passed on this order from the Reichsstatthalter, however, to the General Public Prosecutor.
Q And you asked him to pass on Indictments in important cases to you?
A Yes, I asked him to pass on the indictments in important cases to me.
Q Now, in conclusion I want to mention a few brief exhibits which were submitted individually. First of all there is Exhibit 633. That is a memorandum submitted in 1942 by the Hamburg attorney, SchueterHasenfeld, in connection with concentration camps. There is a note to the effect that in accordance with your instructions this matter was not to be followed up any further. Would you please tell us what that note was about?
A That is a file from the Local Court, and it was not addressed to me. The file from the District Court of Appeals was not submitted. A Hamburg attorney makes a report to the District Court to the effect that a Frauelain Wetzel had seen that various prisoners had been hit in the face and that a man of sixty years of age had been kicked in the bottom, had fallen down and had then been kicked again, with the words, "I suppose you want to do some gymnastics", and been made to stand up again. Furthermore a tall SS-man was supposed to have beaten up a prisoner with an iron bar. As always, I immediately reported to the Ministry about these cases, either in a situation report or in an individual report, because the jurisdiction concerning steps to be taken in connection with ill-treatment in concentration camps, since 1939. when the SS and Police jurisdiction was established, which has been mentioned in this trial before, lay exclusively in the hands of this SS and Police jurisdiction and was dealt with in Berlin generally speaking. I also informed the local agency in Hamburg. That was Streckenbach, the Oberregierungsrat, Senior Governmental Councillor. In this case I did not report to him, as you can see from the file, because in the meantime he had been transferred away from Hamburg, and I didn't know his successor, nor did his successor have either the authority to take any steps.
All he could have done was to have made a report to Berlin. The regular courts had no jurisdiction for such matters.
Q. In Exhibit 634, it is mentioned that it was intended to appoint Dr. Ruether presiding judge of the Special Court. Would you comment on that, please?
A This refers to a meeting which was held soon after the outbreak of the war on the 13th of September, 1939; at that meeting the new plant for the distribution of work was discussed. At that meeting I stated that the Special Court in future would be the most important court. I said so because with the outbreak of the war all the waxeconomy laws which have been discussed here, the decrees against violent criminals, against public enemies, against offenses against the war economy, came into force. That was why the special court, even in the case of a minor offense, committed while exploiting the blackout, achieved special significance.
Q In Exhibit 588, which was also submitted in rebuttal, there appears your letter to Freissler, dated the 13th of June, 194l. That letter also deals with the special courts. Would you please tell us briefly what points of view you applied when you expressed your opinion on the question of the special courts?
A This letter dates from the year 1941. In the course of the war, in view of the orders issued by the Reich ministry of Justice to the effect that the Prosecution could indict every case before a special court, the extent of the jurisdiction of the special courts had increased tremendously. In this letter to Freissler I made a detailed suggestion for a considerable reduction of the jurisdiction of special courts, and proposed that for all penal proceedings under five years in a penitentiary the regular courts should become competent again.
The reasons I gave were two-fold. I pointed out that the special court should deal only with offenders who were particularly connected with wartime conditions, that is to say, that they were to deal with people who, without any conscience, ruthlessly exploited wartime conditions, and that they were not to deal with minor offenses. My second reason was that for the person who was convicted the fact that he had been tried by a special court meant a double burden. On the other hand he was sentenced to a heavier penalty due to the provisions of the wartime laws, and, on the other hand, there was also the moral burden which was placed on him by hating been tried by a special court.
Q In Exhibit 636 you spoke about the significance of women joining the National Socialist women's organizations, the N.S. V. , etc. Would you please tell the Tribunal what you have to say about that?
A This is an order by the Reichsstatthalter to the chiefs of all administrative agencies which I passed on to my courts. It shows that the Reichsstatthalter attached importance to the female official and employees joining the N.S. Frauenwerke or the N.S. Frauenschaft.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q You also attached importance to their joining those organizations?
A Yes, I did, because the purpose and the aim of these organizations was exclusively to assist those mothers who on account of the work they did outside their homes were no longer able to take care of their own children properly.
Q In Exhibit 635 it is stated that you were a member of the Volunteer Corps. Would you please comment briefly on that exhibit?
A Exhibit 635 contains the address I gave in Hamburg before I left. That is when I was transferred to Berlin. It maintains the fact that in 1919 as a student I was a member of the Volunteer Corps and that I took part in the overthrow of the Communist putsch in Bahrenfeld. That is quite true. An appeal had been issued by Nosske, who was the Reich Defense Minister at the time. He was the first Reich Defense Minister under the Weimar constitution. He appealed to all students to defend the Weimar democracy against the Communist rising in Hamburg. However, we hardly ever want into action because in the meantime a Reich defensie corps, Littow-Verbeck by name, had entered; and we m?mb?rs of the Volunteer Corps pnly stamd by.
In this speech, or, rather, in a newspaper cutting, it is mentioned that I joined the Nazi party before the Nazis came to power. In my direct examination I pointed out that was wrong. My membership number was anti-datid.
Q Now, in the last document, Exhibit 589, Dr. Rothanberger, Dr. Hartmann is mentioned. He was an expert, referant, with the Gestapo.
We have already been interested in this question in connection with the examination of the witness Dr. Hartmann as to whether he might have been the one. Ain't you comment on this document, please?
A Exhibit 589 shows that after a communication received from the Reich Lawyers' League, which had its seat in Berlin, the attorneys Dr. Auert and Koffka in a protective custody case had received the following information from Dr. Hartmann who was a referent with the Gistapo.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
One could see clearly, therefore, that all this happened in Berlin.
Q Was Dr. Hartmann in Berlin at that time?
A No.
Q When did he go to Berlin?
AAll this happened in 1935. Until 1942 Dr. Hartmann was in Hamburg.
Q Thank you, I have no further questions.
EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q I should like to ask you another question, Dr. Rosenberger. One of the cases to which you referred related to an assault and beating of an inmate, I believe, in a concentration camp, by a police official with an iron bar. I want to ask you, was there any court of any kind anywhere connected with the Ministry of Justice or the administration of justice under the Ministry which had jurisdiction or could acquire jurisdiction to try the police officer for such an act?
A No, the law about the establishment of police and SS jurisdiction has been submitted here.
Q I have your answer. You answered no. If the same apt was committed by a police officer in the same manner in a public place on the street but not in a concentration camp, was there any court anywhere in the Ministry of Justice which could acquire jurisdiction to try that police officer for that act?
A Yes. I am inclined to assume--Oh, if it was a police official, if the offender was a police official, no. If the offender was a police official, the answer is no in that case; that is to say, after 1939, after the SS and Police jurisdiction had been established.
Q After 1939?
A Yes.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:
Q This morning, Dr. Rothenberger, in referring to the Jansen Court No. III, Case No. 3.case you said that you had received a long letter from someone complaining about the manner in which Judge Winzenzen had handled that case, and that you took up the complaints and as a result of these complaints you had Judge Winzenzen transferred.
Do you recall from whom that letter came?
A I believe it came from the SA Obergruppe in Hamburg.
Q That's all on that. Was the judge in a case required to take all defendants under oath?
A There is no obligation to take a witness under oath. It is left to the discretion of the judge.
THE PRESIDENT: You meant to inquire about witnesses, not defendants, didn't you?
MR. KING: Primarily I had defendants in mind; the witnesses, too, if he cares to apply his answer to them.
A Only the witness. The defendant in Germany cannot be taken under oath at all.
Q In connection with the Vaatje case-
A What case are you referring to, please?
Q The Vaatje case. I understood you, Dr. Rothenberger, this morning say that the chief public prosecutor in that case was not under your direction; that he was not an inferior of yours. You didn't mean to say that, did you?
A Oh, yes; oh, yes, indeed.
Q Well, let's have a look at that situation. The chief public prosecutor was under Drascher; is that right?
A No.
Q Well, whom was he under then?
A Dr. Schubert. The name of the chief public prosecutor who was alone competent for that was Dr. Schubert.
Q Who was Schubert's superior?
A Dr. Schubert's superior was Dr. Drascher; and Dr. Drescher's superior was the Reich Ministry of Justice. That state of affairs has Court No. III, Case No. 3.been in existence since 1935.
The prosecution and the are two public agencies which are entirely separate from one another.
Q Prior to 1935 the situation was different? Is that right?
A Yes, it was.
Q You were the superior prior to 1935? Is that right?
A Yes, I was.
Q Now, for a good many years, Dr. Rothenberger, it is a known fact that you were Kaufmann's legal adviser. I presume you don't undertake to deny that now. When did you become his legal adviser?
A I can't tell you for certain whether it was in 1936 or 1937. One should be able to see that from my personal file. I can't tell you exactly now when I became Gaurechtsamtsleiter.
Q I have seen the reference a good many times, Dr. Rothenberger, and in a good many places; and I've never seen any other date than 1931. Is that in accord with your best recollection?
A That's wrong. On my direct examination I testified that before 1933 I didn't even know the Gauleiter, I don't think I had even seen him before that time. The remark to which you refer, which is supposed to have appeared in a newspaper, that I had been his legal adviser since 1931, is incorrect. You can tell that from my personnel files. Unfortunately they have not been shown to me.
Q How do you know I can tell that from the personnel files then?
A Because I know for certain that in 1936 or 1937 I became the Gaurechtsberater; and therefore it must be in my personnel files.
Q Now, in 1931 you wrote an opinion, did you not, on the NSDAP in which Kaufmann was interested? You mean to tell me at the time you wrote that opinion, an opinion in which Kaufmann was interested, you never met him; never saw him; never heard of him?
A I never expressed my opinion to him on the Nazi Party.
Q Well, he was involved; he was part of the picture when that opinion was written, was he not, in 1931, the opinion which you yourself prepared?
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
A No. No, I know nothing of that, that he is involved in an opinion which I expressed. I made detailed statements as to what my contacts were with the Nazi Party before the seizure of power. I said that in my direct examination. I worked with the parliamentary committee in Hamburg; and I got to know Eiwuerden. Those were the only contacts I had with the Nazi Party before the Seizure of power.
Q Will you please tall me if there was a competent -- if there was a competent court to try police officials before 1933?
THE PRESIDENT: Before 1933 or 1935?
MR. KING: Before 1933.
A Yes, I am pretty certain that before 1933 when the police had committed punishable offenses they could be prosecuted, but from memory I can't tell you with certainty, but I definitely assume so; I definitely assume so.
Q But you don't know what court that would have been, I suppose.
A That would have been the regular courts.
Q Can you define that a little more closely to your best recollection? If you don't know, you aren't required to answer, but if you do, I would like to know.
A Well, I believe the penal code of 1871 laid down the provisions for such cases.
Q And you can't do any better than that on the definition?
AAs to which article in the code it is, unfortunately I can't tell you.
Q I wonder, Dr. Rothenberger, if you would look at Section 153, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and perhaps it would simplify matters if you would just road that -- that reference to the discontinuance of the proceedings which you referred to, I believe, briefly this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean the quashing by some person other than by the court?
MR. KING: Yes. This is the reference to discontinuing of proceedings; I don't know whether it is quashing or discontinuance.
Will you read that, Dr. Rothenberger, please?
A Contrary to the quashing of which I have spoken of by the head of the state, or prior to 1935, by the Reichsstatthalter -
THE PRESIDENT: Are you reading the exhibit?
A No.
MR. KING: Will you read Section 153, Paragraph 2, Dr. Rothenberger?
A In Article 153 it says the following: If the guilt of the offender who has committed a crime is slight, and if the consequences of his offense are insignificant, the prosecution, with the agreement of the district court judge, may refrain from filing an indictment.
Q And that Section 153, Paragraph 2, to your best recollection, Dr. Rothenberger, was effective -- say from 1933 on throughout the period prior to the war and during the war.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the answer?
A Yes, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not the section to which you referred is it, Doctor, on the basis of which Gauleiters could quash proceedings?
A No.
THE PRESIDENT: No.
A No, that is a different section. I have referred to this article in connection with the Jansen case. This was the reason the court gave for discontinuing proceedings against Jansen and also for discontinuing the proceedings in the Karotz case where Oehlckers quite rightly refused to agree to this measure being taken.
Q I have just one more question, Dr. Rothenberger, in connection with your Exhibit 78. Do you recall a case of Rassenschande, a case in which the Jewish woman was involved was, or could be sentenced for her part in the racial pollution?
A Yes.
Q Do you have any explanation to make to that?
A This Exhibit 78 shows that I have enumerated several cases which occured between 1936 and 1939 where Jews after they had served the term to which they had boon sentenced for having committed racial pollution remained under arrest; and that I made a report about these cases to the Reich Ministry of Justice, with a request to abolish such abuses and that in effect was the purpose of this compilation. That is all I have to say.
MR. KING: I think together with what the record itself shows, I have no further questions.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I have no redirect examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused. Is there any other available witness for examination? Dr. Schilf, may we have information, please. Dr. Schilf may we have information, please. Without reference to their condition, will you toll mo how many document books have been put into the possession of the Secretary General in the case Mottgenberg?
DR. SCHILF: As far as my present information goes, five document books and one supplement.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know that all of those five document books and the supplement are in such bad condition that none of them could be introduced in evidence; or, is it that you simply want to introduce them in a certain order?
DR. SCHILF: Your Honor, as far as I know, only Document Book I is completely out of order, but I have refrained from giving specific document numbers; I have only put on exhibit numbers. As unfortunately it is the first book which is in such a bad way, I would have to ask you to reserve for me the numbers; the exhibit numbers in the first book and I would have to start with the second book. The Defense Center, however, notified me today that by tomorrow the first book in the English version would be all right.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal suggests to you that whatever numbers you have put on your documents may be treated as document numbers. When you ascertain the number of documents in document Book I, we can reserve for those documents exhibit numbers commencing with No. 1, sufficient to cover your Document Book I, and you can then proceed at once to introduce your other books.
DR. SCHILF: Your Honor, in that case, may I just ask you to wait another ten minutes; in about ten minutes I shall be able to introduce my document books, and will start with Document Book II. I will just go now and get them.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know why they shouldn't be here, but if they aren't here, it is necessary for us to wait. We will take ten minutes' recess now.
(A recess was taken)
18 & 19-1-A-AEH-Cook (Uiberall) 24 Sept 47
THE MARSHALL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you these document Books? You are starting with Book No. 2?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we understand that there are nine documents in Book I?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: We have exhibits 1 to 9, inclusive, Reserved for Book I.
DR. SCHILF: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed to introduce the exhibits in book Dr. Mettgelberg No. 2.
DR. SCHILF: I begin, four Honor, with Exhibit No. 10. That is an excerpt from the collection of laws, Pfundtner Neubert, the laws and comments. Thus deals with the ordinance concerning special war-time penal regulations, which I introduce, with the parts important for the nacht and nebel decree, also with the commentary to it. Nay I ask that you receive it as exhibit No. 10?
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document is also an excerpt from Pfundtner Neubert and pertains also to the nacht and nebel matters. The ordinance concerns criminal procedure in war time. That is the rules of procedure concerning criminal law, also with the commentary. In the English document book that document begins on page 9, Mr. President. I offer it as Exhibit II.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 11 is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document, also concerning the NN cases and is an excerpt from the military criminal code with commentary by Dr. Erich Schwinge, published in 1943. It concerns those provisions of the special decrees concerning military criminal law, particularly articles 160 of the military criminal code and 161, I am offering it as Exhibit No. 12.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHILF: The next is a letter of the high Command of the Wehrmacht of the 24 of September 1941 to the foreign office, Auswaertiges Amt. It is a so called top secret matter and also concerns the Nacht and Nebel cases. In the English document book the document begins on page 17.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. KING: One moment, please, your Honor. We observe that there is no indication in the folder of our copy where that letter came from. If Dr. Schilf could tell us, any objection we might otherwise have we will waive.
DR. SCHILP: That letter is a document which was submitted to the IMT by the French Prosecution, the exhibit number was then RF 272. It is found
MR. KING: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 13 is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document is an excerpt from a book by Professor Dr. Rudolf Laun, published in 1947. It is entitled "The Hague Convention for Land warfare". It is a commentary to the provisions of the Hague Convention which are important in connection with the NN cases. I am offering it as Exhibit 14. In the English document book it is found on page 19.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document is an excerpt from a daily paper, the paper is the "Telegraph" which appears in Berlin under the British license. The date of the article is the 14 of June 1947. There is a decision by the Magistrate of the city of Berlin, a decision about an application made to the Allied KOMMANDATURA of the Allied Control Counsel, to establish the whereabouts of missing persons, and to give information on them.
I am offering this document as Exhibit 15.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document which I should like to offer as 15-a and is also an excerpt from a daily newspaper, the paper Die Neue Zeitung, a newspaper published by the American Army in Munich. The date of the article is 17 July 1947 and it contains excerpts from the rules of the American Military Government, that is b General Lucius D. Clay and deals with courts and court procedure. I am offering this document as 15-a.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document as a letter from the High Command of the Wehrmacht of the 2nd September 1944 to the German Armistice Commission and concerns the conditions of political prisoners that is a subject which has to do with the NN cases. That document was also submitted to the IMT by the American Prosecution. The number was 835 PS before the IMT. It was received as Exhibit 527 and the original as in the hands of the General Secretary of the IMT here an this building.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. SCHILF: I offer at as Exhibit 15-b.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received as such.
DR. SCHILF: Now I would have to submit document book No. 3. The first document from document book 3 is an excerpt from a commentary by Professor Dr. Adolf Schoenke from Freiburg in Breisgau on the German Penal Code. It refers specifically to Article II A of the Penal Code. The text of that article and the commentary are included.
I may say that this shows the retroactive force of Penal laws and is a matter for the general defense. I marked that by putting down the number GV 12. I am offering it as Exhibit No. 16.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document again deals with the subject of the general defense, subject No. 12. That is the application of the principle of analogy in Penal Law and it is an except from a critical discussion or the so-called provisional draft of the penal code of the German Reich of 1910, showing endeavors for the improvement and re-form of the German Penal Law. It deals with the subject of the extent of the application of penal law, particularly of criminal acts committees by foreigners abroad, and the point of view voiced in legal literature, whether it is possible to prosecute such cases. I am offering this as Exhibit 17.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHILF: The same subject, that is, the question whether the principle of analogy can be applied in Penal Law, is dealt with by an excerpt from the publication "Deutsche Justiz", German Justice, of 1934. It is a short excerpt under the title "Administration of Justice and Legal Policy."
THE PRESIDENT: What page of your document book is that on?
DR. SCHILF: On page 9 of the English text, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: That is to be your exhibit
DR. SCHILF: No. 19, Your Honor. The next document deals with the same subject of general defense. It is an excerpt from a book under the title, "The Future German Penal Law," a report on the work of the official penal law commission under the chairmanship of the then Minister of Justice of the Reich, Dr. Franz Guertner.
It was published in 1935 and it again deals with the question of whether analogy can be applied in penal law and whether their retroactivity can be ordered for acts committed in the past, in particular it deals with the question "nullum crimen sine lege", which is called here "nullum crimen sine poena" and Which is "no crime without punishment." The excerpt begins on page 10 in the English document book.
MR. KING: We are not going to objection to this exhibit nor to the following exhibit but we feel neither of them have the slightest probative value and wish to express our feelings on that point at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will give consideration to your suggestion. Exhibit 19 is received.
DR. SCHILF: May I say in this connection, as for the probative value in all cases, these are publications, legal literature which is available in the library of the court house and at the library in Erlangen. I have always marked where they can be found. The next on, is an excerpt from the monthly periodical for German Law, the "Deutsches Reicht". It is pamphlet I, volume I, April 1947 and again deals with the subject of analogy and retroactivity, general subject of defense No. 12. This is an article by Wilhelm Kiesselbach, the title is "Two Problems from Control Council Law No. 10." I am offering this as Exhibit No. 20. It is on page 13.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document deals with the same subject of the general defense. It is an excerpt from the periodical "Neue Justiz" published by the German Administration of Justice in the Soviet Occupied Zone of Germany in 1947, a decision by the District Court of Appeals at Gera on 19 February 1947.
It also deals with the problem of analogy and retroactivity. I am offering this as Exhibit 21. It is on page 19 in the English Document Book.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document concerning the same subject is an excerpt-I beg your pardon, is a verdict by the District Court at Konstanz in the so-called Tillessen case. The verdict was pronounced on the 23 of February 1947. There is not the entire verdict reproduced but those passages which are of importance with problems we have to deal with, and certain quotations made by Dr. Gustav Radbruch, I am offering this as exhibit 22. It is in the English document book on page 21.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document is an excerpt from the monthly periodical, "Deutsches Recht" of June 1947, pamphlet No. 14, an article by Dr. Adolf Schoenke of Freiburg. The title is "Interpretation of Analogy and Perscriptive Law in Penal Law." It also deals with the same subject, no crime without punishment, a question of retroactivity and penal laws. I am offering it as Exhibit 23.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received. We find an exhibit number 12 on page 6, what is that?
DR. SCHILF: I am sorry that must have been stapled in the wrong order. My English document book is in order. Maybe I can pass that on to the High Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not offered apparently. We have already received one exhibit 12.
DR. SCHILF: Mr. President, may I point out that there is a possibility of an error, the one is GV 12 and that means general defense, the exhibit number is always on the right hand, GV 12 is on the left, that is Exhibit No. 22.
THE PRESIDENT: The document on page 6 is marked Exhibit 12 and GV 12.
DR. SCHILF: May I ask Mr. President that you receive Exhibit 12. Exhibit 12 would have to be put into document book 2. Apparently the copy which is before the Tribunal has been put together in the wrong order.
THE PRESIDENT: In Document Book II, you have an exhibit 12, an excerpt from Dr. Erich Schwinge. This is another and different exhibit. If you went to offer it you can name the exhibit 12-a. Do you want to offer it?
DR. SCHILF: Exhibit 12 has already been received. I shall have to find out. It could be a wrong number which has been put in.
THE PRESIDENT: Attach any number you wish to it and offer it and it will be received.
DR. SCHILF: I would number it 12-a then, Your Honor, It is 17, yes Exhibit 17 is the same. In fact it is just the number which has been put down wrong. Exhibit 17 has already been accepted.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then all of your exhibits in this book are offered and all received.- Document Book IV.
DR. SCHILF: Document, Book IV, the first document in Document Book IV is an excerpt from a book with the title "The Reform of the Reich Penal Code", a critical discussion of the provisional draft. It is from The same book as Exhibit 17 out a different passage. This excerpt deals with the sphere of application of the penal law written by Dr. Dr. von Bar in 1910. It again is a subject of the general defense subject No. 1, and I am offering it as Exhibit 24.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document again deals with the sphere of application of provisions of criminal law.
It is an excerpt from a text book on penal law by Professor Dr. Max Ernst Mayer of 1915. The title is "International Criminal Law." I am offering it as Exhibit 25.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document deals with the same subject. It is an excerpt from a book which has been quoted from already, the Future German Penal Law, and is a report of the official commission of criminal law from 1932. The title is "Concerning the Sphere of German Law. I am offering it as Exhibit 26.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document deals with the same subject and is an excerpt from the "Deutsche Justiz of the year - I am not able at the present to give the year, it is the 102nd year. It is a publication and the title is "The sphere of applicability of Criminal Law" by Dr. Roland Freisler. That is the man who to the end was president of the Peoples' Court. I am offering it as Exhibit 27.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document, No. 28, is an excerpt again from the Deutsche Justiz of 1940, also the 102nd years, which shows that the previous document was also from 1940. It concerns the ordinance about the sphere of applicability of common law, and comments on the decree of the 6th of May 1940, and is also in this case by Ministerialrat Reitzsch of the Reich Ministry of Justice. I offer it as Exhibit 28.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document concerns the same subject. It is an excerpt from "Pfundtner Neubert", a collection of laws and commentary, and the title is "The Ordinance About the sphere of Applicability of the Criminal Law" of the 6th of April 1940 and contains the text and commentaries by Rietzsch.