Section 5 The prosecutors will be appointed by the Legal Administration of the States from those prosecution officials who are legally qualified for the office of a judge.
Section 6 The regulations of the Code of Criminal Procedure and of the Law concerning Judicial Organization will apply correspondingly to the proceedings, provided nothing else has been determined."
We will omit the reading of the rest of these laws establishing the special court, and refer to Document NG-514, which will be offered as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 1131; NG-514, is found on page 1 of the English Document Book 111-A, commencing on page 1, with the letterhead, "The Reich Minister of Justice, Berlin, 22 March 1933, to the Regional Justice Administration of the Provinces of Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Wuerttemberg, Baden, Thuringia, Hessen, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Braunschweig, Oldenburg. For information, to all the other Provincial Administrations of Justice. Subject; Establishment of Special Courts." The letter is "Urgent".
"A decree of the Reich Government of 21 March 1933 concerning the establishment of Special Courts is published in No. 24 of the Reich Law Gazette, volume I, page 136.
"I should appreciate it if you would inform me at your earliest convenience in what places Special Courts are established and at what date they were set up. By order, signed: Schaefer. Seal of the Reich Ministry of Justice."
Reading now from page of Document Book 111-A, "Minutes of the conference at the Regional Justice Administration on 24 March, 1933. Present: Herr Senator Dr. Rothenberger," and a list of officials, the names of which we will omit.
Skipping now to page 3, Roman numeral II, "the discussion then dealt with the question of the establishment of a Special Court in accordance with the decree of 21 March 1933 (Reich Law Gazette I, page 136)."Herr Senator Dr. Rothenberger pointed out that there might be doubt as to whether the," -- if I may interrupt myself at this moment to translate the word "regional" as "state", if there is no objection.
DR. BRIEGER: (Attorney for Defendant Cuhorst) In the case of the document which the Prosecution has submitted just now, which he has read in this case to the high Tribunal, the particular impression must have been aroused through this order of the 21st of March, 1933, in the first place, the idea of special courts and that is to say, as were accused by the Prosecution of having actual Nazi ideas; in the first place, found a basic foundation as regards the law; however, I will tomorrow tell the high Court those particular paragraphs in the text of the laws which we gather, that before the seizure of power through Adolph Hitler, the basic foundation of the laws, that is to say, in the Weimar constitution, how it was originated; this order, as far as I can remember is the third emergency decree of the Reichsrigierung, and has been signed not only by Dr. Bruening, but also by Dr. Wirth, as the Minister of the Interior, and it is by this signature, as regards this signature, I attach particular importance to it, because Dr. Wirth as hardly any one else in all these years had the name in Germany of being the introducing or the leading antifaschist in Germany.
I should like to make a basic statement as regards this I would like to make a request to the high Tribunal that they will make a rule that the Defense Counsel will be given an early as possible opportunity also on their part of the high Court that they will be submitted the text of the laws because the task actually for the high Tribunal to work on the laws which are completely foreign is such a terrifically difficult task that it will be probably welcome from all sides if the high Court were given a long length of time as far as possible; otherwise, the danger arises that at a particular time the high Court, on the part of the defending counsel, will be dealing with so much material as regards law, that the Judges will not have the possibility technically to work on these things so extensively as it is necessary as regards their high responsibility.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May the Court please, I do not know to what statute the Counsel has just referred, but I would like to mention at this time that the Statute which I just real was in the 1933 Reichsgesteblatt, part 11, page 83, dealing with the decree of the Reich President for the protection of the people, and the statement of 28 February 1933 was signed among others, by Adolf Hitler. The Statute he mentioned was signed by Luebeck and was obviously of some other statute not sought to be introduced in evidence by the Prosecution. If this is the case, I suggest that the matter be brought up by the Defense as argument and best reserved for their case in chief.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal will agree with that suggestion.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Continuing with the reading of Document NG 514, on page 3 of Document Book 3-A, paragraph Roman II. I have already read the first paragraph under Roman II.
"Herr Senator Dr. Rothenberger pointed out that there might be doubt as to whether the Regional Justice Administration, as set out in article I, paragraph 3, was competent for the Hanseatic Court of Appeal, that is, for the three divisions of that court (Senate). He said he would telephone to Luebeck and Bremen about this question.
"The appointment of the members of the Special Court, as well as of their deputies, would be made by the presiding judge of the District Court as the Special Court would be located in Hamburg."
I skip now to the bottom of page 3, reading page 3 and page 6 in conjunction with one another as I submit to the Tribunal that must be done. We know that the last paragraph on page 3 is a paragraph of transmittal, addresses to the Reich Minister of Justice on 31 March 1933. Reading now from the bottom of page 5:
"With reference to your letter of 22 March 1933; concerning the establishment of Special Courts, I beg to inform you in reply that for the district of the Hanseatic Court of Appeal Hamburg, Luebeck and Bremen have established a Special Court which sits in Hamburg, and which is due to begin action at once.
The President of the Regional Justice Administration.
"(Signature): Dr. Rothenberger."
The Prosecution now offers in evidence as Exhibit 113, Document NG 514.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The Prosecution will next offer as Exhibit 114, Document NG 515, on page 7 of Book 3-A, certain portions of which we want to read.
"11 April 1933 "According to article 10 of the decree of the Government of the Reich of 21 March 1933, concerning the establishment of Special Courts, a counsel for the defense has officially to be assigned to the accused when the trial has been fixed, if the defendant has not yet chosen his own counsel.
"The consequence of this regulation will be that the treasury will be considerably burdened with the fees which are to be paid to the defense attorneys. If we take as a basis special court cases already pending with the Hamburg Office of the Public Prosecutor, it has to be assumed that the fees for the lawyers will amount to about 80,000 Reichsmark. The more so as in many cases the defense of the co-defendants collides and eventually makes it necessary to appoint a lawyer for each defendant. In many cases, however, the facts will be so clear that it will not be necessary to appoint a counsel for the defense."
The Prosecution offers as Exhibit No. 114, Document NG 515.
DR. BRIEGER: (Translation did not come through).
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Is the Prosecution to understand that our translation is faulty?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, the English translation in regard to the word "Clear." In fact the translation should be "Simple." I think perhaps that it is considered a little different.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In view of the fact that we have not yet arrived at a method of disposing of these conditions about the translation of documents, the Prosecution refuses to make an admission one way or the other as to the correctness of the translation. It should be deferred until a later time.
THE PRESIDENT: It might be to advantage if the Counsel for the Defense would point out the particular matter read of which there is a difference of opinion about the translation.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Court pleases, it has been so pointed out. The question is about the word "Clear," but we feel that it would need expert testimony to resolve the question, and since we have told the Court we will arrange these things out of Court, if possible. Perhaps we can defer that point, as we will all others, on the matter of translation.
THE PRESIDENT: The difference of opinion is on the word "Clear" in the English translation?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, we are willing to admit, as he says, it may be faulty but it would be best if we would come to some agreement on that at a later time.
THE PRESIDENT: That illustrates the importance of reaching some method of resolving these difficulties about the translations.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We shall attempt to do that as soon as possible.
Before the Document which I have just read, Exhibit 114, is offered in evidence, the Prosecution would like to point out that as it is indicated on the correct sheet, inserted on page 7 of the English book, the fact appears which does not appear from the English translation, and that is, that the document which I have just read so far, is the photostat of the original indicates it was signed by Dr. Rothenberger.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence, of course, the Defense Counsel will have the right after you have had your conference about this word to bring that up again and have that cleared up.
THE PROSECUTION: We understand that, Your Honor.
Turning now to page 8 of the Document Book 3-A, the Prosecution will next offer in evidence Document NG 516. It is to the Reich Minister of Justice, 14 September 1939.
If I may interpolate at this moment, in the English translation on page 8, that date does not appear, but upon examining the photostat of the original document, I found the date as 14 September 1939.
Berlin, concerning the establishment of a special court at Bremen.
"The Commissioner for the Defense of the Reich for the Territory of the Tenth Army Corps has suggested, through the governing Mayor of Bremen, to the Presidente of the Country Court Bremen, the establishment of a special court for the district of the District of the District Court, Bremen."
THE PRESIDENT: Should that word "country" be "county"?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I am just about to interpolate hero again, if the Court please. The original document reads "Landgericht" which, in our glossary of terms, we translate as "District Court". That is an error in the translation. Where you see "county" or "Country" read "district". The original document reads "Landgericht", and the accepted translation of "Landgericht" is "district".
"The amount of cases falling under the jurisdiction of the special court originating from the district of the District Court Brement has until now not been so important as to justify the establishment of a special court there. But considering Article 19 of the decree of 1 September 1939, concerning measures in the domain of judicial organization and jurisdiction I agree with the opinion of the commissioner for the Defense of the Reich about the district of the District Court Bremen.
"In accordance with Article 13 of the cited decree, I request you, therefore, to order the establishment of a special court for the district of the District Court Brement" Signed, "Dr. Rothenberger."
The prosecution submits as Exhibit No. 115, document NG-516.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Counsel for the defendant Rothenberger:
Mr. President, the document which has just been read, as previously submitted, is a copy. There is no original signature of Dr. Rothenberger, but only a stamp, "Signed Dr. Rothenberger." I request that this document only be submitted with reservations, as the High Court was already done in other cases.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May the Court please, the prosecution would like to make a brief statement in re what just been said. A great many documents that will be or have been offered in evidence bear only the typewritten name or the stamped name of a given person.
It is the prosecution's position, however, that nevertheless, despite tho absence of a written or long-hand name, and even though such - document may only be a copy, it is what it purports to be on its face and we submit it for no reason other than that and make no further comment on it. We do say that it is everything that, on its face, it purports to be. We will reserve our argument on the weight and credibility of a typed or stamped signature until some future time.
DR. BRIEGER: In the German Justice Administration and, furthermore, in the German Administration, it is completely inadmissible for any documentary notes to be admitted, even if they be of the shortest or the briefest, even if they regard only a telephone call, without any signature. But as it is always the case that all notices on documents are signed, I should imagine that this would be the case especially in the Reich Ministry of Justice where in most cases--that is to say, in all cases which have been submitted here--we are always concerned with very important things.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Is the prosecution to consider this as an objection to the admissibility of the document, or rather is it argument as to the weight of the signature? We submit it is the latter, and for that reason it is probably out of place at this time.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask you a question?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE BRAND: As I understand it, unless I was mistaken, you are offering an office copy with the stamp on it.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It is not the original, and you dealt claim it to be the original.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Precisely.
JUDGE BRAND: The office copy was found, as other documents were.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is exactly right, Your Honor.
JUDGE BRAND: You have not got the original available?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We have not. It was tho only copy which was unearthed for our use.
JUDGE BRAND: Then you are, roughly speaking, offering it as the best evidence under the circumstances.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Precisely. That is what the Court was intended to interpret from my remark that it was what it purported to be and no more, it being the best evidence the prosecution has available.
THE PRESIDENT: The universally accepted rule of evidence is that the document would be admissible for what it is worth.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We again offer NG-516 as Exhibit No. 115.
THE PRESIDENT: It would be more accurate to say that the document is received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Thank you, sir.
Turning now to page 9 of the English document book III-A, document NG-519:
"26 January 1942.
"To: State Secretary Dr. Freisler, in Berlin.
"Sir:
"I thank you for your letter of the 13th instant and your readiness to put Councilor Haack of the Court of Appeal at my disposal again as soon as possible. However, I shall not be in a position to arrange the Special Courts in Hamburg in such a way that it would be possible to fix the term for the trials to take place two weeks after the indictments have been received. I shall be glad, therefore, to avail myself of your offer to put some suitable judges of other districts at my disposal. I should be thankful, however, if they were judges who already have practical experience with Special Courts, as I am experiencing again and again that it is almost impossible for an ordinary judge, especially if he belongs to the older set, to adapt himself to the atmosphere of the Special Courts' jurisdiction. An absolute preliminary condition for me is harmonious co-operation within the section under the actual leadership of the presiding judge and continuous contact with me.
"In view of the age of my presiding judges (40 to 42 years) I would like best two judges in the age of 35 to 40 years.
Heil Hitler!
Yours respectfully (Signed) Dr. Rothenberger."
On the next page, 10, continuing with this same document, we have a letterhead: "Reich minister of Justice, Berlin, 12 March 1942," addressed to the President of the Court of appeal, Hamburg.
"Subject: Assignment of Associate Judges to the Special Court of Hamburg.
"According to your request in your letter of 26 January 1942 addressed to State Secretary Dr. Freisler, I asked a large number of presiding judges of Courts of appeal to let me knew if from their districts suitable judges in the age of 35 - 42 years, who already have successfully officiated at a Special Court, could be placed at disposal for assignment to the Special Court of Hamburg. In answer to my inquiry only Landesgerichsrat Dr. Schoellgen, born 10 August 1901, of the Duisburg District Court, who has been for several months associate judge at the Special Court of Duesseldorf, was named. The President of the Court of Appeal of Duesseldorf characterizes him as a capable, well-informed and very useful judge, a member of the Party and reliable in every way. However, the President of the Court of Appeal thinks that he is inclined to be lenient."
I omit the rest of that document. We are noting merely that it is signed by Dr. Nadler, with a stamp "The Reich ministry of Justice."
Skipping to page 11, another letter dated 7 April 1942, addressed to turn the Reich Minister of Justice, Berlin. Subject: "Assignment of Associate Judges to the Special Court of Hamburg."
"In persuance to your letter of 12 March 1942, I asked the president of the Court of Appeal of Duesseldorf for the personal papers of Landgerichsrat Dr. Scheellgen for information purposes. I found that, whilst Dr. Schoellgen is a very well qualified judge, he is inclining to leniency, according to the opinion of the president of the Court of Appeal of Duesseldorf.
In view of this characteristic of Dr. Schoellgen I am afraid that he is not the right man for the Special Court of Hamburg, because it is to be expected that especially in the near future the Special Court of Hamburg will have to proceed with particular sterness. I beg you, therefore, not to assign Landgerichtsrat Dr. Schoellgen to the local Special Court."
Skipping to the signature, "Dr. Rothenberger."
The prosecution offers at this time document NG-519 as Exhibit 116.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
I guess my statement that this would be received in evidence did not go through.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I heard you, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: So I am repeating that this document will be received in evidence.
The hour of 4:30 has now arrived, and we will therefore recess until tomorrow morning it 9:30 o'clock.
(At 1330 hours, 17 March 1947, a recess was taken until 0930 hours, 18 March 1947)
Official Transcript of the American MilitaryTribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Altstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 18 March 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Marshall presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 3.
Military Tribunal 3 is now in session. God save the United States America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you will please ascertain whether all defendants are present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of defendants Rothaug and Engert who are absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: Proper notation will be made.
DR. BRIEGER: In the name of my colleagues and in my own name I would like to make the following declaration. One of my colleagues pointed out yesterday that we have so far not received the English test of the document and transcripts. Last night we had a discussion with Mr. Wartena, and during this discussion we found out that it was a mistake on our part. So far the tests were in the office of Mr. Wartena, where they were lying for our use and they will continue to be there in the amount which we asked for. Probably one of the German secretaries of our own offices forgot to inform us about this. We are in agreement that we have full confidence in the ability and the good will of Mr. Wartena, and we welcome his helpful attitude in this matter and in other matters, and therefore we do not have to occupy the time of the Tribunal for such technical matters in the future.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal naturally appreciates this very fair and very frank statement of counsel, and we hope that defense counsel will always feel that they are getting a fair trial of this case.
MR. KING: May it please the Court, we would this morning first like to clear up a matter which came up last week on Tuesday, March 11. The Court will recall that the Prosecution introduced in evidence as Exhibit No. 87 document styled "Lawyers Letters."
There was immediately an objection on part of one of defense counsel on the grounds that he believed that letter or there was a possibility that that letter had not been circulated, although admittedly it had been published. We then introduced as Exhibit 89 a document which was in the form of a brochure from the Ministry of Justice, although apparently not a covering letter for the circulation of the Lawyers Letters. The Court admitted documents 87 and 89 conditionally. I would call the Court's attention to the ruling as it appears on Page 426 of the daily minutes. The Court speaking:
"We do not yet see sufficient evidence to convince us that they -the Lawyers Letters --" were distributed to lawyers, but as evidence of a declaration of policy on the part of Thierack as Minister of Justice, and for that purpose only they will be received in evidence at this time."
This morning we wish to introduce two affidavits which we believe, we shall so move after the introduction, remove the limitation which the Court put on 87 and 89 at the time they were introduced. It is my impressthat the defense counsel has been furnished with copies of these affidavit However, I have additional copies here for the convenience of the Court an the translators. They will be NG 987 and NG 977.
THE PRESIDENT: Will they both be carried as one exhibit number?
MR. KING: I believe not, Your Honor. I think it would be more convenient, for the Prosecution, at least, if we have them admitted as two separate exhibits. The Prosecution will at this time introduce NG 977 which will become, when accepted in evidence, Exhibit 117. I would like to read portion of this document. Reading from Document NG 977:
"Sworn Statement, "I, Dr. Heinrich Kullmann, Nuernberg, Fuertherstrasse 58a, declare herewith under oath:
"No. 1 of the monthly informational publication "Lawyers Letters" dated October 1, 1944, was brought to my attention and transmitted to me by the President of the District Court. It appeared for the first time in circulation in October 1944.
This informational publication of the Reich Minister of Justice was also sent to other lawyers, as I have noticed from the mimeographed attached sheet; therefore they were also informed of the existence of this publication. The original "Lawyers Letters" No. 1, which was sent to me as well as the attached sheet of the President of the District Court dated October 24, 1944, is being attached to my statement. That is signed "Dr. Heinrich Kullmann."
Now, the attached sheet to which he refers in the paragraph which have just read appears at the top of the Document Ng 977. It reads:
"Confidential Nuremberg, 24 October 1944. With 1 "Lawyers Letter" No. 1 to the lawyer Mr. Kullmann --" Kullmann being handwritten -- "I impo upon you the duty of secrecy concerning the contents of the "Lawyers Lette Then at least the typewritten signature of the President of the District Court, Dr. Keller, appears. It was certified by the clerk Reusch, If I may for a moment defer the offering in evidence of NG 977 while I read NG 987, which will become when offered, Exhibit 118. NG 987 is a sworn affidavit of the Clerk Hans Reusch, and it reads as follows:
"I, Hans REUSCH, Court Clerk, Nuremberg, Toplerstrasse 28, declare herewith under oath:
"I was born on 13 May 1913 in Nuremberg. After having been active one year at the Local Court (Amtsgericht), Nuremberg, I was transferred to the Office of the President of the District Court, where I remained until the end of the war? Here I was also charged with the certification of the issues of "Lawyers Letters" to the Nuremberg lawyers, as ordered by the President of the District Court.
"By using the list on which all accredited lawyers for the area of the District Court, Nuremberg, were named, I sent the "Lawyers Letters" to all lawyers, with the exception of those serving at the front." And that is signed "Hans Reusch."
The Prosecution in the belief that these two affidavits clear up the matter will permit 87 and 89 to be received unconditionally by the Court and we now offer in evidence the exhibits 117 and 118. We would also appreciate a ruling by the court on the question of whether or not 87 and 89 are now freed of the limitations under which they were originally accepted.
THE PRESIDENT: The present ruling of the Tribunal will be that exhibits number 89 and 87 are now received in evidence unconditionally. I make this further statement. They are not received as conclusive evidence of the fact, but as competent relevant evidence of the fact, therefore probative evidence and receivable. I should add that we now receive in evidence Exhibits Number 117 and 118. Has counsel any ideas as to the place in which these exhibits should be put in our document book so that we may have uniformity?
MR. KING: Yes, Your Honor. Of course they were not anticipated, when the document books were drawn up. It would probably be most proper to put them in the document books following Exhibit 89. That is Document Book 1-D, at Page 116, where the Exhibit 89 appears.
THE PRESIDENT: 1-D or 1-B?
MR. KING: 1-D 116, yes.
We have this morning several more documents from the Book-1 series which we are anxious as the court to get into the record so that we can avoid to some extent the pagination problem involved in hauling all of Book 1, plus Book 3 into court with us every day.
To that end, we would, at this time, introduce, by reading portions from it, the Document NG-773 which will become when offered Exhibit 119. That is a**
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give us the book at this time?
MR. KING? I am sorry Your Honor. That appears in Book 1-A at Page 58 in the English text. Rather, it appears in the index of Document Book 1-A. The distribution which has been made should be placed in the text at page 58. Distribution has been made to defense counsel and I believe I am correct, to the Secretary-General. May I inquire if any one requires copies in order the we may proceed?
This is the text of a rather long address delivered by Goering before the Academy of German Law on 13 November, 1934. I think it might be well at this time to clear up a possible objection on the part of defense counsel.
This speech is to be found in the book entitled "Hermann Goering Speeches and Articles." It is edited by one Dr. Erich Gritzbach. I will read at this time few paragraphs which we believe to be representative of this address.
Beginning first on Page 1 of the document circulated, the second paragraph reads as follows:
"The juristical nation of the past the ancient Romans, said that legal security was the foundation of the State. A later decadent epoch averted this principle to the notion of a night wathchman state, according to which the state had nothing more important to do than see to it that no harm came to the individual in his sharply delimited private sphere. The fold was of secondary importance; the individual alone was important, with his egotistica" aims, which were secured and protected by law.
"We National Socialists, too, fully recognize the importance of law for the communal living of the individual citizen in the State. But we take our point of departure here from an entirely different, more natural concept of life and State. Our primary interest is not the individual, but the community of all fellow citizens. That is why, we call ourselves Socialists. The Feuhrer created our State for the people so that the people might live. Our state, therefore, is not an end in itself, but the means to an end.
"The National Socialist State strives to unite its citizens, who are alike in nature to a popular community, to a people's community."
On Page 2, I will read the first full paragraph beginning:
"Gentleman, I know that of course one can overdo the principle of law per se. Let me state one thing right at the ourset: Law per se is not the primary consideration. First come the people; and the people created a State; and the State created the law for the community of the people. This in the last analys** is the source of the fact that ever and always the people is the primary reality, and it is only from the people that State and law can arise. Indeed, we did not begin with a constitution on paper when we came to power like the Weimar Republic, which had nothing more pressing to do than to write down alien, bloodless theories on paper. We leave these things to the organic process of growth. We, on the contrary, attempted to solve the pressing questions of the life of the people through laws, and in so doing have already replaced an enormous part of the useless body of law by National Socialist legal values.
Laws, however, remain dead letters, which do not fulfill their purpose, and may indeed do more harm than good, if the assurance is not given that everywhere and at every time they will be enforced and fulfilled in accordance with their purport and purpose."
May I now ask that you turn to Page 10, and refer to the second paragraph in the English text.
"A community of these of common blood based on true confidence and respect is possible only when all parts of the community are filled with the certainty that the protection of the law, that justice is assured to them all equally and fairly. National Socialism, indeed, as sworn enemy of the liberalistic conception of 'equality' recognized a differentiation in the sphere of the law and its application too. But this is not a step backward but one forward. We do not want, after all, to hang the little ones and let the big ones go, we want in particular to attack the major public enemies. The Fuehrer again gave classic and fundamental expression to this National Socialist principle of State in his twelve points."
I turn now to page 17 and refer to the first full paragraph on that page.
"We National Socialists have no understanding for exaggerated legal quibbles. We refuse to give every grumbler and informer the chance to exert without restraint his obnoxious and dangerous inclinations. We do not consider it legal security if the State and its organs loyally places its powers at the disposal of those who under their very protection want to attack it and its purposes. For us, at any rate, that is not legal security but a crime against the people and its community. We want, on the contrary, to do everything in our power to serve this community, to safeguard for every citizen vital space, a safe life, freedom to live, and joy in life and his profession, and so to guarantee the possibility for him to live and to work as a part of the community."
The Prosecution now formally offers in evidence as Exhibit 119, Document NG-773.
THE PRESIDENT: I should like to hear again the identification of that address.
MR. KING: It appeared in a book of speeches and articles entitled, "Herma Goering, speeches and Articles, "and it was edited by Dr. Eric Gritzbach. The publication is available within the Court House if either the Court or defense counsel would care to examine it. The title of the book, Your Honor, is merely "Hermann Goering, Speeches and Articles."
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: May I ask the Court and defense counsel to turn to Document Book 1-C. The prosecution at this time desires to introduce the Document NG-24which when formally offered, will become Exhibit 120. This document is to be found at Page 20 in the English text of Document Bock 1-C and is there--I was about to say, Your Honors, "is there complete." I am going to retrace my step on that statement and say that in the German. Book and possibly in the English Book, several pages were omitted at the time these books were circulated, and those deficiencies have now been cured by circulating the missing pages. May I ask whether or not the Secretary-General has them for distribution to the Court? I have here for distribution to to Court, the complete copies of the English, and we will present them.
THE PRESIDENT: Does this in any way differ from the exhibit as found in the Exhibit Book?
MR. KING: Your Honor, that is a very pertinent question at the moment. In the English text--I am not sure that I can give you tho answer. My original impression was that the English text was in good order. Your Honor, it appears that the copy which I have circulated and the copy in the English text are identical. There are a few paragraphs that we would like to call to the attention of the Court.
The letter which appears on Page 20 of the Document Book 1-C is from the Senior Public Prosecutor at the County Court at Wuppertal, and is dated 20 January 1936. The subject of the letter is: "Incidents at the concentration camp Kemna in Wuppertal." In this letter, the public prosecutor describes certain mistreatment of prisoners that have occurred, and I think we can get to the summary of that most expeditiously by turning to Page 23 in the English text That is at the top of page 4 in the English Document as circulated.
The public prosecutor writes as follows:
"In most cases they (that is the prisoners) were beaten shortly after their arrival, during the interrogations - in part upon their stripped bodies- with rubber clubs, horse whips, sticks, cow-hide horsewhips and other things. In many cases they had to lie down, across a specialwhipping bench or they were forced down by guards, whereby their mouths were shut or stuffed up with paper-balls, cloths, bags or similar things, in order to prevent them from screaming. Another part of the guards was beating them simultaneously. Prisoners who fainted at these procedures were reawakened by kicks or by pouring water over them and they were forced to rise. In many cases the mistreated persons were then locked up in a boarded partition under the stair case or in an elevator, and they were not given medical attendance, food or drinking water."
Then skipping down to the beginning of the next paragraph on that same page.
"Several prisoners were also forced to eat unwatered herrings from the barrel, - it has been said that salt was also applied to these herrings and that also lubricating grease and kerosene was applied to part of them-and also bread sprinkled with salt. After eating these herrings the prisoners who naturally suffered from tormenting thirst were refused drinking water. In such a manner have been treated the following prisoners in protective custody:"
There follows the names of several prisoners, whose names we will not read. And under tho list of the names of the prisoners, to continue:
Of these Claser, Hirsch and von den Eickent (no. 9, 13 and 33) were forced - after having been fed with such herrings - by kicks and blows into narrow wardrobes, such as they are used in factories for the storage of the clothes of the workmen. In these wardrobes, in which one could neither stand upright nor sit down the prisoners had often to spend several hours, and occasionally also cigarette smoke was blown through air-holes of the wardrobes."
That is all on that page that we wish to read. The next paragraph is the first full paragraph on Page 25, or on Page 6 of the document as distributed in the English text.
"If we review the chances of a criminal procedure limited to these defendants and contemplate what the situation will be in a possible trial, and what the consequences will be and if we take also into consideration the result of the procedure before the party court against some principle defendants (which has become known in the meantime), such serious objections can be raised against the continuation of the criminal procedure that I thought it advisable to submit the files for a now decision."
On that same page, the second paragraph from the bottom in the English text:
" In addition it has to be considered that the defendants are in part SA-leaders and old party members and that in the trial it will only be possible to produce such witnesses who to the greatest part were surely communists and some of which are at present still serving terms for high treason."