Yes, Your Honor?
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask a question?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes.
JUDGE BRAND: With reference exclusively to Book 2.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes.
JUDGE BRAND: I understand your difficulties about Book 3.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes.
JUDGE BRAND: Now as to Book 2, is there a German translation of the matter which we have in the English as Book 2, and has that German translation gone to the defense counsel?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: My answer is that there is a German translation of the index of what you have.
JUDGE BRAND: Of Book 2?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Of Book 2. There is not a German translation of the matter which appears after Book 2, and we did not furnish one because we felt that it was a matter, in a sense, of judicial notice that counsel knew what the laws were when we referred to them in the index. Since we may have been wrong, or if that works a hardship, we are now saying as to Book 2 that we will furnish one or two days in advance of the time that we read cases from Book 3, which we believe have been decided under certain laws in Book 2, that we will furnish the year of the Gesetzblatt, the article, the section number, and the date that we think they become effective at least 24 hours before we read them.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you then not offering Book 2?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: At this time? Yes, we are offering Book 2 on the theory that the reasons that normally prevail for complete translation are not present here, but we also cer tainly do not want to work a disadvantage, and the precide statement which I have made with reference to Book 2 as it relates to cases in Book 3 I again reiterate.
Do I understand that there has been a formal objection to the introduction of Book 2 as an exhibit, or has there just been conversations to the way we would proceed?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't understand there has been a formal objection made, but I do understand that the Prosecution has stated that wasn't given to defense counsel under the 24-hour rule.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is correct as far as Book 2 is concerned. No, the English of Book 2 did get to the Defense Center, which is all that the Prosecution is required to do. But the Defense Center didn't distribute them.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Defense Center and defense counsel are, of course, entirely different institutions.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Exactly. I am not blaming defense counsel. I am only saying that under the rule, as I understand it, if we deliver the necessary copies to the Defense Center, then technically we could proceed. If there was actually no distribution in this case, and since Books A and B of 3 have not been distributed, maybe nothing is lost by not proceeding. I don't want to establish the president of putting the burden upon the Prosecution of the activities or failures of activities of the Defense Center, once we deliver the documents to the Defense Center. No do I blame defense counsel if they are not getting properly treated, but our obligation ends when we get them down there.
MR. SHILF: May I add something to that? I should like to take this opportunity to express this in open session. The document department of the Prosecution now gives the document books as Mr. LaFollette just stated to the Information Center of the Defense Counsel. We receive only the German copies there. Up to now, none of us has received an English copy.
Perhaps a solution would be if the Secretary General would be instructed to give us English copies when we get our German copies. Why we have not received them, I cannot say. Obviously, they have been kept back. I have previously asked whether I could have an English copy of the record. That request was refused. If the Secretary General would ask the gentlemen cf the Information Center to give us English copies, our problem might be solved.
The Prosecutor stated that there were only four English copies submitted to Defense Counsel. I could talk to my colleagues and come to an agreement with them about the use of these copies. We could exchange them between ourselves. The person who has the English copies should see that the others are informed of t is. I believe a suggestion or instruction from the Secretary General would be sufficient.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: As I understood the last part cf the request, it was that English copies of the daily transcript be sent to the Defendants' Information Center. While that is not a matter within the range cf the Prosecution, if I may comment, I think it is a fair request. Whatever copies they request should be sent down. The Tribunal has within its power to direct the Secretary General to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal sees no objection to defense counsel having a copy of the daily record of these sessions. We have no objection to it if it can be arranged. We will be glad to accommodate defense counsel.
DR. SCHUBERT: (Counsel for the Defendant Oeschey) May it please the Tribunal, I believe it has not yet been disclosed what difficulties defending counsel are being confronted with.
The German text of Document Book 2 has not been submitted. In the library which has been put at the disposal of defense counsel, there is in every case, if at all, at the most, one copy of the laws which are to be discussed.
Therefore, if we receive a report 24 hours before the discussion what law is to be discussed, then 16 defense counsel would be after the one copy which would have to be taken from the library. It would fall up n us to copy the contents of the law or read the same.
Under normal conditions the laws which are officially announced are correct, but the conditions are such that none of defending counsel present have at their disposal the text of all the laws. We have to rely completely on the library.
Through this objection I would not like to make the situation more difficult. I can see the delays and difficulties which would arise if the Prosecution were asked to copy all the texts into the German language for us. I would therefore like to suggest something which would probably simplify these matters. There are English translations of the text of the Document Book 2. This has been mentioned. If English documents were given to each defense counsel, it would give us the opportunity to follow the text of the law.
DR. BRIEGER: My colleague has just now made a statement which has not been translated correctly. He has declared that we are dependant on the inadequate library. The translation said we had to rely on the library. It is very important that we establish that this library is very inadequate for us.
THE PRESIDENT: The rule requires four copies. If we are to depart from the rules, I do not know when we could get back on the track again. It is a bad precedent to waive any rule. The Tribunal can do no less than to stick by the rule and enforce it. Whatever inconvenience may be suffered as a result of that ruling, we regret, but we are unable to correct it.
Of course the rule has technically been complied with as to Exhibit 112. However much defense counsel has been inconvenienced, we regret, but we must try this case according to rules. We must make this trial expeditious. We do not anticipate there will be any great difficulty about it. Defense counsel are presumed to be tolerably familiar with the German laws.
If they have a day's notice of what is still to come, maybe several days' notice, it may work out to their satisfaction. We hope it will. After all these statutes will only come into play upon presentation of these cases. Those cases will be pursuant to statute. If they have a day's notice, possibly two or three days' notice, we hope that will not cause any detriment to defense counsel.
DR. BRIEGER: I would like to ask the Tribunal not to make too high demands on us as to knowledge of German laws. I have already pointed out the fact that these texts very often change, especially those cases which were being debated during war time. Many of us during a large part of the war were not employed, but were serving as soldiers.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: As I understand, the Tribunal has admitted into evidence Exhibit Number 112 which is Document NG-715, also known as Document Book 2.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think there has been any ruling on that point.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: We now offer that as an exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: We will, however, rule at this time that Document NG 715 is admissable in evidence.
MR. LA FOLETTE: Now then, very frankly, when we come to Books 3-A and B, there has not been a compliance with the rule. We could make some progress by reading the provisions of the Weimar Constitution, Articles 102, 103, 104, and 103. By reading the decree of the Reich President of 23 February 1933 from this book which is already in evidence, Document Book 2, Page 83.
THE PRESIDENT: What page are you referring to?
MH. LA FOLETTE: I beg Your Honor's pardon, it was Page 1 of the English Book 2. Page 2 and 3 down through the material on Page 4 and Exhibits NG-514, 515, 516, 519, and 478 out of Book 3-A. That is as far as we would be able to go during the rest of the afternoon or care to go. Again, as to the exhibits which are in Book 3-A, we are not in strict compliance with rules and we can proceed and make that much progress if defense counsel would be kind enough to let us proceed that far. I certainly don't, in any way, hold them liable to do so. May we proceed now? I want to express my appreciation for that waiver of the rule and that is as far as we will go today. The last document to be read will be No. NG-478. That is five documents. That is in Book 3-A. MR. WOOLEYHAN: Reading from Page 1, Document Book 2:
"The Constitution of the German Reich.
"Weimar Constitution of 11 ,u.ust 1919 Rcichsgcsctzblatt Page 1383.
"Article 102: The judges are independent and only subject to the Law.
"Article 103: The ordinary judiciary consists of the Reich Supreme Court" -
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. If you see nothing is to be gained by reading that, if it is introduced into evidence, we can all ready it. And defense counsel are entirely familiar with this Constitution, and we are too as a matter of fact.
DR. SCHILF: Dr. Schilf for the defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg.
Mr. President. After we have discussed this for so long that the knowledge of the laws and the possibility of checking then can be described as inadequate, I should like to say for myself and also for my co-defense counsels, that as far as we know, the prosecution wants to send this Document Book 3 and the documents which were contained therein-- it wants to compare then with passages of the law.
It has begun that with the reading of Article 13 of the Constitution, and on the other hand, from Book 3 -- in order to check that, we are dealing with offenses against these laws. For that reason, it is of course necessary for us, as we have not these laws in front of us, at least to hear the translation in order that we nay be reminded of those laws, of what the consequences which can then be drawn by the prosecution, and as we only have the index before us, it would be a good thing if when they are being read, if they were read as the prosecution has decided it should be.
THE PRESIDENT: If it's a matter of accuracy of translation, of course, the defense counsel are entitled to have them read, and if that is the wish of the defense counsel, then they may be read.
DR. SCHILF: Thank you.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Dr. Wandschneider for the defendant Rothenberger. Mr. President, just briefly I should like to say a few words about the reading. The reading, as far as I am concerned, is not so important. I am, therefore, of the opinion --- I do not want to contradict the opinion of Dr. Schilf -that the suggestions were made that I as a defense counsel attach value to the fact that we ought to be informed of the passages of the laws previously by writing, but not at the meeting here, being suddenly confronted with them for the first time -- with the 60 laws -- and that we have to deal with these 60 laws which we, however, have forgotten under the present conditions, and which we cannot have at our fingertips. I believe that also, generally speaking, we have a far-reaching agreement about this point with the representative of the prosecution, Mr. La Folette, because if I have understood correctly, Mr. La Folette has previously been kind enough to explain to us, at least I understood it to be that way, that in the first place we should state in due time the only laws which have been explained to us as defense counsel, and how far we have taken also the laws and passages in the German and English translation of which we have been informed previously. That, I consider, as completely necessary for the expert dealing with these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: The prosecution may continue the reading.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The prosecution has no desire to engage in superflous verbiage here and we are perfectly willing to merely call the attention of the defense to page and verses of these statutes, whichever is the most expeditious, although am I to understand, that the Court has ruled that we shall read if the defense so desires?
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, the ruling which was made a moment ago relates only to the Constitution. There couldn't be any question about any changes of that, as I understand it. When it comes to laws, that is a little different matter. She suggestion was made from the bench about not reading the Constitution, which would be rather pertinent suggestion. It doesn't seem to me that the defense counsel are aided by having it read when they have the translation before them. If you desire, you can go ahead and read it.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: With Dr. Schilf's permission, we will omit the reading, unless he insists on it. We have not desire to read the Constitution necessarily. We will merely call the defense counsels' attention to the fact that Articles 102, 103, 104, and 105 are reproduced here. Under the sections which the prosecution is interest in: On Page 2 of the English Document Book:
"1933 Reichgesetzblatt, Part 1, Page 83.
"Decree of the Reich President for the protection of the people and State of 28 February 1933.
"In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of violence, endangering the state."
ARTICLE I "Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice.
Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
ARTICLE II "If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority."
We skip now to Article 5 on page 3 of the English Book:
"The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e. in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 307 (arson), 311 (use of explosives), 312 (flooding), 315 (damaging of railroad stock), and 324 (dangerous poisoning).
"Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:"
There follows several enumerations of several additional crimes which we will not read, but which under this article are thereafter to be punishable with death.
Skipping now to page 4 of Document Book II, "1933, Reichsgesetzblatt Part I, Page 136; Decree of the Reich Government on the Formation of Special Courts of 21 March, 1933.
Section 1 "(1) A Special Court will be created for the district of each Court of Appeal," which is the decree we just read.
"(2) The Special Courts are courts of the State.
"(3) The Legal Administration of the respective States determines the seats of the Special Courts.
Section 2 The Special Courts have jurisdiction over crimes and felonies enumerated in the Decree of the Reichs president for the defense of People and State of 28 February 1933 (Reichsgesetzblatt Part I Page 83) and in the Decree relating to the defense against insidious attacks against the Government of the National Revolution of 21 March 1933 (Reichsgesetzblatt Part I Page 135), provided that such offenses are not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or the Courts of Appeal.
Section 3 (1) The Special Courts shall also be competent if a crime within their jurisdiction represents also another punishable deed.
(2) If another punishable act is factually connected with a crime within the jurisdiction of the Special Courts, the proceedings on that other punishable deed against delinquents and participants may be referred to the Special Court by way of connection.
Section 4 (1) The Special Courts are composed of a president and two associates.
A deputy has to be appointed for each member in case of his absence.
(2) The members and their deputies must be permanently appointed judges of the district for which the Special Court is installed.
(3) The members will be appointed and the distribution of their tasks undertaken by the Presidency of the District Court in the district of which the Special Court is located.
Section 5 The prosecutors will be appointed by the Legal Administration of the States from those prosecution officials who are legally qualified for the office of a judge.
Section 6 The regulations of the Code of Criminal Procedure and of the Law concerning Judicial Organization will apply correspondingly to the proceedings, provided nothing else has been determined."
We will omit the reading of the rest of these laws establishing the special court, and refer to Document NG-514, which will be offered as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 1131; NG-514, is found on page 1 of the English Document Book 111-A, commencing on page 1, with the letterhead, "The Reich Minister of Justice, Berlin, 22 March 1933, to the Regional Justice Administration of the Provinces of Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Wuerttemberg, Baden, Thuringia, Hessen, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Braunschweig, Oldenburg. For information, to all the other Provincial Administrations of Justice. Subject; Establishment of Special Courts." The letter is "Urgent".
"A decree of the Reich Government of 21 March 1933 concerning the establishment of Special Courts is published in No. 24 of the Reich Law Gazette, volume I, page 136.
"I should appreciate it if you would inform me at your earliest convenience in what places Special Courts are established and at what date they were set up. By order, signed: Schaefer. Seal of the Reich Ministry of Justice."
Reading now from page of Document Book 111-A, "Minutes of the conference at the Regional Justice Administration on 24 March, 1933. Present: Herr Senator Dr. Rothenberger," and a list of officials, the names of which we will omit.
Skipping now to page 3, Roman numeral II, "the discussion then dealt with the question of the establishment of a Special Court in accordance with the decree of 21 March 1933 (Reich Law Gazette I, page 136)."Herr Senator Dr. Rothenberger pointed out that there might be doubt as to whether the," -- if I may interrupt myself at this moment to translate the word "regional" as "state", if there is no objection.
DR. BRIEGER: (Attorney for Defendant Cuhorst) In the case of the document which the Prosecution has submitted just now, which he has read in this case to the high Tribunal, the particular impression must have been aroused through this order of the 21st of March, 1933, in the first place, the idea of special courts and that is to say, as were accused by the Prosecution of having actual Nazi ideas; in the first place, found a basic foundation as regards the law; however, I will tomorrow tell the high Court those particular paragraphs in the text of the laws which we gather, that before the seizure of power through Adolph Hitler, the basic foundation of the laws, that is to say, in the Weimar constitution, how it was originated; this order, as far as I can remember is the third emergency decree of the Reichsrigierung, and has been signed not only by Dr. Bruening, but also by Dr. Wirth, as the Minister of the Interior, and it is by this signature, as regards this signature, I attach particular importance to it, because Dr. Wirth as hardly any one else in all these years had the name in Germany of being the introducing or the leading antifaschist in Germany.
I should like to make a basic statement as regards this I would like to make a request to the high Tribunal that they will make a rule that the Defense Counsel will be given an early as possible opportunity also on their part of the high Court that they will be submitted the text of the laws because the task actually for the high Tribunal to work on the laws which are completely foreign is such a terrifically difficult task that it will be probably welcome from all sides if the high Court were given a long length of time as far as possible; otherwise, the danger arises that at a particular time the high Court, on the part of the defending counsel, will be dealing with so much material as regards law, that the Judges will not have the possibility technically to work on these things so extensively as it is necessary as regards their high responsibility.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May the Court please, I do not know to what statute the Counsel has just referred, but I would like to mention at this time that the Statute which I just real was in the 1933 Reichsgesteblatt, part 11, page 83, dealing with the decree of the Reich President for the protection of the people, and the statement of 28 February 1933 was signed among others, by Adolf Hitler. The Statute he mentioned was signed by Luebeck and was obviously of some other statute not sought to be introduced in evidence by the Prosecution. If this is the case, I suggest that the matter be brought up by the Defense as argument and best reserved for their case in chief.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal will agree with that suggestion.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Continuing with the reading of Document NG 514, on page 3 of Document Book 3-A, paragraph Roman II. I have already read the first paragraph under Roman II.
"Herr Senator Dr. Rothenberger pointed out that there might be doubt as to whether the Regional Justice Administration, as set out in article I, paragraph 3, was competent for the Hanseatic Court of Appeal, that is, for the three divisions of that court (Senate). He said he would telephone to Luebeck and Bremen about this question.
"The appointment of the members of the Special Court, as well as of their deputies, would be made by the presiding judge of the District Court as the Special Court would be located in Hamburg."
I skip now to the bottom of page 3, reading page 3 and page 6 in conjunction with one another as I submit to the Tribunal that must be done. We know that the last paragraph on page 3 is a paragraph of transmittal, addresses to the Reich Minister of Justice on 31 March 1933. Reading now from the bottom of page 5:
"With reference to your letter of 22 March 1933; concerning the establishment of Special Courts, I beg to inform you in reply that for the district of the Hanseatic Court of Appeal Hamburg, Luebeck and Bremen have established a Special Court which sits in Hamburg, and which is due to begin action at once.
The President of the Regional Justice Administration.
"(Signature): Dr. Rothenberger."
The Prosecution now offers in evidence as Exhibit 113, Document NG 514.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The Prosecution will next offer as Exhibit 114, Document NG 515, on page 7 of Book 3-A, certain portions of which we want to read.
"11 April 1933 "According to article 10 of the decree of the Government of the Reich of 21 March 1933, concerning the establishment of Special Courts, a counsel for the defense has officially to be assigned to the accused when the trial has been fixed, if the defendant has not yet chosen his own counsel.
"The consequence of this regulation will be that the treasury will be considerably burdened with the fees which are to be paid to the defense attorneys. If we take as a basis special court cases already pending with the Hamburg Office of the Public Prosecutor, it has to be assumed that the fees for the lawyers will amount to about 80,000 Reichsmark. The more so as in many cases the defense of the co-defendants collides and eventually makes it necessary to appoint a lawyer for each defendant. In many cases, however, the facts will be so clear that it will not be necessary to appoint a counsel for the defense."
The Prosecution offers as Exhibit No. 114, Document NG 515.
DR. BRIEGER: (Translation did not come through).
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Is the Prosecution to understand that our translation is faulty?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, the English translation in regard to the word "Clear." In fact the translation should be "Simple." I think perhaps that it is considered a little different.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In view of the fact that we have not yet arrived at a method of disposing of these conditions about the translation of documents, the Prosecution refuses to make an admission one way or the other as to the correctness of the translation. It should be deferred until a later time.
THE PRESIDENT: It might be to advantage if the Counsel for the Defense would point out the particular matter read of which there is a difference of opinion about the translation.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Court pleases, it has been so pointed out. The question is about the word "Clear," but we feel that it would need expert testimony to resolve the question, and since we have told the Court we will arrange these things out of Court, if possible. Perhaps we can defer that point, as we will all others, on the matter of translation.
THE PRESIDENT: The difference of opinion is on the word "Clear" in the English translation?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, we are willing to admit, as he says, it may be faulty but it would be best if we would come to some agreement on that at a later time.
THE PRESIDENT: That illustrates the importance of reaching some method of resolving these difficulties about the translations.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We shall attempt to do that as soon as possible.
Before the Document which I have just read, Exhibit 114, is offered in evidence, the Prosecution would like to point out that as it is indicated on the correct sheet, inserted on page 7 of the English book, the fact appears which does not appear from the English translation, and that is, that the document which I have just read so far, is the photostat of the original indicates it was signed by Dr. Rothenberger.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence, of course, the Defense Counsel will have the right after you have had your conference about this word to bring that up again and have that cleared up.
THE PROSECUTION: We understand that, Your Honor.
Turning now to page 8 of the Document Book 3-A, the Prosecution will next offer in evidence Document NG 516. It is to the Reich Minister of Justice, 14 September 1939.
If I may interpolate at this moment, in the English translation on page 8, that date does not appear, but upon examining the photostat of the original document, I found the date as 14 September 1939.
Berlin, concerning the establishment of a special court at Bremen.
"The Commissioner for the Defense of the Reich for the Territory of the Tenth Army Corps has suggested, through the governing Mayor of Bremen, to the Presidente of the Country Court Bremen, the establishment of a special court for the district of the District of the District Court, Bremen."
THE PRESIDENT: Should that word "country" be "county"?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I am just about to interpolate hero again, if the Court please. The original document reads "Landgericht" which, in our glossary of terms, we translate as "District Court". That is an error in the translation. Where you see "county" or "Country" read "district". The original document reads "Landgericht", and the accepted translation of "Landgericht" is "district".
"The amount of cases falling under the jurisdiction of the special court originating from the district of the District Court Brement has until now not been so important as to justify the establishment of a special court there. But considering Article 19 of the decree of 1 September 1939, concerning measures in the domain of judicial organization and jurisdiction I agree with the opinion of the commissioner for the Defense of the Reich about the district of the District Court Bremen.
"In accordance with Article 13 of the cited decree, I request you, therefore, to order the establishment of a special court for the district of the District Court Brement" Signed, "Dr. Rothenberger."
The prosecution submits as Exhibit No. 115, document NG-516.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Counsel for the defendant Rothenberger:
Mr. President, the document which has just been read, as previously submitted, is a copy. There is no original signature of Dr. Rothenberger, but only a stamp, "Signed Dr. Rothenberger." I request that this document only be submitted with reservations, as the High Court was already done in other cases.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May the Court please, the prosecution would like to make a brief statement in re what just been said. A great many documents that will be or have been offered in evidence bear only the typewritten name or the stamped name of a given person.
It is the prosecution's position, however, that nevertheless, despite tho absence of a written or long-hand name, and even though such - document may only be a copy, it is what it purports to be on its face and we submit it for no reason other than that and make no further comment on it. We do say that it is everything that, on its face, it purports to be. We will reserve our argument on the weight and credibility of a typed or stamped signature until some future time.
DR. BRIEGER: In the German Justice Administration and, furthermore, in the German Administration, it is completely inadmissible for any documentary notes to be admitted, even if they be of the shortest or the briefest, even if they regard only a telephone call, without any signature. But as it is always the case that all notices on documents are signed, I should imagine that this would be the case especially in the Reich Ministry of Justice where in most cases--that is to say, in all cases which have been submitted here--we are always concerned with very important things.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Is the prosecution to consider this as an objection to the admissibility of the document, or rather is it argument as to the weight of the signature? We submit it is the latter, and for that reason it is probably out of place at this time.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask you a question?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE BRAND: As I understand it, unless I was mistaken, you are offering an office copy with the stamp on it.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It is not the original, and you dealt claim it to be the original.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Precisely.
JUDGE BRAND: The office copy was found, as other documents were.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is exactly right, Your Honor.
JUDGE BRAND: You have not got the original available?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We have not. It was tho only copy which was unearthed for our use.
JUDGE BRAND: Then you are, roughly speaking, offering it as the best evidence under the circumstances.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Precisely. That is what the Court was intended to interpret from my remark that it was what it purported to be and no more, it being the best evidence the prosecution has available.
THE PRESIDENT: The universally accepted rule of evidence is that the document would be admissible for what it is worth.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We again offer NG-516 as Exhibit No. 115.
THE PRESIDENT: It would be more accurate to say that the document is received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Thank you, sir.
Turning now to page 9 of the English document book III-A, document NG-519:
"26 January 1942.
"To: State Secretary Dr. Freisler, in Berlin.
"Sir:
"I thank you for your letter of the 13th instant and your readiness to put Councilor Haack of the Court of Appeal at my disposal again as soon as possible. However, I shall not be in a position to arrange the Special Courts in Hamburg in such a way that it would be possible to fix the term for the trials to take place two weeks after the indictments have been received. I shall be glad, therefore, to avail myself of your offer to put some suitable judges of other districts at my disposal. I should be thankful, however, if they were judges who already have practical experience with Special Courts, as I am experiencing again and again that it is almost impossible for an ordinary judge, especially if he belongs to the older set, to adapt himself to the atmosphere of the Special Courts' jurisdiction. An absolute preliminary condition for me is harmonious co-operation within the section under the actual leadership of the presiding judge and continuous contact with me.
"In view of the age of my presiding judges (40 to 42 years) I would like best two judges in the age of 35 to 40 years.
Heil Hitler!
Yours respectfully (Signed) Dr. Rothenberger."
On the next page, 10, continuing with this same document, we have a letterhead: "Reich minister of Justice, Berlin, 12 March 1942," addressed to the President of the Court of appeal, Hamburg.
"Subject: Assignment of Associate Judges to the Special Court of Hamburg.
"According to your request in your letter of 26 January 1942 addressed to State Secretary Dr. Freisler, I asked a large number of presiding judges of Courts of appeal to let me knew if from their districts suitable judges in the age of 35 - 42 years, who already have successfully officiated at a Special Court, could be placed at disposal for assignment to the Special Court of Hamburg. In answer to my inquiry only Landesgerichsrat Dr. Schoellgen, born 10 August 1901, of the Duisburg District Court, who has been for several months associate judge at the Special Court of Duesseldorf, was named. The President of the Court of Appeal of Duesseldorf characterizes him as a capable, well-informed and very useful judge, a member of the Party and reliable in every way. However, the President of the Court of Appeal thinks that he is inclined to be lenient."
I omit the rest of that document. We are noting merely that it is signed by Dr. Nadler, with a stamp "The Reich ministry of Justice."
Skipping to page 11, another letter dated 7 April 1942, addressed to turn the Reich Minister of Justice, Berlin. Subject: "Assignment of Associate Judges to the Special Court of Hamburg."
"In persuance to your letter of 12 March 1942, I asked the president of the Court of Appeal of Duesseldorf for the personal papers of Landgerichsrat Dr. Scheellgen for information purposes. I found that, whilst Dr. Schoellgen is a very well qualified judge, he is inclining to leniency, according to the opinion of the president of the Court of Appeal of Duesseldorf.