Military Justice Review: Fort Bliss Case
Uploaded by
EsLebeDeutschlandMilitary Justice Review: Fort Bliss Case
Uploaded by
EsLebeDeutschland728 ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .
War, the Assistant Chief of Staff, the Judge Advocate General, and the In-
spector General opposed . "
Early in November, 1917, certain noncommissioned officers Were jointly tried
for mutiny at Fort Bliss, Tex ., and, when the record of trial reached the Judg e
Advocate General's Office, Gen . Ansell was of the opinion that the case wa s
particularly flagrant with error and such that any court of appeals anywhere
in the land could not have permitted the judgment and sentence to stand . As
the result of his review of the proceedings of the case, he took action as ex -
pressed in the following language (Exhibit 5, p. 6) :
" In the exercise of the power of revision conferred upon me by section 1199 ,
Revised Statutes of the United States, I hereby set aside the judgment o f
conviction and the sentence in the ease of each of these several defendants, an d
recommend that the necessary orders he issued restoring each of them to duty . "
When the court-martial proceedings in the case of these noncommissioned
officers were under consideration, the views of the inspector general wer e
called for . On November 15, 1917, he submitted the following memorandu m
(Exhibit 6) :
Memorandum for the Chief of Staff :
1. The court, consisting of seven field officers and five captains, embrace d
what I believe to be a personnel well above the average of military courts .
The accused were represented by counsel, presumably of their own choice,
and, so far as appears, this counsel has made no claim to the reviewing au-
thority that the men did not receive a fair trial .
2. While the conduct of the case is, as stated by the Acting Judge Advocat e
General, open to grave censure, yet it can not be assumed that the members of
- this court were influenced thereby in their action .
It is also true that Capt . Harvey, the battery commander, is an officer of
very short service and that his actions in this ease were illadvised, unjusti-
fiable, and clearly demonstrate his unfitness to command men .
3. Stripped of all technicalities, the evidence is believed to show conclusivel y
that these men, in concert, deliberately refused and failed, and persisted in
failing, to obey the orders of their commanding officer, and that they did thi s
in the presence of the entire battery . There is, and can be, no doubt as to the
fact that they filly understood that they were disobeying orders .
4. The action proposed by the Acting Judge Advocate General would, in m y
judgment, have a most demoralizing effect upon discipline. It is believed tha t
these men are guilty of an offense which, under normal peace conditions ,
would be very serious and which, under war conditions, is even more so, but ,
in view of the actions of the battery commander, and of the whole circum-
stances surrounding the ease, the exercise of clemency by the Secretary o f
War appears to be demanded .
It is suggested, first, that the unexpired portion of their sentences be re-
mitted and that they be restored to duty as privates if same can be don e
legally ; second, that Capt . Harvey be severely reprimanded and that he b e
relieved from command of Battery A, 18th Field Artillery, if this has no t
already been done, and that he be assigned to duty elsewhere .
J . L . CHAMBERLAIN .
This memorandum pertained to the specific cases under consideration and con-
tained no word of reference to the general question of departmental supervisio n
and control of courts-martial . It is probeble that the views of the Inspecto r
General in these cases were called for, because of the fact that he had recentl y
visited Fort Bliss and, upon his return, had invited the attention of the Chie f
of Staff to the unsatisfactory conditions in the Field Artillery at that place .
It was not until January, 1919. when this matter became of public notoriety ,
that the Inspector General knew that a controversy existed, or ever had ex-
isted, relative to the interpretation of section 1199, Revised Statutes . Until
then he had had no knowledge of the order assigning Gen . Ansell to duty as
Acting Judge Advocate General or of the subsequent revocation of same . In
fact, until January, 1919, the Inspector General had believed that perfec t
harmony existed in the office of the Judge Advocate Genera l
The files of the offices of the Judge Advocate General and The Adjutant Gen-
eral were freely consulted and, in addition, the following witnesses were ex-
amined :
Maj . Gen . E . H. Crowder, Judge Advocate General . (Exhibit 10 . )
Col . J. Easby-Smith, J . A . G . D. (Exhibit 11 . )
Brig. Gen . Lytle Brown, G. S . (Exhibit 1.2 .)