Q. Yes. Now, in the SS, you said that you were never very busy or active, and in the letter of the third of June 1943, you said this:
"Both this promotion and the honoring of this decoration with the skull and cross-bone ring, I will take not only as a token of the Reich Fuehrer's most distract proof of trust in me, but also as an incentive for further active proof of my loyalty and for strict adherence to my duties in my career as an SS man."
Now if you had no duties, what were you referring too?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, from the context you can see quite clearly that I wanted to tell Berger that I shall do my duty and anything which is said around that, as far as the phraseology is concerned, these are just phrases that at that time were very frequently used-possibly too frequently.
Q. But this reference to "further active proof of my loyalty to my duties," what did you mean by the "further active proof"? Was that just talk too?
A. I considered my life and my life's work as one unit, and if during the war and in my profession and elsewhere did any duty in a loyal manner and as I believed as a docent citizen toward the State and the Nation to which I do happen to belong, then I may very well summarize that in the way in which I have expressed it.
Q. And so you summarized that by saying, "And for strict adherence to my duties in my career as an SS man." That is the career you referred to?
A. It doesn't say only as an SS man, but altogether.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit was that?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is Exhibit 426, Your Honor.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. I ****** ***** *** ***********. I have read accurately the translation. It may not be correct, but I have read it accurately.
Now let's talk about this trip to Corinthia a minute. That was outside of the Alt Reich, I believe, in Trieste, was it not?
A. Yes, it belonged to Austria.
Q. And the court which you were discussing with the Gauleiter Reiner and the prosecutor was the People's Court? The defendants were people who lived within the jurisdiction of the Corinthia Gau and committed their crimes there, is that right?
A. I couldn't say it off-hand. I only know that the majority of these people were German soldiers who deserted -- mostly the cases about which we received information -- there may have been 12 cases or so. Whether they were Austrians themselves or deserters from the Alt Reich, I do not know. At that time, we considered the Reich a unit including Austria, and I did so too.
Q. And now are these men deserters from the Armed Forces?
A. Yes, yes. That is what I was told.
Q. Do you mean deserters from the Army and the Wehrmacht had to be tried by the People's Court?
A. Yes. If you read that letter very carefully, you will find that there is mention of people who head the bands. I didn't look entirely through the whole thing asto how far the jurisdiction of the People's Court extended. I did not know, and I don't bother about that, because I had nothing to do with it. All I was interested in was to be informed to the extent that I would be in a position to tell the Minister about what the Reichsstatthalter complained. I did not have to know any more about it, and I wasn't told any more about it.
Q. Well, you read the letter of the 3rd of June 1944, which is Exhibit 484, and what did you think this meant: "For the effective prosecution of Reich enemies, and especially of bandits, the prosecution of bandits can only be carried out effectively when their arrest is immediately followed by trial." Did that mean deserters from the Wehrmacht?
A. I could imagine that also in the cases of such bands which consisted of deserters who had left the troops that even there quick justice was necessary; first of all, to protect the population--I can imagine that. But there it was the question to introduce or to carry out procedures which would exclude the possibility that people who for having participated in the activities of such bands were brought to arrest, that these people would have to remain for a year or a year and a half under arrest before the trial started. That was to be avoided or prevented, and that was the reason why the Reich Governor, the Reichsstatthalter, made these efforts. It washis wish that socalled "blitz courts" should be established for that purpose, which however was refused by the Minister.
Q. And those are the men that you described just two minutes ago as deserters from the Wohrmacht? Is that right?
A. I can't tell you any more, Mr. Prosecutor, than what was told to me, because I do not happen to know any more. I did not carry out any investigations. I did not see any files. I only was told what I know, and what I was told, I passed on to the Minister.
Q. Well now you have glibly said on your direct examination that this was all according to international law. Why would you have to refer to international law if these people were deserters from the Wehrmacht?
A. I do not know that in this connection I had said anything about international law. I said something entirely different. I said I went to the Gauleiter and Reichsstatthalter Reiner with the express purpose to discuss with him other questions which had nothing at all to do with these trials and these procedures, and these were questions of lega remedies; that is the question, for instance, by what means a court in the occupied area of Tireste, in the foothills of the Alps, would have to deal with a court in Germany. If you are interested.
I can give you some more information about that. The legal basis was the treaty between Italy and Germany concerning legal remedies which dates back to the time before -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute. Are the defendants able to hear the translation all right? I thought perhaps from the demonstration that the defendant was unable to hear. I gather that he does hear all right. Well then, the demonstration will be unnecessary.
Q. Now then, you did know that the People's Court had jurisdiction of treason, of high treason, and of preparation for high treason.
A. Yes.
Q. All right, and you also know now that the people to be tried before the People's Court were not deserters from the Wehrmacht.
A. Yes, I knew that at the time already.
Q. Did you investigate the crimes for which these people were to be tried; or anything about the individuals and the purpose of ascertaining whether they owed any allegience - to the German Reich?
A. I already said there, Mr. Prosecutor, what I know about the whole matter; I have told you. I only know also that I received a list; upon that letter there, I believe there were twelve names on that list; there it also said for what reason these people were in prison; the time since they were under arrest; how long their detention was before being brought to trial. I believe that is correct; it could be seen why that man was arrested; it was assumed that that was known. And that list together with the letter I handed to the Minister. Since that time I have not seen that list again. I saw it later again here in this courtroom.
Q. In addition to Himmler, did you know Martin Bormann very well?
A. No, I neither saw Martin Bormann or ever spoke to him. I only heard his name frequently mentioned by Minister Thierack, but that was all; and that was sufficient.
Q. May I hand you the record from your personnel file, which is a letter dated 2 September, 1944, addressed to Minister Thierack, signed by Martin Bormann, who asked you to be present at a meeting the 23rd of September in Munich. Do you find that stated in the letter?
A. Yes, it is in the letter.
Q. This was a series of meetings for the purpose of deepening the personal contact between the party and the man who occupied administrative positions and rendering officials -- is that what the first paragraph says substantially?
A. Yes, not only in the administration of justice, but in all branches of the administration.
Q. Will you account to me then for what outstanding service you had rendered which caused Martin Bormann to say in the last paragraph, should party member Alstoetter be prevented from coming, I request not to send a man to deputize for him.
A. I don't know; I don't know what that means.
Q. You don't know why.
A. That letter was addressed to Dr. Thierach.
Q. And you don't know what outstanding service you had done that caused Bormann to say if you couldn't come he didn't want anybody else; you don't know anything about that?
A. No, I don't know. I assume, however, I assume that the man who started with this, who had set down the people he wanted to come could not replace any one of them by anybody else; as to what the basis for that selection was, I don't know.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is all; I am finished.
THE PRESIDENT: Re-direct?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. ORTH: (Attorney for the Defendant Alstoetter)
Q. I hand you Exhibit 421 in the German, and ask you now on the basis of that text to comment on the assertion by the Prosecutor that you had won the Blut Orden?
A. I gather from this document, that is page one of Exhibit 421, that here in fact, as I had assumed before, all decorations that one could think of are put down and if somebody received a decoration of that kind, then probably the decoration he received was underlined or the others crossed out. That is a form, a typed form, but neither the Blut Orden decoration or any other decoration is underlined in my case. Looking at the photostatic copy now, from that I can see there is no mark next to the Blut Orden, but there is a mark next to the death head; next to the SA brown sports medal I don't have to mention that there is nothing and there is some mark next to the Jule Tide Chandelier which I cannot decipher.
Q. The Prosecutor has pointed out that conclusions can be drawn from the death head insignia to the purposes of the SS. Did you happen to know of units or organizations in the old empire who used to wear the death head insignia?
A. Yes, as far as I remember there were units of the former German Army which wore those death head insignias.
Q. Didn't also the armored troops wear that insignia?
A. Yes, the armored troops of the German forces during the time from 1939 to 1945 wore that insignia; also, the ones who did not belong to the Waffen SS.
Q. I hand you Exhibit 460, NG-891, your circular letter concerning illegitimate children. The Prosecutor quoted from the last paragraph of the circular letter from the Minister of the Interior and he concluded that it was a secret decree. Did you designate it as secret in your sphere; or, did you make a directive and pass on instructions as far as your decree was concerned that it shouldn't be published?
A. Neither the one nor the other.
Q. Witness, the Prosecutor from the letter which you addressed to Gruppen Fuehrer Berger drew the conclusion that you had done some active service for the SS. Did you own an SS uniform at that time at all?
A. No, at that time I did not own any SS uniform.
Q. Did you at that time participate or attend any SS functions or did you become active for the SS in any way?
A. No, that is quite impossible because I did not belong to any unit; I was not a referent anywhere, and I wouldn't have been permitted to be in the service. I had no task, no mission; that is the essential point in connection with the special position which was held by a large number of higher officials, of the people from the field of national economy, or from the field of art and sciences; owing to the fact that they were appointed honorary leaders, that is true; they were brought a certain personal relationship to the SS, that is to say individuals to officials whom they had an opportunity to meet and whom they knew --but never into a professional relationship.
THE PRESIDENT: You have covered that all in your other testimony; that you have already testified to in full. It is unnecessary to repeat it.
BY DR. ORTH:
Q. Witness, the Prosecution put to you a letter from the party chancellery, dealing with a meeting at Feldafing.
A. Yes.
Q. What was discussed at this meeting?
A. No, I don't exactly remember when it took place; some lectures were given of a scientific nature; for instance , I remember there was a professor from the technical college in Munich; there was a professor from the university; and, of course, there was also a higher party official who discussed general questions of public life; but what was dealt with in detail, I could no longer tell. At any rate, it was not of major importance.
On the occasion of that meeting were there at all questions discussed or mentioned which in any way could have been considered to be of a criminal nature?
A. No, that is quite cut of the question. It isn't true that one only thought about crimes in Germany.
DR. ORTH: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, the Prosecution only finds, from without seeing the original, that Document 20 in Document Book I, Document 26 in Document Book I, and Document 34 in Document II, Document 59 in Book II are objectional. The Prosecution would have no objection if Book I were offered as Exhibit 1, Document Book II offered as Exhibit 2, and Document Book III offered as Exhibit 3, with the exceptions which I have stated for the record. You can't hear me? I will try again. I said in Book I Documents 20 and 26 technically we find objectional; in Document Book II, Documents 34 and 59 technically we find objectional. I do not of course preclude counsel from presenting his case as he wishes; I simply state that the Prosecution has no objection to Alstoetter Document Book I being introduced as Exhibit 1; Document Book II as Exhibit 2; and Document Book III as Exhibit 3, with the exceptions noted.
THE PRESIDENT: If Counsel for the Defense will offer the books in the manner suggested, The Tribunal will make a blanket ruling admitting them all with the exception of the four which will have to be examined before a ruling is made.
DR. ORTH: From Document Book I I want to refrain from submitting Document 20 which was objected to by the Prosecution. The document was put into the document book at a time when the witness Suchomel was not yet here as a witness; about the contents of that document he has testified here as a witness; that document is not needed.
As for Document No. 26, in Document Book I, I shall also refrain from submitting that, for what is stated in the document has been corroborated in other documents. Therefore, I offer Document Book No. I as Alstoetter Exhibit No. 1, as a whole.
THE PRESIDENT: The book, as a whole, is received as Alstoetter Exhibit No. 1, subject to the limitations which Counsel for the Defendant Alstoetter has stated.
DR. ORTH: I refrain from submitting Document No. 34 in Document Book II.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, with reference to Document 59, in Book II, our objection is that there is nothing that shows that Dr. Kastner, who certified it, is a proper person. If counsel, if Dr. Orth will state to the Tribunal that Kastner is not a co-attorney and is qualified under the rules, I will withdraw that objection.
DR. ORTH: The document in the original is signed by Guenter W. Kastner, and it has a stamp of Kornwestheim; I should assume that it is an American office.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: That is satisfactory.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you desire to offer all of Document Book II with the exception of Document 34, to which you have referred as an exhibit?
DR. ORTH: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Document Book II is received as Exhibit 2.
DR. ORTH: And I offer Alstoetter Document Book III as Alstoetter Exhibit No. 3 in its entirety.
THE PRESIDENT: Document Book III is received as Exhibit 3 in its entirety.
DR. ORTH: Mr. President, in the course of the examination of yesterday, I had two individual documents identified as Nos. 1 and 2. These two documents are now received as part of the book. Therefore, in order to correct the record, I ask permission to point that out and that -
THE PRESIDENT: They are included in the book?
DR. ORTH: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: They are received along with the rest.
DR. ORTH: Mr. President, I have Alstoetter Document Book IV which is a supplement volume; it is not quite ready. I ask to be permitted to submit it at the end of my case in chief.
As for the rest, I have concluded now my presentation of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: be are informed that von Ammon Book No. 1 is available; Nebelung supplement No. II is available; Mettgenberg supplement II and V apparently; and Lautz IV supplement. Will Counsel take the oar in some of these cases and consume the next twenty minutes?
DR. GRUBE: Mr. President, I have a second supplement volume which consists of four documents which a short time ago I turned in for translation. I have not yet been informed whether these four documents have been translated up to now.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we should express our appreciation to Dr. Orth for the expeditious manner in which he cooperated with the Prosecution in the matter of introducing these documents, and he will not suffer any disadvantage by reason of that fact. The Tribunal will give them careful examination.
Dr. Grube, your books are not ready?
DR. GRUBE: No, Your Honor.
DR. DOETZER: (For the Defendant Nebelung) I ask to be permitted to offer my Document Book II which contains three documents. These three documents are offered as Exhibits 26, 27 and 28. In each case they are photostatic copies from the personnel files of the defendant Nebelung.
THE PRESIDENT: That is your Supplement Book II?
DR. DOETZER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state once more the numbers of your exhibits?
DR. DOETZER: Yes, Mr. President. The first document in that document book is offered as Exhibit 26, the second as Exhibit 27, and the third as Exhibit 28.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibits are received.
DR. DOETZER: Mr. President, when examining the translation of Exhibit 27 on page 2 of the document book a mistake occurred in the translation. In the letter by the defendant Nebelung to Reich Minister Dr. Thierack it says in the English translation at the end "promotion", the last word. According to my knowledge of the English language that means to be raised from one position to the next higher. Of a promotion however, nothing is mentioned in the German text, but it deals only with a transfer. I ask that this be taken notice of. That concludes my submission of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: The word "promotion" will be changed to word "transfer." We have made the change on our documents. I would like to ask what the German equivalent for the word "stymied" is. I shall not ask the question. It is a word of art relating to the game of golf.
Are there any other documents to be offered?
Von Ammon has a document book here. He is not here. And Book IV, Supplement, Lautz. You are not ready. Mettgenberg Supplements II and V I have. He is not here.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honors please, I would like to have had as much intervening time as possible between the end of the defense and the beginning of the rebuttal but in order to be sure that we proceed, I have now in Nurnberg five or six witnesses from Hamburg, all except one, in fact the case of Dr. Rothenberg, and several other witnesses, we have in the case of Cuhorst and one or two in the case of Klemm. I can, of course, keep these people but the witnesses from Hamburg would like to return as quickly as possible.
I am wondering when the Tribunal anticipates that I shall begin the rebuttal.
THE PRESIDENT: We assume that there are no further oral witnesses for the defendants who are available for examination at this time. Are we in error in that assumption?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I think Dr. Wandschneider had some discussion with Mr. King about that possibility.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May it please the Tribunal, first of all I should like to point out that I have two witnesses here in Nurnberg who are in detention here and who have already been granted by the Court, that is Dr. Hartmann and Dr. Becher. They are ready to be called as witnesses for the defense case in chief, and, of course, I would have to leave it to the Court if these witnesses, who are hero could not be heard tomorrow before the Prosecution is heard.
THE PRESIDENT: We will hear them in the morning.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you very much and for the other motions concerning witnesses, that is those that have not been rejected and could be called after who rebuttal witnesses, that, of course, I also have to leave to the Court and for the time being I only ask that these two witnesses be heard.
THE PRESIDENT: Any witnesses which any defendants propose to call should be available before the rebuttal. We realize that there may have to be some exceptions to this ruling owing to the order which we sent to the Control Council today, but the rule is that the defense should complete it's verbal testimony before the rebuttal evidence commences. We do not now know of any exception which would require modification of that rule, but you may put your two witnesses on in the morning.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, your Honor.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I thought possibly from my chart conversation with Mr. King that Dr. Wandschneider might also want to use as defense witnesses one or two of the witnesses we have brought down and those two you have mentioned, Dr. Wandschneider, and are there others?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: In the case of the witnesses from Hamburg they are witnesses from whom I had affidavits, that is some of them, so that as for the rebuttal witnesses I also intend to use two of them as defense witnesses and here the question would arise, whether I could examine those witnesses before as witnesses of the defendants or whether I should do that afterwards. Further witnesses whom I want to call for the defense there are only one or two of them and it should not present a problem to bring them here, and in summarizing I can say that Dr. Hartmann and Dr. Becher are available for tomorrow, and the question would have to be decided whether or not after the rebuttal testimony of the Prosecution I can call those two, that is, Dr. Hartmann and Becher as witnesses of the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: They should be called tomorrow.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: With proper arrangements we have attempted to make arrangements so that Dr. Wandschneider can talk to these witnesses, even though they are in the Prosecution witness house. Mr. King said he had no objection and we have no objection and they should all be called as defense witnesses or either by cross examination and we should be able to dispose of them.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal recognizes some consideration must be given in the matter of receiving further documentary evidence on the pact of the defendants where it has been requested in a timely manner. We are aware of the fact that there are documents which are not yet processed and which have been requested with sufficient diligence. These we will have to receive in the course of the rebuttal case.
We will recess until tomorrow morning then at nine-thirty.
Official Transcript of American Military Tribunal III in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Altstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany on 17 September 1947, 0930-1630, The Honorable James T. Brand, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III. Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
DR. KARL HAENSEL (Counsel for the defendant Guenther Joel): One witness, Hans Heinrich Schulz, was approved for my client. He could not be heard here during my submission of evidence because he had an injury on his leg. He is not here at present, but it would be possible for me to bring him here by car on Monday, if the Court approves. I have just discussed it with the prosecution, and the prosecution has no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. HAENSEL: Then I will bring him on Monday.
Then I have a witness for cross-examination, Fritz Ludwig, whom I could also bring on Monday.
THE PRESIDENT: He has been approved?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, he has also been approved.
THE PRESIDENT: We have a request here from one of defense counsel, and I regret that I can't quite make out the signature. Do you know who it is?
DR. DOETZER: Dr. Schilf.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schilf. As I understand the request, he has to be absent this morning and would like to examine Hans Hartmann after the noon recess. I think that can be arranged, probably.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: For that reason I wanted to call the witness Dr. Becher first, Mr. President, and I ask for permission to examine this witness.
I call the witness Dr. Werner Becher.
WERNER BECHER, q witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BLAIR: Hold up your right hand and repeat after me the follow ing oath:
I swear bh God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q Witness, please give the Court your date of birth and your personal data, briefly.
A I was born on the 11th of November 1902, at Bielefeld. Then, together with my parents, I moved to Hamburg; I went to school there, and studied law in Munich and Hamburg. I passed the two law examinations in Hamburg and also did my preparatory service for jurist in Hamburg. Then, after the second state examination, I worked for three years in industry as legal advisor and then became a judge with the labor court in Hamburg. I was a judge in Hamburg until 1945.
Q Were you in the Party?
A On 1 April 1933 I became a member of the National Socialist Party. In the fall of 1934 I became a political leader, and in the end I was the Chief of the Gauhauptstelle in the Gau Legal Office and Deputy Ortsgruppenleiter for an Ortsgruppenleiter who had been drafted into the Army.
Q When and how did you meet Dr. Rothenberger?
A I met Dr. Rothenberger in 1925 when he was in charge of a course of lectures for students, to prepare them for the examination.
Q In what close cooperation were you with Dr. Rothenberger between 1933 and 1945?
A In the spring of 1935 Dr. Rothenberger asked me to accept a job in the Reichswahrerbund, the National Socialist Jurists League. I was his assistant in the League until August of 1942, when Dr. Rothenberger went to Berlin. At the same time, I also became his assistant in the Gau Legal Office and remained his assistant there until August 1942, the time when he went to Berlin, that is to say, also the time when the Gau Legal Offices were dissolved.
Q What were conditions in the National Jurists League in Hamburg when Dr. Rothenberger took it over? Who had been the most important person until then?
A In 1935, when Dr. Rothenberger took over the leadership of the Jurists League, a lawyer by the name of Dr. Rielke had been in charge of it. He was not very popular in Hamburg because in his manner he showed the typical traits of a so-called Party boss. He had tried, at least, to make the Jurists League a sort of little Ministry of Justice for the Party in Hamburg, and, partly with success, he tried to interfere with the Administration of Justice by favoring the wishes of Party officials and by trying to interfere with personnel matters of the Administration of Justice.
Q In the beginning, after 1933, were there still any possibilities for interference to warrant such attempts being made with more or less success?
A Yes, these attempts at interference were possible because Dr. Rielke not only did not object to them, but supported them.
Q Until the unification of the Administration of Justice, who was the Supreme Chief of the Administration of Justice in Hamburg?
A That was President Dr. Engels.
Q And his superior?
A His superior was Dr.Rothenberger, as Senator of the Administration of Justice in Hamburg.
Q And to whom was Dr. Rothenberger subordinate and responsible?
A Dr. Rothenberger?
Q That is, before the unification of the Administration of Justice.
A In his capacity as Senator, to the Reichsstatthalter, the Reich Governor, In Hamburg.
Q I see. Could you tell us something about the attitude of the Party to the Administration of Justice after 1933?
A In the circles of the Party the jurists were generally unpopular, I would say, and in later years it required a great deal of work in order to acquire the confidence of the Party to the extent that at least one could eliminate the unjustified interference of the Party. That lack of popularity was something that Dr. Rothenberger also felt in the beginning, not least because his predecessor Dr. Rielke had given in to the wild fanaticism of the Party.
Q What was the position of the Party itself? From the very beginning was it favorable to the Administration of Justice?
A No, one could not say that. The Party, or at least every Ortsgruppenleiter or Kreisleiter, tried to interfere in favor of the Party members who had to stand trial before a court.
Q. Did that remain the same after Dr. Rothenberger had become Gau Manager in the NSRB, or were there no farther possibilities to exert influence?
A. No, not in the beginning. It didn't change immediately. However, in the course of time, Dr. Rothenberger succeeded in eliminating the influence of the Party completely.
Q. Could you tell us about some definite or concrete measures, and could you specify matters from which you conclude that and can prove it?
A. In the year 1936, when, in addition to the National Socialist Jurists League, Dr. Rothenberger also took over the Gau Legal Office, he succeeded in persuading the Gauleiter that a decree be issued for the Party in Hamburg which forbade any Party office to interfere with the Administration of Justice or to get in touch with any individual judge or prosecutor immediately. The Gauleiter demanded, in that directive that everything had to go through his office. That was also adhered to subsequently, and as far as I remember direct influences were in fact completely eliminated.
Q. What was the relation of Dr. Rothenberger to the Party circles of the old Party members, especially after 1935-1936, when he started to assert his position?
A. No doubt Dr. Rothenberger, in the beginning, had to overcome a certain reserve with the Gauleiter also, but that changed in the course of time. The Gauleiter had an understanding for the matters of the Administration of Justice, and he particularly understood that only an orderly and regular Administration of Justice would be desirable.
The other so-called old Party members continued to resent Dr. Rothenberger, which can be explained, possibly, by the fact that Dr. Rothenberger, as I said, had succeeded in obtaining that decree, which took from them any possibility of an immediate influence on the Administration of Justice.
Q. Do you believe that that lack of popularity within the circle of old Party members was based, in part, on the fact that in the course of years he had trials conducted against Party members for criminal offenses?
A. That is quite possible, that is to say, that these people did not look favorably upon him because they were not successful in helping their friends.
Q. Can you remember any specific trials of that kind, in order to add to your perhaps vague statement?
A. I remember that before the war--I no longer can state the year-a man who had an honorary decoration of the Party, and who had held the job of the Gau Press Chief, was brought before a court for perjury, and he was sentenced to a penitentiary term. During the war another Party member, who also had an honorary Party decoration, was sentenced for a crime against the war economy. I also remember cases of lesser importance in the field of offenses against the war economy which were conducted, for instance, against a chief of the Kreis Women's Organization, who had obtained merchandise without quotas. There was also a case against a Kreisleiter for black-market slaughtering. These people were punished just as any other German.
Also, before the war, a Kreisleiter was brought before the Court who was punished because, in his civilian position, he had embezzled funds and spent them.
Then I remember a case of a Kreisleiter of the German Labor Front the DAF, who arranged meetings of the Party in the same restaurant until it was discovered that he had been bribed by the proprietor.
That man was also brought before a Court and convicted.
Q. Before the decree which you have mentioned of 1936 or 1937, or even after that, if, in individual cases, Party members approached a judge or you in order to request influence being exerted , either openly or in a camouflaged way, how did you react and how did Dr. Rothenberger react?