Q. Herr Lautz, how long did you work with the District Court in Neuwied?
A. I worked there for ten years, that is, until 31 December, 1929.
Q. Where were you transferred after that?
A. First January 1930 I became First Public Prosecutor at the then District Court II in Berlin.
Q. Will you please tell the Tribunal what activity you exercised there at District Court II in Berlin?
A. As the youngest First Public Prosecutor I had to be in charge of the political division which involved a great deal of work and was unpleasant.
Q. For how long did you have to carry out that task?
A. On the first of June 1932 I became senior public prosecutor at tho District Court I, Berlin.
Q. May I ask you, what Ministry of Justice was competent for that promotion at that time?
A. The Prussian Ministry of Justice.
Q. Can you also state what parties were at the back of that government?
A. That was the then Prussian coalition which was composed of the Centre Party and Social Democrats.
Q. Did you have any relationship with those parties?
A. No.
Q. Will you please tell the Tribunal what functions you exercised in your capacity as Senior Public Prosecutor at District Court I in Berlin?
A. As Senior Public Prosecutor I was in charge of economic cases.
Q. In an affidavit by Herr von Harke, which I shall submit later on, it is stated that in 1933, you were subject to severe attacks in the press of the NSDAP, especially in articles by a Herr Zarnow who wrote the infamous book, "Chained Justice" ("Gefesselte Justiz"). Will you please make some statements about this?
A. We public prosecutors in Berlin were used to attacks in the press. It happened not only to me but to others also who worked in the Administration of Justice on political cases that the opposition Press attacked us. Since I entered the public prosecution in Division 2 in Berlin that happened to me frequently. The most severe attacks, however, originated with Moritz Zarnow who, in the Spring of 1933, attacked me and vilified me, especially in the Journal "Deutsche Spiegel".
Q. In 1933, Hitler came to power. Did this have any influence on your attitude toward the law?
A. No, I continued to carry on my work in accordance with the law as I had done bofore.
Q. Did you not have a severe conflict with Minister Kerri once?
A. Toward the end of 1933 that happened for the following reasons: At that tine I was carrying on an investigation against a cigarette manufacturer whose name was very well known and when the investigations continued I happened to come upon an affair which was very unpleasant for him. Although not only from the defense counsel but also from other sources, it was known to me that he was in favor with Goering. I would not let go and this brought it about that Bering went to Kerri and made a serious complaint to him that I did not have tho necessary feeling in my finger tips in order to handle the matter differently. I could only state that for a Prosecutor there is only one law and that is the law of the State and that everything else beyond that is up to other authorities, not to the Public Prosecutor.
Q. I may say here that an application for evidence which I have already made has been approved by the Court. At the present the District Court of Hamburg has a trial pending against the well-known cigarette manufacturer Reemtsma. That is the case which the defendant Lautz has described. The indictment in this case is on the whole based on Lautz' attitude. The indictment against Reemtsma, as Dr. Kempner informed me, has not arrived in Nurnberg as yet. However, it is to be put at my disposal as soon as it does. Therefore I would request permission to introduce the document which has already been approved as evidence as soon as it arrives here. Herr Lautz, in an affidavit by Thyssen a Reusch case is mentioned. Will you please make some remarks, what you know about it and when it happened?
A. This occurred about two years later. At that time I was already in charge of the Public Prosecution in Berlin, as acting Public Prosecutor.
Reusch was in charge of the business of the Reich Civil Service Organization, that is, the civil service organization of the Nazi Party and was the right hand of the Reich Civil Servants Leader Neeb. Through indecent manipulations, the details of which are not interesting here? he had defrauded several thousand narks from the civil service organization. I dealt with this case immediately and I could not be prevented from carrying on this trial with energy. He was an intimate friend of Gauleiter Springer from Frankfurt on the Main, which was the home town of Reusch. When this Gauleiter appeared in my office and indicated to me that I would draw upon myself the anger of the Leader of the Reich Civil Servants organization if I did not operate with greater care in this case.
A. Later on Reusch was condemned to a penitentiary sentence of several years in the trial.
Q. Witness, is it correct that in 1936 you became General Public Prosecutor of the District Court I in Berlin?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Can you make some remarks as to whether this was an extraordinary career?
A. I did not consider it as far as my own person is concerned to be unusual. I was of the opinion that if the rise to power had not occurred I might have become General Public Prosecutor even earlier.
Q. Can you state at whose suggestion this appointment was made?
A. My then superior in office, the General Public Prosecutor of the Highest Prussian Court of Appeals promoted it.
Q. What was your attitude?
A. I myself did not aspire to this position, for the reason alone because I had worked in a disciplinary case against my predecessor as an investigating prosecutor. It was very unpleasant for me to occupy a position which I had helped to fall vacant.
Q. For how long were you a general public prosecutor at District Court I in Berlin?
A. For one year, until 30 June 1937.
Q. And subsequently you became general Public Prosecutor in Karlsruhe is that correct?
A. Yes, on 1 July 1937 I became General Public Prosecutor at the District Court of Appeal at Karlsruhe.
Q. What was your attitude about the transfer at the time?
A. I was very happy about that transfer, because first of all it took me away from exciting and restless Berlin and secondary I came to a district which belonged to one of the most beautiful from the point of view of Scenerr in Germany, because it reached from Heidelberg to Lake Constance.
Q. Herr Lautz, before you already cited several examples which showed that, without consideration as to whether they were prominent party members or people who were strongly protected by the party, you proceeded against them after you found out that they had committed unauthorized acts. Did you maintain that course of action in Karlsruhe?
A. Naturally I maintained it there too. These occurrences after 1933. I considered the manifestations corruption of a transition time. I considered it obvious that the Prosecuting authority should not field in those cases but should unerringly act and could therefore bring about orderly condition. I did not act any differently in Karlsruhe either.
Q. In documents, which I shall submit later on, the Heim case is described. Are you in a position to make some statements about this?
A. Yes, the case occurred a short time after I arrived in Karlsruhe. Heim was the acting Police President and higher SS leader. I heard that he had a prisoner who was in detention for investigation pending trial who had stolen his dog, so that he was a prisoner in a case which concerned himself personally, called to him and that ho ill-treated him. Through this investigation it became known furthermore that he had raped one of his domestic servants.
Thereupon, I caused that he be arrested and indicted him before the penal chamber. He was condemned to a prison term of more than a year.
Q. Is it correct that thereupon you had some encounters with SS people in Stuttgart?
A. The SS leader in Stuttgart, who was the superior of the police president, was very angry with me, that I had not informed him about the facts before I filed the indictment. Apparently he hoped in that case he would have been able to prevent the filing of an indictment.
Q. Herr Lautz is it correct that in 1938 you received an offer to become senate president in the Reich Military Court?
A. That is correct. I was well known to the ministerial director at the High Command of the Wechrmacht, Lehmann, who appeared as a witness before this Tribunal and who offered me in 1918 to become senate president at the Reich Military Court.
Q. Just a moment, I believe you made a mistake, you meant to say 1938?
A. Yes, 1938.
Q. At that time would you have improved your financial situation if you had accepted?
A. Yes, the position was much better paid.
Q. Why did you not accept that position?
A. I did not accept it only for the one and decisive reason that I did not want to leave the beautiful district of Karlsruhe for the time being.
Q. For how long were you General Public Prosecutor in Karlsruhe?
A. Unfortunately only until 1939.
Q. May I now ask you, who was Parey?
A. Parey was Reich Public Prosecutor since 1936, later Chief Public Prosecutor at the People's Court in Berlin.
Q. And for what reason did Parey leave his office of Chief Reich Public Prosecutor at the People's Court?
A. At the beginning of November 1938 he had an automobile accident.
Q. When did you find out for the first time that you were being considered as Parey's successor?
A. At the beginning of December 1938, the then Undersecretary Freisler, on order of Minister Guertner, informed me that Guertner had chosen me as his--that is, Parey's--successor.
Q. Did you make any efforts to obtain that position?
A. Not at all.
Q. Did you do anything against your appointment as Oberreichsanwalt at the People's Court?
A. I was very much interested in getting out of being appointed to that position, and because of that I consulted with the Personnel Division of the Ministry as to how I could prevent my appointment. However, I was told that Minister Guertner attached importance to my taking that position, and therefore, being a civil servant, I complied.
Q. May I ask you why you had an aversion to that office?
A. First of all, because the exclusive occupation with political penal cases and in connection with that, the absolute dependence upon the Ministry which was my superior, was not an inducement for me; even though, at that time, I could not have the remotest idea that was would shortly break out, that Minister Guertner would die, and that through all these events a course would be followed in politics which, in any case, was not in accordance with the one that I imagined.
That was my main reason. My second reason was that I wanted to remain in Karlsruhe.
Q. When were you appointed Oberreichsanwalt?
A. I was appointed on the 1st of July 1939.
Q. At that time did you still count upon becoming Oberreichsanwalt since Parey had already left the office some time before?
A. Since it took such a long time, I had the hope, quietly, that perhaps another person would be found.
Q. Did you ever find out whether any office of the Party or any other organizations of the Party was in favor of your appointment as Oberreichsanwalt?
A. I never heard anything about that.
Q. When, in effect, did you assume your office as Oberreichsanwalt at the People's Court.
A. Due to illness, I only assumed office on the 20th of September 1939, in Berlin.
Q. However, you had already been appointed on the 1st of July?
A. Yes.
Q. Herr Lautz, may I ask you this? Before 1933, did you belong to a political party?
A. From 1924 to 1930 I was a member of the Deutsche Volkspartei, German People's Party. That was the party of Minister Stresemann, who became well known through the policy of understanding which he followed toward the victorious countries of 1918, and in whose efforts in particular to reach an understanding with France in order to bring about peace in Europe, I welcomed very warmly and supported.
Q. When did you become a member of the National Socialist Party?
A. On the 1st of May, 1933.
Q. Will you please tell the Tribunal for what reasons you joined the Party?
A. Before the spring of 1933 I belonged to tho Prussian Judges' Association, in which organization I worked on press matters as a member of the board of Directors. The Prussian Judges' Association decided to urge its members to join the Party. I joined because, according to the situation prevailing at the time, I considered it to be the correct and proper thing to do.
Q. Herr Lautz, at that time, in 1933, did the joining of a Party have the significance of 100 percent approval of the Party platform? Was it not rather, like this, that since the Weimar era, joining a Party by no means implied that one approved of its ideology?
A. In the case of many persons who joined the Party at that time, that was so.
Q. When you joined tho NSDAP in 1933, did you know anything about the fact that Hitler was striving towards war?
A. I considered that to be absolutely impossible. I could not imagine that a statesman, no matter where he had experienced the horrors of the years 1914 to 1918 and who actually had gone through it as a soldier, could assume the responsibility or burden his conscience with plunging the world into a war which would be much worse than what had occurred in 1914 to 1918. I was continued in that opinion due to the continuous assurances by the German Government that they wanted peace. The actual outbreak of war surprised me just as much as it did most of my fellow citizens.
Q. Did you hold office in the NSDAP?
A. In the Party? No.
Q. Were you ever a member of the SA, the SS, or any other organization of the NSDAP?
A. No.
Q. Were you an honorary member?
A. No.
Q. Before 1933 were you a member of a professional organization?
A. I have already said that I was a member of tho Prussian Judges' Association, and I worked with the Board of Directors.
Q. The Judges' Association was not a Nazi organization?
A. No, it was a purely professional organization of the Prussian judges and public prosecutors.
Q. In document book 1-A which the prosecution has submitted, document NG-325 is contained at pages 28 to 30 of the German copy. However, the prosecution did not submit it as an exhibit. In spite of that, I would like to ask you to make some statements about this document.
A. I can clarify that very easily. When the Prussian Judges' Association was transferred into the so-called NS Lawyers' League, I was appointed to that function.
However, in the beginning I was used for some individual cases, but later I was no longer consulted.
From a professional point of view, were you in a position to be active in that organization?
A. Since I would have taken such an additional post just as seriously as my main office. I could not have combined tho two at all.
Q. After 1933 did you appear as speaker or author in Party political matters?
A. I neither wrote nor spoke on Party political matters. I only wrote two articles of a professional nature on order of Minister Guertner.
Q. I now start a new subject, and that is your relationship to the Supreme Reich Court and the Reich Ministry of Justice in regard to your activity.
As is known, in addition to the Reich Public Prosecution at the People's Court, there was also the prosecution at the Reich Supreme Court. Did the prosecution at the Reich Supreme Court, after 1936, still have any organizational or other connections with the Reich Public Prosecution at the People's Court?
A. The two authorities were absolutely separate.
Q. At the time when you were Oberreichsanwalt at the People's Court, who was Oberreichsanwalt at the Reich Supreme Court?
A. From 1937 until the collapse, it was Oberreichsanwalt Brettler.
Q. Can you state briefly to the Court what material competence the Reich Public Prosecution at the Reich Supreme Court had?
A. It had to work on the indictments of the Reich Supreme Court in especially important cases. A case of that nature was discussed yesterday by the witness Drescher here, namely, the indictment against Drescher. Furthermore, I had to work on revisions in penal cases, and nullity pleas and extraordinary objections to the extent that they touched upon the competence of the Reich Supreme Court.
Q. Thus it was not the case that only the Reich Public Prosecution at the People's Court had to deal with political matters?
A. The Reich Supreme Court, and with that the Reich Public Prosecution, could also be brought in contact with them; on the basis of review, or by nullity plea, they got in contact with facts, with, for instance, the Party Prohibition Law, the Dynamite Law, and the Radio Law, which usually represented criminal acts with political motives.
Q. If an extraordinary objection had to be raised against a sentence by a special court or a regular court, who was competent to make such a declaration?
A. Only the Oberreichsanwalt at the Reich Supreme Court could do that, and only if he had an instruction from the Reich Government or the Minister of Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: In a moment we will take our afternoon adjournment.
May I inquire of counsel for the defendants who will next be examined after the defendant Lautz, have they submitted the material for their document books to the proper translating authorities? That would be, I presume, the defendant Mettgenberg next, and von Ammon, Joel, and Rothaug.
DR. SCHILF: The next defendant who is to be examined will be Dr. Mettgenberg, on the assumption that a treatment of the Engert case could not proceed in any case.
I have submitted document books for Dr. Mettgenberg. However, I fear that they will not be returned to me in time. As far as the document books for Klemm are concerned, may I perhaps say the following?
I myself have not received any German copies. My secretary and I do not dare any more to inquire at the office, because were are told again and again we cannot urge and we are not allowed to urge. We just have to wait. I am only in a position to submit my documents if I receive the German document books, too. As I have been informed, several document books in the English language have been completed. In the German language however, not yet. However, I am counting upon receiving my document books before I start on the Mettgenberg case. That is to say, that I can introduce the Klemm books before I start on the Mettgenberg case.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you submitted the material for all of the books which you propose to use in the case Mettgenberg?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, I have submitted them, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: And when were they submitted?
DR. SCHILF: That was during the last few days. I cannot say it exactly, but only during the last few days.
THE PRESIDENT: Is counsel for Ammon here?
DR. SCHILF: No, Dr. Kubuschok is not present. However, I spoke about the question of his defense of the defendant von Ammon with Dr. Kubuschok today. Following Dr. Mettgenberg's case, he will call von Ammon to the witness box.
THE PRESIDENT. Has he submitted his document material?
DR. SCHILF: Unfortunately I am not informed about that, Your Honor. I can't tell you that.
THE PRESIDENT: Can we be advised as to whether the defendant Joel has submitted his material for documents?
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: Your Honor, the document books for Dr. Joel were submitted on the 16th of July and the subsequent days. The first on the 16th. I have made inquiries in the translation branch and found out that in part the books have been translated and that the problem of completing them is not due to the translation but only to the typing of the document books.
THE PRESIDENT: I think I will not inquire further as to other defendants. But we do call attention to the fact that you have had several months in which the material might be presented. We have been advised by the defense counsel that it would be a great convenience to them to have the document books available when the defendant is examined. You can't do that, gentlemen, unless you submit your document books early enough to have them ready at that time. We cautioned counsel for all of the defendants to submit their material at the earliest moment to the end that they may have the benefit of the document books when they examined the defendants.
We will take a recess until tomorrow morning at ninethirty.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 24 July 1947 at 0930 hrs)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 24 July 1947, 0930-1630, Justice James T. Brand. presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III.
Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant Engert, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Engert has been excused. Let notation be made.
MR. KING: May it please the Court, the Prosecution has examined the exhibits submitted yesterday in behalf of the defendant Lautz, to the following extent: In Volume I Exhibit 1 through and including Exhibit 35; in Volume II-A, Exhibit 36 through and including Exhibit 82; and in Volume III-A, the Exhibit 83 through and including Exhibit 109. While we have the greatest difficulty in seeing any relevancy whatsoever in nearly all of these one hundred nine exhibits, the Prosecution has no objection to the admission in evidence of the above documents which I have described. In several instances, we do have some questions about the English translations, but we think that is a matter which we can settle outside of court with the aid and abatement of Dr. Grube.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibits, and each of them, to which counsel has referred are received in evidence, their probative value to be determined by the Tribunal.
DR. KOESSL: (Attorney for Defendant Rothaug) May it please the Tribunal, the President of the District Court of Appeals, Nurnberg, refuses to submit files of the Special Court of Nurnberg to the Defense, inspite of the fact that a written approval has been shown to him.
Neither does he permit any information to be gotten from the files and from the records. He demands of me that I present to him a letter by the Court, directed to him, according to which he is permitted to submit the files to me and is forced to do so. I ask that an appropriate decision be made because for many weeks I have had great difficulties in trying to obtain these files. The President of the District Court of Appeals says that five hundred to six hundred files had been given to the Prosecution. Mr. Einstien says that in addition to the files already submitted, there are only about twenty files left. I was told that upon the steps taken by the defense to try to get the files from the District Court of Appeals, a large number of files had been taken away by the Prosecution.
Difficulties of the same kind exist in connection with bringing witnesses. In order to show the Tribunal that the Defense has attempted everything possible, in order to submit evidence and submit proof on the dates as required, I shall describe the efforts I made to get in touch with the witness Bens. Between the 6th and 14th of June, four petitions were filled, until the witness, who at that time was in the Court Prison, on the 17th of June could be interviewed in the presence of Mr. Einstien. On the basis of his statements the draft of an affidavit was made out, and on the 23rd June the witness was ordered to appear again for an interview; and that interview was for the 26th June because three day's notice was required. On that day permission was given to speak to him on the 27th. On the 27th of June the information was received that Bens had been transferred to Hammelburg on the 21st of June. On the 27th of June I filed a new petition to have him transferred to Nurnberg; on the 9th of July that petition was granted. In order to omit nothing to get possession of the affidavit, which is very important for me, I subsequently on the 10th of July announced that I wanted to make a visit to the camp of Hammelbrug for Friday, the 18th of July.
On the 18 of July I sent my assistant to the camp of Hammelburg. Bens had been released on the 17th of July. At this time telegrams are on the way to get in touch with that witness.
The witness Martin was requested by me on the 6th of June. The witness at that time was also in the prison here. Due to the introduction of special forms, I received my petition back on the 10th of June. On the 10th of June the right forms were made out by me. On the 12th of June I received information that Martin had been transferred to Dachau. Since that time I sent my assistant twice to Dachau, and in this case I was successful in obtaining the affidavit.
On the 27th of June the witnesses Voigt, Ohler and Zimmermann were requested. All three of them were approved on the 7th of July. Until this day not one of them has arrived, and I really don't know what these witnesses can testify to.
A a consequence of these circumstances, the seventeen days granted to prepare the Defense could not be utilized fully. I submit these facts to the Tribunal so that the Tribunal shall see that the Defense has done everything in its power in order to be able to meet the deadline.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel should be prepared to present his Defense in the regular order, when and as we reach it. The Tribunal is not aware of any order or form of order which has been presented to the Tribunal which has not received prompt action. If there be a delay, it is not on the part of the Tribunal. When the transcript of your comments, Dr. Koessl, is in the record, we will cause the facts to be inquired into and determine what should be done. You have secured your affidavit from Bens, have you not?
DR. KOESSL: No, no. From Bens, on the basis of the interview with him, I drafted an affidavit, but I could not obtain his signature because -
THE PRESIDENT: Where was he then?
DR. KOESSL: Bens was here in the Court Prison, and in the presence of Mr. Einstein I interviewed him.
THE PRESIDENT: If you want Bens as a witness, and if he is available here, he can be called as a witness to the witness stand; that will obviate the necessity for an affidavit.
DR. KOESSL: Mr. President, I have just explained that Bens was transferred from here. He was sent to the camp of Hammelburg, and when I tried to get in touch with him there, he had been released the previous day.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will cause some investigation to be made concerning the facts as you allege them. If counsel desires that an order be issued to the President of the District Court of Appeals, Nurnberg, he should prepare a written request for such an order, specifying the name of the office and what it is that you desire to be incorporated in such an order, and the Court will five it consideration.
DR. KOESSL: I shall immediately prepare the motion in writing.
DR. GRUBE: May it please the Tribunal, I ask to be permitted to continue the direct examination of the witness Lautz.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
ERNST LAUTZ - Resumed BY DR. GRUBE: (Attorney for the Defendant Lautz)
Q Yesterday at the end of the day we had come to the question as to who was competent if against a sentence of a special court, or a regular court, an extraordinary objection was made, and you said the Reich Prosecutor of the Supreme Court. May I ask you what court made the final decision in this case?
A The special senate at the Reich Supreme Court was competent for the decision in this case.
Q Yesterday by submitting Exhibit 23, I demonstrated that the mullity plea could be filed via the Chief Reich Prosecutor at the Reich Supreme Court against sentences of the local courts, the penal chambers ant the special courts.
I want to ask you briefly, in the course of the war, was that provision extended to the effect that the nullity plea could also be filed against sentences of the People's Court?
A No, that did not happen.
Q You yourself, therefore, had nothing at all to do with the nullity plea?
A No.
Q Concerning the subject of the nullity plea, the Prosecution submitted various documents. Those are the exhibits of the Prosecution Nos. 179, and 188. And the, further documents which also refer to the nullity plea are exhibits of the Prosecution 186, 191, 245, 489, and 261. Can I assume, therefore, that these documents do not refer to to you?
A No, they do not.
Q The Prosecution also submitted documents in which mention is made of the Chief Reich Prosecutor. Those are the exhibits 63, 59, 96, 165, 434, 457, and 560. Do these exhibits refer to you?
A No, they do not refer to me either.
Q In this connection, at this time, I should like to put another question. The Prosecution, in its Indictment, stated that you were co-resonsible for matters which, according to the text of the Indictment, were exclusively designated as matters of the Ministry of Justice. They are the following points of the Indictment: Arabic figures 12 and 24; 14 and 26; 15 and 27; and 18 and 30. Because of these statements I ask you: Were you ever a member of the Reich Minister of Justice?
A No.
Q Did you ever participate in the drafting of the measures with which the Ministry of Justice is charged under these points?
A No.
Q Under figures 15 and 27 of the Indictment, the Prosecution stated that the RJM--that is, the Reich Ministry of Justice--had taken a part in the extermination of certain groups of individuals by the aid of legislation for sterilization. In addition to that, the mentally sick, as well as the old and sick inhabitants of occupied territories--as the so called "useless eaters"-- were murdered.