The Washington herald., 1919-02-16

Generals Office has no such author
ity. since the agitation of the in
Justice of the military courts was
started the War Department has ex-
ercised this power and has revised
and set aside the judgments in many
cases.
Senator Thomas inquired what the
effect on the status of the prisoner
that 1t depended on the nature of
the sentence. II II was merely Q
prison sentence, the prisoner was
set at liberty and restored to the
army; If. however, he had been dis
missed from the army, or his pay
forfeited there was no redress.
But the weak spot in such q
system is right there" Gen. Ansell
continued. Instead Of giving SO
much attention to reviewing errors
that have been committed at the
trial. there should be more attention
to the legal suficiency OF the evi-
dence in the FIRST place.
Gen. Ansell quoted former Cover
nor McGovern. OF Wisconsin, now
serving as judge advocate on the
stan of a divisional commander, as
having told him that in many cases
where he reported that the evidence
against an accused man did not Jus
tify his trial. the answer was: We'll.
there has been too much of that
sort Of thing going on around here,
and we'n have to make an example
Of that fellow and try him anyway"
Coereed by superier~.
Gen. Ansell declared that in many
cases subordinate officers of the
court-martial were browbeaten and
coerced by colonels and majors who
presided over the court. In this
manner. he said, second lieutenants
! were afraid to act in opposition to
the rulings of their superfors.
Gen Ansen gave the committee a
great deal of information concern
ing the manner in which his efforts
to bring about reform in the court
martial practice had been opposed
by the higher officers of the army
He said the chief of stan, the In
spector General and Gen. Crowder
all opposed his recommendations.
The army officials were very
much disturbed by what was do
ing" Gen. Ansell said. The opposi-
I tiOh Sulinlhdlcu IN lnt lstudnCt OF
an order in November, 1917, detach-
ing me from this duty and sending
me to France on an investigation OF
the court-martial proceedings in the
eXpeditionary force. A subordinate
officer was detailed to do the work
had been doing"
did Gen. Crowder display nny
opposition to your" inquired Senator
Chamberlain.
Interference with Work.
Yes" was the only reply Gen
| Ansell made. The issuance of an
| order ten days ago. routing the pa
| pers in the cases to other channels
in the War Department was also
cited by Gen. Ansell, as another in
reference with his work by higher
officials of the department. He dis
claimed any intention. however, OF
! irsinuatinC that Gen. Crowder act
ed wrongly in respect to this or
der. He said he did not believe 1,
was issued to prevent him from
reviewing the cases but was such
an order as Gen. Crowder was en-
| titled to issue.
-, But II was coincident with your
activity in these cases, was II not, :
asked Senator Thomas.
There was such a coincident In
November 1917. when was sent tc
France" Gen. AnseIl replied, ''bu,
/ am not so keen about believing
there was such a coincidence in this
i latest order. I believe II was un-
| fortunate to have a divided respon-
sibility. My views were we'll known
and they were not accepted. I hav5
no hesitancy in saying that tn.
army did not agree with these view.
of mine. If the Secretary of Wal
believed that such views as heIc
would be harmful to the army. ht