THE PRESIDENT: It will be necessary for us to take our recess at this time.
(A fifteen minute recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: PERSONS in the court room will please find their scats. The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. ORTH:
Q. Witness, would you please tell the Tribunal quite briefly about your position as division chief?
A. As division chief I was responsible to the minister for having the material that was handed over to the division in accordance with the law and his general or special directives and to see that the business was carried on properly by the division. I was bound by the instructions issued by the minister in so doing. I could, however, voice misgivings regarding his directives, but I had to execute his instructions even if I disagreed with them. My responsibility was limited to the correct writing of the documents. The legal basis for that regulation regarding the responsibility was due to the order of the business of the administration in Article 52-A of the amendments, which the co-defendant Joel submitted as Exhibit No. 30. My authority to sign and my duty to sign was in accordance with those regulations and that order of business but later on in view of the evacuation of the division the instructions regarding concrete cases were extended very much. My signature had to be affixed on order of the minister.
Q. What can you say briefly regarding the relationship about your department to the other departments of the Ministry?
A. The Civil Department -- I may even say both Civil Departments, were strictly separate from the other departments. The reasons for this were technical. First of all, the fields of work were quite different by nature. The departments dealt with their affairs on principle independently and were very anxious to preserve that independence. Thus one department found out from the other department only what was absolutely necessary, and even that not always. Of course there were matters which affected the field of work of several departments. In that case the so-called main participating department was in charge, and it bore the total responsibility for dealing with that affair. The rest of the departments which were also participating and had to be consulted in dealing with this affair, had to deal only with that group of questions which concerned their special field, and these departments assumed responsibility only to that extent. Due to the evacuation of the departments away from Berlin the connection between the departments which now were far apart physically was made very difficult. The technical difficulties which arose due to this brought it with them that even in cases where formerly a participation had seemed indispensable, this participation about the departments did no longer take place. It was one of the main worries and main efforts of the division chiefs to maintain that contact. They were not fully successful in this.
Q. What form did the cooperation with Minister Thierack assume?
A. I may say in answer to this question that my relation to Mr. Thierack were of an official nature.
Personally I had nothing to do with him. The official relations were, on the whole, correct but I already indicated before that sometimes there were violent clashes, arguments. That was due to his temperament, but also due to my temperament, because I didn't give in. These arguments did not exactly increase my liking for the work. Therefore I frequently made the attempt to influence the Minister again to have me declared not essential, so I could join the armed forces. He refused that every time.
Q. The Prosecution has submitted Document NG 195, Exh. 45. It is a document regarding the division chief conferences of a January 1944 and 6 January 1945. Did such division chief conferences take place frequently?
A. Before 1944 such division chief conferences took place infrequently. For all of 1943 I can remember only one such a division chief conference, but I am not quite sure about this. Since 1944 these division chief conferences then took place perhaps every four to six weeks. Originally it was intended to hold two such conferences per month and maintain the definite dates. But it was impossible to carry this out in practice.
Q. What was the purpose of these conferences?
A. Mainly, these conferences served the purpose of announcing and preparing the decrees of the Ministry, which affected and regulated the official business of the ministry. Thus mainly organizational questions, questions of evacuation, questions of mail connection with evacuated departments, etc. Furthermore, the measures necessary for carrying out total war in the field of the Administration of Justice were discussed there.
Also the establishment, for example, of professional courses for judges, Prosecutors, and lawyers. Also the program of work for the conferences with the presidents of the district courts of appeal were usually laid down in the division chief conferences.
Q. During those discussions were the questions ond the work of the individual divisions discussed?
A. No, generally not. For this the reports to the Minister and the Undersecretary served that purpose, but the Ministry did from time to time express the desire that one or the other of the division chiefs should from his specialized field comment on a question which interested all or the majority of the division chiefs.
Q. In Document Exh. 45 it says on Page 3: Thereafter Ministerialdirigent Suchomel reported about the status of the work of Division 3. Was this Dr. Suchomel the some gentleman who was examined as a witness by the Prosecution?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you remember what Dr. Suchomel reported about at that time?
A. If I remember correctly, and I believe I do, he reported mainly about the questions of the reorganization of price penal law.
Q. According to the mentioned document, NG 195, Exh 45, you to reported about the work in the field of Division 6. What did you discuss at that time?
A. At that time I spoke about the status of the work of the office for re-organization of the German judicature and about the necessary consequences which resulted from this for the division. For example, in the field of personnel or in the field of the code of procedure.
Q. During these conferences wore secret matters of the division also discussed?
A. No, never.
Q. Do you remember whether questions wore ever discussed which were regarded as derogatory in this trial here, for example NN cases or the special law against Jews and Poles?
A. No, these matters wore certainly never discussed.
Q. I now start a new group of questions. The Prosecution has submitted Document Exh. 142, NG 410. This is the document by which at the instigation of the racial political office of the NSDAP a racial political section was established in the Ministry of Justice. Do you remember this document?
A. Yes. Perhaps I may say that with the establishment of this racial political Section I personally had nothing to do. The discussion with the racial and political office of the NSDAP, as this document shows, took place already in the fall of 1942, and I only took over the office in January 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: What was that exhibit number, please?
THE WITNESS: 142.
DR. ORTH: Exh. 142. The document is NG 410.
THE WITNESS: The occurrences regarding these discussions with the racial political office I became acquainted with only now daring this trial.
BY DR. ORTH:
Q. When was this Section established?
A. The order made by the Ministry was issued only much later, in July 1943.
Q. Who was put in charge of this section?
A. Oberlandesgerichtsrat Mainhoff was put in charge of this section.
Q. To what division did Mainhoff belong?
A. Insofar as he worked in this field, he belonged to my division.
Q. From that fact may one conclude that this racial political section was attached to your division?
A. No. Mainhoff, I believe in March, 1943, had come to the Reichministry of Justice. At that time he come as successor to the referent who had been drafted into the armed services for the so-called racial legislation and for the removal of hindrances to marriage. He took over these fields and went to work in them. To the extent that he worked in these fields he belonged to my division, that is, Division 6. The racial and political section, however, was conceived and practically handled as an independent section which was competent for the entire ministry, which was not under me, and Mainhoff said that it was subordinate to the Ministry. This can also be seen from the house rules issued by the Minister himself. It included appeals from all divisions. In order to clarify this may I add here one thing. Race has been discussed here a great deal, race, racial laws, etc. In order to prevent a misunderstanding may I say that the concept of race is to be understood here in its broadest meaning and not intended only for Jews. In the racial political section as far as I saw it, and I believe I would know if it were different, Jewish questions were practically of no importance.
Q. Witness, I am handing you a document, Altstoetter Document No. 8. Please look at this document.
A I have in front of me a certified copy of the house rule, decree, of 12 June 1943, which is signed by Dr. Thierack. It has a file number 1200E-Ip2340. This decree of the Ministry is the decree which established the racial political section.
DR. ORTH: Your Honor, I shall submit this Ministry regulation as a document, and for the purpose of identification I request you to call it Altstoetter Document Exhibit 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Your document number was 8?
DR. ORTH: Alstoetter Document No. 8.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification Exhibit 2.
BY DR. ORTH:
Q Witness, from this decree is it apparent that Mainhoff acted on behalf of the entire ministry?
A Yes, I said that already.
Q Can this same effect be seen also from the mentioned document Exhibit 142, which the Prosecution has submitted here?
A Yes, for this document contains toward the end on the last page a report which I did not see at the time, issued by Mainhoff, about a racial political course which he held, if I am not mistaken, on the basis of this specific order by the Undersecretary. If Mainhoff would have been subordinate to me in the field of the racial political section I would have had to see the report before it was handed on, but it was not submitted to me.
Q Did the fact that Mainhoff was working on behalf of the entire Ministry on racial political questions, did this become apparent also outwardly?
A Yes. In the course of time, of course, it only became apparent where the focus of his activity was, and that was in the field of Division 2. Therefore Mainhoff was then assigned also as referent to Division 2. Furthermore, the Ministry expressly ordered orally that concerning all division which in any way had anything to do with this section, that is, whose field was touched by Mainhoff's work, Mainhoff had to interest himself in their work.
In my opinion this, too, shows Mainhoff's independence as far as the racial political section is concerned. That is, his independence from my division.
Q The Prosecution submitted as Exhibit 432 Document NG 798, the decision which shows that Mainhoff was assigned to Division 2. Did this measure repeal Mainhoff's special position for the entire Ministry?
A No. I have already stated this Ministry regulation which was issued, I believe, in November 1943, only referred to the position of Mainhoff as Referent. His other position was not changed.
Q What matters did Mainhoff deal with in Division 6?
AAs I have already stated, he was referent for personal status matters. In addition, he was in charge of racial legislation. Under this came the law for the protection of blood, the law for healthy marriages, and the law for the prevention of progeny afflicted with hereditary diseases. Moreover, he had to deal with the law removing hindrances from marriage.
Q In the field of racial legislation during your time was such a law over prepared or issued?
A No. Racial legislation was at the time when I took over the division, finished. Moreover, I have to add so that no misunderstanding should arise, that all of the laws which I have just mentioned belong under the sole competency of the Ministry of the Interior. They were promulgated by the Ministry of the Interior. Only at the Ministry of Justice, only in Division where one could feel the consequences of these laws in practice, sections were provided but in January 1943 these effects had also been dealt with already and solved from the point of view of legislation. This section continued in the division because it had once been created. May I remind you that the law to prevent progeny afflicted with hereditary diseases is from 1933, the law for the protection of blood is from 1935; that these laws on the field of civil law, in fact were felt by Division 6 only in one regulation. That was Article 4 of the marriage law; the law for healthy marriages was from 1937 or 1938.
1937. And its only consequence was Article 5 of the marriage law. That finished the legislation for that sector of civil law. Only the law to prevent progeny afflicted with hereditary disease remained. We shall discuss that later on in detail.
Q In Exhibit 39 Document PS 654-
A May I interrupt you? I have another point.
Q To supplement?
A Yes, only to supplement the previous question. I did not go into what Mainhoff did in the racial political office for my division, for division 6. I have to state that so that the picture will be complete. The questions of hereditary biology which were of interest for Division 6 also existed because about the progress of scientific discoveries in this field the courts had to be kept informed generally. Of course, also about the possibilities for evidence which resulted from this for the submission of evidence before a court.
Q In document Exhibit 39 PS 654 in No. 7 the asocial law has been mentioned which has repeatedly boon discussed in this trial. Do you know this law?
A Yes. But it is not a law. It is the draft of a law which never became a law. In the summer of 1943 I heard about this bill at a meeting of university professors in Munich. A referent from the Ministry of Justice from another division delivered a lecture about this. It was an accidental knowledge, and by pure accident, too, I found out that the regulations provided for in this draft interfered with the guardianship courts.
Q What was the purpose of this law?
A This draft intended to delimit the legal competence between the police on the one hand and the Administration of Justice on the other hand in the case of the so-called asocial, especially also in the case of juvenile asocials.
Q Was the draft issued by the Ministry of Justice?
A No, it was a bill by the Ministry of the Interior.
Q What was your attitude to this bill?
A I rejected this bill, and this for the purpose because it gave the police an almost unlimited authority to put the so-called asocials into camps or to sterilize them according to what the police considered appropriate, but the concept of an asocial person was not at all so clear that I believe I may say that there were doors, open to arbitrary action.
Q Did you take any stops to defeat that law?
A Yes. I told Thierack about the impossibility of such laws, and that very decisively. And the Minister was impressed by this and thereupon he ordered that the penal legislative division should again have conferences with the police regarding the contents of this bill, and some improvements were achieved during these conferences, but from the point of view of the Administration of Justice and from the constitutional point of view they were absolutely insufficient. Nevertheless, the Minister decided to approve of this draft, and one day he told me that he had done so. This put me in a very unpleasant position, because that was a question of principle which would either have forced me to leave the Ministry or at least forced me to try at first to defeat this law by other means, and I tried to do this first and I was successful. I turned to a man in the Reich Chancellery, Reich Cabinet Counsillor Sicker and also to the Chief of the Legal Division of the OKW and asked both of them that they should see to it that objections would be raised against this law.
Q Who was the chief of the Legal Division of OKW?
A That was Dr. Lehmann, who was examined here as a witness for the Prosecution.
Q. Did the bill become law?
A. No, the OKW objected to the bill and then it was defeated.
Q. Was your attitude in this matter and your behavor something that was the usual thing?
A. No, it was something very unusual. Normally, it is absolutely untenable that a ministerial official, behind the back of the minister, fights against the decisions made by the minister. But from the point of view of the idea of a constitutional state, the law was so untenable that I considered being bound by the law of higher duty that my duty of obedience to my superior.
Q. The prosecution has submitted as Exhibit 435, Document NG-889, a report of a meeting of the Party Chancellery in Munich on 22 June 1943. It deals with questions which were connected with the decree regarding the Party responsibility. Do you remember this affair?
A. Yes.
Q. The defendant Klemm has testified about this Party responsibility decree already when he was a witness. Will you please briefly describe again what was supposed to be the purpose of this decree?
A. This too is a draft of law which mainly contained three points. First, contrary to prevailing law, the Party was not supposed to be made responsible under law for damage which an official of the Party had inflicted while he had carried out his Party activity contrary to law.
Secondly, the courts were supposed to be bound by so-called political evaluations by Party offices without being able to review them, especially as to their factual basis.
Thirdly so-called standering complaints against trusted people of the Party were supposed to be excluded.
Q. What was your attitude regarding this fraft?
A. When I cam to the Ministry in 1943, this bill had already been completed. When I found out about it, I had serious misgivings. Quite obviously, it was aiming at a special law for the Party and its offices.
Furthermore, its purposes were to give a favorable position to the Party and its offices in the courts. I especially considered it absolutely untenable that the courts should be bound by any evaluations made by the Party offices. I started with that point by pretending that these two matters were not connected and actually they didn't belong together. I tried, under this pretense, to sever the questions of political evaluation from the so-called Party responsibility. I succeeded, at least to the extent that first of all, new discussions were supposed to be conducted about this. This is how the discussion of the 22 of June 1943 came about.
THE PRESIDENT: Was that in 1943?
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is 1943. The prosecution submitted a document about it.
BY DR. ORTH:
Q. Was an agreement reached at this meeting?
A. No, an agreement was not so important at all. My tactical aim was the following: to have this, in my opinion, completely misguided matter possibly dragged out until the end of the war. I was of the opinion that questions of such basic importance should not be decided during time of war, and I did not see any urgent need for it either. I did succeed in dragging this whole matter out, and it was also possible to do so in the future.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you a question? Who was supporting the bill which you opposed?
THE WITNESS: The bill was initiated by the Party Chancellery. Before I came to the Ministry, a discussion of this bill had already taken place among the participation departments. Those who were concerned with it were, as far as I remember, in addition to the Party Chancellery, the Reich Chancellery, the Ministry of the Interior, and I believe the Finance Ministry also.
THE PRESIDENT: I said who, by name, in the Party Chancellery was supporting this bill?
THE WITNESS: In the Party Chancellery, the bill was supported that is, represented---by a man called Link. I believe he was Reichstellenleiter in the Reich Party Treasury. The discussions on the 22 of June 1943 took place with the Chief of the Justice Group in the Party Chancellery. That was at that time Ministerial Director Klemm, and his Referent, Ministerial Councilor Enke. But they were only discussions which took place subsequent to what had already happened before, and if it hadn't been for Klemm, then it would not have been possible for us at all to bring this matter up again for discussion.
BY DR. ORTH:
Q. Witness, did this bill later become law?
A. No. I already stated that it remained a draft. But in 1943 and 1944, renewed discussions did take place. I, myself participated in a discussion, I believe, in that fall of 1944. At this time too, it was not possible to iron out the difficulties which existed, so that the bill, as I can say quite within the way I wanted it, was pigeon holed again.
Q. I now shall start on a new group of questions.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask another question? What connection did that bill and the discussions concerning it have with Division VI on Civil Law, of which you were the head?
THE WITNESS: In the field of civil law, the question of political evaluation was of interest. That was the rain interest, for the question was used in order--for example---to break contracts of work in official organizations. I don't know whether you understood me. A complaint for dismissal was submitted and the reason that was given was that the employee or the worker cannot be employed any more be the official organization because he is politically unreliable. Mainly these official organization were connected with the Party. To prove that the person was not politically reliable, a political evaluation by a Forty office, which was competent, was submitted. And now, the issue before the court was whether this political evaluation is correct and true, or is not.
Since the courts in their review had asked fer facts in their examination, it was for the Party frequently unpleasant, because the allegations of the trusted people of the Party were in effect not in accordance with the facts. Therefore, the political opinion was wrong. Then the complaint was rejected.
THE PRESIDENT: I was asking you what it had to do with your department. These political evaluations came through your department, didn't they?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you have not answered my question. I was asking you what this proposed bill had to do with your Abteilung VI, and you might limit your answer to that question.
THE WITNESS: The draft had something to do with my division because my division participated in these questions technically. The law regarding public corporations had in part something to with my division. The question of political evaluation was important in the case of workers' trials, in the appointment of quardians, in the question of the honor of farmers, in hereditary from estate courts.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Then you are new answering me that the matter of political evaluation did have something to do with your department, is that right? I understood you to just say that.
THE WITNESS: I would like to ask you that I may frame my answer in the following: the division was in charge of the supervision of the civil courts, and the civil courts had to deal with these questions I have just discussed. Therefore, complaints were addressed to the Ministry and they came to my division.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you have made it perfectly clear. Go ahead.
BY DR. ORTH:
Q. Witness, did this bill later became law?
A. No, I said--
THE PRESIDENT: That is the third tine the witness had been asked that and has answered it, and it was in evidence before by the witness Klemm.
BY DR. ORTH:
A: The defendant Rothenberger has testified regarding the office for the reorganization of the German judicature. Were you in charge of that office?
A. Yes. That office was a sub-division of Division VI, and usually I was also in charge of the sub-division.
Q. I now submit to you Document Exhibit 510 NG-988. Does this document contain the order of business of the office for the reorganization of the German judicature?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you please, in a few words, tell the Tribunal the tasks of this office.
A. The office had the task to prepare the factual and the legal lasis for reorganization of the German court system for the time after the war; furthermore, to prepare bills for the position and especiallyconcerning the independence of judges, a Judge's Law.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q Witness, the Special Courts and the People's Court must have belonged also to the organization of the courts, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Therefore you were forced within the scope of the preparations for the reorganization of the judicature to state your opinion also on the question of the existence of Special Courts and the People's Court, is that correct?
A Yes. But I may say that the People's Court and the Special Court, of course, had nothing to do with civil matters; furthermore, basically organizational questions did also not belong to my division. Thus I had to deal only with a possible future of reorganization of these courts within the scope of the preliminary work for the entire reorganization, and here the question was whether in the future Special Courts and the People's Courts were to be incorporated into the regular court system and how.
Q And what was your attitude?
A I, for one, have always been an opponent of those two courts. That has nothing to do with any matters which have been discussed here now. But that is connected with experiences which I had in Bavaria with the former Bavarian People's Court, and the considerations which were connected with that. In any case, I, for my own person, would be clear in my mind that these courts should be abolished as soon as possible. That was also the attitude of all of the members of the office for the reorganization of the German judicature.
THE PRESIDENT: A question, please. You all understood that this reform of the judicial procedure was not to take place until after the war, didn't you?
A Yes. I should like to finish my answer. I meant to say that I reported to the minister on that question and demanded from him to express a clear opinion on that point. At first Thierack did not want to have anything to do with it and said to me that during the war that was quite out of the question and there was no point in dis Court No. III, Case No. 3.cussing it.
But finally I got him to agree with me, to the effect that those courts were to disappear when all courts would be reorganized.
BY DR. ORTHA:
Q The prosecution charges the defendant with having removed the independence of the judges and with having allowed interference on the part of the Party with the Administration of Justice. I have a few questions to ask you concerning that charge. Were you, yourself, as long as you were judge with the Reich Supreme Court, able to make your decisions in a free and independent manner?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember any case from that period where an attempt was made to interfere with the Administration of Justice from any quarter?
A No. You mean with the Reich Supreme Court? No, I never heard of any such case. Anyhow, I can't recall any such case.
Q Did you as a department chief at the Reich Ministry of Justice ever hear of any cases where anybody tried to interfere with the legal practice of the courts in civil cases, and what was your attitude to those matters?
A There were some such attempts made especially by lower Party agencies in spite of counter measures being taken. An attempt was made to interfere with the work of courts by Party agencies meddling with these matters before a case could come before a court at all, or attempts were made by the Party agencies interfering after a trial had started, and even attempts were made to influence decisions of the courts in individual trials. It also happened with court decisions in civil cases, for example, over a tenancy matter--that certain party agencies simply refused to recognize the court decision as being valid, and we saw the effects of that in particular with the question of executing such decisions--that is to say, if a decision had been made in a tenancy case, and now the sentence was to be executed. I counteracted such attempts with great determination in every case, although often Court No. III, Case No. 3.that was very difficult indeed.
I had instructed my department to tell me immediately of any case of influencing that came to their knowledge, so as to enable me to take the necessary steps, and such steps on my part were always successful. I cannot remember one single case where my counter measures were in vain.
Q Witness, you said a little earlier on, that in the office for the reorganization of the judicature, the question of the independence of the judges was also dealt with, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q What attitude did you take towards that question?
AAt all discussions which wore held in that office, without making ever any concessions, I upheld the view that under all circumstances the judge must be independent. At conferences with my staff and at conferences with judges, I made that demand again and again.
Q You have testified that even under extremely difficult circumstances, you resisted attempts made by Party or other agencies to interfere with the Administration of civil law. Could you give a brief account of such cases to the Tribunal, please?
A I could name a number of individual cases, but I think it will be sufficient if I give an account of one case. That was the Friedrich case, which was mentioned here by Under-Secretary Klemm. What happened in that case was briefly this: Friedrich had been killed in action on the front with a tank unit. In his testimony, he had said that his two children from his first marriage--he was divorced from his first wife--and who lived with their mother, that those two children should not be given over to the care of his second wife. The guardian-the father of the Colonel who had been killed in action--tried to comply with the son's last wish, and in doing so there was a litigation with the children's mother. As the guardian felt anxious about the outcome of the case, he approached the chief adjutant of the Wehrmacht with Hitler, with the request for assistance. This adjutant was an acquaintance of the guardian and he reported to Hitler. Hitler decided, Court No. III, Case No. 3.without ever listening to the other part, without having seen a report from the Ministry of Justice, quite arbitrarily in favor of the guardian, and simultaneously ordered a law to be promulgated according to which in all cases where soldiers who had been killed in action, in their testaments had given any directives as to the people who were to look after their children, the courts were to be bound by those directions in such testaments.
That decision by the Fuehrer was passed on to Thierack by Himmler. We had a look at the files and we found that the court had not yet made a decision. According to the evidence which had already been produced, there could however be no doubt that the decision of the court, on the basis of the law, would have been contrary to the Fuehrer's decision. Furthermore, I considered this new law which the Fuehrer decision demanded, to be an impossibility, and therefore I asked Thierack to approach Hitler personally and to try and convince Hitler that the decision in the individual case, as well as this law which was to be promulgated, could not be taken into consideration at all. But Thierack wouldn't go, and he wouldn't call on Hitler. I then suggested that he had better try and get Bormann and Himmler interested in our point of view, but he refused to do anything about it. He refused, although Klemm shared my point of view and supported it.
So the matter dragged on because we did not execute the Fuehrer's order, and then the Chief Adjutant of the Armed Forces, who had interfered in two very rude letters to Thierack, charged us with sabotaging the Fuehrer's decisions, and threatened that he would report to Hitler on the matter. We then persuaded Thierack to agree to my visiting the Chief Adjutant of the Armed Forces to try and settle this matter. I did see him and I may say that the circumstances which attended the meeting were highly dramatic. The talk went on for about two hours and the outcome was that the Chief Adjutant of the Wehrmacht came to see that this was quite an impossibility, and then declared himself ready to see to it that Hitler would withdraw his decision.
In that way, the Court was allowed to make a free, uninfluenced decision in the guardianship case and that law was never promulgated.
Q Witness, am I right in summing up if I say you even prevented an attempt by Hitler to interfere by a fuehrer decision in an individual case with the jurisdiction of the civil courts?
A Yes
Q A further charge the prosecution has been made, was that a National Socialist jurist had been given preference when it came to promotions and without paying any attention to their actual abilities. Now I ask you, did you have anything to do with personnel matters?
A In principle, it was Department 1 of the Ministry of Justice which dealt with personnel matters. Within the framework of my department; however; I was able to deal with question of promotion and other personnel questions. But the other departments had nothing to do with me, concerning their staff.
Q What attitude did you take in your personnel policy?
A The only thing I took into consideration was technical ability. In the case of the majority of my assistants, I didn't even know what their political views were. From the mere fact that many of those men are now still in central positions and in high court offices, from that alone one can draw the conclusion that their attitude was not that of a National Socialist.
Q What about the leading men in your department?
A My permanent deputy was Ministerial Dirigent Dr. Hese. He was not a party member and, as was general knowledge even at that time, he was definitely an anti-Nazi. I appointed him to be my deputy because of his ability and I did so although an old man who was also a party member would have been available in the department.
Q Did you have anything else to do with the appointment to higher offices?
A I only had anything to do with that if the department had any technical interest in the appointment of such a vacancy.