But, in my presence an affidavit can be made. The affidavit is perfected by the signature of the affiant. I certified the signature. In the rules it is laid down that the defense Counsel and their assistants are allowed to certify in the case of affidavits. This can only have the meaning that the affidavits which are taken in that manner are valid. I would like to repeat that a carrying through of the trial, and the submission of regular evidence material would be impossible if every witness who gives an affidavit would have to swear to it before an official Allied agency.
The IMT, as well, as far as I know all of the other tribunals, and I believe Tribunal No. III did so, too, took these circumstances into consideration, and have considered the taking of an affidavit before a defense counsel as admissible.
Mr. WOOLEYHAN: If Your Honors, one more word, if I may. It is pretty obvious, at least to the Prosecution, that this is not an affidavit. The Defense, themselves, state that they are not able to give oaths, and Dr. Kuboschok is not a notary, and even if he were, he could not administer an oath. The affiant cannot administer an oath to himself, and therefore it is obvious the statement is a statement in lieu of an oath, in accordance with the German way of doing things. That being the case, it dows not conform to the rules of the Military Tribunals as set out in Rule 21. And, I object to it on that ground.
Dr. KUBOSCHOK: If the rule thus speaks about affidavits at all, such an affidavit must be admissible because otherwise the rule would have to read: Only sworn statements of witnesses are valid and can be submitted as evidence." In the case of affidavits, there is no oath according to German law. There is only the written affidavit which is also under penalty if it is false.
THE PRESIDENT: The various exhibits which are offered and which raise this common question may be marked for identification as an exhibit and put into the custody of the Secretary General, as an exhibit offered and marked for identification, and we will rule on all of them after a conference of the Court.
I do call attention of Counsel to the fact that this Tribunal is not here administering German law, but is administering German law, but is administering the law as has been laid down, translated into German, and communicated to the Defense Counsel. That is not intended to indicate what our ruling will be, but the fact remains just as I have stated it. This exhibit will be marked for identification, exhibit 41. It may be presented to the Secretary General and we will reserve our ruling upon it. This same procedure will be followed as to any other exhibits of similar nature which may be offered this afternoon.
Dr. KUBOSCHOK: I now come to the next document, document No. 2, an affidavit by Dr. Johannes Krohn. Dr. Krohn was the trustee for the entire confiscated enemy property. In addition to the general testimony by Dr. Schlegelberger, the affidavit tells in detail how Schlegelberger, in regard to Krohn's efforts, to provide protection for enemy property support, supported this. I refer to the contents of this affidavit and offer it as exhibit 42. It is an affidavit by a notary which has the desired statement.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honors, may I point out that this present exhibit is in the proper form, as required by Rule 21 of the Rules, and demonstrates the type of statement which the Prosecution does regard as authentic; as far as I have been able to ascertain it does conform to the rules.
THE PRESIDENT: There being no objections, document No.2 is received in evidence as exhibit 42. Are those numbers correct?
Dr. KUBOSCHOK: No. 42, yes. However, I have to contradict the gentleman of the Prosecution. In his opinion this document cannot be in accordance with the rules that he represented because it is not sworn before the notary, because the notary is not allowed to administer an oath.
Also it is only an affidavit on the, -- however its contains the desired statement.
THE PRESIDENT: May I please point out here that the time for argument is before the court rules upon the matter. The objections were withdrawn the exhibit is received, and you may pass on to the next question.
Dr. KUBOSCHOK: The next document is No. 3 an affidavit by Heinrich Ebersberg. At the end of October 1938, Ebersberg was the second personal Referent to Schlegelberger. This official position can, perhaps be described by the special term adjutant. I read, beginning with the second paragraph:
"I entered the Reich Ministry of Justice at the end of October 1938 as second personal adviser (Referent) to Under Secretary Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER. I held this position until Under Secretary Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER's resignation in August 1942. My work consisted mainly of submitting the incoming mail, which was forwarded to us by the Main Office (Hauptburo) of submitting the documents of the departments, insofar as they had to be signed by Under Secretary Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER, and of the usual anteroom duties (for example, reception of visitors). Through this activity of mine, I was in constant, very close contact with Under Secretary Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER.
"I received my first impression of Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER's personality in connection with the events of 9 November 1938. He very strongly condemned the outrages against Jews and Jewish property, which had apparently been staged by the highest authorities. He also emphatically stated this view to Dr. GUERTNER, Reich Minister of Justice.
"Later, I found this attitude of SCHLEGELBERGER's confirmed again and again toward the Jewish question as well as toward other political matters. His entire activity was inspired by the endeavor to preserve justice and the concept of justice. This endeavor involved him in constant conflicts with political and party authorities, which used their powers for the attainment of their political ends, without any consideration whatsoever for right and lawfulness.
SCHLEGELBERGER endeavored to counteract the lapsing of the dictator state into absolute tyranny, by his attempt to preserve justice as the only factor of law and order, which had remained. The difficulty of this task of his follows from the nature of the dictator state and the actual power at its disposal.
The following necessary tactics in this struggle resulted from this:
"In order to counteract orders and aims of the dictator and his organizations, it was not enough to express factual doubts and to refer to the law. With reference being made to alleged political requirements of state, such objections would have been described as unworthy of consideration, and would have gone unheard, SCHLEGELBERGER therefore could count on attaining his goal, i.e., the enforcement of the legal point of view, only if he operated with the ideas of his opponents. Thus, he first of all had to try to shake the factual foundation of the planned measures, and then, if necessary, resort to political considerations of expediency, so as to wreck the measures of the opponents. At most one had to reconcile oneself to a partial solution, in order to avoid the carrying out of the entire original measures.
"I could constantly recognize these tactics in the course of my official duties; it appeared not only in the case of such important questions, as for instance the transport of part-Jews to the East, but could also be observed in the matters of daily business routine, where differences with political authorities arose.
"These determinations, made in the course of my official duties, were supplemented during personal confidential talks. Herr SCHLEGELBERGER always pointed out that he was often inwardly tempted to resign and leave his office to a successor. In this connection, he said that he was fully aware that his resignation would mean a complete change and therewith the end of German justice."
I request you to receive this document as Exhibit No. 43.
THE PRESIDENT: There being no objection, the exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document, No. 4, is an excerpt from the Constitution of the German Reich of 11 August 1919. The excerpt is in regard to Article 56, which has been discussed extensively by the expert.
According to this Article, the Reich Chancellor determines the directives of policy and assumes the responsibility for that toward the Reichstag.
I offer this document as Exhibit 44.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document, No. 5, contains excerpts from the commentary on the Constitution by Professor Gerhard Anschuetz.
I may remind the Court that the expert Jahrreiss dealt with this commentator and his opinions extensively. May I read the last paragraph on the first page of this document?
"The constitution may be amended by means of legislation. Such amendments constitute all legal provisions which change in any way or manner the text of the constitution by amending, repealing and supplementing stipulations; furthermore, all tacit amendments of the Constitution discussed in No. 2; finally such laws which, without intention to amend, solely intend to represent legally sanctioned interpretations -- all that without differentiation in the content and political range. By means of the legislation regulated by paragraph 76, amendments of the Constitution of all kinds may -always with the reservation that a plebiscite as permitted by the Constitution -- be effected; not only those that are less important and subject to technical or political considerations, but also the important ones, including those that refer to the legal structure of the Reich as a whole (Federal State), to the distribution of competence as to Reich and Laender, to the state and governmental form of the Reich and Laender (republic, democracy, referendum, parliamentarism, and other matters of principle. The power to amend the Constitution given the constituent factors by paragraph 76 is -- with the reservation of the initiative and plebiscite -- objectively unlimited.
"Paragraph 78 corresponding to paragraph 76 of the old Reich Constitution has always been interpreted in this and no other way (compare M-A). The view represented here corresponds, therefore, to an old and firm legal tradition; there is all the less reason and justification to abandon it since the will of the legislator to hold on to it is clearly indicated."
I offer this document as Exhibit 45.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document No. 6 contains further excerpts from the same commentary by Anschuetz. These remarks deal with the right of the judge to review. I will limit myself to reading the paragraph numbered 4 on the second page of this document:
"If already it cannot be granted that the judge may be authorized to examine the law as to its constitutionality, then he can still loss be permitted to disobey a law which had been passed constitutionally, because it is, in his opinion, contrary to certain rules which -again in his opinion -- are above the legislator (for instance: custom, morality, loyalty and faith, 'natural law'), or does not satisfy certain high principles (such as justice, fairness, reason)."
The next page of that document deals with the Special Courts. Starting with number 3, I shall read paragraph "a", after the concept of Ausnahmegerichte Exceptional Tribunals, has been discussed the commentary continues:
"It differs from the 'court for special cases' (law concerning judicial legislation, GVG, article 13, 14), or, as it is colloquially called, the 'Special Court'. Special Courts are permitted, according to paragraph 103, as well as paragraph 103......."
Then it goes into detail as to why Special Courts differ from exceptional courts, Ausnahmegerichte. I quote:
"The difference between these Special Courts and special tribunals is that the latter, unlike the Special Courts, do not convene under a generally valid (abstract) provision for all litigations of one and the same category characterized by the litigation, the position of the persons disputing, etc.
, but under a specific ordinance for a certain individual case."
I offer this document as Exhibit No. 46.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document, No. 7, is an excerpt from a treatise by Professor Dr. Walter Jellinek about the Weimar Constitution. He deals with how, in practice, the Weimar Constitution did not function well. On the second page of this document the author of this document describes the personality of Professor Jellinek.
I refer you to the contents of this document and ask that it be accepted as Exhibit No. 47.
THE PRESIDENT: Document No. 7 is received as Exhibit 47.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document No. 8, contains the Enabling Act -- which was discussed here frequently -- of 24 March 1933. The contents speak for themselves. I refer to it and offer the copy as Exhibit 48.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document, No. 9, contains excerpts from the book of Professor Gustav Radbruch about "The Basic Elements of the Philosophy of Law" Grundzuege der Rechtsphilosophie. I refer to the contents and offer the document as Exhibit 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honors, I am not too clear on this, but I am just thinking back now to the day on which we discussed how excerpts from books and treatises could be authenticated. As I remember, the Prosecution requested that we be informed in any convenient manner where a copy of each of these books referred to might be read by us. That can be handled in any expeditious stipulation, as far as I am concerned, but we would like, either now or at some future date, notice from the defense as to where we may see a copy of each of these books.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes; I shall make up for this. I beg your pardon for not having done it so far. I shall inform the prosecution as to where I got this book. On the whole, they are books which are available here at the library. At the moment I cannot tell you where the book by Radbruch is, but I shall inform the prosecution about that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document, No. 10 -
THE PRESIDENT: Did we rule on 49?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: No. 49 is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.
The next document, as are other documents, is a copy from a large work "New Constitutional Law", published by Under-Secretary in the Ministry of the Interior, Dr. Wilhelm Stuckart, and two other gentlemen. Since, during the course of the general defense, I took over the subject "Development of Constitutional Law", I also took these documents into my document book.
The purpose of introducing these documents is to show to the Tribunal certain facts of the situation. The political evaluation, which is also contained therein, is not always in accordance with the opinion of my client and with my own opinion.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
I refer to this document and to its contents and ask you to accept it as Exhibit No. 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: The next document is an excerpt from the book "Documents of German Politics, Vol. 1." It deals with the dissolution of the different German parties in Germany. I offer this document as Exhibit 51 and refer to its contents.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: These "Documents of German Politics" are in the house here. The Prosecution can get them.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kuboschok, merely for your convenience and for no other purpose I thought it might be well to make clear that it is unnecessary for you in each instance to say that you refer to the contents which you haven't read. Whenever you offer an exhibit and it is received, the entire exhibit is before us and will be deemed to have been referred to by you.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Thank you very much. The next document, No. 12, is the law regarding the head of the German Reich. That is the law on the basis of which Hitler took over the office of the Reich President. The regulation is in Article 1. I offer the document as Exhibit 52.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: The next document, 13, is an excerpt again from the work "Documents of German Politics" Volume 2, a statistical compilation of the official results of the plebiscite of 19 August 1934. I offer it as Exhibit 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 14 from the work "The Structure of the German Reich in a Systematic Presentation, New Constitutional Law II. It treats about the position of Hitler as Legislator. I offer this document as Exhibit 54.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 15, the first ordinance on the Reconstruction of the Reich. I offer it as Exhibit 55.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 16, second ordinance on the Reconstruction of the Reich, Article 1, deals with the position of the Prussian provincial governors, Oberpraesidenten. I offer it as Exhibit 56.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 17, an excerpt from Now Constitutional Law by Stuckart. This part deals with the reconstruction law. I offer it as Exhibit 57.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 18, from the same work, an article about the coordination of the Laender with the Reich. I offer it as Exhibit 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 19, the Reichstatthalter Law. I offer it as Exhibit 59.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 20, again Stuckart, New Constitutional Law, an article about the Reichstatthalter law, offered as Exhibit 60.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 21, decree of the Fuehrer concerning the formation of a council of ministers for the defense of the Reich, Article 1 Figure 2 lay down the members of this council of ministers for the defense of the Reich. Article 2 determines the following, and I quote: "The Council of Ministers for the Defense of the Reich can issue decrees, which have the force of a law, unless I order the passing of a law by the Reich Government or the Reichstag." I ask you to pay attention to this formulation which Hitler chose. I offer the document as Exhibit 61.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: 22, a decree of the Fuehrer concerning the position of the head of the Party Chancellory. First paragraph, I read the second sentence: "In addition to this I decree the following, in order to assure the closest cooperation between the Party Chancellery and Supreme Authorities of the Reich: The Head of the Party-Chancellery, Reichsleiter Martin Bormann, has the powers of a Reich Minister; he is a member of the Reich Government and the Council of Ministers for the Defense of the Reich."
I offer it as Exhibit 62.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 23, ordinance for the execution of the Fuehrer decree concerning the position of the leader of the party chancellery, Article 1. "The cooperation of the party in legislation shall be effected exclusively through the Chief of the Party Chancellery, unless the Fuehrer directs otherwise." I skip and come to Article 2. "In legislative work, the leader of the Party Chancellery shall in every case have the position of a participating Reich Minister."
I offer it as Exhibit 63.
THE PRESIDENT: 63 is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 24 from the work "The State Structure of the German Reich," a systematic presentation again by Dr. Stuckart about the position of the Reich government. I offer this document as Exhibit 64.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 25 contains copies from the work "The Greater German Struggle for Freedom," which contains speeches by Adolph Hitler, the excerpts from some speeches which contain threats in the field of the application of law. I read from the first speech, Page 26, the second sentence. This is the speech of 1 September 1939. Hitler says, "He who believes, however, that he can disobey this national order, be it directly or indirectly, shall fall. Traitors Court No. III, Case No. 3.have nothing to expect but death."
From another speech before the Old Guard in Munich on 8 November, 1941, I read the fourth to the last line: "If, however, anyone even of those among us, shall still believe that he could disrupt this front, no matter where he comes from, or which party he comes from, I watch him for a time -- you know my method. But then the moment comes where I strike like lightning and quickly put an end to such business. No camouflage will be of any avail then, not even a camouflage under the guise of religion."
The next speech, too, contains a threat of that kind, which represents a signal for Hitler's further policy in regard to the Ministry of Justice. I offer this document as Exhibit 65.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 26, second law concerning the transfer of the Administration of Justice to the Reich. I offer it as Exhibit 66.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 27 is the third law for the transfer of the Administration of Justice. I offer it as Exhibit 67.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 28, the much discussed decree of the Fuehrer, about the exercise of the right of pardon or clemency of 1 February 1935. Article 1 contains those cases where he reserves the right for the exercise of the right of pardon to himself. No. 2 means that in addition the quashing of criminal procedure he reserves to himself. I offer the document as Exhibit 68.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 29. Decree of the Reich Minister of Justice concerning the procedure in clemency matters of 6 February 1933, Article 1 repeats the quoted part from the Fuehrer decree. I offer the document as Exhibit 69.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I now come to Document Book No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: We will come to that document book after the Court No. III, Case No. 3.recess, Dr. Kuboschok.
We will now take a fifteen minute recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to be heard?
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, if I may be permitted, I should like to make a brief statement concerning an occurrence of this morning. Your Honor, the representative of the Prosecution this morning asked the witness Meissner whether during the recess I had contacted him. I assume that in doing so, a behavior on my part, which is against the rules was supposed to be put down in the record. In this connection I have to say the following. The contact on the part of the Defense Counsel with witnesses before an American court is so fundamentally different than in a German court that we Defense Counsel are particularly careful that we don't commit any infractions of the rules; but, on the other hand, cannot afford to let any possibility to have contact with the witnesses. Soon after the first witnesses were heard in this trial, my colleagues, Dr. Schilf, Dr. Schubert and myself had a conference with Mr. Lafollette in his office in order to obtain information on that point from him. I remember that Mr. LaFollette even permitted for the defense the questioning on cross examination witnesses of the Prosecution during the recess. His words which I remember were: if you want to do so, I don't care at all.
THE PRESIDENT: May I interrupt you please. I am sure we can shorten this a good deal. The witness was a witness for the Defense, and it was within the right of the other defendants, also when Dr. Kubuschok had finished examining him, to make him a witness for some other defendant. You selected to do that. You spoke to the witness whom you proposed to call or to examine as your witness. You were not cross examining, and you were, in the opinion of the Tribunal, within your rights. On the other hand, counsel was entitled to inquire of the witness whether the witness had talked with you or not, but we find no impropriety in the fact that you talked with a witness whom you proposed to call and examine as your own. Does that make it clear?
DR. BRIEGER: Certainly, Your Honor, that is quite satisfactory for me.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That applies to witnesses who at the tine are incarcerated in the Nurnberg Jail.
THE PRESIDENT: We find no impropriety in his talking with a witness whom he proposed to call immediately for further examination.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, about your results and before Dr. Kubuschok resumes, the Prosecution has a brief word with regard to his document No. 65 which he offered as Exhibit No. 30. As Dr. Kubuschok stated, that document was previously offered by the Prosecution on the 22nd of April as Document R-139. At the time we offered it on that day, Dr. Behling objected on the grounds that the original photostat was incomplete and that the pages were all mixed up in the German document books, so the Prosecution withdrew it and did not again re-offer it. Now, we have no objection to the document being offered by the Defense, with, however, the priviso that when Dr. Kubuschok gets that photostat from the document room to use as his exhibit, that both he and the Court realize that it is an incomplete photostat. It is in the same form now as it was then.
THE PRESIDENT: There being no objection before the Tribunal, and both parties having attempted to introduce the incomplete document, it may be received; and you may secure the necessary photostat from the custodian of the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, I think the Tribunal is also ready to rule upon the two matters which we reserved.
Ruling was reserved as to exhibit narked for identification on 41, which is to be found beginning with page 1 in document book I, Schlegel in that connection, we first call Counsel's attention to the provisions of rule 21 of this Tribunal. It appears probable and almost certain that when the rule was adopted by all of the Tribunals, not only this one, it was adopted because of the difficulty which Counsel Kuboschok has mentioned, the difficulty of securing an affidavit in the manner which is required, let us say, in English or American law. Because of the difficulty an alternative procedure was authorized by rule 21. We think it is very clear. It provided that statements of witness made in lieu of an oath may be admitted in evidence if otherwise competent and admissible, and containing statements having probative value, if the following conditions are met:
1. The witness shall have signed the statement before defense counsel or, 2. Before a notary -- I am skipping along, or 3. Before a Buergermeister, in certain circumstances which are specified or, 4. Before a competent prison authority in certain circumstances.
Then, comes provision 5, The statement in lieu of an oath shall contain a preamble which shall contain a preamble which shall state, and then follows the words, "with the name and address of the witness, after having first been warned that I will be liable for punishment for making a false statement in lieu of oath, state and declare that my statement is true in lieu of an oath, and that my statement is made for submission of evidence before Military Tribunal --, Palace of Justice, Nurnberg, Germany."
Then follows:
"The signature of the witness according to paragraph 6 shall be followed by a certificate stating-
"The above signature of (stating the name and address of the witness) identified by (stating the name of the identifying person or officer), is hereby certified and witnessed by me".
To be followed by:
"The date and place of execution of the statement, and the signature of the witness, signature of the person or officer certifying the same."
These rules are clear.
As I said, they are passed to enable counsel to avoid difficulties of complying with the formal requirements of an affidavit.
As to exhibit 41, it must be said that is it not strictly and technically in compliance with that rule. We suppose the preamble normally proceedes the statement made in lieu of an oath, but that is purely a technical objection. At the end, on page 4, document book I, Schweitzer says:
"I Wilhelm Schweitzer, born (giving the date and place) have been cautioned (which is the equivalent to warning) to the effect that I render myself liable to punishment if I make a false affidavit. I declare under oath that the above statement corresponds to the truth and was made in order to be submitted as evidence before the Military Tribunal No. III, Palace of Justice, Nurnberg, Germany."
That, substantially complies, not with the requirements of an affidavit, but it substantially complies with the requirements of a statement in lieu of oath, and the signature as required by rules is certified by Dr. Kuboschok. We find it substantially complies with the requirements of our rule.
The exhibit is received.
Exhibit 40, the affidavit of Adalbert Keil, is not an affidavit. It would be admissible, if at all, only as a statement in lieu of an oath, and there is no substantial compliance with the requirements of our rule as to what shall be contained in the so-called preamble. And, in its present condition it does not comply with the rule of any of the Tribunals, and at present the offer is rejected.
You may proceed with your other exhibits.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Does the decision of the Tribunal also concern document 75, on page 87 of document book III, that is a statement in lieu of oath of Kohn; that was the first objection.
MR. WOLLEYHAN: That mas already ruled upon, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: What document is that?
DR. KUBOSCHOK: My number 75. The exhibit number has not been given. It is in document book III.
THE PRESIDENT: We have ruled upon it.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I beg your pardon.
I come now to document book IV. A statement in lieu of oath by Werner Grussendorf. I read the third paragraph of the first page:
"After having previously been referent for personnel matters in the Prussian Ministry of Justice, I continued to hold this position after the unification of justice in 1935 in the Reich Ministry of Justice. From 1936 onwards I mas Ministerial Councillor and was finally appointed Reichsgerichtsrat by Minister Thierack, as he did not wish me to remain in my former position because my attitude towards personal matters was opposed to his."
The paragraph before the last, on the first page:
"The handling of the personnel matters of the judicial officials were divided into districts between the two under secretaries Dr. Schlegelberger and Dr. Freisler. In a general sense as well as continually in individual cases it became clearly apparent that Dr. Schlegelberger regarded things as a professional man whilst Dr. Freisler adopted a Party point of view in his policy regarding personnel matters.
"Dr. Schlegelberger deliberately clung to the old professionally qualified judiciary and was thus from the very beginning opposed to the party offices insofar as these made requests without taking professional qualifications into consideration. The prevention of these requests formed a considerable part of our professional work.
"Dr. Schlegelberger's activity - clearly apparent to all of us was so strongly influenced by this attitude that in all our efforts we were certain of unreserved assistance from the very beginning.
"This conception of Dr. Schlegelberger of the question of the attitude of justice officials towards the Party was also apparent if an official entered into too close a relation to tho party.
"I can recall the case of a Chief Public Prosecutor in East Prussia who was in close contact with Gauleiter Koch and had given him too deep an insight into justice matters. Dr. Schlegelberger reprimanded this Chief Public Prosecutor severely in my presence because of his conduct. Also in other cases he expressed grave disapproval if individual officials placed the interests of the party too much in tho foreground.
"If justice officials encountered difficulties for political or racial reasons we could bw certain of Dr. Schlegelberger's complete understanding; this is especially true in the case of so-called Jewish half-breeds as well as in the cases in which justice officials were exposed to the hostility of the party because of their religious views.
"I remember especially the case of a Landgerichtsrat in Allenstein, whose dismissal was demanded by the party chancellory because of his religious vies. I was told the whole story in Allenstein by the Landgerichtsrat himself, thereupon I went to Munich to the Party Chancellery and was able to prevent the dismissal of the official. I acted in this case on the special orders of under Dr. Schlegelberger.
"Also in other cases Dr. Schlegelberger interested himself energetically in the matters of judges who were persecuted for political reasons. Thus he succeeded in keeping the not "100% Aryan" members of the District Court in Koenigsberg in office for a long time - in the face of severe opposition from the Party.
"I myself was present when Dr. Schlegelberger pointed out to Dr. Funk, President of the District Court at Zichenau, that Poles and Jews who came before the Court should be treated in a humane and decent manner. He insisted on just and lawful treatment and disapproved of excessive severity.