AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 5 August, 1947.)
GUENTHER JOEL - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. HAENSEL: (Attorney for the Defendant Joel) I will now proceed with the examination of Guenther Joel.
Q During the occurrences in Nurnberg, you belonged to the commission, which as far as I understood you, had been established by the central authorities in order to establish what illegal acts had in the main been instigated by Streicher, and to correct them.
A Yes.
Q Can you tell me whether you remember Martin, the police and SS leader?
A Yes. Martin was the president of police at Nurnberg, and I believe that during the course of two years he had kept all measures which Streicher had taken under observation and had instituted the necessary preliminary investigations, which after the events of November, 1938 after a report had been made to Goering, led to it that a commission was sent to Nurnberg.
Q Did you hear anything about it, whether at that time Martin wrote a memorandum about those events.
A Martin did write a memorandum about the occurrences in Nurnberg, and on the basis of the work of the commission a memorandum was compiled which consisted of about 250 pages, and that memorandum gave an account of all the events connected with Striecher, and which was submitted to Goering and later on to Hitler.
DR. HAENSEL: I have tried to obtain those documents, but the Martin memorandum is no longer obtainable and the commission's memorandum is only obtainable in part. Therefore, I asked Martin to give me an affidavit about the facts with which we are concerned here, and that affidavit is contained in Document Book III, on page 1 and the following pages.
It is my Document 48, and, as such, I am now offering it for identification as Exhibit 22.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification.
DR. HAENSEL: The document speaks for itself. Martin knows these facts best. His memorandum was entitled "My Struggle against Streicher. In order to procure documentary evidence, I had extracte made from the Nurnberg real estate registers which I offer for identification only, for the time being, as Exhibit 23. They are contained in my Document Book III, on page 13, and the following pages: my Document No. 50. It is entitled copy from the files of the real estate register, Nurnberg-Furth.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification Exhibit 23.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q I hand these copies from the Real Estate Register to you, and I will ask you to tell the Tribunal, in brief, what is necessary to transfer property under German law, and what was the significance of the fact that you had the real estate registers corrected.
AAdditional entries were necessary. In the Nurnberg register, to begin with, notes had been entered for the transfer of property. These preliminary notes had to be removed. As the entries had been made for the benefit of Gauleiter Holz, as I established, in investigations 508 properties had been transferred for the benefit of Holz; or, at any rate preliminary entries to that effect had been made,-and then those entries had to be cancelled. As Holz had appeared on behalf of Geuleiter Streicher, against whom we were carrying out investigations, and as it was not to be expected that Holz would voluntarily agree to the preliminary entries being cancelled, Goering was asked to order Gauleiter Holz to give his consent to the retransfer. That explains the letter from the Nurnberg gestapo of 24th April, 1940, which is contained in all real estate registers. That letter shows that the preliminary entries in favor of Gauleiter Holz had been cancelled, on order of General Field Marshal Goering.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Joel, will you be so kind, whenever you remember it, to give us the approximate date of the events concerning which you are testifying -- in the future.
A Yes, Your Honor. I carried out these investigations here in Nurnberg, first approximately in December, 1938, when the president of the police informed me in Berlin about these incidents. I only stayed here for three or four days, and then I reported the matter to Minister Guertner in Berlin. The investigating commission to which I belonged was here in Nurnberg in January and February, 1939, the final report which was written here in Nurnberg, and which does not bear my signature because I had left for Berlin at an earlier date, was, as far as I remember, submitted to Goering in April, 1939. That report was sent to the Party Chancellory, but I do not know through what channels it was sent there. We, who carried out the investigations, were of the opinion that the result would be a penal proceeding before the regular courts, but that did not happen. Inspite of Minister Guertner's serious efforts, it wasn't done. On the contrary, as a result of that report, from which, as I heard later, parts were erased -- by whom I don't know--proceedings were instituted before the Supreme Party Court, and Hitler had ordered that Gauleiter Streicher was to appoint as judges three other gauleiters and that Goering, too, was to appoint three gauleiters as judges. Those six gauleiters, in 1940, with both the Chief Justice of the Supreme Party Court, Bruch presiding, set up a tribunal here, and the subject of the proceedings was the abbreviated memorandum which we had written here. The proceedings ended with a verdict being pronounced which, to my mind, was peculiar. As far as I remember it was this: Gauleiter Streicher was not suitable to be a leader of human beings. It also said that he had to leave Nurnberg, but they he would retain his rank as senior gualeiter. In effect, after that verdict had been pronounced, Streicher moved to a nearby estate Reichershof, and was no longer permitted to conduct the affairs of a Gauleiter. That was the result.
Q Let us return to the cue--police--which was used in connection with the commission because police people also sat on that commission. Please tell the Tribunal something about your connections with the police?
A In the cases where I had to carry out investigations against the opposition of party officers, I always had the support of officials of the Gestapo and criminal police. During these investigations here in Nurnberg, too, a staff official of the Gestapo from Berlin sat on the commission, in addition to a representative of the Ministry of Economics, of the Ministry of Interior, and myself. When in 1937 Freisler dissolved the central prosecution office, Minister Guertner desired that the relations with the police, which I by my investigating work in penal matters had established, were to be maintained. Minister Guertner, therefore, on the 19th of December 1937, had appointed me liaison officer with the police; on the part of the SS a liaison leader had already been in office for some time.
Q Who was that?
A Since 1935 the liaison leader for the SS with the Reich Ministry of Justice had been a Sturmbannfuehrer Tomdok. He was a Protestant clergyman in Silesia, leaving his clerical profession, he took up office with the SS. Until 1942 he stayed in that office, that is to say, very nearly until I myself left the Ministry of Justice.
DR. HAENSEL: I have tried to find out Tondok's whereabouts, and after months of searching, quite recently I did succeed in locating him. Probably I shall be able to submit an affidavit by him. The Prosecution with reference to the appointment of Guenther Joel to be liaison officer with the police and SS, has, in document 410, NG 587, Volume IX-A, of the prosecution Documents page 84, drawn the following conclusions:
THE PRESIDENT: You refer to Exhibit 410?
DR. HAENSEL: Exhibit 418? No. 410--4-1-0.
Q Would you please in brief explained the difference between a liaison leader appointed by the SS, as for example Tondok, and your appointment to be liaison man with Guertner?
A Exhibit 410, and the ordinance contained in it by Minister of Justice Guertner, dated 19 December 1937, reveals that I, as liaison man for Department III, that is of the department which dealt with individual cases at the Ministry of Justice, was appointed to that office. At the time of that appointment I was not a member of the SS or SD.
Q When Minister Guertner gave you that commission on December 19, 1937, a commission which we have already discussed here, did you have a rank in the SS or SD conferred on you, or was the rank in both organizations conferred on you: I am referring to Prosecution Document Exhibit 423, NG 747, Volume IX-B, page 124.
A I assume you are referring to the SS or the SD files which I do not have before me, but that is apparent too, from the personnel files of the Ministry of Justice, and that on the following page. That since on the 19th of December 1937, Minister Guertner appointed me liaison man with the police, on the 2nd of May I received a rank in the SD. Main office, SD Hauptant of those days. The document confirming the appointment is contained in the personnel files of the Ministry of Justice.
Q Did you swear an SS oath?
A I never swore an SS oath or an SD oath, or any other oath in connection with my appointment.
Q Did you pay monthly dues?
A No, I did not pay any dues wither.
Q Did you make contributions to the Lebensborn or SS divisions fund, if you didn't contribute to the SS itself.
A No, I didn't make contributions to either fund.
Q Did you do any work for the SD?
A No.
DR. HAENSEL: I now introduce to begin with, for identification the affidavit by Ohlendorf in my document book 2 on page 68, my document No. 36 which will bear exhibit number 24, for the time being I offer it for purposes of identification. This document which speaks for itself, shows that Guenther Joel, was not a member of the general SS, Allgemeine SS. Was the offer of a rank on the part of the SD connected with your work in the Rhineland, where Gauleiter and Under-Secretary Freisler had made difficulties for you?
A Yes, that is right. Many arguments with the Gauleiter of the Rhine Province, or rather with the Gauleiters of the Rhine provinces on account of the regular carrying out of penal proceedings with the laws, were witnessed by the chief of the SD at Duesseldorf. He had supported the Senior Public Prosecutor in the Rhine Province against the Gauleiters. I had made his acquaintance in my official capacity in Bonn. In 1938 he had been transferred to Berlin, and he saw to it that I had a rank conferred on me.
Q Would you please again glance at B-410, on page 91 of Volume B-9A. There the prosecution has submitted a message by the chief of the Security Main Office (RSHA) to the Reich Ministry of Justice, and according to that information from the 2nd to 9th of May 1939, you did work for the SD as your main official task.
I would like to know whether it was done on behalf of the SD?
A No, I did that work for the Reich Ministry of Justice the Gauleiter of Cologne, on account of some penal proceedings had had arguments with the Senior Public Prosecutor of Bonn. The Gauleiter of Cologne wanted to have the Senior Public Prosecutor discharged and requested the Reich Minister of Justice to do so. I repeatedly called on the Gauleiter of Cologne, to protect the Senior public Prosecutor in question. At that moment I once again wanted to go in to the same step with the Gauleiter on behalf of the Senior Public Prosecutor. Freisler forbad me to go to Cologne. Minister Guertner was not available. I asked Standartenfuehrer Glatze, who had been transferred from Duesseldorf to Berlin, to let me have the information, which has been entered into these personnel files and intended to go to Cologne against the will of Freisler. That was what happened. I did go to Cologne, at that time and I restrained the Gauleiter of Cologne from making representations in person to Reich Minister Guertner to have the senior Prosecutor in Bonn discharged. That conversation was successful.
Q Did Herr Hattingen play any part in that affair?
A Yes, he did. That is the senior Public Prosecutor in Bonn of whom I have spoken.
DR. HAENSEL: I would like to refer to the fact that Exhibit No. 14 has been provided by me, which is the affidavit of Hattingen. I will submit it after it has been translated.
Q Please tell the Tribunal What you considered to be the sphere of activities of the SD.
A When I was offered a rank in the SD I knew that SD offices in the Reich had t o make reports about all spheres of life. They submitted those reports to the SD main office in Berlin, which existed in those days, and that office compiled monthly situation reports.
DR. HAENSEL: In this connection, we do not want to repeat what has already been said here in connection with the Schlegelberger case. For example, I refer to his Exhibit 92, from Schlegelberger document book IV, at page 74, and the quotation there.
Q I would suggest that you have another look at document book IX-B, page 244-A, and deal with it. That contains the SD personnel files; Exhibit 423, NG-747. Will you look at that, at page 139. That mention a trip which you made with Tondok to the Occupied Western Territories. Was that not work done on behalf of the SD or the SS?
A That work was not done for the SD. It was like this:
After the SS and Police jurisdiction had been set up by the decree of 18 October 1939, the Main Office SS intended to establish prisons of its own. The liaison leader of the SS with the Minister of Justice Tondok had asked Minister Guertner to be allowed to inspect prisons. At the request of Minister Guertner I accompanied Tondok and showed him the prison Dietz-Lahn, Rottgau-Darmstadt, and a prison for juveniles. All those prisons were within the territory of the old Reich, and we did not make a trip to the occupied territories.
Q The personnel files which you have before you, however, show that you were promoted with the SD. Why was that done?
A When the SD rank was conferred on me I had been promised that that rank would gradually be adapted to the official rank I held at the Reich Ministry of Justice. However, that never happened. One of the reasons which was given to me in 1940 was that that would have to be made dependent on my getting married.
Q That is shown in the files, that business about getting married.
I would like to ask you whether, until you left the Ministry of Justice, you were liaison man with the Police. At the same time, however, I ask you to take a lock at document 423, NG-747, from IX-B. Would you look at the note?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel in order to avoid confusing this Tribunal, will you please speak of the exhibit number without calling it the document number, with reference to the prosecution's exhibits?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Please refer first to the exhibit number.
DR. HAENSEL: The document is NG-747, the exhibit number is 423, and it is contained in volume IX-B.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q My question is: Until you left the Ministry of Justice, wore you liaison man with the police?
A No. When Thierack assumed office he no longer made use of my services. Through Himmler he asked a liaison man of the RSHA to be appointed with the Ministry of Justice, and later be appointed Ministerial Councellor Franke to be his liaison man with the RSHA.
Q Did you know about Thierack's opposition to you, and why?
A I knew that after Thierack had assumed office I would be removed from the Ministry. I also knew that my presence in Prague, in connection with the Elias case, had caused Heydrich's displeasure. As I knew that Thierack and Himmler co-operated closely, there could be no doubt that I would have to disappear when Thierack assumed office.
Q Is a note in the personnel files connected, perhaps, with these matters? I am referring to a note about your inquiry to the SD, Exhibit bl, Volume I-B.
A Yes; concerning the change in the appointment of the liaison man the RSHA, Theirack never said anything about that to me. Therefore, when I heard that the RSHA, through the intervention of Thierack with Himmler's had received its own liaison man, I made an inquiry, in December of 1942, and it was confirmed to me.
DR. HAENSEL: In this connection I wish to introduce, for purposes of indentification, as Exhibit 23, an affidavit by Ohlendorf, which appears in my document book II at page 66.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 24?
DR. HAENSEL: No, exhibit 25.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel has not yet given the Tribunal opportunity to direct that exhibit 24 be marked for identification, That will be done.
No. 25 is marked for identification.
DR. HAENSEL: For identification, yes.
Exhibit 24 for identification was a document in volume II, at page 68, also by Ohlenforf. That is another affidavit; it is not the same as Exhibit 25, which is the affidavit by Ohlendorf at page 66. Those are two diff rent documents I am referring to.
THE PRESIDENT: And we have then marked separately as Exhibits 24 and 25 for identification respectively.
DR. HAENSEL: Thank you, Your Honor.
May I now ask the Tribunal to receive the Schlegelberger affidavit as Exhibit 26 for identification? It is contained in document book II at page 69.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that your document 37?
DR. HAENSEL: My document 37.
THE PRESIDENT It will be marked for identification.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q Would you now tell us, please, whether you knew of a criminal activity of the SD before the collapse?
A I only knew the SD as an information organization, and all I saw were the situation reports which were passed on the Reich Minister of Justice. That portion of those situation reports which was submitted only to the Reich Minister of Justice, and which bore the headline "Law and Administration", did not contain anything criminal. It constituted a very frank and truthful account of conditions in the Reich.
Q The prosecution, however, has submitted reports about incidents at concentration camps. When they introduced them in evidence on the 9th of May, 1947, the prosecution stated that those documents referred to every defendant in this trial who had been in the SD at any time between the middle of 1942 and 1945. It had been the policy of the Ministry of Justice to transfer of prisons to the concentrations camps. What are your comments on that subject?
A: Well, I remember that passage, as Mr. Wooleyhan read it here, and this is what I have to gay on the matter. The policy of Minister Thierack was unknown to me and, therefore, I was unable to lend it my support. Whether Minister Thierack informed leading officials about his plans is another thing of which I know nothing.. Referents anyhow, I myself were not asked to attend important meetings.
Thierack's agreement with Himmler of 18 September 1942 came to my knowledge for the first time at the court prison in Nurnberg. Neither as a member of the staff at the Reich Ministry of Justice nor as a General Public Prosecutor did I, at orders from the SS, the SD or the Gestapo, at my instructions or with my knowledge, have prisoners transferred from the Administration of Justice. The conditions in the concentration camps, such as the prosecution has described them for the period after 1942, did not come to my knowledge, not via the SD wither.
MR. KING: The Prosecution might raise several questions concerning this document while it is being discussed.
THE PRESIDENT: What document? What exhibit?
MR. KING: Document 37, Exhibit 26 which is on Page 69 of Document Book II. It is the last one which Dr. Haensel referred to. I would like to inquire of Dr. Haensel who Karl Hoffmann is who appears to have taken the certification on that. Karl Hoffmann is unknown to us. Likewise, the affidavit appears deficient in that the affiant Schellenberg is listed, and I quote, "At present in the Palace of Justice".
There is no other identifying home address, no birthday, no way of identifying the individual. If Dr. Haensel can make these things clear to us we will not object to its admission later oh.
If not, however, I think that an objection will be in order.
DR. HAENSEL: Karl Hoffmann is an attorney and represents defendants here in Case I and Case IV. I had asked him at the time when the Schellenberg affidavit was being signed to deputize for me because I was absent, and as an attorney who is admitted here, he has certified the affidavit. As concerns the person of Schellenberg, he has been in Nurnberg for some time and there can be no doubt about his person and his identity.
MR. KING: Is Dr. Haensel saying that the affiant in this case is at present a prisoner in the Nurnberg jail? Is that what you mean by "at present in Nurnberg"?
DR. HAENSEL: I have to admit that I cannot answer the question at the moment, but I shall make inquiries immediately whether Schellenberg is still here. My assistant can find that out at once. The question will be answered within ten minutes. Perhaps we can put back that question until a reply has been received.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q: Well then, if I may proceed, let us return to your work at the Reich Ministry of Justice. What was your work at your section after the outbreak of the war?
A: When in 1939 Herr von Haacke, at the end of the year, was called up to the armed forces, I worked in the section for military penal matters and I had to deal with that in accordance with certain ordinances concerning military penal law. Minister Guertner continued to give me special commissions. He also used me when Hitler had interfered with the competency of the Administration of Justice. During the days of the outbreak of the war there happened those events which have been described here as Hitler having corrected sentences and where the Administration of Justice was by-passed.
Minister Guertner in many cases made use of my services to have changes made.
Q: What was your connection with Hitler's orders to the police? I am now talking about the document which you have before you, Exhibit 284, Volume 7-A, Page 116.
A: Minister Guertner saw in the press that people had been shot dead while trying to escape or offering resistance. At the orders of Minister Guertner I found out that the penal authorities of the Administration of Justice did not have any cases pending with them. Guertner, therefore, requested me to find out from the chief of the German police what happened. I was told that Hitler had given orders and that the reports in the press had been formulated by Hitler in person. The police did carry out all orders from Hitler unconditionally. The Minister of Justice could make further representations with Hitler. More reports of that nature appeared in the press. Guertner requested the chief of the penal department to collect those cases. He passed on that order to me and I did as I had been told.
Boon reports came in that people had been shot dead, people who had been sentenced to prison terms which Hitler considered too lenient. At the immediate order of Hitler these persons who had been sentenced to prison terms had been transferred to the Gestapo. Minister Guertner registered complaints with Himmler and Hitler. As a result he was informed whenever Hitler issued orders of that kind to the police. The procedure adopted by the Ministry of Justice and its efforts through Minister Meissner and Minister Lammers to have such orders by Hitler cancelled have been discussed here in detail.
My work was to extend with the police, the 24-hour limit which was set every time, to procure the necessary documents of a complaint of the Reich Ministry of Justice, and to make contact with various agencies on order of the Minister. I also made reports which contained complaints to Hitler via the RSHA to the field command post of the chief of the German police.
Q: How was it that Schaub, Hitler's Adjutant, rang you up?
A: When at the end of 1939, I heard of an order to transfer a juvenile sexual offender and when I heard that Hitler was in Berlin, I went to see Adjutant Schaub to ask him to make Hitler change his mind. Schaub refused to do so. I wrote him a letter explaining the facts. I went to see him for a second time and handed him my letter. Hitler did not insist on his order being carried out. The juvenile sexual criminal was saved. That visit to Schaub may have been the reason for Schaub, in the subsequent period, ringing me up a few times when he could not get on to anybody at the Ministry at night. I made use of all opportunities to support Guertner's and Schlegelberger's efforts to have Hitler's orders cancelled. The exact notes as is evident from Document NG-190, were made at the express wish of Minister Guertner.
Perhaps I may tell you roughly what Minister Guertner told me at the time. He said: "I do not wish to take responsibility before Germany and the world public if Hitler issues such orders."
Q. In the course of my efforts to procure documents I came across the chief of an office at the Ministry of Justice, Herr Girod, who still lives in Berlin now. He is not able to go on a trip because he has suffered a stroke. I am submitting an affidavit by Girod for identification as Exhibit 27. It appears on page 55 in my document book. It's my document 33.
Do you still remember Girod?
A. Yes, I do. He was the Chief of an office at the Reich Ministry of Justice who had this very portion of the files in his custory.
Q. Did Girod got only discuss these matters with you, but was he also able to have insight into these files?
A. Girod knows the files and he formed his opinion about the steps which the Reich Ministry of Justice took in these matters by reading the files.
Q. Is your recollection the same as that of Herr Girod who says that in the files there are contained complaints by the Gestapo and admonitions which concern the non-execution of transfer orders to the Gestapo?
A. Yes, I remember that. Those complaints by the Gestapo came about in this manner. The immediate order went from Hitler to the Chief of the German Police. The notification was passed on to the Minister of Justice. It happened very frequently that the police received such an order considerably earlier from the headquarters than it reached the Ministry of Justice. In such cases, inquiries and complaints from the police were made because they felt themselves impeded in carrying out Hilter's orders.
Before I proceed, I should like to tell the Tribunal, in answer to its question, that Schellenberg is still in the prison here.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has indicated previously that, where a witness is presently available in Nurnberg, that it's very much more desirable to have his verbal examination than to receive the affidavit. That's particularly true in view of the fact that, if the affidavit is used, the opposing side is entitled to call him for crossexamination. Consequently, it aids the court much more to have the entire examination in open court.
I was referring to the Schellenberg affidavit.
You may proceed.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. You have mentioned the Elias case which occurred at Prague, and you said that on account of that you caused Heydrich's displeasure I will show you Exhibit 480 which is contained in the Prosecution's volume 3, Supplement A, and I ask you to comment on it. 480.
A. That matter has been discussed here several times. Undersecretary Freisler had sent me to Prague in connection with Hitler's order that court files were to be handed over to the Reich Protector, when a State of emergency had been declared. Heydrich had persuaded Hitler when an emergency state was declared in Bohemia and Moravia to have all penal cases pending with the Reich Prosecution and other cases pending with the Prosecution offices dealt with by the Summary Police Courts (Polizeistandgerichte). I considered it my duty to see to it that these cases were left with the Prosecution of the administration of justice. I succeeded in doing so as far as cases of the Reich Prosecution were concerned with the exception of the two penal cases - the Elias and Klapka cases. Concerning those two cases, Heydrich and Thierack, behind the back of the Minister of Justice, had entered into agreements which were binding. The majority of the eases pending before the Public Prosecution, too, could be obtained again and they were not submitted to the Summary Police Courts (Polizeistandgerichte).
Q. You say the same that Lautz said in his testimony on the 24th of July.
We have spoken of special missions and of special treatment with which you dealt after the outbreak of war. Now, we have to discuss the section in which you worked - your referat. I'm showing you Exhibit 99 of the prosecution. It is contained in Document Book I-B. The scope of your section is evident from this document. Did that arrangement remain in force?
A. Document #99 contains the arrangement as it was made at the outbreak of war. It shows that a number of new facts concerning the war time penal laws were to be dealt with by a special section.
Q. Documents will best give information on this subject. For purposes of identification I submit Exhibit 28 which contains extracts from the Reich Legal Gazette, in volume 2, Page 23 and following pages. It is my Document 26. It contains a copy of the Reich War Economic Decree and also a copy of the law against public enemies.
THE PRESIDENT: That's your Document 28, is it?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, it is 28. It also contains the executive orders and the decree against violent criminals.
THE PRESIDENT: It's Exhibit 28 and it's your Document 28, is that not correct?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, Your Honor. It just happens to be like that -- the two figures are identical.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be marked for identification.
DR. HAENSEL: Following, I submit for identification as Exhibit 29 on page 30 in document book 2, extracts from a German Legal Periodical "- Deutsche Rechtszeitschrift". This document supplements the former documents and speaks for itself.
THE PRESIDENT: Identify it first. Your identification number, book and page.
DR. HAENSEL: 29, book 2.
THE PRESIDENT: That's the decision of the District Court.
DR. HAENSEL: Page 30.
THE PRESIDENT: Your Document 29 appears to be a decision of the District Court of Appeals.
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You're talking about your Document 39, then.
DR. HAENSEL: No, no, Your Honor. 29. The heading is "Extracts from "Deutsche Rechtszeitschrift" - German Legal Periodical." Page 30.
THE PRESIDENT: So far, we don't find it yet. 29 is the decision of the District Court. It looks like page 50 to me.
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, it's a verdict passed by the District Court of Appeals at Kiel. It was passed by the Penal Senate of the District Court of Appeals at Kiel.
THE PRESIDENT: That's what I was inquiring. Then, your Document 29 is to be marked for identification Exhibit 29.
DR. HAENSEL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 30 BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. Yes.
What functions and what authority did you have as a referent?
A. The duty of the referent was to supervise a uniform application of the law and, if necessary, to make suggestions for rectifying errors and to pass on orders by the Reich Minister of Justice to the Public Prosecution.
Q. Do you remember , concerning the responsibility and the authority of a referent, were the provisions regulating that laid down in the law?
A. Yes, I do remember that. The authority of a referent is laid down in Article 52 of the Reich Ministry of Justice regulations.
Q. It seems advisable for me to submit these regulations as a, document. They are contained in Document Book 1, my Document 1, The text is contained on page 2, the exhibit number is 30. This document contains the provisions, according to which the referent is to work and it also contains the provisions which says:
"If a unanimous opinion does not prevail among the officials designated in Paragraph 1, their responsibility is restricted to the correct wording of the draft. At the most they arc free to note on the documents that they are of a different opinion."
This is evident from the Exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: Let is be marked.
DR. HAENSEL: I also submit, in connection with the position of a Referent, an explanatorz affidavit. This is given by Albert Huppersckwiller. It is Exhibit 31 and it appears on page 51 of my Document book 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. The Exhibit will be marked for indentification.
DR. HAENSEL: Would you please tell us briefly the difference in the case of a Refernt between the right ti sign and to make decisions. The Referent was entitled to make a suggestion. It was the duty of a Referent to draft such decisions also which did not correspond with his point of view, bu which were contradictory to his suggestion. Therefore, he had no right to make a decision; is that the way things were actually handled in your section?
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. The Prosecution has submitted several documents against you documents of which you have taken note. Were you under any obligation to dear with those matters or did you exorcise any function in connection with those matters? I will show you Prosecution Exhibit 376 from Volume 5-B and 377 from Volume 5-B?
A. These are to documents where I merely took note of the matters concerned.