The Cordova daily times., 1921-02-26
ANSELL THREW SCARE IN WAR
 DEPART MENT
BY COL. WINFIELD JONES

WASHINGTON, Feb. 26.-(Special Correspondence). - Gen. Samuel T Ansell, now a practicing Washington lawyer, and formerly acting judge advocate general of the army, has thrown another shell into the war department and created consider able row.
 Soon after the armistice Ansell re- signed from the army after a big row with Secretary Baker and cer- tain generals of the staff, caused by charges made by Ansell that the courts-martial verdicts and proceed ure during the war were not right in hundreds of cases, and that the U. S. military law for armies in the field was archaic, cruel, and completely out of harmony with the modern trend of civilization. At that time Ansell created such a storm in the war department over what he called unjust convictions and cruel and unusual courts-martial verdicts that congress took cognizance of the charges, and in revising the national defense act of 1916 there were changes made which would tend to correct some of the evils complained of.
 Ansell resigned after the charges were made public, declaring that he intended to devote his life to chang ing the military code. It should be stated that the stand taken by An sell at that time met the general fapprobation of members of congress and the public. As a result of his crusade hundreds of courts-martial verdicts were revised by war de- partment board
 Ansell now charges certain inquiry boards of army officers, appointed
 with view to eliminating officers of the army, with "maladministratiou of the law" He made the charges before the house military affairs con- mittee, and so far the war depart ment has not refuted the charges or even explained them-they have sim ply been ignored by Secretary Baker and the general staff.
 Ansell made the direct charge be- fore the military committee that cer- tain of these boards, while function ing in the judge advocate generals department, had not conferred with lawyers or consulted anybody regard ing the legality of their procedure. Specific charges were made by An sell that officers on some of these boards were Instrumental in enter. ing black marks" against certain officers considered for discharge, and in no case had any of these boards considered the meritorious services of the officers who were on trial been considered. Ansell also charged that counsel of officers who were or dered before these boards were not allowed to see the charges against | the officers until the very day of the trial and then only in the presence of the trial board-a proceeding evi- | dently contrary to all legal methods, | to say nothing of the fairness of such hearings.
 Decisions of some of these boards which discharged officers from the army have recently been attacked in the Washington courts, in at least two instances colonels who were summarily fired" from the army after many years service, citing the secretary of the war in the courts to prevent their discharge. These cases undoubtedly will be carried up to the U. s. supreme court for final de- cision.
 It developed during the hearing before the house committee that when a board discharged an officer he had uo appeal from the decision except to the president, but that Sec retary Baker had so arranged things that his, Bakers approval, of a sen tence of the board, would be final without reaching the president.
 Ansell declared before the house committee that the boards acted H. legally in discharging officers, and that these boards are "a menace to the 15,O0O officers of the army" l
 Many cases of officers being sum. marily discharged have been cited in this matter. Ansell mentioned one officer who, after twenty eight years of meritorious and faithful service, was thrown out on the street with out dollar on evidence which would