I shall not read those sentences.
I shall not quote the material chronologically which is found on page 54 thru 56 in the English text, and those are pages 52 to 54 in the German text. There are innumerable stamps and other incidental matter on these documents, but I shall read the facts, that it is from the National Socialist German Labor Party, Party Chancellory:
"The Chief of the Party Chancellory, Fuehrer's Headquarters, 10 June 1942.
"To the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellory, Dr. N.H. Lammers.
"Berlin W', 6 Vosstreet.
"Subject: Draft of a Fuehrer's decree concerning the right of confirmation in penal affairs.
"Honored Dr. Lammers:
"In the session of the Reichstag hold on 26 --"
"Your Letter dated 21 MAY 1942."
"--April 1942 the Fuehrer requested the Greater German Reichstag expressly for the authorization of taking all measures he deemed expedient without being bound by the existing legal provisions, with regard to the requirements of the war. The Fuehrer's choosing this way shows the importance he is imputing to acts of sovereignity of the state. It is impossible practice to impair the law-constituting and ordering effects of perceptions which have been accepted and which have certain functions in legal life by questioning their intergrity by further enroachments of previous not measurable consequences, after all legally established legal provisions have been exhausted."
This is the top of page 55 and 53 of the German.
"This applies to a special degree to the judgments of courts which in every case represent a special encroachment in the personal conditions of the persons involved and moreover have a certain effect on the whole of the people, be it as an intimidation or as contentment of the strong order-creating hand of the state. The arrangement of the life of the people requires moreover that the further development of legal conditions be started from certain fixed preconditions which cannot be shaken from any part, and that the security of justice be guaranteed. When the Fuehrer has expressly requested the right of direct interference over all formal legal provisions, this is emphasizing the very importance of the modification of a judicial sentence.
"The proposal made by the Reich Minister of Justice, however, is adopted to obliterate the impression of this authorization and to impair its importance. However, this would be an inevitable consequence of the transfer of the correcting authority to the head at Court of Appeal and of the strong decentralization originating thereof. The proposed decree of the Fuehrer would be nothing more than another effort for correction of insufficient judgments, as has been repeatedly endeavoured before by the Reich Justice Ministry. Besides the analogy provisions of paragraph 2 of RStGB I am especially thinking of the exceptional declaration of opposition, the plea of nullity, the participation of the attorney in civil affairs, the Public-Parasite Decree, the decree against desperate criminals and the provisions concerning dangerous professional criminals and immoral criminals. Despite all these provisions we were not in the position to silence the complaints on judgments not adequate to the requirements of war. We would always observe that these provisions were applied as mildly as possible and not at all with the required readiness for responsibility and strictness as would have been possible.
"It is my conviction that the proposed decree of the Fuehrer will have the same fate as the measures the performance of which was confined to justice.
"It must be expected that the heads at Courts of Appeal will shrink from an encroachment of the independence of the judge, of which they still have the old conception. They will bring the concerned judge on the right way not so much guided by their own conviction, but will suggest him to pass a sentence which will satisfy the threatening criticism. For the same reason it is still more impossible to expect the acceptance of more rigorous measures against an obstinate or incapable judge. Therefore we must not expect the desired elucidating and guiding decisions in the material and personal field, the value of which lies first of all in the educational effect upon other judges and upon the public, but only measures or indications limited to single cases."
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I now drop to the last paragraph - the last two paragraphs which are apparently on page 54 of the German. They are on page 56 of the English text. They begin with:
"For these considerations I am not in the position to agree with the draft of a Fuehrer decree as suggested by State Secretary Schlegelberger.
"In view of the importance which I assign to these fundamental objections I refrained at first from showing which additional objections I have to the structure of the decree and the different provisions. Heil Hitler. Yours very obediently, (signature) Bormann."
The reverse side of page one of this letter contains this, which is found at the bottom or near the bottom of page 56 of the English and 54 of the German:
"During yesterday's conference with State Secretary Schlegelberger I informed him of the basic thoughts in Reichsleiter Bormann's letter dated 10 June 1942. Schlegelberger would appreciate to get a copy of this letter. I do not think that there are only objections to this. However, I wish to answer Reichsleiter Bormann's letter and let my reply known to State Secretary Schlegelberger."
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The prosecution offers to introduce in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 75, NG-102.
JUDGE BLAIR: That's 76, I believe.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents will be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May I ask the Secretary General if you have that as 75? We started in last night at 75 and then it was still 75. Does your record show that?
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: I don't have my yesterday's records. They are being typed up.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: But it's 75?
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Yes, it's 75.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The prosecution will introduce Document NG-389, which is still in the same book. All of these are in Book C, which is at page 6 of the English Document Book and page 6 in the German Document Book and will be Exhibit No. 76. I shall ask Mr. Wooleyhan to proceed with the presentation of the prosecution's case.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Since there are similar difficulties with Document NG-389 that there was with the document just read, namely, a faulty assembling of that document in the English book, the prosecution will do considerable skipping around in the reading of this document for a more accurate and chronological sampling of it. We will first read from page 10 in the English book, which is page 9 in the German book:
"The President of the Hanseatic Court of Appeal" - the letterhead. Addressed to "All Judges in the District of the Hanseatic Court of Appeal For the Court's information and if the defense has no objection, it might be interesting to point out that Hanseatic refers to that Baltic area surrounding Hamburg which since the 13th or 14th centuries or thereabouts has had that peculiar name, deriving its name from that trade area. The Hanseatic Court of Appeals refers to the privisional Court of Appeals in the Hamburg area. Is that a fair statement of the meaning of Hanseatic? That word appears so often it might be well to explain just what it means
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Dr. Wandschneider, defense counsel for Dr. Rothenburger.
Dr. Rothenburger was President of the Oberlandesgericht at Hamburg which is also called the Hanseatic Oberlandesgericht. The Hanseatic League is an old medieval union which now united Hamburg, Bremen, and Lubeck and other towns in the area. These three towns, Hamburg, Lubeck and Bremen, for which jointly that Hanseatic Oberlandesgericht existed, were the last three free towns in the German Reich and which had existed since the middle ages and from that derived the name "Hanseatic Oberlandesgericht".
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In any event, this record of 6 May 1942 was addressed to all judges in the District of the Hanseatic Court of Appeals:
"As I have already stated in the plenary meeting of the judges on 1 May 1942, I am prepared to advise every judge who in doubtful cases might desire to approach me personally. I shall in such cases ask the judges to arrange for an appointment with my staff and to bring along the respective files for report. (Signed) Rothenburger."
I skip now to page 11 in the English book, which is page 10 in the German Letterhead: "The President of the Hanseatic Court of Appeal. Enclosure 2 Hamburg, 7 May 1942.
"To the District Court President in Hamburg; to the District Court President in Bremen; to the Local Court President in Hamburg:
"I am issuing the following instructions in consideration of the present situation in accordance with the Attorney General:
"Paragraph I.
"A meeting of the Presidents will be held at my office, every week and special invitations informing them of the date will be sent out each time; the Presidents of the District Courts at Hamburg and Bremen, and of the Local Court of Hamburg as well as my expert adviser will be present. The Attorney General and the Chief Prosecutors of the District Courts of Hamburg and Bremen have promised to attend whenever cases which are under discussion are of special interest to them.
"In the course of this meeting the Presidents will report on the most important decisions passed in penal and civil cases during the preceding week as well as on the essential penal and civil cases fixed for proceeding in the following week, on the basis of brief written notes, a few cues to matters which are under discussion will be given, file numbers provided and key-word given.
"The Attorney General as well as the chief prosecutors will also bring up for discussion important preliminary investigations, brought before the Attorney General during the preceding week.
"The Presidents will immediately and independently of these regular meetings, report to me, matters of special importance and urgency.
"Paragraph II.
"For the purpose of procuring the material I request the Presidents make the criminal and civil divisions and courts write brief reports every week in the form of a review and a summing up of important pending penal and civil cases, which, if necessary, will have to be subsidized" -- I assume the means "substantiated" -- "by verbal reports."
Paragraph III, page 11 of the German, page 12 of the English:
"Apart from the weekly President's meeting a special meeting with the Presidents of the Special Courts in Hamburg, will be held in my office every week at a date personally arranged by me in each case in which the Attorney General and the Chief Prosecutor of the District Court of Hamburg will also take part. With this meeting I shall connect a conference with the heads of the public relations department for Legal Matters in Hamburg.
"As stated under I the Chief Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Hamburg will report on essential preliminary investigations on special court cases, which have been brought up before the Prosecution during the preceding week.
"The Presidents of the Special Courts will report in the same way on essential decisions of Special Courts passed during the preceding weeks as well as on important decisions of Special Courts on the Agenda for the following week.
"In case of urgent Special Court Proceedings the Presidents of the Special Courts have to report immediately and independently from these regular meetings.
"The cases of the Special Court of Bremen will also be discussed at the Presidents' conference.
"Paragraph IV.
"I consider as essential in the sense of these instructions all cases which are of special importance, among them primarily:
"a) penal cases in which death penalty or a long prison term is to be expect "b) penal cases which must be considered primarily as a matter of public security.
"c) penal cases connected with the state of war, especially cases of war economice, illegal butchering and similar penal cases as well as cases against prisoners of war and these against "people's parasites" (Volksschaedlinge) and cases concerning blackout crimes
d) penal cases against Poles, Jews and other foreigners,
e) penal cases of importance concerning crimes committed by or perpetrated against minors,
f) crimes due to tragic, unfortunate circumstances,
g) penal cases in which fixation of the kind and degree of punishment is especially difficult or uniform handling is strongly advised,
h) penal and civil cases in which persons are involved who are State-or Part officials or NSDAP functionaries or held some other eminent position in public life."
I am skipping to "k":
k) penal and civil cases in which there seems to arise a conflict between the written law and the necessity of an economically and socially, reasonable solution."
Skipping to the signature, "Dr. Rothenberger."
We skip now to page 8 of the English, which is page 13 of the German book.
"Enclosure 3. Letterhead: "The President of the Hanseatic Court of Appeal. Hamburg, 7 May 1942.
"To the Presidents of the Civil Senates and of the Criminal Senate.
"The Fuehrer's speech and the Reichstag resolution of 26 April 1942 make it necessary to do everything possible in the organizational field as well as to secure jurisdiction of the kind the Fuehrer expects, especially in war time. As announced in my speech of 1 May, I therefore intend to inform myself as extensively as possible prior to the proceedings on cases which are of political significance or which involve the possibility of a certain conflict between formal law and the instinctive reactions of the people or national socialist ideology, in order to discuss matters, if necessary, with the presidents in question, whom by the way I expect now more than ever confidently to submit matters involving the above problems to me for discussion."
Skipping to the bottom third of the paragraph:
"But it must furnish sufficient details in cases which require special attention with reference to the Fuehrer's speech, in order to enable my deputy to judge the necessity of my intervention. In this connection the fact of the case and the decisive legal points of view will have to be discussed Skipping to the signature:
"Dr. Rothenberger."
I read now from page 6 of the English book, which is likewise page 6 in German.
Letterhead: "The President of the Hanseatic Court of Appeal. Hamburg, 11 May 1942.
"To Under Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger, Reich Ministry of Justice. Personal and Registered.
"Subject: Report of the Situation.
"Paragraph I:
"In April of this year I made a trip through various Gaus-Dresden, Prague Vienna, Graz- to inform myself on conditions in Central Germany and Austria.
"Paragraph II:
"The Fuehrer's speech of 26 April 1942 did not surprise me. It confirmed to me the regrettable fact that the Fuehrer has no confidence in German Justice and in the German judges. A radical national-socialist reform of the legal system which I have suggested for years inverbal and written reports has therefore become urgent.
"The effect of the Fuehrer's speech on the judges in my district was absolutely crushing. It is impossible to gauge the effect on the German judge of the proclamation regarding the deposition of judges and the way in which this was made known to the world in the form of an Enabling Act passed by the Reichstag with frantic applause. I therefore considered it my first duty to counteract this effect by taking the following measures"--which are enumerated below, and of which I shall read only a few:
"Paragraph 2. On Wednesday, the 29 April, I discussed the present situation in detail with the Gauleiter and asked him to address, together with me, all judges of my district.
"Paragraph 3. We did this on Friday, 1 May. I spoke for approximately three-quarters of an hour; next the Gauleiter spoke for about 20 minutes."
Skipping to page 7 of the German, and likewise to page 7 of the English, paragraph (b), referring to a feeling of insecurity on the part of the judge or of anxiety with regard to their families' livelihood:
"I have, therefore, assumed responsibility for each verdict which the judges discuss with me before passing it."
Skipping to Paragraph III, on page 7 of the English:
"In view of the present situation I am intensifying the internal direction and control of jurisdiction which I have considered to be my main task since 1933. For that purpose, I have issued the instructions which are set out in enclosures 1, 2 and 3.
"Paragraph IV: The meeting of the Chief Presidents in the Reich Ministry of Justice on 5 May this year did not satisfy me. It was my impression that most of the Chief Presidents were very much depressed. I don't believe that their inner confidence was restored in the course of the meeting."
Skipping to the signature, "Dr. Rothenberger."
We conclude the offering of this document by reading from page 9 of the English, which is page 5 of the German, the letterhead, "The President of the Hanseatic Court of Appeal, Hamburg, 1 June 1942. To: The State Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger, Reich Ministry of Justice. Registered."
"Following up my report of 11 May 1942," which by the way was the report we just read, "on the situation, I beg to inform that I have, in the meantime, taken the same steps in Bremen which I had taken in Hamburg as a consequence to the Fuehrer's speech. The Authorities at Bremen (the governing Lord Mayor, the Kreisleiter, the President of the Police, the leader of the Secret State Police and the leader of the SD Area) have made the same arrangements with me as did the Hamburg authorities. Signed: Rothenberger, Dr."
The prosecution offers at this time as Exhibit No. 76, Document NG 389.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence. We will take the morning recess at this time for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. GRUBE: (Attorney for Defendant Laurz) May it please the Tribunal, I should like to add to the motion made before by Dr. Schilf.
There was no decision as far as that suggestion was concerned. The defense, however, is greatly interested to know what the probative value of individual documents is. In order to recognize the probative value, we have to know what the purpose--what the probative purpose of that document would be. In Ordnance 7, the last sentence, it is expressly stated: The Tribunal has to give opportunity to the opposite part to discuss the probative value; to that extent in the opinion of the Tribunal it is necessary for the findings. If we take advantage of that privilege, and if we should be permitted to do so, we have to know what the probative purpose of the prosecution is with each individual document. Primarily I should like to present that objection because the defense in the previous trial, when documents were submitted, has had the experience that in case of individual documents on the part of the prosecution frequently the objection was made that the document was not relevant, and for reasons of these objections, several documents of the defense have been rejected. I am afraid that this objection might be made to us sooner or later again. And, therefore, I should like to know if in submitting these documents the requirements--whether it is on the part of the defense or the prosecution--it should not be necessary to state whether these documents should have probative value or what kind of probative value they are expected to have.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Grube, please read that portion of Ordinance 7 which relates to probative value; I don't have the document before me.
DR. GRUBE: The sentence in Article 7 of Ordinance 7 states: The Tribunal has to give opportunity to the opposite party; that is the defense or prosecution; to dispute the probative value of any eventual evidence to that extent as it is necessary in the opinion of the Tribunal for the trial.
If I may summarize it, I am of the opinion that the probative value of the documents can only be recognized, if when offered, we know what purpose it will be used and for that reason I am of the opinion that the prosecution should be obliged to state what the purpose of submission of each individual document is.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem to me, speaking personally, that it is to the advantage of the defense counsel not to permit the prosecution to characterize or to draw inferences from it. The inferences drawn by the prosecution might not be at all the inferences that the Court would draw, or that defense counsel would consent to; and it would result that we might have lengthy arguments upon each exhibit, which ought to be avoided if possible.
DR. GRUBE: Certainly I have no objection under the condition that if the prosecution does not state the purpose, under the condition that we when we submit our documents should not either be held to state what the purpose of submission of individual documents is; because only under that condition, in my opinion, it can be avoided that when documents are submitted by the defense, individual documents documents could be rejected for lack of relevancy.
JUDGE BRAND: I suppose that counsel for both parties realize that statements as to what is to be proven may sometimes be of aid to the Court, but that the Court will not be limited by the ideas of either the prosecution or the defense as to what is of probative value. If a matter is of no probative value whatsoever, and an objection is made on that ground, the exhibit of either the prosecution or the defense may be rejected, but the Court surely cannot be expected in each individual case of an offer cf evidence to announce then what may be the view of the Court as to the value of the document. That will be determined in our final opinion. In other words, even though a document might not be described as being probative to a particular issue, if nevertheless, the Court finds it is of probative value, we will consider it.
DR. GRUBE: As I said before, personally I am of the opinion as far as the evidence is concerned, it is not necessary to state its value, but I should like to avoid the one thing--that when the documents are submitted by the defense that then in each individual case possibly the question might come up what the purpose or probative value of the document might be, and with that reason individual documents might be rejected--that is documents of the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: It is the view, and therefore the ruling of the Tribunal, that when any document is offered, if defense counsel are of the opinion that it has no probative value they will then be permitted to made their objection: and if it should appear from the arguments that the document has no probative value we will reject it at the time. But we will first have to have an objection that it has no probative value, otherwise we will receive the document, and we will pass upon the value, on the probative value, in our final judgment. And may I further assure defense counsel that whatever rule applies to the prosecution will apply to the defense, and if they are not required to make a statement of what they claim--if the prosecution is not required to make a statement of what is claimed from the document at the time it is introduced, the defense counsel will have the same right when they come to their defense.
DR. GRUBE: Thank you.
DR. HAENSEL: (For Defendant Guenther Joel) May I ask the Tribunal for some information.
In the proceedings of the IMT it was of great importance whether evidence was cumulative or whether it was not. It is, of course, difficult to judge whether a document falls under the term of cumulative or not, if one does not know for what purpose it is submitted. The term cumulative evidence and the exclusion of cumulative evidence is quite unknown to us as far as German law is concerned. Therefore, for us in the IMT trials it was of great difficulty that we were not used to the fact that a fact could only be stated and proved, or should be stated and proved once.
If this high Tribunal proceeds in the same manner as it is happening now, then I believe that we cannot adjust ourselves to it easily. How ever, we would have to call your attention to the fact that any objections against the documents which we would submit with the reason of it being cumulative evidence would also have to be dealt with in the same sense.
THE PRESIDENT: We have no question at this time relative to cumulative evidence. We do not know--at least I do not know--what the ruling of the IMT was on the subject of cumulative evidence, but certainly there can be no objection to cumulative evidence until it reaches the point of unnecessary cumulation and, therefore, taking too much time. No such question has yet appeared in this case, and when it does appear we will take proper care of it.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The prosecution desires to proceed with ***t when offered will become Prosecution Exhibit No. 77, Document NG 412, appearing on page 86 of the German book and 81 of the English:
"Chief Reich Attorney Lautz, telephone call on 22 May, back from official travel.
"To the Ministerial Director Schaefer.
"I ask you to submit as soon as possible a draft on the retroactive effect of the more severe National Socialist regulations for treason cases upon the earlier period. You can perhaps discuss the cause with the Chief Reich Attorney on the telephone. 18 May 1942."
Handwritten notes on the margin are translated as saying "urgent".
"Herr Rietzsch: Please discuss this with me." Initial "Sch".
"Note: Chief Prosecutor Lautz, who could be reached only after his return from a journey, states that one case had been discovered where a German subject from the Memelland had betrayed to Lithuania important state secrets on the organization of the supporting operation set up by the Reich for the Memelland. In view of the extent and importance of the state secrets which were revealed, the betrayal was deserving of death. The disclosure of further severe cases of treason from the time prior to the seizure of power is to be expected." Signed "Rietzsch".
The prosecution wishes to interject at this point that throughout this document and others where names or initials occur that are either unfamiliar to the Court or concerning which no evidence has yet been offered to indicate who these parties were, will, it is submitted, be clarified in the near future by evidence now in preparation which will be offered to show: 1, the official capacity of these signatories, and 2, their connection with the subject matter in the documents. We merely wish to make that observation at this time.
Continuing with Document 412 on page 82 of the English and 87 of the German:
"By order of Secretary of State Dr. Freisler: The Reich Minister of Justice, Berlin, 27 May 1942. Official-in-charge: Ministerial Councillor Rietzsch.
To..." And then a list of addressees is set out, including the OKW, the Luftwaffe, Goering as Plenipotentiary of the Four Year Plan, the Minister of the Interior, the Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery, the Chief of the Party Chancellery, and the Foreign Office. Those are set out as addressees. Title: "Draft of a Bill to Supplement the Regulations against Treason."
"1. The trial of the emigrated Jew Leo Israel Sklarek before the People's Court has proved anew that in severe cases of preparation of treason (Par. 92 Reich Penal Code) there is a need of instituting the death penalty which so far is not provided for in Par. 92 of the Reich Penal Code. When deliberating on the draft of the Penal Code, the Fuehrer during a cabinet session had personally emphasized the necessity of threatening even with the death penalty in cases of preparation of treason. I therefore propose to supplement Par. 92 of the Reich Penal Code accordingly.
"2. Inquiries that could be opened on the grounds of discoveries in the occupied Eastern towns have disclosed a case of treason in time prior to the seizure of power when a German subject had betrayed important military secrets. The act of treason of that German subject deserves death but cannot be punished with the death penalty according to the hitherto valid regulations since a retroactive effect of the law altering regulations of the Penal Code dated April 24, 1934, Reich Law Journal I, Page 341, which reformed in its time the regulations against treason, is not provided for as yet. The disclosure of further severe cases of treason may be expected. It is therefore recommended that in the individual case the chiefs of sections concerned by authorized to order the retroactive effect of the regulations against treason in order to arrive at the imperative severe punishment in particularly serious cases of more remote date.
"Enclosed please find the draft of a bill containing the regulations discussed above, with the request for approval."
There follow a number of initials which we will connect up at a later date.
On page 84 of the English book and on page 89-90 of the German follows the draft of the propose law mentioned in the foregoing correspondence. This draft is entitled, "Law for supplementing the regulations against treason".
"The Reich Cabinet has enacted the following law which is herewith proclaimed:
"Article I "Paragraph 1 "Paragraph 92 of the Reich Penal Code is supplemented by the following concluding paragraph:
"In particularly serious cases the death penalty has to be passed.
"Paragraph 2 "The regulation of Paragraph 1 is also valid in case of criminal acts which were committed prior to the effective date of this law."
Then follows an article describing what Reich ministries will be responsible for this law. The final article, Article 3, proposes that this law is also valid in the annexed Eastern territories.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask you a question?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE BRAND: I don't understand your language, whether you intend to say that this was a proposed law or that it was a law which had been enacted by the Reich Cabinet. What is your position about it?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Court please, it appears from the original document which we will offer as an exhibit that the law which I have just read is a blank draft sent to the Fuehrer for approval. This draft was specifically referred to on Page 83 of the English Document Book, wherein the covering letter states, as I have formerly said, "Enclosed please find the draft of a bill."
JUDGE BRAND: I understand that, but you are not claiming that this bill was ever enacted into law at this time?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is the following portion of the document which I have not yet read, wherein it appears what happened to the bill.
Reading now from page 85 of the English, pages 91 and 92 of the German, rather than read this page of endorsements, the prosecution offers to describe it as being a series of indications of approval by various Reich ministries to the submitted draft. On this page the Foreign Office and Department 3 of the Reich Ministry of Justice both approve the draft. On page 86 of the English and on pages 93 and 94 of the German the additional departments of the Army, OKW, the Luftwaffe, and the Ministry of Interior likewise endorse the draft with approval. Skipping to page 89 of the English, which is 96 of the German, I read the following letter:
Letterhead, "The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery, Berlin, 23 November 1942. To the Reich Minister of Justice." Stamped received by the Reich Ministry of Justice on 25 November 1942, Department III; handwritten marginal notation that the Minister of Justice was informed. "Subject: Law for supplementing the decrees on high treason."
"None of the Reich ministers objected to the motion communicated to the members of the Reich Cabinet by circular letter, reference number Rk 674 Bg. The Fuehrer approved it. Accordingly it is enacted:
"The draft of the law for supplementing the decrees on high treason as proposed by the Reich Minister of Justice has been accepted.
"I hereby send you the law signed by the Fuehrer with the request to take the necessary steps for the publication of the law in the Reich Legal Gazette. (Signed) Dr. Lammers."
To correct the record, if the Court please, on this last letter that the prosecution read, a faulty mimeograph led to stating that the date was 23 November 1943. We wish to correct that and state that it was 1942.
JUDGE BRAND: At the top of Page 89?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is at the top of Page 89, yes, your Honor. That is corroborated by the reference lower in the page to 1942. The prosecution offers at this time as Exhibit No. 77, Document NG-412.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: At this time, the prosecution proposes to read the last half of document NG-395, which was introduced in part yesterday as Exhibit No. 74. We propose to read the last half and introduce it as an exhibit now. The portion which we wish to read is on Page 70 of the English Book, 71 of the German. Letterhead: "The President of the Court of Appeal."
THE PRESIDENT: Is that Book C?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, that is Book 1-C, Your Honor, Page 70, reading from the last half of NG-395.
Letterhead:
The President of the Court of Appeal Hamm (Westphalia), 7 July 1942 To the Reich Minister of Justice Berlin Subject:
General situation 1. The Fuehrer's speech at the meeting of the Reichstag of 26 April 1942 had, as far as the administration of justice is concerned, caused alarm among the judges of my district.
Uncertainty in the administration of justice was threatening, since the Fuehrer's reproaches - except in the Oldenburg case, particulars of which were, however, not given either -, were held in general terms and the question on what reasons the Fuehrer based his reproaches could not be answered."
Skipping about 15 lines: