The sun., 1907-03-24
THE RESCUE or GENERAL WOOD.
An Impartial Legal View OF the Proceed
Ings I'm Captain kOehIer's Case.


ishment a letter addressed by the Secretary
of War to the President Of the United States
In reference to the cOurt-marttal OF Captain
Lewis NJ. KOehler Fourth Cavalry. l had
no previous knowledge OF the facts or the
case and my only information is derived from
Secretary Tafts letter.
1t appears that Captain Koeher had been
found guilty by a previous court martial
under charges preferred by Major Scott and
had been sentenced to be reprimanded. and
that General Wood in imposing the reprtmand
characterized the conduct of Captain KOehler.
or rather his conception OF duty, In severe
language. Captain Koehler then took an
appeal to the Secretary of War, specifying four
grounds Of appeal:
1. That he was practically denied counsel.
=. That the department commander was the
accuser or prosecutor and that the courts erred
In overriding the plea based upon that fact.
). That the repnmand imposed In pursuance OF
the sentence was harsh and excessive
4. That an application for a court OF inquiry
denied.
II appears from Secretary Taft = letter that
Captain Koehler in his appeal further char
acterized the acts OF the department com
mander as unfair, unjust and illegal. The
appeal was forwarded by the division com
mander, General Wood. TO the Department OF
War. with a letter inviting attention to the
language used in II and submitting the ques-
tion of disciplinary proceedings for such
language to the Department. The Depart
ment directed the division commander to file
charges against Captain Koehler and to bring
him to trial before a courtmartial appointed
by the President which was accordingly done.
In his letter Secretary Taft says:
The second court martial has acquitted Captain
Koehler, and the nndlng OF the approval now comes
before you as the reviewing authority for action
either in approval or disApproval, have no hesi-
N confederation a
matter that the finding OF the FIRST court martial,
that Captain koehler was guilty Of ming captlous
and unnecessary charges against bis commanding
ofncer. was fully sustained. You, as the reviewing
authority put In the position that Hyou approve
the nnding you necessarily afirm or approve the
statement deroga atOry 10 General Wood contained In
the appeals and n you do SO approve these state
ments, then II would become your duty as cOmman-
der In chief to order General Wood before a court
martial for pcrveTtlng his power as department
commander to accomplish an unjust and unfair
purpose against his subordinate Ofncer, You cannot
In Justice to General Wood hnd any evidence In the
record to sustain the bringing Of such proceedings
or the nndlng Of a court against him.
4 reviewing authority may mitigate q sentence
but II cannot change nnding OF acqulttal TO one
OF conviction. II can, however. In any diSap-
prove the entire proceeding and refuse 70 cOnnrm
finding OF acduittal. The efIect OF this Is TO set
aside the proceedings as II they had not been COM
menced. BY this course you, as the reviewing Au-
thority involved In the logical consequences
with respect to General Wood which must follow an
approval Of the sentence as already explained and
Captain Koehler is simply restored TO duty.
l believe there is a growing feeling in this
country that too much latitude has been
allowed subordinate officers in the criticism
of their superiors and that such criticism,
however well founded in fact should not be
permitted. as being subversive OF discipline
and good order. But a court-martial, like
any other court, in trying particular case
is bound to pass upon the evidence before it,
and its findings should be in accordance
with the evidence and uninfiuenced by any
outside considerations. In this sense Secre-
tary Taft's reference to the incidental effect
which Captain Koehler' acquittal would have
upon General Wood seems to have been pecu-
llarly unhappy. If the evidence before the
court-mdrtial warranted the acQuittal OF
Captain koehler the court did right in ac-
quitting him. IL would have been mani
testify improper for the court to have been
influenced by the fact that such an acquttal,
though justified and required by the evil
dence. would entail certain unpleasant con-
sequences to General Wood.
But / cannot see. after a careful reading
OF Secretary Taft's letter, that Captain Koch
ler's acquittal could by any possibility be
considered reflection upon General Wood or
require his court martial The second court
martial was convened, as appears by Secre-
tary Taft's letter. for the purpose of determine
ing whether Captain Koehler should be sub
jected to punishment for certain statements
made in his appeal to the Department. In
other words, the sole question before that
court-martial seems to have been whether
the specification OF certain grounds of Ap-
peal constituted conduct unbeoOming an
officer or was subversive of discipline The
truth or falsity of these specifications was
not in question. 1t may be that they we're
entirely unfOunded in fact. and yet from
that IL would not necessarily follow that
their statement as grounds Of appeal con-
stituted misconduct. SO far as Secretary
Taft's letter shows, the acquittal resulted
from a finding that the specification Of
grounds Of appeal did not constitute miscon-
duct. II such were the case. il is obvious
that the fears expressed by Secretary Taft
that the logical consequences with respect to
General Wood which must follow an approval
OF the sentence" were without any founda-
ton.
An examination Of the Presidents state
ment. in which he dsapproves of the ac-
quittal and says Il entirely concur in all that
the Secretary OF War says of Captain Koehler
and of General Wood. and Of the poor shotDinD
made bv the court Uhich last passed on the case"
raises very strong inference that he has
read the record OF the proceedings about as
carefully as he had the beef bill when he
wrote to MIR. Wadsworth that the bill was
bad. bad. very bad" j. L., JR
NEW YORK. March -.