It had. been moved from Berlin to Eberswalde on the Oder. How, after the 12 of January, when the front began to recede there, and the situation became precarious, this scientific material was supposed to be removed. This, however, was refused by the Reich Defense Commissar or his subordinates. And I was asked for help and only with the utmost effort did I succeed in having valuable scientific material which had been collected over 50 years, at that time transported away from Eberswalde and one single railroad car was necessary for this; but this already created very bad morale among the population. In any case, at that time, it was impossible to undertake any large-scale evacuations from this territory.
Q. You mentioned the Reich Defense Commissar of this territory. Would you please tell the Tribunal, as far as you know, the name of this Reich Defense Commissar?
A. Well, yes. As far as I know that was Gauleiter Stuertz.
Q. Thank you. The exceptions in regard to evacuations, could Gauleiter Stuertz and Reich Defense Commissar give this permission or was another office competent for this, perhaps Himmler himself.
A. Well, to what estent Himmler reserved that right to himself I don't know. In any case, I know that the Reich Defense Commissars always gave a negative reply to requests for evacuation at that time and one could succeed at the most with Himmler. For instance, in the example which I mentioned, I succeeded because I explained that such valuable material, which could be reconstructed only in decades, could not be left and be destroyed.
Q And at the time you were going about the intention of evacuating the prisoners of the Sonnenburg penitentiary?
A I did not know anything about that intention. I heard about the Sonnenburg case and the killing of prisoners only after I had become a prisoner but as I look back upon the conditions of that time I consider it absolutely impossible that the Reich Defense Commissar should at that time have given permission to evacuate hundreds of prisoners while the civilian population which was at liberty had to remain.
Q You have already stated that the Reich Defense Commissar had a large degree of power at the time?
A Yes, his power was so extensive that the highest Reich Authorities depended upon the approval of the Reich Defense Commissar because there wore evacuated officers of these high agencies in the districts of the different Reich Commissars and even in Berlin the evacuation ministry and other offices depended upon the agreement of Minister Goebbels. I remember a case very well at the time when I protested and said: "What has Minister Goebbels to do with it, that is none of his business" and I was given the reply: "Well Goebbels is Reich Defense Commissar of Berlin and if evacuations are undertaken the Reich Defense Commisar has to give his approval."
Q My final question. You mentioned Goebbels as Reich Defense Commissar. You must be referring to the City of Berlin?
A Yes, for the city of Berlin, and Stuertz for the Landkreis (countryside).
Q I have no further questions.
BY DR. KUBOSCHOK: For the defendant Schlegelberger:
Q About this situation when Schlegelberger was released, at the time was Schlegelberger offered another job?
A I personally only on behalf of my own person told him that if ho wanted to obtain a position in another office I would make an effort so that he could become President of the Reich Administrative Court, and thereupon Schlegelberger replied that under no circumstances did he want to accept a now job. He had harbored for a long time the desire to retire and now wanted to avail himself of this opportunity.
Q In the spring of 1942 the question arose as to whether half Jews should be put on an equal basis as Jews, in other words the transport to the East was concerned. What was Schlegelberger's answer to this question. Did he write a letter to you in regard to this question if I may be a little more explicit?
A I know what you are referring to. Schlegelberger wrote a letter to me. The letter dates from March, probably the Middle of March, 1942, and in this letter he expressed his worry about the fact that on the 6 of March 1942 a discussion had taken place in the RSHA about the Jewish problem, and that matters were in preparation which he considered to be impossible, and in this letter Schlegelberger then expressed the desire that he wanted to discuss this affair with me. I answered his letter. I don't know whether I did so in writing or only over the telephone but I informed him that of course I would be at his disposal for a discussion but I did not consider his worry justified at all at the time, because first I had reported this problem to the Fuehrer and the Fuehrer had told me the final solution of this Jewish problem should be stopped. If in spite of that further discussions took place on the 6th of March this was done against this order and that I I would report this affair again and therefore he could be at rest and could be assured that nothing would happen before this matter was clarified by a report again.
Whether I again spoke with Schlegelberger later on or not I don't know. If I did speak with him I emphasized to him that in spite of this meeting which took place on the 6th of March 1942 there was no cause for the anxiety which he had gathered from the documents available for him.
Q. But it was carried further. The Tribunal hare has the documents. In the further discussion there was further pressure by SS officers and then Schlegelberger wrote a letter in which ho asked for a limitation of the circle of persons who would be considered: the elimination of quarter Jews, the elimination of those Jews who could no longer have children, and in which it is suggested further on that a half Jew who can propagate further could by sterilization prevent being transported to the East.
Q In regard to the last suggestion, do you believe that this idea which Schlegelberger expressed in this letter was original with him or whether that idea had been expressed before?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I object, Your Honor, for the reason that the question calls for a conclusion of the witness as to the state of mind of Dr. Schlegelberger, a fact about which the witness is obviously uninformed.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask for information. I thought the question was whether the idea
DR. KUBOSCHOK: The question was whether the idea originated with Schlegelberger.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand the question was whether this suggested alternative of sterilization instead of deportation was original with Dr. Schlegelberger.
If the witness knows that that idea had been promulgated before Dr. Schlegelberger wrote his letter the witness would be permitted to answer the question.
BY DR. KUBOSCHOK:
Q Yes, and this is what the question was.
Witness, do you believe that before Schlegelberger made this suggestion in this latter this question had been opened up already be others?
A I should assume that this happened: That this question did not originate with Schlegelberger because such subjects were discussed frequently at that time.
Q From your recollection do you believe that this question came to you on the basis of some direct requests that were made to Hitler to be put on an equal basis with aryans?
A I can remember this question was also opened by circles of half Jews, persons who were concerned.
Q Thank you. Witness, before this Tribunal transfers of prisoners to the police were discussed, transfers which were made on the basis of an order by Hitler. These transfers probably began at the time of Guertner! Can you say anything as to Guertner's attitude in regard to these transfers or whether he tried to do anything against it?
A These transfers which he was ordered to undertake usually via the adjutant's office of the Fuehrer or by Reichleiter Bormann were very inconvenient for Reich Minister Guertner. He repeatedly in individual cases complained about this to me. far as I could help him I checked the cases and again reported them on the basis of the files and in individual cases I was successful that this measure was withdrawn. The Reich Minister of Justice then made efforts to find a procedure by which the possibility would be created to have such sentences which were considered untenable by the Reich Government modified by the creation of the so-called legal complaint.
Q Tins Guertner's practice continued under Schlegelberger?
A I believe that such cases occurred although Schlegelberger never agreed to it.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask a question please of Dr. Kuboschok: You only said "transfers" would you make it clear what you meant by transfers, I assume you meant transfers to the police?
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Transfers to the police of a person who had been sentenced by a Court, who had served a sentence and had been transferred to the police.
THE PRESIDENT: I wanted the record to be clear as to what you meant by transfers.
BY DR. KUBOSCHOK:
Q Yes Your Honor.
Do you remember any individual cases from Schlegelberger's time?
A I cannot remember any individual cases but cases did occur.
Q Thank you. Would it have been possible in accordance with your knowledge of the conditions at the time via the written or the oral way of making a report and beyond trying to justify the sentence of the Court to oppose and resist the order, speaking from the practical point of view, would it have been possible for the Ministry of Justice to instruct the prison authorities to refuse to give up the prisoners on the wishes of the police?
A I believe that the Ministry of Justice could not let it get to such a point where the police would interfere by force in the orisons. The Ministry of Justice would have been responsible, and one agency of the State has to avoid getting into that type of conflict with another.
Q According to your experiences, do you consider it at all possible that a police office would not execute any direct order by Hitler?
A I believe that Hitler's would have been carried cut by the police without further ado, and the persons concerned would have been taken out of the prisons by means of force and weapons.
DR. KUBUSCOK: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other defense desire to make this witness their own?
(No response)
You may cross-examine.
MR. KING: The Prosecution desires to divide its cross-examination of Dr. Lammers between myself and Mr. LaFollette.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
BY MR. KING:
Q Dr. Lammers, just one or two formal questions.
THE PRESIDENT: I am very sorry, the time for a recess has arrived. Fifteen minutes recess.
(A recess was taken).
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, before beginning the cross examination I simply want to announce that I have delivered to the Secretary General German copies of the order which I delivered in English this morning earlier.
THE PRESIDENT: I hear you, but not through the phones. Will you try it again?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Do Your Honors hear me now through the headphones?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Dr. Lammers, just one or two formal questions concerning your background. You were appointed State Secretary in the Reich Chancellery, were you not, on the 30th of January or thereabouts, 1933? Is that true?
A. I am only hearing the English. I did not get the German translation.
Q. Can you hear me now?
A. Yes, I can hear you now.
Q. Dr. Lammers, you were appointed State Secretary in the Reich Chancellery on or about the 30th of January 1933, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And you say you did not meet Dr. Rothenberger until the first part of August 1942, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All of that time in the intervening nine years you continued to hold your position in the Chancellery, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. At various times you received certain Party honors, did you not? You were awarded the Golden Party Badge in 1937 and you were appointed SS Obergruppenfuehrer in 1940, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. In your position as secretary in the Party Chancellery you had opportunity, did you not, to confer with and see Martin Bormann very often?
A. There is an error in that question. I was not secretary at the Party Chancellery. I was undersecretary of the Reich Chancellery. I assume that that was just a translating error. I frequently had to have official contact on account of my office with Reichsleiter Bormann.
Q. After Dr. Rothenberger came to Berlin in 1942, how many times would you say from your recollection did you see Dr. Rothenberger with Martin Bormann?
A. First of all I have to add that I first met Bormann in official contact only in 1941 and not during the nine years. For only in 1941 did Reichsleiter Bormann become head of the Party Chancellery. Until then Hess held that office. As I said before, I did not know Rothenberger before. That does not mean to say that possibly he was not introduced to me some place or other. Perhaps he was introduced to me at Hamburg, and I may have shaken hands with him and I may have spoken a few words with him, because at Hamburg he was one of the eminent leaders of the official authority. I only made his acquaintance at about the time I mentioned before, that is to say, at the time when his appointment to become undersecretary was under consideration.
Q. That is very interesting, Dr. Lammers, but it is not responsive to my question. My question was, Dr. Lammers, do you recall how many times if at all you remember seeing Dr. Rothenberger in conversation with or attending a conference with Martin Bormann, and I of course refer to the time after Dr. Rothenberger came to Berlin in 1942.
A. Well, I have said so before; I never met Rothenberger before. And when he obtained that position, I occasionally did meet him. That was after 1942.
Q. Dr. Lammers, let's take it again and slowly. My question was, do you recall when after 1942 Rothenberger came to Berlin after that, do you recall any instances in which you remember seeing Dr. Rothenberger in the presence of Martin Bormann? I am referring to the period of--
A. I cannot remember any such occasion.
Q. That is the answer to the question.
You told Dr. Wandschneider this morning, I believe, that you talked with the Fuehrer the first part of May 1942 concerning the memorandum which a prominent lawyer had submitted to the Fuehrer, is that right?
A. Yes. In May 1941 the memorandum which plays a part here came to my notice for the first time. But I did not know from whom it had originated, for it was only afterwards that I asked the adjutant's office of the Fuehrer to send it to me, and shortly afterwards that office did send it to me and it was sent to me in a form which did not make it possible for me to recognize that Rothenberger was the author. That he was the author I only heard at a later date.
Q. Dr. Lammers, you said in May 1941. Did you mean 1941 or 1942?
A. 1942. I meant 1942.
Q. Dr. Lammers, I want to show you a letter which is in evidence before this court, Exhibit No. 27, NG-075. It is the first letter in that document. I want to show you the letter and then ask you a question concerning it.
A. Well, that is what I said here. It says that that memorandum was handed to me. Then I heard that Rothenberger wrote it and then I asked the Fuehrer's adjutant's office to send it to me.
Q. So that your testimony this morning is based on the letter which you have just seen.
A. Whether I remember this letter -- well naturally I remember it. I wrote it.
Q. Will you answer my question, please. Was your testimony concerning the statement by Hitler based on the letter which you have just seen?
A. What statement by Hitler?
Q. The statement that he had received a memorandum from a prominent jurist.
A. Well, it was that which caused me, as is proved here, that caused me to speak to Schlegelberger, and it was then that I asked for that memorandum to be sent to me, and I asked the personal adjutant's office to send it to me.
Nov that I have seen the document I can only correct myself to this extent, at that point that in May I had heard that Rothenberger had written the memorandum. Naturally after so many years I cannot remember on what date I heard that.
Q. The date you refer to in this letter is on the 7th of this month, the 7th of May 1942. That date must be approximately right, isn't it?
A. Well, that date in that letter is naturally correct. It is only my recollection which tells me that it may have been at the beginning of May. It may have been at the middle of May or at the end of May. I do not know exactly.
Q. It could not have been after May 7, could it, in view of what you say in this letter?
A. Well, that letter was written after the 7th of May. I don't know what you are referring to. I can't understand what you mean. I can only tell you again, I heard of the memorandum. That is what I recall. I then asked for it to be sent to me. I stated I heard that Rothenberger had written it. When I had read the memorandum, that is five years ago now, because of that I now have to correct the chronological sequence. I did hear that the Fuehrer had received the memorandum. I then heard from Schlegelberger that Rothenberger had written it, and it was then that I asked for that memorandum to be sent to me. That is the correction of the testimony which I made on the basis of that document, the detailed dates of which naturally I do not remember now.
Q. Dr. Lammers, I want to read one paragraph of this letter, and I would like to have you answer the question which I will ask you following the reading either yes or no. I will now read the paragraph: "When I reported to the Fuehrer on the 7th of this month," that is the 7th of May 1942, "the Fuehrer informed me that he had received a memorandum regarding a judicial reform from a well-known lawyer which appeared noteworthy to him.
He will arrange to have this memorandum sent to me. Now my question is this: Do you agree that at the time you wrote this memorandum the facts which you stated in the memorandum were, to the best of your knowledge at that time, true and correct?
A. I cannot understand this question in the way it has been addressed to me. I would ask you to formulate your question in a little more concise manner.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The question was badly translated, Your Honor. Perhaps that question could be put again. I didn't understand it either, nor did several of my colleagues.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Dr. Lammers, when you wrote this letter, which is dated May 11, 1942, as far as you remember now, were the facts in that letter true and correct?
A. Well, what I wrote was true. I didn't say anything else but what was true. All I said was that I had asked the Adjutant's Office of the Fuehrer to send that memorandum to me. That is a fact which I cannot dispute now.
Q. All right. That clears it up, Dr. Lammers. You told Dr. Wandschneider this morning that you did not remember the contents of this memorandum over the past few years, but that after Dr. Wandschneider or one of his assistants showed it to you you did have a recollection of what you earlier knew. Is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct. I did not remember the contents of the memorandum. All I knew was that the memorandum referred to a judicial reform. But during the discussion which I had with attorney Wandschneider he showed me the memorandum and I could then remember it exactly. I could remember exactly that I had read it once and that I knew that it mainly dealt with the question of the judiciary; that is to say, that it dealt only with a certain part of the judicial reform.
MR. KING: I have no further questions to ask to Dr. Lammers.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q. Dr. Lammers, we will first talk about the questions you answered for Dr. Schilf, who is the attorney for the defendant Klemm. I understood that you were of the opinion that the Party Chancellery had nothing to do With the advancement of the defendant Klemm to be under-secretary.
You are a doctor of law, are you not?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And you took the customary first and second examinations under the German legal system before making further advancement in your profession. That is right, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you take your second state examination, Dr. Lammers?
A. That was in 1907.
Q. And did you engage in some form of the practice of law or the use of your judicial knowledge from that time up until the end of 1945?
A. Would you repeat that question? I cannot understand it. It's incomprehensible to me.
Q. Did you hold judicial office or the office of prosecutor, or did you practice law -- did you engage in the profession of law either as an official or a private attorney from the time you took your second examination until 1945?
A. After my second state examination I first become court assessor. For seven months I was an attorney. Then I become a court assessor again, and I worked at the District Court at Breslau as a temporary judge (Hilfsrichter). I then became Landgerichtsrat at Beuthen, Upper Silesia. Until 1920 I belonged to the Administration of Justice. From then onward I was Oberregierungsrat in 1921 in the Reich Ministry of the Interior. In 1922 I became Ministerial Councillor at the Reich Ministry of the Interior, and there I was the Referent for constitutional law and administrative law. In 1933 I became under-secretary at the Reich Chancellery.
Q. Now may I ask you, what is the grade "satisfactory" when given on the passage of the second state examination? Is that the highest grade, the second highest grade, or the poorest grade that a man can get and still pass?
A. The grade "satisfactory" in my opinion is the second grade or the third grade.
That depends on whether the grade "good" or "excellent" precedes it, but that varies in the various states of Germany. That sequence of grades varied in those states because it was not only in Prussia that we had examination commissions; we had such commissions also in Bavaria and Wuerttemberg and Saxony and everywhere else. That grade "satisfactory", therefore, means "adequate", and as far as I know, in Prussia it was considered the second grade after "good". I cannot say that for certain. Also in the course of the years, that is since I passed my exam in 1907, that may have changed.
Q. Now let me ask you, have you ever, to your knowledge, seen a man become an Under-Secretary of State in a justice administration who got such a poor grade as "satisfactory" on his second examination? As a matter of fact, that ruined his public career, didn't it normally?
A. Well, I couldn't understand the translation of that.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you divide his questions up a little more in parts? You will get along better. You have doubled questions or trebled questions quite frequently, Mr. Lafollette.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I hope it will help, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Make them short.
BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q. I will ask you whether or not the grade "satisfactory" wasn't generally considered in Germany to preclude a man from his successful career in public legal administration?
A. The grade "satisfactory" was, after all, adequate for all government offices, even be it the highest, and people who had passed no exams at all became under-secretaries. After all, that grade "satisfactory" is in itself quite a good grade. It's an adequate grade, and also it all depends on as to how--
Q. Excuse me. What was your grade?
A. In my first examination I had the grade "good", and the second time it was "adequate" or "satisfactory", with a notation which said that my grade was above the average.
Q. So you don't think it was anything unusual that the defendant Klemm became Under-Secretary of State without a doctor's degree and with only a grade of "satisfactory"?
A. As far as I know, he fulfilled the strictest requirements for the post of an under-secretary, and a person could become an under-secretary even at the Ministry of Justice if he had not taken those examinations.
Q. In 1940 you were Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery. On the 24th of June you wrote to the Minister of Justice and advised him that the defendant Klemm was urgently needed in the Dutch territories. Do you recall whether it was--
A. I cannot remember it. If such a letter exists, I would ask you to show it to me.
Q. Oh, I will be glad to show it to you. Can you read English?
A. No, I can't.
Q. Well, let me give it to the interpreter and let her translate it for you.
(The interpreter is given the letter.)
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, may I raise an objection? It was not a subject of the direct examination to discuss Klemm's work in the Nethlerlands, nor do I see that the submission of this document could have anything to do with the credibility of this witness.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honor, the witness has testified that the defendant Klemm was a very unimportant person. I would like to ask him first if he wrote this letter, and then maybe I might have some other questions that may be revealing.
THE PRESIDENT: He may answer. The objection is overruled.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Will you read the letter now to the gentleman.
(The letter is read by the interpreter in German to the witness.)
A.- Well, if that letter were to be shown to me in the German original, with my signature, I will not dispute it that I wrote it. I cannot make such a statement simply after having heard the translation. I can, however, say one thing. Naturally it is possible that personnel problems of such a secondary nature which occurred seven years ago, naturally I might have written such a letter; I used to sign forty, fifty or one hundred letters of such a type every day; I can't remember that today, nor can I recollect that at that time Klemm was being requested; probably in those days Klemm was just a name for me; he was nobody but just a ministerial counselor and somebody was needed somewhere and somebody had to be made available. I cannot remember either that I knew Klemm in those days. I have already told you that.
Q.- All right; thank you; I can understand all of that. May I ask you then -- at least you have said that in 1940 this man who later became under secretary in 1944 was so unimportant that you never heard of him.
A.- Well, I know of Herr Klemm; that he was at the Ministry of Justice; that he was a ministerial counselor there; I know that before he had been at the Ministry of Justice in Saxony; I know that he changed over from the Ministry of Justice to the Party Chancellery; I knew that as far as his name was concerned; possibly I may have seen Herr Klemm somewhere; I may have exchanged a few words with him; I don't know about it now. I only made his acquaintance properly after he had become under secretary; and even then I only met him a very few times. As to whether he was an important personality or not,-- I did not have an opinion as to that, but I did assume that he was a fairly well qualified civil servant because not everybody immediately becomes a ministerial counselor.
Q.- Now, you stated that there was a very severe order of Himmler's after January, 1945 against the evacuation of civilians. You also stated that, in your opinion, this order against the evacuation of civilians would have made it very clear that prisoners should not be evacuated also.
Now, let me ask you: Did the Himmler order require the killing of prisoners?
A.- Such an order cannot demand killing; an order for evacuation -the order prohibited evacuation and -
Q.- Thank you, I have heard all I want to. Thank you very much; that is all I wanted to ask you about the defendant Klemm. Now, you answered Dr. Kubuschok that the subject of sterilization of half-Jews was an alternative to their being moved to the east and that it had been raised by half Jews themselves in 1942 or prior thereto.
A.- Yes, I said so.
Q.- What do you think about it; at that time in March, 1942 and prior thereto were half Jews free and uncoerced when they made that choice?
A.- Half Jews were subject to the Nuremberg Laws. For the rest they were not subject to any compulsion. I don't know how you want me to understand your question.
Q.- You don't have to know how I want you to understand it. All you have to do is to answer. I don't sit down and fix up answers with you; you just answer them. I am satisfied if you just say something.
A.- Well, I just can't find out what you want me to answer; that must have been a wrong translation. When it comes to answering a question you must put a precise question to me, and this was such a mixed up question I don't understand it.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will wait until another question has been asked and then attempt to answer it. Propound your next question.
Q.- Were the Jews in Germany on or about the 6th of March, 1942 free to make uncoerced decisions that they would rather be sterilized than sent to Auschwitz?
A.- Who was to make a choice -- that was free to whom? Again I cannot answer because that question was also a question which is not comprehensible to a German -
Q.- I thank you. That is the answer I wanted from you. It is incomprehensible to you that a Jew should even be concerned about having a free choice. Is that what you wanted to say -- to a German -- are you speaking for all Germans?
A.- No, that is not what I said. I am disputing that quite definitely that I said that. What I said was that the question when it reached me was so mixed up; that it was such bad German that I could not understand it. If you want me to make a statement under oath, then you must put to me a concise question and not a question where I may have to answer at variance; and the question what you put to me just now is not what I said; it is not what I asserted. I neither understood that question physically or did I understand it intelligibly because it reached me in a German translation which was such that I could not follow it.
Q.- Yes. You testified that Dr. Guertner in individual cases, where ever he could, tried to prevent police interference and transfers of people from prisons after their terms had ended or after they had been acquitted. Now, did that reach you in clear, nice German?
A.- Yes, I understood that question. As far as -
Q.- I asked you if you understood that question?
A.- There were some words in that translation which I would not hear; that may be due to the system; also, I am a little hard of hearing; but there were a few words which I could not understand, and if there are a few words in a question which I cannot hear, then one is not in a position to give a proper answer to such a question. I don't know whether the one was in the negative or whether it was in the affirmative or -
Q.- All right, let me just ask you this. I don't know whether you remember the question; you have been talking about five minutes. Do you think you got the question?
A.- No. I would ask you to repeat that question.
Q.- All right, let's try again. You testified that in individual cases Dr. Guertner protested against the transfer of convicted people from prisons to concentration camps after their terms were over.
A.- Yes, I said that.
Q.- Did Dr. Guertner or the defendant Schlegelberger at any time make any attempt to have a law or a decree passed which would make such action criminal and punishable in the courts?
A.- Minister Guertner and under secretary Schlegelberger did complain about that procedure and about those orders. They themselves were not in a position to issue any order or ordinance which might have prevented that. All they could do was to register complaints, and I aided them with their complaints in part; in part I was successful, but I did have to tell Minister Guertner to go to the Fuehrer himself with his complaint, for the Fuehrer did not issue those orders via myself but via his adjutant's office, or via somebody else. The Minister of Justice and the person who was entrusted with the conduct of affairs at the Ministry of Justice, Schlegelberger, who was that person, was not in a position to prevent it. All they light have done -- and I said so before -- they could have issued an order that such prisoners were not to be handed over to the police. If such an order had been issued to the prison administration, then violence would have broken out between the police and the Administration of Prisons, and in that case the Administration of Prisons would have gotten off worse; and, naturally the Minister of Justice did not want that to happen. He did not want an open use of arms to occur over the transfer of just a few odd prisoners, and, therefore, he tried to do whatever he could. He himself registered complaints with me, asking that this procedure should cease.
Q.- How many complaints did he register with you?
A.- He only registered a few -- a very few complaints with me. Perhaps three -- there may have been three or four cases. I remember three or four cases.
Q.- You knew that there were other cases than those in which you re gistered complaints in your position?