at Yale Law School at Yale Law SchoolThe Attorney-General said he had three points which he wished to discuss with his colleagues. The first two were -----
1 ) The time which the trial was taking, and
2) the question of the second trial.
* * * * * * *
The Attorney-General pointed out that this could not start until the end of this trial since many issues would be rendered res judicata by these proceedings. They wished to take advantage of this whilst, in any event, shortage of manpower would make it impossible to run separate proceedings at the same time. He wondered what public opinion would think of a second trial if this had lasted a year and was inclined to think that the industrialists should be tried before national courts but if the majority of his colleagues felt that a second trial before on international tribunal should take place then he thought that preparations must be started now. He had got to bring in a new team, the personnel of which would not be easy to find and who would have to work in with the present team so as to take advantage of their experience. He felt, therefore, that a decision on the second trial ought to be taken now, one of the difficulties being, however, that the Agreement came to an end on the 8th August and it looked as if this trial would last at least until then.
General Rudenko said he was in favor of a second trial by the International Military Tribunal but conclusion could not be reached until the finish of this trial was seen. If this trial ended before August they could discuss a second trial but if it went beyond the 8th August they would not have the power to do so. He entirely agreed that if there was to be a second trial the staff ought to be incorporated with the present staff during the preparatory stages.
M. de Ribe said the French position remained the same and they were in favour of a second trial before the International Military Tribunal. It would be useful, however, only if two conditions were fulfilled
1) If its actual duration was shorter than that of this trial;
2) As a corollary to 1) if it was adequately prepared in advance. The great thing was to examine the evidence now to see whom they had got a case against and he had already set a section of his team to work on this.
Mr. Justice Jackson said that he himself could not participate and that the nomination of Col. Taylor did not commit the United States to a second trial. He agreed generally with the French and Soviet Delegations that the ground work must be got on with but he could not commit the United States to a second trial until they had seen the result of this one. If the Tribunal held that there was no case against Schacht he did not see how they could hope to make a case against any industrialists. There were other considerations; for example, the cost. It would not be long before there was serious criticism of the cost of this trial. He felt sure the industrialists should be tried but was not yet certain of the best method.
The Attorney-General agreed that the point with regard to Schacht had a great deal of force and suggested that they should go no further at present than to agree to get out briefs against, say, ten defendants, with a view to deciding later whether they should be indicted before national courts or the International Military Tribunal. This work should be done in collaboration between the four delegations by personnel specially detailed to prepare the ground work for the second trial. THIS WAS AGREED.