732 ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE.

randum bears the following office mark : " Received A . G . O ., Nov. 8, 1917."
Notwithstanding the fact that the memorandum was dated October 30, i t
was not received by The Adjutant General until the very dayi . e., Novembe r
8that Gen . Ansell was appointed Acting Judge Advocate General. Gen .
Ansell's memorandum on the interpretation of section 1199, Revised Statutes ,
bears the date of November 10 . It reached the War Department not late r
than November 13 (Exhibit 7), but the exact date upon which it was firs t
brought to the attention of the Secretary of War has not been definitel y
determined.
About November 17 Gen . Crowder was called to the office of the Secretar y
of War and saw for the first time a list of recommendations for appointmen t
of officers to the Judge Advocate General's Department, submitted by Gen .
Ansel] . It appears, and Gen . Crowder was so informed by the Secretary o f
War, that when this list was submitted by Gen . Ansell he was asked whethe r
it had been passed upon by Gen. Crowder. Gen . Ansell, by way of reply ,
exhibited to the Secretary of War the order designating him Acting Judg e
Advocate General . This was the first knowledge that the Secretary of Wa r
had of Gen . Ansell's appointment, and Gen . Crowder's first knowledge of the
same was at the date of his interview with the Secretary of War ; i . e., Novem-
ber 17. On this same date, by letter to Gen. Crowder (Exhibit 64), th e
Secretary of War inquired if he could not devote more time to the duties of
Judge Advocate General, inasmuch as the great machine (the Provost Marsha l
General's Office) necessary for the mobilization of the selective army ha d
been organized and the work so far advanced as to be more nearly automatic .
Gen . Crowder replied, on November 18 (Exhibit 65), that he did not anticipat e
great administrative duty in connection with the future administration of th e
Provost Marshal General's Office and stated that he could at once give at
least one-half of his time to the office of the Judge Advocate General . There -
upon Gen . Ansell's appointment, although the order announcingthe same was
still under suspension, was revoked by the Secretary of War, to wit, on Novembe r
19 . Up to this time Gen . Crowder was ignorant of Gen . Ansell's attempte d
assertion of appellate power . His memorandum of November 10 appears no t
to have reached the attention of the Secretary of War until November 23,
for on that date he called for Gen . Crowder and stated, in effect, that he
had received from the Acting Judge Advocate General a very powerful brief
in re appellate power in court-martial cases existing in section 1199, Revised
/Statutes.
From - the foregoing it is obvious that Gen . Ansell's charge that he was relieved
from duty as Acting Judge Advocate General by reason of the difference o f
opinion as to section 1199, Revised Statutes, is without foundation in fact . I t
is likewise obvious that Gen . Crowder's allegation that Gen . Ansell had
obtained, his order of appointment surreptitiously is erroneous. It appears and
is probable that in his letter of November 4, 1917, Gen . Crowder gave his
approval with certain mental reservations and with the intent that the matter
was to be taken up personally with the Secretary of War . However, Gen.
Ansell could not have known of such mental reservation, and, it is believed ,
was justified in presenting his case to the Chief of Staff, the recognized chan-
nel of communication with the Secretary of War . It is my opinion tha t
responsibility for the issuance of this order, without reference to the Secretar y
of War and without his knowledge, rests with the then Acting Chief of Staff ,
and not with Gen. Ansell .
3 . Issuance of General Orders, No. 169, War Department, 1917.As early a s
October 18, 1917, Gen . Ansell was alarmed by the large number of court-martial
cases resulting in 'dishonorable discharge and long terms of confinement . I n
a memorandum of that date (Exhibit 66) he called the attention of the Chie f
of Staff to the situation and suggested the policy of suspending all sentences o f
dishonorable discharge until the pleasure of the War Department was known .
He also suggested the idea of divisional disciplinary battalions . Later specific
recommendations of Gen . Ansell were approved, and the following instructions ,
an exact copy of those proposed by Gen . Ansell, were, on December 22, 1917 ,
confidentially issued to all convening authorities (Exhibits 67 and 68) :
"(a) No sentence of dishonorable discharge will be given where the offende r
has within him the capacity for military service and when any other appro-
priate form of punishment is sufficient to meet the requirements of the case .
"(b) Whenever a sentence of dishonorable discharge is given, it should b e
accompanied with a long term of confinement in the penitentiary or in th e
Disciplinary Barracks . Where the offense is not sufficiently grave to warrant a