The Washington herald., 1919-02-14
GRAVE NJUSTICES
BY COURTS-MARTIAL
DEPLORED BY ANSELL
CONTINUED FROM PAGE osE.

LEE IkUNEU DI ANCELL
CONTINUED FROM PAGE osE.
Anssii did not recall which. The find-
inss we're approved by the command
Ing ofheer. the authority convening
the court.
When members of the committee
asked Gen. Ansell IL the verdict was
allowed to stand, he replied that he
had no doubt that when the review
ing authority received his (Gen. An
seil's) recommendations and comment
in the matter. he would take radical
action.
Senator Thomas stirred.
When Senator New. of Indiana, sue-
gested that the lieutenant in ques-
ton should In view of the inexpe-
rience of the offender. have caution
ed him and helped him to understand
requirements OF military law and Gus
tom. Senator Thomas cut in: ANY
man but a damned fool would have
done so" Senator Thomas added
that any system that would permit
such thing to happen was not only,
'un-Americau and unthinkable, but
would make Bolshevists OF every rel
alive the man had" He added also
that he could now begin to under
stand how 1t was so difficult to keep
the regular army complement full in
peace time.
Another instance cited by Gen. An
sell was the case of several nom
commissioned officers in an artillery
battery stationed In Texas They
were arrested for Eamblinz-"shoot-
-
When their commander found them
absent from driTi the next day, he
ordered them to report for drill. Re-
lying on the military regulation d.
recting that a nonoonnissioned OIL
GER shall perform no duty when IN
arrest. they refused A charge OF
nrutinous conduct was then lodged
against them, and they were given
sentences of from three to eight
years Imprisonment and were given
dishonorable discharges. The de-
partInent reviewed the case, said
Gen. AnseIl, but could do nothing
legally TO modify the sentences.
Provost Marshal General Crowder
was expected to be first to appear
before the committee IN its hearings.
but it Is now understood that he
will be the last heard. Gen. Ansell
was before the committee at both
sessions yesterday and will be re-
called either this afternoon or Sat
urday. when the next hearing will
be conducted.
The committee asked Gen. Ansell
to present his ideas with respect to
the processes of courts-nartial dur
ing the war. and the criticisms that
have been made of them.
Not Agents Of Discipline.
memorandum submitted to the Secre-
tary Of War in November, 1917, urging
that the department make arrange
ments to subject courts-martiai to le-
gal procedure and to legal review by
the Judge Advocate Generals once.
He explained that his theory of a
court-martial is that, like any other
court Of criminal Jurisdiction, II Is
subject to law, and must proceed and
punish in accordance with law. He
assailed the outgrown theory that
courts-martial are merely agencies for
the administration of military disci-
pline.
He pointed out that the Supreme
Court Of the United States has ruled
that courts-martial under the Consti-
tuition are judicial bodies, with all the
functions of and subject to the limita-
tions of a civil court. But the War
Department has failed to translate
that decision into an effective basis
for organization and procedure OF mill
itary courts as judicial bodies rather
than disciplinary boards. To this fail
ure he ascrfbed most ,of the unjust
and excessive sentenc| now COM
plained Of - y
In the brief filed with the Secretary
OF War in November. 1917. he warned
that such inJustices might be expect
ed. Nevertheless, in answer to de-
nnands from the committee. he said
that Gen. Crowder, his superior OFF,
Ger. and other high military authori-
ties persuaded the Secretary of War
that to adopt his views would turn
the administration Of military justice
over to lawyers and break down disci-
pline in the army"
Power Of Conmander.-
Gen. Ansell said he believed no
permanent discipline in a demo-
cratic army like that organized un-
der the selective draft law could be
based on injustice Illustrating the
point, he referred to the power of
sentences the courts martial had
imposed, but which the commanders
thought too lenient. He declared
that no individual ought to have the
power to set aside or change a YER
diet OF mot guilty or to insist upon
imposition of a heavier penalty than
that fixed by the court which had
heard the evidence and seen the de-
fendant.
He criticized also the absence of a
law officer at courts martial trials
to exercise the function of judge,
and said that many of the injustices
done were due to the fact that there
was no independent law officer at
the trial competent to bring out
facts essential to determine the ex-
istence Of guilt or the nature of it.
The judge advocate, under the pres
ent system is simply prosecutor.
Generally, he pressed the view
that many injustices have been done
and that the example of Great Brit
ain and France should be followed
and courts martial organized SO that
they may be depended upon to know
the tests OF criminality and to ap-
ply more satisfactory standards of
punishment