South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1919-04-21
DECLARES SYSTEM
IS DISHONEST
Atty. Samuel w. PettingilI
Points Out Salient Facts
Court Martial Law.

Atty Samuel w. Pettingill, Of this
city. has sent the following letter TO
Hon. Newton ID. Baker, secretary of
war, in which he explains in a con-
vincing manner some points that
should be considered by the Judge
advocate in his rulings on the han
ding of courts martial.
81 have read with interest the let
ter from the judge advocate general
of the army on military justice dur
ing the war, together with an &C
companying letter written by Mr..
John Wigmore.
LAS an intelligent public opinion
on this important matter is desired
and especially a ftir judgment on
the part OF the legal profession,
beg leave 10 express my views there
on.
Defeats Military Justice
The judge advocate general, for
whom l have great respect, makes a
strong defense of the present sys-
tenn of military justice. Neverthe-
less, it is not convincing TO my mind
in a number of respects. Very great
emphasis is laid upon the feature of
automatic appeal and the meticu-
lous scrutiny given to every case in
which the punishment fixed is Sc
we're by the Judge advocate generals
office when the case is relieved.
think no one can doubt that honest
and painstaking work is done by the
reviewing officers. However, it APP
pears to me that too much empha-
sis is placed upon the review of the
case rather than upon the actual
trial. cannot believe that justice
is assured by reason of the fact that
the work of reviewing a case is
closely done if the work Of trying a
case is loosely done.
1T is asserted in the judge ad-
vocate generals letter that any err
rors that get into the record will be
detected by the reviewing officers
But how is the record made in the
! first instance? The fault, it seems
TO me, is not in the review of the
cases, but in their trial. What case
! is used in the matter of producing
/ the evidence upon which a soldier is
/ convicted? Are the prosecuting
witnesses led into giving the testi
mony necessary to convict? Is the
! defendant overawed from ASSERTING
| his own case and defending il in hi.
own way? If these things are lack.
ing I cannot be convinced that any
system of rigid review will insur,
| justice.
Lack of Defense.
ct is apparent that the accused
soldier does not in any large mum
Der of cases have the benefit of
competent adviser whose sole bust
favorable to the defense and keel
the evidence Of the prosecution with
in fair limits.
ION page thirty of the pamphle
It is said:
Whatever point of law Nigh
have been made for the accused
benefit by counsers objection an,
has failed to be made Though hi
ignorance, can be and is habituall
detected and enforced during thi
appellate scrutiny.
1T seems to me that the assump
ton is exceedingly farfetched that
reviewing officer who has neve
talked with the soldier knows moth
ing about the case at first hand an
is not present at the trial. can max
law points for the defense of tn
soldier as effectually as a vigilan
counsel at the soldiers side durin
the progress of the trial I dare sa
that no judge who ever sat upon a
appellate bench would make such
statement as that contained in tn
letter. The counsel for the defens
deals with the living body of tn
Il case.
Weakness of Justice.
The distinguished judge advocat
general states that almost insupeI
able obstacles prevent assignin
really competent men to the dc
Tense of accused soldiers. But her,
as l see it, is the essential weakness
of military justice-the part whic
most needs strengthening. It is tru