and I quote the last paragraph on page 75, which is page 5 of the diary:
"The Governor General does not oppose as, a matter of principle the training of the younger generation for the priesthood and for the reason that if courses for doctors, et cetera, are being established, similar opportunities must also be created in the field of religion." evacuation of part of the population, that population which was in the fighting zone near Lublin. second paragraph:
"In this connection, President Gerteis spoke of the treatment of the Poles in the Reich. This treatment, said to be even worse than that of any other foreign workers, had led to this, that practically no Pole would apply voluntarily for work in Germany, There were 21 points on which the Polish workers in the Reich were treated worse than all other foreign workers.
"The Governor General requested President Gerteis to make known to him these 21 points for the abolishment of which he would intervene without fail."
I now ask the Tribunal to turn to page 100 of the document book. It is a conference on the 6th of June 1944 regarding a large-scale action against the partisans in the Bilgoraje Forest. On page 101,--that is page 4 of the Diary--I quote:
"The Governor General wants to be quite sure that care is taken to protect the harmless population, which was, suffering itself under the partisan terror." G overnor General on concentration camps. It is an entry dated 6 June 1944. I quote the last paragraph:
"The Governor G eneral declared that he would never sign such a decision, as it meant the sending of the one concerned into a concentration camp. He always had protested with the utmost vigor against the system of the concentration camps, as he saw in it the greatest offence against justice, and he had thought there wouldn't exist any concentration camps for such matters, but they probably have been put into operation silently. It only could be handled in a manner that the persons would be pardoned to jail or prison for a certain number of years.
"For instance, the punishment by prison terms be considered to be a punishment to be executed and supervised by authorities of the state. He therefore requests that State Secretary Dr. Buehler should be informed that he, the Governor G eneral, would not sign such decisions. He did not wish any official confirmation of the concentration camps. There existed no pardon to the effect that it would bring some one into a concentration camp. The summary courts are a function of State Justice with an especial meaning, consisting of Police exits; actually they should normally be occupied by members of the armed forces."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, can you explain the translation of the words at the botton of page 202 which are in English? "It only could be handled in a manner that the persons would be pardoned to jail or prison for a certain number of years." Can you explain that from the point of view of meaning.
DR. SEIDL: The meaning of the words becomes clear from the statement made by President Wille in the presious paragraph and where you will find the following statement. It is the tenth line from the top. "The reprieve Commission had asked the representative of the Security -Police Chief in which form this pardon should be carried out. As far as he knew, only in one case had the penalty been cancelled. In all other cases, whenever the penalty had been reduced, security police measures had been intituted. One had, therefore, become afraid that these people would disappear." Now, it was the point of view of the Government General that a reprieve, as far as the death sentence was concerned, a pardon to prison or penitentiary, was welcomed, but that he would refuse that, a death sentence should be transformed into a prison sentence if the police would at the same time introduce security police measures against the person in question.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that it meant that pardon from a death sentence might be made by a reprieve for a sentence in prison for a certain number of years, but not by sending to a concentration camp, which would be for an indefinite period and under police methods?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, that is the sense. with the general treatment of the population in the Government General.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, you have been very much longer than you said, and the Tribunal thinks you might be able to cut down a great deal of this. It is all very much on the same lines.
DR. SEIDL: Yes. In that case, I am asking the Tribunal to turn to page 112 of the document book, an entry dated in July of '44 an entry which deals with the administration of art treasures and I quote the second paragraph:
"The Governor General gives orders to President Palezieux --"
THE PRESIDENT: You have already told us and given us some evidence to support the view that the defendant Frank was preserving the art treasures and was wishing them to be preserved in Poland and it is not necessary ybder these circumstances to go reading passages about it.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, I am asking the Tribunal to take notice of that entry and, if the Tribunal will agree to this course, I shall merely give you the pages of the documents and the book which appear important to me. that we cannot hear the speaker I am afraid.
THE PRESIDENT: Very Well, the Tribunal will adjourn (A recess was taken.)
DR. SEIDL: May it please the Court, I should like to only give the numbers of the pages of Volume 4 of the document book which seen most essential to me. Those are the pages 115, 121, 123, 134, 139, 152, and 182; that concludes Volume 4 of the document book.
I come to the last volume which will go considerably faster. Volume 5 deals exclusively with the accusations made by the Prosecution of the United States against the defendant Frank concerning his activity as President of the Academy for German Law, as President of the National Socialist Legal Organization, and similar positions. Volume 1, page 1, is a document which has already been submitted by the Prosecution as 1391-PS. It still has no USA number and will be Exhibit Frank No. 11. It is the law on the Academy for German Law with the statues and the tasks of that Academy.
I pass on to page 25 of the document book. That quotation becomes Exhibit Frank No. 12. It deals with a sentence of which the defendant has been accused: "Right is that which is useful to the people." That quotation shall prove only that the defendant Dr. Frank with that sentence wanted to express nothing else but what was already contained in the Roman sentence: "Salus publica suprema lex" "The supreme law is what serves the people." I shall ask the Court to take cognizance of this and pass on to page 26, an excerpt from the magazine for German Law of 1938, which will be the Exhibit Frank No. 13; and this quotation also deals with the aforementioned sentence: "Right is that which is useful to the people."
On page 30 is an excerpt from USA Exhibit 670 and deals with the final rally, the concluding rally on the day of German law at Leipzig, where the defendant Dr. Frank held a concluding speech before 25,000 lawyers.
I quote on page 31: "Only if the methods of legal protection are applied, if true judgements are passed and the legislative law ideal is clearly fulfilled that the community of the people can exist permanently. This legal method which permanently ensures the fulfillment of the tasks of the community has been given as a task to you, fellow guardians of the law. Ancient Germanic principles have come down to us through centuries.
"First. Nobody shall be judged who has not had the opportunity of defending himself.
"Second. Nobody shall lose the properties used by him in accordance with national standards, unless by decision of the judge. Honor, liberty, life proceed from work are such properties.
"Thirdly. Everyone who is under indictment, regardless of the kind of procedure, regardless of the reasons and application of whatever law must be given the possibility of taking a defense counsel who is able to make legal statements for him, he must get a hearing which is legal and objective in finding the decision." an address by the defendant Dr. Frank, held on a special educational session of the main division chiefs and Reich Group Directors of the National Socialist Lawyers Organization, on the 19th of November, 1941. That becomes Exhibit Frank No. 14.
I quote only a few sentences at the top of page 37. "Therefore, it is a very serious task which we have imposed upon ourselves and wemust always emphasize that it can be fulfilled only with courage and absolute self-sacrifice. I observe the development with great attention. I watch every anti-juridical tendency. From history I know only too well -- as you all do -- the attempts to seize far reaching power because one has weapons to shoot with and because one has some authority on the basis of which one can make-arrested people disappear. By this I do not mean the attempts undertaken by the SS, the SD and by the Central Police Office but primarily the attempts by many other agencies of the State and the Reich to exclude themselves from general jurisdiction."
I would like to quote the last five lines on page 41. Those were the last words on the occasion of that session: "One cannot debase law to a commercial item; one cannot sell it. It is there or it is not there. Law cannot be handled on the stock exchange. If justice is not supported the State loses its moral foundation; it sinks into the abyss of night and horror."
The next document is on page 42. It is first an address, one of the four large, long speeches which the defendant Dr. Frank held in 1942. This is the one had at Berlin at the University on the 8th of July 1942 and we will give it Exhibit Frank No. 15. I quote on page 44, second paragraph, seventh line:
"On the other hand it cannot be that in a state a member of the community is robbed of honor, liberty, life and property, that he is expelled and condemned without first being able to defend himself against the charges brought against him. The Armed Forces can serve us as a model in this. Every one is a free, honored member with equal rights in the community, until a judge -- standing independently above him, has weighed and judged between indictment and defense."
I then pass on to page 49 of the document book. That is the second of these four speeches which was held in Vienna and will become Exhibit No. 15.
THE PRESIDENT: We have already, had Frank Exhibit 15 on page 41.
DR. SEIDL: No, I beg your pardon; it will be 16. I quote only one sentence on page 51. "With all my convictions I shall state over and over again that it would be too bad should ideals advocating a police state be presented as distinctly national socialist ideals and old Germanic ideals of jurisdiction be put into the background entirely." document book. The speech is by the defendant Dr. Frank at the University of Munich, on the 20th of July 1942. That receives Exhibit Frank 17. I quote on page 58, line 16:
"But it is impossible to talk about national community and to regard the servants of the Law as expelled from this national community and to throw mud at them in the middle of the war.
The Fuehrer has transferred to me the tasks of the Reich leader of the Reich Legal Office and that of the leader of the National Socialistic Legal Guardianship League, and therefore it is my duty to declare it as harmful to German racial community if lawyers are called 'cesspool animals' in the 'Black Corps'." That is the speech held at Heidelberg on the 21st of duly 1942. That will be Hans Frank 18. I ask the Tribunal to take official notice of that speech. On page 69 I quote only one sentence: "But never should there be a police state, never. That I oppose." United States has already submitted under the No. USA 607, an excerpt from the diary, concluding the reflections and development of the past quarter year. In these reflections, Dr. Frank, in conclusion, states his position toward the concept of the legal state, and I ask the Tribunal to particularly take cognizance of his principal demand on page 74 and 75 of the document book. Here, Dr. Frank again stated the prerequisites which he considered necessary for the existence of any legal state.
I quote only a few lines from page 74:
"1) No fellow German can be convicted without regular court procedure, and o the basis of a law in effect before the act was committed.
"2) The procedure must-carry full guarantee that the accused will be interrogated on all matters pertaining to the indictment and that he is free to defend himself.
"3) The accused must be enabled at all stages of the trial to avail himself of the services of a defense counsel acquainted with the law.
"4) The defense counsel must have entire freedom of action and independance, in order that an even balance may be Secured between the state prosecutor and the defendant.
"5) The judge or the court must make the final decision quite freely - that is, the verdict must not be influenced by any irrelevant factors - in logical consideration of the subject matter and in just application of the content of the law.
"6) Then the punishment meted out by the sentence has been fulfilled, then the act had been atoned for.
"7) Measures for protective custody and security custody may not be undetake or carried out by police organs, any more than punishment of concentration camp inmates, except from this same point of view, that is, upon approval of the plan nod measure by the regular, independent judges.
"8) In the same manner, the administration of justice for follow Germans mus guarantee full safeguarding of individual interests in all relations pertaining to civil suits proper. " End of quotation.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, are there any passages in these documents which express the opinion that the same principles ought to be applied to others than fellow Germans?
DR. SEIDL: In this last quotation the defendant, Dr. Frank, as a matter of principle dealt with the questions of law without making any difference here between Germans and numbers of foreign nationalities. Also, in his capacity as Governor General, pricipally and always, he objected against the transfer of Poles, Ukrainians and Jews into concentration camps; and that can be seen from a whole number of entries in the diary.
With that I have come to the end of my material in the case of Dr. Frank. The there are only the answers on interrogatories by witnesses whose interrogatories have been approved by the court.
At a later date I shall submit these interrogatories, together with my document books, and have them translated and submit them to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: You are speaking of interrogatories where you have not yet got the answers; is that right?
DR. SEIDL: These are interrogatories where the answers have not yet been received.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, as soon as you have received them you will furnish them to the prosecution and to the Tribunal?
DR. SEIDL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pannenbecker.
DR. PANNENBECKER: (Counsel for Frick): Within the presentation of proof for the defendant Frick, I shall forego the calling of the defendant himself as a witness. problems of a formal authority but also with problems which lie between formal authority and actual responsibility. These are problems partly already clarified by the submission of documents. question of the actual relations of power as for as the police was concerned, but for that special field I have named the witness Dr. Gisevius. He is the only witness whose interrogation seems to be necessary in the case of Frick, Therefore, I forego the either witness.
I ask the Court's decision as to whether I shall call the witness Dr. Gisevius first or whether I should submit my documents first. If the presentation of documents should come first, I believe that I can finish it by the midday recess.
THE PRESIDENT: You can finish your documents before the adjournment, do you mean?
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes. I believe so.
THE PRESIDENT: Untill 1:00 o'clock?
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you indifferent whether you call the witness first or whether you present the documents first?
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribuanl thinks perhaps it would be more convenient to give the documents first. They hope that you will be able to finish them reasonably quickly.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes. I believe that is possible. Numbers 1,2 and 3 of the document book deal with material concerning the problem whether the preparation for aggressive war by Hitler had to be known to the members of the Reich Cabinet. I do not have to read the documents. They have already been submitted, and they show that Hitler informed of his plans for aggression exclusively these of his assistants who for their own work had to know of these plans, but not Frick, who was responsible for internal matters. the Administration of the Reich by the Reich Defense Law, which has already been submitted, of the 4th September 1938, USA Exhibit Number 36. paration of aggressive wars, but it shows only a collaboration in the inner administration, a general preparation and organization which could be useful in the case of a later war. document book Frick, in order to correct an apparent error. The defendant Frick himself has stated in an affidavit on 14 November 1945, that he had had that position ed Plenipotentiary for Reich Administration since may 1935. That is the date of the first Reich Defense Law, which has already been submitted as USA Exhibit Number 24. That first Reich Defense Law of 21 May 1935, however, does not contain the position of Plenipotentiary for Reich Administration, but that comes only in the second law of the 4th of September 1938.
The second law has been submitted under USA 36. According to this erroneous statement made by the defendant Frick, which he did without seeing the two laws before him, the Prosecution has also stated that Frick had held the position as Plenipotentiary for Reich Administration since 21 May 1935, whereas, in fact, he had held it only since the 4th of September 1938. That is the date of the second law. the Prosecution. They prove nothing else but the participation of the defendant Frick in the establishment of civil administration with a view to a possible future war.
I do not have to read those either. described to have been so well known that no proof is necessary for that fact. From that assumption the Prosecution came to the conclusion that the participation in the National Socialist Government in any field would include the sponsoring of aggressive wars. Against that, I am submitting Documents 7 through 10, which are matters of proof which have also been submitted by the Prosecution and which show that Hitler in public, as well as in private conversations, since the coming to power had a definite policy of declaring his peaceful intentions, a policy which seemed to promise peace for various reasons.
Court have also to be considered in order to decide whether the official policy of Hitler since the coming to power was that he had intentions for aggressive war. As probative material in that direction, I should like to submit No. 11 and No. 12 of the document book, which I will number Frick Exhibits No. 1 and 2. to the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces at the occasion of the occupation of the Rhineland in 1936. The second document is a statement of the Austrian Bishops at the occasion of the annexation of Austria in March 1938.
The first document says, and I quote:
"Cardinal Archbishop Schulte has sent to the Commander-in-Chief of the German Armed Forces, General von Blomberg, a telegram in which -- at that memorable hour when the armed forces of the Reich are reentering the German Rhineland as the guardian of peace and order -- he greets the collected fighting men of our nation with deep emotion and mindful of the magnificient example of self-sacrificing love of fatherland, stern manly discipline, and upright fear of God which our Army has always given to the world." expected that the representatives of the Catholic Church would like to sponsor aggressive wars or in any other way be sympathetically inclined to the criminal intentions of Hitler. These statements would have been impossible if the accusations of the Prosecution were true, that the criminal intentions of Hitler and the aggressive intentions of Hitler had been quite apparent.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know what is the source of this telegram from the Archbishop, Frick No. 11.
DR. PANNENBECKER: I took the telegram, No. 11, from the Voelkischer Beobachter of 9 March 1936.
THE PRESIDENT: And the other one?
DR. PANNENBECKER: And the other one from the Voelkischer Beobachter of 26 March 1938.
No. 13 of the document book is part of a speech made by Frick, from which it can be seen that Frick had the same opinion. He states in that speech, and I quote:
"The national revolution is the expression of the will to eliminate by legal means every kind of external and internal foreign domination."
THE PRESIDENT: You gave that the number 13, did you?
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon. That should be 3.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes, that is what I wanted to say. I submit it as Frick Document No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. PANNENBECKER: The defendant Frick has particularly been accused of his activity for the Verein fuer das Deutschtum in Auslande, a foreign organization, and in that the prosecution saw a contribution by the defendant Frick for the preparation of aggressive wars. The actual opinion and attitude of Frick about the aims of that organization can be seen from. Document No. 14, which will be Frick Exhibit No. 4, a speech made by Frick, and I quote:
"The VDA has nothing to do with aims of power politics or with questions of frontiers; it is and must be nothing more than a rallying point for the cultural German national aims of our follow countrymen the world over."
In Document Frick No. 15 -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Dr. Pannenbecker, I perhaps ought to say that in the index of this document book it looks as though the exhibit numbers were the numbers of the documents in the order in which they are put in the book, but that will not be so.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes, it won't be so.
THE PRESIDENT: That last document which you just put in as Exhibit No. 4 is shown in the book to be Exhibit No. 14 which is a mistake. It is Document No. 14, but but Exhibit No. 14.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Document No. 14, Exhibit No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Document No. 15, Exhibit No. 5 is a decree of the Reich Minister of the Interior of 24 February 1933, which also is concerned with the problem of the work of the foreign organization, and I quote.
THE PRESIDENT: Has that not already been put in? I see it has a PS number.
DR. PANNENBECKER: It has a PS number, but it has not been accepted probative material. I quote, therefore:
"Misery of the time, and for the lack of work and break within Germany, ought not to divert attention from the fact that the around 30 million Germans in foreign countries outside of the present contracted borders of the Reich are an integral part of the entire German people.
They are an integral part, which the Reich Government is not able to help economically, but whose cultural support through the league primarily concerned with this, the League for Germandom in Foreign Countreis, it considers it is obligated to make possible."
In Documents No. 16 to 24 of the document book, which I do not have to read, I have listed the legal decrees which deal with the authority of the Reich Ministry of the Interior as a central office for certain occupied territories. The tasks of this central office, which had no command authority or executive authority for any occupied territories, have already been explaine by the witness Dr. Lammers, and these tasks are listed in detail in Document No. 24. I do not have to submit it in evidence. It is an official publication of the Reichsgesetzblatt and has already been submitted as 3080-PS. mand authority, we find in the Diary of Dr. Frank the confirmation, that for the administration of his territory the Governor General had the only command authority. I do not have to quote this passage because it has already been submitted. ferred to Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler, but Frick, as Reich Minister of the Interior had no connection with that, since that authority was given to Himmler alone in his function as Reichsfuehrer SS. That can be seen from Document No. 26 of the document book, which has also been submitted already as USA Exhibit 319. concerning the crimes committed in the Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia in August 1943, giving the reason that Frick, since August 1943, had been Reich Protector in Bohemia and Moravia. In this connection, I should like to point to the documents Nos.
28 and 29 of the document book, from which it can been seen that at the time of the nomination of Frick, the former authorities of the Reich Protector had been subdivided between a so-called German States Minister in Bohemia and Moravia who was immediately subordinate to the Fuehrer and Reichschancellor to take care of all government tasks, and the Reigh Protector Frich, who received some special authorities and essentially had the right only to make reprieves after sentences by the local courts.
bility for the political police, that is, the Secret State Police, the Gestapo, and the concentration camps. Until 1936, the tasks of the police were an affair of the individual states in Germany, and accordingly, in Prussia, Goering as Prussian Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior established the political police and the concentration camps. With those things, Frick, therefore, as Reich Minister of the Interior,had nothing to do.
Interior. Before that time, however, G oering by a law had taken care of the political police by separating it from the office of the Minister of the Interior and putting it immediately under the Prime Minister, an office which was hold by G oering. The decrees have already been submitted by the Prosecution as 2104-PS, 2105-PS and 2113-PS. document book, which has also been submitted as U.S.A. Exhibit Number 233. a general right of supervision, such as the Reich had over the individual states, individual provinces. He had no special right of command but just the authority to issue general directives and in document number 31 to 33 of the document book I have quoted such directives as Frick had issued. From number 31, which will be Frick Exhibit Number 6, I quote:
"In order to correct the abuses that have occurred in connection . with the decree for protective custody, the Reich Minister for the Interior has determined in his directives of 12 April 1934 to the country governments and district governors, concerning the decreeing and execution of protective custody, that protective custody may be ordered only: (a) for the protection of the arrested person; (b) in case the arrested person, by his behaviour or especially by activities directed against the State, has directly endangered the public security and order. Therefore, the decree of protective custody is not admissible when the above-mentioned, cases are not applicable, especially (a) against persons who merely make use of their public and civil rights; (b) against lawyers for representing the interests of their clients; (c) for personal affairs, such as offenses; (d) on account of economic measures, questions of salary, dismissal of employees and similar cases.
"Furthermore, protective custody is not admissible as a counter-measure for punishable actions because courts are competent in those cases."
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of that?
DR. PANNENBECKER: That is a document which the Prosecution has submitted as 779-PS and it was taken from the files of the Ministry. There is no date on the document but it must have been in the spring of 1934, as can be seen from the first sentence of the document.
The Voelkischer Beobachter mentions the same decree in its issue of 14 April, 1934. I have included that as document number 32 in the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pannenbecker, are you offering that as an exhibit or has it already been put in evidence.
DR, PANNENBECKER: No, it has not as yet been put in evidence. I offer it as Exhibit 6.
THE PRESIDENT: I am told the date is April 12.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes, it must have been shortly thereafter.
THE PRESIDENT: 12th of april, 1934.
DR. PANNENBACKER: Yes. April, 1934. That is document 32 in the document book, which will be, Frick Exhibit Number 7. I do not think I have to read it. Number 8. Number 8.
Document Number 34 in the book will be Frick Exhibit Number 8. It shows that the Gestapo actually did not heed the directives of Frick and that Frick was powerless in that connection. But the document still seems to be important to show that Frick tried again and again and had taken great pains to counter-act the abuses of the Gestapo, which however, with the support of Himmler was stronger than he himself, especially since Himmler had the confidence of the Fuehrer. under the competence of the Reich. Himmler was appointed Chief of the German Police and though formally attached to the Reich Ministry of the Interior, he was in fact like an independent police minister under the immediate authority of Hitler, He was privileged in the same manner as a minister to take care of his affairs in the Reichscabinet. That can be seen from document number 35 of the document book, an extract from the Reichsgesetzblatt, a decree which has been submitted as 2073-PS. I do not believe I have to give it an exhibit number because it is an official publication.
U.S.A. Exhibit 206. I have an extract from this document. I have entered it as number 36 in the document book. I have to correct an error. That document is an extract from a book by Dr. Ley in his capacity as Reich Organization Leader. In that book Dr. Ley, to the officers of the Party, gives directives as to the cooperation with the Gestapo and at the end of the extract Ley reprinted a decree by Frick which shows how Frick had attempted to counter-act the arbitrary measures of the Gestapo. However, upon suggestion of the Prosecution of the 13/12/1, 1945, the entire document had been read as if it were written by Frick and I should like to have that corrected. by Frick, Frick tried at least in individual cases to alleviate conditions in concentration camps and generally he was not successful. I should like to cite one example under number 37 of the document book. I am submitting a letter by the former Reichstag delegate Wulle, which he has sent to me without being asked for it. This letter will be Frick Exhibit Number 10 and I quote:
"He has as my former counsel told me, often tried to persuade Hitler to release me but without any result since it was Himmler who was in charge of the concentration camps. But I owe it to him that I have been treated in a comparatively decent manner at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp.
"He always stood among the Nazi demagogues by his objectively and reserve; he was a man who by nature disapproved any act of violence.
"Since the spring of 1925 I have been involved in a sharp struggle against Hitler and his party. This struggle has been fought passionately on both sides. All the more I appreciate Frick's attitude that despite this antagonism and in his comparatively powerless position with respect to Himmler, he tried everything to help me and my wife during the bitter years of my concentration camp emprisonmen fore this Tribunal, that Frick knew about the conditions at the concentration cam at Dachau since a visit in the first half of the year 1944. I therefore submitted an interrogatory by the witness Gillhuber, who accompanied Frick on all his trips THE PRESIDENT:
Wait a moment, Dr. Pannenbecker. The Tribunal consider that they cannot entertain an affidavit upon oath from the defendant Frick, who is not going into the witness box to give evidence on oath, unless he is offered as a witness, in which case he may be cross-examined.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes, but the last document was not an affidavit by Frick, but by Gillhuber, a witness, who has received an interrogatory. It is number 40 of the document book. I am just informed that, by error, that exhibit has not been put into the book; that is, the translation is not in the book.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh. Well, tall us what it is.
DR. PANNENBECKER: It is an interrogatory, and the answers are by the witness Gillhuber. Gillhuber, for the personal protection of the defendant Frick, was present and accompanied him on all his official travels. In answering the interrogatory, he confirmed the fact that Frick hasnever visited the camp. The interrogatory, with the answers, still has to be translated and submitted in the translation. It is, however, contained in my book.
THE PRESIDENT: You may read the interrogatory, unless the prosecution have any objection to its admissibility, or the terms of it, because the interrogatory has already been provisionally allowed.
DR. PANNENBECKER: I read, then, from the Frick document number 40, which becomes Frick Exhibit No. 11, the following:
"Question: From when until when, and in what capacity, wereyou working for the defendant Frick?
"Answer: From the 18th of March, 1936, until the arrival of the allied troops on the 29th or 30th of April, 1945, as an employee of the Reich Security Service, for his protection, and I accompanied him.
"Question: Did you always accompany him on his travels for his personal protection?
"Answer: From 1936 until January 1942 not always, but since January 1942 I always accompanied him on all his trips and flights.
"Question: Do you know anything about the fact as to whether Frick, in the first half of 1944, visited the concentration camp Dachau?
"Answer: According to my knowledge, Frick did not visit the concentration camp Dachau.