New-York tribune., 1919-03-10

himself and General Ansell and the
popular agitation over alleged mistreat-
meut of soldiers, General Crowder
writes:
General Ansell contends that there
is fault in the organic structure of
the court-martial system in the fact
court martial and the record of trial
has been reviewed by the authority
that appointed the court CASUALLY a
military officer of high rank and by
him finally approved and carried into
execution, there is no further appel
late body or officer who can review
the appointing officers review and
modify, affirm or reverse his action.
Approved Appellate Power
with this l agree and there is no
controversy about it. I submitted and
you approved in January, 1918, draft
of legislation vesting such n further
appellate or reviewing power in the
President. The draft was introduced
and died in the Senate Military Com
mittee. which no doubt considered it
OF less actual Importance. than other
pressing business of the war. If this
were the only alleged difference Of
opinion within the department, there
ment and it is difficult to perceive a
cause for unusual interest.
THE storm centres, however, about
three briefs-two from General Ansell
and one from myself to you. Strange
to say, these briefs were not addressed
primarily to the desirability of such a
power of review. That is conceded.
They were addressed solely to the
question of whether that power had
not actually been granted by Section
1899 r. S. q law that had been
on the statute books for ffty-five years
with but single attempt to deduce
from it the grant of so broad a power
in any officer of the government. That
single attempt was made in a desperate
effort to obtain the release of con-
victed soldier by habeas corpus. The
practice question on which General
Ausell and / do not agree was carried
into a circuit court of the United
States and there decided once for all
in manner inding on administra-
tive officers sworn to execute the law
as they find it. l shall not prolong
this statement by discussion of that
question.
THAT any administrative officer
would be justified in finding in the
unequivocai language of a statute so
old, against reasoned judgment of a
federal court and the admins tratlve
practice of ffty-fve years, hidden
meaning revolutionizing the entire
system of military justice, is simply
preposterous. General Ansells argu-
ment was an eager, earnest plea for a
forbidden shortcut based on expedi-
ency rather than on reason. With the
desirabiity of such an appellate power
In the President you agreed and forth
with requested it of Congress, which
alone could grant it. Countenance Of
plan to play ducks and brakes with
statute of the United States you re-
fused
But if the controversy Is not over
the advlsability Of such an appellate
power and not in substantial sense
in the famous briefs, where is it? 1t
lies in this: That General Ansell be-
lieves that the power, when granted
should be vested in the Judge Advo-
cate General and that complete Judi
cial system, with faithful analogies to
the organization and procedure of civil
courts, should be substituted for the
present simple and direct system Of
army discipline. While the department
believes that the power should be vest
ed in the President; that with such a
grant of power the faults of the eX-
listing system will be completely re-
moved with the exercise of those pow
ers and with the improvements that
have been instituted in the last two
years. These are the real issues and
the only ones.
"Our civil code is good. 1t protects