New-York tribune., 1919-08-04
Misled by His Own Sense
of Justice and Lack of
Legal Appreciation, For
mer Judge Advocate Says
'Uninformed as to Facts
Leader of Fight for New
System Replies to Cencr.
ais Article in Magazine
New York Tribune


Ensh.n aton Bureau
WASHINGTON, Aug. 3.-"You have
been deceived into accepting as true
the self-serving statements of those
who would have the country believe
that the existing system is not archaic
and medaval," Major General Leonard
Wood is told in letter bristling with
criticism of the present court-martial
procedure forwarded to-day by Briga-
dier General Samuel T. Ansell, form.
erly Acting Judge Advocate General
of the Army, in reply to General
Woods recent article on military JUS
tice N "The Metropolitan Magazine."
The charge is made by General
Ansell that General Wood was unin-
formed cas- to the facts which are the
basis of your Judgment" The letter
contradicts General Woods statement
that the President has full power to
set. aside an erroneous sentence of q
court martial or to modify it, and the
point is made that the absence Of such
a provision was responsible for Gen
eral AnselPs advocacy for change in
the system which would require the
acts of an arbitrary military COM
mander being reviewed before the ex-
ecutlon OF sentenc.
Belated Criticism
General Ansell's letter is in part as
follows:
My dear General Wood:
a
thus belatedly I regret, to your article
IN The Metropolitan Magazine" on the
subject of military justice I have all
along appreciated the futility Of rea-
sonlng with a depa rtment presided
over by an official who. though humane
and gentle by instinct, is facile in the
nands or strong men intrenched in hu
reauplace, who uses his authority to
their own ends and his power of ad-
vocacy in their own causes. | appre-
clate also the hopelessness and impos-
slblllty Of taking issue with, or under
taking to refute, each of the many Off
Gals OF the military establishment who.
either OF their own accord or i'll re-
sponse to the instructions of superior
authority, have assumed to speak the
views Of the professional soldier upon
a subject which cannot be restricted
within its narrow professionalism.
You, however, do not belong TO any
of these classes. With credit 10 your
self and with benefit TO the service and
the country, you have, in several in
stances, declined TO be governed by
hose tenets OF the military protes-
sion as practiced with US which tend
to intellectual apathy or personal
sycophancy. And yet, in this article
YOU place yourself sGuarely upon The
side of reaction.
Subject to Morbid Fear
This, l think. has been BROUGHT
about BY. your own lack Of legal anpre-
citation, By your conAdenc in the cor
rectness of your own sense Of Justice,
law, and perhaps by becoming sub ject
to the morbid fear raised by those who
cry out that any liberalism of military
justice will destroy the discipline of
the army and its effectiveness Your
first expressions upon the subject ap
preached libcralty, but ever since you
have been slipping backward.
Il feel safe in predicting that the
existing system Of military justice
cannot last. A radical change must
come, either now, when we can make it
there is Yet interest in the subject, or
at some less advantageous future mo-
ment, perhaps under the exigency Of
war and the :mminence Of defeat.
Never again can or will we fight a
great war with ar army Of American
citizens subjected 80 a system Of dis
cipline that was designed for the gov
ernment OF the professional military
serfs Of another age and utterly un-
suited TO the armies Of citizens called
20 the national defence. 1t will come,
face Of the efforts OF narrow profess
sionalists to hinder and prevent it,
Voicing Their Arguments
y regret 10 find you in such com
pany, voicing their arguments. These
narrow professionalists have ever been
With US in the army. In the name of
tyranny and in the name of discipline
Justify the harshest brutality and in
justice. 1t was their kind who, in the
name Of discipline. resisted the abol-
ishment in the army-even our own
army-of the torture, the thong and
gag, the lash and the branding iron.
These cruelties none OF US now would
approve, and yet it was not until within
comparatively recent times that Con-
gress, under the pressure of public
opinion, took the matter in it's own
hands and abolished in our service the
punishment of tioggng, branding and
marking the body, as it had ever pre-
vailed in the military service, support
ed by the cry that without it discipline
could not be maintained.
Taking your figures. there have
been four times as many courts mar
tial as there ought to have been, and
| say punishments have been ten times
harsher than they ought to have been,
all because officers have used-you
cannot say abused-thc power which
the system confers upon them to do
as they personally please. Is not this
alone sufficient to condemn the system
There is a suggestion in your ar
ticle that you accept The present de-
partmental argument, that the system
is splendid when administered by the
regular officers and that all injustice
done under it has been due to the in
experience of the new officer and
man. This, even if true. would be
the strongest argument for changing
the system so as to give protection
from injustice due to the inexperience
Of the new officer and man.
"You are uninformed, general, as TO
the facts which are the basis of your
judgment. You say that when a court
martial case comes to the War De-
partment it goes TO the board of review
of the War Department.. There is no
such board. There never was any such
board. During all the time that you
were chief Of staff you never heard of