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.
Q That speech of Hitler's was on the 26th of April, 1942, was it not?
A I believe so.
Q Yes. Now, I would like to show you a case which is identified as NG-530, is Exhibit 156, in which you played a considerable part. I will give you the facts in the case very briefly. Three French civilians were charged with having stolen a camera, a manicure set, and two or three bottles of champagne. You recommended that they be tried immediately - which they were the next day. The result of that trial was two death sentences and I don't recall what happened to the other one. I shall show you the facts of the case. This happened on June 26th - June 16, and I will ask you if you don't think perhaps that is blood justice after all.
THE PRESIDENT: What year? You said June 26th without specifying the year.
MR. KING: 1942.
A. The notation which I have before me refers to a case where the present deputy for the General Public Prosecutor, Dr. Leffman, had called me on the telephone telling me that a case of looting had occurred during an air raid. I personally am connected with that case only to the effect that I took down that notation at the time for the information of the Referent who was to handle the penal cases, Dr. Bartsch. That can also be seen from the decision, the instructions contained under the figure 2 where it says that the notation should be submitted to Dr. Bartsch after his return. Dr. Bartsch, therefore, was not present at that time.
Q. Witness, that is very interesting, the document is before us. I am not trying to connect you with the case necessarily. I simply submitted to you and asked you if you didn't know about it. You certainly knew about the facts of the case, you knew about the facts of the case.
A. Well today I can no longer describe the details of the case.
Q. No, I don't want you to. The document is in evidence. I just asked you at the time if you knew about the facts of the case.
A. At that time I dictated the facts such as they were told to me by telephone by Dr. Leffman.
Q. Now, do you think that is a case of "blood justice" or not?
A. That is a question of judgment, of evaluation.
Q. That is what I want, you judgment, you evaluation, is it or isn't it, in your opinion?
A. The law provided for cases of looting a mandatory death sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the question relates to the witness definition of a law, a legal term "blood justice". I think we are wasting our time on that issue, Mr. King.
MR. KING: All right, Your Honor, we will pass on.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Now you said some other things about the special court, do you recall Dr. Schmitheck?
A. Br. Schmitheck was a successor of Dr. Rothenberger as President of the District Court of Appeals in Hamburg.
Q. Yes, do you recall that Dr. Rothenberger occasionally while he was in that position referred to the Special Courts as Courts Martial of the Land, do you recall that?
A. According to my recollection that term was used by Dr. Rothenberger.
Q. Yes, and also according to your recollection did Schmitheck who followed Dr. Rothenberger in that job, use the same term?
A. That I couldn't remember at the moment but it was possible.
Q. Just to get the record clear on that I want to show you a letter This is identified, I think it is not in evidence at the moment, as NG 2460. Now that is a letter written by Schmitheck and you will find on the last page your signature, I believe, is that right?
A. The signature is mine, yes.
Q. That was sort of a sub-signature, a subscription, now then I ask you to look on page 3 of the original and do you see in the paragraph beginning "in my opinion", a little farther down, "the special courts are only summary courts martial, which are necessary under the conditions prevailing today." Do you find that statement there?
A. On page 3?
Q. Yes on page 3 of the document you have in your hands.
A. Yes, I found it.
Q. Do you have any comments to make on that?
A. I have no comments to make because as I remember I did not write that letter but the remark on the last page which I have signed confirms only the fact that a copy was sent to someone.
MR. KING: I have no more questions of this witness. I would like to make one correction. In referring a few moments ago to the document NG 530, I mistakenly called it 156 and the exhibit is 165.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Mr. Witness?
A, Yes, Your Honor.
Q. According to your recollection, when did the preview practice begin? There is evidence on it but I would like your recollection on it.
A. My recollection is the preview and review practice began after the speech by the Fuehrer and I believe I should like to say it must have been shortly after the meeting in the plenary court room of the District Court of Appeals but I could not state it precisely.
Q. You mean about the end of April 1942?
A. I should like to assume it was later.
Q. Well I am not asking you for the names of individuals but would you tell me the representatives of what different courts in the Hamburg area attended any of these meetings? In other words, what courts were represented?
A. The Chief President of the District Court, Hamburg, the President of the District Court, Hamburg, the President of the Local Court, Hamburg, the President of the District Court Bremen, but who usually arrived later by train from Bremen, the General Public Prosecutor, Hamburg; the Senior Public Prosecutor, Hamburg, the Presiding Judges of the Chamber of the Special Courts, the President of the Penal Senate, that is to say, the administrative referents of the District Court of Appeals. I for one attended as a referent for general questions because I always attended the presiding Presidents conferences.
Q. Were there local court judges who attended?
A. No, local court judges did not attend. The individual judges did not attend at all with the exception of the presiding judges whom I have mentioned.
Q. Did representative of the Party ever attend those meetings?
A. No, representatives of the Party did not attend such meetings.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all, thank you. Nothing else.
CROSS EXAMINATION DR. FRIEDRICH PRIES BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q. Witness, it has just been pointed out briefly that Dr. Rothenberger has used the term "courts martial" for the special courts. May I submit to you a letter which was introduced as Exhibit 588 here where Dr. Rothenberger objects to the fact that cases were too often referred to the Special Courts, and said that many more cases should be indicted by the Penal Chamber in order to leave the Special Courts to deal with the appropriate cases and under consideration of the conditions caused by the war and counter action against profiteers of the war, he said that Special Courts should deal with such cases primarily. Now my question is did Dr. Rothenberger on the basis of that point of view in order to have common criminal cases handled by the Special Court emphasize the special character of the Special Court as a Courts Martial.
MR. KING: This witness cannot possibly know what was in Dr. Rothenberger's mind when he raised that point. I think the question is out of order for that reason.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not sure I understand your specific question doctor, of the witness, the document, we recall the document now.
DR. WANDSCHNIEDER: Now I asked the witness to look at the document and on the basis of that document to comment on the opinion Dr. Rothenberger had about the Special Courts.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, the objection will be sustained.
BY DR. WANDSCHEIDER:
Q. May I put another question to you then? Is it true that Dr. Rothenberger emphasized that the Special Courts should act particularly against the common criminal offenses, habitual criminals?
A. I can only say that the various crimes such as bulglarly, robbery during blackouts and crimes against the war economy, matters which today would be designated as black marketing, that those matters played an important part at that time, they were right in the foreground.
Q. Dr. Pries, during the war, did cases of looting play a tremendous part in Hamburg in consideration of the air raids?
A. After the air raids in Hamburg there were a great number of thefts: The number of cases which were tried was relatively small, because mostly in the general confusion the culprits could not be apprehended.
Q. Then one more question. You said when the professional civil servants law, was applied since 1933, or that is from 1933 to 1935, Rothenberg was competent for carrying out dismissals, I ask you now wasn't it Kauffman under whose jurisdiction that fell and wasn't Rothenberger only his adviser?
A. I cannot say that with precision today because in that period I was not in the administration myself but I was a Judge in Bremen at that time and in Bremen there were no dismissals for racial reasons and I did not examine that question of competence at that time. Therefore I am not in the position to make precise statements today.
Q. You were not in Hamburg at that time, I realize that, but perhaps quite generally, can you tell me wasn't Rothenberger's position as Justice Senator solely that of a Minister, subject to the Reichstadthalter who had been appointed by Hitler?
A. As I said I cannot define the competence of Rothenberger who at that time under the Hamburg Constitution, because I was in Bremen.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, witness. I have no further questions, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you through with this witness?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, with this witness, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A short recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. KING: The Prosecution would under ordinary circumstances object to the recalling of the witness Becher, whom Dr. Wandschneider is about to recall. Dr. Wandschneider has told me that the recall is for the purpose of asking the witness one question and has told me what the question is. With that in mind we have no objections.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the witness has been sworn. You have been sworn, witness, haven't you, before this Tribunal?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHEIDER:
Q. Witness, Exhibit 635 has been introduced here. This document is a newspaper cutting and in this newspaper article it is said that Dr. Rothenberger was legal adviser of the Reichstadthalter Kauffman and had been his legal adviser since 1931. In connection with that question and in connection with Dr. Rothenberger's party membership, I want to ask you whether you know when Dr. Rothenberger became legal adviser for Dr. Kauffman?
A. Dr. Kauffman became Gaureichsamtslenter in 1936 or 1937. On no account did he obtain that position at an earlier date.
Q. Why do you say on no account did he obtain it earlier, when did Rothenberger get to know Kauffman?
A. Dr. Rothenberger has several times told me that he met Gamleiter Kauffman only after the seizure of power, that is to say, after January 1933.
Q. And did Rothenberger say that he joined the Party after 1933 and that his prior membership is due to the fact it was antidated? Do you know anything about that?
A. Yes, the Gau treasurer who was the competent person to deal with such questions told me that Dr. Rothenberger actually only joined the party after the seizure of power but that at the request of the Gauleiter the entry in the party register was back dated, and if I remember correctly, to 1931.
Q. Thank you, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any cross examination of the one question.
MR. KING: Your Honor, a document which I thought I had with me inadvertently left in my office and I would like to ask the witness one question based on this and I would like to ask the witness one question while we are trying to find the document.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:Q.- Witness, I show you a newspaper clipping which has been identified as NG-2245 and is Exhibit 625.
You will notice, attached to this newspaper clipping, the official release on which the newspaper story was based. I now ask you, witness -- I ask you to read, from the attached official release, the first full paragraph from the bottom, beginning right there (indicating).
A.- "On the 8th of March, 1933, he was appointed Senator member of the Regional Government and leader of the Hamburg Administration of Justice by Reichstatthalter Kauffmann, whom he had assisted as an advisor since 1931. In 1935, in the course of the centralization of the Administration of Justice, Dr. Rothenberger was placed in charge, with the leadership of the Administrations of Justice in the Northwestern German regions."
Q.- That is sufficient, witness. Now I ask you, in view of the statement in that official release furnished by Dr. Rothenberger's office to the newspaper, the Hamburger Tageblatt, may I ask you, possibly, if you don't think you could have been mistaken in your statement which you made this morning?
A.- A. mistake on my part in connection with what I said just now is quite out of the question. I can't tell you how that article was compiled. At any rate, in 1931, Dr. Rothenberger was neither a member of the Party nor the head of the Gaurechtsamt, the Gau Legal Office.
Q.- That is not the question. The question is when he met Kauffmann and when he began advising him. That is the question about which I think that you may be mistaken. Now, will you apply your answer to that?
A.- All I can say is that Dr. Rothenberger told me personally that he met Gauleiter Kauffmann for the first time after January 1933.
Q.- Just one more question, Was the Hamburger Tageblatt the official paper, or the official Nazi newspaper in Hamburg?
A.- Yes.
MR. KING: No more questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:Q.- Witness, do you know that around about '33 or before '33 an attorney, Dr. Droege, was Kauffmann's legal advisor?
A.- Dr. Droege, as the head of the Gau Legal Office, was Dr. Rothenberger 's predecessor. In January 1933 be was the legal advisor of the Gauleitung.
Q.- Dr. Rothenberger has testified here that in 1931 he had no contact with Kauffmann, but von Alvoerden, the later Senator, another Party member. Do you think it is conceivable that there has been some confusion here and that is why the date 1931 has been mentioned?
A.- I know that before 1933 Dr. Rothenberger was a member of a political investigation committee of the Hamburger Buergerschaft, as an investigator.
Q.- In connection with that work, did he come in contact with National Socialists?
A.- During that work he made the acquaintance of von Alvoerden who, later on, became a senator.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
(witness excused)
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other witnesses available at this time?
(no response)
Are there any documents available?
MR. KING: The Prosecution now has German copies of the document NG-2410; it will only take a few minutes to distribute.