After the outbreak of the war, the focal point of the task was transferred to the Special Court because the cases tried by jury had been completely discontinued, and the competence of the special court had been considerably extended. As from August, 1940, however, I experienced that I was relieved of a great many of my duties because I had taken over two party offices. From that time onwards, I regularly attended one meeting a week and above all I was relieved from any participation in sessions outside of Nurnberg.
Q What the witness says here concerning the lessening of the work before the Special Court is borne out by the witness Ferber, on page 1417 of the transcript. Witness Doebig has said in the Prosecution's affidavit, which is Exhibit 236, on page 74 and others, in Document Book III-J, has given a highly unfavorable description of your professional qualities. He in particular takes execution to your deficient knowledge of the subject matter and other things. How is it that you in view of this highly unfavorable verdict as to your professional qualities were nevertheless promoted to Director of the District Court?
A The reason for this is that at that time the witness Doebig gave me a considerable different testimony of my qualifications. From what he said officially to the Reich Ministry of Justice, becomes quite clear from almost all points that the contrary was said more recently.
DR. SCHUBERT: The witness is referring here to Prosecution Exhibit 408, in Volume IX-A, on page 63.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal rill recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 10 September 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official transcript of American Military Tribunal III in the matter of The United States of America, against Josef Altstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 10 September 1947, 0930-1630, The Honorable James T. Brank, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III. Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the proper notation be made.
One matter-
DR. ASCHENAUER (Counsel for the defendant Petersen): If it please the Court, may I inform the Court that the witness Dechant has arrived in Nurnberg, and may I ask you when the Court wishes to hear this witness?
THE PRESIDENT: He is a witness for the defendant Petersen?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes, he is.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the witness? In Nurnberg, but is he-
DR. ASCHENAUER: He is in Nurnberg, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is he what has been called a free man, or is he in jail?
DR. ASCHENAUER: He is in prison here.
THE PRESIDENT: Will he be removed from Nurnberg as soon as he has finished testifying, or would he be here permanently, do you know?
DR. ASCHENAUER: As soon as he has given his testimony he will be removed from Nurnberg again.
THE PRESIDENT: How long will his testimony take?
DR. ASCHENAUER: As far as I can judge, not more than thirty minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, have him available this afternoon and we will hear him sometime this afternoon.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: At 1:30 this afternoon.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: One matter has come to our attention. It is a matter which we have called counsels' attention to before, but the fact that we are approaching the conclusion of testimony has led the Tribunal to believe that we should once more state that if there are any applications such as were mentioned, I believe, by Dr. Schilf, for special action on the part of the Tribunal in an attempt to secure witnesses not in the American Zone, that any such motion, as we have already stated, should be presented in writing and should state, not in general terms, but specifically, what it is that the witness would be called to testify to, because the Tribunal must know whether the testimony would substantially affect the course of the trial before taking any extraordinary action under the provisions of Rule 12, subparagraph (d).
Now any such motion, if there is one to be made, must be made in the immediate future or it will not be allowed, because we cannot allow for a long delay in waiting for the attempt to secure witnesses who might possibly be impossible to secure.
Dr. Schubert, you may proceed.
RUDOLF OESCHEY (Resumed) DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
DR. SCHUBERT: If the Tribunal please, I believe that the last citation which I informed the Court of yesterday afternoon did not quite come through, and I should therefore like to repeat it.
The witness spoke about the fact that the unfavorable qualifications given by the witness Doebig in the prosecution's affidavit did not coincide with the formal comments given by Doebig in the official files of the defendant Oeschey, and I drew attention to Prosecution Exhibit 408 in Volume IX-A, on page 3.BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q. Witness, the prosecution used the same Exhibit 408 in order to put to you a letter of the deputy of the Fuehrer of 9 December 1940, where it is suggested that you should be promoted. The conclusion which the prosecution wishes to arrive at is that because of your Party allegiance you should have been promoted out of turn. Will you please give us your comments?
A. I don't think so. The letter which you have just mentioned contains merely a suggestion on the part of the Fuehrer's Deputy, and it concludes with the words, and I quote: "I should be grateful if you could inform me whether Oeschey can be taken into consideration."
The Reich Ministry of Justice thereupon turned to the president of the district Court of Appeal and asked him for his official comments; and only when his absolutely positive opinion was received did they order me to be promoted. This promotion remained the only one in the whole of my career. That I was promoted to the District Court Director after eight years of service I am sure this is not an unusual event, particularly as people who had done as much service, or even less service than I, without having been Party members, were equally promoted as I was. I am thinking here of the cases of Engert, Ferber, Ostermayer, and others. Even the suggestion by the Fuehrer's Deputy was not an unusual event. These same suggestions were also made on the occasion of Ferber's, Engert's, and Ostermayer's promotions. The fact that I had belonged to the Party for some considerable time might certainly have had some influence on the promotion, but that fact was not the decisive element.
Q. Did you yourself have any influence on your promotion because you had relations with the Party?
A. No.
Q. Now, will you please describe what you did after that professionally?
A. After I had become District Court Director, I was appointed Deputy President of the Special Court. The other Deputy Presidents at that time were Engert and, later on, Ferber. The decrease in work which I have described before, because of my Party offices, was maintained, and therefore, officially speaking, my time was claimed regularly, once a week. Above all, I did not have to take part when the Special Court traveled to places outside. These trips were made by me only very infrequently in those years.
In 1943, when Herr Rothaug was transferred to Berlin, Ferber succeeded him. I myself remained Deputy President when Ferber was the President of the Court and the, as I remember it now, as of July 15, 1943, I was transferred to the President's office of the District Court of Appeal in Nurnberg. There I was to take up a job in the personnel offices for judges, attorneys, and public notaries, and I remained there until October of 1943.
Q. Witness, will you tell us when you were promoted to District Court Director?
A. 1 April 1941.
Q. And up to that time you wore an Associate Judge with the Special Court?
A. Yes, up to 1 April 1941.
Q. And after that you became Deputy President?
A. Yes, quite.
Q. Now, when the witness Doebig testified here he stated that you endeavored to obtain the position of President of the District Court in Nurnberg. I am referring here to the transcript at page 1756. Is Doebig's testimony correct?
A. I never attempted to obtain that position. As I remember it, the Gau Leitung of Franconia made this suggestion to Emmert the then President of the District Court of Appeal and Emmert said yes at the time. He said he would go into the matter and would consider it in due course. That was done, it is true, but no promotion was effected.
DR. SCHRUBERT: The witness is here referring to Prosecution Exhibit 408 in Volume IX-A, on page 50.
Q. Will you please describe now why you took over from Ferber as the President of the Special Court?
A. Emmert, who was the President of tho District Court of Appeal at the time, for reasons which I could never find out, contracted a dislike of Ferber. Now, in about August or September of 1943, when a few verdicts of Ferber's were quashed by the Reich Supremo Court through nullity pleas, Emmert decided to change the President of the Special Court. At about the same time a particularly drastic cutting down in the tasks of the Administration of Justice occurred, with the effect that the President's office in the District Court of Appeal could no longer afford me sufficient work. This cutting down also occurred in the Party, and this particularly touched my position with the Gau Leitung.
The result was that Emmert now suggested that I could become free for the position cf the President of the Special Court.
Q. Did you yourself have any influence on this change within the Presidency of the Special Court?
A. No.
Q. From when to when did you take over the permanent position as President of the Special Court?
A. From 1 October 1943 until the first day of February 1945; I think, as far as I can remember, it was until the 3rd or 4th of February. At that time I was called up by the Wehrmacht, and there, at the beginning of April 1945, I was ordered to join the courts martial.
Q. Witness, having now heard the details of your professional career, will you please tell us when and why you joined the NSDAP?
A. I joined the Party on 1 December 1931. The reason was my worry concerning the economic and political future of the German people. That was caused within me by the far-reaching collapse of political and economic life in Germany of the time. This collapse was visible at the time in the bankruptcy of large banks and industrial enterprises, in the large numbers of forced auctions of farms, and in millions of unemployed. The real, decisive element in my joining the Party was the fact that I had read the speeches and writings of Gregor Strasser, who at that time, next to Hitler, was the most prominent personality in the NSDAP. I did not hear Hitler himself at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me, I did not understand your testimony. Strasser?
THE WITNESS: Gregor Strasser; S-T-R-A-S- S-E-R.
A. (Continuing) When I joined the NSDAP I did so for reasons of my political convictions, not for any reasons of opportunism, of which nobody could be suspected at that time, because joining the Party at that time was disadvantageous rather than advantageous, nor was it certain who would win the political battle.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q. Did you do anything politically in the Party until 1940?
A. From the day I joined the NSDAP, until 1940, I did not do anything within the Party politically; I hold no office in the Party nor in any of its formations or affiliated formations, nor did I ever act as a speaker or a writer. I merely paid my membership fees and from time to time I would attend a meeting. I had no relations with any influential political personalities; I did not try to have any, nor did I ever find any.
Q. How was it that you took over the Party office and the office in the Lawyers League in 1940?
A. When I took over those offices I saw that these were important offices: First, with the Gau Legal Office of the Gau Leitung of Franconia, and secondly, the office of Gauwalter in the Lawyers League of the Gau Franconia. Both positions were concerned with organizations which were, in themselves, indepenent and different from each other. The Gau Legal Office was a subdepartment of the Gau Leitung whereas the National Socialist Lawyers League was an independent association. It was the professional association of lawyers, judges, public prosecutors, attorneys, notaries, administrative lawyers, economic lawyers, university professors, and Referendare.
Q. Was the NS Lawyers League a new establishment invented by the Nazis, or did it exist in a different form before 1933?
A. The Lawyers League existed before 1933. It was then called the Union of National Socialist German Lawyers. It was an organization of the Party, such as the Republic Association of Judges which existed before 1933. After the seizure of power all associations of lawyers, such as the Union of Judges, the German Lawyers Union, and so on, were dissolved and merged with the Lawyers League. That made the Lawyers League the only organization of the legal profession and it replaced the work which was done earlier by the other associations.
Q. Will you please describe how it came about that you took over the Party offices?
A. In about the spring of 1940, the position in the Cau Legal Office and the position of the Gauwalter in the NSDAP were both vacant. The man who had so far held these offices. Public Prosecutor Derzler, was dismissed, as early as 1939, in connection with a disciplinary action: he had been transferred to the Public Prosecutor's office in Chemnitz, without at first, however, having been relieved of his Party offices. They were taken care of at first by his deputies. These deputies, early after the outbreak of the war, were called up into the army.
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry, there seems to be more difficulty with the electrical transcription. We will take a recess; it is very unfortunate.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q. Witness, you were just explaining how it came about that you took over these party offices, and you had just explained that Denzler had been believed temporarily of his office in the Gau Legal Office out had not been completely dismissed. Please continue.
A. During his absence the work was taken care of by his deputies. They were called up into the Wehrmacht shortly after the outbreak of the war. Also, the Gau Legal Office itself, when offices were simplified in the course of the war, was reduced to one main office which was called the main legal office. The Gau Legal Office at first consisted of five main offices or sections. In about the summer of 1940, as I seem to remember, Rothaug was asked by the Reich Legal Office to make suggestions to have this office taken care of by a commissioner. In fact, both offices should be taken care of by a commissioner. He suggested to me to take over these positions and talked me into it, as it were, and as I was promised to be relieved of certain other professional duties I said I was ready to take over the position and Rothaug then suggested to the Reich Legal Office and the Gau Director of Frankonia that I should be given this position.
Q. The Prosecution has submitted a document from your personal file in Exh. 408 in Volume 9-A on Page 62. This is a letter addressed by you to the President of the District Court of Appeal in Nuremberg, on 13 August 1940, and where you say that you had been charged with the direction of the Gau Legal Office and of the NS Lawyers League in the Frankonia Gau. Are these facts correct?
A. In the first half of August of 1940 the Reich Legal Office of the NSDAP wrote to me that as from 1 August 1940 I was to be the commissioner in charge of the Gau Legal Office, and in charge of the NS lawyers League of the Gau Frankonia. There was an internal order in the Gau Frankonia according to which civil servants had to ask their superior agency whether or not they could take over party offices.
The letter which you have just mentioned of 13 August 1940 is that report. When I reported to t is effect I did not know that the Reich Legal Office, according to the statutes of the NSDAD had no authority to express any appointments within the Gau Legal Offices. They could not even appoint commissioners. The rules of the Party said that the Gauleiter was the competent person. When a few days later I reported to the Gau Directorate because of this appointment, this was made quite clear to me. I was told at the same time that as long as Denzler had not finally been relieved of his office, any new appointment of the ran in charge of the Gau Legal Office could not be considered, especially as the man in charge was not a very important function, since only one main section still existed, and it was only for that main section that a new man was needed. The regulation of the Reich Legal Office applied therefore only in as much as it made me the commissioner in charge of the Lawyers' League of the Gau Frankonia.
Q. I am now referring to the affidavit which I have submitted, the Engert affidavit which is my Exh. 14 in Document Book 1. Witness, you have told us that when you were made the commissioner in charge of the Lawyers' League the Gauleiter was the competent official. Can you still tell us who was competent as far as the final and definite appointment was concerned? Was that also the Gauleiter?
A. No. As far as I am informed, only the Party Chancellery of Hitler himself.
Q. I shall submit a document about that in my volume 2. Did you at any time receive the appointment by Hitler or the Party Chancellery to become chief of the Gau Party Office?
A. Never.
Q. Will you please go on describing what you did when you were in the Gau Legal Office and in the NS Lawyers' League?
A. As far as the Gau Directorate was concerned, I was made a commissioner in charge of the main section, and in that capacity I was in 1942 confirmed. I was, therefore, never the man in charge or the chief of the Gau Legal Office, not even as a commissioner. But as the chief of the Gau Legal Office it should have stood to reason that I should have had an office under me, but it actual fact I was only in charge of a section of the Gau Office without having anybody working under me.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask, was there anyone working over you in that office?
THE WITNESS: Yes. The Chief of the Gau Legal Office or the man in charge of the Gau Staff Office or the Gauleiter himself.
THE PRESIDENT: I meant in the Gau Legal Office. Was there a superior to you in the Gau Legal Office itself? I am not referring to the Gauleiter.
THE WITNESS: In the Gau Legal Office the chief of the Gau Legal Office, was over me.
THE PRESIDENT: Who was he?
THE WITNESS: This was, at the time when I was appointed, Public Prosecutor Denzler.
THE PRESIDENT: Denzler was not there, though?
THE WITNESS: No, he was not there. In August, 1942, the Gau Legal Office quite generally were dissolved, and the main section, "legal consultation" was incorporated into the Gau Staff Office. after Emmert had taken over his office as President of the District Court of Appeal in 19 43 he became the Gauwalter of the Lawyers' League, and the terminated me as the man in charge as a commissioner of the Gau Legal Office. Gauleiter Holz trusted Emmert bundlessly, and he took care of all questions touching on the Justice Administration with Holtz himself. I myself from that time onward was no longer called in when those things were being discussed. And as far as Nuremberg legal life was concerned, Emmert became the leading man and who was most important to the political agencies.
Q. What the witness has said just now is borne out by several affidavit which I have admitted, Elkar and Engert Exhibit 13 and 14. Witness, lest there by any misunderstanding I should like to sum this up. Is it correct to say that as from 1940 until 1942 you were, practically speaking, solely in charge of the Gau Legal Office, and did the work of a Gauhauptstellenleiter, which is a section chief, and as from August 1942 the Gau Legal Office was dissolved and made part of the Gau staff offices; is that correct, too?
A. Yes.
Q. And then it was under a Gaustavsamtsleiter, who was the chief of the Gau Staff Office?
A. Yes.
Q. What were your tasks up to that?
A. My main work in the Gau Legal Office consisted of taking care of the many applications for legal information and assistance. Some of them would reach us orally and some of them in writing. That concerned mainly matters concerning divorce, disputes about rent, and much time was taken up by soldiers' applications for legal assistance. It was also my task to comment on complaints about verdicts or measure taken by government departments, investigat them, and give my opinion. I also had to define my attitude towards pleas for clemency in penal matters. There was a special office for clemency matters in the Gau Staff office, and this would deal with all clemency pleas, and I always was asked for my own attitude. Then there was a task of establishing and supervising the NS Legal consulting offices. These were essentially charity establishments of the Party. Every bigger place, particularly places which had courts, this sort of office was established where the poorer part of the population could, without payment, receive advice by legal experts, mainly lawyers.
JUDGE HARDING: What clemency matters did the Gau Legal Office deal with?
THE WITNESS: These were clemency pleas in penal matters of all typez which were addressed to the Gauleiter, and there was a special office for clemency matters which would then pass on these pleas to me to obtain my comments and opinion. The final attitude as to the clemency matters was effected by this office for clemency pleas.
JUDGE HARDING: In all criminal matters?
THE WITNESS: IN all criminal matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you act on clemency matters as an official in the Gau Legal Office in connection with cases on which you had sat as a judge as well as cases where others had sat as judge?
THE WITNESS: In cases where I myself acted as a judge I did not give my comments in that sense. I was not allowed to. It was arranged from the beginning that such matters would not reach me at all. On the other hand, I did give my comments in matters which had been decided by the Nuremberg Special Court where I, however, had not taken part.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q. Witness, did you advise the Gauleiter in matters concerning Party polities?
A. In matters concerning Party politics I was never consulted by the Gauletier as to its legal aspects.
Q. In this connection I have reference to Oeschey affidavit Daenzl, Exhibit No. 10. What were your tasks in the NS Lawyers' League?
A. What I did in that leagus was reduced very considerably after the outbreak of war. Complaints within the Lawyers' League were reduced to an absolute minimum. The most important part of the work done by the Layers' League was looking after members of the League who had been called up for military service and their relatives, particularly looking after relatives of killed soldiers. All we did there was typical administrative and office work. Any interference with legislation and jurisdiction or scientific work was not done any more by the Lawyers' League. An important task was to give what we call "political testimonies" about other members of the League.
These political qualifications were asked for frequently by the Gau personnel office of the NSDAP, and for all practival intents and purposes, occured only in the case of civil servants when they were being appointed or promoted. These political qualifications made it important for the Gau Gruppenvalter to take part.
Q. Here I have reference to Exhibit 12 on Page 44 of Document Book I.
THE PRESIDENT: One further question, witness, please, before we get too far away from your work in the Gau Legal Office. I remember that you said, in addition to dealing with clemency matters that you dealt with complaints concerning verdicts. Would that include dealing with matters of possible nullity pleas and the like?
THE WITNESS: Certainly.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q. When Witness Gross was interrogated, he mentioned that he saw you once in Party uniform. This is on Page 2841 of the record. It that true?
A. As a matter of principle I avoided wearing the Party uniform, particularly as I did not own a complete uniform. In all the years between 1940 and 1045 on one single occasion I appeared in uniform. That was a day when wearing the uniform had been stricly ordered for all Amtswalters. I can't remember what the occasion was. I borrowed various bits and pieces of the uniform from other people, and on that particular day I were a uniform, and that must be the day when Gross saw me in uniform.
Q.- In this connection, I take reference to Exhibit 11 on Page 43 of my Document Book, Witness, in this trial frequent mention has been made of your regular meetings in the "Blaue Traube." In the affidavit given by Rosemarie Rothaug, which is Prosecution Exhibit 424, in Volume IX-B on page 142, you are described as a man who attended these regular public meetings. Will you please give us your comments?
A.- I did not belong to any of these regular circles, and as far as the "Blaue Traube" is concerned, I went there very infrequently. Should I have spent an evening there once or twice, it was, as far as I remember in the society of other colleagues.
Q.- In this connection, I take reference to my Exhibit 3 on Page 10; my Exhibit 7, on Page 21; and my Exhibit 8, on page 27. Did you have any personal or factual advantage from holding your Party office, or did you use your Party office for any selfish ends?
A.- No. I held this office in an honorary position; that is to say, without receiving any payment; nor did I at any time have any advantage, in the selfish sense of the word, from it. On the other hand, on the basis, and by virtue of my Party office, I was in a position to help a great many people without taking into consideration what their political attitude or pasts had been; particularly, I repeatedly advocated clemency in the case of political trials. I can remember several cases where I successfully revoked the political custody order which had been inflicted on people for a variety of reasons. In many cases, I intervened when political agencies allowed themselves excesses against certain people who would then turn to me for help.
Q.- What the witness has testified to now is born out by my Exhibit 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. The Prosecution have submitted a number of affidavits which refer to your Party connections, and make considerable importance of that fact. I have reference here to the affidavit by Mueller, which is Exhibit 149 in Volume III-C on page 54; the affidavit by Bauer, which is Exhibit 157; Exhibit Pfaff, Exhibit 235; Gross, Exhibit 229. To sum up, you are being charged with having had considerable political power in your position and exploited it ruthlessly to have you will done.
Will you please give us your comments on that?
A.- I never expected anybody to submit to me, nor could I ever find that somebody did so. That they should be afraid of such political power as I am alleged to have--infact, no such power ever existed as far as I was concerned. My Party office was far too insignificant for this, and I never exploited that position to exercise influence on others or to use the Party office to realize private desires or to threaten others with it. I never boasted about my position, nor did I ever play a political part in the Gau Franconia, which was important or even advisable. My relations with Party officials went never beyond the purely official limit, nor did I have any personal contact with any of the local Party leaders. My circle of friends and acquaintances were not composed of Party members at all. I did not have any connection with the higher, more influential agencies.
After Emmert took ever his office, my political position, as I pointed out before, had lost all significance finally. In any case, after that period of time, particularly during the period of time when I was the President of the Special Court of the Gau Franconia or within the Nurnberg judicial administration, there was only one man who held a powerful position, and that was the President of the District Court of Appeals, Emmert. That was quite natural as he was the highest departmental chief.
I harmed nobody in a professional or personal respect, and particularly when attacks were made on judges, public prosecutions and officials, I always endeavored to straighten out these differences and prevent any harm from coming to these people, which was not always easy. This was known not only among the leading men of the Nurnberg justice administration, but particularly to those of the judges and public prosecutors who worked within my sphere, so that they need not be afraid of anything -- nor were they afraid of anything.
Q.- What the witness has said here is being borne out by the affidavit submitted by Exhibits 2, 8, and 14. The witness Doebig in the Prosecution exhibit 236, in Volume 3-I, on page 76 has testified that you, as the man in charge of the Gau legal office, had repeatedly expressed complaints in an extremely strong manner against Nurnberg judges because of their work. Will you please give us your comments about that?
A.- What Doebig said is not correct in this form. It was quite a general symptom that people who had in some trial or other felt that they had been dealt with unjustly but had no longer any legal means of doing something against the assertion, would turn to some Party office or other for help, and on those occasions they would complain bitterly against the judge concerned and reproach him for anything they could thing of. The Party offices under the Gau directorate had really the obligation to deal with such complaints and passed them on to the Gau directorate. They had been expressly told not to turn to the judge or the authority concerned on their own initiative or enter into negotiation with them about the complaint.
The gau directorate in turn was to investigate the complaint, and if it should consider it justified, was to report to the Party Chancellery. Unhappily, in many cases, the Party office did not observe this regulation and in infrequent cases would themselves deal with the complaints which reached them from the population and used this opportunity of taking erastic steps against the judges and departments, although they were entirely unjustified.
This state of affairs was, as far as Doebig was concerned -- who was at that time the President of the District Court of Appeals-- the subject of profound trouble. He had a conversation about this for a considerable time, and he suggested to me at the time to have these complaints, which reached the Gau directorate, dealt with by him and myself, and to deal with them finally, if and then possible, which would avoid any disadvantages to the judges and the administration.
I thought this was a very good idea, and if and when such complains reached me for investigation, and unless they were completely unimportant, I told Doebig about them. In most cases, in the form that I quoted to him; the text or the approximate text which was in writing. Doebig examined them and gave me his opinion, and it was then attempted to find out a means whereby this conflict could be straightened out. It is, therefore, not true to say that I would have raised complaints. As far as I was concerned, if I can still remember it correctly, I did not in one single case express any complaint against judges.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)