 |
probative value of all the documents on the Synthese-Kautschuk-Ost
G.m.b.H. I want to extend my observations on probative value beyond an
objection as to relevancy and make a formal objection, because this question
seems suitable for the Court to give a ruling on the legal question of the
probative value of this whole matter. All of the documents which have been
submitted by the prosecution on this matter consist of negotiations,
discussions, correspondence between Farben and the Reich Government. Everything
that has been discussed here is not legally relevant for the prosecution, as
they see the conduct of Farben, for the following reasons:
First of
all, according to the contents of the documents themselves, no agreements or
contracts were concluded between the Reich and Farben. The
Synthese-Kautschuk-Ost G.m.b.H. was never founded and was never registered. All
you can see in the documents are preliminary discussions regarding a
possibility, as to what one might possibly do some day, and drafts were worked
out but nothing more.
Second, even if the drafts submitted by the
prosecution had not remained merely drafts, but had become agreements, then
even these agreements would not have been legally relevant, because they would
not have contained anything on the subject of the charges against the
defendants, which is plundering or spoliation — that is, an offense
against property rights committed in an occupied country. Document NI-4975,
Prosecution Exhibit No. 1182,* which was discussed yesterday (that is in book
63), is a draft of a letter of the Reich Ministry of Economics addressed to
Farben, and it mentions that the Reich has taken note of the desire of Farben
that if — if I may translate it “if and when” the plant or
plants should be sold by the Reich, Farben should be given
“Vorkaufsrecht” — preemption. Even this is not a definite
promise, but merely a proposal. The Reich even made another stipulation,
saying, “within the framework of what is possible from the point of view
of national economy and politically.” That really means — “if we
wish it.” For what was then possible for the Reich politically, and from
the point of national economy, depended solely on its subjective judgment. Thus
the assurance is not really a promise at all, but merely a consolation.
Third, Your Honor, as far as the documents speak of procedure and
practice, we cannot talk of an offense against property rights as the basis of
the concept of plunder and spoilation. That would presuppose, at least, that
some copyright law was in existence, a patent law or something of that sort,
but nothing of the kind is mentioned in these documents. May I also call your
attention to this, Your Honor: One of my friends has just pointed out to me
that the concept which I mentioned previously — “Vorkaufsrecht”
— was not quite correctly translated. In the English, I believe, it is the
“right of first refusal.” |
__________
* Not reproduced
herein.
286 |
. 
