A Yes.
Q May it please the court, we offer for identification only these letters just identified and discussed by the witness as Prosecution's Exhibit 527. After proper processing, we will make formal offer.
THE PRESIDENT: You're offering the three instruments and one exhibit, you mean, for identification?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor, they are three related letters. We offer them as one document for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the documents be marked for identification, 527.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Will you note also, Your Honors, that Exhibit 527, when formally offered, will be Document No. NG-839.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q By the way, Mr. Gramm, that trip that we were discussing that you took to Darmstadt with the defendant Schlegelberger, do you remember when that was?
A I think I can say that quite accurately because that was at the beginning at the time when I worked for Dr. Schlegelberger. It must have been in the summer of 1936.
Q Now with regard to those few remarks you made concerning the defendant von Ammon, I believe one of your initial statements with regard to your old friend von Ammon was that in the Ministry of Justice his official duties did not concern international law, is that true?
A He dealt in his official duties in the Ministry of Justice not with the Department for International Law. Other people took care of that.
Q In that connection, Mr. Gramm, I am going to read you a sentence or two from a document already in evidence before this court as Exhibit 337. It's the personal sworn affidavit of the defendant von Ammon, and in there he says the following: "After I was transferred to the Reich Ministry of Justice, my main activity consisted of international legal relations in criminal matters, especially the extradition of German criminals who had fled to foreign countries, and on the other hand, the extradition of criminals who were to be transferred from Germany to foreign countries."
How do you reconcile Mr. von Ammon's appraisal of his own duties with what you said they were?
A I am of the opinion that it was word for word the same that I said. I ask you to ask me in detail on what points you think that there is a discrepancy.
Q Well, the rather basic point, Mr. Gramm, that you said that the defendant von Ammon was not officially concerned with matters of international law; whereas in his affidavit, he clearly said that he was.
A Mr. Prosecutor, excuse me, but he does not say that. He says he is Referent for legal international exchange in penal matters. That in the Ministry of Justice was definitely separated from the department for international law - Voelkerrecht. He was not Referent for the Voelkerrecht. He was only Referent for the international legal exchange in penal matters; that is extradition, as I have explained before.
Q Well in your opinion, Mr. Gramm, when the defendant von Ammon says, and I am quoting, that his main activity "consisted of international legal relations in criminal matters," does he mean, "international," or doesn't he?
A Of course he means "international," but international relations in penal matters is a very small part of a large legal field.
Q Now, Mr. Gramm, do you or do you not think that international criminal matters are a part of international law?
A No, I definitely do not believe so. It is a part of law in various countries (Internationales Recht) but not part of international law (Voelkerrecht) as such.
Q Yes.
A Because Voelkerrecht only has to do with the relations of nations to each other but not with the individual field in which Ammon was concerned.
Q Yes. Now, Mr. Gramn, when was this conversation you had with your friend Ammon regarding the matter of concentration camps? Do you remember when that was?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I met Dr. von Ammon very frequently. I said already that we were good friends. Therefore today I could not say whether that was in 1936, '38, or '39. I know that frequently we discussed that question.
Q Yes, that is sufficient, Mr. Gramm. Thank you. Now with regard again to the defendant von Ammon's official duties, you stated that so far as you knew, he could not make any final decision, is that true?
AAbout the position of the Referent, I talked in general of Referents in the Ministry of Justice, and I said that every important decision of any kind could not be made by the Referent but at least by the sub-department chief or had to be signed also by others.
Q The fact that the final decision could not be made by them but had to be passed on finally by superiors, did that prevent the Referents from preparing and stating their official advice on these matters that they were concerned with?
A No, that was their job, that they had to work out these drafts within the scope of the directives which were given for their department.
Q Yes, thank you. Mr. Gramm, did you ever hear of the Nacht and Nebel program?
A Yes.
Q From what you knew of it, do you think that was a domestic or international matter?
Q It was an international matter because it dealt with people who were not German citizens.
Q That is fine. That concludes what I have, Your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MISS ARBUTENOT:
Q Mr. Gramm, I believe that you stated that you went to the Reich Ministry or the Ministry of Justice in Hamburg in 1931; that shortly thereafter the defendant Rothenberger left that Ministry and then returned in 1933 as the chief of your office. Could you tell me the reason for his return or why he was appointed chief of the Hamburg office at that time? Was it due to his Party membership?
A I don't know the reason. I only know that Dr. Rothenberger was not an old Party member. I have never seen his membership card but we were always told that in fact he had become a member only after 1933. However, I heard later that the date of his entry into the Party was made retroactive. It was dated back. That was done.
Q You also mentioned in your testimony that shortly after the Seizure of Power the Defendant Rothenberger had difficulties in connection with personnel matters in Hamburg, specifically in connection with officers, I believe Rudel and Lautz, whom he caused to be transferred because of the political connections of activity. Was this transfer -- or do you know of this transfer of your own personal knowledge, or Dr. Rothenberger's connection with these transfers?
A I said before when I was questioned on these points that I personally had nothing to do with personnel matters in Hamburg. But I ask you to consider the fact that the Hamburg administration of justice was small enough that one could hear everything whether one had anything to do with it directly or not. It was, so to speak, an open secret that Dr. Rothenberger did not like the two officials and when they disappeared, everyone could conclude -- as I did -- that Dr. Rothenberger had been the reason, that his attitude had been the reason.
Q You stated that from -- I believe from 1934 when you left the Hamburg office, until the time Dr. Rothenberger came to Berlin, you continued your relationships with Dr. Rothenberger. Were these confined to his occasional visits to Berlin, at which time he visited you?
A Yes, it refers only to that. When he came to Berlin, since I was a man from Hamburg who was in Berlin at that time and whom he knew from before, he would come to see me, say hello, occasionally go to dinner at Kranzler's, and he would also tell me about his worries. Then he left again.
Q Then you knowledge of Dr. Rothenberger's attitude, his political attitude, and his strong -- as you say -- opposition to the Nazi Party is confined to the time when you were associated with Dr. Rothenberger in the Hamburg office, your occasional visits with him, your dinners with him in Berlin and then the time after Dr. Rothenberger came to Berlin, is that true?
A I ask you to repeat the question again as to what knowledge I am to confirm. I didn't quite understand that.
Q You stated in your direct examination, Dr. Gramm, that Dr. Rothenberger was opposed to Nazi interference, or party interference, in justice matters and fought this interference to his utmost, is that true, that his attitude was against interference by the party in justice matters?
A That is correct. Dr. Rothenberger was an opponent of interference in the administration of justice by anybody outside of the administration of justice, especially by the party. That I know from his entire attitude, his position, and especially from the personal experiences which I gathered from 1933, 1934 until I left the Ministry in Hamburg.
Q In fact, I believe you went so far as to say that Dr. Rothenberger actively opposed and perhaps in some instances failed to cooperate with the request of party members when they interfered in matters of justice.
A You misunderstood me. I didn't say exactly that; I only said that Dr, Rothenberger did not tolerate any interference by the party with the administration of justice. I cannot say, however, that such interference was at all intended during the time I was in Hamburg. I knew, however, that Dr. Rothenberger later, on the occasion of the meetings of the Chief Presidents in Berlin, repeatedly asked the Ministry of Justice in the case of such insinuations to resist most energetically.
Q Evidence has been presented in this case, Dr. Gramm, documents to which I would like to call your attention. One, which was Prosecution Exhibit 26, Document 415, which appears on page 214 of the transcript of record, there is a speech by the State Secretary, Dr. Rothenberger, made on the 17th of February, 1933, in Lueneburg, at which he addresses the Deputy Gauleiter, "Dear Comrade," and goes on to state that "on the 20th of August 1942the Fuehrer ordered our new Reich Minister of Justice to build up a strong National Socialist judicial administration.
Evidently there did not exist one so far and we could have started our work by working on the proposed laws in Berlin and you would have read about this reform some day in the Reichsgesetzblatt. We have purposely not chosen this procedure since we believe that this is not some secret science but that these problems are of direct concern to you," this letter being addressed -- or this speech being addressed -- to the Deputy Gauleiter at Lueneburg. Dr. Rothenberger goes on to state that "The fact is that we still live in a time of revolution and that the world is undergoing a change as seldom in history and the cardinal point of this change is National Socialism."
Further, he states: "Thus begins now for the German judicial administration, the second decade."
Further: "You know that the Reich Minister of Justice is not only the State Supreme Authority of German justice but also the Supreme Authority of the Party as chief of the National Socialist jurists' league. Of primary importance during war time, of course, is penal law. The administration of penal law must be severe and just. By 'severe' I mean the problem which the Deputy Gauleiter has already started to discuss. That is the elimination of asocial and inferior persons." This document goes on.
I was wondering if you could tell me whether in your opinion this letter or speech to the Deputy Gauleiter is an indication of the opposition to cooperation or influence by the party which the Defendant Rothenberger showed in his activities which you have described.
A No, certainly not; but I still believe that I have been misunderstood. I only said that Dr. Rothenberger during the period when he was in Hamburg and later repeatedly stated that he was not ready to tolerate any interference from tho party in the administration of justice.
He told me that, and I repeated that here as witness. What actually happened, what speeches he may have made, that I don't know, I couldn't testify anything about that.
Q Again, in 1942, in Prosecution's Exhibit 27, being Document NG-075, which appears in the transcript on page 231 and following, we have Dr. Rothenberger's memorandum regarding judicial reform, saying "that the present crisis in the administration of justice today is close to such a climax. A totally new conception of the administration of justice must be created, particularly a National Socialist judiciary."
Skipping a portion, we come to the statement that "It is true German justice has become organizationally speaking a united Reich justice and all efforts are being made to create a National Socialist justice.
Jurisprudence strives, if only with varied success, to fit into the National Socialist ideology."
Is that statement, Dr. Gramm, in agreement with your opinion of the Defendant Rothenberger's attitude with respect to the Nazi Party and its activities?
A No, it is not in agreement.
Q You knew, Dr. Gramm, did you not, that Dr. Rothenberger was a Gau Leader of the Hamburg section of the National Socialist Lawyers' League, did you not?
A Yes.
Q Just one more reference to documents which have already been presented in evidence. Prosecution's Exhibit No. 76, which was NG-389, and which appears in part, transcript page 377, is a letter from Dr. Rothenberger to the Under-Secretary, Dr. Schlegelberger, containing a situation report. This is dated May 11, 1942. Dr. Rothenberger states that "The Fuehrer's speech of 26 April 1942 did not surprise me.
It confirmed me the regrettable fact that the Fuehrer has no confidence in German justice and in the German law."
Then Dr. Rothenberger states:
"A radical National Socialist reform of the legal system, which I have suggested for years in verbal and written reports, has therefore become urgent."
Does this statement by Dr. Rothenberger seem to you to conform with the attitudes which you have described?
A. I only spoke of Rothenberger which I know to the effect that he refused to admit any interference on the part of the Party in pending cases. I did not speak about his position in general with reference to National Socialist nor about his point of view concerning the reforms of the administration of justice which he has mentioned here. I have not said anything concerning this point.
Q. Do you know whether Dr. Rothenberger remained a Gauleader in Hamburg up until 1942 when he want to Berlin?
A. No, I do not know that.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: Thank you, that is all.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it that concludes the cross-examination.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any redirect examination?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:Two minor questions to clear up a matter which has not become clear as far as I can see it.
Q. Witness, in the cross examination, the representatives of the Prosecution referred to the Chief of the ReichChancellory Lammers, you said that he was an old civil servant; the Prosecutor said an old civil servant in the Nazi State , wasn't it?, and you did not answer. Would you please explain now whether that term, old civil servant should be taken in the sense with the meaning that the Prosecutor gave it or whether you are of a different opinion?
A. I meant it differently, by saying an old civil servant, I meant that before 1933, and for many years, Dr. Lammers had already been a civil servant -- I certainly would not call an official who was in office since 1933 or 1934 an old servant.
Q. One last question also for the purpose of clarification. In the direct examination and also in the cross-examination we spoke about Ueberstellung, transfer, I think it is not yet clear from what office the Reich Minister of Justice received the information about the fact that a Fuehrer order had been sent out to the Police?
A. From that office which was competent to pass on the Fuehrer order to the police, that is to say, in order to mention names, from Lammers or if it came from Meissner or Schaupp, from those people.
Q. Not from the police?
A. No, not from the police.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Thank you, that is all.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q. Dr. Gramm, the Prosecution just put to you a letter, if I understood it correctly, a letter to the Deputy Gauleiter of Nurnberg; that apparently was supposed to be a speech which was made in the Luneburg. Do you know anything about that speech?
A. No, I do not.
Q. And, from that speech a sentence was put to you which referred to asocials and inferior elements which were undesirable. If on the basis of my knowledge of the document, I may add to that, that is a quite general term without in any way characterizing further what has to be understood under that term, asocials; is it know to you that during the war quite generally for criminalistic reasons, the opinion prevailed which was quite justifiable, that criminals had to be combatted most severely, and that therefore, the most severe measures had to be taken against asocial criminal elements?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I object your Honor, the question is not proper redirect examination. The cross examination was asked for definite purposes of testing the witnesses opinion and for no other reason. The question is also in the form of a positive statement rather than a question.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is very definitely leading and leading at length. It calls for an answer concerning which there is already much testimony and I think it is not proper redirect examination.
The objection is sustained.
We are aware of the facts concerning which you asked; there is a great deal in the record concerning the necessity or alleged necessity for great severity in time of war.
You may ask another question.
Q. Witness, several contradictions were put to you which were found between statements made by Dr. Rothenberger and those which you expressed here. Is it known to you that contradiction of that nature, if one described the thoughts of a man, if one wants to be successful with his intentions and on the other hand has to camouflage these same intentions by giving them a national socialist shape because one is opposed to National Socialist pressure, that is quite possible?
A. I cannot answer your question. I do not understand it. Will you please ask me more clearly.
Q. I shall save that question for the presentation of the testimony for Dr. Rothenberger because it calls for an explanation of the occurrences which would go far beyond the scope of a redirect examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further redirect examination.
The witness is excused.
Dr. Kubuschok, do you desire to proceed with documents or with further witnesses.
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
I now start with document book II. I ask you to turn your attention to page 32 of the document book, document No. 38, an affidavit by the attorney Ernst Ziehe, I read the second paragraph:
"I have known Dr. SCHLIGELBERGER for over 45 years and have been friends with him ever since."
I skip now the rest of this paragraph and the following one and go on reading with the second paragraph from the bottom of this page.
"He also expressed his negative attitude towards National Socialism during discussions in the circle of mutual friends. He was considered by everybody there as a most respectable man beyond reproach who did everything in his power to oppose, as effectively as possible within the limits of his position the orders of the Party offices, prevent encroachments or, if this was not possible to weaken their effects. He used to complain bitterly, that a great part of his time was taken up by the constant struggle with the Party offices.
"It is characteristic that every time Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER was asked why he did stay in office, since he was inwardly so much opposed to National Socialism, he always answered that it was his conviction that by staying in office he could do some good and could prevent the situation from getting worse, Since I knew the situation I had to agree with Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER, having heard repeatedly from various leading personalities of the Social Democratic Party, for instance especially from the former senior alderman of Berlin, Hugo HEIMAN, that numerous Social Democrats were remaining in their positions and even joined the NSDAP for the sole reason of keeping informed. All these gentlemen, however, have never changed their Social Democratic convictions."
I offer this document as exhibit 96.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received and the time has arrived for our afternoon recess.
(Thereupon a recess was taken.)
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document which I offer is Document No. 39 on page 34 of the document book, an affidavit by Friedrich Ernst Jaekel who in 1935 came as a temporary employee into the Reich Ministry of Justice. I skip the first two pages of that affidavit and read from the last paragraph of that affidavit. It is the fifth line of the last paragraph.
"At these occasions I was able to note that Dr. Schlegelberger firmly demanded that the procedures in question against prominent members of the movement were to be carried out relentlessly and without regard to the political position of the party in question. Contrary to Under-Secretary Dr. Freisler, who, as an old defense counsel of national socialists, always stressed the exonerating facts, Undersecretary Dr. Schlegelberger was a man of absolute justice, a fact which, due to the great respect he enjoyed as a human being and scholar among us young assistants, was nothing new to me. We knew that, if we were going to be attacked in our fight for the cause of justice, we could count on Under-Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger's supporting us. The strong contrast Schlegelberger-Freisler was known to us and we recognized in Freisler the "wild Party man", while in Schlegelberger we admired the true expert, the representative of absolute justice and the just superior. Not once did I notice that Herr Schlegelberger departed from this, his road."
I offer this document as Exhibit 97.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document, Document No. 40, is an affidavit by Georg Klauer who is now in charge of the Patent Office. That is the same as the former Reich Patent Office. I read on the second page of the affidavit, the second paragraph.
"He always was attached with great loyalty and admiration to the former Minister of Justice Dr. JOEL, who was of pure Jewish extraction. I have hoard from different sources that it was chiefly the re Court No. III, Case No. 3.sult of his action that Dr. JOEL was spared the degrading and dangerous measures connected with the persecution of the Jews.
"Herr SCHIEGELBERGER has furthermore given very decisive effective assistance to my niece, Fraeulein Annemarie KUEHNEMANN, Berlin W.15, Saechsischestr. 70, saving her from the concentration camp when she had been sentenced by a Special Court to a temporary prison term for alleged "insult to the Fuehrer."
"Summing up, I am of the opinion that Under Secretary in the Ministry of Justice SCHIEGELBERGER, while totally opposed to nationalsocialism, was driven by the one desire to offer resistance to the constantly increasing pressure on the side of the party and to save, as far as possible, the tradition of the Ministry of Justice trying to tide it over those bad times. If he had been forced to make certain concessions, this does not by any means prove that such concessions were made in accordance with his convictions; on the contrary, on intimate knowledge of the prevailing circumstances will prove that they were made under compulsion, in order to avoid further evil."
I offer this document as Exhibit 98.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document, 41, is an affidavit of the present Kammergericht president, Dr. Strucksberg.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Your Honors, please, as to Document 41, and I might also speak of 42, the Prosecution objects at this time for the reason that the preamble or preliminary statement which is required by the rule that the affiant knows that there is a penalty for giving a false affidavit and that the affidavit is to be used in evidence is not found in either of these two documents. Of course, as to Document 42 this is premature, but I thought we could state it now and make progress. I think my position is consistent with at least the reserve rulings or the rulings that the Court has made before.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I ask to be given the permission to reserve an exhibit number for this document because I will offer it later in a Court No.III, Case No. 3.changed form.
THE PRESIDENT: The affidavit, so-called, Strucksberg will be marked for identification -
DR. KUBUSCHOK: 99.
THE PRESIDENT: 99, and the ruling will be reserved.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document 42 is a letter from Switzerland, from Zurich written by Generaldirektor Dr. Hans Koenig. In this letter Koenig submits an affidavit. I know that that affidavit does not conform with the rule. On the other hand, on account of the difficulties existing through the mail service, it will not be possible for me to submit an affidavit now. Therefore, I should like to make the following suggestion. I ask that this document be considered not an affidavit but simply a letter, a document, and be accepted only for what it is worth.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, rather than to set that precedent, I realize the circumstances. I read the document. I would prefer to be permitted to withdraw my objection to Document No. 42 as an inadequate affidavit rather than to consent to it going in as a letter. I am not advised that it is in conformity with Swiss law, nor do I want to set a complete precedent for all such cases in similar documents in this case, but the Prosecution has no objection to the admission of that document.
THE PRESIDENT: It appears that there is something in the nature of an acknowledgment.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Although not in the nature of an oath.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And under those circumstances and in view particularly of the waiver of the objection -
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: -- by the Prosecution, the Exhibit will be received. We have not, as I recollect it, ever ruled that mere letters, Court No. III, Case No. 3.unauthenticated, are to be received for any purpose whatever.
This exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The content refers to the behavior of Schlegelberger in the field of international exchange of legal matters and is also a personal testimonial. I offer this document as Exhibit 100. 100, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: May I get myself straightened out on that.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: 42 is Exhibit 100. 41 -- the No. 99 exhibit, No. 99, was merely reserved.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, which one was received owing to the fact that no objection was made?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: 42. This one, 42, as 100.
THE PRESIDENT: We have ruled that that was received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Now we come to 43,now, do we not?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: No, I have no objection to 43, Your Honor. I objected to 41 which was marked for identification only as 99, and I state no objection as to 43. I have none.- Which is now being offered.
THE PRESIDENT: 41.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: 41 is reserved.
TIE PRESIDENT: 42 has been received.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: That's right. I have waived that. That's right.
THE PRESIDENT: We now come to 43.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: That's right.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Now we come to 43.
THE PRESIDENT: Which would be 101.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: 43 will be 101. Right. Document No. 43 is an affidavit by Dr. Edward Seibt. I shall not read all of it. It confirms the fact that on the occasion of Schlegelberger's leaving the Ministry as Acting Minister of Justice, the British Broadcasting Service, the BBC, Court No. III, Case No. 3.made the comment that "This means that the last true representative of justice in the noble sense leaves the Administration of Justice."
I offer this document as Exhibit 101.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The following document No. 44, deals with the same subject. It is in English and on account of my poor pronunciation, I should not like to read it. It deals with the same subject as the previous one.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Your Honor please, I haven't had my headphones on, and I don't know what has been said, but I consider that Document 44 is a letter -- the essence of the document is an unverified letter, and although it was sent to American judicial forces apparently, yet I don't believe that gives it any higher degree of probative value. I shall object to it because it, on its face, appears to be a letter and a letter written rather clearly in contemplation of litigation. By the same token while we are discussing it, I shall also object to Document No. 47 which is a letter from the Protestant Bishop of Berlin.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Concerning Document 44 I can only say that I received this letter through Military Government. It is correct that it does not have the form of an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection sustained.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I come to the next document, Document 45, an affidavit by Dr. Walter Kriege. Dr. Walter Kriege is not in a very high position in the bi-zonal office. I read the second paragraph.
"As a referent in the Reich Ministry of Justice I was working at that time under the then Under Secretary Dr. Franz SCHLEGELBERGER. Knowing that I was not a member of the NSDAP and its organizations and that I was in strong opposition to National Socialism, he occasionally talked with me in private about his fears. In doing so he particularly emphasized how much he was harassed by the fact that he was only partially successful in eliminating the disastrous influence on the judicial system exercised by HITLER, the Party, and the SS. I remember having told him once or twice on such occasions that the best he could do was to resign from his office forthwith. He replied that this in fact would be the best expedient to get out of all difficulties. But he was afraid that a radical person, presumably Herr THIERACK, would be put in his place immediately after his resignation, which would mean a considerable intensification of the radical course, particularly in maters of criminal justice. However, as much as he wished to resign from his office,so as not to be responsible for matters which were contrary to his views, he nevertheless considered it his duty to hold out for the present in order to eliminate as much as possible any disastrous influences. I replied that I indeed had to admit that after his resignation from office judicial affairs would deteriorate considerably; but I advices him to consider whether considering his own person, he had not better take this decisive step after all. He then said that, for the time being, he still wanted to continue the struggle; still, there might of course arise a situation some time when he would follow my advice."
I offer this document as Exhibit No. 102.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document 46 is an affidavit by Dr. Max Matthias. I read on the first page.
"Owing to the fact that I never became a member of the Party or any of its branches, Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER knew my views and repeatedly took the opportunity of frankly discussing political matters during our conversation.
But he always treated official matters with proper reserve. We discussed especially economical developments, because as chairman of industrial enterprises I was particularly interested in that subject, Herr SCHLEGELBERGER always seemed to me to be a very educated state official with a high sense of responsibility, who was considered as one of the top exports on German Economic Law, and became a recognized authority in this field. His views and aims were based on a definitely nationalistic popular sentiment and culminated in the view that legislation should establish a balance between contradictory opinions. He tried to modify one sided advances of political tendencies through appropriate regulations. That is why he considered it necessary to make occasional compromises to extreme conceptions in order to reduce their activity to the lowest possible minimum.
This was the reason why he occasionally approved of decisions which were contrary to his personal feelings, as I realized particularly during discussions of the law concerning stocks and shares.
In time I was able to watch Herr SCHLEGELBERGER getting more and more depressed which expressed his disappointment in the development of the legal ideology in Germany. His condition got to the point where one could recognize that he grew more and more bitter and definitely weary of his position, which did not stop until he resigned from office. After that time he was obviously relieved to be free of those unbearable ties. The reason why his resignation was delayed was, as I concluded from occasional remarks, partly based on the fear that his position might be taken over by a successor who would bring the judicial system to extremes, that it could never be justified."
DR. KUBUSCHOK (Continuing): I offer this document as Exhibit 103.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next Document No. 47 is a certificate by the Protestant Bishop of Berlin. It bears an official seal by the Bishop.