III "At the peoples Court in Berlin I was given a division dealing with high treason.
According to my recollection Reich Prosecutor Barnickel was given this division, and I was entrusted, from 1 January 1944 on, with the revision of all criminal cases in connection with 'Seditious Undermining of German Defensive Strength.' This Department was act divided up according to geographical areas but dealt with all cases of 'Seditious Undermining of German Defensive Strength' arising in the entire Reich.
"Toward the end of the war about 2,500 denunciations were submitted to this Department in the course of one month. This meant a yearly total of 30,000 cases for the entire Reich. I might be mistaken about these figures. At any rate, there was such an overflow of work that the Department had to be divided up, during the middle of 1944, between myself and Reich Prosecutor Franzki. I got the even, and he the odd, numbers - or vice versa.
"Naturally, we tried to relieve our burden by handing over cases to the Criminal Senat and the Special Courts attached to the various Courts of Appeal. Of the total monthly inflow of cases we kept only about ten percent. During the course of the year 1945 the inflow became smaller since, due to a failure of the postal connections, fewer cases came in."
I would like now now to turn now to page 36 of the English, and either 32 or 33 of the German, beginning with the second paragraph from the bottom in the English text.
"As the war situation became noticeably more tense the tendency to view such cases severely under the aspect III of 'Seditious Undermining of German Defensive Strength' became more and more pronounce.
"People were sentenced to death when it was proven that they had made utterances hostile ot the State of an inner readiness to damage the State whenever the opportunity arose. This general readiness to cause damage to the State could be con eluded from the general attitude of the culprit and from the circumstances surrounding his deed. If, for instance, a man remarked to a woman, who had to fill out a labor draft questionnaire, 'Don't you know that every woman who works sends a soldier to his death?' - it was possible to conclude from this that this man was generally inclined to do damage to the State. It is possible to draw the conclusion that the was ready to do damage to the State from the circumstances of the dead since they showed that his inclination to do damage to the State was so lille controlled that even a trivial opportunity could already provoke a defeatist utterance on his part."
We turn now to page 38 of the English text, 34 or 35 in the German, and I would like to begin reading from the last paragraph on page 38 from the English text:
"Lautz, as Chief of the Prosecution, was responsible for the entire office. All cases passed through his hands before they were delegated to the respective Department. Until shortly before the end of the war Lautz himself signed all indictments and all quashings. Only as late as March 1945 indictments of lesser significance could be signed by the Department Chiefs. Copies of the indictment had to be submitted to the Chief Reich Prosecutor."
We turn now to page 43 in the English text, page 39 in the German and begin reading from the last full III paragraph from the bottom of the page in the English text;"The extermination of 'habitual criminals' was, in my opinion, not a National Socialist innovation.
The definition of the 'habitual criminal' on the other hand was mainly determined by the National Socialist ideology. When I was transferred to Nurenberg on 1 April 1937 the laws which were used in the Special Court were hardly known to me by name.
"I was, however, aware of the fact that, through application of these laws, the underlying National Socialist ideology was realized. I also know that, under normal circumstances, i.e., independent of war and of the National ideologies and laws, dozens of people who were sentenced by the Special Courts would now still be alive. I deny that the case Katzenberger, who had been accused of race defilement and was sentenced to death and executed, was a clear instance of judicial murder. For it happened not in a single case that we acted against our convictions and opinions, but we were, of course, not free of that psychosis which dominated the entire life of the people and the State. We became aware of this only now under the impression of the great disaster. Since our verdicts were based on our convictions we identified ourselves with the National Socialistic laws, with the result that many of our verdicts bore the stamp of National Socialism. Another way was not open to us since we had taken the oath to apply the full intent of the law."
We offer the Document NG-533 as Exhibit 473.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document, NG 627, begins on page 46 in the English text and on 42 in the German text and will be when received in evidence Exhibit 474. The document, briefly, is a review of recent sentences passed by the Court of Appeals in Hamburg immediately preceding the date of the letter, which is i March, 1945 and an admonition that these sentences were to lenient, with a request that in the future the sentences be made more severe. The letter is signed by the defendant Klemm. It is concerned in a large part with what should be not regarded as mitigating circumstances, and we find on page 49 some of those standards which apparently the Hamburg court was using that Klemm denies should constitute extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Here are some of them:
"Especially hard life." "Uprooted by the Russian revolution." "Let himself go frequently because of his rather surly nature." "He has been a good comrade," "People with a disorder of the stomach, as we know from experience, are inclined to be disgruntled," "He may have been annoyed about a certain phrase in the radio talk in question." "He had to suffer under the Jewish Boycott movement during his activities abroad," and so on.
The letter from Klemm concludes with this statement, which is found on page 49 of the English text, 46 of the German:
"Please discuss the sentences as well as my opinion about them in the proper way with the judges and public prosecutors in question and see to it in all cases of undermining the defensive power that the required severe punishment will be meted out in your area, too."
Then there follows on page 50 and 51 a statement or rather a summary of a conference of the National Socialist Lawyers' Association of the Gau Hamburg on 17 March 1945, the last paragraph of which refers to the Klemm letter which I just summarized. That last paragraph is found in the English text on page 51, in the German on page 48.
We offer the document NG 627 as Exhibit 4747.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document, NG 644 is found beginning on page 52 of the English, 49 of the German and will be Exhibit 475 when received in evidence. This document is the sworn affidavit of the defendant Cuhorst. The English copy that appears in the document books is effective to the extent that the oath is not shown as having been administered The original does show that the oath was given by Mr. Selky of the OCC organization on the 16th of January in Nurnberg. He would like to read as in the case of the affidavit of defendant Rothaug, somewhat more extensively from this than has been our practice. May I ask the Court to turn to the first page, 52 in the English text, and I would like to read beginning with the first, or rather the second paragraph from the bottom of that page. That is page 49 in the German text.
"From I October 1937 until 20 November 1944, in other words, for seven whole years, I was Presiding Justice of the Special Court for the. Area of the Stuttgart Court of Appeal. My real job, however, was that of President of the First Penal Senate of the Court of Appeals, Stuttgart.
"During those seven years, about 2600 cases were tried before the Special Court. Of these, I presided over about 1200 cases. In about 120 cases, a death sentence was pronounced. The Special Court was instituted during 1935 for political cases and for capital crimes. In 1939, war-time economic offenses and cases resulting from a series of new special war-time laws were handed over to the Special Courts, The measure of punishment provided for by those laws went far beyond that of ordinary peacetime laws. Beginning about 1940 the task of the Special Courts was to exterminate criminals as a matter of principle, that is to exterminate major, non-political, professional, or habitual criminals. Intimidation has always been one of the purposes of punishment, and I personally have the impression that intimidation theoretically achieves its purpose.
"I am a man who stands by what he has done. I stand by the sentences passed in Stuttgart in which I participated, to the extent to which I participated in them."
May we ask the Court to turn now to page 54, 50 in the German text. I would like to call attention to two sentences in the middle of the page, beginning: "I participated in the meetings of judges in Kochem in 1944; but I myself take full responsibility for all of my sentences. The Public Prosecutors could not influence me. In cases in which a death sentence was pronounced, I did not argue about it with the Public Prosecutor; I would also not know in such cases that the Public Prosecutor had asked for the death sentence in agreement with the Ministry in Berlin."
May I ask the Court to turn to Page 56. That is page, either 52 or 53 in the German. I would like to read the first part of the beginning of the seconds paragraph on that page:
"By the phrase 'Healthy feelings of the people' I understand the thing that is commonly called 'healthy common sense'. I could not give clear definition of the National Socialist term 'healthy feelings of the people'. I can only say it is the same as 'healthy common sense'."
That is all of this document from which we will read at this time, and therefore offer NG 644 as Exhibit 475.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document is NG-647, and begins on Page 59 in the English, 54 in the German. It will be, when received in evidence, the Exhibit 476. This is the affidavit of one, Wilhelm Hoffman, who was, as the affidavit indicates, First Public Prosecutor, in Nurnberg until 9 December 1943. He held that position for a number of years, as is indicated in the first paragraph in the affidavit.
I would like to read just several portions of this, beginning with last line on Page 60 in the English text, that is on Page 56 in the German:
"The manner in which Rothaug conducted a trial very often did not have my approval. He occasionally used sessions to make great public speeches and he often treated defendants in such a way as I had not see from other presiding judges. He abused the defendants and did not make any secret of the verdict to be expected. I knew he used the expression: 'We will put your head in front of your feet.' I noticed also that he used to choose, as officially appointed defense counsels, men who would not cause him any trouble. I know too that various lawyers in Nurnberg -- I do not remember their names -- refused to plead before the Special Court of Nurnberg because Rothaug used to restrict considerably their rights as defense counsel."
On Page 62 in the English, 57 or 58 in the German, beginning with the fifth line down from the top of the page in the English text:
"He had excellent connections with the "Gauleitung" of Nuernberg, especially with "Gauinspector" HABERKERN, and he took advantage of this to carry out his wishes through the Gauleitung if he could not do it otherwise. I know that he had many discussions in this respect in HABERKERN's Hotel, "Blaue Traube".
"I do not know quite so well his successor, OESCHEY. But the latter was generally considered a docile pupil of ROTHAUG. Colleagues told me that OESCHEY's way of conducting a trial was very much like ROTHAUG's, but OESCHEY used still stronger expressions than ROTHAUG to abuse the defendants."
We offer the document NG-67 as the Exhibit 476.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence, and there will be a recess at this time for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Concerning the exhibit which was under discussion this morning, we admit that portion pf the exhibit which is the affidavit but we do not admit the annexed indictment. The matter is open if something further is offered; we will take it up at that time, but we will retain the exhibit number of the document which we admit.
MR. KING: May the record show that we now offer as Exhibit 465 the Document NG-1253 which consists only of the affidavit of one Witzigmann, which affidavit is dated 11 April, 1947. This offer is being made subject to the conditions that an indictment, which was originally a part of this document, if proper identification can be made, may be offered later.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be admitted upon those conditions and subject to those further proofs.
MR. KING: The next document in the document book, Supplement 111-A, NG-661, we do not offer in evidence. It is an affidavit of Dr. Dorfmueller, who has appeared already before this Court as a witness, and his testimony, we believe, encompasses the statements made in the affidavit.
The next document we will offer in evidence is the Document NG-663, beginning on page 67 in the English text and also 67 in the German text, and will be, when offered, Exhibit 477. This document is a sworn affidavit of one Bernhard Kassing, who was, as stated in the affidavit, a medium civil functionary in the District Court, in Nurnberg. I would like to read just a small portion of this document, beginning with the fourth line down of the first principal paragraph, on page 67 in the English text, with the sentence:
"I shall always remember on case before the Special Court of Nuernberg because of the brutality of its verdict, Two Polish women, DURKA and STRUG were accused of alleged arson. Just before the beginning of the trial I went into the court room to have a look at the two defendants, because I knew that the two very young girls were probably going to be sentenced to death.
They were really two very young girls who made a very good impression. I was very much shocked that these young persons should pay with their life for a trifle. The sentence as based chiefly on racial and not on legal points of view. The death sentence was carried out a few days later.
"After the execution I received the farewell letters of the two girls which I submitted to ROTHAUG for approval before mailing them on. I read both letters and secretly save them to attorney KERN to read, because we both had previously discussed this case and had been shocked by the verdict. In these letters both defendants took leave of their parents in moving terms and expressed their innocence."
We offer the Document NG-663 as Exhibit 477.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document NG-668 begins on page 69 in the English, also on 69 of the German, and is NG-668, and will be, when offered in evidence, Exhibit 478.
This document is a situation report to Dr. Schlegelberger from Bems who was a prosecutor before the District Court of Appeals in Nurnberg. This situation report is dated 11 August 1942, and is concerned with the matters being dealt with by the Nurnberg Courts, mid also contains a list of death sentences passed by the court for the period covered by the report. The list of death sentences begins on page 72 in both the English and German text and continues through to the end of the document.
In addition, I would like to point out to the Court the paragraph on page 71 in the English text immediately under the Roman Numberal V, in which Bems says:
"The police authorities hesitate to pass on to the Prosecuting Authorities cases against Poles because of sexual intercourse with Germans, because they are afraid to deviate from the orders given by the Reichsfuehrer-SS that these cases be handled by the police. It can therefore, hardly be expected that denunciations --"
Or perhaps, more properly, "indictments" -
"according to No. I par. 1 of the Decree against Poles will be made prior to the lifting of these orders.
"I have been informed that within my jurisdiction, too, executions of Poles by hanging have taken place. But I do not know with what these Poles were charged and how many were concerned."
Also, in the document NG 668, is another situation report from Bems to Schlegelberger. This one is dated 5 June 1942. Like the first situation report, this one also has a list of death sentences carried out during the period covered by the report. This list begins on page 79 of the English text and continues through to the end of the document. The report is also signed by Bems.
I would like to point out a sentence in the document on page 76, immediately under the Roman Numberal II, in which Bems says:
"The appeal of the Fuehrer to the administration of justice has strengthened the efforts of judges and prosecutors alike, to transform martial law into an effective weapon which can meet all requirements.
The active contact between the court and the prosecutor office which will develop immediately after the meeting of the presidents of the courts of appeal and the chief public prosecutors will have positive results."
We offer this document, NG 668 as exhibit 478.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document which appears in the document book is in there mistakenly, and it will not be offered, and in its place, document NG 679 will be offered. That will be distributed as a lose document and should replace the document now in the English text beginning on page 81. I think the time has not yet run in accordance with the 24 hour rule on the document, which will replace NG 678, and so, we are not, at the moment, able to make the substitution.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you expect to offer that now?
MR. KING: No, that cannot be offered now because we have not fulfilled requirements of the 24 hour rule.
The next document which we will offer is NG 680, beginning on page 86 in the English and 87 in the German text, and this document will be exhibit 479. The document is an affidavit by one Josef Baeumler. And, he was, for a period of time, an assistant judge on the Special Court in Nurnberg. In addition to a rather general and aggressive criticism in the manner in which Oeschey and Rothaug conducted trials before them in the Special Court, which appears throughout the document, we would like to call particular attention to the portion of the affidavit on page 88 of the English text, and probably on page 92 of the German, which begins with the fourth paragraph down from the top of the page, on page 88. It begins with:
"Oeschey was particularly strict where foreigners were concerned. He was of the opinion, that as 'guests' in the Reich they had increased duties and special cause for good behavior. He always preached this opinion to the judges, indicating amongst other things that this was the attitude of the Reich Security Main Office RSHA. Re was imbued with the idea of extermination and punished foreigners with doubled severity.
He had a special antipathy against Poles, and repeatedly voiced the racial points of view. To him a Pole was an inferior individual, whatever kind of offense he had committed. Even the sightest 'resistance', for instance complaints from Poles about bad treatment he described as sabotage. He said again and again that he had to protect the German people from 'encroachment' by foreign elements."
We do not call to the Court's attention specifically to any more of this document, but offer it as Exhibit 479.
The next exhibit will be 480, and is document NG 699, and it is found on page 91 of the English text, on page 96 of the German. This document consists of numerous letters and notes, all of which are concerned in one way or another with the extent to which certain members of t he Reich Ministry of Justice participated, willingly or otherwise, in the trial of the former president of the Czechoslovakia. Republic Elias.
The first letter in this document or rather the first letter in the series of documents here, is one dated, Prague 17 October 1941, addressed to Dr. Schlegelberger, in which the writer, an SS Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Police in Prague, complains to Dr. Schlegelberger that attempts have been made by the Reich Ministry of Justice to obstruct him in carrying out his work as Deputy Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, in so far as the trial of Elias and Klapka were concerned, the Reich Prosecutor, which is to say, Lautz, told him that it would require three or four weeks to prepare the indictment. And, he goes on to say that the delay in the proceedings of the trial of even a few days was politically impossible. He, the SS Obergruppeenfuehrer decided to write the indictment himself.
Then on page 92, the third paragraph from the bottom, this Obergruppenfuehrer says:
"If you now inform me in regard to these matters that the Reich Ministry of Justice had fully supported my activities I am at a loss to understand this. The only support I received - at my own request - from your direction in the Elias trial was from the Ministerialrat Dr. Joel and Landgerichtsrat Dr. Preussher; also, and, indeed, in am exemplary way, by the President Thierack, specially in the proceedings of the trial."
The next letter is one to Dr. Schlegelberger from Thierack, in which Schlegelberger reviews the history of the indictment, how it came about that it had to be prepared in so short a time, and the conversations that he, Thierack, had with Heydrich. The second paragraph from the end, of this letter from Thierack to Schlegelberger, Thierack says the following:
"Finally, during my visits to the Reich Ministry cf Justice I was under the impression that you, Under Secretary, yourself, were trying to establish the legal foundations in order to ensure correct proceedings. Unfortunately, I was not able to submit these to you as they became available to me only shortly after my arrival in Prague."
On page 96 in the English, 104 in the German, is a note dated, Prague, 3 October 1941, addressed to the Under Secretary- that is, presumably, Schlegelberger, in which the writer, the defendant Joel, says the following:
"Please note my further activity from the enclosed memo. As Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich informed me yesterday, a transfer of the proceedings from the Peoples Court to the Chief Public Prosecutor may be expected. Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich will, however, let me know his final attitude only after a discussion with the Fuehrer. I presume that I shall be able to report definitely on Saturday or Sunday."
And on page -- it is the page following 96 in my book -- it is not numbered. In any event, on that page we find a time table of the indictment and trial of Elias and Klapka. And on page 98 in the English, either 107 or 108 in the German, we find a letter from Lammers to Bormann, dated 4 October 1941.
Heydrich had complained to Bormann that the Ministry of Justice was obstructing the trial of Elias and Klapka, and in this letter Lammers is explaining to Bormann why, in his opinion, Heydrich was in error in making that charge. Dr. Lammers refers to Schlegelberger in the concluding sentences of the letter, as fellows:
"If Under Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger endeavored to clear up the legality of this procedure by approving this, I do not think that it can be regarded as an attempt of obstruction that only as support for the proceedings by Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich.
"I should be very grateful if you would inform the Fuehrer accordingly, so as to prevent a wrong impression of the ideas and the activities of the Reich Ministry of Justice and their chiefs in this matter."
The next document, the next letter, rather, in this document, appears on page 100 in the English, 109 in the German, and it is not clear -
THE PRESIDENT: You mean page 101, do you not? You just read from 100.
MR. KING: Perhaps your book is numbered differently than mine. According to my book the Lammers letter ends on page 99 in the English text... Well, there is that difference then, in the books. In any event, the note which is dated 1 October 1941, and extends over two pages -101 and 102 in your Honors' books -- it is net clear as to who the author of that note may be. It discusses the facts of the Elias and Klapka case and the part which Schlegelberger and others in the Ministry of Justice played in that trial.
On page 100 -- it must be 103 In your bock -- there is a letter from Dr. Schlegelberger to Dr. Lammers, in which Schlegelberger acknowledges receiving the letter from -- a copy of the letter from Lammers to Bormann -- and expresses his appreciation to Lammers for drawing the attention of the Fuehrer to the incorrectness of .. oh, pardon me, please.. Heydrich's attitude in the matter. Schlegelberger goes on to say in this letter to Lammers, in the middle of the page ... 103 it must be in your books.
.. the following:
"In the meantime I have been informed today that Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich on 2 October in an address to the chiefs cf the government, the Army and Party offices in Prague said that, 'thanks to the loyalty cf the President of the Peoples Court in spite of the Reichsministry' they had succeeded in dealing with the trials of Elias and Klapka in the shortest of time. Ministrialrat Joel, expert adviser to my office, who did not hear the address himself, told me officially that he had talked about it to Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich shortly afterwards, who had said that the President of the Peoples Court, Dr. Thierack, had told him that the Reich Ministry cf Justice had made difficulties for him as regards this matter.
"I must consider such a statement cf the President of the peoples Court as a direct attack, not based on any facts, on the Ministry cf Justice, to which he is subordinate, as well as on me personally, as I am in charge cf the affairs of the Reich Ministry cf Justice."
That note was signed by Schlegelberger.
On page 105 in your books, English version, 114 in the German, there appears at the beginning a note from Parrisius - also on the general subject of the Elias and Klapka trial. Parrisius refers to several conversations that took place between Dr. Joel and Reich Prosecutor Lautz, and Dr. Schelberger -- all in connection with this matter.
Then on page 107 in your books there appears a letter to Heydrich from Schlegelberger in which Schlegelberger attempts to refute charges which have been made apparently directly to him by Heydrich.
I would like to read a portion of this letter, which appears on the bottom of page 108 in your books, and it must be 119 in the German, in which Schlegelberger says:
"You say, my dear Herr Obergruppenfuehrer, that you could not understand how I could claim to have supported you actively in your tasks. That is because you do not happen to know that when I heard about the People's Court having been entrusted with the handling of the proceedings against Elias and Klapka, and about the special way of prosecution procedure neglecting all other work, tried in numerous discussions in this building and with the other authorities concerned to establish the legal basis the trial was to be given, always aiming at making certain that the validity of the verdicts could not be challenged. These discussions and the subsequent queries from the Reich Ministry of the Interior and the Reich Chancellery to which you object would not have been necessary if you had contacted me as the competent chief of office."
The letter is signed, "Schlegelberger."
That is a brief summary of all of the notes and letters in the document 699, which we now offer as the Exhibit 480.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document, 702, will be Exhibit 481. The document begins on page 112 in Your Honors' books, and on page 121 in the German text. This document is a letter dated the 25th of May, 1944.
JUDGE BLAIR: That begins on 111 in our books.
MR. KING: No. 111. Well, apparently the confusion in pagination is now, beginning with this document, straightened out. It is also 111 in my book.
This letter, dated May 25th, 1944, is to Missener from Alstoetter. Alstoetter refers to a journey which he had just completed in the Adriatic Coastal Region, and we would like to read the last paragraph of the letter:
"As arranged I have told my Minister, among other matters, about the wish of your Gauleiter to secure the quickest possible summary conviction by a court of justice of partisan helpers. My Minister at once took the matter in hand, and has already given the Chief Reich Prosecutor at the People's Court certain instructions to got to the bottom of the delays you complain about. As requested by the Minister, I shall be grateful if you will submit to me as soon as possible a summary of those cases about which you have recently found cause for complaint on account of long delays in the proceedings, as promised me by your Gauleiter. As soon as these files are received, the Minister will instruct your Gauleiter what measures to adopt."
The letter is signed, "Alstoetter".
We offer the document NG-702 as Exhibit 481.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document, NG-721, begins on page 112 in the English text, on 123 in the German. It is a sworn affidavit by Wilhelm Miethsam. Miethsam was an assistant prosecutor in the Public Prosecutor's Office in Nurnberg, and appeared on many occasions before the Special Court.
Beginning on the top of page 113 in the English text, the affiant Miethsam discusses his impressions of Rothaug's conduct in hearing cases before him, also Rothaug's connection with Party officials, and also the several matters with Doebig, concerning which testimony has been given by other witnesses before this Court. We do not wish to read extensively from this document, but offer it as Exhibit 482.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document is NG-730.
DR. KOESSL (Counsel for the defendant Rothaug): May it please the Court, I would like to point out that the official position of ministerial Councillor Miethsam has just been incorrectly stated by the Prosecutor. Miethsam was not prosecutor at the Special Court during the activity of Rothaug at the Special Court.
MR. KING: I think it is probably clear from the affidavit that the statement made by me earlier that he appeared before Rothaug was an inadvertance, because I think it is clear from the affidavit that this probably is not the case.
THE PRESIDENT: The affidavit will speak for itself as to what the facts are.
MR. KING: Yes, in any event.
The document NG-730 will be Exhibit 483, and it is contained on page 115 the English, 126 of the German.
This is a Fuehrer Information Bulletin concerning the sentencing to death of the former Chairman of the German Association of Masons, one Max Sievers. The note is concerned with the activities of Sievers which presumably led to his conviction and execution. The note is initialed by Thierack and by Klemm.
I might say, in brief explanation, this is a Fuehrer Information Bulletin which normally was printed and distributed to various members of the Ministry of Justice. There is available a file of these Fuehrer Information Bulletins which bear the initials, in almost every case, of Thierack and others, generally Klemm. This present document is from that latter file.
The next document, NG-- I will delay offering the document NG-744for the moment.
The next document which we will offer is NG-783, beginning on page 119 in the English text, 129 in the German. This is a document dated 3 June 1944, addressed to Altstoetter from the Gau leader or Gau legal adviser for tho Gau Carinthia. The Gau legal adviser in Carinthia complains to tho defendant Atstoetter that the court system available in Carinthia is totally inadequate to handle the cases that are awaiting and have been awaiting trial for a considerable period of time. The plea is to set up a special People's Court, if possible, for the Carinthian Gau.
On page 121 tho letter is signed, but tho signature is not legible. On page 121, also a part of the document NG-783, is a note signed by Lutz of the Ministry of Justice. It is not clear to whom this note was sent, but it docs review the question posed in the letter from which I have just read. It states:
"When Ministerial Director Altstoetter visited the Carinthian Forelands, he received Gauleter Rainer's suggestion for the appointment of a Branch Chamber of the People's Court in those districts. In the form of a proposal by the Minister, Altstoetter wrote to the Gauleiter that first of all an envoy from the Public Prosecutors at the People's Court should investigate locally whether the business on hand would justify the settingup of a special Chamber. The Minister is more in favor of a technical arrangement whereby a Chamber would travel there at regular intervals and apss sentences on a number of cases at a time.
"Since this is a matter of organization which Ministerial Director Altstoetter intends to introduce only after personal discussion with the Gauleiter, please give him an occasional reminder if I myself should forget to do so."