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.
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 22 July 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment before you proceed, please.
By the unanimous agreement of the Tribunal, the following order has been made this 22nd day of July, 1947. It has been signed and in the possession of the Secretary General. For the purposes of the record, I will read it:
"MILITARY TRIBUNAL III Case No. 3 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs JOSEF ALSTOTTER, et al ********************** ORDER DIRECTED TO DR. HANS MARX AND TO MRS. KARIN HUPPERTZ AND EACH OF THEM TO APPEAR TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED FOR CONTEMPT "Comes now, CHARLES M. LaFOLLETTE, Deputy Chief of Counsel, Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, in charge of the Prosecution of the above entitled cause, for an on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and presents to the Court his duly verified petition for an order of this Court directing DR. HANS MARX, an attorney of record of this Court, and MRS. KARIN HUPPERTZ, who presently resides at Mullnerstrasse 30, c/o Mederer, Nurnberg, and each of them, to appear and show cause why they should not be punish d for concept of this Court; and "Comes also, Alfred WOOLEYHAN, attorney in the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, associate counsel in the Prosecution of the above entitled cause for and on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and presents to the Court his duly verified supplemented and amended petition for an order of this Court directing DR. HANS MARX to appear and show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of this Court; and "The Court having examined said duly verified petitions together with the exhibits which are respectively attached to and made a part of each of them and being in all things duly advised in the premises, finds:
"That the said duly verified petitions are in proper form and that based upon the allegations therein contained a citation should issue:
"It is therefore adjudged and ordered by the Tribunal that Dr. Hans Marx, an attorney of record of this Court, and Mys. Karin Hupperts, and each of them, shall file their separate written answers to the charges contained in the petition and supplemental and amended petition on file herein, and by said written answers shall show cause, if any they have, why they should not be punished for contempt of this Tribunal. Said answers shall be filed with the Secretary General on or before Friday, July 25, 1947, at 12 o'clock noon;
"And it is further adjudged and ordered by the Court that a copy of this order in the German language, and a copy of this order in the English language, and a copy of each of the aforesaid petitions in the German language and a copy in the English language, shall be served upon the aforesaid Dr. Hans Marx and Mrs. Karin Huppertz and each of them, in open court, or by the Marshal of this Court, and that service thereof shall constitute good and sufficient notice of this order, now made and entered by this Court at Nurnberg on the 22nd day of July, 1947."
Signed: "Military Tribunal III enbanc, by James T. Brand, Presiding Judge."
A word of explanation, because the procedure in matters of this kind may not be wholly familiar to Dr. Marx or his representatives, is in order.
This order, as appears upon its face, directs that the issues should be made up by an answer. The answer which is to be served and delivered to the Secretary General may admit, deny, or explain the charges in the petition for contempt proceedings. If, when the answer has been filed by the two persons named, issues arise such as a denial of the charges in the petitions, then and in that event the Tribunal will set a time for hearing in open court of the issues which are made up by the allegations of the petition and the answers of the respective persons. The trial of the issues as made up, if a trial is required, will be in open court.
If Dr. Marx has retained any of his associates as counsel for him, the Tribunal would welcome information concerning that matter.
You may proceed now.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May I continue, please -
THE PRESIDENT: May I add one word? I think counsel will find that all of the requisite papers are included in the order which is to be served, and that the Secretary General also will have the originals of all of the papers involved in the case.
WALTER STEINACKER (Resumed) DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q. Witness, before the recess I asked you to list some concrete examples of the manner in which Dr. Rothenberger, in the meetings of the presidents of the district courts of appeal, testified as to his attitude towards the Administration of Justice, and his fight.
A. I remember three cases particularly vividly, in which Dr. Rothenberger distinguished himself through his attitude, which I described before the recess. The first time this happened was in 1939, before the outbreak of the war when, on the occasion of a meeting of the presidents of the district courts of appeal, Dr. Rothenberger delivered a lecture about attacks which the SS newspaper, Das Schwarze Korps, had made against German judges, This had been preceded by a large number of very serious attacks in several articles in that newspaper, which later on were proven to be entirely without foundation and untenable.
In this lecture, Dr. Rothenberger, in my opinion, in an excellent manner and in very well formulated thoughts, expressed the opinion that the Ministry absolutely had to take steps against such actions, it had to correct such unfounded attacks, and had to see to it that in the future such attacks would no longer be made.
I personally liked this lecture particularly and therefore, perhaps, I remember it especially. Later I told Rothenberger that the speech was excellent, that I liked it very much. He was pleased about that and said, "Did you like it?" And I said, "Yes, it was excellent; you really brought matters up for discussion which had to be said." That is how it was, and I guess it is the same everywhere. In the Ministries one did not hear quite so open and well-phrased speeches very frequently.
Q. What happened, witness, on the part of the Ministry after that?
A. As far as I know nothing happened at the time, and already at that meeting I noticed that the Ministry did not respect that lecture as much or praise the lecture as much as it deserved to be praised, and I missed that and was somewhat disturbed that nothing happened. Apparently nothing happened at the time. I also remember another case which did not lack a certain dramatic climax. This was at a later meeting during the war. I don't remember for sure whether it was in '41 or '42. I was still president of the District Court of Appeals in Breslau, so it must have been before the first of January 1943. In the so-called "House of the Fliers", that was the former Prussian House of Representatives, we had a meeting and we discussed different problems. I can't remember for sure what they were. In any case, the lectures which were delivered there were concluded and there was a short breathing spell without having the meeting closed. Suddenly Dr. Rothenberger, who was sitting among the presidents of the District Courts of Appeal at the table, which as in the form of a horseshoe, jumped up and said, as far as I remember, not without excitement, he requested permission to direct the attention of the Ministry to the cares and worries of the judges and the needs of the Administration of Justice. He was just able to finish the sentence when the presiding undersecretary, Dr. Freisler, jumped up and yelled at Dr. Rothenberger, whom he otherwise, as I said, always treated in the most careful and polite manner, yelled at him very violently and cried "Dr. Rothenberger," or something like that,"If the administration of Justice doesn't suit you, then take your top hat." His statements were not concluded yet. He spoke for another few minutes and the contents of those statements were, in a certain sense, a commentary to this drastic remark and this harangue directed at Dr. Rothenberger, and in a certain sense charged opposition against the attitude of the Ministry, which he apparently feared, and the independence of the administration of Justice. He not only suggested to Dr. Rothenberger to take his top hat, but added that other people could take an example from this.
If they didn't like the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Justice could do without them.
Q. Thank you. Can you remember another case of a remark which took place after the Hitler speech?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you please say something about this?
A. On the 26th of April, that was probably 1942, when Hitler delivered that speech, which unfortunately became very famous, or one might say "infamous" the speech against the Administration of Justice, which had an absolutely depressing effect on all well-meaning judges, and there were many of those. The contents of this speech are well known. I can't state any details. I only know that many a judge in Silesia at that time approached me and told me that it embarrassed him to continue to work as a judge, because now this was the end. At any moment we would have to fear being arrested from the Judges' bench. Now this speech had been delivered and this excitement which prevailed among the broad masses of judges existed also among their top judges, that is the presidents of the District Courts of Appeals and it had an embarrassing effect -- I must say that. When now in a meeting which came very soon, if I am not mistaken, after this Hitler speech it happened that Dr. Rothenberger rose and requested that a discussion should be admitted about this speech in order to clarify the situation which had been created within the Administration of Justice through the speech and in order that the danger which was inherent in the speech, and actually it involved a danger to life to discuss it -and to limit the effects that it would has in the districts of the District Courts of Appeals -- unfortunately this request was rejected by the Ministry.
Q. Witness, can you testify with certainty that Dr. Rothenberger emphasized especially the danger of this speech of April 1942 and the endangering of the independence of the Administration of Justice and the jeopardizing of the independent judiciary and wanted to make this the basis of a discussion and expressed his serious misgivings?
A. I believe with certainty that I can say that and testify to that, because the danger to life, the fundamental danger, was in the air, and it was quite clear to all of us, and especially to him, and in the manner of speaking which he was entitled to as President of a District Court of Appeals toward the Ministry and in the presence of his superiors, of whom one never knew to what extent they would report what he had said to higher offices, and this might have very unpleasant results -- In their presence he said clearly that he considered that discussion essential in order to insure the independence of the judiciary which had been endangered by that speech.
Q. Witness, in this trial defendants and witnesses frequently discussed the reform program of Dr. Rothenberger at length, and therefore, I shall not ask you about it any more. I only want to address this one question to you, in the public, especially among the judiciary, how you welcomed the fact that Dr. Rothenberger became Undersecretary in view of this reform?
A. In contrast to Thierack, who was not known among the judges as a whole, Dr. Rothenberger was well known for a long time, and his suggestions for reform which were in accordance with older suggestions for reform, for example, of the Prussian Undersecretary Nuegel, of the Reich Minister of Justice Dr. Eugen Schiffer, also of the Prussian Judges' Association, these suggestions for reform were known to the judges, and, let us say in their general purpose that it was their aim through a strengthening of the personality of the judge to bring about a strengthening of the Administration of Justice, for example through material improvement in their salary and decreasing the number of judges, etc., emphasizing the personality of the judge, and taking them out of the civil service as a while and making them alone competent for the independence and the Administration of Justice.
Q. Thank you. One final question, witness. You know Dr. Rothenberger well, and I suppose you also knew Reich Minister Dr. Thierack?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you make some brief statements about these two personalities in their relationship to each other and as to their character as such?
A. I knew Dr. Thierack already before he became Minister of Justice. I can't say that I knew him well. I only spoke to him occasionally, but I had formed a picture of him in my mind. Dr. Rothenberger I knew already for a longer time as I have already stated. If I may say so, I attack some importance to physiognomy, and when I saw --
THE PRESIDENT: We will not go into physiognomy, gentlemen. We will be examining the stars next, if we do.
DR. WANDSCHNEIUER: Witness, we shall speak now not about physiognomy.
THE WITNESS: I beg your pardon, Your Honor. Perhaps I did not express myself clearly enough. But from the first sight it was obvious to me how different --
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, now the question which you are permitted to answer relates to the character of Thierack as you knew him before he became Minister of Justice. Go ahead and tell what you know about his character at that time.
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. I consider -- or rather, I considered Dr. Thierack to be a very clever, brutal, unscrupulous man, while I considered Rothenberger as a decent character. I was sure about the following: Rothenberger was mentally superior to Thierack. However, as to cleverness and maliciousness and unscrupulousness he was not his equal, so that he always, Thierack always had to be the winner. This became very clear to me soon since I had an opportunity to observe their actions in the judiciary and otherwise.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q. On the basis of these different characteristics of the two men were you of the opinion that the separation of these two men was necessary because of their two characters, and do you know anything about the reasons for the dismissal, any details about it?
A. I know something about the reason for his dismissal. As I said, it was clear to me that sooner or later unless Dr. Rothenberger would be favored by some exceptional luck, his downfall would have to come about. This was caused by Thierack's personality, who in spite of especially emphasized harmony between them, could not hide the fact that he did not like this man, end the reason for the dismissal, which unfortunately Dr. Rothenberger offered to Thierack, and later he was probably very happy to have.
Q You mean this matter of the book?
A Yes.
Q We already talked about that, so we don't have to ask any further questions. I have concluded my examination.
BY DR.GRUBE (for the defendant Lautz):
Q I ask permission to address a few questions to the witness. Witness, since when do you know the defendant Lautz?
A I know Herr Lautz since the time when we both together were senior public prosecutors at the District Court I in Berlin. I was in that position from 1930 to '33, and Lautz from '32 on. At that time we wore colleagues. I think we both liked each other rather well, and officially and personally had very good contact with each other.
Q Did you speak to Lautz in later years too?
AAfter my appointment as General Public Prosecutor in Hamm and later on until 1944 when I was no longer in Berlin, I saw Lautz only on the occasion of meetings of presidents of courts in Berlin. Whenever I saw him I never missed the opportunity to sit down with him at a table and discuss matters with him. Therefore I followed his career constantly.
Q What impression did you have of him as a human being and personality?
A Lautz is without doubt a good and decent person, and I would not consider him capable of doing anything indecent. As far as I can say, he has a fine character and an honest attitude, as far as I can say anything about it, he never tried to hide this. I know that anybody who knows him would not judge him differently.
Q May I ask you what reputation Lautz had as a jurist and prosecutor?