In the meetings of the presidents of the District Courts of Appeal, this subject was of course discussed especially. The gentlemen who came to Berlin from the provinces, of course, also made especially extensive about this problem.
Q Can you remember one concrete remark made by Dr. Rothenberger in that connection in one of the meetings of the Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal that such conditions would be untenable for a constitutional state?
A You're asking to much, if you ask me to give information about individual remarks today. But the question which you formulated, of course, was the subject of all these discussions.
Q To what time do the experiences which you just spoke about refer?
A Well, they refer to the time when I was working in the Ministry of Justice, as I said, until I left it; that is the beginning of 1943 when I became a soldier.
Q Thank you. About the personality of Freisler, you spoke already. Can you tell whether apart from the characteristics which you mentioned already. Freisler was considered as an extraordinary dangerous man? Could he be described as such?
AAll those who knew Freisler agreed that he was a dangerous man. He had no inhibitions and he gave in to the wishes of the Party. I can even say he was serville.
Q Thank you. I do not have to ask you to characterize him more closely now. I only want to ask you to answer the question as to what Dr. Rothenberger's relationship with Freisler was.
A The two didn't like each other.
Q Did you observe that yourself at these meetings, and how was this expressed?
A I concluded that from the fact that Freisler, when Rothenberger made some remarks, was especially irritable and short-tempered and was inclined to shut him up quickly.
Q When Dr. Rothenberger was in Berlin, did he frequently visit you personally because of your old Hamburg acquaintance?
A Yes, When he was in Berlin, he, I believe, visited me every time.
Q Did he tell you his worries and report what steps he had taken in regard to the measures which were discussed before and the measures which he took with Minister Guertner in regard to this?
A I also have to answer this question affirmatively. He told me that he had seen Guertner or wanted to go to see him to report his worries to him.
Q Is it correct that the circumstances that Dr. Rothenberger brought along a number of assistants from Hamburg was described as "Hamburg Invasion" by the Berlin circles of the Ministry of Justice?
A Yes. They spoke about the "Hamburg Invasion" because Dr. Rothenberger brought along a number of high officials to Berlin with him to the Reich Ministry of Justice, and there he employed them by relieving those who had worked there before of their position and put his men into important positions.
Q Can you briefly tell us about the two main assistants of Dr. Rothenberger Ministerial Director Letz of Department I and Dr. Segelkin of Department II. Can you give us an opinion about their technical and other abilities for their position?
A I knew both of them from my time in Hamburg. There were no objections to be made to their character. I know in particular that Segelkin, who was put in charge of the examinations office -Pruefungsamt -- as a jurist, too had an especially good reputation.
Q Do you know anything about the fact that Dr. Segelkin in particular in his final position as in charge of Department II, was not confirmed by Party circles because in brief he was considered politically suspicious because of his former membership in the League for Human Rights and other reasons?
A I heard about that, but I believe that these incidents occurred after the time in which I was working in the Reich Ministry of Justice. But since you now mention the League for Human Rights, I recall that this point did play a part in the case of Segelkin.
Q Is it correct that Dr. Rothenberger commissioned you during the time he was Under-Secretary to look for persons who without having offered services to the Party could be considered as very well qualified from the technical point of view and should be brought back to the Ministry of Justice from other parts of the administration?
A Yes, that is correct. When in the fall of 1942 Dr. Rothenberger appeared, he asked me whether there were efficient people outside of the Administration of Justice. Then I told him some names. There were people who were very well qualified professionally and did not have a political stamp. I also know that Dr. Rothenberger later brought these people to the Ministry of Justice.
Q Can you remember any names?
A Ministerial Councillor Fachner, Ministerialrat Stolzenburg and Ministerialrat Beltz.
Q The last two questions refer to the distribution of business, Dor you know whether the Penal Division were under Dr. Rothenberger or not?
A I can only answer this question in reference to the short time during which I remained in the Ministry of Justice. During that time, the Penal Divisions were not under Dr. Rothenberger. The Division for Individual Penal Cases, the Penal Legislation Division, and the Penal Execution were directly under the new Minister of Justice. During the time which I am talking about and am able to talk about, Dr. Rothenberger had nothing to do with them.
Q Did Dr. Rothenberger want to do anything with the criminal law? Did he make any remarks to you to that effect?
A He refused in speaking to me to deal with criminal cases.
Q Dr. Gramm, if I remember correctly, you said before that Department 11, criminal legislation, was concerned with criminal legislation. In that connection I would like to ask you whether later on matters were not as follows: After Dr. Rothenberger took office, that Department 11 in the Ministry dealt with edication and examination matters, pruefungsamt; and general criminal legislation was Department 111. Do you know anything about that?
A When I talked about the organizational structure of the Ministry of Justice before, that referred to the conditions which I found when I came there. It is correct, as counsel says, that Department 11 later on did not have anything to do with criminal legislation any more, but it was the pruefungsamt, the examination office.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you. I have no further questions.
BY DR. THIELE-FREDERSHOF: (Attorney for Defendant Joel) May it please the Tribunal I request permission to address a few brief questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
Q Witness, if I understood you correctly, the transfer orders by Hitler were originally only given to the police, that later on Minister Guertner succeeded in having Hitler not only give such transfer orders to the police, but also informed the Ministry of Justice about it by way of the Presidial Kanzlei, the Chancellory, that is Minister of State Meissner. If that is so, Hitler used two channels, first, he gave transfer orders to the police; and secondly, via Meissner, he informed the Reich Ministry of Justice.
In what form did Meisssner inform the Reich Ministry of Justice about this transfer order by Hitler to the police?
A First, I have to correct what you said. I did not say that Meissner informed the Ministry of Justice, but as far as I remember, this information was sent by Lammers or Schaub. As to the form itself, I cannot say anything about that, for today I can no longer recall the literal wording of these orders or of this information.
Q Witness, I did not mean how such information was formulated. Did Lammers inform the Reich Ministry of Justice in writing or as far as you remember, did Lammers send such information by telephone?
A I believe that both methods were used -- the written and the oral, but I cannot say so with certainty any more because I had nothing to do with those things.
Q If a telephonic information was given, in addition to the written information, what was the purpose? Why did they not wait in the Reich Ministry of Justice until the written information reached them?
A Well, I believe this question is answered by the fact that I explained before that there was a great deal of pressure of time.
Q Thank you. Why was the defendant Joel, under the circumstances, at all concerned receiving such information from the police and with the subsequent negotiations with the police. What I mean is, in what capacity did he do that -- in what part of his referat, his department, did this affect him?
A I suppose that this can be explained by the fact that Joel was in charge of the central public prosecution, or perhaps because as liaison to the police outside of the Ministry he was used for that.
Q And can you tell me who commissioned him in the Ministry of Justice to take charge of the liaison with the police?
A I don't know that, but I would like to suppose that Dr. Guertner personally, who valued Dr. Joel highly, and, as we all knew, could take an especially attitude against the party.
Q Excuse me, you mean Dr. Joel.
A Yes, Dr. Joel -- that Dr. Joel seemed to be especially suited to Dr. Guertner as liaison with the police.
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: Thank you very much.
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK: (Attorney for Defendants Schlegelberger and von Ammon).
Q Now, a few questions on behalf of the defendant von Ammon. For how long have you known the defendant von Ammon?
A I met von Ammon on the day when I entered the Reich Ministry of Justice, that was on 2 January, 1935. He, liked me, had been detailed by the Ministry of Justice of his Land to Berlin. He came from Munich and I from Hamburg.
Q Did you have personal relationships with von Ammon in addition to the official one?
A I was in a very close personal relationship with him and not only an official one.
Q Do you know anything about von Ammon's attitude toward the party and the party offices?
AAs I said, I met von Ammon frequently of the office, too, and then we discussed with each other the matters; and, therefore, I know very well what von Ammon thought about the party and political conditions in Germany. In accordance with his entire attitude and bearing, he is a correct, honest man, who disapproved very strongly of every intervention and encroachment with the Administration of Justice. He had to do so in accordance with his whole background because he is a believing christian man; and the basic characteristics of his character I noticed again and again in his human goodness and personal decency.
Q What was von Ammon's relationships with Freisler and Thierack?
A I believe about these two that you just mentioned, I had already testified extensively this morning. On the basis of his innerattitude von Ammon was opposed to these two people and their methods on principle. I know that he mentioned to me in particular as regards Freisler; he spoke to me about it quite openly. If I remember his remarks about Thierack less well the reason for that is that at that time I was no longer in the Ministry of Justice.
Q When in your conversations with von Ammon did it become known to you what he knew about the conditions in concentration caps, especially about mass killings?
A In the political conversations which we had, and which I discussed here, we also spoke about concentration camps; and, therefore, I can also testify about von Ammon's attitude. We had to count on that since the concentration camps were under the SS, and were closed to outsiders, that occasional abuses took place there, and mistreatment. But I can say with certainty that with limited possibility of obtaining information available to us, we did not know anything about the unspeakable cruelties and mass exterminations -- which we have found out about only now.
Q What was von Ammon's position in the Ministry of Justice?
A von Ammon was referent for the international traffic in criminal cases. His referat -- he belonged outside the scientific research and assistance to the lower group of higher officials in the Ministry of Justice.
Q What authority for making decisions, or for signing documents did such an expert in the Ministry of Justice have?
A In effect he did not have the authority to make any decisions. The authority for making decisions in any matter, that some how significantly was not with the referent but the sub-division chief, or in accordance with the importance of the case with the division chief, the under-Secretary, or the Minister himself.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess at this time until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours, 3 July, 1947).
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 3 July 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q. Witness, we discussed last, what right of decision and right to signature a Referent in the Ministry had?
A. I had said that a man dealing with the case in the Ministry, apart from a research assistant, was in the lowest level of an official active in the Ministry; his superior was the sub-department chief, the Ministerialdirector, the chief of the department, and then the undersecretary, and finally the minister. Any important decisions of any kind had, at least, to be signed by the sub-department chief, and depending upon its importance, also by the department chief, the under-secretary or in some cases even by the minister.
Q. In this trial we have seen various documents which in the middle of the document were signed by an official, and on the margin showed the initials of other officials; can you explain the significance of these initials?
A. That is the so-called co-initialing or counter-initialing. The Referent usually, the one who had drafted the document initials first, with the initials of his name in the right corner of the document, then he added to that the date, the other officials who put their initials next to his were also on the right side of the document, expressed thereby that they agreed with the material contents of the document and confirmed that it was technically correct, but that they considered the decision to be so important that they expected the provisions or regulations to be signed by that official whose signature had to be in the middle below it; that latter official then assumed the responsibility for the document. It happened with such documents, that they bore a large number of initials.
For instance, in the cases which various departments of the Ministry participated in the draft of a regulation, a regulation of that kind circulated for a certain period of time from one official to another until it came to one official who had to sign his name in the middle under the text. By going through these channels drafts of that kind were frequently modified as each individual who put his signature or initials next to the initials of another one, had the right to make changes, and that right was used amply. Even the under-secretary and the Minister made corrections in such drafts. The first one who had drafted the regulation of that kind found out about that usually long after it had been passed on, that is to say, after the file had been returned to him, and he could see what corrections had subsequently been made.
Q. Did the Sachbearbeiter, the man preparing such a draft, have a right to report directly to the undersecretary or to the minister?
A. No, he did not. In all cases where the under-secretary or the minister had ordered that the matter be reported to them or submitted to them or where the Referent, himself, considered it important that the matter be submitted either to the under-secretary or the minister, he had to pass it on through his sub-department chief, department chief, under-secretary, and finally to the minister. And, that submission, that report before the last instance, be it the undersecretary or minister, was a report made by the department, in the name of the department. The Referent, therefore, with his sub-department chief and with his department chief, went to the under-secretary, and if the report had to be made to the minister, the under-secretary joined them for that purpose. There, at first, the matter referred to was reported by the man who had first signed and initialed on that occasion everybody had the opportunity to make additional statements.
Q. The department administration of criminal justice where Ammon was active; was that very extensive?
A. That department was also the largest of the Ministry of Justice. As I remember there were about 50 to 60 high officials.
Q. The Prosecution has asserted that von Ammon had been Referent for international law; is that correct?
A. No, Ammon was not exactly Arbiter or Referent for international law. I believe that the designation of his department could give cause to mis-understanding; he was a Referent for the exchange of, international exchange of ideas in matters of criminal law, but not for international law. International law in the Ministry of Justice was dealt with with Ministerialdirigent Kriege, and his assistant the Landgerichsrat Feaue De La Croise. Ammon was only concerned with international exchange of ideas and procedure in matters of criminal law; that comprises extradition of foreign nationals upon request of their native authorities, the authorities of their native countries, for trial by their national courts, and vis versa, the request on the part of the German Reich for the release of Germans who were in a foreign country to be tried by German courts for crimes committed within Germany. The extradition --
(At this point the sound system failed.)
THE PRESIDENT: The difficulty requires the work of a technician which will take about 10 minutes. We will take a recess until the sound system has been repaired.
MARSHALL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness, if only ore department were concerned, did the individual department -- individual departments-- assume responsibility for the matters with which that department was concerned, or did they assume the responsibility for the entire contents of any such department?
A: The department in part concerned with it assumed the responsibility only for their part of it, because on the questions which were outside of their department they could not decide.
Q: Now, one last question: Before we discussed the drafts made by the referent and the avarious departments through which that draft had to go until it finally came before the official who put the final signature on it. Did the referent make these drafts on his own initiative, or how did they come about?
A: The referent, of course, had to know how he had to deal with these matters; therefore, he was instructed as to the principles which he had to follow and what the general principles of his department and his field were. If any questions arose, he, by reporting to his department chief, had to obtain general directives as to how he was to treat such cases, or a special directive for the individual case in question.
Q: Thank you. I have concluded.
PRESIDENT: Do any other counsels for defendants desire to question this witness on direct examination? It appears that they don't. The Prosecution may crossexamine.
PROSECUTION: (Mr. Woolleyhan) - Your Honor, at the outset the Prosecution wishes to state that I will cross examine the witness with regard to his direct testimony as effects the Defendants Schlegelberger and Ammon, and after I have concluded Miss Arbuthnot will complete the cross-examination with regard to the Defendant Rothenberger if that is agreeable.
Thank you.
Q: Mr. Gramm, did you ever see the Defendant Schlegelberger in uniform?
A: Yes, I saw him in uniform.
Q: What uniform did you see him in?
A: In the uniform of an official -- the civil servant uniform.
Q: I'm going to show you a picture, Mr. Gramm, and I want you to tell me if that's the uniform you saw Mr. Schlegelberger in. (A picture was shown to the witness).
A: Yes, in that uniform I frequently saw him.
Q: And you say that uniform is an official's uniform, is that it?
A: That is the same official uniform which I also wore only with different insignia. It was the uniform which Hitler -- I don't recall the date of the year -prescribed for the Chiefs of higher Reich offices and officials who had to participate an official gatherings and official meetings -- the so-called civil servant uniforms.
Q: Mr. Gramm, do you see a Nazi insignia on the sleeve of that uniform that Mr. Schlegelberger is wearing?
A: Yes, that Nazi insignia was part of the insignia of rank of that uniform. May I explain the insignia of rank in detail?
Q: No, Mr. Gramm, I don't believe we want that. Do you see any other Nazi insignia on that uniform?
A: I see two Nazi insignia on that uniform apart from the one I mentioned.
Q: Where? What are these?
A: One is the Party insignia which is on the left breast of the uniform, and the other one is hard to see here. It is on the belt buckle.
Q: Yes. Now Mr. Gramm, in evidence before this Tribunal already is a personnel file showing that Mr. Schlegelberger asked permission to continue wearing that uniform after he left public office. If that permission had been granted, would that be the uniform that he would continue to wear?
A: Yes, that same uniform -- the official uniform.
PROSECUTION: May it please the Court, we offer for identification only as Prosecution Exhibit 526 the following page from the Deutsche Justiz, 1941, Page 997, When that has become photostated to form a proper exhibit, we will offer it.
PRESIDENT: Will you please repeat, for us, the number of the exhibit?
PROSECUTION: 526, Your Honor, for identification.
PRESIDENT: The exhibit will be marked for identification 526.
PROSECUTION: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q: Mr. Gramm, you were describing this morning that incident to your work as receiving visitors for Mr. Schlegelberger that no well-known Nazi Party members ever visited Mr. Schlegelberger -- that you remember. Is that true?
A: Yes.
Q: However, you did say that Mayor Goerdeler visited your office to see Mr. Schlegelberger quite frequently; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Now Mr. Gramm of what city was Goerdeler the mayor?
A: Goerdeler had been the mayer of the City of Leipzig, but at that time he was no longer in office because he had me the disapproval of the Party and had been dismissed. He was no longer the mayor.
Q: Aan what time was that that he was dismissed?
A: I could not recall the year, but I believe that it was before the war.
Q But from 1933 until at some time before the war he was major of Leipzig, is that true?
A Yes, because I know that after 1933 for political reasons, he was dismissed.
Q That wasn't my question, Mr. Gramm. I said was Lord Mayor Goerdeler mayor of Leipzig for any span of time after Hitler's rise to power in 1933?
A Yes.
Q About how long?
A That I could no longer say, but I assume that he stayed for several years after 1933, he was Lord Mayor of Leipzig.
Q Now, Mr. Gramm, would you say that Leipzig was a major city of Germany?
A Yes, it was one of the most important major cities.
Q Now, still in connection with the visitors that you received for the defendant Schlegelberger, you mentioned Schlegelberger's frequent talks with Lammers, did you not?
A Yes.
Q Would you tell me again who Lammers was, briefly just who he was?
A Dr. Lammers was Reichs Minister and chief of the Reichs Chancellery; and in that position, he was in the capacity of a chief of the Cabinet under Hitler. My statement, of course, is not accurate from the legal point of view because Hitler was the one person, both the Reichs Chanceller and the Chief of State, but as far as the actual business of Hitler' s Reichs Chancellor was concerned, the Reichs Minister and the Chief of the Reichs Chancellery, Lammers, did that.
Q That was a permanent job, close to Hitler as you said, was it not?
A Yes.
Q Now, Mr. Gramm, there is no doubt in your mind that Hans Lammers was a Nazi, is there? Just yes or no.
A No. No, but may I just say a few words by way of explanation?
Q Yes.
A Lammers did not come from the typical Party side to his office. He was a career civil servant and had not come into the office on the merits of the Party, at least, I do not knew anything about that.
Q Mr. Gramm, Lammers was a career civil servant under the Nazi Regime, was he not?
A No was a civil servant by profession.
Q Yes. Now, with regard to the organization of the Ministry of Justice while you worked for the defendant Schlegelberger. You were describing the departments over which Schlegelberger and Freisler had control, and you were describing also that these departments over which Schlegelberger and Freisler had control, and you were describing also that those departments under Schlegelberger were concerned with civil law matters, is that correct?
A It is correct, but I should like to add something here.
Q Well, wait until I finish, Mr. Gramm, then you may add. You also said that those civil law departments under Mr. Schlegelberger were designated as departments 4, 5, and 6. You also---
A 6 was budget matters.
Q Yes. You also said that Freisler, having charge of criminal law matters, had control over departments 2 and 3?
A Yes.
Q Now, Mr. Gramm, there is a chart before this Court already in evidence, which is certified to as to the correctness by your boss, the defendant Schlegelberger, and since it is in complete variance with what you say about what departments were what and who was responsible for which, I am going to show it to you and ask you very briefly if you can explain why there is a difference. I am concerned only with your descriptions of departments 3, 4, and 5, two of which you said were civil.
A That error, or that misunderstanding I can clear up very easily. My description of the departments under the Under-Secretary which were dealing with civil law and which I called IV, V, and VI, that occurred at a time when I entered the Ministry of Justice.
At that time, there were 6 departments all together. May I repeat, department one, at that time, when I came into the Ministry of Justice was Personnel Department.
Q One moment, please, Mr. Gramm, without going into the organization of the Ministry at the time when you first arrived, it will clear up things completely if you will just say whether or not that is the way things were after 1939, for instance?
A This is the diagram of the way it was corrected later.
Q All right. I believe that.
AAnd at that time, the former department 4, civil law, was under Schlegelberger. Number VI, and department V, commercial law, was under him and became Vii. That explains it.
Q Yes, thank you that explains that. Now, you were describing the method by which clemency pleas in criminal cases were handled in the Ministry, and you observed, I believe, that they were handled very carefully in the departments, and then they were submitted through you to the defendant Schlegelberger for his approval or disapproval of the action recommended by the subordinates?
A Yes.
Q And then Schlegelberger would look over these clemency pleas, weigh them, one side and then the other, and at least until the procedure was later changed, he would then present them through channels to Hitler, is that correct?
A Excuse me, I did not quite understand that question.
Q I was merely describing what you had said, and I said that after the clemency pleas were submitted through you to Mr. Schlegelberger fer his approval, they then were sent by him through channels to Hitler?
A If Mr. Schlegelberger wanted to suggest to propose clemency, then he could not decide the matter himself, but sent that file back to the department with the directive that a report should be made to Hilter; where a suggestion was to be made that the death sentence should be commuted into a penitentiary term of so and so many years.
Q Yes. Excuse me, Mr. Gramm; did you over hear of a clemency plea in a civil case?
A Not that I know of.
Q In other words, you would say that this business of clemency pleas was criminal in nature?
A I don't understand that question, Mr. Prosecutor. If I discussed the way of handling clemency matters and Schlegelberger's position in that connection, that applied to the time, when he officially, as acting Minister, and had to deal with clemency matters.
Q And these clemency matters were criminal in nature and not civil, is that correct?
A They were certainly matters of criminal law.
Q Yes. Now, Mr. Gramm, you describe a trip that you and the defendant Schlegelberger took to Darmstadt to correct a tense situation down there that had been created throught a public prosecutor's being in league with Gauleiter Springer, is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Now, you further said that Schlegelberger, after investigating the matter, summoned that prosecutor Krauss, I believe his name was, to Berlin and rebuked him? Is that correct?
A Yes, he called to him to Berlin and rebuffed him.
Q Now, Mr. Gram, did you ever hear of a prosecutor that wasn't engaged in criminal matters?
A Yes, I heard of that.
Q Was the prosecutor Krauss engaged in trying criminal cases?
A Certainly. In his official position as prosecutor and criminal prosecutor, he had to deal with penal cases, but personally, he had relations to the Party and the Gauleiter Springer which made it possible for him to get in immediate contact with him.
Q With regard to these attacks of the Ministry of Justice in the press, I believe you gave several illustrations of how judges and prosecutors had been attacked by the Nazi Press, particularly the "Schwarze Korps", the SS paper?
A Yes.
Q You also mentioned that a number of these judges and prosecutors were attached in that manner by name and their removal suggested?
A Yes.
A To your knowledge was the defendant Schlegelberger ever attacked in the "Schwarze Korps" by name, yes or no?
A No.
Q Now, with regard to the transfer of defendants after trial to the Gestapo, you described Guertner's long and sincere efforts to stop that encroachment by the Gestapo on the Ministry, did you not?
A Yes, indeed.
AAnd I believe you further stated that Guernter failed to keep the police from so encroaching to any substantial degree, that is?
A Yes, that is what I said.
Q And so far as you remember, when did Guertner tell your boss, the defendant Schlegelberger, of his lack of success in that field? Was it 1937, '38 or when was it?
A That must have been after the beginning of the war because these transfers took place, if I remember correctly, only during the war, that is after 1939,
Q Sometime during or after '39?
A I can't say it for sure, but it must have been that.
Q Sometime between 1939 and Guertner's death? He must have told him then.
A Yes.
Q Now, Mr. Gramm, I am going to hand you a series of three letters. In their original form, I think that possibly you have seen them before I want you to briefly describe each one as I call your attention to it.
(The witness is offered the letters.)
Mr. Gramm, you note that the letter on top there - the first letter dated the 21 of November 1941 appears to be the file copy of a memorandum and it deals with some 77,000 Jews in Berlin alone; the fact that 7,000 had been expelled or deported already, and discusses in general the entire problem of what to do with the inferior racial Jews. What instruction do you find typed on the bottom of that letter?
A "To Herrn Oberregierungsrat Dr. Gramm, with the request to inform the Under-Secretary."
Q Now turn please to the second letter, Dr. Gramm. That second letter, I believe, as you will confirm, is dated the 12 of March 1942, some three or four months after the first letter. There the defendant Schlegelberger makes certain references to that same Jewish matter, does he not?
A Yes.
Q Now the third letter there on the bottom is dated about a week after the second one. That is an original, I believe, which was sent to the Ministry in reply to Schlegelberger's letter. Is that true? And it's personally signed by Lammers.
A Yes, it is an answer which Lammers sent to the Ministry of Justice to Dr. Schlegelberger - and signed personally.
Q And in that final letter, Lammers expresses his willingness to discuss the solution of the Jewish question with Schlegelberger, does he not?