I had not been consulted but I only obtained knowledge of the fact that in the year 1941, this may have been in the spring or the summer, the action was discontinued.
Q Witness, weren't there also complaints by prosecutor's courts and other authorities?
A Yes, we had such complaints, especially by judges and guardians who had to care for their adopted children. I followed up this matter and I contacted the Reich Minister of Justice. The Reich Minister of Justice started an investigation and I can remember exactly that two detailed reports arrived, one from the General. Attorney at Stuttgart and the second one from the Chief Prosecutor at Naumburg. These reports occupied themselves with these questions. The Reich Minister of Justice passed them on to me and I took them to the Fuehrer and then passed them on for further handling to the Reich Minister of the Interior. You have these complaints here in the form of documents and they have been presented to me in previous interrogations.
Q Witness, what did the Reich Minister of Justice do then? Did he consider the matter illegal and did he declare it illegal or was it legalized in the end?
A The Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Guertner, came to see me and at that time he was in a great difficulty. He had grave misgivings and he did not know what to do. I advised him that he could only report to the Fuehrer -- I myself could not give him any advice. I considered a law necessary under all circumstances. I had played no part in granting the authority and now I could also not take a stand at this time. However, the Reich Minister of Justice, Guertner, as far as I know, did not consult the Fuehrer but he probably maintained the point of view that in issuing the authority the Fuehrer had laid down a law which he had to comply with. I do not know--this is only an assumption on my part. Any later procedure which he wanted to do in this matter, was stopped.
Q Do you know how the authority was distributed between Bouhler and Brandt
A I do not know the least thing about it. I only know that only Bouhler confronted me in the matter in the spring of 1941. Brandt has never made his appearance before me.
I know that Bouhler has made his appearance with the Reich Minister of Justice. However, I have never dealt with Brandt at all in the whole matter, neither before the action or after the action, and I have only discussed with him a long time after the action, when I was a prisoner together with him at Mandorf, in Luxembourg, in 1945. However, I knew that the authority was in the name of Bouhler and Brandt.
DR. SERVATIUS: May it please the Tribunal, I do not have any more questions to put to the witness.
DR. FROESCHMANN: (Defense counsel for Defendant Viktor Brack): Mr. President, I want to ask the witness a number of questions. However, I believe that the time would now be appropriate to call a recess.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 7 February 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, the Defendant Oberheuser asks the Tribunal, in consideration of her status now, to be excused again today at 3 o'clock.
THE PRESIDENT: Upon request of Defendant Oberheuser extended through her counsel, the defendant may be excused from attendance in the court for reasons of her health at 3 o'clock this afternoon.
Counsel may proceed with the examination of the witness.
HANS HEINRICH LAMMERS -- Resumed.
EXAMINATION BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Witness, you were Chief of the Reichs chancellery?
A. Yes.
Q. As such you had opportunity to meet high personalities of the former German Government--at least part of them?
A. At least part of them.
Q. Do you know Martin Bormann?
A. Yes.
Q. What position did Bormann hold?
A. He was at the end, head of the Parteikanzlei, after Minister Hess left in '41.
Q. I merely want to have this cleared up for the information of the Tribunal. Martin Bormann was a personality who will play an important role in the course of this trial. Fitness, I should like to ask you what kind of a person was Martin Bormann?
A. That is very difficult to say in a few sentences. Please, make this question a little more concrete.
Q. What character traits were predominant in the thinking and actions of Martin Bormann?
A. After I had been mistaken about his character I finally reached the conclusion that he was a very subtle and hypocritical character who was able to mask his true intentions skillfully.
Q. Was Martin Bormann a man who tried to concentrate as much power as possible in himself?
A. He actually did attempt to do that. He always denied it, he always said that he wanted nothing loss than power. But on the basis of my knowledge of developments of which I learned to a large extent only after the collapse in 1945, I came to the conviction that he actually tried to obtain a certain power and tried to eliminate other people in his field. In particular, I had the experience that he tried.
Q. Please speak a little more slowly, witness.
A. I was convinced that he tried to take away as much power as possible from me since I was a state agent from which he believed that he was constantly receiving opposition in his actions. This position which I might have had he constantly tried to undermine, especially by having himself appointed Secretary of the Fuehrer and as such became active in the state sector too.
Q. Witness, are you aware that Martin Bormann was filled with ardent hatred of Jews?
A. He did not emphasize it when speaking to me but I am convinced that he was an opponent of the Jews.
Q. Witness, do you agree with my opinion that Adolph Hitler, under the influence of Bormann in the years 43 and 44, made and partly realized these plans to evacuate and exterminate Jews in Europe?
A. Yes, those were things which I as a witness under oath, testifying to facts, those are things about which I can say nothing.
Q. Witness, do you have any indications, any reasons to share this opinion which I have just expressed?
A. At the moment I could not give any indication.
Q. Did you have the impression, witness, that Hitler was under the influence of Bormann?
A. In my opinion Bormann's influence on Hilter was rather great, exactly how great it was I am not able to judge. Those are subjective things that happened to Bormann and Hitler about which I can say nothing as a witness.
Q. Then you will not be able to answer the question whether Martin Bormann was Adolph Hitler's evil spirit.
A. That was as a personal opinion which I would like to affirm, but that is only a subjective feeling, intuitive feeling which I cannot prove by any concrete facts.
Q. Do you I now Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich who was murdered?
A. Yes, I knew Heydrich.
Q. Was Heydrich also a person like Bormann who was striving for power?
A. In my opinion Heydrich was to a much greater degree even, and it was expressed much more openly.
Q. Did Heydrich influence the Reichfuehrer SS Himmler strongly? Do you know anything about that?
A. He certainly had an influence on him but I cannot give any concrete facts about these things.
Q Now, witness, what was the relationship between Martin Bormann and Reichsleiter Bounler?
A I believe it was rather loose, they did not see each other often and they were in a sense rivals. The agency of the Reichsleiter Bouhler which was called the Chancellery of the Fuehrer of the NSDAP was a party organization. In addition to the Party Chancellery, there were certain organizations, and I know there was strong friction between Bouhler and Bormann, because Bormann wanted to control matters himself?
Q Witness, did you learn that Martin Bormann did not approve of Bouhler' s so-called weak attitude on Jewish questions?
A I never talked to Bouhler about it and I did not hear about it.
Q Did Dr. Conti belong to Bormann's staff?
AAs far as I know, no. He was under the Reichs Ministry of the Interior, also he was an honorary officer in the SS - I must correct myself, he was later made subordinate to Bormann by being made legal health leader in the party sector.
Q Witness, do you know anything about the fact that Adolf Hitler, before the events which you discussed this morning, gave the assignment to Bouhler to introduce Euthanasia?
A I can say nothing about that formally, but today I am convinced that the powers which were given to Brandt and Bouhler bear a different date --
Q I will come back to that witness.
A Than the date of the signature.
Q I merely wanted to ask you when in the summer of 1939, or in August 1939, Adolf Hitler might have given Reichsleiter Bouhler the assignment to introduce Euthanasia for uncurably insane persons.
A I know nothing about that.
Q Do you know that Martin Bormann heard about this and tried to appropriate these Euthanasia measures?
A I do not know anything about that either.
Q Then you do not know either that Martin Bormann suggested to Hitler that he assign this to Dr. Conti.
A No, I do not know about that either.
Q You probably do not know that Conti did not want this assignment and then the situation became as was described?
A I can only say that Conti told him the assignment had been taken away from him.
Q Witness, I shall show you Document 630-PS, Exhibit 330. That is the decree of Hitler of September 1, 1939, which I need not read again as it has been mentioned several times. Please read through this decree witness. What do you consider the legal character of this statement of Adolf Hitler?
A If I may express myself generally, I can only say that in this extreme form it does not correspond to the form which was customary for state decrees.
Q Did Adolf Hitler issue many such important decrees in such form?
A In individual cases, but I believe there were only a few cases. The Fuehrer did not like to worry about external forms, sometimes he used this form when it was not submitted by an expert but that happened very seldom.
Q Now, witness, what did you do when such significant instructions from Adolf Hitler came to your attention and they were not in the correct form?
A That happened very seldom, only once or twice. If such a decree in this form was submitted to me, because I also had to sign it, then I adjusted the form to what was customary for a state decree; that is I crossed out Adolf Hitler and at the bottom above the name Hitler, I wrote The Fuehrer or the Fuehrer, Reichs Chancellor, or I changed it at the top and I wrote the Fuehrer or Reichs Chancellor and that was changed in the course of time. Then, I put the Reich seal on such decrees and since I had to certify these statements of the Fuehrer, I signed them.
Q Witness, now this statement of Adolf Hitler of September 1, 1939; did you ever see it?
A I believe I saw a copy or the original; I do not know. For the first time when the Reichs Minister of Justice Dr. Gurtner, at the end of 1940 or the beginning of 1941, visited me, as I testified before, and talked to me about what was to be done about the information received, that was the first time I had seen it.
It did not go through my hands, but today I cannot say with certainty whether I saw the original or whether I saw a copy.
Q Witness, you just said that a person who did not have the necessary specialized information could not find any objections to the form of such statements of Adolf Hitler; is that true?
A Yes, it happened that if Minister Speer submitted something in a form which was not correct, if it came to my hands I corrected the form. The Fuehrer himself did not think it was very important, if something was shown to him, he thought it must be right and he signed it.
Q Witness, I asked you before what you consider the legal character of this statement of Adolf Hitler without consideration of the form; please answer this question.
A That is a question which is very difficult to answer, it is debatable. I said before expressedly that I explained to the Reichs Minister of Justice that I considered a law necessary. I did not consider this enough, but the Reich Minster of Justice Dr. Gurtner was apparently of the opinion that this was a valid order from the Fuehrer, that is a law, consequently, he stopped the proceedings.
Q Witness, if outstanding jurists were of the opinion that this decree of Hitler was a fully valid legal decree, that it had the value of a law, then persons without legal training certainly had to think that this decree was a fully valid law?
MR. McHANEY: Just a minute, please. I must object to the question and I ask that it be stricken. I know of no testimony in the record which gives the opinion of any great legal experts that this was a valid law and I don't think that the question can be put to him in that form. He has been asked for his opinion and he has given his opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection of the Prosecution will be sustained. The matter is not pertinent to the question in its present condition and the answer insofar as it has been made will be stricken.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q Witness, this morning you spole of a meeting between you and Reichsleiter Bouhler in 1940; do you know whether Reichsleiter Bouhler in May or June of 1940 visited Adolf Hitler in order to ask him that he be relieved of his duties as head of the Chancellery?
A No, I do not remember that.
Q I have no further questions, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further examination of this witness by the defense counsel?
(No reply.)
Prosecution may proceed to cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q Dr. Lemmers, do you still have the three decrees, the Fuehrer decrees, concerning Karl Brandt's appointment as a General Commissioner before you?
A I do not have the decrees.
(Documents handed to witness.)
Q Witness, you say that Dr. Karl Brandt was authorized to issue instructions within the medical field of his special tasks. Now, these tasks have not been defined. Do you know what these special tasks were?
A This morning I said that the contents and extent of the special tasks were not known to me in detail; that I only know that they were in fields of economics and science which had some connection with the medical and health service; for example, in obtaning drugs, other medical supplies, and similar things and in scientific research in the field of war injuries. That is what I know about it. I did not concern myself with the details, and I had no interest in tho details of Dr. Brandt's special assignment.
Q Now, Doctor, will you kindly lock at the first section of the July decree of 1942 and which you aided in the drafting thereof concerning the powers given to the chief of the medical services of the Wehrmacht; namely, Dr. Handloser, and will you tell us what powers as a practical matter did this first decree give to Handlower?
A Paragraph 2 of Number 1 says about Handloser's tasks. "The Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht is to represent the Wehrmacht before the civilian authorities in all comman medical problems arising in the various branches of the Wehrmacht, the Waffen SS and organizations and; units subordinate or attached to the Wehrmacht, and will protect the interests of the Wehrmacht in all medical measures taken be the civilian authorities." This defines the task of Handloser.
Q Could you tell us as a practical matter what powers Handloser received from this language you have just read to us?
A He represents the Wehrmacht as chief. He negotiated with Mr. Conti on the civilian side and also with Mr. Brandt as far as Brandt had any special assignments.
Q Did he have any powers over the other sectors, such as the medical services, the Army, the Luf***waffe, the Navy and the Waffen SS?
A The powers of the chief of the Wehrmacht medical service I don't know in detail. They are set down in other administrative regulations, not only here. They are all the powers which the head of the Wehrmacht medical service had. They were not repealed by this. They were only mentioned here in a certain direction for the purpose of this decree to coordinate military and civilian health services.
Q Now, witness, as I understand it you were chief of the Reich Chancellery. Now, in that position you were considered to be a so-called link between the Fuehrer and all the Reich ministers, is that correct?
A Yes, unless there were express exceptions.
Q Now, isn't it true that your duties dealt mostly with the legislation of now laws?
A No, only with formally directing this legislation. I did. not oven formulate new laws. I only directed the course of the legislation; that is, bills which came from ministers or other officers I turned over to the proper authorities. I received objections and negotiated, and finally some law or some regulation was agreed upon and then I edited that. I was not the legal authority for all questions by any means. I was only in charge of formal things, of the procedure of legislation.
Q Well, now, in that connection for the benefit of the Tribunal will you kindly outline what requirements had to be met in order to promulgate a valid law; that is, did it require a vote of a governing body? Did it need to be duly published on tine official law journal, the Reichgesctzblatt, and all other details necessary to validate any such law?
A If a laws was to be issued, the draft had to be given to all members of the government, to all the Reich ministers, with a certain time limit.
A stamp was put on it which said if until such and such a date -it was cried of two or three weeks, sometimes longer, sometimes less -if there has been no objection by this thee this will be considered approval. As sessions of the Reich Cabinet took place only until 1937 then such things were still discussed, orally. After 1937 there was only a written procedure, and this ended with elimination of certain objections and then approval of agreement on the law.
If one could assume that there was no objection by the ministers then I got the signatures of the ministers concerned, not all of them, and then I gave it to the Fuehrer for his signature. If there were still objections these objections were decided by the Fuehrer, or it was said we had to work on it some more until the objections had been eliminated. And if it was a law it had to be done on this way and then published in the Reichgesetzblatt.
Q Now, Doctor, you have stated that you participated in the drafting of the proposed euthanasia law. Will you tell us what this draft contained, what requirements must be met before the execution of the program would have taken place?
A I can tell you approximately the contents of my draft. First, it was said that under certain conditions the life unworthy to live of German insane persons can be removed. The, as I had intended it---these were only my ideas--then there was to be a provision that the severe diseases were listed from the medical point of view. A paragraph was to be added establishing general exceptions. As I already said this morning insane persons who had became insane through injuries in war were to be excepted; also these who had contracted the disease in public service, also senility; also a number were left open because that was primarily a medical question.
Then careful observation was provided with consideration of the purpose. I had set this observation for one year. It was variable. Then the interests of the person concerned were to be preserved, a special nurse was to be appointed; the relatives were to be questioned, the community was to be consulted and so forth.
And after the period of observation, a group of doctors and specialists, with a legal official presiding, was to decide. Since tie composition of this group varied, one could make various suggestions.
Then the type of election, of voting, was to be determined, and them an executing physician was to be chosen. In my opinion this doctor was to have the opportunity to observe the patient for three months, and if he believed that the decision of the board was not right he should have the case reviewed. There should be an appeal authority. Then there were a number of other questions of execution which I do not remember now, which were to have had to be settled if such a law was passed, so that actually only the most severe cases would be affected, and so that a decision in favor of death would be reached only if it was such a severe case that it seemed advisable to bring about death, if one in general holds the point of view that a mercy death is advisable.
Q Now, Doctor, it is true that your draft of this euthanasia law was never enacted or accepted. You had the intentions, of course, of having this law meet the requirements of all other proposed laws; that is go through the regular procedure and eventually resulting in publication in the Reichgesetzblatt. Is that a correct assumption?
A When I thought about this question, of course, I considered a problem which was not in the field of law and medicine but a problem which was more in the field of legal philosophy and ethics. The question -what are the limits of the power of the legislator -- that, in my opinion, was the basic question in whether or not to pass such a law. But I did not reach any decision on this basic question. I did not want to, I could not; and I did not have to. I was convinced that if this draft is submitted and distributed to all the Ministers -- this took fifty to sixty copies -- then the objection to this measure will be so strong that this measure will die of its own accord, at least will not be settled during war time and can be taken up only when a time comes that these problems can be investigated thoroughly. I was convinced that the objections to a draft would be so strong that the law would never have been passed.
MR. HARDY: Thank you, Doctor. I have no further questions, your Honors.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Witness, you were asked whether this was a formally valid law. You said that the customary requirements were not fulfilled. Are there other possibilities in addition to a law?
A. What the prosecutor asked me was only what in German jurisprudence we call a formal law, a law which has been passed by way of legislation, and one of these ways was a law passed by the Reich Government. Other ways were by passing a decree or a decree of the Fuehrer. The Fuehrer decree had been taken ever from the period of von Hindenburg. It was nothing new that had been established by the Fuehrer, and this Fuehrer decree was not passed in this formal way. No one had anything to with it except the ministers what were participating and they were only consulted.
Their approval was not necessary. The Fuehrer alone determined. And if the Fuehrer wanted a Fuehrer decree or if a minister wanted a Fuehrer decree, then I sent a draft of such a decree to the ministers concerned and asked for their opinion. It was sufficient if the ministers were consulted. whether they had objected, whether they had approved made no difference actually because the Fuehrer alone decided.
Q. Then the external form of a decree does not indicate that it was invalid?
A. That is, in my opinion, a doubtful question.
Q. You mentioned two cases before when these requirements were not necessary.
A. I produced them.
Q. The Minister of Justice considered it a legal decree?
A. The Minister of Justice considered it a legal Fuehrer order and a law. Otherwise he would not have stopped the proceedings.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions.
DR. NELTE: (Counsel for Handloser): Mr. President, through the questions asked by Mr. Hardy the question of number 1 of the decree of 1942 was brought up for the first time. Therefore, I ask that I may be allowed to ask a question on this number 1 which affects the Wehrmacht Medical Service.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may propound the question.
EXAMINATION BY DR. NELTE:
Q. Mr. Lammers, in the creation of the OKW on the 4th of February 1938; that is,when the powers of this OKW were formulate, you were present as chief of the Reich Chancellery?
A. Yes.
Q. Through the decree which has been shown to you of the 28th of July 1942 the organization of the OKW was supplemented by the creation of the office, chief of the Wehrmacht medical service; is that true?
A. When the chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service -- when this office was created I do not know.
Q. If you still have the decree before you, you will see it.
A. Here it says: "For the Wehrmacht I commission the medical inspector of the Army as chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service", and so forth.
Q. Then, through this decree he is empowered and thus the office is created?
A. Yes, it is possible. I did not draw up this decree. The chief of the OKW and others had this and examined it. I do not know whether the chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service existed before this or not. I cannot say. I don't know.
Q. Do you know the powers of the chief of the High Command of the Wehrmacht Keitel?
A. YES.
Q. You testified about that here in he big trial. Will you please tell the Tribunal whether the chief of the High Command of the Wehrmacht, Keitel, was the superior of the commanders-in-chief of the branches of the Wehrmacht?
A. The chief of the High Command of the Wehrmacht, Keitel, was not commander-in-chief of the branches of the Wehrmacht.
Q. Then Keitel could not give orders to Goering or Raeder or Doenitz?
A. They could issue orders in their own fields.
Q. I said Keitel could not give orders to the commanders-in-chief?
A. Keitel could not give any orders to the commanders-in-chief. He could only transmit orders from the Fuehrer to them, but that is true only of the military field for the pure command matters. As far as the chief of the OKW exercised the functions of a minister of war, then things were different.
Q. Handloser was within the OKW the subordinate of Keitel?
A. How -- what Handloser's military position was, I don't know. I don't know to whom he was subordinate.
Q. Then the internal conditions of the Wehrmacht Medical Service are completely unknown to you? You cannot express any opinion?
A. The organizational plans of the OKW -
Q. I was asking you whether you could express any opinion about the powers which Handloser had, from your own knowledge?
A. No.
DR. NELTE: Thank you. I have no further questions.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, Dr. Froeschmann for Viktor Brack. I have one question arising from the examination by the Prosecution. May I ask it?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may propound the question.
EXAMINATION BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q Witness, do you remember that at the end of 1940 or the beginning of '41 the Defendant Brack called on you at your office and that you told him about the draft of the law which you have just been discussing and that finally Brack asked you to give him this law?
A I cannot remember it, but I consider it possible that Brack called on me and that we discussed the draft of the law.
Q Witness, can you remember that this draft which was worked out by you was given to Reichsleiter Bouhler or the Fuehrer Chancellory?
A I do not know, but I consider it possible that I gave Brack or Bouhler a draft of this law, but it was a rough draft; I must state that expressly. It left quite a number of questions open.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q Dr. Lammers, will you kindly tell us what are the limits of validity of a Fuehrer Decree?
A From the legal point of view which had prevailed since 1933, the Fuehrer Decree had the same force as a law passed by the Reichsregierung or by the Reichstag.
Q Then, as I understand, your special decrees of the Fuehrer usually contained your name and the name of the particular minister and then duly published in the Reichgesetzblatt, is that right, such as these decrees conferring the authority as General Commission for Health and Sanitation on Karl Brandt?
A The Fuehrer Decrees were published in the Reichgesetzblatt on principle if they were to have full force as law, but there were Fuehrer Decrees which were not published in the Reichgesetzblatt because that did not seem necessary.
For example, all the organizational decrees about the occupied territories, none of them were published in the Reichgesetzblatt.
Q Well, those were usually decrees of an administrative nature, were they not?
A Yes, they were administrative organizational decrees.
Q Well, then, Dr. Lammers, if I have understood you correctly, it is your opinion that the Fuehrer letter of 1 September 1939 pertaining to the Euthanasia program was not a valid Fuehrer Decree, is that a correct presumption?
A I have already said that I would have considered a law necessary.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the witness is now being asked a legal question which it is the task of the Tribunal to decide. I do not believe that this question is admissable, and I ask that the answer be stricken from the record.
MR. HARDY: I submit, Your Honor, that the witness here is an expert on German law and I put the question to him was it his opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is overruled. The witness may state his opinion on the question propounded to him.
MR. HARDY: The witness has answered the question, your Honor. I have no further questions to put to this witness.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q Witness, you said that there were decrees which were not published. Was the reason for this secrecy?
A That was partially the reason.
Q These were decrees concerning the administration of the occupied territories, is that correct?
A They did not all have to be kept secret.
Q But it was the reason to keep the secret as far as possible.
A Yes, and also the fact that it did not affect the Reich territory.
Q Are there not also other decrees which were kept secret concerning the conduct of the war?
A It may be that there were such decrees.
Q I am thinking of the Reich defense laws.
A The Reich defense law was not published, and when I was examined here by the big Tribunal last year, I always called it an administrative order which was quite valid and permissible because the measures in the field of Reich defense did not require publication.
Q Then the usual form was deviated from?
A The law was not published.
Q And who ordered this violation of the form?
A The Fuehrer did not want this law published and it was not published.
Q Then I conclude that the Fuehrer had the right to determine deviations from the usual form?
A Yes. In the case of every law he could say, "I do not want it published," and then it was not published. It was only a question of whether it came into existence, as a law. It was certainly not a law if it was not published, a formal law, I understand, only a published law.
Q Witness, I am not speaking of formal laws. I am speaking of a decree You said that the form could be modified or changed at the discretion of the Fuehrer.
A No, not always. Normally the Fuehrer Decrees were published.
Q Normally, yes, but you yourself mentioned two cases where this form was changed.
A Well, then, the Fuehrer ordered that they should not be published.
Q And he had the power to do that?
A I assume that he did.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions.
DR. FROESCHMANN: MR. President, I ask that the ruling just made by the Tribunal be reviewed. I asked the witness whether the Fuehrer Decree of the 1st of September, 1939, could be understood as a decree by persons who were not legal experts, that is, the population in general. The Prosecutor objected to this question, and the objection was upheld by the Tribunal. Now the Prosecution for the same reason has asked the witness about the significance of these decrees.