840 ESTABLISHMENT OL MILITARY JUSTICE : _

which appeared upon the face of the record and justified, upon revision, a
reversal of that judgment . That case showed the extreme and urgent neces-
sity of a reexamination of my powers in such cases, and, after thorough consid-
eration and with the concurrence of all my office associates, I took action i n
that case and concluded my review as follows :
" In the exercise of the power of revision conferred upon me by section 1199 ,
Revised Statutes of the United States, I hereby set aside the judgment of con-
viction and the sentence in the case of each of these several defendants an d
recommend that the necessary orders be issued restoring each of them to
duty."
Since this involves a departure from long-established peace-time administra-
tion of this office, I deem it my duty to acquaint you with the reasons therefor .
3. You, Mr . Secretary, and your immediate military advisers, can neve r
appreciate, I think, the full extent of the injustice that has been done ou r
men through the operation of this rule . Officers of our Army, howsoever
sympathetic, can not approach a proper appreciation of the depth, extent, an d
generality of the injustice done, unless, through service in this office, the y
have seen the thing in the aggregate . A proper sense of the injustice can b e
felt only by those who exercise immediately the authority of this office. In -
deed, those thus experienced can gather the full impression of the wrong don e
only by a complete mental inclusion of that vast number of cases where con-
cededly corrective power ought to have been, but was not, exercised in each
year of the past forty-odd years . My entire service, during all of which I
have been keenly sensible and morally certain that the office practice wa s
wrong, my six years' service in this very office during which I have borne wit-
ness to hundreds of instances of conceded and uncorrected injusticeall of
this has never served to impress me with the full sense of the wrong done t o
the individual and to the service so much as has the experience of my presen t
brief incumbency of this office during this war . What is true in my case is
true, so they advise me, of my associates . During the past three months, i n
scores, if not hundreds of cases carrying sentences of dishonorable expulsion
from the Army, with the usual imprisonment, this office has emphatically re-
marked the most prejudicial error of law in the proceedings leading to th e
judgment of conviction, but impelled by the long-established practice has bee n
able to do no more than point out the error and recommend Executive clem-
ency . All this, of course, has been utterly inadequate. It has not righted the
wrong . It has not made amends to the injured man . It has not restored him ,
and could not restore him, to his honorable position in the service . It could do
no more than grant pardon for any portion of the sentence not yet executed.
Such a situation commands me to say, with all the emphasis in my power, tha t
it must be changed and changed without delay . This office must go back to
the law as it stands so clearly written, and, in the interest of right and jus-
tice, exercise that authority which the law of Congress has commanded it t o
exercise.
4. The Judge Advocate General of the Army is to revise all courts-martia l
proceedings for prejudicial error and correct the same . The law as it exists
to-day is to be found in section 1199, Revised Statutes, wherein it is provide d
that " the Judge Advocate General shall receive, revise, and cause to be recorde d
the proceedings of all courts-martial, courts of inquiry, and military com-
missions, and perform such other duties as have been performed heretofor e
by the Judge Advocate General of the Army . "
The word " revise," whether used in its legal or or dinary sense, for both are
the same, can have but one meaning. It signifies an examination of the recor d
for errors of law upon the face of the record and the correction of such error s
as may be found . " Revise," or its exact synonym " review," is a word so fre-
quently found in the law and so familiar to all lawyers that its meaning ca n
never be mistaken . When used in connection with judicial proceedings it ca n
involve no ambiguity . I ani justified in entering upon a construction of th e
word only by the fact that this office for so long a time has ignored its meaning .
The word " revise," by the Standard Dictionary is defined thus :
" To go or look over or examine for the correction of errors, or for th e
purpose of suggesting or making amendments, additions, or changes ; reex-
amine ; review. Hence, to change or correct anything as for the better or b y
authority ; alter or reform . "
And the word " review," given therein as a synonym for " revise," i s
defined as :
" To go over and examine again ; to consider or examine again (as somethin g
done or adjudged by a lower court) with a view to passing upon its legality or