The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-03-23
PRESIDENT SUSTAINS
 WOOD IN KOEHLER CASE
(Continued from First Page.)

for such a remedy, to the secretary of war, alleging he was practically denied counsel; that the department com mander was the accuser or prosecutor, and that the court erred in overrullng the plea in bar of trial based on that fact; that the reprimand was harsh and excessive, and that an application for a court of inquiry on the charges made again to Major Scott was denied, and characterizing the department commanders acts as unfair, unjust and illegal.
 Referring to the reprimand by the reviewing authority, he said that the severity, even to harshness of the rep rimand administered, shows prejudice, bias, unfairness and a pre-concelved conviction that I was guilty as origi- nally charged"
 In commenting upon the trial he fur ther said;
 q was harassed and handicapped by the feeling that was helpless and at the mercy of a superior who would make use of every unfair advantage to larm me and to protect his own per sonal friend Major Scott"
 General Wood called the attention of the war department to the appeal, and submitted the question of disciplinary proceedings. A court-martial was then appointed, which acquitted Captain Koehler. Continuing, Secretary Taft's letter says:
 q have no hesitation in saying that after a full consideration of the matter the finding of the first court-martial' that Captain Koehler was guilty or tl- ing captious and unnecessary charges against his commanding officer, was fully sustained, His statement in his appeal that he was practically denied counsel cannot be supported. He might have had counsel had he been willing to take any but two persons who were otherwise engaged on public business. The charge that the department com mander was the accuser or prosecutor in the first trial was unfounded and based solely on the ground that he di- rected court-martial on the charges of Major Scott after an inspector had reported that the charges of Captain Koehler against Major Scott were un- founded.
 considering the evidence of the first court martial, I think the language of the reprirnand was sufficiently within the finding on the evidence. The grant ing of the application for court ot ln- ouiry was within the legitimate dls- < cretion of the commanding officer, and as the matter could be much more shortly disposed of by the court mar tial rather than by a court on inquiry the action of the commanding general could not be made the basis for claim that he was malicious or unfair in his ruling upon that application.
 q have gone over these matters carefully for they constitute the whole foundation for the charge made in the appeal against General Wood by Cap tain Koehler that he was unfair anc uniust and would resort to any means to harm Captain Koehler and protec' Major Scott. Until the contrary f -e+4swn the presumption of good faitf attends all officers, civil or military in the performance of duty with whicf they are charged by law. No evidence other than as stated above in sub stance. was submitted by the accused in support of the aspersions contained in his appeal, except the fact tha Major Scott and General Wood hat nrevious friendly associations, in tha Maior Scott had been upon Genera woofs staff, and that General Woot had recommended him for the position of brigadier general. The mere tac +hat a commanding officer is a frient of a prosecuting witness does not prov that his action ordering a court martia or sustaining it's findings was prejudlc ed or malicious. It was In eVldehc +na+ General Wood had only tn slightest acquaintance with Captail Koehler and no occasion for persona feeling against him.
 .4After consideration, am convinc ed in view of the admitted resDonsi hi,,ty of the defendant for the Ian a,,age of the appeal, that this findini of tbe court involves affirmative infer arces and conclusions of fact that can not be supported in this position-tha if you approve the finding you necessa rily affirm or approve the statement de rogatory to General wood contained i the appeals, and if you do so approv these statements, then it would becom your duty, as commander-in-chief order General Wood before court mar tial for perverting his power as de nartnnent commander to accomplish ,lniust and unfair purpose against hi sllbordinate officer You cannot in jus tice to General Wood, find any ev dence in the record to sustain tn bringing of such proceedings or tn finding of court against him.
 'The question then remains what +o be done? A reviewing, authorit n,ay mitigate the sentence, butsit car not change a finding of acquittal to on of conviction It can, however, in an case, disapprove the entire proceeding and refuse to confirm finding of at ouittal. The effect of this is to st aside the proceedings as if they ha not been commenced, By this cours YOU. as the reviewing authority, as nc involved in the logical consequence with respect to General Wood whic must follow an approval of the ser tence as already explained, and Captai Koehles Is simply restored to dut This is the view of the judge advocat general in whose recommendations
 fully concur"