824 . ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .

cuted portion of the sentence, and, upon application of the accused, restorin g
them to duty . It is my recollection that the Secretary disposed of the case s
in accordance with this recommendation . With respect to the order whic h
appointed Gen . Ansell Acting Judge Advocate General and the order which sub-
sequently revoked the prior order, I have no personal knowledge whatever .
Q . Have you any definite knowledge as to the date upon which Gen . Ansell' s
memorandum was submitted beyond what you stated a moment ago?A . Not
just at this moment, General, but probably if I should go over my old files I
could locate the date approximately by reference to some memorandum pre-
pared about . that time for Gen. Crowder ; that is, locate it within two or
three days.
Q . Are you familiar with General Order 169, the order which provided tha t
death sentences should not be carried into effect until the cases had been
reviewed in Washington?A . If my identification by number is correct, tha t
was a general order issued the latter part of December, 1917, or early in Janu-
ary, 1918, preceding General Order No . 7 . At the time General Order 169 wa s
issued, and for two or three weeks prior to that time, there had been unde r
study and preparation by Col. Davis and myself the plan which was sub-
sequently embodied in General Order No . 7 . While the plan embodied in Gen-
eral Order No . 7 was in process of development a number of colored soldier s
who rioted at Houston, Tex ., were convicted . The convictions were approved
by the commanding general of the Southern Department and 13 of the me n
executed by the department commander before the records had reached Wash-
ington for review. General Order No . 169 was a temporary expedient t o
prevent like occurrences until such time as General Order No . 7 or the plan
which was embodied in that had been formulated and the order drawn an d
promulgated . General Order No . 7 reached all death cases as well as cases
involving dismissal of an officer or dishonorable discharge .
Q. Did Gen . Ansell submit a memorandum which referred specifically to thi s
case and which had important bearing upon the issuance of General Orde r
169 .A. I have no knowledge of any memorandum submitted by Gen . Ansel l
which suggested the issuance of General Order 169 or any order of like char-
acter . From November on the contention of Gen. Ansell was that the wor d
" revise " conferred full appellate power upon the Judge Advocate General ,
and he vigorously opposed the plan which was embodied in General Orde r
No . 7. I do not now recall whether he specially opposed the issuance of Genera l
Order 169, but never understood that he recommended or approved of it . . I n
relation to the reform accomplished by General Order No. 7 and the practices
which grew up under it, Gen. Ansell opposed them . I think there will b e
found in the files of the office a written memorandum prepared and signed by
him opposing the issuance of this order . In this connection it may be said,
with respect to other proposed changes and reforms as well as that embodie d
in General Order No. 7, that they did not meet the favor of Gen . Ansell,
because his contention seemed always to be that these several proposed reform s
were in conflict with his theory as to the true construction of the word " revise ."
For several months following November, 1917, Col . Davis and myself worke d
out and proposed a number of changes in court-martial procedure. Th e
changes then proposed embodied substantially all of the so-called reform s
now proposed . None of these proposals, as far as I know, was acted upo n
favorably by the acting head of the office. It was the view of both Col . Davi s
and myself that under existing legislation there could be worked out al l
necessary and practical reforms, and that this could be done largely through
the promulgation of rules of procedure by the President of the United State s
under authority of the thirty-eighth article of war. Whenever these propose d
changes and reforms became the subject of discussion, it was the invariable con-
tention of Gen. Ansell that certain revisory powers were lodged in the Judg e
Advocate General, and that any change or reform which would undertake t o
lodge appellate powers directly or indirectly with the President or any othe r
officer or department of the War Department impinged upon the rights of th e
Judge Advocate General . This led to many vigorous, if not heated, discussion s
not only with respect to the changes and reforms that were deemed expedient b y
Col . Davis, myself, and others in the department, but also with respect to th e
disposition to he made of pending cases.
Q . In the carrying out of the provisions of General Orders, No . 7, after it
was promulgated, what was Gen . Ansell's attitude, so far as became apparent?
A. Gen . Ansell took no part in the preparation of General Orders, No . 7. H e
was not in sympathy with it . It was prepared by direction of Gen . Crowder