The Washington herald., 1919-03-10
Declares Congress Liable
for Procedure Which Il
Had Created.
WOULD ALTER METHOD
Judge Advocate General
Says Power Of Review
Should Be In President. ,


retary OF War Baker and MAJ Gen.
z. II. Crowder. Judge Advocate Gem
eraL made public yesterday. both
onicials stoutIy deny that any in
justice has been done 70 soldiers
by unduly severe sentences inn
POSED by recent courts-martiai
nave been deeply concerned
writes secretary Baker, over tn.
marsh criticism upon our system OF
Hiilary justice. I have not been
mace TO believe, by a perusal OF
Lhese ese complaints, justice is not
ocne today under the military Iay.
or has not been done during fbs
war period And my own acouaint-
ance with the course Of niIitsrv
justice Igathered as Il Is from The
large number Of cases which in IN.
regular routine come TO me for
hnal action), convinces me that ths
conditions implied by these recent
complaints DO not exist and had not
existed"
Says Public ia MIsles.
Secretary Baker says that b. (.
absolutely certain that the public
approximations which have bee.
letter to Gen Crowder begs leave
TO convey to you the assurance or
my entire faith that the system OF
military Justice. both in its struct-
ure as organized by the statutes or
Congress and the Presidents reEu-
latons. and in its operation as ad-
ministrsted during the war. is es-
senually sound"
The recent outburst OF criticism
and complaint. voiced in public nv
a few individuals whose position
entitled them to credit. and carried
through the country BY the press.
has been 10 me a matter OF sur
Prise and sorrow" is the reason n.
gives to Gen. Crowder in making
the correspondence public. secre-
tary Baker then asks Gen. Crowdsr
10 furnish the main facts
Declares Controversy .-CIosded
The outstanding statements in the
concise reply asked from Gen Crowoes
follow:
Circumstance that have most
AMAZED me IN my following Of the
press reports, are that the public in
terest has been carried and sustained
by supposed controversy between
myself and an officer OF my departs
ment. Gen. Ansell and vet the sN-
ceedingly small margin OF actual con-
troversy is entirely lost 70 sight in a
murk OF supposed instances Of harsh
or unjust treatment Of soldiers which
bears liple or no relation TO Cen
Ansell's lack OF concurrence with tho
views OF the War Department.
Gen. Ansell contends that there ~
fault in tho organic structure or
tire court-martisl system. IN the fact
that after a man has been tried By
Court-msrtial. and the record OF trial
has been reviewed by the authority
that appointed the court Cusually a
military officer OF high rank. and by
him finally approved and carried into
execution, there is no further appellate
body or officer who can review the ap-
pointing officers review and modify.
affirm or reverse his action.
Reform Died In Committee.
With this ! agree and there is NJ
controversy about it. I submitted.
and YOU approved in January. 1915. a
draft OF legislation vestinE such a.
further appellate or reviewing power
in the President. The draft was in
troduced and died in the Senate Mill
tsry Committee. which no doubt con-
sidered il OF less actual importancs
than other pressing business OF thu
war.
An analogy has been suggested be-
tween an army and a government and
II Is urged that our governmental dis
ttuction and separation between thu
executive and judicial system must -
carried into the army and that no
commanding officer should be per-
mitted to appeal to the disciplinary
measure Of trial by court-martist
without the concurrence OF his l,~
officer or judge advocate. who should
be- and usually is a man learned IN.
the technicalities OF civil practice.
( Thus, II division commander en-
trusted with a major part in the
ArConne offensive had contunsciousiv
declined 10 carry out his Part Of the
general plan he could not be brought
to trial by Gen. Pershing unless IN.
judge advocate Of the American En-
peditionary forces concurred.
Reason for Military Code.
"Our civil code is good. IL protects
our most sacred liberties, but gentle
men who contend that u should be
substituted for our military code
which is also good. forget that the
purposes Of the two systems are
diametrically opposed. The civil cod,
CONTINUED on PAGE SIX.