750 ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE.

mitted the draft of the bill to Congress and the same became a law on Feb-
ruary 28, 1919. (Exhibit 147 . )
12. Establishment of clemency board .In his letter of March 8, 1919, to th e
Secretary of War, Gen . Crowder states (Exhibit 136, p . 6) :
" As you were aware, shortly after my resumption of full charge of the office
of the Judge Advocate General, I recommended the convening of a board o f
clemency to undertake with the greatest expedition the adjustment of war -
time punishments to peace-time standards . "
The facts are these :
On January 11, 1919, by a memorandum (Exhibit 138) to the Secretary o f
War, Gen . Ansell invited his attention to eight cases, seven from Camp Di x
and one from Camp Grant, wherein grossly excessive penalities had been im-
posed . No additional machinery was suggested for the reviewing and correc-
tion of excessive sentences . The memorandum is without recommendation .
The introductory paragraph concluded, however, with the statement that ,
while he was inviting the attention of convening authorities to the grea t
severity of the punishment in those cases in which the punishment appeared to
be so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the conscience, yet he did no t
regard that such an administrative course taken in specific instances was
sufficient to achieve and establish military justice . He concluded his memo-
randum as follows :
"Again I have to advise you that these are not. in my judgment, isolate d
examples but are evidence of more general deficiencies in the administratio n
of military justice which I have observed ; at least, I believe I have observed,
during this war . "
Gen . Ansell's memorandum of January 11, 1919, was, by the Secretary o f
War, transmitted to Gen . Crowder on January 13, accompanied by a lette r
wherein it was stated (Exhibit 139) :
" It would seem entirely clear that there ought to be some general plan fo r
reviewing and modifying sentences of the kind illustrated by him (Gen . Ansell )
which have been imposed during the war, and are characterized by severit y
which would not be the case in time of peace . "
This suggestion of the Secretary of War was the first one looking toward
action concerning cases already finally passed upon, and must, therefore, b e
accepted as having initiated the Clemency Board as it is now functioning .
Acting upon the suggestion of the Secretary of War, Gen . Crowder, on Janu-
ary 28, published an office memorandum (Exhibit 141) . He referred first to
the instructions which had been proposed by him and which were publishe d
on January 22 (Exhibit 140), the effect of which was to put into operation th e
Executive order of December 15, 1915, establishing maxima for sentences o f
courts-martial. He then proceeded with the language establishing the Boar d
of Clemency . That action was expressly stated to be in compliance " wit h
the directions of the Secretary of War for a review of sentences imposed fo r
offenses committed during the war period, with a view not only to equalizin g
punishment, but to adjust that punishment to present disciplinary require-
ments." The purpose of the board was thus expressed :
"To undertake the work outlined by the Secretary of War and the sub -
mission of recommendations for clemency in order to accomplish the equali-
zation of punishments and the adjustment of penalties to the present dis-
ciplinary requirements desired by him ."
Gen . Ansell does not claim that he originated the idea, but that the basis fo r
the plan was his memorandum, dated January 11, 1919. That is true . Th e
Secretary of War, however, himself made the initial suggestion, and the yrde r
creating the board followed the lines laid down by him .
II. THE ADMINISTRATION OF MILITARY JUSTICE AND THE MACHINERY ORGANIZED I N
THE JUDGE AD\ OCATE GENERAL ' S OFFICE TO FURTHER THE SAME .

A study has been made of the functioning of the Judge Advocate General ' s
Department during the present war . The machinery provided in the office o f
the Judge Adocate General in Washington for the review of general court -
martial cases forwarded there by law was examined . Fifteen hundred record s
of trial were scrutinized, not with an idea of reviewing the evidencea functio n
not pertaining to this officebut for the purpose of regarding the compositio n
of the court, the kind of counsel provided the accused, the exercise of the righ t
of challenge, the pleas, findings, and sentences, the action of the various review-
ing authorities, and, finally, the action of the Judge Advocate General and th e
Secretary of War. The time required for the records of trial after final actio n
by the reviewing authority to reach the office of the Judge Advocate General