If within this trial one wants to find out whether the defendant Lautz rightly or wrongly started the prosecution you can only find out about that if you have both files, for only the subsidiary files as well will show whether according to German law, on account of the findings of the preliminary proceedings, that there is a sufficient suspicion to start the prosecution. Furthermore, in many cases, and that particularly applies to trials of foreigners, the German Prosecutor could only prosecute if the Ministry of Justice had agreed. In many cases, apart from the agreement obtained by the Minister of Justice, further directives were issued by the Ministry of Justice concerning the treatment of the case and these will be found in the subsidiary files. For that reason too, it is necessary to see the subsidiary files. Furthermore, particularly in cases concerning foreigners, further authorities were involved; for example the high command of the armed farces, the supreme war court, and other agencies. If these statements by these agencies are not taken into consideration, the main judgment cannot be considered complete. As I have told you already, the indictment regularly refers to subsidiary files. With reference to the indictment, I do not knew whether the court and the prosecution in cases in which merely the judgment is presented, as in the case under discussion, whether in those cases conclusions are to be drawn from the judgment regarding the chief Reich prosecuting authorities. If that is so, then all these objections apply to those cases in which the judgment is submitted, but not the indictment. In those cases there is something else which arises, and that is that the files would not show whether the defendant Lautz signed the indictment. Therefore, I cannot proceed without asking for all files to be presented in t is case. Further mere, I should like to say that many of the defendants who were sentenced to death later on their sentences were remitted; acts of mercy must also be considered, if the defendant Lautz is to be charged with atrocities at all.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Now that the Defense has brought up the matter, we welcome an opportunity to mention this matter of lack of documents and files.
I will be very brief, but this has needed saying for sometime. With regard to the references in the indictment or cases that we will seek to introduce here, regard references therein to subsidiary files, such as has been mentioned by the Defense: Of course there are these those references, and of course the Prosecution does not have the subsidiary files. The reason we don't is very clear; it was a virtual act of God that we were able to secure any Peoples' Court records in the first place. The People's Court building in Berlin was destroyed by air raids and many files perished in the resulting fire, but even before that time the People's Court had largely been decentralized; at least the Chief Public prosecutor's office had been moved in part to Potsdam and various other places, with the resulting breakdown of any cross-reference filing system for the Germans themselves, lot alone for occupiers who came in later and attempted to find cross-references from a document they happened to pick out of the rubble. On the other hand, although we do not have these files, the subsidiary files referred to in the indictment and case records, we do not purport to have in evidence anything more than appears on the face of the document which we offer. The Defense has remarked that the documents we may submit in the case of Peoples' Court record are not complete. We do not profess to say that they are; we merely say that if there are flaws and defects in the proof that we intend to establish, then the Defense is perfectly free to point out such defects for whatever damage that they may have against the probative value of the documents we submit. One further thing; the Defense remarked that in many cases death sentences were remitted; that clemency pleas were granted; that defendants sentenced to death were never actually executed. Of course that happened, but we will not rely on the death sentence of any defendant in any case that we submit without also submitting proof to the fact that that man lives no more.
DR. GRUBE: (Attorney for Defendant Lautz) May it please the Court, may I make an additional remark.
In the indictment, as you know, the main point is that the German courts made their decisions without reference to the a ency of the Fuehrer.
If this trial here in effect maintained that count, then in my view it is compelled to go over every case a-new. I should like to explain that by one example, and one of these judgments. A foreigner was condemned because he had given a prisoner of war plans of surrounding areas. The Pole stated at the time he asked for the plan to see where in the neighborhood there were camps where civilians worked because he wanted to go and see a friend there. The Peoples Court took the view that it was not the purpose of the plan to show the Pole the location of the civilian workers, but it was of e scape. In that decision it was exclusively to point out the purpose of the plan. If today that judgment is submitted, the Defense in my view cannot forego insistence upon having that plan submitted because only on that condition can it be seer what sentence was passed at the time, and the same applies to all the other cases; if it is to be cited here whether wrong sentences were passed, then that can only be done by having recourse to the files which at that time were the basis for the prosecution. As far as the defendant Lautz is concerned concerning the files, there is the following to be said:
The defendant Lautz is charged with having made infounded prosecutions. The point of the Prosecution for that was the result which was available when he started tho preliminary investigations. That result can only be seen from the files dealing with the preliminary investigations. This we cannot accept without seeing these subsidiary files.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One final word, surely the Prosecution is entitled in its own way, and in its own manner to make out a prima facie case without objections to the methods of proof which it attempts to use. The one question can be that we end up proving if the Defense is of the opinion that the proof we introduce is insufficient then let them so show in their case in chief. At least the Prosecution so submits.
THE PRESIDENT: It is the view of the Tribunal that it is a matter of argument and largely as to whether proof is made in these matters, and, of course, if no further proof is offered, the document and this evidence will be of much less value, but Mr. Wooleyhan says they will produce further proof and if and when ho does, this document will then have greater value. But it does seem to the Tribunal at this time, it has probative value and therefore admissible.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The Prosecution would like to say a brief word to the Defense, in that we wish to preserve the relationship of mutual good faith which we have had thus far, and that my remarks at the beginning of this motion directed to the difficulty of obtaining additional evidence, and in particular, the impossibility of obtaining the type of evidence that the Defense suggested with regard to subsidiary files. It should suffice to show the Defense we are not attempting to withhold on that point, that is due to a lack rather than a refusal on our pert to furnish such proof....
JUDGE BRAND: I think that as an individual I may say that the Defense Counsel can rely upon the fact that the Tribunal will disregard any evidence which may be received unless we find it does have probative value as to some individual defendant. They may assume that will be the procedure in this Court all times.
DR. GRUBE: I should like to add to the Prosecution's remark the following: I did not want to say to the Prosecution that it withhold material. I only meant to say that the material which has been submitted to us here, for example, an indictment without subsidiary files, but that does not constitute a complete document, but I have not said that I believed that the Prosecution intended to withhold any material.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this document being offered?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, your Honor, we do seek to offer this document after we read certain portions of it.
The cover shoot of the Case Record contained in NG-669, on page 22 of the English and 28 of the German: "The Reich Chief Public Prosecutor at the People's Court," dated, "3 April 1941" addressed to "The President of the Second Division of the People's Court. Subject: Case against Kolinski and others from Bruss for preparation of High Treason."
The appendices to this cover shoot, at least when it was originally prepared were to volumes of documents and 49 copies of the indictment.
"I forward herewith the indictment together with enclosures and at the end refer the requests, I have made.
"Since the majority of the accused are not conversant with the German language, I will see to it that an interpreter is called upon."
And, continuing to the next page we find that the cover sheet personally is signed by the defendant Lautz, as it appears from the original, Lautz.
The next page, page 24, which letterhead, "in the name of the German People", contains the sentences of some 20 defendants set out here in particular by name and address, whose names are unpronounceable, and we will not read them. On page 25, however, at the conclusion of the enumeration of the defendants, we see that all of them were former Polish nationals and at present are in custody pending investigation, which means trial in this context, on charges of preparation of high treason.
"The People's Court, 2nd Division, has passed in the trial of 23rd, 24th, and 25th of September 1941, in which the following judges participated:"
Of which we will only road, "Vice President of the People's Court Engert presiding passed the following sentence:"
And then the sentences are set out on the bottom of page 25 and 26, particularly as to each defendant. Without reading them all we find that the following persons are being sentenced for the preparation of high treason. He find that the maximum sentence imposed was 6 years in the penitentiary and the loss of civil rights for 6 years, and the minimum punishment was a year and 6 months imprisonment. Two defendants wore acquitted.
Skipping to page 31 of this document book, which is page 37 in the German text, we find paragraph 2 setting out the circumstances of the case which we see fit to road in some detail:
"The Circumstances of the Case.
"In April 1940 when the house of the deceased for defendant Dziekan was being searched, a fairly worn, partly illegible piece of paper written on in Polish by the deceased was found, the contents of which as far as it is legible, are as follows in German translation:
"'Citizens of Poland!.
"'At this critical time we are spoken to....the time will come when we will be united. For already the might of the age-old enemy is declining as e.g. with regard to munitions and material. Likewise there is not sufficient food for tho civilian population. Amongst the people disillusionment reigns about the Hitler Regime, it will march in with our Army. Citizens be patient, the day of liberation draws near. If aver one braces himself for tho ancient battle against the Teutons.....He work under orders. Therefore always be prepared to take up your former positions, therefore we do not leave the towns and villages, do not voluntarily give up Polish positions to the Germans, You must hide arms and war equipment as far as you can, but on the other hand do not risk your lives and other Punishments unnecessarily. Poles, do not lose hope!'" The Prosecution wishes again to direct tho Court's attention to tho date when this was found.
It was found in April 1940, and presumably was written then or at some previous time.
JUDGE BRAND: Does your record show where the trial was hold?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, your Honor, on the first page of the cover sheet which is signed by Lautz, on page 22 of the document book, it appears that the indictments were sent to the Second Division of the People's Court, which from the face of the document, is Berlin. So, it appears that the case was tried by the Second Division of the People's Court In Berlin. a JUDGE BRAND: Is there anything to show in which country this paper was found? I mean whether in Poland or within the boundaries of the Reich?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Whether that will appear in a subsequent reading, your Honor, I do not know. May I supply the information at the afternoon session?
Continuing on tho bottom of page 31, which is page 38 in the German book, in reference to the paper and the writing thereon which was found and which we have just read:
"Dziekan had copied this writing from a handwritten leaflet which had been left him by the likewise deceased former defendant Frymark. The contents of the paper reiterates the gist of a proclamation of the former Polish General Sikorski which the latter had broadcast after his flight abroad by the French and English radio, as well as by means of illegal pamphlets in the area of the former Polish Free State."
If I may halt a moment, I think that answers your question, at the top of page 32.
"The original proclamation requested in the last sentence that the pamphl be cut up and re-distributed.
"The investigations made after the paper had been found at Dziekan's showed that in accordance with this request tho proclamation in the above re-distributed form, somewhat different from the original, but in which the sense of the original was adhered to, had been handed on from one to another amongst the defendants, in most cases after each had made a copy first. There each individual defendant participated as follows."
If the Court please, we may not continue this policy of reading in such great detail from a case record in tho future, but this first time, if the Court will be indulgent, I propose that the prosecution does read in some detail as to the facts of what each individual defendant factually did in this case for which he was indicted.
These are reports of investigations, starting on page 32, in which each individual defendant's participation is described as follows:
"1. The defendant Eugenie Kawka, when at the end of February she was press at a funeral in Kirchdorff at Gross Wollental, had the Sikorski Proclamation read to her by her brother, the engine-driver Josef Klein, who was already condemned for his participation in broadcasting the pamphlet. When she asked if she could copy it he declared that the Proclamation had been taken to bars. Thereupon the defendant made a copy of the Proclamation to show to her husband. At home she gave the copy she had made to her husband.
"2. The defendant Johann Kawka read the pamphlet which his wife had received and took it with him to his work where he had several copies typed by the shorthand typist, the defendant Raszeja, because he wanted to bring the Proclamation to the notice of several friends. He also showed a copy to the witness Hoppe who advised him to destroy the paper. Thereupon the defendant burnt the copies in his possession."
The following paragraphs, 3 to 19, ending on page 35 of the English and 42 of the German, continue a factual account of each individual defendant's either reading the pamphlet, reproducing it in some way, or passing it on. The extent of each individual's participation, each defendant's participation in the matter, appears to have seen either a copying of the pamphlet or a reading of it, or a describing of it or a telling of it to another party; in other words, dissemination.
We turn now to paragraph 3, on page 35:
"The convicted defendants.
"1. Their statements and the weighing up of circumstantial evidence.
"The accused admitted without exception the circumstantial evidence as stated. Only the accused Kramer gives a different picture of the circumstance established in his case. He asserts that, when calling at Bartsch's office, the latter had already copied half the leaflet. Then Bartsch read it out to him, whereupon he dictated the second half to Bartsch. This statement contradicts the statement by the accused Bartsch, who describes the incident in the manner ascertained. The court has given preference to Bartsch's description as he gave the impression of greater reliability and, above all, because from the very first he made the same statements at all hearings, whereas Kramer already told the police that he could not exactly recall all details.
"The accused, Czarnowski, who admits his participation in the distribution of leaflets to the ascertained extent, denies, however, that he Used to meet Dziekan, Frymark, and the accused Kolinski for anti-German conversations, as charged by the prosecution. He admits to having visited Frymark on several occasions and of having met there sometimes Dziekan and Kolinski. He denies, however, that he had any talks on politics at all. This statement seems hardly credible, particularly as Czarnowski handed Frymark Sikorski's leaflet to copy, but it cannot be refuted with absolute certainty.
In some respects, this statement is supported by the statement of the witnesses Josef and Anna Prominski, who say that they have never seen Czarnowski at Dziekan's house. The latter seems to have been the mainspring of the mentioned circle.
"On the actual facts of the case..." I submit that the true translation of "the actual facts" there, should be "subjective side." Is that permissible to the defense, "on the subjective side of the case"? If not, we will bring that up at a later time. "...the majority of the accused are rather evasive. The statements all agree that they were not aware of the true significance of the leaflet. They either state that they did not give any thought to the content; of the leaflet, or that they did not take it seriously, or that they consider it improbable and just stuff and nonsense. Only a few of the accused admitted that they believed in the announcements contained in the leaflet or considered them possible.
"The legal view."
For the Court's information, I am still reading from the second senate of the People's Court finding in this same case:
"The legal view.
"The contents of the leaflet, distributed by the accused, were in reality by no means empty talk and harmless or even a ridiculous joke. Even in this somewhat modified form, which in essence and in the main corresponds to General Sikorski's appeal already known to the Court, this leaflet presents clear challenge to the Polish population to arm and prepare themselves for a fight against the German Reich. After first pointing out that the might of the 'ancient enemy' is already on the wane with regard to ammuniton and material and through a shortage of food, an invasion by the Polish Army and the approach of the day of liberation is predicted. Then follows the challenge to strengt en 'the ancient fighting spirit against the Teutons', to prepare for the take over of previous positions, to remain at their places of residence, and final to hide arms and weapons of war in a specified manner. The whole affair is thus not an expression of hope that the Polish cause is not yet lost, but rather an incitement of Polish jingoistic passions with the aim of creating an atmosphere of resistance and revolt against the German government and of effecting a preparedness of fighting weapons, in order to be in a position t attack the Germans at the opportune moment for a resurrection of Poland.
"This appeal by Sikorski, to prepare for the coming fight, is a part of the efforts of a circle of Poles who escaped to other countries with Sikorski as their leader, to re-establish Poland as a sovereign state. These former polish loaders mainly advocate military assistance to hostile powers not yet conquered by Germany and attempt by all possible and available means to recruit volunteers among the Polish population for the Polish Legion set up abroad, which they allow to participate in the war inside the organization of enemy armies. They also endeavor, however, by appeals and other propaganda over the radio or by leaflets, to incite Polish citizens against Germany and to evoke in them the determination for an armed revolt at a favorable moment in order drive out the Germans and to build up Poland in its former glory. By this prpaganda they pursue, at the same time, the aim of separating by force from t Reich the Eastern Territories incorporated into the German Reich by decree the Fuehrer of 6 October 1939."
That date, if I may interpolate, was tho reason for my again calling the Court's attention to the date when the leaflet in the case in question was found. That leaflet was found in 1940, after the incorporation of Poland into the German Reich.
"Leaflets of the kind distributed by the accused, therefore, bear the character of high treason. The passing-on of such a leaflet presents circumstantial evidence of preparation for high treason in the meaning of Article Section 1, 83, Section 2 of the Penal Code.
"The more profound meaning of the appeal and the author's intended purpose has also been realized by the accused. Their diverging statements on the actual facts of the case can only be taken for empty excuses. As politically interested people possessing judgment,they became aware, on reading this unmistakable appeal, that it was intended to win all Poles for the fight against German domination and for a free and independent Poland, and that it aimed at separating by force the incorporated Eastern Territories, including Western Prussia, the district in which the accused reside, from the German Reich."
Shipping new, to the last paragraph on page 38:
"'These persons accused if the preparation for high treason have committed this act in accordance with the aggravating clause of Article 83, Section S, Figure 3 of the of the Penal Cede. This applies to those accused who copied the leaflet and then passed it on, as well as to those who merely passed on the leaflet they had received. Both types of accused have helped in the distribution by the leaflet passing on a single copy, for they disposed cf it and by this intense or counted on the receiver cf the copy making it available to others, just as they have done themselves.
The number of people who would ti s sue the leaflet was, in their opinion, unlimited, even if confined to these likeminded. Their action was, therefore, also intended to influence the masses."
Skipping, now, to the top of page 39:
"Thus, the accused are all guilty of having, at the begining of 1940, prepared for the act of high treason of separating by force or throat of violence from the Reich a territory belonging to the Reich."
I skip new to page 42, which is page 51 of tie German book.
"Paragraph V; The Sentense.
"Even though the actual extent of the guilt of the individual convicted defendants is not very great, it is nevertheless necessary to take severe legal stops against ghem. The Polish undermining work in the newly incorporated Easter territories, whether it is oral propaganda, distribution of leaflets, or any other kind, has to do stepped from the very beginning, Magmanimity or softness in smaller cases would be interpreted by the Polish circles concerned as a weakness of the Germans and would be taken as an incitement to continue the Anti-German activity to a still greater extent. The consequences there from could easily be a spreading of the Polish attempt to obtain independence, and thereby a considerable endangering of the welfare of the Reich. Especially new, during the war, ruthless action is necessary, because the German Reich is not to be diverted by undermining activities in the interior from its fight for existence and from the problems of foreign policy decisive for the victory, and is not to be hindered in taking the required military measures. A prison punishment would never have served as a warning to the fanatical Poles."
Document NG-369 is offered in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 125.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence, and we will take the noon recess at this time. We will again convene at 1:30.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours)
AFTERNOON SESSION:
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: May it please Your Honors, I would like first to make a suggestion that during the afternoon recess the defense counsel would get together and choose a committee of not more than three, and they would then come to my room 243 at the close of the session and we will try to work out a stipulation on handling translations that I believe will be satisfactory, and this I am sure the Court wants us to do as soon as we can.
I would like to have Dr. Conrad Ferdinand Wilhelm Behl called, please
DR. CONRAD FERDINAND WILHELM BEHL, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BLAIR: Hold up your right hand and be sworn.
I swear by God, the Almighty and Onmiscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
"The witness repeated the oath.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q Will you sit down, Doctor? Doctor, will you tell the Tribunal your name?
A Dr. Wilhelm Behl.
Q And what is your present position, Doctor?
A Langerichtspraesident in Schweinfurt.
Q Doctor, have you in your life done translations from English to German and German to English?
A Yes, at the time when I was not in office during the Third Reich.
Q And I believe that in 1928 and '29 you appeared before the AngloGerman Mixed Arbitral Tribunal in London on behalf of the German government as attorney; is that correct?
A Yes. I was representative for the state, for the German Reich, before the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitration Tribunal in London.
Q There you conducted the proceedings in English; is that right?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q You are completely conversant with both the German and the English languages?
A Yes, I am.
Q Doctor, will you tell the Tribunal your general and legal education.
A I was born in Berlin on the 3rd of March, 1889. There I attended high school and followed an economics course. In Munich and Berlin I studied law and legal science. From 1907 until 1910 I was the legal assistant. From '10 until '15 I became legal assessor and represented a lawyer and public notary during the first World War. I took over his practice in Schloppau in Silesia. I was active as public prosecutor in Berlin from 1917 until 1925 and then I became Amtsgerichtrat, that is, legal counsellor, at the local court, Berlin-Tempelhof, from 1925 until 1930. During this time I became the legal officer of the German foreign office sent me as Gorman representative to the Arbitration Tribunal in London. In 1930 as government counsel I became a member of the inner administration and was active in the German as well a sin the Prussian administration. I was director and president of the examining office for defiling and dirty literature and the Reichminister of the Interior in Berlin from 1930 until 1932. At the same time I was in charge of theater and art matters in Berlin. In 1932 I already after the Papen affair in July was transferred to a cultural political position there and was still active in the administration of water traffic until September 1935 Then on the basis of the so-called law for the restitution of provisional civil service, Paragraph 6, I was retired. At the outbreak of the second World War on the basis of an order issued at that time I again had to return to my office for a temporary period as a legal official for civil arguments and for the restitution of damage, etc., I was employed in that capacity. However, already in 1941 on the demand of the Nazi party as insufferable I was again discharged. In the meantime I occupied myself with literary activities. That is how I made a living, in addition to the pension which I receive after the collapse of the Third Reich, at which time I was in the Oberpfalz in the city of Kemnath in July 1945. The American Military Government, with the reopening of the local court there, the American government ordered me to reopen it. 363 I worked there for a year and then the Bavarian Ministry of Justice, on the first of September 1946, appointed me President, Presiding Judge of the District Court at Schweinfurt.
Q. And are you the presiding judge now, doctor, at Schweinfurt?
A. Yes, that I am now.
Q. Do you know Dr. Karl W. Jacobi?
A. Yes, I know Dr. Karl Jacobi since 1908.
Q. Do you know anything about his legal training or education?
A. He has the same education that I have. From 1908 until 1910, we studied together in Berlin, and in 1920, when he came to the Public Prosecution in Berlin, I still worked together with him as his colleague. Then he was still for a long time, until 1933, working as Attorney General, and particularly through working on economic and tax questions, he became well-known. In 1933, because of his Jewish descent, he was pensioned until 1933. He was still active as adviser on questions of foreign exchange, and then he was in charge of administering American property in Germany. During this entire time, until his immigration about Spring 1941, I was in constant contact and in a friendly relationship with him.
Q. Doctor, during all this time t hat you knew him, and that you knew him in Berlin while he was a practicing lawyer, did you become acquainted with his reputation among the practicing attorneys and the Bench and the Bar of Berlin as to his ability in legal knowledge?
A. Yes.
Q. I ask you what was that reputation?
A. His reputation was very good. I still remember one conversation I had with the deceased lawyer, Professor Ahlsberg, about Jacobi. He knew him from his activity in economic matters and he knew him as his opponent, and he made especially favorable remarks about his activity and his abilities.
Q. That reputation, I ask you, was general throughout the members of the profession in Berlin, that Dr. Jacobi was an able and competent student of the law, is that right?
A. As far as I talked with colleagues and lawyers, I have to affirm this.
Q. Do you have with you in the witness box, a work on German Substantive Criminal Law?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What work is that, Doctor?
A. It is prepared by Jacobi.
Q. Are you acquainted with that article and treatise, Doctor?
A. Yes, I have looked through it and read through it very carefully.
Q. That is the same Karl Jacobi about whom you just testified?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, do you also have with you any text books on German Criminal Law procedure? If so, tell the Court what they are.
A. I have two short commentaries -- editions of the Reich Legal Counsel, Otto Schwarz: the Reich Legal Code and Criminal Procedure, with all additional laws and war time supplements. Both in the 7th edition. In the year 1943, these books were in fact, in practice, used extensively.
Q. Were they considered to be standard books of practice and assistance for lawyers practicing criminal law, both before and after 1933, Doctor?
A. Yes, already before these books had appeared in earlier editions: later, however, especially during the Third Reich, they were used in legal practice.
Q. Now, I wonder if, from your own knowledge and any of your own notes and from your study of the work of Dr. Jacobi and from the accredited books on German criminal code and procedure, you will tell us first about the Court system in Germany prior to the advent of the National Socialist Party in 1933, and then contrast that with the system which developed after that date up until the end of the war.
A. The Administration of Justice, before the Nazi Regime in the era of Kaiser Wilhelm and the Weimar Republik, was of such a nature that the individual countries exercised the justice, especially as they were in charge of the appointment of judges and public prosecutors. Also, the granting of pardon, clemency pleas -- they guarded this as their sovereign right. The Reich Ministry of Justice was at that time, in particular, concerned with the preparation of laws. So that was the condition in the year 1933, when with the seizure of power by the National Socialists, soon the tendency to a strong centralization became apparent. Already in 1934, the Prussian Ministry of Justice was merged with the Reich ministry of Justice, and in April 1933, the entire administration of justice had already been taken over by the Reich, as was said in a ratter unpleasant expression, "Vereichlicht" -- made part of the Reich. Thereupon, the administration of justice of the individual provinces was discontinued and the entire direction and responsibility had been transferred to the Reich Ministry of Justice.
Already at an earlier time, the promulgation of laws and all important matters was made by the Reich. The laws were issued by the Reich. The centralization was in existence already long before the advent of National Socialism. The administration and execution of justice by judges were carried out by judges who were independent and subject only to the law. This basic principle is mentioned in the Reich Constitution of Weimar, in Article 102. That is laid down in this article. However, it existed already in the old Prussian Constitution of 1850, and one could find it also in the Constitution of Courts of 1877 in the first paragraph.
A second basic principle which is in the Weimar Constitution, in Article 103, is as follows: The ordinary legal jurisdiction is exercised by the Reich court and the courts of the provinces. That, as I said, presumed that the individual provinces still had some jurisdiction 566
Q. Excuse me, Doctor, what were the traditional regular courts prior to 1933?
A. The ordinary jurisdiction consisted of local courts as the lowest court cases of civil and criminal law of minor importance. The borderline to which the cases were submitted to the local courts was often changed in the course of time. Small local courts had only one judge. There were courts with several judges; one of whom then was in charge of the administration. And in larger cities, the courts had judges with higher titles, that is Amtsgerichtsdirectors, or Presidents of local courts.
Then there were the provincial district courts over the local courts. These worked on more important civil cases and in criminal chamber and Schwurgerichten, jury cases. The form of jury courts was changed in 1924. The President of the District Court is in charge of the District Court. In addition to that there were directors of districts courts who presided over the chambers. There were criminal chambers or divisions and civil chambers. And there were some district courts for special matters about economic questions.
Over these are the district courts of appeal, Oberlandesgerichte, as courts of appeal and especially for review. The Chief of the District Court of Appeal is the President of the District Court of Appeal. For each division there are senates who are presided over by senate presidents.
The entire administration of these courts is presided over by the President of the District Court of Appeal. He, himself, follows the directive of the ministries.
Q. Excuse me, Doctor, the ministries to which you refer now are the Land Ministries, the Ministries of the German states?
A. Yes. The only Reich court was the highest court at Leipzig which also had the name Reich Court. Thu Reich Court made all important decisions in questions which concerned the revision in Reich law. The decision of this ReichCourt was always divided into senates. These decisions were currently published and they influenced the jurisdiction of other courts in an important way. However, there exists in German law nothing like the precedent which you have in Anglo-Saxon law. Every judge of a local court is at liberty to lot his verdict differ from a decision laid down by the Reich Court.
Q. Were there r were there not changes made in this system of courts? Were additional courts added along with other functions after the advent of Nazi Party to power in February of 1933? Were there changes then in this system.
A. Afterwards, you mean?
Q. Yes. Afterwards, important changes were made.
Q. Tell us about those.
A. The development went in the following direction. Its aim was to take certain special cases out of the jurisdiction of ordinary courts and to establish special courts, Sondergerichte, for those cases.