Q Page 60 show that fact, I believe.
A Yes, yes. Yes, yes. This confirms a telephone conversation.
Q Yes. Now, that Ministry of Justice order was directed to your office, was it not?
A I assume it was addressed to the Senior Public Prosecutor in Nuernberg.
Q And who was that?
A That was myself.
Q Yes, that is right.
A That, of course, does not yet say that at that time, at that very moment -- because I don't know what conversation was concerned, and I can't remember this whole incident at all, not in the least.
Q Does it appear -
A Whether it was the one to whom the telephone call was addressed, or whether I wasn't, I can't tell you that; it is impossible. I stated in detail the reasons that I have no knowledge of it. It was put to me, from my personnel file, that I went on leave on the 16th or the 17th of July, 1941, This perhaps; must be connected with the fact that in the rush I heard it and forwarded it, I don't know. However, I don't know what conversation this is all about. Moreover, I would like to emphasize precisely--and this must be evident from my personnel file--that on 2 July 1941 I did not receive the instructions that were given by telephone, because on that day I went to the funeral of my sister, one day after I assumed my office-and this must also be apparent from my personnel file--I had a day of leave.
On the 2nd of July I was not in Nuernberg at all. My sister was buried on the 3rd of July, or perhaps it even happened on the 2nd I don't know.
Q On page 57 of that case file does it appear that on the 3rd of July, the next day, Eisenberger was handed over, in fact by the prosecution, to the Gestapo?
The director of the camp reports this on 9 July 1941 to the Chief Public Prosecutor in Nuernberg, namely you. Does that appear on page 59?
A That is right; that is a fact. This document is in front of me.
Q Now further on page 61, does it appear that on the 16th of July 1941 you yourself made a file note which states as follows? And I quote:
"According to a press notice which appeared today in the newspaper Voelkischer Beobachter, and which was issued by the Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police, the habitual criminal Eisenberger was shot because of resistance."
Is that correct?
A Yes, yes.
Q.- Now, Mr. Schroeder, I hand you another document.
(Document submitted to witness)
Is that document I had you the case file before the Nurnberg Special Court of one Klein?
A.- Yes.
Q.- On page 3 of that case file, does it appear that on the 23rd of September 1944 you personally reported to the attorney general of Nurnberg at the Court of Appeals the following?
"I intend to file an indictment identical with the draft enclosed if the prosecution is ordered. In view of the personality of the defendant I consider the order for prosecution called for. If the period during which the defendant was in Dachau Concentration Camp is added, the time limits" -
A.- Yes, yes.
Q.- -- "the time limits of Article 20-A of the Reich Penal Code are applicable."
Does it appear, Mr. Schroeder, that this Klein case arose about two months after the Einsenberger case?
A.- I cannot state any details about the origin of this report because as is clear from the working file, this report, in the form in which it has been submitted to me, was produced by Public Prosecutor Markl and, without any changes made by me, was sent to the General Public Prosecutor and the Ministry.
Q.- On page 4 of that same report do you find your signature "Schroeder"?
A.- Page 4? On page 4? You must be in error.
Q.- Or on the reverse of page 3.
A.- If I may ask you, which document are you talking about? The report?
Q.- Page 3.
A. Page 3?
Q.- You see your signature there, don't you?
A.- That is my signature, and about ten centimeters to the right of the signature, below the signature, is the initial of the prosecutor who wrote the report, and the Referent, Markl. The "M" here.
Q.- Now, above your signature on that report, does the following appear? And I quote:
"I therefore intend to refer to Article 20-A of the Reich Penal Code and other articles of the Penal Code, and to request the death penalty. This request appears justified in view of the similar case Eisenberger, who was sentenced by the Nurnberg Special Court on the 10th of April, 1941, for an offense against the Malicious Acts Law, to five years' loss of civic rights, and who was shot while resisting."
Does that appear there?
A.- On account of Eisenberger, is that what you mean? Is that supposed to be Klein who was shot, or Eisenberger?
Q.- I am just asking you if I read correctly from the paragraph above your signature.
A.- Yes.
Q.- Now -
A.- Yes, yes, here above my signature.
Q.- Yes. Now I ask you, Mr. Schroeder: In the Eisenberger case your office turned over a may to the Gestapo who was duly sentenced to four years by the Special Court. Within two weeks that man was shot to death by the Gestapo. Now two months later, in the Klein case, you proposed the death penalty mainly for the reason that in the Eisenberger case the man was shot by the Gestapo anyway, so there doesn't seem to be much point in asking for any other penalty.
Do you regard that as being a procedure in the normal course of general law?
A.- First I would like to emphasize that I did not have the least to do with the transfer to the Gestapo. The transfer to the Gestapo was undertaken by the Reich Ministry of Justice. At that time I did not even have an opportunity to make any objections against the transfer about which, moreover, I apparently only found out about later. I could not object to such a transfer.
As far as the Klein case is concerned, it is, however, true, according to the file, that the Eisenberger case was mentioned. I wish to state the following in regard to that. It gave cause for a great deal of uprear and rage in our office that Eisenberger, who had been sentenced to a prison term, was suddenly taken out of the penal institution and was shot. There was hardly anyone, I believe there was no one in Nurnberg, who was not enraged about this manner of handling the case.
As Public Prosecutor Markl stated in this report on page 3, this paragraph that was read to me, how he brought this Eisenberger case into it, this could only have meant that under all circumstances it must be prevented that a man again, or under the same conditions, would be taken out of a penal institution and sentenced to death. The Ministry obviously was supposed to be given the opportunity by way of corresponding clemency acts. Neither the Court nor the Prosecution approved of such an occurrence. That this should be prevented was probably the consideration which caused Markl to show this report to me.
At this moment I cannot give better information about the reasons off hand.
Q.- So, Mr. Schroeder,-
A.- I know this case.
Q.- So, Mr. Schroeder, since you say the practice of the Ministry ordering your office to turn over men to the Gestapo who had been sentenced to minor terms, and who were later shot, could not be stopped, you then, in the Klein case, sign a recommendation, which I have just read, in which you state that the death penalty, in a very similar case, is proposed, as stated here, because in the other case the man was shot while resisting anyway.
Does that, in your opinion, justify asking for the death penalty for a man who, in a similar case two months before, got four years? Is that the way the law worked here in Nurnberg in general?
A.- We applied the law correctly. If I did that, I did it so that the greater evil which I saw would be prevented, and the greater evil consisted in having the police, against the will of the Ministry of Justice, by a forced release of the man, proceeding against these people, and that one could represent the point of view toward the Gestapo that the man, as such, was sentenced to death and then it was possible for the Court or the Ministry to intervene.
I must ask you to excuse me for just a moment to see what the Ministry answered.
Q.- Mr. Schroeder, would you please answer my question as I put them to you, please?
In view of the intimate relations which you have described between yourself and the defendant Rothaug, which, as you describe it, was the most intimate relation he had aside from his wife, can you explain why it was that Rothaug here testified that he never heard about people being transferred to the Gestapo after they had been sentenced by the Nurnberg Special Court? How was that?
A.- Well, I personally merely remember the case -- to begin with, in my recollection, it must have been an occurrence which happend before my time in office. In the meantime, it was merely found out that the sentence was passed in April, that is, before my time, even if Rothaug says he didn't know that.
Q.- Mr. Schroeder, you were in office here as Chief Public Prosecutor when the order to turn Eisenberger over to the Gestapo came down, weren't you?
A.- Would you please repeat that?
Q.- I said, you have already admitted here that you were in office as Chief Public Prosecutor.
A.- I was in office, only I don't know if it is correct about that particular date.
Q.- That is all on that, I think, Mr. Schroeder.
A.- Well, I don't knew anymore, at the moment, where it is, this execution.
Q.- That is all, Mr. Schroeder.
A.- I can only repeat again -
Q.- That is all, Mr. Schroeder. I haven't asked you any question.
Tell me: You have testified here today displaying considerable intimate knowledge of how Rothaug got along with his associate judges with regard to the differences of opinion they had on cases, how they voted, particularly with regard to the witness Ferber. I am wondering how you knew all that in your capacity as a Prosecutor when Rothaug testified here that there were no intimate or professional working relations between the Bench and the Prosecution. Where did you hear or learn all these intimate details that are normally a judicial confidence?
A.- I have to answer the question in the same way as another question which I have already answered, that I had certain relations with Rothaug that I knew a great deal from Rothaug; also, in individual cases, the Referents told me a great many incidents, and I received a great deal of information from the associate judges. Today I am no longer in a position to state my opinion as to what incidents were concerned. If I had known that I would be asked about it today, or later on, I would have written it down at that the. I don't know in detail on the basis of what information every individual information was given to me. I can merely state that still today, as at that time, I was under the impression that those were the conditions, without being in a position to cite definite inci dents which occurred in Weiden and which I just happened to remember during the last few days and which I discussed today.
It would be too much to ask of me, as to all those things -- which are all mixed up -- that I should untangle them all today. I don't know.
Q.- Mr. Schroeder, I hand you a book.
(Book submitted to the witness.)
You have stated that the defendant Rothaug proceeded against all defendants with a great deal of severity, without any discrimination. To test whether -
A.- Yes.
Q.- One moment please. To test whether you are qualified to make any conclusions here with regard to severity in the field of justice administration, I ask you to turn to page 12 of that book.
A.- Yes.
Q.- Is the title of that book "Candidates for Death", by Dr. Karl Alt, published in 1946 in Munich?
A.- The experiences of a chaplain in the prison at Stadelheim; yes, it has the title "Candidates for Death."
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q And is it written by the Roman Catholic Chaplain at Stodelheim Prison, Munich, who was there throughout the war years?
AAs far as I know, Dr. Alt was a Protestant Chaplain, but that probably isn't important, is it?
Q No.
A I repeatedly saw him in Munich and spoke with him.
Q Now, this Chaplain at the Munich prison that you repeatedly saw and spoke with, on Page 12, do you find the following quotation that he writes: "The infamous president of the People's Court, Freisler, prohibited smoking even to the candidates for death and even the smallest last-hour privileges or extra rations such as had been customary before. His faithful disciple, the Nurnberg Chief Public Prosecutor Schroeder, one day ordered removal of the Crucifix from the execution chamber as an 'obsolete symbol.' He prohibited the death candidates from saying a prayer together with the priest immediately before their executions for the reason that they 'had nothing more to say.'" Is that correctly read, Mr. Schroeder?
A Yes, you read it correctly, but the matter is incorrect and it is not correct as far as my own person is concerned. I stated expressly that I undertook these executions exactly in accordance with the provisions that were given to us together with the sentences and that I carried out these executions as I was ordered to do and that I did not do anything that was against these provisions. But, on the other hand to be sure I, however, did see to it that these provisions were complied with.
That I had a crucifix taken out, I don't know at all and I don't believe it either and I ask you to have this Dr. Alt come here into this courtroom because, as far as I see already now, there are a lot of things in this book that are only conclusions which they are represented as facts. How am I supposed to have been a faithful student of Freisler whom I didn't even know? I mean just as an external fact and that is a lie of this author because he was informed about the legal regulations Court No. III, Case No. 3.and if he considers this prohibition as one that I had caused; the prisoners in the same manner as the Ministry ordered it, they were treated and I had no reason to deviate from these provisions and regulations because I would not have considered myself justified, to do so.
Q Mr. Schroeder, when you met the author of that book, as you say repeatedly, in Nurnberg Prison -
A I believe I did -- I believe. I mean, I believe I did.
Q Yes. Well, when you believe that you met him did you also believe then that he was a liar, this Chaplain?
A Perhaps the Chaplain in 1946, looking back, had a different view of these occurrences. I don't know. I can only state with all certainty - and this cannot be refuted and please confront me with him that the prisoners were treated quite in accordance with the regulations of the Ministry. I did not consider myself authorized to deviate from the regulations as to their treatment because then I would have endangered myself that this would have been considered sabotage by some prison official.
Q Tell me, Mr. Schroeder, in connection with Rothaug's lack of discrimination among defendants, sentencing them to whatever they deserved, whether they were Party or not, you mentioned the Ramsteck Case. I believe you mentioned the fact that Ortsgruppenleiter Ramsteck was sentenced by Rothaug for some offense or other to a long prison sentence regardless of the fact that he was an important political leader. Now, I ask you, Mr. Schroeder, how long was that long prison sentence?
A Please submit the files to me. Perhaps you have them here.
Q One moment -
A I don't know. As far as I know -
Q You testified -- just a moment, please.
A -- nine months -- I said nine months before but I believe in the meantime I thought about it; I had no documents to examine, whether it was one month and two months or one month and three months I cannot Court No. III, Case No, 3.state under oath and if it is important please show me the file.
Q Whether it was one month or two months, do you regard that as a long prison sentence?
AAs far as the crime that he was being charged with, it should at least be considered as a serious penalty. As far as I know it was fraud.
Q But the sentence that he received was only a matter of one or two or four months. Isn't that correct?
A No, that is not correct. He was the son-in-law of Pamsteck. He was a flight officer. He repeatedly came to my office and wanted to have the release brought about by pardon. We put Ramsteck into prison. I don't believe that I am confusing him with another one. It must be apparent from the documents. Please show me the files. Then I can make exact statements. Ramsteck, in spite of medical testimony that he could not appear at the trial, was arrested on my orders, he was put into the Landsberg Prison and there he was kept and, as far as I know, Ramsteck until the end -
Q Mr. Schroeder, I only asked you how long the sentence was. I didn't ask for a review of the case. Do you remember how long the sentence was?
A I believe that I recall that the sentence lasted for one year and three months or one year and two months. I emphasize expressly that I have not definite knowledge.
Q All right. O.K. Fine. Now, with regard to the Katzenberger Case, Mr. Schroeder, you state that if Rothaug had regarded the Katzenberger Case as at all political he would never have taken the case into the special court at all. Now, in view of that statement, I show you a letter that the defendant Rothaug wrote and I am going to ask you if that is in any way corroborative of what you have stated.
As you will note there, this letter is dated 28 November 1939 and it is addressed to the Presiding Judge of the District Court NurnbergFuerth and it is signed by Rothaug, and throughout this letter, as you Court No. III, Case No. 3.will note, Rothaug complains -
A May I read this letter now?
Q Certainly.
A I don't know this letter. I can't make any statements about it.
Q You may read it.
A (Witness reads document.)
Q Have you read it, Mr. Schroeder?
A I just read it very briefly, looked through it.
Q I call your attention, Mr. Schroeder, to only one sentence near the bottom of Page 2 of the sheet you have there. It says, Rothaug speaking: "For nearly three years I have been handling all political penal cases here, together with my division which the local administration of justice has been lucky in composing of especially qualified judges, in such a way that we believe to be in a position to appear before the Fuehrer."
Now, how does that flat statement of the defendant Rothaug that he handled all political criminal cases in the special court square with your statement that if he had known or felt that the Katzenberger case was political at all he would never have touched it?
A I can only tell you that this is an occurrence which happened during the time when I was not in Nurnberg at all, and, therefore, I cannot say what cause there was in detail for Rothaug to express himself in this manner. I see this document for the first time today. It is dated 28 November and it is obvious that my statements about the individual cases, about the incidents about which I had testified or believed I could testify about, I could refer only to what time during which I personally was senior public prosecutor in Nurnberg during which I worked together with Rothaug; but it is impossible for me to be informed about things that happened before and what cases he dealt with before. I know the Simon Case only by name.
Q Mr. Schroeder, the individual case has nothing whatever to do Court No. III, Case No. 3.with it.
Do you think that the fundamental division of labor between the penal chamber and the special court in Numberg fundamentally changed as to political cases between the date of this letter and when you came to Numberg?
A I don't know.
Q That is all. Now, Mr. Schroeder, I hand you a very familiar book. It is the German Criminal Code of Procedure. You stated here that in the Katzenberger Case the oath that was finally applied to Frau Seiler to take testimony before the trial was a routine, ordinary thing which they only did - the prosecution, that is - to find out what she was going to testify about. I ask you to read aloud Article 65 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure, please.
A "In the preliminary proceedings it is permitted to take a person under oath only when the oath is used to bring about a truthful testimony for an important point which seems to be necessary for the proceeding . . . ."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: For an accurate translation I shall had that book to the interpreter ans she will read it in English.
THE INTERPRETER: "In preliminary priceedings a person may be taken under oath only when there is danger involved in the further course or if the oath is used as a means to bring about a truthful testimony about as essential point that is important for the further course of the priceedings. In the preliminary proceedings, because of a transgression, the taking under oath is not permissible."
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Mr. Sxhroeder, in view of Article 65, it does not appear that the putting of a witness or a fefendant before trial under oath is a very routine or ordinary matter, does it? It appears to the contrary; rather, it appears as an exception. What have you to say about that?
A. As far as Public Prosecutor Markl is concerned, what he did --he was the public prosecutor dealing with us in that case -- what causes he had for taking this oath, I don't know because I did not discuss the matter with him personally. O personally at least was of the opinion that the taking under oath did not serve any purpose because the testimony of -the witness Seiler would have been suspicious anyway and for that reason the taking under oath in accordance -- I beg your pardon? The administration of an oath under the general points of view would not have been admissible.
Q. But it does appear, doesn't it, Mr. Schroeder, quite simply that in the Katzenberger Case, according to the rules of German Criminal Procedure, namely Rule 65, the putting of Frau Seiler under oath before the trial was an unusual, exceptional procedure. Does that appear?
A. I can't tell you that because I did not deal with that case but Prosecutor Markl dealt with that case and I did not discuss this matter with him ever. I only know this, that in any case before I signed the indictment I told Markl that it was not good that he took the witness under oath in view of the fact that there was a somewhat involved and dangerous situstion and the witness Seiler admitted somewhat incriminatin situation.
In order to state my opinion in detail I would have to read all these different paragraphs and ask you for -- I can only make a general statement. I did not give cause for it. Later in I neither caused the witness to be taken under oath not did I cause the witness not to be taken under oath.
Q. All right, Mr. Schroeder. That is all on that.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, I omitted to offer a moment ago, as Prosecution Exhibit No. 553 the document NG-1682 copies of which have already been distributed.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Thank you, your Honor.
BY MR, WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Mr. Schroeder, one moment before we leave the Katzcnberger Case. I am interested in your remark that the joinder of the criminal proceedings against Frau Seiler and Matzenberger wer perfectly normal and routine because, as you stated, they were on the same legal foundation.
A. That is not-
Q. Have I misstated you statement?
A. Yes, you did.
Q. Well, what did you day?
A. That only on the same favtual basis they had to be decided not on the legal basis, that is to say, the way the question was just put to me, but on the same factual basis.
Q. That takes care of that. Nov, Mr. Schroeder, with regard to Rothaug's alleged connections with Deputy Gauleiter Holz, you say that Rothaug, except with regard to the Ramsteck case, never had any connections with Holz at all in any important respect. You further more stated the the Gauleitung --
A. As far as I know.
Q. Yes, I realize that. And you further stated that Gauleitung, namely, the Office of Gauleiter Holz, complained frequently on all kinds of charges against Rothaug to the Ministry of Justice.
A. I did not testify that he complained, that the Gau complained about judges of Rothaug. That wan't even discussed at all. I want to make that statement.
Q. You didn't say that?
A. I never asserted that and I don't even know it, see?
Q. And you didn't assert on direct examination then that the Gauleiter Holz stated that Rothaug had defeated the law?
A. I stated --
Q. Did you or didn't you?
A. No. I merely stated that complaint was submitted to the Reich Ministry of Justice in which Rothaug was charged with all kinds of things, among others the distortion of the law in the Ramsteck case. That is what I testified to. In another connection the expression "Distortion of the law" was not used by me.
Q. But in that connection it was used?
A. I believe I said the same way or you can find out just about the way I put it now again.
Q. Yes. And that report to the Ministry of Justice bringing these charges against Rothaug was filed, as you said, by the Gauleitung, namely, Gauleiter Holz, in his office; is that correct?
A. I never read this complaint. I never saw it.
Q. I didn't say, Mr. Schroeder, that you did. I merely said that you testified that that report came from the Gauleiter's office.
A. As far as I knew the Gauleitung complained about Rothaug and the Ramsteck Case. Herr Engert should be able to establish this fact, because he dealt with this matter upstairs in the general public prosecutor's office. Enger never told me any details whatsoever.
Q. Then it appears that the entire testimony that you gave this morning with regard to the Gauleiter's complaints with regard to Rothaug, centered only on the Ramsteck case. Is that correct?
A. That only I believe I expressed myself clearly and If not I want to repeat it, that I spoke only about the Ramsteck case and in that con nection I was thinking of that complaint.
Q. Now, do you regard Gauleiter Holz' displeasure with Rothaug's conduct of the Ramsteck case as having significantly or importantly injured or impaired his relations with, or opinion of, Rothaug?
A. I can not state when Holz took over the Gauleitung at all. He was au that time -- Streicher was idspleased from office, if I may express it so, and Zimmerman became Gauleiter. I don't know when it happened.
Q. One moment, please. I am not asking you about any time. I merely asked you if you thought that the only trouble between Rothaug and Holz that you knew of, namely, the Ramsteck Case, was enough to significantly alter or impair the relations between Holz and Rothaug? Do you think it was or do you think it wasn't
A. In regard to that point I can say only that I do not know that between Rothaug and Holz any more intimate relationships of any kind existed and, tharefore, I cannot state either in what manner this Ramsteck Case entered into this relationship that is supposed to have existed. I can only say, well, I could only say probably that if Rothaug had anything to do with Holz, I probably, that is, as far as I can judge, would have found out about it. I have no knowledge about any closer relationship between Rothaug and Holz. In my opinion there must be other witnesses who have insight into their relationship. I don't know. I can't say it because I don't know it.
Q. Then with regard to the relations between Gauleiter Holz and Rothaug, with the exception of the fact that some difficulty was caused about the Ramsteck decision, you just don't know what happened between those two men at any time, do you?
A. I don't know any details that anything is supposed to have happened. I heard for the first time today. If not what I mentioned already today, merely that mentioned Rothaug's opinion, that he believed that the tratment of the Ramsteck Case played a role on his transfer to Berlin, but I know that only from Rothaug too, see?
Q. Yes, I see, Unless I am mistaken you testified this morning, Mr. Schroeder, that from the professional groups of judges, prosecutors etc.
, in Nurnberg, you never heard any criticism of how the Nurnberg special court was conducted under Rothaug. Now, if that is a fair statement of what you said I am going to ask you to support it in view of the following fact: On the 11 January 1934 Gauleiter Holz wrote the irack recommending that Rothaug be promoted to the presidency of the court of appeals in Nurnberg. In order for you to check on what I am saying I show you the original letter.
A. May I read it?
Q: No, I'm just going to ask you one or two questions about it. On the second page of that letter, Mr. Schroeder, do you see a postcript personally signed by Gauleiter Holz to Dear Party Member Thierack", dated 11 January 1943, in which Holz tells Thierack the following, and I quote:
"It is impossible to carry out the National Socialist reform in the justice administration so long as Doebig is in charge. The best proof of that is the judges' attitude towards the special court under the presidency of Rothaug. While the population understands and approves the proceedings and judgments of this special court, the judges have risen in an unheard of manner against this court. May I pointout that judges who were assigned to this special court have already stated to the President of the District Court of Appeals that it would be against their conscience to work at this special court? This situation is simply impossible and has to be attributed to the demerits of the President of the District Court of Appeals Doebig. Eighty per cent of the judges hold this attitude towards the special court which nearly amounts to hostility against the state, but the President of the District Court of Appeals, who should describe the special court as execplary in its proceedings and judgment, has so far done nothing for this special court. He is not in a position to be in charge of the justice administration in the District Court of Appeals, let alone of the carrying out of the basic changes demanded by the Fuehrer." Signed: Gauleiter Holz.
Is that a fair reading of that letter?
A: Yes, in the main points.
Q: Alright. Fine. Was anything in that letter in agreement with your statement that you never heard anything in Nurnberg, from professional quarters, critizing the special court?
Were you asleep?
A: To what occurrences this refers - this letter of 11 January - I don't know because, from the beginning of November, I was in the hospital in Nurnberg and was seriously ill. I was lying in a hospital and I didn't concern myself with any occurrences. Also, I don't know from whom Holz obtained this information. In any case, I must maintain my former testimony, that this was not discussed with me. It maybe that this may have been due to the fact that these people would not have told me that, if they had been of the opinion, in consideration of my friendship with Rothaug. I don't know what occurrences, who informed him, and what occurrences are referred to there.
Q: Mr. Schroeder, excuse me a moment. It does appear to you, as you followed my reading of that original letter, that during the time you were in office as chief public prosecutor at Nurnberg, the Gauleiter of this area wrote the Minister of Justice the fact that this court was so bad that eighty per cent of the judges regarded serving on it as against their conscience, and yet you never knew it?
A: I can only say about that that I don't know at all to what extent, in this letter, politics is contained. Gauleiter Holz obviously had the endeavour, and I have seen this now, under all circumstances he wanted to remove the President of the District Court of Appeals Doebig. I would be surprised if he did not describe this in the loudest colors and would have looked for a reason for it in order to make this desire palatable to the Minister of Justice. I could attach to this letter only a special importance if it was told to me on what basis Holz came to this conclusion and this result. I don't know. I can only emphasize ...
Q: (Interrupting): Just a moment, Mr. Schroeder. Are you testifying now about anything you know about or what you are guessing about?