The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1920-07-16
CONDEMNATION

most UNIVERSAL criticism shows more
broad-minded grasp OF the problem
than does that by Capt. Albert II.
Conner. in an article published i'll the
June issue Of The Red Chevron,
ldaho's former service mans monthly
magazine.
Capt. Conner is qualified TO speak
on this subject. lie is an overseas
veteran with the soldier viewpoint and
IN addition, was for ~ months follow
ing the armistice stationed in the
Judge Advocate Generals office in
Washington.
Capt. Conner charges that military
tribunals are used for enforcing dis
cipline and not for dispensing justice.
He bases his conclusion on the exam
nation OF many hundreds Of court
martial records.
Human tribunals occasionally err,
and Capt. Conner holds that some mis-
takes may be excused but he continues,
When the percentage OF injustices
becomes SO great as to become al
most national scandal, as it has IN
the military courts, it indicates some
thing radically wrong. The blame tor
the great injustices which have been
done must be laid at the feet OF those
who have failed to properly admins.
ter the law"
Military caste, the wide gull between
the enlisted man and the officer, the
erroneous attitude of aloofness taken
by West Point graduates. the omnipo-
nent fear or reproach which prompts
junior officers on court martial cases
to strive for the plaudits of superior
officers rather than treat the particu-
lar case ON its merit, the unwarranted
severity of penalties imposed on those
convicted by military courts for trivial
otfenses, many instances of fragrant
injustices which have been done and
can never be rectihed, these and other
abuses of the prevailing court martial
system are denounced by Capt. Con
ner.
Conviction by military tribunal
ordinarily accompanied by dishonor.
able discharge from the army. is q
far greater blight upon a young
American than a civil penitentaar,
record can possibly be. And yet. &C
cording to Capt. Conner,
There are two rulings Of the
Judge Advocate General which are
grossly unjust. He has decided wher
case has once been approved by hi.
department that the case is thus set
tied and determined, and that ever
though it may be discovered later tina
an injustice has been done, the de
partment will not again examin,
the record for its legality, but will on
ly look at the record from the stand
point of extending clemency.- Thi!
means that where man has been il
legally convicted of an offense thu
department will merely remit the un
executed portion of the sentence, in
stead of setting aside the sentence
which would clear the name and rec
ord of the accused Of the unjust ane
illegal findings of the court. Thi,
decision is purely technical one ant
has no foundation in law or in right
1T has also been decided by tn
Judge Advocate General that if tn,
court which tried the case had jurisdic
ton, even though the record might no
be legally sufficient by reason Of insult
hciency of the evidence, for instance
or upon other legal grounds, the ex
ecuted portion of the sentence mus
stand. and the department is Unite,
to recommending that the unexecute,
portion of the sentence be set aside
This means that where a man ha
been sentenced to dishonorable dis
charge or forfeiture of his pay an
allowances, and the forfeiture ha
been made and the dishonorable dis
charge has been issued. the none
cannot be refunded to him or the dis
honorable discharge be recalled. eve
though the record may not be legal
sufficient. and his conviction may hav
been wholly unjust and illegal. Thi
decision. like the other, is so highl
technical as to be revolving to an
one who has had his training in tn
civilian tribunals.
1T seems to me. therefore. that tn
cause of the injustices which hav
been done by the military courts
not necessarily in the law itself. bu
is deeper than that-it is in the spir
with which the administrators of tina
law approach their problems. The
are there to punish, not to judge; the
are disciplinarians, not jurists. Thi
difficulty 10 fundamental, and it il nee