Q. Where did you take your examination?
A. In July 1935, in Berlin.
Q. Where did you study?
A. In munich, Heidelberg, Greifswald and Muenster.
Q. Where and when did you take your doctor's degree?
A. Not at all.
Q. Witness, please describes whether deviating regulations existed regarding the employment of judges different from the regulations in tho old Reich or were there no differences?
A. The differences consisted of this: that in the pertinent regulations, it said that the regulations of the old Reich had to be applied in accordance with the meaning: for example, it was like this, tart the German Upper Court had a name which did not exist otherwise in the German legislation. This was parallel to the German District Court of Appeals.
Q. Were there also judges meetings in the General Government outside of your closer district?
A. I beg your pardon. That was not the General Government but the Reichkommisariat Ukraine.
Q. Oh, yes, the Ukraine.
A. I met other judges there too, yes.
Q. Were they all professional judges?
A. The judges who were working there were to all fully trained jurists and professional judge. It also happened that lawyers were working there as judges he had the official assignment to work there as judges.
Q. Was that the same in the case of prosecutors?
A. Yes, also in the case of public prosecutors.
Q. Is it known to you that during the war judges were drafted as judges and that full jurists were taken for that too who came from ether professions?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Case III, Court III
Q. What special difference to you see in that that Cuhorst was used as a judge? After all, he is a professional judge?
A. The other judges who were working in the Ukraine had received an official transfer from the Reich Minister for the Occupied Territories; whereas, Cuhorst at first was in the Ukraine only in order to inform himself, that is to say, not in order to do some official service there.
Q. Do you know whether this appointment was delegated by the Kommisar of the Eastern Territiries to other offices?
A. No.
Q. Do you know the expression: "to delegate authority?"
A. Yes.
Q. Please describe in detail--this is very important-in what manner Cuhorst was appointed to the Court. Was this due to his own initiative or whose initiative was it due to?
A. I cannot remember how it happened in detail. Supposedly an oral agreement was made in advance between Herr Funk and Herr Cuhorst. I furthermore assume that Funk, who had to write a written order for the opening of the Court, entered on this written order that an associate judge, in addition to Mosirt, also would serve, and that this order was submitted to those who participated in the original trial for their information.
Q. A young assessor could have been employed for that too, is that correct? I mean in this court in which Cuhorst was working, a young assessor might have sat also in his place instead? What hinderance would there have been?
A. The thing that would have been prevented was that the German Code of Legal Procedure would have to be applied. Thus a judge could not be appointed for one individual case only.
Q. You mean to say, or do you mean to say, that Cuherst was appointed only for this one trial which ended in a death sentence?
A. I don't, know that for certain. I remember that after wards Herr Cuhorst went to Kiev. I don't know whether there was a trial in Kiev too. In any case, I did not take part in it.
Q. Please tell me the facts of the case. You haven't stated them yet.
A. The man was indicted because of undermining of Military morale. In Mosirt, he had spread defeatist rumors.
Q. Can you state the remarks he made?
A. The exact remarks I don't remember. They were concerned with conditions in the Fuehrer Headquarters and about the camps and the situation at the fronts.
Q. What other judges took part? You also belonged to the Court. You must remember the names.
A. The Court consisted only of one presiding judge and two associate judges.
Q. And what were the names of the associate judges?
THE PRESIDENT: He has already covered that, and furthermore, the defendant Cuhorst testified that he was in this trial. Consequently, you needn't cross examine as to credibility on that point BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. An error on my part, Your Honor. There is no doubt about that. Who was the prosecution?
A. Senior Public Prosecutor Herland.
Q. Thank you vary much.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
Dr. Brieger, in accordance with the sound sentiment to the Tribunal we feel that you should be excused until Monday morning at ten o'clock.
DR. BRIEGER: I feel gratefully indebted to Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Now your assistant is in the courtroom, is he not?
DR. BRIEGER: Not at present, no. Mr. Mandry has now a case of his own, and accordingly he preferred to resign as my assistant. I just filed an application today for a now assistant.
THE PRESIDENT: You have document books which your assistant could put in tomorrow, could he not?
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, we assume as a pre-requisite that my assistant shall have been appointed already tomorrow and in that case he would have been present for such a time that I would prefer if another counsel would submit documents. If I am correctly informed, Dr. Wandschneider or Dr. Bode, for Dr. Wandschneider, is ready for the submission.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: As far as the prosecution is concerned, if the Court is satisfied, any one may act as Dr. Brieger's assistant.
DR. BODE: (for the defendant Dr. Rothenberg): May it please the Tribunal, if it is within your approval, we shall begin with the submission of our documents tomorrow, since in the meantime all of the translations have been submitted to the Tribunal as well as to the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be satisfactory.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there other counsel who can fill in the time tomorrow with document books? Is there one more left for you, Dr. Kuboschok?
DR. KUBOSCHOK: It hasn't been translated yet, Your Honor.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, I still have to submit a document book No. 6. However, I have not yet been informed as to whether the Tribunal or the Secretary-General already have the document book at their disposal.
If that should be the case, I would be ready to offer Document Book 6 tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: The document book appears to be ready. Well, gentlemen, we rill simply request all of you who have document books which are ready to assist the Tribunal and counsel by taking up the time tomorrow with the document books so far as possible. We will recess now until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 5 September 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter, et al., Defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 5, September 1947, 0930-1630, Judge James T. Grand, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III.
Military Tribunal II is now is session. God save the United States of American and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain of the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the proper notation be made.
Before you proceed, Dr. Wandschneider, the Court had received an informal petition in the matter of the respondent Marx referring to the condition of his health. We have this morning received the results of a physical examination by a Medical practitioner and find that no good reason exists, either on the basis of this condition of health or otherwise, for any modification of the sentence hereto fire pronounced. It is, therefore, ordered that the sentence be carried out.
You may proceed.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May it please the Tribunal, I am speaking for the defendant Dr. Rothenberger, and ask to be permitted to submit his documents. I assume that the Court has my document books in the English translation. I begin with Rothenberger Document Volume 1, and offer document No. 1, the affidavit by Minister of Justice Dr. Kiesselbach.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you wait just a moment until the books are delivered to us, please?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Certainly, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't recall at the moment, but have you introduced any document books before for defendant Rothenberger?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, Your Honor, the document books have been dis tributed:
All fice document books, four main volumes, and one supplementary volume.
THE PRESIDENT: But you are starting your Exhibit No.1 are you?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes. I timnk you, Your Honor. I begin with my Volume 1 Document 1. It is an affidavit by the Minister of Justice of the British Zone, Dr. Kiesselback. I offer this statement as Rothenberger Exhibit No. 1. In the case of this affidavit by Dr. Kiesselbach, I want to state that Dr. Kiesselbach for many yours was a member of the Claim Commission in Washington after the First World War. He is new in the British Zone. As Minister of Justice, he was President of the District Courts of Appeal in Hamburg, and at the end of 1933 Dr. Rothenberger took over his office. He said that Dr. Rothenberger, in a very liberal way, developed this program, and he was not at all fanatical. As for his program--Rothenberger's program--he says that at that time a program was written down which if it had become known to the National Socialists would have become very dangerous to him. That is the essential thing, and I refer to the contests of that document. I offer Exhibit 1 in evidence.
In the same volume I offer Document No.2 as Exhibit No. 2 It is the affidavit by Dr. Paul Lindermann. It's on Page 3. Dr. Linderman was sundiker of the senate in Hamburg and was appointed again by the British Military Government. In his rather extensive affidavit, I want to stree only two essential points. He says that the law for the restoration of the civil servants has been carried out in Hamburg in a very lenient way; that of 10,000 civil servants only 150, on the basis of that infamous paragraph 4 of the law, have been dismissed. He also says that all senators who had been in office until that time, also these of the Social Democratic Party, continued to receive their pensions on the basis of a law which had been issued by the Bruening Government, even the Jewish senators--these who had been in Hamburg before 1933. He ends his statement.
by saving that the appointment of Dr. Rothenberger as Under-Secretary made a great impression on him at the time. Dr. Rothenberger had told him that he felt he was new in a position to reduce the influence on the judiciary by the SS. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 2 in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Doctor. I think you have probably been present in the courtroom when the Tribunal has previously suggested that it is exceedingly difficult for us to deep the records and at the same time again any benefit from the summaries of the exhibit, which we examine very carefully aftewards, so we hope you will bear that in mind in your dealing with them. Also, in order to save a little time, and such time as there is an objection, if there is any, the Tribunal will not in each instance made an order receiving the exhibit, but will, after you have offered a number of them, receive them from we to a later number consecutively in order to save a little time.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, Your Honor. Then I will only stree the most essential points. I offer No. 3 of Document Book I as Exhibit No. 3. This is a report which has been submitted before as an HG document by the prosecution, but I would like to have it as an exhibit for the defense, and therefore I have given it an exhibit number of the defense. As Exhibit No. 4, I offer the affidavit by Dr. Bussmann of the 5 of June 1947 It is also in Document Book I, on page 11 of the English test. I would like to quite one passage: "Dr. Rothenberger tried to keep qualified judges, even when they were Jews, to keep them in office; and if according to the directives he had received they shouldn't have been kept in office."
Document No. 6 I offer as Exhibit No. 5. It is the affidavit by Dr. Schmidt-Egk. I offer this after identification only.
THE PRESIDENT: You meant to omit your No. 5, did you?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, Your Honor, No. 5 is omitted. Document No. 6 for identification is offered as Exhibit No. 5. This is made by a successor of the defendant as President of the District Court of Appeals in Hamburg, and I shall refer to it later again.
I only want to emphasize one sentence here. It says on Page 28: "Thus also for trials which took place in Hamburg, again concerning nullity pleas, I can so that in all case with the exception, according to my recollection, the sentences did not become more severe." He goes on to explain that the Hitler speech of the 26 April was a serious blow for Dr. Rothenberger.
As Exhibit No. 6, I would like to introduce a document from my Document Book No. IV. It is Document No. 71.
THE PRESIDENT: Would it be inconvenient for you to finish your Document Book I first?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I had put the document books into an order according to their contents, and that brought it about that I can't offer the documents in the order in which they are in the books. When we arranged the document books, we could not take that into account. I ask you to excuse me if I caused this inconvience to the Court. That is then Document No. 71 in Document Book IV. It is on page 69 in the English book.
THE PRESIDENT: And this is to be your exhibit Number?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: That will be my exhibit No. 6.
THE PRESIDENT: Then in Document Book I, Exhibits 1 to 5 inclusive are received in evidence.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes. Thank you, your Honor.
In Document Book No. IV, I offer Document No. 73 as Exhibit No. 7. It is on page 80 in Document Book IV. This is a very serious reprimand on the part of Berlin. There are some more documents--four documents-in Document Book No. I. In Document Book No. I, on page 31, we find Document No. 7. It is an affidavit by Professor Fischer. That affidavit is significant because it was written by a man who had differences of opinion with Dr. Rothenberger, and is a man of a good reputation; a member of the Hanseatic Bar Association, and a member of the Vorstand of the German Lawyer's Organization. In this affidavit, he points out that Dr. Rothenberger, during the time when he was Under-Secretary, in the course of a meeting, spoke rather strongly against radical tendencies. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 9.
THE PRESIDENT: It's 8, isn't it?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: No, your Honor. It's Exhibit No. 9, Professor Fischer. That will be Exhibit No. 9. Before that, I omitted Exhibit No. 8. I just found that put. Before this Document, as Exhibit No. 8, I offer a document from Document Book No. II.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment until we got it.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Certainly, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, what is your exhibit 8?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Exhibit 8 from Document Book No. II is the Document No. 23. It is an affidavit by the Senate President Dr. Bacmeister. Until the war he was the President of the Penal Senate, and ha explains in detail, by offering examples, that under the influence of Dr. Rothenberger the legal practice was very lenient in Hamburg. Furthermore, by mentioning names, that he--Rothenberger--kept the Jewish judges in office far beyond the time that was expected. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 8. Exhibit No. 9, I mentioned already before.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's have that once more to be sure.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Exhibit No. 9 was from Document Book I, Document No. 7. It is the affidavit by Professor Walter Fischer.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: In the same Document Book No. I, I offer Document No. 8 as Exhibit No. 10 for identification only. It is the affidavit by Dr. Priess of the 17 June 1947. Dr. Priess was a close collaborator of Dr.Rothenberger and is in a position to speak about his practice in Hamburg.
As Exhibit No. 11, I offer No. 9 of Document Book No. I. It is a report on the state of affairs of the District Court of Appeals at Hamburg of the 11 of May 1942. Then I offer as Exhibit No. 12, from the same Document Book No. I, Document No. 12, an affidavit by Stefan von Volsen. In this connection, I should like to point out that Herr von Volsen was a former professional officer, a close friend of the Reich Minister of Defense Greener under Brunning, and a friend of Dr. Meicher in the banking firm of Warburg. He speaks about the conditions in Hamburg and says that they were much more moderate than in the rest of the Reich.
Last but not least, due to the course under Dr. Rothenberger, I Court III Case III offer this document as Exhibit No. 12.
As Exhibit No. 13, I offer from Document Book No. 2 the affidavit on page 1 by the former mayor of Hamburg; Peterson. He was the first mayor of Hamburg after the Second World War, and he says quite unambiguously the same concerning the lenient treatment of political opponents; especially the Jews in Hamburg; as has been expressed by the previous affiant. He especially makes statements in the same meaning concerning the Reich Governor Kauffnann. I offer this affidavit as Exhibit No. 13.
As Exhibit No. 14, I offer from Document Book No. I, Document No. 13; on page 65. This is an affidavit by Dr. Vogler; who was in the Prize Court under Dr. Rothenberger as presiding judge. The affidavit speaks for itself; as well as the next affidavit by Dr. Baur in the same document book -- Document No. 14. That statement I offer as Exhibit No. 15.
As Exhibit 16 I offer from Document Book No. II, Document No. 29 in this connection. This is the opening speech by Dr. Rothenberger of the 14th December, 1939, on the occasion of the opening of the German Price Court at Hamburg. Dr. Rothenberger, here in accordance with his practice, emphasized the legal principles which have to be taken into account and the principles of international law.
Next, from Document Book No. I, I offer as Exhibit No, 17 the affidavit by Hinrichs of the 3rd May, 1947, Document No. 15, on page 69. This affidavit is from a former subordinate of the defendant who knew him closely. It is important because he stresses the social attitude of Dr. Rothenberger. I offer this as Exhibit No. 17.
As my next exhibit I offer from the same document book the affidavit of Karl Meyer. It is Document No. 17 of Document Book I, on page 75. This statement is significant because it was made by a member of the denazification board in Hamburg, and confirms that the defendant intervened for a man who was in a rather awkward situation because he was engaged to a Jewess.
As my next exhibit from Document Book No. II, I offer the affidavit by Dr. Bruns, Document No. 21, on page 12. Did we leave one out? 19. I beg your pardon. I am just told that I have skipped one. I have skipped Exhibit No. 19. Exhibit No. 19 is my Document No. 20 in Document Book No. II. This is an affidavit by Dr. Wiegelmesser on page 4 of Document Book No. II. Dr. Wiegelmesser as a friend of the defendant and a friend for many years is important here for his personal evaluation of the defendant which is very objective. I offer this for identification because there is a formal mistake which has to be rectified. The passage is the following: It is Document No. 20, in Document Book Rothenberger No. II, on page 4 and the following pages. Did the Court find the passage? He was not a politician and did not intend to be one. His proper capacities which were always purely humane were in the purely legal field and moreover, in my opinion he did not have a sure political instinct; was a bad psychologist and comparatively easy to influence."
As the next exhibit, I offer an affidavit by the Hamburg judge of District Court, Dr. Brune, as Exhibit No. 20, Document No. 21, in Document Book II, on page 12. I offer this document as Exhibit 20. Here again the witness states inambiguously how the defendant protected a Jewish friend of the witness.
As my next document, in the same Document Book No. II, I offer Document No. 24, which is an affidavit by Claus Juergen Hansen. He is an attorney from Hamburg, who as a young jurist before the war heard a speech by Dr. Rothenberger where Dr. Rothenberger spoke against the Black Corps, the Schwarze Korps and the SS in a very outspoken way.
As the next exhibit I offer the affidavit by Dr. Valentin in the same Document Book II, document No. 26. I offer this document as Exhibit 22. Judge Valentin again is the director of the District Court of Hamburg today, and as a Jew was kept in office by Dr. Rothenberger far beyond the time which otherwise it would have been possible. As for details, I refer to the affidavit itself.
In the same document book, II, we find the next Document No. 28 which is an affidavit that I am offering, an affidavit by Gutschow, which I offer as Exhibit No. 23. Gutschow's son was freed by Dr. Rothenberger from the Gestapo.
The next document which I offer as Exhibit No. 24. is also in Document Book II, the Document No. 30. It is a situation report on the general situation by Dr. Rothenberger of the 7th November, 1940. Here again his attitude against the Schwarze Corps is apparent. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 24.
As Exhibit No. 25 I offer the following document from the same volume, the report on the situation by Dr. Rothenberger of the 4th July, 1941. It speaks for itself, I only have to emphasize again the fact that here Dr. Rothenberger protests against the fact that the definition of a socials is left to non-judicial offices, that is the police.
As the next document I offer the situation report by the defendant Dr. Rothenberger of the 12th of March 1942. I have here the copy of the original in the file, and this situation report which was not available up to now is significant because it shows the open criticism of the wrongs of the German propaganda agency. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 26.
The next document is in my Document Book IV; it is Document No. 50. This I offer as Exhibit No. 27. It is self-explanatory.
The next document is in the same document book, Document Book No. IV, the affidavit by Dr. Willers, on page 15, Document No. 53, in Document Book IV. I offer this affidavit as Exhibit No. 28. It is very important because Willers from his own through knowledge comments about the time when Dr. Rothenberger was undersecretary and why he was in a position to do so; he mentioned among other things that Dr. Rothenberger against the attitude of the Party Chancery kept Jewish officials or officials of Jewish descent in office. He explains that apparently there were great differences of opinion between Dr. Rothenberger and Thierack, and that Dr. Rothenberger always attempted to influence matters in the direction of moderation.
The next affidavit is the affidavit of Dr. Ficker out of the same Document Book No. IV. It as Document No. 54, on page 20. Dr. Ficker's affidavit was given by him as the then Cabinetsrat in the Reich Chancery. This also is an important document because you find he is in a position to testify as to the altitude of Rothenberger and Thierack toward Himmler on the same matters; also because he can testify that Dr. Rothenberger after the conference between Thierack and Himmler, of 18th September, was satisfied about the results. At that time he told the witness that according to the statement made by Himmler, the continued attacks by the Schwarze Corps and other organizations would now cease, and that he had also said that no interference with a sentence would take place. Finally, the witness testified that after that big official conference there was a personal conference between Thierack and Himmler.
I offer this Document as Exhibit No. 29.
As Exhibit No. 30 I offer the Document No. 64 from the same document book, on page 49 in the English text; it is the affidavit by Dr. Bussmann, now a lawyer in Hamburg and a good friend of the defendant. It is on page 49 of the document book. This statement is important because Dr. Rothenberger used to discuss his plans with him; especially he mentioned that with the aid of Kauffmann he hoped to approach Hitler directly in order to confince him of his plans in the nature of a crusade. For further reasons I refer to the contents of that statement.
As the next Exhibit No. 21, from the same Document Book No, IV, I offer Document No. 55 on page 24. It is an affidavit by Hans Eichler. He was a Ministerialrat in the Reich Ministry of Justice, a referent for execution of punishment. He says that Departments III, IV, V and XV by an internal directive were subordinated directly to Thierack, thereby depriving Dr. Rothenberger of any influence on these departments. Dr. Rothenberger, therefore, did not attend the reports of these departments. The witness cannot remember one single case of that kind. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 31.
Form the same Document I offer Document No. 62, the affidavit by Dernodde as Exhibit No. 32. The document speaks for itself.
As Exhibit No. 33 I offer for identification only the affidavit by the witness Dr. Lentz of the 8th May, 1947, it is Document No. 56, in Document Book IV, on page 26. It is an important statement because it is made by a member of the for or Zentrum Party who was never a member of the NSDAP, who knows Dr. Rothenberger from Berlin as well as from Hamburg, and as far as the period in Hamburg is concerned, testified that he was an excellent judge and administrative official, who as far as the administration of justice was concerned, he administered his district in an exemplary manner. I should like to quote one passage from the document. It is only four lines which will give the vivid impression of the meeting between Rothenberger and Thierack. He says, * we were of the opinion that these two men representend great differences of opinion and we thought that that in which they greated each other in a friendly manner; at any rate we welcomed Dr. Rothenberger's appointment to the Ministry because according to his reputation we could expect to be treated in a humane and decent manner." I offer this document as Exhibit No. 33 In the same document book -
THE. PRESIDENT: Just a minute. We will catch up with the rulings now. Mr. Secretary, I think you have the correction about Exhibit 5; that was for identification only.
SECRETARY GENERAL : Yes, I have.
THE PRESIDENT; The Exhibits 6 to 9, inclusive, are received. The Exhibit 10 is marked for identification. The exhibits 11 to 18, inclusi ve, are received. Exhibit 19 is marked for identificacion. Exhibit 20 to 32, inclusive, are received, exhibit 33 is marked for identdiication.
You may proceed.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Thank you, Your honor. Now, I come to Exhibit 34, that document No. 57, in document book No. IV, the affidavit by Irmgard Velder, who was an employee of the administration of justice at the time when Dr. Rothenberger was Under-Sekretary. She was employed with his subordinate Letz. It is important that the witness who for various dangerous statements against Hitler was prosecuted by the SD, was protected by the defendant Dr. Rothenberger most energetically. That document I offer as Exhibit 34 for identification only, because here again there is a formal short coming.
As the next document I offer from the same Document Book IV, No. 59; it is an affidavit by the wife of Dr. Rothenberger, on page 36 of that document book, That affidavit I consider necessary because Dr. Rothenberger's wife was the only person who could authentically testify for the confiscation of various matters of correspondence be which Dr. Rothenbeger could have otherwise referred to in his defense. The Court will remember that mention was made by the defendant concerning SD inquiries which were directed against him because that correspondence with Prof. Fehr, on account of the alleged plagiarism, and that correspondence with Lammers, about his dismissal and the alleged reason for his dismissal, thus the true reasons are of importance. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 35.
As Exhibit 36 and the following, I offer a few documents from my Supplement volume, and I respectfully ask the Tribunal to look at the supplement book.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the last document you offered?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The last document was Exhibit No. 35.
THE PRESIDENT. I have that; what was the document number?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Document No. 59 -- the affidavit of Alice Rothenberger, on page 36.
THE PRESIDENT: I have got that.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The next document from the supplement Document Book is Document No. 89, on page 71. This is the affidavit by the defendant himself about his correspondence with Dr. Fehr. About this document as well as that other affidavit which Dr. Rothenberger has given, I have spoken with the representative of the Prosecution. Perhaps these documents are not even necessary because Dr. Rothenberger has made statements about these points as a witness here already.
THE PRESIDENT: They are not only unnecessary, but improper under the rules to be followed.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Then, I withdraw these documents, Mr. President. Then, the next Document 35 can be omitted. I shall go back to Volume IV now; that is Document No. 61.
Court No. III, Case No. III.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. Is Exhibit 36 next?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The last one was Exhibit 35 and I intend now to offer Exhibit 36. That is the next document, As Exhibit 36 I offer from Document Book IV, Document No, 61, Rothenberger No. 61 on Page 41, your Honor.
This is an affidavit by the Defendant Dr. Schlegelberger which was taken already in March at a time when we did not know about the ruling of the Court which should only explain the table of organization within the Reich ministry of Justice. The chart is attached to that affidavit which Dr. Schlegelberger has made out and one can see therefrom that all the Penal Courts such as the People's Court, the Reich Supreme Court for Penal Cases, Special Courts, etc., were exclusively subordinate to the Penal Division for Penal Law, Department IV.
I offer this document at Exhibit 36.
THE PRESIDENT: Didn't the Witness Schlegelberger testify long after March? Is this the affidavit relative to the chart?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: No, that is an affidavit -- the Tribunal will remember that when that chart, which is hanging on the wall, was put up for the first time, we objected to that chart and at that time, before the rule was told to me, I got the affidavit from Dr. Schlegelberger.
THE PRESIDENT: But since that time Dr. Schlegelberger has testified, at which time you did know the rule.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Well, Mr. President, that chart had gone from the wall for quite some time and the contents of this affidavit referred to that chart end it is quite different, if I offer the affidavit now, with a chart attached. That chart has been removed here for quite some time and I believe it isn't wrong if I am in a position to offer this corrected chart and ask for the permission of the Court to do so.