Now, can we find a copy for the Prosecution?
SECRETARY-GENERAL: I have only five, sir, and this one I must have to keep my records.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Grube, in what manner do you propose to introduce these exhibits? By the book, or by separate numbers?
DR. GRUBE: Starting with book I, I wanted to introduce these exhibits in the order in which they appear in the books, that is to say, in that order in which these documents appear in each document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Were you able to find any copies?
SECRETARY-GENERAL: The defense center had not yet assembled them.
THE PRESIDENT: What are the rules with reference to the number of copies which should be presented?
DR. GRUBE: We know nothing about that. The defense center told me that German copies were not at all available yet, but that only seven copies in English were available. Yesterday the Marshal urged me to introduce my documents, and he gave as a reason the fact that seven copies were in fact here.
THE PRESIDENT: We apparently have found only five so far. What do the rules require, Mr. La. Follette?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: So far as I know, there are no rules requiring any distribution -- I mean, I don't know what the rules are with references to distribution for the defendants, but surely they should include, by comparison with what they require us to do -- that is all I can say -- one for each member of the Bench, one for the Secretary General, one for the interpreters, that is five, and there should be at least one or two to sent to the Prosecution. We were required to send one to each member of the defense, as I recall it, of the German. I have received no notice from anyone as to whether these rules are in the defense center.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is certainly necessary that the prosecution should be furnished, and the defense center will be required to furnish a sufficient number so that the prosecution can have at least two copies.
Now, Mr. La Follette, in order to save time, can we proceed with the introduction of some of these documents before you receive this extra copy?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: We have no copy.
DR. GRUBE: Your Honor, to clean up matters, may I just say that some time ago the defense center sent us a collection of the rulings which have been laid down and which are valid for this and all similar trials. In that collection there is contained ruling number 5, which deals with the submission of document books. Under figure 9 it states that the defense center shall provide every defense counsel with a German copy. The defense counsel who submits the document book receives fifteen German copies and ten English copies. Figure 10 further says that the defense center distributes the remaining copies in accordance with the distribution list which is attached. Document books must be submitted to the prosecution 24 hours before these documents are submitted in evidence. The attached distribution list sets out in detail to whom the document books are to be distributed. The document books are not distributed by the individual defense counsel, but exclusively by the defense center.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; that gives me the information which I requested. The prosecution are entitled to document books 24 hours in advance of their introduction.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Exactly, and we certainly should have at least one set in German, Your Honor. We can make no check. I don't know what he read here; I didn't here it all.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter for you gentlemen to straighten out with the document center.
You find yourself, Mr. La Follette, unable to consent to the introduction of any documents until you receive these?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Well, I don't like to hold the Tribunal up. If I may borrow one from the Bench that I could look at, I guess we could go ahead and receive some. However, I will say to the Court that I am going to have to insist on the 24 hour rule; I had to comply with it. I don't want to come in here every time -- and I did it with the Schlegelberger documents -- and just get them practically the day they are introduced.
THE PRESIDENT: You are entirely within your rights.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If we may borrow one from the Bench, let us try selectively, to proceed.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Blair and I will share a copy, and we will proceed for the time being.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Thank you.
DR. GRUBE: I am starting with document book I. Book I deals with the People's Court.
The first document which I wish to offer is document 281. In it is contained Section 105 of the Weimar Constitution, which was the starting point for the question as to whether the People's Court was contrary to the constitution.
I am offering this document as Exhibit No. 1.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. KING: One moment, please. Your Honors, because of the situation which has developed, vis-a-vis the document books, we have not had a chance, of course, to examine these documents. We hesitate to have them admitted in evidence without having had some opportunity to look them over. We request, therefore, that for the time being they merely be admitted for identification, and admitted in evidence only after we have had a chance to look them over.
THE PRESIDENT: We will rule on the admissibility tomorrow, and the documents will be only marked for identification with exhibit numbers at this time; and that rule will apply to exhibit for identification and admitted in evidence only after we have had a chance to look them over.
THE PRESIDENT: We will rule on the admissibility tomorrows, and the documents will be only marked for identification with exhibit numbers at this time; and that rule will apply to exhibit for identification 1, which we had stated would be received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Perhaps it would be all right to deliver the document to the Secretary General and then we may inspect it through his office. In that way Dr. Grube gets it out of his possession; that is, the identified document.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Proceed just as if you were introducing them in evidence, and we will simply postpone the ruling until counsel has had an opportunity to examine them.
DR. GRUBE: May I ask you within what time limit the ruling will be given?
THE PRESIDENT: The Prosecution is entitled to 24 hours. We will rule tomorrow.
DR. GRUBE: Thank you, Your Honor.
I next offer document 234, which contains Article 16 of the Judicative Act. I am offering the document as Exhibit 2.
THE PRESIDENT: We will let it be marked, for identification, Exhibit 2.
DR. GRUBE: I next offer document 16. That is an excerpt from the commentary on the Weimar Constitution by Gerhard Anschuetz. I would like to read the following from that document:
"The following is to be said concerning the very much disputed concept of 'Irregular Courts.'
"It is different from the concept of the 'Special court', or, as it is also expressed, Sondergericht. Special courts are permitted by section 103 (Compare No. 1 of the same) as well as by Section 105, but not irregular courts. Special courts (Sondergerichte) are courts which take the place of the otherwise competent regular courts for certain groups of people or litigation matters designated generally and in advance by the law."
There follows an enumeration of various courts:
"For example, to this category belong the Labor Courts, the Juvenile Courts, the former and still existing Military Courts."
I am continuing now on page 4 of the German document book:
"The irregular courts differ from these Special Courts in that they are not appointed to judge all matters of litigation of one and the same category defined according to the character of the issue, the position of the litigants or in any other way by a generally applicable abstract provision, but by a concrete ordinance (regulation) for one definite, single case, or, which is the same, for a specifically designated number of individual cases. In this case, it is of no consequence: firstly, whether this individual case has already occurred or has yet to happen; secondly, whether the order setting up the Irregular Court issues from the government or from another administrative office, or from the legislature; and thirdly, whether the court appointed contrary to the prohibitive provisions is a regular or Special Court, newly created ad hoc or already existing."
I would ask you to identify this document as Exhibit 3.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked Court No. III, Case No. 3.
DR. GRUBE: I next offer the document which appears on page 5 of the German text, No. 285. This is an extract from an article by Professor Dr. Eduard Kern in the Commentary on German Constitutional Law. I am quoting from Page 5 of the German Document Book.
"An emergency court is a court existing outside the regular courts which was established by transgressing the legal rules of competence for the purpose of passing sentence in a certain individual case or in a number of such cases."
I am offering this document as Exhibit 4, for the purpose of identification.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification.
DR. GRUBE: I am not coming to Document 284, on Page 4 of the German Document Book. Dr. 284 represents an extract from the Manual for German Constitutional Law by Professor Dr. Eduard Kern, in the Commentary on German Constitutional Law dating back to the year 1932. I am starting on page 7.
"The legally competent judge is the judge appointed in accordance with the law to decide a legal case, thus first of all, it is a court which rests on a legal basis. Law is to be taken to mean the law in a factual sense. Not only a regular court can be the legal authority but also a special court. Furthermore, the court must be qualified to judge the case. Which means that it must have jurisdiction in the case in question and must furthermore be competent."
I am leaving out a few lines and starting with the next paragraph:
"Article 105, sub-heading 2 of the Reich Constitution, does not want to generally prohibit changes in the competence of courts with retroactive power. In this way shifting of competence within regular courts occurs frequently in legislation; they are also not subject to any misgivings, if they concern matters already being dealt with by a court. Thus the Reich Supreme Court has rightly emphasized in the case of the legal reform by Emminger, that the referring of a case from the Court of Assizes to a division of the Criminal Court did not violate Article Court No. III, Case No. 3.105, subheading 2 of the Reich Constitution.
It is consistent with Article 105, sub-heading 2 if by means of a simple Reich law a legal remedy hitherto applicable is being restricted or a new authority is established also for cases already under trial. It is furthermore consistent with paragraph 105 of the Reich Constitution, if the laws refer to matters which up to now belonged to the competence of a special court, to the regular courts, if this is done regularly for all cases of the same kind and not only in certain individual cases. The legislation is even permitted to create special courts and to assign matters to them with retroactive power, matters in which regular courts had been competent up to that time, if this retroaction occurs as a general rule. A prerequisite for cash change in competence with retroative force is, that a legal regulation in the sense of a valid legal norm is involved. In spite of an apparently general regulation it can be that only an individual case or a number of individual cases should be affected by this new regulation. In such a case, a violation of Article 105 of the Reich Constitution has been perpetrated.
I am offering this document as Exhibit No. 5, for purposes of identification.
THE COURT: Let it be marked.
DR. GRUBE: I am now coming to Document 275 on Page 9 of the German Document Book. May I interpolate here. Unfortunately I am not able to say on what page of the English Document book these documents appear, as I have not yet the English Document book available.
Document 275 consists of an extract from the Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure by Leo Rosenberg. I quote from page 10 of the German document book. May I interpolate? The commentary here deals with the question as to when a Judge is a legally competent Judge within the meaning of Article 16 of the law. I am quoting from page 10:
"'Legal' is not synonymous with 'competence per se', moreover according to article 16 a competent judge is the one who is qualified, on the basis of a legal provision, to take the place of a competent judge per se, similarly the judge, who is qualified to pass sentence by a new, Court No. III, Case No. 3.but general provision:"
I am leaving out a few lines.
"Thus a legal authority is the authority to which anyone, who makes himself liable to certain criminal acts, is subject on principle."
I am offering this document for identification as Exhibit No. 6.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked Exhibit 6.
DR. GRUBE: I am now coming to Document No. 114.
THE PRESIDENT: Our time has expired, and now the court will recess for 15 minutes.
(Thereupon a recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Court is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: The report comes to us from the court reporters that it is impossible to follow such rapid readings as you have been making. The report also should be made from the bench that we find it exceedingly difficult to get any benefit from the reading of matters of this kind, which of course we will examine and read very carefully from the documents. It's necessary, therefore, to suggest first that what reading you do be read more slowly, and second that it would greatly convenience us if you would indicate by general reference the matters that you wish to call particularly to our attention and avoid reading as much as possible, because we will also read these documents. May I say we made the same suggestion to the prosecution in their case and the result was beneficial.
DR. GRUBE: I now come to Document 114 on Page 11 of the German Document Book and Page 11 of the English. It is concerned with the decision of the Reich Supreme Court of the 2 of June 1942. May I direct the attention of the Court to the following places on Page 12 of the German Document Book. I quote:
"Article 105 does not contain a basic law according to the meaning of Article 48 Section 2."
I now skip some pages and continue, and I quote:
"The 'legal judge' is not appointed by the constitution itself, but by the laws governing the constitution of the courts and the proceedings before the courts; their changing is not connected with the aggravating conditions valid for changes of the constitution."
May I also direct the attention of the Court to the end of the document. That is on Page 13, and I quote:
"A court is to be regarded as an exceptional court, if it has been established outside the circle of the court institutions generally entrusted with the granting of legal protection, in order to judge one certain individual case or several definitely limited individual cases."
I offer this document as Exhibit No. 7 for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be marked for identification.
DR. GRUBE: The next document is on Page 14, Document No. 272. It is also a decision of the Reich Supreme Court and this time of the Supreme Reich Court in civil cases. May I direct time attention of the Court to the following quotations on Page 14:
"If Article 103 of the Reich constitution orders that the ordinary jurisdiction be practiced by the Supreme Court of the Reich and the courts of the States (Launder), nothing has been said yet as to the extent of this jurisdiction. The Reich constitution left the limitation of this jurisdiction to the legislation of the Reich and the States. Only this legislation, with the exception of a few special regulations of the Reich Constitution, is to state, who is to be legal judge of whose judgment according to Article 10$ Sentence 2 of the Reich constitution nobody may be deprived. A limitation of the competency of the ordinary courts does not require a Reich law changing the Reich constitution."
Then there is a further decision of the United Civil Divisions of the Reich Supreme Court of 22 February 1924. I quote Page 15 of the German Document Book:
"Thus the general draft of the Articles 103 and 105 excluded the possibility of concluding from them the extent of the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. With regard to this point the Reich constitution requires necessarily to be implemented by the ordinary legislation. Only the ordinary legislation states who is legal judge according to Article 105 Sentence 2."
I offer this document as Exhibit No. 8 for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be narked for identification
DR. GRUBE: The following documents refer to tho State Court for the Protection of the Republic, which was created by tho law for the protection of the republic on 21 July, 1922. I don't intend to read very much from this document. However, nay I direct the attention of tho Tribunal to the fact that in Articles 1 to 8 of tho law, that is pages 16 to 20, a large number of facts are cited, that is political facts and conditions which arc considered criminal, or declared to be criminal. I quote Article II of this law, on page 21 of the document book: "Germans and foreigners can be prosecuted for acts mentioned in articles 1 to 8 even if these acts were committed abroad."
The next paragraphs refer to tho Supreme State Tribunal for the protection of the republic. I direct the attention of the Tribunal first to Article 12: "Within the Reich Court a Supreme State Tribunal for the Protection of the Republic will be established. The Tribunal decides with a staff of 9 members: three of them are members of the Reich Court. Tho other six members do not need to possess the qualifications for the office of judge. Decisions outside the trial are made by three members, one of whom at least is not a member of the Reich Court. The members are appointed by the Reich President for tho duration of tho validity of this law."
I quote from the following paragraph the first sentence: "The Reich prosecution is the prosecuting authority."
Furthermore, I quote tho last sentence from this paragraph: "Legal appeal against the decisions of the Supreme State Tribunal cannot he made."
Article 13 contains the competency regulations in regard to the State Tribunal. It is explained that the acts specified in Articles 1 to 8 who is competent for their punishment. May I direct the attention of the Tribunal to the third paragraph of Article 13, and I quote:
"These regulations are also to be applied to punishable acts committed before this law came into force."
I offer this document as Exhibit No. 9 for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be narked for identification.
DR. GRUBE: The next document is Document 39; that is on page 26 to 28 of tho document book. I do not intend to road the document itself. It concerns tho decree concerning State Tribunal for the Protection of the Republic. However, I direct the attention of the Tribunal to tho fact that this decree contains some paragraphs which are contained word by word in the later law for tho People's Court. I offer this document for identification as Exhibit 10.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked Exhibit 10 for identification.
DR. GRUBE: On page 29 follows document No. 40. This is Bavarian decree for tho Protection of the Constitution of tho Republic, and is contained in tho Gazette of Laws and Decree for the Free State of Bavaria. May I direct the attention of the Tribunal to the preamble to this document. I quote: "The German Reichstag enacted a Law for the Protection of the Republic on 18 July 1922. Therein a court for tho trial of certain political criminal deeds was established which in its entirety is not staffed by professional judges, jurymen or sworn officials, but for the most part by persons, for whose selection political points of view are decisive."
Then, on the fourth to the last sentence on page 29 in tho German document book, the following sentence is quoted;
"For those reasons the Bavarian entire ministry feels it is necessary to issue the following provisions for the maintenance of the public security and order, as provided for in Article 64 of the Charter of tho Constitution for the Free State of Bavaria and in paragraph 48, subparagraph IV of the Constitution of the Reich, and on tho basis of tho Rights of Bavaria as a Sovereign State. The Bavarian Ministry decrees as follows: "Several sections follow: I will quote from Section 2 of the document book.
"The People's Courts are competent for deeds mentioned in Articles 1 to 8 of the Reich Law for the Protection of the Republic, committed against members of a former Republican Government, as well as for high treason, killing of attempts of killing, regardless whether they are punishable in accordance with this law or with other laws."
I then read from the third paragraph of Section 2: "Those provisions are also to be applied to punishable deeds committed prior to the day this decree becomes effective."
I offer this document for identification as Exhibit 11.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification.
DR. GRUBE: On page 33 of the document book there is a document 276. It is an excerpt from tho commentary by Werner Rosenberg regarding the code of criminal procedure. May I direct the attention of the Court to the beginning of this document, and I quote: "Since the enactment of the now Constitution of the Reich, the principle of Section 105 has already been disregarded twice by laws passed to meet special occasions, namely, by the law for the prosecution of war criminals and war crimes, dated 18 December 1919, Article 1 (Reich Legal Gazette 2125) and by the law concerning the trial of high treason activities of March, 1920, dated 2 April 1920. The State Tribunal for the Protection of tho Republic characterized by Kohlrausch as "a vesatious foreign body in a Reichstag, constitutional state" was of mixed nature. It was simultaneously Administrative Court and Criminal Court, Special Court and Emergency Court."
I now skip three lines and continue; "Its position as an Emergency Court was based upon Article 13, Section 4 of the Law of 21 July 1922, whereby the provisions concerning the competence of the State Tribunal were to be applied to deeds committed prior to the date by which the law became effective. In this connection it Was not a question of a general organizational measure whereby the Judicial Structure would be altered, but a temporary ordinance limited in regard to time, whereby an extraordinary Court was established in addition to the Regular Courts, whose competence remained in existence in subsidiary regard.
Added to these facts which, in themselves would perhaps not be decisive, came the whole tendency of this law. In regard to the tendency compare the pertinent expositions of Kern, page 21, Emergency Courts: 'It was the aim to transfer the unfinished cases, among others also the proceedings against Ehrhardt into other hands, especially it was aimed that the case of Rathenau should not be handled by the competent regular court, the Criminal Court of Assizes in Berlin; one wished to subject it to special treatment. Here is the ad hoc, the prejudiced amendment of the competence for a certain case, a fact which Section 105 of the Governmental Decree, revised, aimed to prevent."
I offer this document as Exhibit 12 for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: Lot it be marked for identification.
Dr.GRUBE: On Page 35 of the Document Book there is Document No. 29. It is an excerpt from the book "The Legal Judge", by Professor Dr. Eduard Kern, of the year 1927. This excerpt also treats the question of the State Tribunal for the Protection of the Republic. May I direct the attention of the Court to the following quotation on Page 36 of the Document Book? I quote:
"It is natural -- and is moreover absolutely inherent in the meaning of the Law for the Protection of the Republic -- that the President of the Reich should call only such persons to be judges in the State Tribunal, who, even if not necessarily stamped as belonging to a certain political party, are yet inwardly convinced republicans or at any rate not opponents of the now political constitution, judges, therefore, from whom not only -- as from every other judge, too -- self evident subjection to the law is to be expected but more the political conviction of the fairness of the republican form of government or at least a benevolently neutral attitude towards it."
May I further direct the attention of the Tribunal to the quotation on Page 37 of the Document Book, and I quote:
"Here it must be emphasized over and over again that the Reich Public Prosecution is a defendant authority which must render obedience to the Reich Minister of Justice ..."
On the same page may I also read the following quotation:
"We shall therefore, from the above mentioned point of departure, be obliged to come to the conclusion that the State Tribunal, in spite of its undoubted political character, is still to be counted among the special courts so far as it is competent for punishable offenses which have been committed after its institution.
This limitation must of course be made."
Then there are further explanations and statements by the author in which he points out that the State Tribunal, as has already been mentioned, was also competent for crimes committed before it was established. I offer this document for identification as Exhibit 13.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification.
DR. GRUBE: On Page 40 of the Document Book follows an excerpt from an Ordinance of 31 March 1926. This order became effective as of the first of April 1926 and the jurisdiction of the State Tribunal for the Protection of the Republic was again transferred to the ordinary courts. I offer this document as Exhibit 14 for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification.
DR. GRUBE: Document No. 233 on Page 41 of the Document Book contains Articles 12 and 13 of the Law concerning the structure of the Judiciary. From these articles it is apparent which courts, according to the law concerning the structure of the Judiciary of 1879 originally were considered regular courts. I offer this document for identification ax Exhibit 15.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification.
DR. GRUBE: On Page 42 of the German Document Book, Document 186 follows. That is the Law for the modification of provisions of the penal law and of criminal procedure of 24 April 1934. By this law, as is well known, the People's Court was created. Without reading anything more from this law I would like to direct the attention of the Court to Article 4 of this document.
THE PRESIDENT: May I interrupt you? Is that one of the Document Books introduced, or, rather, one of the documents introduced by the Prosecution?
DR. GRUBE: No, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. GRUBE: May I remark the law was introduced in Document Book 2 of the Prosecution in part. However, as I have found out, a number of regulations are missing from that document. May I direct the attention of the Tribunal to the provisions of Article 4 of the Document, especially to Paragraph 3 in Article 4 on Page 44 of the Document Book. Furthermore, to Article 10. I quote Article 10:
"The Reich Minister of Justice will decree the legal and administrative regulations required for the enforcement of the law and the supplementation of same." I offer this document for identification as Exhibit 16.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification.
DR. GRUBE: On Page 48 of the German Document Book, Document 277 follows. It contains an excerpt from the official substantiation of the law we have just discussed and which created the People's Court. May I direct the attention of the Tribunal to Page 1 of this Document, the first page, which is entitled: "To Article 1," and I quote:
"According to the law enforced hitherto, the Supreme Court of the Reich is competent for passing judgment on cases of high treason and treason. In the individual case the competence of the District Courts of Appeal may be established by a transfer resolution of the Supremo Court of the Reich or by a forwarding decree of the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor. This consolidation of prosecution and jurisdiction will be maintained for a few courts on a supreme level. However, the unification of jurisdictional activities of the first instance which has hitherto existed at the Supreme Court of the Reich with the task of guarding the legal unity of the Reich in its capacity as highest court of appeal (Revisionsinstanz) will be abandoned.
Both tasks have their individual characteristics and have only few points of contact. Therefore, a special court will be instituted for the activity of the first instance which has been incumbent hitherto upon the Supreme Court of the Reich. Besides members qualified for judicial activities, also such persons as assistant judges (Beisitzer) who have actually specialized experience in the field of defense against attacks hostile to the state belong to it."
I continue to quote, "To Article 3":
"The competence of the People's Court corresponds in its main points with the former competence of the Supremo Court of the Reich. Newly included arc the treasonal offenses (articles 90b to 90e of the Penal Code) and the acts of violence directed towards the president of the Reich and members of the Government as defined in Art. 94 of the Reich Law Gazette Article 5 of the Decree for the Protection of People and State (Verordnung zum Schutz von Volk and Staat) of 28 February 1933, and which, according to their nature and seriousness, border on high treason."
I then quote from the remarks "To Section IV":
"Already during the last year a number of now provisions were issued for the purpose of speeding up and consolidating criminal cases of high treason and treason. In the essential points they will be taken over and further supplemented in Articles 3 and 6. They arc applicable for the People's Court as well as for the District Court of Appeal."
I then skip five lines and then continue with the comments "To Article 3": "Defense in Cases of High Treason and Treason:
It is justified by the significance for the welfare of the Reich of the criminal cases which are to be handled by the People's Court and the District Court of Appeal in the first instance, that apart from the general conditions laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure for the granting of a defense counsel of the defendant's free choice, approval by the presiding judge of the court be made mandatory. This formal regulation does not affect the principles of procedure with regard to Law. Law in regard to the independent and unhampered activity of the defense counsel. The defense is also not limited to a selection of attorneys at-law approved on a list. The circles of persons from which the defendant may select his defense counsel is to be loft wide. If the presiding judge decides, for reasons of expediency, to hold out the prospect of granting approval for a larger number of attorneys-at-law in advance this does not prevent the accused from selecting another defense counsel in whom he has confidence and to request approval for him."
DR. GRUBE: The next document which I offer is document No. 2 on page 52 of the document book. This is the law concerning the People's Court of the 18 April 1936. May I direct the attention of the Tribunal to Section I, Article I of this law, and I quote:
"The people's Court is an ordinary court in the sense of the Court Constitutional Law."
I offer this document as Exhibit No. 18.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification.
DR. GRUBE: On pages 54 to 58 of the document book the order for the execution of the law which I just mentioned is contained. This also boars the date of 18 April 1936. May I call the attention of the Tribunal to Article 10 of this law, and I quote:
"The judges of the local courts, the district courts and the district courts of appeal arc obliged to take advantage of judicial activities at the People's Court."
Furthermore, I want to direct the attention of the Tribunal to the regulations and Articles 12 and 13, which I shall quote in part and I quote:
"Article 12.
"The Reich Public Prosecutor and the Public Prosecutor at the People's Court (Article 7 of the Law) may be temporarily put into retirement at any time by decree of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor whilst granting the legal compensation.
"Article 13.
"The Chief of the Public Prosecution at the People's Court has the official title of The Reich Public Prosecutor at the People's Court.