BULLETIN No. 2 JUNE, 1949 The Judge Advocate Published Quarterly By JUDGE ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION 312 DENRIKE BUILDING WASHINGTON 5, D. C. THE JUDGE ADVOCATE JOURNAL OFFICERS FOR 1948-49 WILLIAM f. HUGHES, JR ., Washington, D. C. .... President GEORGE HAFER, Harrisburg, Pa. 1st Vice President ALEXANDER PIRNIE, Utica, N. Y. ............. 2nd Vice President SAMUEL F. BEACH, Washington, D. C. ... Secretary EDWARD B. BEALE , Washington, D. C. .. Treasurer RALP H G. BoYD, Boston, Mass. Delegate to A.B.A. DIRECTORS Earnest M. Brannon, Wash., D. C. Joseph F. O'Connell, Jr., Boston, Mass. John W. Ahern, Wash .. D. C. Robert R. Dickey, Jr., Wash., D. C. Milton J. Blake, Denver, Colo. John Ritchie, III, Charlottesville, Va. Roy L. Deal, Winston-Salem, N. C. Edward F. Gallagher, Wash., D .C. Oliver P. Bennett, Mapleton, Iowa John P. Oliver, Van Nuys, Calif., and Wash., D. C. Executive Secretary and Editor RICHARD H. LOVE Washington, D. C. BULLETIN No. 2 JUNE, 1949 Publication Notice The views expressed in articles printed herein are not to be regarded as those of the Judge Advocates Association or its officers and directors or of the editor unless expressly so stated. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Results of Uniform Code Questionnaire. .. ..... ...... .... ................... 1 Notes from the Office of the JAG - .......................................... 26 Points Toward Retirement . .. .. ...... ........ .... --- ................ 27 Awards of Merit .. ................................................... 28 Training, Points and Retirement-Correspondence .. .................29 Nominating Committee ........................................ 32 Civilian Military Government Courts in Germay .........................33 The JAG's Statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee .. ........ .... ................. _ ... ............... 38 What the Members Are Doing _....... ...... ........... ..... ...................48 Annual Meeting at St. Louis .... .. ... .... .. ....................... ...............52 Published by fudge Advocates Association 312 Denrike Building, Washington 5, D. C. - STerling 4848 Results of Questionnaire Concerning "Uniform Code 0[ llilitary Justice" On March 4, 1949, the Associa­ from the House. tion distributed to its members a For the information and interest copy of S. 857 and HR. 2498, iden­ of all members, there follows the tical bills to establish a "Uniform tabulated results of the question­ Code of Military Justice," together naire and a collection of typical with a questionnaire soliciting the comments from the membership. views of the membership on par­ 2190 questionnaires were distrib­ ticular questions raised by the uted of which 645 were returned proposed law as well as general in time for tabulation. Since that comments upon the whole subject time perhaps a dozen more ques­ matter. tionnaires have been received but After extensive hearings con­ a survey of the answers there con­ ducted by the Sub-Committee on tained follow a pattern established Military Justice of the House by the following tabulation. Armed Forces Committee, the pro­ posed law, s u b st anti a 11 y un­ Questionna~re changed, was reported to the 1. Are you basically in favor of House as HR. 4080 which bill was a Uniform Code for the three approved by voice vote by the services? United States House of Repre­ YES 586 NO 51 sentatives on 5 May, 1949. 2. If so, would you adopt it now, Thereafter the Sub-Committee or so far as the Army and Air on Military Justice of the Senate Force are concerned, would Armed Forces Committee con­ you give the new court martial ducted hearings at which the As­ system established by the El­ sociation presented the tabulated ston Act, Public Law 759, results of the questionnaire. Typ­ 1948, effective February 1, ical comments from members, pro 1949, and under which they are and con, on various features of the now operating, a reasonable proposed Uniform Code were also tryout? EXPLAIN. submitted for the consideration of Adopt Uniform Code the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Com­ Now 298 mittee has concluded its hearings Try Elston Act first 221 and at the time of this writing is 3. Do you believe, if a Uniform considering its findings and will Military Code is adopted, it shortly report the Bill to the full should substantially d e p a r t Senate. It is very likely that the from the principles of the El­ Committee will report the bill on ston Act above referred to? the floor in a very similar condi­ YES 98 NO 434 tion to that which it received it 4. Proposed AW 2(3) gives 2 The JUDGE ADVOCATE JOURNAL courts martial jurisdiction over personnel but not one forced reserve personnel on inactive by outsiders such as police au­ duty training. Are you in thorities. Do you think this favor of this? adequately protects the priv­ YES 211 NO 416 ilege against self-incrimina­ 5. Proposed AW 16, 26, 39 and 51 tion? give the "law officer" 'the YES 74 NO 547 right to rule on interlocutory 10. Proposed AW 27 and 38 abol­ matters but deprive him· of ish Trial Judge Advocates and any vote on the findings and substitute Trial Counsel. A re sentence, and exclude him from you in favor of this? the- deliberations of the Court. YES 322 NO 232 Are you in favor of this? 11. Proposed AW 58 permits con­ YES 85 NO 512 finement in the penitentiary 6. Proposed AW 51 c requires the for any offense no matter what instructions of the law officer the length of the sentence, by as to the elements of the of­what court adjudged, and fense and the rule as to rea­whether or not it includes dis­ sonable doubt to be made part honorable discharge. A re you of the 1 record for Appellate in favor of this? Review. · Will this be of prac­YES 93 NO 540 tical value? 12. Proposed AW 66 provides for YES 343 NO 179 a Board of Review, who may , 7. Proposed AW 17 permits a be civilians, with final power, court of one armed force to try in ordinary cases, to hold rec­ a member of another, but pro­ords good or bad on any vides that Appellate Review ground. In either event the shall reside in the Armed Force the Judge Advocate General of which the accused is a mem­has no power to do anything ber. Are you in favor of this? except refer the case to the YES 330 NO 298 Judicial Council, com.posed of 8. Proposed AW 27b requires three civilians. A re you in trial counsel a,nd defense coun­favor of this? sel to be .lawyers. As the law YES 158 NO 468 officer must also be a lawyer 13. Proposed AW 66 gives the BIR (AW 26) and there are in final power to reduce sen­ peacetime around 100 Army tences, with no review at all G.C.M. jurisdictions, this will in the Judge Advocate Gen­ require at least 300 additional eral, the Judicial Council (see lawyers. Is this practicable? AW 67d), the Secretary or any YES 445 NO 171 one. Are you in favor of this? 9. Proposed AW 31 excludes a YES 118 NO 500 conjession forced by military 14. Proposed AW 67 makes it The JUDGE ADVOCATE JOURNAL 3 mandatory that the Judicial Comments from Members .of Council (The Supreme Court Judge Advocates Association of the new system) be com­on Questionnaire posed of civilians only, ap­No Civilian Control pointed without the advice and "I believe the tendency of post­ consent of the Senate and hold­ war reform efforts has been to go ing office for no definite term, too far in taking ultimate control but solely at the will of the President. Are you in favor in military justice from the mili­ of this set-up? tary and placing it in civilian hands. Discipline is still absolutely YES 67 NO 563 essential to military effectiveness '15. The propoMd Code (AW 74) and I believe the military authori­ deprives the Judge Advocate t.ies should remain in control of General of all clemency powers military j u st i c e administration now exercfaed by him under with a minimum of restriction nec­ the present AW 51. Are you essary to prevent injustice." in favor of this? COL., Spola_ine, Wash. YES 52 'NO 570 * * * 16. The proposed Code, in provid­"The Judge Advocate General ing a disciplinary system with­should be given more authority and out a responsible head, in de­responsibility instead of less. priving the Judge Advocate There is no place for civilians in General of all power to differ military fu~tice procedure. If we with BlR as to legality of rec­get our military justice and civil ords ~f trial (limiting him to justice mixed up we have no mili­ the right to send the case to tary discipline. Military justice is the all-civilian Judicial Coun­a means instead of an end, any­ cil) and in making the BIR way. It's too bad we have to have supreme as to sentences, ap­it at all and if we ever have last­ pears to take ultimate discip­ing world peace we can abolish it linary control away from the all. But until we reach that state military authorities and put it of security, let's keep our military into the hands of civilian.~. establishments military and not let Are you in favor of this? them get mixed up with lofty con­ YES 93 NO 504 cepts of democracy. Let's just ad­ 17. Viewing the proposed Code as mit that the military can't do as a whole, do you think it sets up good a job of justice as the civil a workable system? authorities, but the military can - YES 270 NO 291 . do a better job of fighting and 18. Have you had military justice since military justice is a neces­ experience while in the Serv­sary part of the fighting machine ice? we have to keep it.