Mr. LaFollette frequently had the opportunity to complain about this witness Franks that he does not come here, even though for months efforts have been made in order to bring him here. The right to undertake this cross examination I also want to reserve if it should be that the witness can appear here after all Therefore, for the time being I have to conclude my case on behalf of the defendant Klemm.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed with the next defendant's case.
CURT ROTHENBERGER; a defendant, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE BLAIR:
Hold up your right hand and be sworn. Repeat the following oath after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: (Attorney for Defendant Rothenberger) May it please the Tribunal, I am in the same position as my predecessor, Dr. Schilf, that I cannot submit my document books oven though I handed the main document book to the Translation Branch already two weeks ago.
The defense was naturally built on an effort to establish a connection between the personal statements, the testimony of the defendant and my own documents for the purpose of submitting the evidence. Nevertheless, the interest that I, as defense counsel for the defendant Dr. Rothenberger, have in expediting the proceedings is great, and inspite of the lack of the document books I want to begin with the examination of Dr. Rothenberger in the witness stand.
Since my own documents are not here at the moment, I have to refer more to the Prosecution documents to the extent that they are available in that context.
May I during the noon recess tell the Court and the Prosecution the documents of the Prosecution to which I want to refer to, today, so that the Court and the Prosecution can follow the testimony better. If the Tribunal desires I can also state these documents now. In connection with the personal examination of the defendant I want to use exhibit 433, in volume 1, supplement, page 29-e in the English document book; exhibit 113, in document book 3-A, page 1-e in the English document book. I shall quote only the English page numbers. Exhibit 114, volume III-A, page 7; exhibit 115,volume III-A, page 8; exhibit 116, volume III-A, page 9; exhibit 165, volume III-D, page 99; exhibit 462, volume V, supplement, page 82; exhibit 54, volume I-A, page 20-c; exhibit 26, volume I-A, page 108-c; exhibit 28, volume I-B, page 48. In the last two documents exhibit 400, volume VIII-A, page 98, and exhibit 388, I mean exhibit 111, volume I-B, page 67.
May I start the examination of the witness?
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q. Dr. Rothenberger, please describe in brief outlines, your personal and professional career.
A. I was born on 30 June 1896 in Cuxhaven, that is the outlet of Hamburg to the North Sea. I spent my youth first in Cuxhaven, and later in the City of Hamburg, from the sixth year of my life on. In Hamburg I received a classical education. Shortly before the war, I made my classical examination (Abitur); then I studied law for two semesters in Kiel and in Berlin. And, from 1915 until 1918, I was a soldier, and at the end of the war I was at the front as an officer. After the war I continued my legal studies in Hamburg where the University had been founded in the meantime. And, in 1920 I passed my first legal examination, the so-called Referendar examination. In 1922 I passed the second legal examination, the so-called Assessor examination. It was my desire to become a judge; however, at that time, I was only 26 years old; therefore, my desire was, first, to work a few years as a lawyer.
Previously, at the time when I was a Refendar, I worked with a lawyer's firm for a year and a half. This desire I told to the, then Justice Senator of Hamburg, Dr. Noeldecke. However, according to the practice in Germany at the time, he did no consider that it was possible first to appoint me prosecutor and then to take me over into his office as judge -- those, in Germany were completely separate stages of training; therefore, I gave up that intention, and in 1922 I became a judge, and first I became an assistant judge. And, in 1925, I was finally employed as a professional judge. In addition to this activity as a judge, from 1922 on, I was in charge of the so-called Repetitorium in Hamburg. This is an institution which existed in Germany for decades. Young legal students have the feeling that the training which they receive at the University and the education they receive there does not give them sufficient practical experience, and the practical outlook; that it is too scientific and too theoretical; and, therefore, it is usual in Germany, in addition to their University education the students -- law students in Germany go to a Repetitorium. I, myself, too, before the Refendar examination, as well as before the Accessor examination, have to thank for the essential part of my education -- a Dr. John Ulrich Schroeder.
Q. Would you please state briefly who this Dr. Schroeder was?
A. Dr. Schroeder was in Hamburg, a very well known person, an Oberlandesgerichtsrat who was very gifted, pedagogically, politically and theoretically; he was a leading Socialist. Therefore, in 1922, he was transferred to Saxony in the then Socialist Saxony Ministry of Justice as a Ministerial Director, and he requested me to take over his Repetitorium. I did so, and I carried on that activity in addition to my profession as a judge from 1922 until 1933. I maintained contact with Dr. Schroeder. He turned to me in particular in 1933 when in Saxony he was discharged without receiving a pension because of the Socialist attitude. And, since he had formerly been Oberlandesgerichtrat in Hamburg, I secured a pension for him which he had received until today.
After the surrender, he became General Public Prosecutor in Saxony and unfortunately he died a short time ago, in March of this year.
Then, from 1925 until 1927, I was a judge. In 1927 I gave up my profession as a judge temporarily because I was called as Regierensrat Government Counsellor , in the so-called justice administration of the District of Hamburg. That is the Ministry of Justice of a State (Land). It is a very small agency with only three higher officials. One was competent for personnel matters of the entire administration for justice of Hamburg; the second, for criminal law; and, the third, for civil law and public law-- I was in the latter position. In that activity in the administration of justice of the Land, I had to deal with two special tasks which influenced my development at that time, and at a later time to a considerable extent. Therefore, I want to mention them briefly. The first task was in December 1927, at that time I was concerned with a trial before the then state court in Leipzig. The state court is the supreme court of Germany that dealt with constitutional questions. During the time of the Weimar constitution it was the task of this court, among others, to examine whether the laws which a Laud has promulgated are in accordance with the Weimar constitution.
And now Hamburg, with my collaboration--I was competent for that question--had promulgated an electoral law for the Hamburg Parliament. This electoral law laid down that a party which wanted to appoint representatives to the Parliament had to fulfill a minimum requirement, which was that it had to obtain 300 signatures and submit 3,000 Marks, The purpose of that regulation was to prevent too many small parties from entering Parliament. This electoral law, according to which the Hamburg Parliament was elected, was attacked before the State Court. The so-called Revaluating Party contested this law, and the Nazi Party, which at that time was entirely unknown, small party in Northern Germany. I lost this case before the State Court, for the reason that this regulation was not in accordance with the regulations of the general right to vote. In other words, the State Court was of the opinion that every German, even if he did not meet the requirements where he could submit 3,000 marks and obtain 300 signatures, had the right in an election, to make a suggestion for a party and possibly representatives to the Parliament.
This was a task which influenced my later development.
The second task was in 1928. At that time I was concerned with discussions in the German Reich Council. This has already been mentioned in this trial, especially by Professor Jahrreis, that in addition to the Reichstag--that is, the actual Parliament of the German people-there was a Reichstag (Reich Council), in which the individual Laonder, including Hamburg, were represented; and before a law could be passed by the Reichstag, the Reichsrat had to discuss the law. Thus, the Reichsrat had a so-called right to participate, according to the Weimar Consitution.
It was my specific task at the time, as representative of the Hamburg Government, in very extensive negotiations in the Reichsrat, to advice in regard to a law at that time; that was a law regarding illegitimate children. This law, or rather this draft, of a bill, had already been prepared several years earlier in the Reich Ministry of Justice, and efforts were now being made to transform this bill into a law.
In the discussions in the Reichsrat, where the eighteen German Laender were represented, it became apparent that entirely different opinions existed in regard to this problem. This was conditioned by the fact that the governments of these eighteen German Laender were of different compositions from a political point of view. One government was purely Socialist; another was Deutschnational--that was a rightist party at the time in Germany; another--and this was the Hamburg Government--was a mixture of Socialist and Democrat Parties.
The result was that a definite law never came about even at the stage when it was still in the Reichsrat, and therefore the law never got to the Reichstag and never became law even to this day.
Q Would you please continue with your description of your personal career?
A In 1929 I was promoted to Oberregierungsrat. For about three quaters of a year I worked on the Hamburg Health Board and then I returned to the Administration of Justice of the Land as Oberregierungsrat In 1931 I was promoted to Landgerichtsdirector, that is, District Court Director. In other words, I became a judge again. In that same year Hamburg was requested by the Reich Ministry of Justice to suggest a judge who should become Reichsgerichtsrat. The then senator of the Administration of Justice was Mayor Petersen.
Q Would you please tell us who this Mayor Petersen was?
A Mayor Petersen was the leader of the Democratic Party of Germany in the Reicgstag. He was a candidate for the position of Reich President in 1925 when Reich President Ebert died, and Hindenburg was then elected Reich President.
His suggestion was accepted by Reich Minister of Justice Dr. Joel, but nothing came of the matter because the President of the Reich Supreme Court, Dr. Bumke, objected because I was too young. I was 35 years old at that time, and the usual age for the Reichsgerichtsraete--that is, the Reich Supreme Court judges--who were to be newly appointed was about the middle 40's.
Q Dr. Rothenberger, please describe to the Tribunal whether you were abroad for a considerable lenght of time and what those sojourns in foreign countries meant to you.
A In 1929 I was in England for about eight months. There I studied the organization and structure of the English courts, the position of the English Judges, the position of the Masters and Registrars, and the relationship of the barristers and solicitors to the Court. I studied these in detail; I worked at the High Court of Justice with a barrister and with a solicitor. I wrote a lenghty article about the result of that trip, which my defense counsel will probably submit as an exhibit.
Q Did you learn anything about any other institutions in England, which later was decisive for your plans, which served to relieve the judge of his burdens?
A I have already explained that the Masters and Registrars and the clerks, on the whole, made it possible for the English Judge to have a different position than here in Germany.
Q What were your professional and economic consitions at the time in Hamburg?
A They were absolutely good and secure. I was a higher judge, and I had a very good additional income due to this institution for young lawyers. I was teaching fifty to sixty students and Referendars, and therefore I was doing well.
Q Now, a great change occured in your career. Could you tell the Court when and on the basis of what considerations you decided to give up this quiet and secure life?
A The year 1933 came. On the 5th of March 1933, there were Parliamentary elections in Hamburg, as everywhere throughout the Reich.
In these elections the National Socialist Party obtained about 40 percent of the votes. Therefore, it was ordered to form a new Government, because it was the strongest party in the Parliament.
Until that time Hamburg had the government majority which consisted of Social Democrats and Democrats. The NSDAP, which was ordered to form a now government, formed a coalition government with the Democratic Party, the Gorman People's Party, and the Deutschnationalen people's Party, Gorman National People's Party.
A. The day after the election, that is on the 6th of March, the Reich Statthalter and Gauleiter of Hamburg, Kauffmann, called me up. Until that time I had not known him personally. He asked me whether I would be willing to assume the position of the acting mayor in this now government of Hamburg. He told me that he had heard about me, and therefore he was making this offer to me. I requested him to give me one day to think the matter over, and then I refused his offer. I gave as a reason that I considered that my task lay in the Administration of Justice, that I wasn't inclined for representative nor for political tasks, and those were to be connected with the position of mayor of a city like Hamburg. Thereupon he asked me whether in that case I would be willing to take over the Administration of Justice of Hamburg as its chief, and I answered that I would.
Q. In the subsequent time did you again refuse leading positions in the Reich? Perhaps you can mention that in this connection here now.
A. In March '33 I thus became Justizsenator, as he was called, in Hamburg, Chief of the Administration of Justice. And the Tribunal already knows that these Ministries of Justice of the individual Laender, of which there were about 18 at the time, in 1935, wore dissolved by the so-called centralization of the Administration of Justice. Therefore toward the end of 1934 the Reichminister of Justice, Dr. Guertner in Kiel, where we met on the occasion of a University festival, approached me, and asked me whether I would he willing to become presiding judge of the People's Court, which at that time was being created. I rejected that offer, oven though this was the second position of a Judge in Germany next to the President of the Reich Supreme Court. But for administration of criminal law I had neither the experience nor the inclination.
The political development of the People's Court, of course, one could not predict in any way at that time. But I remained in Hamburg and when in 1935 the Administration of Justice was incorporated into the Reich and my office as chief of the Administration of Justice, Justizsenator, was eliminated, I became president of the Hanseatic District Court of Appeals. That is a position of judge which, however, at the same time includes also administrative activity. I believe that the Tribunal is already familiar with the fact that from 1935 on Germany was divided into I believe 37 to 35 areas of district courts of appeal, and at their top there was each time a president of the District Court of Appeals. In 1936 or 1937 the Reich lawyers' leader Frank approached me through a representative and asked me if I would like to be his representative in Berlin in his capacity as Reich Lawyers' leader. It was not difficult for me to reject that offer, because during the course of those two years I got to know Frank. The personal characteristics of Frank have repeatedly been emphasized in this trial, but I want to add one more attribute, that he was extraordinarily vain and that he never forgave me that I could refuse to become his assistant.
Q. In conclusion in regard to this question would you please state something about your additional positions in Hamburg which you had in addition to your position as president of the district court of appeals?
A. In Hamburg I had several extra duties during the years when I was still in Hamburg, that is from 1935 on. That is in addition to my main duty. I was honorary professor at the Hamburg University for Civil Law and there I in a certain sense continued my activity as repetitor, that is, tutor, so to say. That is, I held lectures for students. From 1938 on I was President of the Reich Maritime Office. That was the final authority in decisions about collisions at sea and about the litigations regarding the withdrawing of a license for a captain which resulted from this for captains who were found guilty in case of a collision. And from the beginning of the war on I was president of the Prise Court in Hamburg. The Tribunal probably knows the functions of such a Prise Court.
Until August 1942 I remained at Hamburg, and from August 1942 until December 1943 I was in Berlin as Undersecretary. In December 1943 I again left there, returned to Hamburg, and was a notary in Hamburg.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May it please the Tribunal, that exhausts the personal data. I don't believe that there is any point in going on to the next question before the noon recess, or would you like me to start tho next question?
THE PRESIDENT: We will take our noon recess at this time.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours)
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 16 July 1947.)
CURT ROTHENBERGER - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q I ask to be permitted to continue the examination of the defendant Dr. Rothenberger. We come now to the political career of the defendant, after personal data had been dealt with. I want to ask you, Dr. Rothenberger, what your political career was, what the political conditions were in Germany before 1933, and how they impressed you and influenced you.
A Before 1933, at first I did not have any political activity. I did not belong to any political party. I had little interest for politics; at any rate, not any interest for that type of politics as it developed in Germany gradually. I was of the opinion that a judge should be neutral, and not bound to the policy of any individual party.
Q Could you give us more reasons for these explanations in connection with the statements you have made concerning your personal career?
A Then for the first time I came into somewhat closer contact with politics, at the end of 1931 and the beginning of 1932. My chief in the Administration of Justice -- I was at that time District Court Director -- Mayor Petersen, whom I have mentioned before, appointed me to be in charge of investigations carried on by an investigating committee in the Parliament of Hamburg. This was the situation: various parties in the Hamburg Parliament had made the motion that such a Parliamentary investigating committee should be established in order to find out whether in the administration of Hamburg--especially the police administration of Hamburg--corruption or other conditions of that kind existed, which according to statements that had been made, were alleged to be very extensive. A higher judge had to be in charge of that investigation and I was assigned that post by Major Peterson. Then in that capacity, in Court No. III, Case No. 3.proceedings which were carried on for several months, I tried to determine the actual facts.
My associates in that committee were from all political parties; that is to say, the Social Democrats, the Democratic Party, the Communists, the National Socialists, and various others.
When I had just about finished the investigation, elections were coming on. Although the proceedings had been kept strictly secret, the political parties took advantage of the matters which had been revealed in these proceedings in their election campaign. It was a free-for-all fight. On that occasion, I recognized for the first time the type of the Parliamentarian, and I gained the impression at that time that it was not the best, to be sure. So that my aversion against the kind of politics which prevailed at that time in Germany increased.
On that occasion, I also mot a member of the NSDAP, Herr von Alwoerden, who at that time was a member of the Gauleitung--the Gau Executive office. I had many conversations with him about the problems of the time and I had a good impression of that man: an objective, calm fellow with a clear mind. That for the first time brought me into contact with National Socialism. As a judge, I very often assisted him and other associates in solving general legal questions which at that time were of importance, and in that manner I can also explain that one year later, that is in 1933, the Gauleiter nominated me as Justice Senator.
Q What were your opinions concerning the general political conditions in the Reich? You have just mentioned your experiences in Hamburg.
A I, myself, had impressions of the imperial period, that is to say, the period before 1918, only from my childhood. Only after the war, as a young student, I made the acquaintance of the essence of democracy. First as a student and a referendar and a young judge, I occupied myself also scientifically with the problem of democracy. I wrote several articles about it, and as for the principle, I was quite for democracy.
THE PRESIDENT: May I suggest to you that a very brief statement Court No. III, Case No. 3.of your general feelings on this and that subject and this and that period may be permitted, but what the Tribunal is really interested in relates to the charges in the evidence and to your conduct with reference to the evidence which has been introduced against you.
Other matters should be made brief. It's conduct that we are interested in.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q Will you please abbreviate your description concerning your opinion of conditions in the Reich at that time. You were of the opinion, therefore, that in theory you agreed with the principle of democracy, but-
A I only wanted to say in a few brief sentences what in practice were the facts of the Weimar Democracy until 1933; in particular, as far as the Administration of Justice was concerned, which in theory should be independent. That had, in practice, become a toy of the parties. In the Reichstag, demand was made by the President of the Reichstag, by the Reich Chanceller, to abrogate the independence of the Administration of Justice, just as the judges later after 1933 were severely attacked by the press. Thus gradually the Weimar Democracy, up to the year 1933, arrived at a condition for which there was only one solution, that is, either the solution of Communism or the solution of National Socialism. According to my whole tradition and my own career, I decided in favor of National Socialism.
Q Dr. Rothenberger, we have seen of the dangers and even more in the course of this trial, of the centralization by National Socialism. These dangers, of course, were not as recognizable at that time for you as they were described later. We want to restrict ourselves to the experiences which you gained from the development of that time in regard to your legal tasks and plans. Can you explain to us what your legal impressions were on the basis of your experiences in England and what you did about them?
A Owing to the fact that in Germany only one party had taken the place and position of many parties, I did not see any danger in that Court No. III, Case No. 3.centralization.
Most of the Germans, just as I was, were under that impression of uniformity in contrast to the condition of decentralization that had existed before. I did not realize these dangers, particularly because there were so many regional differences. In Germany, the southern German is different from the northern German, and the western German differs from the German in the cast. People in Hamburg are different from those in Prussian. Thus I believed that within that large unit, the disadvantages of uniformity would be avoided by variety. In practice, that is what actually happened. Everything was combined under one party, but in fact the struggle which hitherto had existed between the Parties began within the party now.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
And I compared these impressions which I had gained in Germany with with impressions that I gained in England. Here I made the acquaintance of the term the principle of the personality of the judge, the authority of the judge, the respect for a sentence, or a judgment; the idea of the tradition and the corps d'esprit. I have made the acquaintance of a purely non-bureaucratical administration of justice and I knew from German literature that already for fifty years, since the year 1906, plans existed there to adopt these ideas and carry them out also in Germany, the idea of the authority of the judge such as it was in England; and I knew further more that these attempts in the imperial period as well as during the Weimar democracy again and again had failed, because there was no stable leadership of the state in Germany. Now, I considered it a matter of fact and the practical fact recognized by the new government after 1933 that it would be that stable leadership of the state which would be in a position to carry out also these projects and ideas. That is one of the reasons which caused me to affirm the idea of a stable leadership of the state and to become a National Socialist.
Q Could you give us any further reasons to complete the picture?
A My second reason follows: National Socialist propaganda before 1933 had fought against certain qualities of the Germans, which are conditioned by their historic traditions and historic development. The German is inclined, since only since 1870 there is a uniform Reich in existence, to be very narrow minded, to shirk responsibility; these qualities were combatted by the National Socialists. They promised that it had to be expected of the acceptance of the Fuehrer principle that there would be more a sense of responsibility than had existed before. To this reason one has to add as a third reason the emphasis of the social idea. I grew up, as I have said, in Hamburg, a port and worker's city, and I am of the opinion that the political development in every state depends upon the question as to how far one succeeds to incorporate the fourth estate, that is the estate of the workers into Court No. III, Case No. 3.the social community.
In that field National Socialism not only made promises but achieved actual results during the first years so that, therefore, my actions and my publications time and again were circling around those three problems -- one, reforms in the administration of justice; two, a different attitude; and three, a social state.
Q We come now to the question why you became a party member and a gaufuehrer of the USRB, the National Socialist Lawyers League; those are phases of your political life during which you participated actually and formally in the NSDAP. Can you explain why first you became a party member?
A For reasons of full conviction I became a party member in 1933 because the party at that time did not appear to me to be a party such as the parties before that time, but a whole; and in 1934, or 1935 when Gauleitier Kauffmann approached me and asked me to take over the Gauleadership of the National Socialist Lawyer's League, I had already gained my first impressions and experiences in the struggle between the administration of justice and the party. It has been emphasized here time and again how during the first period, after the revolution of 1933; every Kreisleiter attempted to interfere in court proceedings; the Gestapo tried to revise sentences, and it is known how the NSRB, the National Socialist Jurists League tried to gain influence with the Gauleiter or the Reichsstatthalter in order to act against the administration of justice. In this respect I gained very bad impressions in Hamburg with the Gaufuehrer at this time of the NSRB, Dr. Haecke. The Reichsstatthalter removed him from office and asked me to take his place, and I do not regret having taken that step because only owing to the fact that I myself held that office, I was in a position to eliminate attacks on the part of the party against the administration of justice from the outset. And that may only have been possible because I had a Reichsstatthalter, Reich governor in Hamburg who was smart enough and objective enough to realize pretty soon that any fight against the administration of justice can only lead to the destruction of the state Court No. III, Case No. 3.itself.
I gained influence on the man particularly by two elements. First, because at the first opportunity when the attempt was made to put an incapable man in charge of a penal institution, I refused to do so. I asked to be sent on leave and asked him to assure me that that man would not be removed. The case was mentioned here again -- a man by the name of Laatz.
Q I shall submit an affidavit about that case.
A To describe tho attitude of tho Reichsstatthalter in Hamburg, it is important to stress that also the mayor of Hamburg today, who, after the surrender in 1945 was appointed, officially and publicly expressed his gratitude for the calm and objective attitude displayed by Reichsstatthalter Kauffmann during all these years in Hamburg. It belongs to the same field that two years later I took over the Gau Legal Office and thereby excluded any competition; and it belongs to the same complex of questions that during the same year my membership in the pary was put down as 850,000, which gave me a possibility to stand up more strongly against the so-called old fighters. On account of the identity, of course, between president of the District Court of Appeals and Gaufuehrer, I was envied by all other district court of appeals because they continually had to struggle against the party while I was saved this struggle.
Q How long did you hold these offices?
A I held these offices until August 1942 when I was transferred to Berlin; then the Gau Legal office was dissolved, and the office of the Gaufuehrer of the NSRB, I gave up.
Q Then, you became deputy in Berlin.
A Yes, I became deputy in Berlin until December, 1943.
Q What was your attitude toward tho SD in Hamburg; could you tell us something about that? I am referring to NG-825 in that connection; NG-825; it is Exhibit 433; and it is to be found in Volume I Supplement, on page 29.
A The SD in Hamburg during the first few years had a bad selection Court No. III, Case No. 3.of personnel.
There was the usual system of informers; I was spied upon; the Reichsstatthalter was spied upon, and that lead to the removal of them; the Reichsstatthalter removed, when he found out about that, the entire personnel from office from Hamburg. The new men whom he appointed, as far as they were concerned with matters of administration of justice, come to me in 1939. In the meantime, the directive had been sent down from the Reich Ministry of Justice to the effect that tho SD should be considered and used as a source of information of tho state by agencies of the administration of justice; and here also I was independent to nominate individuals who would not submit reports intended to go against the interests of the Administration of Justice, but who themselves were in favor and sympathy with the principles of the Administration of Justice, and that is the basis for the conference with the SD-Fuehrer in Hamburg which is contained in NG-825, the fact that I made suggestions to nominate men, who were judges and whom I knew would never submit reports which were against tho Administration of Justice. Since that time, also in Hamburg, no SD informer appeared in court proceedings, and, as far as I know, no reports were submitted which were against the Administration of Justice.
Q Dr. Rothenberger, could you comment now on the question of establishment of special courts in 1933 in Hamburg. I am referring, if it please the Tribunal, to NG-514, that is Exhibit 113, in Document Book III-A, on page 1. It deals with the conference which took place in the Administration of Justice of Hamburg, in March, 1933.
A In March, 1933, a directive came down from the Reich government that special courts were to be instituted in the Laender. On the basis of that directive, I established a special court in Hamburg in March 1933 after having requested a legal opinion, as can be seen from the document, from my personal referent at the time, Professor Bertram, and the president of the District Court of Appeals, Dr. Kieselbach, who today again is the president of the entire Administration of Justice in the British zone. The establishment of the special court as mentioned in NG-514 is based upon this; there were no legal misgivings against it.