ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .

82 3
Q . At that time was any change made in the channels through which th e
papers of the office pertaining to the Department of Military Justice passed?
A. I can not answer that, General . I don't know, because the Military Justic e
Division had a colonel in charge of it and he carried these papers in the im-
portant cases either to Gen . Ansell or to Gen . Crowder.
Q. That matter did not come under your personal observation?A . That
did not come under me, so I could not answer that question.

EXHIBIT 24 . .

WASHINGTON, D. C ., March 21, 1919 .

Lieut. Col . Alfred E. Clark, Judge Advocate General's Office, being first dul y
sworn, was interrogated by Maj . Gen . J . L . Chamberlain, Inspector General, an d
testified as follows :
Q . State your name, rank, and organization .A . Alfred E . Clark ; lieutenant
-colonel ; Judge Advocate General's Office.
Q. During what period were you on duty in the office of the Judge Advocat e
General?A . From approximately October 1, 1917, until the latter part of May ,
1918, to the best of my present recollection . Since that time I have been o n
assignment as counsel for the War Department Board of Appraisers and othe r
special boards.
Q . Were you at any time on duty in the Division of Military Justice? A .
Yes, sir.
Q . During this entire period?A. Substantially so ; yes .
Q . What were your special duties in that division?A . The first two months
or so . possibly a little more than two months after coming here, I was, in s o
far as that section is concerned, engaged in the routine work of examinin g
court-martial records and writing opinions with respect to them and the like
general work . From, I should say, the latter part of December, 1917, or earl y
in January, 1918, I had status of assistant to Col . Davis, Chief of the Sectio n
of Military Justice, and continued in that capacity until relieved from duty i n
that section .
Q . Please state fully your recollections relative to the case of the Artiller y
mutinies at El Paso, the action taken in connection with the interpretation o f
section 1199, Revised Statutes, and the order appointing Gen . Ansell Acting
Judge Advocate General, subsequent revocation of same, and cognate matters .
A . Some time in October of 1917 there were two or three cases that gave rise
to considerable discussion in the office of the Judge Advocate General . On e
of these cases involved the conviction of seven or eight noncommissione d
officers : in fact, all of the noncommissioned officers of an Artillery battery at
Fort Bliss, I think it was, Texas . In each of the casesthe first the Narber cas e
and the second artillerymendishonorable discharge had been executed . I t
was the view of the Section on Military Justice, where I was then on duty, tha t
in each of these cases, and particularly in the case of the noncommissioned
officers of the Artillery battery, an erroneous conclusion had been reached b y
the courts . The question arose as to what disposition could be made of th e
cases in the absence of jurisdictional error . It was at this time, which was th e
latter part of October or the early part of November, that Gen . Ansell first
propounded his theory that the word " revise," as found in a statute first en -
acted in 1862, conferred upon the Judge Advocate General full appellate power .
Ile prepared a memorandum in support of that view, which I believe came to
the attention of Gen . Crowder, to my best recollection, the last part of November .
I undertake to fix that time for the reason that Col . Davis and myself, under
date of the 6th of December, prepared a memorandum embodying a study o f
the historical aspects of the legislation at Gen . Crowder's request. Gen .
Crowder prepared a memorandum, in which he controverted the legal sound-
mess of the views of Gen . Ansell . Gen . Ansell prepared a supplementary memo-
randum in reply, and the matter was later submitted to the Secretary of War ,
.who, I believe, concurred in views of Gen . Crowder that it was inexpedient t o
undertake to deduce from the old statute the broad appellate powers for whic h
Gen . Ansell was contending. In the cases of the men charged with mutiny the
office of the Judge Advocate General, after reviewing the records in accordanc e
with the established practices of the office, reached the conclusion that th e
evidence did not sustain the findings and sentence and recommended to th e
Secretary of War that an order be issued setting aside, mitigating the unexe-