You are on page 1of 1


completed they are returned to the chief clerk, where the charge against th e
officer is removed, thus showing the time the officer had them ; then they are
passed to Col . Mayes, to Gen . Ansell, and to Gen . Crowder. After approva l
they are sent out either by mail or in jackets by messenger . "
In the testimony of Maj . Keith, former chief clerk, and Mr . J . S. Lyon,
clerk in charge of the court-martial section of the Judge Advocate General' s
Office, it appears that this memorandum represented not new rules of pro-
cedure for the office but rather a confirmation of the established rules .
(Exhibits 23 and 29 . )
Col . J . J . Mayes, who was Gen. Ansell's assistant up to the time the latte r
departed for France in April, 1918, and who succeeded Gen . Ansell as senior
assistant in the office, testified (Exhibit 30) that all cases arising unde r
General Orders No. 7, with some exceptions, there being some that wer e
sent through Gen . Ansell's and Col . Mayes's desks, were acted upon by the
Disciplinary Division . He stated that all cases requiring the action of th e
President were passed over their desks, although there may have been som e
exceptions to that rule . When Col. Mayes became senior assistant he gav e
instructions that all matters (including those arising under General Orders
No . 7) pertaining to the Disciplinary Division should pass over his desk .
When asked if there was any reason to believe that the same result coul d
not have been accomplished if Gen . Ansell had so desired, he replied, "No,
I don't know of any reason. In fact, I don ' t know how the other syste m
grew up . I felt that if I would be charged with the responsibility of the
office I should know what went out of it, therefore, I permitted nothing to g o
out expressing the opinion of the office except over my signature, or in im-
portant eases Gen . Crowder's signature ." He stated that Gen . Crowder ha d
made no objection to the instructions that he had issued, and, moreover ,
Gen . Crowder was at the time occupied at the Provost Marshal General' s
Office so that he did not have very much time to be at the Judge Advocat e
General's Office .
The Judge Advocate General furnished the Inspector General a list of mem-
oranda prepared in that office, containing reviews of court-martial cases during
the period November 17, 1917, to April 10, 1 .918, giving in each instance th e
name of the officer preparing the memorandum and that of the officer approv-
ing the same . (Exhibit 108 .) Many signed by Gen . Ansell as Acting Judg e
Advocate Geuernl contain recommendations to the Secretary of War or to Th e
Adjutant General relative to mitigation, remission, approval and disapproval o f
sentences and declaring null and void proceedings . Fifty-three memoranda con-
tain the signature of Gen . Crowder during the period stated as against 13 0
bearing the signature of Gen . Ansell . In addition to the papers above re-
ferred to, voluminous correspondence from the files of the Judge Advocate Gen-
eral's Office was furnished this office . These papers include memoranda on
court-martial cases, letters and indorsements, all relating to the administra-
tion of military justice . Forty per cent show the signature of Gen . Crowder,
35 per cent that of Gen . Ansell, and 25 per cent of various other officers i n
the department.
When, in July, 1918, Gen . Ansell returned from his trip abroad, he auto,
nautically reverted to his former duties as senior assistant, and without order s
of any kind proceeded to reorganize the office, created boards of review (Ex -
. hibit 109) and ordered them "to break away from the office interpretation " o f
General Orders, No . 7 . He proceeded to perform those very duties from which ,
during the period November to April, according to his statement he was relieved .
(Exhibit 70 . )
From the records and from all obtainable evidence, it appears that Gen .
Ansell's statement that, from November, 1917, to April . 1918, he had nothing to 1 .
do with the administration of military justice and that the proceedings did no t
come over his desk, is not in accord with the facts . On the contrary, it appears
that his initiative and authority as senior assistant remained undisturbed and i
that he was in no degree hampered in any changes which, within the law, h e
desired to make .
. 9. Four cases arising in France wherein, sentences of death were imposed .
In his letter 'to Representative Burnett, dated February 17, 1919, Gen . Ansell,
in conclusion and more particularly by way of reply to Representative Burnett' s
Statement, " Why slid he (Gen . Ansell) not appeal to Gen . Crowder? Why did h e
not appeal to the President to vindicate him? Why did he go on here until h e
was called before a committee of the Senate to do it? " stated (Exhibit 69, p . 6) :
" You seem to think that under these circumstances I should have gon e
directly to the President . Upon a little reflection you will appreciate, I am