Appendix 101

826 ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .
power of the President to exercise appellate jurisdiction by such methods as

he might adopt ; and, second, his powers under existing legislation throug h
general orders to control the progress of the case from its inception to it s
execution. We sought to find in the powers of the President such inheren t
and statutory powers as would meet all of the then needs . Gen . Ansell wa s
vigorously opposed to these views . Not only was he opposed to the view tha t
such inherent power was lodged in the President, but also the view tha t
there was any legal sanction for the exercise of any such power under existin g
law . The memorandum prepared by Col . Davis and myself was submitted t o
Secretary Baker, by Gen . Crowder, who expressed his sympathy with th e
legal views expressed therein . The Secretary, however, suggested that in or -
der to remove any doubt as to the power of the President to exercise ful l
appellate jurisdiction and rather than undertake to deduce such a power fro m
legislation, the construction of which might be open to discussion, that a
bill be presented to Congress asking for such power . Conformably with thi s
suggestion I prepared a bill by direction of Gen . Crowder which was a n
amendment to section 1199 of the Revised Statutes . That bill was prepare d
in January, 1918 . In connection with the preparation of the bill I prepared ,
in collaboration with Col . Davis, an argument of some pages in support of th e
legislation .
Q. The proposed legislation did not meet with the approval of Gen . An-
sell .A. He was opposed to the amendment, which sought to confer thes e
broad appellate powers upon the President . I discussed this matter with hi m
several times during the preparation of the amendment and the preparatio n
of the argument in support of the amendment. His contention was, as i t
had been theretofore, that the word "revise " gave certr in power to th e
Judge Advocate General, that the proposed amendment was an encroach-
ment upon such powers, and that he could not, therefore, favor it . Col.
Davis and myself then prepared letters which embodied the argument t o
which I have referred in support of the bill, and these letters were signe d
by the Secretary of War and transmitted with copies of the bill to the Mili-
tary Committee of Senate and House.
Q. What was Gen . Ansell's attitude and what position did he taken wit h
respect to the propriety of interfering at that time during the war with lon g
sentences which had been imposed by courts-martial and duly approved by th e
reviewing authority, provided the record of the case showed no legal or othe r
irregularities?A. Speaking generally, his attitude was that it was frequentl y
necessary in the interest of military discipline that severe sentences be
imposed ; that such sentences must be frequently imposed for their salutar y
or moral effect upon the Army at large . I have often heard him say, in justi-
fication of a policy of not interfering during the war with such sentences ,
that it was not to be supposed that long sentences would be actually served out
in full for military offenses after the war was over.
Q . Did you hear Gen . Crowder express any views upon this subject, or ar e
you familiar with the views entertained by him?A . I don't think that I ever
discussed that particular subject with Gen . Crowder. He was much engaged
with the work of the Provost Marshal General's Office.
Q . Are you familiar with the four cases of death sentences in France whic h
have been so thoroughly advertised?A. Very familiar, General .
Q . I wish you would state briefly your knowledge as to the procedure in
those cases, step by step, and the part played by different officers in the disposa l
of those cases.A. The eases are so familiar to everybody concerned that it i s
unnecessary to go into the details in regard to the case . The records in the fou r
death cases from France reached the office of the Judge Advocate General i n
Washington along about February 26-27, 1918 . They were sent to Maj . Rand ,
a well-known criminal lawyer of New York, then stationed in Washington, fo r
review . Maj . Rand reviewed the four cases, wrote a review in each case
in which he found that the proceedings were regular, the verdict sustaine d
by the evidence, and recommended that the sentences be carried into effect .
'The records, with the reviews, then went to'the desk of Col . Davis, chief of
the section, and from his desk went to Gen . Ansell and Col . Mayes, who wer e
officing together . In the preparation of his reviews Maj . Rand had incor-
porated in but one of them the text of a communication or indorsement fro m
Gen . Pershing recommending that the death sentences be confirmed and car-
ried into execution . In the other three reviews he had referred only to th e
memorandum from Gen . Pershing. The reviews thus prepared by Maj . Rand
were returned through Col . Davis to Maj. Rand from the office of Gen . Ansell,

Appendix 101

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix 101

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Appendix 101

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

826 ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .

power of the President to exercise appellate jurisdiction by such methods as

You might also like