This document is supposed to be a counterpart to Exhibit 251 of the prosecution. That Exhibit 251 of the prosecution contained a summary of the cases, where before 1933 and after 1933, the death sentence was threatened. The document which I am introducing now lists the number of cases where death sentences may be passed and shows that this number is greater than that contained in Exhibit 251.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: I am offering it as Exhibit 24.
The next document is an excerpt from the official legal periodical, Deutsche Justiz. This periodical has frequently been mentioned in this trial. This document is an article by Dr. Crohne. His name, too, has been mentioned here frequently. He was department chief of department IV, the department which dealt with penal law. It is of importance for my client Klemm that Crohne explains here what work his department had to do in cases concerning the malicious acts law. I offer it as Exhibit 25.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: As my next document, which belongs to the former in its logical sequence, will be found in Document Book3 Supplement.
May I ask the Secretary General to hand to the Tribunal Book 3 Supplement?
It is only one document and it consists of two pages. It is another article by Dr. Crohne. It is designated as Exhibit 25-A. This article is entitled "Administration of Penal Law- 1938". This article too is concerned with the fact that, at the time when Klemm was at the Reich Ministry of Justice he dealt with the so-called cases concerning the malicious acts law. This shows that, at the time, a decline in such cases occurred. The last sentence is of particular importance. May I attract the attention of the Tribunal to that last sentence?
I offer this document as Supplement to Volume 3 and I would ask you to give it the number 25-A because it is part of 25.
Exhibit 25-A, part of Exhibit 25.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received.
DR. SCHILF: My next document reprints two passages from the law, Articles 340 and 341 of the penal Code. It is on page 53 of the document book. Article 341 concerns those penal provisions which were to be applied in the case of so-called more severe interrogations or interrogations under duress. The Tribunal will recall that Klemm, when from 1936 to 1938 he was on the staff of the Reich Ministry of Justice had to deal with that section, that is to say, proceedings against police officials who had infringed on the provisions which are quoted here. By way of explanation, I may say that Article 239 is quoted first. It is only introduced into this document because reference is made to that regulation in Article 341.
I offer this exhibit as # 26.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next, on page 56 of Document Book 3, is an excerpt from the regulations for the administration of criminal law, in the version of 1941. That is evident from Figure 1 of the introduction. Very many figures are mentioned there. The last figure is 22nd of April, 1941. These were the directives which had been issued by the Ministry for judges and public prosecutors, and concerned the interpreteration of the existing laws. Of particular importance, on page 58, is the note under 2, below the line. It refers to the socalled circular decree, by the Reich Minister of Justice of the 27th of May, 1939. There are only a few lines. It is said that that circular decree of 1939 contained indications concerning cooperation between the prosecution and the courts, cooperation in order to avoid any striking discrepancies between the prosecutions and the courts. The prosecution has always emphasized the so-called guidance and this is primarily concerned with the removal of the striking differences of opinion.
I offer this document as Exhibit 27 to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document is on page 61 of the book and it continues to 62. This is an ordinance from the year 1934. It is by the Prussian Ministry of Justice and concerns the Gestapo. The subject is "Order for Protective Custody". This document shows that the police reserved to itself the sole right to impose protective custody. The administration of justice was right outside this problem.
I offer this document as Exhibit 28.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: The following document isn't connected with the one I have just offered. It is the decree of the 17th of October, 1939, and so it was issued soon after the outbreak of war, According to this decree the entire SS was removed from the general administration of justice. The Tribunal will recall that when Klemm was examined as a witness, in particular in connection with interrogations under duress, it was discussed why the administration of justice could not get at the police in cases where the SS and the police had ill treated prisoners or persons who had been convicted. That is to say, concerning the provisions for the more interrogations under duress. By this law, a special jurisdication was set up. The police wanted to clarify these matters itself in a legal way. The administration of justice had nothing to say about this.
I am now offering this as Exhibit # 29.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received. It is received. The same matter is in one of the prosecution's documents, I believe. The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: I would now ask the Tribunal to turn to Document Book 4. Document Book 4 begins on page 3. May I say briefly, by way of explanation, Document Book 4 deals with Klemm's activities in the Netherlands and at the Party Chancellery. It starts on page 3, with an affid avit by Dr. Wimmer.
Dr. Wimmer was Klemm's superior at the time when Klemm worked in the Netherlands. This is shown under Figure 2 of the affidavit on page 3 of the document book. Figures 3 to 7 give details about Klemm's work, and under Figure 7, the Secretary General Temkin is mentioned. Secretary General Temkin has given a very extensive affidavit for the defendant Klemm. I have only just received this affidavit and I shall introduce it later.
Now, I would ask you to receive Dr. Wimmer's affidavit as Exhibit 30. I think, from a formal point of view, it is in order.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document is again an law. I am introducing it here in reference to Klemm's position at the Party Chancellory and with the view of clarifying that position. Page 7 of the document book, dated 24 September 1945, contains the provision that the Deputy of the Fuehrer -- later on a different designation was given to that office, it was later on called "Chief of the Party Chancellory" --- that this office had to play a part in the appointment of officers. I offer that law as Exhibit 31.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honors, please, it has just been called to my attention with reference to Exhibit 30 that the affiant was here on July 2nd in Nurnberg. I realize there are difficulties in presenting the defendants' cases, but I think at least I would have the court suspend its ruling until we hear why the affiant was not called as a witness and permitted to leave.
DR. SCHILF: May I give an explanation? Since Dr. Temkin, the Dutch Minister of Justice, has now given an affidavit, I no longer think Dr. Wimmer's testimony as an affidavit is important enough so that we should waste time, by personal examination. Wimmer says the same thing as has been reported by the Dutch Minister of Justice.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, I want to say in connection with the Temkin matter, I wrote for the affidavit and we received an affidavit from Temkin, which was to be delivered both to Dr. Klemm and myself. I will join with him in introducing that. There was also an affidavit from another man, whose name I forgot. They were sent on the condition that they would be submitted to both the prosecution and the defense. On the basis of this, I must ask the Tribunal to reverse its ruling on Exhibit 30.
I will join Dr. Schilf in submitting the Temkin affidavit and the other one also.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the statement by counsel for both sides, the Tribunal will reverse its ruling on Exhibit 30. The exhibit will be rejected.
DR. SCHILF: May I add the following in regard to submitting the Temkin affidavit, so far I have not been able to read it myself as it is written in Dutch. I should like to reserve the right then to have Dr. Wimmer here as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no ruling that you may not call Dr. Wimmer as a witness. In fact the only objection to the Affidavit is that he is available as a witness. You may reserve that right.
DR. SCHILF: The next document is connected with Exhibit 31. It is an excerpt from the publication by the Ministry of Justice. It is on page 8 and it concerns promotions of members of the Nazi Party. It is a brief document and it speaks for itself. I offer it as exhibit 32.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 32 is received.
DR. SCHILF: On page 10 there is an excerpt from a volume which was published by the Party Chancellery. The heading is Ordnances, Regulations and Publications. From that big volume I have quoted a few pages which show the attitude of Group 3, the Justice Group at the Party Chancellery. These ordnances were published at the time - and all three pages which I quote here show and in some cases very definitely - that the local party offices such as the Kreisleiter, the Gauleiter, etc., were not to interfere with the Administration of Justice.
The document speaks for itself and I offer it as Exhibit 33.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: Would you now turn to supplement book 4. It is a supplement belonging to book 4. This supplement volume contains six documents, which logically in its context belong to the main book 4. If you don't have that book ...
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honors, please. I do not have book 4 supplement nor do I have exhibits 34, 35, 36 and 37 which are contained in the index to book 4, nor do I have a supplement to supplement that.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 33 is the last one in book 4. It is not in the book. Do you have the supplement? We are not in possession of the supplement.
DR. SCHILF: May I ask the Tribunal concerning Nos. 34 to 37 to reserve those numbers 34 to 37-B; that is six documents.
THE PRESIDENT: 37, 37-A- and 37-B?
DR. SCHILF: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed then, we will reserve those numbers.
DR. SCHILF: May I ask now, Your Honors, to turn to document book 5. Document book 5 begins on page 3 with a law. The law which is here quoted is a decree concerning the exercising of the clemency right as far as it was transferred from the Laender to the Reich President. In 1934 Hindenburg was then president of the Reich. The law refers to the transfer of the Administration of Justice to the Reich and it also refers to clemency decisions. This is the law which was mentioned in the Hohenstein Case, that is to say in Guertner's letter, when he said that he no longer had the clemency right.
May I ask you to receive this as Exhibit 38?
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: I offer as 38 - a the administrative legal provisions as a supplement. That is a supplement from a book by Wolfgang Menschell, who dealt with clemency matters at the Chancellery of the leader of the NSDAP. This passage has repeatedly been mentioned in this trial. He quotes the various legal provisions and administrative ordinances. From these excerpts the Tribunal will recognize in detail how the regulations on the clemency procedure. The Tribunal will see here the chain of people who were necessarily involved in clemency plea cases and the decision on the matter of clemency pleas. This exhibit also in detail mentions the other legal institutions named in the course of these proceedings. I refer to page 9 of the right to quash proceedings. I have tried to present my extracts in as brief a form as possible. This excerpt will show the general development and the general regulations concerning clemency pleas. It also shows the position of the supreme SA leadership. I refer to page 16 of the document book.
May I ask the Tribunal to receive this collection of various ordinances as exhibit 38-A?
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: Exhibit 39 also deals with the problem of clemency decisions. It is an internal circular decree. 38-A is a book which was available in all public libraries. This next document is a circular decree from the year of 1935. This decree was not generally know. Exhibit 38-A-no Exhibit 39.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 39 is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document is an affidavit by Baldur von Schirach. Baldur von Schirach was mentioned at this trial in connection with the Graf Stuergkh case. This affidavit refers to prosecution exhibit 359 and it contains a correspondence between Lammers, Meissner and the Minister of Justice at the time, that was Thierack. According to that correspondence, the Gauleiters were to gain a function and to play a part in clemency decisions. The affidavit by Schirach is introduced by me to refute the Altmeyer affidavit, Exhibit 441 as Altmeyer asserted in his affidavit that the Party Chancellery, the office where Klemm worked, had been against this.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, I must object to the introduction of this affidavit. This affidavit shows that the affiant was here in Nurnberg on the 3rd of July; at that time he was a prisoner in the Nurnberg Jail. I think now he has been sent some place to serve his sentence. I believe upon proper application the Tribunal would have heard him. For that reason I must object to the introduction of this affidavit.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, may I say the following: When I took the affidavit, as far as I remember, the ruling of the Court had hot yet been passed to the effect that witnesses who are at the prison here in Nurnberg should as soon as possible appear on the witness stand. When that affidavit was taken, I based myself on the previous regulations -- the previous ruling. Therefore, I submitted the affidavit assuming it could be received just as the affidavits taken by the Prosecution, even if the people are here in Nurnberg. Baldur von Schirach is no longer in Nurnberg. As far as I know, as a main criminal the IMT has sentenced von Schirach to a prison term and according to the announcements in the press, he was, with the other Prisoners who were sentenced by the IMT, transferred to Spandau prison.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If the Court please, I realize that early in the trial Dr. Schilf was very often absent in working in the interest of his client, and I don't charge that he in any way made an incorrect statement, but the ruling of the Court about this matter was made about the 26th of June in connection with these affiants and had to do with the affiants Hecker and Muenzmeyer; and that was before the 3rd of July. It is entirely possible that Dr. Schilf was not here, but the ruling of the Court was made before then -- before the 3rd of July.
THE PRESIDENT: We shall be glad to have the reference to the page of the transcript which shows the exact date of our ruling. Of course we cannot recollect the date of the ruling. You can give it to us later.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Perhaps the Court will suspend ruling on this, and I will bring it in to is afternoon after lunch.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right. The ruling is reserved.
DR. SCHILF: May I ask you to reserve No. 40 for this exhibit; and I will now go over to the next exhibit. It is a letter from prison authorities here in Nurnberg to the senior public prosecutor here in Nurnberg. It is page 26; it concerns the Jankovic files. Most of the Jankovic files have already been introduced by the Prosecution here. Jankovic was sentenced to death, and no clemency was granted; but he was not executed because he was able to escape. The fact that he was not executed is evident from this document. I offer it as Exhibit 41.
THE PRESIDENT: There being no objection, the exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: According to my sequence I should now offer Document Book VI. Document Book VI was supposed to be handed to me this morning it was supposed to be finished last night, but I didn't get it. I merely wanted to ask the Tribunal ---
MR. LAFOLLETTE: So far as I know it is only distributed in the German, and I received a German copy , but no English. I don't know whether the Secretary General has received it this morning or not.
DR. SCHILF: In regard to this document book --
THE PRESIDENT: How many numbers do you want reserved for that book?
DR. SCHILF: For this document book I would ask you to reserve No. 42 through 56. Document Book VI deals only with the notorious judges letters, and with the so-called guidance letters. May I now pass on to Document Book VII. On page 3 to page 22 there is a summary of these laws and ordinances, generally only the heading, and the beginning of 1944 until the surrender in 1945, signed with his name in the Reich Gesetzblatt, there are thirty-one ordinances there. In comparison there are eleven ordinances which were signed by Klemm as under secretary.
To make that summary clearer, I ask you to admit Exhibit 57, that is Thierack's thirty-one ordinances from the Reichsgesetzblatt, and Exhibit 58 Klemm's eleven ordinances from the Reich Legal Gazette. The heading shows largely that Klemm, as under secretary, signed for altogether insignificant matters.
THE PRESIDENT: You are submitting that as purporting to be a complete list of the ordinances signed by Klemm?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, Your Honor, a complete list. On page 23 of the document book No. 7, I am introducing an affidavit by Dr. Wilkerling.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. Apparently your paging has been omitted.
DR. SCHILF: Is it not page 23? It follows the list of Klemm's ordinances. At the top right --
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I believe that it apparently follows page 12.
THE PRESIDENT: You are now discussing Exhibit No. 59?
DR. SCHILF: I am beginning with 59. In the English document book at the right hand top corner -- I really cannot feel myself responsible for the fact that in the English document book there is no pagination. The German document book has a pagination and that is the way I submitted it.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 59 begins on page 25 if properly numbered. You may proceed.
DR. SCHILF: Exhibit 59 is the number for Dr. Wickerling's affidavit. Dr. Wikerling from 1940 onward, until February, 1945, worked at the Reich Ministry of Justice. In this affidavit he gives an account of Dr. Thierack's methods at work, particularly with reference to penal matters. He points out that after Thierack assumed office, as Minister of Justice, all penal matters were dealt with by him in such a way that reports had to be made to him. The department chiefs and the under secretaries were pushed into the background by Thierack. I offer this as Exhibit 59.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received. Just a moment, you have offered 57 and 58 also. Those exhibit are received; they are also received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document appears on page -
THE PRESIDENT: Page 27.
DR. SCHILF: Thank you, Your Honor, 27. It is an affidavit by Mattern. Mattern, too, worked at the Reich Ministry of Justice. In his affidavit he describes in detail Klemm's position as under secretary, comparing it with Thierack's position. He also describes the character of Thierack, which is accordance with the statements by the witnesses here, and with the statement of Klemm himself in the witness stand. I offer this document as Exhibit 60.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document appears on page 31 to 32. It is an affidavit by Stagel Stagel, at the time when Klemm was under secretary, was the expert on civil law as far as Austrian cases were concerned. However, he describes a few cases where Klemm, as under secretary, rejected interference by party authorities. I offer document as Exhibit 61.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 61 is on page 29; the exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: There will not be a number 62 because that was the Hecker affidavit and Hecker has already been examined on the witness stand.
The next document is an affidavit by Dr. Hupperschwiller. Dr. Hupperschwiller was the expert of department 15. The Tribunal will recall that department 15 was the department which had been set up temporarily, branch of department 5, the department which dealt with the administration of punishment. That department 15 dealt with cases concerning the transfer of prisoners to the police. The affiant described in detail what was Klemm's position in department 15, that is to say, he had nothing to do at all with department 15. No reports were made to him, et cetera. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 63.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: I am now asking the Secretary General whether supplement 7 is there, in the English translation, I mean. This contains two affidavits that bear the numbers 63-a and 63-b. The first affidavit was given by Dr. Kriege. Dr. Kriege in August, 1944, was arrested by the Gestapo because it had been intended to appoint him to a leading position in case the attempt on Hitler of the 20 of July, 1944, had come off. Dr. Kriege described in detail facts concerning Klemm and says that he was protected. The end of the affidavit deserves attention. There Klemm's character is described and it is said that he and his political friends I am mentioning it because of that, he speaks of himself as an opponent of the Third Reich and of his friends as opponents of the Third Reich; their position had been that Klemm in a position under Thierack had always been open to a consideration of humanity. I offer this document as Exhibit 63-A.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document in the supplement volume is an affidavit by Dr. Bruns, who also worked for a great number of years in the Ministry.
He also cites for us examples of individual cases, describing Klemm's attitude, who was in favor or a more lenient treatment of the case in opposition to Thierack. I offer this as exhibit 63-B.
THE PRESIDENT: 63-B is received. It will be observed, however, that there is no paging consecutively through your supplement document book. 63-b will be page 3.
DR. SCHILF: Your honor, may it please the Court, may I point out that according to the German 63-B, Exhibit 63-B, we have had instructions to give a number also the index, 63-A, page -------, 63-B, page 5, that is how it is numbered in the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: However, in the document books there should be some pagination started with the beginning of the book and running to the end of the book. There is none here. We have numbered the book.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, I am sorry about that but I have no influence on the pagination of the English documents. My German book was submitted in an orderly pagination. May I now ask the Tribunal to turn to the next document book, book 8 -
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, just so that we may possibly make some plans for an orderly procedure this afternoon, unless we receive the English of book 6, I think all that is available now are books 8 and 9 for Kelmm. We will get through with those undoubtedly early in the afternoon. There seems to be some announcement about some other books but I don't know what they are.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: I and 2.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: 1 and 2 for Klemm we have already put that in.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: They haven't been used.
MR. LAFOLETTE: Book 1 and 2 for Klemm?
THE PRESIDENT: I have a note here which shows that the Rothenberger and Lautz books are ready.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: That is just why I was going to speak, Your Honor, there was delivered to us yesterday books I through 4 for Rothenberger and two of the Lautz books, two additional Lautz books.
THE PRESIDENT: We will proceed with the document books, whatever is ready.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: 2-B and 4-B for Lautz were received yesterday, and I think there was a 4-C. -- have the documents in that book been put in, Dr. Grube, in 4-c?
DR. GRUBE: There has been introduced now book 1, 2-a, and 3-a, and furthermore a few days ago I obtained book 4-c, and I now have some, Mr. Lafollette, but 2 isn't here I think nor is 4.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The Prosecution has the books to continue with Rothenberger and Lautz this afternoon, Your Honors. I will waive the 24 hour rule.
DR. SCHILF: Document book 8, I hope the pagination is in order. It begins on page 36, an affidavit by Frau Reichert. Frau Reichert was the woman supervisor of the women's prison at Rothenfeld. She recounts two incidents, the story of her employment at the suggestion of Klemm, although she was a member of the Social Democratic party, prior to 1937. The second occurrence, and Klemm has already testified to this on the witness stand, that he in the case American troops were to approach, had given certain instructions for the release of prisoners and to turn over the remaining prisoners to the American troops. I offer this document as Exhibit 64.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, with reference to Exhibit 40, I find that the ruling of the Court was made on the same day that Dr. Schilf made his affidavit and I withdraw my objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well Exhibit 40, Klemm exhibit 40 is received. The objection has been withdrawn.
DR. SCHILF: The next document is an affidavit by Dr. Lammers and I will not introduce it as Dr. Lammers appeared on the witness stand here.
The next document is an affidavit by Wilkerling. It begins on page 8 of the document book and ends on page 10, I beg your pardon, on page 11. Wilkerling was on the staff of the Ministry in 1944. He describes an occurrence which concerns Madgeburg and the administration of justice there. He gives a detailed description of how after an air raid on Madgeburg the German population had been too friendly with Allied airman who had bailed out. That was the view of the local party agency. The people who had been too friendly in their treatment of the Allied Airmen were arrested and Klemm saw to it that they were released. I offer that document as Exhibit 66.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received. We will recess until one-thirty this afternoon.
(The Tribunal adjourned for the noon recess.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, before the recess I stopped with document book VIII. May I now ask you to turn to page 12 of document book VIII? On page 12 there is quite an interesting document, although it is only an excerpt from a newspaper item. It is a newspaper clipping of 27 November 1946. This document is introduced in relation to the lynching of allied fliers.
This is a newspaper notice from the newspaper "Nuerenberger Nachrichten", and it is entitled, "They Threatened to hang Papen". In this notice it is stated that after Papen was acquitted by the IMT, the public was aroused to the extent that it could have lead to lynching, and that the Police President of Nurnberg declared that he was not willing to protect von Papen.
I offer this newspaper clipping document 67, as Exhibit 67. For the purpose of the record -
THE PRESIDENT: It is appearing that no objection has been made, and in spite of the fact that at least one member of the Tribunal is unable to see the slightest relevance in this document, it may be received for such probative value if any as it may be found to have.
DR. SCHILF: Your Honor, for the record, I am in doubt whether Exhibit No. 66 has already been received in evidence as an exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: It has been received.
DR. SCHILF: Thank you very much.
The next document, on page 15 of The document book, is an affidavit by the former Undersecretary in the Reich Chancellery.
The Undersecretary in the Reich Chancellery was a subordinate of Dr. Lammers; his name is FriedrichWilhelm Kritzinger.
This affidavit deals with the occurrences which led to the drafting of the so-called civil servant court martial order. The civilian court martial order is very important in the Montgelas case, which happened here in Nurnberg. This affidavit states in detail that the administration of Justice, especially Klemm, were not in favor of having the Party or the Police alone appoint the members of the civilian court mar tial, but that the administration of Justice should appoint the judges and the prosecutors. The affidavit is of the 30th of June 1947.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object to the affidavit for the reason that the affiant is in the Nurnberg jail and can be produced as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the affiant still in jail here?
DR. SCHILF: Your Honor, I cannot tell you whether he is still in jail here; I don't know.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The last information available to me, Your Honor, is that he is in the Nurnberg jail. Of course, they are shifted, but the information I had yesterday was that he was here.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit will not be received at this time.
DR. SCHILF: I now come to the supplementary volume of document book VIII; the supplement to document book VIII. This contains two documents. I call them 68-A and 68-B. May I ask the Secretary General to distribute the copies to the Tribunal?
I believe the English translations are not yet available.
May I ask the Tribunal to reserve the numbers 68-A and 68-B?
THE PRESIDENT: We will reserve those numbers.
DR. SCHILF: The next document book is No. IX.
The first document is an affidavit made out by Hans Willers, and this begins on page 3 of the document book and ends on page 7. Willers, an official of the Ministry of Justice from 1929 on, first worked in the Prussian Ministry of Justice and, after that was dissolved, had been transferred to the Reich Administration of Justice, until 1940. He worked on personnel matters in the Reich Ministry of Justice at the end; that is, he had the position of a Ministerial Dirigent. It is known to the Tribunal that, as Undersecretary, the defendant Klemm had a great deal to do with personnel matters.
Willers, who was an old, experienced civil servant and had a great deal of experience in personnel matters, states in detail what Klemm's attitude was in promotions and appointments of officials. It is especially interesting in this document -- and that is why I want to direct the attention of the Tribunal to it -- on page 4, towards the end of the page, Willers reports the feeling that existed in the Ministry when they heard that Klemm came from the Party Chancellery. That fact alone, that he was appointed from that organization to the Ministry, gave rise to fears that he would increase the influence of the Party. Willers states that these fears soon proved to be unfounded. He then states further details, and I will refrain from referring to any other passages in this affidavit. I offer it as No. 70.
THE PRESIDENT: Apparently you have omitted your number 69. There is no 69?