828 ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .

Q . State definitely what they were .A. I would not be able to give the time or
the exact language used . Probably the cases came to me from Gen . Crowder fo r
further study and report, because I had been very outspoken against recom-
mending that the death sentences be carried into effect . In fact, I had a numbe r
of arguments with Maj . Rand and other officers in which I very strongly oppose d
what I understood at the time was the settled decision of the acting head of th e
office to recommend that the sentences be carried into effect . I say I understan d
that that was the settled decision of the office for two reasonsfirst, review s
prepared by Maj . Rand and so recommended had gone across the desk of Col .
Davis to Gen . Ansell and Col. Mayes and had been returned not for the purpos e
of changing the character of the reviews or of the recommendations but merel y
for the inclusion in three of the reviews of the full text of Gen . Pershing's memo-
randum, and with this inclusion they had been returned and had gone to Gen .
Crowder's desk for his signature. The second reason is that I had talked with
Maj . Rand, who was conferring with Col . Mayes and Gen . Ansell, about the
cases, and I had talked with Col . Mayes and with Gen. Ansell and had taken
occasion, although the cases were not then in my hands for review, to express th e
settled conviction that it would be a great mistake and an injustice to carr y
those sentences into effect . At that time these officers did not agree with me, bu t
were of the opinion that the views of Gen . Pershing with respect to the propriet y
and the expediency of carrying these sentences into effect should be followed .
While these cases were under consideration in the office and before the records
came to me from Gen . Crowder for review, as I have just stated, I discussed them
with Gen . Ansell and other officers on more than one occasion, and Gen . Ansell
had stated to inc during those discussions that he thought the sentences should b e
carried into effect.
Q . During the period that you were acting Chief of the Division of Militar y
Justice what was the routing of courts-martial cases at the time they arrived i n
the office until they left or went to the permanent files, and what connection ha d
Gen . Ansell with and responsibility for the administration of that division?
A. First, all opinions of a general nature, dealing with the administration of
military justice, were routed over his desk . Second, all opinions dealing wit h
particular cases where the communication was addressed to the Secretary of
War, or to the President through the Secretary of War, or to The Adjutant Gen-
eral . This second class would involve all cases where sentence had been pub-
lished, so that they had become effective before the record reached the Office o f
the Judge Advocate General, and involved a considerable percentage of all th e
cases coming from the office. Third, after General Order No . 7 went into effect
it will be noted that the records came direct then to the Office of the Judge Advo -
cate General for review before sentence was finally published, and the Judg e
Advocate General's Office had established the practice of sending them bac k
direct to the reviewing authorities with a statement as to the legality or illegalit y
of the proceedings and such recommendations as it was deemed proper to make.
Col. Davis was then the head of the section . The practice grew up for him to
sign the opinions, returning the records, and in such cases the records would no t
be routed over by Gen . Ansell . The reason this practice grew up was tha t
Gen. Ansell and Col. Mayes were opposed to the practice of returning the records
with a distinct recommendation by the Judge Advocate General as to the quantit y
of punishment to be imposed, the general policy with respect to sentences i n
different classes of cases, the place of confinement, and the like . When I was
acting head of the section for a short time in March I followed the practice o f
signing these opinions, returning the records in accordance with the practice tha t
Col . Davis had established . Everything was routed over Gen . Ansell's des k
except the opinions returning records under General Order No . 7 .
Q . Was everything in the way of recommendations, reviews, etc . . going to
higher authority, routed over his desk?A . Yes, sir ; everything that went u p
to higher authority, to The Adjutant General, the Chief of Staff, the President ,
or the Secretary of War, was routed through him and over his desk .
Q . Do you know of any orders, verbal or otherwise, which in any way cur -
tailed the activities or responsibilities of Gen . Ansell with respect to the ad -
ministration of military justice (luring the period November, 1917, to the tim e
he left for Europe, April, 1918?A. I do not.
Q. What knowledge have you relative to the establishment of a branch offic e
in France ; any knowledge except what would be of record?A . I think none.
It was a matter of general discussion in the office, but the ultimate result wa s
embodied in the order .