DR. BRIEGER: I shall gladly take care of that, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, what is your position as to who enacted this law, as to what body enacted the law? Without argument I should like to know your position.
DR. BRIEGER: What party enacted that law?
THE PRESIDENT: What organization? Was it passed by the Reichstag?
DR. BRIEGER: Passed by the Reichstag, that is right. But at the moment, however, I want to correct another point so that it will not be misunderstood what I said before, on the one hand about the Reichstag, and on the other hand about the Reichsrat. Therefore I am again referring to the preamble, and that is the second paragraph of the preamble. May I in part read the German text and then the English. The German is: "Der Reichstag hat daher einstimmig das folgende Gesetz beschlessen." Consequently, "the Reichstag has enacted, the following law." In this case "Reichstag" is the correct term. "Das mit einmuetiger Zustimmung des Reichsrats hiermit verkuendet wird." "Which is hereby promulgated with the unanimous vote of the Reichstag." In this place it should read instead of "Reichstag" "Reichsrat," council. That is, in the first place "Reichstag" is correct, but the secont time it is not "Reichstag" but "Reichsrat."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Briger, I very clearly understood you to say that the third word of the second paragraph should be "Reichsrat."
DR. BRIEGER: Pardon me, Your Honor. No, in the second paragraph the third word should remain "Reichstag." But in the second line of the first paragraph the word "Reichstag" should be replaced, by "Reichsrat." In other words, the text should read then "with the unanimous vote of the Reichsrat -- approval". That is right, "Approval .
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I confess I don't know all about how they enacted laws in these days, but of course the Reichsrat was a council of ministers, was that not true?
DR. BRIEGER: Not only of ministers.
THE PRESIDENT: What then? A council of what?
DR. BRIEGER: The Reichsrat, as far as I remember, was, above all, a representative council of the Laender with the Reich.
THE PRESIDENT: At any rate it was not the Reichstag, was it?
DR. BRIEGER: The Reichstag represented the German people, and it was always elected by the German people; even still under Hitler it was elected.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not thinking at all how it was elected or how it was constituted. I am talking about its functions. The Reichstag was a legislative body.
DR. BRIEGER: That's right, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and I had never heard before that it was necessary to have the signature of the Reich Minister of the Interior to an enactment of the Reichstag, and yet I find that name attached to this document.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, we are not here concerned with the Minister of the Interior, but the Reichsrat, the council, which was a second organization in addition to the Reichstag. Some went so far as to speak of a first and a second chamber, even though I don't think that that is a correct description. In other words, they a scribed to the Reichsrat somewhat the functions of the American Senate, although I myself consider that not quite correct.
The Reichsrat had to give its approval, not only for laws which concerned the Minister of the Interior, but as far as I remember, had to give its approval for all kinds of laws. Your Honor, if I may make a suggestion in this respect -- Your Honor, it has just been pointed out to me that your question refers to something else; namely, that here below the law, the signature of the Reich Minister of the Interior appears. For the constitutional enacting of the law, this has absolutely no significance. The Minister of the Interior signs, only because he wants to assume the responsibility for the publication of the law. If the Tribunal should desire which would be understandable, to have the competence of the Reichsrat described, we are willing to show the relevant article from the Weimar Constitution to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not concerned with the functions of the Reichsrat, but I am very much interested in knowing who composed the Reichsrat.
DR. BRIEGER: They were the authorized representatives of the Laender with the Reich. They were especially the envoys of the Laender to the Reich. It was the same thing as it was already under the old constitution of Bismark of 1871. There were, to be sure, some changes, but some unimportant changes. In its conception, the Reichsrat was the same as the Bundesrat under the old German Constitution.
THE PRESIDENT: My point, Dr. Brieger, was this: when I see the name "The Reichminister of the Interior Frick" signed to this document, it throws some doubt in my mind upon that being an enactment of the Reichstag, and you throw more doubt upon that when you say that in the second line of that Preamble, "Reichstag" should be translated "Reichsrat." Now you say that the signature of the Minister of the Interior's name here has no particular significance. It has significance in my mind because of those doubts upon it being an enactment of the Reichstag.
DR. BRIEGER: May I repeat then that the Reichsminister of the Interior affixed his signature above all, because apparently he was charged with the responsibility for the orderly promulgation of the law.
THE PRESIDENT: He wasn't so charged by the Constitution.
DR. BRIEGER: That may be correct.
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: May I make a brief statement in regard to this? The law is enacted through the decision of the Reichstag with the approval of the Reichsrat, and the promulgation through the Reich President. If then another minister also affixes his signature to the law, he does so for the reason that his special department is affected by the individual law. If, for example, a law which concerned agricultural matters was decided upon, passed by the Reichstag, approved by the Reichsrat, and promulgated by von Hindenburg, then below the name Hindenburg, the agricultural minister affixed his signature. Since the Enabling Act concerned constitutional and administrative questions, that is the department of the Minister of the Interior, he had to affix his signature also. For the constitutional enacting of the law, this additional signature had absolutely no significance. This appears without any doubt from the Weimar Constitution. I believe that the description of all the constitutional and administrative conditions in Germany are so important for the trial and also will take up a certain amount of time, that the defense on their own initiative when they examine their defendants or at another time will state their position in detail.
DR. BRIEGER: In addition to what Dr. Kuboschok said, I only want to take the liberty of pointing out Article 3 to the attention of the Tribunal. That is the article which shows that Dr. Kuboschok's statements are correct, for from this article, it is quite apparent that the Department of the Reich Minister of the Interior was especially affected by this law.
THE PRESIDENT: I'd like to ask Mr. King: Dr. Brieger has stated that in the first line of that Preamble, after the word "enacted," he says that the document shows that the word "unanimously" has been omitted. Can you see that, Mr. King?
MR. KING: May I recall from the Secretary-General's representative the document. I would rather submit that question to our German expert than answer it myself.
We will take the position that the recommendations for changing the English, as it now appears, be adopted by the Court. Specifically, the word "unanimous" should appear as the sixth word in the first line of the second paragraph, since that apparently was an omission by the translator.
JUDGE BRAND: Will you read it the way it ought to be, slowly?
MR. KING: Yes. The second paragraph: "Consequently, the Reichstag has enacted unanimously the following law which is hereby promulgated with the unanimous approval of the Reichsrat after ascertaining that the requirements of the Reich Constitution have been met." With reference to the two additional changes in Article III, there is no objection to using the German word "Statthalter"; and in Article V, the use of the word "issue" as suggested by Dr. Brieger is preferable to the word "administer", which now appears in the English text.
DR. BRIEGER: That is quite agreeable to us.
THE PRESIDENT: And now, Mr. King, one more question, and only one more. Do you concede that Article IV gives to the Reich Government the right to change constitutional provisions at will?
MR. KING: Your Honour, a simple question simply stated, but I think it imposes too great a burden on me at the moment to answer that. I will supply you an answer to the best of my ability at the first opportunity. At the moment, I am not prepared to say.
I would like to revert back to my answer to your original question as to whether or not this decree was the result of action in the Reichstag. I think it can be said unequivocably that we will take the position in connection with Count One of the Indictment that no decree of the Reichstag, after this date or as late as this date, could follow in the democratic process of the Weimar Constitution. That is the basis for my earlier remark that regardless of what this said, we doubted that it could be an enactment of a democratic representative group of the people.
JUDGE BRAND: You are referring to the legal effect of an instrument?
MR. KING: That is correct.
JUDGE BRAND: You are not then challenging the fact which appears on the face of the instrument, that it was passed by the Reichstag?
MR. KING: I am not challenging the empty form of the statement that it passed through the formal machinery of the Reichstag.
JUDGE BRAND: You are claiming that the Reichstag was not at that time a democratic instrument?
MR. KING: That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: I have on e more question now: why?
MR. KING: I think the answer to that question pretty largely involves the proof under Count I, Your Honor.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Wandschneider for the defendant Dr. Rothenberger. The Court just opened up the question whether in the opinion of the prosecutor it was correct that the Reich Government can change the Constitution. Since this is a fundamental question, I would like to ask the Court whether it is desirable at this opportunity, that from the point of view of the defense, too, something may be said in regard to this?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Wandschneider, apparently by a two-thirds vote of the members of the Reichstag, they could set aside any provisions of the Constitution and enact new measures. I am not quite through with my statement.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I understand the question. The President intends to show that Article IV is contrary to the former provisions of the Constitution, that changes to the Constitution cannot be made by the Government but rather with the majority which is necessary to change the Constitution through the legislative body.
THE PRESIDENT: I haven't said that. But what I mean to say is this -- I didn't finish my former statement -- I was interrupted. If it be conceded that by virtue of provisions of the Constitution, the Reichstag could, by a two-thirds majority vote, amend the Constitution in its specific provisions at any point, it still is a question whether the Reichstag can delegate that power to a Ministry or to any other body in the world. Delegation of power is a question there that becomes vitally important.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I do understand, Mr. President. Basically this question cannot be solved and answered by the way of normal constitutional law, but, according to constitutional and international principles, the answer depends upon the extent to which in the case of a victorious revolution -- and there have been great arguments in international and constitutional law brought about by this -- every Government which has attained power for a longer time by virtue of a revolution, is in a position to issue new laws and to gradually establish new constitutional principles which actually are contrary to the former formal constitutional law of the state. That is, the basic question comes up here and I cannot answer it finally as yet, but I want to open it up as to what extent new constitutional principles actually appeared here which are not already invalid because they are contrary to the former conception. That such a contradiction existed according to formal law and to the former constitutional law, that I have to admit.
THE PRESIDENT: We have passed the usual time for a recess, and we will take this up again.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: (Attorney for Defendants Schlegelberger and von Ammon):
May it please the Tribunal, I ask the Tribunal to be permitted to give a brief explanation to the question discussed at the end of this morning's session. A question by the Presiding Judge brought about a discussion of general constitutional questions. The problems which arise in connection with that question are so voluminous and complicated that the Defense from the outset has considered it its duty to deal with these questions elaborately in their case in chief. At this time it is not certain whether that will be a single presentation or statements by an expert witness, but we shall take an opportunity to state our position to the question which was discussed to day, paid to further questions of constitutional law. Further more, I take the liberty to point out that today a discrepancy between the question of the Presiding Judge and the answer of Counsel existed. The question by the Presiding Judge dealt with a specific case; the answer, by Counsel, dealt with a large field of constitutional law, and apparently, on account of a misunderstanding, did not meet the specific question put by the Presiding Judge. I believe, therefore, that I should ask that the entire discussion of that question be postponed to such time as the Defense will be prepared to discuss that entire problem.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, I don't want to include an unseemingly element of jocularity into this discussion, but I have been advised of it. It rather reminds me of the justice of peace in my county, before whom a demurrer was filed to a complaint. The young lawyer who had made that practical mistake went to the justice of the peace about three weeks later and said, "Judge, have you ruled on my demurrer?" "Oh", he said, "you know I've got to hear some evidence before I can do that."
The Prosecution is even itself somewhat in that position. The matter is a very serious legal question, and we shall brief it most thoroughly as part of our case; and perhaps, I may say that we agree somewhat with the Defense Counsel that we can both do our best on this question when the final briefs, or the issues at law, are squarely presented, either by some motion, in this case, or otherwise. However, we do think that the document is valid, and should, of course properly be considered as an exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you desire to have tho instrument admitted in evidence now?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes.
DR. BRIEGER: (Attorney for Defendant Cuhorst) Your Honor, I would like to be permitted to revert for one moment to the translation of Document 2006-PS, the law concerning the reorganization of the Reich.
On the basis of the efforts by Mr. King to correct Paragraph 2 of the preamble, yet essential mistakes remain there. It says in the last line of the German text that the requirements of legislation to amend the law, have been met. The correct version would be the English translation such as I have now received from the Prosecution, and it should read that the requirements for legislation to amend constitutional laws have been met. In the original translation it was not expressed that those requirements were requirements to amend the laws, which is now clarified.
MR. KING: Dr. Brieger has discussed the question of further altering the second paragraph with the German lawyer who works with tho Prosecution on such matters, and they have agreed, among themselves, as to the reliability of the translation which Dr. Brieger has offered. However, I am wondering, perhaps, if there hasn't been considerable confusion caused now, and if it wouldn't be better to re-submit the document, this time with all suggested and agreed upon changes incorporated, so that there will be no doubt as to how the final document should read.
If Dr. Brieger agrees to that, I think for the purpose of clarifying the whole matter, that should be done.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to withdraw it for the moment?
MR. KING: I would suggest that we not withdraw it, but substitute a corrected instrument when the now copy is ready.
DR. BRIEGER: That is a very good suggestion on the part of Mr. King, and accordingly I should like to best express myself on the translation which the Prosecution has submitted to me a few moments ago, that is to say to examine the new text, and then to ask the Tribunal tomorrow whether, or what amendments arc desirable.
MR. KING: In the meantime the Document 2006-PS will remain as Exhibit 501.
JUDGE BRAND: Are you offering it now?
MR. KING: I offered it earlier, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: He is not offering it now?
MR. KING: I am re-offering it at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you the corrected copy ready for re-offering at this time?
MR. KING: I am not offering the corrected copy; I am offering the instrument that we have been discussing this morning, and which is subject to replacement when the new copy is ready.
THE PRESIDENT: Personally I would like to see that new copy before I am ready to pass on it. I don't know how the other members of the Tribunal may feel, but I will not participate in any acceptance of that document until I see what it is.
MR. KING: Yes, Your Honor, that is why I suggest that we receive this one in evidence, subject to that it is to be replaced by the other one if and when it meets your Honors'approval. I want to be sure that one of these documents, either this one or the other instrument, is in evidence; and the only way we can be sure of that is to make the definite offer of this one at this time.
TEE PRESIDENT: It may be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: May I ask if the representative of the Secretary General has copies of NG-1538, which is now being circulated, should be placed in Document Book II. This document, NG-1538, which will be Exhibit 502 when received in evidence, is an affidavit by Dr. Buchthal, who is on the staff of the Prosecution, to the effect that he has examined the ReichsGesetzblatt covering a period -- roughly of five years, and that in that period has found five laws which deal, with the question of sterilization.
Each of those five laws, one through five decrees, were signed by Dr. Schlegelberger. We are not offering at this time the entire decree in each instance, but merely the reference certified to by Dr. Buchthal as to where these decrees may be found. We offer the document NG 1538 as exhibit 502.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not get that last statement.
MR. KING: We do not, at this time, offer the full text of each of these five decrees. We merely offer the certification.
The Interpreters inform me that they did not get your statement.
THE PRESIDENT: You have made it clear. I do not see any use in repeating it.
The document may be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The next exhibit NG 1463, will become when received in evidence, exhibit 503. I suggest that this document be placed as the last document in supplement book 1.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean supplement 1?
MR. KING: Supplement 1, yes.
The document consists of excerpts from a pamphlet entitled -may I ask the translators to pronounce that name for me, please.
THE INTERPRETER: Das Gemeinschaftslager Hanns Kerrl. This was published by the Under-State Secretary Freisler, in the Ministry of Justice either in 1934 or 1935. The booklet was dedicated to the former Prussian Minister of Justice, Hanns Kerrl, and describes in a series of short articles and photographic illustrations the indoctrinations in the National Socialist ideologies which perspective lawyers and justice officials at the Hanns Kerrl camp received when they were sent there for a period of training. The document which we are offering consists of four photographic pages from that publication. We offer the document NG 1463 as exhibit 503.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean by that there were four photographs. I only find three.
MR. KING: May I see the original again, please. The original document consists of three photographs and two photostat negatives.
THE PRESIDENT: Where do you suggest they be placed in the document book?
MR. KING: That should be placed, Your Honor, in supplement book 1.
DR. BRIEGER: May I point out to the Tribunal that the affidavit which Dr. Kempner has signed cannot be seen here and where he has sworn to the statement; therefore, I should like to object against the document for technical reasons.
MR. KING: May I explain briefly the history of the affidavit by Dr. Kempner which accomplishes this exhibit. As Dr. Brieger points out, the original as circulated does not show that Dr. Kempner swore to the statement which he made. I called that to Dr. Kempner's attention sometime after the statement was prepared and he said, "I do not think that the Defense Counsel will question the fact that this is my statement and what I say is true". Whereupon I said, "Dr. Kempner, you do not reckon with some of our Defense Counsel." Whereupon I had Dr. Kempner swear to it, and the original which I have submitted to the Court shows Dr. Kempner's signature.
DR. BRIEGER: That, of course, I would like to believe, Mr. King, that Dr. Kempner is ready to swear to what he says. It is clear now from what he has stated here, accordingly I withdraw my objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. King, there seems to be a bit of discrepancy here. I understood you to say there were three photographs and two photostats.
MR. KING: Yes, the original shows that, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The first sheet here is a photostat, you mean?
MR. KING: No, by that I mean in addition to the statement of Dr. Kempner's. In the original the statement of Dr. Kempner's is not a photostat. It is an original document.
THE PRESIDENT: I am still confused by your statement that there are two photostats.
MR. KING: May I have the original returned once more, please.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be, as suggested by one of my colleagues, that the affidavit Dr. Kempner made is one of the photostats you refer to.
MR. KING: No, I thought perhaps that was where the confusion came on the part of the Bench. I believe in the copy you have the affidavit of Dr. Kempner is a photostat. Actually in the original it is not. It is an original document. The three photostatic copies of printed matter in the original are copies of page 13, page 34; and page 35 from the document. There are in addition to that three photographs, consisting of the cover page, page 49; and page 51 from the booklet. The affidavit of Dr. Kempner in the original, which is being handed up to the Secretary General is not a photostat but an original document.
JUDGE BRAND: Would you take a look at my copy and tell me if it is a complete copy consisting of everything you contend should be in it.
MR. KING: (Examining the document) Right. The discrepancy comes in that in the document which was sent up to the bench -- the mimeograph page contains the contex of the three photostat copies included in the original, so that page one actually represents the three photostatic copies to which I referred earlier.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
DR. BRIEGER: Before I was quite ready to withdraw my objection, in fact, I have withdrawn my objection, but I should like to point out that the statement by Dr. Kempner -- the statement he signed only refers to the fact that the three photographs which are attached were taken from the book described. On the other hand, however, he did not make any statement concerning the text which has been submitted on the part of the Prosecution, in this document NG 1463; that is to say, the excerpts from page 13, and page 34 -- excerpts from these two pages; Therefore, I have to object -- one moment, I am shown right now by the Prosecution another certificate signed by Mr. Lorenz Eitner.
I would have to read this in order to find out whether this affidavit refers to these two excerpts.
I have to sustain my objection. As much as I can see by just going through the document it seems to be an accurate translation, but I could not state that definitely. However, the following seems to be of importance: The certificate only states that this is an accurate translation. It is, however, not explained, not stated in the certificate, that the German text, which is the basis of this document, was, in fact, taken from the book in question; and, furthermore, does not state.. Mr. King points but to me now that it says here, "excerpts from" 'Gemeinschaftslager Hanns Kerrl', edited by Freisler", and so forth. Still, I sustain my objection because the certificate only states that the above text has been accurately translated, but it does not state that the text was taken from the corresponding pages. Neither does it state that, the quotations, have been taken from the book without any omissions.
MR. KING: I think we can put to rest any fear that Dr. Brieger may have. We do have the entire book, and the copies, the pages, which we are submitting with the original exhibit have been copies from the book. So the implied suggestion in Dr. Brieger's remarks that the whole book, the entire book, is not in our possession, is not the case. I, for one, do not follow Dr. Brieger's objection since we assort, at the bottom of the mimeographed page of the Document 1463, that the above are excerpts from the "Hanns Karrl" pamphlet. There follows the certificate of translation in which the translator certifies that he has seen the original, and, in fact, the translation which appears here is from the original. I do not see how we can add to that proof unless we actually submit the entire, pamphlet itself. I perceive from Dr. Brieger's point of view that that may be desirable.
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. King, why don't you let him examine the book, and tomorrow, if he has some complaints that the copy is not accurate he can tell us, he can then raise what objections he wishes, and thus we can end this long discussion.
MR. KING: I would rather, your Honor, produce the pamphlet and let Dr. Brieger examine it in court because obviously he wants material which appears in the pamphlet which we may, or may not, wish him to have.
So I will ask that the pamphlet be produced and we will make the comparison here in court.
DR. BRIEGER: It is very agreeable to me, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is ready to rule on this. Without further argument we are ready to rule on this matter. We give some force to that, the excerpts from the book, and regard that as part of the document, to which Eitner made oath, and we admit the document in evidence.
MR. KING: Is that admitted in evidence unconditionally, your Honor?
THE PRESIDENTS Absolutely, unconditionally, without further argument.
MR. KING: The next document will be NG-1046, Exhibit 504. I suggest that this document be placed as the last document in Supplement Book 6. This is a secret document concerned with the Nacht and Nebel program. The first letter, which hears the date, on pare 2, of 21 February 1944, is signed by von Ammon. The second paragraph of the Document explains the purpose -- and, incidentally, introduces the other documents, the other letters, which are attached to it -- and offer it as Exhibit 504. We find, throughout the document, discussion of the question of transfer of Nacht and Nebel prisoners to a new location for detention and for trial. The names of Mettgenberg, of von Ammon, of the defendant Joel, appear in one or more places throughout the balance of the document. We offer the Document NG-1046 as Exhibit 504.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: May the record show that I am now handing to Dr. Brieger the Kerri pamphlet, which is quite apart from the admissibility of the document. I understand that has already been admitted. But I do want Dr. Brieger to see the entire pamphlet and know that it is in our possession.
THE PRESIDENT: Which Exhibit is that -- it isn't clear in my mind.
MR. KING: The one concerned with the Kerri pamphlet -- Exhibit 503, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. KING: The next document will be NG-1336, and will be, when offered in evidence, Exhibit 505. We wish to offer this document without extensive reading or summary other than to say it is an affidavit of one Emil Schoder, who was sterilized pursuant to an order of a Health Court. He recites the facts relating to that sterilization in the affidavit, and we offer it, NG-1336, as Exhibit 505.
THE PRESIDENT: Where will you locate this document?
MR. KING: That should be placed as the last document in supplement book VIII.
May I inquire if Exhibit 505 has been received in evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: Not being entirely clear on that, I will admit it now, and a second time will not hurt.
MR. KING: Thank you. I may be in error myself on that. Your Honor.
Tho next document, NG --
DR. BRIEGER: In the meantime I have ascertained, on the basis of the pamphlet which was given to me, that the quotations submitted by the prosecution were submitted correctly and appear to be complete such as they are in the pamphlet in the passages quoted. I therefore withdraw any objection that I may have made.
MR. KING: The next document NG-1243, will become, when introduced, Exhibit 506. May I suggest that this document be placed as the last document in book supplement I. It will be noted that, at the beginning of the first page of the document as it has been distributed, that "documents are in preparation in Berlin and are enclosed", according to the note. Actually, the document 1243 as it has come into our hands is without those enclosures. Fortunately, from the point of view of proof, the documents are summarized so that it is possible to tell what the documents contain even though we do not have actual copies of them.
I would like at this time to turn through tho document 1243 and call to the Court's attention certain summaries of documents which apparently were enclosed with tho covering letters, that we would submit at this time if they were available to us.
On page 1 under or opposite "c", we note the document "concerning the retirement of State Secretary Schlegelberger upon his application and releasing him from his duties as Acting Minister for the Reich Minister of Justice." We note that that document had been enclosed.
Then, there was a draft of a personal letter from the Fuehrer to the State Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger, and a draft of a notice to the press, all concerned with his imminent retirement.
Then, on page 3, opposite Roman numeral four, we see the following:
"The question of a gift of honor for State Secretary Schlegelberger will, I assume, be brought up to the Fuehrer immediately by the Reich Minister. The same should apply to the question as to whether the Fuehrer is willing to receive State Secretary Schlegelberger personally for his release in the Fuehrer's headquarters."
That note concerning summaries of the documents to which I have referred is signed by Dr. Ficker.
Then, beginning on page 5, we find another note, signed by Dr. Ficker and Dr. Lammers, stating the results of a conference. The conference apparently was with Bormann, and at least Dr. Ficker, and also perhaps Dr. Lammers, attended.
Under "b", as a result of the conference, it is stated that: "State Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger is relieved of the post of Acting Reich Minister of Justice, and has been retired upon his request. He will receive a letter from the Fuehrer containing the proposed warding with regard to the changes made by the Fuehrer himself, as well as a gift of one hundred thousand Reichsmarks.
"c. The President of the Court of Appeal, Dr. Rothenberger, is to be appointed State Secretary of the Reich Ministry of Justice."
And under "d": "State Secretary Freisler is to resign from the Reich Ministry of Justice. The Fuehrer does not consider him suitable as President of the Academy for German Law. On the other hand, the Fuehrer would like to appoint him President of the People's Court, if he is willing to accept this office; otherwise his transfer to an inactive status shall have to be effected."