762 ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .

in the approval of the opinion, or note his dissent before the review is trans-
mitted to the chief of the division of military justice . Any dissenting mem-
ber may indicate the reasons for his dissent, either orally or in writing, to the
chief of the division, and, when he so desires, to the Judge Advocate General .
The approved opinion must be passed upon by the chief of the military justice
division before it reaches the Judge Advocate General . In cases of death, o r
of dismissal of officers, the record is frequently examined and reviewed inde-
pendently by two sectional officers before being passed through the chief o f
section to the appropriate board of review . A more thorough system of appel-
late review would be difficult to find. Every court-martial case receives ap-
pellate review automatically, and through no initiative or act of the accused .
How carefully the interests of the accused are guarded by the review of th e
records of trial, and how thorough is the examination of the cases in the offic e
of the Judge Advocate General, is indicated in No . 107387 . In this case it wa s
discovered that, in relieving and adding members of a general court-martia l
in a certain department, due to transfer from that department of officer s
destined for service abroad, one general court-martial had in its compositio n
at the date of trial 14 members, 1 in excess of the number allowed b y
law, although but 10 officers were actually present for duty in the depart-
ment at the time . The defect was not discovered by the court, the trial
judge advocate, the counsel for the defense, or the department judge advocate.
Although the accused was guilty of a serious offense and sentenced to dis-
honorable discharge with three years' confinement, the Judge Advocate Genera l
recommended to the Secretary of War that the findings and sentence be de-
clared null and void and that the accused be released from confinement an d
restored to duty . The recommendations of the Judge Advocate General wer e
approved .
The average time required after firal action by the reviewing authoritie s
for the cases to reach the office of the Judge Advocate General was 18 .1 days.
Cases tried in the Philippine Islands, Panama, China, and France entered
into the computation of this average. During the first period the average
time was 16 5 days. As the number of troops in France increased, the averag e
time required for all records to reach the Judge Advocate General's offic e
became greater . In the third period the average time was 22 .9 days. It will
be recalled, however, that, in aid of the revisory power, a branch of the Judg e
Advocate General's office was established in France by General Orders,
NJ. 7, January 17, 1918, and that the cases arising in France received thei r
first review in that office . From the foregoing it appears that no great amoun t
of time intervenes before automatic review of trials takes place, and th e
accused is not compelled to remain long in confinement pending action on his
case by the Judge Advocate General .
The clemency and restoration section considers all appeals by prisoners ,
their relatives or friends, for clemency or restoration to the colors, and pre-
pares in writing for the head of the division its recommendations upon suc h
appeals. Every soldier in the disciplinary barracks is entitled to apply fo r
clemency once every six months . His relatives and friends can apply for th e
same at any time. This is in addition to the automatic appellate review abov e
referred to . The clemency and restoration section also considers recommen-
dations for clemency referred to it by officers of other sections of the militar y
justice division, who, in reviewing a case as to its legality, believe it to be
a proper one for the exercise of clemency .
That many cases of excessive punishments were permitted to stand, eve n
after review, in the office of the Judge Advocate General, no recommendatio n
for the .exercise of the power of clemency having been made, is true . Th e
clemency board, composed of three officers best suited to carry out its purposes ,
is actively engaged in reviewing sentences imposed for offenses committed dur-
ing the war period, with a view not only to equalizing punishments but to
adjust said punishments to present disciplinary requirements.
An examination of the sentences imposed (luring the periods from which th e
cases were selected indicates some instances wherein heavy punishments wer e
awarded . Some of these sentences were mitigated by the reviewing authorities .
Others were permitted to stand. Some were completely ' set aside. In case
No. 108973 . where the accused was found guilty of desertion, advising anothe r
to desert, attempt to kill, and for carrying a concealed weanon, a sentenc e
of 20 years' confinement was imposed. The reviewing authority, after statin g
that the judge advocate had erroneously introduced in evidence in a capita l
case testimony taken before another court-martial in a former and uncom