Military Justice and Clemency Board
Uploaded by
EsLebeDeutschlandMilitary Justice and Clemency Board
Uploaded by
EsLebeDeutschlandESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .
78 7
respondence, as the result of which the board of clemency was organized .
That correspondence ought to show who made the original suggestion . I t
should be said that the time for convening such a board of clemency cam e
with the : igning of the armistice and resulting conditions approximating thos e
of peace, the matter of convening the clemency board is interwoven in m y
mind with the further admonition that I caused to be issued about this tim e
to all courts and reviewing authorities, that as to offenses committed afte r
November 11 they would observe the limits of punishment established in th e
peace-time order, except in tho e cases where the courts and reviewing author-
ities could enter on record a valid reason why the punishment imposed in a
particular case was in excess of those limits . Both orders were intended t o
operate in the same field of excessive punishment, the la' t one mentioned t o
take care of offenses after the signing of the armistice, and the other to re -
duce the war-time punt hments, that is, punishment for offenses committe d
during the period of war, to peace-time standards . In my inquiry as to why
an order had not been issued of admonition to courts on the question of court s
I learned that such an order had been suggested by Col . Read, of my office,
to Gen. Ansell in September of 1918, the purpose of the order being to ad-
monish courts, particularly in this country, that les severe punishment woul d
meet the situation here. Col. Read, in giving me-this information, submitte d
the rough of the suggestion he at that time laid before Gen . Ansell, with the
remark that Gen . Ansell regarded the suggestion favorably but that at hi s
direction the memorandum went to a board of review to be pas ed upon there ,
and that the board of review, probably because of excessive work, had neve r
reached it and the matter died . I used this memorandum that Col. Read sai d
be submitted to Gen . Ansell in September of 1918 in preparing the order ad-
monishing courts in regard to quantum of punishment respecting offenses
committed after the igning of' the armistice.
Q . Gen . Ansell states, " In September, upon my insistent recommendation ,
power was established in the Acting Judge Advocate General in France to
make rulings upon matters of the administration of military justice, which
would control the commanding general, unless overruled by the Secretary o f
War . This is now being opposed by the commanding general American Ex-
peditionary Forces, and my own action and the propriety in procuring the
issue of this order is being subjected to question ."A . I am familiar with the
memoranda and draft of order which was submitted by Gen . Ansell upon thi s
subject, and also have the draft of the order signed by Col . Brown, Genera l
Staff, after nevi' ion . I find that the order, as it reads, is quite different from
the memorandum which he submitted, and that the order as it reads practi-
cally gives to the senior officer of the Judge Advocate General's Departmen t
over there the very authority which Gen . Ansell's interpretation of 1199 woul d
have given . Yes, it is the very authority, but sought to be deduced from othe r
sources.
Q . Have there been any circumstances connected with that which do no t
appear in the records?A . Yes . Shortly after returning to duty in the office
there came to my desk a request from France, from the Board of Review, an
opinion rendered upon a controversy which had arisen between Gen . Bethel, the
judge advocate on Gen . Pershing's staff, and Gen . Preger, in charge of th e
branch office of the Judge Advocate General's Department in France . I t
appears that Gen . Kreger, in a number of cases, had returned the proceeding s
under General Order 84, and under the mandatory provisions of that order th e
reviewing authorities were compelled to give effect to Gen . Kreger's decision .
This was the subject of protest and dissent by Gen . Bethel. In looking ove r
the opinion and the accompanying correspondence I learned for the first tim e
of the issue' of General Order 84 . I sent for Gen . Ansell and asked him as to
the origin of that order. He replied that the order had originated with him .
I then asked why he had not conferred upon the Judge Advocate General a t
Washington the same power that he conferred upon the Acting Judge Advocat e
General in France with respect to the right given by that Order No, 84 to con-
trol the action of reviewing authorities. He answered, " I did not think I
could get such an order through ." My next question was, " Do I understan d
that this Order No. 84 was issued by the department unwittingly?" His repl y
I remember with the greatest accuracy, " Most unwittingly . " Ile explained that
when the proof of the order came to the office for revision certain of the officer s
who had helped him consider the original order desired to make some amend -
f dents therein, but that he had limited the amendments to what .could be de -
scribed as " verbal changes," so that he might, if interrogated by the Assistant