Military Justice System Analysis
Uploaded by
EsLebeDeutschlandMilitary Justice System Analysis
Uploaded by
EsLebeDeutschlandESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .
74 7
say that Gen . Ansell ever said anything to me about this, but it is very probable ,
in fact extremely probable, that we have discussed the abstract propositio n
as I have outlined above . "
" Q. Was Gen. Ansell in the habit of expressing his views on subjects gen-
erally, freely, and forcibly?A . He was . "
Mr. Earle L. Brown, Gen . Ansell's stenographer, testified as follows (Exhibi t
31) :
" You ask me if I can recall any discussion on the four death cases in France .
I can't recall any definite discussion . I do think, though, that when those case s
were first discussed that Gen . Ansell, before reviewing the cases at all, ha d
really expressed himself that the conviction ought to be sustained, but I kno w
that after he reviewed the cases and found the circumstances of them, o r
rather when the circumstances showed those men had, as I recall it, been ex -
posed to so much fatigue and long duty, that on that ground his opinion wa s
altered . I can't say anything definite, but that is my impression . "
The question as to whether or not, prior to April 10, 1918, Gen . Ansell enter-
tained, and on that (late affirmatively expressed, the views that the deat h
penalty in these specific cases should be executed is not definitely determine d
by the evidence .
The question of veracity raised by the conflicting testimony is, in my belief ;
apparent rather than real. Considering the length of time which has elapsed ,
the fallibility of memory, and considering the circumstances as a whole, i t
appears reasonable and is believed that, prior to April 10, no special attention
had been given to these cases by Gen . Ansell . On general principles he enter-
tained the views that any man found asleep on sentry duty in the presence o f
an active enemy should be executed. He doubtless expressed those views, an d
they were interpreted as referring to these specific cases .
So far as revealed by the evidence, Gen . Ansell made no attempt to intervie w
the Chief of Staff or the Secretary of War or the President in regard to thes e
eases . Careful search and inquiry have failed to discover evidence that hi s
memorandum was brought to the attention of the President or the Secretar y
of War by a Member of Congress . The above facts, stripped of all element s
of uncertainty, lead to the conviction that Gen . Ansell's statements, as to hi s
attitude and activities in connection with the cases above considered, are mis-
leading and widely variant from the facts .
10 . Report of Gen. Ansell on his trip ab ;[Link] his letter of February
17, 1919, to Representative Burnett, Gen . Ansell says (Exhibit 69, p . 5) :
"Returning from Europe in the middle of July, whither I had gone the Apri l
before for the purpose of studying the military administration of our allies,
I filed with the Judge Advocate General a report which among other things ,
treated especially of the administration of military justice in France, Italy,
and England . and which indicated those elements of their systems which I be-
lieved to be better than our own, and suggested our own weaknesses . This re-
port never reached the Secretary of War . "
On April 17, 1918 . Gen . Ansell was directed to proceed not later than Apri l
20 to France and such other- countries in Europe as might be necessary for the
purpose of observing the principles and practices of the war laws and adminis-
tration of the allied countries, in accordance with directions previously give n
the Judge Advocate General . He was directed to report his observations i n
writing to the Judge Advocate General of the Army . (Exhibits 134 and 131A . )
Gen . Ansell proceeded to Europe, in compliance with said orders, and hi s
report, prepared at sea, bears date of July 8, 1918 . (Exhibit 135.) He visited
the armies in the field and the capitals of France, Italy . and England . Tha t
his studies were assiduous and thorough-going is apparent from his report . H e
obtained his data first hand . To a large extent they were drawn direct fro m
the war offices of the Allies . The report is without recommendations as such .
It covers war administration generally, with particular attention to militar y
justice . The French systems are gone into in considerable detail . Those o f
the British are dealt with to a lesser degree . The consideraton of the Italia n
methods is limited to those of the " Bureau of Military Justice . "
In dealing with our problems in France, Gen . Ansel] points out the difficult y
of maintaining on French soil and amid French people an army of upward o f
a million Americans under American Government . He deals at length with the
application to them, in many of their activities, of the French civil law . B y
way of illustration, he cites the levying of a tax by certain municipalities upo n
the food taken into them for the use of American soldiers .
The most important feature of his report, so far as it concerns France . i s
its explanation of the very broad theory there applied of the legal liability of