"An important factor in keeping up the morale of the German people on the home front is the prompt and purposeful administration of penal law.
"The Fuehrer was referring to this when, in his speech at the German Reichstag on 11 December 1941, he said:
"'The memory of those who have died for the existence and greatness of the German people even before our time makes us realize the extent of our duties.
"'He who tries to avoid this duty, however, has no right to live among us as a member of the German race.
"'We shall be equally unrelenting in our fight for the preservation of our race as we were in our fight for power.
"'At a time when thousands of our best men, fathers, and sons of our people are being killed in battle, nobody shall hope to live who attempts to deprecate at home the sacrifice which is being made at the front. No matter under which disguise the attempt is made to disturb this German front, to undermine the resistance power of our people, to reduce the authority of the regime or to sabotage production on the home front, the culprit shall die. But there is this difference: While death brings highest honor to the soldier at the front, the other who devaluates this sacrifice shall die in shame.'" That ends the quote from the Hitler speech.
The letter continues:
"If every judge and every prosecutor keeps those words of the Fuehrer in mind while he is doing his duty, it will enable him to fulfill the task which is set him by the Fuehrer.
"I beg to acquaint all judges concerned with penal law and all attorneys with this outline, and to bring it to the notice of all judges who will in future be concerned with penal law."
Signed: "Dr. Schlegelberger."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The prosecution wishes to offer into evidence as Exhibit No. 72, Document NG-508
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The next document which the prosecution will seek to offer into evidence as Exhibit No. 73 is Document NG-445, which is found on Page 59 of the German Book and Page 60 of the English.
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT No. NG-445 Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crime The President of the Berlin Court of Appeal.
To the State Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger in B e r l i n W. 8 RE:
Report about the general situation in the districts.
1.) When I paid a visit to the criminal court few months ago in order to attend proceedings of the Special Court, I heard from the representative of the president of the (district court), that "the Reich Ministry of Justice" was expecting 2 death sentences "in the criminal case being on schedule". My investigations produced the fact that the competent Public Prosecutor had informed the president of the special court prior to the session, that he had received a directive of the Reich Ministry of Justice to ask for a death sentence in two cases. The president of the special court had informed the representative of the president of the (district court) hereof. I consider it undesirable that officials of the public prosecution authority pass on such directives given them by a higher authority prior to the proceedings to the president of the court, as it has been done here. For I am afraid, that judge including those sitting in the special court, are in some cases much easier inclined to pronounce a given penalty, especially the death penalty, if they hear that "the Reich Ministry of Justice" has given a directive to the public prosecutor's office to ask for such a sentence or that "according to the "views of the Reich Ministry of Justice" this penalty be necessary.
I consider such a communication, given to the court by the public prosecutor, as undesirable also because the "opinion of the Reich Ministry of Justice" conveyed by the public prosecutor, might possibly, in an individual case, but represent the personal views of an auxiliary official of the Reich Ministry of Justice, about which he had informed the specialized official of the public prosecutor's office.
".) The President of the Berlin Landgericht (the Berlin District Court) according to what he reported to me recently, in the course of a visit to a criminal trial in Moabit observed the following:
"The trial was set for 9:00 hours. Punctually at 9:00 the president of the District Court had taken a seat on the witnesses' bench. The judges did not snow up at first. Instead, loud voices could be heard from the conference room behind the courtroom. The president of the Landgericht (District Court) got the impression of a heated debate, in which one voice could be heard above the others. According to what the Landgerichtspraesident" --that is the presiding judge of the district court--" could observe, the defendant's attention was aroused and he listened in the direction of the conference room. No actual words could be understood by the president of the Landgericht. But he thought it quite possible that the defendant, who was very much nearer to he conference room, could hear details. Therefore the president sent a justice sergeant to the conference room with the order to inform the court about that. Shortly afterwards the public prosecutor appeared first in the courtroom, then the members of the court and that through the same door which immediately leads to the courtroom from the conference room. After the beginning of the proceedings the president of the Landgericht soon could undoubtedly recognize that the extraordinarily loud voice he had heard before, had been the voice of the public prosecution's representative for that trial.
3.) Recently I learned from a complaint made by a Service Supervision Office immediately prior to the session the president of a special court had conferred with the public prosecutor.
Thereby the punctual beginning of the session was prevented, and the final results were that all other people, involved in the trial had to wait unnecessarily for the beginning of the session. The president of the Landgericht told the judge that if such talks seemed necessary they should be timed in away that the punctual beginning of the session would not be delayed thereby.
4.) It has been reported to me that repeatedly even after the beginning of the session, especially after the end of the producing of evidence and prior to the beginning of the pleadings, the public prosecution's representative repeatedly got in touch with members of the court in the conference room, during an intermission in the proceedings. In those talks, as I have been told, the question of guilt, but above all the sentence, had been discussed.
5.) I have been informed confidentially that a Gau office for legal affairs has "conveyed the following information to the Reich office for legal affairs of the NSDAP:
"According to a confidential ordinance of the Reich Ministry of Justice, details whereof I do not know, the public prosecutors have been requested to contact the judges about the sentence to be asked for before the pleadings for such take place. This request has caused extraordinary surprise, especially among the lawyers. The pleadings of the defense counsel practically have become a mere formality. Prior to the pleadings of the defence counsel the court and the public prosecutor have already agreed upon the penalty. In practice, the court in almost every case always agrees to the penalty asked by the chief public prosecutor.
Naturally this does not only strike the defence counsel but gradually also the population. In this connection a change must take place immediately. If a conference between the public prosecutor and the court concerning the degree of the penalty is considered necessary at all, at least it can be asked that defense counsel too be present at these talks and be permitted to clearly state his point of view.
It is my opinion that as soon as the trial has begun, any contacts be tween the public prosecutor and members of the court are undesirable, because, as the events discussed above prove, misunderstandings are provoked hereby.
The public prosecutor's getting in touch with the court, as requested in the decree of 27 May 1939 - and as it has also been suggested in the concluding speech of the late Reich Minister of Justice at the conference held in the Reich Ministry of Justice on 24 October 1939, therefore will have to be limited to the time before the beginning of the trial. It seems practical to have it take place already the day before the trial or even earlier. At any rate I do not think it desirable that the contacts are made but immediately before the beginning of the trial and that in addition they happen in the conference room of the court, because then occurences, as I have described some of them under 2 and 3 of this report, cannot always be prevented. I consider it as an illicit contact when the latter takes place after the end of the producing of evidence or, even more, after the pleadings have been concluded. Therefore the president of the Landgericht in Berlin, upon my request, has conferred with the Chief Public Prosecutor of the District Court. The latter had instructed the public prosecutors within his area of jurisdiction to get in touch with the president of the court - as far as this is necessary- already the day before the trial or still earlier, at any rate, however to refrain from making contacts after the beginning of the trial. The presidents of the courts have been notified by the president of the Landgericht accordingly and have been instructed to refrain under all circumstances from any getting in contact in the conference room, immediately prior to the beginning of the session. The prevention or limitation of discrepancies between the penalty demanded by the public prosecution and the sentence passed in court, which has been the purpose of the decree of 27 May 1939 and of the detailed arguments of the late Reich Minister of Justice, should be safeguarded by a timely and comprehensive contact prior to the trial.
Moreover and as stated above, I consider it as undesirable in the interest of the administration of justice and in order to remove any fears con cerning influence exerted upon the judges, that officials of the Public Prosecutor's office communicate "the opinion of the Reich Ministry of Justice."
, in the case on hand or any orders which may have been issued to them concerning the penalties to be asked, to the court outside of the ceedings. pro In view of the general importance of the matter, I thought it advisable to report about it.
The prosecution offers into evidence as Exhibit No. 73, Document NG445.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
Mr. WOLLEYHAN: the next document which the Prosecution will later offer is found on Page 65 of the German Document and Page 64 of the English Document Book, NG-395.
It is from the presiding officer of the Court of Appeal, Hamm, Westphalia, 27 February 1942, to the Reich Minister of Justice in Berlin. Subject, General Situation, Decree from December 9, 1935.
"1. From the judges, officials and employees at the court of the District Court of Appeal 2134 are at present drafted to the Armed Forces; 107 of whom have been killed in action."
I skip now to Paragraph Number 3, Page 66 of the German Document Book; Page 65 of the English Document Book.
"3. On 2 February 1942 the newly appointed Gauleiter of south Westphalia, SA-Gruppenfuehrer Giesler payed a visit to the Court of Appeal. On this occasion there was a roll call for the employees of the Court of Appeal and prosecution in the Court of Appeals, plenary-session room, during which an address was delivered by the President of the Court of Appeal, the Prosecutor, and the Gauleiter following performance of music by Haydn and Mozart by the Gau-orchestra. The edition of the 'Deutsche Justiz' of 20 February 1942 brings a report of the proceedings.
"Following the roll call the Presidents of the Senate, the Presidents of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Prosecutors and others present were introduced to the Gauleiter.
"The General Prosecutor has been appointed Director of the Gau Legal Office for south Westehalia in place of Prosecutor Justizrat Dr. Roesner, at present Oberkriegsverwaltungsgerichtsrat, against whom proceedings have been instituted by a party court.
4. The report on the activity of the 3 special courts (Dortmund, Essen, Bielefeld) for 1941 signifies a further increase of cases brought before the special courts in 1941. In 707 verdicts 933 persons were tried of whom 41, i.e. 5% were acquitted. The number of malicious cases does not amount to one half as before, but only to one-fourth or one-third of the total number of cases handled. The special courts primarily deal with the more extensive and complicated cases against public enemies and with such war economic cases which mostly are particularly involved.
"It is by the large percentage of foreigners who have been tried, 11 per cent, that the use of foreign labor in agriculture and industry is most apparent. In particular this applies to the Poles, who in general are unwilling to work, insubordinate and who even commit acts of brutality."
I skip now the first complete paragraph on Page 67 of the German Document Book and Page 66 of the English Document Book.
"The time between the receipt of the indictment and the judgment passed amounted, in general, to approximately three days only. It was possible to pass the death sentence on a Polish woman on the same day on which the indictment had been received by the court. In a number of cases, the judgment was passed already 2 or 3 days after receipt of the indictment.
"The trials took place, for the most part, at the place of the crime or near it. This expedited matters to a great extent. Only in this way could the witnesses appear on time and immediately produce such evidence as proved to be necessary during the trial. In many cases, it was necessary to make a local inspection. Furthermore the effect of the sentence is much more impressive, as proved by experience, if the judgment is passed at the place where the crime has been committed and where public interest has been aroused. I shall strive against hampering the function of the Special Court due to scarcity of petrol."
I skin to the last paragraph on Page 67 of the German Document Book; Page 66 of the English Document Book.
"Altogether in 1941 the Special Courts of my district passed 47 death sentences; the criminal chambers, in addition, five death sentences.
"Of these are:
"a) capital crimes 11 sentences "b) sexual offenses 7 sentences "c) property delicts 32 sentences "d) war economy crimes 2 sentences "The time between passing of judgment and execution amounted during the last months to approximately six weeks.
"I have submitted the reports regarding the activity of the Special Courts on 3 February 1942 - 3234 E. 1,69.
"The work accomplished by the Special Courts deserves full recognition. In addition to the mental and spiritual burden there is the great physical exertion, since there are often more than three hearings weekly and often require travelling."
I skip now to Paragraph 6, found on Page 69 of the German Document Book, and Page 68 of the English Document Book.
"The Bishop of Muenster was reported to me to have stated in one of his sermons: that the property of the monastery Vinnenberg (District of Warendorf) was seized and handed over to the Reich on the claim that the owners were enemies of the State; according to him this property belongs to the episcopal estate and that, the Bishop, does not consider himself an enemy of the State. In the Land Register the Bishopric at Muenster is registered as the actual owner of the estate of the monastery -- so far no application for amendment has yet been submitted to the Land-Registry-Office."
The remaining half of Document Number 395, if the Court is willing, shall be read following introduction of two other documents which seem to make the chain of evidence a little more coherant. Would that be permissable?
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Then we will withhold temporarily the introduction of 395 for the moment.
The next document sought to be offered into evidence as Exhibit Number 75 is Document NG 102 which is found on Page 43 of the English Book, Page 46 of the German Document Book.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: With Mr. Wooleyhan's permission, I would like to address the Court for a minute. This Document, NG-102, is quite a long document. It involves correspondence between the Defendant, Dr. Schlegelberger and many people what is a proposed decree. I think I am fairly stating that this document was calculated to carry out the objections of Hitler to the administration of justice.
An intelligent reading of it requires a good deal of skipping around and will take at least 15 or 20 minutes. Unless the court desire to sit longer than 4:30, I think it would be much more orderly to present this first in the morning.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is better to adjourn at the usual time.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: We would carry over quite extensively if we went into this document.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30 o'clock.
(The Tribunal recessed at 1630 hours 10 March 1947 to reconvene 0930 hours on 11 March 1947)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef alstoetter, et al., Defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 11 March 1947, 0930-1630. Justice Marshall presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 3.
Military Tribunal 3 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Marshal, you will ascertain whether the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of defendants Engert and Rothaug, who are absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The proper notation will be made. Is the Prosecution ready to proceed?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May it please Your Honors, I would like to be permitted to address the Court for just a few minutes before proceeding with the introduction of proof.
First, I shall not at this time, and the Prosecution in this case I do not believe has indulged in any free-hand, gratuitous interpretation of the probative effect or legal effect of any of the proof which it has introduced. We are willing to let the documents stand and we do not intend to violate what we consider proper rules by in erpolating the effect. If for any reason we may slip or think it is necessary -- which I think ill be very rare -- we want the Court to know that any seemingly positive statement is made certainly with the reservation that it is our opinion that the thing does so and so. But I do not think we shall do that. I have seen it done, and I believe it intrudes upon the function of the judiciary and is unfair to defense counsel. I shall, of course, object if it is done to me, and I don't intend to do it in this trial. I do not believe that I am violated that rule when I say that we have had as our purpose to date and will until we get into books 2 and 3, to present certain evidence which we are of the opinion has probative value on the subject of provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 2 which relates to plans and enterprises and relations of defendants to them.
However, we are fully aware of the fact that when the time comes, the obligation is upon the Prosecution to relate any of the defendants to any of the proof, and even under the broad rule laid down in the IMT in the case of the defendant Striecher there which we quoted in the opening statement we still are aware of the fact that the proof which we are presently putting in is proof which the Court, in a sense, sitting in a sense comparable to that which we are accustomed to, at last in the United States, in a court of equity, determines eventually itself whether or not there is any probative value as against any or all the defendants of any proof. But I felt that it was proper and not overstepping the bounds of that I initially said for me to make this statement at this time, again saying that we are aware of the fact that when the time for argument comes, then we must point out the burden -- I mean, not assume the burden, but we must make the connection between this proof and the defendants which the obligations of this trial impose upon the prosecution.
One other thing in the way of procedure. Yesterday and, I think, the day before, we engaged in some free-hand interpolation of translations. I do not believe that they were offensive to the defense counsel or that they did them any harm, because I assume that they would have objected if it had done so. And I will say now that if anything that we -- any variation which we made in the translation from the English book on yesterday, if any defense counsel feels that it was an incorrect variation that they will advise me or advise the Court. Certainly, that the fact should be noted in the record. I say that because I am afraid if we don't devise methods -I am not prepared to say just what methods I have in my own mind -- as to presenting to the Court the issue as a factual issue of the correctness of the translations, we might well get into very unseemly and unintelligible wrangles during the presentation of this case, either by the Prosecution or by the defense, and I want to avoid that.
At the same time I don't want to appear in the position of coming to this podium a week from now or a month from now and objecting to the defendants attempting to make proof immediately of what they consider to be a proper translation where I have seemingly violated that rule myself. So if today or tomorrow any defense counsel feels that in the variations from the translation which we made we were inaccurate, they will call that to my attention first in some way and we will attempt to work out some method of presenting the matter.
I felt that I wanted to make both of these statements, particularly the latter, so that as I say, a week from now I won't be put in the position of appearing to assert something which I had myself done or complain about something which I had myself done.
DR. SCHILF (Counsel for Defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg): May it please the Court, the statement which the Prosecutor made just now said -
THE PRESIDENT: It isn't coming through to me. Is it to you? That isn't coming though, but it may be -
DR. SCHILF: --concerning the presentation of documents, at the beginning of the session I pointed out that the defendants -
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I am getting the English through.
DR. SHILF: At the beginning of the session I pointed out that the defendants and the defense counsel missed a specification of the indictment, and I did assume that the Prosecution, when presenting its case, would make its indictments in detail and would separate that from the presentation of the documents. During the last few days it was evident that the opposite way would be used. The Prosecution presents its documents and without drawing the consequences, without giving the connecting text or without adding explanations to the documents. Therefore, certainly as far as I am concerned, we are not clear as to what the Prosecution, in the present presentation of the documents, what consequences it wishes to draw from them; whether these documents, for example, contain accusations within the meaning of Court 1 of the indictment, or whether the Prosecution intends to draw any consequences or whether it will leave that to the Court.
Thereby I believe there are difficulties for the defense, and the difficulties are because, in our opinion, the indictment does not bring sufficient details concerning the assertions of the indictment.
Therefore, I have a request to make of the gentlemen of the prosecution. I should like to ask them to say whether the prosecution have documents which are being read now, are in fact being presented without any consequences being drawn, or whether the prosecution wishes to discuss Count I, that is, the conspiracy or the plot.
Then I have a second request. Would the prosecution please say whether these documents which are now being presented and the systematic presentation of which the defense does not ignore, will be read out again when the case of each defendant comes up in their order; in fact, whether this will come up again at that time. I believe that only then the defense can prepare itself properly, and for its part, make applications and connect evidence.
As concerns my second point concerning the translation, I should like to express my own thanks and my satisfaction that the prosecutor will contact us in every individual case, and I think we have had sufficient opportunity during the past few days to discuss questions of translation of formal matters concerning the documents, and we have had plenty of opportunity to contact the prosecution, and I, myself, have no objections on that point. On the contrary, I wish to express my thanks that on that point an agreement has been reached quite easily.
MR. La FOLLETTE: I think that I ought to make this one further responsible shortly.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, please.
MR. La FOLLETTE: I'd just like to say, as to the first point, that I have, and I said I have deliberately refrained from saying when I introduced a piece of evidence: "I think this evidence means this:" because, of course, under the practice of which I have been accustomed and which I think should prevail, it is not the province of counsel to intrude into the function of court with extraneous remarks, which I would consider as being designed to influence the court as to the effect of evidence. I will say again that I do not believe that defense counsel are going to be injured or adversely affect by the procedure, or whether this evidence may be considered as under Count I or under Counts II or III. We are introducing this evidence for the purpose of showing the existence of certain plans and the doing of certain acts which we will contend have the ultimate effect, or could be reasonably known to have the ultimate effect, of resulting in the crimes charged in the indictment.
Of course, as I said previously, when we sum up and when this case is presented to the court, we certainly cannot avoid the responsibility of either connecting active participation or connecting knowledge as an ultimate fact to be reasonably inferred from the facts introduced, because that, of course, is the ultimate test of the probative value of this evidence; but it would be so foreign to me and so contrary to my ideas of a proper procedure and so much over-stepping the bounds of the propriety of counsel for me to say: "Now I think this document has the effect of doing this:" that I can't bring myself to do it, because I feel that that certainly would be unfair to the defense, but also intruding into the provence of the court, which ultimately determine from the document what is its effect.
Unless the court has any remarks, I will proceed with the introduction of the evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: The prosecution will introduce as its Prosecution Exhibit No. 76, Document NG-102 found in Book 1-C on Page 43, which is Page 47 of the German text.
JUDGE BRAND: Will you give me that reference again, please, Mr. Prosecutor:
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes, it's Book 1-C, Page 43, NG-102, and the number is 75. I am sorry, we started to introduce this last night and then adjourned. The exhibit number is 75.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit number is 75?
MR. La FOLLETTE: Correct. I was misinformed.
Now I shall do considerable skipping around in this document because at least in the English book the order in which it is assembled is not chronological and doesn't make good sense, but the whole material in the English book can be put together so that it does make sense. I am, therefore, going to read first from Page 45, a letter found on Page 43 in the German test, dated May 6 1942, at Berlin, signed by the defendant Dr. Schlegelberger.
The Reichsminister Berlin, of Justice 6 May 1942 Commissioned with the management of business To Reichsminister Dr. LAMMERS, Dear Sir, During our last conversation I already told you that I intended to propose to the Fuehrer the introduction of a confirmation of the judgments passed, a plan to which you agreed.
In fact, this is the only, but also a sure way to become master of the insufficient penal measures in legal judgments.
Today I am transmitting to you an open letter to the Fuehrer, along with the draft of the decree requesting you to submit them to the Fuehrer. Copies for your files are attached. The draft hardly requires an explanation. At all events, I might add that figure II refers to the capacity of the presidents of the supreme courts of justice and figure IV to their judicial activity. It is guaranteed that the presidents of the supreme courts of justice will, also as judges, work with one in closest contact.
I may leave it to your judgment whether the decree has to be countersigned by the manager of the Party Chancellery and whether, therefore, the matter has to be discussed with him. I do not consider executive provisions necessary for the time being.
In view of the general situation I would be particularly thankful to you for accelerating the matter.
Heil Hitler!
Yours respectfully Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER I might say for the court that the decree referred to, and which it referred to from time to time in the other documents -- the other parts of this document -- is found at Page 57 of the English text, Pages 55 and 56 of the German text.
I shall next read from pages 46 and 47 of the English text, which are pages 44 and 45 of the German text. This is a letter addressed to my Fuehrer, dated Berlin 6 May 1942.
"The Reichsminister of Justice commissioned with the management of business.
"My Fuehrer!
"Repeatedly and last in the session of the Great German Reichstag on the 26th April of this year you expressed that front and homeland require the unrelenting punishment of criminals and that judgements of the courts, which do not meet these requirements, cannot be tolerated.
"In order to liquidate such decisions in a hurry, you, my Fuehrer, created the extraordinary protest to the Reich Tribunal. With the help of this legal resource the judgement against Schlitt, which you mentioned in the session of the Reichstag, was, by sentence of the Reich Tribunal, quashed within 10 days; Schlitt was sentenced to death and executed at once. I believe, however, that the aim strived for could be achieved even better and quicker if the Reichsminister of Justice, by means of the consession of a right of confirmation, were given decisive influence on the award of punishment.
"If you, my Fuehrer, could decide, by signing the attached draft of a decree, to transfer to tho Reichsminister of Justice this right of confirmation for cases in which you do not want to decide yourself, the following would be achieved thereby:"
That is tho end of that quotation and the next is on page 47 of the English and 46 of the German texts, and consists of the last two paragraphs.
"It is guaranteed that the Reichsminister of Justice will immediately be informed about all important criminal matters. The attorney generals who, according to the draft, would have to propose tho non-confirmation, are under his directives. I can absolutely rely on the insight and eagerness of the 35 presidents of the supreme courts of justice. Should they ever lack the necessary rigour, I myself would pronounce the non-confirmation.
"Therefore I believe that, if you, my Fuehrer will agree with the draft, I could assume the responsibility that the punishment awards of tho courts will not lead to complaints any more.
"Heil my Fuehrer!
"Dr. Schlegelberger."
I now read from page 43 of the English which is page 46 of tho German text:
"Fuehrer's Headquarters, 11 May 1942. Subject: Draft of a Fuehrer decree on the confirmatory law in criminal matters.
"1)Fraulein Buge: a) The enclosed letter of the Reich Minister of Justice dated 6 May 1942 addressed to me and also the enclosed notes of the State Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger are to be registered un Rk. b) The original copy of the Fuehrer decree is to be placed into a special file."
Fraulein Buge was a very good secretary, she made a handwritten note that it was carried out on the same day.
"2) I have presented the matter to the Fuehrer on 7 inst. and recommended the suggested decree. It seems to no indeed the only and safe way to master insufficient punishment in local sentences.
"The Fuehrer agreed to the decree in principle but could not decide on signing it, moreover suggested whether it was not appropriate to soon fill in the position of Reich Minister of Justice and to leave the reform in question as well as the other reforms also to the new Reich Minister of Justice.
3) State Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger, who visited me here, has been briefly informed by me on 8 inst. about the state of the affair. He told me that he had already interested the Reich Marshal also in the draft of the decree and that he (the Reich Marshal) had promised him to speak in favour of the decree.
"State Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger further stressed the fact that the decree would naturally lose all its value for him if the confirmatory right would pass to party offices. To that I replied that one could perhaps consider to listen to the party before carrying out the conformatory right. With regard to this question on 9 inst. State Secretary Schlegelberger presented the notes pf the same day to me.
He promised me also to sent more material to the case in hand."
I shall next read from pages 39 and 52 in the English text which are 46, 47, 48, 49, and 50 of the German text. This is:
"Berlin, 15 May 1942.
"The Reich Minister of Justice in charge of transaction "Dear Reich Minister Dr. Lammers.
"With regard to your request I am sending you today some material from which, I think, follows that a Reich Minister of Justice controlling criminal justice cannot dispense with the possibility not to confirm a sentence. I may add that when the draft of the decree was already under way to you, Reich Marshal Goering explained to me in detail at a visit in Karinhall that he in the sphere of Wehrmacht justice, a sector Luftwaffe, could only overcome the difficulties of heterogeneous legal administration by this confirmation also for civil justice. These statements were made spontaneously without my having spoken about my intention to ask the Fuehrer for the signing of the decree.
"I would be specially grateful to you, dear Reich Minister Dr. Lammers, if you would present the matter to the Fuehrer again. I have the hope therewith that if the Fuehrer rejects the present handling of criminal justice and on the strength of you argument knows that the confirmatory proceeding is the only and safe remedy, he will not withhold this remedy from the Reich Minister of Justice.
"With best wishes and "Heil Hitler!"Yours very sincerely "Dr. Schlegelberger."
Now, there was an on enclosure which accompanied that, found on page 50 of the English text, and I believe on page 47 of the German text:
"1 Enclosure "Sentences from various parts of German which attracr attention by their difference in spite of the similarity of kind and seriousness of the repraches against the defendant."