Q: These were the officials at Limburg?
A: The officials in Limburg I do not know. I was only there for about eight weeks in Diez; I know a few people in Diez, and much less though from Limburg.
Q: Yes, but the first trial of Klees was at Limburg, wasn't it?
A: Yes.
Q: So that when you speak of people being cleared up by the denazificiation hearings, you are not talking about the people at Limburg, arc you?
A: At that time the Hereditary Health Office at Limburg and Diez were under one management; both counties were together, merged and worked together. There was no zonal border line which separates us today; and frequently transfers were made from one Hereditary Health Office to the other.
Q: Do you know a Doctor Lapp, who was -
A: Yes.
Q: Where is he now?
A: He is a medical practitioner in Limburg.
Q: Did he have any connection with this Klees case?
A: As far as I know, he filed the report; and. he was the one who, according to his duty, had rejected making out that certificate for the friver's license. But I cannot stale that with certainty because usually the chiefs of these offices signed and not the official who made the investigation.
Q: Yes. You don't know what became of tho Senate President, Dr. Fuehr, who presided at the Frankfurt case, do you? -- Since tho war?
A: Dr. Fuehr in the Frankfurt case, or the physician?
Q: Doctor of jurisprudence, I think it is -- President of the Senate. Did you know him?
A: I don't know Dr. Fuehr.
Q: So you don't know that ho has been removed -- from your own knowledge.
A: No.
Q: In the cases that you dealt with, from your hospital, there was no political issue present, was there? All of the unfortunate people in it were Jews and their political position was known; That is correct, isn't it?
A: Yes, I do not consider it possible; I don't believe that their arrest took place for political reasons if they went through the Hereditary Courts; the Gestapo would not have chosen that way; the Gestapo would have removed or restricted these people in a different fashion.
Q: That, of course, was the case of Jews in Germany; is that right?
A: I believe that that was the, case generally; also from my knowledge of other cases, people who resisted or offered disagreement did not even come as far as the courts, at least not during the last years.
Q: Did you observe the way these courts functioned, Doctor? Did they immediately decide cases or did they take some time to prepare their findings; or did they just act right off the spot the same day they had the hearing?
A: That depended upon the difficulty f the cases. In cases of difficult decisions, opinions were demanded from higher up; for instance in the difficult questions of genuine or other epilepsy; I know among the authors of a Professor Sagnilli (?) from Duesseldorf who says that about two hundred cases of epilepsy were submitted to him as higher export.
Of these, as far as I remember, he considered only fifty t o be genuine epileptics.
Q: I think nay be you misunderstood my question. Were the findings or the opinion written out in the presence of the person who was to be sterilized and the doctor or representative on the day of the hearing -- as you observed then?
A: As far as I know, at least in our cases, these opinions were sent to us because on account of the large number of patients from the same hospital institutions, it was technically quite impossible to write out the opinions immediately. We, of course, on our part found out in the course of the proceedings what the opinion night be; the judges bold us also what their point of view was, -- That it nay have been different in other places, of course, I couldn't know that because very infrequently I attended other cases.
Q: Does it strike you as peculiar, from your observations of what you saw, in the conduct of those courts, that the findings of Frankfurt would be written out and prepared in full on the sane day of the hearing?
A: That is not particularly peculiar, if the court had sufficient time on account of the short opinion that was required and the analogy with many other cases, I believe that the Court was well in a position to give that opinion immediately.
Q: I think you said you would call Klees' case, in connection with your study of the files and your conversation with him, a border line case; is that right?
A: Yes.
Q. I wonder if you would get out for me the part of the file that you discussed with Dr. Kubuschok that h s on it either written or stamped; handed to Rudolf Klees this 10th day of September 1934.
A. You want me to pick out the opinion which was handed to Rudolf Klees by the Hereditary Health Court on the 10th of September?
Q. Well, I want the one that contains the endorsement on the back; handed to Rudolf Klees on the 10th of September , 1934.
A. I will look for it.
Q. Now neither you nor I can tell from looking at that whether that writing was, in fact, written on there on the 10th day of September , can we?
A. I can only refer to the official certificate on the back of the files.
Q. That's right. Other than that you and I don't know whether it was written that day or any other day, do we?
A. There is nothing else but that written notice.
Q. Yes. I will ask you whether or not it is possible , in your opinion, for Klees today to be irritable and to be in the condition that you found him when he came to your office if since 1934 he has harbored the conviction that he was wrongfully sterilized.
A. I didn't quite understand the question. Could it be repeated to me, please?
A. Well, I will try again. You described your conversation with him and the remarks which he made when he visited you approximately a month ago; that's correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. I ask you now did the condition which you have described, in your opinion, as a psychiatrist, could that have resulted from his, Klees, having harbored the opinion since 1934 that he was sterilized without right and unjustly?
A. There are two sides to this question.
Q. I only asked one, but go ahead.
A. Well, if Klees is feeble-minded, then he is not only that, but he also is one of a type of people who are very sensitive and suffer more severely from interference with their condition than others. I believe certainly that his psychological condition was influenced by the fact that in his opinion unjustly he had been sterilized, but I have also the impression and that is the other side of the question, that he has calmed down in the course of years and only due to the peculiar conditions recently that has been brought up again and made more difficult to bear , through interference by other people.
Q. Yes. So other than what you find in the files which are answers written down by the people who conduct the hearings, who conducted the hearings in the case of Klees, and your conversation with him, you have no other facts upon which you based your opinion that he is a border-line case?
A. I also have the impression that the case of Klees was a border-line case from my personal conversation with him and from utterances he has made during the last time since he was questioned here. For instance, he went to a teacher repeatedly who only said that he had been a bad pupil and threatened him and that in a manner which one would not expect of a person if it is only based on affect. It was so clumsy that I should like to conclude therefrom to say it mildly that at least he is not a smart fellow.
Q. Would you conclude that he ought to be sterilized?
A. I have already said before that I do not know Klees sufficiently well and did not observe him enough, but that I would consider it valuable on account of the principle question involved that that should be done by capable specialists and experts.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I think that is all.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
DR. SCHILF: Schilf for the defendant, Klemm.
May it please the Tribunal, I have a request for my client, Klemm. Though I know fully well that the Court did not want to create a case of precedence when it permitted the defendant, Dr. Schlegelberger, to remain absent for one day from the proceedings, I have the request that the defendant, Klemm, may be excused for tomorrow because I am still in the stage of preparation for his case, and the short evenings which are at our disposal are not sufficient for that work.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The Prosecution has no objection, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has been informed that the difficulties with that procedure relate to the administrative problems of guards, and so forth. Surely the Tribunal itself has no possible objection -
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Nor does the Prosecution, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT : --- to that kind of procedure. We want you to have full opportunity to confer with your client in preparation for his defense. Subject to your making arrangements with the authorities who have jurisdiction of the prison, the Tribunal has no objection and is willing that you have this privilege, I am told , however, that there are rather serious difficulties involved which will become more serious if the practice is continued. I don't know what the outcome may be, but I state this merely to pass the information along to you.
DR. SCHILF: I thank you very much, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: He hope that if the shortage of guards is the difficulty that can be adjusted so as to more fully accommodate Defense Counsel. It is not an order but it is a hope.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall now submit a few documents connected with the hearing of this witness. I should like to submit those documents which deal with sterilization. These documents are contained in my document book number 5.
THE PRESIDENT: How has counsel planned upon identifying his exhibits? Would you inform us about that? Will you, for instance, have a separate number of exhibits for each defendant so that the exhibit will be Schlegelberger Exhibit No. so-and-so, than -
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, I believe that is the best method.
THE PRESIDENT: -- than to use a numerical series for each defendant.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, so that the documents Schlegelberger would be exhibit Schl. No. so-and-so.
I begin with Schlegelberger Document No. 96 from document Book V which after its admission by the Tribunal will be Schlegelberger Exhibit No. 1. It is a copy of the periodical Deutsche Justiz -German Justice. That is an article written by the then lecturer Dr. Adolf Schoenke, now a very well-known professor. In this article Schoenke presents a rather exhaustive study of the idea of sterilization and particularly writes about the application of sterilization abroad. The article is very extensive. Therefore, I entered it in my document book, only a few passages which are particularly interesting. I have not included the passage which concerns the application of sterilization in the United States. For that issue I have a different document.
I do not intend to read individual passages, but I just want to refer the Tribunal to this article. I ask that this document be accepted as Schlegelberger No. 1.
THE PRESIDENT: There being no objection, the exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I come to the second document in the same document book. The document has the number 97, and if accepted will have the exhibit number, Schlegelberger No. 2. The document is an affidavit by Anton Schaffner, who since 1937 was presiding judge of the District Court of Appeals, Nurnberg. I would like to read from about the middle of the first page and only a few sentences:
"The proceedings which were initiated by the requests of the petitioners entitled to do so by law, were always in every case completed properly. I always granted reinstatement to the former status in cases of repeatedly occurring disregard of the time limit for complaints on the part of those whose sterilization was ordered by the Hereditary Health Courts, since they could not grasp the importance of a fixed time-limit to the same extent as persons who are in full possession of their mental and physical powers."
I skip one sentence and continue:
"The decisions in most cases were only reached after renewed intensive collection of information or clinical observations and examinations and in doubtful cases the applications for sterilization were refused or the proceedings were suspended for several years. Political, religious or racial considerations played no role in any case."
Moreover, I refer to the balance of that affidavit.
I ask the Tribunal to accept this affidavit as Exhibit No. 2.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I come now to the next document. That is an excerpt from the Reich Legal Gazette -- Reichsgesetzblatt -- of 25 July 1933, and it contains the laws of the 14th July 1933.
I will not refer in detail to the contents of this law. It is before the Tribunal. I believe if this law is carefully scrutinized the impression must be created that all safety measures for the application of this law and for carrying out these measures are contained therein. I ask to accept this law as Exhibit Schlegelberger No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: No. 98.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: No. 98, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I come now to the next document, which has the number 99, Schlegelberger, which I offer as Exhibit No. 4. That document is the official argumentation for the law just mentioned, of the 14th July 1933. It was published in the Reichsanzeiger of 1933, No. 172. I should like to read a short passage of the second page of this document. I am beginning with the second paragraph on that page:
"For decades already the German scientists concerned with hereditary health, as well as scientists of other countries, have raised warning voices, pointing out that the steady decline of our superior heritage must result in serious degeneration of all civilized peoples (Kulturvoelker). Therefore the demand is made nowadays by large sections of the German people that the biologically inferior part of our heritage be eliminated legally by decree for the prevention of progeny subject to hereditary diseases."
From the next paragraph I read from about the middle of the paragraph:
"The Health Council for the Land of Prussia (Preussische Landesgesundheitsrat) has already approved, in its session of 2 July 1932, after hearing over a hundred experts, a measure on sterilization to foster hereditary soundness."
I ask the Tribunal to accept this document as Exhibit No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document, which has the number Schlegelberger 100, and will be offered as Exhibit No. 5, is the decree for the carrying out of the law just mentioned, of 14 July 1933. There again I refer to its contents without reading it in detail, and ask the Tribunal to judge whether or not the decrees and regulations for the carrying out of the law show a very careful handling of that law. That impression will be supported by the forms which are attached to that decree for the carrying out of the law in the Reich Legal Gazette. The forms show -- page 21 of the document book -- with what special care these examinations had to be carried out. These forms represented instructions to the office concerned to carry out these examinations as they were ordered to. In particular, we see here the so-called intelligence form. That is found on page 54 and following pages of the Document Book. It is a questionnaire -- that is, an intelligence test -- which we just discussed when hearing the witness, Dr. Rosenau. Therefore, for this I ask for the Tribunal's judgment as to how carefully these questions were worked out in order to convey a true and complete picture of the state of mind of the person in question. I ask the Tribunal to accept this Document 100 as Exhibit No. 5.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received in evidence.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I come now to the next document, No. 101. I should like to state in this connection that this and further laws which I shall submit arc submitted first because the Prosecution did not submit the laws proper, only referred to the fact that they were also signed by the Defendant Schlegelberger. For that reason and because I have taken upon myself the task of dealing with the subject of sterilization also for the general Defense, I have included these laws in my document book.
I submit first, therefore, Document 101, as Exhibit No. Ordnance 6; that is the second ordinance for the execution of the law of the 14th July 1933. I ask that this document be accepted as Exhibit No. 6.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I come to the next document 102, which I shall offer as Exhibit No. Ordinance 7. This is the third ordinance for the execution of the law of 14 July, 1933. In this ordinance I refer to Article AO, page 65 of the document book. This article was discussed by the Defendant Schlegelberger in the witness box. I ask that this document be accepted as Exhibit No. 7.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received in evidence.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I come now to the next document 103. This is an excerpt from the book, "The new German Reich Legislation -- Das Neue deutsche Reichsrecht -- entitled, "Law prohibiting carriers of inherited diseases to, reproduce." This book was published by Pfundther-Neubert, and in practice it had a large semi-official character. May I road the first sentence?
"The basis of the decisions of the Hereditary Health Courts and of the Hereditary Health Appellate Court must be carefully and thoroughly established. If the Hereditary Health Court has determined by its investigations that innate feeblemindedness, Schizophrenia, etc., are present, this act alone does not satisfy Article 8 of the law re: compulsory submission of proof; but this submission of proof must contain an explanation of the individual circumstances which lead to these conclusions."
I ask that this document be accepted as Exhibit No. 8
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I come to the next document, 104; this is an excerpt from the Reich Legal Gazette of 1898. It concerns the law in the matter of voluntary jurisdiction of 17 May 1898. I conclude that document in my document book on account of its article 15; the defendant Schlegdlberger referred to this paragraph while in the witness box when he emphasized the necessity of including article four in the third ordinance for the execution of the law for the prevention of progeny inflicted with hereditary disease. I am offering this document as exhibit No. 9.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I come now to document 105, that is an amendment of laws prohibiting carriers of hereditary diseases to reproduce, 26 June 1935. I refer to its contents and offer it as exhibit No. 10.
TEE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I come now to document 106, that is a copy from the Reich Legal Gazette, concerning the fourth executive ordinance to the law of 14 July. Again I refer to its contents and offer it as exhibit No. 11.
TEE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document, 107, is another law amending the law prohibiting the carriers of hereditary diseases to reproduce, dated 4 February 1936. I refer to its contents and offer it as exhibit No. 12.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document 108, fifth executive ordinance for the law which I have just mentioned. I am offering this as exhibit 13.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document 109, sixth ordinance for the execution of the law of 14 July 1933. I refer to its contents and ask it to be received as exhibit 14.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document is 110, that again is an excerpt from "Pfundtner-Neubert, "The new German Reich Legislation," and it is part of the chapter dealing with the law prohibiting the carriers of inherited diseases from reproducing. It deals with a circular of the Reich Minister of Justice. I shall read figure 2 of that circular:
"Only the personal appearance of the attorney or counsel or of his representative can be forbidden; written requests of representative provided with regular power of attorney must be taken into consideration."
Of figure 3, I read the last paragraph:
"Should the attorney be rejected then the necessity of an adjournment of the proceedings may arise in order to afford the carrier of an inherited disease the opportunity to appoint a new representative."
I am offering this exhibit as exhibit No. 15.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document, 111, again from the "Pfundtner-Neubert" book, the circular decrees of the Reich Minister of Justice. I will read from the beginning.
"Only few regulations exist with regard to the procedure which closely the procedure in matters of inherited diseases. This was considered to be a great advantage of the procedure. But, the liberty which the judge has with regard to the form of the procedure should not lead -- as it is generally recognized -- to the development of a written procedure in matters concerning the congenital soundness (Erbgesundheitssachen). Such e procedure can easily lead to an encroachment of the right of the parties to be heard in accordance with the law. Already in the circular-decree of 9 May 1935, IV b, 3796, I have emphasized how important it is especially in matters concerning the congenital soundness to hear the parties in accordance with the law.
But the proper observation of the principle that each party has to be heard in proceeding before a court is guaranteed only if the parties have an opportunity to state all the facts they consider relevant and to express their opinion with regard to the results of the proceedings of evidence, expert opinions and statements of witness."
I am offering this document as exhibit 16.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I come now to the next document 112, which I also include in my document book because the prosecution has only pointed out that the decree was signed by Schlegelberger. Moreover, I refer to its contents and ask it to be received as exhibit 17.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document 113, being an excerpt from "Pfundtner-Neubert"; it deals with the order of the Reich Minister of Justice of 17 March 1936. It refers to the fact that the persons concerned should be instructed as to the legal remedies at their disposal. I refer to its contents and offer it as exhibit 18.
THE PRESIDENT: Received in evidence.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document 114, is an article which appears in the Deutsche Justiz (German Justice) of August 1939. It is a general ordinance of the Reich Ministry of Justice of 2 August 1939. May I read from the beginning:
"When inspecting the files of Hereditary Health Court I observed that in some cases the chief of a university clinic, of a mental institution of a hospital or of a similar institution, who was asked to give his expert opinion, did not examine the person concerned himself and did also not prepare the expert opinion himself but that he asked another physician to perform these tasks. In such cases the chief of the institution would frequently make a note at the bottom of the written opinion which says that he agrees with the statement. How and to what extent he formed his own opinion cannot be seen.
"Such a procedure is inadequate in view of the fact that in proceedings according to the law protecting the congenital soundness such an opinion may he very important for the person concerned. It must rather he demanded that the physician who has been appointed as expert makes the examination himself and. also renders his own opinion, at least as the principal problem is concerned.
If he cannot do so because he is overloaded with work or for other reasons, he has to inform the HereditaryHealth Court of this fact so that another expert is appointed if necessary."
I refer to the entire contents and am offering this document as Exhibit No. 19.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Now I come to Document Book No. 3. I refer to the first document in this book, Document 54. That is an excerpt from the Reich Legal Gazette, an ordinance to secure the personnel required for duties of special political importance to the State, of 13 February 1939. I submit this document because from it can be seen that the allotment of laborers was within the competency of the labor offices. I refer to paragraph I in particular of that decree. I am offering this document as Exhibit No. 20.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I come now to the next document 55, another excerpt from the Reich Legal Gazette. It is an ordinance concerning the conflict of changing place of work of 1 September 1939. I refer to article 11 of this document, on page 5 of the document book, and there I refer to paragraph 11 and will read it:
"Anybody who infringes on or attempts to evade the provisions of this decree, or who terminate his employment before the working contract (apprenticeship contract) has been dissolved legally, will be punished by imprisonment and fine or by one of these on request of the Director of the Employment Office."
I submit this document and refer to this provision because it can be seen from it that the courts were not competent already because somebody left his place of work. Their competency started when the labor office had filed a motion. The Defendant Schlegelberger has referred to this in the witness box. He pointed out in the cases where the labor office had not piled an application, the Courts had no opportunity to start criminal proceedings, and that they had no possibility to interfere with the custom of the police to take the workers in police custody. I am offering this document as Exhibit 21.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received in evidence.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I come to the next document which is 56. This is an excerpt from the Reich Legal Gazette. It contains the Fourth executive Ordinance concerning the decree governing restrictions in changes of employment. I refer to Article I. That deal with the same question which I have just discussed. It can be seen from that provision that apart from the labor office, also the Reich Trustee for Labor was entitled to demand punishment. I an offering this document as Exhibit 22 in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received in evidence.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document is 57, the decree concerning the treatment of foreigners. I refer to the contents of this document and offer it as Exhibit 23.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document, 53, is an excerpt for the Reich Legal Gazette concerning the decree of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor concerning organization and administration of the Eastern Territories, of 8 October 1939. I refer to Article III, second paragraph, which I shall read.
'All departments of the administration are subordinate to the Reich Governor.'
I an submitting this document because the Defendant Schlegelberger has refereed to it. The Reich Governor had the task of the administration of the state. That is contrary to the opinion of the Prosecution that the Reich Governor's office was not an office of the party. I refer to the contents of this decree and offer it as Exhibit Number 24.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document is 59. It is an excerpt from the Reich Legal Gazette, concerning the decree of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor on the administration of the occupied Polish territories, 12 October 1939. I refer particularly to Article III, from which it can be seen that the administration of the Governor General in Poland was entirely separated from the domestic administration of Germany.
Article III reads:
'The Governor General is under my immediate control. All branches of administration rill be assigned to the Governor General.'
Referring to the further contents of this decree, I an offering it in evidence s Exhibit Number 25.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I come now to Document Number 60, an excerpt from the Reich Legal Gazette concerning the decree on the introduction of German criminal law in the incorporated Eastern territories of 6 June 1940.
There, various articles were mentioned by the Defendant Schlegelberger in the witness box, among others, Article 8, Paragraph 1; Article 11, and Article 12. As for this paragraph, I point out that in this d**** of 6 June 1940, for arson, absolute death penalty had been provided. Whereas, as stated by the Defendant Schlegelberger in the decree concerning Poles and Jews, that offense could be punished by a prison term.
Moreover, I refer to Article 15. Here, again, the mandatory death penalty is provided for the possession of fire arms. With reference to that provision, the Defendant Schlegelberger has pointed out that proceedings for unauthorized possession of fire arms were very frequent in Poland and probably amounted to the majority of criminal cases. Here, also, we notice that in the decree of 6 June 1940, the application of death penalty is mandatory, whereas, according to the decree concerning Poles and Jews, a prison term could be pronounced as punishment. I am offering this document in evidence as Exhibit 26.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: The next document is Document 61, an excerpt from the periodical "German Justice." The article by Friesler, as Schlegelberger mentioned in detail, concerned the new German criminal lows concerning Poles. An account of the personality of Freisler and on account of the importance of that periodical, "German Justice," that article should be considered semi-official. Prom that article, I should like to read the last paragraph of the first page.
"If the administration of criminal justice for Poles devotes exactly the same care to the investigation of tho facts of a case, as does the administration of criminal justice for Germans, viz. avoiding everything which even very remotely might resemble a judgment on suspicion if, besides, it judges the established facts just as conscientiously according to the law applicable to Poles, as it judges the established facts in the cass of Germans according to the general German penal law, and if finally it endeavours to render the right judgment in the award of punishment within the compass of the penal law applicable for Poles, as within the compass of the penalties pursuant to the general German penal law for Germans, the criminal jurisdiction for Poles is just, regardless of the different evaluation of actions of Germans and Poles, which might be necessary in many cases."
I continue to read on Page 25 of tho Document Book, the paragraph under III.
" III "Law of procedure against Poles"
d) "Preliminary Proceedings.
"By the general principle of every German administration of criminal jurisdiction, viz. that it must serve to establish actual facts and their true judgment -- a principle which is adhered to without exception and unalterably, the freedom of judgment in the arrangement of the preliminary proceeding finds its unchangeable limits (the same has to be said with regard to the trial). From this it follows as a matter of course that the Public Prosecutor in the preliminary proceedings will have to examine all evidence, extenuating as well as aggravating and investigate it."
On Page 26, I read the second paragraph.
"If again and again the liberty of decision in determining the procedure as well as tho main trial is stressed time and again, on the other hand it must nevertheless be emphasized that the establishment of the true facts of the case is the purport, and the rendering of a just verdict the aim of every criminal proceeding against Poles.