The protection of the German community, as well as the demand for justice required, in view of the circumstances, the death penalty."
That again is consistent with your belief that this war had to be fought to a successful conclusion; that is correct, is it not?
A Mr. Prosecutor, it is very difficult to bring these considerations concerning war policy and foreign policy into connection with the sentence and opinion concerning the App and Kreutle case. At any rate, the point of view assumed by the Special Court in that opinion was that at times of war, and in order to be able at all to survive through the war, an institution such as the German Reichsbahn had to remain entirely intact. I presume that the Magistrate who wrote down the opinion expressed such thoughts.
Q The Prosecution offers NG-710, the judgment in the case of Kreutle and App, as Prosecution's Exhibit 569, and I will now distribute it.
THE PRESIDENT:NG 710 is received in evidence as Prosecution's Exhibit 569.
We will recess until one-thirty this afternoon.
(In recess until one-thirty o'clock)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 3 September 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: There appears to have been a slight disagreement between timepieces. You may wait a moment.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor. Defendant's counsel has just come. I will wait a moment.
DR. BRIEGER: May it please the Court, due to urgent business, I have been delayed for a few moments.
THE COURT: I am sorry, the translation was not coming through.
DR. BRIEGER: Would you please forgive me? Urgent business delayed me for a few minutes. I had to issue instructions to the witnesses to report to the Marshal.
THE PRESIDENT: You are not late, so don't worry about it.
HERMANN CUHORST (Resumed) CROSS-EXAMINATION ( Continued) BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Herr Cuhorst, you have examined this newspaper article during recess? Do you find that it substantially states the substance of what you said there, as you recall it?
A. This newspaper clipping contains a number of ideas about which I am certain I did talk. If one considers that all newspaper reports are imperfect, one nay say that this report by a rural correspondent, generally sneaking, is a reproduction of what I said.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: With that limitation on its probative value, which I accept it is universal, -- I offer NG-854 as Prosecution Exhibit 568.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received as a memorandum of the witness' testimony.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Now, referring to Exhibit 569-that is NG-710, the Kreutle-App judgment--I notice, and I recall by reading it, that both Kreutle and App were sentenced to death as dangerous habitual criminals.
That is the lav of the 4th of September, 1941, Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 549. I believe.
A. Yes.
Q. The first article reads:
"The dangerous habitual criminal", and the, in parentheses, the dangerous habitual criminal is defined by parentheses as the person defines, in Article 20-A of the Penal Code.
Do you have article 20-A of the Criminal Code with you in the witness stand or available to you?
A. No, I don't have the penal code with me.
DR. BRIEGER: I can make it available for him.
MR. LA FOLLETE: We will get one in just a minute.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Section 20-A of the Penal Code, as translated for me, consists of four subparagraphs, apparently. The first one says:
"If an offender, who has been twice finally convicted before, renders himself liable to a prison penalty by intentionally committing a new punishable act, and if the evaluation of all acts considered together shews that he is a dangerous habitual criminal." It then described the sentences. I shan't read the sentences because, obviously, this law of the 4th of September 1941 makes them subject to the death penalty, if necessitated for the protection of the national economy.
THE PRESIDENT: "Community".
BY MR. LA FOLLETE:
Q. (Continuing) "National Community", yes, or by a desire for just expiation.
Is what which I have read in English substantially what is in the Penal Cone that you have before you in the first section, "l"?
A. No, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q. Yes?
A. In article 28 fines are discussed
Q. No, I am talking about 20-A.
Q. Oh, 20-A, oh yes, that is what I meant to say. Article 20-A, Section 2--and that is the section with which we are concerned here-says that if a person has committed at least three deliberate offenses-
Q. Yes, that is "2", but what I read from "l" is substantially correct also?
A. Yes, that is substantially correct.
Q. And then "2".--will you read "2", then, slowly?
A. "If a person has committed a minimum of three intentional offenses, and if the total evaluation of the offenses shows him to be a dangerous habitual criminal, the Court, in the case of every offense to be dealt with, may increase the severity of the penalty even if the other prerequisites mentioned under Section I do not exist."
Q. Yes. So that even though a man has not been sent to prison, if he has committed three punishable acts he nay come within the definition of article 20-A, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in the case of Kreutel and App, how did you arrive at the conclusion that they came within the provisions of article 1 of the law of 4 September 1941?
A. The Court arrived at the conclusion that the prerequisites for Article 20-A, Section 2, of the Reich Penal Code, did exist, no matter whether the individual acts of theft had been committed one after the other as a continious offense or whether each of them, legally speaking, constituted an independent punishable act. That legal view was in accordance with the prevailing jurisdiction of the Reich Supreme Court.
The offenses committed by Kreutle are listed in the German text on page 4 and following pages. You can see there that he had committed more than three independent punishable acts.
The first was committed in the autumn of 1940, and these punishable acts continued until January 1943. I estimate that he committed a total of 20 such punishable offenses.
Q. You had to make that finding from the facts in order to bring him within the provisions of article 1 of the law of 4 September 1941?
A. I don't quite understand that question. I believe I have already replied to the effect that the Court was of the opinion that the two defendants, Kreutle and App, could be sentenced under the prerequisites of Article 20-A, Section 2 of the Reich Penal Code, because both of them had committed a number of individual offenses, and because, from the legal point of view, it did not matter whether, in the judgment, 20 individual thefts, or one theft consisting of 20 individual offenses, were considered to be the facts of the case, and that was in accordance with the prevailing jurisdiction of the Reich Supreme Court.
Q. Yes. You were outvoted in the original consideration that case by your two associate judges, were you not, and finally prevailed that the death sentence should be given?
A. The associate judges, whose names cannot be seen in the judgement, were Oberlandesgerichtsrat Dr. Stuber and Dr. Azensdorfer. Before the trial opened the case was discussed at length, because it was the first more important case of a railway robbery in which six defendants had been indicted. Naturally, it was also discussed whether the main defendants had committed an offense which merited the death sentence or not.
Q. Yes, but before the sentence was finally agreed upon, do you not remember that the Associate Stuber and the Associate Azensdorfer expressed the opinion that a death sentence should not be given in the cases of either Kreutle or App? Is that not correct?
A. I cannot testify about that, but I can gather this much from the judgment, that the majority of the judges, when we voted, were in favor of the punishment which was decided upon in the judgement. I cannot imagine that things might have been different.
Q I beg your pardon. Finish.
A In particular, I cannot imagine that at the voting another sentence might have been decided upon than the sentence which is pronounced in the judgment itself. In such a case the two judges who voted differently certainly would have signed the judgment, and they would have had every reason to do so, that is to say, not sign, for in that case the judgment would not have been a judgment, but it would have been a unilateral act contrary to law. Such a thing i never knew to have happened.
Q Yes, but on the question of whether a death sentence was demanded, there was a pardon and both of those death sentences were reduced to penitentiary terms, more they not?
A Yes.
Q That all. Thank you. On this question of a bilateral act that had no legal.value, did you know a Herr Wiskott who sat with you, while you were in the Ukraine, in a case involving a German in Shitomir in the Ukraine?
A I don't know a Herr Wiskott.
Q Would you say that he was wrong if he states under oath that you and a man named Funk, together with him, sat as judges in the Ukraine, without appointment and sentenced a German to death for undermining military morale?
A I remenber this incident. For purposes of information for period of about a fortnight I had been assigned to the President of the District Court, Dr. Funk, who at that time was in Rowno. While I was assigned to him, the President of the District Court, in a perfectly legal manner, asked me to take part as associate judge, without waiting the opinion in penal proceedings against a German. As to what was the name of the judge who wrote the opinion of that case, that I cannot remember. The presiding judge at that trial was Dr. Funk, the President of the District Court. I no longer remember any details of that case.
Q Isn't it correct to say that you went to the Ukraine to see whether or not you wanted to take a judgeship, and that you were not a legally appointed judge when you sat on this case?
A That is not correct. This is how it was: I tried to get away from the Special Court at Stuttgart, and when the Reichministry of Justice was looking for a judge who would take over the Justice Department in the Ukraine, I applied, and for purposes of information I was assigned to work with the Justice Commissar in the Ukraine. When that period during which I was to obtain information had elapsed, I returned, because I did not think I would like that now office. As to the length of my stay in the Ukraine, I, as a judge with all the rights of such was assigned to the President of the District Court, Dr. Funk, and as such I could fulfil all functions of a judge which the Justice Commissar in the Ukraine asked me to fulfil. As for absence of competency in connection with my work as associate judge in criminal proceedings, that is out of the question.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The Prosecution offers as Prosecution's Exh. 570 the Document NG 893. Do you want to see it? The original is up there. I wish you would distribute these in English and bring me the English back.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q On March 18, 1943, in this document, NG 893, I read; "To the Senate President Hermann Cuhorst, Stuttgart: In agreement with the Reich Minister of Justice, I hereby assign you to the Reichskommissar for the Ukraine in Rowno for a period of approximately two weeks, effective 15 March 1943, in an advisory capacity with the Main Department for Legal Matters. You are requested to report to the Reichskommissar for the Ukraine in Rowno to receive further instructions. Your salary will continue for the time being to be paid by the office from which you are now receiving it."
Is that the document, the letter which, in your opinion, gave you the authority to act as a judge in the Ukraine?
A. I have not yet looked through the whole of this document, but from this instruction I gather that it probably is included in my personnel file.
Therefore, I gather that in agreement with the Reichminister of Justice as from 15 March 1943 far a period of approximately two weeks I was assigned to the Reichkommissar for the Ukraine at Rowno for purposes of information with the Department for Legal Matters. That is all I can gather from this document, but the decisive point in this document is that it was the Main Department for Legal Matters to which I was assigned for work, and such work the Commissar for legal matters, President of the District Court, Dr. Funk, considered included my work as associate judge at a criminal trial. And that as the general custom, also, elsewhere in the justice administration.
Q Did you try any cases against Ukrainians while you were out there under this authority?
A I only took part in this one case, and as far as I know, that trial took place in Shitomir. That can also be seen from a private letter from Dr. Funk, the President of the District Court, in which he mentions photographs which were taken on a trip to Shitomir and Kiew. I never dealt with any cases against Ukrainians. For that my stay in the Ukraine was much too brief.
Q In the case Wasmer, who was a Catholic priest sentenced by you in 1940 for two offenses against Article II, paragraph 1 and 2 of the Decree against Malicious Attacks, he received three years and six months. In discussing the award of punishment you stated: "In the case of the leaflets, the defendant Wasmer has carried out his act with exessive obstinacy, for he would not be dissuaded from it being carried out although he had been urgently warned by the incidents at the vicarage of Siegmaringen and again when Dean Schach, as his superior, had advised him against the further pursuit of the project."
What were the incidents at the vicarage of Siegmaringen?
A.- Mr. Prosecutor, you have the judgment in your hands. A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to look at it briefly. In effect, that was a double case. It was the case of Wasmer and the case of Blattmann and other persons. Wasmer, I believe, came from Siegmaringen village, unless I am mistaken. No, no, he came from Binsen, Siegmaringen District and his superior, Franz Schach, at the first trial had been indicted for an offense against the Malicious Acts Law. The defendant Wasmer was sentenced be a total term of three years and six months in prison. The defendant Schach was sentenced to a prison term of eight months. Wasmer, after the treaty between Germany and Russia had been concluded in 1939, from Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" and, I believe, from other publications as well, had compiled a pamphlet agitating against that treaty. He had a few hundred copies produced of that pamphlet. Some of those pamphlets he sent to people he knew and also to people who were unknown to him. Hot only his father confessor had warned him against producing such pamphlets, but his superiors, too, and a number of clergymen who were among his acquaintances in Siegmaringen. All the same, in suite of the fact that he had been warned urgently, he continued his work, and as far as I know, Clergyman Blattmann of Todtnau, unless I am mistaken, was used by him for the production of further pamphlets.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The Prosecution offers Prosecution Exhibit NG-909, which is the verdict against Paul Wasmer and also the sentence against Stephen Blattmann as Prosecution's Exh. 571.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you offer Exhibit 570? You haven't offered it, have you?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: What is 570?
THE PRESIDENT: 893. I don't think you have offered it.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I mean to offer it, if Your Honor please, NG-983.
THE PRESIDENT: No. 893.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: 893? I think it is 983, Your Honor. I am sorry -I should have -- It is 983, as Prosecution Exh. 570.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received. Exhibit 571 is received also.
MR. LA FOLLETTf: Mill you make distribution, please?
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q.- Now yesterday you discussed your case No. 40. That is Morvice, or Morvoice, or Morvece. That was the Pole, Bartholomaeus Mroviec.
A.- Bartholomaeus Mroviec.
Q.- Thank you. I do thank you. I wasn't sure how to say that. Did you sentence the five German boys who were associated with this defendant, the Polish defendant?
THE PRESIDENT: In which case?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: It is No. 40 in the Brieger cases, Your Honor -in the Cuhorst cases. I am still unable to pronounce the name.
THE WITNESS: May I answer now?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Oh, yes.
A.- When I discussed that case I said that those German juveniles, whose ages were between 14 and 18, were tried by the Juvenile Court, the Jugendschutzkammer, and not by the Special Court. As Mroviec as well as the juveniles had confessed, I only summoned the two main participants among the juveniles as witnesses, and when examining them I found that they had not only offered any resistance to Mroviec's actions, but that they had actually participated in his actions. I remember that lawyer Dr. Weber, too, in the draft of an affidavit, described the case in the same way. At least I have that draft before me here.
Q.- I have before me -- maybe we have the same thing -- an affidavit of Dr. Weber in which he says: "An especially severe sentence, which was in no way warranted by the facts, was pronounced against the 20 years old Pole, Bartholomaeus Mroviec, a farmhand at Vaihingen/Enns, for whom I had been appointed compulsory counsel for the defense. He had committed a sexual offense against ten boys between the ages of 9 and 18 years of age. The trial proved that this relationship had not been caused by the defendant, but by the German boys, who admitted themselves that the Pole had in the beginning declined to fall in with their suggestion.
The German boys went free, but the Pole was sentenced to five years penitentiary." I didn't understand from your testimony yesterday that the German boys went free in this case. Does Dr. Weber state it correctly?
A.- I have Dr. Weber's affidavit in front of me. Dr. Weber apparently remembers only the trial before the Special Court. The german boys, had not been indicted before the Special Court. They had been indicted before the Penal Chamber which was competent for their case. That they were indicted there I heard at a later date, and I also heard that one of the boys was sent to a reform school.
Q.- Do I understand that the boys were not indicted at the time you tried this Pole?
A.- Three boys were juveniles -
Q.- Were they indicted? If they weren't, I want to pass on.
A.- Only the Pole was indicted before the Special Court, not the boys.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Thank you. Let me have 1470, will you please?
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, while we are waiting let me ask you, in the case to which reference has been made, which was tried in the Ukraine did you in fact take part in the trial, in the decision of that case as a judge?
THE WITNESS: I don't know what that case was called, Your Honor, but at the express appointment by the President, Dr. Funk, I did participate in that trial as an associate judge, and I had all the rights of a judge, but I did not myself write the judgment. I do not know what was the name of the judge who wrote the opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: You have answered my question.
BY MR. LA EOLLETTE:
Q.- You sat on that case in your Party uniform, and not in any judicial robes, isn't that correct?
A.- No. In the Ukraine we didn't wear robes. We only were uniforms.
Q.- Yes. Now, you know the Detective Inspector Max Esterle, residing now at Karlsruhe? Do you know him?
A.- Mr. Prosecutor, I can answer that neither by yes nor by no. I believe that there was a detective inspector in Berlin, but I cannot remember him for certain, for I came across many detective inspectors in the execution of my official duties.
Q Would it help you if I stated that he worked under the Gestapo Chief, Muskei, in Stuttgart?
A That doesn't help me, Mr. Prosecutor, for I don't know whether that detective inspector Esterle worked with the general criminal police or with the political criminal police. He may have been with both police offices.
Q You did know Muskei?
A I saw Muskei once in my life, and that time Muskei had first to be introduced to me, for he didn't know me and I didn't know him. After we had been formally introduced to each other, I never again spoke to Muskei and I never saw him again either, neither in the execution of my official duties nor privately.
Q But you did report the Bieger incident to him - to Muskei did you not, at Stuttgart?
A I didn't know Lopata.
Q There was a Bieger case.
A Yes, Bieger was the name. Yes, I reported on the entire incident and also a draft of a letter which in a changed form was actually dispatched to the address mentioned. That is all I know.
Q. Did you ask Muskei, as the director of this Gestapo in Stuttgart, to reprehend Bieger and state that you would give evidence against him for listening to a London transmitter in late 1944 or '45?
A Well, there were two incidents involved, and one can see that from the Prosecution documents. The affiant Bieger had listened to foreign radio stations, and a polite letter from me was sent to the affiant asking him to stop listening, because I would be held responsible. That polite letter was submitted together with the files
Q Yes. Now, don't you recall talking to Esterle about this case, and that you said that he stated to you that there would probably be a miscarriage of justice, and that you answered that you felt more sure of this case than ever and that you would give testimony and see that Bieger was convicted?
Don't you remember Esterle now, who was the secretary at Stuttgart of the Gestapo?
A Concerning my letter in connection with the second incident, on the day I left for Norway in the beginning of January 1945, a criminal official of the Gestapo came to see me and received my statements which culminated in this. I personally attached no importance to having a. big case made out of it. I merely wanted that such incidents, which for me were extremely embarrassing, be stopped by the police. The official then told me that first he would have to study the case. He couldn't say what attitude the police would adopt. The official took down a brief record, and all the rest you should be able to gather from that record.
Q The Prosecution offers NG-1470 as Prosecution's Exhibit 572.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q When did you meet Muskei?
A I met him at a public meeting. As far as I remember, it was still in 1943, and I think it was at the Liederhalle - at the concert hall - in Stuttgart. The official who introduced Muskei to me was Dr. Till, the Ministerial Director. I can't tell you exactly what the date was.
Q He was the Chief of the Secret Police at Stuttgart and had been since 1940, had he not?
A I can't tell you when Muskei became the Chief of the Gestapo office at Stuttgart. As far as I recollect, Muskei cane to Stuttgart early in 1941 or 1942, but I can't give you any details.
Q But you still are of the opinion that when you went to try the case at Untermarchtal, you did not know at that time that Muskei had signed and delivered a confiscation ordinance against the convent Untermarchtal prior to the time that you conducted that trial? You're still positive of that?
A Mr. Prosecutor, two matters are involved here, and I was only able to gather those matters from the judgment in the Untermarchtal case. First, at a very early phase of the prosecution proceedings, the property of the convent was confiscated and at the same time the Wehrmacht began to use most of it as a military hospital. A trustee was appointed to be in charge of the confiscated property. He was a civil servant, but I can't remember his name. At a later date, the convent at Untermarchtal, by an order from the Gestapo, was finally confiscated. That, as far as I remember, I heard only in the course of the trial, and I heard it either from the prosecutor or from the defense counsel, together with whom I had lunch every day. Who told me, and in what way he told me, I don't know. At any rate, after the indictment had been filed, we thoroughly examined the question as to whether in this case the Untermarchtal convent might be co-responsible under criminal law. The result of that examination was negative, and we had the prosecution informed that such a measure on the part of the court was out of the question. After the trial at Untermarchtal, I told an old schoolmate of mine that the confiscation of the convent had been quite unnecessary and that the facts had not justified it. The authorities who had confiscated the convent should have waited until the court had passed this judgment.
Q If Your Honor please, the Prosecution would like to offer as Prosecution's Exhibit 573, NG-2169. We will have to later supply the Court with the English copies, but I would like very much to introduce this, because it is the celebrated trial by the Party court of the defendant which I want him to be assured we want in evidence, too. The Prosecution offers the exhibit on the condition that it will furnish the English.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit will be received upon the condition that English copies will be supplied.
BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
A. The Prosecution, asks to have exhibit NG-2288 now marked for identification at this time as Exhibit 574, and I send the exhibit to the witness.
A. What is it you want me to do, Mr. Prosecutor?
Q. Will will ask you in just a minute. You see some small pictures and some enlargements. The small pictures were taken by you or were in your possession, were they not? The small ones?
A. It is possible, but I ought to have the negatives, if they had been there to , but I suppose that these are the proper prints of the originals of my negatives.
Q. Yes. Well, I don't have the negatives.
DR. BRIEGER: If I am correctly informed, we are now concerned with the judgment by the Gau Disciplinary office on Cuhorst. I object against the submission of this judgment. I have thought for a long time that the prosecution had that judgment and therefore through the formal channels I asked the prosecution for that judgment. However, they refused to let me have it and they said that they haven't got it.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Now I have to get into a discussion of fact with my friend, Dr. Brieger. I don't think his objection is valid, I am advised that he is mistaken in his understanding. We did not say that we did not have it; we said that it was being processed and we did not have it in our room so that we could deliver it to him. Evidence of the fact that it is being processed is the fact that we still haven't been able to get the translation, although we were advised that the translation had been made. Certainly, I can't see how in any way he can be harmed. If he wants to offer it as his exhibit, we will then have it also as the Prosecution's exhibit. I have no objection, for the record can show that we both offer it.
DR. BRIEGER: I shall try, during the afternoon recess, to get the information from my office. At the moment, I cannot say whether what was said to me was that it was not available.
But if that is what was said to me, then I would not have drawn the conclusion that the difficulties were only of a technical nature and that they would only be temporary. I believe that if ones uses the English word, one is bound to draw the conclusion that the prosecution did not have the judgment in their possession.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask you: for what purpose did you ask to receive the judgment?
DR. BRIDGER: It was of importance to me to have the judgment so that I could make my decisions, particularly in connection with my examination of my client, Mr. Cuhorst. In other words, I wanted to have that judgment so that I could think matters over quietly and so that I would have an opportunity to discuss these matters with my client before --without any preparation, they were going to be let loose here.
THE PRESIDENT: Then were you under the impression, or are you under the impression, that the document had matters which were of probative value in this case?
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, it is very difficult for me to judge that without having seen the judgment, and particularly from that point of view it was that I wanted to see it.
THE PRESIDENT: You both want the judgment. The judgment appears to be available within a reasonable time. You may both inspect it, and you may both inquire of the witness concerning it, after you have inspected it. That is all you asked for in the first place.
DR. BRIEGER: I should like to make a suggestion to the Tribunal. I think that suggestion, would satisfy both parties. All I want to do is to discuss these matters with my client and I should prefer it if Mr. La Follette would postpone his questions on that judgment until after the afternoon recess.
THE PRESIDENT: No. Mr. La Follette may propound questions concerning it now if he has it there. You may examine it thereafter, confer with your client, and then ask any questions which you find necessary to ask of your client.
You can do it tomorrow morning.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: He will have the first opportunity, Your Honor. It's in German. I can't ask him anything about it. I can't read it that well.
THE PRESIDENT: You have the German copy here?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: All that has been distributed are German. The original is in German. I don't have the English, your Honor. That is, I don't have the English yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Give Dr. Brieger the German copies and let him study it.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I have given him German copies and he can have the original. I think all Dr. Brieger wants to do is to complain a little bit now , and I am surprised at that.
THE PRESIDENT: We regret that there has been a delay. The delay is now cured by the delivery of the document.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Will you turn to the picture marked 16 on the back of it. I now have some for distribution, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You are referring to Exhibit for identification, 574, is that correct?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is correct, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: I refer to No. 16. Several, I think, must be of the same film.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Yes, I want the fourth one that you have. The picture is of signs. From your original prints, rather than the original plate or film, do you recall that those are pictures of signs of Jewish firms in Leipzig in 1933?
A. That is film No. 16 and some of the prints I have here--
Q. It's the sixth one here.
A. And the photo is taken in Leipzig. I had taken some character istic photos of the city of Leipzig and --- the originals are a lot better, they are really a lot better, you know --- I also took photos of those rather characteristic signs which the furriers in Leipzig put up.
As we all know, Leipzig is the center of the fur trade in all of Europe. You can see here on these photos a collection probably of Jewish and non-Jewish fur dealers, such as these films displayed their signs, of their shops in Leipzig. The number which you ask me to read out gives the following names -- I am reading from top to bottom: Luettig and Company, furriers; Haffner, Mosar and Company, furriers; Mois Eskanazi, Import and Export, firm; Sigmund Leibstein, Brussels; Albert Hirschfeld and Fritz Rosenzweig, furriers; I. H. Beck, Import and Export; Theodor Tsamisis, Specialist on Persian goods.
The second photo , which also shows the signs of firms, contains other names.
DR. BRIEGER: Mr. La Follette, may I ask you whether you are presenting those from the point of view of war crimes or crimes against humanity ?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I would say, Your Honor, that I think it is relevant to show the interest of this defendant in the purposes of the Nazi Party prior to the time when he went on the bench, and to that extent it's relevant either as against crimes against humanity which he committed in his decisions and also war crimes. Therefore, I am offering it on both counts to the affidavit. I have heard no objection.
DR. BRIEGER: I object.
THE PRESIDENT: If I understand your purpose, it is to show that by reason of the fact that the witness took pictures of certain events or of certain objects, that those pictures are of probative value to show his guilt upon the charges in the indictment.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Correct, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I think they should be rejected.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I'd like to expand that a little. I think they show the frame of mind with which this defendant acted on the bench, the motives with which he acted, and I think that has relevency to the issues in this case.