Scribd
Upload
9 views1 page

Military Justice Review Process 1918

Gen. Crowder brought cases to the disciplinary division stating the reviews were too brief and would be unjust to ask the President to approve death sentences without full details. Col. Clarke reviewed the cases further. Gen. Crowder still found the reviews lacking and required more elaboration. Finally, Col. Clarke's reviews in a manner satisfactory to Gen. Crowder were submitted, omitting Crowder's concluding paragraphs. Crowder prepared a memorandum for the Secretary of War with full case details. Though finding the trials legal and evidence supporting, his memorandum reasons the sentences should not be executed. The Secretary of War agreed and wrote to the President recommending sentence commutation, which the President approved.

Uploaded by

EsLebeDeutschland
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
9 views1 page

Military Justice Review Process 1918

Gen. Crowder brought cases to the disciplinary division stating the reviews were too brief and would be unjust to ask the President to approve death sentences without full details. Col. Clarke reviewed the cases further. Gen. Crowder still found the reviews lacking and required more elaboration. Finally, Col. Clarke's reviews in a manner satisfactory to Gen. Crowder were submitted, omitting Crowder's concluding paragraphs. Crowder prepared a memorandum for the Secretary of War with full case details. Though finding the trials legal and evidence supporting, his memorandum reasons the sentences should not be executed. The Secretary of War agreed and wrote to the President recommending sentence commutation, which the President approved.

Uploaded by

EsLebeDeutschland
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

812 ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .

Q . Were such papers initialed by him?A. I think, if I remember correctly ,


that Gen. Ansell did not make a practice of putting his initials on the paper s
but would append a slip of paper and put his O. K . on that .
After these cases had been passed on to Gen . Crowder, he (Gen . Crowder )
brought them to the disciplinary division with the statement that he could
not sign such reviews ; that they were entirely too brief and that it would b e
an injustice to ask the President to send four men to death without statin g
fully all the facts and circumstances surrounding the trial, so he would have a
complete picture of what he was doing . Gen . Crowder assigned Col . Clarke to a
special study of these cases and Col . Clarke reviewed them in connection wit h
all other trials coming from that same division at about the same time . He
rewrote the reviews and again submitted them to Gen . Crowder, this time, I
think, direct . Gen . Crowder was still dissatisfied and required further elabora-
tion, and finally Col . Clarke prepared them in a manner satisfactory to Gen .
Crowder and submitted them, with the concluding paragraph of the revie w
omitted, the idea being that would be inserted by Gen. Crowder in his own
words. These cases finally reached this stage along in the early days o f
April, 1918 . One morning about that time I was called into Gen . Ansell's
office and Gen. Ansell asked me, " What's the matter with Gen. Crowder? "I
think he said, " What the hell, [Link] these cases ." He said, " He jus t
directed me to write a review in those cases." I said, " Gen . Crowder is ver y
anxious about those eases . He does not want to sign a recommendation that
the sentences be executed until he knows that that is justified," and I re -
marked further that Col . Clarke, who had been studing these cases, though t
that these sentences should not be executed, and Gen . Ansell then remarked ,
Well, I don't agree with Clarke . I think they ought to be."
The review which he prepared, however, in the manner I have indicated ,
simply embodied the statement of the case which had been made by Col . Clark e
and ended with his own statement that he thought the sentence ought not t o
be executed .
Gen . Crowder then took all papers prepared for him and he prepared, in his
own language, a memorandum for the Secretary of War setting forth all th e
facts and circumstances connected with the trial of these cases. Gen. Crowder
had actually recommended that the sentences be carried into execution, findin g
that the trials were legal ; that there was evidence to support the findings, etc . ,
hut his accompanying memorandum, in which he set out all the reasons wh y
the sentences ought not to be executed, was treated by the Chief of Staff as a
recommendation for clemency and he filed a memorandum, I think, statin g
that he did not agree with the views of the Judge Advocate General .
The Secretary of War adopted the views of Gen . Crowder and wrote a lon g
letter to the President, explaining the case and recommending the sentences b e
commuted. The President wrote to the Secretary of War a letter, in which h e
thanked him for the clear presentation of these cases and stated that h e
entirely agreed with his view of the action to be taken, and that he was gla d
to sign the order prepared for his signature . Both the letter of the Secretar y
of War and the letter bearing the signature of the President are on file wit h
those cases in the office of the Judge Advocate General .
Referring again to General Order No . 7 and Gen . Ansell's criticism of it, I
noticed that in his letter to Congressman Burnett he used the following language :
" The Judge Advocate General recommended and the department finally adopte d
an administrative method known as General Order No . 7, which suspended
certain sentences until the proceedings could be examined in this office and th e
commanding general advised with . This was an administrative palliative whic h
was described by the Judge Advocate General as necessary to ' head off a
threatened congressional investigation,' to ` silence criticism,' ` to prevent tal k
about the establishment of courts of appeal, ' and to make it ` apparent tha t
an accused did get some kind of revision of his proceedings other than th e
revision at field headquarters . '"
He here speaks of the recommendation of the Judge Advocate General a s
an administrative method and as an administrative palliative which was de -
scribed by the Judge Advocate General as necessary to head off "threatene d
congressional investigation," to " silence criticism, " to " prevent talk abou t
the establishment of courts of appeal," and to " make it apparent that an accuse d
did get some kind of revision of his proceedings other than the revision at fiel d
headquarters . " The use by Gen . Ansell of these quotation marks would see m
to indicate that these matters so included were used as an argument for th e
establishment of General Order No . 7 . Inasmuch as I prepared both the order

You might also like