ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE : 81 1

tense was extremely excessive, to let it alone . In many cases we recommende d

substantial reduction, and so far as I know, these were carried into effect by
the War Department upon the recommendation of the Judge Adovcate General .
Q . You stated a moment ago that after the issuance of General Order No . 7
the Judge Advocate General's Office found no case which, under the law, the y
were not able to correct any injustice which was done . Were there any cases i n
which the recommendations of the Judge Advocate General to undo injus-
tice or to do justice which were not carried out by the War Department ?
I do not at this time remember a single case in which recommendatio n
was made by the Judge Advocate General for a remission or mitigation of a
sentence of an enlisted man that was not carried into effect . There were sev-
eral recommendations made by Gen . Ansell, while Acting Judge Advocate Gen-
eral, that were not approved by the War Department, but I think the failur e
to approve was rather because his recommendations would work injustice tha n
otherwise.
I refer to a number of cases in which officers were tried for offenses involvin g
the use of intoxicating liquor. Gen . Ansell adopted the policy early in his ad -
ministration of the office that whenever an officer was tried for any offense
involving the use of intoxicating liquor, no matter what the action of the cour t
was, no matter what the sentence of the court was, if it appeared from th e
evidence that he had used it, or that he probably used it, Gen . Ansell insisted
upon submitting a recommendation that that officer be summarily discharged .
Many recommendations of that kind were disapproved by the War Depart-
ment, but are the only ones disapproved during my incumbency of that position .
Yes ; there was one othera case involving the trial of cadets at West Point ,
recommendations, which were prepared at the direction of Gen . Ansell, were
not approved, but they were in the nature of increased punishment rather tha n
a recommendation for clemency . I know of no recommendation for clemenc y
that was disapproved .
Certain cases of considerable importance that have recently been discusse d
in the public press occurred during my administration of the Disciplinary Di -
vision of the Office of the Judge Advocate General . These were known as th e
four death cases which came from France . Two of them involved a sentenc e
of death for sleeping on post, and two a sentence of death for disobedience o f
orders . This case has been cited to show the attitude of the Judge Advocat e
General's Department toward the doing of justice, and inasmuch as this cas e
was reviewed while I was in the office, I think it proper to mention the fact s
in that connection. Gen . Ansell, in his letter to Congressman Burnett, made i t
appear that it was necessary for him to go over the head of Gen . Crowder and
the Secretary of War and make a sort of special appeal to the Presiden t
through a member of the judiciary committee of the House in order to preven t
the execution of these sentences . Those cases arose under General Order No . 7,
and the execution of the sentences was naturally stayed until the record coul d
be reviewed in the office of the Judge Advocate General . More than this, the
eases were of that character which required the action of the President a s
confirming authority before they could he executed .
When these cases first came to the office I assigned them to Maj . Rand fo r
review . Maj . Rand is an exceptionally good lawyer, and reviewed these cases,
wrote a brief review in each case, and finally recommended that the sentence s .
be carried into execution . These four cases, as prepared by him, were sent byg
me to Gen . Ansell . A letter had been written by Gen . Pershing recommendind
the execution of the sentence of death in these cases . Maj . Rand embodie
this letter in the review of one of the cases, and merely referred to it in th e
review of the other three . Shortly after these cases were submitted to Geng.
Ansell I was called to his office, I think by Col . Mayes, who was then actin
as Gen . Ansell's assistant, and who read over all papers before they wer e.
finally signed by Gen . Ansell or passed on by him for Gen . Crowder's signature
Col . Mayes stated they had decided that it would be better that Gen . Pershing'of$
letter should be embodied in the review of each of the four cases, instead
merely being referred to in three of them . The reviews were sent back fo r
that particular change . No other suggestion was made, either as to the rec-n
ommendation or as to any other feature of the review . After this correctio d
had been made I again submitted the cases to Gen . Ansell, and they passe t
through him to Gen . Crowder for his signature . The rule of the office was tha
any paper which passed Gen. Ansell and got to Gen . Crowder ' s desk for hi ss
signature had met with Gen . Ansell's approval, unless the opposing view wa
indicated in a memorandum or verbally communicated .