"the sentences passed by the courts of this district had always been severe, except for some cases, and this standard should be kept up in future."
Skipping to the next paragraph:
"Among the population, the Fuehrer's critical remarks about the administration of justice have given rise to spitefulness as well as to sympathy for the profession of the judges."
Omitting one sentence: "Above all, it is painful for the judges that the number of persons is increasing who do not believe that the judges pass unbiased sentences. In my opinion, endeavors must be made to restore the confidence of the people in the unprejudiced administration of justice. At any rate all things have to be avoided which could further that impression. I have asked the Attorney General to take measures to prevent the sentences demanded by the prosecution from leaking out previously. It is quite natural that if it becomes known before the trial that the prosecutor will demand the death sentence with the approval of the Ministry of Justice, it will easily be believed that the judges are prejudiced.
According to my observations, information about the sentence the prosecutor will propose with the approval of the Reich Ministry of Justice is disturbing to the judges, even if mentioned only in the course of conversation, which is understandable on account of the authority of the Ministry of Justice and the position of the judges. Even old, experienced judges find their unprejudiced state of mind upset. But according to my observations, the judges are absolutely ready to accept general directives and to follow them in the administration of justice. Therefore I think it highly desirable that the directives which are issued at the conferences of the Presidents of the Courts of Appeal in the Reich Ministry of Justice as well as those given some days ago at the meeting of the attorneys general in the Reich Ministry of Justice should be submitted in writing to the presidents of the Courts of Appeal for the information of the judges. I think this will greatly assist the administration of justice.
2. The number of death sentences passed within the area of this Court of Appeal shows the following development:
There were in 1940 27 death sentences in 1941 52 " " in 1942 (1st 6 months ) 45 " " The increase is due to war conditions and to the extension of the sphere of the death sentence by the law of 4 September 1941.
Of the death sentences passed this year 6 were passed for offenses against war economy, 10 for sexual offenses, 8 for crimes of violence, and 20 for theft.
On an average, 5 to 6 weeks elapse between the pronouncing of the sentence and the execution.
3. Since last May, police officials have appeared frequently in the criminal courts to report to their superior office. The President of the District Court at Dortmund has reported the following cases to me:"
Now here follow eight cases of police attendance at criminal trials of which we will read but one or two illustrative examples. On page 72 of the English and on Pages 73 and 74 of the German, sub-paragraph 2.
2.) At the end of May, a trial was held before the criminal court against another criminal who was condemned to death. An official of the criminal police was summoned as a witness. Before the opening of the trial this official submitted to the court a letter from the Reich Criminal Police Office, in which the local police authorities were requested to communicate the result of the trial, especially whether the demand for the death penalty, which was to be expected, had been complied with and, should another punishment be awarded, to make known the mitigating circumstances mentioned in the explanation of the Court's findings. Unfortunately the president failed to take note of the exact contents of the letter.
On Page 73 of the English, 75 of the German, one last example, sub-paragraph 4.
4.) As the Chief Public Prosecutor has already reported to the Reich Ministry of Justice, the Secret State Police did not recently commit two civilian workers from the Ukraine, who had shot a forest-keeper in the Dortmund district court area, to the court for prosecution, although the court had issued a warrant for arrest and the special court was prepared for an immediate conviction. They were hanged later on by the Secret State Police. Furthermore it was reported to me by the Local Court at Haltern that on June 19, 1942, a Polish laborer was hanged in his own district by the Police because he was said to have had sexual intercourse with a German woman. I enclose a copy of the report dated 29 June 1942. If the rumors are true, that the Fuehrer transferred capital legislation to the Police to this extent, it would be desirable to inform the judges and public prosecutors of this arrangement through official channels, as the Police are generally attributed with unauthorized and unlawful activity. Publications in the daily newspapers give the impression that these were executions of sentences which had been legally imposed."
The signature is illegible. We offer the entire document NG-395as Prosecution Exhibit No. 74.
THE PRESIDENT: Seventy-eight.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Seventy-eight.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is 74, Your Honor, because when it was introduced yesterday it had that number.
THE PRESIDENT: You're taking the old number?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The prosecution offers as Exhibit No. 78, Document NG-631 on Page 59 of the English Book, Page 58 of the German. Before the prosecution reads this document, a case arises apropos to what was discussed this morning in regard to translations. There is a word in this document which the prosecution contends is a mistranslation. We have had expert advice to the effect that the word "follower" in the second line of the main paragraph should be translated "vassal." In the original document, the word referring to that is "lehensmann." The prosecution contends that the correct translation of "lehensmann" is in English "vassal". Is there any objection on the part of the defense to that translation?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER (for the defendant Rothenberger): As Defense Counsel, I am principally of the opinion, and should like to clarify this once more, that a tremendous amount of misunderstanding may come from an inadequate or wrong translation and has come, in the presentation of the documents, and that the Defense when submitting their documents will correct and supplement the translations because it is naturally impossible in the course of this proceeding, which deals more with the normal presentation of evidence, that it is impossible to follow up all of these individual cases.
If however, the Prosecutor puts the question as to whether the word "lehensmann" in German is identical with the term "vassel," and if he puts this question, then as Counsel for the defendant Rothenberger, I would like to state the following: The term "lehensmann" is an old term of the law of the middle ages in Germany and it describes solely the relation by a character of lehensmann to his master, lehensheer. The term "vassel" in modern language has a definitely inferior meaning in that it includes a certain motive of servitude. It introduces that idea, which in the term of lehensmann did not exist in any way. I should like to state that in order to explain the difference of these terms at this moment.
MR: WOOLEYHAN: We assume that it is agreed between the Defense and the Prosecution as to the correct translation of that term. However, if the Court has any suggestions or recommendations to make as to a more expeditious manner of disposing of the translation question in the future, and there will be many, we will welcome such a suggestion or recommendation, probably outside of the Court. We could arrange it between the Defense and the Prosecution as to the correct translation.
THE PRESIDENT: It appears, at this time, it is not so much of a question of the translation of a German word, but it is the definition of the word "vassel".
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It has turned out to be an argument of the interpretation rather than the translation.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defense Counsel, of course, will be heard when the Defense puts their own interpretation upon any translation. They will have that opportunity at the proper time.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Reading now from page 59 of the English text, page 58 of the German:
"The Reich Minister of Justice, Berlin W 8, 12 October 1942.
"To the High Reich Justice Authorities.
"Re: Designation of the Judge.
"The Judge holds a position of a special nature among the Civil Servants; he acts as a vassel of the Fuehrer by authority of a direct order received from him. Through this he can be basically distinguished from all other officials. In future this distinction shall also be expressed in a constitutional provision in that the judge shall no longer be regarded as an official. Considering this future development I request you not to define the judge as an official from now onwards, and also not to refer to judicial officials but instead to refer to them as judges.
"(signed) Dr. Rothenberger. Certified: Kupfer. Ministerial Chancery Chief Secretary" We offer as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 78, Document NG 631.
On page 77 of the English book, page 81 of the German, is found Document NG 316, which will be offered as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 79.
DR. GRUBE (for the defendant Lautz): May I be permitted, before this document is read, to make a motion? I consider this man, Brem, who made the statement as not having desired to do so, and I also consider the statement wrong; therefore, I should like to cross examine Brem.
I therefore, ask, first, to call Brem for cross examination; second, not to read this document until Brem is present.
MR WOOLEYHAN: If the Court pleases, this affidavit of Brem's is offered as the Prosecution's expeditious substitute for direct examination on this subject. If the Defense wishes to call Brem as their witness, we have no objection.
DR. GRUBE: May it please the Tribunal, I do not wish to call Brem as my witness. I should like to cross examine Brem as to the statement which he has made in this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal certainly concedes to the Defense the right to cross examine this witness, and in so doing the witness should not be charged to be the witness of the Defense; that is to say, they will not be bound by his answers, but it would be in the interest of an orderly trial for the Defense to call this witness as a part of their Defense with the understanding that they will not be charged bound by what is said as if he were a Defense witness.
DR. SCHILF (for the defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg): This question which has just been discussed gives cause to a further question which is submitted for the decision of the Tribunal.
The Prosecutor has just stated that the record of the witness, the presentation of an affidavit, should serve to replace the cross examination or examination of the witness, and according to the decision of the Tribunal, the Defense still have the right to call the witness, however, not as a witness for the Defense. The question arises now as to whether the Defense may cross examine this witness or whether the examination of this witness is to be considered a direct examination; and, therefore, may I ask that the Tribunal de cide upon this point?
THE PRESIDENT: We thought we had made it clear that in the cross examination of this witness, that it is in the nature of cross examination of the Prosecution's witness. The only point is, we do not want to have the Prosecution's case disturbed or prolonged by calling in, at this time, the witness.
It certainly is the ruling of this Tribunal as it has been the ruling in the International Military Tribunal, that affidavits properly authenticated as competent evidence, and that have probative value will be received; so, the affidavit will not be objectionable on the ground that it is an affidavit, and neither will it be objectionable on the ground that the Defense wants to cross examine the witness; that may come in its proper order.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: As I understand the ruling of the Court, and I think it is what the Defense Counsel has asked: When this witness is called as our witness, and they cross examine him, the cross examination will be limited only to the matters which are contained in the affidavit; in other words, if the cross examination goes beyond the matter contained in the affidavit they would then step onto the ground where the witness becomes their witness?
THE PRESIDENT: That is the ruling of the Court.
MR. WOLLEYHAN: Sworn Statement. I am reading now from page 77 of the English Book, page 81 of the German:
SWORN STATEMENT I, Walter Brem, District Court Justice (retired) declare herewith under oath:
I was Investigator for the People's Court until July 1943 and was for a short the Assistant to the Chief Prosecutor. In 1932 I became District Court Justice. In 1937 I joined the NSDAP, I was in the SA from 1933 on.
In my work I was mainly concerned with illegal frontier crossings. Such cases had already been investigated by the Gestapo. The report was sent to the Chief Prosecutor of the People's Court and then to me for action. In most cases the accused were arrested while crossing the order illegally and were charged with suspicion of high treason at the People's Court despite insufficient evidence. In the trial brief the prosecutor relied mainly on the Gestapo interrogation, the investigators interrogation and the general condition that is the state of war. In my interrogations I sought to establish the facts and to amass evidence against the accused. My cases concerned mostly attempts to shirk compulsory labor and to escape to a foreign country. The majority of these cases concerned foreign laborers who wanted to look for a job in Switzerland, because of inadequate salaries and insufficient food rations. The prosecution, however, claimed that foreign legions were being established in Switzerland and every foreigner wanted to cross the border illegally to join up with such legions. I was ordered by the Prosecutor of the People's Court to connect the accused somehow with the foreign legions. I have never received a positive answer about those alleged organizations and the whole concept of such legions was known to the foreigners only as a rumor. Therefore proof of any acts of high treason would not be established; however the prosecution based its claim on the assumption that such foreign laborers would behave in a hostile manner against Germany, once given the opportunity. Another popular point of the prosecution was to charge the accused, who had fled from his place of work, with the violation of the penal statute against Poles and Jews, which declared an escape from the place of work during wartime a damage to the interests of the Reich, punishable by death.
The effect of THIERACK's a appointment as Minister of Justice was a considerable intensification of the prosecution of foreigners as well as of the criminal prosecution in general. As former President of the People's Court he had great confidence in it, and the number of death sentences increased considerably from the day he took office. Clemencies which by order of the Fuehrer could be granted only by THIERACK, were a rare occurrence. I myself know only of very few cases. I should like to state here that the penal statute against the Poles was applied to the extreme limit by the bloodthirsty People's Court judges. The decree was much to harsh, and from a strictly human view point the death penalty as an escape from work was untenable.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I wish to skip to the oath on page 80 of the English, page 85 of the German.
"These statements are the truth and were given voluntarily. I have real them, signed them and declared them under oath.
Nuremberg, the 25 October 1946.
(Signed) Walter Brem Amtsgerichtsrat.
Signed and sworn same day.
(Signed) Henry Einstein, Office of Chief of Counsel."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The prosecution offers NG-316 as Exhibit No. 79.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On page 75 of the English book and 78 of the German book, which will be offered as Exhibit No. 80, Document NG-482:
The Reichminister of Justice Berlin, 28 February 1944 (Stamp) Secret.
To the President of the Provincial Supreme Court of Appeal in Hamm in Westphalia Subject.
Penal case against the Belgian national Remi LERNOUT for illegal possession of weapons.
To be communicated to the Advocate General in Hamm in Westphalia"
HR. WOOLEYHAN: We wish to refer to Prosecution Exhibit No. 56 previously introduced as Document NG-915 wherein the defendant Joel was indicated as being the Adjutant-General in Hamm in Westphalia. At this time the phrase "Adjutant" is an unfortunate translation. It should be "Attorney-General".
"The special court in Essen, by court decision of the 7th September 1943 - sentenced the Belgian national Remi LERNOUT to 4 years imprisonment for illegal possession of 2 hunting-rifles and 11 rounds of ammunition. In the reasons for the judgment the court explained that imprisonment can be considered sufficient punishment for the illegal possession of hunting-weapons As I was told by the attorney-general in Hamm, the special court defended its point of view, which is incompatible with any decree ....."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It's a misprint. It should be "my decree".
".....of the 13th July 1943 addressed to you and the attorney-general, as well as with the attitude of the chief of the Supreme command of the Wehrmacht as stated in my decree by concluding that according to the regulation of the military commander in Belgium and the North of France of the 27th of December 1941 whose opinion it obviously reflects, the possession of huntingweapons is less dangerous for the occupying forces than the possession of army-weapons. The court, moreover, explained that the courts-martial in Belgium when applying the regulation of the 27th December 1941, also judge the illegal possession of hunting-weapons more leniently than the illegal possession of army-weapons. Allegedly the courts-martial, in cases of this kind, always pronounced even much milder sentences than the special court.
The argument of the special court induced me to contact the military commander in Belgium and the North of France.
He informed me that the courts-martial within his command had at no time, not even under the authority of the regulation of the 27th December 1941, considered imprisonment generally a sufficient punishment for the illegal possession of hunting-weapons. The only correct interpretation is that, before the decision of the chief of the Supreme command of the Wehrmacht to judge, as a matter of principle, the possession of hunting-weapons the same as the possession of other weapons, the possession of hunting-weapons was always judged more leniently. In individual cases and if the circumstances of the case justified it, prison sentences were also pronounced. After the above mentioned decision of the chief of the supreme command of the Wehrmacht the courts-martial, however, discontinued this more lenient judgment for the possession of hunting-weapons. If prison sentences for the possession of weapons are still pronounced today, these are cases where extraordinary circumstances justify a milder judgment.
I ask you to notify the special court of the foregoing and to emphasize particularly that the special court, when judging the possession of huntingweapons, is to proceed according to my decree of the 13th of July 1943, even if it is to be judged according to the regulation of the 27th of December 1941.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Prosecution offers now NG-482 as No. 80.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Are the documents in Document Book 3-D available? 1-D, I beg your pardon.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Do you wish to read from it, sir?
MR LAFOLLETTE: Yes.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I wish to make a few comments with reference to the way the prosecution will treat the Richter briefs, which are contained in this document. They are documents which are numbered NG-298, at page 3; NG-315, at page 12; NG-321 at page 74.
The prosecution will offer these documents in evidence, with the exception of the first one, NG-298, which we will discuss briefly and separately.
The Richter briefs, or judges' letters, which make up the documents are prepared in the following manner; First, the factual background of the cases discussed are given chronologically and under sub-headings. Thereafter, under the same sub-headings and following this same chronology, the opinion of the Reich Minister of Justice upon the decisions made and the penalties fixed in the cases cited are given. For this reason it is most difficult, without available indexes, for the members of the Tribunal to turn from any given case to the discussion of the same case by the Minister of Justice. Therefore, we have prepared separate indexes for each of these documents, headed separately, which will be submitted to the Tribunal as an aid to it in reading the Richter briefs readily and in thereafter following any reading which may be made from these documents by the counsel for the defendants when they introduce their case in chief. These indexes will be separately distributed to the Bench as we introduce each of these documents.
I am sure when Your Honors get to reading this document book and these documents, we will incur your everlasting blessing for having done this work. It took me about two days--maybe I am stupid--to find out just how to do this.
THE PRESIDENT: Have these indexes been shown to the defense counsel?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Well, the defense counsel will understand by looking at them, that I need not show them to them. I mean, there is nothing secret; this is an aid to the Court. I don't intend to read anything, but it occurs to me that hereafter the defense counsel may want to read; or the members of the Bench, who of course are not bound by what we read, will want to read these briefs intelligently.
The aid that I am supplying is one which Your Honors may use as you study these briefs, or which will enable defense counsel later, by their references, to make it more readily available.
If, within the next few weeks, or before they get to their case in chief, the present load on our secretarial staff eases up, I will attempt, as a matter of courtesy, to furnish one or two copies of this index to defense counsel.
However, I did not intend to read them now, and I am sure defense counsel understand that there is nothing secret or bad about this.
DR. SCHILF (Counsel for the defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg): The defense probably will want to produce many judges' letters, and it is in the interest of the defense to point out that the Reich Ministry of Justice also criticized too severe judgments. The excerpts which are now submitted by the prosecution are concerned with criticisms by the Ministry regarding judgments which were considered too mild.
If the prosecutor has promised us very kindly to put at our disposal an index of these letters as soon as the defense is ready to submit its case in chief, then I should like to ask for one important favor.
Personally, I have tried to get a complete collection of the judges' letters. However, unfortunately, I could not achieve that. In the library of the Courthouse, as well as in the document center of the IMT, there is no complete collection.
Now I have a great request to make of the prosecution, who perhaps has a complete collection; that is, if it would be possible for the prosecution to let us see this collection in advance so that these difficulties could be removed, difficulties which the defense has in obtaining the judges' letters.
May I perhaps suggest that the gentlemen of the prosecution--if they should possess the judges' letters in the original--would receive a gentleman from the defense and show them to him, or permit him to look through them?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I believe, first, that since the letters have been-I believe photostatic copies of original documents are sent to the defense center. To that extent, the defense counsel are ahead of me, because I just saw these a few days ago.
So far as I know, I don't know of a full set of Richter briefs anywhere. If they can be found, if they are available, I have certainly no objection to the defense using them.
Since the discussion has come up, I think, since Dr. Schilf has opened it, I am justified in making my first comment on the character with which, or the purpose for which, we introduce the evidence.
These briefs are introduced for the purpose, as far as the prosecution is concerned, of showing that there was a direct direction by the Ministry of Justice to the judges. The effect of it is in the letters themselves. There is no question, as I have read those that we introduced, t at in certain cases the Minister at that time, Dr. Thierack, declared that certain court decisions were too severe. For my purpose, the issue is not that in these letters any particular case amounted to a violation or a crime of which the defendants are charged; but they are introduced for the purpose of showing that there was a direct connection and a direct, active relationship between the Ministry of Justice and the presiding judges.
The table which I have introduced, as I say, is purely--if Your Honors haven't read this document yet, you don't know what you are up against. But if you have attempted to, you will find that these tables are purely to permit you to turn from one page to the other.
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. LaFollette, you are not offering anything as evidence, are you? You are simply offering a memorandum to connect the different documents together.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes. When I offer the documents, I am simply giving the Court a memorandum which will assist it to understand the documents. It certainly will assist. By way of illustration, before I have introduced the exhibit, if Your Honors will turn to page 40 of book D-I am sorry I don't have the German paging--you will find there, at the top of the page, a sub-heading, "Twenty-one Prohibited Association with Prisoners of War.
Some sentences passed in 1942."
That whole document is 15 pages long. You will notice number one, "The shorthand typist of a machine factory..." and so forth. Now that is the statement of that case. The Reich Minister's discussion of it occurs at page 47 of the English, beginning at the bottom of the page, where it says, "The typist B, who opposed the continuous advances of the prisoner of War..."
Now, without this index that I am furnishing--which I sat up a couple of hours late to finally work out--Your Honors would have a most difficult time in ever reading this intelligently. All I am doing is furnishing an aid. It is not evidence; it is not anything. But I don't know what all the disturbance is about all the work I did trying to make things easy.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER (Counsel for the defendant Dr. Rothenberger): I should like to re-emphasize the request of Dr. Schilf that if possible we should be given an index and, if possible, all the judges' letters, because it is true that a selection is being submitted, a selection made by the prosecution, which of course is likely to, in order to charge the defendants, present only those cases where criticism has been expressed because verdicts have been too mild.
Therefore, on my part, I should like to ask most urgently that the prosecution put at the disposal of the defense, for its examination, the entire material.
The judges' letters, from the point of view of the defense, are also important because, on the part of the individual defense counsel, such as on my own part, it has to be shown for the defendant Dr. Rothenberger that the effect of these letters was in no way always decisive, and decisively the effect that the subordinated officials and courts were giving way to pressure or influence, but, on the contrary, very frequently they made the attempt, and with full success, to put themselves before the judges in the individual districts and, as far as this was possible within the framework of the National Socialist Government, they tried to guarantee freedom of decision and freedom of the judges' responsibility.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, I think I am entitled to make one more statement. I want Dr. Wandschneider to hear it.
I am inclined to think that Dr. Wandschneider was pulling my leg a little when he said that all of these cases in here were, as individual cases, what the prosecution would select. I am sure, as an able counsel, he has read NG-321 alone, and if the purpose of the presentation of this evidence were to solely present the Ministry of Justice in the position of demanding more severe sentences, that document alone does not do it.
These documents are here, they are introduced--as I say, this is the first time I have discussed it--on the theory of showing that there was a connection and a direct attempt to direct. Now, it is an ultimate fact of the conception that the right to direct was a part of the plan and enterprise in the system here, which this is evidence of.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask you a question?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes, surely.
JUDGE BRAND: Isn't it a fact that what counsel for the defense have asked for, and the only things they have asked for, are, first, that they have made available to them, so far as you can do so, the judges' letters?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes.
JUDGE BRAND: And second, that as soon as you can, you give them a copy of this index?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: That is right.
JUDGE BRAND: And you are willing to do both?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I am willing to do both, surely. I just have to put a girl to typing a little bit more. I would have furnished them copies this morning, a few at least, but we can't do but just so much in so many hours.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem that matter has been sufficiently discussed and it is time for a recess.
Do you desire to merely offer your document in evidence at this time?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Since the discussion has come up to the time of the normal recess, I think I will do all that when we reconvene.
THE PRESIDENT: Please make a special note of the fact that our recess this time will be until 1:45.
(A recess was taken, at 1235 hours, until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION "The hearing reconvened at 1345, 11 March 1947)
MR. LaFOLLETTE: The Prosecution will offer as its next exhibit, which will be No. 81, which is found in Book I-D, at page 3 of the English text. I am sorry we have not been able to, at least in this copy of this book, give the corresponding page of the German reference, but I will go slowly. This is a Richterbriefe of 1 October, 1942. The need for an assisting index, to which I referred this morning, is not so great in connection with this document, but it does exist, and I send to the bench four copies of the assisting index with the suggestion that the members of the Tribunal eventually insert them permanently at page three of their respective document books. I shall read briefly from this Richterbriefe; thereafter the rest of them will be introduced more rapidly. I am reading on page three of the English book with the beginning of the letter . "Richterbriefe. Communications of the Reich Minister of Justice. Confidential." If I may speak parenthetically for just a minute, because of certain mechanical needs of the Prosecution, this document is being introduced a little out of the chronological order that we anticipated, but it will be followed by a document which sets for the fact that these briefs, these Richterbriefes are to be sent out.
Reading again from the document: "German Judges.
"According to ancient Germanic interpretation of the Law, the Leader of the nation has always been its supreme judge. When the leader therefore invests and other person with the authority of a judge, this means that the latter not only derives his judicial power from the leader and is responsible to him, but also that leadership and judgeship have related characters.
The judge is therefore also the guardian of the National self-preservation He is the protector of the valuable members of the nation and helps in the annihilation of the unworthy. He orders the events of life, which are diseases in the life of the body of the nation. A strong judgeship is essential to maintain a strong national community.
On account of this task, the judge is the direct assistant of the Leadership of the State. This position renders him prominent, but also shows the limits of his tasks which cannot, as according to a liberal doctrine, lie in the supervision of the Leadership of the State.
For, if a state does not possess an organization which leaves the leadership to those best suited therefore, the administration of justice cannot make good this selection by its activity.
The judge is the embodiment of the living conscience of the nation. Any state is bound to fall if honesty and common sense do not form the standard of values in the national community. It is the task of the Judge to guard over this. In his judgment he must always show this rule.
These tasks make the judge the center of the administration of justice. They show the profession of justice as an original profession - to be compared with that of the farmer and the soldier. These tasks can only be fulfilled by men who are mentally free and honest, and who possess a high sense of responsibility enjoy the responsibility they carry, and answer by their mental and exterior attitude to the imagination which the German people form of a judge. The body of judges must therefore become a corps of judges, which represents a selection of the nation."
I now turn to page 5 of the English text, which in any event will be the last paragraph and the signature of this letter. It is on page 5 of the English text:
"I am convinced that the "Richterbriefe" will essentially contribute to the creation of a uniformly arranged German corps of judges. Berlin, 1 October 1942. Signature, Dr. Thierack, Reich Minister of Justice."
I now turn to page 12 of the English text, and I shall read sub-title 3, Application for Coffee Rations by Jews, and the first paragraph which follows that sub-title. Have defense counsel found the page? (Nods that they have) Decision of a District Court of 24 November 1941.
"In autumn 1940 a special coffee ration was distributed to the population of the town B. Amongst others a large number of Jews applied for this coffee ration, which however they did not receive, as they were excluded from the distribution per se. The food authorities saw in this conduct an offense against the VRStVO and imposed fines on the Jews. Thereupon several hundred Jews appealed against them and asked for a court decision, so that about 500 identical cases were pending simultaneously with the district court in B. The judge informed the food authorities that in his opinion the imposing of fines could not be upheld for legal reasons - one of which was the statute of limitations - and recommended rescinding them.
The food authorities did not share this legal opinion of the judge and refused to rescind the fines, but suggested to the court that it mention only the point of limitation in case the fine should be set a side. Thereupon the court rescinded one of the fines; the other cases were to be dealt with according to prescribed procedure and with reference to this decision."
I now read from page 13 of the English text, which is the top of the page of the English text under the title "Opinion of the Reich Minister of Justice."
"The ruling of the district court, in form and content matter, borders on embarrassing a German administrative authority to the advantage of Jewry. The judge should have asked himself the question: what is the reaction of the Jew to this 20 page long ruling, which certifies that he and the 500 other Jews are right and that he won over a German authority, and does not devote one word to the reaction of our own people to this insolent and arrogant conduct of the Jews. Even if the judge was convinced that the food office had arrived at a wrong judgment of the legal position, and if he could not make up his mind to wait with his decision until the question, if necessary, was clarified by the higher authorities, he should have chosen a form for his ruling which under any circumstances avoided harming the prestige of the food office and thus putting the Jew expressly in the right towards it. The freedom from punishment for the unauthorized coffee registration was, even according to the law then in force, definitely doubtful. The fact that Jews were not entitled to a supply of genuine coffee was self-evident, even if it was not specially mentioned in the official decree. Registration had taken place by giving up a part of the ration card and by having this card stamped. If, considering the special circumstances of this case, this had been construed as an abuse of the right to draw rations, it could have resulted in an affirmation of the punishable character of their act. The impudent, provoked conduct of the Jews would have made it a "particularly serious case." In this case an offense could legally have been assumed. To such an offense a longer statute of limitations would have applied." 408 I jump the short two line paragraph of the English and proceed to the next paragraph which reads as follows: