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?
A Yes.
Q May it please the court, we offer for identification only these letters just identified and discussed by the witness as Prosecution's Exhibit 527. After proper processing, we will make formal offer.
THE PRESIDENT: You're offering the three instruments and one exhibit, you mean, for identification?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor, they are three related letters. We offer them as one document for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the documents be marked for identification, 527.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Will you note also, Your Honors, that Exhibit 527, when formally offered, will be Document No. NG-839.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q By the way, Mr. Gramm, that trip that we were discussing that you took to Darmstadt with the defendant Schlegelberger, do you remember when that was?
A I think I can say that quite accurately because that was at the beginning at the time when I worked for Dr. Schlegelberger. It must have been in the summer of 1936.
Q Now with regard to those few remarks you made concerning the defendant von Ammon, I believe one of your initial statements with regard to your old friend von Ammon was that in the Ministry of Justice his official duties did not concern international law, is that true?
A He dealt in his official duties in the Ministry of Justice not with the Department for International Law. Other people took care of that.
Q In that connection, Mr. Gramm, I am going to read you a sentence or two from a document already in evidence before this court as Exhibit 337. It's the personal sworn affidavit of the defendant von Ammon, and in there he says the following: "After I was transferred to the Reich Ministry of Justice, my main activity consisted of international legal relations in criminal matters, especially the extradition of German criminals who had fled to foreign countries, and on the other hand, the extradition of criminals who were to be transferred from Germany to foreign countries."
How do you reconcile Mr. von Ammon's appraisal of his own duties with what you said they were?
A I am of the opinion that it was word for word the same that I said. I ask you to ask me in detail on what points you think that there is a discrepancy.
Q Well, the rather basic point, Mr. Gramm, that you said that the defendant von Ammon was not officially concerned with matters of international law; whereas in his affidavit, he clearly said that he was.
A Mr. Prosecutor, excuse me, but he does not say that. He says he is Referent for legal international exchange in penal matters. That in the Ministry of Justice was definitely separated from the department for international law - Voelkerrecht. He was not Referent for the Voelkerrecht. He was only Referent for the international legal exchange in penal matters; that is extradition, as I have explained before.
Q Well in your opinion, Mr. Gramm, when the defendant von Ammon says, and I am quoting, that his main activity "consisted of international legal relations in criminal matters," does he mean, "international," or doesn't he?
A Of course he means "international," but international relations in penal matters is a very small part of a large legal field.
Q Now, Mr. Gramm, do you or do you not think that international criminal matters are a part of international law?
A No, I definitely do not believe so. It is a part of law in various countries (Internationales Recht) but not part of international law (Voelkerrecht) as such.
Q Yes.
A Because Voelkerrecht only has to do with the relations of nations to each other but not with the individual field in which Ammon was concerned.
Q Yes. Now, Mr. Gramn, when was this conversation you had with your friend Ammon regarding the matter of concentration camps? Do you remember when that was?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I met Dr. von Ammon very frequently. I said already that we were good friends. Therefore today I could not say whether that was in 1936, '38, or '39. I know that frequently we discussed that question.
Q Yes, that is sufficient, Mr. Gramm. Thank you. Now with regard again to the defendant von Ammon's official duties, you stated that so far as you knew, he could not make any final decision, is that true?
AAbout the position of the Referent, I talked in general of Referents in the Ministry of Justice, and I said that every important decision of any kind could not be made by the Referent but at least by the sub-department chief or had to be signed also by others.
Q The fact that the final decision could not be made by them but had to be passed on finally by superiors, did that prevent the Referents from preparing and stating their official advice on these matters that they were concerned with?
A No, that was their job, that they had to work out these drafts within the scope of the directives which were given for their department.
Q Yes, thank you. Mr. Gramm, did you ever hear of the Nacht and Nebel program?
A Yes.
Q From what you knew of it, do you think that was a domestic or international matter?
Q It was an international matter because it dealt with people who were not German citizens.
Q That is fine. That concludes what I have, Your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MISS ARBUTENOT:
Q Mr. Gramm, I believe that you stated that you went to the Reich Ministry or the Ministry of Justice in Hamburg in 1931; that shortly thereafter the defendant Rothenberger left that Ministry and then returned in 1933 as the chief of your office. Could you tell me the reason for his return or why he was appointed chief of the Hamburg office at that time? Was it due to his Party membership?
A I don't know the reason. I only know that Dr. Rothenberger was not an old Party member. I have never seen his membership card but we were always told that in fact he had become a member only after 1933. However, I heard later that the date of his entry into the Party was made retroactive. It was dated back. That was done.
Q You also mentioned in your testimony that shortly after the Seizure of Power the Defendant Rothenberger had difficulties in connection with personnel matters in Hamburg, specifically in connection with officers, I believe Rudel and Lautz, whom he caused to be transferred because of the political connections of activity. Was this transfer -- or do you know of this transfer of your own personal knowledge, or Dr. Rothenberger's connection with these transfers?
A I said before when I was questioned on these points that I personally had nothing to do with personnel matters in Hamburg. But I ask you to consider the fact that the Hamburg administration of justice was small enough that one could hear everything whether one had anything to do with it directly or not. It was, so to speak, an open secret that Dr. Rothenberger did not like the two officials and when they disappeared, everyone could conclude -- as I did -- that Dr. Rothenberger had been the reason, that his attitude had been the reason.
Q You stated that from -- I believe from 1934 when you left the Hamburg office, until the time Dr. Rothenberger came to Berlin, you continued your relationships with Dr. Rothenberger. Were these confined to his occasional visits to Berlin, at which time he visited you?
A Yes, it refers only to that. When he came to Berlin, since I was a man from Hamburg who was in Berlin at that time and whom he knew from before, he would come to see me, say hello, occasionally go to dinner at Kranzler's, and he would also tell me about his worries. Then he left again.
Q Then you knowledge of Dr. Rothenberger's attitude, his political attitude, and his strong -- as you say -- opposition to the Nazi Party is confined to the time when you were associated with Dr. Rothenberger in the Hamburg office, your occasional visits with him, your dinners with him in Berlin and then the time after Dr. Rothenberger came to Berlin, is that true?
A I ask you to repeat the question again as to what knowledge I am to confirm. I didn't quite understand that.
Q You stated in your direct examination, Dr. Gramm, that Dr. Rothenberger was opposed to Nazi interference, or party interference, in justice matters and fought this interference to his utmost, is that true, that his attitude was against interference by the party in justice matters?
A That is correct. Dr. Rothenberger was an opponent of interference in the administration of justice by anybody outside of the administration of justice, especially by the party. That I know from his entire attitude, his position, and especially from the personal experiences which I gathered from 1933, 1934 until I left the Ministry in Hamburg.
Q In fact, I believe you went so far as to say that Dr. Rothenberger actively opposed and perhaps in some instances failed to cooperate with the request of party members when they interfered in matters of justice.
A You misunderstood me. I didn't say exactly that; I only said that Dr, Rothenberger did not tolerate any interference by the party with the administration of justice. I cannot say, however, that such interference was at all intended during the time I was in Hamburg. I knew, however, that Dr. Rothenberger later, on the occasion of the meetings of the Chief Presidents in Berlin, repeatedly asked the Ministry of Justice in the case of such insinuations to resist most energetically.
Q Evidence has been presented in this case, Dr. Gramm, documents to which I would like to call your attention. One, which was Prosecution Exhibit 26, Document 415, which appears on page 214 of the transcript of record, there is a speech by the State Secretary, Dr. Rothenberger, made on the 17th of February, 1933, in Lueneburg, at which he addresses the Deputy Gauleiter, "Dear Comrade," and goes on to state that "on the 20th of August 1942the Fuehrer ordered our new Reich Minister of Justice to build up a strong National Socialist judicial administration.
Evidently there did not exist one so far and we could have started our work by working on the proposed laws in Berlin and you would have read about this reform some day in the Reichsgesetzblatt. We have purposely not chosen this procedure since we believe that this is not some secret science but that these problems are of direct concern to you," this letter being addressed -- or this speech being addressed -- to the Deputy Gauleiter at Lueneburg. Dr. Rothenberger goes on to state that "The fact is that we still live in a time of revolution and that the world is undergoing a change as seldom in history and the cardinal point of this change is National Socialism."
Further, he states: "Thus begins now for the German judicial administration, the second decade."
Further: "You know that the Reich Minister of Justice is not only the State Supreme Authority of German justice but also the Supreme Authority of the Party as chief of the National Socialist jurists' league. Of primary importance during war time, of course, is penal law. The administration of penal law must be severe and just. By 'severe' I mean the problem which the Deputy Gauleiter has already started to discuss. That is the elimination of asocial and inferior persons." This document goes on.
I was wondering if you could tell me whether in your opinion this letter or speech to the Deputy Gauleiter is an indication of the opposition to cooperation or influence by the party which the Defendant Rothenberger showed in his activities which you have described.
A No, certainly not; but I still believe that I have been misunderstood. I only said that Dr. Rothenberger during the period when he was in Hamburg and later repeatedly stated that he was not ready to tolerate any interference from tho party in the administration of justice.
He told me that, and I repeated that here as witness. What actually happened, what speeches he may have made, that I don't know, I couldn't testify anything about that.
Q Again, in 1942, in Prosecution's Exhibit 27, being Document NG-075, which appears in the transcript on page 231 and following, we have Dr. Rothenberger's memorandum regarding judicial reform, saying "that the present crisis in the administration of justice today is close to such a climax. A totally new conception of the administration of justice must be created, particularly a National Socialist judiciary."
Skipping a portion, we come to the statement that "It is true German justice has become organizationally speaking a united Reich justice and all efforts are being made to create a National Socialist justice.
Jurisprudence strives, if only with varied success, to fit into the National Socialist ideology."
Is that statement, Dr. Gramm, in agreement with your opinion of the Defendant Rothenberger's attitude with respect to the Nazi Party and its activities?
A No, it is not in agreement.
Q You knew, Dr. Gramm, did you not, that Dr. Rothenberger was a Gau Leader of the Hamburg section of the National Socialist Lawyers' League, did you not?
A Yes.
Q Just one more reference to documents which have already been presented in evidence. Prosecution's Exhibit No. 76, which was NG-389, and which appears in part, transcript page 377, is a letter from Dr. Rothenberger to the Under-Secretary, Dr. Schlegelberger, containing a situation report. This is dated May 11, 1942. Dr. Rothenberger states that "The Fuehrer's speech of 26 April 1942 did not surprise me.
It confirmed me the regrettable fact that the Fuehrer has no confidence in German justice and in the German law."
Then Dr. Rothenberger states:
"A radical National Socialist reform of the legal system, which I have suggested for years in verbal and written reports, has therefore become urgent."
Does this statement by Dr. Rothenberger seem to you to conform with the attitudes which you have described?
A. I only spoke of Rothenberger which I know to the effect that he refused to admit any interference on the part of the Party in pending cases. I did not speak about his position in general with reference to National Socialist nor about his point of view concerning the reforms of the administration of justice which he has mentioned here. I have not said anything concerning this point.
Q. Do you know whether Dr. Rothenberger remained a Gauleader in Hamburg up until 1942 when he want to Berlin?
A. No, I do not know that.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: Thank you, that is all.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it that concludes the cross-examination.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any redirect examination?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:Two minor questions to clear up a matter which has not become clear as far as I can see it.
Q. Witness, in the cross examination, the representatives of the Prosecution referred to the Chief of the ReichChancellory Lammers, you said that he was an old civil servant; the Prosecutor said an old civil servant in the Nazi State , wasn't it?, and you did not answer. Would you please explain now whether that term, old civil servant should be taken in the sense with the meaning that the Prosecutor gave it or whether you are of a different opinion?
A. I meant it differently, by saying an old civil servant, I meant that before 1933, and for many years, Dr. Lammers had already been a civil servant -- I certainly would not call an official who was in office since 1933 or 1934 an old servant.
Q. One last question also for the purpose of clarification. In the direct examination and also in the cross-examination we spoke about Ueberstellung, transfer, I think it is not yet clear from what office the Reich Minister of Justice received the information about the fact that a Fuehrer order had been sent out to the Police?