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?
Is that your opinion?
AAs a rule I did not see those reports that went to Berlin; only a few individual reports came to my attention. According to my recollection Dr. Rothenberger, in a few reports on the situation, objected to the attacks levelled against the Administration of Justice by the Schwarze Corps and similar attacks and explained that the Reich Ministry of Justice would have to assume a firmer attitude.
Q Yes. Witness, the question has been discussed here as to whether Dr. Rothenberger pursued fanatical National Socialist course with the judges. In this connection, I should like to ask you what his attitude was to Jewish and non-Aryan judges. Does the name Kaufmann mean anything to you?
A I know Judge Kufmann. Dr. Kaufmann, as far as I remember, was of mixed decent.
Q Did he remain in office until the end?
A He remained in office until the end.
Q Do you know the Oberlandesgericht Rittmayer?
A Yes, I happen to know Dr. Rittmayer.
Q What is his racial background?
A Dr. Rittmayer, as far as I remember, is a half-Jew.
Q How long did he remain in office?
AAlso until the end.
Q Dr. Sommerfeldt is the present vice-president of the Hanseatic District Court of Appeals. Do you happen to know him?
A Dr. Sommerfeldt is not vice-president but deputy chief president. He also is a half Jew and until the end of the war he had remained in office.
Q In Hamburg?
A Yes, in Hamburg.
Q. Do you know the director of the district court Oeder. His last position was president of the district court in Hamburg. Oeder.
A. Oeder was a so-called twenty-five percent Jew. He also remained in office; I cannot say for sure whether it was shortly before the end of the war that he was pensioned because he had reached an age limit of sixty-five years.
Q. But at any rate, until a short time before the end of the war, he remained in office.
A. He remained in office.
Q. Did you happen to know inspector Haagen?
A. I don't happen to know Haagen personally, but his name is familiar to me from the files.
Q. Was he a half-Jew?
A. Haagen was a half-Jew and also remained in office.
Q. Did you happen to know the assessors Wiedahl and Mechten?
A. Mechten and Wiedahl were schoolmates of mine; they also were so-called twenty-five percent Jews, and on the basis of the civil service law had to be eliminated as assessors, but were admitted as attorneys.
Q. Thank you. Witness, did you attend the meeting of judges in the prison where Rothenberger spoke about these matters and the relations to the SS?
A. I attended that meeting in the prison - the investigation of the prison. Dr. Rothenberger gave a very strong and, for the conditions that existed at that time, a very courageous speech. As far as I remember, the climax of that speech was the phrase "this boil of puss has to be opened".
Q. What was done? Was it feared that the Gestapo might take measures against Rothenberger? Is it true that for that reason Dr. Rothenberger caused that speech to be written down?
A. As far as I remember, Dr. Rothenberger at that time assigned a stenographer to write down the exact wording, the exact text, of that speech because he had serious concern that there would be some objections on the part of the SS.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you tell me what the date of that speech was, approximately?
A. I cannot say the date for sure. According to my recollection it was 1940 or 1941.
Q. Witness, after the speech of April 1942 did you attend a judge's meeting which was called by Kaufmann and Rothenberger where both of them spoke?
A. I attended that meeting. It took place in the large courtroom of the District Court of Appeals. Dr. Rothenberger as well as Reichsstatthalter Kaufmann addressed the meeting. Both emphasized that their confidence in the practice of the Hamburg courts was unshaken and not shaken by that speech at all, and it was also stressed that in the future as well there would not be any room in Hamburg for any blood justice (Blutjustiz).
Q. Witness, do you happen to remember the admonishment on the part of the Reich Ministry of Justice of 1944 against the milder court practice in Hamburg?
A. In February or March 1945 a letter was received by the president of the District Court, the Hanseatic Court, from the Reich Ministry of Justice wherein a large number of sentences of the Hamburg penal senate was objected to because in the opinion of the Reich Ministry of Justice these sentences had been too lenient. Even before that time it happened quite frequently that sentences pronounced by the Hamburg Special Courts and in particular by the Special Court of Bremen and the Hanseatic penal senate were objected to by the Ministry as having been too lenient.
Q. Was that during the time when Dr. Rothenberger was president of the District Court of Appeals in Hamburg?
A. I don't remember that for certain, but I believe that also during that time such cases had occurred.
Q. As for the guidance of the courts, preview and review, which was introduced after Hitler's speech in 1942, did Dr. Rothenberger state that when he introduced it he did so primarily in order to make court practice more uniform, to inform himself and to meet attacks against the judges. Is that accurate according to your recollection?
A. The so-called preview and review was handled in the following manner. At regular intervals there were---
THE PRESIDENT: I wonder if this isn't matters which we have had fully explained before as to procedure. I think it is.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes Mr. President, that is quite right. I just wanted to discuss one point and that is the special court. May I make the question more specific?
THE PRESIDENT: You may do that.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you.
Q. Concerning the special courts, did Dr. Rothenberger assume a very severe point of view during preview and review, or, on the contrary, when the prosecution demanded high extensive punishment, did he emphasize the independence of the judge's position and the judge's decisions?
A. It did occur that in instances where the prosecution said the Ministry expected such and such a sentence, Dr. Rothenberger said that the opinion of the Ministry was not the decisive factor for the decision to be made by the judge At any rate, the decision about the question of guilt and the extent of punishment was reserved for the trial itself -- to he made after the trial itself.
Q. Thank you, witness. Only one more question in this connection, and it is a general one. Did preview and review in Hamburg serve the purpose to make penalties more severe and to impress that idea on the judges, or was that not the case, or is it true that Dr, Rothenberger saw to it in individual cases that more lenient points of view should he taken into consideration?
A. There were also cases where Dr. Rothenberger stated that he considered a sentence which had been pronounced too severe, or a demand for a punishment by the prosecution seemed to have been too severe in his opinion.
Q. Could you also tell us for what reasons Dr. Rothenberger was of the opinion that judges had to enter the Party?
A. Dr. Rothenberger considered it important and placed emphasis upon the fact that the judges should join the Party or a formation or be active in a formation. He had emphasized frequently in conversations that he had to do that because only if he was in a position to point out that the judges were also members of the Party, he would have the necessary backing against attacks from the Party. Moreover, he was of the opinion that it was in the interest of the cause if moderate elements would enter the Party in order to counteract too much radicalism.
Q. Thank you. Now for a final question. In the course of submitting rebuttal material, Exhibit 635 was submitted. That is a speech made on the occasion of the farewell of Rothenberger from Hamburg. Did you attend that meeting in the District Court of Appeals?
A. I attended that farewell speech, the farewell meeting with Dr. Rothenberger.
Q. Did you have the definite impression at that time that Dr. Rothenberger was convinced that he was taking with him to Berlin the mission to change Hitler's intention about a definite course?
A. I personally was of the impression that Dr. Rothenberger personally believed that he would be in a position to realize his plans for reform in Berlin.
Q. Yes. One question which I overlooked. Were penal cases in connection with the decree against Poles of any importance in Hamburg?
A. I was not a referent for penal matters and for that reason I could not judge or evaluate details of penal cases, but I don't recall that the legislation concerning Poles played any important role in the Hanseatic sittings.
Q. According to your recollection, did that subject ever -- was that subject ever touched upon in preview or review?
A. I don't remember.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other direct examination of this witness? There being none, you may cross-examine.
Mr. King, while we have a goodly number of the defense counsel present, it may be well to announce now a conclusion of the Tribunal -- or the ruling which it will make in the event that there is no serious objection. We were informally advised this morning by Dr. Kubuschok that the verbal testimony of witnesses would probably be concluded either today, as to which he was hopeful, or, at the latest, tomorrow. And we are also advised that there are still odds and ends of document books which are not ready.
The suggestion which we have viewed with favor is that we complete in accordance with that idea, all verbal testimony and take all of the documents which can be presented today or tomorrow, and that then the recess will begin and we will give opportunity to both sides on the morning of October 13th to introduce such documents as have been authorized but not yet processed not yet ready for their introduction today. They may be introduced in the morning of the 13th, and argument will open immediately following the introduction of such documents, and not later than 1:30 in the afternoon of October 13th.
Do we hear any serious objection to that proposal? We view it as a proposal which is for the commendation of the defendants who have had some difficulty in getting the last of their documents in shape for presentation.
Have I stated the matter substantially as you understood it? The Doctor indicates I have.
MR. KING: I am sure that suggestion meets the approval of the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be the ruling.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Do I understand correctly if I assume that the rebuttal is thereby concluded? Is that what I understood the prosecu tion to mean?
THE PRESIDENT: Your rebuttal is ended, Mr. King?
MR. KING: Yes, with the exception of one or two documents that will be introduced, identified but not introduced, because they haven't been processed.
THE PRESIDENT: You have no more witnesses.
MR. KING: No.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: And the documents are already identified and only have to be processed and submitted, is that so?
MR. KING: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. HAENSEL: I have announced my witness Lawyer Schulz. My colleague Dr. Fritz left on Saturday to get him and bring him here. Yesterday I received a telegram that he intended to arrive -- he hoped to arrive yesterday in the course of the day. Now I inquired and found that he has not yet arrived. I hope, however, that he will arrive in the course of the day and I shall introduce him immediately, but otherwise it is my understanding that it would be possible even tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: The deadline is Friday at 4:30. I refer to deadline for the introduction or the completion of examination of witnesses.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:
Q. Witness, I was somewhat interested in your -- witness, as I started to say, I was somewhat interested in your activity in Holland during the war. Did you have any part in the management of the Phillips plant in Einhoven?
A. That must have been a misunderstanding. During the war I was not in Holland. I stated that after passing my examination during the years 1929 and 1930 I worked as a legal assistant with the Phillips works.
Q. Yes. Then you know nothing of the illegal seizure of that plant during the war, of course; I won't ask you.
A. Of that I know nothing.
Q. I wonder if you would tell me again very concisely your feeling about Dr. Rothenberger's attitude toward the Jews. Would you consider it mild or a harsh policy?
A. Dr. Rothenberger's attitude toward Jews according to my judgment and observations varied. I mentioned a number of cases before, answering the questions by defense counsel, where the judges who were of mixed Jewish descent remained in office until the end. It is known to me that in applying the civil service law, professional civil service law, one also removed Jewish judges from office, but these things occurred before the time when I worked with the District Court of Appeal.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment.
A. The general attitude was--
THE PRESIDENT: You say one removed Jewish judges. Whom do you mean?
A. That must have been a misunderstanding. I don't understand the question.
THE PRESIDENT: The translation was that you said that prior to the time when you were connected with the District Court of Appeals one dismissed Jewish judges. I am asking who dismissed Jewish judges.
A. The dismissal on the basis of the professional civil service law had to be carried out by the authorities competent to do so. Until the centralization of justice, they were-
BY MR. KING:
Q. Witness, please. I think you can shorten the answer by just telling us who the competent authority was. That was the President's question to you. Who was the competent authority to remove judges under the civil service law, if you want to put it that way?
A. At that time it was Dr. Rothenberger.
Q. I think that answers the question. Now, specifically what do you know about Dr. Rothenberger's removal of the right and privilege to Jews to come under the benefits of the Poor Law which would permit Jews without funds to come before the court?
What do you recall of that particular attitude of Dr. Rothenberger?
A. About that question there was a conference, and according to my recollection Dr. Rothenberger, Dr. Korn, president of the District Court, Dr. Schwarz, president of the Local Court, and I attended. Dr. Rothenberger in the course of that conference objected to the fact that the Jews still enjoyed the benefit of the Poor Law by court's decision.
Q Yes. Now, you recall the conference, the principals at least, very well. Please let me ask you, have you ever seen that document, that is NG-2249 - just a moment, please. Tills is identified as NG-2249, Exhibit 593. I want you to read a sentence, witness, and ask you if that is in accordance with your recollection of what happened at this conference which you attended. I refer to this sentence by Dr. Rothenberger. You will find that in the statement he requested that contacts with the district court and with the local court judges be made at once so that a uniform line is followed to the effect that the Jews be denied the benefit of the poor law. Is that in accordance with the feeling of the meeting? You were there.
A I can only say that the notation which I dictated at that time, I put down and took down according to the truth. I can no longer tell in detail today what was discussed.
Q I think the document will speak for itself in that case.
THE PRESIDENT: Was the portion of the document which was read written by this witness?
MR. KING: Just a moment, please.
A That document was dictated by me.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
A I dictated it.
BY MR. KING:
Q You referred to the special court this morning. Who did you say said there would be no blood justice in Hamburg?
A The words "blood justice" I mentioned in connection with a speech by Dr. Rothenberger and by Reichsstatthalter Kaufmann on the occasion of the meeting of judges in the district court of appeals which was shortly after the infamous speech by Hitler. During that address the word "blood justice" was used. By that I mean that it was Dr. Rothenberger as well as Reichsstatthalter Kaufmann, but I could not be precise in stating today who actually used that word or that term.