Q. Do you know of any other assessor by the name of Hartmann?
A. No, I do not know any other assessor by the name of Hartmann from Hamburg; nevertheless, he must be another man because I am not that man.
Q. Well, we will see more of that in a very few moments. You still say you had nothing to do with protective custody matters?
A. Yes, I never had anything to do with that, never in my entire life.
May I make an explanation in this connection? I see here that this letter is dated 25 April 1935. At that time I was no longer an assessor, but local court judge, Amtsgerichtsrat.
Q. You told me not too long ago that you were appointed in hay 1934.
A. In May 1934 I became assessor, and in January 1935 Amtsgerichtsrat, local court judge.
Q. Let me ask you, did you ever hear of the case Korutz?
A. The name Korutz I am hearing for the first time right now.
Q. I don't believe so. Would you look at this document please?
( Document submitted to witness)
The document which you have is to be identified as NG-2283. It is a series of notes, letters, concerning the case against Korutz, who was a high Party member in Hamburg, and who was sentenced by one of the Hamburg judges to a jail sentence. This sentence was quashed, and among the Justice Administration people who assisted actively an that quashing was one Dr. Hartmann, I presume the same individual that I see before me now.
A. That is correct. I worked on this case in the Administration of Justice in Hamburg. However, I do not remember the case any longer. The case is dated from 1939.
Q. You have no reason to doubt, have you, that the notes which arc signed by you that appear in this sheaf of letters are notes where they carry your signature? You don't challenge any of the signatures there, do you?
A. Here, on two notes, it is typewritten underneath, "Signed, Hartmann", but there is no reason for me to challenge that I was the man. This is one of the many cases on which I was working at that time in the Administration of Justice, but not with the Gestapo.
Q. Many other cases of this kind? This was a quashing case against a high Patty official, which was induced by certain highranking members in the Justice Administration, including Dr. Rotnenberger and yourself. I ask you, were there other cases of this kind which you can remember at this time?
A. I do not recall any other cases. This case too, I no longer remember, and I would have to study the file first. Every day there were at least twenty to thirty events, and it is possible that after eight years one docs not remember one or the other occurrence that took place in the office. It is absolutely impossible to remember every tiling.
Q. Well now, Dr. Hartmann, you can answer this question simply. The odious practice of quashing sentences against high Party officials is something that you ought to remember. It is true you failed to remember this one until the document was shown to you, but do you persist in your statement that you can remember no other case of this type?
A. I cannot remember these cases because, as I have already testi fied, I was never employed in criminal cases on principle. If I appear here in this one case file, and by forwarding a case of the Senat, this can be duo only to the fact that I temporarily substituted for the Referent concerned, because now, in looking over the document, I can sec that I did not work on that case, but Amtsgerichtsrat Doppler, who was competent for criminal cases. If he was on leave temporarily, as a matter of course, then, it is natural that I, perhaps, substituted for him once for a brief period.
Q. Did you know the competent judge in this case, one Oehlkers, O E H L K E R S ?
A. I didn't got the name; the name of the judge.
Q. I shall spell it again, O E H L K E R S.
A. Judge Oehlkers, in Hamburg? I know him very well, yes.
MR. KING: At this time I would like to have identified further, two documents, the first one of which is an excerpt from the diary of the Ministry of Justice, pages 463 and 464, item No.4. We would like to have that identified, and the Exhibit number 589 reserved for that.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no document number on it?
MR. KING: No. It is a part of the same subject matter as document PS-3770.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification.
MR. KING: The other document is NO - 2283, for which we would like the Exhibit No. 590 reserved.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked far identification.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Witness, I show you at this time a document identified as NG-2251. I show you a German photostatic copy of the original. This is a note from one Bartsch, B A R T S C H an official of the Hamburg Justice Administration, in which he suggests, after a conference with Rothenberger, that certain cases pending be turned ever to the Gestapo for protective custody until the individuals come to their senses. Now, of course, if you did not hold the job of Referent for Gestapo cases, you perhaps will not recall. I ask you now, after reading that document, does it help to refresh your memory as to what position you actually hold in connection with protective custody matters? You never saw this document before? You never heard -
A. No.
Q. You never heard about the subject matter of the document?
A. No.
Q. Let me read aprotion of the document. This is after a conference with Dr. Rothenberger concerning certain cases which arc also referred to in the document:
"The cases do not seem suitable to warrant a plea for punishment. It would be well to consider, however, whether occasionally such people who do not exercise the necessary self restraint and have no understanding for the offered forebearance, especially those who have repeatedly been reported for such incidents, should be taken into protective custody and make them come to their senses. Your opinion is requested as to whether cases which seem suitable should be turned over to the Gestapo."
That doesn't refresh you recollection at all?
A. No.
THE PRESIDENT: Who docs the letter purport to be signed by?
MR KING: The letter is signed by the individual BARTSCH, who was an assistant of Dr. Rothennerger's.
I should like to have marked for identification the document bearing the number NG-2231, and the Exhibit No. 591 reserved.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the document be marked for identification, Exhibit 591.
MR. KING: Will you show this document to the witness?
(Document submitted to witness).
BY MR. KING:
Q. Witness, I show you another document, identified by the symbol NG-2221. This is a letter from a Hamburg attorney, Dr. Friedrich Ruppel, R U P P E L, in which he refers to a case in which one of his clients was involved in 1934 or 1935, who was acquitted by the Criminal Senat,of the Court of Appeal in Hamburg, and, upon order of the Court, immediately turned over to the Gestapo for protective custody.
Does that document refresh your recollection as to what position you held at that time?
A. That is impossible, for the reason alone that the letter is dated 11 February 1943.
Q. But if you would look -
A. And at that time -
Q. Wait a minute, Dr. Hartmann. If you will refer to the body of the letter you will find the case to which the writer refers occurred in 1934 or 1933. If you road it carefully you will find that to be true.
A. In regard to this document too I can only repeat that on principle I was not employed in criminal cases; at the most, sometimes as a substitute. I have no idea of this document either.
MR. KING: May we have it marked for identification, NG-2221, and the Exhibit No. 392 reserved?
THE PRESIDENT: It may be marked for identification.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Now, witness, did you, at may time during your period of work in Hamburg, ever he an of the Fuhlsbuettel concentration camp?
A. I knew that in Fuhlsbuettel, there was a police prison that was originally a prison of the administration of Justice, but one wing had been turned over to the police. That is all I know about this police prison. I believe it was called "Folafu" also.
Q. Do you recall any unusual things about the Fuhlsbuettel Concentration Camp or prison or how you want to determine it? Did you ever hear of any beatings, tortures, or durders, that were allegedly committed there by Gestapo people?
A. I heard about it only now. There was a trial about this that such occurrences happened there shortly before the surrender.
Q. I'd like to read you, witness, two excerps from the Reich Ministry of Justice's Official Diary. As I said before, this is the same document that was submitted, or this is of the same subject matter that was treated in the document FS--3770 in the IMT. I would like to read from Page 446 of the Diary, Item No. 4. I will read slowly so the translators will be able to follow.
"In the Fuhlsbuettel Concentration Camp near Hamburg, four prisoners were kept in chains for days; once, three days and nights; once, five days and nights; without interruption, in the form of a cross fixed to a railing and received only dry bread so that they almost died of hunger."
Then I should also like to read another excerpt from this same official Reich Ministry of Justice Diary which reads as follows:
"Westermann, after having been arrested, was interrogated for 15 hours. According to the report of the interrogating criminal police inspector he was gradually forced to reveal his connections with Communist circles. The dissection had clearly shown that the body had sings of the effect of considerable force on both buttocks and thighs. That this effect had a causal connection with the death was not shown by the dessection. Westermann was mannacled immediately after his interrogation to prevent suicide."
Now I ask you, witness, did you ever hear of these incidents before or any incidents similar to them?
A. No, I had no knowledge of them.
Q. Even in 1934-35, you memory doesn't serve to recollect that you ever heard of them before?
A. Well, I said already that today I no longer have any knowledge of having ever heard about it.
Q. You testified this morning, witness, that you know Dr. Rothenberger very well and you volunteered some statements on his feeling concerning the Jewish question. Do you recall, as you probably will since you were a close associate of his, when he denied Jews in the Hamburg courts the benefit of the poor laws which had previously permitted a person without funds to come before the court at state expense? Do you recall when Dr. Rothenberger denied the Jews this privilege which was afforded by law? Let me show you a document to said your memory. This document is indentified as NG-2247 which the witness is now examining.
A. Of this incident too, I could not know because on the 27th of January 1942, I was already a soldier.
Q. And when you later became Rothenberger's adjutant in Berlin, the natter never came to you attention in any other way.
A. No.
Q. May we have the document marked for indentification as NG-2247, and the exhibit number 593 reserved for it?
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for indentification.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Just one more question, witness, the answer to which you may possibly know. Do y u know what happened to Dr. Rothenberger when he came back from Berlin in 1943 or as early as 1944? Do you know what his status was after that time in Hamburg?
A. I remember from the Ministry of Justice that he was appointed as notary. Moreover, I know from private sources that in a position for which I believe he was not paid he did certain services for the Reichstatthalter, and I believe as far as I remember, they were connected with releasing people for the Armed Forces.
Yes. Since you have some knowledge of what occurred after Dr. Rothenberger returned to Hamburg, may I show you this document which is indentified as NG-2219?
A. That is the appointment of Dr. Rothenberger as notary, dated 18 September 1944. I heard about that.
Q. Yes. Now while Dr. Rothenberger was notary, you can confirm, I suppose, the fact that he was still receiving his salary for the Reich Ministry of Justice and subject to reappointment at any time? In order words, his dismissal was not final but ho was kept on as an employee. You can confirm that, can you not?
A. Yes, But that isn't seen in a correct light. An Under-Secretary is a political official and political officials arc put in the so-called Warte-Stand--inactive statue and this is provided for by law in Germany. As long as one is in this inactive status, one received a certain part of the previous salary that one received for a certain period, but this does not mean that the civil servant--the official concerned--will be taken back into the service of the State. In the case of Dr. Rothenberger, in accordance with the conditions that prevailed, it was of course cut of the question that he would have been taken back into the Reich Ministry of Justice?
Q. Yet he still continued to draw his pay from the Reich Ministry of Justice?
THE PRESIDENT: The witness answered the question.
THE WITNESS: Yes, according to the legal regulations nothing else was possible. An under-Secretary could only be put into inactive statue, and as for the continuance of giving them a certain amount of a salary, that was mandatory.
Q. I have no mere further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. King, would you identify the document NG-2219. I didn't get that.
MR KING: The 2219, Your Honor, as I recollect, was the last document which the witness examined concerning the appointment of Dr. Rothenberger as notary.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you want it indentified?
MR. KING: Since he confirmed the fact, I think we will not ask it to be indentified or to have an exhibit number reserved for it.
Q. Two brief questions, witness, for Klemm and Nettgenberg. Dr. Hartmann, you were asked whether you went to the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia together with Klemm. Do you know what was the geographical name of that part of the territory in which Leitmeritz was situated at that time?
A. It was called Sudetengau.
Q. Do you know the geographical designation of the territory in which Theresieratadt was located at that time?
A. At the moment, I cannot state with certainty whether it was in the Protectorate or in the Sudetengau.
Q. Do you know whether Klemm traveled to the Protectorate?
A. I have no recollection of the fact that Under-Secretary Klemm ever went to the Protectorate.
Q. On behalf of Dr. Mettgenberg: during the cross examination you testified about travels by Ministerial Directors. Would it have come to your attention if one of these gentlemen would have received an authorization to travel to Mauthausen?
A. Yes. That would have been moticable alone for the fact that I would have searched out this gentlemen and had a conversation with him about it afterwards, because I, myself, had been there too.
Q. Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSHNEIDER
Q. May I enter the redirect of the witness Hartmann? Witness you spoke about the trip to Mauthausen. What was the purpose of that trip? Did Dr. Rothenberger say anything to you about it?
A. The purpose of the trip was first of all to eliminate the personnel difficulties which I described this morning already--to remove those with the Gauleiter; and secondly, to see the judges in the individual districts and inform then about Rothenberger's idea for reform; at the same time, to strengthen them against attacks on the part of the Party.
Q. On the occasion of the visit be Mauthausen, did Dr. Rothenberger tell you in advance that he wanted in particular to review the sentences that had been issued?
A. Yes. I believe I mentioned that already this morning that befor we entered Mauthausen, Rothenberger told me that he Would be afforded an opportunity to question individual inmates.
THE PRESIDENT: You told us that. We recall your testimony on that.
Unliss it's something new, it's unnecessary to repeat it.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q. Witness, the presiding judge pointed out to you this morning and asked you whether the witness in the concentration camp wore in the concentration camp on the basis of a legal measure undertaken by a judge, and you stated that in the main this not the case. Is it known to you that the so-called preventive custody which the Gestapo applied for arrests was regulated by a law from the year 1936?
Yes, by the so-called Protective Custody Decree.
Q. Were the criminal divisions in no way subordinate to Dr. Rothenberger at the time when he was Under-Secretary?
A. Division V and XV, not at all; and Division IV, only when he substituted when the minister was away. Then Rothenberger had to decide those cases which had to be decided immediately. This can be seen already from the Pleetzensee case.
Q. Thus, as such, the criminal division were not subordinate to him.
A. No.
Q. In regard to the other cases, Your Honor, which Hr. king mentioned here, the documents will be introduced as exhibit later on, and so far I have not yet had an opportunity to examine the exhibit sufficiently and discuss them with the defendant Dr. Rothenberger. Therefore, I would like to request, since in the course of the further taking of evidence and rebuttal witnesses will appear- I would like to postpone asking things about them.
I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the witness here in Nurnberg so that he can be recalled?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, yes.
BY JUDGE HARDING:
Q. Regarding this protective custody, you say these people talked to were under protective custody in Mauthausen under a law of the Reich, is that correct?
A. Yes, There was a law regarding protective custody--a law from the year 1936--and according to this law, the police was authorized, for preventive reasons, to arrest people, and that was the basis for their being in Mauthausen.
Q. They were not serving any sentence then imposed by a court at the time they were in Mauthausen?
A. No, they were not serving a term passed by a court. It was a police preventive measure in order to prevent that these people who had repeatedly committed offenses would again enter into conflict with the law.
Q. And they had already served their sentences as imposed by court before they were taken into this custody of the police, is that right?
A. Yes, that is how I see it.
Q. And at that time these 12 people who had served their sentences and had been taken over by the police--that met with the approval of the defendant Dr. Rothenberger, as I understand you?
A. Well--did not approve the concentration carp as an institution altogether, but first of all we wanted to achieve this: that it would no longer happen that a defendant was acquitted and then after acquittal the Gestapo arrested in front of the courtroom.
Q. Did I understand you to say that while he examined there 12 people that the procedure was something that Dr. Rothenberger found nothing wrong in your testimony?
A. In those cases too, he did not approve the fact that these people were in a concentration camp because we were of the opinion that only the administration of Justice should decide these questions of criminal law and nobody else. But according to the power conditions witting the State, as they happened to exist, out interest was first of all to remove the worst evils.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q. May I still ask two questions in connection with this, Your Honor? The first question, Dr. Hartmann, it this: Dr. Rothenberger and you know without doubt, that this was a.n evil and that is now it must have appeared a.t that time, and not only today?
A. Of course, every depriving of liberty without a court judgment was rejected on principle by Dr. Rothenberger. But one could not achieve all the principles one was aiming for at the time, but one had to see to gain back as much ground as possible for the administration of Justice.
Q. Therefore, was the situation sometimes for you and Dr. Rothenberger like this: that apparently you affirmed something with a similing face something which as a human being you had to disapprove of and reject?
A. I never saw that Dr. Rothenberger ever affirmed these things toward fair persons, but for reasons of power politics he had to accept them.
Q. Do you still remember who issued this decree of the year 1936 that introduced preventive custody by the Gestapo? Was it the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A. No, as far as I remember, it was the Reich Ministry of the Interior.
Q. Oh, I see, not the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A. No, the Reich Ministry of Justice was always against this exten sion of the competency of the police from t ho very beginnings.
BY JUDGE HARDING:
Q. Did he take any action upon his return with regard to this decision that you know of?
A. In regard to abolishing concentration camp altogether? Is that what you mean, Your Honor?
Q. No, but with regard to this situation he went down to investigate.
A. Well, at this time, the only question for him would have been now to aim at dissolution of concentration camps altogether. But that would have been a failure from the very beginning because for reasons of power politics it would have been absolutely impossible to succeed with Hitler against Himmler to remove the concentration camps from the side of the Administration of Justice against Himmler's wishes.
Q. My question was, did Dr. Rothenberger take any action whatsoever of any kind upon his return from this inspection that you know of?
A. No, I don't know anything about that.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. May I ask you, you used the words "preventive custody," did you intend to make any distinction between "preventive custody" and protective custody?"
A. I saw it, but we were not involved in the center of these matters these two concepts are identical, as far as I understand it.
Q. We will have your other witness.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honor's please, I simply would like to check the record. I stated a question. As I recall, the witness answered in response to me that he did not know anything about Theresienstadt. In response to Dr. Schilf, he gave the exact location of it. I would like either for the Court or that I be permitted to interrogate the witness and ask him which is correct. That is all I want to know.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is not going into it. He simply said this last time that he knew where it was. Before he said he didn't know anything about the place.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Is that the Tribunal's understanding? That was my opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is what the record shows. We are not infallible, but that is according to my recollection.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If we have time, I would like to call the witness Gramm, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Are the other witnesses here who were expected for the defense?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Wandschneider, have you your other witnesses here?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: No, not yet.
MR LA FALLETTE: This witness had been previously sworn before the Tribunal. He testified of behalf of the defendant Schlegelberger.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, you have already been sworn, haven't you in this case?
A. Yes.
DR. HANS GRAMM, a witness, having been previously sworn, testified as follows:
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. State you name, please.
A. Doctor Hans Gramm.
Q. And for what years were you the adjutant of Dr. Schlegelberger?
A. 1936 until 1942.
Q. I have handed to you Prosecution Exhibit 197, which is further identified as 632-PS. Do you find that that exhibit has a number on it?
A. This exhibit has a number in the center--- 1942, No. 66.
Q. From your knowledge of the way in which Fuehrer Orders were prepared -- I withdraw that. That is a Fuehrer Information, is it not?
A. Yes, that is a Fuehrer Information.
Q. From your knowledge f the way in which Fuehrer Informations were prepared while you were adjutant for Dr. Schlegelberger, I ask you whether or not a Fuehrer Information could receive a number before it had been approved by Dr. Schlegelberger?
A. No, The Fuehrer Information before they were written and numbered were submitted to Dr. Schlegelberger for his approval, his suggestion of the individual department.
Q. And is it correct that there was an original and two or more copies make of each Fuehrer Information sheet?
A. There was an original and as far as I recall not only two, but four--
Q. Will you tell us---
A. Or five copies.
Q. Will you tell us what went with the original and these copies, to the best of your recollections who received and what happened to them?
A. The original was signed by Dr. Schelegelberger and was destined for Hitler. Copy number one was also signed by Dr. Schlegelberger and was sent to Bermann; and copy number two was also signed and went to Lammers. The rest of the copies remained in the ministry of justice.
Q. Were the copies which remained in the ministry of justice signed?
A. Copy number three was not signed, neither number four, it is possible that one copy and in this case it must have been number five, was retained as a document in Dr. Koch's office who was in charge of the handling of these Fuehrer Informations -- the technical handling.
Q. Thank you very much. How, you left when in 19 -- the ministry when in 1943?
A. In February, 1943 I left the ministry and became a soldier.
Q. During the time that you were in the ministry, did you know anything about the Attitude of Gauleiter Koch of the Ukraine towards the political reliability of people who were sent to serve under him in the Ukraine; did you know anything about it?
A. I know only that Gauleiter Koch was considered as politically very wild and a convinced National Socialist, and that among his assistants he did not approve of anybody in his surroundings whom he did not consider to be politically reliable and recognized politically by him.
Q. I ask you whether or not in your opinion it was possible that the name of a man would have to be approved by Dr. Koch before he could go even for investigation.
A. I should assume so.
Q. Were you acquainted with the methods by which the president of the Special Courts were appointed and re-appointed?
A. I don't know what method you are referring to.
Q. Well, I ask you, if I may ask you this: From your observations from the time you spent in the ministry of justice, and as Dr. Schlegelgerger's adjutant, was it possible to re-appoint a man as judge of the special court of Stuttgart if there was constant complaints to the ministry by the Gauleiter having control of that area that the man was politically unreliable; or that his sentences were not severe enough?
A. I can only answer that in a general way because I don't know the condition in Stuttgart; but according to this I consider it impossible that a presiding judge of a Special Court against whom political complaints were uttered repeatedly was again appointed for this position.
Q. Nor from your experiences would you think such a man would have been selected for presentation to Gauleiter Koch; is that right?
A. I consider that impossible.
HR. LA FOLLETTE: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any Defense Counsel desire to cross examine? The witness is excused, there being no cross examination.
Just a moment. Do you desire to cross examine?
DR: BRIEGER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is not excused.
BY DR. BRIEGER: (Attorney for the defendant Cuhorst)
Q. Witness, in regard to the defendant Cuhorst, do you have any exact reasons to believe that the personnel file of Cuhorst was sent to Gauleiter Koch?
A. No, I only answer the question as to the appointment of officials for Gauleiter Koch in a general way: that was how the question of the prosecutor was framed.
Q. The representative of the prosecution put the so-called Fuehrer Information to you which concerned a court in Stuttgart and was actually sent out. I only have one question to you in connection with that, and this is it:
Do you have any reasons for believing that the sentence pronounced in Stuttgart, which is cited there, was pronounced while Cuhorst was presiding judge or that he participated in it at all in any way?
A. I have to answer this question in a negative way because the Fuehrer Information doesn't tell anything about it.
Q. A further question. In what order were the presiding judge of the special court appointed? In what sequence?
A. I am not exactly informed about this every well because it did not belong to the sphere for business of Dr. Schelegelberger, but I would like to say that I recall that the appointment lasted each time for one year.
Q. Do you know anything about this; namely, that the Gauleiter or any other party office had to interfere in the renewal of the appointment?
A. I don't know anything about that.
DR. BRIEGER: Thank you very much, witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other examination?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: There is no - re-direct.
THE PRESIDENT: It appears there is no further cross examination and no re-direct. The witness is now excused.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honors please, Document NG-926 was indentified as Prosecution Exhibit 565. I now have the document in English and German, and I offer the exhibit in evidence, and the English and German copies for distribution. That was in the cross examination of the defendant Barnickel.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit was marked for identification 565?
HR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It is now received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: There is noe minute remaining, and the Prosecution can't offer much in that time, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we can consume it. Gentlemen, it is obvious from the experiences of the last few days that the testimony at this stage of the case, in which you are very naturally trying to clean up the odds and ends, has a tendency to result in a great deal of cumulative testimony. We hope that counsel for both sides will avoid this and will limit their testimony to essential matters which have not been covered so far as they can.
We will recess now until tomorrow morning at 9.30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours, 18 September 1947)