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.
I am offering it as Exhibit 29.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document again deals with the same subject and is an excerpt from Pfundtner Neubert. The title is the Law for the Change of the Judiciary and is again from 1940 and states not only the text of the law but also the commentary and I am offering it as Exhibit 30. The commentary begins on page 26 in the English version.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: This concludes my document cook IV. No. V begins with an excerpt iron the book by Neubert concerning the sphere of jurisdiction of the criminal courts of the 21 February 1940. It only deals with the nullification plea. May I call to the attention oi the Tribunal that the nullification is the subject of general defense and it was subject No. 11 of the General Defense. I am offering this document as Exhibit No. 31.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next exhibit also is concerned with the nullification plea. It is an article from Deutsche Justiz of 1941; the title is, One Year Nullification Plea; the author is former Chief Reich Prosecutor Brettle of Leipzig. May I say that he was the Chief Reich Prosecutor with the Reich Supreme Court. It is an exhaustive study about the results of one year of practical application of the nullification plea with figures showing in what cases it was applied in favor, and is what cases against, the defendant. I am offering it as Exhibit No. 32.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document is a brief excerpt from a publication of the year 1947 - January 1947. The periodical is called, "Berliner Hefte". This one, and the next documents, deal with the subject of the general defense number 1, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. This article is concerned with the personality of C.F.W. Behl. I want to point out to the Tribunal that this is the same Behl who discussed general question of the Administration of Justice since 1933, here in the witness stand. The document which I submit shows that Herr Behl has worked together with the famous author Gerhardt Hauptmann, and it also intends to show that he was more of a man of literature than of law.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document again deals with the personality and character of Dr. Behl, in particular with his own statements made in a periodical "Prisma", a periodical which appeared on the 7th of May 1947, and is called "Dialogue with Gerhardt Hauptmann - Diary Notations by C.F.W. Behl". Here again Behl mentions that day after day he worked together with Gerhardt Hauptmann, that he has published his works, and that he will also publish writings by Gerhardt Hauptmann in the future. I am offering this as Exhibit 34.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. SCHILF: The following again refers to Herr Behl. It is an excerpt from the "History of the German Reich in Documents" from 1926, and it is a reproduction of the Goerlitz program of the Social Democratic Party of Germany of 23 September 1921.
It is only a brief excerpt and it shows that the Social Democratic Party of Germany for the year 1921 had established as one of the points of its program, that the Administration of Justice should be transferred from the Laender to the Reich, and Behl made statements in that connection which pertain to the subjects 1 and 5 of the whole defense. I am offering it as Exhibit 35.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document is an affidavit by Dr. Albert Hupperschwiller, who came into the Ministry of Justice in 1936 as a public prosecutor, and was with the Ministry until the surrender, and gives information here about the work and the character of Dr. Mettgenberg. I am offering it as Exhibit 36.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next one, Exhibit No. 37, is an affidavit again by Dr. Friedrich Preisser. It also shows the experiences Dr. Preisser made with Dr. Mettgenberg. I am offering it as Exhibit 37.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document is an affidavit by the defendant Dr. Mettgenberg himself. A description of his literary work from 1906 until 1944, listing the titles and whore these writings may be found. I am offering this as Exhibit 38.
THE PRESIDENT: This is an affidavit of a person who has been a witness. There being no objection it will be received -- it is contrary to the rule, however. The Exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: I have a supplement volume No. 2, The supplement volume begins with the letter of the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of the Wehrmacht, of 2 February 1942, to the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht concerning the prosecution of criminal acts committed against the Reich and the occupying power in the occupied territories. It is a supplement to the documents submitted by the Prosecution concerning NN cases.
I have the photostatic copy here. The original has been submitted as No, 833-PS before the IMT and is in the hands of the GeneralSecretary. I offer it as Exhibit 39, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document belongs in the same category -a letter of the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, of the 13th of July 1942 to the Chief of the Security Police, the SD. That document also supplements the documents submitted by the prosecution in NN cases. Annexed to it is a letter of 24 June 1942, by the Chief of the Security Police, SD, to the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. The original is also in the office of the Secretary General of the IMT. I am offering it as Exhibit 40.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: The last document I have to offer is an affidavit by Frau Luise Moswitz, about conditions in the house in Berlin where Dr. Mettgenberg lived -- that is, protection afforded to Jews who lived in the same house. I offer it as Exhibit No. 41.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, I am not in a position to offer any more documents, but I should like to reserve the right to submit 1 to 9, and two or three documents which are still in translation. I hope to be able to submit them in time.
THE PRESIDENT: We understood that Exhibits 1 to 9 in Book I were in the hands of the Secretary General early in July, is that correct?
DR. SCHILF: No, that is not quite possible. I assume that Document Book I came through during the last few days. I submitted the documents for translation in July, but the translation must have been received during the last few days.
THE PRESIDENT. Well, if it is a matter of an error in paging, or anything of that kind, a little clerical help will make it possible to have nine documents ready tomorrow. We hope you will do that.
DR. SCHILF: I hope so, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there anything further that can be presented this afternoon? Will the four witnesses who were expected in the case of Rothenberger, be here tomorrow morning?
DR. ORTH (For defendant Altstoetter): Looking through the transcript of the cross-examination of Altstoetter, I found out that there was a regrettable error. On the 15th of September 1947, in the afternoon session. Altstoetter was asked on cross examination how frequently, from 1937 until November 1942, he saw Himmler. Altstoetter answered, "I spoke to him twice." That statement is incorrect. Altstoetter, during that time, did not speak to Himmler at all; according to his recollection he had not even seen him during that time. To correct that statement, which is based on an error, if the court considers it appropriate I should like to recall Mr. Altstoetter to the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the prosecution any objection-
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I have no objection, your Honor -
THE PRESIDENT: Are you willing to concede that defendant Altstoetter would testify that he had erroneously stated that he had seen Himmler twice, but in fact he says under oath he had never seen him at all?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, I will stipulate exactly as to the statement which the Tribunal's presiding judge has made.
THE PRESIDENT: We will accept that as true, and you need not call him at all. We accept that. There being no contradiction of it, we will accept it as the truth.
DR. ORTH: Thank you, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there anything else to be done this afternoon?
The Tribunal will recess until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty.
(The Tribunal recessed until 0930 hours 25 September 1947).
Official Transcript of American Military Tribunal III in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 25 September 1947, 0930-1630, The Honorable James T. Brand, Presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, The Judges of Military Tribunal III. Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
DR. LEHMANN: Dr. Lehmann, for the defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg. May it please the Tribunal, I have to state that we refrain from calling the witnesses Gertrud Moller and Lepin.
THE PRESIDENT: You said you refrain from calling them?
DR. LEHMANN: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all of the defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the notation be made.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I ask to be permitted to continue. I would like to call the witness Dr. Pries from Hamburg.
THE PRESIDENT: We have difficulties with the recording system and we are told that there will be a delay of five minutes. We are prepared to proceed now. The Tribunal will have an announcement to make with reference to our future proceedings upon the return of Mr. Kuboschok. You may proceed now.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: In rebuttal I should like to call Dr. Pries from Hamburg.
DR. FRIEDRICH PRIES, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE HARDING: 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 withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE HARDING: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q Witness, will you please give the Court your full name and your birthdate and your personal data?
A My name is Dr. Friedrich Pries. I was born at Bremen on the 19 October 1903. I studied at Freiburg and Marburg, and at Kassel and Hamburg I passed my two legal examinations. After passing the examinations, first I was an attorney in Bremen admitted to the Bar.
As an attorney I went to Holland and as legal assistant worked with the N.V. Philips Works - light bulb works - in Einthoven, in 1929 and 1930.
In 1930 I was appointed a judge in Bremen, that is, I was elected a judge in Bremen according to the old system in Bremen, according to which judges were elected.
In 1937 I came as a temporary judge to the District Court of Appeals, In 1938 I was promoted to the rank of Oberlandesgerichtsrat, District Court of Appeals Counsellor. In November, 1944 I was still appointed Senate President. Today I am a director of a District Court in Hamburg, Landgerichtsdirector.
Q In what capacity did you work at the District Court of Appeals in Hamburg?
A First as a temporary judge and District Court of Appeals counsellor. In 1937-1938, I was a member of the Fifth Civil Senate. On the 1 January 1939 I was assigned to the Administration of the Hanseatic District Court of Appeals and there in the beginning I worked on the personnel files of assessors and referendars.
After the war broke out, since the vice-president, Mr. Letz, had been drafted to the armed forces, I was charged to handle the personnel matters of the higher service, that is to say, the judges in particular. I did that work until the end of the war and on the side I handled general administrative matters.
Q Thank you. Were you a member ob the Party, Mr. Pries?
A I joined the Party on the first May 1937. In addition to that, I was a member of the Naval SA.
Q What rank did you become?
A I joined at the end of October, 1933 and was Rottenfeuhrer first. In April, 1933, I was informed orally that I had been promoted to the rank of Oberscherfeuhrer. In writing, however, I never received any confirmation of that.
Q What is the comparable rank in the army of Oberscharfeuhrer?
A Corporal.
Q Dr. Pries, here in rebuttal motion was made about the attitude of Dr. Rothenberger concerning transgressions by the Party against the Administration of Justice. How were conditions when you started to work at the District Court of Appeals in Hamburg?
A When, in the beginning of 1939, I entered the Administration of the District Court of Appeals, I was Confronted with a situation where, as Dr. Rothenberger frequently explained to me, he had made agreements with the offices of the Party, that is to say, in particular with the Reichstaathalter and also, as far as I know, with the higher SS leader to the effect that objections against the practice of law and the prac tice of the courts should be brought to him personally.
That was to prevent that Party functionaries directly interfered with court procedure because it had happened frequently that, for instance, Kreisleiters or other political functionaries had approached the judges directly and expressed the demand that trials should be conducted in a certain manner and handled in a certain way.
Q Do you happen to know of a directive by Kaufmann where he expresses these thoughts and - prohibits that lower Party functionaries approach the courts directly?
A I heard about a directive of that nature at that time. However, I have not seen it myself.
Q In this connection I refer to Exhibit 594 which contains that directive by Kaufmann. After these measures were taken, which you have described, did conditions improve in Hamburg?
A The effect of these measures was, as far as I can evaluate it for the period where I could observe it, that immediate and direct interference into the practice of the courts in Hamburg did no longer occur.
Q Can you say that the practice of the courts, as far as these interferences are concerned, was uninfluenced and in good shape at the time when you were there?
A Yes, I can confirm that the courts in Hamburg were functioning as they should.
Q Mention was made of a report by a senior public prosecutor of Hamburg by the name of Reuther. Do you happen to know him personally?
A It was only here when it was submitted that I have heard about that report by Senior Public Prosecutor Reuther.
Q I beg your pardon. You have misunderstood my question. I asked you whether you knew Reuther personally.
A Reuther? No, I did not know Reuther personally -- yes, I did know Reuther.
Q Thank you. In this report--
THE PRESIDENT: May we straighten this out? I don't think that it is very important, but we are not clear as to whether the witness said he did know or did not know Dr. Reuther. What is the answer?
THE WITNESS: I did not know the witness Reuther.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q In this Reuther report, the so-called agreement among four is mentioned, which is said to have been made between the defendant Dr. Rothenberger, Reichstalthalter Kaufmann, the Chief of the Gestapo, Streckenbach, and the then General Public Prosecutor Drescher. That agreement among the four is said to have stipulated that ill-treatments in concentration camps should be suppressed and not brought to the knowledge of the prosecution. Do you happen to know -- did you ever know anything about an agreement of that kind?
A I never knew anything about an agreement of that kind. It was only here after Reuther's report had been submitted in evidence that I heard about that accusation.
Q I see. Witness, in the course of time, as has been mentioned here, particularly in the first years, transgressions were committed by the SS and Dr. Rothenberger stated that in his locality he had very limited means to do anything against it and in the end no means at all and, therefore, he had approached the Reich Ministry of Justice in Berlin.
I am asking you now, do you happen to know, as a fact, that in order to have material for such reports to Berlin he had ordered that in Hamburg material should be collected for the fight against the Gestapo and the Schwarze Corps?
AAccording to my recollection Dr. Rothenberger, when that dispute with the Schwarze Corps took place, ordered that these cases against which the Schwarze Corps had objected, should be collected as far as the material is concerned, compiled and that it was important to compile material about the true, actual facts of these cases.
Q Yes. Was that material used as a basis for the reports on the situation that were sent to Berlin regularly?