ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .

731
In order that Congress might put the whole matter of appellate power beyon d
question, the Secretary of War on January 19, 1918, transmitted to the chair -
man of the Committee on Military Affairs of the Senate and House of Repre-
sentatives a proposed amendment, prepared by Gen . Crowder, to section 1199 ,
Revised Statutes, which was in the following form, new matter being indicate d
by italics, to wit :
" The Judge Advocate General shall receive, revise, and cause to be recorde d
the proceedings of all courts-martial, courts of inquiry, and military commis-
sions and report thereon to the President, who shall have power to disapprove ,
vacate, or set aside any finding, in whole or in part, to modify, vacate, or se t
aside any sentence, in whole or in part, and to direct the execution of suc h
part only of any sentence as has not been vacated or set aside . The President
may suspend the execution of sentences in such classes of cases as may b e
designated by him until acted upon as herein provided and may return an y
record through the reviewing authority to the court for reconsideration or cor-
rection. In addition to the duties herein enumerated to be performed by th e
Judge Advocate General, he shall perform such other duties as have been
heretofore performed by the Judge Advocate General of the Army . "
There accompanied the draft of amendment in each instance a letter explain-
ing fully the purpose of the proposed legislation . (Exhibits 48 to 51, inclusive. )
This amendment failed to become a law .
2 . Appointment of Gen. Ansell as Acting Judge Advocate General .On No-
vember 8, 1917, an order was made, but not published in the War Department,
appointing Gen . Ansell as Acting Judge Advocate General . When the Secre-
tary of War learned of this order, he directed its revocation, and it was re-
voked on November 19 . Concerning this order, both as to its original procure-
ment and its revocation, there is a very distinct and bitter issue . The clea r
facts of record are as follows :
On November 3; 1917, Gen . Ansell wrote a letter (Exhibit 55) to Gen . Crow-
der, expressing his embarrassment, and the impediment of public busines s
besides, by the fact that, although performing the duties of Judge Advocate
General, he (Gen . Ansell) was not charged with full responsibility for it s
policies and general administration, and suggesting that Gen . Crowder join
him in a memorandum to the Secretary of War recommending that Gen.
Ansell be designated in orders as Acting Judge Advocate General . The follow -
ing day Gen . Crowder replied in writing, as follows (Exhibit 56) :
" It will be entirely agreeable to me to have you take up directly and i n
your own way with the Secretary of War the subject matter of your lette r
of yesterday. For your information, I would say that since taking charge of
this office I do not recall that I have been consulted by outsiders in a singl e
instance respecting any matter pertaining to the Judge Advocate General' s
Department, except in respect of appointment to the Reserve Corps, nor other -
wise, except as you yourself have consulted me . "
On November 6, 1917, Gen . Ansell, by memorandum (Exhibit 57) to th e
Chief of Staff, requested the publication of an order designating him Actin g
Judge Advocate General, and concluded the same with the following words :
" I am authorized to say that Gen . Crowder himself is entirely agreeable t o
my calling this matter to your attention . "
The Acting Chief of Staff, in a Staff memorandum dated November 6, 1917 ,
to The Adjutant General, directed that the order be published . (Exhibit 59 . )
Its publication was suspended . (Exhibit 62 .) Gen . Crowder charges that th e
order was obtained by Gen . Ansell " surreptitiously," and states that th e
" coincidence " of his not attempting to exercise the appellate power whic h
he claimed was to be found in section 1199, Revised Statutes, until after h e
had procured the order appointing him Acting Judge Advocate General, " is
so remarkable that an inference of deliberate and ambitious planning fo r
personal power, and only for personal power, is unavoidable ." . (Exhibit 72, p . 56 . )
Gen . Ansell by oft-repeated statements, both direct and indirect, charges that
the revocation of his appointment as Acting Judge Advocate General wa s
connected with, or attributable to, his attempted assertion of supreme appellat e
power under section 1199, Revised Statutes. The facts of the case are a s
follows :
The record in the case of the Texas mutineers was received in the Judg e
Advocate General's Office on October 23, 1917 . On October 30 a memorandu m
(Exhibit 5) was prepared by Gen . Ansell, in which he attempted to exercis e
the appellate power of revision for the first time and set aside the judgmen t
of conviction and the sentence in the case of each defendant . This memo-