From Pages 180 through 188 of the English book, 182 to 189 in the German book Document NG-419 has previously been admitted as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 127. We will pass that.
THE PRESIDENT: You give that no separate exhibit number at this time then?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I don't offer to, Your Honor, because it is in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the exhibit number?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The former was 127.
On Pages 189 to 198 is Document NG-686x; that is 198 to 191 in the German book. That consists of a letter from Dr. Meissner to the defendant Schlegelberger, dated 13 of March 1942. I'd like to read two short excerpts. On Page 189, 190 of the German, I read this -this is about the second sentence in the English:
"I personally share your opinion that the Fuehrer's decision of September 1940 has become obsolete in the meantime and that there exist how no longer any fundamental objections against the execution of pronounced death sentences."
Then there is a notation on Page 190 which is self-explanatory, but I ask the Court to pay particular attention to it in reading the exhibit. I conclude that it is a notation made by the recipient of the letter. I may be wrong.
The prosecution offers as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 363, the Document NG-686.
DR. BEHLING: Behling for the defendant Schlegelberger. In the case of this document, we are concerned with a copy of a letter from Meissner addressed to the defendant Schlegelberger. It cannot be seen whether this letter ever was at all sent, and beyond that there is a discrepancy between the German document book and the photostatic copy which I have before me. In the German document book, in the case of the second document, there is an address on the top addressed to UnderSecretary Dr. Schlegelberger. That is not in the photostatic copy.
Whether that address is also in the English document book, I cannot see at the moment. Besides, it cannot be seen by whom and to whom the information on Page 2 is directed; that is to say, by whom it was written. Since this document, therefore, has no probative value, I object to its admission.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, there is one thing that I would like to inquire about at this time -- purely for my own information and not for the purpose of making any charge of bad faith against any one -- but I'd like to know: we have been advised in the Prosecution's office that Defense Center is getting two photostatic copies of the documents as part of the distribution. I'd like to inquire whether that is a fact.
JUDGE BRAND: Wouldn't the proper place to ascertain that be from the Defense Information Center? It may be there, as has been the case previously, and yet counsel may not have had it.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I don't say that this is conclusive, but I'd like to know what they find. Second, with reference to the discrepancy between the English document book and the German document book, I don't know what address Dr. Behling is speaking of, but at the bottom of the photostatic copy where it appears in the English --(Dr. Behling presents book to Mr. La Follette) -- it is addressed only in the German book. It was there transcribed at the top, and in the English book at the bottom. It is on the photostat.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection, therefore, as made will be overruled.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The document may be admitted as Exhibit No. 363.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Document No. NG-189 is found at Pages 191 and 192.
THE PRESIDENT: You said "189"; it should be "198."
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I beg your pardon. On Pages 191 and 192 of the English book and 192 to 193 in the German book, there is a letter dated November 5, 1942 from Freisler to Thierack having to do with the administration of German justice in the Protectorate, and a discussion which Thierack had with SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Daluege, who happens also to be the active Reich Prosecutor.
The Prosecution offers as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 364, Document NG-198.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Document NG-356 runs from Pages 193 to 202 of this document book and has been previously admitted as Exhibit No. 184.
Before I go any further with this Document NG-683, I very frankly state to the Tribunal that it does not contain the signature of the defendant Lautz. It shows on its face that it is a copy of a letter addressed to the Chief Public Prosecutor of the People's Court, 3 of October 1942, to the Reich Ministry of Justice in Berlin. It has the same form of certificate as the Document 682; that is, a certificate by the keeper of the Document Center at OCC. There is, of course, this difference: that this document -- the photostat -- shows that it's a copy from the Chief Public Prosecutor of the People's Court to the Reich Ministry of Justice. There is evidence in this record to show that the date shown on the document -- 3rd of October 1942 -- is when the defendant Lautz occupied that position. I shall offer the document, pointing out those exceptions. If Dr. Grube wishes to make an objection, I think I will wait for him to make it now before I make any comment on this document.
DR. GRUBE: (Attorney for defendant Lautz) May it please the Tribunal, as such, I do not have any objection against the submission of this document, but I ask the Tribunal to make the reservation, as has been decided before, by which the document will not be used as evidence against the defendant Lautz, because it cannot be seen from the document that he was the author of this report.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If the report was made by subordinates in his office, it was still made by the defendant Lautz. It is true that there is no copy of his signature, but as submitted in other documents, which were copies originating in his office, they were considered as having probative value.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is not tenable.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I offer this Document, NG-683, as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 365.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be admitted in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Document NG-318 contains the signature of Westphal; dated Berlin, 8 August, 1942; and has to do with the argument that was going on at that time as to who was to dispose of the executed Poles who were charged with political crimes; and who was to dispose of the bodies of those who were not criminal prisoners. This seemed to be a matter of great importance -- this disposition of corpses. Nothing is said about how the men got to be corpses, but that wasn't any concern here. There is a reference in here to the fact that the defendant Joel telephoned a request of Westphal to SS Gruppenfuehrer Mueller and General von Bomhard. The Prosecution offers as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 366 the Document NG-318.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Document NG-329, if your Honors please, is the last document in Book V-C, found at page 209 of the English text and pages 212 to 213 in the German; This is dated Berlin, 27 August, 1942, and is sent to Ministerialrat Joel for information; and again, it treats with this matter of disposition of corpses -- which seemed to be piling up quite a bit.
I would like to read from page 210 of the English book, which apparently begins at the bottom of page 212 of the German. "I should appreciate it if only one authority, as far as possible with the superior state police office, would be entrusted with this task. A separation of Polish criminals into political and non-political culprits can hardly be carried out. The penal law for Poles being a political law, which serves the political pacification of the Eastern territories, all condemned ought to be considered more or less as political criminals."
Then skipping down now to the last paragraph. There is a sentence with reference to the RSHA; it is the last sentence in the document. "The Reich Main security Office has ordered the superior state police office in Posen, upon my request, to accept, for the time being, the corpses of the executed and condemned as before, until a definite settlement of the question of competence."
I attach some significance to this over-whelming importance of the competence of who is to dispose of the corpses. The Prosecution offers as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 367, the Document NG-329.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, Miss Arbuthnot will continue the presentation of the Prosecution's case from Book V-D.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: If your Honors please, the first document in Book V-D is document NG-300, which is pages 211 through 218 of the English and 214 through 226 of the German. This is a letter together with minutes of a conference and a draft of a decree in connection with the legal status of Jews. The conference -
THE PRESIDENT: We don't have your page -
MISS ARBUTHNOT: It is the first document in Book V-D, page 211.
JUDGE BRANDT: We don't have that; we were not told to bring that book this morning; we brought Book V-B.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: I think perhaps we could wait a few moments while we get the book.
JUDGE BRANDT: You are all through with Book V-C, are you not?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor; I may be required to come back to it, but other than that, I am through with it. We are through with V-B, too.
THE PRESIDENT: Did I understand you to say you were also through with V-B?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: We finished V-B yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: Thank you. Beginning again with the identification of NG-300, which is the first document in the book, pages 211 through 218 of the English and 214 through 226 of the German. This is a letter, together with minutes of a conference and a draft of a decree in connection with the legal status of Jews. The conference was held on January 15, 1941, and attended by officials of the Ministry of Justice, who it was reported reserved their attitude on several questions until further discussion with the Minister; Schlegelberger became Acting Minister of Justice in the latter part of January 1941. On page 211, the middle of the first paragraph, we find the statement that the "Minister of the Interior, in agreement with the chief parties concerned, suggests now that all Jews of German citizenship, no matter whether they emigrated or not, are to be declared as stateless."
The second paragraph, on the same page, says:"In connection with this question a draft was discussed, which provides that the property of those Jews, who live abroad and who became stateless, should be confiscated by the Reich."
On page 212 the first full paragraph:
"The chairman points out that a distinction between persons of German citizenship according to racial or national points of view had not been known in Germany prior to the issuance of the Nuremberg laws. The Nuremberg laws created the term 'Reich citizen' for those citizens who had full rights, and provided that only citizens of German or related blood could become 'Reich citizens', but not Jews and persons who were not Jewish but of other than German blood."
At the bottom of that page in speaking of members of the protectorate; in the middle of the paragraph we find the statement that:
"If, however, those persons who cannot change their nationality but are foreign nationals of related blood should be made mere protegees, and thereby be excluded from German citizenship then it would be impossible to have the Jews who are not of related blood, retain the German citizenship."
On page 213 -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Before you pass this point, we note that you made the statement that Schlegelberger came into office the latter part of January, but this conference was held the 15th of January.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: Yes, that is true, however, at several points in this document it states that the representatives participating for the Reich Ministry of Justice reserved their opinions on this matter for further conferences with their superiors in the Reich Ministry. Therefore, I presume that this matter was a continuring matter, and since Schlegelberger came into office immediately after this conference that he had knowledge of it.
On page 213, at the top of the page, we find the statement that:
"Therefore the Reich Ministry of the Interior suggests, and hereby withdraws the earlier drafts, to takeaway the citizenship from all Jews of German nationality, no matter whether they live in Germany or abroad, and to declare them as stateless persons. Excepted from the loss cf German citizenship should be only those Jews who live in a privileged mixed marriage."
On pages 217 and 218 we find the draft of the decree concerning the property of Jews living abroad who have lost their German citizenship, and this decree makes provisions concerning confiscation of property of Jews.
Document NG 300 is offered as Exhibit 368.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: The next document is NG 424. This appears on page 219 through 221 of the English and 227 through 229 of the German. This is a letter dated 31 July 1942 from the Foreign Office to the Reich Ministry of Justice, together with a note from the Ministry of Justice dated 15 August 1942 concerning the methods to be used in the confiscation of Jewish property abroad, and in connection with foreign Jewish property in the Reich. This correspondence was also during Schlegelberger's term of office.
NG 424 is offered as exhibit 369.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: The next document which is NG 616 appears on pages 222 through 239 of the English and pages 230 through 249 of the German. This is a report by the defendant Joel, at that time Chief Public Prosecutor. The report being made in February of 1939 from Nuernberg. This report was made:
"Measures for the aryanization of Jewish real estate, with particular cooperation of Notaries Public and the Magistrates in charge of Land Registry in Nuernberg and Nuernberg-Fuerth."
The manner in which such transactions are carried out is discussed generally in this report and specific examples are given. At the bottom of page 225 in the English, and page 234 in the German we find:
"In the meantime the aryanization in Fuerth was handled in the following way: SA men would pick up Jews, town councillor party-comrader Sandreuter and the leader of the vocational group of the province of the German Labor Front Nagel would negotiate with them in the town hall, while the notaries public Kleim and Maier were busy in another room of the town hall where the Jews were seen brought before them.
Sales were effected by entering 10% of the legal assessed value as the purchasing price while mortgages were redeemed and the costs had to be paid by the Jews themselves. Later they proceeded also to aryanize mortgages, that is, the Jews received 10% of the mortgages value as a compensation for the cession. Subsequent reductions in the purchasing prices also occurred. This happened in the case of purchasing contracts which had been drawn up before 9 November 1938, but which had not yet been legalized in the Lend Register. Even in deeds which had already been legally entered in the Land Register such reductions of purchasing prices occurred."
On pages 228 and on 235, we find statements to the effect that the defendant Schlegelberger has no scruples against the legalization of the instrument by the Land Registry, and the activities of the Land Registry of Fuerth are therefore approved by the competent authorities.
Attached to Joel's report are copies of letters written by authorities in Fuerth. One cf these letters appearing on page 232 cf the English book, and 240 of the German book -- in the third paragraph we find the statement that:
"The contracts submitted have the outward form of purchasing contracts with conveyance. In view of their fixed purchasing prices and of the accompanying circumstances, their essential nature, is however, that of a forced expropriation, carried through either without or only with slight compensation. The legal judgment of these contracts can, of course, not be made on common civil law principles, the contracts being legal acts which, as a result of the sovereignty of the Party, are not subject to control by regular authorities."
JUDGE BRAND: What pages were you reading, please?
MISS ARBUTHNOT: On page 234. In the fourth paragraph we find:
"Notary Public Dr. Keim in Fuerth, Bavaria, and public notary inspector Hoffman acting with notary public Dr. Maier in Fuerth, Bavaria, have announced that even instruments will be submitted for preliminary entry, which do not contain the consent of all Jewish co-owners in the case of existing co-ownership.
Allegedly these are cases in which the co-owners are living abroad or out of town and therefore the coowners accessible in Fuerth did not produce the corresponding powers of attorney. It is hoped by the appropriate authorities, that the co-owners abroad will send the corresponding powers of attorney later to the co-owners here simply out of concern for their fate. The preliminary entrees shall be made now and the submission of the powers of attorney or the consent shall not be waited for."
The last report in the file of this document which appears on page 237, is a description of the negotiations and sale of Jewish property to SA Oberfuehrer Koenig, and subsequent resale of that property on which Koenig made a neat profit of 75000 marks.
THE PRESIDENT: On what paragraph on page 237 do you find that?
MISS ARBUTHNOT: Page 237 is a report concerning the negotiations and sale of the property.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but you stated on that page there was reference to a transaction involving 75000 mark profit. In what paragraph do you find that?
MISS ARBUTHNOT: You will find reference to the 75000 mark profit on page 239. It is still in the same report at the end of the first full paragraph.
DR. FRETTERSDORF: (for defendant Joel): May it please the Tribunal: The Document is probably not to be understood without further explanation. The prosecution has stated that it came from the defendant Joel, who, at the time, was Chief Prosecutor. The defendant Dr. Joel was at that time in the Ministry of Justice and had the rank, the position, of a Chief Prosecutor. He was sent by the Ministry of Justice in 1939 to Nurnberg in order to investigate the irregularities in cases of corruption and to report to the Ministry about these cases, about cases which had occurred concerning non-Aryan property, and its handling by Party Offices. The Document which has just been presented by the prosecution is the report of investigation by the defendant Joel to the Ministry of Justice. The defendant Joel included in this report of investigation, the reports from the Nurnberg Real Estate court official.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: Document NG-616 is offered as Exhibit 370.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: The next Document, 1643-PS, appears on pages 240 through 263 of the English; and 250 through 281 of the German. This is a file containing correspondence, and so forth, concerning establishment of the District Auschwitz, and the selection of allocated property to be excluded from the bulk confiscation of land from the Main Trusteeship Office East for purposes of the Waffen-SS at Auschwitz. Copies of two of these letters were submitted to the Ministry of Justice. On page 243, after a listing of the types of property which will be confiscated, near the middle of the paragraph under the number 6, we find the statement:
"It has to be considered that it is impossible to find out under which jurisdiction each one of these many thousand lots come. The Reich Minister of Justice fortunately has already taken into account this fact why his directive of 23 May 1943 concerning the establishment of land registers in the districts of Auschwitz and Kronau by which it is made possible to open a new land register in simplified form for the greater part of the land registry communities within the sphere of interest of the concentration camp Auschwitz.
It remains only to enlarge this decree accordingly."
The directive to which reference is made here as having been issued on the 23rd of May 1942 was a directive issued during the time the defendant Schlegelberger was in office.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE BRAND): Could you tell me the date of this letter on the first page? It is not legible in my copy. 29 November -
MISS ARBUTHNOT: 1942, I believe is the date of that.
THE TRIBUNE (JUDGE BRAND): Thank you.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: Document 1643-PS is offered as Exhibit 371.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: The next document, which is NG-589, appears on pages 264 through 271 of the English Book; and pages 282 through 289 of the German. This is a file on correspondence concerning the withdrawal at the direction of the defendant Rothenberger of the benefits of the forma pauperis law granted to a Jewish plaintiff.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say 589?
MISS ARBUTHNOT: Document No. 589, at page 264, beginning on 264; at the bottom of page 264, the last paragraph, we find in an excerpt from the documents concerning this case, the statement that;
"In a lawsuit between a German national and a Jew, I consider the settling of a dispute by a compromise settlement in court, inadmissible for political reasons. The German national as party in the lawsuit, pursuant to his clearly defined legal standard derived from his political schooling since 1933, can expect that the court will decide the case by a judgment, that is, take a conclusive attitude towards the dispute on hand. What is expected is a decision which was arrived at not from purely legal points of view, as a result of a legal train of thoughts, but which is an expression of the way in which national socialist demands concerning the Jewish question are realized by German administrators of justice.
Evading this decision by a compromise might mean encroaching upon the rights of a fellow-citizen in favor of a Jew. This kind of settlement would be in contradiction to the sound sentiments of the people. I therefore consider it as inadmissible."
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE BRAND): May I interrupt you again, please.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE BRAND): I take it from your reading of the second line of the paragraph that you just read, that the English Document Book is not a correct translation? The Document Book refers to the settling of a dispute "by legal measures" -- should that be changed?
MISS ARBUTHNOT: I think that it should, your Honor; the corrected copy of the book which I have deletes "legal measures" and inserts the words, "a compromise settlement in court".
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE BRAND): Thank you.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: On page 266 of this document, which is page 284 in the German Book, is a letter signed by the defendant Rothenberger, dated February 13, 1942. This letter states:
"With regard to the pending case Prenzlau against Behrens and Lundin I do not intend to approach the Economic advisor of the Gau for the time being, seeing from the documents that the ultimate beneficiary of the claim, the son of the plaintiff, emigrated in the year 1938 and his property therefore surely confiscated. I fail to understand why the court granted forma pauperis rights to the assignee, a Jew, without first consulting the authority for sequestration of property. The cession most probably will be meaningless as it was transferred in trusteeship by the son to the father shortly before his emigration."
The remark or note appearing on page 267 of the English refers to "The Senator". This reference is to the defendant Rothenberger.
On page 270, which is 289 in the German, we find another letter signed by Rothenberger, returning the documents to the president of the District Court at Hamburg. In this letter Rothenberger states:
"With his circular ordinance of 5 March 1942, with which you are familiar, the Reich Minister of Justice has annulled his circular ordinance of 23 June 1939, stating that the granting of the forma pauperis right to Jews could be taken into consideration only in such cases where the carrying out of the lawsuit is in the common interest. In consequence therefore I consider it adequate that the forma pauperis right granted to plaintiff Prenzlau be cancelled.
"Please have this taken into consideration by the court in a form which you deem appropriate."
The Circular ordinance which is referred to here, is dated 5 March 1942, which was issued while the defendant Schlegelberger was in office.
NG-589 is offered as Exhibit 372.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence. The time has arrived for our morning recess, so we will therefore take a recess at this time for fifteen minutes.
( A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. DOETZER (Counsel for Defendant Rothenberger): May it please the court, I ask you to excuse me for not having immediately stated my position inregard to the reading of the document, Exhibit No. 372.
During the recess, since the translation came through very badly, I tried with the help of the German court reporter, to examine the statements of the prosecution. Since in the German transcript too, the statements of the prosecution, were recorded only incompletely, I ask you, in regard to the statements of the Prosecution were recorded only incompletely, I ask you, in regard to the statements of the Prosecution, to be allowed to make the following statement:
Insofar as I understood it, the statements of the Prosecution at the beginning of the document under discussion here referred to point of view the defendant Rothenberger is supposed to have uttered. From the excerpt on the first page of this document, however it seems to be apparent without any doubt that the parts which the Prosecution read were not statements made by Rothenberger but opinion which the Gauwirtschaftsberater, the Gau Economic advisor, represented. Under the special circumstances I believe that I have to make this statement.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: The counsel for the defense is correct in that the statement is contained in documents which have other references to Rothenberger and which were in the possession of Rothenberger, inasmuch as he made references to the files in that case.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed with the document.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: The next document, for purposes of maintaining continuity in subject matter , I would like to refer you to NG 392, which appears on Pages 331 through 334 of the English book and 351 through 356 of the German. This is a letter from the defendant Rothennberger to the defendant Schlegelberger, dated 5 January 1942, which states, among other things, on page 333 under the Roman numeral VII, We find the statement:
" The Lower Courts do not grant to Jews the right to participate in court proceedings in form pauperis. The district court suspended such a decision in one case. The refusal to grant this right of participation in court proceedings in form pauperis is in accordance with todays legal thinking. But since a direct legal basis is missing the refusal is unsuitable. We therefore think it urgently necessary that a legal regulation or order is given, on the basis of which the rights of a pauper can be denied to a Jew."
On page 334 of the English book you will note that there has been a typographical error, in that the signature on the page appears as Schlegelberger. This should be Rothenberger. Inasmuch as the letter was addressed to the defendant Schlegelberger, it is an obvious error.
Document NG 392 is offered as Exhibit 373.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be admitted in evidence.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: We now turn back to page 272 of the English and 290 of the German. This is document NG 081, which is the Gestapo indictment against general Elias, the prime Minister of Czechoslovakia, for preparation of high treason, for favoring a hostile power, during the war, or inflicting damage. Document NG 081 is the Gestapo indictment against general Elias, the prime Minister of Czechoslovakia, for preparation of high treason, for favoring a hostile power during a war, and for failing to inform the authorities of plans of high treason. The indictment is dated 29 September, 1941, this document will be later linked with various defendants, There is no reference in the document itself to any of the defendants here, but by later argument it will be linked to them. I would like to offer NG 081 as Exhibit 374.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: The next document NG-147 which appears on Pages 280 through 322 of the English, and Pages 301 through 341 of the German, is a copy of the verdict rendered in the case against Prime Minister Elias by the People's Court on the first of October 1941. Elias was sentenced to death for favoring the enemy and for making preparations for high treason and was deprived of his civil rights. His property was confiscated and he was charged the cost of the trial. It will be seen from the document that the trial of General Elias was held in Prague, Czechoslovakia. None of the defendants here are mentioned in this document; however they will be later linked with it.
DR. DOETZER: Dr. Doetzer for the defendant Nebelung. With reference to the reasons for the submission of this document, the prosecution has explained that later on some of the defendants will he linked with this document. I believe that it would be appropriate if already at this time the prosecution would state to which ones of the defendants this document will be linked.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: The prosecution docs not desire to make such a statement at this time. However, we assure the Court that the document will be linked with the defendants by later argument and documents.
THE PRESIDENT: To make any order of that kind by the Tribunal would be an interference of the order of truth and therefore we will leave it to the discretion of the prosecution.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: The Document NG-147 is offered as Exhibit 375.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be admitted in evidence.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: The next document which is NG-767 appearing on Pages 323 through 328 of the English book and Pages 342 through 348 of the German, is a letter from the Ministry of Justice dated January 20, 1939, with respect to the application of the law for the protection of the German blood and the German honor in the Sudeten-German territories. The letter gives instructions with regard to the application of this law; reports to the Ministry are necessary; also it shows the necessity for agreement of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of the Interior if penal proceedings are directed against a foreign citizen.
It also discusses proceedings against women for race defilement, and the necessity for forwarding to the state police copies of verdicts of the sentence when it is passed and the date of the release of a prisoner. Although it is not here stated in this document what the purpose of notifying the police of the date of release of a prisoner was, we find in other documents, particularly 701-PS, which was Exhibit 268 from Book IV-A, that the purpose of such notification was in order to allow the police to pick up a released prisoner for further confinement in concentration camps.
On Page 326 of the English book, we find that a copy of this letter was submitted to the Chief Public Prosecution, Klemm, and on Page 327, we find that it was to be circulated in Departments III, III-A, and III-B. Underneath, in the first column near the bottom of the page, we find: Dr. Joel -- initialed by him; further down, we find: Klemm -- and his initial. In the second column, we find: Dr. Mettgenberg and his initial.
Document NG-767 is offered as Exhibit 376.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: The last exhibit in Book V-D is Document NG-766, which appears on Pages 328 of the English and 349 of the German. This is a letter to the Ministry of Justice from the Attorney-General at Posen, dated December 11, 1931, concerning proceedings in cases of race defilement. The letter reads:
"In the course of legal practice some doubts have arisen as to whether and to what extent illegitimate intercourse between Jews and residents of German or kindred blood in the occupied Eastern territories is punishable.
"According to Paragraph 2.5 of the Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor, punishment for 'racial disgrace' is based on the supposition that the person of German blood is a 'German Citizen.'
Regarding the citizenship of the residents of German or kindred blood in the occupied Eastern territories, Paragraph 6 of the Decree by the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor of 6 October 1939, says that they will become German citizens 'according to regulations which are to be issued.'
"These regulations, however, have not yet been issued to the intended extent. Solely for the acquisition of German Citizenship by foreigners of German descent, the Minister of the Interior issued a decree of 25 November 1939. According to this regulation, foreigners of German descent (including next of kin to be specified) who up to 1 September 1939 possessed citizenship of Danzig became German citizens on this date. The others who up to 26 October 1939 possessed Polish citizenship or who were stateless after the loss of their Polish citizenship until 26 October 1939 and who at the time were inhabitants of Greater Germany including the occupied Eastern territories, became German citizens by 26 October 1939. Although this regulation was issued only provisionally, subject to a final regulation by law, I see no objection to applying it already now for identification of citizenship in cases of race defilement and consequently to take action in the relevant cases according to Paragraph 5 of the Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor, if the offenses were committed after 1 September 1939 or 26 October 1939, respectively.
"Failing instructions to the contrary. I intend to instruct the Senior Public Prosecutors of my district accordingly."
On the original of this document, although it is not shown on the English translation, we find the initial of the defendant Joel.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell where in the document that appears?
MISS ARBUTHNOT: It is near the end of the letter, over at the left-hand margin.