Q. You Tell Me You Have Never Been Associated With The Division of Military

ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .
80T
Q. You tell me you have never been associated with the Division of Military
Justice so that you would not be familiar with the details of the operation o f
that division?A . Only in this way, that the questions arising in the Divisio n
of Military Justice have been discussed in conference, including officers of othe r
divisions .
EXHIBIT 20.
MARCH 18, 1919 .
Questions by Gen . J. L . Chamberlain . Answers by Col . E . G . Davis.
Q . Give your full name, rank, and present duties .A . Col . E . G . Davis,
Judge Advocate General's Department ; retired officer serving at the presen t
time under the grade of colonel .
Q . How long have you been on duty in the office of the Judge Advocate Gen-
eral?A . I was in the office of the Judge Advocate General from the 1st o f
June, 1917, to about the 9th or 10th of September, 1918, since that time I
have been on duty with the General Staff.
Q . During what portion of this period were you on duty in the Division o f
Military Justice?A . From about the middle of October, 1917, until the middl e
of May, 1918. Those dates are approximate only.
Q. Are you familiar with the controversy pertaining to the administration o f
military justice which has arisen and which has become such a prominent
feature in the public press?A. I am.
Q. Will you state briefly, please, any facts which you may have bearing upo n
this controversy? Going back to October, 1917 .A . As I stated, I took up my
duties in the Judge Advocate General's Office on the 1st of June, 1917 . I hel d
various positions, including that of executive officer until some time, I think ,
about the middle of October, 1917, when I was placed in charge of the Disciplin-
ary Division of the Judge Advocate General's Office . At that time Gen . Ansel l
was Acting Judge Advocate General . He had consulted me freely during th e
time that he had been in charge of the office and had told me that he was no t
satisfied with the way in which that office was being administered, in that h e
thought that a too rigid adherence was being observed toward the Regula r
Army ideals ; that he wanted to find a man more liberal in his tendencies, an d
who would be less bound by the traditions of the office than the former in-
cumbent had been (referring to Col . White) ; and he wanted me to try out th e
work . At the . time I took over that branch of the office there were but thre e
or four officers besides myself on duty there, and two or three civilian clerks .
The work increased very rapidly from that time on, and the force in the offic e
increased very rapidly also. I had not been there very long when a case know n
as the " mutiny case " came to the office. The defendants in that case had bee n
sentenced to dishonorable discharge and terms of imprisonment ranging fro m
two to five years. I reviewed the record in that case and wrote the opinion of
the Judge Advocate General's Office . We decided, after full consultation, tha t
the men had been improperly convicted of mutiny, and that the fullest kind of
restoration which the law authorized should be had in that case . I wrote the
review after the customary form and terminated with a recommendation tha t
any unexecuted portion of the sentence be remitted, and that, upon their writ -
ten application to that effect, the men be allowed to reenlist. Gen. Ansell was
dissatisfied with this solution . He argued that it did not do full justice to th e
men, and he began to hunt around to determine whether or not some fuller
remedy could not he found under existing law . He directed that I make a
search of the statutes and the decisions to see if something could not be don e
along that line, and, among other things, I examined section 1199, Revise d
Statutes, and reported to him that I thought a higher power could be deduce d
from that statute, if thought advisable . I prepared a brief along that line an d
submitted it to him, and Gen . Ansell used this brief as a basis of a more elab-
orate brief which he prepared and submitted to the Secretary of War on thi s
same subject . Briefly, the contention of Gen. Ansell was that the word " re-
vised," as found in 1199, Revised Statutes, conferred authority upon the Judg e
Advocate General to set aside, vacate, modify, or reverse any sentence of a
court-martial, no matter at what stage of execution the sentence might b e
when the record came to the Judge Advocate General's Office . That brief wa s
submitted to the Secretary of War and by him referred to Gen . Crowder . I
might say that before being submitted to the Secretary of War it was sub-
mitted, in an office conference, to all officers on duty in the Judge Advocat e
General's Office, and all of us, I think, including myself, assented to the brief .

Q. You Tell Me You Have Never Been Associated With The Division of Military

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Q. You Tell Me You Have Never Been Associated With The Division of Military

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Q. You Tell Me You Have Never Been Associated With The Division of Military

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .

You might also like