Q You have stated that in the course of their experience in the field of the administration of justice from 1933 to 1939, the Tribunals also must have known about the excesses of the SS, the Gestapo and the SD, especially since the conditions in the concentration camps were known among the population in Berlin.
A Yes.
Q Can you maintain that the population in other localities also was equally well informed about the conditions in concentration camps?
A My experience is limited to Berlin. However, from Breslau, too, I was told about such things.
Q Do you believe that a ministerial director who in 1934 came to Berlin as a foreigner from a different place and worked in the Reich Ministry of Justice in the Division for Civil Matters -- was in charge of it -- who did not have his own apartment in Berlin, that such a man could have known about the conditions in concentration camps?
A If he did not live like a hermit, he must have heard about it within a short time after he arrived in Berlin, especially since he must have had conversations with his colleagues from other departments of the Ministry of Justice.
Q You stated that from the formation and the development of criminal law and criminal order of procedure, every jurist who evaluated the situation correctly, must have concluded, without any difficulty, that the development during the war was constantly taking a turn for the worst and would have to lead to the elimination of the principle of the Rechtsstaat, the Constitutional State. Witness, do you believe that this applies also to a judge who until 1939 was active at the Reich Supreme Court as judge in civil matters and who concerned himself there only with his own field?
A I cannot imagine that a judge in the Reich Supreme Court, even if he was active only in civil matters, did not know about the establishment of the people's court and the special courts, in that he would not occasionally have read literature in criminal law for one reason or another.
Q A final question. Did you know the Ministerial Director Hesse (Ministerial Dirigent)?
A No.
Q Thank you.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. KUBOSCHOK:
Q Dr. Kuboschok for Schlegelberger and von Ammon. I return to the discussions about the extraordinary objection. An example: A trial in a special court. The prosecutor has made his statements; the defense has mad its application; the court has made its decision and passed the sentence. Two cases: The Tribunal has remained within the orders of the prosecution in its sentence. Witness, what could the prosecutor whose application was not fulfilled, what could he do?
AAt the people's court?
Q No, at the special court. The prosecutor was not satisfied with the sentence.
A There was no legal recourse.
Q What could he do otherwise? I ask you to keep in mind the extraordinary objection.
A He could, since the judgment had legal validity, since there was no legal remedy, within a year he could make application to the Reich Supreme Court, first of all according to the decree of 1940, only he could raise an objection because of serious doubts concerning the correctness of the judgment and so he could go to the extraordinary extent of the Reich Supreme Court.
Q In other words, he could initiate the raising of an extraordinary objection?
A Yes.
Q The second case: The sentence went beyond, was objectionable to the defense counsel. The defense counsel is not satisfied with the sentence Now what could the defense counsel do?
A He could not introduce an extraordinary objection; however, he could apply to the prosecutor to make an extraordinary objection.
Q Could he not do the very same thing what the dissatisfied prosecutor did in his own case, namely, to make an application to the chief public prosecutor and there to initiate the extraordinary objection?
A Yes, that is what I said, to initiate it there.
Q In other words, the dissatisfied prosecutor had the same legal rights -- privileges -- as the dissatisfied defense counsel?
A With the difference that the chief public prosecutor could decide, on his own part, whether he would like to submit the extraordinary objection for the defense counsel; that is, the defense counsel was dependent upon the decision of the chief Reich prosecutor, or the Oberreichsanwalt, while the public prosecutor did not depend upon this.
Q I am always referring to the public prosecutor at the special court who was dissatisfied. He, too, had to appeal to a higher authority: the Oberreichsanwalt (chief public prosecutor), upon the suggestion of the defense counsel, or the public prosecutor of the special court submitted such extraordinary objections.
A I do not know any individual cases. In this connection, in regard to the extraordinary objection, I would like to point to a remark in Dallke, a commentary which is known in wide circles. It is the edition of 1942, 33rd Edition, Page 1447, it is footnote 5 to Article 3: "The extraordinary objection is not a legal remedy, also, not an application for reopening of a case; but it is an immediate form of the highest legal authority of the Fuehrer. It is a negative form of the right for information of the juror, as the Fuehrer and supreme commander of the Wehrmacht, as he is entitled to it." For comparison, Article 410-A, wherein a military penal procedure is referred to.
Q I am now coming back to these special courts. How many members of special courts did you know in your social life and with how many did you speak?
A With members? None of them.
Q So everything which you have so far told about practically, you know from circles who are not members of the special courts?
A The special judges were appointed by the president of the district court of appeals. They were selected by him.
Q May I point out to you that you are mistaken in this case, for it is the president of the district court who had the right to determine who would be members of the special courts.
A In the order of the 21 February 1940, Article 11, Section 2: "The chairman and the permanent members, as well as the regular deputies, in case one would not be available, on the basis of the order regarding the division of labor on the 21 of January 1943, Reichsgesetzblatt (Reich Legal Gazette), Page 1286, are appointed by the president of the district court of appeals from the number of the judges subordinate to him. The president of the district court of appeals, according to the provisions of this law, regulates also the division of labor."
Q Do you know the previous regulation?
A I do not have the provision here.
Q At one point in your testimony you said that the judges of the special courts represented the elite of Nazism. How much do you know about the persons on special courts, personally about the members of special court
A On the basis of the reports, which information I was given, regarding the appointment of the defendant Rothaug, as successor, that these were judges who were known to be special National Socialists. I could not conclude from that, and from the purpose of the institution of Special court that in other cases it was not different.
Q Is it not very dangerous from one individual case, concerning on individual person, to make, to draw a conclusion regarding hundreds and thousands?
A I said already that in addition to this one example, I had considered the meaning and the purpose of the institution so that the example was considered in connection with the purpose of the special courts, and that is what made me draw this conclusion.
Q Witness, I shall prove to you that it is very dangerous, from a subjectively supposed meaning of a regulation to conclude from that as to facts regarding the composition of the personnel of special courts. I, myself, perhaps am more than an expert because I could observe a very large number of special courts. What do you say to the following, for it will seem surprising, but it is the fact that not an inconsiderable number of judges were not even party members, so certainly they did not belong to the elite.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your Honors, please, I object to the question because it is a form of testimony by Dr. Kubuschok. I have already taken the stand myself and permitted myself to be interrogated under oath by Dr. Kubuschok, and if sometime he wants to testify about this, may be he will return the courtesy; but, it is not proper cross examination.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I consider it absolutely important in cross examination to determine whether this witness actually testifies from his own practical experience; first whether he is an expert, and secondly whether he has the necessary factual basis for his actual statements in order to show that this is not so. 803
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is quite ready to rule on this. We have already ruled, when other Defense Counsel have been at the desk, that it isn't proper to make an affirmative statement. If you have a different point of view of the law from that which the witness seems to entertain, you have a way of proving that either by your own testimony or the testimony of some other witness; but it isn't proper to make an affirmative statement in the course of cross examination. The objection will be sustained.
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q I now put the following questions, witness. Do you know that in other infrequent cases members of special courts were not party members?
A It is not known to me, but I assume that it was like that. Before an appointment, and before being entrusted with this office; before being appointed to a special court, and in accordance with the general practice in personnel matters, some statement about the personality of the person concerned, an official statement is necessary; and in this statement, during the time of the Nazis, and this thing I know from hundreds of such official statements, a statement about the National Socialist reliability has to be made; an extensive statement to this effect. From the form of the statement one can see, even to day, whether it was only some statement in favor of the person, a perfunctory statement, or formula to say that he was a good Nazi, and this formula was a good sign to me that we were not concerned with a real National Socialist, but only a person whom it appears made the statement about him did not want to put any particular difficulties in his way. I consider it impossible that somebody was appointed to a special court if in the official statement there was not a statement to the effect that he was especially reliable in a National Socialist sense. That is a conclusion which I drew from the experiences which I had from the reading of personnel files. Therefore, it is not a question whether the person concerned was a member of the party; it is well known that there were very fanatic Socialists who avoided joining the party and who because of that were allowed to remain outside the party, because it seemed not undesirable to have people like that too who were Nazis and did not join the party.
Q Witness, you answered my specific question in a general manner. Please describe to me specifically the appointment of a special court judge the appointment of judges to a special court. How was this done? As president of the District Court Appeals now, you will probably have found out about this from the files.
AAbout the appointment of judges to the special court, I did not find out because such files are no longer with the district court; they have been forwarded.
Q Therefore, you do not know whether and by whom such political statements in the appointment of judges to special courts were made.
A If the president of a district court were asked to make a statement about a judge, he also made a statement about the judge's political attitude. I never saw an official statement during the time of the Nazis in which the political attitude of the person concerned was not mentioned.
Q The appointment to be judge of a special court is written down in the personnel files of that person. Therefore, I am surprised, that you do not know of such files and have such files at hand now, since the personnel files of the judges in your district could hardly have been destroyed.
A I made special inquiry regarding the personnel files of Rothaug, but they had been taken away from Schweinfurt.
Q Now, we turn to another group of questions, a knowledge of misde** in concentration camps. You have described in detail, how from the circle of your friends, and especially your Jewish friends, you wore informed about this.
A Yes.
Q Is it correct that the knowledge of the events in concentration camps were in a sort of relationship to the nature and extent of the circle of your acquaintances?
A The extent of the knowledge depends upon this without a doubt, but the facts did go beyond these circles of friends; the circle of friends is not exclusive, but one goes into the other; they are interlocked. I knew that in the Third Reich there were less and less circles as time went on in which there were Jewish people; but I even saw that in other circles there was knowledge of these goings on in concentration camps.
Q Witness, from 1939 to 1941 you were in a position in the police department in Berlin. In this official capacity were any facts known about these things in this office?
A No, not about this question.
Q Even though you were working in the administration of the police department, and in the police department, there were among them, subordinate to the police education department, which seems to be a type of concentrate camp.
A I did not have anything to do with the camps.
Q In your official capacity you did not find out anything about it
A No.
Q. Witness, until 1941 you were in friendly relationship with Dr. Jacobi?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you before that time, from 1933 on, discuss the problem of immigration with Dr. Jacobi?
A. That was discussed generally. I cannot say whether it was discussed with him or whether I discussed it with him, but I consider it for certain that generally I did discuss it with him in general.
Q. Is it true end especially tragic that the number of Jews who after 1941 were killed were those who had hoped that the conditions would not go into unjust channels into which they later went?
A. That is connected with the temperament and character of the persons whether they were pessimists or optimists. There were some who unfortunately thought that National Socialism would run down very quickly and they thought they could survive that. On the other hand, there were others who from a certain fear for their lives, and as long as the appeal for their subsistence kept them from immigrating, that is the pensions which they received.
Q. Witness, were there not also a large number of people who in the serious consideration over this question also said again and again, if the conditions have reached such a point now that it practically really - cannot go down hill to a further development of injustice any more. Not a large number of people. During all the years from 1933 on did they not have that fear or feeling?
A. Yes, there were those people who felt that it was so bad that it could not get any worse, perhaps. We have survived it, but it did become worse all the time, and they had to be wounded. Some of them - it depended upon the human nature, some listened to the warnings and there were others who did not listen.
Q. Once during your testimony you said reasonable human beings who stood in daily life would have to be able to see in 1933 with certainty - to predice with certainty - that matters would take the course they actually did take later?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I think that interpretation should be 1939.
INTERPRETER: I am sorry, sir, 1939.
Q. (continued) I believe these cases which we just discussed, those cases whom you call optimists, that those cases did not belong to those people?
A. They are always optimists.
Q. Witness, you stated that after 1933, outside of your pension, in addition to your pension, you lived on the money you received from your publications, things you wrote. Until what year did you write for publications?
A. That is not limited since from 1909 until now I worked as a writer.
Q. Also during Hitler's regime?
A. Yes, everything which I wrote during the Third Reich and which was published at that time I collected, and at any time I showed it to everybody and said what I write I can still stand up for, even after the collapse of the Third Reich. This was only literary and asthetic writing, every single word.
Q. Are you a member of the Reich Culture Union Chamber?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. You are a friend of Dr. Jacobi. Dr. Jacobi has written treatises about different kinds, that is, of the most varied legal problems, which are the basis of these trials. Did you yourself take part in these writings?
A. No, I have already told that to the Tribunal. I read these writings and examined them and made some remarks or footnotes of a nature which seemed important to me about the development of the administration of justice.
Q. Then you returned them to Dr. Jacobi?
A. No.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any of the defense counsel desire to cross examine this witness?
(No response)
Apparently not, and the prosecution may proceed with any further redirect examination. May I inquire at this time whether the witness will be able to respond in English? If so, it will save us from using the earphones.
That would be unfair to the German speaking counsel, so I will withdraw the remark.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q. I believe you testified that the form of the laws of the Third Reich must be read in the anthology of the Third Reich and which surrounded its coming into power?
A. Yes, that is the meaning of what I have said.
Q. Witness --
A. I beg your pardon, may I speak in English?
THE PRESIDENT: No, speak in German.
Q. You were asked about Special Courts under the Weimar Republic and in the state of Bavaria and I believe you answered that as far as the form of the language of the Enabling Act there was very little, if any, difference between those of the Third Reich and those about which you were asked.
A. That is correct.
Q. Now if - pardon me, Your Honor - Are you acquainted with a statement of Joseph Goebbels published in the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung on 25 November 1934 which reads as follows: "We were not legal in order to be legal, but in order to rise to power. We rose to power legally in order to gain the possibility of acting illegally." Are you acquainted with that statement?
A. Yes, that is a statement - a quotation - which was often quoted.
Q Assuming that the statement becomes evidence in this case and al assume that the evidence now in this case discloses and I refer to Exhibit 66 in Book 1-B at page 118, that Dr. Schlegelberger in 1941 wrote this let in discussing the connection between Dr. Goebbels Ministry and the Ministry of Education -- I mean of Justice -- "Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels has therefore instructed the press and the propaganda machine to consider these necessities in all publications; at the same time he has requested that the Ministry of Propaganda be informed about all judicial proceedings which maybe used to this end by calling special attention to them", and further similar language, I ask you at the time of the laws under the Weimar Republic, the law passed in connection with the Special Courts following the murder of Rothenau and the others that you mentioned, was there any such statement of policy as I read from Goebbels as the policy of the Government then in power?
A Such a taking of attitude from that time, I do not know.
Q There was no such statement of Goebbels as: "We come to power legally in order that we may act illegally?"
A No.
Q At the time of the Weimar Republic was there?
A No, not at the time of the Weimar Republic.
Q Was there a control of the press and mediums of information in the time of the Weimar Republic comparable to that which existed in the Third Reich?
A No, it cannot be compared in any way.
Q Did you ever hear of any connection between the Ministry of Justice under the Weimar Republic and anything comparable to it in that republic a Ministry of Propaganda that Goebbels had in the Third Reich?
A No, there was no such Ministry. It was only in the Third Reich
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. It seems to me that this is inaccurate compare the periods of the Weimar Republic with the period of the Third Reich. It will be more accurate to compare the period of the enabling act with the period before that, would it not? The Weimar Republic never went out of existence, is my thought.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Well, I understand your Honor's feelings but I think we have been accepting the fact that there was a differentiation. I am trying to contrast the conditions before. I think you said also that when you stated that the Peoples Court were typical Nazi Legislation that you had in mind the potentiality for complete domination of the State by the Hitler regime. Is that not correct?
A Yes.
Q And the conditions that I have -- I will withdraw that. In addition to the difference of conditions under the Weimar Republic and the Nazi Regime which you have just referred to, I call your attention to the fact that in February 1942 the defendant Dr. Rothenberger, Exhibit 74, Be 1-C, beginning at page 64, page 66, who was then presiding Judge of the Court of Appeals in Hamberg reported to the -- I think I am wrong. It was Dr. Rothenberger. No, it wasn't Dr. Rothenberger. I wish to reframe that question. Counsel (referring to counsel for defense) was right. It wasn't Dr. Rothenberger but the Oberlandsgerichts-President, President of the Court of Appeals at Hamm, Westphalia. I am correct now. That on February the newly appointed Gauleiter of South-Westphalia paid a visit to the Court of Appeals. I ask you whether or not that statement confirms your opinion that the control of the Special Courts was affected by the officials of the Nazi Party? That also SS Obergruppenfuehrer Freisler paid a visit?
AAccording to these statements, yes.
Q And if I read you from the evidence also in that report this statement:" The time between the receipt of the indictment and the judgment passed amounted in general to approximately three days only. It was possible to pass the sentence on a Polish woman on the same day in which the indictment had been received by the Court," referring to a Special Court. I ask you whether or not when you said that the Special Courts of the Third Reich were an instrumentality of the Nazi ideology, whether the evidence in the case that I have just read to you bears out that opinion?
A Yes.
Q I think you referred to the time in the year 1936 when the insig nia, including the insignia of the Nazi Party was placed on the robes of judges; is that right?
A Yes.
Q And I believe that one of defense counsel celled your attention the fact that there was other insignia of authority other than that of the Swastika on that insignia which was put on the judge's robe; is that correct
A On the robe of the judge, as I said, there was the so-called Sovereignty Insignia which is not identical with the Party insignia. Howe the most visible symbol, the Party symbol, the Swastika, was on this Sovereignty Insignia. I told that already to the Tribunal.
Q Now, I want to ask you was in not in 1933, the law of 1 December 1933, Reichsgesetzblatt, 1, for 1933, page 1116, that the law of safeguard the unity of party and State was enacted?
A Yes.
Q So that this insignia was in conformity with the underlying principle adopted in that Legislation in 1933, was it not?
A Yes, according to the law announced of National Socialism for the unity of Party and State, Reich insignia belonged to the Party as well as the nation in the same way just as the Party insignia and the so-called H Wessel song became a National hymn.
Q Now, if you please, also I call attention to the fact that the 1 of June 28, 1935, 1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, 1, page 839, which was a law, Amendment 2-134-B of the German Penal Code of 1876 which is Book 2, 8-A, made it a crime to publicly defame the Nazi Flag, standards, banners. The act was passed in 1935 prior to the time this insignia was put on the ro** of the judges. The law I read you is evidence in this cause. 1935 was also prior to the time that this insignia was put on the robes?
A Yes.
Q So that, if you please, doctor, I ask you now by reason of the Legislation enacted prior to the time the symbol was put on the judge, do you conclude that your observation that the Special Courts were a special instrumentality of the Nazi Party is the same as the Legislation by the Na** Party itself?
A Yes.
Q May I have your attention, doctor. I don't care to have you read the book. I think you also stated, in fairness, that at the time this insignia was put on there were judges who resented it but nevertheless remained in the judicial section?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q I would like to read -- I withdraw that -- assume that document evidence which will be introduced in this case shows that the defendant Oeschey in the Spring of 1945 in discussing a case before the Special Civ** Courts martial which were provided for in February 1945 and who was, according to his affidavit, connected in various capacities with the administra*** of German justice from 1933 on while functioning as Chairman of the Courtmartial at Nurnberg -- assume that the evidence in this case -- I think Schubert wants to make an objection. Let me state the question and don't answer the question until he can make the objection:
"Among the people present at Breitensteller was also Oeschey, and Schoen, President of the Court Martial, and Chief Public Prosecutor Dr. Schroeder. I was standing near them and overheard Oeschey say to Schroederas far as I remember, discussing a defendant before his court who had not yet been tried--'Now we will go over and shot the little count.'" I ask you whether, in your opinion--and don't answer until Dr. Schubert has a chance to speak--in your opinion, whether such a man objected to wearing the insignia of 1936 on his robe.
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Tribunal, the translation system did not quite work; I did not quite understand the question in its entirety. In so far as I could follow it, it concerned a problem of the so-called courts martials which were instituted in the spring of 1945. Regarding these courts martials, the witness was not asked about that during his first examination by the prosecution. Therefore, I believe that I have a right to object to this question.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I would like to state the general purpose of this examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Whatever the purpose may be, the question is, are you violating the rule in going into different fields?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I don't think so, because I don't think I have gone into different fields, if I may state my position.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will hear your statement.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: The witness was asked by the defense, who said that at the time that Friesler made so much of the great moment of pinning the Nazi insignia on the robe of the judge, were there not other judges and other members of the Ministry who were not happy with that situation?
He was also asked whether or not the Hitler speech of April 26, 1942, was not resented by members of the German jurists, and he said, "Yes, and I quite agree with that."
I think that after such an answer on cross-examination I am entitled, on redirect examination, to point out circumstances as to these particular defendants and ask him whether or not, in the light of those facts, they come within the group that he said probably were not happy about these situations.
I think the facts may be, both subsequent to the act as well as prior to the act, evidence of the character of the individual upon which the witness can form his opinion for whatever it is worth about at the time at which he was questioned and gave his answers.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask you a question?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes, surely.
JUDGE BRAND: Aren't you seeking to establish this evidence by a written document, which you propose to read to the witness?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: No, Your Honor, I think I am within my rights by at this time assuming--and I said I am assuming--certain facts which will later became part of the record. I am not attempting to establish by this witness the facts which I assume.
JUDGE BRAND: I understand that.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: It seems that I am entitled to assume facts; I am assuming facts which will be in the record, yes.
JUDGE BRAND: You are assuming facts which you say will be in the record.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Which will be offered in evidence.
JUDGE BRAND: If these facts are introduced into the record, then what is the need for asking this witness for his construction of those facts which you propose to put into the record? The facts will speak for themselves, will they not?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: They will, but the witness' answer was--I don't think that is quite the issue, Your Honor, but I will state this, and then I will desist. The witness was asked whether or not there were certain judges, and I am asking him whether or not, from these facts, he would conclude that these defendants were within the category that he excluded. That was the purpose.
JUDGE BRAND: My suggestion to you is that the evidence which you propose to offer will be as clear on that point as any evidence could possibly be.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I understand. That being true, I don't care to pursue that line of questioning any further. I withdraw the question.
MR. LaFOLLETTE:
Q Now I think, as I recall, you were asked rather extensively about the question of sterilization and castration. I ask you first whether or not you do not recognize a distinct difference between sterilization and castration.
A Yes.
Q And I believe that you said that your objection to it, or rather, that your characterization of the sterilization law as typical Nazi legislation, was based upon the fact that you did not believe in the ethos of National Socialism, that sufficient safeguards could be put around that law to prevent its being used for a purpose which you felt was clear at the time it was passed. Is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q May I call your attention to the fact that during the period about which you testified, Reichsgesetzblatt for 1935, Part I, page 289, of 25 February 1935, entitled "The Third Decree for the Execution of the Law for the Prevention of Congenitally Ill Progenies"--I think that is correct--Article 4 contained this provision, and I read it to you.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: This is page 60 of Book 2, Your Honors.
Q (Cont'd) "Interested persons and counsel can be barred from appearance at the hereditary health courts and appellate hereditary health courts for important reasons. This decision is incontestable."
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I ask the High Tribunal to excuse me, if, on behalf of the defense, I interrupt for purely technical reasons.
The translation by the interpreter is so inadequate that frequently we do not understand the meaning of the questions and statements of the prosecutor and of the Tribunal. We cannot follow. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Tribunal, on the question of the appointment of the interpreter, would make a permanent change, since the basis of an orderly and well-regulated trial can be endangered through this inadequate translation in a serious way.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If there is a 1935 Gesetzblatt in the courtroom, perhaps the translation will come through better if the law is given to interpreter and she can read it.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand the objection is not merely to the reading; it goes to all of the translations?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: That is the English to German translation.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right. It was because I wanted defense counsel to have the full benefit of the witness' answers that I thought he should speak in German and not have the translations relayed to them.
MR. LaFOLLETTE.: I get the German to English all right.
DR. Brieger; On behalf of my colleagues, may I mention that up to now we have found the translation of the lady very satisfactory. Also, it was repeatedly noticed that she helped the man interpreter in a manner which we appreciated very much as far as technical expressions were concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: This is, of course, a very important matter. We have now reached the period of the usual afternoon recess, and we will therefore recess at this time and try to take the matter up in a more deliberate way out of court.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: We will briefly state, at this time, that we think we have a remedy for the situation. During the remainder of this day, at least, we request the witness speak rather slowly and deliberately to give the translator a better chance. The admonition applies to counsel. We all appreciate it is a wonderful talent to be able to make *** current translations.
It seems my remarks ere out of order. We already have another interpreter.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I believe the interpreters have found a copy of the law so that when I read from it it will make things somewhat easier. I would like to repeat my question.
BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q. As I recall, on cross examination and also on direct examination you stated you felt that the sterilization law was a Nazi law because of the context in which it was passed and the capacity for danger you felt was apparent with the passage of the first act. Am I correct?
A. Yes.
Q. "Third Decree for the Execution of the Law for the Prevention of Congenitally Ill Pregeny of 25 February 1935. 1935, Reichgesetzblatt, Part I, page 289."
Article IV reads as follows --
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I object to this discussion on the second examination. Under cross examination castration was discussed as a penal measure. If now we are going to discuss sterilization on account of the law just mentioned, that means that a completely new subject is being introduced.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, I think in fairness to Dr. Kuboschok, it should be said that I do not believe he was here when Dr. Schilf cross-examined this witness. The Court will remember that the question of sterilization was gone into rather extensively, I thought.
DR. SCHILF: Dr. Schilf for the defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg.