You are on page 1of 1


the Government to its citizens . The French theory is much more liberal tha n
ours. In France, according to Gen . Ansell, there is practically no lincit to th e
extent to which the Government must answer to a citizen for loss sustained b y
him from Government activities .
He then raises the query as to whether the liability of the United States -
to French citizens, growing out of the presence of our Army, is to be determined
under French or American law, and urges that steps be taken to gather and rec-
ord the facts (contemporaneously with their occurrence), with a view t o
forehanded preparation against unjust claims, and excessive damages for jus t
The foregoing indicates, sufficiently for present purposes, the nature an d
comprehensive character of the report. Notwithstanding that it is the result o f
three months' effort of a general officer, it has, thus far, served no useful pur-
pose. At least, it does not appear that it has ever received the studious atten-
tion, or any particular attention, of higher authority .
So far as the records indicate, the history of the report is as follows :
It was submitted to Gen . Crowder, according to Gen. Ansell, in July, 1918 .
Gen. Crowder's testimony concerning it is as follows (Exhibit 10, p . 11) :
" Q . Gen . Ansell states, referring to the report which he made upon his re -
turn from Europe, `This report never reached the Secretary of War .'—A . Tha t
statement, as I recollect, first came to my knowledge reading the Congressiona l
Record of recent date, and I think in a letter addressed by Gen . Ansell to Mr .
Burnett. I came to the office and asked for the report, as I did not remembe r
to have ever seen it . It is true that, upon his return, Gen . Ansell came to mt
office and submitted a document which contained a number of observation s
.which he had made, explaining that it was more or less a personal documen t
which he thought I would be interested in . I read it over and it is the on(
that has been used a lot in public addresses, but he never brought in his officia
report and I (lid not see any official report until I instituted this search afte ;
noticing the Congressional Record . I called upon the executive officer to gel
me the report. He brought a carbon copy . I asked him where was the origina l
He said he did not find it on file. Later he cause to me with the original an t
said it was on Gen. Ansell's desk. It was addressed to me, as I remembe r
not to the Secretary of War . I do not remember to have ever seen that repor t
and know he never personally submitted it as he did the informal report . H.
is true that up to that time it had never been forwarded to the Secretary of
War. "
The original report bears no date of receipt to indicate that it ever reache e
the files of the Judge Advocate General's Office . The carbon copy has the fol
lowing notation : " J. A . G . O. Jan . 8, 1919, 319.1 Personal Reports ." Tha t
there was a supplemental report is established by the testimony of Mr . Brown,.
Gen . Ansell's stenographer. (Exhibit 31, p. 2 .) It appears that this supple-
mental report is not of record in the Judge Advocate General's Office or else -
where .
In the absence of any specific statement from Gen . Ansell, it is difficult to
fix, definitely, the responsibility for the nonpresentation of his report to th e
Secretary of War . It seems safe to say that he himself took no affirmativ e
steps to insure its transmittal to higher authority . It is also clear that Gen .
Crowder was remiss . He was Judge Advocate General, to whom the Secretary
of War directed that Gen . Ansell's report be submitted . If, as Gen . Crowder
suggests, no formal report was ever submitted to him by Gen . Ansell, that
officer should have been ordered to prepare and submit a proper report . If
the report was prepared and submitted to Gen . Crowder, it was his duty t o
i forward it to the Secretary of War, with his own appropriate comment thereon .
In whatever light the matter is viewed, responsibility rests with both Gen .
Crowder and Gen. Ansell .
11 . Amendment to 50th Article of War.—Another matter having a direc t
bearing on the administration of military justice, rather a difference of opinio n
between the War Department and the Judge Advocate General's Office tha n
between Gen . Crowder and Gen. Ansell (the former having had, so far as th e
records indicate, no connection with the subject matter), was the amendmen t
to the 50th Article of War. On July 27, 1918, Gen . Pershing cabled the Wa r
Department as follows (Exhibit 142) :
" It is highly desirable, in the interests of justice and the speedy adminis-
tration of the same, that I be authorized to commute both the sentences whic h
I am authorized to confirm and those which must be forwarded to the Presi-
dent for confirmation. I recommend proper legislation to that end ."