The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1921-01-26

dlshonorablo discharge must be carried
through life by one man who fought in
France and whose ofense on his return
% the United States consists of taking
n pair of shoes from a comrade. 1t de
teIuIts that the soldier wanted TO go to
a dance and asked the sergeant of his
company il he could borrow pair of
shoes The request was granted. \ week
iatef. when the same soldier wanted to
80 70 dance again. the sergeant wasn't
in the barracks and, naturally thinking
here would be no objection. the private
borrowed the shoes When the sergeant
anne home. he reported that his shoes
were missing. When the private who
Borrowed them came back from the
lance. BE was locked up and charged
With theft. There isn't a thing in the
evidence to prove that the soldier in
tended permanently to deprive the SER
geant Of the pair of shoes nor that he
was Il confirmed thief. His record was
good. Nevertheless he was given six
months in thc barracks as u punishment.
In civilian life. even if he were convicted
IF petty larceny. he might be given 10
to 30 days but iIf this instance not only
was he confined for six months. but his
'cCOrd i'm the World war was stained
by a dishonorablr discharge from the
American army
Instances of this kind can he found in
the records and while Il number of army
over the pitiful pleadingS of friends and
relatives for justice they can't say Il word
10 anybody but their superior officers
Under rule of the war department no
officer can communicate anything of this
kind to member of congress unless the
suggestion goes through military chan
nels. That often means going through
the same officers who are defending the
practice complained of.
The whole trouble. however seems to
lie in one of those miSchievous riders
that are mysteriously attached to APP
preparation bills when nobody is looking.
1t 50 happens that in the act of 1915,
a rider was tackled on declaring that all
matters relating to prisoners in -disci-
DlinaFy barracks should be transferred
from the judge advocate general to the
adjutant general. The provision of law
was ignored from 1915 until October.
1920. when il was suddenly applied. And
most of the trouble has developed since
last October because the adjutant gem
erals Office simply acts upon a statement
If facts without going into the record
IF the cases or the eXtCnuatlng Clrcum-
stances The adjutant generals Office
dOea its duty as it sees it and If Il man
paper shows that he was convicted of
thievery. it doesn't make a lot of diff
ference whether Il soldier stole n pack
# playing cards or n suit of underwear
or embezzled funds. The dshonorablc
discharge has been given just the same.
Essentially the judge advocate generals
office is the place where matters of law
and evidence and justice are concen-
trated \ clemency board in the judge
advocate generals Office constantly re
views eases and recommends changes.
The adjutant generals office is a huge
clerical organization where no attempt
is made TO inquire into questions of pen
plogy. If congress will put the power to
hand dishOnorable discharges back into
The hands of the lawyers of the army by
repeating the rider that was put into the
1915 act much of the trouble will be
eliminated, but members of congress are
wondering what they can do TO restore
some of their constituents to an honor
able discharge. whose cases already have
been finally ruled upon by the war de
Dartment. There are thousands of eases
hanging over from the Civil war veterans
who have been yainly endeavoring for
years to rid themselves of the stamp of
dishonorable discharge but without avail.
And it is said that most of the offences
are as trivial as the borrowing of a blan-
ket pair of shoes without any idea
of theft.