Military Justice Establishment in 1918
Uploaded by
EsLebeDeutschlandMilitary Justice Establishment in 1918
Uploaded by
EsLebeDeutschland738 ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .
here we are fighting a strong and virile foreign nation, and every possible mean s
must be placed in the hands of the supreme commander to enable him to main-
tain the morale and integrity of the Army . Any thoughts in the minds of men
that they can possibly escape punishment for such misconduct would be disas-
trous. I am very strongly of the opinion that final authority in these case s
should rest with the supreme commander here . "
In a joint memorandum to The Adjutant General, dated April 1, 1918, Gen .
Ansell and his assistant, Col . Mayes, took exception to the views expressed i n
Gen. Pershing's cable . (Exhibit 83 .) They stated that his objection wa s
based upon a misconception of the law establishing the relation of the offic e
of the Judge Advocate General to military authorities of whatever rank and
power to convene general court-martial . They stated further that the action
taken was the result of the most thorough consideraion in the War Depart-
ment, that it was organic in character and required by law, and that even i f
it were within the power of the administration to do so the revocation of suc h
orders would constitute a serious reflection upon the administrative capacit y
of the department .
With respect to the length of time intervening between the War Depart-
ment's original cable to Gen . Pershing and the latter's cabled reply, they re -
marked as follows :
"A conclusion so long delayed should weaken the confidence the departmen t
might otherwise have had in Gen . Pershing's judgment upon the matter . "
Notwithstanding Gen . Ansell's previous opposition to General Orders, No . 7,
in the United States, having declared them an administrative palliative only ,
we find him criticizing Gen . Pershing's opposition to these orders, stating tha t
the action taken was the result of most thorough consideration by the Wa r
Department, was organic in character, and required by law.
In a momorandum, dated April 3, 1918, to the Chief of Staff (Exhibit 85) ,
. Gen . Crowder discussed the question, believing that if Gen . Pershing had
fully understood the purpose and operation of General Orders, No . 7, hi s
cablegram would not have been sent . Gen . Crowder concluded his memorandu m
with the recommendation that a cablegram, hereafter quoted, be sent to Gen :
Pershing. This was done on April 19 . The cable reads as follows (Exhibit s
82 and82A) :
" The order which included the establishment of a branch of the office of th e
Judge Advocate General in France was promulgated after the most thorough
consideration on the part of the War Department . The existence of this orde r
has already justified itself in preventing the execution of one illegal deat h
sentence, not coming, however, from your command. The operation of th e
order has not delayed the administration of military justice in this country ,
and the establishment of the branch office in France will prevent delay in th e
administration of military justice in cases arising within your forces . It is
believed that when its purposes and operation are thoroughly understood i t
will no longer be objectionable to you . Your suggestion that it may result in
Miscarriages of justice is not concurred in, since it is believed that it wil l
operate to prevent miscarriages of justice by assuring that legality withou t
which no serious sentence should ever be carried into execution . It is desire d
that conference be held with Gen . Kreger . "
In a letter to Gen . Crowder, dated April 15, Gen . Kreger stated that he ha d
explained to Gen . Pershing his views regarding General Orders, No . 7. (Exhibi t
87.) On May 1, Gen . Kreger was appointed Acting Judge Advocate General ,
American Expeditionary Forces, relieving Gen . Bethel from further duty i n
the branch office .
6 . Issuance of General Orders, No . 84, War Department, 1918.-No furthe r
objection to the operation of General Orders, No . 7, was interposed by Gen .
Pershing, but another matter arose which gave the War Department no littl e
concern . On July 11, 1918, the Acting Judge Advocate General in Franc e
forwarded to the Judge Advocate General ease No . 118312, in which the con-
vening authority refused to accept the opinion of the Acting Judge Advocat e
General that the record was not legally sufficient to support a conviction of
desertion, and declined to follow his recommendation that appropriate actio n
' be taken in view of the illegality . (Exhibit 93.) The convening authority, on
the contrary, stated to his staff judge advocate in writing : " I have read the
entire proceedings and the several memoranda herewith analyzing the case ,
and I am satisfied that the original action was sound . Let it stand ." Th e
Acting Judge Advocate General stated that he was unable to see how th e
purposes of General Orders, No. 7, were to be fully accomplished if reviewing