0% found this document useful (0 votes)
8 views1 page

Military Justice Administration Overview

The document discusses testimony from military officials about the roles and responsibilities of General Ansell and General Crowder in administering military justice from November 1917 to April 1918. Col. Davis testified that despite what General Ansell claimed, all court martial cases passed through his desk and he exercised final authority in deciding cases. Col. Clark and Maj. Keith also confirmed that papers intended for higher authority action passed over General Ansell's desk during this period. An April 1918 memorandum from the Judge Advocate General's Office defined the office organization and procedures for handling cases.
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
8 views1 page

Military Justice Administration Overview

The document discusses testimony from military officials about the roles and responsibilities of General Ansell and General Crowder in administering military justice from November 1917 to April 1918. Col. Davis testified that despite what General Ansell claimed, all court martial cases passed through his desk and he exercised final authority in deciding cases. Col. Clark and Maj. Keith also confirmed that papers intended for higher authority action passed over General Ansell's desk during this period. An April 1918 memorandum from the Judge Advocate General's Office defined the office organization and procedures for handling cases.
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

'742 ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE.

thority or initiation which Gen . Ansell had previously exercised as senior officer '
in the office .
Col . E . G . Davis, Chief of the Military Justice Division, testified before the '
Senate Committee on Military Affairs (p . 204, Hearings before the Committe e
on Military Affairs) that Gen . Ansell's statement that he was relieved from '
responsibility in connection with the administration of military justice was no t
correct, for the reason that all cases connected therewith continued to pass
through Gen . Ansell's hands. The latter signed many of them himself as Act-
ing Judge Advocate General and actually exercised the discretion of deciding .
what, if any, cases were to go to Gen . Crowder for his action . Col. Davis
further stated that Gen. Ansell exercised final authority in all such cases fro m
November to April, except where he did not wish to take the responsibility of .
determining a particular case himself. He had the discretion in every instance '
to determine whether a case was to be disposed of finally by himself or whethe r '
it should go to Gen. Crowder. Col . Davis, testifying before the Inspector .
General, said :
" As I said before, every court-martial case that left my desk for highe r
action went to Gen . Ansell . * * * The only exception that could possibl y
exist to the statements I have made is this : That during the period when we .
were working in the office over the establishment of General Orders No . 7 and,
formulating the rules for carrying it into effect I frequently consulted directly .
with Gen . Crowder, and frequently placed the result of investigations I ha d
made on Gen . Crowder's desk. These (lid not go through Gen . Ansell's hands, ,
for the reason that he was entirely out of sympathy with what we were tryin g
to do and Gen . Crowder had directed us to make the investigation, and we felt .
this had nothing to do with Gen . Ansell's position in the office and we did no t
consult Gen . Ansell about anything we did in connection with that order, i n
getting it established or the rules for getting it into effect . But as to actua l
action on cases, no ease went to Gen . Crowder that did not first pass throug h
Gen . Ansell. There were certain cases in which I assumed the right to act ;
for instance, when I found that a court-martial record was incomplete ; tha t
the record did not show that the judge advocate had been sworn, etc . . I exer-
cised the authority of sending it to the reviewing authority for correction ; bu t
all matters where correction action was taken or where clemency was recom-
mended, or where anything of that larger nature was involved, those matter s
passed through Gen . Ansell to Gen . Crowder, according to office memorandum ."
(Exhibit 20, p. 11 . )
Col. Davis further states (Exhibit 20, p . 4), referring to Gen . Ansell's
statement that, from some time in November until the time he left for France ,
about the middle of April, he had nothing to do in connection with th e
administration of military justice and that the proceedings did not come
over his desk, " that statement is not correct * * * As a matter of ,fact ,
Gen . Ansell was the senior assistant in the office of the Judge Advocate Gen-
eral but, in this capacity, he signed possibly 50 to 75 per cent of all papers
signed in the office, and signed as Acting Judge Advocate General, even
though Gen . Crowder was present and at the head of the office ."
Col . A . E . Clark, Judge Advocate General's Department, on duty at tha t
time as assistant to Col . Davis, and for a portion of the time during th e
absence of Col . Davis, Acting Chief of Military Justice Division, state s
(Exhibit 24, p . 8) :
"When I was acting head of the section for a short time in March, I fol-
lowed the practice of signing these opinions, returning the records in accord-
ance with the practice that Col . Davis had established . Everything wa s
routed over Gen . Ansell's desk except the opinion returning records unde r
General Orders, No . 7 . Everything that went up to higher authority, to The
Adjutant General, the Chief of Staff . the President, or the Secretary of War ,
was routed throu gh him and over his desk. "
Maj . William H . Keith, chief clerk in the Judge Advocate General's Office -
until September, 1918, in his testimony to the Inspector General confirms th e
statement that, during the period November, 1917, to April, 1918 paper s
intended for the action of higher authority passed over Gen . Ansell's desk.
(Exhibit 23 . )
On April 10, 1918, a memorandum, subject "Office Organization . " was issued.
by the Judge Advocate General's Offit e . After prescribing the duties of th e
various divisions, there appears the following (Exhibit 107) :
"Upon receipt of papers in the Chief Clerk's office they are stamped, num=
tiered, precedents attached and charged to the officer handling them . When

You might also like