ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .

80 3
Q . Do you consider that the conditions which you have just mentioned have
interfered with the administration of that division?A . To a certain extent,
yes. Of course, the matter has died down now to a considerable extent, an d
there is much less discussion and interference with the work of the office than
there was when the controversy began .
Q . You are familiar with General Order No . 7, and also General Order No.
84?-A. Yes, sir.
Q . Have you any knowledge as to the discussions or the conditions concern-
ing the issuance of General Order No . 84 in so far as it amended General Orde r
No . 7?A. My recollection of the matter is this : Some time in the latter part
of August or early part of September, as the result of letters received fro m
Gen . Kreger, in which were pointed out differences between himself and Gen . -
Bethel over the authority of Gen . Kreger in the review of general court-umartfaU
records ; the matter of granting Gen . Kreger greater authority was discusse d
by Gen. Ansell with Col . Read, chief of the division, and the members of the
board of review, which then consisted of Lieut . Col. Power, Maj . Keedy, and
myself. At an interview, at which I think we were all present, the draft o f
a modification of General Order No . 7 was prepared, dictated, I think, by Gen .
Ansell, with numerous suggestions on the part of the rest of us. Col . Head
desired to see a copy of this modification that was dictated by Gen . Ansell, and
we left, some of us, including Col . Read, with the impression that copies of thi s
dictation would be sent to us for further revision. It appears that Gen . Ansell
understood that we all agreed upon the modification of the order as then dic-
tated by him and submitted that to the Chief of Staff. Thereafter, when it
was ascertained that a misunderstanding on this point existed, Gen . Ansell
sent to the Chief of Staff and procured the papers that he had sunmitted to it ,
and Col. Read, Lieut. Col . Power, Maj . Keedy, and I went over the pape r
again and made some fur ther changes, and finally submitted to Gen . Ansell th e
modification of General Order No . 84, which met with our approval, and thi s
last paper, which was identical with the General Order No . 84 as published ,
was then submitted to Gen . Ansell, and I understand submitted by him to th e
General Staff.
Q. Was that the form of amendment which at that time was agreed upon by
Gen . Ansell and you officers, which was identical with the form in which i t
appeared in General Order No . 84 when it was published?A . Yes, sir ; as
finally revised by us . The draft as originally submitted to the Chief of Staff ,
as I recall it, differed slightly with the final draft that we prepared .
Q . Do you recall the points of difference?A . No ; I do not . They were
merely verbal .
Q . But the original draft embodied that feature which compelled the com -
manding general to abide by a recommendation of the Acting Judge Advocate?--
A. Yes ; that particular provision was considered the most important part of
the whole order.
. Q . Was there at that time any discussion of the ruling of the Secretary of
War on section 1199?A. I don't recall section 1199 being discussed . It was
recognized that it gave Gen . Kreger a power that was not possessed by the
Judge Advocate General of the Army. There is no doubt about that . It was
clone with that intentionof giving him that greater power . In fact, I remem-
her in the discussion that the expression was used that it was a wedge tha t
perhaps would result finally in a greater power being given the Judge Advocat e
General of the Army .
Q . Is there anything further you wish to state?A. It is to be regrette d
that the public has not been made better acquainted with the actual work o f
the revision that has been done in the last year by this office and what has bee n
accomplished. It is unfortunate that the impression should be left on the
public mind that all of the severe sentences that have been pronounced b y
courts-martial have been carried into effect ; as a matter of fact, they hav e
not been. To illustrate by a concrete case : Cznrnechi, a soldier was sentence d
to death for desertion last summer. I happened to write the review . The
review- disapproved the finding or rather modified the finding to absence withou t
leave. The man was sent to the disciplinary barracks for a terin of severa l
years. Just a day or two ago I was asked whether there was any reason wh y
the man should not be restored to the colors . I said there was not, and I be-
lieve he has been or is about to be restored to the colors . There you have a matt
sentenced to death a few months ago now at liberty or who will shortly b e
restored to liberty . This is typical of innumerable cases of that sort, and it i s
true of many of these cases of alleged barbarous and severe sentences . If the