AAs his appointment to Berlin showed, he was a very able prosecutor. In the course of time while he was working in Berlin -- we were also both working together -- he had an excellent reputation as an excellent jurist.
Q Witness, in 1936, as is well-known, Lautz became General Public Prosecutor in Berlin. In 1937 he became General Public Prosecutor in Karlsruhe, and in 1939, Oberreichsanwalt at the People's Court. Was this career regarded in your circles as unusual or something incomprehensible?
A I can assure you that this is not the case, and this can already be seen from the statements I have already made. Lautz generally had the reputation of a very excellent personality and an excellent jurist, and in the position which he had in Berlin, which was especially difficult, where he had to prove himself not only once but three times a day, this enabled him without doubt to occupy higher positions. So nobody was surprised when he was promoted further.
Q Did you ever hear that Lautz had to thank Party political reasons for his successful career?
A I never heard that, and I don't imagine that either, because as far as I know, before 1933 Lautz was not close to Party circles at all and had nothing to do with the Party.
Q Did Lautz have a reputation of being a Party man?
A Everything but that. As far as the Party is concerned, Lautz was an absolutely unknown personality. As I have stated, actually this repeats what I have already stated, that in view of his personality this was out of the question, and otherwise outwardly he didn't do anything in order to get a reputation of being a Party man.
Q Witness, do you know Lautz' political attitude?
A The political opinion?
Q Witness, I mean, in order to make it clear, what was his attitude in political trials?
A Yes. At the time when I was working together with him I could observe that already, and I know that in all political cases he adhered strictly to the law and did his work without considering political consequences. An far as I heard, he did not act any different in later years either.
Q Did Lautz express his ideas about the problem of the constitutional state "Rechtsstaat" in such questions?
AAs I stated, I frequently spoke with Lautz and of course we also discussed, as always in such cases, the pains which we all had. On the whole, this was always the same: The independence of the Administration of Justice, the interference into the judiciary which could always be everywhere observed, and which he knew as well as I. Every time he expressed unequivocably that he had to complain bitterly and that he adhered to the legal basis. Both of us occasionally when we heard of cases where this way was deviated from, we both complained about this.
Q You did not find out whether Lautz made differences in his case as to whether an indictment should be filed, differences according to Party membership?
A Formerly, when I could observe him personally, he certainly did not do that. At that time too, before 1933, there were political factors too. He always acted unerringly as the law ordered him to do, and he did not leave that course in later years either. I always heard that from people who ever had anything to do with Lautz. They said that he was an absolutely honorable man who adhered to the basis of law and did not act any differently.
Q Witness, do you know that Lautz was the subject of attacks by Party circles, particularly because of that attitude?
A I only heard about that. I cannot testify positively as to that. I only heard that he did not shy away from attacks of the Party of he considered it necessary to proceed in a judicial manner against defendants.
Q Do you know that Lautz proceeded against SA and SS people because they had not behaved properly in Berlin, in the Columbia House?
A Yes, that is one of those cases which I was probably told at that time. I know that I was told at the time that at the Columbia House in Berlin abuses of Jews had occurred and that he had energetically taken some steps without considering the membership of the defendants in the SA or the SS.
Q Witness, you have already stated before that since 1936 you were President of the District Court of Appeals in Breslau.
A Yes.
Q Is it correct that at this District Court of Appeals in Breslau there were two so-called high treason senates, and is it correct that in these senates in Breslau, the competence for cases which by the Reich Prosecution at the People's Court were considered as so-called cases of lesser importance and were therefore handed over to these senates for high treason?
A Yes, and these senates were very busy. This can be seen already from the unusual fact that there were two high treason senates, although the District Court of Appeals in Breslau was competent only for Silesia.
Q And you said already that so-called cases of lesser importance were handed over to those senates?
A It must have been a large number of cases. As you know, as President of the District Court of Appeals, I am not concerned with the conduct of trials but I had the supervision and I remember that these cases were very busy, and therefore a large number of cases must have been handed over by the Oberreichsanwalt as being of lesser importance.
Q Did these two high treason senates have the reputation of pronouncing severe sentences?
A I really cannot say so, no. On the contrary, these criminal senates, as I was once told -- express is verbis -in the Ministry, they had the reputation of judging too leniently. But from time to time I received written orders -- commissions -- from the Ministry in which I was instructed to tell the presiding judge of this or that criminal senate, that in the opinion of the Minister their sentences were too lenient and not severe enough.
Q Witness, do you know of a case in which the defendant Lautz complained about a sentence of one of these senates and asked for a cancellation of this sentence because it was too lenient?
A I don't know that. In my opinion as President of the District Court of Appeals, Lautz never attacked a sentence of a penal senate in Breslau.
Q May I in conclusion ask you, did Lautz have the reputation of extreme severity?
A I believe that I can say with absolute clarity and definitely that Lautz not only did not have a reputation of extreme severity but that he had the reputation of being just noble and decent.
THE PRESIDENT: Do counsel of any other defendants desire to examine the witness?
You may cross examine on behalf of the prosecution.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:
Q Now, witness, perhaps it was an oversight on my part, but I did not got your present address. Would you mind giving me that now?
A Yes. Celle near Hannover. Hannoverschestrasse 56.
Q Are you at the present time employed, and if so, where?
A I am not employed at present.
Q Do you have any objection against telling us why that may be true? If it's personal reasons, you don't have to, but I am rather midly curious as to why you are not employed at the moment.
A. I assume that I am not employed because in the past I occupied high official positions, and, moreover, I was a party member and SA Oberfuehrer as I have already stated. I was not told anything in that respect and formally I was not removed from office either. Formally.
Q. In other words, because of your party connections -- that is the essence of your answer.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you said that you first came to know Dr. Rothenberger in 1933; that you got to know him better in 1936; and you have known him throughout for the past fifteen -- fourteen of fifteen years, more or less; is that right?
A. Yes; it is; yes.
Q. Is it your opinion, Mr. Steinacker, that any one who holds public office should observe the law as best he can while he is holding public office?
A. If I understood you correctly -- it wasn't quite clear.
Q. I will clarify it before you answer. Is it your opinion that any one who holds public office should while ho is holding public office observe the law as he knows it to be?
A. Certainly.
Q. And what would you think of a public official who didn't observe the law as he knew it to be while he was holding public office?
A. These are questions which, of course, -
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I object to that question. This question was not touched upon in the direct examination at all.
THE PRESIDENT: For other reasons we think the objection should be sustained. We are not directly concerned with what this witness night think of a person who in public office failed to follow the law. We have our own opinion on that.
MR. KING: Your Honor -- all right.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead with your next question.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Mr. Steinacker, your position in the party was that of Obersturmbannfuehrer, was it not -- SA Obersturmbannfuehrer?
A. Oberfuehrer.
Q. Oberfuehrer. You said earlier that that was an honorary position. What did you mean by that?
A. I did no service, not even for an hour in the SA. In 1933, in October of that year, I became Sturmbannfuehrer without having hold any lower rank. I was accepted into the SA and then gradually -without anything having happened on my doing, anything, I was promoted to Oberfuehrer.
Q. Now, as Oberfuehrer, were you entitled to any of the privileges of that position -- such as uniform privileges?
A. This uniform I had to wear, for example as president of the courts, at the express order of Hitler, since he had ordered that all party members who had a higher rank than Kreisleiter, and Standartenfuehrer, that all these officials when they appeared officially, in their civil positions too, had to wear that party uniform, and not the uniform of a civil servant which otherwise they were entitled to wear.
Q. I take it from your answer then that you were a SA uniform whenever you appeared in public.
A. When I appeared officially I did not do that always either, but only when the nature of the occasion required it and when I could expect that the civilian officials who were allowed to wear civilian uniforms would appear in uniform, then I put on that uniform.
Q. Did you serve as a party speaker in the early days of the -I mean from 1933 on -- in connection with your other duties, or, in addition to your other duties I should say.
A. No.
Q. You frequently used to address party meetings, did you not, for instance in Hamm in 1933; you do recall some Nazi party members that you addressed, did you not, while you were in Hamm?
A. I cannot recall, but it may have been -- sometimes -- it is a long time since I spoke in party meetings in Hamm.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The question has been answered.
MR. KING: But as part of your early affiliations, or your affiliations with the party after 1933, you were a so-called Gap speaker, were you not?
A. No. I never was a Gau speaker.
Q. What office -
A. A Gau speaker was an activity which was carried out on the basis of a special authorization. I was never a party speaker or a Gau speaker.
Q. Were you a party speaker -- so-called party speaker?
A. Party speaker -- I can't say that either because that was not an occupation which I carried on permanently or regularly. It could, merely, if you say I once spoke in Hamm, which you probably know, and I can't recall it, it merely could have happened that in a small town that the Ortsgruppenleiter or the Kreisloiter, the local group leader, or the Kreisleiter said to me a favor; tomorrow we have a meeting; would you please say a few words; that may be, but a Gau or party speaker I was not.
Q. What position were you holding in 1933 when the Nazis seized power?
A. I was senior public prosecutor at the district court I in Berlin.
Q. Now, prior to that time, it is true -- one moment please -prior to that time it is true, is it not, that no officials of the government were allowed, by law, to be members of the Nazi Party; is that right?
A. I recall that it was forebidden to civil servants to belong to the NSDAP, that is the Nazi Party. However, I did not consider this prohibition as one having legal force, because in a democratic state every citizen is permitted to belong to a party which exists within the law.
For example, if one of my friends said to me -- be careful, you can't belong to the party -- I answered I did not have to fear anything; that I would fight it through before any court because I was permitted to belong to a party; because, I had never done anything wrong at that time or later. Therefore, I considered it my right to belong to the party, even though it was not permitted.
Q. You kept that fact as secret as possible, didn't you?
A. I didn't understand.
Q. You didn't let the fact that you were a party member become generally known, did you, in 1933 before the rise to power?
A. No, I didn't do that. I never heard of any one voluntarily putting his head under the knife -- because I couldn't know what would become of me -- what would happen to me because even at that time matters were not so that I could be sure of this right -- which was my right that I could have insisted upon. Even at that time it happened that persons couldn't do things which they were entitled to do, and because I had a family and wife and children, I didn't call from the roof top I am a member of the party.
Q. In other words, it was a recognized right which you exercised secretly.
A. I did not exercise it secretly; I only didn't speak about it very much, but I did not make a secret of it intentionally, and if anybody in the office, for example, my superior had asked me I would have said yes; but as for persons who business it wasn't, I wouldn't have told them.
Q. It was against the law, as you knew the law to be, was it not?
A. Against the formal law.
Q. What other kind of law is there that you are talking about?
A. Moreover, if I may make a remark --
Q. Go ahead
A. I no longer know today, for sure, whether a formal law existed which forebade this. I only remember that it was not desired that one should belong to the party, and that there might be unpleasantness if one did belong to the party; that I do know.
Q. I would like to refresh your recollection. Are you familiar with the book known as the Fuehrer Lexikon?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you mind telling the Tribunal what the Fuehrer Lexikon is? -- Since you are familiar with it.
A. The Fuehrer Lexikon is a collection of brief personal data, usually with a picture, of who in the meaning and opinion of the editor was an outstanding personality during Hitler's regime. I believe in 1936 -- 1934-1935 it appeared. Yes, it must have been 1933-1934-1935 that it was published, because I am listed in it as a general public prosecutor --- I know that.
Q. And the information which is carried about you in the Fuehrer Lexikon, you, yourself supplied?
A. Yes, I believe I did -
Q. Yes. -
A. Myself.
Q. I know you did.
Q. Do you recognize that picture?
A. Yes.
Q. That uniform?
A. Yes.
Q. What uniform is that?
A. That is the SA uniform, Sturmbannfuehrer.
A. There is no honorary title indicated there?
A. No, the uniform was the same.
Q. Will you look at that book for a moment?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you turn to the top of the page?
A. Yes. I ask your indulgence for a moment. I have to put on my glasses.
Q. Yes, please do. On page 473 -- this is the Edition of 1934-35 do you find the place in that book where you supplied the following information: "A party member in spite of official ban threatening discharge from office"? Do you find that?
A. Just a moment, please. Yes, I do find it.
Q. Do you have anything to say about that?
Well, yes. Objectively speaking it is correct. At that time I was a party member and, as I have already stated, today in 1947 I cannot remember clearly, but I have already stated before that there was a formal law which forbade the membership in the party.
Q. I know what you said before. Do you have anything to add to that? Do you have anything to add to what you said before?
A. To what? Add to what?
Q. About this general question about your being a party member although it was against the law to be one. Do you have anything more to add to what you already said on that question?
A. Not as far as I know. I don't know what you mean.
Q. All right. Let's go on to the next then. Do you find, right after yhat you have just read, that in 1932 you were a speaker of the NSDAP?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you find a little later on you were Sturmbannfuehrer in the SA, and just following that, party speaker? Do you find that?
A. No -- party speaker, yes.
Q. Look again. It is in there.
A. Yes, yes, I see it now, party speaker. Certainly, that is what it says here. That was not supposed to mean any more and does not mean any more than that occasionally I spoke on behalf of the party. Your sources of information will certainly confirm that; that from 1933 on I at the most -- quite frequently -- once in a while delivered a speech within the party. That is quite certainly true and if I wrote here "Party speaker", if I wrote it and stated it -
Q. You did write that, didn't you?
A. Well, yes.
Q. All right.
A. When I chose an expression which in any case misleads you, I understood it correctly as meaning that I wanted to say that I spoke for the party on behalf of the party, but as I said, this was not an office like a gauspeaker. A gauspeaker was a position, a party speaker.
THE PRESIDENT: Your explanation has gone far enough.
BY MR. KING:
Q. It wouldn't surprise you, would it, Mr. Steinacker, if I could in the next thirty seconds produce a witness who heard you address Nazi meetings in or around Hamm in 1933 and 1934? That wouldn't surprise you at all, would it?
A. No, no, no, not as a Nazi speaker, but as a speaker on bahalf of the party. I never was a Nazi.
Q. May I have that last sentence again?
A. By Nazi one means something bad. I said I was never a Nazi.
I am a party member -- I was a party member of the National Socialist Party but such an evil, ugly word as it is always used now in the bad, ugly meaning, as a Nazi who behaves bad and enriches himself and did injustice to others, I never was such a man and, therefore, I say I was not a Nazi.
MR. KING: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any redirect examination?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: No. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Call your next witness.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May it please the Tribunal, may I call the witness Dr. Drescher as the next witness?
THE PRESIDENT: Hold up your right hand and repeat after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q. Witness, first, would you please tell the Tribunal your personal data and your birthdate?
A. I was born the first of February, 1884. My name is Erich Heinrich Hugo Karl Drescher, Doctor of Laws, General Public Prosecutor, retired.
Q. For how long have you known Dr. Rothenberger?
A. In the twenties I once met Dr. Rothenberger briefly and then only in 1933 did I get to know him more closely,
Q. You said 1933, you got to know him better. On what occasion did this closer acquaintanceship take place?
A. Dr. Rothenberger was senator of the Administration of Justice in Hamburg and one day he called me to him and asked me -- at that time I was Oberlandesgerichtsrat -- whether I would like to take over the office of General Public Prosecutor and I agreed to do so.
Q. Were you at that tine a member of the party?
A. No.
Q. But you became one later?
A. Yes.
Q. When?
A. First of May 1933. I was absolutely unpolitical and as judge I did not belong to any party.
Q. Did you have any misgivings to belong to the party or to enter the party?
A. No.
Q. Were you a member of the Rotary Club?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the attitude of the party toward the Rotary Club?
A. The party didn't like it.
Q. In other words, it was undesirable?
A. Yes, undesirable. Later it was dissolved. I regretted that.
Q. Now, you know some details about Dr. Rothenberger's activity in Hamburg, especially about his contact with the Reichsstatthalter Kauffmann. Can you say anything about that?
A. Yes.
Q. Please tell it to the Tribunal.
A. Dr. Rothenberger enjoyed the reputation of a good judge in Hamburg and of a very well-informed jurist altogether. Among the Hamburg judiciary he had a great deal of authority and I know that Gauleiter Kauffmann soon recognized his outstanding abilities and took him into the closer circle of his advisers. The relationship between Rothenberger and Gauleiter Kauffmann was, as I know for certain, an absolutely friendly one and I believe that in legal matters, as also in other respects, probably Rothenberger exerted a great deal of influence upon the Gauleiter.
Q. Do you know that Dr. Rothenberger also was in Hamburg the chief of the NS Jurists League?
A. Yes.
Q. How did that combination in one person between the chief of the district Court of Appeals and the chief of the NS Lawyers League -what effects did it have on Hamburg?
A. Not from the very beginning, but very soon, Dr. Rothenberger became gauchief of the NS Lawyers League and also chief of the Gaulegal office and thus he combined in his own person the administration of Justice of the State and the legal interests of the party and the NS Lawyers League. This, of course, gave him an opportunity to have a great deal of insight into all these legal matters and put him in a position of being able to advise the Gauleiter on all points and to advise him well.
Q. Witness, do you know of the efforts of the defendant Dr. Rothenberger to use people as his assistants who wore legally well qualified people?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you make some statements about the efforts of the defendant in this regard?
A. Dr. Rothenberger preferred to employ young but very well-qualified jurists in his close environment and also saw to it that they were promoted out of turn.
Occasionally I was not quite in agreement with his personnel policies to that extent because by this practice he withdrew good people from my department but from his own point of view that absolutely was not to be disapproved.
Q Witness, already during the years before the war, as was discussed extensively, a number of attacks on the part of radical party circles, the SS, et cetera, were made against the administration of justice. The results of this were felt also in Hamburg. Did you in regard to the worry which Dr. Rothenberger had as Chief of the agencies get to know them and how did Dr. Rothenberger react?
A Both of us agreed absolutely in regard to this point. We were of one mind and we were anraged that the attacks on the administration of justice in the Schwarzo Corps at that time became more and more pronounced. In our situation reports both of us - I don't know whether that means anything to the Court.
Q Yes, that is a well known term.
A In these situation reports were pointed out that something had to be dome and both of us in our situation reports frequently made this extra ordinarily clear but the attacks did not cease, and then in January 1939, a meeting was scheduled in Berlin in the Ministry of Justice on one day for the General Public Prosecutor and the next day for the Presidents of the District Court of Appeals and both of us intended to have this affair with the schwarze korps, brought up at the meeting, each one of us at his meeting. I did that and everybody was silent, and Dr. Rothenberger, as far as I know did the same thing the next day, and delivered a lecture on it the next day.
Q Do you know the subject of that lecture?
A Just a moment please - On the evening of our meeting there was a small supper of those who participated in the meeting with Minsiter Guertner and on this occasion he took me to the side and told me in this conversation that we were absolutely right and something would have to be done and that he would speak to Himmler.
When we then retuned to Hamburg both of us called a meeting of the Hamburg Judges and Public Prosecutors in the large room of the investigating prison and there Dr. Rothenberger also on my behalf at the same time gave a speech and told about our efforts for having these abuses stopped and about the statement of the Minister that something would have to be done. This had an extra ordinarily calming effect upon the Hamburg jurists. Actually, the attacks in the schwarze korps did not immediately but gradually cease but the rest of the excesses and the correction of sentences pronounced by courts unfortunately continued. The bill that we had to pay for our acts against the SS I was presented to me later.
Q Will you please describe in that connection what this bill you had to pay was?
A I ask the indulgence of the Tribunal if perhaps I have to speak too much about myself, but I guess that can't be helped.
Q Witness, here we are concerned with Dr. Rothenberger after all. The description has a purpose and meaning only as the participation of Dr. Rothenberger is connected with it.
A Yes, when the large scale air attacks on the residential areas of Hamburg took place, when I had no connection with Berlin, I on my own initiative, for different reasons I had about 400 prisoners, who were in prison for investigation pending trial, released from imprisonment. Among these by mistake were unfortunately a number of communists who had been newly arrested. Of course, this should not have happened. As Obergruppenfuehrer Mueller in the RSHA later told me, this was a chain of unfortunate circumstances. In any case, soon thereafter on the open street during a business trip my car was stopped and I was arrested by the Gestapo and during the very same night when I was under the detention of the police, a messenger from the Gauleiter came who offered me that I could move to the Hotel Vier Jahreszeiten, I did that the next day and this intervention by the Gauleiter was due to a long distance call which Dr. Rothenberger made, who at that time for the inauguration of Joel was in Hamm and from there got in touch with Hamburg.
Q That is Dr. Rothenberger freed you from the SS arrest?
A Yes, one cannot say from the SS detention but he alleviated my arrest. He did not free me. For ten weeks I had to stay there first in Hamburg and then in Berlin.
Q Was there any trial against you?
A Yes, just a moment - just a moment. The gentlemen, from the Ministry have told me that he, that is Dr. Rothenberger, tried to free me as soon as possible from my detention, but them Minister Thierack forbade him to make any more efforts on his own therefore he could no longer do anything for me.
Q What happened subsequently? Was there a trial?
A Yes.
Q Please describe it briefly.
A I was indicted because of the careless freeing of prisoners. I was indicted before the Reich Supreme Court at Leipzig and there was sentenced to four months in jail.
Q One final question, Dr. Drescher, did you free the prisoners at that time for humane reasons?
A Yes.
Q Please describe a little more in detail why you did it? Because of the danger of air raids?
A Yes, the air raids continued and at first there were terrible conditions in the jail itself because we had no lights, no gas, no water and the physician was afraid a typhoid epidemic would break out. There were 1400 people in prison. Actually in front of the prison outside there were hundreds of people, women and other relatives were lying there who wanted to have their relatives out of jail so that they could help them get new lodgings and so forth.
Q Witness, after you were sentenced your services as General Public Prosecutor were ever?
A Yes.
Q How did Dr. Rothenberger act toward you after this?
A I returned from Leipzig and reported to him and I must say we are quite different characters and frequently we had small differences of opinion but on this occasion Dr. Rothenberger was so kind and understanding toward me that I shall never forget that.
Q Witness, in regard to the time when Dr. Rothenberger was undersecretary--can you say anything about that?
A Not much, no not much.
Q It is correct that you were a soldier during the war?
A Yes, in July 1939 I was drafted for maneuvers and remained a soldier until the end of May 1943. When Minister Thierack and the new under-secretary Rothenberger in October -- I believe it was in October 1942, held a meeting of the Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal and the General Public Prosecutors I received an invitation to go to Copenhagen and participate in this meeting and I went there. Then when I left I said good-bye to Dr. Rothenberger and told him not in the meaning of just trite phrase, but I really meant it, "I wish you good luck for your tasks, I believe that you need it." And Dr. Rothenberger replied: "You are right. I am facing years of fighting."
Q Do you know the further history of the dismissal?
A No.
Q If not, then we don't need to put any questions about it.
Was it a surprise to you that Rothenberger, at the end of 1943, had to leave the Ministry of Justice?
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess at this time for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)