ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .

82 5
and approved by him . Owing to the fact that the order and the practices whic h
it contemplated did not meet with the approval of Gen . Ansell, the practical
working out of the order and the development of the practice under it were b y
Gen. Crowder very largely confided to Col . Davis for some time . There wa s
developed in that section under Col . Davis the practice of making distinct recom-
mendations with respect to the character of sentence which should be impose d
when records came up under that order. Gen . Ansell and his immediate assist -
ant, Col . Mayes, opposed the practice of the Judge Advocate General undertakin g
to control, direct, or influence the disposition to be made of a case by th e
reviewing authority through any recommendation made by him in cases comin g
up under General Orders, No . 7 . Practically all the opinions written by officer s
in the Military Justice Section first came to my desk for approval with th e
result that I was frequently called into the office of the acting head for th e
purpose of discussing some opinion with Gen . Ansell or Col. Mayes, or both ,
recommending mitigation or clemency, and the continued intrusion of the con-
troversy as to the proper construction of the word " revise " into the discussio n
of opinions written under the practica established by General Orders, No . 7, led
to a great many arguments which at times were both vigorous and heated .
Q . After Col . Davis ceased to be Acting Chief of the Division of Military Jus-
tice, what change, if any, took place in the policy governing the application o f
General Orders, No. 7?-A . The first time that Col . Davis went away was i n
March, for a period of 10 days or so . During that time I was acting head o f
the division, being the senior officer in that division . During the time that h e
was away upon this first inspection trip all of the opinions which carried recom-
mendations under the practice established by General Orders, No . 7, had to b e
approved by me . All discussions relating to the propriety of the Judge Advocat e
General making recommendations were had between Gen . Ansell and Col. Mayes
upon the one side and myself upon the other . There was a manifest disposi-
tion on the part of Gen . Ansell and Col . Mayes to undertake to stop or abolis h
the practice, a very beneficent one, in my judgment, of making recommenda-
tions to the various reviewing authorities in the field with respect to the charac-
ter of sentence to be imposed . I insisted that during the absence of Col . Davis ,
inasmuch as he had built up the practice, as I understood it, conformably to th e
views of Gen . Crowder, that no change should be made in the practice until h e
returned . When Col . Davis returned I reported the situation to him, my expe-
rience, which was the same as he had been going through for some time before .
My recollection is that he then took the matter up with Gen . Crowder, who
approved the continuance of the practice, but that is just my recollectio n
and may be inaccurate . A little later on, some time in April, Col . Davis lef t
on a prolonged inspection trip . The primary purpose of the trip was to acquain t
the service in the field more fully with the purposes of General Orders, No . 7 ,
and in this way secure the thorough cooperation of the reviewing authoritie s
and divisional and department judge advocates . In the meantime Col. Spille r
had been transferred from the position of executive officer in the Judge Advocat e
General's Office to the Military Justice Section, and was the senior office r
in that section next to Col . Davis, so that when Col. Davis left upon th e
inspection trip Col . Spiller became acting head of the section . Col. Spiller wa s
acting head of the section for but a short time, perhaps a week or 10 days, when
Col. Read was assigned to duty in the section, and as senior officer became the
head . Immediately after Col . Davis left on this inspection trip the practic e
which had grown up under General Orders . No . 7, was modified, if not, indeed ,
in practical effect, abolished, and thereafter the office confined itself in dealin g
with records coming up under General Orders, No . 7, to the bare question o f
the legality of the proceedings . So far as I know, the change in policy was no t
called to the attention of Gen. Crowder at the time . The change in policy wa s
substantially in accordance with the views which had been so many times ex -
pressed by Gen . Ansell and Col . Mayes during the many discussions while Col .
Davis and myself were building up the practice I have referred to under Gen-
eral Orders, No. 7 .
Q . During these various discussions to which you refer, did you ever hea r
Gen . Ansell express the views in effect that while he believed that the onl y
proper solution of the question was his views regarding the proper interpreta-
tion of section 1199, yet that he would be content to use that power, if that
power of revision were given, even though it rested elsewhere?A . No, sir. I n
that connection it may be said that a lengthy memorandum was prepared i n
part by Col. Davis, in part by myself, which is in the files of the Judge Advo-
cate General' s Office. It dealt with the two questions, first, the inherent