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.
COURT III CASE III
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you. I am now going back to Book 2, Document 27. This is another extract from "Deutsche Justiz". It is on Page 28. I offer this document as Exhibit 58.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The documents I shall now introduce are in Book 3. The document numbers are 64, Exhibit 59.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that right?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Volume 3? No, no, I was wrong. I made a mistake there. It's Book 3, Document No. 39, and I'm offering it as Exhibit 59. No 40, I offer as Exhibit 60.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment please.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You're offering Document No. 40?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: No, No. 40 I offer as Exhibit 60.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Document No. 41 I offer as Exhibit 61; Document 42 is Exhibit 62; Document 43 is Exhibit 63; Document 44 I offer as Exhibit 64.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment please. Nos. 62, 63, and 64 are received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, Your Honor. Document 44 I offer as Exhibit 65.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood you offered 44 as Exhibit 64.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: 44 was Exhibit 64. I offered 44 as 64, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: 44 as 64-and 45 becomes Exhibit 65. And Document 46 is Exhibit 66.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. Exhibits 64, 65, and 66 are received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, Your Honor. From one document, and that is Exhibit 64, I should like to quote one sentence. It is characteristic for certain psychological contexts. Just a moment; I shall find the passage in a moment. The exhibit I am going to quote from is Exhibit 64, and I should like to read one of Schieffer's sentences The sentence is one Page 53 of Document Book 3: "We do not want the pharmacist's white ointment, but the surgeon's knife. The wound must not be smeared over and plastered over, it must be out, emptied and scratched out." In this connection I would remind you of a phrase which Dr. Rothenberger used.
THE PRESIDENT: We remember the phrase. It's almost identical.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: And now continuing with Document Book 3, the Document Book 3, the Document number is 33. There are several Rothenberger documents, and I shall offer them without any further comments. Document 33 is Exhibit 67; it deals with the position of the masters and registrars in Great Britain. From the same document book, I offer Document 34; that is the next document, actually and the exhibit number is 68. Document 34 deals with the establishment of a National Socialist Administration of Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: 67 and 68 are received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: From the last exhibit--Exhibit 68, I should like to quote on Page 18-A, one passage: "Italian Fascism has recognized the importance of this problem for the survival of its Empire by agreeing with me on the following thesis, during a GermanItalian conference held in Vienna, in March 1939. The following doctrines were agreed upon: The judge different from other people derives his function immediately from the leadership of the State. In the organization of both states the judge holds a position of a special nature among the servants of the state.
This same thought was expressed by the DUCE in an address hold on 6 May 1942 before the Italian judiciary when he referred to the 'truly sacred mission' of the administration of justice." I offer this--oh, no, I have already offered it. The next document is No. 35. It is also contained in Book 3, and it appears on Page 22 and the ff pages, and I offer this document as Exhibit 69.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: This is an account of reform matters. The next document is No. 36, which deals with the historical development of the German Judiciary. The account is by Dr. Rothenberger himself I offer this document, which appears on Page 27 and ff pages in Book 3, as Exhibit 70.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Document No. 37 is called "The Judge in the National Socialist State," from "Deutsche Justiz." It is more or less a philosophical thesis or this subject. And I am offering this document as Exhibit 71.
THE PRESIDENT: Deceived.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I want to quote one page, and anyhow I should like to draw your attention to that passage, No, no, there's no need for me to comment on this document; it is superfluous. My next document is document No. 38. It deals with the problem of the Justice of the Peace. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 72.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I am now passing on to the Supplement Volume Document 85. This is an extract from "Deutsche Rechts-Zeitschrift," August, 1946. It appears on Page 57 and following.
From this publication one can see that even after the second World War, concerning the Justice reform plans on which the Administrations of Justice of the various zones worked, Dr. Rothinberger is mentioned in connection with the legal developments as such. About the Godesberg Conference, which was held last year, it is said that Schetter pointed out that the spokesmen for the reform efforts in the last 25 years were Muegel in imperial Germany, Schiffer during the Republican era, and Rothenberger in the Rational Socialist Reich; and in spite of the difference in their political and ideological attitudes, those three men arrived at the same conclusions.
I am offering this document as Exhibit 73.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The nest document is document 86, also in the supplement book. This too is an article from Deutsche Rechts-Zeitschrift. It is on page 60 through 63 of the supplement book.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The exhibit number is 74. This exhibit is of importance only because it shows that under the Weimar Republic too the crisis in the Administration of Justice was a well-known matter.
The next exhibit from the supplement book is document 87. That is an article by Dr. Rothenberger from Deutsche Recht. It is on pages 64 through 68. I offer this document as Exhibit 75.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The next document, again from the supplement book, is document 81. I beg your pardon, the number is 84. This is another publication in, Deutsche Rechts-Zeitschrift, August 1946, pages 56 and following of the supplement book.
It contains arguments against the guidance of justice, and I quote:
"The opinion which was directed against guidance of the Administration of Justice"--I am quoting from page 56-a at the bottom--"does not mean that the judge is to remain isolated in facing such difficult tasks. The point is that one must work against a difference in the practices and the sentences passed by the various courts."
I should like to point out that it is also said here that it is absolutely important for judges from various courts to have an exchange of opinions. I quote from page 56-b: "The Administration of Justice and, above all, the Presidents of the District Courts, will be please to help. Another way which is just as important is the speedy distribution of fundamental information concerning important decisions about important legal questions. Above all, the Presidents of the Courts of Appeal should immediately pass on such decisions to the lower courts."
I offer this document as Exhibit No. 76.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I am now coming to document number 74 in the supplement book. It is on pages 1 through 17, and it is written by Dr. Segelken, who was an assistant of Dr. Rothenberger's for many years. This is a very detailed account, which is based on accurate knowledge of the actual events and of the personality and character of Dr. Rothenberger, and it is a critical evaluation. I am referring you particularly to the enclosure to the affidavit, the Appendix, which was not made out specially for the purposes of this trial by which is a memorandum which was written as early as February 1944.
He wrote it under the heading, "Why I went to Berlin to the Reich Ministry of Justice, and why I left."
I cannot possibly read all this out to the Tribunal and I trust the Tribunal will consider the matter thoroughly, but I should like to say a few words about it and point out that here Dr. Segelken, based on his excellent knowledge of Dr. Rothenberger, speaks of Dr. Rothenberger's hundred percent faith and good will; that because he did not have a good insight into other people's characters, and therefore not only lost the game but entered dangerous surroundings and therefore, today, has to face this trial here. This gives an account of his motives, and it perhaps also contains the reasons why he failed.
The matter is self explanatory and I do not want to make any further statements.
I have now come to the end of my presentation of documents for the moment, and I should like to reserve the right to introduce at a later time a small number of documents, and I am also expecting one or two witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask, you do not propose to offer any more documents from the books which we have before us now, is that correct?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: From these books. You have completed Book I, Book II, Book III, Book IV, and Supplement I. Am I right?
DR: WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, I, II, III, IV, and the Supplement book.
THE PRESIDENT: Finished.
DR. WANDSCNEIDER: Yes, only I should like to reserve the right at a later time to introduce some other documents, but they are not contained in these books.
THE PRESIDENT: We will rule on them when you offer them.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, thank you, Your honor.
THE PRESIDENT: May we ask who is next with more documents?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Your Honor, I have just been told that Dr. Schilf is about to come to the courtroom. He has been delayed because he has been attending a conference.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other defendant who will have documents to offer today?
Will you have some?
DR. BODE: Your Honor, I was told that Dr. Haensel will continue presenting his documents for Dr. Joel after Dr. Schilf her completed his presentation of documents.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. SCHILF (Counsel for the defendant Klamm:): May it please the Court, may I now continue with the presentation of my documents?
THE PRESIDENT: These are Klemm documents?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, Your Honor, Klemm documents.
On the 7th of August, 1947, I presented my documents, out at that time some supplement books were still missing. I think I shall be in a position today to submit the remaining books. May I ask the Secretary General to hand to the Tribunal Document Book II Supplement? Supplement Document Book II contains only one exhibit, and it is number 16-A.
THE PRESIDENT: What was your last exhibit number, Dr. Schilf? Was it seventy - Numbers 74 and 75 were reserved, I believe.
DR. SCHILF: Yes, reserved. Your Honor, on the 7th of August I reserved quite a few numbers. With your permission I shall not start by offering my reserved numbers, and the first of those numbers is 16-A, in Supplement Book II. It is an affidavit - I shall wait until the texts have been made available. The Secretary General has Supplement Book II.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: I don't have the book.
DR. SCHILF: I have the English translation.
THE PRESIDENT: That is an affidavit of Dr. Heinz someone.
DR. SCHILF: Heinz Kuemmerlein.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that was received. Haven't we had Klemm's book II supplement before?
DR. SCHILF: Just a moment, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: At first it was reserved and then it was later received.
DR. SCHILF: If you will excuse me for just a moment I will have a look at the transcript of the 7th of August. At that time the Tribunal ruled that 16-A was to be reserved for the Kuemmerlein affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: I have it marked "reserved", and then the word.
"reserved" was crossed out and it was marked "received", but the Secretary does not have any 16-A.
DR. SCHILF: In that case I would suggest to the Tribunal -- I still have the original here, but if it has been accepted I shall now simply hand the original to the Secretary General. I have the original here, and the Secretary General does not yet have it in his possession.
THE PRESIDENT: There is some doubt in our minds as to whether we have received the English on 16-A in Klemm Volume II of the Supplement. It seems to be the only reference to Volume II of the supplement.
DR. SCHILF: Your Honor, according to the German transcript - unfortunately, I can only cite the German page number, 6157 - according to that, the last decision made by the Tribunal was: "When we receive the affidavit we shall give it the exhibit number 16-A."
THE PRESIDENT: I think the fact is that we haven't received English copies on that probably. Our notes are in harmony, but I think we do not have the English translation of supplement book II. Suppose we let the Secretary General look that up and proceed with the next one.
DR. SCHILF: Yes, Your Honor. I am now passing on to Supplement Book IV. I am concerned now with six documents, and their numbers are -
THE PRESIDENT: I have just received Supplement Book II with my signature. I don't know where it came from. This is my copy. It will be received in evidence.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: What is received in evidence?
DR. SCHILF: No. 16-A.
THE PRESIDENT: There is only one exhibit in this book, isn't there?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, Your Honor, yes, that is right.
THE PRESIDENT: Supplement Book II is received as Exhibit 16-A.
DR. SCHILF: I now come to Supplement Book IV. I hope the Tribunal has the translation. It starts with Exhibit 34. It is an affidavit by Dr. Gerhard Klopfer. This affidavit is very lengthy and the reason is that Klopfer, who was the Under Secretary of State at the Party Chancellery, was there Klemm's superior.
He was the Chief of the socalled Constitutional Law Department. Klopfer worked there for a long time, and he was, therefore, particularly well qualified to describe the organization of the Party Chancellery in all details, as well as the relations between the Party Chancellery and Bormann, and also with the Ministries and the Party Agencies.
I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that we are concerned here with organizational matters which Klopfer describes in his affidavit. I believe that this affidavit will enable the Tribunal to understand the complicated structure of the Party Chancellery.
I am offering this document as Exhibit 34.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document is an affidavit by Dr. Paul Enke. Enke also had a position at the Party Chancellery. He supplements Klopfer's statements on the organization of the Party Chancellery and deals in detail with the so-called Justice Group. That is the department to which Klemm belonged. He describes that department in detail and he explains the limitations set to the tasks of that department.
In connection with this exhibit I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal in particular to paragraph 6 in the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: The paging, I think, is all mixed up in this. It runs from 10 to 10-A to 11, 12, and back to 11, and then to 12. That is in Exhibit 34.
We will receive the Enke affidavit as Exhibit 35.
DR. SCHILF: But I am anxious to draw the attention of the Tribunal to paragraph 6 in that affidavit.
The next document is an affidavit by Mueller. Unfortunately, I am not able to introduce it at this moment. That number has already been reserved for me. Will you please allow me to introduce the document at a later time?
The next document is Document 37. It is an article from Deutsche Justiz the official gazette of the Reich Ministry of Justice, which has been mentioned here a great deal.