A By
whoever the passport was issued by.
Q Wasn’t
the reason that the German Consul signed it that you told the German Consul or
told Von Wallenburg that you were a German citizen?
A No,
because in order to tell him that I would have to show him some papers that I
am a German citizen, and I could not.
Q You
did not say to the German Consul or anybody else that you are a German citizen?
A That
I am a German citizen? No, I never did.
Q You
never said that to anybody in
A Nowhere.
Q You
were sent to
A I
landed in
Q Where
did you first go in
A In
Q Did
you go to the German Consulate in
A No,
we did not.
Q You
did not go?
A No,
we did not.
Q Who
was in charge of you when you got
A When
we got
Q And
they took you to the hotel?
A And
they took us to the New Grand Hotel.
Q Did
they take you papers or passport?
A They
took out passport and issued a permit of stay
2028
in
Q Did
you get your passport back?
A We
got out passports back as we were on the ship, on the Scharnhorst.
Q And
who signed that passport?
A No
one signed that passport. That was the
same passport that they took from us.
Q All
right. I did not understand that. How long were you there? About a month?
A In
Q And
you spent most of that time at the monestary?
A No,
I did not. I spent most of that time in
Q Did
you call on any of the German Consulates when you were in
A The
German Consulates, no.
Q Or
on any American Consulates?
A American
Consulates, no.
Q Did
you go to the German Embassy?
A German
Embassy, no.
Q Where
did you leave
A I
left
Q And
when?
A Some
part of September.
Q On
what boat?
A I
left
Q Did
you have any other papers then except the
2029
A No. I had the passport, and on the boat they made
out seamen paper, that I was a sailor in the merchant marine.
Q Did
you sign that?
A I
did.
Q Did
you take an oath when you signed it?
A I
did not.
Q What
did the paper say?
A The
paper stated that I was a seaman and I hired on in
Q For
how long?
A For
how long it didn’t say.
Q It
did not say?
A No,
and then at the end of the trip, when we were in Bordeaux, they filled out the
number of days on the trip, and Harve, Bordeaux, and put a stamp on there,
discharged.
Q It
gave a description of you in the paper?
A Only
my name and my trade.
Q And
the trade was seaman?
A My
trade--my former trade, optician.
Q Did
it give your nationality?
A My
nationality? It did.
Q What
nationality did it give?
A American.
Q So
this paper saying that you were a German seaman gave your nationality as an
American citizen; is that right?
A As
American citizen.
Q You
are sure of that?
A Yes.
2030
Q Did
anybody else sign it except you? Did any
officer sign it?
A No;
it was just for their records.
Q Then
you were transferred to another boat?
A That
was on the last boat.
Q On
the first boat did you get any papers except your passport?
A No
papers whatsoever.
2031
Q And
you took the choice of being a seaman on a German boat rather than a vagrant;
is that right?
A Yes,
because in
Q Naturally,
you did not wan that to happen to you?
A That’s
right.
Q How
long were you on the vessel? You went
around the horn?
A We
went around
Q How
long were you on the vessel all the
time?
A On
the last vessel we were on there 107 days.
Q Now,
you spoke of a couple of decorations.
You got two decorations, did you?
A Two
decorations, yes, sir.
Q What
were they? Were they crosses?
A I
got the Iron Cross, Second Class, and a special decoration made out for running
the blockade.
Q With
citations? You know what a citation
is? Was there a paper that came with the
decoration showing why it was given to you?
A Yes,
I received it through the mail with the decorations.
Q With
the Iron Cross what did they say you had done to merit the Iron Cross?
A They
said every seaman on a German ship which runs the blockade is entitled to the
Iron Cross and this medal for running the blockade.
Q It
did not say anything else?
2032
A
No; just that the marines--
Q You
know--I do not know--whether it is customary to give Iron Crosses to American
citizens?
A There
is another American citizen in
Q So
you do not know whether it is customary or not?
A I
do not know.
Q Who
was the other American, by the way?
A In
fact, I know of two.
Q What
was his name?
A Wolfgang
Wergin.
Q He
was the boy who left
A Yes,
sir.
Q Who
was the other one?
A
Another fellow is Arthur Sluder.
Q How
do you spell that?
A S-l-u-d-e-r, I guess.
Q What
did Arthur Sluber do to get him a Cross?
A He
was on a ship--I don’t know the name of the ship--a German ship. He was an American in
Q What
is he doing now?
A He
is in
Q In
the German Army?
A No. I don’t know the name of the plant. He is working somewhere--
2033
Q Working
for the German Government?
A No. He is in an independent plant--
Q
A When
I got to
Q Yes.
A
Q Where
did you first land when your trip ended around the Horn?
A
Q And
you went straight from
A After
three days we went from
Q How
long were you in
A In
Q Had
you ever been to
A Never.
Q And
you were in
A I
was.
Q Did
you do any work in
A Work?
Q Yes.
A Never.
Q You
did not have a secretary who was working for you in
A Never.
Q You
did not say to your father that you had a secretary working for you in
A
Never.
2034
Q Or
to your mother?
A Never.
Q Or
to anyone?
A Never.
Q After
you were three days in
A
Q How
long were you there?
A Two
days.
Q What
papers did you have then when you were at
A I
had the German passport.
Q Did
the Gestapo allow you to keep the passport or did they take it away from you?
A I
have kept that passport.
Q You
kept it?
A I
did.
Q Have
you still got it, by the way?
A No,
I have not.
Q What
did you do with it?
A The
passport was taken from me when I went--
Q When
you went to
A No;
when I got into the school.
Q When
you got into the school. Now, what was
the first meeting you had with the Gestapo when you got to
A The
first meeting I had was on the boat at
Q They
came on the boat?
A The
Gestapo, the military police, and--
2035
Q Did
one of the Gestapo officers or military police--
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission, he started
saying Gestapo, military police, and something.
Questions by the Attorney
General:
Q What
was the third?
A And
the officials from the Auschland organization.
Q What
is the Auschland organization?
A Foreign
organization.
Q It
is the foreign office?
A No,
not foreign office.
Q Is
it part of the High Command?
A No,
it is not. It is an organization which gives
aid to any people--
Q Oh,
yes. You testified about that.
A (continuing)
--coming to
Q I
see. Now, did one or more agents talk to
you on the boat?
A Yes. Three agents talked to us on the boat.
Q They
asked you questions?
A They
did.
Q Did
they have any record of you when they came on the boat?
A No,
they did not.
Q What
did you tell them?
A I
told them that we hired on as seamen in
Q You
said you were an American citizen?
A I
did not tell them that. They did not
inquire.
Q They
did not inquire what your citizenship was?
2036
A They
did not.
Q Did
they ask you that at all?
A They
asked me what citizenship my parents were.
Q What
did you say?
A I
said my parents were both American citizens.
That’s the reason they did not leave us aboard on ship to go on land.
Q Because
you were an American?
A Because
they believed I was an American.
Q Were
you an American?
A Yes,
as far as I know, I was.
Q That
was the only reason why the Gestapo held you up--because they supposed you were
an American citizen and war had been declared by that time; is that right?
A No.
Q What
other reasons?
A They
said I was a spy at one time.
Q Did
they have any indication of that? Did
they have any record?
A Record? No.
Q They
just guessed you were a spy?
A That’s
right.
Q They
had no reason to think you were a spy?
A Not
as far as I can see.
Q What
did they say to you about being a spy?
A One
Gestapo agent took my passport and said to the other, “You’d better examine
this pretty close. I think he is a spy,”
and I said to him, “If I am a spy, the Gestapo can call themselves the seamen’s
society, if I have gotten away
2037
with
it this long.”
Q Constantly
after than, if I understand, the Gestapo were on your trail?
A No,
not on my trail. I never said that in my
story.
Q I
am sorry. How often did the Gestapo send
for you or see you?
A I
was seen by either the Gestapo or the police--the Gestapo were in the city and
the police were in the town where I lived--at least four times a week.
Q All
the time you were in
A Not
every week.
Q But
on the average would you say four or five times a week while you were in
A On
the average, I would say three times a week all the time I was in
Q Did
they seem to know any more about you toward the end than when they first
started? Did they have any record of
you?
A They
had no record whatsoever of me, as far as I know.
Q But
they seemed pretty auspicious of you?
A They
did. They would not let me work.
Q They
would not let you work, and apparently the only reason why they would not let
you work was that they thought you might be a spy?
A No. As they did not know my citizenship, the
would not leave me work in any plant, and in my trade, opticians, they are all
working for the Government.
Q When
was your attention first called to this sabotage
2038
school
plan? When was that? When did you first hear about it?
A Towards
the end of March.
Q Who
told you about it?
A No
one told me about it--Oh, about the sabotage?
Q Yes.
A In
April.
Q In
April. Who told you about it?
A Walter
Kappe.
Q Walter Kappe. Had
you ever met him before?
A I
had met him twice before he told me about the sabotage.
Q Where
had you met him?
A In
the office of the editors of the Kaukasus in
Q When
he sent for you to--
A To
write this story.
Q Had
you ever seen him before that?
A I
had never seen him before that.
Q How
was he dressed, by the way, do you remember?
Was he an officer? He was a
lieutenant, wasn’t he?
A He
was dressed in uniform part of the time and in civilian clothes part of the
time.
Q He
was a lieutenant in the German Army, wasn’t he.
A He
was a lieutenant in the German Army.
Q You
spoke of a man called Sass Where did
you first meet Sass?
A I
met Sass in the Lopez Restaurant in
Q What
did Sass say to you? Did he suggest to
you to go to
2039
A Never
suggested anything of the kind.
Q What
did you talk about with Sass?
A I
found out that he came from the
Q Did
you talk about the war?
A We
talked about everything.
Q Did
Kappe say anything about Sass?
A Yes. In the first letter I received from Walter
Kappe he wrote that he got my name through a friend of his whom he had known in
Q Well,
he had not heard the story or your experiences in running the blockade from
Sass, had he?
A He
had. He did not hear the experiences,
but he learned that I had run the blockade.
Q Did
he learn that Sass had recommended you as a possible saboteur?
A He
did not.
Q He
said nothing about that?
A He
did not.
Q He
just recommended you generally?
A I
didn’t know anything about it. I just
thought I was going to write a story.
Q But
when Kappe told you that he had heard from Sass about you, what did he say Sass
had written him about you?
A Kappe
never told me about that. That was in a
letter that I had received from Kappe’s office.
Q Did
the letter say what Sass had recommended you for?
2040
A The
letter said just what I said--that he had given my name--he received my name
through a friend of his, Hans Sass, whom he had known, and he has heard from
Sass that I ran the blockade, and he would like to--
Q Get
a story.
A He
did not state that in the letter. He
would like to see me in
Q When
you saw Kappe in
A He
just said--I asked him if he was a very good friend of Sass. He said yes and that Sass was married and
living in some part of
Q Did
he say Sass had recommended you for anything special?
A He
did not.
2041
The Attorney General. I will ask the reporter to mark this
photograph P-256.
(A
photograph handed to the
reporter
was marked P-256 for
identification.)
Questions by the Attorney
General:
Q I
am showing you a photograph which I have had marked for identification P-256,
and I ask you if you can identify any of the people in that photograph?
A I
can.
Q Which
can you identify?
A I
can identify Mr. Kappe.
Q Which
is he in the photograph? The man in the
middle, with the three others behind him?
A That
is right.
Q The
large, heavy one in the middle, with the three others behind him?
A Yes;
and directly behind him is Reinhold Barth.
Q Do
you know the other two persons?
A I
do not.
Q You
never saw that photograph before?
A I
have.
Q When
did you see it?
A I
have seen it in the F.B.I. office in
Q But
not before that?
A Not
before that; no, sir.
Q You
do not know when this photograph was taken, I suppose?
A I
do not.
Q Had
you ever known Barth in this country?
2042
A I
had never known him until I met him.
Q Have
you ever heard of him before Dasch talked to you about him?
A I
had never heard of him and never seen Reinhold Barth before I met him at the
Editors of the Kaukasus in
The Attorney General. I will ask the reporter to mark another
photograph.
(The
photograph handed the report-
er
was marked P-257 for indentifi-
cation.)
Questions by the Attorney
General:
Q I
am showing you an exhibit marked P-257, and I ask you if you can identify it.
A I
can.
Q Who
is it?
A It
is a fellow named Paul Schmidt.
Q Was
he at the Sabotage school?
A He
was.
Q Did
he drop out?
A As
far as I know, no.
Q He
did not come over with either of the two groups, did he?
A I
don’t know if he came over with the group in
Q He
did not come with your group?
A No,
sir; he did not.
Q Did
he go to the school, when it started, with the rest of you?
A He
did.
Q Did
he have any other name?
2043
A Swenson.
Q You
knew him?
A I
knew him; I had met him before.
Q Did
you know him in this country?
A I
did not.
Q Where
did you first meet him?
A I
met him in
Q In
A Yes,
sir;
Q Who
was he with in
A He
was with two Mexicans.
Q What
was he doing?
A He
had just come from the hills looking for gold.
Q Did
he tell you what his plans were at that time?
A He
told me he had come there from
Q Where
was he going after he left
A He
had wanted to go back to the
Q I
did not ask you that. Oh. He was then planning to go back to the
A When
I met him; yes.
Q Then
he changed his plans later?
A I
told him that I was going to a monastery in
Q And
you told him?
A Yes.
Q Who
did you tell him furnished it?
A That
Hans Sass had arranged it for me.
Q What
did he do then?
2044
A He
got in touch with this fellow Sass and he also went to
Q Did
he go with you?
A No.
He went on a steamship--I don’t know whether it was a steamship or not--but he
went on a ship before we went.
Q How
long before?
A Three
or four days.
Q Did
you meet him at the monastery?
A I
did not.
Q You
had planned to meet him at the monastery, I suppose?
A I
did.
Q Or
had you planned to meet him in
A I
never thought of
Q Who
fixed it up? Did the German consul pay
for his trip too?
A I
think he paid for his own trip.
Q To
go to the monastery?
A To
go to
Q So,
he first planned to get back to
A He
decided to go to
Q Why
did he want to go to
A He
just wanted to travel. He came all the
way form
Q In
A In
2045
Q Oh. You saw him in
A Yes.
Q What
was he doing then?
A In
Q In
A
Q You
do not remember his name?
A No,
sir.
Colonel Royall. Perhaps you can suggest it to him.
Questions by the Attorney
General:
Q Perhaps
you can think about it and let us know later.
A He
left with this lawyer to go to
Q What
were they going there for? Did he tell
you that?
A He
wouldn’t tell me.
Q He
would not tell you that. Did you ask
him?
A No,
sir; I didn’t ask him.
Q You
next saw him where and when?
A In
the office of the Editors of the Kaukasus in
Q Was
Kappe there?
A When
I saw him Kappe was not there.
Q But
soon afterwards?
A Soon
afterwards.
Q Did
Swenson tell you what he had done since he last saw you?
A He
told me he had been in
2046
shipped
him back to
Q The
German Government, I take it, made him do this?
A The
German consul officials.
Q They
paid his expenses, I suppose?
A No. You have to work. You get paid for working, one dollar a month.
Q Then
what happened to him? He had worked on
this boat, and then what happened to him?
A He
told me he worked on this boat.
Q Yes. I am just asking you.
A He
went into
Q Was
he as American citizen, by the way?
A I
think he is a British subject.
Q Was
he followed by the Gestapo too?
A As
far as I know, he had no use for any of them.
Q I
was asking more whether they had use for him, rather than his having use for
them.
A No;
he was not bothered.
Q What
did he say about this plan for the sabotage school? Did he talk it over with you?
A At
the school I talked with him about what we were doing.
Q Just
what took place in Kappe’s office? Was
it at that time that Kappe suggested you might be interested in the school?
A No;
it was the second time I saw Kappe.
Q How
much later than the first time?
A About
a week later.
2047
Q You
had been home meanwhile?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Who
else was there besides Kappe?
A No
one.
Q No
one else was there?
A No,
sir.
Q No
one was at any of your conferences with Kappe before you went to the school?
A No
one was there at any of my conferences with Kappe until the last time I went up
to the Kaukasus with any belongings.
Somebody knocked on the door and I opened it up and Swenson was
there. That was the first time I saw him
since before he went to
Q Did
he tell you why he was going to the sabotage school?
A He
didn’t know at the time.
Q Did
he tell you later? Was his plan so that
he could get out of
A No;
he didn’t care much about anything. He
didn’t care about the German government any more than he cared about
Q So
he wanted to fight
A Oh,
no.
Q What
did he want to do?
2048
A He
just wanted to be free.
Q Was
his idea of freedom that he should join saboteurs and go to
A No. He didn’t want to go to work in
Q He
wanted command of one of these groups, did he not?
A Not
that I know of.
Q Why
did he not come over with them?
A I
don’t know. When we left he was supposed
to go.
Q Didn’t
he say anything about it to you?
A He
was supposed to follow the next day with the other group, in the U-boat.
Q With
the
A Yes.
Q You
do not know why he did not go?
A I
have heard here why he did not go.
Q But
he did not say anything to you about it?
A No;
I didn’t see him.
Q I
want to hear a little bit more about the plans you made with Kappe. How did Kappe first tell you about this
sabotage school? I just want to know how
it came up in the conversation.
A About
the sabotage school?
Q Yes.
A We
were still sitting in the office of the Editors of the Kaukasus and Kappe was
talking about a sort of a ranch in
2049
Q Training
for what?
A To
go back to the
Q You
went down voluntarily to this school, did you not? Or did Kappe force you to go?
A Yes
and no. I was not forced physically to
go, but I had my choice of going--
Q What
was your choice?
A Of
going or probably ending up in a concentration camp or with a very bad record
in
Q Had
anybody told you were going to a concentration camp?
A Not
in so many words; no. They told me that
I would never amount to anything in
Q Who
told you this?
A Kappe. But I knew it, because I used to see his
wife. I lived in the same town as his
wife. My father’s brother had been in a
concentration camp, and my mother’s brother.
Q Did
Kappe seem to have a record of you?
A He
didn’t have one in his hand, but he seemed to know all about me.
Q Then
you went down to the school, and did not know until you go there what you were
going to do?
A We
didn’t know until Kappe called us into the room above the garage, which was
sort of a class room, and he told us the whole plan, that this was going to be
a sabotage school and that we would have to be very attentive because it was
2050
only
three weeks of training.
Q Did
everybody there say they cared to go to take the training?
A Everybody
who was there agreed to take the training.
Q Did
you take any oath or sign any papers?
A I
never took an oath. I signed one paper—I
signed three papers.
Q What
was the first paper?
A I
signed a contract paying me so and so much money—250 marks a month, which they
were supposed to put into a bank in
Q This
school was run by the High Command?
A Who
it was really run by I never had a chance to find out, and I don’t think
anybody else did.
Q Who
was in charge of the school?
A In
charge of the classes was Kappe.
Q He
was in charge of the school, was he not?
A In
charge of the school was a man whose name I don’t recall, who had an office in
this building where we lived, and he was in charge of the whole place.
Q Was
he in uniform or in ordinary clothes?
A He
usually had riding breeches on and ordinary clothes.
Q With
whom was this contract signed?
A This
contract was given to me by Kappe to sign.
Q Who
was the other party to the contract? Did
the German Government agree to pay you this money?
A Yes;
I guess it must be the German Government.
Q What
else did the contract say? Did you read
it?
2051
A It
said that after the war is over if I come back to
Q Did
it say whom you were to work for?
A No;
it didn’t say that.
Q Or
what kind of work you were to do?
A As
an optician.
Q No;
I do not mean after you went back, but what kind of work you were to do before
you went back after the war.
A I
don’t get what you mean.
Q The
contract was to give money to your wife while you went over to sabotage, was it
not?
A I
have no wife.
Q I
mean, to your family, while you went over to sabotage.
A Yes.
Q What
were you to do? Did the contract say?
A It
didn’t mention anything sabotage.
Q What
was the second paper?
A The
second paper was an oath of silence, and also the third paper was an oath of
silence.
Q Did
you take that oath?
A It
was not an oath; it was just a statement written that I promise not to tell any
of my relatives in
Q Was
there a third paper also?
A The
third paper said that in case of arrest I was not to disclose anything which
happened, under penalty of death.
2052
Q So you signed a paper that said that
under penalty of death you were not to disclose anything that happened in case
you were arrested?
A Yes.
We signed all those papers.
Q Did
the first of the papers speak about secrecy, or just the second?
A The
contract didn’t talk about any secrecy.
Q Before
you left the school you were issued these fatigue uniforms that have been put
in evidence here—or were they issued to you in Berlin?
A We
were in
Q And
you got these uniforms at the naval supply station?
A Well,
what I got was not a uniform. It was
work clothes.
Q It
was a fatigue uniform, was it not? I
will withdraw the question. Was it the
type of uniform that you have seen introduced several times in the room here?
A Similar,
but for the buttons.
Q You
mean that the buttons were different from some of the other buttons?
A Yes. The buttons were different on some of the
uniforms.
Q How
were they different?
A Some
had plain buttons and some had naval buttons.
Q Did
you give them any check when these uniforms were issued to you?
A There
was no check whatsoever. We put little
slips of paper on the clothes that were issued to us as we would
2053
Know
whose shoes they are, and so on.
Q What
were you issued—a coat, a cap?
A Yes.
Q Pants.
A Pants.
Q Socks?
A Socks.
Q Shoes?
A Shoes.
Q I
suppose you were all issued, generally speaking, the same things, with the
exception of the buttons and minor things.
They were all substantially alike, and they were German uniforms or
German naval fatigue clothes?
A Fatigue
clothes; yes.
Q Used
by the navy?
A I
have not seen them used by the navy; no, sir.
I have seen them work in those clothes inside of
Q Working
clothes?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Were
they similar t the clothes worn by some of the sailors on the submarine or in
general?
A Similar;
yes.
Q By
the way: what did you do with your medals?
A My
medals?
Q Where
are they?
A They
are in
2054
Q You
left them over there?
A I
never have worn them; I just left them in the box as I got them.
Q With
whom did you leave them?
A I
left them where I left all the clothes.
Q Let
us start a little bit at the other end.
I should like to know, after you landed in
A I
did.
Q Where
did you register in
A I
registered at the Mayflower Hotel.
Q Had
you known anybody there at the Mayflower?
Had you ever been there before?
A I
had never been in
Q Then,
you went from there, got into a train, and went where?
A To
Q How
long were you in
A I
was in
Q Do
you know if there was an F.B.I. office in
A I
have found out since I am back, but I didn’t know this at the time.
Q Then
you went to
A Alone.
Q Where
did you first go?
A When
I first came to
2055
Q What
is his name?
A Walter
Freehling.
Q Did
you spend the night there?
A I
did not.
Q Where
did you spend the first night?
A I
spent the first night at home.
Q That
was what day? Was it the day after you
landed or the day you landed?
A Thursday.
Q Was
it the 18th?
A The
19th.
Q You
spent the first night at home, or first you went to your uncle’s, and then you
went home, I take it; is that right?
A I
spent the first day—I got to my uncle’s about three o’clock in the afternoon.
Q Yes?
A I
told my uncle to call my mother up.
Q I
am going to come in a minute to what you said.
I am trying to find out, first, where you were. You were at your uncle’s how long?
A Until
late that evening.
Q How
late?
A About
ten or eleven.
Q Who
else was at your uncle’s?
A When
I got there or in the evening?
Q Any
time that day.
A My
father and mother.
Q Your
father and mother came over as a result of a
2056
call
from your uncle of aunt; is that right?
A That
is right.
Q Who
else was there?
A My
uncle, aunt, and two children.
Q Your
uncle, aunt, and two children? What were
the children’s names?
A Esther
and Gordon.
Q How
old is Esther?
A Nine
or ten; I don’t know exactly.
Q How
old is Gordon?
A About
five.
Q Who
else was there?
A That
is all.
Q Then
you went and slept at your father’s house; is that right?
A I
slept at my father’s house.
Q What
is his address?
A
Q
A
Q How
many nights did you sleep there? How
many nights did you sleep at your father’s house?
A I
am just thinking. Seven nights.
Q Where
did you sleep the next night, the eighth night?
A The
eighth night I was picked up.
Q What
name did you register under at the Mayflower Hotel in
A Herbert
Haupt.
Q You
gave your address, I suppose?
2057
A
Q You
did not give the street address?
A No;
they didn’t ask for that.
Q You
are sure of that?
A Sure
of that.
Q Do
you think that by any chance you are mistaken and that you gave the street
address? Of course, you would have given
your correct street address; there would have been no reason for giving any
wrong address, would there?
A No,
there would have been no reason.
The Attorney General. I will ask to have this marked for
identification.
(Photostatic
copy of hotel registration was
marked as Exhibit P-258 for
identification.)
Questions by the Attorney
General:
Q Do
you remember how you registered? Did you
register on a piece of paper or a card that the clerk gave you?
A I
think I registered on the hotel—in the hotel book.
Q I
you sure it was not a card?
A No,
I think it is in a hotel book.
Q I
show you what has been marked for identification as Exhibit P-258.
The Attorney General. I am going to the Commission before showing it
to the witness, so that the Commission may understand the significance of it.
Questions by the Attorney
General:
Q I
show you Exhibit P-258 for identification, which is a photostatic copy of a
document, and ask you whether or not the name thereon, Herbert Haupt is not
your signature.
2058
Is that your signature?
A It
is.
Q Will
you read that to the Court? What is
this, by the way? Do you recognize it
now?
A This
is—Yes, this is what I made out.
Q In
the hotel?
A In
the hotel.
Q That
is your registration?
A Oh,
this is the address. I didn’t quite
remember my new address. I only lived
there a month, and this is the address we had lived previously to that, and
they could always—this is our address in
Q Just
read it to the Commission.
A
Q And
your name, Henry Haupt?
A Herbert
Haupt.
Q Herbert Haupt; excuse me. I think you said a little while ago
that you were certain you had not put any address on the registration?
A I
thought I had not put an address down.
Q I
asked you very carefully about that twice. Do you remember?
A That
is right.
Q But
now your recollection changes? You think
you did put an address down?
A Yes.
Q It
also changes in the respect that you think you did not put your correct address
but put your former address?
A This
is the address before we moved. We had only
2059
lived
there a month.
Q The
last address you remembered?
A That
is right.
The Attorney General. May I have this marked for identification?
(A
photostatic document was marked
as Exhibit P-259 for identification.)
Questions by the Attorney
General:
Q Herbert,
let us see if I got this thing absolutely accurately. You mean that your father
had only moved his address a month before you landed?
Colonel Royall. Before he left.
The Witness. No, about a month or so before I left for
Questions by the Attorney
General:
Q You
had forgotten the address, had you?
A I
had forgotten the address.
Q So,
I suppose when you were in
A No,
I used the new address.
Q How
could you use it? Did you have it
written down on a piece of paper and then lose it?
A No,
I had the address in my mind, but after I got to
Q But
as long as you were in
2060
A I
did use the correct address.
Q In
the cables?
A Yes.
Q When
did you first forget the address? Did
you remember it in
A I
had the right address in
Q From
A I
did.
Q You
cabled the correct address from
A I
did.
Q Did
you send any other cables after you left
A I
did not.
Q So,
the only time, as far as you can make out, that you did not remember the
correct address was at the hotel in
A That
was after seven or eight months.
Q Yes,
but I am asking you: Is that right?
A I
didn’t remember the correct address.
Q I
want to find out, now, just what happened when you were in
A I
slept one night at my uncle’s.
Q Only
one. Why did you stay at your uncle’s instead of going to your father’s?
A I
was to receive a telephone call from Hermann Neubauer.
Q Where
was Hermann Neubauer?
A Hermann Neubauer? I
don’t know where he was, but—
Q (Interposing)
Where did you expect him to be?
2061
A He
was coming to
Q To
join you in
A Not
to join me; just coming to
Q Not
to join you?
A Not
to join me, no.
Q You
were not going to meet in
A I
was to meet in
Q Did
he call you?
A He
called me.
Q When?
A He
called me Sunday. The 20th of
June.
Q What
did he say when he called you on the phone?
A He
told me he wanted to talk to me and meet me at the Chicago Hotel.
Q Is
that all he said?
A At
the Chicago Theater.
Q Is
that all he said? He just wanted to talk
to you?
A That
is all.
Q He
did not say anything more?
A He
did not.
Q When
did he say he would meet you at the theater?
A About
one, one-thirty; I can’t be exact.
Q Why
did you want to be at your uncle’s to get that message instead of at your
father’s?
A Why
did I want to be at my uncle’s?
Q Yes.
2062
A Because
this address was given to me by Kappe, and there is where we were supposed to
communicate.
Q Kappe
gave you the address through which to communicate?
A Of
my uncle, Walter Froehling.
Q Did
you not give it to Kappe?
A No,
I didn’t.
Q How
did he get it?
A He
must have got it through letters that were sent from my uncle to
Q You
told Neubauer, also, that he was to communicate with you at that number, did
you not?
A Yes.
Q It
was not only Kappe, but you also told him to call you there?
A No,
Kappe suggested that in Germany—not just suggested it, but made that—told me
that all calls, and everything, should come to Froehling; I should tell him his
uncle was in a concentration camp, and so on.
Q I
want to find out whom you talked to. You
talked to your uncle, aunt, father, and mother in
A Yes.
Q What
did you say to your uncle about your trip on the submarine?
A I
told him we had come from
Q On
a submarine?
2063
A On
the submarine; and that we had landed here in
Q Did
you tell him what you were going to do?
A I
did not.
Q Did
he not ask you?
A He
did not.
Q He
did not ask you what you were going to do?
A He
did not.
Q Did
you say anything to your uncle about the schooling you had had over there?
A I
did.
Q What
did you tell him?
A I
told him we were schooled out of
Q Schooled
for what?
A For
what. I didn’t tell him.
Q You
just told him you were schooled in
A I
believe so.
Q That
was all you said?
A I
believe so.
Q Did
your uncle, or did your father when you talked to him, say that you would very
likely be caught?
A Yes,
they told me that I would be caught.
Q Caught
for what?
A Well,
they knew it is not legal to come to this country in a submarine, and they
knew, according to that, that I was not here—I was not sent over here to do any
good, and they knew that if I did do anything wrong I would be caught over
here.
2064
Q What
did you say in answer to that? That it
would be all right? That you would not
be caught? Or what did you say?
A No,
I told them to leave me alone for a while; I was awfully nervous.
Q Why
were you nervous?
A Because
it is illegal to be in this country, and the feeling of just being here made me
so nervous I could hardly talk to them.
Q I
suppose you had not at that time made up your mind what you were going to do?
A My
mind was made up the minute that Kappe suggested going to the
Q But
you were still nervous?
A I
was very, very nervous.
Q I
suppose you planned to report to the American authorities all you could, had
you?
A I
planned to turn this in on the 6th.
Q Had
you planned to help the American authorities all you could?
A In
catching these fellows? Yes.
Q You
knew who the F.B.I. were, of course?
A I
went up to the F.B.I.
Q Yes. You knew who they were?
A I
know who the F.B.I. is.
Q You
went up to them to get your registration straightened out?
A No,
I went up to them to tell them I was back in the
2065
Q On
account of your draft situation?
A No,
because they had been inquiring about me in December.
Q Why
had they bee inquiring about you? On
account of your Selective Service?
A I
guess on account of my Selective Service.
Q There
was no question about it? You knew they
were inquiring about your Selective Service status, did you not?
A That
I didn’t know.
Q What
did your mother tell you they had been inquiring about?
A My
mother told me the F.B.I. had came over and had asked where I was, and she had
told them I was in
Q Why
didn’t you want to be bothered until the 6th of July?
A Because
if I would be picked up by the F.B.I., then I would have been in trouble, which
I am now.
Q Do
you mean that if you had been picked up, let us say, around the 18th,
19th, 20th, or 21st, you would have been in
more trouble then than if you had been picked up on the 6th?
A On
the 6th I was going to come to the F.B.I.
2066
Q I
understand, but I was asking why there should have been any more trouble if you
had gone up to the F.B.I. on the 2nd than on the 6th?
A I
didn’t see any reason in going to the F.B.I. if I didn’t know where anybody
was.
Q Did
you know when you were picked up any more about where the people were?
A No,
all I knew is that I had been turned in, and I told the F.B.I. they turned me
in and that they beat me to it.
Q Why
did you pick the 6th particularly?
A The
6th? Because I had learned
that there was a meeting in
Q Did
anything prevent your going the F.B.I. from the day you landed and telling them
all about this? Nothing stopped you from
doing it, did it?
A Nothing
stopped me from doing it, no, sir; just my personal security—safety.
Q Your
personal security and safety?
A Yes.
Q How
were you safer if you went there on the 6th than on the 19th
of June?
A Much
safer.
Q Why?
A Well,
the F.B.I.—the Gestapo had men here. They had men here before we came here.
Q You
were afraid of the Gestapo?
A I
am afraid of other men over here before we came.
2067
Q You
were afraid of the Gestapo?
A That
is right.
Q Were
not the Gestapo around just as much on the 6th of July as on the 19th
of June?
A Yes,
but I knew where everybody was then.
Q But
from the point of view of personal safety, how were you any safer on the 6th
of July than on the 19th of June?
A I
figured this way: If I knew where all
the men were, I could report all the men; but if I didn’t know where any of
them were, you could catch one of them, and I would be in danger.
2068
Q How
would you be in danger?
A Very
easily I could be in danger.
Q Well,
you could not be in danger any more on the 6th, if the Gestapo knew
you had been picked up?
A I
wasn’t so much afraid of the Gestapo as I was of my own accomplices.
Q It
was not the Gestapo you were afraid if; it was your own associates?
A That’s
right.
Q Is
that right?
A That’s
right.
Q Which
one?
A None
of them in particular.
Q All
of them in general?
A More
of the first group than of the second.
Q The
A That’s
right.
Q You
thought that if they knew you had given away the show they might kill you? Was that it?
A That
went through my mind at one time, yes.
Q That
was in your mind? That was the main
reason you waited until the 6th, was it?
A And
I had talked to Hermann Neubauer and he had said he would not go through with
it, and he told me of Kerling, that Kerling was not going to go through with
it. I thought maybe they would give it
up themselves. After all, I became
acquainted with them in
Q What
do you mean by being a rat?
2069
A After
I talked to Hermann he told me he could never go though wit hit. He could not sleep. When somebody rapped on the hotel door he
jumped. He did not feel safe just living
here. He said Kerling was very
nervous. He hardly got in a
taxicab. He was afraid the taxicab
driver might speak to him. And I know
Thiel was nervous. When I was talking to
him in the room he was holding his hand over the earphone of the telephone when
it was hung up.
Q When
did you talk to Neubauer about this?
A I
talked to Neubauer on Sunday, the first time I saw him.
Q I
suppose your nervousness may have had something to do with the fact that the
A No;
no.
Q That
did not bother you at all?
A I
knew the
Q Well,
now, let us see. You talked to Neubauer
on Wednesday, you say. Did you talk to
him before?
A I
talked to him about this on Sunday.
Q Had
you known Neubauer pretty well? Were you
pretty good friends?
A I
had known Neubauer only since the school in
Q You
became pretty intimate with him in the school where you were together?
A I
was really intimate with no one. I went
around mostly with Swenson.
Q Did
you trust Neubauer?
A As
far as trusting him, yes.
2070
Q You
trusted him and you did not talk to him until what day?
A I
did not talk to him until he came to
Q About
not going through with it?
A That
is what he told me, yes.
Q Oh,
he suggested it to you?
A He
told me he was not going to go through with it; he couldn’t.
Q He
started the plan of not going through with it, then; not you?
A No. I started that plan before I went to the
sabotage school in
Q But
in your talk with Neubauer who was the first one who made the suggestion about
not going through with it and he knew the other two didn’t have the nerve to do
it?
A He
told me he couldn’t go through with it and he knew the other two didn’t have
the nerve to do it.
Q What
sis you mean about not being a rat? I
did not understand that.
A I
figured after Neubauer told me this and about Kerling and about Theil, it would
be a very nice thing for me to do to go into the F.B.I. and say, “Here I
am. I am an American citizen and I come
with these saboteurs from
Q You
mean you would be a rat to go to the F.B.I. and tell them this and tell them
that these fellows might go through with it?
A I
mean it would be a dirty thing to do to turn in
2071
men
who had been pulled into this by another man, who had never had the idea of
blowing up anything—
Q Were
you going to turn them in on the 6th?
Colonel Royal. If the Commission please, we object. Let him finish his answer.
Questions by the Attorney
General:
Q I
thought you had finished. Did you
finish?
A No,
I had not finished.
Q Go
ahead and finish.
A (continuing) Who were induced into this by one man, who
were talked into this, who were given aliases, who had been promised things by
one man, and came here—I don’t know what their ideas were in Germany, but I do
know one thing. Burger was in a
concentration camp. I knew he was going
to turn us in. He told me how he
suffered in
After what Neubauer told me in
Q You
did not mind going to the F.B.I. after July 6th?
A
No, but I figured after I talked to Hermann I was going to wait for Eddie and
Theil, who were coming; and as far as I could find out, Hermann had already made
out with Eddie that he could not go through with it.
Q You
were going to tell the F.B.I.?
A I
was going to talk to them and give them a chance. I was going to tell them that I was going to
turn this thing
2072
in,
and if they did not agree I was going to tell the F.B.I. everything.
Q You
were going to tell them everything?
A That’s
right.
Q And
about the other four fellows, too?
A Yes.
Q Were
you going to consult the other four fellows so they could get a square deal,
before telling the F.B.I.?
A I
know Dasch was supposed to come to
Q Were
you going to consult the Long Island Group as well before going to the F.B.I.
so as to get their agreement?
A Only
Dasch.
Q Why
Dasch?
A Because,
as far as I know, he was the only man that was coming to
Q You
could have gotten in touch with the others, too, couldn’t you?
A I
could not.
Q Why
not?
A I
couldn’t have gotten in touch with anyone, because I did not know where anyone
was.
Q You
could have through Dasch, couldn’t you?
A I
didn’t know where Dasch was.
Q He
was coming to
A Dasch
could have done that.
Q You
did not care about the other men, whether they were turned in or not, did you?
2073
A I
didn’t know the other men as well as I knew the men in this group, and I knew
that I was with this group in
Q Whom
were you afraid of in that group?
Colonel Royall. Let the witness finish.
Have you finished?
A No,
I have not.
The Attorney General. The witness is
so seldom responsive to the question that it is a little bit difficult—
Colonel Royall. We object to that comment.
The Attorney General. I make it again.
Colonel Royall. I do not think so. I think the reason he is
not responsive is that he is continuously interrupted before he finishes his
answers.
The President. Read the answer, Mr. Reporter.
The Reporter (reading). “I didn’t know the other men as well as I
knew the men in this group, and I knew that I was with this croup in
The Witness (continuing).—that if I
told them that I was going to turn us in that they would come to the F.B.I.
with me and also give themselves up, and then I would not feel responsible and
have anybody’s life on my hands.
Questions by the Attorney
General:
Q Have
you finished?
A I
have finished.
Q Whom
were you afraid of in the other group?
A I
was afraid mostly of Dasch.
Q Why?
2074
A Because
Dasch was the first man I met in the editors of the Kaukusus outside of Kappe,
and Dasch gave me a talking to.
Q A
kind of pep talk?
A No;
a sort of warning talk at the time.
Q What
did he say?
A He
told me that—He asked me how I would take care of myself in the United States,
and he asked me such questions as what I would wear, what kind of clothes I
would buy if I landed, if I would buy new clothes or second-hand clothes. He
asked me that the only way we can amount to anything is if I trust him and tell
him everything and if he trusts me and tells me everything.
Q That
made you a little suspicious?
A And
Dasch was in very good with Kappe, as far as I know.
Q As
a matter of fact, Dasch helped Kappe organize this school, didn’t he?
A The
whole school I don’t know, but Dasch was the first one I met in Kappe’s office,
and I do know that he was very, very close to Kappe, and anything he suggested
to Kappe was done.
Q In
the organization of the school?
A In
the organization of the school and teaching of the school.
Q The
training of the school?
A In
the training, only parts of it, and that was on language and reading, and so
on.
Q Well,
would it be unfair to say that Dasch was Kappe’s right-hand man in the work in
the school?
2075
A I
think Rheinhold Barth was the right-hand man.
Q And
then maybe Dasch was his left-hand man? He certainly was closer to Kappe than
anybody else in the school?
A That’s
right, he was very close to Kappe.
Q Now,
what was this you said to your father in
A I
told him that I came from
Q Did
you say to him you had worked in
A No,
I did not.
Q You
did not say that?
A I
said something which he might have taken as that. I told him in
Q What?
A No,
it is all wrong. He couldn’t have.
Q What
is all wrong?
A That
statement—the question you just asked me.
Q The
question can’t be wrong. I simply asked
you the question. You can answer it.
A No,
I did not.
Q Did
you say that to anybody?
2076
A That
I worked with a secretary? No.
Q Or
that you worked in
A No.
Q Or
had a secretary anywhere wile you were abroad.
A No.
Q Did
you tell your father anything about your training at the school?
A I
told him we were trained in a school out in
Q But
I thought you said a little while ago that you said nothing about sabotage to
your father.
A I
didn’t say that—we were talking about Froehling and what I had stated when I was
at Froehling’s.
Q Then
I am mistaken. You did tell your father you worked at a sabotage school?
A I
did not tell him I went to a sabotage school. I told him I was schooled in
Q In
the
A In
the
Q It
is a matter of words. He knew you were sent out to do sabotage work?
A I
could do it, anyway.
Q Did
he know enough from what you told him that you had been sent over to do
sabotage work here? There is no question
about it, is there?
A Yes,
he could have known about it.
Q Well,
he did know, didn’t he?
A It
all depends on what he thought of that.
2077
Q Well,
didn’t you tell him enough to know what you had been sent over for?
A I
told him exactly the way I stated it—we were schooled in Germany to hinder
production of war materials in the United States—and I only seen him for about
two or three hours while I was at home, because he worked awfully late.
Q You
told him you were going to give yourself up I suppose?
A I
did not tell him I was going to give myself up.
Q Didn’t
you? Why not?
A The
most I talked to my father about was home in
Q Did
you tell your mother you were going to give yourself up?
A I
told my mother not to worry, that everything would turn out all right.
Q Did
you tell your mother that you were going to give yourself up?
A No,
not in these words.
Q Whom
at home did you tell you were going to give yourself up?
A At
home? Nobody.
Q Nobody
at all?
A Not
at home, no, sir.
Q Did
you tell anybody that you and Neubauer had talked about giving yourselves up?
A I
had never talked to anybody about Neubauer.
2078
Q Did
you talk to Wergin about your training in the sabotage school, what your plans
were?
A I
did not talk to Wergin. I talked to
Wergin about the training, the schooling in
Q Was
Mrs. Wergin there?
A Mrs.
Wergin was there.
Q And
your father?
A And
mother.
Q And
mother. Did Wergin say to you, “If you
need me, I am willing to go along. Just
let me know. I am not dumb. I know how to help you out”? Did he say that?
A That’s
right.
Q Did
you discuss with Wergin methods of damaging power lines?
A To
my recollection, no.
Q Well,
you must remember whether you discussed with Wergin methods of damaging power
lines. Is it yes or no?
A The
most I talked to Wergin about was his son.
He was very interested about his son.
Q Did
you talk to Wergin about methods of damaging power lines?
A I
cannot recall.
Q You
cannot recall about talking to Wergin about methods of damaging power
lines? Do you want to Commission to
believe that you cannot remember that?
A I
cannot recall.
Colonel Royall. We object to that form of
cross-examination. It is not proper in
the case of any witness in any court, as
2079
far
as I know.
The Attorney General. I think it is perfectly proper, but I will be
guided by what the Commission wants me to do .
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Now,
who advised you to go down to the F.B.I. about your registration situation, or
whatever you went there for?
A No
one advised me.
Q You
just went on your own?
A Went
on my own.
Q And
it did not occur to you at all on that visit to the F.B.I. that that was the
time to talk about the whole thing?
A I
did not hear you.
Q Did
it occur to you when you went down that time to the F.B.I. that you might just as
well tell them about the whole situation, rather than simply with respect to
that registration?
A No,
it did not occur to me at that time.
Q It
did not occur to you at that time.
The President. I think we will pause for a recess for ten
minutes.
(A short recess was had,
after which the following occurred:)
The President. The Commission is open.
Colonel Munson. The same personnel that was present before
the recess is again present. The witness
is reminded that he is still under oath.
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q By
the way, was any number given you in the German
2080
Army
when you enlisted in the sabotage school?
A No
number was given me in the German Army when I enlisted in the sabotage school.
Q I
think you said that you were all very nervous when you got the gold
certificates, is that right, when you first found them in the money?
A I
didn’t say I was nervous. I noticed most
everybody was nervous, but I was awfully mad at Walter Kappe.
Q Why
were you mad at Walter Kappe?
A Because
if we would have used any one of these bills after landing in
Q And
you afraid of being apprehended, I suppose?
A And
if we would have been apprehended at the time of landing, you could never have
had an excuse.
Q Never
have had an excuse?
A You
could never tell them you just wanted to come over here because your folks are
here, that you wanted to come back to the United States, because that is the
only way there is, because if you were caught landing with the boxes, that was
the only thing.
Q What
did you mean when you said you would have no excuse?
A Exactly
what I said. You could not tell them
that the only reason you came to the States is that you have everything here
and have nothing there, and your folks are here, and if you were caught with
the boxes you would never be able to tell them.
Q You
wanted to have an excuse?
2081
A I
did not want an excuse. I wanted a
chance to tell them the truth.
Q I
thought you said you would never have an excuse.
A That
is what I meant.
Q By
the way, why did you buy a car?
A I
had a car when I left the
Q Then
you were going to use it on your honeymoon?
A I
was going to take a trip with the car.
Q I
thought you said your were going to use it on your honeymoon.
A Yes.
Q Were
you going to have your honeymoon after July 6th or before?
A After.
Q You
thought, of course, that the F.B.I., after you had given the confession, would
say, “Go off on your honeymoon”?
A After
I had given my confession I thought if I went up to the F.B.I. and told them
the whole thing and laid it 2 clear before them that there would be no reason
to guilty of anything, you would have given them the true facts, and I would be
allowed to work.
Q And
just go off on your honeymoon?
A And
stay here, yes.
Q Now,
did Kerling say to you that you should not go
2082
to
A Kerling
wanted me at first to come along to Cincinnati, and I told Kerling that evening
when I met him in Jack Jacksonville I wasn’t going to Cincinnati, I was going
home to Chicago, and Kerling answered, all right, I can go to Chicago.
Q But
he did not tell you not to go to
A At
first he did, on the submarine and at first when we landed, but later on when I
told him that I was not going to
Q And
I suppose you told him where he could get in touch with you in
A I
did not tell him that. Kerling knew that
from Walter Kappe.
Q Where
was it that Kerling knew he could get in touch with your Uncle?
A My
uncle, Walter Froehling, in
Q And
he had your uncle’s address and telephone number?
2083
Q Why
do you guess he had it? Don’t you know
whether he dad it or not?
A I
think he was instructed as to the address and telephone number—not the
telephone number, but the address in
Q He
had the telephone number, did he not?
A The
telephone number he didn’t have, as far as I know.
Q Who,
by the way, is Bartler?
A The
family were friends of my family before I left for
Q Who
are they?
A They
are people living in
Q Is
it part of
A A
suburb of
Q You
got in touch with Bartler when you got to
A With
Bartler?
Q Yes.
A No;
I did not.
Q You
gave Kerling Bartler’s address and telephone number, did you not?
A He
gave me a zipper bag in
Q What
did he tell you to do?
2084
A To
leave the zipper bag at Froehling’s house.
Q And
you did that?
A I
did.
Q Did
Kerling tell you when he was going to get it back from there?
A That
was never mentioned.
Q It
was never mentioned, when he would get it back again?
A No,
sir.
Q Kerling
never mentioned what he was going to do with it after it was left at your
uncle’s?
A No;
not that particular bag, no.
Q What
particular bag did he talk about if he did not talk about that one?
A He
was changing some money in
Q
And he told you that you could use one of the zipper bags?
A He
did not.
Q You
just used it on your own?
A I
never did. I never even looked into the
zipper bag to see if there was money in it.
Q You
used the money in the envelope?
A The
money I had in envelopes I used.
Q Was
that given you by Kerling?
A That
money was given me by Walter Kappe.
Q Did
you tell Kerling you were going to use it to buy an automobile?
A I
did not.
2085
Q I
think you said that Neubauer had told you he never intended to go through with
the plan. How about the other
defendants? Did they all tell you the
same thing?
A I
had only seen Neubauer, Kerling and Thiel; and when I was in the hotel room
with Thiel in Jacksonville, in the Mayflower Hotel, Thiel was so nervous that
he held the receiver of the telephone—he held his hand on it and the telephone
was hung up, and he didn’t know what to do.
But he never mentioned he was not going to go through with it. He just said he was awful nervous and he was
afraid to walk on the street. That is
about all he said to me.
Q You
saw the other four in
A I
saw them all in
Q Did
they ever tell you then that they were not going through with it?
A No
one has ever told me in
Q When
did you tell anybody in
A I
never have told anybody in
Q But
you told your grandmother and your two uncles all about the sabotage school?
A I
didn’t tell my grandmother all about the sabotage school, because of her
age. She is 72. I told my uncle and my aunt.
Q Told
them all about the training and what you planned to do, and said you were not
going through with it?
A Yes;
I did. And they said—the last thing they
said to me was. “Think of your mother
and father.” I told
2086
them
I was going through with it, and they said, “Think of your mother and
father.” But I would never have gone
through with it and never had any intention.
Q Their advice to you was not to go through
with it?
A The
uncle who told me this is not a member of the National Socialist Party and is
not in good standing with the German Government. I was going to put on the cockade before I
put on the Iron Cross, and he told me if I did put it on I shouldn’t stay in
that house. He never had any use for the
German Government, and he told me he was glad I had a chance to get back to my
folks, and his wife was going to the United States in 1939 after my mother
visited Germany and found out conditions were so bad; but the war prohibited
his wife from coming over here.
Q There
had been worked up for each of you in the school some plan that you were to
follow in the
A Yes. He had a personality story. We had more than one story which we were
supposed to tell in the
Q Part
of that plan was to get some kind of a regular job after you got to
A Not
to get a job. That part of it was to get
papers from some friend who was in the United States, to get his Social
Security card and his Draft registration card, and he should say he lost it
somehow, and give us the cards and two people would go under one name.
Q You
mean, nothing was said about getting temporary jobs?
A Yes. They said we should start a business.
2087
Q That
is a job, is it not?
A To
open a store, or start a painting business or something, so you can always
refer that I work for so-and –so who has a painting business.
Q Some
arrangement so as to show that you were working in a normal way?
A To
show that you are employed; yes.
Q Then
if you happened to be caught, what were you told to say?
A If
you were caught in the
Q What
were you to say?
A You
were supposed to use one of the fake stories.
Q What
were you supposed to say if you were caught?
A I
was supposed to say that I was a British subject; I was a sailor from an English
ship. I had the choice of three, that I
never left the country, that I had been in the
Q What
was your own plan if you got caught?
A My
plan? I never figured on getting caught.
Q But
if by any ill chance you should happen to be caught, did you ever think about
that?
A I
never thought of that.
Q You
never thought of it at all?
2088
A Because
I never planned to go through the sabotage, so I had never really planned on
getting caught.
Q That
is because you were going to turn this in?
A Yes.
Q Had
you planned to turn it in promptly, or were you going to wait a while, while
you were thinking about all this on the submarine?
A The
plan did not come up to me in
Q Let
us go back to your state of mind in
A The
only idea I had in
Q Let
me ask you again. In
A No,
sir.
Q Or
on the submarine?
A I
can’t be sure whether it was on the submarine or just after landing, when I
really got to thinking that the only thing to do would be to turn it in,
because even though I didn’t want to go through with it and the only reason I
came back was to be home, it would not stop somebody else from going through
with it.
Q I
thought you just said a minute ago that you did
2089
not
think of it until after you landed.
A I
said I wasn’t sure whether it was after I landed or not.
Q Can
you tell the Commission when you first thought of it, whether it was just
before you landed or after you landed?
A Truthfully
I can’t say whether it was just after or before.
Q You
certainly had not made the final decision on the submarine, had you?
A I
think I had. I am not sure though.
Q What
decision do you think you made on the submarine?
A Somehow
to turn this in. I didn’t think of
turning it in on the 6th or on the 4th, but somehow to
get word to the authorities.
Q I
understood you to say that you thought perhaps you had an idea in the submarine
of turning it in, but you are not sure whether or not you then made up your
mind. Is that right?
A No;
I think I had an idea all right. I had
the idea on the submarine all right.
Q But
you had not decided it then?
A I
decided that I would have to turn it in.
Not how. I didn’t know how I was
going to turn it in.
Q You
are sure now that you had decided on the submarine. It was only the method that you had not
decided?
A Yes,
sir.
Q You
are certain now that you decided on the submarine
2090
that
you would turn it in?
A Yes.
Q Let
us get back to
A No.
Q It
was only on the submarine?
A Yes.
Q When
did you make your decision on the submarine?
A I
was thinking over all the possibilities of how I might get into trouble and get
my family into trouble in the
Q When
were you thinking about that?
A On
the submarine.
Q All
the time.
A Not
all the time, no. Part of the time on
the submarine.
Q But
you never thought about that in
A In
Q You
never thought about possibly getting into trouble if a bridge was blown up?
A I
never thought about blowing up a bridge.
I never had an idea of blowing up a bridge at all.
Q Or
if somebody else blew up a bridge?
A I
knew the instructions in
2091
papers
falsely.
Q You
said a little while ago that on the submarine you realized that if some member
of the party blew up a bridge you might get into trouble?
A That
is right.
Q And
that never occurred to you in
A It
never occurred to me in
Q The
first time you went down to the F.B.I. it was on June 22, was it not?
A I
am not sure. I think so.
Q You
said, I think, that you had just returned from
A That
is correct.
Q You
said that to the F.B.I.?
A That
is correct.
Q You
had said you had been advised by your mother that agents from the Federal
Bureau of Investigation had been at your home inquiring about your failure to
register for selective service in 1941; is that correct?
A That
is correct.
Colonel Royal. What page is that?
The Attorney General. I am not reading from a page of any
confession. I am asking what he said
when he first went down to the Federal Bureau of Investigation with respect to
his selective service status.
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Did
you tell us a little while ago that your mother had never said that?
2092
A That
is right.
Q Is
that what you told the F.B.I.?
A I
told the F.B.I. that I heard the two F.B.I. agents had been inquiring about me
in December at my home.
Q Inquiring
for what purpose? What did you say to
the F.B.I.?
A Why
I was not in the
Q With
respect to selective service?
A That
I didn’t know at the time.
Q Did
you explain your absence from the
A That
is true.
Q Which
child she is expected to bear?
A That
is true.
Q And
that because of her customary drunkenness and her habits of running around with
ten or twelve other fellows you refused to marry her. Did you tell them that?
A I
told them that, and that was the reason my folks objected to my going with her.
Q Was
that true also?
A That
girl had been running around quite a bit.
Q And
had been habitually drunk also?
A She
was drunk quite frequently.
Q And
you told the F.B.I. this?
A Yes.
Q At
that time you were engaged to marry this girl, were you not?
A I
don’t think I was.
2093
Q You
must have been thinking about marrying her, because you became engaged very
soon after that, did you not?
A I
saw the girl. I don’t know exactly when
I saw that girl.
Q And
you told her you were going to marry her?
A We
talked over quite a few things, and I decided that the only thing I could
do—she seemed to have reformed; my mother went to see the girl where she
worked, and she came over in the evening, and I decided that the only thing I
could do to square things would be to marry her.
Q So
within two days you became engaged to her?
A I
told the F.B.I the truth.
Q Is
that correct? Will you answer that
question?
A That
is correct.
Q You
stated that you departed from the
A That
was not true.
Q You
claimed you went to
A I
did.
Q Was
that true?
A That
was not true.
Q You
stated on one occasion that Paul Schmidt had appeared suspicious to you that he
was reported to the
2094
A That
was true.
Q Who
was Schmidt?
A He
is the fellow in that picture (indicating).
I told the F.B.I. he had come from
Q Have
you identified him in this picture?
Colonel Royal. It is the small picture.
The Attorney General. That is Swenson.
The Witness. I told the F.B.I. he had come from
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q That
is Swenson?
A Yes. And the F.B.I. man says they are after a man
of that description.
Q Did
you state to the F.B.I. that when Schmidt and Hans S(illegible) told him they
were going to
A Yes,
sir.
Q Was
that truthful?
A No;
that was not.
Q What
was truthful? What did happen?
A I
went to Japan myself.
Q You
found out from your mother when you got back that the telegram had been received. Did you say that to the F.B.I.?
A I
think I did.
Q Why
did you lie to the F.B.I. about the above matters?
2095
A Because
if I told the F.B.I. where I had come from—if you tell one lie you have to tell
ten to cover it—if I told the F.B.I. men where I came from I would never have
had a chance to turn this in. I would
have been just as bas off as I am now.
Q You
realized that when you went down to the F.B.I., did you not?
A The
only reason I went down to the F.B.I. was that I didn’t want to be bothered
until the 6th of June.
Q And
you thought if you went down there you would not be bothered?
A That
is correct.
Q Would
not be bothered by the F.B.I.?
A That
is correct.
Q You
knew the Wergins, you have already testified, the father and mother, I think?
A I
do know the Wergins.
Q Did
you talk to them in
A I
did.
Q What
did you say to them about your trip?
A I
told them that I had come from
Q Did
you say to them that you were a German agent?
A The
Wergins knew. I didn’t have to tell them
that I was a German agent. They knew
that if I came on a German submarine to the
Q From
what you told them they must have known that you a German agent?
A In
one way or another they must have known.
2096
Q The
Proehlings must have known that also?
Did they?
A They
must also have known that.
Q You
said you asked Gerda to get blood test; that is right, is it not?
A That
is correct.
Q Did
you tell her you were going to get a blood test?
A I
did.
Q You
did not have time to; is that it?
A I
had the time, but I met another acquaintance in
Q Oh,
I see. Who was the acquaintance?
A William
Wernecke.
Q What
were you doing on January 2, 1941?
A January
2, 1941?
Q Yes.
A I
cannot answer that; I do not know.
Q Do
you know what you were doing on Christmas of 1940?
A On
Christmas of 1940?
Q Yes. Christmas of 1941.
A Yes.
Q What
were you doing?
A Christmas
of 1941 I spent with my folks.
Q Where?
2097
A At
our home.
Q Where?
A In
Q 1941,
I am talking about.
A 1941?
Q Last
Christmas. What were you doing last
Christmas?
A Oh,
in 1941 I was at my grandmother’s home.
Q Do
you remember what you did that night?
A Christmas
Eve?
Q Yes.
A I
stayed home.
The President. He spoke last night about adjourning at 4:30
unless there was an agreement on the part of either side that there was some
reason for continuing.
Colonel Royal. May it please the Commission, there is a
matter that we wanted to call to your attention. At any time it is convenient to the
Commission, it will be satisfactory to us, but that matter may be take ten or
fifteen minutes. I thought you ought to
have that in view, possibly.
The President. As far as I am concerned, it is all
right. Have you anything in mind, Mr.
Attorney General?
The Attorney General. I think it would be convenient for the
prosecution. The usual adjourning time
has now come. We have a few more questions
to ask. Of course, these confessions are
very long and one likes to look over his notes at the end of the day, since
there are many things to be covered. I
shall not have many more questions.
The President. The session will adjourn until ten o’clock
tomorrow morning. The defendants may be
removed. Counsel for
2098
both
sides will remain to discuss in open court a matter which does not concern the
defendants.
(At this time the defendants
were removed from the courtroom. The
following then occurred:)
Colonel Royal. May it please the Commission, the remarks
which I am about to submit are solely on behalf of the seven defendants
represented by Colonel Dowel and myself, and there is some question in our
minds whether they will really be applicable to the defendant Burger at all.
The President. Do I take it that this is an argument or a
statement?
Colonel Royal. No, it is not an argument; it is relative to
publicity.
The President. A statement in connection with the procedure?
Colonel Royal. And procedure. It has nothing at all to do with any of the
defense of these parties or the trial of the controversy. It is merely brought to the attention of the
Commission in order that the Commission may be fully advised of everything we
are doing about it. Whether or not it
wants to take any action is a matter for the Commission; but we did not want to
do anything that might give the appearance of acting without knowledge of the
Commission in a matter about which the Commission ought to be advised.
It will be necessary for me to give
you a brief history of this matter—and it will be brief.
Colonel Dowell and I were appointed by
the Presidential Order to represent, first, all the defendants; then the order
was modified to make an exception in the case of the
2099
defendant
Dasch. In my investigation of what my
duties were, not being familiar with the military procedure, I read this part
of page 35 of the Manual for Courts-Martial:
“An
officer, or other military person, acting as individual counsel for the accused
before a general of special court-martial, will perform such duties as usually
devolve upon the counsel for a defendant before civil courts in a criminal
case. He will guard the interests of the
accused by all honorable and legitimate means known to the law.”
That being the only precedent that I
knew as to the duties of defense counsel in this situation, and knowing what
the duties would have been in the civil courts, which are expressly referred to
therein, I felt—and I am using the first person here because there may be some
part of this in which Colonel Dowell does not fully agree with my views, and I
do not seek to commit him in anything that he does not feel he can tell the
Commission as to the part that he does or does not agree with me on in what I
am saying—I thought it was our duty, first, to make an investigation of the law
relating to the Presidential Order and the Presidential Proclamation, and
Colonel Dowell himself made that investigation.
You will recall that before the
opening of this case we called to your attention the fact that we thought there
was doubt as to the validity of the order creating this Commission. That appears in the court record proper. Before that had occurred, we had sought to
get some interpretation of our duties and rights in defense of these accused.
The Judge Advocate General did not
feel that he could
2100
express
an opinion definitely on that, in view of the way the Commission had been
created, and there is no criticism at all of that. He took the matter up with the Secretary of
War, to see if the Secretary of War would express an opinion about it, and I think
I quote him with substantial correctness when I say that the Secretary of War
said that we ourselves would have to be the judges of what our duties and
obligations were.
Under those circumstances, on July 6,
1942, we addressed this letter to the President:
“The President
“The White House
“The President
“There
has been delivered to us your order of July 2, 1942 which provides for a
Military Commission for the trial of Ernest Peter Burger, George John Dasch,
Herbert Haupt, Heinrich (illegible) Heinck, Edward John Kerling, Hermann
Neubauer, Richard Quirin, and Werner Thiel, and which further designates us as
defense counsel for these persons.
“There
has also been delivered to us a copy of your Proclamation of the same date, which
Proclamation provides that a military tribunal shall have sole jurisdiction of
persons charged with committing classes of acts set forth in the Proclamation
and that such persons shall not have the right to seek civil remedy.
“Our
investigation convinces us that there is serious legal doubt as to the
constitutionality and validity of the Proclamation and as to the
constitutionality and validity of the Order.
It
2101
is our opinion that the above named
individuals should have the opportunity to institute an appropriate proceeding
to test the constitutionality and validity of the Proclamation and the Order.
“In
view of the fact that our appointment is made on the same Order which appoints
the Military Commission, the question arises as to whether we are authorized to
institute the proceeding suggested above.
We respectfully suggest that you issue to us or to someone else
appropriate authority to that end.
“We
have advised the Attorney General, the Judge Advocate General, General McCoy,
General Winship and Secretary Stinson of our intention to present this matter
to you.
“Respectfully,
“Cassius K.
Dowell,
“
“Kenneth C.
Royall,
“Colonel,
Army of the
“
“July 6, 1942.”
You will recall that we discussed this
informality in the Attorney General’s office with General McCoy and General
Kinship.
In reply to that, we received a
telephone communication from Mr. McIntyre, Secretary to the President. On the next day, which was the day we received
that communication, we wrote the following letter to the President:
2102
“The President
“The White House
“The President
“This
morning we received from Mr. McIntyre over the telephone your reply to our
letter of yesterday, which reply was to the effect that we should make our own
decision as to our duties and authority under the Order of July 2.
“We
have considered carefully this Order and the Proclamation of the same date and
are of the opinion that we are authorized, and our duty requires us, first, to
try to arrange for civil counsel to institute the proceedings necessary to
determine the constitutionality and validity of the Proclamation and Order of
July 2 and, second, if such arrangements cannot be made, to institute such
proceedings ourselves at the appropriate time.
“Unless
ordered otherwise, we will act accordingly.
“Copies
of this letter and of the letter of yesterday are being sent to the Attorney
General, the Judge Advocate General, and Secretary Stimson.
“Respectfully,
“Cassius
W. Dowell
“
“Kenneth
C. Royall
“Colonel,
Army of the
“
“July 7, 1942.”
2103
On the 8th this hearing
began, and we called the matter of our contentions briefly to the attention of
this Commission, and that appears on the first few pages of the record.
Now, we did not think that this matter
would in any event be called to the Commission’s attention or that it would be
necessary for us to do so until the question of publicity arose the other day
and we received a copy of Secretary Stimson’s letter. I personally am not
certain that it is necessary to call it to the attention of the Commission now,
but in an abundance of caution and with a view to being entirely frank and open
with the Commission and not taking any action that might even seem to be in
disrespect to the Commission, and with a further view to seeking, if possible,
to avoid any publicity that is not justified, Colonel Dowell and myself have
decided that this matter should be brought to your attention.
We have been unable to secure civilian
counsel to appear in this matter, in spite of efforts in numberous directions
so to arrange. That, of course, was our choice—our choice because we realize
that there may be some question raised as to what we ought to do about it, and,
naturally, we do not want to be criticized for our action, although that would
not deter me, and I am sure it would not deter Colonel Dowell, from doing what
we thought was our duty and right.
Secondly, that would not put us in the
position of appearing before this Commission and at the same time attacking the
validity of the order creating it. We had hoped very much to avoid that
dilemma. It does not look like we can, unless something unusual happens.
2104
Accordingly, we have prepared papers
for an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the purpose of which is to test
the constitutionality and validity of the President’s Order and of the
President’s Proclamation. Those papers have been drawn with a view to
disclosing nothing more about the proceedings here than is absolutely necessary
for the assertion of the rights which we think ought to be asserted. We do not
believe that there is anything in the papers that can be omitted without
thereby affecting adversely the assertion of the rights of these six, or
possibly seven, defendants who plan to assert these rights.
You will recall, sirs, that at the
outset of this case, when the question of oaths arose—
The President. I think we all remember that.
Colonel Royall. Yes. We called attention to the fact that
counsel could not take the ordinary oath of secrecy given to the other people
here, because it seemed that by its terms it would perhaps prevent us from asserting
a civil remedy, if it should be determined that one should be asserted; and
therefore we took the oath similar to that of the Judge Advocate General, which
is limited to the findings and sentence of the Commission.
It will not be necessary in this
petition to disclose findings and the sentence, because there have not been any
findings and sentence so far.
The President. Am I informed that you
and your assistant counsel did not take the oath that was given to everybody in
the courtroom?
Colonel Royall. No, sir, and I call to
your attention
2105
what
was said about that.
The President. Please.
Colonel Royall. This appears on page
20:
“Colonel
Royall. May I make an inquiry, sir? We do not know the substance of this oath,
but from the standpoint of the defense counsel it is possible that some limited
disclosure would have to be made if someone sought to assert the civil right of
these defendants; and we conceive it our duty not to take an oath that would
prevent us from so doing.
“The
President. You may look at the form of
the oath (handing Colonel Royall a document).
“Colonel
Royall. Thank you, sir.
“We
have two typists also who have not come in. There may be no necessity for their
coming in at all.
“It
is our opinion, sir, that as far as defense counsel are concerned, it is considerably
broader than the obligation taken by the Judge Advocate, and it may conceivable
preclude us from what we conceive our duty to be. Therefore we would
respectfully request that the defense counsel be given an oath similar to that
taken by the prosecution.
“The
President. I see no objection. This
applies to the defense counsel only.”
We have
here a copy of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in one of the cases. It happens to be in a case where we are not
certain whether we will issue it, but they are all similar except for a slight
difference between the citizens and non-citizens, which would be immaterial, I
think, from the
2106
standpoint
of publicity.
For obvious reasons, we do not desire
to make this petition available to the Attorney General at this stage, because
if it is issued he would have to contest it, and if he were going to bring
something against my client I would not ask to see it or expect to see it in
advance of its issue. However, if the
Commission desires to inspect it to see whether, in their opinion, we are
acting contrary to the secrecy requirements of this proceeding, we not only
have no objection to giving it to the Commission, but we will gladly do so,
because, so far as we can possibly proceed that way, and consistent with what
we think our duty is, we want to follow the wishes of the Commission in the
matter of publicity.
I do not know whether the Commission
would feel that it ought to be submitted to the Secretary of War or not. Of
course, that would not be a matter that we could know and seek to control.
Now, I want to make this entirely
clear; because I think it is important—
The President. By the way, I had hoped that I had made it
perfectly plain the other day, in discussing this subject of secrecy, that we
are not sitting under the Secretary of War.
Colonel Royall. I know you did.
The President. We are sitting as a commission appointed by
the President. The only point at which the Secretary of War comes in is that,
naturally, he and the Attorney General are Cabinet Officers and have
communicated to us at times, with which you are familiar—the only times—certain
information and instructions from the appointing authority. I think it is
2107
important
that it should not be the sense that we are sitting under the orders of the
Secretary of War.
Colonel Royall. I understood that, sir, and I did not have
any misapprehension about that, and I do not see any necessity for presenting
it to the Secretary of War. The only reason
why I mentioned that is that the letter happened to have been communicated to
me from him, and I did not know whether you would send it back through that
channel or not. But that is a matter we
have no control over and no desire to interfere with.
What I do wish to make clear is that we
do not want to ask the Commission to take any course that might be construed as
asking you inferentially to approve or disapprove either the fact that we are
going to resort to a writ of habeas corpus or, second, that Colonel Dowell and
I are going to present it.
The first certainly would not be
respectful to the Commission—to ask you to determine what course we should
take—and the second is the responsibility of Colonel Dowell and myself, and
there is no desire on my part, and I do not think there is on his, to pass the
buck to anybody on that. We will just
have to make that decision as we see it and act accordingly.
The only purpose of bringing this
matter to the attention of the Commission arises from the question of secrecy
and nothing else. That is all I want to
say about it except one other thing. I
had hoped that we would not have to bring this to the attention of the
Commission, even on the matter of secrecy, because it puts us in a rather bad
position tactically.
2108
If I did not have such high respect
for the Commission, I would have serious misgivings, but I have no such
misgivings except as it may be a matter of personal embarrassment to Colonel
Dowell and myself.
If we were representing a civil client
in a criminal court—and that is what is said in the Court Martial Manual—and a
tribunal had been organized that we thought might be unconstitutional or
invalid, of course we would not hesitate to resort to this process. We would do so then without any disrespect to
the tribunal, because it is not a personal attack or an attack upon the
personnel or whatever you do in this case, but merely an attack upon the
validity of the creation.
We would not, of course, want it to
affect, and we know it would not affect, in any way your decision—that is, the
mere fact that this proceeding is being brought. It may very well be decided that the writ
does not lie, in which event the responsibility of decision will rest upon this
Commission.
We would not want the mere fact that
we have thought the interest of our clients required a session on a writ of
habeas corpus to affect us in any way, because we intend to continue to defend
this case before the Commission.
Colonel Dowell, I have tried not to
speak too much for you, sir, but if there is anything that I have said that you
want to dissent from, I know you will do it.
Colonel Dowell. I do not want to dissent from anything, but I
do want to add a few words.
Colonel Royall has been trained in the
law, and I have been trained as a soldier for over forty years. I cannot get
2109
it
out of my mind, probably because of my training, that my duty as a soldier is
circumscribed by the orders I receive from our Commander, in this case the
Commander in Chief of the Army of the United States, who has detailed me to
come here to act as defense counsel before this Commission.
I am in the embarrassing situation of
feeling that way about my military duty.
The moment this Commission has ended, I am under orders to return to my
proper station and go on with my duties as a soldier. I have to do that, because I do not know of
any other way to be a soldier than to obey the orders I receive.
On the other hand, a duty has been
imposed upon us as defense counsel to do everything legitimate and honorable in
the interest of our clients; and we see something here, of course, that seems
to be honorable and correct, but not legitimate, as far as I am concerned. That is my viewpoint.
Circumscribed from going before any
other tribunal, if these orders are to be taken strictly, we earnestly and
honestly and seriously sought instructions, interpretations, permission to do
the thing that we conceive to be the honorable thing to do in the interest of
our clients.
Frankly, I do not see a way out
yet. I thought I saw a way out in the
proclamation itself, which purports to close the doors of the civil courts to
our clients, because there is an exception at the end of that, an exception to
be made by the recommendation of the Attorney General, with the approval of the
Secretary of War. We seemed locked out
by the fact that the Attorney General is the prosecutor in this case. Hope
seems lost in that direction.
2110
Frankly, I do not think it is a matter
for the Commission, except that we feel that we want to lay our difficulty, our
problem, before you, so that you will understand it. I think it is a problem for ourselves. I do not think it is a thing that the
Commission can decide.
If the publicity angle was out of the
way, I would be considerably more courageous, but we have the very earnest
words of higher authority that publicity will injure our national cause, our
war effort. As a soldier I cannot bring
myself to the point of doing that.
I have nothing to add to that at this time.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, I was appointed by
the Secretary of War to appear before this Commission as counsel for the
defendant Dasch. I construe those orders to authorize me to appear before this
Commission and do everything I can, honorably, to protect Dasch’s interests but
I do not construe those orders as authorizing me to file in any other tribunal
any application for a writ of habeas corpus or other proceeding, and therefore
I stand on that interpretation of my orders.
2111
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission, this matter is
digressing into something that I did not intend to bring to the attention of
the Commission, and I probably would not have said anything more if Colonel Ristine
had not spoken. But I have got to clear
the record, since this has gone into the record.
This letter of the 6th of
July was written by Colonel Dowell and myself.
The exclusion of Colonel Ristine’s name was only because he was not
named in the Presidential Order and had not received any formal order at that
time. The same thing is true of the
letter of July 7.
I am not critical of Colonel Ristine
in deciding that he was wrong when he said he was going ahead with the civil
remedy. That is up to him. I am not critical of Colonel Dowell, for whom
I have just about as sincere admiration as I have for any man I have ever met,
when he decides that he cannot go ahead.
Of course it makes it a little embarrassing for me in the event,
certainly, that Colonel Dowell finds he cannot.
I am not trying to throw the burden on the Commission or anybody
else. I am going to do what I told the
President I was going to do in this memorandum, unless somebody orders me
specifically not to do it, because that is what I conceive my duties to be.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, I think the
Commission is aware of the fact that I came into this case late and had very
little opportunity to familiarize myself with the orders and the situation when
this matter was precipitated. I did
understand, however, that the effort to pursue the application of a writ of
habeas corpus would be pursued
2112
by outside counsel or civilian
lawyers. I did not investigate the
matter sufficiently to be advised that there would be any effort on the part of
those of us who were appointed to represent the clients before this Commission
to personally file any such proceeding, nor was I advised or informed at that
time respecting any request with respect to secrecy. I thought the secrecy
feature of it rested purely with this Commission.
However,
I reiterate what I said before: I do not
consider my orders to appear before this Commission as authorizing me as a
member of the Army to appear in the Supreme Court for and on behalf of Mr.
Dasch whom I was appointed to represent here.2
Colonel
Royall. Does the Attorney General desire to submit any remarks, or anybody
else?
The
Judge Advocate General. What I do not
quite understand is what you are requesting of this Commission. Are you asking
their advice?
Colonel
Royall. I certainly am not. I said that
before; and I do not know why that should be injected in here, but I had to
speak to that thought because it was brought up otherwise.
The
Attorney General. Do I understand that
you are asking the Commission to remove any oath of secrecy?
Colonel
Royall. I am not. I am asking the Commission, if they desire to
do so, to examine our proposed petition and see if they think it does disclose
facts that should not be disclosed, and that they give us, if they desire to do
so, the benefit of their opinion as to whether or not it does. If the Commission desires to do that I would
like to know
2113
what they think about it. I am not guaranteeing what we will do, except
to say that we are going to do, as nearly as we can, consistent with our
clients’ rights and our duty, what the Commission says. If the Commission does not want to examine
it, of course that is a matter for them.
If they want to leave the responsibility on us, we will take it. At least I will take it. But I would prefer the Commission to say
whether they think that this contains any data that would violate the policy of
secrecy that has been established.
The
President. Leave it on the table for the
moment, please.
Has
the Attorney General any advice or any remarks to make?
The
Attorney General. We are not being
consulted about anything.
The
President. Excepting by the Commission.
The
Attorney General. You are very
gracious. I would not mind taking a look
at those papers. I do not think we
really have anything that we can be helpful on, but of course any question that
you would like to ask us we will be glad to answer if we can.
A
Member. The only thing they are asking
us about now is the secrecy. You are
going to ask that this be considered by the court over there in open
session. That is the question that you
are asking us. The court over there
could do what we do here, could it not?
Colonel
Royall. I would think so and hope so and
would request so. The only thing I am
asking this Commission is whether or not I should disclose this to the civil
court.
2114
Not
whether I can, because I may feel it my duty to do so anyhow; but whether there
is anything in here that the Commission thinks should not properly be presented
to a civil court on the ground of secrecy, solely. I am not asking anybody to
take any part of my responsibility. I will do that and suffer the consequences.
The
President. Lay it on the table, please, while I consult my colleagues.
(After
consultation) We will retire for a few moments’ discussion.
(The Commission was then closed. When
it reopened the following occurred:)
The
President. Colonel Royall, the
Commission does not care to pass on that question.
Colonel
Royall. I want the Commission to
understand that we understand that thoroughly, and I hope the Commission will
understand that we were not trying to impose any additional burden. We wanted to be entirely frank with you.
The
President. We will now adjourn until 10
o’clock tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon, at 5:30 o’clock p.m. the
Commission adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, July 22, 1942, at 10 o’clock
a.m.)