A I have already said that according to Article 103 of the Reich Constitution, special courts are not excluded per se. However, I don't want to repeat it, I have already stated my opinion.
The question is whether there were excesses of special courts.
Q Do you consider the State Court for the Protection of the Republic constitutional?
A Yes; I said yes.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I object to that question. If Your Honor please, that question has been answered at least ten times, and he said he considered these courts constitutional.
THE PRESIDENT: He is certainly answering it now.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The question is repetitious.
THE PRESIDENT: He has certainly answered it now, and we hope it will not be asked him again.
BY DR. GRUBE:
Q Witness, you said before that the State Court for the Protection the Republic was introduced for the period of the emergency which exist the time. Is that correct?
A I did not refer to a provision of a limiting position, but I explained the reasons for which it was instituted, and from these I drew con clusions about its period of action.
Q Do you know when this court was abolished, or dissolved?
AAt the moment I don't remember it.
Q Do you know that the State Court for the Protection of the Re*** was dissolved in 1929 or later?
A I can't tell you.
Q However, it is correct that the list of the sphere of competence was at least as large as the People's Court?
A In its external extent, yes.
Q Do you then wish to maintain, witness, that the fact that a law a large list of fields of competence, that that is a decisive consideration as to whether a court is inadmissibly unconstitutional?
A I spoke about this yesterday.
Q Do you know that the State Court for the Protection of the Repu*** was differentiated from the People's Court in an important way?
A I don't know what you are referring to.
Q Do you know whether the State Court for the Protection of the Republic was also competent for crimes which were committed before the establishment of the State Court?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The witness has said he didn't know about it.
BY DR. GRUBE:
Q Another question, witness. You said before what the reason was for the creation of this State Court.
A Yes, the murder of Walter Rathenau.
Q Do you know whether the State Court for the Protection of the Republic was created for the condemning of the murderers of Rathenau?
AAs far as I remember, the trial against Techow was carried on by the State Court, in the State Court. However, I don't remember any more exactly.
Q I want to ask you this, witness. Do you know that the transfer of competence to the State Court for the Protection of the Republic was because the judges of the court in Berlin, of the Schwurgericht, war *** strict enough?
A No, I do not know that.
Q But you consider it to be possible that the State Court for the Protection of the Republic was competent also for crimes which had already been committed?
A I told you I don't know that.
Q May I show you the prevision?
(Document submitted to witness)
A These provisions are to be applied also to crimes which were co mitted before the promulgation of the law.
THE PRESIDENT: I am wondering how that can possibly be material. I certainly isn't a violation of ex post facto law to create a court to try matters where the crimes have really been committed before the law was ma*** This wasn't a law defining crimes, it was a law for the punishment of crime Naturally, the court would not have been created at all unless there was something for the court to do.
DR. GRUBE: Mr. President, may I make a remark in regard to this?
THE PRESIDENT: You certainly may.
DR. GRUBE: According to legal theory, the transfer of competency a court which is newly created applies with retroactive force. That means that the defendant is taken away from the ordinary court.
For instance, in this case, first, from a jury court in Berlin, by special law, the competency was transferred to the State Court. By the question to the witness I only wanted to find out one thing, namely, whether he considered the State Court constitutional.
THE PRESIDENT: He has certainly answered that question more than once.
The time has arrived for the noon recess.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, I ask to be excused. This is only a technical question about the length of the noon recess. The n*** recess lasts for an hour. However, during the last few days it became apparent that this recess is very short. The defendants, after three-quarters of an hour -- that is, fifteen minutes before the afternoon sess*** -- have to be back in court. This means that there is very little time for eating. Therefore, my client has asked me to submit this request to the Tribunal about the noon recess for the easing of this situation; that in whether it can be prolonged by 15 minutes.
For myself, I can say the following. We defense counsel are also short of time during the noon recess. There are about 60 gentlemen of the defense working in the courthouse, and all of them eat between 12:30 an 1:30, outside of the building in their mess. There is such a pressure of time because one cannot get a seat right away and one is not served right away. Therefore, we are always rushed.
I would like, therefore, to make the request for the defendants, and I would like to extend it also to the defense counsel, to prolong the noon recess by 15 minutes. The Tribunal will decide whether these 15 minutes w*** be added later in the afternoon or at any other time.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I find myself in agreement with defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know why it is necessary for the defendant to be in court 15 minutes ahead of time.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I have found, and I say to the Court that this wit ness has found, that an hour is a very short time to get to mess and to get any relaxation so that we can come back prepared to do a good job in the afternoon.
I will join in the request, except to the extent that I don't think it should be added on. I believe we can make progress, and I hope that in the further examination of this witness we can move a little faster, with the permission of the Court. When we get the documents, I am sure we are going to move a little faster.
I definitely join in the request on behalf of the plaintiffs, and know that where we have witnesses it would be helpful.
THE PRESIDENT: An additional time will be granted for today, and will consider the matter later; but the adjournment for this time will be until 1:45.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours)
AFTERNOON SESSION
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. BRUBE: Mr. President, May I be permitted to continue with the cross-examination?
First I would like to make a statement. Twice this morning questions which I put to the witness were objected to by the Tribunal. I asked to be excused if I have put questions, which according to this Tribunal, are not permissable. I ask you to take into consideration that German procedure is entirely different from this. Therefore, of course, mistakes can be made. Certainly, there is no ill intention behind this.
THE PRESIDENT: We accept the statement.
Q. Witness, you said, in your examination, that the People's Court came into the place of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of the Reich, Kechsgericht. Can you tell me whether any illegal means were used in cases which were transferred from the Reichsgericht to the Volksgericht?
A. No.
Q. Was there any possibility of remedying a decision in a high-treason case?
A. No.
Q. This morning, the State Court for the Protection of the Republic was mentioned. Do you know whether there was any legal remedy for tho decision of the State Court for the Protection of the Republic?
A. No. There was one.
Q. When you were examined, you also objected to the institution of the People's Court on account of that fact that its composition gave a political character to that court. You stated especially that the individual senates of the Peo ple's Court consisted of two professional judges and three lay judges.
The lay judges were selected according to political points of view; therefore, on the basis of their majority, three to two, they had a stronger voice then the professional judges. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, May I ask you whether you know how the State Court for the Protection of the Republic was formed? Do you know the composition of that court?
A. I believe they also had lay judges.
Q. Do you know the proportion? Do you know how many members there were in the State Court for the Protection of the Republic?
A. I could not say that from memory.
Q. May I show you the law for the protection of the Republic? It is Paragraph 12, Section I.
A. It reads, "The Court decides in a composition of nine members, where there are three members of the Reich Supreme Court, the remaining six do not have to have the qualifications of a judge. The members are appointed by the Reich President for the duration of the validity of this law."
Q. On the basis of this provision, are you of the opinion that in the case of the State Court for the Protection of the Republic, the lay judges were in a majority as compared to the Professional judges?
A. Yes. That can be seen from this.
Q. You had already mentioned who appointed the lay judges?
A. The Reich President.
Q. Can you tell mo who was Reich President at the time?
A. Friedrich Ebert.
Q. To what party did he belong?
A. He belonged to the Social Democratic Party, but at all times and quite probably, he has stated that he did not consider himself a representative of the Social Democrat ****** but a servant of the State, a servant of all people.
Q. Witness, is it known to you that the existence of the State Court for the Protection of the Republic was based on political reasons?
A. Yes. That can be seen clearly from the fact that a political murder was the cause for the establishment of that court.
Q. Is it known to you that the establishment of a state court occurred on the basis of a suspicion or mistrust of the ordinary justice?
A. There existed, at that time, in the early days, in the beginning of tho Weimar Republic, a reactionary tendency among the judges. Among their functions, within the framework of their duties as judges, they showed an attitude inimical to the Republic in their decisions. In taking into account to the facts, they could not express their won attitude that justified a mistrust against a part of the professional body of judges, but it did not lead actually to the result that tho independent constitutional rights of these judges were inflicted in any way. It cannot be denied that the institution of the State Court served to safeguard against such hidden reactionary nationalistic tendencies.
Q. Thank you. I have no more questions.
A. I should like to ask to be permitted to add that in the case of the People's Court, the composition was different because the lay judges, who were in the majority, were representatives of national socialist thought and national socialism which identified itself with the German nation, the German state.
Q. It is correct, however, that the State Court was a pol itical court?
A. Political thoughts contributed to its creation, yes. I have sail that. I have explained that.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Defense counsel for the defendant Paterson.
BY DR. ASCHENAUR:
Q. Witness, you have just said that the State Court was created for the Protection of the German Republic. It was mainly against seditious attempts and attempts at assasination coming from the Reich?
A. No. I have not said that. I said the cause for the establishment of the State Court was murder. It came from nationalistic circles.
Q. But it is known to you, I am sure, that in practice the State Court, primarily handed verdicts against seditious ******ts from the left?
A. Yes. That occurred also in the course of the activities of the State Court and it shows that the institution itself was not biased and was not used in a one-sided manner by the State.
Q. Witness, do you agree with this? Conditions in Thuringia played an important role in the establishment of the State Court?
A. The disturbance, on the basis of Communistic disturbance contributed.
Q. I also believe that you will agree with me if I say that quite a number of decisions of the State Court were in this direction published?
A. Yes.
Q. Then, Witness, to come to a different point, you were a German representative at the Arvitration Court in London in 1930? 716 A. 1928 and 1929.
Q. I assumed that you received that extraordinary commission on the basis of special work in the field of international law? That is correct, is it now?
A. Yes. Questions of civil were the reason. I do not know if you are familiar with the tasks of the Arbitration Court. We were concerned with the civil trails, civil crimes which on the basis of the Versailles Treaty had to be clarified between the English and German parties with the cooperation of the clearing office.
Q. But I assume on the basis of this position, you have particular knowledge of English and American law?
A. No. Not the American law. I had nothing to do with that.
Q. But during the examination, you have mentioned that the element of prejudice is important in American law?
A. No. In Anglo-Saxon law.
Q. Did you have any connection with the juices of the People's Court?
A. No.
Q. have you ever visited a session of the People's Court?
A. Personally, no, not in person.
Q. How do you know that the lay judges were party officials, that is to say, that they represented individually the interests of the National Socialist party?
A. That can be seen from the selection and from the entire organization of the NSDAP. It would have been quite impossible that functions of the NSDAP would represent other interests than those of National Socialism.
Q. May I ask you, and thereby I come to Document NG-622, which was submitted by the prosecution, Exhibit 122, what was the position of 1st Lieutenant Ruedel from Berlin in the Party?
A. I don't have the exhibit here.
(Dr. Aschehauer offers Dr. Behl the exhibit.)
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honors, I didn't understand. Was that an exhibit number or an NG document number?
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit number; the document number is 622.
MR. La FOLLETTE: May I inquire what book it's in?
JUDGE BRAND: 3-A, page 20.
MR. La FOLLETTE: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: We are confronted here with the representatives of the Armed Forces. They also, just as the Party officials, could be lay judges a called as such into the people's court. The appointment occurred according to a law promulgated by Hitler himself; and it cannot be assumed that he would select members of the Armed Forces who were known for opposition to National Socialism and who had objected to the aims of the Party.
BY DR. ASCHENAUER:
Q. They were probably also active as jurors?
A. Yes, in juror courts.
Q. Did you have the impression that the lay judges had a chance against the professional judges?
A. Yes, they had a chance. It did not occur very often because the lay judges, at least a large number of them, did not have the technical back ground for discussion. But I have experienced cases where lay judges who had a great deal of experience were in a position to stand for their opinion It also occurred that both of them made their point against the judge.
Q. Now these lay judges, on the basis of their experiences, did they appear more severe or loss severe than the professional judges?
A. That is a question which I could not answer in general terms. That depends on the individual concerned.
Q. Then may I ask you, and I refer to a document submitted by the prosecution, NG-555 -- it is an affidavit by the attorney Weimann. He states in his affidavit: "I have always had the impression that the lay judges did not have a chance against Freisler." That is to say, the learned judges. What is your point of view in that respect?
MR. La FOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, I object to the cross-examination Basically, it has been my understanding that it is not proper in crossexamination to require a witness to contrast his opinion with that of some other witness for the prosecution, or to be bound by some other opinion of some other witness. The prosecution may be bound, but the witness is not bound. For that reason, I don't believe the cross-examination is proper nor relevant nor sets up a fair standard.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I should like to point out that also in the crossexamination, I have the right to put documents which were submitted by the prosecution to a witness of the prosecution. The witness, in this question, has made a statement so that I may ask whether tho witness, in this manner, would not want to limit his opinion, that is, the opinion that he has stated in the direct examination.
TEE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is ready to rule on this proposition. It our ruling that it is not competent to ask one witness his opinion of the probative value of some other witness' testimony or on some exhibit offered in the case by the prosecution. If this witness can bo said to differ from what exhibit number it is, that is a natter of argument; and if necessary, when it comes to the defense, the defense counsel can develop that, even beyond the matter of argument, by evidence. But, it's unheard of, it seems to me, to get one witness against another during the examination. It can be done during the argument. We, therefore, rule against the question.
BY DR. ASCHENAUER:
Q. Then I come to my next question. You said that all high officials the Reich Ministry of Justice and all judges or high judges had to be aware of conditions in concentration camps.
On what do you base this opinion?
A. I do not believe that anyone who lived in Berlin during that time and had an opportunity to communicate with people who had been in concentration camps, to hear descriptions -- I, myself, as far as personal experience of friends are concerned, have passed on frequently what I heard from them. And that is how it was in Berlin, which is well known. I consider it absolutely impossible that anybody who was in a central office could not have heard about the nature of conditions in concentration camps. From abroad, people returned to Berlin who had an opportunity to read publications; for instance, the book 'Moorsoldaten', and it appeared in 1935 already abroad, and it was wide** publicized. From such and other sources, the knowledge about conditions in concentration camps was derived, which of course at the same time, was dangerous to be distributed in public.
Q. Since, as you say, you got in contact with people who had been in concentration camps, it should be known to you what a cloud of secrecy was held over the camps, forced by the oath of the personnel, and by the written obligation of the inmates not to speak after they had been released.
A. Yes, many former inmates, while they told no a out conditions told me about that also.
Q. Is it also known to you that clouds of secrecy made it difficult for certain people in the SS to conduct examinations and investigations of conditions in concentration camps on the occasion of punishment meted out to a number of concentration camp commanders at Buchenwald, Lublin, Warsaw, Herzogenbusch, and Dachau?
A. About such difficulties I have not heard. Nobody told me about them because I had no contact with the people who had attempted or allegedly attempted to investigate these matters officially.
Q. But it can be assumed that you also know that the public and other offices were prevented from their hearing about concentration camps?
A. These circumstances had the result that all those people who could think clearly would have doubts about conditions which could not be published or publicized.
Q. But just that condition, wasn't that point designed to prevent the public and to prevent the majority of the people from obtaining a clear picture?
A. That was intended; that was the intention. The picture did not become a clear one but as I have just stated, what kind of a. picture could be obtained by any clear thinking person.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I have no further questions.
BY DR. HAENSEL (Counsel for defendant Joel):
Q. Witness, legislation of the Nazi regime between 1923 and 1945 prepared by the Ministry of Justice was the subject of your examination. Those laws which you have mentioned in your short description and the regulations and decrees which the prosecution has listed are these. Was that a complete description of the legislative activities of that period?
A. No, I don't think so.
Q. These laws were published in the Reich Legal Gazette. Do you remember that every year one to two volumes of this size appeared?
A. Yes.
Q. This volume contains sixteen hundred pages; others have twelve hundred; others have twenty-five hundred pages; and on an average we could agree would be about twelve hundred pages, at least.
Then over a period of twelve years that would amount to 24,000 pages. I believe that the material submitted by the prosecution so far amounts to 240 pages. That is 1/1000th of the material. Now, we have to realize it is only 1/1000th of the entire legislative activity of that period. May I ask you, witness, you will remember a number of other laws, and whether in your opinion that all other laws consistently Nazi tendencies were expressed or whether it wasn't so that there was some good and resonableness in these laws.
A. But, of course, that could not be said that the entire tremendous legislative machinery which has been put into action by National Socialism, as it was described here, to what tremendous extent the Reich Legal Gazette has increased. Smilingly, I must refer to a book by Schegelberger who says we have to depart from the mechanical legislation. Here he refers to the press as a symbol, and this press has been put into motion to a tremendous extent. That of course many laws that remained in existence were promulgated by that legislative machiner, the preparation or which in part had started before the National Socialism; that is without a doubt. It can be seen from the fact that, for instance, to give one example, that many regulations, that many provisions of the marital law of National Socialism still remain in existence now which were not contained in the civil code before; but in the same way as the marital law, also a large number, and I would not care to say all or the majority, but I would only care to say a large number of useful laws have always received a certain addition of National Socialist ideology, and carried it with them; and this has been removed recently in the marital law. I admit that many laws did not belong in this category.
Q. I hope, witness, you do not deal with me as Severing in the first trial. I had the honor of questioning him about the questions of National Socialism and he answered finally that anything that was new, that was not good; that anything that was good was not new.
A. I did not use that quotation; I did not express it, although it was on the tip of my tongue. It would not have been new.
Q Well, we run into repetition at times, but I believe that Severi** was not quite right. May I remind you of a few small points, however, which I consider very important for our complex of questions and I consider it important to come to an agreement. I have a volume here which was published by Schlegelberger, the Law of Modern Times. It is very condensed, and it a list of newly published laws, and there you will find a tremendous am*** of essential things; the testator law, and the simplification and clarification of that law; may I remind you laws concerning shares, a very good job; may I remind you of the law for protection of youth. I could add a v*** long list to that, but I should like to return to our subject and to ask you -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that a recital of Dr. Schlegelberger's principles published in a book, if it is material to Dr. Schlogelberger's defense, should be presented when you come to his defense and not read to this Court extracts or even refer to a work of his during the cross-examination of this witness.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q I want to ask you now, witness, if a Ministerialrat counselor was employed in the Ministry of Justice; did he necessarily have to be in contact with that legislative task, or could you imagine that a large number the several hundred counselors who were employed there did not have anything to do with legislative tasks?
A His Ministerial counselors, it may be true, but it does not appear to the state under secretary, or under secretary in charge.
Q Witness, you have heard of the resistance movement, or the resistance group; or, possibly you were connected with it?
A Yes, I have heard of various groups.
A I now have before me the last number of the last copy of the American Rundschau, the American Review, with an article by Franklin L. F**** a first lieutenant in the service; in this article he refers to tho strongest resistance movement, that is in connection with the 20th of July, and in extraordinarily refined and interestly way he examines what has lead more than anything else to this and to other resistance movements; and that we the offices and officials and the reasons that for one they enjoyed a cert** measure of prestige and independence, and further more, in contrast to the union workers that they in their office by their official functions they ** the support and the possibility to carry out their conspiracy.
I ask you now can you imagine that a ministerial counselor just for that reason may have remained in his office in order to have a similar battle for resistance, the purpose of resistance.
A That I would not only imagine, I know it from one man who was a in the Ministry.
Q Does the name Danani mean anything to you?
A No.
Q He was one of the victims of the 20th of July.
A No.
Q You do not know the defendant Joel personally?
A Not personally.
Q But you have heard of him.
A Yes.
Q Do you know whether in this connection?
A No, that I don't know, but there have been officials of that kind I am sure of it.
Q Therefore, you could not off-hand condemn all of them and say everybody who was in that building, that institution was a criminal; you wouldn't want to say that?
A No, I could not do that for each individual, of course.
Q May I mention another small item, for a different reason; for example, for jurisdiction of special courts in the sense of extraordinary courts, you have mentioned the law which established the SS jurisdiction the 17th of October, 1939; special jurisdiction, special courts in crime matters for members of the SS and police units. Will you permit me to show you the law; may I ask you to examine it together with me; it says there paragraph one, a special jurisdiction in criminal matters is established and then there is a list of six points. 725 Beginning Members of the Reich Leadership SS as the main provisions.
Then figure 3, Members of the SS Special Disposal Units, Special Task Forces; 4, Members of the Deathhead Units and-so-forth. Then it says in paragraph 2, subject: To the Special jurisdiction are persons listed in paragraph 1 in all criminal matters as covered by the jurisdiction of the armed forces or otherwise, and in paragraph 3, these special jurisdictions are concern regulations over military penal code are applicable. Then, does this create the impression, Witness, that this law was nothing else but the subordination of the new SS which was similar to the Armed forces in particular, the special task forces under the military jurisdiction according ta laws governing the Wehrmacht for its troops, which it is in every army of the world for respective units?
A. Under the jurisdiction, that is true.
Q. Then, with respect to the nullification plea which has been discussed widely here, may I point out the following: The nullification plea was an institution similar to a legal remedy. Is it not possible that it was sort of a safety value when during that period of dispute of competence and with interference of the Fuehrer into the administration of justice, which would solve, to protect against such interference, to make it possible that by su**** nullification plea, a verdict which was disagreeable for the Nazi public could be revised?
A. That might be true in one or more case; it might have been used for that purpose. I want to add, as I have stated already the nullification plea was also argumentative in the course of its development.
BY DR. KOESSL (For the defendant Rothang):
Q. Witness, is it correct that the prosecution already before 1933, and also in the field of serious criminal offenses, had the choice in many case as to what court it wanted to plead or accuse. You have pointed out yesterday that in Germany each judge was free too -- I beg your pardon, the day before yesterday on the occasion of your direct examination -- that a choice was given to the judge to differentiate his judgment from a decision made and put down by the Supreme Court of the Reich?
A. Yes.
Q. At any rate you wanted to point out that a judge could differentiate from the opinion of the Supreme Court of the Reich in the principles underlying the decision of tho Reich Supreme Court if it did not convince him. Was it permitted on the other hand for the judge to differentiate from the jurisdiction, the decision of the Supreme Court, if he was convinced that the opinion of the Supreme Court of the Reich was correct?
A. I do not believe that any reasonable judge would have conceived the idea of deviating in this case.
Q. Therefore, was it possible for the judge to be wrong if he applied the principles of the Supreme Court of the Reich of which he was convinced for his own decision?
A. Do I understand you to mean that if a judge applied or took as a bar for his decision, the principles of the Supreme Court of the Reich, of which he was convinced or of which he considered right. Maybe I could be wrong. Yes, well if the opinion in the case, the opinion of the Reich Supreme Court was wrong and he follows that opinion, of course, he could be wrong.
Q. Jurists are accused here for decision which they granted in accordance with the law and in accordance with the jurisdiction and decisions of the Reich Supreme Court.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: That is argumentative, if your Honor pleases. I do not think the witness has testified to any of those questions. It is a conclusion of the Counsel. It is not relevant nor does it apply to any matter that the Witness testified to upon direct examination. I do not think it ended up with a question. I thought it was a speech, I am not sure.
THE PRESIDENT: In any event, it would not seem that the opinion of this witness would be of any service. It is argumentative and the Counsel can arrange it, but to the Court and not to the witness.
Q. Witness, you produced in your direct examination a number of laws with described points in legal developments after 1933. Primarily you mentioned those laws which had a political character. May I say also that the enabling act belonged to that category. I mean the law of 24 March 1933.
A. The well known enabling act?
Q. Yes, the enabling act about which people are arguing now. May I ask you witness why you have not included that enabling law in your review of the development of law?
A. The reason, the enabling law is the very law by which the rump parliament, that is, the rump Reichstag, after Hitler had been nominated Reich Chancellor by the law by which the Republic was casterated. It was promulgated at a time, at a period, when there were certain parties who believed they could prevent National Socialism and these parties were still taking art in the government, and in this way contributed to the suicide of democracy in Germany. That became the fundamental element for the basis of dictatorship.
Q. When you mention dictatorship, you seem to say that many measures were wrong because they were not approved by the people.
A. Because they had come about to the exclusion of fairness of privilege granted to the people.
Q. Well, elections, plebesites, which approved the measures of the government including those we just mentioned.
A. Elections or votes took place frequently during the Third Reich. There were elections or votes in the same sense that the people were subpoena there.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your Honor pleases, I do not believe that the examination of this witness encompassed any question as to whether or not there was a party delegation de facto in the enactment of this enabling act or subsequent acts. It is not alleged in the Indictment. The attack is not primarily upon whether or not this particular legislation was adopted in one way or what action was taken pursuant to the escape clause of the Weimar Republic, what thereafter taken was de jure vales. The witness was testifying and purely on direct examination as to the changes made. I do not think I ever asked him as to whether or not there was a de jure validity for it. And, for that reason I think the cross examination is not relevant to the direct but it is not relevant to any examination or to any charge which the Prosecution has made up to this time, nor anything which was included, to my knowledge, in the direct examination of this witness.