A Kurz was, if I am not very much mistaken, a German. I believe that he certainly was.
Q Dr. Mueller, I have one concluding question. Last Monday, did we discuss your affidavit together?
A Yes.
Q In our discussion, was anybody else present?
A No. During the discussion - no.
Q Did I, or anybody else, exercise pressure upon you, and were awards or disadvantages pointed out to you, if you gave a certain testimony?
A No.
DR. SCHUBERT: I have concluded the cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other cross-examination of this witness. Any redirect examination?
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. Witness, I should like to ask you about two questions.
Q You were asked about the violent statements that Count Montgelas made in the Grand Hotel. Do you remember whether Montgelas made any statements in the nature of a plan of action against the government, or were the statements merely violent opposition to the government?
AA plan for action in particular I can not remember. Whether or not some hints of some kind - of a plan for overthrowing the government existed -- that I can no longer remember. I believe that in our case there was some talk about it -- that the system - the government existing at that time, would not hold power very much longer.
JUDGE BRAND: Another question.
Q I think in the discussion of the Strobel case you said that the indictment was extended at the trial. Am I correct?
A I believe I can be misunderstood here. Between the reading of the indictment and the making of the plea, I did not make any new important statement.
Q In the indictment, you mean?
A No, during the second trial. Between the reading -- I mean to say, at the beginning of the second trial I, if my memory does not deceive me, read the indictment again in its old form. At the end of the trial, that is, after the submission of evidence had been completed, on the other hand I based the plea on the basis of the law against dangerous habitual criminals.
Q Yes, then the only extension of the charge was to be found in your final plea in which you invoked the more serious statute, is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
JUDGE BRAND: That is all, thank you.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
MR. KING: I also want to ask you one, perhaps two, questions concerning the Strobel case. Taking up where his Honor, Judge Brand left off, may I ask you who told you to change the plea from "Heimtuecke" to dangerous, habitual criminal in your final summation. Before you answer that may I review the facts as I understand them, and if I am incorrect will you please correct me before you proceed. First, an indictment was filed. And the trial on that charge was held in November, November 30th. Then that trial was discontinued on orders of Oeschey. It was resumed again on the 19th of February, the following year. The same indictment served as the basis for the second trial. No new facts were added. The accused's criminal record was read during the first trial, and no essential new facts were added during the second. The defendant was not informed that the charge was to be extended until you so advised him in your summation.
Now I will repeat my question: Who told you at that time to charge habitual criminality rather than "Heimtuecke" in order that the death sentence could be given against this defendant?
A. After the first trial had been discontinued, the files about previous convictions were consulted, because these files about previous convictions were important for the final decision as to whether Strobel was a habitual criminal and they had to form the basis of this decision.
Q. Perhaps it would be better, witness, if you answer my question first and then explain the circumstances afterwards. You will recall my question was, who ordered you to change the charge in your summation from that of "Heimtuecke" to "dangerous habitual criminality"?
A. At the end of the first trial the decision of the court was announced...
Q. No, witness, I am again repeating my question: At the end of the second trial, when the witness was still charged with malicious utterances, "Heimtuecke," that is, and you thereupon got up in your summation and extended, as you put it, the indictment to habitual criminality, who was it who ordered you to make that change? You say in your affidavit that you were against it. Now, if you were against it, some one must have ordered you to make that change. Who was that person?
A. Before I entered the second trial I had already been given instructions by the Ministry of Justice to ask for the death penalty, for the files had again been submitted, pointing out the way they would be worked on in the future; and this material treatment of the case was agreed to by the Ministry.
Q. I don't think you have answered the question. Lets try it once more.
Perhaps the objection should wait until I have asked the question.
You state in your affidavit in effect that you were opposed to the result.
Now, if some one in the Ministry of Justice did order you to, as you out it, extend the verdict, do you know who that was?
A. Who the expert in the Ministry was? I don't know, because the files came back without indicating it. I did not know the intimate conditions in the Ministry of Justice and I could not know who had made the decision in the Ministry of Justice.
Q. Do you have any impression as to who ordered the Ministry of Justice to order you to extend the indictment? I find it difficult to conceive of the Ministry of Justice suddenly becoming interested in a case in the Nurnberg Special Court without urging from some individual here on the Court.
A. Yes; the trial was conducted at the Special Court under the presiding judgeship of Oeschey and had been discontinued the first time. This decision for discontinuance was the cause of having the files resubmitted, and that led to the decision of the Ministry of Justice.
Q. Are you saying that Oeschey was the one who ordered you to extend this indictment? Is that what you are saying?
A. Oeschey could not give an order to me in that sense, it was the decision of the Court according to which I had to guide my way of working on the case, namely, the submission to the Ministry. I had to do it that way; I was forced to do it that way.
Q. Yes, I understand you were forced to do it that way, and your explanation is that you were acting pursuant to a court order, the order coming from the court which was presided over by Oeschey; is that correct?
DR. SCHUBERT: I object to that question, Your Honor; I object to that question. The witness has just stated that the court could not give any orders to him. Now, the witness is supposed to be pinned down to saying that he acted in accordance with an order by the court. The witness has already denied that, and in my opinion the question cannot be put a second time.
MR. KING: I understood the witness to say that he acted pursuant to a court order. He said he couldn't say that Oeschey made the order because it was an order of the court. Now I am asking, was it an order of the court, and was it an order of the court over which Oeschey presided? I think that question can be answered because it includes the doubtful point that he had in his answer, at least doubtful in my mind.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no reason why the witness should not try to answer it; he hasn't made a very good effort so far.
THE WITNESS: It was a decision of the court over which Oeschey presided, according to which the further handling of the case had to be carried out.
MR. KING: All right. In the affidavit which you signed, on which you have been questioned this morning and this afternoon, there are a number of cases referred to. Dr. Schubert has crossexamined you at some length on most of them and has shown you, at the same time, the case files. My question to you at this time is this. When you made this affidavit and the interrogator, Mr. Einstein, discussed with you these various cases, you were, were you not, shown the case files of the cases which are discussed in this affidavit?
A. Yes.
Q. So that you had every opportunity to examine the files of those cases before you made your answers? Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. I only have one more general question. You have stated in your affidavit, and your testimony this morning in response to Dr. Schubert's questions was along the same line, that in very many instances you were not personally in favor of the penalty for which you were required to ask. Now, my question is this: Where you were of one opinion and you based your opinion on the facts and the law as you understood, them, and you later were required to ask for a penalty which was not consistent with what you thought was right, was that change made necessary by a court order, the same as occurred in the Strobel case?
And if that was not the case in all of the cases where you were forced to change your view, in what cases was it not true?
DR. SCHUBERT: One moment, please. May it please the Court, I object to the question. During my cross-examination I never touched the question as to what was the witness' personal opinion, but I limited myself to the finding out of what instructions were given to the witness. I could never ask him during the cross-examination, therefore, how it came about that he changed his opinion in some way. Therefore, the question of the prosecution which is under discussion now is outside of the framework of the cross-examination.
MR. KING: I don't believe it is outside of the framework of the cross-examination for the reason that Dr. Schubert saw fit to go into the facts of each of these cases, and whether he actually drew out in so many words the conclusion that affects this witness, the fact remains that was the inference he was striving to have the Court draw and I think I am entitled to ask the question as it has been stated.
THE PRESIDENT: It is my recollection, Dr. Schubert, that you quoted some parts of this affidavit, not in every case but in some cases.
DR. SCHUBERT: That is absolutely correct, Your Honor. I am objecting to this question only for the following reason. The question refers to the personal opinion of the witness about the extent of the penalty in individual cases. I never spoke about the personal opinion of the witness during the cross-examination when I discussed the individual cases. Therefore, I think that the question of the prosecutor exceeds the framework of the cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The difficulty about that is that the witness, in his affidavit, did express a personal opinion. This question goes to the cause for changing his opinion that he gave in the affidavit, as I get it. He may answer.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Do you remember the rather long question that I asked you, witness?
A. Orders about the extent of the penalty could not be given to me by decision of the Court. The instructions I received from my superior authorities. My opinion, however, is that Oeschey had a large degree of influence on these instructions from my authorities.
Q. I assume then from what you have said that you are not changing your views as you expressed them in your affidavit at the bottom of page 3 and the top of page 4. I should like to read the statement to you and ask if it is not substantially, in your opinion, what you have just said. I will read it slowly so that you will be able to follow it. You say I should like to add here Dr. Schroeder's explanation. In contested cases, he said, I must submit to the questions of Oeschey concerning the degree of punishment.
A. Yes.
DR. SCHUBERT: Just a moment, witness, please wait. May it please the Court, I regret that I have to object to this question again. The witness here is being read a part from his own affidavit. That is a part to which I did not refer during the cross examination. I never asked the witness about his relationship to Dr. Schroeder or about Oeschey's relationship to Dr. Schroeder, and whatever Schroeder told the witness. I have been informed that the redirect can only refer to the questions which were put in the cross examination, and I cannot imagine that in the case of an affidavit this coule be different than another examination of a witness.
Therefore I believe that this question which was not touched upon at all during the cross examination cannot be the subject of the redirect examination.
THE PRESIDENT: He may answer the question.
MR. KING: Will you answer the question, witness?
THE PRESIDENT: He did answer it.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Your answer was "yes". Do you have anything more to add to it? Do you have anything more to add to it? Do you want to explain that answer, or is the simple affirmative answer enough?
A. I wanted to add that statements of Oeschey, which contained news about the guidance discussions, after this general statement by Schroeder meant for me indirect instructions from my superior.
Q. And Schroeder was your boss?
A. Schroeder was my superior.
MR. KING: I think that is clear. We have no more redirect, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
Adolf PAULUS, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BRAND: Will you raise your right hand and be sworn.
Repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
You may be seated.
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Court, we are concerned with the affidavit Paulus in Document Book 3-E, NG 633, Exhibit 180.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q. Witness, please state your name and your profession.
A. Paulus, Adolf. At present I have no profession. My last position was first public prosecutor in Nuremberg.
Q. Mr. Paulus, during what time did you work in the Special Court in Nuremberg as a Prosecutor?
A. On the first of December 1942 I was appointed to the prosecution at the Special Court in Nuremberg. I worked here until I was drafted at the beginning of February 1945.
Q. Which presiding judges of the Special Court in Nuremberg did you meet, witness?
A. First until May or June 1943, Rothaug. And from then on, Oeschey. That is outside of the deputy judges, presiding judges.
Q. At the time when Rothaug had left until Oeschey became presiding judge was there not an intermediate stage and there was another presiding judge?
A. I believe that at that time the then District Court Director Ferber? was presiding judge in very many cases.
Q. Mr. Paulus, at first you give a picture of the manner of conducting a trial by the defendant Rothaug and then you say about District Court Director Oeschey, I constantly have the impression that he made efforts to imitate the manner of Rothaug. I now want to ask you, did you always have objections against the outside form of the trials, the manner of conducting them by Oeschey or were there also cases in which the defendant Oeschey conducted the trial in every respect in a decent manner and in accordance with the facts?
A. Of course there were also trials in which I had no objections to the outside form of conducting the trial by Oeschey.
Q. Witness, if such excesses occurred was this mainly during the examination of the defendant or also when the witnesses were examined?
A. In most cases, or by far the most cases, it must have been during the examination of the defendant. However, I also remember that at least in some cases it also occurred during the examination of witnesses that such incidents which, in my opinion, could be described as excesses occurred.
Q. Did you have the impression that through those excesses, as you say, in any case the finding out of the facts by the Court suffered?
A. In any case I have no reason for saying that when such incidents occurred the facts were found out less thoroughly than it happened in other cases.
Q. Were cases where Oeschey was the presiding judge tried thoroughly and exhaustively?
A. I never gained the impression that in trying to find out the facts Oeschey missed anything and if in the opinion of the other persons Who took part in the trial it should have occurred, that some question was not clarified adequately, then, there were associate judges and prosecutors there who could make up for such a possible lack.
Q. Herr Paulus, do you remember a case of foreigners in which the court ordered investigation on the spot in order to obtain material in favor of the defendant?
A. I remember a case against a Frenchman because of plundering, I, myself was the expert working on the case, and already during the investigation by the prosecution had already made an investigation on the spot, I had become convinced that there was a plunder because according to the facts the person who committed the crime could have entered the house only through a hole in the wall which had resulted due to air raids. Therefore, I also had the intention at the beginning of the trial to ask for the death penalty which was mandatory for plundering. During the examination of the defendant, doubts occurred on the part of the court as to whether the person who committed the crime could not have entered the house in another way, that is by a regular opening. As the person who had made the investigation on the spot, at that time I could not do away with these doubts, and, therefore, the court ordered another investigation on the spot. This resulted in the fact that the statements of the defendant that he had entered the house by way of the door could not be disproved. I therefore refrained my original opinion that it was a plunder and only requested a penalty for theft, or serious theft. The court only gave a prison sentence because of an offense, but I cannot state any more who was the presiding judge. I also don't know the name of the defendant any more.
Q. May the name of the defendant have been Camille Midi?
A. As far as I remember, he was a Frenchman; therefore, that possibility exists.
Q. As far as you remember during what tine did this trial take place?
A. That was at the time when very severe, heavy air attacks had been made on Nurnberg; probably only during the year 1944.
Q. That was, in other words, during the time when Oeschey was presiding judge of the Special Court?
A. I believe that I remember with certainty that Rothaug was no longer in Nurnberg at this time.
Q. Herr Paulus, when the defense asked to let then have evidence submitted, were these questions decided according to the facts that they had at hand?
A. I, myself, as prosecutor, always made efforts to honor the request for submission of evidence. When I made applications for it, considering them from a factual point of view, I can remember no case which the court decided against my application -- in any case. I did not because aware of any time in which the request for submission of evidence was refused in a manner contrary to the code of procedure.
Q. Do you remember cases where the defense asked for a nullity plea in favor of the defendant because their defense had been limited?
A. I can remember no such case.
Q. Did you experience many cases of Poles while Oeschey was presiding judge?
A. The number of cases dealing with Poles, as far as I remember, from the middle of 1943 on, decreased considerably because from that time on, the police, on their own, handled a large number of these criminal cases,-- did not announce them any more to the prosecution; so that the number of cases dealing with Poles which I saw and experienced during the time when Oeschey was presiding judge could not have been considerable. How many they were, of course, I do not know.
Q. Witness, you say in your affidavit -- moreover, Oeschey was thoroughly susceptible to other peoples' opinions.
A. Did. I not say he was more susceptible than-
Q. You add at least to a much higher degree than Dr. Rothaug. Did, in making this statement, you think of any specific case?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember a case in which the Reich Ministry of Justice ordered the death penalty by means of an instruction which they issued, in which case, however, Oeschey wanted to pronounce only a prison sentence?
MR. KING: I wonder if that question is not outside the scope of the affidavit; I don't find it there. If it is outside the scope of the affidavit, I think the question should be withdrawn. If it is included in the affidavit, I would like to know where.
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Court, I am referring to the affidavit in the German text, the fifth paragraph toward the end; I have already read the sentence -- moreover, Oeschey was thoroughly susceptible to other peoples' opinions, and in regard to this point I only ask for a clearer explanation.
MR. KING: That is what I thought; that is why I object to the question. It has nothing to do with the question he asked.
THE PRESIDENT: This is cross examination; we will let him ask the question. Proceed.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q. Witness, I asked you whether you knew of a case in which the Reich Ministry of Justice by means of an instruction ordered the death penalty, but in which case Oeschey wanted to pronounce only a prison sentence?
A. I do know of one case in which, however, I no longer remember the name of the defendant any more, nor can I state what the crime was, but in which case I believe that I can remember that Oeschey was presiding judge. I was the prosecutor at the trial. In the files of the prosecution was an instruction from the Reich Ministry of Justice to ask for the death penalty in this case; whether before the submission of evidence or after, I don't remember, but in any case I was of the opinion that the crime under question -- could not be punished by the death penalty; and, after getting in touch with the Special Court, I found out that the court was of the same opinion.
However, since I received binding instructions from the Reich Ministry of Justice, I could not deviate from it; however, I could have asked for the death penalty, and the court could then have had issued a less severe sentence, but I considered the plea for the death penalty so unjust that I did not want to make it. Therefore, I first went to the then Senior Public Prosecutor, Dr. Schroeder, and asked him not to ask for the death penalty. Dr. Schroeder did not want to take the responsibility for this, and referred me to the then General Public Prosecutor, Dr. Benz, who, after I told him that the court would not in any case pronounce the death sentence -- permitted to ask for a prison sentence which the court then also pronounced.
Q. Witness, at that tine it was a custom that after the result of the evidence, the prosecutor discussed the application for penalties that he would make with the court; is that correct?
A. It was the practice at least in most cases in which it was not clear from the very beginning, that there would be agreement with the application and the intended sentence that would probably be pronounced. That was due to the instructions issued by the Ministry of Justice.
Q. In such cases of doubt, did Oeschey give you orders what pleas you should make?
A. A judge never issued orders to me as a prosecutor; I would not let a judge give me any orders.
Q. In cases of doubt, in the consultation chamber was there a free discussion between the court and the prosecutor?
A. If difficulties of opinion existed between the opinion of the prosecutor and that of the court, this difference of opinion was discussed because after all, one wanted to and was supposed to achieve the aim that the plea of the prosecutor and the sentence of the court should not deviate very far from each other.
Q. Are you under the impression, witness, after such a discussion with the court over which Oeschey was the presiding judge, that the court had already completed its sentence?
A. Naturally, there was in a considerable number of cases before the Special Court, in which it must have been clear from the beginning what sentence the court would pass; that was especially in those cases in which the law absolutely laid down a certain sentence, and, in which it was shown that even a change in the facts was out of the question. For instance, if the criminal had fully confessed. Would you please repeat your question again, I am not sure I answered it completely?
Q. I asked you, witness, after such discussions in the consultation chamber, that is before the final plea, were you under the impression that the court had ready made its ruling?
A. I repeat, in those cases, and naturally they were not a few before the Special Court, it was clear that the sentence was finished on principle; in other cases of which I also experienced a large number, I did not have the impression that the court, after the submission of evidence had been completed had already decided about the sentence because I personally, during these previous discussions experienced it; that difference, between the associate judge and the presiding judge or between the prosecutor and the court existed which later on partly, only, in the final discussion or in some cases already /---/ in the prior discussions with the prosecutor were clarified or removed.
Q. Witness, you furthermore, make some statements about two other cases about which you remember, cases in which Oeschey was the presiding judge and you were the prosecutor in the case. One of the two cases is the case Fuehsbauer. I am showing the file of this case to you with the indictment, from the working file of the prosecution.
A. Yes, that is a copy of the indictment which belongs to the office file of the prosecution.
Q. Witness, only to clarify, please tell us what these office files of the prosecution meant; were they a part of the court files or were they files which the prosecution kept back for their own use, back for themselves and used for their own purpose, after the file, as such, had been handed over to the Court?
A. In the case of the Handakten - office files of the prosecution, they they are not court files but purely files of the prosecution which on principle and without exception, did not leave the hands of the prosecutor or its superior authority, such as the Reich general prosecutor at the Reich Justice Ministry. I know of no such case, and it would have been inadmissible that these files were handed over to the court.
Q. Witness, from the office files of the prosecution, can you tell me what penalty the prosecution was going to ask for in the Fuehsbauer case?
A. In the Fuehsbauer case, when the indictment was filed, it was intended that the death sentence would be asked for.
Q. In the decision of the prosecution about the probable plea for the penalty, was it, in any way conditioned by an order or any order of the court, instructions of the court, or was the decision of the prosecution based on its own decision which was influenced by no other authority?
A. I cannot answer that question very clearly because I was not the expert working on the fuehsbauer case. I personally, when an indictment was filed, was never influenced by the court -- to consider any application for a sentence, and to put it into the files as such because in my position as prosecutor I considered myself as an independent person and I would not have tolerated any such order. To what extent this happened in any other case, I cannot say, especially I cannot say as to the Fuehsbauer case.
Q. I am now coming to the Schmidt-Michael case. The case concerning the theft of fly catchers, witness, I am now showing you the file.
Do you find the indictment?
A. Here.
Q. Would you please tell me from the indictment whether the prosecution in this case, when it filed the indictment, asked for the appointment of a defense counsel?
A. In the indictment of the 2nd of May, the sentence in the form which says "appointment of a defense counsel has not been crossed out; therefore, I assume that the expert intended to ask for the appointment of a defense counsel. However, in some cases the chance, by mistake, failed to cross out this sentence in the form, Whether this was the case here, I do not know. If the office files are available I could find out whether the death sentence was intended, I correct myself, whether the application for the death sentence was intended. I cannot find that out from the office fibs because, exceptionally on the copy of the indictment of the office files, the remark regarding the intended plea for the penalty is not contained.
Q. Witness, is it correct that, at the time, the Reich Supreme court where the Special Court cases could be referred by way of the nullity plea, had developed a jurisdiction according to which the worth of the stolen goods did not matter, but mainly the attitude, and the personality of the criminal; is that correct?
A. Whether the Reich Supreme Court, especially during decisions of the last years, developed this basic principle, I do not know any more today wit out any doubt. But, however, legal literature and also the men of jurisdiction over the lower and medium courts represented the point of view that the amount of damage was, at least, not the decisive thing in pronouncing a sentence; that I can confirm without any doubt.
Q. Mr. Paulus, at the end of your affidavit, you state that, in your opinion, and I quote: "Oeschey, who became the deputy of Rothaug in Nurnberg, was not willing to give the defendant another chance, and exaggerated the facts to such an extent as to state that any case had an extremely high value during war time, that showed a brutality of which only Oeschey was capable."
I am now asking you, witness, are these your own words or was that formulation prescribed to you?
A. This formulation was not prescribed to me, but this record which the prosecution took is partly, where I dictated myself, personally and in part my statement whereby the interrogator , who interrogated me, dictated to the stenographer within the meaning of the remarks I made. This last sentence is not a sentence which I dictated, but it is what the interrogator dictated on the basis of the remarks which I made to him.
Q. Herr Paulus, -
A. May I add something, my language is somewhat more dry than perhaps the language of the interrogator who interrogated me, so if I should have dictated the sentence myself, I would have found some more dry words.
Q Witness, in conclusion I want to ask you the following question. Last Monday we discussed your affidavit together, is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Did you speak with me alone at that time?
A Yes.
Q Or was somebody else present?
A I spoke with you alone only. In order not to let any error arise about my affidavit I spoke with you alone.
Q Did I try to exert any influence upon you?
A No.
Q In regard to the manner of your testimony?
A No.
Q Were any wards promised to you, or disadvantages pointed out to you as a result of your testimony?
A No.
DR. SCHUBERT: I have concluded the cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us take the afternoon recess at this time.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. KOESSL: (Counsel for the defendant Rothaug): I ask to be permitted to cross-examine the witness about the same affidavit on behalf of the defendant Rothaug.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, is it correct that your statements mainly referred to the last half year of Rothaug activity at the Special Court in Nurnberg between 1 December 1942 and 1 May 1943?
A Mainly, yes. However, I was already, before 1 December 1942, active as prosecutor On Special Court cases; in some instances and in those cases too I had official contact with Mr. Rothaug.
Q When you criticized Rothaug's method of conducting a trial, were you thinking of violations of the code of procedure?
A No.
Q What do you understand by Rothaug's suggestive manner in imparting his views to other persons?
A When I got to know Rothaug better through cur official contact, I considered Rothaug to be a man of extra ordinary and outstanding mental qualities. I was of the conviction that on account of those abilities of his, and also on account of his self confidence, on account of his smartness, it was possible for him, in the case of persons who held different opinions than his own, to convince them, by the use of evidence which was fascinating in its effectiveness, that his own opinions were correct. That manner of Rothaug's, which I attribute first of all to his superiority of intellect, had on me personally a suggestive effect.
Q Can you say what caused Rothaug's uncontrolled manner and band temper that uncontrolled manner which you mentioned in your affidavit?
A My opinion is this. I regarded Rothaug, from the point of view of temperament, as a definite choleric. Furthermore, at trials which were held outside of Nurnberg, I frequently observed that Rothaug before or after a meal, took sodium bicarbonate or similar medicines against stomach troubles.