From now on, we can submit our wishes immediately to the prosecution, and only if the prosecution deems it necessary, an official of the prosecution will attend the examination. I hope, therefore, that these difficulties will now be removed and that in a comparatively short while we will be able to finish the work which has gotten into arrears.
Finally, one must also consider that on the hearing of those witnesses and also the result of the cross examinations of the affiants, which has just been carried out, that on that depended the further dispositions of the defense counsel.
June-M-JP-8-l-Sampson (Int. Hahn) After his results we must now introduce various pieces of evidence, and we must make the necessary preparations.
If I may briefly outline once again the way in which the Defense imagines the trial will now continue. When the recess is over, the opening statements will be read out. After the opening statements we will call the experts on general questions. At the same time we will submit the general document books, and then we will start with the Schlegelberger case which, by nature of the subject, will be comparatively extensive. The matter itself makes it necessary for Schlegelberger to dual with the large number of questions which will emerge; and it is obvious that I personally, as Defense Counsel for Schlegelberger, will have special difficulties of course. I would ask the Court to be good enough to consider that. All of us are, however, of the conviction that an orderly general preparation of the Defense's case, the systematic introduction of the Defense is only possible with exact preparation, and will make it possible for us then when we come to the individual cases to save enough time so that the recess which is being granted to us now will certainly be made up again as far as time is concerned. For all those reasons I would ask the Court to fix the recess at three weeks. I believe that on no account will we be able without such a recess being granted to us to carry out the plans for the defense in that way. If we can carry out the plans for our defense in that manner, if we are able to carry them out in an orderly manner, we are certain that at a later time, at one stage or another of the trial, we will not need again to ask the Court to grant us another recess.
If we first of all treat matters from a general point of view, and then go into the particulars, I am certain that for all the participants of this trial the work will be made easier, and in the last analysis time will be saved. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Sitting as Commissioners, we will, when we recess in a few moments, recess until Monday Morning, June 16th, 1947, at which time Counsel, officials of the Court and the defendants will be present.
The matter of setting the date at which the full Tribunal will reconvene will be submitted to judge Marshall, and an order will be made by the Tribunal, signed by Judge Marshall, and distributed to the interested parties in the usual manner in the immediate future. I think there is nothing more we can do at this moment. Is there anything else?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I deal with one more question which the Prosecution has broached, that is, the introduction of evidence which is based upon books which are in libraries, or in the possession of other people. The Prosecution has suggested that extracts from those books, with a certification by library officials, etc., attached, could be submitted. That certificate by library officials constitutes a very great technical difficulty. In the course of the last few months, we have only been able to obtain those books from the libraries with the greatest difficulties. Generally speaking, the libraries have been destroyed, and frequently it is a matter of luck if we do obtain the last copy which may still be available in one library. Those libraries need their book very urgently. Consequently, we as a rule often receive them with very great delay, and then only for a short period. We have had copies made, and we believe that as it appears to be customary in the other trials which are being held, and certainly was customary in the IMT trial, we thought it was sufficient for the Defense Counsel to certify himself that he made the copy from such and such a book which he obtained from such and such a library. All that preliminary work would have teen useless if, according to the suggestion of the Prosecution, we would now have to try to once again to obtain those books. That might take weeks, and might delay matters. Therefore, I would ask the Prosecution to give their agreement and the Court to make a ruling to the effect that the Defense Counsel's own certificate concerning the copy should be considered adequate. I would be gratified if such a decision could be made at an early date, because we would have to make our arrangements accordingly, and, otherwise, we would have to make an immediate attempt to obtain those books once again, and it is to be expected that we would hardly be able to receive them in time for introducing them into our document books.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course it is obvious that the Commission can't possibly make any ruling upon a question which comes before the full Tribunal.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: That is quite obvious. I only would like to make a statement in which the Commission may report to the full Tribunal. I don't quite understand that the problem which Dr. Kubuschok presented arises. The only thing that we had in mind was that these extracts be submitted to the librarian and that he would certify that they are extracts from a book in his library. I never contemplated that they would have to bring the books back. If they have made the extracts, it would not -- I mean presently I can see that it would be too difficult to simply submit them to the librarian and have him certify that this comes from this library; that was all we ever had in mind, and I think all we have ever stated. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. In any event, it is a matter which the Tribunal can make its own order on, because the Tribunal, of course, is concerned with the evidentiary value of what is submitted to it; and we stated originally, of course, that we would make no objection as far as we were concerned to certain forms of testimony, that, of course, it was a matter which the Tribunal eventually would have to rule upon, and which this Commission can now report. I am perfectly willing to leave the matter to the Tribunal. I simply thought it would make it rather easy at the time; I certainly did not contemplate that the books had to be brought back, but merely that the librarian who has custody of these copies would certify that a copy of this was in my library.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: These are the difficulties. If now we were to ask for a certificate by the librarian, we will hear in many cases that the librarian is unable to make out the certificate because the book is not there.
The books in the University libraries are being sent out all over Germany. If, for example, we had a book from the Erlangen library and made out copy, and if now we ask the librarian at Erlangen to give us a certificate, he will certainly have to tell us frequently that the book is now -- has now been lent out to someone somewhere else in Germany. Therefore, it would be difficult to obtain such a certificate. We have also had books here which we had sent to us from libraries from other parts of Germany; some of them came from other zones of Germany. If now we would have to go to those libraries, we would certainly often have to go in vain. Altogether, according to the experiences we have had so far, such a certificate, even if we did go on considerable journey, it would take weeks to get them. Concerning the misgivings on the part of the Prosecution, may I point this out. The books from which we are going to submit extracts are not unknown books, but they are part of the large legal literature which, so to speak, is general knowledge; should it not after all be sufficient for the Defense Counsel to make out a certificate that he made his extracts from one of those books which are general knowledge, and that furthermore, for the purpose of identifying the books, he states where he obtained that book at the time of making his copy.
Commission III, Case III.
The sources from which we obtain our books are, first of all, libraries, however, many such books, because of present conditions in Germany, have come from other sources; we receive some from private persons who put them at our disposal for a brief period of time. I hope that the Prosecution will take this difficulty into account, and will agree to my suggestion so that a basis for a later decision to be made by the Tribunal, itself, will be given.
THE PRESIDENT: Your proposal would relate only to actual verbatim copy of a German text into German?
DR. KUBOSCHOK: The German, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It would not involve problems of translation at all?
DR. KOBOSCHOK: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, the translations can be handled here in the usual way?
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Of course, of course; we submit all of our document books in the German language, to the organization of the Tribunal and it sees to the translation.
MR. LA. FOLLETTE: Your Honor, please, of course -- the Commissioner, please, of course, the Prosecution at the time it made its suggestion assumed it would not be difficult. I am not concerned about placing difficulties on the Defense. Eventually what the Commission reports to the Tribunal will be decided by the Tribunal and it occurs to me, certainly, the Prosecution would want to have the text identified, the edition identified, the date of the publication and the source from which it was obtained, so that if it came from the library of Kiel, then we would write them and say: "If you do not have this, to whom did you lend it to." It is not so much that I questioned the honor of Defense Counsel in making the proper translation, but it is customary with lawyers occasionally to take the part which we like and leave out, maybe something we do not like, and I would like to look for that. That is a very human fault.
Commission III, Case III.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess -
DR. MARX (for the defendant Engert): May it please the Commission, I am reverting to the suggestion by the Commission concerning the order of the opening statements and of the defense in general; that is the submission of evidence.
In respect to the defendant Engert, there exists a special case. The defendant Engert is still in the Municipal Hospital of Nurnberg, and medical opinion about him is extremely unfavorable. According to the expert opinion by the American doctor, he is a chronically sick man who has an inflammation of the gall bladder, a disease of the heart muscles, extremely grave arteriosclerosis, and gastritis. Furthermore, it is impossible for the Defense Counsel to maintain and to keep in contact with the defendant Engert. He does not respond at all to questions by the Defense Counsel; he is not in a position to make statements; he shows altogether a lack of interest. And, I assume the Court is in possession of the medical opinion which was given on 1 May 1947. I cannot say whether a change has occurred, therefore, I would ask you to have the defendant Engert examined by a doctor once again and have another medical opinion submitted on him.
Today, however, I would like to request that the Engert case should be removed from the order, and concerning the opening statement and the submission of evidence, should come at the end of the defense, so that in the interim there should be a possibility for arriving at a final decision as to whether Engert is able to stand his trial or whether as time goes on his condition of health may improve. His present state of health makes it impossible for the Defense Counsel to assume the responsibility, as Engert, himself, cannot make useful contributions to his own defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, this is also a matter in which we cannot rule. Possibly Defense Counsel may be willing to agree that the defendant Engert's testimony may go in at the end; that is a matter for you to confer with, confer upon with your associates.
Commission III, Case III.
As to the opening statement is there any reason why you cannot make an opening statement in the regular order?
DR. MARX: Your Honor, it would be useful, I believe, if the opening statement, too, would come at the end so that the medical quarters too, possibly a Psychiatrist could exercise some influence on Engert for at the present time he suffers from complete apathy. The Defense is, of course, in a position to make an opening statement, but without the cooperation of the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commission will recess until June 16 at 9:30 A.M.
(The Commission thereupon adjourned until 0930, 16 June 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Alstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 23 June 1947, 0930-1630, Justice James T. Brand, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: All persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Guard, please close the door.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III.
Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will come to order.
Mr. Marshal, you will please ascertain if the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant Engert who is absent through illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Engert has been temporarily excused.
Before proceeding with the business of the day, the Tribunal has certain matters to communicate, and which should be made a matter of record.
We are sure that Counsel for the Prosecution and Defense have known of the unfortunate illness of Judge Marshall, which is a matter of very keen regret to all of us.
At this time I will read a portion of a letter which members of the Tribunal received from Judge Marshall on June 20th, and will then read other matters relevant to that situation. Judge Marshall said in part in this letter, I quote:
"I am advised by the physicians that until I can have a little more rest and recuperation it will be unsafe for me to appear in court on Monday, June 23rd for a strenuous six hour session on the bench, and, therefore, I am notifying you of this fact.
"I should add that I am recovering my strength rapidly, but will not be sufficiently recovered to begin sessions on Monday, June 23rd."
Signed, "Carrington T. Marshall."
I now read a small portion of Military Government Ordinance No. 7, Article 2-F. I quote:
"In case of illness of any member of a Tribunal or his incapacity for some other reason, the alternate, if one has been designated, shall take his place as a member in the pending trial. Members may be replaced for reasons of health or for other good reasons, except that no replacement of a member may take place during the trial other than by the alternate."
I now read the following:
"Office of Military Government for Germany, U.S., APO 742, Berlin, Germany. General Orders No. 52, 21 June 1947, pursuant to Military Government Ordinance No. 7:
"1. Effective as of 19 June 1947, pursuant to Military Government Ordinance No. 7, 24 October 1946, entitled 'Organization and Powers of certain Military Tribunals', James T. Brand is appointed presiding Judge of Military Tribunal III, vice Carrington T. Marshall, relieved because of illness.
" 2. Justin William Harding, alternate Judge, is appointed Judge for Military Tribunal No. III.
" By Command of: General C lay.
"C.K. Gayley, Brigadier General GSC, Chief of Staff.
"Official: A.D. Van Arsdale, Lieut. Colonel, AGD, Acting Adjutant General.
"Distribution: B Plus.
"To: AGMRU, EUCOM.
"The above telephonic order received 21 June 1947, at 1056 by the undersigned."
Signed: "J.E. Ray, Colonel, FA, Secretary General."
The original order will be incorporated in the record in the behalf of the Tribunal.
I now declare that the Tribunal is reconstituted pursuant to the order which I have just read.
At this time, the Tribunal expresses its extreme regret at the emergency which has arisen, and its deepest sympathy for Judge Marshall and his wife, whom we hope and expect will recover.
At this time we welcome Judge Justin W. Harding, who has been serving as alternate Judge, and the record will show, as Counsel all know, that he has been present in the courtroom and during all of every session of the Tribunal.
Judge Harding has been a former United States District Judge in Alaska, and we welcome him as a member fully empowered in this Tribunal.
The proper notation will be made with the presence of all defendants except the defendant Engert.
We take notice of the application made by Counsel for the Defendant Engert, owing to his illness; and, it has been thought advisable that at this time a conference of physicians and psychiatrists should be held to examine the defendant Engert and report their findings to the Tribunal. It has also been suggested that it would be suitable to have not only American but German physicians appointed to take part in such a conference.
It is the suggestion of the Tribunal that Counnsel for the Prosecution and for the Defense, confer and suggest to the Tribunal suitable medical and psychiatric experts who will, if approved by the Tribunal, be appointed for the purpose of making this examination.
In the meantime and until further order of the Tribunal, the defendant Engert will remain in exactly the position as to the trial in which he now finds himself. His Counsel will continue to represent him before this tribunal until further order.
Are there any other matters before we hear the opening statement, which I understand is to be made by Counsel, Dr. Kuboschok in behalf of all of the defendants.
Are there any other matters before that time? If not we will hear you.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, I only wish to inquire whether the Prosecution any obtain translated, copies of the opening statement as soon as possible. We do not have any at our desk.
Does the Court have English translations?
Have you got any at your disposal?
THE MARSHAL: Only one.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Well, I will borrow one from the Marshal.
THE PRESIDENT: It appears to be mimeographed, there should be other copies.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, the have not been furnished as yet.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May it please the Tribunal, in the following statements I shall briefly describe the manner in which the defense believes, by summarizing the treatment of individual general problems, it will expedite the trial. My following statements are to be interpreted only in that sense.
The Prosecution views the development of Justice in administration and jurisdiction during the period of the National Socialist State. It limits its reflections to this period and preceives in everything the consequent execution of National Socialist totalitarian thought. It believes to be able to reduce all phenomena to this denominator.
It must be the task of the Defense to extend the boundaries of this reflection beyond this period. The Defense will show that no new legal system was created and that no new system of jurisdiction was developed. Thus, the historical development which had been built on, also in the period from 1933 onwards, must be presented in its fundamental traits.
The Defense must also be aware of the difficulties encountered in the treatment of the subject matter before a non-German court. The difference between the Anglo-American legal system and the German law, in accordance with which the acts of the German Defendants are judged, lies not only in the solution of individual legal questions and problems, but is fundamental and systematic. Anglo-American law appears to us vitally progressive by the effect which decisions of the highest Courts carry in setting precedents. German law, on the other hand, is a codified law, much less suitable to development by the administration of justice, but a law which in itself demands observance of the legal standard. The written law in inflexible. New concepts of law cannot succeed in the administration of justice as is the case in the gradual development of the "Common Law." The German -- as well as the Continental -- principle of the codified law permits the incorporation of new legal concepts only through sudden changes of the written law. Thus the supplementary laws of the Penal Code in force in Germany since 1877 show an abrupt change at shorter or longer intervals.
For this reason the positivism of law has played a far more important part in Germany since the end of the nineteenth century than has been the case in legal systems outside of the Continent. Only the written law (statutary law) and not general ideas on morals and rights (law) constituted the directive for administration of law and justice. Also in Germany this principle of absolute codification has, with regard to its expediency, been the object of legislative discussion for some time. Finally, in 1935, it culminated in the amendment of article 2 of the Penal Code and thus a synthesis was found between codified law and the development of law as interpreted by the decision of the judge; and historical reflection on this event will show the inaccuracy of the Prosecution's conclusion that, being instituted during the period of the National Socialist State, it must of need be the product of National Socialist thinking and its corresponding political aim. We shall prove that the fundamental basis for this norm was created by plans for reform drafter long before 1933, and that the necessity of supplying the judge with a means, enabling him to counterbalance the defects of an absolutely codified law to a limited degree by analogous application of a penal regulation had been realized long before that. It was recognized that the multiformity of life, the constant change of its forms with regard to social, political and economic aspects could not be regulated by codified law alone; especially so, because codified law always larged one step behind the case in need of settlement by law. Such cases could not, as is possible in "Common Law", be regulated and decided on by general concepts of law; they merely gave cause for establishing new legal standards. This one example already reveals the necessity of dealing with the existing German legal system and with plans for reform entertained in Germany for decades.
German law will form the basis for all considerations. We will, therefore, also have to deal with Constitutional Law and the technique of legislation.
We shall proceed from the provisions of the Weimar Constitution. We shall observe there the legislative functions of the Reichstag, the Reichsrat (Council of the Reich) and the Reich President. It will be shown that, since Bruening was Reich Chancellor, the weight of legislation shifted in ever increasing measure towards the right of the Reich President to issue emergency decrees.
The turning point was formed by the Enabling Act (Ermaechtigungsgesetz) of 24 March 1933 which represents the basis for all future legislation. The Cabinet was not empowered to pass laws on its own authority and even the right of the Reich President to draft and promulgate laws was abandoned. Thus, under consideration of Article 56 of the Constitution which allocated powers of policy determination to the Reich Chancellor, the right to legislate was practically conferred upon Reich Chancellor HITLER who, in the course of time, made increasingly extensive use of it. The lawful passing of a law and its legal effects will necessarily be the subject of presentation.
Thus we are faced with the legal problem of the binding effect of the Fuehrer order. It will have to be examined whether this Fuehrer order was a literal order in the meaning of the Control Council Law, the effect of which is not to be looked upon as exempting from guilt, or, at the most, as mitigating, or, whether we are not dealing here with a legislative Act, to which this provision of the Control Council Law does not apply.
We shall have to deal with the entire legislative machinery as it was developed at that time. It will be shown that meetings of the cabinet took place even after Hitler's Cabinet had been formed, that they were, however, of an essentially different character already than formerly. Questions were no longer put to the vote. In individual questions of legislation too, Hitler stood on his right as Reich Chancellor to determine directives of policy, in accordance with Article 56 of the Constitution. As Hitler's position grew stronger, especially after, in August 1934, the positions of Reich Chancellor and President of the Reich had been combined in his person, Cabinet meetings served actually only the purpose of issuing Hitler's instructions.
In accordance with instructions members of the Cabinet were to submit Bills that concerned their Departments. In accordance with Hitler's request these Bills were submitted to other participating members of Departments prior to the Cabinet meetings, in order to obtain their opinion; and at this stage only objections with regard to departmental competency of other Ministries were taken into consideration. The Bill, thus having become "ripe for the Cabinet" (kabinettreif) was then passed in the Cabinet meeting without debate. Since the uselessness of the Cabinet meetings thereby became obvious, they were discontinued completely in 1937. Laws were then legislated by means of a so-called circulation procedure (Umlaufsverfahren) in which the individual Ministers were given opportunity to voice their objections. These objections could, however, deal with purely departmental aspects only, whereas objections against a basic political idea founded on one of Hitler's instructions could not be raised or remained ineffective. As we will show, this had, at the same time, the effect of declassifying certain Ministries and resulted in their being subordinated to other Ministries. This started already in 1935. By the secret National Defense law, the OKW, the Minister of Economy as Plenipotentiary General for Economics, and the Minister of the Interior as Plenipotentiary General for the Administration of the Reich, were brought into prominence as legislative bodies and were combined in Board of Three. The other Ministries were subordinated to them and depended on them for instructions. The Ministry of Justice was subordinate to the Plenipotentiary General for the Administration of the Reich and was permitted to present bills only through him. The Ministry of Justice's signature on a law was therefore only of nominal significance; it indicated that the judicial department had been concerned with the contents of the law. We will show that after the outbreak of the war the Ministerial Council for National Defense was added as legislative body to the Board of Three.
Here too, the Ministry of Justice was subordinated to the Plenipotentiary General for the Administration of the Reich, who was a member of the Ministerial Council for National Defense. Bills were drafted in accordance with his instructions. If the initiative for drafting a Bill came from the Ministry of Justice itself the Plenipotentiary Central for the Administration of the Reich had to concur in the matter.
To judge the position of the individual Defendant in the Ministry, a detailed presentation of the organization of the judicial administration becomes necessary. We must deal with the problem of subordination of the various offices in their relations with each other. In particular, the Defense will attempt to give the Tribunal a picture of the actual workings of the Ministry of Justice. Within the framework of a bureaucratic organization the sphere of activity of a minister, an Under-secretary, a Division-Chief, a sub-Division Chief, a Principal (Referent) and an Assistant will be defined and certain organizational changes wrought in the course of time will be taken in consideration.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
The scope of authority pertaining to the superior-subordinate relationship is also of importance. Of equal importance are the limits of signing power fixed for each individual official of the Ministry of Justice as well as the degree of responsibility he assumed whenever he affixed his signature. A signature does not always imply the assumption of a responsibility nor does it always signify that some one in particular was charged with the handling or discharging of a specific task. A document has quite frequently been submitted to an official of the Ministry of Justice for the sole purpose of having him take official notice of its contents, i.e. the only object being to apprise the official in question of some measure or other. This method of passing on information, of course, could serve many other purposes which remain to be discussed. A simple request, however, to take official notice, combined with an accompanying acknowledgment of receipt signed by an official, never meant that the official had, by affixing his signature, assumed responsibility for the matter on hand. Finally, there remains the problem of throwing light upon the relationship existing between individual departments of the Ministry of Justice and that of defining the meaning and aim of a co-signature. The act of co-signing indicated primarily that the subject matter and its treatment as viewed in the light of the co-signer's own field of activity, i.e. from an expert's point of view alone, gave rise to no objections.
A study of departmental limitations will afford insight into the nature of the Judiciary in its relationship with, and its dependency on other Reich Ministries and Party Offices. An understanding of the reciprocal connection between the Ministry of Justice and the Reich Ministry of the Interior, as well as the limitations imposed upon both will yield enlightening information on many questions. We shall also find these necessary connections with other Ministries existing before 1933 and thereby refute the assumption of the Prosecution that these intersectional connections, which are to be found in Court No. III, Case No. 3.any system of government, constitute a creation of the Nazis and were adopted by them for the purpose of achieving their own ends.
It will be necessary, in this connection, not only to discuss the strictly legal aspects involved, but also to show what the actual conditions were with respect to power and authority. We will have to re-construct the events as they occurred at that time in a State under dictatorship and show what legal consequences a necessary examination conducted from the viewpoint of constitutional law will yield. The question will be raised as to what would have been the consequences of a failure to comply with an order, and would obedience, therefore, legally exclude guilt. A factor of great importance in considering that problem is the determination of the relationship between the Judiciary and the Police. The effective role played by HIMMLER, as chief of the entire Police force, must also be taken into consideration. The full presentation of facts will show how the Police interloped in affairs of the Judiciary, and how this interference led, during the course of the years, to an appreciable weakening of the position held by the Judiciary. We shall see what means were and had to be employed to fight that battle. The contrast between the position of the Justice Administration, which was weak by nature, and that of the Police, which was equipped with all the instruments of power it employed ruthlessly through the offices of HIMMLER and HITLER, will become manifest. Again and again one will perceive how the Judiciary was confronted with accomplished facts, how it strove to defend or re-capture lost ground, how all of its activities, as a matter of fact, were overshadowed by the constant pressure and expansionistic aims brought into play by the Police. It will be shown how everyone in the Ministry sought to retain as a last bulwark the concept of the constitutional state for practical usage. It will be brought out how the Police, beginning with the protective custody order and ending up with the establishment of its own preserve in the concentration camps and the subsequent creation of its own SS jurisdiction over its members finally Court No. III, Case No. 3.secured their exemption from the Judiciary.
Yet in spite of the constant rivalry between the Judiciary and the Police we must not lose sight of the fact that certain contacts between both offices had to be maintained because of the very nature of German criminal procedure. Since the Judiciary had no investigation agencies of its own, it was dependent upon the co-operation of the Police in that respect. Finally, I shall also show how HIMMLER attempted to wrest all Public Prosecutor offices from the Justice Administration for systematic absorption by his Police machine, although he did not succeed in doing so. When the unique position held by the Judiciary within the entire administrative system is made clear in the presentation, one will become aware of the difficulties of the situation in which the Judiciary found itself in this battle. We need but have a clear conception of the difference in denotation of the terms "dictatorship" and "Justice" in order to gain an appreciation of the difficulties of that situation. The dictatorship derived both stimulus and pattern from the Party in its manifold manifestations. We will show up the predominance and influence of the party offices, some of which were legally established, and demonstrate how both expanded in all directions and by the employment of any and all means through the person of the Fuehrer of the Party, namely the dictator.
The Defense will show, at the proper time, how the Party sought to push its interests ruthlessly in opposition to the Judiciary. The activities of the Party constituted a perpetual obstacle to the progressive administration of Justice. It will be shown how the Gauleiter, either directly or indirectly through BORMANN, deliberately added fuel to HITLER'S repugnance against the judiciary and thereby showed the Reich Ministry of Justice into a spot similar to that of an isolated animal at bay.
The various aspects just outlined will also furnish us with a broad foundation for those laws to which objections were raised in the Indictment, and the substance of which we shall subject to an exhaustive Court No. III, Case No. 3.examination.