New-York tribune., 1919-03-21
Baker Is Called Blind to
Faults of Army Courts

ard alleviating the situation on the
ground that those views were not fully
justified by the letter of the statute
You were thus solicitous that your
power be found in the letter of the
statute. And yet in the very bill pro-
posed you asked for the power of sus-
pension Of sentences when you were
already suspending sentences by ad-
mlnlstrative order. without one word of
legal authority therefor.
There is another cvidentiary cir
cumstance that indicates the effort
was not made in good faith, but was
simply designed to allay public ap-
prehension and inquiry by the appear
ance Of doing something. 1t is shown
that the Judge Advocate General of
the army, in correspondence with the
senior officer of his department in
France, shortly thereafter said, with
respect to an administrative makeshift
which he had proposed for adoption,
and which you did adopt, that it was
necessary to do something to head off
threatened Congressional investiga-
tion, TO silence criticism, to prevent
talk about the establishment of courts
OF appeal and to make it appear to the
soldier that he did get some kind of
revision of his proceedings other than
the revision at field headquarters.
how can 1t be said that such an at
tltude of mind is consistent with an
honest desire to alleviate the situa-
ton! 1t is significant also that your
interest upon this subject was not such
as to produce that active participation
OF the. department which characterizes
Its efforts when it desires to secure
legislation.
"That bill (proposed by Mr.. Baker,
would authorize the chief of staff to
disapprove, vacate and set aside q find
ing Of mot guilty. and substitute upon
his view of the evidence a finding of
ms own. This is power which ought
not TO be granted to any man, and
1eei safe In saying never will be
granted by Congress. This alone was
sufflcient not only to condemn the bill
IN the mind of Congress, but to show
the attitude of those who proposed it.
:, 10 you believe, Mr.. Secretary. that
the President of the United States, the
secretary of War, the Chief of Staff, or
any other official, should have the
power pow. TT. to set aside an acquittal and
substitute for it 1t conviction, or to set
aside one sentence and substitute for
IL harsher ono, or to set aside a find
ing Of guilty of lesser offence and
substitute for it finding of guilty
OF greater one? That is what the Bill
which you proposed authorizes
Unfortunately, Mr.. Secretary. vou
are not IN touch, and apparently do
not deslre to get in touch, with the
aadmlnlstration of military justice.
You must know that under the exist
ing system, the Secretary of War sees
and takes action only upon that rela-
lively insignificant number of cases
which are required under existing law
to go to the President for confirma-
tion. lie sees none others. These
lew cases consist in the far greater
part of few sentences of dismissal
OF commissiond officers These are
not the class of cases in which ap-
pears the injustice Of which / COM
planned"
"The court martial system is such.
ana the regard for rank in the army
IS such, that commissioned officer
better advantage than does private
soldier. You do not see the system
IN operation. You do not see ita
tragic results. When you denied to
the department revisory power over
all courts martial cases you denied
yourself the opportunity to keep in
touch with the administration of JUS
t'ce throughout the army. Your knowl-
edge rs obtained from this insignifi-
cant number Of cases of commissioned
oflcers and from those persons sur.
rounding you who are Interested in
supporting the existing reactionary
system.
System Does Injustice
"The existing system does injustice
gross, terrible, spirit-crushing in
Af
hand. The records Of the Judge Adyo.
cate Generals department. reek with it..
ana upon proper occasion l shall show
the people that this istrue. The organ
lzation OF the clemency board now sit
ting daily and grinding out thousands
OF cases is confession of it. Glenn
ency, however. can never correct the
injustice done.
You have, of course, adopted the
statement of the judge advocate gem
eral, which you invited and published.
That statement is involved in as in
extrlcable confusion and patent incon-
slstencles as your own pronouncia-
mentos upon this subject. In one and
the same breath it declares the system
unusually excellent, and then blames
Congress because it has failed to enact
the cili which you proposed and has
heretofore been referred to: it de-
clares that military law can best be
administered finally in the field, but at
the same time argues that the system
would be much improved by the estab-
lishment of a departmental appellate
power; it contends that courts martial
should be subject, not to legal con-
troll, but only to the power of military
command, and at the same time objects
to assuming responsibility for the out
rageously excessive sentences awarded
when courts and commanding officers
go wrong without legal restraint.
Soldiers Cannot Appeal
ut admits that our soldiery must be
hurriedly drawn from civilian life and
from the operations of the more liberal
civil code, but assumes that for that
very reason the military law ought to
be more harshly applied in order to
obtain discipline. 1t argues that
courts martial are not courts Of JUS
tice, but courts of chivalry and honor
and concludes that since the soldier
must on occasion yield up his life on
the battlefield he should not be heard
to complain If it be taken away by
these courts of ehivalry; i. places
courts martial in high esteem, though
admitting that they apply not the mod
ern rules of right, but mediaval prin-
ciples that govern overload and armed
retainer.
II beg to assure YOU that there 10