ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .

'73 7
The beneficial results derived from the operation of General Orders No . 7
are apparent. During the first period, viz, prior to the issuance of Genera l
Orders No. 7, 58 per cent of the dishonorable discharges imposed by the court s
were ordered executed, 43 per cent during the second period, and only 14 pe r
cent (luring the third period . On the other hand, 20 per cent of the dishonor -
able discharges imposed during the first period were suspended ; 32 per cent
during the second period, and 60 per cent during the third period .
It appears that the first suggestion that reviewing authorities stay the exe-
cution of sentences of death, dismissal, and dishonorable discharge until revie w
of the records of trial in the Office of the Judge Advocate General originate d
with Gen . Ansell . His statement, repeatedly made, that General Orders No . 7 ,
adopted to carry out the very views which he himself first advocated, were " a n
administrative palliative" is not in accord with the facts and is another in -
stance where the public has been misled .
5 . Establishment in France of branch of Judge Advocate General's of'ice .
In his letter to Hon . John L. Burnett, House of Representatives, Gen . Ansell
states (Exhibit 69, p . 6) :
" In September, upon my insistent recommendation, power was established i n
the Acting Judge Advocate General in France to make rulings upon matters o f
the administration of military justice, in our own forces in France, whic h
would control all commanding generals until overruled by the Secretary o f
War . This is now being opposed by the commanding general American Expe-
ditionary Forces, and my own action and propriety in procuring the issue of
this order is being subject to question . "
Gen . Ansell refers above to General Orders, No. 84, War Department, Sep-
tember 11, 1918, amending General Orders, No . 7, War Department, Janu-
ary 17, 1918 (Exhibit 91) . Gen . Crowder charges that the issuance of General
Orders, No . 84, which will presently be considered, was obtained surreptitiousl y
by Gen . Ansel], and that its language embodies precisely the grant of manda-
tory appellate power in the Judge Advocate General for which Gen . Ansell had
been contending in his brief of November 10, 1917, " a contention which was a t
that time explicitly repudiated " by both the Secretary of War and the Judge
Advocate General . (Exhibit 72, p . 57. )
Paragraph II, General Orders, No . 7, provided for the establishment in Paris ,
France, of a branch of the office of the Judge Advocate General . The purpose s
of the branch office are fully set forth in the following language of the order s
(Exhibit 54) :
" The records of all general courts-martial in which is imposed a sentence o f
death, dismissal, or dishonorable discharge and of all military commission s
originating in the said - expeditionary forces, will be forwarded to the sai d
branch office for review, and it shall be the duty of the said Acting Judge Ad-
vocate General to examine and review such records, to return to the proper
commanding officer for correction such as are incomplete, and to report to th e
proper officer any defect or irregularity which renders the findings or sentenc e
invalid or void, in whole or in part, to the end that any such sentence or an y
part thereof so found to be invalid or void shall not be carried into effect . Th e
said Acting Judge Advocate General will forward all records in which actio n
is complete, together with his review thereof and all proceedings thereon, t o
the Judge Advocate General of the Army for permanent file . "
Due to a misunderstanding caused by an error in the War Department's cable-
gram No . 663, of January 20, 1918, or in the decoding of same, a delay wa s
caused in the op ening of the branch office. (Exhibits 77 and 89 . )
On March 24, 1918, Gen . Pershing-'s first and only objection to the provision s
of General Orders, No . 7, was in the form of a cable, as follows (Exhibit 80) :
" With reference to a branch of the Judge Advocate General's Office in Franc e
to review certain court-martial proceedings after they have been acted . upon by
the judge advocate here, the reason for this is not clear . It submits to review
cases within the jurisdiction of department commander in time of peace, an d
is in direct conflict with broad and liberal character of President's instruc-
tions at inauguration of command . Any authority outside of control of th e
commander in chief will cause delay in possibly more cases . Beyond doub t
punishment for desertion or misconduct must be almost summary if it is t o
have deterrent effect. This is practiced in both British and French Armies .
Any method that causes delay and possibly miscarriage of justice would be
unfortunate for us and injurious to morale of our allies . The circumstances unde r
which we are serving are in no sense comparable to our Civil War conditions, as
13226519rr 73