"That in this connection the attitude of the Ministry could be of no interest to him was to be understood. The collective impression which was created by Rothaug's language in describing this as being a criminal case for the Special Court was as follows.
"Rothaug was aiming at bringing the case Katzenberger into line with the police's fundamentally special treatment of Poles and Polish Jews who entered into sexual relations of whatever nature with Germans.
"'The Sector Justice--one of Rothaug's favorite expressions--here has a task which must be solved on a political basis.'
"In this connection, Rothaug also effected that the process for perjury against Seiler should be treated as a Special Court case, and issued a warrant for Seiler's arrest.
"Investigations concerning the suspicion of repented perjury against Seiler were delayed. This is also why the indictments of Katzenberger and of Seiler did not reach the Special Court until about February 1942.
"I remember that there was talk of a 'giant gathering' in the conference room at which Rothaug's satisfaction at having been given this case to deal with could be seen.
"Markl, as he told me at the time, had been told by his chief of office, Schroeder, that he was to endorse in the session n plan in accordance with Rothaug's demnnd.
"The change in the jurisdiction from Penal Chamber to Special Court was therefore brought about by Rothaug. The broadening of the indictment against Seiler to the Special Court was due to a request by Rothaug, combining the two processes into one, which corresponded with Rothaug's demand.
"Once the case had been brought before Rothaug, he developed a remarkable industriousness. The SD and the Regional Leadership (Gauleitung) showed a conspicuously frequent interest by telephone calls.
I heard that it concerned the preparations for the session in the most extensive setting. In conversation ROTHAUG Gave the case a political frame by using the sharpest formulations.
"During the session in the conference room political officers were on considerable display, ROTHAUG had also succeeded in obtaining the attendance of Reich-inspector OEXLE for the session. I remember that cards were issued for the session and that a number of "reserved seats" had to be held at the disposal of ROTHAUG for the party.
"It was quite evident that the efforts of ROTHAUG were aiming at finding a pretext under a semblance of right and to create the prerequisite for the annihilation of KATZENBERGER as a Jew.
"The main trial was used by ROTHAUG to give the audience a national socialist lecture on the subject of the so-called question of the Jews. Defendants and witnesses alike used as objects for questioning furnished the means for this purpose. I no longer remember in detail all that ROTHAUG brought up. The impression remained with me that it was a question of the sufficiently known general phrases in the "Stuermer-style". ROTHAUG as leader of the proceeding talked again and again, whilst the witnesses stated to the little they could say in regard to the matter, by repeating their declarations to the police after being correspondingly reproached. It could be noted how strongly the witnesses laboured under the force of the circumstances imposed on them in that they were brought into a trial which was conducted as an elaborate show.
"In form and contents of the presentation of his arguments to defendants and witnesses during the proceeding in ROTHAUG carried into effect the demand of the National Socialist Party Program for a ruthless prosecution of the Jews through the work of the Reich Security Main Office, RSHA. Every observant member of the audience who was not politically prejudiced there also assisted the office-chiefs of the Nuernberg courts - had to recognize that in the case of KATZENBERGER, formal right placed into the service of political powers proclaimed itself through the mouth of ROTHAUG. During the production of evidence ROTHAUG constantly anticipated the the valuation of the facts conducive to the establishment of the verdict by giving expression to his own opinion.
In this way he was preparing the ground for what would no longer be allowed to expect a verdict against KATZENBERGER other than a death sentence.
"After the end of the introduction of evidence a recess was taken during which the trial prosecutor MARKL, appeared in the consultation room of the judges in order to make sure with ROTHAUG that upon the plea of the prosecutor, the death sentence was expected against KATZENBERGER and a term in the penitentiary against SEILER; the length of the term was also discussed. In view of the presence of the Party leaders in the courtroom, ROTHAUG considered it opportune to give MARKL some hints as to which essential references he ought to use in his arguments.
"The preparations of ROTHAUG for the trial and his conducting of the proceedings constituted in form and contents a violation of my rights to a free judicial decision as an associate judge. It was demonstrated evident how strongly ROTHAUG proposed to go as executor of the Party Offices' desire for annihilation.
"During the consultation I did not fail to point out repeatedly that I did not approve of the fact that the record of such an important case had not been submitted to the Reich-Ministry of Justice before the trial. By this reference I underscored legal scruples I had expressed from the beginning against making it a permanent policy to handle convictions under the Public Enemy Decree, and my scruples because of the unusual procedure of combining the SEILER trial and the KATZENBERGER trial. I pointed out that the chance for administration of justice which provides for an application of the Public Enemy Decree as the facts established in the case is extremely doubtful. Because of preliminary discussions with me, ROTHAUG had sufficient knowledge of these scruples.
"My hints were sufficient to bring about the sharpest opposition on the part of ROTHAUG. "A perjury trial against SEILER before the Second or Third Penal Chamber would have landed the whole matter in the ditch; we do not have to conform to the opinions of the Ministry."
After the end of the trial ROTHAUG did not desist from exerting an influence on the further course of the decisions to be taken.
"After the decision had been established the Reich Ministry of Justice requested by telephone that the records be delivered through a special messenger Consequently the sentence had to be written down in a special hurry; ROTHAUG handwritten notes to the records for the oral announcement of the sentence were largely utilized. Shortly afterwards I heard that the Senior Public Prosecutor Dr. ENGERT of the Office of the Prosecutor General had been in Berlin at the office of the Secretary of State FKEISLER with the records, and he did not notice a favorable acceptance of the sentence there. The abrogation of the sentence through a nullity plea was to be expected, at least a clemency decision as a solution of the case.
"So much greater was the surprise caused several months later by the execution of the death sentence by order of the Ministry.
"At the end of July 1942 I participated in a week's additional training in criminology, at Strasbourg; there Secretary of State FREISLER spoke to me about the case KATZENBERGER and he pointed out to me the legal dubiousness of the sentence based on the Public Enemy Decree. I retorted that the order for carrying out the execution was all the mere surprising. On this FREISLE did not make any comment.
"After my return to Nuernberg I immediately informed ROTHAUG of this conversation with FREISLER. ROTHAUG received the report with a cynical sneer and said "good mercy, had they dared to pardon KATZENBERGER."
"This made it and keepts it a certainty in my mind that by using the Party machinery (SD, Gauleitung and Party Chancellory), ROTHAUG became administratively active and exerted a detrimental influence on the Reich Ministry of Justice in that the death sentence against KATZENBERGER which he had brought about with unprecedented terror was actually carried out. ROTHAUG could easily obtain this influence because Reich Inspector OEXLE had attended the session.
"These statements are the truth and they were made without any corcion. I have read them, signed them and made the declarations under oath."
Signed, Nuernberg, 24 January 1947, Dr. Karl Ferber, Director of the District Court, retired.
The Prosecution offers this affidavit as Exhibit No. 151.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Tribunal, I have just received the announcement of the Prosecution. It has just been handed me that tomorrow in connection with the treatment of the case Katzenberger, Irene Seiler will be called as a witness. In my written application or statement of my point of view I have already said the following in regard to the announcement of the Prosecution that Rothaug - I have emphasized that if the case Rothaug is to be mentioned in this connection, that I object to a closer and more detailed examination of the case Rothaug as long as the defendant Rothaug is not present in court. I do not wish to disturb or interrupt the submission of affidavits and documents. However, the examination of a witness will bring about a more detailed examination of the entire case, and in this case the defendant himself, I believe, should be present. The defendant is at present in a worse physical condition than at the beginning of the trial. Moreover, it seems to me that there should be some way to postpone the discussion of cases of defendants who are not present until such time as the defendants can again appear in court. Moreover, Your Honors, I point to the reasons which I have already submitted in writing.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May the Court please, a short comment on what defense counsel has just said. On the day that the Prosecution submitted its notice of intention to call the witness referred to, a private conference out of court, although brief, was held by the defense and prosecution, at which time the entire matter of introduction of the current evidence was discussed and it was certainly my understanding at the conclusion of that conference, and I am sure that defense counsel understood it likewise, that we were to proceed with the current evidence both as to documents and witnesses against the defendant Rothaug in the interests of an expeditious trial, allowing, however, subject to the approval of the Court, postponements if need be to allow defense counsel to confer with his client. Apparently that arrangement has been either forgotten or subsequently ignored.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Tribunal, immediately after the discussion with the Prosecution, I made my written application of the 21st of March 1947. In this application, too, I start with the statement that I do not want to interrupt the presentation of the documents. However, the examination of witnesses, it seems to me, is not desirable because the examination of witnesses, naturally, brings with it a discussion of the case. When the case is discussed, it is my opinion, the defendant, if at all possible, should be present. I told that same thing to the Prosecutor.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems a reasonable request applying to all oral testimony, to have Defendant Rothaug in Court. For a while, as a temporary expedience, this rule should be observed. We made no ruling as to what would happen if Rothaug would not be able to be in court within a reasonable time. But for the moment, we hope the Prosecution can go to certain other matters which will enable that rule to be observed.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Tribunal please, the Prosecution is afraid that a ruling pro tem of the nature just voiced in the case of the Defendant Rothaug does not contemplate the true facts. Defense counsel and also the prison physician told the Prosecution that without any doubt, the Defendant Rothaug cannot be expected to be in court on any basis, even temporarily for a matter of hours, anytime within the next five or six weeks. The Prosecution contends that is not a reasonable time. Such a delay in the introduction of oral testimony is an extreme burden on the Prosecution for the reason that location, transportation, billeting, feeding and care of witnesses is a very difficult task. Once it is accomplished, it is difficult to undo it and then do it all over again. In view of the extreme delay that such a ruling would engender, it is felt that some other provision should be made.
THE PRESIDENT: We do not think it is desirable to go a little farther with this discussion at this time. The physician in charge will be asked to be here to tell us the actual physical condition of the defendant, and we will then be able to make a more reasonable ruling upon this matter.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One final request, if the Court please. May we have some word of direction as to whether or not we should proceed with our plans of having the witness available tomorrow morning. We will have the physician as you request. Should we also, in the event of a modification of the ruling, which we have no right to expect, but it is possible, have the witness available?
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is desirable, to have the witness available if that is possible. Then if it appears there is going to be a long protracted illness, we might decide to go ahead with the matter. If it will be a temporary matter, the witness can then be advised as to what the prospects are.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Turning now to page 36a, Document Book 3D, Document NG-154, which is a copy of the Special Court verdict in the KatzenbergerSeiler case.
THE INTERPRETER: Would you please repeat the number of the document?
MR. WOOLEYHAN:NG-154.
THE INTERPRETER: I think there has been a typographical error.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Would you ask defense councel if they have an extra copy, in German?
"In the name of the German People!
"The Special Court for the district of the Court of appeal in Nurnberg with the District Court Nurnberg-Fuerth have found in the proceedings against Katzenberger, Lehmann Israel, commonly called Leo, merchant and head of the Jewish religious community in Nurnberg, and Seiler, Irene, owner of a photographic shop in Nurnberg, both at present remanded in custody, the charges being racial pollution and perjury in public session of 13 March 1942, in the presence of the President, District Court Director Dr. Rothaug, assistants, District Court Assistants Dr. Ferber and Dr. Hoffmann, and Prosecutor for the Special Court, Markl, as follows:
"Katzenberger, Lehmann, Israel, commonly called Leo, Jewish by race and religion, born 25.11.1873, in Massbach, married, merchant of Nurnberg, Seiler, Irene, nee Schoffler, born 26 April 1910 in Guben, married, owner of a photographic shop in Nurnberg, both at present remanded in custody, have been sentenced as follows:
"Katzenberger, for an offense under Paragraph 2, legally identical with an offense under Paragraph 4 of the decree against Public Enemies in connection with the offense of racial pollution to death, to death, his civil rights according to Paragraph 32-34 of the Criminal Code being forfeited for life.
"Seiler, for the offense of committing perjury while a witness to two years penal servitude, her civil rights being forfeited for the duration of two years."
Skipping now to Page 4 of that document, I read Paragraph 3:
"The defendant Katzenberger is charged with having had continually extra-marital sexual relations with Irene Seiler, nee Scheffler, a German national of German blood. He is said to have visited Seiler frequently in her flat up to March 1940, while Seiler visited him frequently up to autumn 1938 in the offices of the building at the back. Seiler, who is alleged to have got herself in a dependent position by accepting gifts of money from the defendant Katzenberger and by being allowed delay in paying her rent, was sexually amenable to Katzenberger. Thus their acquaintance is said to have become of a sexual nature, and in particular sexual intercourse took place. They are both said to have exchanged kisses, sometimes in Seiler's flat, and sometimes in Katzenberger's offices. Seiler is alleged to have often sat on Katzenberger's lap. On these occasion Katzenberger, in order to achieve sexual satisfaction is said to have caressed and patted Seiler on the thighs through her clothes, clinging closely to Seiler and resting his head on her bosom.
"The defendant Katzenberger is charged with having committed this act of racial pollution by taking advantage of the wartime condition. Lack of supervision was in his favor, especially as he is said to have visited Seiler during the blackout. Moreover, Seiler's husband was called up" -- May I interpolate? In subsequent pages, the meaning of "called up" is purely indicated as having been conscripted for military service -"and consequently surprise appearances of the husband were not to be feared.
"The defendant Irene Seiler is charged with having, on the occasion of her interrogation by the investigating judge of the local Nurnberg Court on 9 July 1941, made deliberately untrue statements and affirmed with an oath that this contact was entirely without sexual motives, and that she believed that to apply equally to Katzenberger.
"Seiler, it is alleged, has thereby become guilty of being a perjuring witness.
"The defendants have said this in their defense:"
Skipping to the last paragraph of that reference:
"Basing herself on this view she made the statement to the investigating judge on 9 July 1941 and affirmed with an oath, that the exchange of tendernesses was, with Katzenberger also, not springing from erotic emotions.
"The defendant Katzenberger: He denies having committed an offense. His line is that his relations with Frau Seiler were purely those of friendship. The Scheffler family " -- which can be seen elsewhere in this document was Seiler's parents -- "in Guben had always regarded his relations with Frau Seiler as such."
Skipping to page 8, which is a continuation of the Special Court's verdict in this case:
"The witnesses Kleylein, Paul and Babette, Maesel, Johann, Heilmann, Johann and Leibner, Georg observed frequently that Katzenberger and Seiler waved to each other when Seiler, through one of the back windows of her flat, saw Katzenberger in his offices. The witnesses' attention was drawn particularly to the frequent visits by Seiler to Katzenberger's offices after business hours and on Sundays, as well as to the length of these visits. Everyone in the house came to know eventually that Seiler kept asking Katzenberger for money, and they all became convinced that Katzenberger, as the Jewish creditor, exploited sexually the difficult situation of the German-blooded woman Seiler.
The witness Heilmann, in a conversation with the witness Paul Kleylein, expressed his opinion of the matter to the effect that the Jew could work off on Seiler cheaply the money he gave her.
"Nor did the two defendants themselves regard these mutual calls and exchange of caresses as nothing more than ordinary niceties of daily life.
"According to statements made by witnesses Kleylein, Babette and Paul they observed Katzenberger to show definite signs of fright when he saw that they had discovered his visits to Seiler's flat as late as 1940. The witnesses also observed that at the end, Katzenberger crept into Seiler's flat rather than walk in in an open manner."
Let me invite the Court's attention to the fact that throughout the verdict, no other evidence on the part of the prosecution than that which I have just read is introduced.
Skipping to page 10 of this document the second paragraph:
"In view of the behavior of the defendants towards each other, as repeatedly described, the Court have formed the conviction that the relations between Seiler and Katzenberger, which extended over a period of ten years, were of a purely sexual character. This is the only possible explanation of the intimacy of their acquaintance."
Skipping to page 11, Section III, "Thus the defendant has been convicted of having had, as a Jew, extra-marital sexual relations with a German citizen of German blood after the law for the protection of German blood came into force, which according to Paragraph 7 of the law means after 17 September 1935. He acted on a consistent plan from the beginning which aimed at repetition."
Skipping now to the third paragraph: "Together with his offense of racial pollution he is also guilty of an offense under paragraph 4 of the ordinance against peoples' parasites. It should be noted here that the national community is in need of increased legal protection from all crimes attempting to destroy or undermine its inner cohesion."
Skipping to page 14 of this document, we find that this verdict of the Special Court in the Katzenberger case was signed by Rothaug, as presiding judge, Dr. Ferber, and Dr. Hoffmann, certified Nurnberg, 23 March 1942. Attached to this verdict in the same document on page 15 of the document is a letter bearing the letterhead of the "Reich Minister of Justice, Acting on official business; Berlin, 27 March 1942. Addressed to My Fuehere "Concerning the questions put to me by Gruppenfuehrer Staub regarding prosecutions against women who have had sexual relations with Jews, I report:
"Reich Minister Dr. Lammers addressed a letter on 8 February 1939 to the late Reich Minister Dr. Guertner, in which he communicated your decision, my Fuehrer, that the female partner should not be punished. This was to apply to complicity, provocation, aiding and abetting. Equally actions on the part of the women which amounted to her being an accessory after the fact were to go unpunished insofar as they did not constitute an offense independent of the actions of the male partner. Perjury for instance could be punished."
Skipping to the next paragraph: "Accordingly, an ordinance based on this instruction was published in the Reichsgesetzblatt of 16 Feb. 1940 I. p. 33 and is now applicable to Courts. According to a communication from the Reich Fuehrer SS of 21 October 1938, German women who have compromised themselves with Jews will be taken into protective custody only when special circumstances of the case make this necessary.
"Normally the female will be interrogated on oath only when this is the only means of convicting the accused Jew, Perjury on the part of the female may be caused by her desire to help the Jew or by her reluctance to broadcast her shame, possibly by her having to admit adultery or by her fear lest she be taken into protective custody.
"In the case of Katzenberger the Court thought the motive of Seiler's perjury to be her wish to protect the Jew Katzenberger, and that she therefore gave her oath while in an embarrassing situation.
"Heil my Fuehrer!
(Signed) "Schlegelberger" Skipping now to page 17 of this same document, we see a copy of a letter bearing the letterhead of the "Reich Minister and Chief of Reich Chancellory, dated Berlin, 1 April 1942; at present Fuehrer's Headquarters; addressed to SS Gruppenfuehrer Scpaub, Fuehrer Adjutancy," concerning "Sentence against Katzenberger, further to our telephone conversation.
Dear Herr Scpaub: A verdict reached by the Special Court at Nurnberg of 13 March 1942, which was reported by 'Berliner Nachtausgabe' of 18 March 1942, sentenced to death the Jew Katenberger for racial pollution, and the woman Seiler to two years penal servitude for perjury. I have reported to the Fuehrer on this case, basing myself on sentence. The Fuehrer had obviously been misinformed, as he thought Seiler had been sentenced for the part she played in the racial pollution, whereas she was actually sentenced for perjury. On that occasion the Fuehrer repeated to me the view which he communicated to the Reich Minister of Justice in February 1939, namely that actions perpetrated by the female participant in racial pollution which, independently of the action of the male, constitute an offense, should be punished. As this was so in the case of the defendant Seiler, namely perjury, the Fuehrer saw no reason to object to the sentence."
Skipping to the signature, "Heil Hitler!" signed, "Dr. Lammers."
The Prosecution offers as Exhibit No, 152 Document NG 154.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence. We will adjourn at this time until tomorrow morning at 0930.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 26 March 1947 at 0930 hours.)
A He has a moderately severe gastritis subsequent to a duodenal ulcer, which is now healed.
Q You say this duodenal ulcer has healed?
A Yes, by evidence at the hospital.
Q Would you say that tine man Rothaug is convalescing?
A Yes, he is convalescing at the present time.
Q Convalescing. How many days or weeks would it be before he could appear in Court with no undue hardship on his personal being?
AAbout three or four weeks.
Q About three or four weeks. And this three or four weeks period of his convalescence is due to what physical factors?
A Well, it's due to his moderately severe gastritis at the present time, and he is somewhat weakened as a result of his condition more than we expected In three or four weeks, he should be well enough to appear here.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Doctor, when did you see the defendant Rothaug for the last time?
AAbout three or four days ago.
Q Can you tell me, Doctor, whether the defendant Rothaug during the last few days was in a worse physical condition than at the time he was delivered into the hospital?
A The last time that I saw him, he was a little bit better, but not too much better.
Q Yesterday, the defendant Rothaug told me that he had an acute gastritis Can you affirm this?
A That I cannot affirm, but in a disease such as he has, he is likely to have an occasional exacerbation of his present illness. It's nothing unusual.
Q Thank you.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will make no decision for the future, but for the present, there is no problem, as we understand it.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The prosecution calls Irene Seiler.
IRENE SEILER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE BRAND:
Q Will you raise your right hand and be sworn in?
(The witness raises her right hand.)
Will you repeat this oath after me?
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the the truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Witness, will you please tell the Court your full name?
A Irene Seilers, nee Scheffler.
Q Where is your present place of residence?
A I am a person living in Guben Street. No. 34.
Q When were you born?
AApril 26, 1904.
Q Where?
A In Guben.
Q Is that in Germany?
A Yes.
Q Would you describe briefly your education and career since that time?
A I went to the Lyzeum -- to the high school in Guben and to the Academy of Art. Then I took care of the business of my sister. In 1937, I took my examination as an apprentice in Kettbus and later in Weimar in 1938 -- my final examination. In 1939, I got married to a businessman, Hans Seiler, in Nurnberg.
Q Witness, will you please speak a little slower and talk into the microphone. Witness - it wasn't quite clear what sort of business you mentioned. What business did you take over?
A I became a photographer and took over the photographic store of my sister here in Nurnberg. At that time, it was in Nurnberg, in Splitterter grab 19. -1025
Q. When did you say you were married?
A. Yes, in 1939. My husband was drafted into the Wehrmacht and in October 1944 he fell in action in France.
Q. Were you ever arrested, witness.
A. In 1941 I was arrested on the third of December of the year, under suspicion of perjury; that was in connection with a trial against Leo Katzenberger, and -
Q. One moment, witness, if we may go back for a moment; it is still not clear the date when you were married.
A. On the 31st of July, 1939.
Q And subsequent to that, namely, in 1944 your husband was killed in the war; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you please repeat the circumstances under which you were arrested, and when?
A. On the 3rd of December, in the afternoon, the Teuscher's assistant came to my apartment and told me that I should come to the local court in order to make a statement; and there I found the order to arrest me.
Q. In what connection was this arrest?
A. This arrest was in connection with the trial against Mr. Katzenberger, in the spring of 1941, who was arrested in the spring of 1941 under suspicial of racial defilement and relationship with me; he was suspected of relationships with me.
Q. Who was this Mr. Katzenberger that you mentioned?
A. Mr. Katzenberger was my former landlord and in 1932 I made his acquaintance and in 1939 when I took over the business here in Nurnberg I made his acquaintance.
Q. What work did he do; what was his occupation?
A. Mr. Katzenberger had a wholesale business, and the storage house was in the same house as my business; it was in Nurnberg, that is at Splitterter Graben 19. He had many stores in Nurnberg and France and in 1939 his store was dissolved by Mr. Katzenberger.
C. What religion was Mr. Katzenberger?
A. Mr. Katzenberger was of Jewish religion.
Q. At the time, when you first knew him, I believe that was in 19 -
A. 1932.
Q. How old was Mr. Katzenberger then?
A. I believe fifty-six years old.
Q. In 1932 he was fifty-six years old?
A. Yes -- no, he must have been fifty-nine.
Q. I didn't understand your last statement, witness.
A. I think he must have been fifty-nine because when he was sentenced in 1942 he was sixty-nine years old.
Q. You say that in 1942 he was sixty nine.
A. Yes.
Q. At the time that you knew Mr. Katzenberger in Nurnberg, was your family here?
A. No, my family was not here.
Q. Did this Mr. Katzenberger ever meet your family?
A. Yes, Mr. Katzenberger met my father when he visited me in Nurnberg and he also visited my family in Guben, and when my parents were in Nurnberg they always met Mr. Katzenberger.
Q. After you first met Mr. Katzenberger, as you say in 1932, did you continue to see him?
A. Yes.
Q. What were the circumstances in the years following your first making his acquaintance that gave rise to your seeing him?
A. Mr. Katzenberger was my landlord; the business was in the back part of my apartment, and since he also owned the house, it was obvious that I saw him quite often.
Q. So far as you remember, in 1935, did you ever hear of the passage of certain laws called the "Nurnberg Laws"?
A. Yes, I heard about it, but I did not apply these laws to me at all for there was nothing that made me liable for punishment.
Q. One moment, witness, would you please tell the Court briefly, insofar as you know, what those Nurnberg laws meant so far as you were concerned; what were they?
A. I did not concern myself with these laws; I can't tell you; I only knew that intercourse between Jews and Aryans was forbidden.
Q. Did the existence of these laws in 1935 and thereafter cause you to have any fear about your friendship with Mr. Katzenberger?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever incur any debts from Mr. Katzenberger?
A. Yes, it was indebted in rent, and my father always paid these debts to Mr. Katzenberger.
DR. KOESSL: (Attorney for Defendant Rothaug) May it please the Tribunal, I object against the questions of the Prosecution since the obviously comprise the entire subject of the trial. According to my opinion in this trial only the treatment in trial is the subject that the judges are concerned with; bringing up of the questions which were just raised by the Prosecution now would result in again bringing up for discussion the entire trials about which the Prosecution has submitted a sentence or an indictment.
That is, in my opinion, neither possible according to the terms under discussion in this trial, nor is it possible to because the picture which the trials of so many years ago have given can never again be reproduced in its entirety. Therefore, I start from the supposition that here in this trial the question is not about the material correctness of the sentences and the entire living conditions and events which lead to the sentences that those things should again be brought up, but rather the manner of the method in the trial by the courts is under discuss on. Of course, it is obvious that the witness would testify in an entirely different manner than she would have done about ten years ago, when an entirely different doctrine of theory of the state was prevalent in Germany; and when the witnesses themselves were thinking differently then they are thinking today. This circumstance and the fact that the material used in the trial is so tremendous, so large, and extensive, leads me to form the opinion that only the manner of treatment of the case by the court or before the court can be discussed here; and, therefore, I ask are Tribunal to decide about the admissibility and probative value of these questions which were put by the prosecution, regarding the facts in the case which were put by the prosecution to the witness.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One brief word, if the Court please. Courts do not operate in vacuo. The business of courts both in Germany, in the last decade, and here, is facts. The Prosecution's intention was to put before this Tribunal some of the vital facts on which the special Court of Nuernberg in the Katzenberger case operated. I do not see how you can divorce the method of courts as the defense intends, and the facts upon which these courts' methods operated.
THE PRESIDENT: Manifestly, the issue to be determined with relation to the Defendant Rothaug, is the conduct of the judge who tried this case. So far the questions which have been asked are only preliminary. With that admonition, we have the issue here of the conduct of the judge. We will let the interrogation proceed and see if this witness can throw any light upon that subject.
Q Witness, you state that in 1941, you were arrested for perjury. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q At the time you were arrested, had your acquaintance, Mr. Katzenberger been arrested?
A. Mr. Katzenberger was arrested in March, 1941.
Q Would you please repeat that?
A Mr. Katzenberger was arrested in March, 1941.
Q Would you please repeat that?
A Mr. Katzenberger was arrested in March, 1941.
Q I am sorry to ask you to repeat again, Witness, but would you please tell me your answer as to whether at the time you were arrested in 1941 for purjury, your acquaintance, Mr. Katenberger was arrested?
A Mr. Katzenberger was arrested in March, 1941.
Q That is, Mr. Katzenberger had been arrested some eight or nine months before you were arrested, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Did you hear from Mr. Katzenberger or the police, the reason Mr. Katzenberger had been arrested?