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 11 March 1947, 0930-1630. Justice Marshall presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 3.
Military Tribunal 3 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Marshal, you will ascertain whether the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of defendants Engert and Rothaug, who are absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The proper notation will be made. Is the Prosecution ready to proceed?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May it please Your Honors, I would like to be permitted to address the Court for just a few minutes before proceeding with the introduction of proof.
First, I shall not at this time, and the Prosecution in this case I do not believe has indulged in any free-hand, gratuitous interpretation of the probative effect or legal effect of any of the proof which it has introduced. We are willing to let the documents stand and we do not intend to violate what we consider proper rules by in erpolating the effect. If for any reason we may slip or think it is necessary -- which I think ill be very rare -- we want the Court to know that any seemingly positive statement is made certainly with the reservation that it is our opinion that the thing does so and so. But I do not think we shall do that. I have seen it done, and I believe it intrudes upon the function of the judiciary and is unfair to defense counsel. I shall, of course, object if it is done to me, and I don't intend to do it in this trial. I do not believe that I am violated that rule when I say that we have had as our purpose to date and will until we get into books 2 and 3, to present certain evidence which we are of the opinion has probative value on the subject of provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 2 which relates to plans and enterprises and relations of defendants to them.
However, we are fully aware of the fact that when the time comes, the obligation is upon the Prosecution to relate any of the defendants to any of the proof, and even under the broad rule laid down in the IMT in the case of the defendant Striecher there which we quoted in the opening statement we still are aware of the fact that the proof which we are presently putting in is proof which the Court, in a sense, sitting in a sense comparable to that which we are accustomed to, at last in the United States, in a court of equity, determines eventually itself whether or not there is any probative value as against any or all the defendants of any proof. But I felt that it was proper and not overstepping the bounds of that I initially said for me to make this statement at this time, again saying that we are aware of the fact that when the time for argument comes, then we must point out the burden -- I mean, not assume the burden, but we must make the connection between this proof and the defendants which the obligations of this trial impose upon the prosecution.
One other thing in the way of procedure. Yesterday and, I think, the day before, we engaged in some free-hand interpolation of translations. I do not believe that they were offensive to the defense counsel or that they did them any harm, because I assume that they would have objected if it had done so. And I will say now that if anything that we -- any variation which we made in the translation from the English book on yesterday, if any defense counsel feels that it was an incorrect variation that they will advise me or advise the Court. Certainly, that the fact should be noted in the record. I say that because I am afraid if we don't devise methods -I am not prepared to say just what methods I have in my own mind -- as to presenting to the Court the issue as a factual issue of the correctness of the translations, we might well get into very unseemly and unintelligible wrangles during the presentation of this case, either by the Prosecution or by the defense, and I want to avoid that.
At the same time I don't want to appear in the position of coming to this podium a week from now or a month from now and objecting to the defendants attempting to make proof immediately of what they consider to be a proper translation where I have seemingly violated that rule myself. So if today or tomorrow any defense counsel feels that in the variations from the translation which we made we were inaccurate, they will call that to my attention first in some way and we will attempt to work out some method of presenting the matter.
I felt that I wanted to make both of these statements, particularly the latter, so that as I say, a week from now I won't be put in the position of appearing to assert something which I had myself done or complain about something which I had myself done.
DR. SCHILF (Counsel for Defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg): May it please the Court, the statement which the Prosecutor made just now said -
THE PRESIDENT: It isn't coming through to me. Is it to you? That isn't coming though, but it may be -
DR. SCHILF: --concerning the presentation of documents, at the beginning of the session I pointed out that the defendants -
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I am getting the English through.
DR. SHILF: At the beginning of the session I pointed out that the defendants and the defense counsel missed a specification of the indictment, and I did assume that the Prosecution, when presenting its case, would make its indictments in detail and would separate that from the presentation of the documents. During the last few days it was evident that the opposite way would be used. The Prosecution presents its documents and without drawing the consequences, without giving the connecting text or without adding explanations to the documents. Therefore, certainly as far as I am concerned, we are not clear as to what the Prosecution, in the present presentation of the documents, what consequences it wishes to draw from them; whether these documents, for example, contain accusations within the meaning of Court 1 of the indictment, or whether the Prosecution intends to draw any consequences or whether it will leave that to the Court.
Thereby I believe there are difficulties for the defense, and the difficulties are because, in our opinion, the indictment does not bring sufficient details concerning the assertions of the indictment.
Therefore, I have a request to make of the gentlemen of the prosecution. I should like to ask them to say whether the prosecution have documents which are being read now, are in fact being presented without any consequences being drawn, or whether the prosecution wishes to discuss Count I, that is, the conspiracy or the plot.
Then I have a second request. Would the prosecution please say whether these documents which are now being presented and the systematic presentation of which the defense does not ignore, will be read out again when the case of each defendant comes up in their order; in fact, whether this will come up again at that time. I believe that only then the defense can prepare itself properly, and for its part, make applications and connect evidence.
As concerns my second point concerning the translation, I should like to express my own thanks and my satisfaction that the prosecutor will contact us in every individual case, and I think we have had sufficient opportunity during the past few days to discuss questions of translation of formal matters concerning the documents, and we have had plenty of opportunity to contact the prosecution, and I, myself, have no objections on that point. On the contrary, I wish to express my thanks that on that point an agreement has been reached quite easily.
MR. La FOLLETTE: I think that I ought to make this one further responsible shortly.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, please.
MR. La FOLLETTE: I'd just like to say, as to the first point, that I have, and I said I have deliberately refrained from saying when I introduced a piece of evidence: "I think this evidence means this:" because, of course, under the practice of which I have been accustomed and which I think should prevail, it is not the province of counsel to intrude into the function of court with extraneous remarks, which I would consider as being designed to influence the court as to the effect of evidence. I will say again that I do not believe that defense counsel are going to be injured or adversely affect by the procedure, or whether this evidence may be considered as under Count I or under Counts II or III. We are introducing this evidence for the purpose of showing the existence of certain plans and the doing of certain acts which we will contend have the ultimate effect, or could be reasonably known to have the ultimate effect, of resulting in the crimes charged in the indictment.
Of course, as I said previously, when we sum up and when this case is presented to the court, we certainly cannot avoid the responsibility of either connecting active participation or connecting knowledge as an ultimate fact to be reasonably inferred from the facts introduced, because that, of course, is the ultimate test of the probative value of this evidence; but it would be so foreign to me and so contrary to my ideas of a proper procedure and so much over-stepping the bounds of the propriety of counsel for me to say: "Now I think this document has the effect of doing this:" that I can't bring myself to do it, because I feel that that certainly would be unfair to the defense, but also intruding into the provence of the court, which ultimately determine from the document what is its effect.
Unless the court has any remarks, I will proceed with the introduction of the evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: The prosecution will introduce as its Prosecution Exhibit No. 76, Document NG-102 found in Book 1-C on Page 43, which is Page 47 of the German text.
JUDGE BRAND: Will you give me that reference again, please, Mr. Prosecutor:
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes, it's Book 1-C, Page 43, NG-102, and the number is 75. I am sorry, we started to introduce this last night and then adjourned. The exhibit number is 75.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit number is 75?
MR. La FOLLETTE: Correct. I was misinformed.
Now I shall do considerable skipping around in this document because at least in the English book the order in which it is assembled is not chronological and doesn't make good sense, but the whole material in the English book can be put together so that it does make sense. I am, therefore, going to read first from Page 45, a letter found on Page 43 in the German test, dated May 6 1942, at Berlin, signed by the defendant Dr. Schlegelberger.
The Reichsminister Berlin, of Justice 6 May 1942 Commissioned with the management of business To Reichsminister Dr. LAMMERS, Dear Sir, During our last conversation I already told you that I intended to propose to the Fuehrer the introduction of a confirmation of the judgments passed, a plan to which you agreed.
In fact, this is the only, but also a sure way to become master of the insufficient penal measures in legal judgments.
Today I am transmitting to you an open letter to the Fuehrer, along with the draft of the decree requesting you to submit them to the Fuehrer. Copies for your files are attached. The draft hardly requires an explanation. At all events, I might add that figure II refers to the capacity of the presidents of the supreme courts of justice and figure IV to their judicial activity. It is guaranteed that the presidents of the supreme courts of justice will, also as judges, work with one in closest contact.
I may leave it to your judgment whether the decree has to be countersigned by the manager of the Party Chancellery and whether, therefore, the matter has to be discussed with him. I do not consider executive provisions necessary for the time being.
In view of the general situation I would be particularly thankful to you for accelerating the matter.
Heil Hitler!
Yours respectfully Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER I might say for the court that the decree referred to, and which it referred to from time to time in the other documents -- the other parts of this document -- is found at Page 57 of the English text, Pages 55 and 56 of the German text.
I shall next read from pages 46 and 47 of the English text, which are pages 44 and 45 of the German text. This is a letter addressed to my Fuehrer, dated Berlin 6 May 1942.
"The Reichsminister of Justice commissioned with the management of business.
"My Fuehrer!
"Repeatedly and last in the session of the Great German Reichstag on the 26th April of this year you expressed that front and homeland require the unrelenting punishment of criminals and that judgements of the courts, which do not meet these requirements, cannot be tolerated.
"In order to liquidate such decisions in a hurry, you, my Fuehrer, created the extraordinary protest to the Reich Tribunal. With the help of this legal resource the judgement against Schlitt, which you mentioned in the session of the Reichstag, was, by sentence of the Reich Tribunal, quashed within 10 days; Schlitt was sentenced to death and executed at once. I believe, however, that the aim strived for could be achieved even better and quicker if the Reichsminister of Justice, by means of the consession of a right of confirmation, were given decisive influence on the award of punishment.
"If you, my Fuehrer, could decide, by signing the attached draft of a decree, to transfer to tho Reichsminister of Justice this right of confirmation for cases in which you do not want to decide yourself, the following would be achieved thereby:"
That is tho end of that quotation and the next is on page 47 of the English and 46 of the German texts, and consists of the last two paragraphs.
"It is guaranteed that the Reichsminister of Justice will immediately be informed about all important criminal matters. The attorney generals who, according to the draft, would have to propose tho non-confirmation, are under his directives. I can absolutely rely on the insight and eagerness of the 35 presidents of the supreme courts of justice. Should they ever lack the necessary rigour, I myself would pronounce the non-confirmation.
"Therefore I believe that, if you, my Fuehrer will agree with the draft, I could assume the responsibility that the punishment awards of tho courts will not lead to complaints any more.
"Heil my Fuehrer!
"Dr. Schlegelberger."
I now read from page 43 of the English which is page 46 of tho German text:
"Fuehrer's Headquarters, 11 May 1942. Subject: Draft of a Fuehrer decree on the confirmatory law in criminal matters.
"1)Fraulein Buge: a) The enclosed letter of the Reich Minister of Justice dated 6 May 1942 addressed to me and also the enclosed notes of the State Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger are to be registered un Rk. b) The original copy of the Fuehrer decree is to be placed into a special file."
Fraulein Buge was a very good secretary, she made a handwritten note that it was carried out on the same day.
"2) I have presented the matter to the Fuehrer on 7 inst. and recommended the suggested decree. It seems to no indeed the only and safe way to master insufficient punishment in local sentences.
"The Fuehrer agreed to the decree in principle but could not decide on signing it, moreover suggested whether it was not appropriate to soon fill in the position of Reich Minister of Justice and to leave the reform in question as well as the other reforms also to the new Reich Minister of Justice.
3) State Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger, who visited me here, has been briefly informed by me on 8 inst. about the state of the affair. He told me that he had already interested the Reich Marshal also in the draft of the decree and that he (the Reich Marshal) had promised him to speak in favour of the decree.
"State Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger further stressed the fact that the decree would naturally lose all its value for him if the confirmatory right would pass to party offices. To that I replied that one could perhaps consider to listen to the party before carrying out the conformatory right. With regard to this question on 9 inst. State Secretary Schlegelberger presented the notes pf the same day to me.
He promised me also to sent more material to the case in hand."
I shall next read from pages 39 and 52 in the English text which are 46, 47, 48, 49, and 50 of the German text. This is:
"Berlin, 15 May 1942.
"The Reich Minister of Justice in charge of transaction "Dear Reich Minister Dr. Lammers.
"With regard to your request I am sending you today some material from which, I think, follows that a Reich Minister of Justice controlling criminal justice cannot dispense with the possibility not to confirm a sentence. I may add that when the draft of the decree was already under way to you, Reich Marshal Goering explained to me in detail at a visit in Karinhall that he in the sphere of Wehrmacht justice, a sector Luftwaffe, could only overcome the difficulties of heterogeneous legal administration by this confirmation also for civil justice. These statements were made spontaneously without my having spoken about my intention to ask the Fuehrer for the signing of the decree.
"I would be specially grateful to you, dear Reich Minister Dr. Lammers, if you would present the matter to the Fuehrer again. I have the hope therewith that if the Fuehrer rejects the present handling of criminal justice and on the strength of you argument knows that the confirmatory proceeding is the only and safe remedy, he will not withhold this remedy from the Reich Minister of Justice.
"With best wishes and "Heil Hitler!"Yours very sincerely "Dr. Schlegelberger."
Now, there was an on enclosure which accompanied that, found on page 50 of the English text, and I believe on page 47 of the German text:
"1 Enclosure "Sentences from various parts of German which attracr attention by their difference in spite of the similarity of kind and seriousness of the repraches against the defendant."
I shall not read those sentences.
I shall not quote the material chronologically which is found on page 54 thru 56 in the English text, and those are pages 52 to 54 in the German text. There are innumerable stamps and other incidental matter on these documents, but I shall read the facts, that it is from the National Socialist German Labor Party, Party Chancellory:
"The Chief of the Party Chancellory, Fuehrer's Headquarters, 10 June 1942.
"To the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellory, Dr. N.H. Lammers.
"Berlin W', 6 Vosstreet.
"Subject: Draft of a Fuehrer's decree concerning the right of confirmation in penal affairs.
"Honored Dr. Lammers:
"In the session of the Reichstag hold on 26 --"
"Your Letter dated 21 MAY 1942."
"--April 1942 the Fuehrer requested the Greater German Reichstag expressly for the authorization of taking all measures he deemed expedient without being bound by the existing legal provisions, with regard to the requirements of the war. The Fuehrer's choosing this way shows the importance he is imputing to acts of sovereignity of the state. It is impossible practice to impair the law-constituting and ordering effects of perceptions which have been accepted and which have certain functions in legal life by questioning their intergrity by further enroachments of previous not measurable consequences, after all legally established legal provisions have been exhausted."
This is the top of page 55 and 53 of the German.
"This applies to a special degree to the judgments of courts which in every case represent a special encroachment in the personal conditions of the persons involved and moreover have a certain effect on the whole of the people, be it as an intimidation or as contentment of the strong order-creating hand of the state. The arrangement of the life of the people requires moreover that the further development of legal conditions be started from certain fixed preconditions which cannot be shaken from any part, and that the security of justice be guaranteed. When the Fuehrer has expressly requested the right of direct interference over all formal legal provisions, this is emphasizing the very importance of the modification of a judicial sentence.
"The proposal made by the Reich Minister of Justice, however, is adopted to obliterate the impression of this authorization and to impair its importance. However, this would be an inevitable consequence of the transfer of the correcting authority to the head at Court of Appeal and of the strong decentralization originating thereof. The proposed decree of the Fuehrer would be nothing more than another effort for correction of insufficient judgments, as has been repeatedly endeavoured before by the Reich Justice Ministry. Besides the analogy provisions of paragraph 2 of RStGB I am especially thinking of the exceptional declaration of opposition, the plea of nullity, the participation of the attorney in civil affairs, the Public-Parasite Decree, the decree against desperate criminals and the provisions concerning dangerous professional criminals and immoral criminals. Despite all these provisions we were not in the position to silence the complaints on judgments not adequate to the requirements of war. We would always observe that these provisions were applied as mildly as possible and not at all with the required readiness for responsibility and strictness as would have been possible.
"It is my conviction that the proposed decree of the Fuehrer will have the same fate as the measures the performance of which was confined to justice.
"It must be expected that the heads at Courts of Appeal will shrink from an encroachment of the independence of the judge, of which they still have the old conception. They will bring the concerned judge on the right way not so much guided by their own conviction, but will suggest him to pass a sentence which will satisfy the threatening criticism. For the same reason it is still more impossible to expect the acceptance of more rigorous measures against an obstinate or incapable judge. Therefore we must not expect the desired elucidating and guiding decisions in the material and personal field, the value of which lies first of all in the educational effect upon other judges and upon the public, but only measures or indications limited to single cases."
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I now drop to the last paragraph - the last two paragraphs which are apparently on page 54 of the German. They are on page 56 of the English text. They begin with:
"For these considerations I am not in the position to agree with the draft of a Fuehrer decree as suggested by State Secretary Schlegelberger.
"In view of the importance which I assign to these fundamental objections I refrained at first from showing which additional objections I have to the structure of the decree and the different provisions. Heil Hitler. Yours very obediently, (signature) Bormann."
The reverse side of page one of this letter contains this, which is found at the bottom or near the bottom of page 56 of the English and 54 of the German:
"During yesterday's conference with State Secretary Schlegelberger I informed him of the basic thoughts in Reichsleiter Bormann's letter dated 10 June 1942. Schlegelberger would appreciate to get a copy of this letter. I do not think that there are only objections to this. However, I wish to answer Reichsleiter Bormann's letter and let my reply known to State Secretary Schlegelberger."
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The prosecution offers to introduce in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 75, NG-102.
JUDGE BLAIR: That's 76, I believe.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents will be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May I ask the Secretary General if you have that as 75? We started in last night at 75 and then it was still 75. Does your record show that?
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: I don't have my yesterday's records. They are being typed up.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: But it's 75?
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Yes, it's 75.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The prosecution will introduce Document NG-389, which is still in the same book. All of these are in Book C, which is at page 6 of the English Document Book and page 6 in the German Document Book and will be Exhibit No. 76. I shall ask Mr. Wooleyhan to proceed with the presentation of the prosecution's case.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Since there are similar difficulties with Document NG-389 that there was with the document just read, namely, a faulty assembling of that document in the English book, the prosecution will do considerable skipping around in the reading of this document for a more accurate and chronological sampling of it. We will first read from page 10 in the English book, which is page 9 in the German book:
"The President of the Hanseatic Court of Appeal" - the letterhead. Addressed to "All Judges in the District of the Hanseatic Court of Appeal For the Court's information and if the defense has no objection, it might be interesting to point out that Hanseatic refers to that Baltic area surrounding Hamburg which since the 13th or 14th centuries or thereabouts has had that peculiar name, deriving its name from that trade area. The Hanseatic Court of Appeals refers to the privisional Court of Appeals in the Hamburg area. Is that a fair statement of the meaning of Hanseatic? That word appears so often it might be well to explain just what it means
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Dr. Wandschneider, defense counsel for Dr. Rothenburger.
Dr. Rothenburger was President of the Oberlandesgericht at Hamburg which is also called the Hanseatic Oberlandesgericht. The Hanseatic League is an old medieval union which now united Hamburg, Bremen, and Lubeck and other towns in the area. These three towns, Hamburg, Lubeck and Bremen, for which jointly that Hanseatic Oberlandesgericht existed, were the last three free towns in the German Reich and which had existed since the middle ages and from that derived the name "Hanseatic Oberlandesgericht".
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In any event, this record of 6 May 1942 was addressed to all judges in the District of the Hanseatic Court of Appeals:
"As I have already stated in the plenary meeting of the judges on 1 May 1942, I am prepared to advise every judge who in doubtful cases might desire to approach me personally. I shall in such cases ask the judges to arrange for an appointment with my staff and to bring along the respective files for report. (Signed) Rothenburger."
I skip now to page 11 in the English book, which is page 10 in the German Letterhead: "The President of the Hanseatic Court of Appeal. Enclosure 2 Hamburg, 7 May 1942.
"To the District Court President in Hamburg; to the District Court President in Bremen; to the Local Court President in Hamburg:
"I am issuing the following instructions in consideration of the present situation in accordance with the Attorney General:
"Paragraph I.
"A meeting of the Presidents will be held at my office, every week and special invitations informing them of the date will be sent out each time; the Presidents of the District Courts at Hamburg and Bremen, and of the Local Court of Hamburg as well as my expert adviser will be present. The Attorney General and the Chief Prosecutors of the District Courts of Hamburg and Bremen have promised to attend whenever cases which are under discussion are of special interest to them.
"In the course of this meeting the Presidents will report on the most important decisions passed in penal and civil cases during the preceding week as well as on the essential penal and civil cases fixed for proceeding in the following week, on the basis of brief written notes, a few cues to matters which are under discussion will be given, file numbers provided and key-word given.
"The Attorney General as well as the chief prosecutors will also bring up for discussion important preliminary investigations, brought before the Attorney General during the preceding week.
"The Presidents will immediately and independently of these regular meetings, report to me, matters of special importance and urgency.
"Paragraph II.
"For the purpose of procuring the material I request the Presidents make the criminal and civil divisions and courts write brief reports every week in the form of a review and a summing up of important pending penal and civil cases, which, if necessary, will have to be subsidized" -- I assume the means "substantiated" -- "by verbal reports."
Paragraph III, page 11 of the German, page 12 of the English:
"Apart from the weekly President's meeting a special meeting with the Presidents of the Special Courts in Hamburg, will be held in my office every week at a date personally arranged by me in each case in which the Attorney General and the Chief Prosecutor of the District Court of Hamburg will also take part. With this meeting I shall connect a conference with the heads of the public relations department for Legal Matters in Hamburg.
"As stated under I the Chief Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Hamburg will report on essential preliminary investigations on special court cases, which have been brought up before the Prosecution during the preceding week.
"The Presidents of the Special Courts will report in the same way on essential decisions of Special Courts passed during the preceding weeks as well as on important decisions of Special Courts on the Agenda for the following week.
"In case of urgent Special Court Proceedings the Presidents of the Special Courts have to report immediately and independently from these regular meetings.
"The cases of the Special Court of Bremen will also be discussed at the Presidents' conference.
"Paragraph IV.
"I consider as essential in the sense of these instructions all cases which are of special importance, among them primarily:
"a) penal cases in which death penalty or a long prison term is to be expect "b) penal cases which must be considered primarily as a matter of public security.
"c) penal cases connected with the state of war, especially cases of war economice, illegal butchering and similar penal cases as well as cases against prisoners of war and these against "people's parasites" (Volksschaedlinge) and cases concerning blackout crimes
d) penal cases against Poles, Jews and other foreigners,
e) penal cases of importance concerning crimes committed by or perpetrated against minors,
f) crimes due to tragic, unfortunate circumstances,
g) penal cases in which fixation of the kind and degree of punishment is especially difficult or uniform handling is strongly advised,
h) penal and civil cases in which persons are involved who are State-or Part officials or NSDAP functionaries or held some other eminent position in public life."
I am skipping to "k":
k) penal and civil cases in which there seems to arise a conflict between the written law and the necessity of an economically and socially, reasonable solution."
Skipping to the signature, "Dr. Rothenberger."
We skip now to page 8 of the English, which is page 13 of the German book.
"Enclosure 3. Letterhead: "The President of the Hanseatic Court of Appeal. Hamburg, 7 May 1942.
"To the Presidents of the Civil Senates and of the Criminal Senate.
"The Fuehrer's speech and the Reichstag resolution of 26 April 1942 make it necessary to do everything possible in the organizational field as well as to secure jurisdiction of the kind the Fuehrer expects, especially in war time. As announced in my speech of 1 May, I therefore intend to inform myself as extensively as possible prior to the proceedings on cases which are of political significance or which involve the possibility of a certain conflict between formal law and the instinctive reactions of the people or national socialist ideology, in order to discuss matters, if necessary, with the presidents in question, whom by the way I expect now more than ever confidently to submit matters involving the above problems to me for discussion."
Skipping to the bottom third of the paragraph:
"But it must furnish sufficient details in cases which require special attention with reference to the Fuehrer's speech, in order to enable my deputy to judge the necessity of my intervention. In this connection the fact of the case and the decisive legal points of view will have to be discussed Skipping to the signature:
"Dr. Rothenberger."
I read now from page 6 of the English book, which is likewise page 6 in German.
Letterhead: "The President of the Hanseatic Court of Appeal. Hamburg, 11 May 1942.
"To Under Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger, Reich Ministry of Justice. Personal and Registered.
"Subject: Report of the Situation.
"Paragraph I:
"In April of this year I made a trip through various Gaus-Dresden, Prague Vienna, Graz- to inform myself on conditions in Central Germany and Austria.
"Paragraph II:
"The Fuehrer's speech of 26 April 1942 did not surprise me. It confirmed to me the regrettable fact that the Fuehrer has no confidence in German Justice and in the German judges. A radical national-socialist reform of the legal system which I have suggested for years inverbal and written reports has therefore become urgent.
"The effect of the Fuehrer's speech on the judges in my district was absolutely crushing. It is impossible to gauge the effect on the German judge of the proclamation regarding the deposition of judges and the way in which this was made known to the world in the form of an Enabling Act passed by the Reichstag with frantic applause. I therefore considered it my first duty to counteract this effect by taking the following measures"--which are enumerated below, and of which I shall read only a few:
"Paragraph 2. On Wednesday, the 29 April, I discussed the present situation in detail with the Gauleiter and asked him to address, together with me, all judges of my district.
"Paragraph 3. We did this on Friday, 1 May. I spoke for approximately three-quarters of an hour; next the Gauleiter spoke for about 20 minutes."
Skipping to page 7 of the German, and likewise to page 7 of the English, paragraph (b), referring to a feeling of insecurity on the part of the judge or of anxiety with regard to their families' livelihood:
"I have, therefore, assumed responsibility for each verdict which the judges discuss with me before passing it."
Skipping to Paragraph III, on page 7 of the English:
"In view of the present situation I am intensifying the internal direction and control of jurisdiction which I have considered to be my main task since 1933. For that purpose, I have issued the instructions which are set out in enclosures 1, 2 and 3.
"Paragraph IV: The meeting of the Chief Presidents in the Reich Ministry of Justice on 5 May this year did not satisfy me. It was my impression that most of the Chief Presidents were very much depressed. I don't believe that their inner confidence was restored in the course of the meeting."
Skipping to the signature, "Dr. Rothenberger."