Concerning a motion for evidence at the trial, it was not I but the court which decided. It is possible that Attorney Kern made that motion, but I assume that that motion was rejected for certain and, according to the law, it had to be rejected if the contents were such as Attorney Kern described them here, for in that case not a motion for evidence would have been made, but a motion to investigate evidence -Beweisermittlungsantrag -- for the motion did not aim at questioning a witness about certain facts of which he knew, but it was a request to investigate by examination of witnesses whether these witnesses might perhaps know something about the facts.
Such motions for investigating evidence, under the penal code of procedure, were inadmissible and had to be rejected. In my view nothing could have been gained in that respect. The confession by the defendants before the police, the maintenance of the confession by one of the defendants and the letter excluded all evidence in that direction towards which Kern, by his motion, wanted to work.
THE PRESIDENT: A question, please. Do you recollect whether the indictment or the opinion of the court referred to the law against Poles and Jews in that case at all?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I don't remember that for myself, but the date of the death sentence should show whether, at the time when that judgment was passed, the law against Jews and Poles was already in force.
If I may add this: The question is not of particular importance because even -- and that was the local point of the law against Poles and Jews -- because not only the law against Poles and Jews had to be applied but, as it says there, also the German Penal Code and for such cases one had to apply in particular Article 3 of the Law against Public Enemies and that article made the death sentence mandatory.
THE PRESIDENT: I was not asking your opinion as to the importance of the law against Poles and Jews, but only as to whether it was employed if it was in effect at that time. I gather that you do not know the date and cannot answer the question. Go ahead.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q The Witness Markl said under cross examination on the 27 of May - English transcript Page 3654 - the following, that the facts had been investigated very thoroughly. The problem of the proceedings had been whether credence could be given to the confession of the one Polish woman even to the extent of thereby incriminating the other Polish woman who denied. At the suggestion of Public Prosecutor Bens to examine the truthfulness of the confession of one defendant, the police official who had carried out the interrogations had been interrogated.
Q Is that account of Markl identical with your memory?
A Yes.
Q Did the defense have access to the judgment?
A Naturally. They could simply ask for a copy of the Judgment and; as regards the findings of the court; the conclusions; the legal maxim which had been applied; the reasons which were given to the extent of the sentence; they could examine all that in all its details.
Q Did one of the defense counsels apply for reopening of trial?
A The reopening was not applied for. I would know that; certainly I would.
Q Could the defense counsel visit the defendants after the trial?
AAt any time.
Q Did one of the defense counsels suggest that a nullity plea be made?
A No; that was not done either. At any rate; I never heard of it.
Q We are now coming to the sphere of your work at the trial, to your methods of conducting trials. Would you give me the name of your assistants; their positions and the time when they entered and when they left your field of work?
A My first two associate judges and whose appointment had been made before I assumed office, were Seiffert and Bergler; counsellors of district court. Both left the special court before the outbreak of war. Seiffert was transferred to Eger and became director of the district court. Bergler became counsellor of the district court of appeals at Nurnberg. Before the outbreak of war there was Grundler; another Landgerichtsrat; director of a district court and a counsellor of a district court Hermann. At the beginning of war they were called up.
Ostermeier and Engert too joined the special court before the outbreak of war and I believe they left in 1940 or 1941. Ostermeier became senior judge of a local court (Oberamtsrichter) and department chief at the district court Nurnberg. Engert became senior public prosecutor with the General Public Prosecutor at Nurnberg. Oeschey too joined us shortly before the war. Later he was promoted director of the district court but he remained with the special court and he was made my deputy. Because of his employment with the Gau leadership he spent only half his time on his work with me.
Ferber, I believe, joined us in the first year of war. I think it must have been in the course of 1940 that he came to me as an associate judge. He was the pole of rest around me among all the moving stars. He was promoted director of a district court and, until I left; he stayed. At my suggestion he was promoted my successor at the special court.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until fifteen minutes from now.
(A recess was taken.)
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Before the recess, you were talking about your successor.
A It was approximately in the summer of 1940 when Heinz Hofmann became district court counsellor, associate judge with the special court, and he remained in that position until I left. Another associate judge was District Court Counsellor Pfaft. He joined, I think, in 1941. In the autumn of 1941, local Court Counsellor Groben arrived at the special court. Later on, he became Councillor. In the summer of 1942, the District Court Counsellor Gross was transferred from Amberg to the special court at Nurnberg. For a few weeks, District Court Counsellor Vollmer was also an associate judge of the special court while I was presiding judge. District Court Counsellor Rauh also worked with me only as a deputy, but he only came in from case to case. During the war, for some time, we also had a District Court Counsellor Dr. Meyer but, after a few months, at his own request, he was sent elsewhere.
Those were the judges who worked with me.
Q Were those judges Party members?
AAfter 1938, I think all of them were Party members. Before that, only a few we re Party members.
Q Who belonged to a formation?
A Groben was a member of the SA for many years, and Meyer was a member of the SS. Meyer held the rank of an SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer.
Q Who worked for the Party when he was transferred to the special court?
A None of these men worked for the Party as such before they came to the special court. Only later, Ferber assumed an unimportant office with the Facial Political Office with the Gau Leadership of Franconia. I was to nominate a man for the work and I asked Ferber and he said: "Yes, he would do it." How much work he did there I don't know. I didn't concern myself with that.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Oeschey too, only a long time after he had joined the special court, began to work for the Gau Leadership.
In other words, the judges for the special court were not appointed on account of the political work they were doing.
Q That means to say that Groben and Dr. Meyer were the only active National Socialists at the special court when you went there?
AAs far as one can call membership in a formation active political work. In any case, Meyer was very enthusiatic.
Q When Groben joined, did you know that he belonged to the SA?
A No.
Q Did you know that Meyer belonged to the SS when he joined you?
A Yes, I knew that.
Q How was it that Meyer came to join you?
A Meyer had before been in Scheinfeld in Lower Franconia. He had worked at a small local court there. According to the way he described it, the population, for political reasons, was always offering opposition. The details as to what happened there did not interest me sufficiently to recollect them today. SS Obergruppenfuehrer Schmausser went to see Doebig on his behalf to have him transferred to Nurnberg. Then I was asked whether I would have him. He was anxious to please Schmausser. I had no objections because I was needing staff at the time.
Q To what extent did the political attitude of the people at the special court play any part?
A I can say with absolute certainty, and I can base myself on my statements on conditions as they were, such as I have described them here, that it was a matter of course that nobody was employed at the special court unless he had a positive attitude to the National Socialist state. By positive attitude to the National Socialist state Court No. III, Case No, 3.I understand, and I understand now, in the case of a judge that he is willing to apply the laws of the state according to the will of those laws.
That was all that was demanded of the judge. No definite political activity was demanded of the judges. Such demands I, in my sphere of work, could not have made. In this context, the following is of importance. The focal point with me before the war lay not only at the special court, but at the court of assizes, and there I needed people who, in particular as regards their professional qualifications, were able; people who could think logically; people who possessed special knowledge of the law; and people who were able to stand the strain of a great deal of work. That was the primary point of view which I had to consider and, as we all know, there aren't many people of that kind. Therefore, I could not apply particularly high standards from the political point of view, nor was that necessary. Everybody did his duty in accordance with his oath.
Q That man Meyer whom you mentioned held the highest rank in the Party among your associates?
A That is correct. He was an SS officer.
Q How was it that you parted ways?
A He didn't come to me because I held him in high esteem politically or otherwise. He came to me for other reasons. Soon after he had started work with me, I found out that his work was very poor. He used big words, but his thinking power wasn't very great. For quite a while I tried to help him to get on, but apparently, that was not in accordance with hid ideas and he made efforts of his own to get away and I had no objections.
Q Did he attract notice because of his character too?
A That question plays a certain part in connection with a report which is alleged to have been made and which was mentioned by somebody or other.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't recollect the name of Meyer as a witness against the defendant. Was he a witness against the defendant?
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
DR. KOESSL: Meyer was not a witness, but he has been mentioned several times. Among others, the witness Ferber mentioned him and said of him.....
THE PRESIDENT: (Interrupting) Because another witness mentioned him doesn't make any difference to us. We're pot concerned with his character.
DR. KOESSL: This question is important, Your Honor, in connection with the question as to whether Ferber's statement is correct when he said that Rothaug, so to speak, only for reasons of competition sent Meyer away from the special court because Meyer had a good position in the Party, and that is why I would like the witness to answer one question.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the witness answered it anyhow. He says he let him go because he wanted to go and he wasn't very competent. That's the answer, isn't it?
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, a SD report was made. What was that SD report about, which Meyer wrote and which Ferber mentioned?
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
A In general, we have been concerned there with the question as to whether the charge was justified that we quite intentionally employed people at the special court who were politically active. Meyer was the man who occupied the highest rank and at the first opportunity I got rid of him. In that connection, however, a report played a part. That was a report which he wrote a few weeks after he had started work with me and the report was about me and my associates and he sent it to an SD agency. In that report we were more or less charged with not being quite such good National Socialists as he, Herr Mayer.
Q Ferber maintains, English transcript, page 1588, that he had been described by the report as a practicing Roman Catholic. Is that correct?
A I can exclude that with absolute certainty. That question as to whether he was a practicing Roman Catholic, that played a part for entirely different reasons. It played a part in connection with Ferber's promotion to district court director. There, by some agency or other, a report had been received that, on account of religious ties, his political ideas were suspicious. As I myself was in favor of Ferber's promotion and as I worked for it myself, I helped to work against those rumors that had been circulated against Ferber. I told Ferber about it and I succeeded in seeing to it that that report was not used against him. In the SD report by Meyer, the political reliability, etc. of my people was only attacked in a general way.
Q What was your attitude concerning that charge and what did you do about it?
A I personally didn't mind at all as to people's religious beliefs. I did not concern myself at all with the religious attitude of the individuals and I cannot say which of my people belonged to one denomination and which to the other. And that was not the question that was at stake, the question was whether a person believed that his religious attitude made it necessary for him to attack the National Court No. III, Case No. 3.Socialism state.
But the question never could have been as to whether a private individual goes to church and attends the services of his denomination, I can recollect too, in the Ferber affair, that I submitted a report to the Gau Administrator (Gauwalter) - that was Oeschey at the time - and I suggested to him that he was to settle this matter on all accounts and that he was to settle it our way. He did that and, in effect, Ferber was promoted.
Q Did any other promotions in your sphere occur on account of your suggestions? Ferber, Oeschey, Ostermeier, Engert?
A In 1942 alone, we had to deal with very nearly one thousand cases at the special court with a very small staff. That meant that I personally, and every single one of my associates, had to work by day and night, on Saturdays and Sundays. That meant a very great strain, and when a member of my staff was under strain that meant twice as much as the strain that might have been on a judge at a civil chamber. For that reason, I did whatever I possibly could for my staff.
Q Did the people know that?
A Each one of them knew that, for I was particular pleased when I could keep every one of them informed as to the development of their own affairs and that is why today they have the views they do have.
Q And what were the consequences?
A Naturally, there was trouble. Rumours began to circulate. There was distrust and envy such as does happen among people. I think that happens all over the world. But I put up with that because I was interested in helping my people.
Q Did you have people whom you preferred, your favorites did you have them promoted?
A Well, they were all promoted by preferential treatment; they were no better off than people who were eight to ten years older than they. What I wanted to achieve was to give them some reward for the terrible strain they had to bear.
Q And what did you do after that Meyer report?
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
A When I heard of that report to the SD agency, I immediately told Ferber about it and asked him to draw the attention of my own people to the fact that they were to be very careful what they said in front of Meyer. For we certainly didn't shout "Heil, Hitler" all day long from morning to night, but we had our moments of criticism and we did talk about things critically without that meaning that we were hostile to the state, but these remarks of ours could easily have been misinterpreted. Therefore, I thought it advisable to warn these people and tell them to be cautious. I wanted to avoid a big affair occurring one fine day.
Q Were your assistants definitely assigned to employment with you, or how did that happen?
A Naturally, nobody could just come along and start work with me. An official assignment from the superior officer was needed, and it is obvious that nobody was employed at my special court without my having been consulted first as to whether I was in agreement with such an appointment; and what happened was that, as a rule, I first had a talk with the man to find out whether he wanted to work with me. All knew about our work. They knew the laws with which we had to operate and they also knew the policy of the special court at Nurnberg. If people agreed and said that they were willing, and if they satisfied the requirements from the professional point of view, I passed their names on to the president of the district court of appeal and he then ordered that they were to be assigned to my court.
Q Was that the same with all your associate judges?
A It wasn't like that with all my associate judges. In the case of two, matters were different. Ferber expressly asked me before he was transferred to the district court, that I see the president of the district court and the president of the district court of appeals and ask that he should be employed with me. For that purpose, the position of one district court counsellor was transferred from outside to Nurnberg. The reason for that was that I needed more staff, and Ferber Court No. III, Case No. 3.was appointed to that position.
Ferber joined the special court at Nurnberg because, on account of the many years of friendship between us, he was particularly anxious to work with me.
Groben I did not know personally. He was investigating judge and a district court counsellor. A few weeks before October, 1941, he called on me several times and asked me whether he could be employed with me, His work as an investigating judge, he didn't like any longer. He only had one doubt. He thought that his superior might be against it, and asked me to talk to him, and that is what I did. Groben, after he had been to see me several times and had requested me to help him, was transferred to the special court at Number,; and what is of importance here is the fact that those visits were paid by him on me at a time after Groben had dealt with the Katzenberger case and after the appeal against the issuance of the arrest warrant had been rejected by me.
Q Groben, after the rejection of the Katzenberger plea and after the arrest of Seiler, called on you?
A Yes, I know that for certain.
Q Did you not have political doubts about the employment of Groben with you?
A No, not in the least, for my criticism against Groben's method of conducting the affair, I didn't at all consider a political matter. Nobody thought of that at the time, what I criticized were purely points of professional clumsiness.
Q Were your assistants informed about what went on at the special courts before they joined you?
A Naturally , they knew what the special court at Nurnberg was, and what the work was like. They also knew what cases were tried there and how they were tried.
Q According to the English transcript, page 1744, Ferber mentioned that his contact with you had been limited to purely conventional contact. How, what was the case there?
A That description which quite a number of witnesses have wanted to make here isn't correct. We were all comrades, and all of us were on friendly terms with each other. Perhaps, the tone was a little rough now and then, but everybody knew what was what, and nothing serious ever happened which one could have used to defame anybody. The only thing that happened was that letter which Meyer had written behind our backs to the SD agency. On duty my demands on the people were very high, but I myself worked to the utmost of my capacity, and people were not offended with me because my standards for people were so high. Naturally, it is possible -- what I want to say, it would be surprising indeed if a nasty word of some kind or other hadn't been spoken some time or other; but those matters were not carried. beyond our office. In their contacts with me, nobody had to be conventional. And so everything with us was done in a very natural way. People came to see me when they wished, and they came at all times of the day. Everybody told me what he had come to tell me without being in any way afraid or shy. That was what really happened in those days. Being in each other's company so often wnen we went outside Nurnberg, brought us closer to one another; and in particular among those of us who came from Bavaria, a sort of soldier's tone was used which our colleagues from northern Germ any soon began to like,too anyway, they became used to it. People were frank with me, too. It happened that somebody who hadn't finished his work came to see me and told me -- and that is of importance, -- that he couldn't get finished, and would I be good enough to dictate the judgment to him.
And if one parson had done it, somebody else would do it too. And quite often, I dictated judgments to relieve my assistants, and this friendly relations among us did not end with my transfer to Berlin....
Q I believe that is enough. Did any of your assistants ever try to leave the special court for reasons of health or other reasons?
A That attempt was not made in one single case.
Q Were there not people among them who could, have done so quite easily?
A Naturally. Not one of my people, or anyway, only a very few of them were so healthy that because of the terrific strain they could not have asked for a transfer for reasons of health. Gross for example, suffered from a heart disease, and therefore was not called up for military service.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is sufficient.
Q If you assigned somebody to some proceedings, could he simply stay away?
A He couldn't really do that, but if he was particularly anxious, it wasn't in possible for him. He could change with another man, or if he might have had serious conflicts with his own conscience in some particular cage, all he had to do was to say he was sick.
Q I think that is enough. There are only a few points where the witnesses say that there had been any arguments about them. Ye only want to deal with two points. In Exhibit 224, Groben says that he repeatedly had told you that the law concerning public enemies could not be applied against Poles, and you are alleged to have stopped him very brusquely. Ferber says that Groben was right. How, what is the truth really about that application of the law against public enemies, if the offenders were Poles?
A I have thought about that for a long time, as to what could have been the reasons for that, as to whether we had any real serious arguments and disputes, and I can't remember a single dispute.
This question of the applicability of the law against public enemies in the case of Polish offenders. I have a very vague recollection of that, but it is interesting to see that this particular question has been broached. One must bear in mind that Groben joined the special court on the first of October 1941 therefore, he can have raised that question for the first time in '41 or '42, and now one must remember that the law against public enemies had been applied by all German courts since the end of 1939, not only by the special courts but also by the penal chambers and by the Reich Supreme Court and had all the time been applied on foreigners, including Poles. furthermore, one must bear in mind that for example Ferber as a public prosecutor since 1939 and afterwards as a judge, always, like all the other judges in the German Reich, had applied the law against public enemies and Poles. And now Groben raises the question, and that in 1941 and '42, and it is a serious question with him, as to whether law against public enemies can be applied to Poles. It is quite possible that I no longer considered that to be a question or a problem at all. In effect, he didn't state any reasons here as to why the law against public enemies could not be applied to Poles. That question that naturally Poles are subject to German law, has never been disputed , it hasn't been disputed at all in this trial here, therefore, it is possible that I may have said something to him when he raised that question repeatedly, but that too was just a friendly matter of discussion.
Q Ostemeier, Exhibit 222, said that he had a legal argument with you because of the legal opinion on the subject of passing on leaflets which had been dropped from a place to incite the population to raise against the re ire. What was the issue of that argument?
A That too was quite a simple, insignificant argument, and the matter was later settled. The question was not whether people had to be punished who picked up such leaflets, and who instead of handing them over to the police, passed them on to others.
For, by doing that, they worked into the hands of the enemy, and I believe that in some way that is punishable everywhere. The question was, however, what steps one should take and on what legal basis; and it was my view that such actions were to be considered as so-called negligent high treason (Fahrlaessiger Hochverrat) under Article 65 of the penal code, According to that a person is punishable if he spreads leaflets the contents of which is tantamount to high treason, but who when spreading such leaflets was not fully aware of the significance of his action. That was the provision which was of importance in the consideration of the spreading of leaflets. Ostermeier couldn't get along with the idea of "spreading leafflets "; he thought if one person hands on a leaflet to the next person it did not really mean that he had been spreading leaflets. He was inclined to deal with the matter from the point of view of the Malicious Acts Law. I was against that for the reason that we could only apply the Malicious Acts Law when we assumed that by spreading the leaflets the person intended to convey that the contents of the leaflets corresponded to his own ideas. That, as a rule, however, was not the case, but people passed on the leaflets just to make themselves important. And that is why to deal with such an offense from the point of view of it not having been a deliberate action was closer to reality than the assumption of some political angle which would -also have been more injurious to the persons concerned, the offenders. Ostermeier also could not get on with the idea that if one interpreted it as negligent high treason the minimum sentence was one month imprisonment; under the Malicious Acts Law the minimum sentence was only one day imprisonment. Anyhow, the end of the argument was that we tried the case and that we passed a judgment on the basis which I considered, correct. And we did not sentence people to imprisonment, but we applied the so-called Fines Law, and we imposed fines. And on that basis we dealt with all future cases of that type, unless they had any peculiarities. That was the whole argument that we had about that
Q: During the time when you were president of the special court, who worked at the general public prosecutor's office?
A: When on the first of April 1937, I came to Nurnberg Doebig was the general public prosecutor, his deputy was Doehring, the senior public prosecutor. In the autumn of 1937, Doebig became president of the district court of appeals, and Dentz became general public prosecutor. After Doebig's promotion to president cf the Senate, his closest collaborator were senior public prosecutor Engert and senior district court counsellor Grueb. Engert was the deputy of the general public prosecutor.
Q: Did you have any direct, official contact with the general public prosecution?
A: Very little. I should like to say almost none. Only Engert as a farmer collaborator of mine and deputy, for reasons of friendship, used to come and call on me, and naturally we discussed official matters which interested us both He intervened officially in the Grasser case, With Grueb I had hardly any contact at all.
Q: Who were the senior public prosecutors while you were residing judge of the special court?
A. Until the autumn of 1937 it was Hoesch; then it was Denzler until the spring cf '39; and then for a long time Wilhelm Hoffmann acted as deputy -- the witness who was examined here. The successor of Wilhelm Hoffmann -- that is to say, he wasn't the successor of Wilhelm Hoffmann, but rather in 1941 the position of the senior public prosecutor was filled again by Schroeder. He had previously been senior public prosecutor at Wuerzburg.
Q: For how long did Schroeder work as senior public prosecutor when you were presiding judge at the special court?
A: He was ill for quite a while. I believe that he was ill for four or five months. If one deducts that period and also the time he spent on leave. I think that he was there for approximately one year.
Q: In your relations with the prosecution while Schroeder was in office, did any changes occur?
A: In no way. Business was dealt with in the same way after Schroeder assumed his position as we had dealt with it before.
Q: You were a friend of Schroeder's, weren't you?
A: Yes, we had been friends for 20 years.
Q: Didn't it happen then that you asked for his advice on some legal problem?
A: Naturally I did, not only because we knew each other, but because it is the custom that one discusses questions where one in interested in a possible different opinion of the other person; and people who are friends and who therefore meet, more ofter naturally talk about such matters.
Q: Did Schroeder need your advise at all?
A: Schroeder as the official opinions that were given about him well show, was known as a very able thorough and conscientious public prosecutor and judge at the time before the seizure of power. But that did not exclude the fact that concerning a question in welch one was interested one liked to hear another opinion. Not the question as to whether one discussed this or the other problem, but whether one preserved one's independence is of importance far and to us it was a matter of course that we preserved our independence.
Q: Were things different with Schroeder's predecessors?
A: Only with Denzler I did not talk about cases which were pending with me for very natural reasons, because Denzler was Gaurechtsamtswalter, and that was what I arranged with him because I wanted to keep up appearances anyhow. We were always having conversations with the public prosecutors we were always entertaining relations with them, and that was no different than anywhere else in the Reich. Nobody considered that to be a crime. One must bear in mind, that the prosecution in Germany because of its historical position with the courts, is different from the position of the prosecution elsewhere.
THE PRESIDENT: That matter has been discussed many times and sufficiently discussed, but it might be mentioned in passing that all of the witnesses who have discussed the function of the public prosecutor elsewhere seemed to be entirely in the position of misunderstanding the duties of the public prosecutor under the Anglo-American system. I mention that for your advisement, but we have certainly understood what the function theoretically of the public prosecutor in Germany was. You have not understood the function of that same officer in the United States.
DR. KOESSL: Yes, Your Honor.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q: Did your deputies act differently?
A: It was the same everywhere.
Q: It was alleged that on trips the public officer asked you for your opinion, can you tell us about that?
A: That happened too. As has been stated repeatedly, we frequently were away for up to a week. The prosecutors likewise were overburdened, and took files away with them on the trips on which they worked during their leisure time. And it happened frequently that one of them came to see me and asked me what I thought about this or the other legal question, or what I thought about certain questions of evidence.
I talked about it with him, and I cold him what my opinion was, and he told me his opinion. It didn't internet me how he dealt with the matter when it came to the point. Not only one person did that, but I think I can say that all of them did without exception, but in no case- was there on the one side or the other the intention to influence the other person in their opinions. Those were just friendly Informal talks, and there was nothing one could see in them.
Q: I believe that is enough. Did you ever see it happen that judges or public prosecutors were promoted because they had played a part in certain proceedings?
A: As for as I can tell, that only happened in Germany to the judges who in 24 played a part in the hitler trial.
Q: What generally speaking were your relations with the experts at the prosecution office?
A.- We were definitely on good terms; on account of the selection which was made for service with the prosecution in Bavaria, some of those people were very gifted, as for example, Paulus, Ferazin, Markl, and Hoffman; cooperation was excellent. Naturally there were people who were not so good at their jobs; there were people who only came as reliefs and only wore temporarily transferred to the Prosecution, but the only difficulties that occurred we had. with Dorfmueller, but those difficulties had no political flavor whatsoever. They were exclusively of an official nature. The reason for them was that Dorfmueller, by character, by his nature, couldn't get greatly interested in the service with the prosecution and was always inclined into his work to take the line of least resistance. As for individual incidents I can't recall any.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you have sufficiently covered that. You asked what his relations were and he said they were pleas and and cooperative. Pass on to something else.
Q.- In the English transcript, page 3205, Dorfmueller says that many a night he had lain awake, sleepless, because he was so enraged and so indignant about the treatment you had meted out to him. What was that about ?
A.- On account of this charge I should have given a full reply to the previous question you asked me.
Q.- Perhaps you could tell us something about your political doubts as concerns Dorfmueller. Did you have any?
A.- There were no political misgivings at all. The criticism was leveled only against his failing in the performance of his official duty. He called police officials instead of witnesses of the offense, which was easier, but not admissible by law, and he submitted files to mo without the indictment and frequently the reasons he gave for his indictment were wrong. For some time I put up with all that. Naturally, in view of the independence of the prosecution, these matters didn't concern me. I should have approached a superior, the general public prosecutor, but that was a way which on principle I did not take; I chose the friendly approach, and told him what I thought of him when I got the chance.