To fill this position I recommend, therefore, my Gau Legal Advisor District Court Justice Party Member Oeschey. Party Member Oeschey is a member of the NSDAP since 1 December 1931, his membership number being 850246. He is unconditionally loyal to the Party in every way and is first of all free of any speculative intention. I can say about him unreservedly that he upholds the Party for the sake of its ideals. This corresponds to his ever-ready and modest outward bearing which entails that he stands in the background, compared to people who like to show off. So far as his professional qualifications are concerned, it is reported to me that already on the basis of the good outcome of the state examination he is far above the average and that he is as an associate judge as well as deputy presiding judge of the Special Court Nurnberg has accomplished excellent feats qualitatively and qualitively. Besides his unselfish positive view point toward the National Socialist idea and his outstanding efficiency which is part of his character, he is a nan above reproach. I beg you, therefore, dear Dr. Thierack, to fulfill my wish and with the appointment of Dr. Emmert as President of the Court of Appeal in Nurnberg to appoint Party Member Oeschey to the position of Senate President and with the immediate transfer of personnel matters.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May we adjourn, Your Honor, at this point?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn until Monday morning at the usual hour, 9:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 15 September 1947 at 0930 hours).
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Alstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 15 September 1947 - 0930-1630, the Honorable James T. Brand presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III.
Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all of the defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Wooleyhan, before you proceed with the crossexamination, counsel will recall that a few days ago, in behalf of the Defendant Cuhorst, two affidavits, one by Kleinknecht and one by Frey, were offered in evidence, and in each instance the prosecution objected, the grounds of the objection being that earlier affidavits by Kleinknecht and Frey had been offered in evidence, and had been received without objection, and the facts are as stated by the prosecution.
At the time the Tribunal ruled upon the objections, it had not had an opportunity to examine the test of the two affidavits, Cuhorst Exhibit 55 and Cuhorst Exhibit 69 and we were under the impression that these affidavits went to the extent of challenging the admissibility of the previous affidavits which had been received when offered by the prosecution.
We have since made a careful examination of the two affidavits offered by the prosecution, and of exhibits 55 and 69 which were offered by the defendant, Cuhorst, and which the Tribunal rejected in evidence, the objection of the prosecution having been sustained.
Upon such careful investigation and examination of these documents, although the defense has made no request that we should make such a subsequent examination, the examination having been upon our own Court No. III, Case No. 3.initiative, we have concluded unanimously that the Exhibits 55 and 69 do not go to the extent of challenging the admissibility of the earlier Prosecution's Exhibits, and do not amount to any contention on the part of the defense that the earlier exhibits were obtained by duress.
On the other hand these subsequent exhibits offered by the defense tend to construe and explain, in a manner more favorable to the defendants, what the original affidavits meant, and were intended to mean.
It is true there is some, at least implied complaint, as to the specific language which appears in the English translation, but we construe these affidavits 55 and 69 as being explanatory of, and in some modification of the previous exhibits which were properly received.
We feel that in fairness to the defendants, to the defendant who offered them, the Tribunal should reverse its earlier ruling, and Exhibits 55 and 69 are now received in evidence, -- Cuhorst Exhibits 55 and 69.
I may say that this has no effect upon the objection which was made and sustained to Cuhorst Exhibit 45.
You may proceed.
RUDOLF OESCHEY (Continued) CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q In reading over the transcript of Friday afternoon's proceedings, Mr. Oeschey, I discovered that the person who wrote that letter, which you were reading, did not quite come through the transcript. I am sure you remember that letter, and in case you do not, I will again show it to you. I am merely asking you who it was that wrote and signed that letter.
A This letter, in type, bears the typewritten name of Karl Holz, Deputy Gauleiter, as signature.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you identify the instrument for the record a little more in detail?
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Mr. Oeschey, that letter which you have just described as having been signed by Deputy Gauleiter Holz, is that the same letter from which you were reading at the close of the session Friday?
A It is the same letter which I read out on Friday afternoon.
Q Now in 1945, Oeschey, when you were called back from the Army and were appointed the Presiding Judge of the Civilian Court Martial here in Nurnberg, I believe you said that the party official, - or not the party official necessarily, but the official who so appointed you was the Reich Defense Commissar. I ask you, at that time, was the Reich Commissar of Franconia, the same man as the Gauleiter, namely, Karl Holz?
A The Reich Defense Commissar was identical with the Gauleiter Karl Holz.
Q Now also at that time when the Reich was becoming a battleground, and the Reich Defense Commissars were appointed, in this case the Gauleiter of Franconia, - could you affirm that the Supreme Commander of each of the Gauleiters and Reich Defense Commissars throughout the Reich, was Heinrich Himmler at that time?
A So far as I know, the Reich Defense Commissars were subordinate to the Reich Ministry of the Interior but I am not absolutely certain, but if that is how it was, then I think from 1943 onwards, -- but even that I cannot tell you for certain, -- however, if it was so, then I can say that Heinrich Himmler, from 1943 onward was Reich Minister of the Interior, and in that case the Reich Defense Commissar would have been his subordinate.
Q And if you further said on Friday, I believe, that the power to suspend sentences of the court martials in the courts of clemency, the official responsible entirely for the conducting of Court Martials, was in the hands, primarily, of the Gauleiter, or the Reich Defense Commissar, in this case?
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
AAccording to the decree on Civilian Court Martial, the Reich Defense Commissar had to confirm the verdicts passed by the Civilian Court Martial. The decision as to whether he wanted to affirm that verdict or whether he wanted to give instructions for clemency pleas to be made, that lay exclusively in the hands of the Reich Defense Commissar.
Q Now, Mr. Oeschey, in discussing the Gottfried case, being the one wherein this man in Oppenheim was captured by the U.S. Armed Forces and later returned, - I believe you said that in addition to Gottfried, there were two other co-defendants in that case?
A Yes.
Q Now can you affirm from your memory of trying that case, that the second defendant was the local Ortsgruppenleiter, and that the first defendant was the head of the local party Farmers' Association?
A I cannot tell you that from memory. I have to concede that it is possible, but if it was so, I did not play any part in making the decision.
Q And I believe you said that those two men I have just mentioned were acquitted, were they not?
A Yes, for subjective reasons.
Q May it please the Court, the prosecution offers as Exhibit 583 a press account of the activities of the Nurnberg Civilain Court Martial in the last days, discussing three of the cases discussed by the defendant during his direct examination.
I now distribute German and English copies.
THE PRESIDENT: What NG is it?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, it is NG 856.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received in evidence, as Exhibit 583.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Mr. Oeschey, you remember, I assume, that famous letter we discussed several weeks ago, which is Prosecution's Exhibit 561? It was that letter you wrote to Gauleiter Helz concerning the activities and shortcomings of Mr. Doebig. I do not wish to discuss that letter any further. We have talked about it at great length. I merely ask you if in your capacity as Gauleiter adviser, you ever took any other active part in advising Judges in the Gau, how they should adjudicate their cases?
A Whether I advised Judges as to how they were to adjudicate their cases?
Q Yes, Mr. Oeschey, in your capacity as Gauleiter adviser; did you over make any other attempts to criticize or regulate the way cases were to be tried on their merits in the Gau?
A I never exerted any influence on a judge or to try to make him decide any case in a certain way. As to whether I, apart from the cases mentioned in these letters, criticized any sentences, -- well that is possible, but at the moment, I cannot remember any individual case.
Q At the time you held that job, Mr. Oeschey, did you conceive it to be your official duty, as legal adviser to the Gauleiter, to try to rerulate the matter of deciding cases in the Gau in a general way?
A I do not quite know how I am to understand you. What do you mean, "influence in a general way"? That does not mean anything to me. I do not know what you mean by that. If any verdicts were criticized, and usually the people concerned offered such criticism, in such cases I examined the verdict, and I also examined the court files, but I cannot remember that I ever laid down any general directive.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, the prosecution offers as Exhibit 584, Document NG 1693, which is a letter by the defendant, Oeschey, to the President of the Court of Appeals in Nurnberg, who at that time was Doebig, in which I think it is apparent that the defendant, Oeschey, examined a series of cases involving juveniles, and criticized the decision in each case as being entirely too lenient.
The letter was written under the head of the Nazi Party, with the defendant, Oeschey, signing as Gauhauptstellenleiter, which is the legal adviser.
THE PRESIDENT: You say Doebig was the addressee?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: At that time he was, your Honor.
THE WITNESS: May I say something about that?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Certainly.
THE WITNESS: I do remember that letter. That is the complaint which was mentioned in the direct examination. It was a complaint against the presiding judge of the Nurnberg Juvenile Chamber. Under direct examination I pointed out that complaint, and above all the enumeration of those individual cases, originated with the district leadership of the Hitler Youth. It was addressed to the Gaaleitnug and it was passed on to me to deal with.
The account given in that letter is essentially the same as the account given by the district leadership of the Hitler youth. As I told you on the direct examination, I had already arranged with Doebig that I would discuss such complaints together with him and settle them. I told him about that complaint, and I think I informed him of all particulars, so far as I remember what happened then was that Doebig examined all of those individual cases, and in the course of a conversation told me that in his view, the criticism was unfounded, and that he could see no reason to proceed against the presiding Judge of the Juvenile Chamber, and I left it at that.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Mr. Oeschey, I have just handed you a paper. Would you please describe the letter head and the date, please?
A Yes.
Q What is it?
A I have before me a letter by the President of the District Court of Appeal in Nurnberg, dated the 2nd of December, 1943.
Q And to whom is it addressed?
A It is addressed to the Reich Minister of Justice, and it is signed by Dr. Emmert.
Q Mr. Oeschey, would you please turn to page 6 of that letter you have described?
A Yes.
Q On page 6, do you see a paragraph No. 2, entitled, "Criminal Jurisdiction"?
A Yes, yes I do. Strafgerichsbarkeit, criminal jurisdiction.
Q Mr. Oeschey, does that paragraph which you have just identified there read as follows, and I quote:
"I have transferred the presidency of the Special Court to District Court Justice Oeschey, because he is the stronger personality than District Court Justice Ferber, and also because he was superfluous in the personnel department. The severe line which Rothaug had given to the Special Court was retained, the quality of the verdict naturally sank with his departure, but Oeschey endeavors to reach it again."
Do you find that there, Mr. Oeschey?
A I have seen it, but it is a little different. What I see varies a little from the translation that has been given just now. Mr. Emmert, would you like me to read it out?
Q No, just answer the rest of my question.
A I merely wanted to say that he did not say because I was the "more severe" person, but what he said is that he appointed me to the presiding justice of the special court because I was a "stronger character", than Dr. Ferber.
Q Substantially, does the paragraph road the way I read it, in its entirety.
A Well, it does not say either the "severe policy" which Rothaug gave to the Special Court but the "strict policy" was retained. The last sentence is, "Oeschey is trying to reestablish that strict policy.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 584 is received.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No further questions, your Honors.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any redirect examination?
RE DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WERNER SCHUBERT:
Q The prosecution put the Guenther case to you, that is the case of the wool-collection which case has been discussed here. You read out a few passages from the verdict and evidently the conclusion has been drawn that you convicted, - that you accorded preferential treatment to the defendant, on account of the fact that she had done work for the party. Please give us your view about that.
A That is by no means correct. The verdict in the Guenther case itself stated that the defendant belonged to a number of organizations, some of which had been established by the party, and some by the state. In these organizations the defendant had been very active. That unselfish attitude on the part of Frau Guenther was naturally taken into account for the evaluation of here character, because for further decision in this case, it mattered a great deal whether the Guenther woman was a reliable person or not.
Q I have just handed you the files of the Guentner case. Please have a look at the clemency plea. Will you look at page 1, please. Can you see there whether you expressed an opinion that you did not agree with the clemency plea, and can you also see when you expressed that opinion. I am sorry, it is on page 3 -- on the back of page 3.
A I have before me the clemency files of the Nuernberg prosecution in the Guentner case. On the 26th of February, 1942, I stated my view when the defendant's counsel had made a clemency appeal. The defense counsel asked -
Q I beg your pardon, but I have to interrupt you. Just tell us quite briefly what you had to say about that. Were you in favor or were you against it?
A No, I was against it.
Q Will you now turn to page 7; it is the back of page 7. Do you see there that you also gave an opinion when a second clemency appeal was made?
A Yes.
Q What did you say that time?
A I said the same. Again I stated that I was against the clemency plea.
Q Will you now turn to page 20 of the clemency file.
THE PRESIDENT: May I interrupt a moment, Doctor. We do not see in the courtroom any of counsel for the defendant Altstoetter, and we apprehend that the time is rapidly approaching when he will be needed Will the marshal cause some one to notify counsel to be ready to proceed?
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Court, may I just point out that I have another two witnesses to call, and, therefore, it will take some little time -- it won't take much time, but it will take a little while.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for telling me; we didn't know that.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q Will you turn to page 20. What decision did you make then?
AAgain I stated that I was against granting clemency to this defendant because it would be premature.
Q I have just handed you the Sauer files. The Prosecution has charged you with several points, saying that you knew what treatment was accorded to the inmates of concentration camps; any way, the Prosecution stated that you knew that prisoners of the administration of justice were transferred to the Gestapo prisons. Would you please turn to page 17; it is the back of that page again.
A Yes.
Q If I remember rightly, during the cross examination you stated that the files of the Heubeck case, which you have been discussed a great many times, were included with the Sauer files.
A Yes.
Q Who ordered that was to be done?
A The referent, public prosecutor, Dr. Hoffmann.
Q When was that order issued?
A On the 7th of September, 1942.
Q And were the files put together -- were they attached?
A Yes.
Q You will find a pencil note there.
A Yes.
Q Will you turn to page 18 there. Can you see from page 18 whether and when the Houbeck files were again removed from the Sauer files?
A The same prosecutor, three days later, on the 10th of Sept. 1942 ordered that the Heubeck files were to be returned, that is to say, they were not available to the court when the court made its decision on the Sauer case.
Q Herr Oeschey, let us assume for a moment that the files had bem examined again. I am now showing you Prosecution Exhibit 559. Would you please turn to page 6; please tell us when an order was made in connection with the Heubeck case that it was to be transferred to the Gestapo.
A On the 24th of September, 1943.
Q And now will you have another look at the Sauer files. Will you turn to page 64 and will you tell us when the verdict was passed?
A On the 27th of May, 1943, that is to say, about five months before any how, at a time when Heubeck was still serving his term in prison, that is to say in a prison of the administration of justice.
Q Now, will you turn to page 23 in the Sauer files, please. Is that the letter which the Prosecution put to you in the cross examination?
A On page 23 there is a letter from the concentration camp Dachau, dated 16 October, 1942?
Q Who is that letter addressed to?
A To the Gestapo at Nuernberg.
Q Something is mentioned in that letter; you have referred to it already. Something is mentioned to the effect that concentration camp inmates had been injured by throwing them into a wash basin. Can you see from that letter what is correct as to the statements by the defendant Sauer during his trial?
A Concerning that instance it says in the letter that on the 23rd of February, 1939, an inmate after he had a bath for an hour and thirty minutes had died in the bath tub. It also says that he had not been ill-treated by the guards but by two co-inmates, who by sentence of the court of Assizes in Munich on the 28th of June, 1939, were sentenced to ten years in the penitentiary.
Q Do you remember, Herr Oeschey, whether in the course of the preparatory work which you did when you looked through the files, whether you found anything that might lead you to believe that Sauer had really been subjected to severe treatment during the interrogation by the police?
A No, I didn't.
Q Do you mean to say you can't remember; or, that you couldn't find that?
A No, I meant to say that I didn't find anything pointing to that. Otherwise, I would not have attached any importance to the confession by the defendant Sauer; I would not have through it proper to use that as a basis for convicting him.
Q I have now put the Schoenbaum files before you. Can you tell us who wrote the opinion?
A In the Schoenbaum case, Landgerichtsrat Meyer, M-e-y-e-r, composed the opinion.
Q On the basis of what legal provisions was Schoenbaum convicted?
A On the basis of Article I of the Malicious Acts Law.
Q Please turn to page 9 of the files, and tell us what legal provisions the Gestapo wished to be applied.
AArticle II, Section 1 of the Malicious Acts Law.
Q Which of the two provisions mean the most severe penalty?
AArticle II.
Q If I understand you correctly, it was you who applied the milder provision?
A Yes. The milder provision was applied -- the more lenient provision was applied.
Q The Prosecution has mentioned the Etcheverria, E-t--c-h-e-v-er-r-i-a. Can you remember whether Etcheverria at his trial defended himself by stating that he was still a prisoner of war?
A No. Etcheverria stated that in July, 1943 he had been discharged, as a P.W.
Q Did he have a defense counsel?
A Oh, he must have had.
Q I am now showing you Prosecution Exhibit 582. Will you tell us briefly, please, whether according to the verdict the defendant Etcheverria had used the articles which he had stolen for his own use; or, what did he do with them?
A The defendant Etcheverria, according to the verdict, sold all the articles which he had stolen in the black market, and the proceed were about five thousand marks.
Q The Prosecution also put the Zollner case to you. Can you tell us quite briefly what sort of an offense Zollner had committed?
Court No. III, Case No. III.
A. I do not recollect any details of that case. I didn't see any files, but Zollner was convicted under Article I of the war economy regulation because he had sold corn on the black market and it had a very high extract rate.
Q. In connection with the Zollner case, the problem of the so-called sound sentiment of people was discussed under cross examination. When that concept was introduced into legislation, did you consider that anything novel?
A. It might have been something basically novel inasmuch as in previous legislation that phrase had not been used.
Q. After that concept was introduced, did you interpret the law differently from the way you had interpreted it before?
A. No. Well, really that matter of the sound instincts of the people is a matter of course finally; the legal instincts of the reasonable human beings are the decisive thing.
Q. The affidavit which is now Prosecution Exhibit 580 has been submitted to you. Are the statements that you made in that, are they to be understood in the same way? You will find that sentence on page 3 of the affidavit.
A. Yes, that was my opinion and that is my opinion also now concerning the concept of the sound instincts of the people.
Q. In connection with those affidavits, a letter written by you has been discussed, a letter which you wrote to your brother in 1942. In that letter you say that influence was now being exerted on the judges in individual cases. Were you referring to a certain case when you said that?
A. I must have thought of some case, some concrete case, but I can't tell you now what case I had in mind.
It may be that I was thinking of the case in Oldenburg.
Q. You mean the case which formed the basis for Hitler's speech in April, 1942?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Were you ever asked to decide in a case according to directives?
A. In a concrete case it never happened.
Q. Would you have another look at your own affidavit, page 4, and would you read out the sentence which starts on the sixth line from the top.
A. Do you want me to read the sentence -- I did not consider myself a tool of the Hitler government?
Q. That is the one I mean; there are a few questions concerning this affidavit -- page 1, the fourth paragraph near to the bottom.
A. Yes.
Q. There you say that on account of the threat of the nullity plea the judge was no longer an independent judge. Please comment on the matter briefly.
A. First of all I must point out that this affidavit constitutes merely the extracts of an interrogation which lasted for about three hours, an interrogation concerning the position of the judge that is. The fact that in this affidavit the nullity plea is quoted to explain that the judge no longer was an independent judge leads me to point out that at the time of my interrogation I did not only quote the nullity plea but also quite generally, starting with the attacks in the press in such papers as the Schwarze Corps and the Stuermer, and to general directives issued by the Reich Ministry of Justice to the judges, guidance letters; individual criticism which was again and again leveled;
guidance discussions, nullity plea, the extraordinary appeal. I must point out that all those points pushed the judge into a position which according to my opinion--- and that is still my opinion now -- it was at the time when I composed the affidavit, all that meant that the judge no longer held the position of an independent legal judge -- if I may put it that way.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you a question. You have been referring to an affidavit, and I was under the impression that the interrogation related to your letter to your brother. Will you correct that for me. What affidavit is it that we're speaking of?
A. Just now I was asked a question about the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Which affidavit was that?
DR. SCHUBERT: That is the Oeschey affidavit which was introduced in the cross examination and it is Exhibit 580, Prosecution Exhibit 580.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you; that is what I want.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q. On page 2 in your affidavit there is a sentence -"if we did not adhere to those directives out fate would have been the concentration camp." Did you mean to say by that that the Minister of Justice would have sent you to a concentration camp; or, what did you mean to say by that?
A. That sentence is in my affidavit in connection with the Hitler speech of April, 1942, and I introduced that sentence by first pointing out that in that speech and even also in the regulations passed at the Reichstag after the speech had been made, we were threatened with criticism and subject to penalties if in the view of Hitler we would not interpret the laws in the way in which they had been concieved;
that is to say, I did not mean to state that the Reich Ministery of Justice would send a judge to a concentration camp, but naturally Hitler. There is a matter I should like to correct in connection with this affidavit. It is in the next paragraph where I mentioned the guidance meetings, guidance conferences. I say in my affidavit that those conferences were introduced in 1943 or 1944. Evidently I made a mistake, and I now know that those conferences were introduced in 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you state the date more fully in 1942? Can you give us the date more fully as to when they started in 1942?
A. Your Honor, I am afraid I can't do that at the spur of the moment, but I think it was during the latter months of the year 1942. The order concerning the guidance conferences has been introduced here as a document here in this trial.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q. Witness, you have been asked whether the Reich Defense Commissar was subordinated to Himmler, the Reich Minister of Interior. I am now going to put to you the decree concerning the appointment of Reich Defense Commissars. Would you please read Article II, Section II.
A. Decree on the appointment of Reich Defense Commissars, dated 1st of September, 1939. Reichsgesetzblatt, Reich Law Gazette, page 1565. Article II, Section II of this decree says the Reich Defense Commissars are in the Wehrkreise Military Districts the executive organ of the cabinet; they have to obey the instructions of the plenipotentiaries for the Reich Administration and Economy, as well as the Supreme Reich Authorities.
Q. Thank you. Who was the president of the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I object, Your Honor, to his reading just a portion of this decree; have him read all of it. He stopped in the middle of a sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you read the rest of the sentence, please?
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q. Will you read the whole of that paragraph, please.
A. It goes on -- and are subordinate to the supervision of the Reich Minister of the Interior.
Q. Go on.
A. The supreme Reich -
THE PRESIDENT: That is sufficient; counsel has indicated that is sufficient. That is all we want.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q. Now, will you answer another question. Who was the chairman of the Ministerial Council for the Reich Defense?
A. As far as I know, it was Goering.
Q. Witness, the Gottfried case was then put to you. Can you remember whether the public prosecutor made any difference in connection with the sentences for which he asked for the three defendants in that case?
Court No. III, Case No. III.
A. I am not absolutely positive but I think he asked for the death sentence for all three defendants.
DR. SCHUBERT: I have no further questions.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Just one question, witness. You have several times given us your idea as to the meaning of the phrase "Sound Sentiment of the People", when used in statutory enactments. Isn't your opinion that the party in it's authoritative pronouncements interpreted and explained what was meant in the statute by the sound sentiment of the people?
A. Your Honor, one can't say that just in this way. This term, this expression, "sound sentiment of the people", well, many people gave their views on that concept and many party people did, too.
Q. I am asking a legal opinion from you, not what many people thought the phrase meant but what you as a lawyer think it meant, and I am asking in substance if you mean to tell us that in your legal opinion there was no connection between the official party policy on the one hand and the statutory phrase "sound sentiment of the people" on the other, you think they had no connection with each other at all?
A. I did not assume that there was any such connection. By sound sentiment of the people I always meant that by that term the law intends to say that if according to the sound reasonable legal thinking of decent average citizens of our State a certain action was particularly disgraceful so that a certain verdict has to be passed.
Q. And you didn't think that the official position of the party was relevant in determining what the Judge should find was the sound sentiment of the decent people of the community?