Then, there were the fiscal disadvantages.
Q Witness, you mentioned the fiscal disadvantages. Can you tell me of what that consisted?
A It consisted in this: As President of the Senate I was in grade 6 and as Oberlandesgerichspresident, B-5. And, the expenses to which an Oberlandesgerichtspresident was entitled to amounted to 1200 Reichsmarks, and that was no longer obtainable.
Q As President of the Senate did you not get additional Reichsmarks?
A That did not make up for what was lost.
Q It did not?
A It might have compensated for the basic salary, but it did not make up for what I lost in expenses.
Q In other words, the only differences amounted to 1200 Reichsmarks?
A Yes,
Q And, what was the basic payment, may I ask you?
A The basic payment of the President of the Senate is 10,000 marks.
Q Witness, a final question: You now live in Nurnberg?
A Yes, I live in Nurnberg.
Q Your are under denatzifacationregulations in Nurnberg?
A Yes, I am.
Q Has you denatsification been discontinued because of the trial?
A I do not know.
Q You do not know?
A I do not know. The denazification proceedings are pending.
Q But, you have not been given a decision?
A No, I have not received the indictment yet.
DR. SCHUBERT: I have finished my cross examination.
BY DR. HAENSEL (for the defendant Joel):
Q I would like you to allow me to put to you a few questions concerning the Jewish question. Witness you spoke of the transfer of Jewish real estate to the Deputy Gauleiter Holz in 1938. That transfer you described as a special action by the campaign was not based on the law.
Did the campaign have its beginning outside of Nurnberg or was it restricted to Nurnberg.
A We had that in other Gau's the same proceedings were adopted. And, in particular, my Munich colleagues told me that in Munich similar proceedings were adopted. That the deterents were the same, that I do not know but the question which came up in the House of the Labor Front -- I had made an inquiry and found that many similar proceedings had been instituted and that action taken, caused no to go in Berlin and immediately raise the subject there.
Q I believe it will be necessary to explain t o the Tribunal in three words what functions the Bavarian Judge, at that tine, had in the matter of transferring real estate?
A It was not a case of symptoms or of a decision in the penal or civil law, but it was simply an administrative act.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court we object to this line of cross examination on the ground that it constitutes argument with the witness, and lecturing the witness on matters not solicited by questioning. It is more in the nature of an argument, and best to be submitted in the Defense's case in chief.
THE PRESIDENT: We will overrule the objection.
Q What were the functions of the judge to effect the transfer of real estate?
A Documents were at hand and they had to be investigated as whether formal conditions existed so as to effect the transfer into the real estate registry.
Q And, what were the formal conditions, as you call it?
A The agreement of, and other statements. But as it was generally known that an agreement had been brought about, it certainly was a difficult question of the consciousness of the judge to accept this agreement by the order.
Q You speak about the difficult position for the judge's conscious ness of the judge to accept this agreement by the order.
Q You speak about the difficult position for the judge's consciousness, we want to be quite clear whether agreements had been achieved by blackmail; was it not inferred by German law?
A That can be seen from the mere point that later on those transfers, and those entries into registry were made legal. As far as I know, later on there had been opposition to such an entry as those entered.
Q. You say what concerned the knowledge of the nullity of such agreement was generally known in Nurnberg. In that case the judge was not under an obligation to make such an entry?
A. That was the question. It was because of that I went to the Reich Ministry of Justice and asked them to interfere. It would have been possible for the Administration to give an order to stop this action from continuing.
Q. And why was that administrative order not issued?
A. Because I could not give it, as that exceeded my competence.
Q. Who had the official supervision over those judges?
A. It was the Landgerichtsrat.
Q. Was he your subordinate or was he your superior?
A. He was my subordinate.
Q. He was a subordinate. You, as President of a District Court -were you not able to instruct those lawyers to resist this legal procedure?
A. After the notaries had already deposited the document, I was told that the President of the District Court in Nurnberg -- concerning two notaries who had asked him for advice -- told them that as far as documentation of this transfer was concerned, he had nothing to say against it; later, after the Goering Investigation Commission had ascertained the facts, he would introduce disciplinary proceedings. Because he had given that advice -
Q (Interposing) Please don't go so fast because I believe these things are very important.
You say you went to Berlin in order to got a decision from the Ministry. You returned from Berlin, and did not got support there, as you said. What happened here next? Were the transfers effected or not?
A. I stated this morning that when I returned from Berlin and returned to my office, the Amtsgerichts head told me the Gauleiter had caused the real estate judges to take very quick action and that the transfer and the entry into the Estate Registry of the now owners had already been effected.
DR. HAENSEL: I want to inform the Court that this is not right; no transfers actually took place.
Q. Were notations made -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): One moment please.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May the Court please, whether or not transfers took place is not a matter for counsel to say; it is a matter of proof clearly. It was not elicited by examination, and we move that it be stricken.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be stricken. That is an affirmative statement on the part of defense counsel. He may prove that by a witness, but he may not testify from the desk.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. You said, witness, that at a later stage those transfers were canceled. Who caused that to be done?
A. As far as I am informed, it was done by the so-called Goering Investigation Commission. That was a commission which consisted of one deputy of the Reich Finance Ministry, from the Economics Ministry, and from the Secret Police Office, which was asked to investigate events in Nurnberg. That Commission, as I was informed, in its final report, is supposed to have informed Berlin; and on the basis of that final report from the Goering Commission the registry is supposed to have been corrected and subsequently the Police President of Nurnberg was charged with seeing to the orderly transfer of Jewish property into German hands.
Q. Do you know which of the defendants took part in that Commission?
A. I know that Joel was a member of that Commission for a definite purpose. He was to investigate to what extent justice officials had worked in this field or had neglected their duty.
Q. Do you know whether Joel saw to it that proceedings were instituted against notaries?
A. I thought proceedings against Hoesch were due to that. I believe it was also intended to institute proceedings against the notaries, but I do not remember any particulars.
Q. Is it known to you that Joel, in this connection, also instituted other proceedings against Streicher?
A. That is possible, but as far as Joel was the impulse in this I don't know, because the entire investigation on the part of the Goering Commission was kept secret and outsiders heard nothing about it.
Q. Do you remember the notorious case against Dr. Simon, who was sentenced to a penitentiary?
A. Yes, I remember it.
Q. Do you know whether there is any connection?
A. It is possible that tho entire conditions in the Gau Franconia were gone into and that that mild affair too was involved.
DR. HAENSEL: Thank you.
BY DR. SCHILF (Counsel for tho defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg):
Q. Witness, under direct examination, as well as under crossexamination, questions have been put to you concerning tho nullity plea. Now I would like to put some supplementary questions to you on that point.
You pointed to the difference according to which the nullity plea was made by the Oberreichsanwalt. On the other hand, tho Oberreichsanwalt could receive a suggestion. May I ask you this? As the Tribunal naturally, is not informed in the Bane way as you on the legal basis for the nullity plea, would you give us an explanation as to the two concepts?
A. According to the legal regulations, the Oberreichsanwalt at the Supreme Reich Court was competent for the submission of the nullity plea. That is to say, the chief of the public prosecution authorities at the Supreme Reich Court.
In what manner the Oberreichsanwalt at the Supreme Reich Court was informed about the various sentences, that varied from case to case. On the one hand, he could tell through the Reich Ministry of Justice as to what suggestion or in what direction to submit a nullity plea, but he could be informed immediately by the defense counsel as to what motion to submit such a nullity plea on.
Q. It is correct, therefore, I suppose, that the fact alone that only the Oberreichsanwalt formally could submit the nullity plea -- by that it cannot be said in any way that always, or generally, this went against the interests of the defendant?
A. That is correct, It was possible for the nullity plea to be raised on behalf of the defendant and that did happen, as I have already explained, although it happened loss frequently that it was done in his favor than that it was done against him.
Q. What makes you say that that happened -
May I ask you, witness, to allow for a little interval between my questions and your answer?
A. I know that from my own observations as presiding judge at a penal chamber.
Q. Now I must ask you to clarify the matter further. From what date -- I think you have mentioned it already, but I would like the date again -- from what date onwards were you president of the Senate?
Q. It was from the autumn of 1943.
Q. The experience which you gained, you gained in your Senate?
A. Yes, I gained it in my Penal Senate, which mainly dealt with Austrian penal cases.
Q. So as to inform, the Court, I would ask you, witness, to quite briefly explain how many criminal senates there were at the Supreme Reich Court at the time of your appointment.
A. When I began my service as President of the Penal Senate, there were five public penal senates, and by their side there was the Special Penal Senate. The number of ordinary penal senates, in the course of the year 1944, was reduced to four penal senates. That happened as a result of the shortage of judges which in itself was due to the war.
JUDGE BRAND: Within what territory was ho referring to? Within what territory were the five penal senates reduced to four, please?
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. Witness, would you be kind enough to answer this question?
A. For every district of a district court of appeal, the cases with which one senate had dealt were now given to the other senates to deal with, so that the total number of cases could be dealt with by the four penal senates. In fact, the four penal senates now dealt with the cases which formerly had been dealt with by five penal senates.
Q. May I interrupt you, witness? There is something else which His Honor wants to know from you. What he wants to know is the territorial limitation, the whole sphere to which the jurisdiction of the Supreme Reich Court extended in penal cases.
A. First of all, they dealt with revisions, with appeals against verdicts, and they also dealt with the nullity pleas.
Q. You still haven't answered the question. When I used the word "territorial" -- and this, I think, is what His Honor wants to ask you -- I meant actually the geographical district.
A. Well, that varied. That varied. One Penal Senate dealt with the Bavarian Oberlandesgericht. I don't know whether that is what His Honor meant.
JUDGE BRAND: Witness, you said that five Penal Senates were reduced to four Penal Senates. To what geographical area were you referring? Do you mean that five Penal Senates in all of Germany were reduced to four, or that five Penal Senates in some geographical district of Germany were reduced to four? Just answer that briefly.
THE WITNESS: These five senates together dealt with all penal cases for the whole of Germany, and in the same way later the four Penal Senates dealt with all penal cases in Germany. Political cases, for example, were mostly dealt with by one special senate. Most of them were collected and were dealt with by one special senate. I believe that I have now expressed myself clearly.
THE PRESIDENT: I want to ask you a question, witness. A moment ago I think you used the expression "Austrian Penal Senate." Did you use that expression?
THE WITNESS: The Austrian Penal Senate was called the Austrian Senate because it dealt with the Austrian cases, but that senate which dealt with Austrian cases at the same time also dealt with cases arising in certain districts inside the German Reich. That Fifth Penal Senate which also dealt with Austrian cases -- in that, the members of that Senate were mainly Austrians who were acquainted particularly well with Austrian penal law.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, none of these senates ever sat in Austria, is that true, in the country of Austria?
THE WITNESS: I do not know that the senate which dealt with the Austrian cases ever sat in Austria. Austria did not have its own senate at the Supreme Reich Court, but all these cases were dealt with at the Supreme Court in Leipzig. Cases -
THE PRESIDENT: That answers my question.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. Witness, you have spoken of your personal experience in the Fifth Senate, and you said that the nullity pleas from the Oberreichsanwalt in favor of the defendant were less frequent than went against the interest of the defendant. Do you moan from that to draw tho conclusion, that only the Oberreichsanwalt could submit tho nullity plea, that tho entire legal institution at the time of its institution interpreted the administration of penal law towards going against the interest of the defendant?
A. As far as I see, that was not the purpose of the institution.
Q. May I ask you to repeat your answer?
A. In my conviction, that was not the purpose of that institution.
Q. It is striking, and particularly striking for people who have not themselves witnessed tho German code of penal procedure, that it was of all people the Public Prosecutor, the Oberreichsanwalt, who dealt with the nullity plea and had to bring about the decision on such a plea. In order to explain the position of the Oberreichsanwalt to the Tribunal, I would ask you quite briefly to talk about the position of the Public Prosecutor, including the Oberreichsanwalt, under the German criminal code of procedure.
A. The supreme duty of every public prosecutor, and therefore also of the Oberreichsanwalt, was to collect facts both against and in favor of the defendant so as to enable the court to arrive at a just sentence.
Q. That position of the Public Prosecutor under the German code of criminal procedure made itself felt in the various phases of the proceedings, and I would like you to tell us what happened when proceedings were instituted, whether the Public Prosecutor after an indictment had reached him was under an obligation to collect also facts which were in favor of the defendant.
A. Every Public Prosecutor - and I am talking here in particular from my knowledge of Bavarian conditions, because for a long time I was in the Bavarian Ministry of Justice in charge of the penal law division - every Public Prosecutor, in accordance with official instructions was under an obligation, even during the pre-examination, to collect also facts in favor of the defendant by producing the corresponding evidence. In doing so he could avail himself of the services of the police, but -- and this became more and more the custom later on -- he could do so by his own interrogations and could thus clarify the fact. He could interrogate witnesses both for and against the defendant, and on the basis of that material the so-called investigation proceedings which he, the Public Prosecutor, had to conduct, he then as a final result submitted an indictment to the court, or if the evidence was not adequate to convict the defendant, he for his own part, could quash the proceedings.
Q. Witness, do you happens to know where this provision which you explained just now is laid down in writing?
A. As far as Bavaria is concerned, it is laid down in the prescriptions for public prosecutors, which were originally written in the year 1910 and which I, myself, in 1925 or 1926 edited. And as regards the Reich, the same provisions applied and were laid down in directives for public prosecutors.
Q. They are also laid down in the Judicature Act?
A. Yes, it is laid down in the panel code of procedure.
Q. If I read this provision to you now, can you confirm from your memory that it says that the Public Prosecution does not only have to collect facts against but also it has to establish the circumstances in favor of the defendant?
A. Yes, that is correct. That is a material duty of the Public Prosecutor. That is Paragraph 116, Section 2, of the code of procedure.
Q. An interim question. Do you know since when the German Penal Code of Procedure exists?
A. As far as I remember, since 1879, yes.
Q. Further, do you happen to remember whether these provisions ever -- that is to say, since 1879 until the end of the so-called Third Riech, 1939, were ever amended?
A. Amendments of those provisions by any legal provisions did not occur.
Q. You spoke of the institution of proceedings and you confirmed that already at the very beginning of any proceedings under the German Penal Code of Procedure the Public Prosecutors had to establish also circumstances which spoke in favor of the defendant. I would now like to ask you whether this principle also concerning further essential institutions of the Penal Code of Procedure was laid down elsewhere. I don't want to examine you, but I am concerned with explaining the difference between the fact already mentioned, that the Oberreichsanwalt normally alone was able to submit the nullity plea, while on the other hand other persons who took part in the trial were able to make suggestions.
I would like it to be clarified that it was a function of the Public Prosecutor under the Penal Code of Procedure to do so. My last question, therefore, is as to whether the Penal Code of Procedure contained any other provisions which were based on the same principle.
A. You mean with reference to the Public Prosecutors?
Q. Yes, concerning the defendants. I mean, material in favor of then or against them. I should like to abbreviate this matter. It is the legal remedy with which I am concerned here, whether under the German Code of Penal Procedure there was generally a possibility for everybody concerned that the Public Prosecutor to work in favor of the defendant and whether he was in a position to use a legal remedy.
A. If I said yes to that question it was because I considered it a matter of fact for a German -
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We object to further probing of this point, since we contend it is repetitious and already established through the previous examination of this witness that tho defendant is allowed recourse to the plea.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me that this witness answered that question the same way not once but four or five times.
DR. SCHILF: Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: That you did not agree with him you can, if you will by repeating, of course, you can introduce evidence to the contrary, but surely this witness will make the same answer no matter how many times you ask him.
DR. SCHILF: One more word on this point, Your Honor. I am concerned regarding the nullity plea, about which a great deal has been heard in this court room, to have the witness, who was the last president at the Supreme Reich Court, and who perhaps regarded to be a particular expert, I am concerned to have him explain it to us. The questions which I have put, I put them so I wish to have them clarified that the nullity plea was not a thing which was directed against the defendant, but that it was an institution which just as well could work in favor of the defendant, so that the fact that the Oberreichsanwalt had the formal privilege --
THE PRESIDENT: I read your statement and is not that exactly what the witness has said more than once, that it can operate fully in favor of the defendant as well as against it.
DR. SCHILF: Your Honor, the witness first of all said that the public prosecutor was under obligation of the so-called investigating proceedings to establish a fact which was in favor of the defendant. My present question is aimed at the finding out whether the public prosecutor could operate in favor of the defendant, or even was under obligation to do so according to its findings. The object of my two questions, therefore, is not the same. The witness first of all told us --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it will take less time to propound your question then it will to argue about it, so put your question now very definitely and we will see that the witness gives you a definite answer.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Witness, you already told us if you were not to answer this question simply by saying, yes, it was due to the fact that a German question as a natter of course would be put to you. Now I would like to ask you on account of the members of the Tribunal and on account of the defense counsel who do not have that information, to tell us to look upon something which to some of us as a matter of fact seems as if it were not so. Now, therefore, I may formulate my question merely again. If the provisions of the German Code of Penal Procedure under which the public prosecutor asked that that sentence had been passed, could you give that legal remedy under which it operated in view of the defendant?
A Under the German Penal Code of Procedure the public prosecutor can operate in favor as well as against; can operate the legal remedy in favor as well as against the defendant.
DR. SCHILF: That provision, I am only going to say for me to inform the Tribunal, itself in the German Penal Code of Procedure applies without any discrimination to all legal remedies. Now there is only one more question which I would like to ask in this courtroom, which concerns paragraph 302, section 1, number 2, under which the legal remedy applied by the public prosecutor in favor of the defendant can not be taken back without the approval of the defendant.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Is that right?
A Yes.
Q Witness, I should now like to hear from you whether these developments did not exert an influence on this institution of nullity plea that was introduced in 1940?
A The introduction of the nullity plea was only a sort of development of the legal settlement of the application of the legal remedy.
Q Did it have political importance? Did it mean that sentences were re-examined against the interest of the defendant?
A No, I don't think so.
Q In summarizing, I should like to say the fact that the Oberreichsanwalt and not the defendant submitted the nullity plea. Did that have the tendency to set up a certain pre-examination authority, so that the Supreme Reich Court did not become cluttered with nullity pleas, that is to say, not one word whether it was more an administrative institution that a particular eminent jurist should re-examine the nullity plea to see whether such a nullity plea was to be brought before the Supreme Reich Court or not?
A Naturally, one authority had to be appointed to decide as to whether the nullity plea was to be submitted or not, and the authority which seemed to be the most likely was naturally the Oberreichsanwalt, the Supreme Reich Court from my experience. I must add, however, that frequently suggestions reached the Oberreichsanwalt concerning this omission of the nullity plea which was dragged in, and from conversations with the Oberreichsanwalt I knew that repeatedly he tried to remonstrate with the Reich Ministry of Justice concerning the point that in certain cases of nullity plea should not be submitted, because it seems hopeless from the very beginning, and I saw frequently concerning that the Oberreichsanwalt abandoned these agenda because he achieved nothing by them, and he told me that the Reich Ministry of Justice intended to imply that the high political office was not satisfied with the sentence, and had demanded examination of the facts.
Q Just for the moment leave aside the question of the practice, and I am now concerned with the explaining to the Tribunal what the institution of such represented, and particularly the point that the Oberreichsanwalt was in all respects the only person to deal with the nullity plea. I would like now to ask something else. Will you agree with me when I say that the nullity plea had great similarity with the revision in the German Penal administration?
A Similarity, yes, but revision or review referred to one thing, and the nullity plea could also criticize the fact. Originally the nullity plea was only constituted for legal criticism; later on it was extended, and it extended the facts and circumstances.
Q Can you explain to the Tribunal by what provisions?
A Without the text of the law I don't remember the details.
Q First of all, my last question is this. Can you confirm that in connection with these legal institutions, such as legal remedies, reviews, and revisions, the Oberreichsanwalt did not formulate the fact that the traditional task of the Oberreichsanwalt upon taking the Penal Code of Procedure into consideration had gradually been in a position which could not be called purely a Party position?
A That is correct.
DR. SCHILF: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: I would like to inquire whether any one other than the public prosecutor could involve the nullity plea?
A No, no, only the Oberreichsanwalt was competent to submit the nullity plea. Suggestions for submitting the nullity plea could come from various sources, but the formal competency for submission of the nullity plea lay only with the oberreichsanwalt of the Supreme Reich Court.
Q If the defendant when he had received a sentence that was too severe, then wanted to have a nullity plea, how would he go about to get it?
A. In that case, he asked his counsel to suggest to the Oberreichsanwalt that he should submit a nullity plea and that has actually happened.
Q. The suggestion, however, was not very branding upon the prosecutor, I take it. The prosecutor could use his own discretion as to whether he would prosecute the nullity plea.
A. The suggestion from the defense counsel went directly to the Oberreichsanwalt in the Reich Supreme Court; thereby, the chief public prosecutor did not deal with it at all. The defense counsel dealt directly with the Oberreichsanwalt at the Supreme Reich Court, whom he approached to submit the nullity plea to the Supreme Reich Court.
Q. Was the nullity plea used more particularly to correct sentences that were politically unsatisfactory?
A. It is very difficult to answer that because political cases were not dealt with in my senate, but as far as I can judge it, naturally nullity pleas frequently did concern political cases. That is perhaps due to the fact that, as I have said before, frequently political authorities were the important part in suggesting nullity pleas; that it is a matter of course that it happened very frequently, and I, myself, dealt with it that in general penal cases which had no political background at all, a nullity plea was submitted-- perhaps because the defendant in the first instance, concerning the fact whether he was a habitual criminal or not, that not sufficient reasons had been found, or because the offense of the defendant had not been treated from the point of view of the public enemy law. Somebody could have submitted general offenses: robbery, theft, etc. and he could thereby become a public enemy. It does not follow at all that the nullity plea concentrated itself purely on offenses for the political background. Quite frequently, it was submitted in cases of a general criminal nature if the lower instance had not given satisfaction.
DR. BEHLING: Dr. Behling for the defendants Schlegelberger and von Ammon. Before I give my view of the group of questions which the witness during his direct examination mentioned concerning the trip to Berlin, I would like to be permitted to ask the witness a few questions concerning the person of the defendant von Ammon.
I should like to use this present opportunity to put these questions to the witness as he for some time worked with the defendant at the Bavarian Ministry of Justice and should therefore be in a position to know the defendant. I believe, therefore, that I can help the trial along if I put this question now, with the agreement of the bench and of the prosecution, because I think that thereby further summoning of this witness will not become necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it proper that the Tribunal should warn you that if you proceed along that line of examination, you will make this witness your own witness instead of to merely cross examine this witness. Do you understand what I mean? You will be bound by his answers.
DR. BEHLING: Yes, I understand and I therefore will not ask questions concerning the defendant von Ammon -- the subject of my cross examination -- but I will leave them until later.
BY DR. BEHLING:
Q. Witness, in your direct examination, you discussed several questions which my colleagues in their cross examination discussed in detail, and it is not necessary to revert to those points. What I have in mind particularly is the question of a nullity plea and a basic question which refers to the Nurnberg Campaign in November 1938. If it's all the same, and I do talk on this point, I am forced to do so by your statement and the direct examination concerning your impressions of the defendant Schlegelberger. Would you kindly tell me what position Schlegelberger at that time, that is to say after 1938, held at the Ministry of Justice?
A. Under-Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger at the time in question, that is to say November 1938, was the first Under-Secretary at the Reich Ministry of Justice, and he was thus the deputy of the Reich Minister of Justice. Since I was not able to reach the Minister himself, I went to see his deputy, Dr. Schlegelberger; otherwise, at the Reich Ministry of Justice, he dealt with civil matters; in charge of penal matters was Dr. Freisler, the second Under-Secretary.
Q. Witness, you said that the Under-Secretary at the time, Dr. Schlegelberger, in general was the deputy of the Reich Ministry of Justice, but was it not the case that the competence of deputizing for the Reich Minister was divided according to the various spheres of activity, so that concerning questions of penal law and political questions when the minister himself was away, did one in that case normally go to see Schlegelberger or Freisler?
A. It is my view that the first Under-Secretary deputized for the Minister in general. That was my view. It is obvious that on individual questions, one had to make up one's mind, according to the facts, who one was going to see. If it concerned penal cases, one naturally went to see the competent Under-Secretary; in this case, Dr. Freisler. But if it concerned civil cases, if it was of sufficient importance, one went to see Under-Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger. This matter on which I wished to report appeared to me to be of such significance because I was trying to achieve a legal settlement, and as Dr. Guertner was not available, I approached Dr. Schlegelberger as the next high ranking official at the Ministry of Justice.
Q. Witness, you said that Under-Secretary Schlegelberger was the first Under-Secretary and you now specify that statement is to saying that he was the deputy in general. Was there in effect such a differentiation concerning the spheres of activity? Was it not a fact that the two secretaries were of the same rank?
A. The division of activities at the Reich Ministry of Justice is not known to me, but every authority usually gives high rank to one and Under-Secretary Schlegelberger was senior rank, and therefore in my view he was the deputy of the Minister, and I believe that laws which Guertner was to sign during his absence were generally signed by Under-Secretary Schlegelberger. But I may be mistaken here. In that respect, the division of work of the Ministry is not known to me, but the questions which I was concerned with and which referred to civil law I interpreted them in such a manner that I did not take them to Freisler, because I was sure that Freisler would not have listened to me and my only hope was that Schlegelberger would listen to me.