814 ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .

Q. Could you' from memory, or having access to the files, readily select a
few cases that would verify this condition stated by you?A . I don't know
that I could do it from memory . By going through the court-martial record s
for any given month or period certain cases could be selected which woul d
show this action.
Q . From the statements of Gen . Ansell it would appear that (luring th e
period that he was senior assistant in the Office of the Judge Advocate Gen-
eral, but more especially during the period from November, 1917, until April ,
1918, that efforts made by him to better conditions of the enlisted man an d
to throw greater protection about him, were opposed, and he had been unabl e
to bring about results which he desired to bring about . Are you familiar wit h
that statement?A . I might say in answer to that question that there wa s
no opposition to any effort which Gen . Ansell or anybody made for th e
purpose of throwing the greatest protection around any man tried by court -
martial . The whole question was as to how the greatest protection could be
secured under the law. Gen . Ansell's insistence upon his view was not tha t
justice was not done in particular cases, but that it was not done in the wa y
he thought it ought to be done.
Q. So far as you recall was any recommendation or suggestion which wa s
made by Gen . Ansell along the lines of corrective measures turned down o r
failed to receive consideration except in so far as pertained to the interpre-
tation of section 1199, Revised Statutes?A . No, sir . I may say that i n
that connection that following the mutiny case to which reference has bee n
made that Gen . Ansell took the same action in a great many other cases imme-
diately following ; that is, he purported to set aside the sentence of the court-
martial .
Q . Was that action taken by him after the question of the interpretation
of 1199 had been announced by the Secretary of War?A . No, sir ; I think
that action was taken in the interim, when the decision of the Secretary wa s
pending. Some cases, I think, you will find slipped through and orders issue d
by The Adjutant General carrying this action of Gen . Ansell's into effect.
Others, depending upon the way they were routed after they left our office ,
were Feld up and when Gen . Crowder returned to the Judge Advocate General' s
Office he found that several of those cases had not been acted upon, and th e
recommendations of Gen . Ansell that it be clone in a particular way, were dis-
approved and the clemency which he recommended was brought about in th e
old method, or by doing it according to the established custom of the Judge
Advocate General's Office, making the Secretary of War, rather than the Judg e
Advocate General the authority as to what should be done .
Q. Do you recall whether or not the case of the El Paso mutineers was th e
first upon which this action was accorded?A. That was the first . I- am
positive about that ; it was made a test case .
Q . I have hire an office circular dated April 10, 1.918. giving the organizatio n
of the Office of the Judge Advocate General . Do you recognize that circular?
A. Yes, sir .
Q . Can you tell me whether or not that circular confirmed an organizatio n
which, at the time existed and which for a considerable period in effect ha d
existed, or whether it shows a new organization to go into effect at this tine ?
When I speak of the organization I do not refer to the individual who ma y
fill a particular place but to the organization of the office . I am speaking with
respect to the Division of Military Justice .A . This does not establish any -
thing new in the Office of the Judge Advocate General . It is simply a state-
ment of what had been in effect in the Judge Advocate General's Office for a
long time . As nearly as I recall this was sent out very largely for the benefit
of the new officers coming in so they would know what the office organization
was and how to handle their work, but no new principle or new ruling is es-
tablished by this order . It is practically what it was during the whole tim e
I was in the Disciplinary Division . As I said before, every court-martial case
that left my desk for higher action went to Gen . Ansell .
Q. Referring to this subject Gen . Ansell states. " He (Gen . Crowder) estab-
lished for the officer in charge of that division (Military Justice) a direct rela-
tion and channel of intercourse, whereby the work of the Division of Militar y
Justice was not subject to my supervision or to Col . Mayes, my immediate
assistant. Both Col . Mayes and I believed that this method of military justice
was had, and upon April 15, just before sailing for France, having been invite d
by the Judge Advocate General to express myself upon the management of thi s
office, I frankly told him so ." Have you any information or knowledge on