One - this is Exhibit 609 - is a letter of 3 October 1942. That is from a period when, for a long time -- that is to say, for a year and a half -- I had been stationed at Munich. The reason for that letter was a conversation or an exchange of correspondence which I had with the General Commissioner for Administration and Justice , Dr. Wimmer, at the Hague. He asked me, once back in Germany, to deal again with personnel matters that the Administration of Justice in the occupied Netherlands Territories was concerned with. That explains why I wrote that letter a year and a half later. He had asked me to make suggestions to him concerning changes in personnel and to give him my opinion on the character of the individual concerned. What my attitude was toward his personnel policy can be seen from the letter itself, particularly at page 2 at the top cf that page.
Exhibit 610 was also submitted. No. 610 contains several letters, opinions concerning drafts cf legislation. The civilian administration in the Netherlands had a department of its own for legislation where laws were drafted, and here there were drafts which had been prepared by other departments, Finance, Administration, Economy, Police, which had been demanded by these other departments. As far as we in the Justice Department were concerned, we only received these drafts from time to time in order to scrutinize them for their juridical accuracy. There are two letters also contained in this document.
Q. Excuse me, Mr. Klemm, if I interrupt you. Will you give us the document number of the letter which you intend to mention now?
A. It is Exhibit 610, document NG-2484.
Q. Thank you.
A. There are two opinions, the first and the third referring to drafts of laws, the text of which was not submitted by the Prosecution at the same time. Therefore, at this time, I cannot even tell whether these decrees were issued at all or to what drafts reference was made.
I only want to state, briefly, that in the course of the weeks and months we received seven or eight drafts from this legislative department dealing with the same law, and in the end the matter looked entirely different from what it had been intended to be originally, and when it was finally published.
Then I should like to point to the last letter in this exhibit where an opinion is stated concerning the draft which had been submitted in its sixth version already. So much for Document 610.
Exhibit 612 is NG-2480. It is a letter by the Dutch GeneralSecretary Tenkink, referring to a report by the Dutch General Prosecutor from The Hague which he sends to me to forward it to Dr. Wimmer. It is concerned with penal offenses against Jews committed by members of the NSDAP, National Socialist Netherlands Workers Party. In other words, there are penal offenses committed by Dutchmen against Dutchmen for which the German courts had no jurisdiction.
The report was also sent to the General Commissioner for Public Safety. The letter was written on the 16 of July, 1940. On the 17th of July already as you can see from the notation, that is to say, on the next dry I immediately reported the matter to the Reich Commissioner in the presence of three General Commissioners and since that was a matter purely concerning the Netherlands the Reich Commissar at that time decided that it should remain in the Netherlands sector out that the German police should support the Netherlands police as far as investigations were concerned. That is why, on the basis of these directives, I could make the notation. The matter would further be dealt with by General Commissioner Tenkink. That was the police commissioner and for me thus that matter was settled.
Now, concerning Exhibit 613, this is a, notation about my trip to the Reich minister of Justice. I have nothing to add to it because the notation speaks for itself and only confirms what I have already said in connection with these matters.
The same applies to Exhibit 615, NG-2519; it is a decree about German. Judiciary in the Netherlands. The decrees which were marked as Exhibit 616, that is, 2112-PS, and Exhibit 617, 3332-PS when they were submitted by the Prosecution, these two decrees I do not know at all. They were issued about five months after I had already left the Netherlands, that is, in the month of August, 1941.
The opinions contained in Exhibit 610, which I mentioned before, have nothing to do with these two decrees.
Now, referring to Exhibits 618 and 614, 618 is 3323-PS and 614 is 3333-PS. These decrees likewise have nothing to do with the General Commissioner for the Administration of Justice. We were only told at the time that these were supposed to present purely administrative measures, measures of control.
There remain only those exhibits submitted in connection with my work in the Netherlands, the two affidavits, one by Kazemier - Exhibit 619, NG-2310, and the affidavits which were given by the GeneralSecretary of the Minister of Justice of the Netherlands - that is Dr. Tenkink - together with his deputy. Dr. Hooykaas.
DR. SCHILD: In this connection may I state the following: The affidavits of these two Dutch gentlemen were submitted on my initiative. I am going to submit originals on the same occasion when I submit the remaining Klemm documents. I have no objection to the fact that the Prosecution has submitted these affidavits; because the Prosecution has also sent a request to these two gentlemen and sent these gentlemen the transcript of the interrogation of the defendant Klamm, so that they could refer to it. That was also done and the two gentlemen stated in detail how far they agreed with the statements made by the defendant Klemm.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Mr. Klemm, I am referring to Exhibit 611, NG-2311. In a statement made by these two gentlemen from the Netherlands, there on Page 4, reference is made to our transcript, German page --, English Page -I am not quite sure which one it is - 5098, that is the English transcript, I see now - and mention was made of the fact that the introduction of the German Administration of Justice for the civilian population in Holland had been supported by the gentlemen.
Both gentlemen mentioned, however, that they were against the introduction. It is possible that the word "introduction", on account of the translation having been made from the German into the Dutch, from the Dutch into the English and from the English back into the German received a wrong meaning.
Will you please comment on that, Mr. Klemm?
A There must have been an error or misunderstanding on account of the various translations. I went through the German transcript again and there it says about me literally that I talked with these three gentlemen, with Tenkink, and with Hooykaas and also with Kazemier about the establishment of German administration of Justice. By "institution" or "establishment", I understood at that time as I do today, the institution, the institute of the German Administration of Justice; I did not mean to say however, that I spoke with the two gentlemen about the establishing of the Administration of Justice, beforehand.
After the German Administration of Justice had been established in the Netherlands, I frequently spoke to these three gentleman collectively and individually about these matters and I also thought the matter over very carefully. I can state now positively that I remember quite well that Mr. Kazemier - that is the third one of the two gentlemen, the one whose name I already mentioned when I first was questioned and whose name I could not remember at the time -asked me once whether we could not, for instance, bring those Dutchmen before the German courts who had committed offenses against the blackout regulations.
At the time I rejected that, saying that these would concern the Dutch interests at least as well, and that it therefore should remain with the Dutch courts. But I deny having discussed with the gentlemen the establishing of the institution of the German Administration of Justice in the Netherlands, adding that I did not say so not intended to. After this misunderstanding could be cleared up I only have to refer to one point as far as these affidavits are concerned. That is in Exhibit 611 on Page 7 of the German text.
In the affidavit, according to that passage, it is said that during the tine when I was in the Netherlands, death sentences were pronounced. That can only refer to sentences pronounced by military courts, by courts martial, which, however, as I have stated here, had nothing to do with the administration of justice with which I was concerned. I have nothing else to add in connection with these affidavits.
Q MR. Klemm, in rebuttal, Exhibit 567 was submitted. That was during the testimony of the Defendant Nebelung as far as I remember. That was a sentence of the People's Court against a Czech by the name of Nahavicka. In that document, your name is referred to. It is said that you had given instruction that the clemency decision had to be made by the General Public Prosecutor in Breslau -- Nahavicka. at that time was in Breslau - and. Breslau, on account of the war damages, was without connection to Berlin. Would you please, comment on that too?
A I do not have this exhibit before me now, but when I read it at the time, I found out that I have to state the following: the case Nahavicka had nothing at all to do with my general instructions. It must have been that the general question was brought into that case Nahavicka; according to what I can remember of these files, it had already been completed. The Reich Protector had the right to file an indictment, not the Reich Minister of Justice in that case, and the Reich Protector had refused to make a clemency decision already in December.
In January, Breslau was suddenly declared a fortress on account of the surprising attack by the Russians. On account of that statement and. of the situation in the Reich, without reference to the Nahavicka. case, I issued instructions to the General Public Prosecutor in Breslau by telegram, I believe, or by telephone - I am not sure which it was - that from now on the clemency decision had to be made by him because due to the war situation it was no longer possible to obtain contact with Berlin. Then when it became known that it was possible to transfer the prisoners from Breslau and it therefore was no longer necessary to leave the clemency decision to him, the matter was brought to my attention again.
Apparently it was a decision that had been made by the Minister, and the decision was made that for the time being the clemency decision should be made in Berlin in the Ministry, Only because this second instruction contradicted the first instruction which I had issued, it was submitted to me to take notice of it. The instruction given to the General Public Prosecutor in Breslau was only a communication to one individual General Public Prosecutor, a procedure about which the Minister had already talked before in his circular decree generally; that is to say, that the General Public Prosecutor should have the right of decision in clemency matters if on account of the war situation connections with the Reich Minister of Justice were interrupted.
Q I think that takes care of this. I have one last question. Among the documents which have been submitted for Dr. Rothenberger, there is a statement by Dr. Hans Segelken on 22 April 1947. It contains a so-called memorandum which Dr. Segelken had prepared before the surrender of Germany about the question why Dr. Rothenberger had to leave his post as Under-Secretary in the Reich Ministry of Justice. Dr. Segelken, in that so-called memorandum, mentioned your name in connection with Thierack, and he states: "Both, for considerable time before the seizure of power, worked together on the SA. From that period they knew each other." Is that correct?
A That statement is wrong because only five months after Hitler became Reich Chancellor, I joined the SA, as can be seen from my personal file; and Dr. Thierack joined the SA even later, that is to say, he was taken into the SA with an honorary rank.
Q This morning a document was submitted against you. That is Exhibit -- please could you tell me the number?
A It is Exhibit 637, Document NG-2280.
Q Would you please comment on that?
A It is a notation which must have come from the Hamburg file a notation of 26 July 1938. Part of it is an extract from the "Deutsche Justiz", the official gazette of the Ministry, where a book review was published which I had written. The book in question was "Political Protective Custody in National Socialist Germany". The book was written by - I think it was a Regierungsrat Geigennueller from the Ministry of Justice. In that book review, I expressed my opinion against the then-prevailing opinion that the administration of justice should not be permitted to investigate protective custody measures or no agency at all should be permitted to do so, even if that was concerned with punishable offenses.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q May I ask you a question. Your last statement was a little involved in negatives. Let me be sure I understand. Was it your position that the administration of justice should be authorized to inquire into those matters?
AAs far as punishable offenses were concerned.
Q Yes.
A That right was disputed in this book, and although careful as one had to be at that time - I objected to it in that book review. And. Mr. Letz had that copied in order to take further steps in the same sense as I had suggested, that was, the possibility of an investigation by the administration of justice in consequence of the thoughts I had expressed.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, I have no further questions to this witness. I leave it to the Prosecution, if the Prosecution wants to conduct cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you any questions?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q You recoil in your direct examination, do you not, you stated that you were only interested in having legal points of view brought forth in Holland and not any political points of view. Maybe you would like to read further from NG--2424, that is Exhibit 610, and elaborate upon No. 5, re figure 7, in which you say, "As the majority of the Dutch nation has no political view at present, such measure would have the opposite effect." Didn't you have in mind changing the political view of the Dutch nation?
A How shall I understand that question? In the field of the administration of justice - and that was my field - there I proceeded according to legal points of view, and in this Exhibit 610 I only referred to and commented on other plans. Just whet you are putting to me now begins with the sentence -- I have it only in German here: "These measures I consider absolutely impossible of carrying out; beyond that, I considered them psychologically erroneous." But of course today I am no longer in a. position to say what just that point 7 looked like what it was all about.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q All right. As I recall, you also stated that all the time you were in Holland you got along vary wall because the Dutch Ministry considered that you were vary reliable. I'd like to turn to Exhibit 609, that is, NG-2483, and on page four of the original I find this sentence in parenthesis--after you have been discussing Dr. Krug-and I will quota it to you: "I admit though that ha is much more obliging and lass robust than myself, but perhaps that is no shortcoming." Am I to understand that you were vary rubust in dealing with the Dutch or that you were vary lenient with them so that they regretted your leaving?
A No, that has to be understood differently. That I did get along with the Dutchmen is proved by the affidavit that you submitted by Tenkink and Hooykaas. That sentence is only mentioned here as a comparison to Dr. Krug whom I had recommended in this latter. If people here would know Dr. Krug, then they would also know that I-maybe one can explain it better by saying that in comparison with Dr. Krug I make a somewhat rustic impression and am not as obliging as Dr. Krug.
Q And now this Dr. Hans Maier that you recommended--the Dr. Hans Maiar that you recommended to the Dutch from Nuernberg. Isn't that the famous SS Maier that was than an SS judge?
A Yes. I knew Meier from the time when ha was a Referent in Saxony together with ma. What work ha did and that he was at all in the SS I didn't even know at that time because for more than tan years I have not seen him. I only saw him occasionally, once in Munich, and that is what reminded ma again of him.
Q If you had only seen him that length of time, perhaps you can tell ma why you ware able to say "he was an extraordinarily severe judge who, above all things, has good political training. I suggest to sand him to the Hague under promotion to the Director of the District Court."
A I got information about Maiar from somebody, but I could not Court No. III, Case No. 3.tell now from whom.
I should like to say that I am inclined to think that I asked the Personnel Referent in the Ministry of Justice about him, but I couldn't be quite sure about that.
Q Then perhaps you will explain to me how in connection with your belief in the constitutional state and the mild treatment of the Dutch, in this letter you recommend "an extraordinarily severe judge who has good political training"?
A That is no contradiction, is it, that a severe judge can still be a good judge--a man of justice?
Q That is the way you meant the letter? That is what you had in mind for the Dutch, was it?
AA just judge. Anybody who commits an offense has to be punished justly. That was my point of view and I held the same opinion if it concerned my own people as well as others.
Q What did the political training have to do with it then?
A I did not speak of political training but a very fine feeling for politics, a very fine sense for political matters. I certainly consider it right to employ in a foreign country people with a fine sense for political relations and matters and not people idea are clumsy and do not take into account the mentality of that foreign country. That is what I expressed in that letter.
On the top of page two, as I have mentioned before, I pointed out that highly developed political sense.
Q Now I notice that you describe yourself here on your stationery, on which this letter is written in 1942, as a department chief Klemm. Is that a correct description of yourself in the Party Chancellory?
A I had to do that because I was in the Party Chancellory, and according to the copy here I used the stationery of the Party Chancellory. As a rule, we always used our official title as government officials, but a directive was received at that time stating that we should use these designations, but after a week or two that was dropped Court No. III, Case No. 3.again.
Q This is the same position that you held all the time that you were in the Party Chancellory, is it?
A Yes. The Chief of Justice, Group III-C.
Q I think that is all.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
(Witness is excused.)
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal concerning the Document Book for Dr. Mettgenberg, I inquired about some translations missing and I was told that before Thursday I could not receive the books completed.
THE PRESIDENT: You expect to receive them by Thursday, is that correct?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Does that close the defense of the case KLemm, except for the documents?
DR. SCHILF: For the Defendant Klemm, I only have a few documents which are still in translation, but I have no more witnesses. As far as the witnesses or the hearing of the defendant himself is concerned, I have concluded.
DR. BRIEGER: May it please the Tribunal, may I be permitted now to submit a few documents for my client Cuhorst, the documents which the Tribunal expected me to submit this morning? I apologize again that this morning I was not prepared, but the reason was that I intended to submit all documents at the same time and I was told that not all of them had been completed. May I base myself on the assumption that at the end of my submission of documents, on 9 September, according to page 8510 of the English transcript, I came to Exhibit No. 124 which was reserved for the restitution law concerning national socialist wrongs. It is Document No. 127 in the supplement book which the Tribunal expects me to submit. Mr. Woolsey, the representative of The Secretary-General, informed me before that the (Court No. III, Case No. 3.English translation is before the Tribunal; therefore, I can submit this law with the Exhibit No. 124.
THE PRESIDENT: I found where you referred to Exhibit No. 124 and that is to be what document number?
DR. BRIEGER: Document No. 127. Now I come to my Exhibit 125, that is Document No.124, the affidavit by Berthold Diesener, which is the first document in the supplement volume, and it is listed in the index as the first document.
THE PRESIDENT: You're offering that as Exhibit 125?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, your Honor. Now I see that Mr. La Follette is just about to object because he suspects that I want to offer the affidavit Schoeck. He doesn't have to bother because I don't want to submit it. The next exhibit number I offer is 126, that is the Cuhorst document 126, an affidavit by Gisela von der Trenck. It contains the French text of a French law which I consider of greatest importance for this trial.
Thus I have concluded the submission of documents for the time being and I ask to submit the rest of my documents as soon as I receive them from translation. May I at this occasion also mention that I should like to reserve the right to call my client into the witness box to hear his testimony concerning documents or witnesses which have been introduced here after he had been on the witness stand.
My attention is called to one matter, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Have there been documents or witnesses who have testified against the defendant Cuhorst in rebuttal?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes. I am referring to the two witnesses who have been produced afterwards by the prosecution. They were questioned here. They testified here after my client Cuhorst was on the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Who were they?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honor, as far as I can remember, we called Gramm who identified this so-called Fuehrer Information Sheet No. 63. Dr. Gramm testified that that was a valid Fuehrer information Sheet. Certainly it was in rebuttal because all the evidence that was in here was that it wasn't. Now, other than that, I don't remember calling anybody against Cuhorst, to my knowledge,
DR. BRIEGER: In this case I am not referring to Mr. Gramm. Of course, I should like to have the opportunity to hear my client's opinion, but I mean the other gentleman who, shortly after Cuhorst was on the witness stand, were called by the prosecution and introduced here
MR. LAFOLLETTE: They were cross-examined, Your Honor. They were cross-examined and it was purely rebuttal testimony. It wasn't in chief as far as I know.
DR. BRIEGER: I should like to submit the affidavit Kleinknecht at this time. I offer it as Exhibit No. 55, Document No. 47; also the affi davit Frey, Exhibit No. 69.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. What is the exhibit that you are first offering?
DR. BRIEGER: The affidavit Kleinknecht of 2 July 1947, Exhibit No. 55, Your Honor, Document No. 47.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that has been received.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, but afterwards I found out from the transcript that that affidavit had already been received by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit has been received. Are you satisfied?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, but I still have to hand the document to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: You may do so.
DR. BRIEGER: The same is true of the affidavit by Frey, which has already received the exhibit number 69. It is Document 65,
THE PRESIDENT: It is received. You may deliver it.
DR. BRIEGER? For the time being that is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 124, 125, and 126 Cuhorst are received. Dr. Brieger, will you approach the bench, please?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, surely.
THE PRESIDENT: The secretary hands us papers of which we know nothing but which he says you have delivered to him and which you say are important. Do you care to explain them?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes. Pardon me a moment, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Brieger, you may be prepared to examine your client tomorrow morning at nine-thirty on the matter of the two witnesses if it appears that they testified against your client.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, Your Honor. May I give some explanation of this, Your Honors?
I submitted before, as Exhibit 124, Document No. 127, the Restitution Law concerning National Socialist wrongs. It is on the index of a document book which is before Your Honors, but in fact the text isn't in there. Only the pages are reserved for it. That is why I was very harpy this morning when I was told by the representative of the Secretary-General that in the meantime it is available but in loose sheets.
In accordance with that, these loose sheets are the pages of that law which really should be contained in that volume. I hope that that clarifies the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: You want the sheets attached to Supplement Book I?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: As Exhibit 124?
DR. BRIEGER: That is right.
THE PRESIDENT: You may do so.
DR. BRIEGER: In order to prevent a misunderstanding, I would like to say that I reserve particularly the right to submit those affidavits which have been objected to the other day. I had the originals but I cannot submit them because I have not received the new translations yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Is there any other testimony to be offered by any defendant at this time? If not, I believe the prosecution has a witness.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, the prosecution, I hope, has a witness. We have a witness in connection with material that we have been trying to get out of the photostat room. I will make inquiry if it is out. Then we can put the witness on.
THE PRESIDENT: You said you would be ready at one-thirty.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Exactly. Your Honor. That witness is available and already present. We must have the photostat material in connection with his testimony and we thought we had arrangements made to have it. I will see if it is available.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until the matter is available for us.
(A recess was taken.)
THE. MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honors please, may I offer three exhibits before we call the witness? This should conclude the prosecution's exhibits.
NG-1018 the prosecution offers as Prosecution Exhibit No. 638. This is a rebuttal document against the defendant Joel.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received; Exhibit 638.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, I would next like to offer--which is duly certified--an additional page to Exhibit 509, which was NG-836. This is a page which was inadvertently left out of an exhibit introduced in chief against the defendant Lautz. It contains the decision on the clemency plea by the defendant Rothenberger. I are offering it duly certified, but ask that it be placed with Exhibit 509.
JUDGE HARDING: You are offering it as a separate exhibit?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: No, Your Honor, it is simply a certification of a page which was inadvertently emitted from that exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received as a part cf Exhibit 509.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Finally, with reference to Exhibit 589, about which the Court made inquiry this morning, I am offering document NG-2(36 as Exhibit 589. This was originally identified as 3770-PS. I would like to explain that that PS number in itself constituted excerpts taken from the Ministry cf Justice diary during IMT; so that we have taken the basic diary and made an excerpt from that which we have identified as NG-2536, which is Exhibit 589, previously identified The Court will recall that it was during the cross-examination cf the witness Hartmann for the defendant Rothenberger where this arose.
THE PRESIDENT: No. 589 is received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: And if Your Honor will permit me, I will dispose of one other of the matters which the Court called to my attention this morning, Exhibit 538.
I simply ask to have the exhibit number remain, with the notation that the prosecution has withdrawn the exhibit which was identified under that number.
In ether words, we do not care to introduce it. It was identified.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; 538 is withdrawn.
Did you ascertain about Exhibit 560?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I have asked for copies of that, and hope to have it in here for Your Honor this afternoon. As I understand it, Your Honors, it had been received, but the Court had no copies in English.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is correct.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, and in 592 Your Honor had only a German copy. I will get the English copies of that.
Exhibit 576 was identification, and I am checking up on what actually happened t that exhibit. I hope to notify the Court tomorrow morning.
MR. KING: The Prosecution calls the witness, Herr Rottner.
WOLFGANG Rottner, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BLAIR: Fitness, hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath: I swear by God, the Almighty, and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth, and will withheld and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION.
BY MR. KING:
Q Now Herr Rottner -
A Yes.
Q For the purpose of the record will you kindly state your full name and your present address?
A Wolfgang Rottner, Justice Inspector, Nuernberg. Muggenheferstrasse, 94.
Q Herr Rottner, I ask you in the past few weeks or days if you have made a certain compilation, which I now show you, identified with the number NG-2533. One moment please. Herr Rottner, the document new before you, was that compiled under your direction?
A It was compiled at my instructions. I could not actually supervise all the compilation.
Q Yes, due to the magnitude of the job you had to delegate certain of your assistants to aid you in your compilation?
A Yes.
Q Before I ask you further questions, Herr Rottner, will you explain in a little more detail of what your official duties consist?
A I am the legal assistant at the real estate office in Nuernberg, Germany. I have to make entries in a real estate register, and I have to make out an order such entries to be made, and any entries that has been made I have to affix my signature to it. Naturally, I don't make all the entries myself.
There are other people who deal with such matters, too.
MR. KING: At this point I should like to have identified, or marked for identification the compilation NG-2533, for which we request the next exhibit number 639 reserved.
THE WITNESS: What number is that? What number is that?
BY MR. KING:
Q Excuse me. Herr Rottner, I was speaking to the Court and nee to you at that particular moment. Now Herr Rottner, will you tell the Court what is this compilation, which has been identified, and before you now, which is the original?
A I have here the original compilation of the real estate office in Nuernberg, which used to be the property of the Jews, and which were later transferred to Holz, who re-transferred it to the new owners.
Q Herr Rottner, I wont to explain me thing for the benefit of the Court before you proceed.
MR. KING: We are offering this document in the in-translated German with the belief that with the exception of the headings, that it is comprehensible since it deals in names and figures for the most part.
Q Now Herr Rottner, may I ask you to take the first page -
A Yes.
Q Of the compilation, and read the heading of each column. There are a total of ten columns, and will you for the education cf all of us, who do not read German, indentify these headings?
A Yes, I will. The register has ten headings, and the first column is headed "Real Estate Office." This is the registry section where the entries are made in the real estate register. The second column gives the number of the house, the name of street, or it gives the owner designation, that is called the real estate register.