Then the next five witnesses, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10: The Tribunal granted interrogatories and, so long as the matter is limited to interrogatories, the Prosecution will make no objection.
And Number 11, the Baroness De Nothomb: The Prosecution object to evidence on acts of intercession on behalf of members of the resistance movement, and individual acts of that kind, in the opinion of the Prosecution, are not really relevant to the matters before the Court.
With regard to Archbishop Gröber, if the Tribunal would not mind looking at Number 12 in the application, in the opinion of the Prosecution the matters raised by the questions are not relevant. The first is, “Were the Concordat negotiations between Germany and the Holy See brought about by Defendant Von Papen’s own initiative?” The second part of this question is, in short, “Did Von Papen make efforts with Hitler regarding the conclusion of the Concordat?” Well, the Concordat was made, and what the Tribunal are really concerned with is the breaches of the Concordat, of which the Prosecution has given written evidence.
The second question—I am afraid that I do not understand that, and in its present form I submit that it is irrelevant, in addition to being vague—“Were the activities of the defendant directed by his positive religious attitude after the conclusion of the Concordat also?”
Then the third question: “Was the conclusion of the Concordat welcomed by the German Episcopate?” I don’t think that really helps.
And fourth: “Did the Concordat give legal backing to the Church during the latter’s religious struggles?” And, “Could the Church, in the end, fall back on the Concordat?”
The Concordat is there and speaks for itself, and, as I say, the issue in this case is the breaches of the Concordat, not its contents. So we object to Number 12.
Number 13, the witness Von Beaulieu—that is very short, if the Tribunal would be good enough to look at it:
“I shall submit an affidavit of the witness, which deals with the intervention of the defendant as President of the Union Club on behalf of Jews.”
The Prosecution submit that the intervention in a racing club on behalf of some Jewish members is not really a relevant matter, even on the Jewish issue.