In the end, although we frequently succeeded in her not being taken away, - she was supposed to go to Theresienstadt or some place of that sort, - finally at the age of 86, she was still to be taken away, but she met a merciful death, she died on the staircase of her house and it could not be found out whether it was a stroke or due to poison.
Q That was after she was in the process of being transported?
A Yes, your Honor, they always wanted to got her out of the apartment and transport her. On the outside, since officially I was not permitted to represent her as a lawyer, she used a legal adviser, and that was also difficult because the adviser changed every four weeks, and a number of the legal advisers were former Jewish attorneys and their number was reduced by having them transported to the East, and then the Jewish people always had to go to their successors, and I worked with many of these legal advisers and it was difficult because they always wore the Star of David on their coats and it was difficult for them to get to see me because they were forbid to go to the Wilhelmstrasse, and they could not go there with the Star and they were forbid to go without it. In other words, together with the legal advisers, we tried by getting certificates from the medical authorities and medical opinions, and by various ways we succeeded for a while, that she was not transported and although it was said that nothing much would have happened if she would have gone there and it wouldn't have been too bad, but we didn't want to risk it and finally they came for her and on they stairway while they waited to take her out, she dropped dead.
Q Briefly then, if I understand you, the demand for payment for the damage was accomplished through the Ministry of Propaganda. Would that have been with the aid of the police?
A Yes.
Q Thank you.
A Yes, frequently things like that occurred, for instance when a Jew wanted to emigrate, I had much to do with it. He had to pay the Reichs Escape Tax, that was so and so much percent of his property and then a large amount was taken away from him by assessing his property very high. After all of that was done and the day he went to the Passport office in order to get his clearance, his passport, and get his visae then he was told that now he still had to go to the Notary, Dr. Stage, and had to deposit a voluntary fee to promote the emigration of the Jews, and that is where he paid the balance, and then left with his personal satchel, with his little valise. That is about how it happened, it was not a definite legal matter, but one just didn't get the clearance unless one had paid for damage and if one didn't pay for the damage one had difficulties and if one didn't pay the voluntary fee for the passport-well one just had to do it.
Q There have been some other matters mentioned we have not apparently heard about, you spoke about a systematic shooting of Catholic Leaders in Berlin, could you tell us briefly a little about what that matter was?
A For a long time I was, although I am not a Catholic myself, very friendly with these people, Dr. Moesbach, Ministerialrat Miesen, and that is all before 1933, and they on the 30th of June had already been for more than nine months in the concentration camp. Fortunately they were not in the first wave of executions, but because we who understood anything about these matters, saw clearly that this 30th of June 1934 from the very beginning was designed to remove certain undersirable SA leaders and to remove at the same time other undesirable people, but I do remember quite well the name of a Mr. Von Klausner, who was, I believe, a Ministerialrat in the Reich Traffic Ministry, that was the Reich Transport Ministry, Eltz von Ruebenach was the Minister at the time, I believe, and he came to ask why, but the answer was just that he was dead, Schleicher was shot at that time, and Schultz also is supposed to have been shot but he wasn't. At any rate the 30th of June 1934 was used as an opportunity to remove quite a number of undesirable personalities.
I have said already, your Honor, that from the early morning of the 30th of June until the 4th of July I was on an automobile trip without any destination.
Q I think we can make this more brief. Is it correct at that time what I think you called the Leaders of a Catholic Resistance movement were shot in connection with the other atrocities. I just want to know in a few words.
A. They were certainly undersirable. They were unpopular. Where they had been the leaders of a resistance movement, that I don't know. Certainly they were opponents of National Socialism.
THE PRESIDENT: And do you know anything about the extent to which these Catholic leaders were shot as undesirables, in Berlin? I don't want the names. Was it extensive in numbers, or were there only a few of them?
WITNESS: No, they may have been two, three, four, or five -they got away for the most part. They were no longer shot because that was carried out only by surprise. Two days later there was order again, and they were no longer removed.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. Witness, only a very few questions. First, I should like to continue about the 30th of June. I understood you correctly, didn't I,and we also know, - that subsequent to the 30th of June, the execution of Roehm, a number of other people - who certainly were no supporters of Roehm were shot. Did I understand you correctly, that it was just Joel who instigated a number of proceedings, prosecutions, about these matters?
A. I believe I said that Joel, whenever anything happened which was not according to statutory law and law-enforced, and not according to prescribed rules of procedure, that he intervened always -- always whatever it was; and it was quite clear that he did not agree - it was made quite clear that he did not agree with the executions and tried to do something about it.
Q. I only want to make it clear why these cases, these prosecutions, were not carried out; and I would like to refresh your memory. You mentioned before some intervention on the part of the Reich Chancellor, that is, Hitler. Do you still remember that at that time on the conclusion of these matters of the 30th of June, a law was published, a formal Reich law -- that amnesty law-- do you still remember that?
A. That may be - that may be - but for me it was -
THE PRESIDENT: Isn't it in evidence? We remember it.
Q. (By Dr. Haensel) Then, in order to refresh our knowledge of the laws: You discussed the case Liebermann before, The Court wanted to know what authority it was that demanded these payments for damage do you still remember the decree for the re-establishment of the streets' order.
A. I don't think so; I don't think so.
Q. I just wanted to ask you for the legal basis for these matters. There was a law, a decree, passed -- mention was made here, in the Propaganda Ministry. Is there anything that may not be misunderstood? Did the Propaganda Ministry have anything to do with that decree?
A. Who issued that decree, I could not say. I only happen to know that the Government Councillor or Administrative Officials of the Jewish Community in Berlin, on Oranienburg Street, told me "I have to get that money from Mrs. Liebermann because the Reich Ministry of Propaganda has made me responsible to do that." I was not even interested at that time in the legal basis. It just had to be done.
Q. To return to the Hoffmann case. Did you have the definite impression that Joel had anything to do directly with the release of Hoffmann, or was he just angry about it?
A. Joel could not possible have anything to do with the release of Hoffmann because his words were, "I would never have released him." So in my opinion the time he heard about it was when Hoffmann was already dead.
Q. And made that statement?
A. And made that statement that he would not have released him.
DR. HAENSEL: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
(The witness was excused)
THE PRESIDENT: Are there other matters to be taken up this afternoon?
DR. KUBUSCHOK (for defendant Schlegelber); Some time ago I submitted a supplement document book, the translation of which has not been finished. It consists mainly of excerpts from scientific writings. I could submit it for identification not.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that might save a little time if you could do that. The English is not ready?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The English is not ready your Honor, although some of the exhibits are in English. That is, they are English and American literature.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification. He will pass on it later.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I should like to submit -- before I do that I should like to submit Schlegelberger No. 65, for which Exhibit 35 -30 -- was reserved.
THE PRESIDENT: Document 65, Exhibit 30. Are you prepared to offer that now?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, your Honor, I can offer it now. It was a document which I had to submit to the prosecution. I didn't do it at the time -
THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready now?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, your Honor, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit will be received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Furthermore, I offer as Exhibit No. 128, Schlegelberger Document 164. That is an excerpt from the transcript of the IMT.
THE PRESIDENT: We will receive it for more convenient use. However, that is only offered for identification at this time, is that right?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, it is offered only for identification, your Honor. All documents which I will mention now will be for identification only.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Supplement Volume II. I beg your pardon. That is a loose document. That is not in any book.
The following documents will be in Supplement II, Document Book II Supplement.
The next document, Schlegelberger 132, I am offering as Exhibit 129.
THE PRESIDENT: Marked for identification.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Schlegelberger 133, as Exhibit 130.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification. These are in Supplement Book II. All of them?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: All in Book II Supplement, your Honor, yes.
Schlegelberger 135, as Exhibit 131.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be so marked.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: 136 as Exhibit 132.
THE PRESIDENT: These will all be marked. I will not mention it each time. Marked for identification.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 137 as Exhibit 133.
Document 140 as exhibit 134.
Schlegelberger 141 as Exhibit 135.
Schlegelberger 142 as Exhibit 136.
Schlegelberger 143 as Exhibit 137.
Schlegelberger 144 as Exhibit 138.
Schlegelberger 145 as Exhibit 139.
Schlegelberger 146 as Exhibit 140.
Schlegelberger 147 as Exhibit 141.
Schlegelberger 148 as Exhibit 142.
Schlegelberger 149 as Exhibit 143.
Schlegelberger 150 as Exhibit 144.
Schlegelberger 151 as Exhibit 145.
Schlegelberger 152 as Exhibit 146.
Schlegelberger 153 as Exhibit 147.
Schlegelberger 154 as Exhibit 148.
Schlegelberger 155 as Exhibit 149.
Schlegelberger 156 as Exhibit 150.
Schlegelberger 157 as Exhibit 151.
Schlegelberger 158 as Exhibit 152.
Schlegelberger 159 as Exhibit 153.
Schlegelberger 160 as Exhibit 154.
Schlegelberger 161, as Exhibit 155.
Schlegelberger 162, as Exhibit 157.
On the 6th of October I shall submitt four more documents for Schlegelberger, and probably two documents for von Ammon, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean the 13th, don't you?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The 13th, yes, Your Honor, the 13th.
THE PRESIDENT: You may present them then.
Each of these exhibits which are to be marked for identification, from 128 to 157, both inclusive, will be marked and may be offered later.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, may I retain document 142, exhibit 136, a little longer? Because I am just informed that my exhibit is in the English language, although it is an excerpt from a book in the German language. I had already put the translation into the document, but I really should submit it in the German text. Therefore, I would like to offer it again on the 13th of October in order to submit the original text.
THE PRESIDENT: You may do so.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Thank you.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May it please the Tribunal, I also have a few documents which I can offer today only for identification, because I do not have the English translations available.
First, Supplement Volume III, Dr. Rothenberger.
THE PRESIDENT: How many documents do you have?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Three, four, about ten documents, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I regret that I haven't enough paper to cover that many documents.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Nine documents altogether.
THE PRESIDENT: I will borrow some. Thank you.
You may proceed.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: First, supplement volume III. I have already mentioned a collection of.
material of the Hanseatic District Court of Appeal.
This is Rothenberger supplement volume III.
I had already offered that collection of material to be identified as Exhibit No. 78.
THE PRESIDENT: I am a little behind. You are about to identify documents in Rothenberger supplement volume III, is that correct?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Supplement book III, yes. I also have documents to offer from supplement II, but since I have already submitted a document from volume III, supplement several days ago -- that is, that collection of material -- I shall first refer to volume III supplement. The document which I have mentioned was given a number a few days age, Exhibit 78 for identification.
The next document offered is Exhibit 78-A, which is connected with the document previously mentioned, because it certifies that that collection of material is a file from the District Court of Appeals in Hamburg. It is an affidavit by the Justice Inspector, von Thaden, of Hamburg, who certifies that that collection of material is a file of the District Court of Appeal at Hamburg with the title, "Right to Protective Custody", and a certified note.
I offer that document and ask that it be marked for identification as 78-A.
THE PRESIDENT: The document again please?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Exhibit 78-A, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there a document number to that?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: There is no document number on it otherwise.
THE PRESIDENT: That is in supplement volume III?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Supplement volume III, Your Honor.
In the same supplement volume there is an original letter of the then District Court of Appeal President Dr, Rothenberger to Reich Ni nister of Justice Dr. Guertner concerning complaints against protective custody measures of the SS.
I offer this letter of January 1939 as Exhibit 79, for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Now I come to supplement volume II for Dr. Rothenberger.
As Exhibit No. 80 I offer an original letter by Dr. Rothenberger of 24 December 1941 to Dr. Hans von Dananyi. He was the adjutant of Guertner's mentioned before, who, in connection with the July 1944 affair, was either executed or died. I should like to read one sentence from it.
Dr. Rothenberger writes to Donanyi:
"As much as I regret the contents of your letter of IS October, I was happy about the manner in which you informed me about your leaving the Administration of Justice. Again, one of the best moves is back to the profession of a judge, and I am afraid if there is not a basic change many will follow. I personally, fortunately, am enough of an optimist and therefore I will not discontinue my desperate fight for a radical change."
I offer this document as Exhibit 80 for identification.
The next document is an affidavit by Fechner, which I offer as Exhibit 81, from supplement volume II. The document is Rothenberger No. 97. I offer its as Exhibit No. 81 for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification 81.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you.
Your Honor, in the same supplement volume II there is Rothenberger document No. 100 which I offer as Exhibit No. 82, which is an affidavit by Dr. Stender concerning Dr. Rothenberger, which discusses his state of health and state of mind.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification 82.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, 82.
The next document from supplement volume II is Rothenberger document No. 101.
That is an affidavit by the present Hanseatic District Court of Appeal President, Dr. Ruschewey, which I offer for identification as Exhibit 83.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked 83 for identification.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The next exhibit, offered as number 84, is Rothenberger document No. 102, in supplement volume II, which is an affidavit by Landgerichtsrat, District Court Counsellor, Dr. Hinrichs.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification 84.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The last one offered is Exhibit 85, which is an excerpt from the periodical "Die Wandlung", which is published in Heidelberg by Professor Jaspers, among others. This is an excerpt from an article concerning murders committed on insane people. I included that excerpt not for its subject as much as for the general attitude assumed by Dr. Rothenberger toward Hitler as far as that point was concerned.
May I be permitted to read one sentence from that document, which I consider essential?
"A report......"
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Wandschneider, it will be necessary to take our recess at this time.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: We were informed that the interpreter desires to make a very minor correction in the matter of translation with reference to the anem of a certain decree.
INTERPRETER HAHN: The name of that decree should read, "The Decree for the Restoration of the Appearance of the Streets."
THE PRESIDENT: We would be interested in knowing more of the contents of that decree. It may be too late. You have something to say, Dr. Wandschneider?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Concerning this decree for the Restoration of the Appearance of the Streets, there is nothing I could say about it. I should like to conclude the submission of my documents, the document I wish to introduce is my last document in the Supplement Book Rothenberger. The Document No. 103, the Exhibit number is 85, and I previously offered it for identification only. It is an article in the periodical "Die Wandlung". The title is "Juridical Objections to Procedure," in connection with the subject of the murder of insane persons. A report by the General Public Prosecutor in Cologne was passed on by him to the Reich Ministry of Justice, and the report says the following and I quote: "A photostat of the law concerning mercy killings at a meeting of the Ministry of Justice at the end of May 1941 was submitted to tho Presidents of the District Courts of Appeals. The President of District Court of Appeals in Hamburg who tried to object to that law during the meeting was reprimanded by Undersecretary Dr. Freisler who said to him that it was inadmissible to criticize measures taken by the Fuehrer and that such criticism would not be tolerated."
With this document, I have concluded my presentation of documents. I hope that tomorrow I shall be able to submit the English texts. I have only a very few documents, I think only two or three, and I shall present them as early as possible. If possible, I shall introduce them together with the translations before the 13th of October, at the latest?
I shall submit them on the 13th of October. As concerns witnesses, I intended to bring two more witnesses here. They have not appeared yet, and I am almost certain that I shall not be able to bring then here at all which means that I have now presented all my evidence with the exception of those documents.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents 80 to 85 inclusive are marked for identification.
DR. WANDSHCENEIDER: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. KING: May it please the Court, while we are still on the subject of Rothenberger documents, I should like to raise a question of procedure in the case of two documents which I believe the Court may already have received. These two documents are respectively Rothenberger Exhibit No. 37 which was Rothenberger Document No. 63, and Rothenberger Exhibit No. 77 which was Rothenberger Document No. 74. The first of these, Exhibit No. 37, is an affidavit by one Hans Segelken of whom we have heard considerable during this case, together with a statement which he prepared in 1944. The other one, Exhibit No. 77, is a diary of Mr. Segelken's which was submitted considerably after the time that the affidavit, Exhibit No. 37, was submitted. We have requested Mr. Segelken as a witness. He failed to appear.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is he, do you know?
MR. KING: I am coming to that. Dr. Wandschneider tells me now that he bad a telegram this morning to the effect that Segelken is in a hospital in Hamburg having very recently had an operation. It so happens that the prosecution has in rebuttal to the affidavit which is Exhibit 37 another affidavit which we have not been able to offer because of the Court's ruling. Rothenberger Exhibit No. 77 came to our attention after we had taken the affidavit which is in opposition to Exhibit No. 37; so as to that, Exhibit 77, we have had no opportunity to cross examine the witness Segelken. With that background, I would like to make the following suggestion. I would like to have the Court consider receiving the prosecution's affidavit given by Mr. Segelken in connection with Exhibit 37, with the Rothenberger Exhibit 37; and unless Segelken can come to Nurnberg which now appears unlikely I would ask the Court to exclude Rothenberger Exhibit 77 which, if Segelken docs not come, we will not be able to cross examine concerning.
If Dr. Wandschneider has any other proposals, we should like to hear them.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May it please the Court, the prosecutor asks that his rebuttal statement should be submitted here. It is the counter-affidavit which Dr. Segelken deposed after I had presented the affidavit which Dr. Segelken had given for no. The method naturally would have been to cross examine Herr Segelken, a cross examination which the prosecutor wishes to carry out in connection with my affidavit. Now, that can't be done because we haven't had the witness here. Concerning the presentation of the affidavit of the prosecution I would have no objection concerning its acceptance if its contents wore restricted to the affidavit which Segelken gave to me, but that is not so; for in the counter-affidavit which he gave to the Prosecution, facts are discussed which a.re not mentioned in the affidavit which Segelken had given to mo. Therefore, unfortunately, on behalf of my client, I have to object and too, I would like to ask the Tribunal to give it' s ruling.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. King, does a portion of your affidavit concern the same matters which are included in the Rothenberger Exhibit 77? In other words, is a part of it proper rebuttal to that Exhibit?
MR. KING: Not to the Rothenberger Exhibit 77. Rothenberger Exhibit 77 is a diary, or excerpts from a diary which the person Segelken kept while while he was in Berlin. That, as I said, before, came to our attention after we Had taken our affidavit which is intended to be a counter to RothEnberger Exhibit 37.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
MR. KING: Now, as to what Dr. Wandschneider said concerning the contents of our affidavit, I think that it is perhaps true that our affidavit includes more than a mere counter statement to the statements given in Exhibit -- in Rothenberger Exhibit 37. In addition to certain counter statements to Exhibit 37, it deals with testimony which Dr. Rothenberger gave while he was on the stand. To that extent, it goes beyond Rothenberger Exhibit 37.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary, do your records show that Rothenberger Exhibit 37 has been received?
SECRETARY GENERAL: Yes.
MR. KING:May I say, your Honors, that we assume, I think that Dr. Wandschneider did, when those two exhibits, those two Rothenberger Exhibits were received, 37 and 77, that the persons Segelke would be available for cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal ruled in a similar matter adversely to the defense, and we think the same rule ought to be applied in the case of the prosecution. Your Motion at this date to strike Exhibit 77 is denied. It was received in evidence without objection.
Now, there has been in some courts rather an inconvenient practice which can be resorted to, to receive portions of an exhibit and not the rest of it. Would it be possible for you to segregate in agreement with Dr. Wandschneider the portions of your prosecution exhibit which are proper rebuttal to Rothenberger Exhibit 37? If you can do that, the problem could be solved because Dr. Wandschneider has no objection to chat portion being received.
MR. KING: Well, Your Honor, I do not conceive of our affidavit which is a counter to Rothenberger Exhibit 37 as containing any material which would be improper cross examination, if the witness were in the box. While it does go somewhat beyond the scope of Rothenberger Exhibit 37, I do not believe, and I think Dr. Wandschneider will agree with me, that it would all be proper cross examination and if he were here, I would certainly ask the very questions.
THE PRESIDENT: As to the questions of the admission of the un-named exhibit which the prosecution wishes to offer, I take it to mean that you wish to offer it as rebuttal testimony?
MR. KING: That's right, that's right.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will give it consideration and rule upon it al a later time.
MR. KING: Would it aid the Tribunal in its consideration if a copy in English of our proposed exhibit were handed to it?
THE PRESIDENT: It would be impossible to rule upon it unless we see both exhibits 37 and the proposed rebuttal.
MR. KING: Exhibit 37 you have, and I now offer NG-2153, a copy in English, of our proposed exhibit.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May it please the court, I should like to point out that this counter-affidavit docs refer to the prosecution essentially but it does not refer to the affidavit by Dr. Segelke, and I would ask you to pay attention to that and compare the two affidavits. That is why Dr. Rothenberge has his misgivings about admitting this document.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the problem may be stated in this manner, and I should be glad to have your criticisms of the statement. The first fact for consideration is that Dr. Segelke will not be here available for examination personally by either party. In view of that fact, the prosecution desires to offer an exhibit which upon examination may appear in part to be proper rebuttal to Exhibit 37. It offered only for rebuttal then only these portions which constitute proper rebuttal would be admissible, but the prosecution asserts that they desire to offer it not merely as cross examination relative to Exhibit 37, but as affirmative rebuttal matter, isn't that the issue?
Now, if you offer it in rebuttal and not merely to answer Exhibit 37, then we are confronted by the fact that the new matter offered by you in rebuttal could not be attested on the part of the defense by the examination of the witness in open court.
MR. KING: The fact remains, however -
THE PRESIDENT: I am merely trying to state the facts and see if that is the view you take of it. We arc reserving our decision for the time being.
MR. KING: I would like to have one last, small thought on the point, that the fact remains that nothing is contained in that affidavit which we propose which has been set down there, that is not in rebuttal to statements either made by Dr. Rothenberger on the stand or by Dr. Segelke in his Exhibit 37.
THE PRESIDENT: It appears that your purpose in offering it is not merely a cross examination or attesting of the matter contained in Rothenberger Exhibit 37, but it is offered as general rebuttal evidence for the prosecution.
MR. KING: No doubt about it. It goes beyond Exhibit 37.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, we understand the issue. We are now informed that the Secretary General has Rothaug Book 8, Joel Book 5, Mettgenberg Book 1, and Rothaug Book 9 --11, pardon me.
MR. KING: Your Honor, before you take up that order of business, I do have before me the Decree For the Restoration of Sightly Appearance of Streets" which was passed on the 12th of November 1938. I am informed that it is only two paragraphs long, and if Your Honors would like to have it read into evidence or presented in some other way for your purusal, I think it would be very convinient to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to having it read into evidence to save time? If there is no objection, you may read it into evidence. Submit it to counsel for the defense first.
Has counsel had opportunity for the defense, to check the authencity of the decree?
MR. KING: May the record show that the the interpreter is now being handed the Reichsgesetzblatt for 1938, page -- part One, page 1581.
THE PRESIDENT: You may read it. Yes, have it both in English and German.
THE INTERPRETER: The decree concerning the restoration of unsanitary appearance of streets near Jewish business enterprises, dated 12 November 1938.
"In pursuance of the decree for the execution of the Four Year Plan of 18 October 1936, Reich I-S-887, I order the following:
"Article I: All damage done due to the indignation of the people at the incitement of international Jewry against National Socialist Germany carried out on the 8, 9 and 10 November 1933, on Jewish enterprises and living quarters is to be removed by the Jewish owners immediately.
"Article II: The costs of restoration are to be borne by the owner of the Jewish business concerned of the apartment.
"Section 2: Insurance claims of Jews of German nationality will be confiscated in favor of the Reich.
"Article III: The Reich Minister of Economics is authorized to issue executory decrees, an agreement with the other Reich Ministers. Berlin, 12 November, 1938. The Deputy for the Four Year Plan, Goering, Field Marshal."
MR. KING: I understand that Dr. Koessl is about to offer into evidence certain exhibits. We would like to state that we have no objection to the acceptance into evidence of Rothaug Exhibit 200 and no objection to admission into evidence of Rothaug Exhibits 212 to 223, both inclusive.
DR. KOESSL: Koessl for the Defendant Rothaug. This morning Rothaug Book No. 8 was offered by me for identification with Exhibits 212, 213. and. 214. I would now ask you to accept these documents which have been identified already and I also ask you now to accept finally the provisional exhibits 215 through 223 in Document Book No. 11.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 200 has been received. Have we had the English copy of that?
DR. KOESSL: Yes; that was contained in Document Book 7; and in Document Book 8 there are Exhibits 212, 213 And 214.