. NMT05-T1130
Volume VI · Page 1130
| like, before starting the reading of my final argument, to mention very briefly one of the more important points of view on the difference of opinion between General Taylor and ourselves. Once before, although in a different connection, has General Taylor commented on this question of the legality, or let us say nationality, of these proceedings. That was in his opening statement to this proceeding. Even then General Taylor said, and I quote: "Although constituted by the American occupation authorities, and composed of American judges, it [this Tribunal] is, in short an international tribunal." Now, this point of view the General has adhered to in his final plea, with some modifications, however. In his final plea he broached indeed the expert opinion of OMGUS which was filed in the I.G. Farben case. OMGUS called this Tribunal a German occupation tribunal. Now, General Taylor attempts to combine those two points of view by arguing that an occupation tribunal composed of four occupation powers is an international tribunal, but with regard to the point of importance which has caused us to call for the help of American colleagues, which call for help resulted in those motions, the general has not commented on. Now, this point of importance is the fact that a local tribunal, that is, the Tribunal in the Milch case, has determined the nationality of these Tribunals in its verdict. They have used the following words, I quote, in English: | |
"It must be constantly borne in mind that this is an American court of justice, applying the ancient and fundamental concepts of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence which have sunk their roots into the English common law and have been stoutly defended in the United States since its birth." |
|
| Therefore, in my opinion there can be no doubt that the Tribunal in the case of Milch had an opinion which is directly opposed to that of General Taylor, and conforms with the opinion stated in our motion. This contradiction and this opinion which comes from the Tribunal's side and confirms our opinion, has not been mentioned by the general. Neither can I follow the general in his argument when he says that the American Military Governor has appointed you, Your Honors, as judges, and that the appointment by the President of the United States of 31 May is nothing else than an approval of the earlier appointment which had been carried out by the American Military Government. This argument is in no way convincing. If the opinion of the general is correct, that it was the Military Governor who was appropriate to appoint you, Your Honors, then this appointment did not need a later approval by the President. The wording of this state docu- […ment] |
* Section VII. Volume II, page 778, this series.
