A. I always went to Dr. Rothenberger in cases of that kind, told him to deal with them. I do not know what he did in individual cases, but I assume that he, as a certainty, went to the Gauleiter--at least, he frequently told me about it--and told the Gauleiter about the case. He then saw to it that in spite of the misgivings which existed in that case, the case went on.
Q. In cases of that kind did you frequently say, "We have to wait for the sentence; before that no influence can be exerted"?
A. Yes, I did, but only after that decree had come out. Until that time I refrained from any personal assistance. When that decree by the Gauleiter, which I mentioned before, had been issued, I told the persons in question that I would bring it before Dr. Rothenberger. I did so, and then Dr. Rothenberger told me to inform myself of the facts and should then inform the individual of the facts, and that one had to wait until the sentence was pronounced. That was done in all of these cases.
Q. Witness, can you say anything about Rothenberger's position in the Jewish question, that is to say, how it was in practice in the Administration of Justice of Hamburg, and how it developed?
A. As I have already stated, until Dr. Rothenberger left Hamburg--at any rate, it was eight years that I worked for him, and I was with him every week at least once or twice. I heard many of his speeches, and I was also present when he met his assistants in a smaller circle. I never heard that Dr. Rothenberger--be it in public speeches or in speeches before the jurists, or in small circle--made any statement which would permit the conclusion that his attitude was anti-Semitic. Such things never occurred.
Q. You mean to say, then, if he spoke about racial questions orally or in writing, that he never did that by directly mentioning the Jews?
A. Yes, well, if I say that he never made anti-Semitic statements, I want to say that he never made malicious of fanatic statements or statements in any exaggerated form. As the Supreme Judge in Hamburg he occasionally spoke about questions of racial legislation. That, of course, was within his task as a judge. However, he did that in an absolutely correct form, in an objective form, without attacks against individual Jews or against any other individuals.
Q. How was the question of appointing defense counsel for Jews handled in Hamburg?
A. IT was found that lawyers who were members of the Jurists League, and who undertook to defend a Jew, incurred disadvantages from the Party, in Hamburg as else where. Thereupon the Reich Leadership of the NSDAP issued a directive according to which, in the future, anybody who was a member of the Jurists League who wanted to defend a Jew had to approach the Kreisleiter into whose jurisdiction it would fall, and the Kreisleiter, after getting in touch with the chief of his legal office, would give the approval. At that time, when I submitted that decree to Dr. Rothenberger and reported about it to him, he told me immediately that he would like to make an arrangement with the Gauleiter that the Gauleiter should keep the decision for himself and not to leave it to the Kreisleiter to make it. That happened, and the way it was handled was that the Gauleiter delegated his right of making that decision to Dr. Rothenberger. Therefore, in fact, Dr. Rothenberger made all these decisions in the name of the Gauleiter in individual cases, or without the Gauleiter being interested in individual cases. The whole matter was handled exclusively by Dr. Rothenberger, and I can say that approval was given in all cases.
Q. On the basis of the legal provisions, were persons of mixed blood in the National Socialist Jurists League in Hamburg?
A. Yes, the persons of mixed descent all remained members of the Jurists League.
Q. Was that of great importance for attorneys?
A. For attorneys, membership in the Jurists League was of great importance. For instance, the assignment of cases by the court depended upon that. Consequently, it was of great importance for a man of mixed descent to remain in the Jurists League.
Q. Witness, do you remember that, in Hamburg, you discussed with Dr. Rothenberger the methods of the propaganda of Streicher in Nurnberg, for instance, in the "Stuermer"? What was Dr. Rothenberger's reaction?
A. I can say first that one frequently spoke quite generally in Hamburg about the propaganda methods used by the "Stuermer" and by Streicher, and that these methods, in circles of the intelligentsia, were definitely rejected. For instance, to Dr. Rothenberger, the copies of the Stuermer that were exhibited were annoying. I remember that he told us that he welcomed the fact that Kaufmann, several years before the war, prohibited the exhibiting of the "Stuermer" copies and the putting up of the boxes in which these copies were to be displayed.
Q. Do you remember the 8th, or rather the 9th of November, 1938, when the programs against the Jews occurred?
A. Yes, I came to the courthouse in the morning, and as I arrived at the courthouse I was told by my colleagues that excesses had taken place in the city. At noon I went into the city to eat, and in the inner city I actually saw some wrecked shops.
Q. From your own experience, do you have an insight into the extent of the damage?
A. I believe that I do. I ran a round in the inner city on that day; I looked at it, and I found that in the two main streets several shops had been wrecked, that is to say, the windows were broken, the furniture was destroyed, and the stock in the shops was thrown out in the street.
One was an optician's shop and there were two dress shops and on the Jungternstieg in Hamburg, it was a gift shop. In the inner city, however, those were the only stores that I saw destroyed, and I did not hear later that the excesses and destructions had assumed any greater extent. I know that in a suburb, in Barmbeck, another store was wrecked, and also on the Steindamm. One synogogue was put on fire, but after the Gauleiter had given counter-orders, the fire was put out, and it did not burn down entirely. The largest and most modern synogogue which we had in Hamburg, in the Oberstrasse, remained untouched.
I did not obtain any information as to other destructions; I did not see them and I did not hear about any from anybody, and I am sure if there had been any I would have heard about it.
Q. Witness, you spoke of counter-orders by Kauffmann. How do you happen to know that Kauffmann disagreed with that action and that he did not approve of it?
A. I know that after Kauffmann received the information that these plans were to be carried out during the night, he gave orders on his part that the police should immediately assume protection of the stores. It is true that, for reasons which I do not know, he could not prevent the damages which I have mentioned. However, in fact, the next morning, a policeman stood before every one of the stores, which prevented continued thefts and destructions.
It is known to me, because it was discussed in the circles of the Party and among my colleagues, that Rothenberger himself had intervened and had called the Gauleiter's attention to the consequences of these things, and that the Gauleiter had assured him that he could rest assured that he, the Gauleiter, had already taken the necessary steps.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q Witness, according to your knowledge were any individuals injured in Hamburg at that time?
A No, no individuals were injured.
Q You know about the institution of the Vor and Nachschau Preview and Review, which was established by Rothenberger after Hitler's speech?
A Yes.
Q In this connection may I first ask you whether the institution of a Preview and Review at that time was something new?
A No doubt it was something new and, as we were told by Dr. Rothenberger himself, it was he who had conceived that idea and had put it into effect. I think that was in April of 1942 or in May of 1942. I do not know the exact date any longer.
Q What, according to your knowledge of Rothenberger's character, were the considerations which had caused him to establish this Preview and Review in the form he did?
A Dr. Rothenberger, in the first session -- and I may say that I took part in these sessions as presiding judge of the Hamburg Special Court -- in that first session told us what his reasons were for establishing this Preview and Review. We, as all the judges in Hamburg, were still strongly under the influence of the Fuehrer's speech of March, 1942, which is certainly known to this Court and which had shocked the judges.
Q May I interrupt you? You mean of April, 1942, don't you?
A Well, I don't remember the date precisely. At any rate it was in the Spring of 1942, the well-known Fuehrer speech which caused a great deal of excitement in the circles of the Administration of Justice and which had to make every judge feel that if he pronounced a sentence which was not approved by the higher-ups, he would lose his position and might also have to bear other disadvantages for his person and his relatives.
Dr. Rothenberger told us at that time, in that Preview, that we Court No. III, Case No. 3.should be quite assured, that he would protect any Hamburg judge and that he had also discussed it with the Reichstatthalter, and he was also of that opinion and promised us his personal protection, a thing which the Reichstatthalter in fact told us also in a conference.
On the other hand, Dr. Rothenberger said, "Of course, I have to be and remain informed about everything which comes before the Special Courts in advance so as to be in a position to gain an impression as to how far there is a possibility of an interference or a danger for my judges." And that was primarily his idea of Preview and Review.
In addition to that, of course, it was of certain importance for him to assure uniformity of jurisdiction because we had three - and sometimes four - chambers of the Special Court at Hamburg and, of course, there was the intention that the practices and the sentences should be uniform and that they should not vary in their practices.
Q And how was it handled? Could you briefly tell us about that?
A The Vor and Naenschau - Previews and Review -- took place about every two weeks. Dr. Rothenberger called a meeting. He was the chairman of the meeting. Those participating were two or three gentlemen from his administration. Then the presiding judges of the District Court and Local Court, the general public prosecutor, the senior public prosecutor with the District Court and the presiding judges of the Special Court.
Dr. Rothenberger had the individual judges report to him first in retrospect what had happened during the past two weeks. In most cases nothing was said about that, and then every individual presiding judge, on the basis of the indictments which he had received, discussed the cases which he had scheduled for the next two weeks. The facts were briefly discussed and then if there were some doubts of a legal nature, for instance, what is looting or how is it possible to assume in this case that advantage was taken of the blackout and then, quite generally and with every one of those present participating, the legal question was discussed. The measure of penalty itself was never even touched Court No. III, Case No. 3.upon by any one of the judges.
It did occur that the public prosecutor told us, during that conference, that it was his intention -- and I want to give an example -- to ask for five years in a penitentiary as a sentence and then we, the judges, said, "Well, we will have to see what comes out of the trial and leave that to the trial. If the facts are as the prosecution assumes, then one can expect a penitentiary term, but we will have to wait for the facts."
Never in this preview or Review -- and I participated in these meetings from the beginning to the end -- never was any directive given by Dr. Rothenberger in any single case nor any arrangement made between the prosecutor and the court concerning the sentence. That did not happen in one single instance.
Q Witness, for you, the judges, it was a matter of course that particularly, as far as the establishment of the facts were concerned, you had to reserve your complete freedom and independence and it was never violated?
A I never had any doubts about that and I am sure that also my colleagues were of the same opinion and that was expressed if, after these meetings, we discussed it when we went home together. We have always been trained for independence as judges, particularly, Dr. Rothenberger time and again stressed the importance that the judge has to act absolutely independently, free of any influence or any interference from any side. Dr. Rothenberger told us that so frequently that I would like to say with us, the jurists in Hamburg, who always were in Hamburg, that was a question of education.
Q Witness, were you informed about the fact that already at the beginning of the war, there existed a directive by the Minister of Justice Guertner which required a direct contact between the public prosecutor and the judge and did you disagree?
A Yes. Minister Guertner had directed, we were told about that once, that between the prosecution and the bench before the trial, that is, before the beginning of the main trial, contact should be Court No. III, Case No. 3.made in order to avoid that the demand for punishment by the prosecution and the final sentence of the court differed too widely.
That contact was actually taken by some judges, that is to say, they accepted the demand by the prosecutor. I was also told that sometimes at the end of the submission of evidence and before the trial pleas, the prosecutor might have made contact with the bench, but only in individual cases, as far as I heard. I can say, as far as I was concerned, that I rejected that and always told the prosecutors, who would have approached me, "It is quite useless. I do not want to discuss it at this stage and before I have seen everything I cannot say anything anyway.
Q As a judge in Hamburg, did you consider the Preview and Review as progress because it eliminated direct contact between judge and prosecutor and this conference of the presiding judges made it possible to conduct a discussion on a more general basis?
A Yes. It was an advantage because that unpleasant contact between prosecutor and judge was eliminated. Moreover, it afforded us a possibility to discuss legal questions and problems which arose in that circle and we had an opportunity to hear different opinions. That was all. In my opinion it was more an advantage for the Administration of Justice to obtain more information about matters.
Q Did Dr. Rothenberger, in his Preview and Review -- was he very restrained and did he listen to reports?
A Yes. He just had us report to him. He did not state any opinion.
Q Then another question in this connection: Was Dr. Rothenberger interested that jurisdiction should always be very severe in penal cases?
A No, one could not say that; not always. He stressed frequently that at times of war where everybody had to be put to work in order to obtain the goal in which we believed at that time, that it could not be permitted that people took advantage of the unfortunate circumstances in the home country during war time, that is to say, he certainly was in favor of a very severe punishment for criminals, but not indiscrim Court No. III, Case No. 3.inately.
be very frequently discussed the fact that when we were confronted with political cases, malicious attacks cases, that the character of the individual should be taken into account and the fact whether the reputation of the Government had been harmed. According to my knowledge, the practice in malicious acts cases in Hamburg was a very lenient one. At least that is the way I came to know it. I did not know of any too severe sentence.
Q Did you ever at the time hear that objections were made about the practice being too lenient?
A No; that I heard only later.
Q Witness, you know that the penal jurisdiction was aggravated in some cases only because a person, for political or racial reasons, was undesirable. Did Dr. Rothenberger support the tendency for more severe penalties on such grounds?
A No.
Q Did the decree concerning Jews and Poles of 1941 ever play a part in the Preview and Review?
A That decree was never mentioned in the Preview and Review and I have to confess that I don't even know it myself. I don't believe that we had any cases in Hamburg where it could have been applied.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you. I have concluded my direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there other direct examination? It appears that there is none. You may cross-examine. May I direct attention to an error of this morning? Mr. Marshal, did you ascertain in the morning session if all defendants were present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all of the defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: So we have observed. Let the proper notation be made. You may cross-examine.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:
Q Mr. Becher, let me review the facts of your Party history briefly, please. You joined the Party in 1933; you joined a political leadership corps in 1934; you were Gauhaupstellenleiter in 1935 and when were you appointed judge of the Special Court?
A During the first days of September, 1939, immediately after the outbreak of the war.
Q Now, at that time, were there three or four special courts in the Hamburg judicial administration area?
A There were the so-called Henseatic Special Court with the District Court in Hamburg. At that time, at the beginning of the war, I believe it consisted of three chambers.
Q And at least one time later there were four chambers; is that correct?
A Later there was a fourth chamber established but in the further course of the war it was again discontinued; so that in the end we had and kept three chambers.
Q And you were one of the presiding judges of the three regular or permanent special courts, is that correct, from 1939 on until the end of the war?
A From 1939 on until the end of the war I was presiding judge of the Second Chamber of the Hanseatic Special Court.
Q Yes. You spoke earlier of the extent to which Dr. Rothenberger attempted to weld the Administration of Justice to the Party for the purpose, as you stated this morning, of making it easier for the Administration of Justice to get along with the Party officials I believe that is a fairly accurate summary of what you stated this morning on direct. I wonder if you recall the speech which you made in Hamburg on the 29 of August 1942 on the occasion of Dr. Rothenberger's departure for Berlin to become secretary there. Do you recall the occasion of that speech? Perhaps you can't be expected to recall exact Court No. III, Case No. 3.ly what you said but you do recall you made a speech at that time?
A I remember.
Q Now, I have here a text of that speech. (Document handed to witness) Now, if you will turn to the top of Page 2 at the beginning of the second paragraph I want to read a portion of that second paragraph and then ask you one question based on it. You say in the course of that speech on the 29 of August 1942: "We remember the opinion that was held in the Party about us lawyers during the first years after the assumption of power and now we realize the great change which has occurred and that this change occurred is due solely to your work here in Hamburg, especially the close relationship between the Hamburg party leadership and our local justice administration was solely the result of your untiring efforts. Anyone who had the opportunity to hear from representatives of other Gaus and knows the situation there also knows how to appreciate what you have done through your political work here."
Now, would you say that that summarizes fairly well your feeling about the extent to which Dr. Rothenberger worked for cooperation between the Administration of Justice at Hamburg and the Party there?
A I understood that on Page 2 the first paragraph or, rather, the first two sentences of that paragraph we read, that, according to the meaning, is what I said and what I meant.
Q All right. You do not have any other comments to make on that? It is substantially correct and still represents your feeling as you look back on it and recall it?
A Yes. If I may refer to it once more I would say that by these words I intended to express the same that I have said before, that is to say, that Dr. Rothenberger succeeded to overcome the difficult conditions which existed in the beginning, in 1939, between the administration of Justice and the Party by the fact that -
THE PRESIDENT: You are merely repeating what you have already testified to. You needn't repeat it.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
BY MR. KING:
Q When did I understand you to say that the Preview and the Review system was established in Hamburg?
A That occurred after the well-known Fuehrer speech. If I am told now that that speech was made in April, 1942, then it must have been at the end of April or in the month of May that was established.
Q Yes. I think I also understood you to say that you had never heard of an instance in which a judge in Hamburg was criticized for being too lenient in his decisions. Is that right?
A Yes; I never heard that.
Q I have before me a report which is dated the 30th of April 1941. I will show it to you. I will say, incidentally, it is a copy made from the original. (Document handed to witness). This report was requested, as you can see, by Dr. Rothenberger. It was prepared by a prosecutor of the District Court and the request called for a summary of the cases in various Hamburg courts in which the judges had given sentences that were not as severe as requested by the prosecution. Now then, on the tenth of July, 1941, you had a conference with Dr. Rothenberger and one other judge or prosecutor, Do you recall that conference?
A No.
Q Well, turn to the last page of that report, please. That looks like your name there, doesn't it?
A Yes, that is my name.
Q But you don't recall what was discussed at that conference, why Rothenberger called for that report, nor what action he suggested as a result of that report; is that right?
A To this I can only say that this report which is now before me I have never seen before. I do not know whether it was ever shown to me. From the remark which was made on the last page, I had to gather that Dr. Bartsch, who was an assistant of Dr. Rothenberger in Court No. III, Case No. 3.the Administration of Justice, at least told me something about the contents of that report, but I cannot remember it.
Q On the basis of the report you would be willing to modify your earlier statement, I presume, that there were no cases in Hamburg in which the judges were criticized for being too lenient?
A That, of course, according to what I have seen now, I have to correct. I only want to say that I intended to say before that Dr. Rothenberger never told me anything about it. If Dr. Bartsch at one time made the remark of that kind to me, well, I cannot see at the moment whether these matters concerned ma personally. I have to confess that I can't remember it.
Q Do you recall by any chance the series of letters exchanged between Kauffmann and Rothenberger about the time you were appointed as presiding judge of the Spacial Court in which Kauffmann requested of Rothenberger and Dr. Rothenberger requested of the various courts in the Hamburg area that he be kept informed of the more important criminal cases that came before the Spacial Courts and other courts in the Hamburg area?
A (No response.)
Q Let me show you the photostat copy of that series of letters. (Documents handed to witness.)
A These letters are quite unknown to me. Dr. Rothenberger, as president of the District Court of Appeals, exchanged this correspondence with the Reichstatthalter - Reich Governor - and I had nothing to do at the District Court of Appeals.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibits are in evidence, aren't they?
MR. KING: They are not in evidence, yet, your Honor. I may possibly offer them later.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
A (Continuing) These are letters, that is, correspondence, which Dr. Rothenberger, as president of the District Court of Appeals, had with the Reichstatthalter. I had no possibility to see them because Court No. III, Case No. 3.I had nothing to do in the District Court of Appeals.
Q Now, as judge of the Spacial Court in Hamburg, do you mean you never heard of the practice of referring for Dr. Rothenberger's notice the more important criminal cases that came before you? Let me read that letter. This is a letter from Dr. Rothenberger to the prosecutor-general of the Henseatic Court of Appeal and is dated the 26 of September, 1939, and Dr. Rothenberger includes with his letter the letter from Kauffmann. Ha says:
"The Reichstatthalter Karl Kauffmann, in his capacity as Raich Defense Commissioner for the area of Military District 10, has commissioned me on the basis of the enclosed letter to keep him informed of the more important criminal cases dealt with by the Special Courts within the area of Military District 10. I, therefore, request you to sent me a copy of the indictment in all politically important cases or cases which are of spacial interest to the public when you file the indictment with the Spacial Court."
That letter, the original of which you can see is initialed by Grasser, the prosecutor. Now, I thought it was possible that you, as judge of the Spacial Court, might have had some discussion with Grasse about this matter. You have no recollection of it, though, is that correct?
A. No, I don't remember.
Q. May I say that the letters to which I have been referring to are identified with the number NG-2216. I would like to show you another letter. This letter has not been offered in evidence. It's identified as NG-2215. It's dated the 13 of June 1941. It's addressed to Dr. Freisler from Dr. Rothenberger. Now, you will observe that this letter follows by only three days your conference with Dr. Rothenberger on the report which we discussed a few moments ago. I'd like to have you turn, if you will, to the top of Page 2. I want to read you a paragraph and ask you what your recollection may be of the idea expressed there. Here's what Dr. Rothenberg says in that paragraph. It's on line 3 of Page 2 in the copy which you have.
"If too many culprits are brought before the Special Courts which might be sentenced as public enemies, and if every act according to the Public Enemy Statute, regardless of its nature, must be sentenced by the Special Court, then the Special Court loses the intended effect as court martial of the homeland. There is a danger that the population does not see anything special any more in the fact of being brought before the Special Court, and therefore the intimidating effect of an indictment and sentence of a Special Court is lessened. Because of this, the effectiveness of the Special Court is in great danger."
Then if you will turn to Page 4 of that same letter, Rothenberger makes the following suggestion to the effect that if the prosecution in any case brought under Paragraph 2 of the Public Enemy Decree is to ask for five years or more than five years, the indictment should then be filed with the Special Court. But in lesser cases, Rothenberger suggests that the indictment be filed with the Penal Chamber unless two years of hard labor would be sufficient, in which case the indictment would be filed with the Local Court.
Now the last portion which I have read, or the last portion which I have just summarized, is to be gained from the suggestions which Rothenberger makes on Page 4. Now I ask you, as judge of the Special Court in Hamburg, did the subject of the paragraphs which I have just read ever come to your attention in your conferences with Rothenberger?
A. The letter which I have before me is not known to me, but the thought which is expressed here by Dr. Rothenberger is known to me. It has been frequently discussed.
Q. So that if someone was to make a statement that the Special Courts in Hamburg were not particularly established to return severe sentences, you would say, on the basis of that letter, that at least Rothenberger at this time didn't think so, is that right?
A. Excuse me, but I didn't understand the question.
THE PRESIDENT: You can construe that from the letter?
BY MR. KING:
Q. You believe, do you not, that the expression in this letter indicates that at this time the Special Court was to be a court primarily for returning severe sentences?
THE PRESIDENT: You needn't answer the question. You are asking him to construe - - - - - - the comparatively plain language of the letter which you have read. It's not necessary to have his construction of it.
MR. KING: I think, Your Honor, we have no more questions to ask this witness.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. I should like to ask you two or three questions, witness. I understood you to say that Rothenberger secured a decree which eliminated any possibility of Party interference. Did I understand you correctly?
A. No, Your Honor. That is a mistake because the decree was not actually issued by Dr. Rothenberger. It w as issued by the Gauleiter. Dr. Rothenberger caused the Gauleiter to issue it.
Q. Yes. You referred to it as a decree. What I want to know is, whose decree was it? The Gauleiter's?
A. A decree by the Gauleiter which was valid for the entire Party organization.
Q. Valid in your district in the Gau?
A. In the Gau of Hamburg, yes.
Q. Again you referred to a decree which required that a lawyer who was going to represent a Jew must secure a permit to do so from the Kreisleiter, and you said that that decree, or that that practice was changed by reason of Dr. Rothenberger's arrangement with the Gauleiter. Whose decree was that that required such a permit from the Kreisleiter?
A. Concerning the permit there was a. decree by the Reichsleiterthe Reich leader of the Reich Legal Office, Dr. Frank. It was an internal decree for the Party.
Q. That was from Headquarters?
A. Yes. From the supreme leadership of the NSDAP.
Q. Are there any others details that you could give us concerning the nature of that decree in addition to what I just quoted?
A. I described the course of events before. I don't know, Mr. President, whether you mean individual cases?
Q. No, no. The substance of this decree was that permission to represent a Jew in court must be secured from the Kreisleiter. Is that it?
A. Yes, indeed, that was the substance.
Q. And it applied throughout the Reich?
A. That applied throughout the Reich.
Q. One last question. You discussed the practice concerning preview of cases to be tried, and said that reports were male on the basis of the indictments. Were the files also presented end discussed at the preview?
A. No. The files were not present. Only the copies of the indictment were brought along by the judges.
Q. Thank you. That is all.
BY JUDGE HARDING:
Q. The law applying to Jews and Poles was applied in Hamburg, was it not ?
A. Personally , I have to say that I don't know of any single case where it was applied; and if I am correctly informed, I said before already I don't even know that decree. If I am correctly informed, it is a question of Jews and Poles from the eastern territories, and we didn't have any in Hamburg, so practically that could not possibly come up in our district.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead with your redirect examination.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q. A few short questions in re-examination. First, Mr. President, may I refer to the question concerning the plight of counsel for Jews. Dr. Becker , is it correct that that decree which you mentioned referred only to lawyers who were Party members and intended to represent Jews?
A. That decree referred to all the members of the National Socialist Party, its formations and affiliates organizations; because, for instance, if I may give an example, if an accountant wanted to represent a Jew and he was only a member of the German Labor Front but not of the Party or any of its formations, even then that accountant had to obtain, as it was in Hamburg, the approval of the Gauleiter.
Q. And wasn't the meaning of the decree which you have described that Dr. Rothenberger in fact wanted to have the decision by having that right delegated to him by Kauffmann?
A. Yes, Dr. Rothenberger of course wanted to draw these matters from the influence of Party fanaticism in the interest of the attorneys.
Q. You said before that in all cases of which you know the approval had been given?
A. Yes. There may have been some cases where it had been denied , but I have to admit that I cannot remember individual cases because there were hundreds of applications that were made.
Q. Witness, you saw the letter from Freisler to Dr. Rothenberger. You saw it here, and you became familiar with its contents.
A. That is a mistake. It's the other way around.
Q. Oh, yes, the other way around: from Rothenberger to Freisler-where it is said that one should not place too many culprits indiscriminately before the Special Court, and that cases where one would expect less than five years in a penitentiary should be brought before the Penal Chamber.
Did Dr. Rothenberger manifest to you any tendency against the extension of the activity of the Special Courts?
A. Yes. That was repeatedly the subject of discussions.
THE PRESIDENT: We have run over our time. I am sorry. We will recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)