A certain proof of the fact that Bormann dealt with a matter himself is the initial "B.O." Very frequently we were not informed about such matters, because often they were put in the files of the secretary of the Fuehrer which did not concern us in the Party Chancery after all.
Q. Among the documents submitted by the prosecution there are several letters which have this initial "B.O." which you mentioned. I would like to ask you whether Exhibit 243, NG-199, Document Book 1-E, page 136 of the German book, has this file sign which you mentioned. I assume that you know the contents of this document well. This is a personnel measure where Bormann agrees to a suggestion made by Thierack. Did this statement with the initials B.O. become known to your legal division?
A. This is a letter which Bormann himself dictated in the Fuehrer's headquarters. The local designation in such letters changed quite frequently. Usually he used a double address, Munich of that and that date; and below that, Fuehrer's Headquarters, with that and that date. From the location one can thus not conclude where Bormann happened to be, but the sign B.O., the initial B.O., means without doubt this letter was dictated by Bormann. In this case it is all the more interesting, since this was not a simple personnel measure but a legal regulation which Thierack wanted to carry out. In spite of that III-C did not participate in this matter.
Q. We have a further document; it is Exhibit 387, NG-1524-PS, Document Book VIII-A; it is the famous euthanasia letter to the Gau Leadership, Franconia. Would you tell the Tribunal here too, with the aid of the signs on the letterhead, and the letter itself, whether Bormann wrote the letter himself or whether your legal group was responsible. Do you have the letter before you?
A. I have notes here. From this dictation sign it is apparent again that Bormann dictated this letter personally; also, from the second part of the dictation sign one sees plainly that it was a stenographer who belonged to the office of the Reichsleiter. Concerning this document it is interesting also that on page 2, it is apparently from a note made by the Gau Leadership, that the document is from the files of the Gau Leadership; on this page there is a note - for party member Hummel; he was a member of the Reichsleiter office, the Reichsleiter Bureau.
From these circumstances it is apparent that this matter was handled exclusively by Bormann in the Reich leader's office.
Q. And that in spite of the fact that under Dr. Hummel - you read PG Hummel - there is the word "Justice"?
A. Yes.
Q. The letterhead contains the following: Deputy of the Fuehrer, Munich, Brown House, at present in Berlin. Would you please explain this letterhead to the Tribunal, too - what it says here - "at present Berlin"? You said that as a rule Bormann was at Hitler's headquarters.
A. As I already stated, the Party Chancery also had an office in Berlin, and the general, stationery was used, but often the Berlin office was added, so that the answer would be directed to Berlin because the possibility existed that between Berlin and the Fuehrer's headquarters the daily courier plane could be used for this Reich Leader mail. If the Gau Leadership of Franconia thus wrote to Berlin, it could happen that the mail reached Bormann at the Fuehrer's headquarters already the very next day; otherwise, it would have to be sent by field post and that would have taken more than one or two weeks.
Q. Herr Klemm, you spoke about several possibilities concerning Bormann receiving letters or sending letters. You said it all depended on the circumstances. I now ask you to explain to the Tribunal further what additional possibilities existed in order to clarify whether you were informed about any measures taken by Bormann or not.
A. The second possibility was that Bormann wrote his decision or his opinion on the margin of the letter and then gave it to the Referent in the Party Chancery and left it up to him to draft the answer in accordance with the decision he had written in the margin. Whether the answer to the letter then formulated was signed by Bormann himself, or whether the Referent, his group leader or the division chief signed it, depended in each case on who signed the first letter.
Q. The documents which I just mentioned were all brought into close connection with your person by the prosecution, apparently solely because the Party Chancery is mentioned on these documents. I now come to Exhibit 77, that is NG-412, Book 1-C, page 92. On this there is your name; the connection with your person is very clear here. It concerns an approval that you gave to a draft of a law which the Reich Ministry of Justice had drafted on order of the Party Chancellery. The contents were retroactive application of regulations concerning treason. I would like to ask you on the basis of what you have explained - was this approval given on your own decision or on Bormann's instructions?
A. I did not give this approval by my own decision. In the case of drafts of laws in particular, Bormann always reserved the right to make the decision for himself. In this case the letter concerned, which the Ministry of Justice had among others, probably also addressed to the Leader of the Party Chancery, was returned from the Fuehrer's headquarters; probably on the margin it said "approved" or "yes" or "in accordance" - those were the words which Bormann used; and since in this letter of the Ministry of Justice a wish of the Fuehrer was referred to which he had expressed already before in discussions, it was quite clear for Bormann that he would agree, and in such a case I could then sign.
Q. This letter of the Party Chancellery is dated 18 June 1942 and also has the file number III-C; that evidently was issued by the legal group. I would like to ask you now to describe somewhat more in detail the sphere of the task of the legal group.
DR. SCHILF: Just a moment, Herr Klemm.
THE PRESIDENT: We will continue with the direct examination at 1:30. One very brief announcement - which perhaps should have been made at the opening of the session. The procedure which we outlined this morning obviously requires for the convenience of the defense counsel, and also for the convenience of the prosecution, that defendants' counsel should as early as possible advise their associate counsel when they propose to call a witness so that an associate counsel may be prepared to continue with the examination of the witness.
I think both the associate defense counsel and prosecution should receive as early notice as possible. We overlooked saying that this morning.
We will recess now until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 8 July 1947)
MARSHAL: Persons in the Court room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
ROBERT KLEMM - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. We discussed Exhibit 77, that was the approval of the Party Chancellery to a draft or law which was prepared by tho Ministry of Justice. I had asked you what matters in the Justice Group of the Party Chancellory were dealt with by you in addition?
A. I want to summarize the tasks of the justice group briefly. First it had to deal with laws and drafts and decrees of the Reich Ministry of Justice, unless for reasons of their subject, they were dealt with by another group, because that group appeared to be competent. Secondly, penal matters based on the law against malicious acts, himtuecke gesetz, as far as on the basis of legal provisions tho approval of the Chief of the Party Chancellory was required for the prosecution. Thirdly, compalints from party offices or individuals against decisions by the Courts. Fourth, complaints from the administration of justice against interference by party offices into pending trials. Fifth, to observe especially civil and penal cases which concerned the party. Sixth, matters of legal reform, and, seventh, expert opinions in the field of the party law.
Q. As for the first group, approval of laws and drafts, was that approval of tho Party Chancellory for drafts of law based on a legal foundation?
A. I have already made statements concerning that question when I explained why there was a department III, the so-called state law and constitutional law department in the Party Chancellory. The chief of the Party Chancellory, on the basis of certain legal provisions in the case of any law or draft or any decree was a minister who had to participate in it's drafting, that is to say, he had the same position as a minister participating in legislation.
Q. In discussing the first part of your activities you made the reservation that the justice group in the party chancellory dealt only with those drafts which for reasons of their subject did not belong within tho competency of another group. Would you please elucidate to the Tribunal what you mean by that?
A. First I have to make a more general reservation. It was not the task of individual groups of department III or of department III itself to, display any political activity. The party political elements connected with a problem were to be dealt with by the political offices of the party. I had listed before the Reich Legal Office, the Office for Agrarian Policy, the Office for Public Health and others. These offices within the party developed their policies through the Reichleiters who were in charge of these offices, and did that directly with the Fuehrer. The groups of department III and above all, not the justice group, could not deal with the individually specialized matters to the extent that it would have been necessary. I have already explained that group 3-C comprised four to six officers. That group was balanced in tho ministry of justive by well over 200 experts. Our tasks - and above all because each individual in that group considered himself a representative of the thought of the ministry of justice, -were to, prevent difficulties which might arise by some legal arrangement between the party and the offices of tho administration of justice. For instance, in group 3-C, we always were very skeptical to any general, clauses which were contained in a draft and laws because such general clauses are the pets of the layman, and he sticks to them because that affords him the opportunity to criticize. That arrangement which was as such provided by law that the Chief of the Party Secretariat always had the capacity of a participating minister, was not agreed to, by various sectors of the administration of the state, and thus, for instance, Goering in his various positions which he held at the same time, as minister for aviation, as plenipotentiary of the Four Year Plan and as chairman of the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich, never stuck to it, and never submitted any drafts.
Likewise, the High Command of the Armed Forces never submitted the drafts of laws as far as they concerned the administration of justice, penal regulations, et cetera, to the Party Chancellory. The individual group, however, the group justice could not independently deal with a draft, if problems were dealt with in that draft which did not immediately concern the group justice but in their essence concerned other ministries, for instance, all questions of "Volkstum", nationality were dealt within group 3-A. For instance questions of Poles, and Jews, Group 3-C, to cite another example, in the field of law concerning hereditary estates, could not decide independently. That was claimed by group 3-B, which was in charge of questions of food, the food ministry, to which the Hereditary Estate Court belonged also. I believe these examples should be sufficient.
Q. You had set forth that the various sub-groups of 3 were offices corresponding to the institutions of the State, that you would consider the ministry of the interior as analogous to group 3-A. I ask you now since you mention Poles and Jews, the problems of which were to be dealt with by 3-A, whether the purpose for that was that as far as the organization of the State was concerned, the Ministry of the Interior took a loading part in dealing with these questions?
A. Croup 3-A had dealt with these problems because it was the equivalent of the ministry of the interior. It was dealt with there only and if on the one side the Ministry of the Interior took the leading part, then group 3-C had nothing to do with these matters at all.
Q The Prosecution has submitted a number of documents which concerned, particularly Poles and Jews, and the Prosecution has said that you can be brought in connection with these matters. I should like to mention exhibit 338, NG 229, in document book V-A; would you please explain exhibit 338 to the Tribunal and also state whether your Justice Group was connected with it? Maybe I can briefly explain that it is the introduction of German civil law in the so-called incorporated Eastern territories.
A In exhibit 338, we are concerned with a period from 18 September until 17 December 1944. At that time I was in Holland and could not know anything about it.
Q Therefore, in contrast to the assumption of the Prosecution, you had nothing to do with that matter at all?
A No.
Q I ask you now how about the introduction of penal law in the so-called incorporated Eastern territories? Did you have anything to do with that?
A The fundamental decrees which could be called the preliminary bills of the penal laws concerning Poles which contained all fundamental thoughts; for instance, the decrees about the introduction of German penal law in the incorporated Eastern territories of 6 June 1940, that is exhibit 459, had been decreed before June 1940.
Q Mr. Klemm, I should like to interrupt you here; for the purpose of the record, I want to state that 459 is NG 880, in document book V, supplement. Will you please continue now?
AAt that time, as I just stated, I was still a soldier.
Q Vie come now to another subject that was handled in the Party Chancellory. It is the so-called penal law decree concerning Poles. A penal law which was issued particularly for the Poles. Here again the Prosectuion puts you in a position as a person connected with it. There are the following exhibits: No. 199, that is NG 144, in document book III-H, page 59; exhibit 200, NG 130, also in III-H, on page 66 in the German text; then, exhibit 341, that is NG 227, document book V-A, page 39; exhibit 342, that is NG 127, also in document book V-A; and, finally exhibit 343, that is NG 144, also in document book V-A. What can you tell us about your participation in the development of these problems of Penal Law for Poles?
A The idea of the earlier years concern the special penal law decrees for Poles and eminated from the Chief of the Security Police of 9 October 1940. Then, the Reich Ministry of Justice invites to a conference of 12 December 1940 -- that can be seen from document 342 in the meantime the exhaustive opinion of the Deputy of the Fuehrer of 20 November 1940 is received; that can be seen from exhibit 200, and also from 341. Furthermore, we see from 'exhibit 341, that the Reich Chancellory asks the Reich Ministry of Justice to state its opinion concerning these subjects, and that on 26 November 1940, and I assume also that all these instructions were discussed on the occasion of the conference on 10 December 1940. I had nothing to do with either the point of view or the opinion of the Staff of the Deputy of the Fuehrer, nor did I attend the conference in the department because until March 1941, I was in Holland. The draft for the law prepared by the Reich Ministry of Justice is found in exhibit 199, and there, as well as in the note of the Reich Chancellory, in exhibit 200, it is explicitely emphasized that the suggestions of the Deputy of the Fuehrer of 20 November 1940 have to a far reaching extent been taken into account. And as can be seen from the notes contained in exhibit 200, subsequently, the party chancellory had no longer anything to do with it, that seems to conclude the whole matter.
Q Did the Party Chancellory, at the time when you were there, get a final draft of that penal law against Poles, submitted, or in other words, did Group III-C hear anything about it?
A That I would not know. Bormann, himself, was the one who had to give the approval according to his own directives about submitting matters to him, and his approval; maybe he handled it himself, but it is also possible that since the return of Volkstum, nationality was emphasized so much in this decree, it was handled by the Department Chief together with III-A.
Q I think that concludes that question. Now, III-C, that is the Justice Group, is also brought into connection with the Standgerichte, civil courts martial, and that at the time when you worked there, the Standgerichte which were to be established for the Poles. The Prosecution submitted exhibit 345, that is NG 136, in document Book V-A; and, exhibit 349, that is, 1249-PS, in document book V-B; would you please comment on that?
AAlso about these matters I do not know anything nor can I imagine that the Party Chancellory, the Party Secretariat, had anything to do with it because that was only concerned with putting into effect of a decree which was part of the penal law decree concerning Poles, and these Standgerichte, civil courts martial had more the character of police courts.
Q Now, I come to some more documents submitted by the Prosecution, that is exhibit 350, which is NG 360, in document book V-B; and exhibit 356, that is NG 126, also in book V-B; they are concerned with the execution of sentences which had been pronounced against Poles -death sentences against Poles from the so-called incorporated Eastern territories. There are lists which were compiled every month by the Reich Governors and Chief Presidents from the incorporated Eastern territories, and these lists were sent in and contained information on death sentences and executions in the Eastern territories. Did you have anything to do with that matter?
AAgain I do not know anything about that. As far as I know the Party, Secretariat was not concerned with it. That is shown by the covering letter to Lammers in Exhibit 356, where it expressly states that the right of pardons was transferred in agreement with the Minister and the Chief of the Praesidial Kanzlei, but no mention is made of an agreement with the Chief of the Party Chancellory, the Party Secretariat.
Q Furthermore, the Prosecution submitted exhibit 234, this is 1549-PS, in document book IV-A, on page 1, that is a proposal for the amnesty for the so-called Volks-German, racial Germans, in the incorporated Eastern territories. Was the Party Chancellory concerned with that or did you have anything to do with that matter?
A. The staff of the Deputy of the Fuehrer, the predecessor of the Party Chancellery, was concerned in that matter, but at a time when I was not yet with the staff of the Deputy of the Fuehrer. These letters are of 23 January and 14 March 1941. At that time the Deputy of the Fuehrer had suggested an amnesty of that kind. When the Ministry of Justice, however, in a letter of 27 March 1941, rejected that amnesty --at that time I was in the Party *ncellery for about ten days -- that suggestion, that is to say at the time when I was there, was no longer followed up.
Q. The Prosecution has submitted Exhibit 369; that is NG-424, contained in document book V--D, on page 227, in the German document book. That deals with legislation concerning Jews, and the question a rises whether you, or anybody in your group, was concerned with the drafts for these laws. That is Exhibit 369, NG-424.
A. Excuse me; first I want to make a correction. Exhibit 369, NG-424 is correspondence between the Auswaertige, the Foreign Office, and the Reich Ministry of Justice concerning the property of Jews abroad; and the Party Chancellery, or the staff of the Deputy of the Fuehrer, are not at all mentioned in that correspondence. You probably mean Exhibit 368, NG-300. That is about legislation concerning Jews from January 1941. That procedure -
(Dr. Schilf submitted a document to the witness)
Q. Would you please comment on both exhibits, 368 as well as 369?
A. Yes, in 369 the Party Chancellery is mentioned here also. It says here: "Attention, Oberregierungsrat Neubert." That was the man authorized to receive mail in the mail center. It is a letter from the foreign Office, Auswaertiger Amt, of 31 July 1942, and concerns the handling of Jewish property abroad and property of foreign Jews in Germany. That letter either went to Group III-A on account of its subject, or to Group III-D because it was a letter from the Foreign Office. However, one would much rather conclude that the Justice Group was concerned with Exhibit 368, NG-300. That procedure, which also occurred during a time when I was in Holland, shows that Group III-A, was competent for it and that it dealt with the matter in fact.
In the list of parties who participated, as representative of the Deputy of the Fuehrer, a man by the name of Keischauer, is listed. Oberregierungsrat Reischauer was Referent of Department III-A.
Q. In Exhibit 401, which is 4055-PS, in document book VIII-A, on page 103 of the German text, the Chief of the Party Secretariat is also mentioned. That is a file from the Reich Ministry of Justice with the designation, "Treatment of Jews", or "Total Solution of the Jewish Question". There is a letter from the Reich Minister of Justice of 5 April 1942, addressed first to the Chief of the Party Secretariat, attention Mr. Klopfer.
A. From the document itself it can be seen that the letter was addressed to the attention of Klopfer, the Chief of the Department. The letter never reached III-C, and I had never seen that letter until I saw it here as a document. It is quite possible that the Department Chief himself, or, together with III-A, dealt with that matter.
Q. Then, since you worked in the Party Chancellery, Exhibit 204 was submitted in connection with you. That is NG--151, document book III-H, on page 102, and, as far as you are concerned, page 108 of the German text. It is a proposal on the part of the Reich Minister of Justice of 3 August 1942, with the designation "Limitation of Legal Remedies in Penal Matters for Jews." On the page which I mentioned, 108, a letter is submitted which has the signature of Bormann. Next to Bormann's signature there is also the file note "III-C", that is to say, the symbol of the Justice Department.
I ask you to comment on that and to tell us whether you or your Justice group had anything to do with that matter.
A. To answer this intelligently I have to refer to the entire document submitted by the Prosecution.
The document comprises 25 pages, and that letter from Bormann is put at the end. The entire procedure, however, can be understood only if one puts these various documents in the correct chronological order, for only then can one see how this entire development can be subdivided into three phases.
On 3 August , 1942, the Ministry of Justice distributes its first draft, which is draft number 1. The letter of 13 August 1942 shows the approval of the Reich Ministry of the Interior, with supplementary suggestions. In the meantime, however, the Ministry for Propaganda, quite apparently, although there is nothing contained in this file about that, has made counter-proposals and distributed those to all offices concerned. That can be concluded from the fact that on 13 August -- that is to say, on the same day when the Ministry of the Interior first approved proposal number 1 with certain supplementary requests -- on the very same day the Ministry of Justice distributed suggestions for draft number 2, at the same time referring to suggestions made by the Ministry of Propaganda. That draft number 2 was approved on 20 August 1942 by the Food Ministry, which also stated requests for supplementation in its field, that is, in the field of civil administrative law. Then, on the 9th of September 1942, the Chief of the Party Chancellery states his approval, and in that letter also the request is expressed that the suggested draft concerning a restriction of legal remedies for Jews should be supplemented.
As for the second phase, dealing with draft number 2, there are two events to be noted: One, a certain activity of the Reich Chancellery, that is to say Lammers, who suggests to the General Plenipotentiary for the Administration of the Reich, that is, the Reich Minister of the Interior, that he should see to it that these suggestions are adjusted to meet the requirements and then submitted.
And the second is a letter from the Reichfuehrer SS of 25 August 1942, who suggests a conference regarding Draft No. 2. On 10 September 1942 the High Command of the Wehrmacht also states its approval, and that second phase of developments ends with the result that the leading part is transferred from the Ministry of Justice to the Ministry of the Interior. The final conclusion of that phase is the letter from the Plenipotentiary for the Administration of the Reich, that is to say, the Ministry of the Interior to the participating supreme offices of the Reich containing Draft No. 3. Now the third and last phase of this development starts, and the procedure as submitted in documentary form by the Prosecution for more than half a year does not produce any results as far as matters developed. In the documents submitted by the Prosecution the only further development is that on 3 April 1943 the Minister of the Interior writes to the Reich Chancellery, that is to say, to Lammers and encloses a letter by Kaltenbrunner from the police of 8 March 1943 where the demand is made that the Jews should be completely removed from the administration of justice. These documents then contain only two further notations of the Reich Chancellery of 6 April 1943 and of 21 April 1943. The first notation deals with a conference between the Undersecretary Kritzinger on the part of Lammers, Reich Chancellory, Stukkart on the part of the Ministry of the Interior, and Klopfer for the Party Chancellory, the Party Secretariat. And the last notice of 21 April refers to a conference of various Undersecretaries, Staats-sekretaere, from the Reich Chancellory, Party Secretariat, Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Justice, and Kaltenbrunner on the part of the police. The result of that conference is what we designate as the 13th Decree Amending the Reich Citizen Law. The Party Chancellery letter from 9 September 1942 does only refer to Draft 2 of the Ministry of Justice, that is the Draft of 13 August 1942. The problem of removing the Jews entirely from the Administration of Justice and to declare them incapable of inheriting property, that problem was not all under discussion at the time when that letter was written, and the suggestion made in that letter do not represent any change against the fundamental character of that draft.
They supplement the draft only to the legal systematic side. Inasfar as the Party Chancellery suggests that legal remedies should be included, they are suggestions of a minor weight compared to those that are already planned in the draft. According to the draft, limitations were provided to appeals and the revision, review, that is matters which are directed to the next higher resort. Whereas in the suggestion for supplementation made by the Party Chancellery legal remedies are referred to which are normally directed to the same court in the form of a reminder or a complaint. The next suggestion to limit the right of challenging a judge is the same provision which is also part of the IMT charter. This letter of 9 September 1942 I did not draft. Besides since it was issued more than one month after the letter of 13 August, other offices must have participated. Who it was in Group 30C who drafted that letter and who was the referent dealing with the matter I can no longer tell. I cannot even recall ever having seen that letter such as Borman signed it. It is quite possible that I was away on a duty trip and that my deputy signed it for me.
Q I believe, Mr. Klemm, that that is sufficient.
May it please the Tribunal, I should like to beg your pardon that for that Exhibit 204 we needed a rather detailed explanation, but we thought it necessary because that Exhibit 204 without explanation does not speak for itself. It is not meant to be a reproach to the Prosecution, but merely the fact that it is put together not in chronological order makes further explanation necessary. Therefore it seemed imperative to have it stated in detail.
A I should like to add one sentence. If one compares this letter of 9 September 1942 with the 13th decree concerning Reich citizens, one can see that there is no longer any connection between the two. The 13th Reich Citizen Decree is stated in a purely administrative form.
The Ministry of the Interior is the authority who issues provisions and of the problems mentioned in the letter of 9 September and in Draft No. 2 no mention is made at all. As for the later development, 3-C was not concerned with it.
Q Mr. Klemm, another document which was submitted is Exhibit 205, NG 283, also in Document Book 3-H on Page 114 of the German Document Book. It deals with the treatment under penal law of juveniles who were not Germans. That document was signed by you, although it deals with the juveniles of foreign race, and you explained in great detail to the Tribunal that juveniles of foreign race were a natter of so-called folkdom, Volktum, a Racial question, and would have belonged within the sphere of Department 3-A. Would you like to comment on that document?
A That letter of 7 September 1943 which I signed becomes altogether intelligible only if one regards it as an answer to a letter by the Reich Ministry of Justice to the Party Secretariat of 5 August 1943.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, that letter of 5 August 1943 is in Document Book 3-H. It has the number NG 279. The Prosecution did not submit that document as an exhibit. At the proper time I shall ask the Prosecution to put this document at my disposal so that I can submit it as an exhibit for the defendant Klemm. Since it is bound in the text and the high Tribunal may have it in Document Book 3-H, I think it is correct if I ask the witness about that document.
Q You may comment on it.
-
8 July 47 -A-17-1-ABG-Gaylord (Uiberall)
A. This is no longer a question of race or Volkstum, but these are purely legal questions as contained in that letter. The law concerning juvenile courts in the Reich had been issued and Article I of the law concerning juvenile courts in the Reich, Section 2, provides: "The law is practicable to Germans. As for people of different race, it has to be applied according to the meaning, unless it is provided that another law applies." The Reich Ministry of Justice in it's letter of the 5 August 1943 explains why according to the law concerning juvenile courts in the Reich, Poles and Jews cannot be tried on the basis of that law. That was evident on the basis of other legal regulations which had been published before the publication of the law concerning juvenile courts in the Reich. By sending that letter, merely the point of view of the Ministry of Justice in the legal question was approved on our part as to how on the basis of existing regulations juvenile Poles and Jews and gypsies compared to the law concerning juvenile courts in the Reich were to be dealt with.
Q. With your explanation, did you also refer to Exhibit 205, that was NG-283? You said that document could only be understood in connection with the document not submitted.
A. Would you repeat that, please? I didn't understand.
Q. Exhibit 205, that is NG-283, that is a document which was submitted. It has your signature.
A. Yes.
Q. Now you commented on the document which was not submitted, NG279.
A. Yes.
Q. And the explanations which you just gave us, do they refer to both documents, also to Exhibit 205?
A. They refer to both documents. Exhibit 205 is merely the legal opinion of the Ministry and the fact that the Party Chancellery has the same legal opinion on the basis of prevailing conditions.
Q. The Prosecution also submitted Exhibit 437, NG-919, Volume I Supplement, German Page 64 and following pages. The prosecution asserts that here also you acted for the Party Chancellery. In the case of this Exhibit, we are concerned with a conference dealing with the draft of a law which should simplify penal procedure. Would you kindly comment on that Exhibit 437?
A. I am indeed grateful to the prosecution that document was submitted because it reveals quite clearly how Department 111-C worked. Although this document is quite large and I spoke frequently in this conference, you will find nowhere that I made any political statements but always purely legal judicial statements. One can also see from these minutes that a dictate of the Party is quite out of the question. The minutes show: "Ministerialrat Klemm stated, he considered the solution as suggested not a very good one." It also says, "Ministerialrat Klemm states that an approval was possible-- or "he suggested"--"he asked but did not in sist--" and I could quote a large number of examples of that kind, only I do not want to tire you with them.
In particular, however, I want to refer to my statements concerning paragraph 153 of the Code of Penal Procedure. Paragraph 153 of the Code of Penal Procedure offers the possibility, in cases of minor offenses, to stop the procedure without filing an indictment. In connection with that, I suggested that the text of that provision should be kept in such terms that consideration could be taken of particularly tragic cases from the human point of view. I mentioned two examples: one that the father causes an automobile accident and that his own son would be killed in that accident; or that, for instance, a mother by negligence scalded her favorite child with hot water and it dies.
If I had spoken there from the Party point of view, I would have had to say just the opposite; that is to say, from the point of view of the Party, that any child is important for Germany and that the parents had to be punished all the more because they have lost their child for the future of Germany. I put myself on the human point of view which was quite the opposite, and I should also like to emphasize, and that can also be seen from these minutes, that the point of view of the Deputy for the Reich Protector, that is to say SS Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich's representative, was of the opposite point of view.
He, in the case of individual provisions, stated quite harshly, "Heydrich would never approve that."
Q. Herr Klemm, the prosecution also submitted Exhibit 75, that is NG-102, in Document Book I-C, on pages 52 and the following pages. That is the draft submitted by the Reich Ministry of Justice which provides for a right of confirmation of sentences in penal cases. That right for confirmation should rest with the Presidents of the District Court of Appeals. Did you ever write the letter of the Party Chancellery which comments on that suggestion, or did yon participate in its drafting?
A. This is a procedure which was already discussed in the witness box by Schlogelberger in great detail. It is indeed interesting how that same problem looked as seen from the point of view of the Party Chancellery, and therefore I have to explain that draft in some detail.
The Fuehrer had delivered his harsh Reichstag speech against the Administration of Justice in April 1942. He had had authority conferred upon himself according to which he could remove any judge. Herr Schlegelberger has stated here in the witness box that the draft which provided that the Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal should participate in confirming sentences and similarly to the law authorities of the Armed Forces should have the right of confirmation of individual sentences and also the right for commutation--that the suggestion had been made in order to nullify the authority which the Fuehrer had conferred upon himself for the Reichstag.