A I was assigned to the Main Office, Budget and Economy, that was Office III-A.
Q Did you assume your activity with the Main Office Administration and Economy?
A Yes.
Q Subsequently was your activity in the Main Office Administration and Economy voluntary or was it prescribed by law?
A It resulted from a law, and it was based on this conscription law.
Q Could you refuse to comply with the assignment which you were given with the Main Office, Administration and Economy?
A No.
Q What would have happened if you had not complied with this assignment?
A I would have also been placed before a court martial.
Q At the time did you know anything about the tasks of the Main Office, Administration and Economy?
A When I entered the Main Office, Administration and Economy -- well, to use other words, when I began working there, I did not know anything about the tasks of the Main Office of Administration and Economy.
Q What would you have done if you could have chosen your work during the war, if you could have freely chosen your assignment?
A Since I knew many colleagues in my profession who were in antiaircraft units, I would have liked to volunteer for the service in the anti-aircraft units.
Q Witness, please take a look at Document NO-620, Exhibit 33. That is contained in Document Book Number 2 on page 63 of the German, and on page 53 of the English text. This document shows an organizational chart of the Main Office, Administration and Economy. Are the individual main departments and offices on that chart reproduced correctly?
A I know this chart. It is correct, and in the Main Office, Administration and Economy, and also probably what was known as the Main Office, Construction and Budget.
It shows the separation of the Main Office, Budget and Construction, and the Main Office, Administration and Economy quite correctly. The Main Office, Budget and Construction was the Reich Administration. That is to say, it was a government agency. According to our law it was subjected to Administrative Law, that is to say, civil law; while the Main Office Administration and Economy had the economic enterprises subordinated to it.
Q What was the task of the Main Department III-A/4?
A The Main Department III-A/4 had the task to administer the Brick Works which had been seized in accordance with the law, and they were administered by the Trusteeship for the East in a uniform manner.
Q Who seized these enterprises?
AAs I have already stated, the Main Trusteeship agency in the East seized these factories.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: How were they seized? What was the procedure?
A The Main Trusteeship agency in the East had issued an order of seizure which approved the seizure of this property. It was by virtue of this that the district government officials within their districts ordered the communities which were under them to seize the Brick Works which were mentioned in the order of seizure. They were to be seized in that manner. If I can clarify the matter as follows: The government counselors, or the government officials, are the lowest state authority, and we must differentiate here in the organization of our administration between three various agencies. The ministries, we had the government president, and we had the so-called Landrat, the government official for the district. And the Landrat actually had two tasks. They fulfilled a task for the State and fulfilled a task for the community. In his capacity as Landrat, he had to work as the lowest authority. Mainly he had to deal with police matters. In his capacity as municipal official, he is himself an administrative body, and as is stated in American law, he hears only subjects on the supervision of his work.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: These plants were in Poland and Russia, were they not?
A No, the enterprises were located within what used to be Poland. In a later time, however, by virtue of a German Reich Law, they had been incorporated, and the law stated that the new eastern territories and this was also mentioned in the order of seizure - if I can recall the exact text, then Your Honor will understand the matter - it is stated that "by order of Reich Marshal Goering, the commissioner of the Four Year Plan, all Polish and Jewish Brick Works, which are located in the newly incorporated annexed territories, are herewith to be seized."
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. And that was a German law made after Germany had seized the country--seized Poland, and the owners were paid nothing for these plants?
A. I cannot answer this question, Your Honor, because I did not work in the annexed Eastern Territories, and I only held a very subordinate position. I believe that the defendant Dr. Bobermin will be able to provide you with all the details. I only know that the former owners were employed. However, I only heard that from hearsay, after I had again left that department, that the former owners of these enterprises did not receive any compensation for their value of the brick works, but they received enough so that they could support themselves. I don't know any further details about that. However, I would like to state explicitly that I am not precisely informed about this matter, and that with regard to the last statement I do not want to be quoted on that.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take a recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken).
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Witness, the last thing you told us was that this enterprise, that is, the Bricks Works had been seized by the Main Trusteeship Agency East. What was that?
A The Main Trusteeship Agency, East, HTO for short, was a Reich Agency. It was a supreme Reich Agency under the Four Years Plan. In charge was Burgomeister Dr. Winkler.
Q Did the HTO belong to the Main Office Economy Administration?
A No.
Q What were the relations between those two agencies?
A No relationship at all. It was, as I said, an agency of the Four Years Plan. We mean, it was a Reich Agency.
Q What was the Four Years Plan?
A The agency of Four Years Plan was a supreme Reich authority.
Q Who was in charge of the agency?
JUDGE PHILLIPS: We are all familiar with that, Doctor. We are familiar with the Four Years Plan.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Did Pohl or Himmler have any authority over that agency?
A No.
Q Was Winkler who was in charge of the agency a member of the SS?
A Not so far as I know.
Q Witness, what in the German Law is the difference between confiscation and seizure?
A In the case of a seizure the owner keeps his property, and he is only limited in his way in which he disposes of his property. If he is confiscated or disowned, or loses his property either to the Reich itself, or to a person to be appointed by the Reich, that is the other.
Q Were the seized Brick Works looted?
A From my administrative activies I know that the Reich Ministry of Finance arranged for a re-construction fund by a loan of twenty-two million marks to these enterprises. Of that sixteen millions were invested Court No. II, Case No. 4.in these properties, from which I must deduce that the enterprises were not looted and stripped, but were improved.
Q How did you know that?
A I have obtained this knowledge from the balance sheet of 1940, which I came across on one occasion.
Q You said that the Brick Works were located in the Incorporated Eastern Territory?
A Yes, quite correct.
Q Please tell the court what the Incorporated Eastern Territories of the German Reich were, what territories were they?
A By virtue of Reich Laws, part of the territories which belonged in 1939 to Poland, and, which up to 1919 had belonged either to the German Reich, or the Austrial Empire, were declared to be Reich Territories again.
Q What did you do in Office III-A-IV?
A I was in the Office III-A-4 in charge of the internal service of the Main Office Administration in Berlin. It was my task to buy the entire inventory for offices, and to equip the offices in such a way that proper work could be done in them. Part of that duty was the purchase of office furniture, desks, typewriters, paper, books and so forth. It was also my task to hire the necessary office personnel, and to supervise them in their work. Particularly if and when the main department chief was Dr. Bobermin and he was absent from Berlin. Apart from that I had legal activities, particularly as referred to the civil law, taxation law, and labor law for the Main Department III-A-IV.
Q What do you mean when you say you supervised them?
A When I supervised the personnel it means that I had to see to it that the personnel would come punctually to the offices, and to work as they should. For instance, I made up their work plan, and their leave plans for them.
Q Was III-A-IV in charge of any concentration camps?
A No, III-A-IV had nothing to do at all with concentration camps.
Q Who was in charge of the concentration camps at that time?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A The concentration camps in 1940 were under the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps, and the RSHA. I did not know that at the time. However, what the competences of these two departments were, I still do not know to this day.
Q Was it among the tasks of III-A-IV to take part in the establishment of concentration camps or the purchase of land for concentration camps in such?
A No, a task of that type never reached us, nor would it have been in accordance with the nature and duties made a part of III-A-IV.
Q In the enterprises which were administered by III-A-IV Brick Works, were there inmates working in those enterprises?
A No, as long as I worked there not a single inmate of a concentration camp was employed.
Q Did they use forced labor?
A I heard nothing about the use of forced labor. But I know that only free workers were employed, because the work of the workers employed by these enterprises were paid according to the regulations issued by the authorities; their wage scale was that of German and Polish workers, and employees. Wage scales, or as they are called today, wage contracts, for slave labor, however, did not exist.
Q What does the German Law mean by wage scale?
A By wage scale, or wage contract, we mean a compilation of regulation which lays down the conditions for a certain branch of profession and industry.
Q What types of workers were employed in the Brick Works administered by III- A-IV?
A That enterprise only employed free labor, which I have mentioned before, who were local residents; Germans or Poles, depending on the type of population living near the Brick Works. As far as I could gather from the reports by the work managers, the managers were extremely anxious to have those workers who had worked in the enterprise before, or to get them back if they had left.
Q What do you know about the work conditions in these enterprises Court No. II, Case No. 4.for the workers?
A From the reports and the comparative figures of the balance sheets, I saw when the bookkeepers showed them to me in Berlin that Polish workers were financially better off than before under the Polish regime.
Q Was the Department III-A-IV connected in any other common task with any other main departments?
A The Main Department III-A-IV had a completely separated task from those of the other main departments of the offices. It was a task of III-A-IV to administer the Brick Works seized in 1939 on behalf of HTO in the Incorporated Eastern Territories. With that task, the other Main Departments had nothing to do with.
Q Did you have knowledge of the tasks and duties of Main Department III-A-I?
A The Departments of III-A-I I knew only very superficially at the time from stories; official contact did not exist.
Q Did you, yourself, work in the Main Department?
A No.
Q Were you ever employed by the DEST?
A I was never employed by the DEST G.m.b.H.
Q Please take Document NO 1924, which is Exhibit 16, in Book I, on page 103. This is Dr. Hohberg's affidavit in which he said that you joined the DWB, Staff W, coming from DEST?
A I am afraid I have not got the document.
Q Please give us your comments?
A This is incorrect. Dr. Hohberg made a mistake. The reason why he made a mistake probably is that the Main Department III-A-IV, and the Main Department III-A-I were managed by Dr. Salpeter, the Office Chief, with the result that to the outside the impression may have been created that I was also with the DEST, perhaps.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Also with what?
THE INTERPRETER: DEST. That I might have been with the DEST.
JUDGE PHILLIPS. What is the last word?
THE INTERPRETER: Perhaps.
Court No. II, Case No. IV.
Q Did Main Department III-A-IV have contacts with the other main offices, of the Office Economy and Administration - did they have mutual tasks?
A No.
Q The Prosecution has stated that all three offices of the Main Office were closely connected with each other and the concentration camps. It is on page 7 of the Indictment. Does that apply also to III-A-IV?
A No. III-A-IV had nothing to do with concentration camps. It never employed an inmate or a forced laborer.
Q Then the Prosecution has submitted that Office III had supervised the various enterprises where prisoners and inmates worked as laborers. Is that true of III-A-IV?
A No, never at any time were inmates or prisoners employed by enterprises under III-A-IV. Office A 3, therefore, could not do any work for Main Department III-A-IV.
Q Then in this connection, the Prosecution has submitted that every single one had offices in concentration camps, is that true?
A No, as far as III-A-IV is concerned, which, as I said before, did not employ a single inmate no representative existed in the concentration camps.
Q Please take Document NO-1045 which is Exhibit 23 in Volume II on page 42 of the German book and 26 in the English Book. Does this document show the organization of III-A-IV correctly?
A This document is correct.
Q What is meant by Central Works which this document makes reference to?
A The Central Works were the local administrative office for the coordination of the brick works in a certain area. The man in charge was a business man and his deputy was the technical manager. He was an engineer in the field of construction material. These people were immediately under office chief Dr. Salpeter. Dr. Bobermin, the Main Department Chief, in turn was also under Office Chief Dr. Salpeter.
Q In the document referred to you are named as deputy Main Office Court No. II, Case No. 4.chief, is that right.
A Yes.
Q When were you deputy?
A I deputized for Dr. Bobermin in the Main Office in Berlin from 3 January 1940 until 1 October 1940.
Q What were your duties as deputy of the Main Department chief?
A In that capacity I was in charge of the internal office of Berlin Main Administration and about 30 people were employed. I had to supervise the office, had to look after the furniture and equipment, select people to be hired and introduce them to the Main Department Chief. Apart from that I worked on legal and taxation matters for the Main Department. For instance I read the instructions and regulations from the official German Gazettes which were issued by the HTO. I had to supply documents for the circulars which were circulated through the factories and which I had to submit to the Main Department Chief who signed them. The Main Department Chief initialed them and had them signed by Dr. Salpeter. I have never signed a circular myself, but I believe on one occasion Dr. Bobermin signed the circulars very infrequently. Anyway I had no right to sign anything. If the Main Department Chief was not there and in order to be sure I had to report myself to the Main Department Chief and he gave the necessary instructions.
Q Who paid you?
A I did not receive pay from the Main Office Economy and Administration as I had been conscripted as a soldier to the Waffen-SS and assigned to the Main Department. I, as everybody else who was an official, was paid by the agency which had paid me in peace time--The German Gemeindetag. I also received my Army pay of 72 marks which was deducted from my peace time salary.
Q When were the Eastern German Construction Material Works G.m.b.H. formed?
A Roughly in 1941, I think. Dr. Salpeter drafted the contract as far as I know. Dr. Wilhelm Schneider who was an attorney supplied the contract.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Why was this company established?
A The important discussions took place during my absence.
Q What was the legal status of that company?
A It was a G.m.b.H. with limited liability. That under German law is a legal person.
Q What is the essence of G.m.b.H.?
A British Law does not know the G.m.b.H. As far as I know they only know limited companies. In German commercial law we have apart from a limited company an AG which we also consider a legal person, a company with limited liability. That concept of a legal person applies more to private economy. In our legal conceptions, in order to make it clear to this Tribunal, one might say that a limited company, AG, under German law is used for larger enterprises where you have a large amount of capital. With smaller enterprises the form of G.m.b.H. is preferred.
Q Who were the partners in the Eastern German Construction Material Company?
A Partners of that enterprise were the DWB when founded and Pohl personally. That form had to be selected because two partners had to appear in order to form a G.m.b.H. under the G.m.b.H. law, when the company was registered on the commercial register. A partner can sell his share to the other partner which was actually done with these companies which were under the supervision of the WVHA. Whether it applied to the Eastern German Construction Material Works, I don't know.
Q.- Where did the capital come from?
A.- The DWB at first had advanced the capital to Mr. Pohl. Later on the shares were handed over to the German Reich, to the agency of the German Reich represented by the Reich Commissioner for the Consolidation of German Nationhood. Thereby, the DWB was repaid the advanced capital by the Reich.
Q.- Who was the manager of the Eastern German Construction Material Works?
A.- The manager of that firm was, at first, Dr. Salpeter.
Q.- Did you, according to the contract, or any other way, fulfil any function with that company?
A.- No.
Q.- Was there a difference between the duties of the Eastern German Construction Material Works and those of Main Department 3-A-4?
A.- Not at first; the economic tasks were the same. Later on, when Main Department 3-A-4 was promoted to an office a second company came and joined it, the Clinker Cement.
Q.- Where were the Eastern German Construction Material Works located?
A.- They were located in Posen.
Q.- Did Main Department 3-A-4 have its office also in Posen?
A.- At first, 3-A-4 was located in Berlin, until the first of October, 1940. From then onwards, it went to Posen.
Q.- Why did they go to Posen?
A.- Dr. Bobermin wanted to be separated from Dr. Salpeter. Dr. Salpeter was interested only in those enterprises which worked with inmates. Dr. Bobermin did not wish to have anything to do with such enterprises. As a matter of principle he disliked the idea that prisoners were being used. Dr. Salpeter also kept interfering with Dr. Bobermin's management, wherefor Dr. Bobermin suggested to have the agency transferred to Posen.
His suggestion he motivated towards Pohl and Salpeter, by saying that the Agency should be closer to the enterprises.
Q.- On the basis of what facts did the transfer become possible?
A.- The transfer would not have been possible if Main Department 3-A-4 had been joint and had mutual tasks with the other Main departments. The duties of the Eastern German Building Material Works had nothing to do with the Main Department and the other companies. It was a completely new assignment and, therefore, a complete disengagement became possible. Dr. Bobermin in Berlin was practically no longer necessary.
Q.- Were you still working for the Main Department 3-A-4 after the transfer to Posen?
A.- No.
Q.- Why did you leave your position at the time?
A.- Dr. Dalpeter was frequently called up by Pohl and wanted to have information about unimportant matters. As he was unable to do that, an expert was to remain in Berlin who would maintain liaison with the Main Department in Posen. For that reason I, as a liaison man, remained behind in Berlin. In addition to that, there was the fact that Dr. Bobermin negotiated frequently with Reich agencies and organizations of the Reich economy. I had to prepare the dates and the negotiations.
Q.- What did you do after 3-A-4 had gone to Posen?
A.- I had to look after, for instance, the supply of raw material, coal, lubricants, cars, railroad tracks, furniture for the apartments belonging to the managers, office furniture, and so forth. Also, I had to maintain liaison with the HTO and give legal comments to the instructions issued by that agency which were then sent on to Posen by Dr. Saleter provided with his signature.
Q.- Did you have the authority to issue orders to Office 3-A-4, or the Central Works as a liaison man?
A.- I had no such authority. I was really an expert. Also I could not have the authority to issue orders for the reason that the managers were directly under Dr. Salpeter.
Q.- How large was your office, as a liaison man?
A.- I had one secretary and I was the only expert.
Q.- How much did you get paid for this work?
A.- I did not get paid for this work. I received my salary from the agency which had employed me in peacetime, and as a soldier I had my army pay.
Q.- Please look at Document NO-1299 which is Exhibit 35. It is in Document Book 2, page 54 of the English document book. Is this document correct?
A.- I am afraid I haven't found it yet. Volume two, page 64, you mean?
Q.- Yes, page 64 of the German document book.
A.- This document is quite correct. There were permanent differences of opinion between Dr. Bobermin and Dr. Salpeter. Dr. Salpeter was interested only in enterprises employing inmates, namely the DEST; whereas Dr. Bobermin had nothing to do with that company. For that reason Dr. Hohberg was interpolated as an auditor, and he made the suggestion to the office chief to have the Main Department 3-a-4 removed from Office 3-A. It became Staff "O".
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think we have the same document that you are talking about. What is the number of the document?
DR. GAWLIK: It is Document NO-1299.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that isn't Exhibit 39. What is the exhibit number?
DR. GAWLIK: Thirty-five.
THE PRESIDENT: Document 1299? All right.
DR. GAWLIK: One-two-nine-nine.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, now we are together.
DR. GAWLIK: It is on page 54 of the English document book.
WITNESS: Should I say something about that document, if the Tribunal please?
THE PRESIDENT: Go right ahead.
WITNESS: That document is correct in its contents. There were constant differences of opinion between Dr. Salpeter and Dr. Bobermin, Dr. Salpeter was interested only in enterprises employing inmates, namely the DEST; whereas Dr. Bobermin wished to have nothing to do with that company. For that reason Dr. Hohberg was interpolated as an auditor who made the suggestion to Pohl to have Office 3-A-4 removed from Office 3-A, and to make it Staff "O".
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q.- For how long a period of time was Staff "O" called that way?
A.- As far as I know, until the autumn of 1941. Then Staff "O" became Office W-2, when the economic enterprises were reorganized.
Q.- How long were you active as the liaison man?
A.- At the end of May of 1941, I, as is shown by Document NO-1299, Exhibit 35, which we have just discussed, became the legal export for the DWB. Apart from that I continued my work as a liaison man until I became the personal expert for Pohl.
That activity was practically without any contents by 1942, because Pohl did everything independly. My work lasted until the end of 1941, with the interruption of two months, when I was given the order to go to Prague as an SS rifle man. I continued to keep the official designation Liaison Man, until about May 1942, but for all practically intents and purposes, it came to an end by the end of 1941.
Q.- In the document referred to, NO-1299, Exhibit 35, which bears the date of 26 May 1941, it says that you were to become the man in charge of the Liaison Office. Tell us something about that.
A.- The term "Man in Charge of the Liaison Office" is wrongly chosen. The liaison office only had one man, and that was I; and, of course, the secretary. Therefore, it should really be called simply "Liaison man". This document would make it appear as if I were to become the liaison man, but I was a liaison man ever since 1940.
Q.- How long did your military training as a rifle man last?
A.- From 15 May to 15 July in Prague.
Q.- What did you do after you had received this military training?
A.- I was given the order after my training to report to the DWB as the legal expert. I was assigned to Dr. Hohberg.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: When was that, please?
A.- That was on July 15, 1941, that is to say, the order might have reached me a few days later.
THE PRESIDENT: 1942?
A.- 1941. 15 July 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: You said that you remained in Berlin as the liaison officer until the end of 1941, and then went to Prague?
A.- No, Your Honors. I received the order when I was still in Berlin on 15 May 1941 as the liaison officer. It was then that the order reached me.
THE PRESIDENT: And you went to Prague for your training as a rifle man?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Now, that was in 1941?
A.- Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And after you finished your training as a rifle man, then you went to the DWB?
A.- To the Main Office, Administration and Economy, and from there to the DWB. The WVHA did not exist at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this was still in 1941, was it?
A.- 1941, yes, certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q.- Perhaps, witness, you will repeat when you received your military training as a rifle man?
A.- From 15 May to 15 July 1941.
Q.- What was the DWB?
A.- The DWB was a holding company.
Q.- Who were the partners?
A.- Pohl was a partner as a trustee.
Q.- Who was the business manager?
A.- The first business manager was Pohl who was the company representative. The second business Loerner who was also was entitled to represent the company.
Q.- What were the tasks of the company?
A.- The company had the typical tasks of a holding company. As in British and American economic life, you have the property holding companies and the property and managing companies. In my opinion the DWB was up to a point a property holding company, and up to a point the second type of holding company.
Q.- For what reason were you appointed Prokurist of that company?
A.- In the DWB I was given the task to take care of all legal matters. Those under civil law. I had to represent the company in court, but as Pohl could not give me full authority every time, I became the Prokurist because under Paragraph 49 of the German Commercial Legal Code, the Prokurist represents the company in court and outside of court.
And therefore, I did not have to have a full authority every time. For this purpose, I shall quote from the German Commercial Legal Code. I shall quote paragraph 49 of the German Commercial Code of 10 May 1897 of the Reich Legal Gazette, Roman Numeral Two, page 19, paragraph 49: "A prokurist is entitled to represent the company in all types of acts, both in and out of court."
Q.- Did you have any financial, organizational, or personal matters to look after?
A.- No. I was only in charge of legal matters under civil law.
Q.- Please look at Document book 14. There you will find Document NO-544, Exhibit 398, which is on page 72 of the English Document Book. This is an excerpt from the Commercial Register of the DWB.
A.- Would you mind telling me again what Document Book you want?
Q.- 4 on page 70 of the German text and page 72 of the English book.
THE PRESIDENT: Here we go again. What is the Exhibit number.
DR. GAWLIK: 398, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q.- NO-544, Exhibit 398. It is an excerpt of the Commercial Register of the DWB, and according to this document you and Dr. Wenner, on 22 November '41, were appointed Prokurists.
A.- The document is quite right.
Q.- Just a moment. Now, please compare the document of 28 August 1943, which is Document No-2163, Exhibit 399, Volume 14, on page 76 in the German Document Book and page 79 of the English Document Book. In that contract another date is given. Which is the right one, and what is the explanation of this contradiction?
A.- Document NO-544, the excerpts of the Commercial Register, is the right one. On 22 November 1941 I was appointed Prokurist. Shortly after that, I was given a contract. This contract has not been submitted by the prosecution. This is how the contract came about. I was paid my salary by the agencies which had employed me in peace-time, the German Gemeindetag. As I had been conscripted into the Waffen SS for military service, my peace-time employers -- the Vice President Dr. Weitler-said that for the work which I was doing for the private enterprise they would not be able to go on paying my salary. I told this to Pohl and Pohl said he would, for the duration of the war, take me on as a full-time officer and member of the Waffen SS. I refused to do that because I did not wish to become a Party official. Thereupon Pohl said I could also choose the salary of a captain in the Waffen-SS. I refused to do that also because that would have been much less than the money paid me by my peace-time employers. On the other hand, I had double expenses. Those connected with my own expenses and those of my family which I couldn't have taken care of my captain's pay. Thereupon Pohl gave me a contract of employment for the duration of my activity with the DWB, i.e., for the duration of the war. That contract was concluded in 1941. The prosecution, I am sure, must have the contract in its 14 boxes of files. It has the same form as the document NO-2163, but only until paragraph 10. The correctness of my testimony becomes clear also from this contract of employment, especially from paragraph 15 where it says about this contract: "All former arrangements are cancelled."
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until 1:45.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 1345.
(The Tribunal recessed until 1345 hours, 25 July 1947)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 25 July 1947).
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
LEO VOLK - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Before the recess you commented on Document 2163, Exhibit 399, which is contained in Prosecution Document Book No. 14, on page 76 of the German and on page 79 of the English text.
With regard to this document the Prosecution, on page 1008 of the German transcript, has made the following statement:
"This is a contract between the DWB and Volk according to which Volk has been employed as a business manager."
Is that statement correct?
A No.
Q Were you a business manager or were you a Prokurist in the DWB?
A I was only a Prokurist. This becomes evident very clearly from the document.
Q Please tell us the difference between a business manager and a Prokurist.
A The authority of the business manager goes much further than the authority of a Prokurist. The business manager is authorized to carry out all executive business which is required by the enterprise or the trade. He has almost the same authority as the owner of an enterprise. The Prokurist, however, according to German law, has the authority to do certain work to an extent which is prescribed by law. In the enterprises of the DWB, the business manager delegated that authority to him. According to commercial law - and specifically according to German commercial law - the Prokurist for example, cannot sell any property, and he is not allowed to sign any inventory - or any balance sheets. I know from my studies that, for example, according to Swiss law and according to French law, the authority of a Prokurist goes further than in German law.