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.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Document 61 have attached the corrected chart?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, your Honor, yes, indeed. It has attached the corrected chart. Otherwise it wouldn't have made any sense if I couldn't have submitted that corrected chart with it.
THE PRESIDENT: Schlegelberger testified concerning the corrected chart, did he not.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, yes, he testified, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we receive the chart?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think that the affidavit, except as identification of the chart, would be proper in view of the fact that Schlegelberger has testified in open court and has testified concerning the matter which is contained in the affidavit. That is my understanding of the ruling which we have been following.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider the corrected chart.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, Mr. President. The next document from my Document Book IV is an affidavit by Dr. Segelcken, which I offer as Exhibit 37. This document is also self-explanatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Document 63?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Document 63, your Honor. The next document is Document 65. That is a latter from the Dean of the Faculty for Legal and Political Science to Reich Minister and Reich Chancellor Lammers, on Page 54 of Document Book No.IV In this letter it is explained that never an official memorandum was sent by Hamburg Professors to Thierack or Lammers on account of an alleged plagiarism.
I offer this document as Exhibit 38.
The next document, Document No. 66 in the same Document Book on Page 56, is a notice of dismissal which shows the crude form in which this took place. I offer this as Exhibit No. 39.
The next is No. 67 of the same document book. This exhibit is offered as Exhibit 40 and is an affidavit by Lawyer Willhoeff from Hamburg. Attorney Willhoeff frequently the political cases before the People's Court in Berlin, was often in contact with Dr. Rothenberger and says that he had always gained the impression and made the experience that Dr. Rothenberger's influence on the degree of punishment was a moderating one and that he made endeavors to counteract the tendency to greater severity. I offer this document as Exhibit 40.
The next is document 68 from the same Document Book IV on Page 59, an affidavit by Director of the District Court, Wogatzky, which I offer an Exhibit 41. Dr. Wogatzky speaks in great detail from his own thorough knowledge about the defendant Dr. Rothenberger.
I want to emphasize only one passage. He says that he has heard from Hartmann and Letz in Berlin that attempts were made to neutralize Dr. Rothenberger by transferring him to the position of President of the Reich Supreme Court or to the post of Second Undersecretary. He also adds that Dr. Rothenberger was disregarded by passed by Thierack in matters which he should have handled and, for instance, was never called to impostant conferences such as with Klopfer and Kaltenbrunner.
The next is an affidavit of Dr. Stegemann which I offer as Exhibit No. 42. Dr. Stegemann is also an attorney from Hamburg the same as Dr. Willhoeff. He was a man of an international point of view, born in Mexico. He was a lawyer in Hankow, China; has studied in Grenoble, among other places and he says, among other things, that Dr. Rothenberger could take contradiction. It is on Page 64-A. It was not a quotation. Dr. Rothenberger could take contradiction from others but he could contradict as well. The rest can be seen from the affidavit.
The next exhibit from the same document Book No. IV is No. 72 which was already contained in the document cook of the Prosecution but was not submitted as an exhibit. I offer this document as Exhibit 43. From this praise directed by the District Court of Appeals president in Dresden to Thierack, one can see that Rothenberger and his people from Hamburg were considered a special front (group), the so-called Rothenbergers - Rothenbergians.
The next document is to be found in the supplement volume which I ask you to look at now, your Honor, Document 76 which is to be found on Page 25. This is an affidavit by Dr. Hasso von Wedel, a young Hamburg judge who belonged to the Christian Conservative circles and, therefore, was opposed to attacks from Party fanatics. He describes in a very impressive manner how Dr. Rothenberger protected him against these massive attacks by all Party fanatics.
He furthermore speaks about the German-Englich students Exchange which no doubt did not take place for propagandistic reasons because half-Jews were delegated for that by Dr. Rothenberger, which excludes the suspicion of a propagandistic enterprise in the sphere of National Socialism. I offer this document as Exhibit 44.
The next document is from the same supplement book, Document No. 78, an affidavit by Dr. Herbert Kiesselbach. He is the son of the Minister of Justice of the British Zone which I have mentioned in the beginning. That affidavit is of great importance. I offer it as Exhibit 45.
And as a new circumstance I want to emphasize -- no, not a new point, but a confirmation of a point mentioned before -I want to emphasize that he says Dr. Rothenberger was always moderate in his opinions. Concerning the events of the years 1933-34 he stated, "One should not forget that in every revolution there is a first group brought to the top only by the forceful change and sent to the bottom again in a short time." He states literally that Dr. Rothenberger did everything in Hamburg to prevent political intrusions in the sphere of the law and to remain on the firm ground of the law.
As for racial political questions, the fact is of interest that he states that Dr. Rothenberger saw to it that Dr. Kiesselbach could get together with a man who had a Jewish wife against which, as can be understock, the Party protested. That exhibit I offer as Exhibit 45.
From the same supplement book I offer Document No. 79, an affidavit by Dr. Rothenberger. Dr. Brueckmann was a close associate of Dr. Rothenberger. When he become an associate in 1939 he was not a Party member, which is significant. He only became a Party member during the war in 1941 or 1942. He incurred Party disciplinary proceedings because he had stated too obviously that, only compelled by the fact that he was a judge, he had become a member of the Party. He states that he was always covered by Dr. Rothenberger and protected by Dr. Rothenberger even in these Party disciplinary proceedings.
This man is of interest in this connection because his vision is not limited or restricted by National Socialist ideas.
He studied at the Kansas State University and in Canada, lived in the States for a considerable time, is a man with a very sober and critical point of view. I know him myself. For the rest, I refer to the contents of the affidavit, particularly concerning the question as to for what reasons and in what belief Dr. Rothenberger tried to approach Adolf Hitler.
The next affidavit -
THE PRESIDENT: It is time for our morning recess. We will recess now for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
COURT MARSHAL: This Tribunal is again in session.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I am now continuing with the Supplement Volume, and it is Document 80 on Page 49 of that volume. This is an affidavit by Herr Schrader, deposited on the 28th of May 1947. The affidavit speaks for itself. I'm introducing it as Exhibit 47.
THE PRESIDENT: It appears that it will be a little better for the Secretary General if we return to the old procedure. Hereafter I'll pass on each exhibit as it is offered. In order to catch up - I think we have marked Exhibit 33 for identification; Exhibit 34 is marked for identification; Exhibits 35 to 47, both inclusive, are received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, Your Honor. My next document from Supplement Volume is Document 82. It is on Page 53. This is a decree by the Fuehrer and Reichs Chancellor about the establishment of the Reich Administrative Court. What is significant about this document is merely that in this decree it is laid down that the members of the Reich Administrative Court are not subject to instructions in their decisions and may vote purely according to their views on the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: What do we have to do with the Reich Administrative Court?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I'm introducing it because these statements about the possibility for every judge at the court to decide according to his own opinion was of importance to Dr. Rothenberger in his judgment of the personality of Hitler.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, Your Honor. I'm offering this document as Exhibit 48. The next document is contained, in the same volume, and it is document 83, on Page 55. This is an affidavit by the former Ministerial Dirigent, Fritz Grau, at the Reichs Ministry of Justice. He says in his affidavit that Department III was in the immediate charge of Thierack, and that Under Secretary Rothenberger did not deal with it. He says on Page 55, and I quote, in the second paragraph of his affidavit:
"Therefore, it is not to be presumed that Department III ever made a report to Under Secretary of State Rothenberger in the matter concerning the decrees relating to the restriction of the right to appeal for Jews." I offer this document as Exhibit 49.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The next document is contained in Volume 1 Document Do. 55, on Pare 24. This is an affidavit. Oh, I beg your pardon; I believe I have made a mistake -- Document Book 1, No. 55.
THE PRESIDENT: Document Book 1 does not have a No. 55.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: No, no, that can't be right. That's a mistake. No, Your Honor, you're right. Volume 1, No. 16. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 50. It is an affidavit by the former President of District Court of Appeals, Martin. He was a colleague of the Defendant, Dr. Rothenberger. He speaks about the worries which the presidents of the District Courts of Appeal had, and he also deals with the hopes which the judges and the jurists, as such, harbored when Dr. Rothenberger was appointed to be Under Secretary at the Ministry of Justice, and the hoped that he would bring about a turn for the better. He further discussed the differences of opinion between Thierack and Rothenberger. He says that that marriage was bound to fail. My next document.....
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 50 is received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The next document which I am going to offer is contained in Book 2. It is No. 25. It is an affidavit also by a former colleague of the Defendant, Dr. Rothenberger, and the affiant is Bruno Becker. I offer this document as Exhibit 51. The next document is in the Supplement Volume, and. I'm offering it for identification only. I beg your pardon, Your Honor; the Becker document also I am offering merely for identification, at the request of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit number will be vacated, and it will be marked for identification - that is, Exhibit 51.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The next document appears in the Supplement Volume. The number is 81. This is a statement by Kulenkamp, the former President of the District Court of Appeals. This document too, I am offering merely for identification. Kulenkamp's statement emphasizes that Dr. Rothenberger had made himself the mouthpiece, the spokesman, on behalf of the opposition with the Ministry, in order to give battle to the SS. Even after he had become Under Secretary, one expected that he would justify the hopes placed in him. Thierack, however, foiled those hopes. I offer this document as Exhibit 52.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification only.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The next document is in Volume 3. The number is...
THE PRESIDENT: We haven't Volume 3 here.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Volume 3. Does the bench now have that book?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we have it.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, Your Honor. In Book 3 I am referring to document 48 on Page 60. This is an extract from "Deutsche Justiz" for the year 1939, and I offer it as Exhibit 48.
THE PRESIDENT: 53, I think you mean.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: No, I beg your pardon, Your Honor. I meant to say 53. This is throwing light on the efforts of the presidents of the District Courts of Appeal, and particularly Rothenberger, to have the impossible news published in "Deutsche Justiz" and other newspapers denied. "Deutsche Justiz" was only read by judges. A month later, quite hidden, it brought some corrections which were very lame and weak.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 53 is received in evidence.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: My next document is also contained in Book 3; the number is 47, on Page 57 ff. This is the guidance decree of the 13th of October 1942, which essentially based itself on the same principles as the.
.. What is of importance about this decree which naturally in itself meant that jurisdiction for the future would be guided - is that it is stressed that the decrees were concerned with guiding jurisdiction during war-time, and that the measures are to be put into effect tactfully. What is of material importance and what is a decisive circumstance, and I quote from the third paragraph on page 57: "In spite of all guidance, one must accept the findings of the facts of the case which alone is the task of the Court." Of significance is also on Page 58, under numeral 3, and I quote: "The guidance and the discussion can only take place by the judiciary, which on its part, must maintain contact with the Prosecution." That is to say, contact on a higher level so as to avoid direct contact between the Prosecution and the judge. At the bottom of Page 58 it is of particular importance that matters are stressed, here which Dr. Rothenberger considered to be serious; general offenses against the economy, violent crimes, etc. I offer this exhibit as Exhibit 54.
THE PRESIDENT: Received in evidence.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I'm now passing on to Book 2, Page 22. For simplification I am going to introduce a few documents at once, and I only want to comment on them quite briefly and in a general way. I am referring to extracts from the book by Eugen Schieffer, who is now a Minister of Justice in the Eastern Zone, These extracts are taken from "Deutsche Justiz." I am submitting these extracts so that at the hand of Dr. Rothenberger's own plans, with which the Tribunal is familiar, they are to show that actually he had taken over plans from former times which were politically of no importance and which naturally, by connecting them with National Socialism, had acquired a different flavor. May it please the Tribunal, these affidavits I shall name altogether. In Volume 2 it is number 22, and that will be Exhibit No. 55; 22-A will be Exhibit No. 56; and I have to interrupt for a, minute and have to interpolate one document from the Supplement Dr. Volume.
This is Document 93 from the Supplement Volume Document 93. And it is on Page 78. This document contains extracts from a book, "America's Faith in Germany." The author is a certain Peter Morgan. It was published in 1931 at Munich, and Albert Langen 9 Company were the publishers. This gave the characteristic description of the political situation before the seizure of power by the National Socialists. I am introducing this book to describe the situation which prevailed at the time before the seizure of power. I am leaving it to the discretion of the Tribunal as to whether you will permit me to offer this.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no objection; it will be received. You're offering it as Exhibit 57?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, Your Honor, I am offering it as Exhibit 57.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 55 and 56 are also received.