New-York tribune., 1919-03-10

our most sacred liberties. but gentle.
men who contend that it should be sub
stituted for our military code-which
is also good-forget that the purposes
, of the two are diametrically opposed
( The civil code is designed to encour-
age. permit and protect the very widest
( limit of individual action consistent
with the minimum necessities of or
I ganized government. The military code
and especially our military code, is de-
signed Co operate on men hurriedly
drawn from under the liberal opera
ton of the civil code and to concen-
trate their strength, their thought,
their individual action on one common
purpose-the purpose of victory.
The common purpose is the plan of
action. Therefore individual liberty of
action inconsistent with that common
purpose must be restricted. The mill
tary code is designed to accomplish
that purpose.
Sacrifice Necessary in War
"The truth is that peace and war
both demand sacrifices of individual
sacrifices in war are infinitely greater
IN number and degree than they are
in peace.
For the purposes of peace we de-
mand an intricate legal system, even
at the cost of technicalities, delays and
abstruse rules of law The very nat
ure Of war is such that we willingly
give over and must give Ger adherence
to the artificial safeguard Of complex
rules. On this theory the soldier is
rcmitted to the simple and direct pro-
cedure for the enforcement of disci-
pline in the army. His court has it's
inception in the old courts of chivalry
and honor and the essential principle
remains. His conduct is taken before
his comrades, who determine whether
it is the conduct of soldier or not.
"ln this lies the difference between
the systems for civil and military JUS
tice. The War Department naturally
adheres to the latter system. 1t re-
pels the thought of an army in the
field with two commanders-on in
charge Of its discipline and one in
charge Of its strategetical and tactical
maneuvre. The picture is to the man
with the slightest familiarity with
things military nothing ldss than ridic-
ulous.
Il should be willing to rest with
tins statement were it not that it has
been said, that without such radical
change as is proposed, We have wit
messed atrocities OF injustice. and
that they are traceable to faults in
the existing system of military JUS
tice. | have said that there is one
such fault.
"But what actual harm has resulted
from this fault? 1t is only the ex-
ecuted portion of sentence that the
present power of the President does
not reach. In order that such power
as he now has may reach every case
of injustice, excessive sentence, and
ilegaity appearing in a trial by gem
eral court martial, a mechanism has
been created in the Office of the Judge
Advocate General, that gives a scru-
tiny more farreaching and eXacting
than is possible under any civil
system. That mechanism, added to
the power of final review, in the Pres
ldent asked for over year ago, will
make the system such that I am will
ing to stand or fall by it.
"This statement would rot be COM
plete, however, without reference to
the allegations that have shocked the
nation, and in respect of which the ma
ton is entitled most OF all to assur
ance. 1t is asserted and attempted 20
be established by example that the
sentences of courts martial during the
war have been atrociously severe
"The criticism that they are severe
is not a criticism Of the system Of mil
itary justice; it is not criticism of my
administration of that system. 1t is
criticism of the officers who imposed
for instance, sentences Of death for
scntinels convicted of sleeping on post,
for soldiers wilfully and contuma-
ciously refusing to obey the direct or
dcrs of their commanding officers and
for desertion in time of war, and it is
criticism Of the Congress which author
lied death penalty, in plain statutory
terms, to be assessed on convictions for
these offences. | do not mean to say
that if criticism in this connection is
due | am immune. | am not. | agree
with the statute and shall defend it,,
but l am not responsible for it.
Difference of Opinion
"This charge of severity is simply
a difference between the opinions of
well-meanng and humane critics far
removed from the scene of the of
fences punished and with only a par
tisan, inadequate and nighly-colored
statement Of that case to guide them,
and the opinions Of men who con-
sidered the facts under the solemn
obligation of an oath to be honest,
impartial and fair, who lived in the
environment Of the offence and were
SteepeQ IN Jne reasons making 4I
grave, and who assessed the sentence
in the defence OF home and country.
"These men cannot merit the in
dictment and diatribe that have been
heaped upon their action. AS Burke
has said, you can indict a few in
dividuals but you cannot indict ma
ton. These men are a portion Of the
nation. There expression and not