Military Justice Administration Report
Uploaded by
EsLebeDeutschlandMilitary Justice Administration Report
Uploaded by
EsLebeDeutschland770 ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE . .
There have been no defects of administration or conduct which should be
called to the attention of the Secretary of War, requiring any change in th e
organization of the Judge Advocate General's Office for the performance o f
its duties .
J. L . CHAMBERLAIN .
WAR DEPARTMENT ,
Washington, May 12, 1919 .
From : The Secretary of War.
To : The Inspector General of the Army .
Subject : Investigation of controversies pertaining to the office of the Judg e
Advocate General.
I return herewith the report of the Inspector General of the Army, date d
May 8, covering the investigation of controversies pertaining to the office o f
the Judge Advocate General, directed by my memorandum of March 7, 1919 .
This report is thoroughgoing and complete and deals in the most satisfactor y
way with all the questions submitted . It should be filed in the office of th e
Inspector General to be available for use in connection with the various studies
now being made by agencies created by the War Department and by outsid e
bodies with a view to suggesting betterments in the substance and adminis-
tration of military law . Pending the completion of those studies and the pre-
sentation of the matter in full to the Cohgress, no present action will be take n
upon the report. -
NEWTON D. BAKER ,
Secretary of War .
EXHIBIT 1 .
WAR DEPARTMENT,
Washington, March 7, 1919.
Memorandum for the Inspector General .
Certain controversies have arisen with regard to the presentation of fact s
growing out of the administration of military justice to the Secretary of Wa r
and with regard to the administration of military justice itself in the offic e
of the Judge Advocate General during the war . It may be roughly said tha t
these controversies began with the presentation of a brief in behalf of a certai n
construction of section 1199 of the Revised Statutes of the United States by
Gen. Ansell and reply brief thereto by Gen . Crowder . The legal question in-
volved in that difference of opinion was definitely settled by the Secretary o f
War and need be given no consideration in the inquiry which you are herei n
directed to make.
It is conceded that the curative power of clemency existed in the Presiden t
and the Secretary of War, and that in the first instance the Secretary of Wa r
and the President rely upon the Judge Advocate General's office for recom-
mendations growing out of their examination of records of court-martial trials.
I therefore desire to have you conduct a thorough investigation into th e
following questions :
(1) What machinery was organized in the office of the Judge Advocate Gen-
eral for the effective consideration of records with a view to making ap-
propriate recommendations for clemency ?
(2) To what extent, if at all, has the making of such recommendations fo r
clemency, or otherwise properly administering the business of military justice ,
been affected by the difference of opinion with regard to the interpretation o f
section 1199 of the Revised Statutes of the United States ?
(3) To what extent, if at all, has the presentation of facts with regard t o
the administration of military justice, either to the Secretary of War or to the
public, been affected by failure of cooperation in the office of the Judge Advo -
Bate General ?
(4) Any other defects of administration or conduct which appear on investi-
gation proper to be called to my attention in order that effective reorganiza-
tions may be made of all the forces of the Judge Advocate General 's office fo r
the performance of its duties .
In making the foregoing inquiries you will proceed on the fact that I recog-
nize fully the right of any officer in the Military Establishment to testify frankl y
and fully upon any matter as to which he may be interrogated by a committee