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?
A.- Well, other cases? Of what kind?
Q.- Of the some kind, Dr. Lammers. You know what we are talking about.
A.- Of the same kind, no; it can be only a very few cases. Naturally after so many years I cannot commit myself as to an exact number; all I can say is just a very few cases.
Q.- Did you know that the police under Himmler were regularly correcting sentences; you knew what that term meant, didn't you?
A.- Well, it couldn't correct sentences; a sentence remains a sentence; the police apparently intervened when they received a direct order and did transfer somebody after acquittal from the courtroom to the police; that was not always inadmissible. There were a number of cases when people had to be transferred by the Administration of Justice to the police. There were cases when the sentence itself said that a transfer was to take place to the regional police authority. We know that in Germany sentences -
And as to whether the Minister of Justice was allowed to do that or not, that I had to leave to his own discretion. He had to decide about that, but I am of the opinion that he was powerless in that matter.
Q.- Let me ask you this. How were laws passed in Germany -- I withdraw that. What methods were used to pass legal laws in Germany from 1939 until the time Dr. Schlegelberger left the Ministry of Justice, just the various methods.
A.- Well, I have to go into very great detail because this is a very extensive field. There are many kinds of laws -
Q.- Let me see if I can cut it down. Hitler could issue a law; is that right?
A.- Hitler could do that. Under the constitutional law he could do that by way of the Fuehrer Ordinance or by way of the Fuehrer Decree. He could issue an order which had legal force. There is no doubt about that.
Q.- And one or two ministers could issue orders that had the legal force of law and were then published in the Reichsgesetzblatt. That is another method, isn't?
A.- Those were the ordinances, Verordnungen, but ordinances as a rule are only matters of execution or administration. They are not substantive law as such.
Q.- The Reichstag could get together and unanimously pass a law, couldn't it?
A.- I couldn't understand that first word. Who could come together? What was it? the what?
Q.- The Reichstag.
A.- The Reichstag was the first legislative organ and it did issue a number of Laws.
Q.- Now, there were binding orders for the Four Year Plan, were there not, during this time?
A.- The ordinances for the Four Year plan were issued but the pleni potentiary for the Four Year Plan, on the basis of a Fuehrer decree issued in 1936, which is in '40 and '44, was renewed.
Q.- All right. Now, will you tell me what it is you meant when you said that the Minister of Justice was helpless to have a law passed prohibiting the police from interfering with the prison sentences of people who were sentenced under the courts?
A.- Well, he could not do that because the order for transfer had been issued from a higher authority. It was the Fuehrer himself who ordered that transfer. The Minister of Justice, by an ordinance, could not possibly prohibit the head of a state to do something, to take a stop. I consider that impossible.
Q.- Now, did you ever suggest to Hitler, at the request of Dr. Schlegelberger or Minister Guertner, that there should be a law which made punishable in the courts of justice any person who interfered with in any way the serving of the sentence which was ordered by a court of justice?
A.- Well, if I understood that question properly, you asked me whether I suggested a law. The Minister of Justice always wanted proceedings to be arranged in such a way where it was possible for him to undertake a revision. The Minister of Justice could not suggest a law being passed which was attacking a Fuehrer order. All the more so, as the Fuehrer, in virtue of the legislative power which he held, could, without any further ado, have rescinded such a law by issuing a decree. It would have been an entirely useless procedure.
Q.- Well, would it have been useless to prevail upon the Fuehrer then to change his mind and make such a. law? Was that useless?
A.- That was useless. Several attempts were made. Guertner made an effort and I made an effort too, to see that such things should not occur but it was unsuccessful. It was unsuccessful because those matters didn't always go through me, but were passed on not even to the Administration of Justice, but they went from the Fuehrer to the police leaving the Adjutant's office and then the police appeared and simply took away the person concerned.
Q.- Now, let's go back to this question about the sterilization of half-Jews once more. I will try to make it very simple for you. You testified that half-Jews themselves, sometime prior to March 6, 1942, had suggested that they be sterilized so that they could not propagate as an alternative to being sent to the East.
A.- A few such suggestions were made to me. They reached me in the form of applications and petitions but only a very few. But I cannot commit myself as to whether that was before or after the 6th of March, 1942,; but around about that time when that problem was under discussion as to whether the half-Jews were to be given a choice between evacuation and sterilization, I can say for certain that half-Jews themselves did express that wish.
As to how Schlegelberger came to hear of it, that I do not know: whether similar requests were made to him, whether he heard something from the party chancery that perhaps the suggestion was made there, that I can't tell.
Q.- May I interrupt you now. Now, you have given an answer. Listen carefully to this question. These statements that came to you from half-Jews suggesting that they be sterilized rather than sent to the East, were you of the opinion when you received them that these Jews were under no coercion in Germany when they made that suggestion?
A.- In reply to this question I have to answer that there was no cause to make such an application because that question had not been decided. It was only a case of the matter being under consideration as to whether the half-Jews were to be given a choice between sterilization and deportation. A decision had not yet been reached and as far as individuals or their attorneys put that question to me -
Q.- If you please, Dr. Lammers, you ought to know that you are not answering my question at all. Now, I want you to answer a simple question and not engage in any more subterfuges, please. At the time that these requests came to you from half-Jews suggesting that they be sterilized rather than sent to the East, is it your opinion that at that time they were free from coercion in Germany?
Now, just answer that.
A.- They had a certain amount of anxiety, fear, but that was not acute. They only had that fear because the matter was not decided; not even evacuation had been ordered yet.
Q.- In 1942 no one had been sent to a concentration camp to the East. Is that what you are telling this Court?
A.- I know nothing about it. As far as half-Jews are concerned, I know nothing about it unless the person concerned was a criminal in some way or other.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I think that is all I want from you.
JUDGE HARDING: Dr. Lammers, in your direct examination I understood you to use the phrase "final solution of the Jewish question." I think you said it was held up by Hitler. What do you mean by the "final solution of the Jewish question"?
THE WITNESS: By "final solution" or "total solution of the Jewish question", at the time, in the years '41 and '42, one meant that the RSHA continued to work towards the aims of the Nurnberg laws, continued to apply them. Those individual plans were not the subject of a particular meeting. They were discussed at various meetings of the Referenten. All I have to emphasize at the moment is that at the time of the various Reich departments one meant by "final solution or total solution" by no means what is today considered the final solution and total solution and what one puts in quotes today and interprets as killing. That was not mentioned in any way in those days. Evacuations may have been discussed but that was not ordered either.
JUDGE HARDING: When was the final solution understood to mean extermination? When did it first acquire that meaning?
THE WITNESS: I heard of that meaning when I had become a prisoner. It was Americans who told me that final solution amounted to killing.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any re-direct examination:
BY DR. KUBOSCHOK
Q Witness, under cross-examination you said that concerning the question of transfers you advised Minister Guertner to call on Hitler. Apparently, later on you did not advise Schlegelherger to do the same thing. Witness, would you please tell us something as to whether there was any difference between the relationship of Guertner and Schlegelherger with Hitler?
A Naturally, Schlegelherger held a much weaker position than Guertner. First Guertner, was a Reich Minister and Schlegelherger was not a minister, secondly, the Fuehrer had a personal relationship with Reich Minister Guertner dating hack to the old days and that resulted in somewhat of a closer relationship and that was entirely lacking with Schlegelherger, who as far as I know only two or three times called on the Fuehrer. Therefore, if Guertner did not succeed in changing things in a general way, he did in individual cases achieve changes, but if even Guertner could not achieve anything then how was Schlegelherger to do it. All that was left to him was that in individual cases he might apply to the Fuehrer and pass things on to me, but usually by that time it was too late, but as to a general solution he could never have done that.
Q You mentioned that the Ministry of Justice was avoiding an armed clash between the police and the prison officials, would the justice officials have had any hope of achieving results if they had engaged in the exchange of fire? What would have been their relation with the police as far as their arms were concerned?
A Well, I am of the opinion if the minister of justice had ordered resistance to be put up such resistance would have been overcome quite easily. I am convinced that if armed police had approached a prison and had referred to a Fuehrer order in carrying out their mission, no resistance would have been offered even if the Minister of Justice had ordered it for the few prison guards who only had a very few arms and would not have been able to put up much resistance and the police on the other side were Germans also and would not have let it come to shooting down people, the police would have pushed them aside and would have carried out their mission, and I would like to leave it open as to whether an exchange of fire would have occurred.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you one question, Dr. Lammers:
Q Was it then your opinion that it was the duty of the Ministry of Justice to avoid such a conflict with the police as has just been discussed?
A I consider it the duty of a civil agency to give way to the armed forces, the police in this case, because after all the prison officials are a civilian agency and the police would have been the armed force.
Q Then in your opinion was it the duty of the ministry of justice to give an order to the prison authorities in conformity with the order of Himmler?
A Well, in my opinion the administration of justice could not have issued such an order to the prison authorities.
Q I say, should they have issued an order to the prison authorities directing the prison authorities to permit the transfer to be made?
A To permit, naturally the administration of justice could tell the prison authorities to deliver all prisoners to the police, naturally they could do that.
Q Was it your opinion that in order to avoid a conflict that is what they should have done?
A Well, the administration of justice could not do anything but carry out orders and obey them.
Q All right.
A Nor do I believe that they would issue any order in that direction.
Q Thank you, that is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Anything else?
The witness is excused.
The witness, Dr. Freiherr Walter von Steinaecker, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE BLAIR:
Hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following:
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:Your Honor, before I begin to examine this witness I would like to make a personal remark.
I am doing this with reference to a certain matter. I said a little while ago that one of the translators made a mistake and I think I was rather temperamental and I am sorry about that because I think I injured the personal honor of the interpreter who is quite right as far as her injured feeling is concerned and I would like to withdraw it and say it was a certain amount of incorrectness. May I now start my examination?
Q Witness, will you please give the Court your personal data and your birth date, et cetera?
THE PRESIDENT:
Give his name first.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q This is the witness Dr. Freiherr von Steinaecker.
A My name is Dr. Freiherr Walter von Steinaecker, I was born in Cologne on the 18 of June, the son of Dr. Freiherr Heinrich von Steinaecker. From 1943 on I was the President of the Celle Hereditary Health Court and in August 1944 I was also appointed President of the District Court of Appeals at Hamm, Westphalia.
Q Witness, were you a member of the Party?
A Yes, I was a member of the party. I joined the party in December, 1931, and I also belonged to the SA as an honorary SA Oberfuehrer.
Q How is it you came to know the defendant, Dr. Rothenberger?
A Before 1933 I did not know the defendant, Dr. Rothenberger. I think I made his acquaintance between the years 1933 and 1935 when I was General Public Prosecutor in Hamm. I only got to know him better beginning with 1936 and that began with the 1st of January, 1936, when I became the President of the District Court of Appeals in Breslau. From that time onward I met him at the conferences of the Presidents of the District Courts of Appeals at Berlin and elsewhere. I saw him there regularly and I got to know him somewhat better in a personal way. We were not friends but among the circle of presidents of the District Courts of Appeal I found him pleasant. I noticed him and I used the opportunity to seek out his company occasionally and I conversed with him.
Q Did you have a general impression about his attitude in those days as President of the District Court of Appeals in Hamburg?
A Yes, I have.
Q Will you tell us something about your impressions, in particular regarding his attitude toward the authority of the SS and the Gestapo? Will you tell us something about his attitude towards those organizations?
A Yes, I can do that. Dr. Rothenberger, and I remember that clearly, at these conferences of the Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal repeatedly distinguished himself by his courageous and sincere words concerning problems of the attitude of the party toward the administration of justice. He quite openly and unreservedly took his place at the side of the administration of justice and found very courageous words as to the abuses in the case of the SS, Gestapo, et cetera, to cause the Ministry to take steps I might say, so that among the Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal, he was a unique phenomenon; one might say that he had become the exponent of resistance toward intervention on the part of the Party. That was made somewhat more easy for him as in comparison with his position to that of the other Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal, whose positions were not equally as favorable.
On the one hand his Gauleiter Kauffman, I believe that was his name - I did not know Kauffman - on the one hand that Gauleiter Kauffman provided him with a certain amount of backing, and that backing the other Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal were lacking. Furthermore, altogether among the Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal he held a special position because although officially he held the same position, yet in the Hanseatic free city of Hamburg he had a position of greater importance. More consideration was paid to him, people were more ready to listen to him when he opened his mouth.
Q Can you remember any particular conference where either Dr. Rothenberger spoke? Tell us something about that.
THE PRESIDENT: I think perhaps that may require a long answer. We will recess until one-thirty this afternoon, one-thirty this afternoon.