ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .

72 7
2), setting forth the scope of the investigation and affording him an opportunit y
to submit such information, written or otherwise, as he might desire to submit ,
relating to the organization and functioning of the Judge Advocate General' s
Office during the present emergency . In reply Gen . Ansell submitted the fol-
lowing (Exhibit 3) :
MARCH 10, 1919.
Memorandum for the Inspector General of the Army .
Responding to your memorandum of the 8th, I beg to say :
1. You state no specific controversy or issue which you are to investigate o r
to which I could intelligently address a statement if I deemed it advisabl e
so to do .
2. If, as seems to be the case, the investigation has to do with my statement ,
before the Senate Committee on Military Affairs, that statement for which, o f
course, I am responsible speaks for itself .
3. Above all, however, it is my judgment that any adequate and helpful in-
vestigation of the existing system of military justice and the administratio n
of it during this wdr falls beyond your province . That subject . my attitude
toward it, and my connection with it, are not, when fairly considered, particula r
incidents to which your special capacity of inquiry can be properly applied ;
they are extra-departmental ; they involve fundamental and general considera-
tions of law and justice, the scope of which can not justly be confined to th e
War Department or any bureau of it, and which are entirely beyond your lega l
competency.
4. Besides, whatever of controversy has arisen upon these fundamental con-
siderations, concerning which I have given expression to my views, directly
involves the Secretary of War, whose subordinate you are . Even more ; it
directly involves you and your office as well . I beg to remind you what th e
record will show, that in my original endeavor made near the beginning of th e
war to subject courts-martial to departmental supervision and control, th e
Secretary of War, the Assistant Chief of Staff, the Judge Advocate General ,
and the Inspector General opposed . I had occasion then, in a brief filed wit h
the Secretary of War and read into my recent statement before the committee ,
to comment upon the views of these military advisers of the Secretary of Wa r
and to pronounce them professional absolutists upon this question of militar y
justice . They and you stood upon the one side of this so-called controversy
and I upon the other. I can not, therefore, but regard you and your office a s
disqualified to make a full, fair, and impartial investigation .
5. Knowing nothing specific of the subject, scope, and purpose of your in-
vestigation, and excepting, as I do, and for the reasons given, to your juris-
dictional competency, and likewise to your fair qualifications, to make such a n
investigation as that which you contemplate, affecting me, I am not incline d
to have aught to do with it, voluntarily .
S . T . AN SELL.
Subsequently Gen . Ansell was summoned as a witness . To the first and
only question propounded to him he replied as follows (Exhibit 27) :
"General, I feel that as a matter of self-protection I have the right to de -
cline, and I ought to decline, and I therefore do decline, to answer this ques-
'tion, or any other questions asked me by the Inspector General in this investi-
gation, inasmuch as I believe the purpose of it is to lay the foundation for dis-
ciplinary action against me. "
It is to be regretted that the Inspector General has been deprived of th e
cooperation and assistance which could have been rendered by Gen . Ansell in
this investigation. However, Gen . Ansell's testimony before the Senate Mili-
tary Affairs Committee and his signed statements have become public docu-
ments, and it must be assumed that he has made a full presentation of fact s
to the public, from his viewpoint, in so far as relates to this investigation .
Fortunately, the files are so complete with respect to all matters of contro-
versy as to make possible the rendition of a full report .
Before proceeding to a consideration of the case it is not only proper but
imperative to here make clear a matter intimately connected with this inves-
tigation, although somewhat divorced from the subject matter thereof . In hi s
memorandum above set forth, Gen . Ansell declares the Inspector General to b e
disqualified to make a "full, fair, and impartial investigation, " citing certain
reasons therefor . In charging bias against the Inspector General, Gen . Ansell
stated : "In my original endeavor made near the beginning of the war to sub-
ject courts-martial to departmental supervision and control, the Secretary of