APPENDIX .

REPORT OF INSPECTOR GENERAL TO SECRETARY OF WARINVES -

TIGATION OF CONTROVERSIES PERTAINING TO THE OFFIC E
OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL.
WAR DEPARTMENT ,
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ,
Washington, May 8, 1919 .
From : The Inspector General of the Army .
To : The Secretary of War .
Subject : Investigation of controversies pertaining to the Office of the Judg e
Advocate General .
The basis of this investigation was a memorandum for the Inspector Genera l
from the Secretary of War, dated March 7, 1919 (exhibit 1) as follows :
" Certain controversies have arisen with regard to the presentation of fact s
growing out of the administration of military justice to the Secretary of War ,
and with regard to the administration of military justice itself in the Offic e
of the Judge Advocate General during the war . It may be roughly said tha t
these controversies began with the presentation of a brief in behalf of a certai n
construction of section 1199 of the Revised Statutes of the United States b y
Gen . Ansell, and reply brief thereto by Gen . Crowder . The legal question in-
volved in that difference of opinion was definitely settled by the Secretary o f
War, and need be given no consideration in the inquiry which you are herei n
directed to make.
" It is conceded that the curative power of clemency existed in the President ,
and the Secretary of War, and that in the first instance the Secretary of Wa r
and the President rely upon the Judge Advocate General ' s Office for recom-
mendations growing out of their examination of records of court-martial trials .
I, therefore, desire to have you conduct a thorough investigation into th e
following questions :
" (1) What machinery was organized in the Office of the Judge Advocate
General for the effective consideration of records with a view to making appro-
priate recommendations for clemency ?
" (2) To what extent, if at all, has the making of such recommendations fo r
clemency, or otherwise properly administering the business of military justice ,
been affected by the difference of opinion with regard to ' the interpretation of
section 1199 of the Revised Statutes of the United States ?
" (3) To what extent, if at all, has the presentation of facts with regard to
the administration of military justice, either to the Secretary of War or to th e
public, been affected by failure of cooperation in the Office of the Judge Advo-
cate General ?
" (4) Any other defects of administration or conduct which appear on inves-
tigation proper to be called to my attention in order that effective reorganiza-
tions may be made of all the forces of the Judge Advocate General's Office fo r
the performance of its duties.
" In making the foregoing inquiries you will proceed on the fact that I
recognize fully the right of any officer in the Military Establishment to testify
frankly and fully upon any matter as to which he may be interrogated by a
.committee of the Congress, and do not desire any adverse inference to be draw n
from the fact of such testimony where it is frank and straightforward .
" Please proceed with the inquiry at your earliest convenience, and report
the facts in full to me. "
Upon receipt of this order, I made know to Maj . Gen . E . H . Crowder, Judg e
Advocate General, and to Brig. Gen . S . T . Ansell, Judge Advocate General' s
Department, senior assistant, the fact of the investigation and requested certai n
information . Gen . Crowder responded to this request and has rendered ever y
possible assistance . In addition to a personal conversation with Gen . Ansel l
upon this subject, he was handed a memorandum, dated March 8, 1919 (Exhibi t
726