You haven't testified concerning that character of Tribunal.
A.- I am very sorry, but that question did not become very clear.
Q.- We are not sitting here as some sort of a Tribunal to try the ordinary questions of international law that might arise, and I understand that your testimony related to those things and not to questions of war and international law involving war. That is correct, is it not? You have not undertaken to say here that the successful belligerant might not set up a Tribunal to try those whom it charges with violating the international rules of warfare.
A.- With the question as to whether during the continuance of the war international military courts may be established for the judgment of violation of international law, I have not dealt with. That question was never put to me.
Q.- I was just wanting to point out that what we are sitting here for is for the purpose of enforcing this kind of law and not the law about which you have been testifying, or the difficulties about the law for which you have been testifying and I recognize the very serious difficulties that you have testified to about international law and punishing some one or having some one to enforce international law without a Tribunal set up to do so.
A.- Yes, naturally.
Q.- But we are dealing here with some one who is charged with violating the rules of war, and that alone.
A.- The questions which have been put to me concerned the legal situation of these days, that is to say, under the Weimar Constitution and under the Hitler government, not the legal conditions which apply now for the Tribunal here. It might be that, for example, this Tribunal must judge under a law which was created ex post facto. But even if this is not the case, and I indicated that before, it can happen that the same legal question, according as to whether it is dealt with before a national court or an international court can be given a different answer, but both courts are right because they work on a different basis.
That is why I said in the theory of law again and again we confront the phenomenon that we judge a legal case objectively, and in practice we meet the case where the judge has a difinite starting point fixed for him, and one cannot say that one is right and the other is wrong. There are various possibilities of order.
Q I understand that. This same sort of Tribunal was set up after the other world war. But under this international rule the successful belligerent may try the, or Germany could have tried them. Germany did try them after the peace agreement under an agreement after the other World War, and we are sitting here as an international, or as a military, tribunal of a successful belligerant, trying those whom we charge with having violated the international rules of warfare, which is not the ordinary form that you testified to or the difficulties of the ordinary form that you testified to about enforcing of international law arising between the peaceful nations, which is all you testified to, as I understand it.
A Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honors please, with Dr. Marz' consent I will briefly refer to a stipulation which we have reached which has been prepared in six copies in English and six copies in German. We have reached an agreement as to the naming of counsel - I mean of the medical examiners. Two have been named by the prosecution staff and two by Dr. Marz. They are to begin, if possible, on the 27th of June 1947, and to make a report of their findings on or about the 3rd of July 1947. I think it is quite pertinent that I read the paragraph one of the stipulation, because it clearly states what Dr. Marx and I agreed upon, that the Prosecution will submit the name of one medical and one psychiatric doctor to the Tribunal for approval."
I really want to read actually paragraph 2, that "this committee of four experts will examine the defendant Engert, consult the attending physicians concerning his condition beginning on or about 27 June 1947, and make a report of their findings to the Tribunal on or about 3 July 1947." There is attached to the stipulation an order appointing the persons named by counsel and directing then to submit a report of their findings.
I think it would be orderly but I also ask that the Tribunal exercise it because we were advised by the Army that the two Army officers we have named, the Army would be perfectly willing to have serve, but that they can't serve on a committee. Someone seems to think that this was without the order of the Commanding General of the area. I don't know what that means. I know the prosecution can't get it done; but it occurred to me that if the Court duly appointed them, then perhaps the Commanding General of the area will let them serve. I can't get it done. We can submit the order as a request, of course.
DR. MARX: Your Honor, the two experts whose names I have given are one psychiatrist, Oberarzt Dr. Gerstecker, and one woman physician who is to work on the physiological aspect and to give an expert opinion on that. The two doctors are available in Nurnberg without any difficulty. They are in the Municipal Hospital in Nurnberg. Oberarzt Dr. Gerstecker is at the Neurological Ward and Oberarzt Dr. Kretzer, the woman doctor, is in the Internal Ward. Unfortunately, a misprint has occurred. The name should read Kretzer and not Strecker.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the way it reads on the original.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Does the order read the same as in the body? We think the mistake is in the order.
THE PRESIDENT: The order reads Kretzer.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: In the English copy it's correct.
DR. MARX: That is all right. Thank you.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I will send up the original also of this, Your Honor, and may I have a copy of the German for Dr. Marx.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready for a ruling?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The stipulation will be approved and filed with the Secretary-General and the order, as submitted, is made. It will be signed.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You're not asking me to sign the German order?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: No, Your Honor, just to have it for the record. That is all there is on that matter at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: You may call your second witness.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: As the second expert whom we have named for the general defense is not yet able to appear, We would ask to permit us to call him at a later date. Therefore, I am now beginning with my submission of evidence for the Schlegelberger case. First of all, I intend to call the defendant Schlegelberger himself to the witness stand, and I would ask you to permit me to do so.
FRANZ SCHLEGELBERGER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE HARDING: Hold up your right hand and 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.)
JUDGE HARDING: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. KUBOSCHOK:
Q. Witness, what is your career, your professional career in particular?
A. I was born in 1875. After I had finished my legal studies and had passed my doctor's examination, I became Judge in the first and second instance. In 1904 I became Judge of the Lueck District Court in East Prussia. In 1909 I became assistant at the Prussian Court of Appeals, Kammergericht. In 1914 I became Kammergerichtsrat. The Kammergericht is the Court of Appeals of Berlin, the Supreme Court of Prussia.
At the Kammergericht, I worked in several senates: in the civil senate which dealt with the ordinary cases of civil law; in the commercial senate; in the replacement senate, and in the senate for voluntary jurisdiction. During that period I wrote my first scientific works in that field which dealt with the experiences I have made in practice.
In 1918, that is to say at the end of the First World War, I became assistant at the then Reich Justice Office which later on became the Reich Ministry of Justice. That agency had very little to do with administrative tasks. At that time, it only dealt with one court. It was the highest court, in fact the Reich Supreme Court in Leipzig. Apart from that, the Reich Justice Office only dealt with legislative tasks.
As an assistant, I was put in charge of legislative preparative work in the field of commercial and economic law, and I continued to do that work when after a few months I became Geheimer Regierungsrat and Vortragender Rat at the Reich Justice Office. When in 1927 I became Ministerial director, I still continued to deal with the same tasks. In 1931, the only under Secretary of the Reich Justice office, Dr. Joel, an old gentleman -- not to be confused with the defendant Joel -- was appointed Minister, and I took his position as Under-Secretary. I retained that position when in 1932 the Bruening cabinet was replaced by the Papen cabinet, and when Guertner, who had previously been Minister of Justice of Bavaria became Reich Minister of Justice. Reich Minister Joel, as well as Reich Minister Guertner at that time dealt with penal matters themselves. I merely dealt with matters of civil law.
Only when in 1934 the Prussian Ministry of Justice was merged with the Reich Ministry of Justice, and now a vast number of administrative tasks were transferred to the Reich Ministry of Justice, then a new Under-Secretary position was created, and that for penal matters. The previous Under-Secretary of the former Prussian Ministry, Under-Secretary Freisler, obtained that post. That division of tasks in civila and penal matters remained in force when on the 27 January 1941 quite suddenly Reich Minister of Justice, Guertner, died, and I, as the most senior Under-Secretary, was placed in charge of the conduct of affairs.
I retained my civil cases and Freisler dealt with penal matters. I was placed in charge of the conduct of affairs of the Ministry as the Senior Under-Secretary. I was never appointed Deputy Minister of Justice, and I never had myself called so, because that was, of course, impossible. I only was in charge of the conduct of affairs.
This picture, that is to say, that I merely acted as a representative, but that I actually dealt with the same work which I had dealt with before, that became also outwardly apparent.
On purpose I never worked in the Minister's Office; I never moved into the Minister's home; and I drew the salary of an Under Secretary, not that of a Minister. On 20 August, 1942, at my own request, I resigned.
Q You have described your work as Undersecretary, and you have said that you worked largely in the sphere of civil law. Which were the most important tasks with which you dealt?
A In accordance with the work I had done before, and in accordance with my particular interests, I was given the task -
Q There is trouble with the sound system. I have been asked to repeat my last question. You have described your work as Under Secretary, and you have said that largely you dealt with questions of civil law. Which were the most important tasks with which you dealt?
A In accordance with the particular interest which I had always had in economic matters, and in accordance with the work I had done previously, I was allotted the task of cooperating during two particularly fateful years of the German Reich in the maintenance and support of the economic life of the country. It was the stabilization and maintenance of currency; that was in 1923 because of, and until the end of, the inflation, and later on in 1933 on the occasion of the economic collapse. The inflection period was followed by the establishment of the Rentenmark currency, a new currency which replaced the paper mark. The inflation was also followed by the ordinance at which I worked, under which businessmen had to draw up a balance in gold marks, and it was also followed by the tremendous task of remonetization legislation. The collapse of the banks necessitated many discussions and consultations, and ordinances as for instance concerning rates of interest. Later, I worked on the new law concerning drafts and checks, and I may quote as my special work the two big economic laws promulgated in 1937, the law on shares and the law on patents. When in 1942 I resigned from my office, a new law on companies with limited liability was just about to be issued. At that time the general reform of civil law had been started, not immediately by way of a new codification, but by individual laws.
When I left my office, the marriage law and the testament law were completed.
Q A part from your professional work as a judge, and later on as an official in the Ministry, did you ever engage in any scientific research work?
A I can wholeheartedly affirm that question. Immediately after I took my state examination, I started on my first big work, and the first book of mine, which appeared in 1904, was a treatise on the law of retention; it was a work of historical nature. At that time I intended to take on a university career, but nothing came of that, because my home university Koenigsberg did not create a new chair for commercial and economic law. But I could not give up my literary work, and ever since then that has occupied myself consistently, side by side with my official work. The special fields with which I dealt were economic law and voluntary jurisdiction, that is to say the law concerning the procedure in matters concerning family, hereditary, commercial law and document regulations. In 1923 I became honorary professor at the University of Berlin. Naturally, I followed that call while retaining my official position, and I held lectures at the University of Berlin until the outbreak of the war. In 1925 the University of Koenigsberg conferred upon me an honorary doctor's degree of Political Science.
Q Did you also deal with foreign law?
A Yes, foreign law too has occupied me intensively for a long time. Perhaps I may first mention one of my latest works, a large comparative encyclopedia, the "Mannual of Comparative Civil and Commercial Law." That book summarizes reports on civil and commercial law of all countries, written mostly by national experts and I may say the law of the United States is dealt with by Professor Atkinson of Kansas University. This my work which necessitated a tremendous amount of correspondence, brought me in touch with eminent jurists all over the world.
I have deepened those contacts since 1929, because I went abroad to hold lectures, and those trips were above all to give me an opportunity to observe the effect of the law, at least in some countries, actually on the spot. I did succeed in doing so in Argentina, in Chile, where I dealt especially with banking laws; I wrote an essay on that subject; and in Brazil where I became an honorary member of the Brazilian Lawyers' Association. I held lectures in Budapest, Madrid, Warsaw, Stockholm, Copenhagen. I should like to add that I am co-editor of the periodical "Foreign and International Private Law", a publication of the Kaiser-Wilhelm A Association; and, also co-editor of a publication on Scandinavian.
Law.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: During the examination of the defendant I intended to introduce documents. I have tried to have my document books completed by today, but I have not succeeded in doing so. I hope it will be possible by tomorrow. I would ask, if Your Honors please, to recess now.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take the recess at this time until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 27 June, 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Altstoetter, at al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 27 June, 1947, 0930-1630-, Justice Junes T. Brand presiding.
THE MARSHAL: All persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 111.
Military Tribunal 111 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marsahl, are all the defendants in their places?
THE MARSHAL: May it please, Your Honor, all the defendants are present in court except the defendant Engert, who is sick.
THE PRESIDENT: Proper notation will be made.
DR. HAENSEL: May I make a very brief statement. I ask you not to be suprised to see me standing here. My colleague, Dr. Kuboschok, will continue to conduct the Schlegelberger case, but I would like to explain something else. I am at the moment busy compiling a trial brief on the subject of conspiracy, and I am able to complete it in its essentials until tomorrow, if the Tribunal should consider it important, I think it is absolutely essential for me, as I had to no very brief before the deal now with the question whether the problem of conspiracy is to be regarded first under control Council Law No. 10, further from the fact of the occupation of Germany, as a legal instrument, for the consideration of this case, and; for that purpose I have to study the modern American legal literature on the subject. I only wanted to say that today, and I also would like to discuss another problem. My colleagues have told me that probably on the 9th a plenary session will be probably held at which that problem of conspiracy will be discussed by all courts in session in Nuernberg at the moment and which are interested in this problem. In preparation for this, I would like to submit my trial brief as soon as possible so that the Tribunal has sufficient time to deal with the matter before that joint discussion takes place.
THE PRESIDENT: We are informed, informally, that further opportunity for discussion by counsel of this issue may be presented in the near future, as soon as the time and place have been determined, you will receive official notice of it. I am referring to the possibility or the prospect of such a joint hearing as counsel has referred to. We haven't received official notice of it as yet, and, of course, this Tribunal won't take separate action on that issue until the hearing by the joint Tribunals has been held. You understand that?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: However, we will welcome any brief which counsel cares to prepare, as soon as he cares to present it in writing.
DR. FRANZ SCHLEGELBERGER - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. KUBOSCHOK:(Attorney for defendant Schlegelberger) Yesterday I pointed out that the five documents books which I had submitted for translation were not yet completely finished.
Yesterday two had been translated. One document book, No. 111, is already completed in the English language. I intend to submit, the documents which are contained in Book 111 to the Tribunal as exhibits during my examination of the defendant. I should be grateful to the Tribunal if it would rule that that completed document book be brought to the courtroom.
Q Witness, were you active in party politics?
A No, I never joined any party; I always staued away from politics. My life was devoted to the practical administration of justice, and to legal research. If cooking back now, I should say which one of parties of the German people, I fitted into, I would call myself as belonging to the right one of the progressive, conservative direction which was promoted by the German people's Party Deutsche Volkspartei, and which was also represented by the German Nationalist Party, Deutschnationale Volkspartei.
Q What was your attitude towards the NSDAP and National Socialism?
A In 1933 I was approached on the subject of joining the NSDAP; I refused. My reason was, first the fact that I could not subscribe to the program of the NSDAP. Further more, another reason was my views that under Secretary of Justice should remain neutral even on the surface and, therefore, must not establish any parties. I was never a National Socialist. It is obvious that a party program, in its many fold aspects, has many a point which one can adopt; for example, the program's aim of bridging class differences, that is to say, the creation of a trua national community, that point I welcomed heartedly, but, concerning the program of the NSDAP as a whole, above all the way in which it was to be put into effect, that was far removed from my own ideas. My own conservative attitude as a human being as a jurist accounted for that. It came as a great surprise to me when on 30 January, 1938 the Fuehrer's Chancellory informed me in a letter, signed by Bouhler, that Hilter had ordered that I was to join and be accepted by the NSDAP. I said that that came as a great surprise to me. I myself, like other Under Secretaries who had also come from the middle classes, had never heard of that order, and it was impossible to refuse because that would not merely have meant I would have given battle not only to the party, but to the state itself; and I never departed from that view. The membership which was ordered against my will and forced upon me I never made use of. I never attended a party conference or meeting. Naturally, I did not hold any office in the party either.
Perhaps the fact that I never changed my attitude is also demonstrated by the fact that neither my wife nor my sons every belonged to the Party. My social contacts too, as far as they were not conditioned by official affairs, moved almost exclusively within the circles of non-Party members.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The Hitler order by which Schlegelberger's membership in the Party was decreed will be submitted by me as Schlegelberger Document No. 34 as soon as the document books will have been completed.
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q Witness, what effect did that attitude of yours have on your official position?
A I always saw to it that Party members and Party functionaries were treated just like every other citizen. That played a part particularly in personnel matters. I only appointed that person to an office who, in my view, was properly qualified; and I refused to reward Party stars by appointing them to an office.
On the other hand, the attitude of the Party towards the Ministry and myself -- and I shall have to come back to that later on -- made great difficulties and brought about many inner conflicts.
At this moment I should like to point out the case to which the prosecution referred concerning notaries and their hostile attitude to the Party. They demonstrated it so obviously that when I came to hear of it in my official capacity I could not form a proper opinion on it. If I had tried to suppress those cases it would have been unavoidable that the Party would interfere, which definitely would have stated that the notaries had violated their duty of allegiance towards the State and the head of the State. Perhaps the Party would have welcomed it, because such opposition would have been a welcome cause to discredit the Administration of Justice and to jeopardize my personnel policy, on which depended the fate of many officials.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The witness has referred to the case of the notaries which, under Exhibit No. 436, in document book I, supplement, English Text p. 38, was submitted by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the exhibit number?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Exhibit 436.
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q The Prosecution refers to your lecture held at Rostock University in 1936. That lecture is compared as to its aim with a speech by the Reich jurist leader Frank, and the prosecution sees in it an avowal of National Socialism. Please give us some explanations about that speech.
A Counsel, you have pointed out that speech was made in 1936. Before I discuss the details about that speech I should like to say a few words as to how, at that time, one was able at all to discuss political questions in public. It wasn't that way that, when National Socialist quarters laid down program points, one was allowed to make a frontal attack. I ignore altogether the point of personal danger that might have arisen for an opponent. I would not have fought shy of that danger, because a person who held tho office which I hold was in daily danger. However, such a frontal attack would have resulted in the opposite of what I wanted to achieve, that is, an increase in the opposition against One had to look for opportunities which one could use, and, for example, the locality had something to do with that.
I chose the University for the place of my speech, and that had a decisive influence on my audience. I had to see to it that the National Socialist ideas which I wished to attack were beaten with their own weapons.
The actual reason for my speech was tho fact that Freisler again and again before the public, pointed out that the Party program was valid before as a law and was at least the framework of the law. Therefore, one was obliged to carry out that program immediately and completely.
I do not think I need to enter into any details here as to what it would have meant if that doctrine had been recognized. In the practice of the judges it would have meant separation from all legal provisions; the Party program could have been applied at random everywhere. It would, so to speak, have been the roof law under the protection of which, according to the wishes of those extreme National Socialists, legal life would have developed.
It was my aim to point out that such a construction would not be necessary at all, that the existing laws would also do justice to the fact that Germany was now a state under National Socialist Government. I must point out that the law adapts itself automatically to changed conditions of life and ideologies, and that from that the standard and the speed of legal changes are decided.
I intended to put in the place of the revolutionary changes of law advocated by Freisler, and evolutionary development of law. I based myself on the principle of the interior change of the legal system, a principle which, for the first time, I propounded already in 1929 in one of my works where I also elucidated that principle. That was at a time when one could really not say that I might have based my arguments on the National Socialist thought. The compromise laws, which had already been promulgated, I mentioned intentionally without evaluating them. That was how I had argued against that thesis, and I believe had refuted it. I also used the opportunity to give my views concerning other important topical questions as well. I turned against the interference with the carrying out of sentences which I considered inadmissible. Due to previous incidents, I warned the judges against currying favor with high Party officers. I appealed to the pride of the judges and the consciousness of their independence. I also found reason to turn against it that some jurists in an absolutely inconsiderate manner, placed their owm egotistic endeavours in the foreground, and did not show any understanding whatsoever for the sound idea of a true people's community.
Generally I used a tactic which I had employed repeatedly: I committed the high party leaders to adhere to many of their good words which they had probably spoken without reflection. I reminded then that Hitler during his first speech before the Reichstag had declared the independence of the judges as necessary. I pointed out that Frank had mentioned the internal value of justice; and, that Goering, in public, had spoken against interference with the administration of justice.
Q What was your relationship with Hitler?
A I believe that one must distinguish between the personal and the material evaluation, and at the same time one must connect the two. I believe that Hitler, concerning my own person, had a certain measure of respect. I believe he saw in me the experienced civil servant, who was without ambitions, and devoted himself to work and research. Concerning my sphere of work, civil law, he had not the slightest interest in it. The fact that I was unpolitical aroused a certain amount of distrust in him; that I suppose explains the fact that that contrary to civil servants of the same rank, I was never offered an honorary position either in the SS or the SA. That I, contrary to other high civil servants of the same rank , was not awarded the Golden party badge; that he restricted my connection with the Party to the absolute minimum; and that again explains in particular, I believe, the positively brutal attack on me in the well-known Reichstag speech of 26 April 1942. The fact that I was placed in charge of affairs after the death of Guertner certainly was not a demonstration of confidence. This is how I would like to put it: It was just a make-shift solution. At that time Hitler could not yet make up his mind to appoint a new Minister of Justice. What played a certain part, perhaps, was that the head candidate for the office, Frank, at that time, as Governor General of the Government General, was not available; thus there was nothing left as a way out, but to let the Ministry put the Under-Secretary who had seniority in the office in charge of the Ministry. Hitler's distrust, as far as my person was concerned, was altogether justified from an objective point of view.
I may say, and I wish to place special emphasis on that. I was never fooled or influenced by Hitler's demoniacal qualities. and I saved my own conscience, as far as he was concerned. For myself, Hitler was the declared opponent, in fact, the person who held the administration of justice in contempt. That conviction naturally placed me in a clear position. As far as it did not jeopardize my goal I upheld my different opinion quite openly toward Hitler. That was already the state of affairs at the time of Guertner. I may say that all of my life as long as I held office, I was out to fight for justice and against arbitrariness. In the avowal for justice there was no difference between Guertner and myself. Guertner was the recognized protector of arbitry, but he was not a fighter. If concerning the development which was slower to begin with and later became faster, he gave up opposition in some respect, that certainly is not due to a lack of honest will to uphold justice. Frequently he came to me for advice and assistance. But that time was overshadowed by a continuous struggle with the Reich Jurists' Leader, Frank. In continuous attacks Frank tried from his position tion as Reich Legal Office Leader to achieve his final goal which was to get the office of Minister of Justice and then to change the Ministry and make it into a National Socialist Ministry. That struggle can only be understood if one knew who Frank wan. Frank was the legal adviser and, in difficult times, the defense counsel of Hitler, and, therefore, he was particularly close to him. Before 1933, even, he had been the leader and propagandist of National Socialist legal ideas. If one bears that in mind, then one sees already on the one hand, the Ministry with its expert officials, the official activities; on the other hand, the combination of National Socialist ideas on law with the aim of overrunning the Ministry.
Frank recognized Guertner's qualities, therefore, he tried by the tactics of continuously wearing him down, to achieve his aim. If one knows National Socialist methods, one knows how stubborn and tenacious such a battle was in the methods in which it was waged, and that struggle had reached its climax when Guertner died and I took over the conduct of affairs.
Q What was the situation at that time?
A One gets a true picture of that situation if one forms a picture in one's mind of those three groups or parties which were fighting against the administration of justice with the aim of conquering the administration of justice in order to destroy it. I call these fighting groups by the names of their leaders: Himmler, Bormann, Goebbels; and, in so doing I would like to emphasize that during the whole time I only talked once to each of those three men.
Himmler proceeded by different roads; The undermining of confidence in legal administration of justice and the conquering of its competence. Attacks were being made continuously on the administration of justice in the periodical of the SS which had already been mentioned in this trial, "Das Schwarze Korps". They were not content with criticizing sentences but proceeded to defame in public the judges who had passed the sentences. Himmler collected material by sending secret observers to the court sessions. The officials of the Ministry were being watched and spied upon. Anonymous secret reports in which the Ministry was attacked were sent out. Persons who had been acquitted by a court sentences were taken into police custody. Others, who had been sentenced to a term in prison were seized by the police, and as the Minister of the Administration of Justice heard later, many of those persons were killed by shooting. All these things were intended and designed to undermine the confidence in the administration of justice. The administration of justice was to be discredited in public again and again as a backward and outmoded institution both as regards to personnel and the subject matter. On the basis of those steps Himmler proceeded. I should like to say with cynical frankness, he withdrew and claimed for himself many more fields of competence from the Ministry of Justice. He invoked his power of his position under Hitler and he demanded that the competence for penal cases concerning Poles and Jews should be transferred to the police. His attempts to conquer the public prosecutor's offices for the police were continued until the end. It is obvious that that aim, which was placed higher and higher, by necessity, would lead to the thought as to whether one would not have to show that by new and more stringent measures one was in a position to overcome, the criticism which Himmler used as a pretence and thereby take the wind out of his sails.
Q The answer which the witness has given to the question dealt with the following prosecution documents: The Ferber Affidavit contained in Document Book B-III-E, Page 39 to 41 in the English Text, and with the report by the President of the District Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgerichtspresident) of Hamm of 7 July 1942, Exhibit Number 74, in the English text of Document Book 1-C on Page 71, and furthermore, with Exhibit 98 in Document Book I-D, English Text, Page 110 to 115.