I ask you whether this draft of the decree ever reached the Reich Chancellery.
AI do not know; I cannot assume that it did, as it cannot be seen from the document. Perhaps it was in the files because the memorandum here in the document contains the remark at the top, "To RK, No. etc. etc.," - "RK" standing for "Reich Chancellery". So it must have arrived somewhere within the Chancellery, although it is not indicated just where in the document.
QWas the Reich Chancellery a ministry involved at all in this matter?
ANo, it wasn't a ministry involved, because it wasn't even a ministry.
QAccording to the draft of this law what people were to be included?
AThe document shows perfectly clearly that in the draft proposed it was a question of assuring the fact that German nationals could be punished if they were accomplices in criminal acts committed by Poles or Jews. Previously they could not have been punished if they so participated, and, consequently, it was felt to be necessary to provide for punishment of German accomplices in this regard. It was entirely fitting that such a decree should be promulgated; and, consequently, ray man in charge, Gritzinger, who remarks quite justifiably that there can be no misgivings against this draft of a decree, submits this draft to me for my information. I initialed it, as giving my approval, and then the matter was submitted several times and looked into further and kept in mind, but apparently no further decision was made in the Reich Chancellery concerning the matter. Perhaps the decree was promulgated; perhaps it was not; I do not know.
THE PRESIDENT:Counsel, please don't indulge in the practice you did just now, asking him what this law stood for and then he reads practically the recital of the law to us.
We can read it just as well ourselves. He didn't add a thing in his last answer; it was all right before us. Yet you asked him to tell us what it was; you didn't have to do that. We don't like that. That's exactly what he did. I followed him almost all the way through an almost exact word recital of the law there what was right there to be read by us. You're just consuming our patience and our time.
Go ahead. BY DR. SEIDL:
QI now turn to the second document, contained in this Prosecution Exhibit No. 1586, which is dated three months later than the one we just discussed. This is a copy of a letter from the Reich Minister of Justice to Reichsleiter Bormann, of 16 November 1942, sent to you for your information.
Does this document deal with the same matter?
A.It deals with something absolutely and utterly different, namely the turning over of criminal prosecution of Poles, Russians, Jews and gypsies to the police. This is an entirely different matter from that in the first document.
Q.The matter contained in this second half of this prosecution's exhibit, we shall enter upon it later. First of all we simply want to refute the intention implicit here that possible inferences can be drawn from the association of these two documents, the one with the other, at least so far as the Reich Chancellery is concerned. Now, let me ask you, is the first half of this document a proposal, is there any discussion in that first half of the criminal prosecution of Poles, Russians, Jews and gypsies as suggested by Thierack, is that what is happening?
A.Not in the slightest. There is no word about that in the first part of the document.
Q.Now as to the second half, there is no mention of a decree for the criminal prosecution of Poles, Jews, etc. Let me ask you now whether the note of your representation of 18 August, 1942, deals with the criminal prosecution of Poles, Russians, Jews, etc?
A.This note refers only to the creation of a decree that will make it possible to punish German citizens who are accomplices in criminal acts committed by Poles and Jews. That is with reference to the first document. Now with reference to the second document -
THE PRESIDENT:Now, don't go into that first document. Why do you read that all over again I want to know.
DR. SEIDL:We have to discuss this matter some way or other.
THE PRESIDENT:You don't have to discuss it in that manner, and furthermore these documents speak for themselves. If you want to argue these documents later on you can do so, but we resent having you argue then over and over again and spending time on them when we spent some little time discussing this before, and we can read it. The documents are before us and we can read them. Now, there is no sense to a procedure like that.
You are presuming that we can't read or can't understand the document.
DR. SEIDL:In our view the prosecution is drawing absolutely wrong inferences from these two documents and consequently, since two documents are included together here which have nothing to do with each other I regard it as my duty as defense counsel to clarify this matter, and I see no other way to do so than by asking the questions of the witness. I don't know how else I am going to do this.
THE PRESIDENT:Do you mean asking them and reasking them over and over again as you have been doing here in effect?
DR. SEIDL:So far I have not asked this question of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, you have gone back to this first document, counsel , now a second time. Now the first part of this document which we spent a lot of time on you have unnecessarily rehashed it over a while ago. Now you cone back to it and say, "What does this document contain, and what does this other document contain"? We have spent a lot of time here this afternoon. We are going to have to ask you for more discretion or we are going to have to ask you to limit your time in cutting in your defense of your case. It is going beyond all reason.
Q. (By Dr. Seidl): Witness, in that case we will break off discussing these matters, and I shall turn to something different. I shall turn to NG-151, Prosecution's Exhibit 1551. This is in Volume 76-B, Page 303. This document belong with those concerning the limitation of the legal rights of Jews, and when we were dealing with Volume 76 we did not enter upon this question because it belonged in the subject matter which we are now discussing. Exhibit 1551 contains directives of 1 July, 1943, in the matter of civil law. Please describe the origins of this decree so far as you as Chief of the Reich Chancellery had anything to do with it, .
A.On 3 August 1942, the Reich Minister of Justice addressed a letter to a number of agencies, which you can see here, sending a draft of a ministerial council directive to them in which the question of the limitation of the legal remedies , appeal etc.
of Jewsis discussed. He asks the addreseces to express their opinions. He does not ask me to. He included me merely because that was the question of an intended ministerial council decree with which I had to concern myself.
Q.Were statements made by other ministries to be found in this matter also?
A.There was exhaustive correspondence in the matter, which I need not delineate, in which various wishes were expressed by the ministries involved. I merely had knowledge of these matters and filed them. At this stage of theprocedure I had no more to do with it than that.
Q.Then at what time did you have something done in the matter?
A.On 21st August I submitted this whole matter to the Plenipotentiary General for the Reich Administration and asked him to see the matter through, and then when he thought it was fitting to bring a decree to the Ministerial Council. That would have been his job and not mine.
Q.Did you adopt any point of view of your own at that time?
A.As in all such cases I deliberately refrained from that, and in a number of other letters, which I needn't list here. I was asked to adopt an opinion which, however, was not my task, and which I did not do.
Q.The appointment of Thierack as Minister of Justice, which had taken place in the meantime, did that have any effect on the course of events in this affair?
A.Toward theend of August, 1942, the matter was defensively referred to by the newly appointed Minister of Justice because immediately after taking office new plans made their appearance before this already discussed Ministerial Council decree. Whereas there had previously been a discussion of the fact that Jews should not be permitted to take oath, but now new questixns were expressed, that the Jews should not be permitted to refuse to be tried by German courts, that their should be regulations of the estates of deceased Jews, and then, and this is the crucial matter, the punishment of criminal acts should be left in the hands of the police. That was the influence that Thierack made felt after his appointment as Minister of Justice.
Q.It seems to me that the last point you mentioned needs further explanation. What do you know aboutThierack's wishes regarding transferring to the police the punishment of criminal acts of Jews?
A.As I know now only after the serving of the indictment and having seen in the documents, the new Minister of Justice, shortly after his taking office, reached a definite agreement with Himmler according to which criminal procedure against Poles and Jews was to be removed from regular juridical procedure and was to be taken care of by thepolice,but the documents here show with respect to me that apparently quite deliberately I was not allowed to participate in this, but that it had been secret from me.
THE PRESIDENT:You let your counsel argue what the documents show. They ere in evidence, and you don't have to argue the matter if he is going to argue it later on. Go ahead, counsel, with you next question. We can draw our own conclusions, and it becomes our duty to draw conclusions about what these documents eventually show.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q.- Witness, in this connection I must show you Document 654-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 1591. This is Document Book 77, page 157. I shall have the photostat copy of this document handed to you. This is a file memorandum on the discussion that you have mentioned and I ask you whether you ever saw this memorandum before the collapse.
A.- The memorandum here in this photostat is illegible in the form I have it before me, but in the document book I have a transcription of its contents. This memorandum never reached my attention; only now has it done so. Through the document book, however -
THE PRESIDENT:Now, you answered the question; you answered the question that it had come to your attention in that document book. Now, that was your question; he has answered it. Now, if you want more information on that, there should be another question. His idea of having you ask one question and then getting an answer to it, and, that being the signal for his embarking on a dissertation, his idea of a gratuitous discourse on this matter is something we don't like. That isn't orderly procedure. Now, he has answered that question. If you want more information you should ask him another question here. He answered that question completely. BY dR. SEIDL:
Q.- The Prosecution contends that Thierack informed you of this discussion and the two illegible penciled notes on the document are alleged to prove that you were informed. Now, please look at that photostat again and tell us what those two words mean or may mean.
A.- I have already looked at this photostat and I have said that it is so illegible that I can't make heads or tails of it. However, in another photostat that I fed in my hands earlier, I saw that these were penciled notes or which perhaps may be construed to mean for Lammers, or, Lammsrs informed, but I can only remark with respect to that that I was not informed that this discussion had taken place by the Reich Minister of Justice nor by any ministries involved, but only by my specialist Reichskabinettsrat Dr. Ficker who reported to me on the fact that the discussion took place, without entering into the contents of that discussion in any way; and, this document is in my document book as NG-059, with Lammers' Exhibit No. 24; Book III, page 6. That is the sole information that I received on this ostensible set of minutes, which, by the way, are not minutes at all because it is said that there was a five and a half hour discussion and a set of minutes of three pages cannot cover such a long discussion obviously.
Q.- Witness, you have made a mistake giving the wrong page in Lammers' Book III. Actually it is on page 83, Lammers' Exhibit 24. It's a memorandum of the Reich Chancellery of 19th September 1942 regarding the judicial reform.
JUDGE MAGUIRE:Dr. Seidl, is this Lammers' Exhibit 24, is that an affidavit or is that from the record of the Reich Chancellery?
DR. SEIDL:Those are notes from the Reich Chancellery of 19th September, 1942, and they contain the aforementioned notes by Dr. Ficker. This is a Prosecution document originally, as you can tell from the designation NG-059. BY DR. SEIDL:
Q.- witness, in 1942 did you have knowledge whether and how this agreament between Thierack and Himmler worked out in practice?
A.- At first I had no knowledge of that because I wasn't of the agreement itself, but, Thierack subsequently informed me on the occasion of a visit in which he wished to promulgate a directive and informed me that he had reached an agreement with Himmler. Whether it was a written and firmly established agreement, I don't know; but, I have seen from other documents that this agreement was very shortly translated into practice long before the promulgation of the thirteen implementing decrees for the Reich Civil law of 1 July 1943.
But, I did find out from Thierack about such a decree because he made efforts with me to provide some legislative basis for this agreement because it wasn't possible to do this thing simply on the basis of an agreement or an oral agreement between Thierack and Himmler; it was not possible to give such an important matter a final formulation in that way.
Q.- Whit then did you hear of how this matter developed in the period following?
A.- I can recall that Thierack visited me and said that the present state of the law was insufficient; that the Ministerial Council Directive on hand did not suffice for him; he had discussed with Himmler the idea of turning over Poles and Jews to the police for criminal prosecution and he asked for my approval for promulgating this decree on the basis of the Fuehrer Decree of 20th August 1942. This I refused from the outset. I told him that that was not the purpose of that just mentioned Fuehrer Decree. The Fuehrer Decree dealt with a judicial reform and the matter he wanted to settle here, if it were possible at all, was merely a matter of temporary importance for the duration of the war. That had nothing to do with the decree. I can.recall this discussion quite clearly. It was also discussed that he had reached an agreement with Himmler; however, he did not reach any agreement with me.
EXAMINATION BY JUDGE MAGUIRE:
Q.- Witness, as a result of the conversation that you had with Minister Thierack, was there a subsequent Fuehrer Decree or directive given which authorized the turning over of Jews and Poles to the police for trial during the war or otherwise?
A.- That is what Thierack wanted; that, however, I refused because such a decree was not possible at all on tbs basis of the Fuehrer Decree of 20th August 1942 which he was basing his contentions upon. I refused from the beginning to discuss the matter at all. I told him that I was not in any way to be regarded as a judicial reformer.
Q.- You evidently didn't understand my Question. I said as a result of this conversation which you had with Thierack was any other Fuehrer Decree or directive issued whereby the Minister of Justice was authorized to turn over to the Police Jews or Poles, and, if not, under what authority of law or what arrangement was it done?
A.- I refused this to Thierack and the question of how that might be done was not even discussed; that wasn't mentioned at all. I simply told him it can't be done there.
Q.- Was it later done either with or without your knowledge or consent?
A.- Later the directive under discussion here was promulgated by the Reich Minister of Justice on 1 July 1943, namely, about one year Inter. That settled the matter.
JUDGE MAGUIRE:Go ahead, Counsel.
DIRECT EXAMINATION - Resumed. BY DR. SEIDL:
Q.- I turn now to the draft Schlegelberger wanted of a ministerial council directive. How did that matter continue?
THE PRESIDENT:Where is that, Counsel? Is that an exhibit? Is that in this exhibit?
DR. SEIDL:Yes, that is an exhibit which we had referred to before NO-151, Exhibit 1551, Volume 76. BY DR. SEIDL:
Q.- In this decree Schlegelberger made the suggestion that a ministerial council directive be promulgated. How did the matter go on?
AOn 29 September 1942, in other words, after Thierack took over his office, but most probably before the aforementioned discussion between him and me. At that time the Plenipotentiary General for the Reich Administration sent out a special delivery letter, still bearing the title of "Limitation of Legal Remedies for Jews". This letter requests a prompt reply, and contains also a draft sent to me, however, merely for my information; my approval was not requested.
THE PRESIDENT:You are now going back over the same document again. It seems to me he testified almost identically, in the same words, with respect to this very document. About how it went to him, others were asked for his opinion, he rendered none, he was asked for it, etc. Same document, same testimony. What's the purpose of that?
DR. SEIDL:Mr. President, this is extraordinary difficult material and here the questions and answers have to follow in a very logical sequence. If we must leave out a whole let of our questions ....
THE PRESIDENT:No, no that is not what I said. We have been letting you put in a lot of irrelevant stuff, as a matter of fact, a great deal of irrelevant stuff, but does that necessitates that you should go over and have the man repeat him own testimony, over and over again, with respect to the same document, in the course of probably an hour's time? There is nothing orderly about that. That makes it confusing.
DR. SEIDL:The complication results from the fact that part of the document is in Book 76 and the other part in 77. We did not compile these books and it is the Prosecution's fault that there is such a confusion here, and that is necessary to jump from one document to the other and then to return to the earlier document; that is nothing that you can blame the Defense for, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT:But why testify the same way on the same document? Now he went right back over and recited how he got this document, how he did not have an opinion on it, asked for one, it wasn sent from one person to another, - same document, same testimony. That just serves to confuse us, not clarify the situation. I think you can do better that that.
DR. SEIDL:The witness's last answer referred to document in Volume 76, page 315. This exhibit 1551, Document NG-151. In the German text this is an extremely extensive document, involving many documents. BY DR. SEIDL:
QNow, witness, try to render your answer as concisely as possible.
AIn these extensive documents we find a series od continual new drafts and if I repeated myself verbatim before, I was always referring to another draft. However, I shall now come to what is perhaps the most important aspect of this, namely, that so far as I was concerned in the Reich Chancellery, this whole matter was left lying for many months on end. I cannot recall having taken up this matter again in the initial period at all. This collection of documents which contains reference to what went on in the Reich Chancellery after my aforementioned letter of 29 September 1942, contaims no documents at all in the subsequent six months j only 3 April 1943 does the Plenipotentiary General for the Reich Administration again send me a new draft for a directive with reference to various discussions and various other documents, cinluding also a letter from the Chief of the Security Police, protesting against this, and protesting the opinions adopted by the Ministry of the Interior, he considered that the directives was impossible and he writes that thereugulation of the transfer of jurisdiction over Poles and Jews to the police was based on an agreement between Himmler and Thierack;
and then he writes that the practical execution of this agreement demanded that it should be based on some legislative enactment. Now all these matters are then given a note by my specialist, which note is to be found also in Document NG-151, a note dated 6 April. Now before I got around to answering the Plemipotenatiry General for the Reich Administration, and I was in no hurry to do so, I received this note, the note of 6 April 1943.
DR. SEIDL:Let me remark that this note is on page 322 of Volume 76.
A (continued) And this note expressed my view, which I had expressed to my official, perfectly clearly. Kritzinger notes that on 6 April, when he reported to me, I had expressed myself to the effect that so far as possible that matter should not be settled by way of a directive. He concludes this note by saying that further discussions are provided for. This further discussion then did take place, between various State Secretaries.
QRegarding this discussion of 31 April 1943, there is a note by your representative, Kritzinger, to be found in Volume 76-B, page 324. What do you have to say about that note?
AI have a lot to say about that. Please let me see the photostat with the note and the annexes. (Document is handed to witness.)
DR. SEIDL:I have to correct myself to the extent that the date is 21 April 1943, not 31 April 1943.
AI contend that the annex to this note is not the one to which the note itself refers. The note is Kritzinger's note on the conference between the State Secretaries and it contains the results of that conference] namely, that Articles 6 and 7 of the ordinances are not considered necessary, that they do not deal with the transfer of jurisdiction over Poles and Jews to the Police; and then it says that it is considered expedient that the regulation should be issued as a supplementary ordinance to the Reich Civil Law.
Now despite that, the annex stands on absolute contradiction to the note. First of all, it says in the note that this is to be an ordinance in Reich Civil Law, under the Reich Minister of the interior; despite that, we find in the annex a Ministerial Council ordinance. Then in the note it also says that Articles 6 and 7 are considered necessary; but in the annex we find quite other articles, namely paragraphs dealing with the jurisdiction over Poles and Jews. I have a lot of other arguments in this connection, which my Couneel will put forward. In particularly, Kritzinger assured me, shortly before his death, that these were not the annexes that he appended to his note but were some preliminary drafts which, for some reason or another, and I do not know what that reason is, played some role in the same matter.
QWitness, at the time of this discussion of 21 April 1943, what happened then to bring about the promulgation of the ordinance of 1 July 1943?
AThe conference of State Secretaries provided the occasion for postponing the ordinance, taking it from being a Ministerial Council ordinance and taking it to be a Reich Civil ordinance, to be issued by the Minister of Interior. What was then done with the matter is completely beyond my knowledge and was at that time outside the knowledge of the officials in the Reich Chancellery. All of a sudden, however, on 1 July 1943, in other words, almost a year later, we find the ordinance of the Reich Minister of the Interior as a part of Reich Civil Law, with entirely different contents from that which was previously intended as a Ministerial Council ordinance, because, in general, in that Ministerial Council ordinance there was no mention of transferring jurisdiction over Polos but there was mention of all the other matters that I mentioned before, the refusal of Jews to accept German courts, the disposition of deceased Jewish property, the prohibition of the Jews from taking oath, etc.
As of 21 August 1943 I thought it would take the form of Ministerial Council ordinance and I thought, in view of that fact, it would come to nothing; but for this whole quarter year I had nothing to do with this ordinance until, all of a sudden it made its appearance; the Chief of the Security Police, Kaltenbrunner proves to be the man who brought this about, and who brought about, through his influence on the Reich Minister of the Interior, Frick, that Frick should promulgate these ordinances as implementing ordinances in the Reich Civil Law, without having involved me in the matter at all.
JUDGE MAGUIRE:Just before we take our recess, Doctor, now this ordinance of, I think you said 1 July '43, or Ministerial Law, can you give us the citation and the Exhibit number there? As you said, it is rather difficult to follow this matter.
DR. SEIDL:After the recess we can give the Tribunal the exhibit number and the page number.
THE PRESIDENT:During the recess, see if you cannot arrange your examination for the after-recess session, so that we can have a little more directness and a little more concise answers than we have been having.
We will now recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1515 hours.)
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT:You may continue, Doctor.
DR. SEIDL:Mr. President, before Your Honors recessed the question was asked as to the exhibit number covering the ordinance introduced in evidence by the Prosecution dated 1 July 1943. Your Honor, this ordinance of 1 July 1943 concerns the 13th implementary decree pursuant to the Reich civil code, and your Honors will find this exhibit in Prosecution Document Rook 90-1, on pages 360 -- I beg your pardon, 361 of the English. The document number is 1422-PS, introduces as Prosecution Exhibit 2456.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
HEINRICH LAMMERS - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q.- Witness, with reference to this ordinance of 1 July 1943, which is identical with Prosecution Exhibit 2456, was this the direct result of the conference that took place between the state secretaries on 21 April 1943? This is the decisive question and the very crux of the entire problem.
A.- No. The state secretaries that went into consultation concerning the ministerial counsel ordinance at hand on their part in a non committing -- in a conference which was not binding to them -- decided that this was to be enacted in the form of an ordinance pursuant to the Reich civil code. As I testified to previously, State Secretary Kritzinger had the specific directive issued by me to the contrary effect, as is reproduced in this document. Therefore, under no circumstances did he speak in favor of the ordinance. As far as the decision is concerned as to what was actually then going to be done. This was the responsibility of the Reich Minister of the Interior and no other agency was responsible for that if he decided to enact an ordinance on the basis of the Reich Citizens' law.
In that event he was responsible himself first of all for the channel chosen; and secondly, he was also responsible for the actual factual contents.
THE PRESIDENT:Just a moment. I regret to do this, but you know what your question was, and after he has answered your question, he embarks upon this experience, among a great many other things.
DR. SEIDL:Your Honor, this is very difficult for us because it seems that the interpretation of the prosecution is quite at variance from ours and as a matter of fact the judgment in case III expressed an opinion in their judgment which in our opinion is not based on the evidence introduced, and contradicts with the fact because there is mere argumentation without any facts. If we are merely going to argue without referring to specific evidence. It is evidence that this argument is not of very great value.
THE PRESIDENT:You asked a very different question, whether this resuited from a conference. That was your question, wasn't it? He answered "No" and if you wanted more information, why didn't you ask another question. He embarks on an argument most of the time, which is irrelevant and if we are going to go on like that, we will never finish your case. We do not object to your asking another question, but we do object to getting a lecture following a complete answer of "No", which is sufficient to answer your question. Then we get a lecture in addition to that. It is entirely irrelevant sometimes, as far as the question is concerned. Now, we will ask another question to get another answer. We can't tolerate that. Let's go ahead. BY DR. SEIDL:
Q.- Witness, I propound another question to you, when did you participate in the preparation leading up to the ordinance, and what is your final reaction and comment?
A.- My participation terminated as a result of my official taking part in the conference on 21 April 1943 because I issued this official a directive to take along with him to this conference which directive I described to you before, which is, if at all possible, they should abstain from enacting any ordinance at all.
Q.- We will now leave this entire set of problems and I will now pass over, if Your Honors please, to Document NG--558, introduced by the prosecution in evidence as Exhibit Number 1553. This document, your Honors, is contained in Prosecution Exhibit Document Book 76, on page 337 of the English, equal to 408 of the German. This document contains a letter of Thierack, Minister of Justice, addressed to Reichsleiter Bormann, dated 13 October 1942. Witness, do you remember over having seen this letter while you held office, or do you remember ever having received only a copy of this letter?
A.- While I held office I had no knowledge whatsoever of this letter.
Q.- In this letter it says, and I quote, "I have discussed these thoughts with the Reichsfuehrer SS and he agrees with them". Whereas, subsequent to that it says, and again I am quoting, "I have likewise informed Herr Dr. Lammers". Do you remember whether and if so in what form you were notified and did you actually approve of those suggestions?
A.- A little while ago I already told you that the Reich Minister of Justice bad notified me of his intention for the administration of justice against Poles and Jews to be transferred, and I also said that I had opposed this measure. Therefore, it is not incorrect for him to write that he had informed me, whereas, as far as Himmler is concerned, he says that the Reichsfuehrer SS agreed. However, I did not approve.
Q.- witness, finally I will refer to the last sentence of this letter addressed by Thierack to Bormann, which is to be found in Prosecution Document Book 76, English page 338, corresponding to 409 of the German. This sentence reads, and I quote, "I submit this matter to you, Reichsleiter, requesting you to let me know whether the Fuehrer approves this view. If so, I would make my formal recommendations via Reich Minister Dr. Lammers". In the English document book the words "formele vorschlaege" had been translated as being "official recommendations". From what you know of the actual facts, is this a correct translation of the actual implication of the original sentence?
A.- I entertain considerable doubts as to that.
Q.- From what you know of the facts, and particularly the relationship between Thierack and Hitler and Thierack and Bormann respectively, what did Reichsminister Thierack mean to imply at that time by that sentence of his?
A.- I am sure that Thierack turned to Bormann particularly in view of the fact that he had not encountered my approval for his suggestions. As far as the enactment of any ordinance based on the Fuehrer decree of 20 August 1942 was concerned, I emphatically turned this down and unless he had my agreement, he couldn't enact the ordinance. Furthermore, he also required Bormann's agreement and he very probably was sure that he would secure Bormann's agreement and therefore via Bormann he was trying to secure the Fuehrer's approval in order to hold it up to me and then say "Yes, well you are no longer in a position to refuse your own approval."
Q.- That suffices to clarify the facts of the case under this consideration. And once again now I have to revert to Document NG-1691, introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 1576. This document is contained in Prosecution Document Book 77, on page 78 of the English and 91 of the German. This is the ordinance of the Ministerial Councillor for Reich Defense, dated 4 December, 1941. In what did your participation in this ordinance consist?
A.- My participation referred to the formalistic handling of this decree in my capacity as secretarial member of the Ministerial Council for the Reich Defense. I have already told you that. I was responsible for distributing the drafts, etc, and at the time there was my usual cosignature.
Q.- At the time under consideration, which is 1941, were you of the view that this ordinance of 4 December, 1941, was in violation of German law or that it violated generally recognized fundamentals of international law?
A.- It was clear to me that this ordinance represented an emergency law. I was of the opinion that it neither violated German law, nor did it violated any fundamental principles recognized in civilized states, nor did I think it violated principles of international law because -
THE PRESIDENT:He answered that question now; he has answered that completely. If you want to argue what the recognized principles of international law were that he didn't violate -- there is the place for your argument at the proper time. But he has testified the state of his mind now: he didn't think it was. So it is a complete answer; anything further would be mere argument which you can make in due time, of course, Q.- Witness, you testified concerning the manner in which the ordinance of 1 July, 1943, came into being, introduced as Prosecution Ex hibit 2456, and you have also testified concerning the manner in which the ordinance of 4 December, 1941, came into existence, the latter being Prosecution Exhibit 1576. From your own knowledge of facts and in view of the complicated data involved, what was the difference between these two ordinances?