Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Appendix 4
Appendix 4
Appendix 4
72 9
The principal difference of opinion in the Office of the Judge Advocate Genera l
has been between Maj . Gen . E . H. Crowder, Judge Advocate General, an d
Brig . Gen . S. T . Ansell, formerly senior assistant . This difference had it s
inception in the interpretation of section 1199, Revised Statutes. Subsequent
disagreements relate back to that subject . The matters, therefore, which wer e
examined into were :
1. Interpretation of section 1199, Revised Statutes .
2. Appointment of Gen . Ansell as Acting Judge Advocate General .
3. Issuance of General Orders, No . 169, War Department, 1917 .
4. Issuance of General Orders, No . 7, War Department, 1918.
5. Establishment in France of branch of Judge Advocate General's Office.
6. Issuance of General Orders, No. 84, War Department, 1918.
7. Opposition of Gen . Pershing to General Orders, No . 84, War Department ,
1918 .
8. Alleged relief of Gen . Ansell from duty in connection with the administra-
tion of military justice .
9. Four cases arising in France wherein sentences of death were imposed .
10. Report of Gen . Ansell on his trip abroad.
11. Amendment to fiftieth article of war.
12. Establishment of Clemency Board .
They will be considered in the order indicated above :
1. Interpretation of section 1193, Revised Statutes.Lieut. Col . S . T. Ansell ,
Judge Advocate General's Department, became senior assistant in the Office of
the Judge Advocate General on August 29, 1917, and acted as Judge Advocat e
General during the absence of Gen . Crowder . He accepted his commission as
brigadier general on October 6, 1917 . So far as can be deduced from the rec-
ords, the first difference of opinion between Gen . Crowder and Gen. Ansell
arose in November, 1917. As stated above, Gen . Ansell was then, and for some
time had been, acting as Judge Advocate General . Gen . Crowder, while nom-
inally Judge Advocate General, had been almost completely absorbed, bot h
as to time and energies, by his duties as Provost Marshal General . War con-
ditions had led Gen . Ansell to the conclusion that, in order to prevent injus-
tices, the Judge Advocate General must give to' general court-martial record s
a closer legal supervision than theretofore had been the practice . He"desired a
complete and effectual appellate supervision of courts-martial, and professe d
to find such a grant of jurisdiction in section 1199, Revised Statutes . Tha t
statute, dating back to the year 1864, reads as follows :
" 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-