Bulletin No. 25 October, 1957 The Judge Advocate

Published By JUDGE ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION An affiliated organization of the American Bar Association, composed of lawyers of all components of the Army, Navy, and Air Force

Denrike Building Washington 5, D. C. JUDGE ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION Officers for 1957 • 1958 THOMAS H. KING, District of Columbia...... President FREDERICK BERNAYS WIENER, Maryland...... First Vioo President PHILIP A. WALKER, Hawaii...... S econd Vice President J. FIELDING JONES, Virginia...... Secreto;ry EDWARD F. GALLAGHER, District of Columbia ...... Treasurer SHELDEN D. ELLIOTT, New York...... Delegate to A. B. A. Directors Penrose L. Albright, Va.; Louis F. Alyea, Va.; Joseph A. Avery, Va.; Marion T. Bennett, Md.; Franklin H. Berry, N. J.; John J. Brandlin, Calif.; E. M. Brannon, D. C.; Charles L. Decker, D. C.; John H. Finger, Calif.; Osmer C. Fitts, Vt.; James Garnett, D. C.; Reginald C. Harmon, D. C.; William J. Hughes, Jr., D. C.; Stanley W. Jones, Va.; Albert M. Kuhfeld, D. C.; William C. Mott, D. C.; Allen W. Rigsoy, Nebr.; Samuel A. Schreckengaust, Pa.; William J. Wertz, Kans.; S. B. D. Wood, Pa. Executive Secretary and Editor RICHARD H. LOVE Washington, D. C. Bulletin No. 25 Octo her, J.957

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 You're in the Army-Now! ...... 1 The Annual Meeting...... 14 Report of Committee on Hoover Commission Recommendations...... 25 The President's Report...... 29 Supreme Court Reverses Self...... 32 Career Opportunities ...... 35 McCaw Gets a Star...... 37 Recent Decisions ...... 38 What the Members Are Doing...... 50 Supplement to Directory...... 52

Published by the Judge Advocates Association, an affiliated organ­ ization of the American Bar Association, composed of lawyers of all components of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Denrike Building, Washington 5, D. C. - STerling 8-5858 YOU'RE IN THE ARMY- NOW!

by Lawrence H. Williams 1

The moment when a civilian enters unless he is subject to trial by the Army not only marks the begin­ court martial under laws in force ning of a new way of life for him, prior to the enactment of this but, in addition, marks the beginning title. * * *" of military jurisdiction over him as Similar language was contained in a s·oldier.2 A refusal to obey mili­ section 11 of the Selective Training tary orders prior to that moment is and Service Act of 1940 5 and sec­ not a violation of military law so as tion 6 of the Selective Draft Act of to subject him to trial by court­ 1917.6 martial,3 although a refusal to sub­ During World War I, induction of mit to induction is a violation of an individual into the Army occurred Federal law for which he may be at the "day and hour" he was or­ tried by civil authorities. dered to report to his local draft The Universal Military Training board for induction, although a final and Service Act, as amended,4 pro­ physical and mental examination tc vides pertinently: determine his fiitness for military "Sec. 12 (a) * * * No person shall service was subsequently conducted.7 be tried by court martial in any Since 1940, however, and at the pres­ case arising under this title unless ent time, induction is accomplished such person has been actually in­ subsequent to an individual's final ducted for the training and serv­ physical and mental examination for ice prescribed under this title or military fitness.s Therefore, his mere

1 Major, Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army, member of the Bar of Colorado, the United States Court of Military Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, or The Judge Advocate General of the Army. 2 Article 2, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 802. 3 Billings v. Truesdell, 321 U. S. 542, (1944) ; United States ex rel Dia­ mond v. Smith, 47 F. Supp. 607 (D. C. Mass. 1942); Stone v. Christensen, 36 F. Supp. 739 (D. C. Ore. 1940). 4 62 Stat. 662; 50 U.S.C. App. 462. 5 54 Stat. 885, 894. a 40 Stat. 76, 80. 7 Patterson v. Lamb, 329 U. S. 539 (1947). s Mobilization Regulations No. 1-7, October 1, 1940; Army Regulations 615-500, 1 September 1942; id. 10 August 1944, as amended; Special Regu­ lations 615-180-1, 27 April 1950; Special Regulations 615-180-1, 10 April 1953; Army Regulations 601-270, 5 April 1956. 1 2 The Judge Advocate Journal presence at an Army installation for sight. But he resolved that if he the purpose of undergoing such tests was not rejected at the induction does not subject him to military law station, he would not take the oath and he occupies a civilian status un­ but would turn himself over to the til his actual induction. civil authorities. He was ordered The leading case concerning induc­ by his local board to report on tion, and upon which almost all later August 12, 1942 and to proceed to cases are purportedly based, is Bill­ the induction center at Fort Leav­ ings v. Truesdell.9 enworth. He joined the group se­ The Billings case concerned the lected for induction and was trans­ trial by court-martial of one Billings ported to Fort Leavenworth where in 1942 for acts occurring prior to he and the others in his group induction while at an Army installa­ spent the night in the barracks. tion. The facts were stated by the The next morning after breakfast Supreme Court of the United States in the mess hall petitioner was to be as follows : given both the physical and mental "Billings claims to be a conscien­ examinations during which he tious objector. He registered un­ made clear to the examining of­ der the Act with Local Board No. ficials his purpose not to serve in 1 of Ottawa County, Kansas, stat­ the Army. He then reported to ing on his card at the time that the officer who passed on the re­ he would never serve in _the Army. sults of the examinations and who He was given a 1-B classification told him that he had been put in because of defective eyesight but Class 1-B. He then reported to the was reclassified as 1-A in January, induction office and told the officers 1942. The local board rejected his in charge that he refused to serve claim that he was a conscientious in the Army and that he wanted objector. He appealed to the board to turn himself over to the civil of appeal which affirmed the ruling authorities. They said that he was of the local board. Though peti­ already under the jurisdiction of tioner resolved never to serve in the military and put him under the Army, he desired to comply guard to prevent him from leaving with all of the requirements of the reservation. With their con­ Selective Service short of actual sent, however, he used the tele­ induction, so that he might avoid phone and procured the services all civil penalties possible. Accord­ of an attorney whom he retained ingly, he consulted with draft of­ to file a petition for habeas corpus ficials in Texas where he taught on his behalf. Thereupon an Army and concluded that taking the oath officer read petitioner the oath of was a prerequisite to induction induction which petitioner refused into the armed forces. He thought to take. He was advised that his he might be finally rejected by the refusal made no difference, that Army on account 'Of defective eye­ 'You are in the army now.' He

9 See note 3, supra. The Judge Advocate Journal 3

was then ordered to submit to fin­ that the reading of the induction gerprinting. He refused to obey. oath and other examinations at Fort Military charges were preferred Leavenworth did not serve to induct against him for willful disobedi­ Billings, as induction cannot be forc­ ence of that order. ibly accomplished against the will of "On August 14, 1942, petitioner the selectee; and that punishment of filed this petition for a writ of Billings must be left to the civil au­ habeas corpus alleging that he was thorities.10 The court also stated not a member of the armed forces that induction under regulations then of the United States, that he was in effect (March, 1944} took place at not subject to military jurisdic­ the time of the induction ceremony tion, and that if he had violated (including the taking of the true any laws they were the civil laws faith and allegiance oath}, that an of the United States. The writ is­ individual may not be inducted forc­ sued. Respondent filed a return ibly, and that the time when a se­ and a hearing was had at which lectee is inducted could be at the petitioner testified. The District time "he [voluntarily] undergoes Court discharged the writ and re­ whatever ceremony or requirements manded petitioner to respondent's of admission the War Department custody, holding that petitioner has prescribed". was subject to military jurisdic­ The regulations in effect in March, tion. 46 F. Supp. 663. The Circuit 1944 (AR 615-500, 1 Sep 1942, as Court of Appeals affirmed, holding changed by C4, 30 Mar 1943}, were that 'Induction was completed substantially identical with those in when the oath was read to peti­ effect at the time (1942) of Billings' tioner and he was told that he refusal to submit to induction (Mo­ was inducted into the Army.' bilization Regulations No. 1-7, Oct. 1, 135 F. 2d 505, 507. * * *" 1940), and provided pertinently: The court then went on to decide "AR 615-500, September 1, 1942, that the Selective Training and is changed as follows: 13. Pro­ Service Act of 1940, unlike the Se­ cedure. lective Draft Act of 1917, did not * * * * provide for the induction of an indi­ e. Induction ceremony. vidual such as Billings upon the "day (1) The induction will be per­ and hour" of his reporting to his formed by an officer who, induction station (which fact had prior to administering the been conceded by the Government}; oath, will give the men that military jurisdiction did not at­ about to be inducted a short tach from the time of his reporting patriotic talk. The cere­ at the local draft board (which had mony should take place in a been contended by the Government); setting, preferably a large

10 Billings was later convicted of a violation of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, supra, on 3 October 1944 and sentenced to two years' imprisonment by a Federal court (DC Kans.). 4 The Judge Advocate Journal

room, made colorful by the in the Army but who disclaimed hav­ display of flags with guard ing submitted to the oath of induc­ and display of suitable pic­ tion and whose sole "evidence" that tures, and made as impres­ they did not take the oath of induc­ sive as possible. Wherever tion consisted of their statements to practicable, martial music that effect. will be provided either by a Thereafter, in 1944 and 1945, the band or in the form of re­ Federal courts expressed what is be­ corded music. For the bene­ lieved to be a more reasonable view of any nondeclarant aliens in connection with such cases. In about to be inducted the in­ three decisions in which the individ­ duction officer will explain uals concerned claimed that they had the difference between the not willingly complied with the cere­ oath of allegiance and the mony of induction (i.e., had refused oath of service and obedi­ to take the oath of induction) the ence. The oath, Article of Federal courts refused to release the War 109, will then be ad­ individuals, holding that as they had, ministered: after the induction ceremony, ac­ I, ------·-····················• do sol­ cepted their roles as soldiers for emnly swear (or affirm) varying periods of time, they .had that I will bear true faith by such conduct waived any irregu­ and allegiance to the United larity in their induction.11 It should States of America; that I be noted that in those cases, unlike will serve them honestly and the Billings case, the individuals had faithfully against all their served for several months as soldiers enemies whomsoever; and without protest before claiming that that I will obey the orders they had not been inducted. Such of the President of the cases must be distinguished from United States and the or­ cases where the individual refused ders of the officers ap­ to serve, and made timely complaint, pointed over me, according as did Billings. In that connection to the Rules and Articles of two decisions of the Federal courts,12 War." also decided in 1944 and 1945, ex­ Immediately following the Billings pressed the view that induction could case, the Army released from con­ take place without an oath of induc­ finement (resulting from convictions tion even though the individual did by courts-martial for various of­ not accept the role of a soldier for a fenses), and restored to civilian life, period of time. In the Catovolo case, several individuals who had served the statement is dicta as the court

11 Mayborn v. Heflebower, 145 F. 2d 864 (5th Cir. 1944); Hibbs v. Cato­ volo, 145 F. 2d 866 (5th Cir. 1944); Sanford v. Callan, 148 F. 2d 376 (5th Cir. 1945). 12 Hibbs v. Catovolo, 145 F. 2d 866 (5th Cir. 1944); Ex parte Kruk, 62 F. Supp. 901 (DCND Cal. 1945). The Judge Advocate Journal 5

had already stated that the individ­ of the ceremony of induction at that ual's service waived any question of time), that he had not taken the illegal induction. In the Kruk case, oath and that he refused to serve in however, the issue was squarely the Army,13 Yost immediately after joined. In that case, after comple­ the induction ceremony absented tion of the induction process, during himself from the Army, returned which Kruk refused to take the oath home and "continued * * * [his] of induction, he, in the words of the evangelistic work of Jehovah Wit­ court, "left for parts unknown". The ness". The 9th Circuit Court of Ap­ decision of the court holding that peals rendered a decision holding Kruk had been inducted relied on Yost not to have been inducted, rec­ the Mayhorn and Catovolo cases, ognizing that some of the evidence ante, although recognizing the fac­ of Yost (i.e., that he had not taken tual difference existing between those the oath of induction) may have cases (i.e., no service following the been self-serving in nature. That purported induction) and that of opinion stated pertinently: Kruk. "It is not contended here that Summarizing, it may be concluded the affirmative taking of the oath that in 1945 decisions had been is required by the statute or by reached by the Federal courts ex­ the regulations under it. What is pressing, in substance, the view that claimed is that before a registrant an individual who refused to take becomes a member of the military the oath of induction was neverthe­ forces he must have submitted to less in the Army by reason of his such induction ceremonies as were subsequent service in the Army currently held. The ceremonies (Mayhorn, Catovolo, and Callan practiced in the class of around cases), the view that an individual seventy-five selected registrants to who refused to take the oath of in­ which Yost belonged appear to duction was inducted even in the ab­ have been quite simple. The reg­ sence of subsequent service in the istrants were seated in a room, Army (Kruk case), and the view and an army officer gave a short that an individual who refused to talk upon the subject of soldiers take the oath of induction was not being A.W.O.L., about the conduct inducted, the fact of subsequent of a solider, and as to a citizen's service not being present or con­ duty. The members of the class sidered (Billings case). of registrants were then requested In 1946, subsequent to the Kruk to stand, raise their right hands case, a factual situation similar to and repeat, line by line, an oath that of Kruk was considered. In which was read to them. (Sub­ that case one Yost informed Army sequently the method of induction authorities, after the induction oath was changed so as to practically had been administered to his group eliminate the possibility of doubt (the oath still being a requisite part as to the actual induction of any

13 Lawrence v. Yost, 157 F. 2d 44 (9th Cir. 1946). The Judge Advocate Journal member of an induction class.) decision in Billings v. Truesdell, The registrant's affirmative volun­ supra. tary conformance necessary under "While some of the evidence Billings v. Truesdell, 321 U.S. 542 here related may be self-serving at 558, 64 S. Ct. 737, 88 L. Ed. in nature, it was received without 917, to this part of the ceremony objection and without limitation of was the only part of it in which purpose and the court gave it some act of acceptance of the in­ credence. There is no error duction by the registrant was re­ claimed by appellant on the score. quired. It most certainly was the "Of course, it is logical argu­ high light of the proceeding. Yost ment to present to a fact finding testified, and the trial court be­ court that Yost held it in his lieved him that he stood when the power to speak out at the time class was requested to stand, that the oath was being read or other­ he did not conform to the request wise to indicate his refusal to given the class that each member conform to the ceremony in such should raise his hand, and did not a manner as to make a mistake conform to a like request to re­ in the matter quite impossible. peat the oath, line after line, as it His burden, however, was not so was read, and that he did not great as to require him to do all take the oath. in his power in that regard. He "Sometime after the induction had already been outspoken that ceremonies had been conducted, he would not take the oath and in Yost made a written report to accordance therewith he testifies an agent of the Federal Bureau of that he did not take it. The Investigation, which is entirely slightest attention on the part of consistent with his claim as to the the induction officials would have happenings at the induction cen­ revealed whether anyone of the ter. We set it out in full in the class was disregarding the request margin. to hold up his hand or to repeat "Yost also informed his draft the oath. No official intimates board in terms consistent with his that he made any effort to observe claim, which we quote in the mar­ the conduct of the registrants. gin. Lieutenant Leigh's negative state­ "Lieutenant Leigh, who con­ ment on this point is highly in­ ducted the ceremonies, in a state­ dicative that the induction offi­ ment admitted into evidence by cials did not consider that the stipulation, says: '* * * that he registrants had any volition in the observed no unusual incident at matter. The army was giving the time and at that time when commands before the registrant prospective inductees refused to was in the service. take the oath, they were inducted "In the circumstances there ap­ nevertheless if found to be other­ pears to have been that degree of wise qualified.' This practice, we substantial evidence before the understand, was abandoned after trial court which is required to The Judge Advocate Journal 7

support its conclusion that Yost decision on the facts of the case. did not in fact submit to induc­ The facts of the Cox case, as tion. The restraint complained of stated pertinently in the opinion of is therefore without warrant in the Federal District Court, which law and the judgment must be were adopted by the 9th Circuit affirmed." Court of Appeals, were as follows: It is apparent from the above "* * * On June 12, 1942 the pe­ opinion that Yost's refusal to take titioner reported for induction at the oath of induction, which was the induction station in San Fran­ then (1943) a portion of the cere­ cisco. He claims that he did not mony of induction, was considered take the induction oath at this by the court to be a refusal to sub­ time or at any time, but that he mit to induction and, accordingly, continued on to the Presidio at Yost was held not to have been in­ Monterey with his draft group on ducted in accordance with the Bill­ the representation that he would ings case. His case did not involve there get a further hearing on his a question of waiver of irregularity classification. in the induction process, as he did "9. While at Monterey petitioner not after the induction ceremony allegedly signed a statement pur­ accept his role as a soldier and portedly abandoning his claim as serve as such. As the Yost case a conscientious objector. The peti­ carefully considered the question tioner claims he never signed such whether an individual, who refused a statement. The validity of his to take the oath of induction and signature to this document was who did not serve as a soldier, was never proved. There is no foun­ inducted and decided it in the nega­ dation for the admission of this tive, it is believed that that decision alleged statement in evidence, rather than the decision reached in therefore, it is ordered stricken the Kruk case controls. Further, from the record, and this Court the reasoning of the Yost case has disregards it. been adopted, without mention of "10. Petitioner was then sent the Kruk case, in the Cox case 14 to a basic training camp in Ala­ discussed hereinafter, which, like the bama. He refused to take part in Yost case, was tried in the same military training and at the first district as, and subsequent to, the opportunity boarded a train and Kruk case (DCND Cal). The rea­ returned to his home in San Jose, soning of the Yost case was applied where he has resided openly ever by both the Federal District Court since. and the 9th Circuit Court of Ap­ "Petitioner obtained a job with peals in the Cox case, although the o.ne of his former employers, decision in the 9th Circuit Court of thereafter changed his employment Appeals reversed the lower court's from time to time, but at all times

14 Cox v. Fredericks, 90 F. Supp. 55 (DCND Cal., 1950); Cox v. Wede­ meyer, 192 F. 2d 920 (9th Cir., 1951). 8 The Judge Advocate Journal

remained in San Jose. He made was supported by persuasive doc­ absolutely no attempt to conceal umentary and other evidence. his identity, or his address, or "In the case at bar the testi­ residence, or whereabouts. He mony of petitioner is not so sup­ was arrested · by agents of the ported. On the contrary many Federal Bureau of Investigation circumstances compel the conclu­ about May, 1949, almost seven sion that his statement is incor­ years after he had left Camp rect. He failed to tell his local Rucker in Alabama. During this board that he had not taken the period he has supported his wife, oath. He made no written state­ and so far as the record shows ment to that effect to any official has been a law-abiding industrious in the Army, or connected with citizen. the local board. Instead of re­ "* * *" fusing to repurt to the Army as in the Yost case he went volun­ The opinion of the court went on tarily from the Presidio in San to state pertinently: Francisco to Monterey, and from "Petitioner's situation is en­ there to Camp Rucker, Alabama, tirely different from that uf the he designated his wife as his bene­ draftee in Lawrence v. Yost, 157 ficiary, he wore the uniform of F. (2d) 44. There the draftee the Army, accepted a pay check testified that when the oath was and other Army benefits, including administered to a group of in­ free mailing privileges accorded a ductees he failed and refused to soldier. In writing to his wife take it. His statement was cor­ from Alabama he did not tell roborated by his acts preceding her he had not taken the oath. and immediately subsequent to his When he applied for positions attempted induction. He was out­ after his return to San Jose the spoken he would not take the excuse he gave for not being in oath, and had not taken it. Im­ the Army was to the effect that mediately after the induction serv­ he had received a medical dis­ ice he told the officers that he charge, and when he was appre­ would not report to the Army and hended and arrested, and at his that he had not taken the oath first court martial, he never made and he did not report to the any claim that he had not taken Army. He returned to his home the oath. These and other cir­ and reported to the Clerk of his cumstances compel me to find that local board that he had not taken he has not sustained the burden the oath. The Clerk made a writ­ of proving he was not properly ten note to that effect in his file. inducted. Moreover, it might be Sometime after he made a full said also that these circumstances written report to the Federal Bu­ show that his conduct after leav­ reau of Investigation to the same ing the induction center amounted effect. In short, his testimony to a waiver of any irregularity in that he had not taken the oath his induction. The Judge Advocate Journal 9

Mayborn v. Heflebower, 145 F. San Francisco he was promised (2d) 864; that he would be given a hearing Sanborn [Sanford] v. Callan, on his exemption claims at Mon­ 148 F. (2d) 376." terey and that at Monterey he was given a similar assurance as On appeal of the Cox case, the to a hearing at Camp Rucker. case was reversed, the court stat­ He testified that he advised his ing: commander at Camp Rucker that "This brings us to the question he was a conscientious objector whether the appellant's subse­ and had refused to take the oath, quent acts, following his rep·ort and said he was not a soldier. for induction, operated, by way He refused to carry a gun and of waiver, consent, or otherwise, was compelled by his captain to to subject him to the jurisdiction carry 2 x 4 timbers nailed to­ of the army or of a court-mar­ gether, in place of a gun. After tial. a period of this he rebelled and After referring to t.he taking was thrown into a stockade.4 His of the induction 'Oath (which the captain tried to persuade him to court held Cox did in fact take) , drop his convictions but without to his proceeding from the Pre­ success and as soon as appellant sidio in San Francisco to Monte­ received his first and last pay rey, and thence to Camp Rucker, check, which furnished him funds in Alabama, to the fact that he for a railroad ticket, he went wore the army uniform, utilized home. free mailing privileges, and ac­ [3] In 'Our opinion the evidence cepted a pay check, the trial is insufficient to support a finding court's opinion stated: 'Moreover, that appellant waived any irreg­ it might be said also that these ularity in his induction. His circumstances show that his con­ acts following induction, such as duct after leaving the induction wearing the uniform, were those center amount to a waiver of any in respect to which he had no irregularity in his induction'. choice. His own testimony, not The court thought that, appel­ contradicted by any other wit­ lant's testimony that he did not ness, was that he continually as­ take the induction oaths was dis­ serted his refusal to serve as a credited because of its lack 'Of soldier. There is n'O evidence of corroboration from other sources. such express or voluntary waiver The court thought significant ap­ as appeared in Mayhorn v. Hefle­ pellant's failure to tell his local bower, 5 cir., 145 F. 2d 864 or in board that he had not taken the Sanford v. Callan, 5 cir., 148 F. oath and his failure to make any 2d 376." 5 written statement to that effect to any official in the Army. It is apparent from the foregoing Appellant testified that even that the Cox case follows the rules after rep-orting at the Presidio in laid down in the Mayhorn, Callan, 10 The Judge Advocate Journal

and Yost cases; that is, that an in­ for induction in all respects will dividual who disclaims taking the be assembled. The inducting offi­ oath of induction, as required by cer will inform them of the im­ regulations then in effect for in­ minence of induction, qu·oting the duction, will be held to have been following: inducted if, by his subsequent serv­ 'You are about to be inducted ice as a soldier, he waives the ques­ into the Armed Services of the tion of any irregularity in his in­ United States, in the Army, the duction. It is therefore believed Navy, the Air Force, or the Ma­ the Kruk case is a legal anomaly in rine Corps, as indicated by the holding that an individual who re­ service announced following your fused to take the induction oath, name when called. You will take and who had not waived any ir­ one step forward as your name regularity in his induction proceed­ and service are called and such ing's by subsequent service, was, step will constitute your induc­ nevertheless a member of the Army, tion into the Armed Service in­ and hence should not be followed. dicated.' Apparently because of the lan­ b. Any registrant who fails or guage of the Supreme Court in refuses to step forward when his Billings v. Truesdell (to the effect name is called will be removed that the Army might prescribe any quietly and courteously from the type of induction ceremony it de­ presence of the group about to be sired, and the • uncertainty of the inducted and processed as pre~ exact time of induction under the scribed in paragraph 28b. induction ceremony then prescribed c. A commissioned officer or in regulations), Army Regulations warrant officer then will call the 615-500, 10 August 1944, were pro­ roll and the foregoing procedure mulgated, providing for induction will be carried out. All who have by an induction ceremony having as stepped forward will be informed its "main attraction" the taking of that each and every one of them a "step forward" rather than by is a member of the armed service an induction ceremony including an concerned, using the language ex­ oath taking. Army Regulations 615­ actly as quoted: 500, 10 August 1944, have been 'You have now been inducted superseded but not materially al­ into the Armed Service of the tered by subsequent regulations. United States indicated when Those presently in effect (AR 601­ your name was called. Each one 270, 5 April 1956) provide per­ of you is now a member of the tinently: Armed Services concerned, and "Induction. The following pro­ amenable to the regulations and cedure will be followed in the in­ the Uniform Code of Military duction of all registrants into the Justice and all other applicable Armed Forces: laws and regulations.' " a. Registrants who have been "Oath of allegiance ceremony. determined to be fully qualified The oath of allegiance is not a The Judge Advocate Journal 11

part of induction. Registrants will be substituted for the oath who have been inducted will be described in a above: informed that the taking of cere­ 'I, ...... a citizen of monial oath of allegiance is not ...... and without inten­ a part of induction. The oath tion of surrendering such citizen­ will be administered by the serv­ ship, do solemnly swear (or af­ ice to which assigned as soon firm) that I will serve the United after the induction as practicable. States honestly and faithfully In every instance there will be an against all their enemies whom­ appreciable break to insure that soever, and that I will obey the the taking 'Of the ceremonial oath orders of the President of the does not appear to be any part United States and orders of the of the induction. The oath may officers appointed over me, acC'Ord­ be administered at any location ing to regulations and the Uni­ as prescribed by the service in form Code of Military Justice.' which inducted. If a nondeclar­ ant alien is a member of the c. If a person declines to sub­ newly inducted group, the officer scribe to ·any oath or refuses to will explain the difference between sign the various papers after the the ceremonial oath of allegiance oath of service and obedience. is · and the ceremonial oath of serv­ administered, he . will-- be advised ice and obedience. that he ·is · already a member of a. The 'Oath of allegiance reads the United States Army, Navy, as follows: Air Force, or Marine Corps, whichever is appropriate, and his 'I, ...... , do solemnly refusal to sign papers will in no swear (or affirm) that I will bear way alter his status or disposi­ true faith and allegiance to the tion.'' United States of America; that I will serve them honestly and In a later Federal case 111 concern­ faithfully against all their en­ ing a purported induction under the emies whomsoever; and that I "step forward" system, the peti­ will obey the orders of the Presi­ tioner, Corrigan, claimed he did not dent of the United States and take a step nor did he raise his the orders of the officers appoint­ hand and take the oath although he ed over me, acC'Ording to regula­ made no protest at the time. The tions and the Uniform Code of court stated as follows, in finding Military Justice.' petitioner not to have been in­ b. In the event a nondeclarant ducted: alien does not desire to take the "It is not contended that either oath of allegiance, he may be ad­ the step forward or the taking ministered the following oath of or giving of the oath is required service and obedience, which oath by the Selective Service Act as

15 Corrigan v. Secretary of Army et al., 211 F, 2d 293 (9th Cir., 1954). 12 The Judge Advocate Journal

necessary to induction. As said row, to step forward and the in Billings v. Truesdell, 1944, 321 physical set-up and the testimony U.S. 542, 559, 64 S.Ct. 737, 746, practically demonstrate the truth 88 L.Ed. 917; 'a selectee becomes of the claim. The inducting Cap­ 'actually inducted' within the tain testified in answer to a que_s­ meaning of § 11 of the Act when tion as to space, 'There is space, in obedience to the order 'Of his not much.' 'Q. You mean he board and after the Army has could shuffle? A. Correct.' found him acceptable for service At no time does the inducting he undergoes whatever ceremony Captain claim that he saw peti­ or requirements of admission the tioner take the step forward. As War Department has prescribed.' to the procedure, he testified on Therefore, since the selectee is direct examination that when he subject to civil authority until the calls a name at induction cere­ moment of completion of the in­ monies, 'I wait for a response, duction, at which moment he be­ * * * or if they are near the comes subject to military author­ front of the room where I can see ity, it is highly important that them, I see if they step forward.' such moment should be marked Afterward, he would call the next with certainty. See Billings v. name. 'Q. Did you at any time Truesdell, 1944, 321 U.S. 542, 64 look to see if a man had taken S.Ct. 737, 88 L.Ed. 917. a step forward? A. I look up For a time the oath marked each time I call a name. Q. What the dividing line between the ci­ do you look for when you look vilian and military status, but up? A. For movement, for a man difficulties and uncertainties arose stepping forward. * * * Q. On as to whether, in fact, the selectee ___ that day did you see any man had taken the oath. See our fail to step forward after his opinion in Lawrence v. Yost, 9 name was called by you? A. No.' Cir., 1946, en bane, 157 F. 2d 44. On re-cross-examination, ·- Cap­ Thereafter, the regulation (Army tain Beydler was asked, 'Can you Special Regulation No. 615-180-1, tell us that you recall whether or paragraph 23), providing for the not you saw this petitioner move step f orwatrd was promulgated. forward on April 15-after you [1] However, 'One may emerge called his name?' The Captain from a selectee to a soldier with­ answered, 'No, I cannot.' * * * out taking the step forward; that Petitioner on cross-examination is, by conduct consistent with the was asked, 'When was the first soldier status; but the fact of the time that you advised anybody in step forward, whether or not it the Army that you were a con­ was taken, is of high importance scientious objector?' * "' "' A. in this case. As to that issue of 'After the ceremony.' The Court: fact, it is claimed by petitioner What do you mean 'after the that it was impossible for the ceremony?' The Witness: Well, men, other than those in the front after the ceremony was over, I The Judge Advocate Journal 13

thought-well, there isn't much to induction, and is not consistent use in making a scene, and I just with any theory of acquiescence. walked outside and told the Cap­ However, the court made no find­ tain in charge. * * * I told him ing on the subject of acquiescence. I did not take [the] oath or step [4] We hold that the evidence forward. * * * He says, 'No. You does not support the conclusion are in the Army.' * * * Q. Isn't of the trial court that petitioner it a fact that when you saw Cap­ was inducted into the Armed tain Beydler, after leaving the Services of the United States." induction room that you told him Summarizing, it may be seen that you had changed your mind, that the Army may prescribe any form you were now a conscientious ob­ of ceremony for induction it chooses, jector? A. I didn't say 'I changed that it may not forcibly induct an my mind', No, sir. * * * I said 'I individual, that under implementing am'. * * * regulations prior to 10 August 1944 After that, according to peti­ an individual was inducted by a . tioner's testimony, he made three ceremony including an oath taking, telephone calls and then told a and .that subsequent to that time Sergeant, 'I am going home'. Pe­ Army regulations prescribe that an titioner further testified, 'I had individual is inducted at the moment some friends and I went over to he takes the required step forward. see and talked with them. * * * I The courts have been unusually went over to another friend's and lenient in their treatment of individ­ stayed all night. * * * I stayed uals claiming involuntary military another day and then I went on servitude insofar as the Army's home.' * * * claim to jurisdiction over them is [2,3] We are of the opinion concerned. It seems fair to state that the unnecessarily crowded that individuals who have not ac­ set-up in the induction room made quiesced in their induction as evi­ it physically impossible for the denced by their subsequent conduct inducting officer to have seen have an excellent chance to claim, whether petitioner took the step and secure, their freedom from the forward and that it was in fact Army on the basis that they were impossible for petitioner to take not properly inducted. Lest the a step forward. Therefore, we foregoing tempt an individual to think, the court's finding on this evade induction by a refusal to sub­ factual issue was in error. The mit thereto, attention is invited to evidence reveals no act after the subsection 12 (a) of the Universal induction ceremonies from which Military Training and Service Act, it could be found that petitioner SU'pra, which provides, inter alia, a had in fact acquiesced in induc­ maximum penalty of not more than tion, but on the contrary his con­ five years or a fine of not more duct is entirely consistent with than $10,000, or both, for personil his claim that he did not submit refusing service under that Act. Annual Dinner at the Dorchester Hotel, London. At the head table (left to right): Gen. Hickman, Mrs. Halse, Gen. Harmon, Lady Gentle, Judge Quinn, Mrs. Ferguson, Master Montagu, Col. King, Sir Frederick Gentle, Mrs. Quinn, Brigadier Halse, Mrs. Montagu, Mrs. Harmon, Judge Ferguson, Mrs. Hickman, Admiral Ward. THE ANNUAL MEETING

The annual meetings of the As­ interested in it because it would sociation this year held in New have the effect of enhancing the York and London were outstanding prestige of the legal profession by events in the history of the Asso­ matching the rank of The Judge ciation. Nearly 100 of our mem­ Advocates General with that of the bers met at the Columbia Univer­ chiefs of personnel and other offi­ sity Club on the afternoon of 15 cers with whom The Judge Ad­ July for the first session. Col. vocates General must deal. Col. Nicholas E. Allen presided. Par­ King expressed the view that the ticular emphasis of the meeting was prospects for the enactment of this laid on the work of two committees, legislation are good because it does both headed by General E. M. Bran­ not have serious budgetary implica­ non. The first committee, which tions and is strongly sponsored by has done outstanding work and has the American Medical Association filed its report, is the committee and the American Bar Association. studying the Hoover Commission The other legislative matter men­ Recommendations with regard to tioned by Col. King was the Thur­ legal services in the military estab­ mond Bill introduced in the Senate lishment. The report of that com­ by Senator Strom Thurmond and in mittee is included in this issue of the House of Representatives by the Journal at page 23. The other Congressmen Hyde and Multer. It committee of significant interest is was explained that this legislation the committee on the Status of the would do three things: ( 1) establish Lawyer in the Armed Forces. The the initial rank of Judge Advocates report of this committee was pub­ and Legal Specialists as First Lieu­ lished in 23 J AJ at page 17. tenant with automatic promotion to With reference to the report of the rank of Captain for officers who the Committee on the Status of the have been at the bar one year; (2) Lawyer in the Armed Forces, Col. the granting of three years' con­ King reported as chairman of the structive service for promotion pur­ Legislative Committee on two pend­ poses for the time spent in securing ing legislative matters: First, he professional education; and, (3) the spoke on the bill which would in­ establishment of a graduated scale crease the rank of The Judge Ad­ of incentive payments for lawyers vocates General and the Surgeons in line with those incentive pay­ General to Lieutenant General or ments now made to medical and Vice Admiral. It was pointed out dental officers. The Department of that although this legislation would Defense has not yet reported on affect directly and personally only this legislation to the Congressional a few officers, the Association was Committees. Col. King stated that

The Judge Advocate Journal 17 he had had conferences with mem­ need for some program t'O encourage bers of the Congressional commit­ young lawyers to follow a military tees concerned, and that he had career and suggested that the Thur­ been assured that the Thurmond mond Bill uutlined by Col. King Bill would be considered with the should be considered on its merits Cordiner report and that the De­ and not as a high pressure lobbying partments have been requested to activity because he felt that on the submit a report on the proposed merits, a good case could be made legislation at an early date. Col. for that type legislation. General King stated that he did not an­ Hickman mentioned several regula­ ticipate favorable repurts from the tory changes made in his office to military establishment. If, however, help secure and retain lawyers in the matter was brought on for con­ the services: first of all, a reduc­ sideration at Congressional hear­ tion in tour of duty from three to ings, he was satisfied that a good two years in the case of law grad­ case could be made in favor of the uates who already hold commis­ legislation and had reason to be­ sions obtained through ROTC; sec­ lieve, that if not the whole, at least ondly, allowing students in the last substantial parts uf the bill would year of law school to apply for ac­ be enacted. Col. King mentioned tive .duty in J AGC prior to grad­ the strong support given the legis­ uati-on and bar examination; and, lation by the American Medical As­ third, allowing ROTC students to be sociation, the American Bar Associa­ deferred from active duty sufficient tion, and many local bar associa­ time to complete three years of tions and he took the opportunity law school education. General Hick­ to commend particularly Mr. man also announced the appoint­ Charles Rhyne, President of the ment in his office of an executive American Bar Association, in his assistant for reserve matters. Some appointment of Col. Osmer Fitts, a of the work of this assistant will be member of the board of directors of to plan and establish, if possible, a the Judge Advocates Association, as mobilization troop basis for J A G's chairman of the American Bar As­ so that more lawyers will be able to sociation's Committee on the Status take their inactive duty training of the Lawyer in the Armed Forces. with units instead of the present General George W. Hickman, The ORC school establishment. In this Judge AdV'Ocate General of the way, JAG officers organized in trial Army, General Albert M. Kuhfeld, teams, claims teams, branch offices The Deputy Judge Advocate Gen­ and augmentation teams for vari­ eral of the Air Force and Captain ous technical services would become Philip Walker, Deputy Judge Ad­ entitled t'O a more realistic program, vocate General of the Navy, at­ a pay basis for inactive duty train­ tended the meeting in New York as ing, and would at the same time spokesmen for their respective of­ receive better training more suit­ fices. able for immediate service upon General Hickman underscored the mobilization. 18 The Judge Advocate Journal

General Kuhfeld, in speaking for organized the Office of The Judge the Air Force, indicated that one Advocate General of the Navy by of the main problems of The Judge setting up a five man top manage­ Advocate General of the Air Force ment team composed of the Judge is the retention of qualified officers. Advocate General, a Deputy and He pointed out that over half of the three Assistants. The Assistants were strength of the Air JAGD is made placed in charge of military law, up of First Lieutenants, whereas personnel and reserve matters and only 10% of the overall strength administrative and international law should be in that grade. He ob­ matters, re s p e ct iv el y. Captain served that as the Air Force loses Walker expressed the view that its Lieutenant Colonels and Colonels there has been great improvement by retirement, their places are filled in the quality of legal services in by First Lieutenants who do not the Navy. As far as military jus­ stay on duty long enough to become tice is concerned, there has been a Captains. General Kuhfeld recog­ tendency to reduce charges and to nized that the personnel retention adopt the Army's policy of accept­ problem is service-wide, but he ex­ ing negotiated pleas in appropriate pressed the opinion that it is more cases. As far as the personnel and acute in the legal departments than reserve management branch is con­ anywhere else. As an example, he cerned, their primary function has pointed out that there are two ap­ been to obtain a better lot for the plicants for each three vacancies in law specialists and increased pro­ The Judge Advocate General's De­ fessional prestige. He announced partment, whereas there are three that 75 new legal billets had been applicants for each Air Force com­ obtained from the Bureau of Naval mission vacancy. Personnel, and that there has been General Kuhfeld, after reviewing a revitalization of the program for the statistics relating to courts­ recruiting new J A G's. martial and the Air Force experi­ Judge Latimer reported for the ence on rehabilitation of convicted Court of Military Appeals. He an­ accused, again urged that the fifteen nounced that his colleagues on the changes in the Uniform Code of Court were en route to London to Military Justice advocated by the attend the American Bar Associa­ Judges of the Court of Military tion's sessions there. Judge Latimer Appeals and The Judge Advocates stated that in recent months the General should be adopted and Court has been granting more peti­ would be of material assistance in tions for review, and, that accord­ the proper administration of justice ingly, it would seem that the case in the Services. load of each judge was going to be Captain Walker reported that dur­ materially increased. He expressed ing the past year Admiral Ward, the fear that if the work load be­ in the interest of providing good comes too heavy, the quality of work legal services to the Navy, had re­ of each judge in each case is going The Judge Advocate Journal 19 to be limited. He announced his Code of Military Justice and the own policy with regard to the grant value of lawyers in rendering a of reviews to be guided by two necessary service to persons in the things: first, review must be of some Armed Forces. Judge Latimer ex­ benefit to the accused, or second, pressed the opinion that he did not review must establish guiding prin­ feel that pay and rank are the only ciples of law which will be of bene­ matters necessary to improve the fit to the system of military justice morale of the profession in the operating under the Uniform Code Armed Forces. He said that he and to the practitioners participat­ felt what is most needed by the ing in the system. He pointed out lawyer in unifurm is a sympathetic that many of the cases before the boss. Thirdly, the Judge pointed out Court involve very difficult Consti­ that the judicial system of the tutional law questions, such as, for Armed Forces has been changed example, those involved in the Smith from a paternalistic one to a sys­ and Covert cases. · These, he ob­ tem of advocacy. Therefore, he served, require considerable time, re­ urged that it is the duty of defend­ search and thoughtful work. ers in all military cases to fight Judge Latimer made a few per­ vigorously for the rights of the ac­ sonal observations. First, he pointed cused and even in negotiated plea out that the representation of ac­ cases, to fight for a minimum sen­ cused by the young Service lawyer tence. He also suggested that The is as good as that provided the de­ Judge Advocates General should fense in civilian criminal courts. send their more experienced officers This, he pointed out, was extremely to the appellate court in more cases commendatory in view of the fact because they, with greater military that the military services have a experience than the younger J A lieu­ constant personnel turnover and, tenants, could better answer the further, in view of the fact that in questions raised by a civilian minded the military services there is a chain judge. Judge Latimer finally urged of command in which the lawyer that the amendments to the Uni­ is located; and, generally speaking, form Code recommended by The the commander has little regard for Judge Advocates General and the lawyers. Secondly, Judge Latimer Court a few years ago are neces­ observed that in the six or seven sary in the interest of economy of years of the Court's existence not a time and money and the improve­ single command school had been ment of justice and he urged that called anywhere where a judge of those proposed amendments be sup­ the Court had been invited to speak ported. and enlighten commanders upon the Capt. Robert G. Burke, USNR, operations of the Uniform Code of president of the Association in the Military Justice. He advanced the year 1955-56, was then awarded the view that we must educate com­ Association's past president's award manders to appreciate the Uniform by Col, Allen, 20 The Judge Advocate Journal

The report of the Board of Tellers Capt. Philip A. Walker, USN, was then made and the following Hawaii-Second Vice President were announced elected and installed Col. J. Fielding Jones, USMCR, in their respective offices: Virginia-Secretary Lt. Col. Edward F. Gallagher, Col. Thomas H. King, USAFR, JAGC-USAR, District of Colum­ District of Columbia-President bia-Treasurer Col. Frederick Bernays Wiener, Col. Shelden D. Elliott, JAGC­ J AGC-USAR, Maryland - First USAR, New York-Delegate to Vice President the American Bar Association BOARD OF DIRECTORS Army Brig. Gen. Allen W. Rigsby, Ne­ braska Maj. Gen. E. M. Brannon, Dis­ Maj. Gen. Albert M. Kuhfeld, Dis­ trict of Columbia trict of Columbia Col. Joseph A. A very, Virginia Maj. Marion T. Bennett, Maryland Brig. Gen. Charles L. Decker, Dis­ Lt. Col. Louis F. Alyea, Virginia trict of Columbia Lt. Col. John H. Finger, Califor­ Col. King then assumed the chair nia and after a few remarks, the meet­ Col. Osmer C. Fitts, Vermont ing was recessed to reconvene in Maj. Gen. Stanley W. Jones, Vir­ the United States Information Serv­ ginia ice's Conference Room at the Amer­ Col. William J. Hughes, Jr., Dis­ ican Embassy, Grosvenor Square, trict of Columbia London, at 2 :30 p.m. on 25 July Capt. John J. Brandlin, California 1957. At the appointed time and Col. Franklin H. Berry, New Jer­ place in London, the meeting of the sey Association was resumed. Over a Maj. Samuel A. Schreckengaust, hundred of the members of the As­ Pennsylvania sociation and interested military Col. James Garnett, District of lawyers attended the recessed meet­ Columbia ing. A good many of these were Col. William J. Wertz, Kansas members of the Association cur­ rently on active duty in Europe. Navy There was a resume of the business Capt. S. B. D. Waod, Pennsylvania conducted in New York, including Lt. Penrose L. Albright, Virginia the full report by Col. King on Capt. William C. Mott, District of legislative matters. Columbia Mr. Robert Deckert, General Counsel of the Department of De­ Air Force fense, was present and addressed Maj. Gen. Reginald C. Harmon, the meeting. Mr. Deckert stated District of Columbia that the Cordiner committee's report The Judge Advocate Journal 21 had been favorably received by the Association because then he was an­ Department of Defense since it real­ nouncing hopes and expectations. izes that it must keep its trained After one year in office, he said he personnel in the active service as a found it more embarrassing, because matter of economy. Although legis­ now he would have to rep·ort what lation effectuating the present re­ he had done. The Admiral stated port would require increased ex­ that s-ome changes in the organiza­ penditures, he expressed the view tion of the office which could be ef­ that there would be a net saving of fectuated by regulation had been ac­ money by reducing the expensive complished, but he was sorry to re­ results of continuing high personnel port that those changes requiring turnover and retraining. Some items legislation were coming about much from the Cordiner report, he stated, more slowly. He pointed out that he have been submitted to the Congress had set up a top management team as legislative requests. Although a of a Deputy Judge Advocate Gen­ report by the Department of De­ eral and three Assistant Judge Ad­ fense on the Thurmond Bill had vocates General to increase career not yet been made, Mr. Deckert said possibilities of the office; but, of that it would be done promptly. He course, legislation would be required stated that he personally favors the to increase rank and compensation. objectives of the Thurmond Bill and He pointed out that the Navy has could see no reason why lawyers only one flag rank in the Office of should not be as well remunerated The Judge Advocate General, and as doctors. that legislation had been introduced Mr. Deckert also spoke of the in the Congress to extend flag rank Status of Forces Agreements and to the Deputy Judge Advocate Gen­ decried the public criticism of these eral. Admiral Ward stated that al­ agreements such as has arisen out most all of the senior officers in of the Girard case. He called for the Judge Advocate business of the a greater effort on the part of Navy were former reservists who those who understand the Status of came on duty about the same time Forces Agreements and the jurisdic­ seventeen or eighteen year ago and tional necessity of them, to educate that accordingly unless there are the public into -understanding that some very interesting career incen­ they are an integral part of a joint tives offered the lawyer in the operation of self-defense between us Navy, that Service will lose all of and our allies. its senior legal talent in about two General Hickman personally gave or three years when they become his report for the Army as he had eligible for retirement. He stated done in New York and then Col. that the lowest rank of lawyers in King called upon Admiral Chester the. Navy now is Lieutenant, Junior Ward, The Judge Advocate General Grade, and that a new recruitment of the Navy. Admiral Ward ob­ program in the nature of an officer served that a year earlier it had candidate schoul conducted at New­ been easy for him to report to the port, Rhode Island offers hopes of 22 The Judge Advocate Journal providing new young lawyers for business of the Air Force, but also his Service. Admiral Ward stated many policies of legal administra­ that he believed that during the tion and personnel management past year, the myth that every law­ which are often the most complex. yer in the Naval service means one He expressed the fear that in ten less fighting man had been killed. or fifteen years, unless some chang·es Even the Marine Corps is now es­ are made in the field of personnel tablishing law specialist billets, be­ management, there will be no uni­ cause the experience of the Marine formed legal departments in the Corps has been that a man can't Services. General Harmon spoke do two jobs equally well. The Ma­ specifically of some of his primary rine Corps has come to the conclu­ concerns. First, for a good many sion that the lawyer is doing an es­ years, the rights of the accused sential job and that it is no longer have been greatly amplified and practical to ruin the career of a there has been improvement in this fighting man by forcing upon him direction. At the same time, how­ the job of a lawyer. ever, there has not been expressed Admiral Ward stated that the the same concern with the rights of Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Thomas society nor has there been equal Gates, has expressed great concern zeal exhibited in the matter of the about the effect of tao many men rehabilitation of the accused. Gen­ in the brigs upon the manpower of eral Harmon expressed the view the Navy. He stated that to make that rehabilitation is not only a better use of these men he is using matter of concern of the individual, some of the experience of the Army but is a social necessity in the light and Air Force. By the use of the of the manpower situation and the Army's practice of negotiated pleas, good of civilian society when the pre-trial confinement time and time accused is returned to it. General of trial and review have been cut. Harmon noted that one-half of those By use of the Air Force post trial given the opportunity of rehabilita­ investigation procedure, more men tion are successfully restored per­ are being restored to duty at the manently, but he expressed concern convening authority level before the about the other half who do not mechanics of post trial review are successfully complete rehabilitation initiated. Admiral Ward expressed and the even greater number who the belief that he has a better law never have the opportunity. He office than he did last year. suggested that if a person properly General Harmon was then asked rehabilitates himself in the civilian to report for the Air Force. General society over a period of years, it Harmon stated that his office is con­ would seem that we owe him a ducting more business of greater chance of rehabilitation too and this complexity with no increase in man­ is not only an obligation to him but power and actually a loss of experi­ also to society. ence level. He said his office is not The second matter of concern merely concerned with the legal which General Harmon spoke about The Judge Advocate Journal was the problem relating to the His recommendation that there be retention and acquisition of people no increase in pay for doctors but to render legal services in the an overall system of pay commen­ Armed Forces. He observed that surate with professior.al capacity in the Air Force where 10% of having been rejected by the Depart­ his officers should be in the grade ment of the Air Force in favor of of Lieutenant, actually half are in a piece meal measure of increase in that grade. Because the Lieutenants pay leaves him now in the position, do not continue on active duty until General Harmon said, where he they are promoted to Captain and must say that if professional people then to Major, there is a gap be­ are going to be retained by piece tween the Colonels, who will soon meal legislation rather than an over­ be leaving the Services by retirement, all pay system, legislation of the and the Lieutenants, who are filling Thurmond Bill type must be enacted their offices temporarily. General if we are going to have legal serv­ Harmon stated very clearly and pre­ ices in the Armed Forces. cisely that he personally favors the Chief Judge Quinn reported for Thurmond Bill, although he realizes the Court of Military Appeals. After that the Department of the Air reviewing briefly a few figures Force does not. He stated that pointing out the work load of the orally and in writing he has sup­ Court, he observed that it is the ported the proposed legislation and duty of the Court to hear any case will continue to do so. In the be­ if there is any reason for hearing ginning when the doctors sought it. Since justice is the Court's only their first bonus payment, General product, it will have to hear as Harmon stated that he had an­ many cases as necessary to attain nounced that he was against any that goal. Judge Ferguson too made incentive pay to any professions, but a few remarks. He stated that the that when the doctors came up for Court is looking for a real differ­ their second increase, he had stated ence in its cases between those that that he was not in favor of an in­ amount to criminal cases and those crease in pay for doctors unless a that amount to nothing more than similar incentive pay was given to disciplinary problems. He expressed all other professions too. The rea­ the hope that military commanders son that he was opposed to bonus will make this differentiation in the payments on a class by class basis cases that come before them, there­ was that it would set up a sort of by saving much effort and time in wage spiral which would result in trials and review processes. each individual group making its The Honorable Frank Millard, individual request; but, now that General Counsel of the Army, was the doctors have received two bonus asked to speak to the meeting. Mr. payments, he feels that there should Millard expressed the view that the be a raise given all who require civilian branch of the legal profes­ the same amount of education to sion in the Armed Forces has a pursue their respective professions. great deal of solicitiude and respect 24 The Judge Advocate Journal for the uniformed lawyer. He Master Ewen Montagu, Judge Ad­ stated that he is familiar with the vocate of Her Majesty's Fleet, and value of the uniformed lawyer to Mrs. Montagu, and Brigadier R. C. the Services and the problem of re­ Halse, Director of Legal Services, taining the services of these law­ and Mrs. Halse, and our own Chief yers. He observed that the civilian Judge Robert E. Quinn and Mrs. legal services have a similar prob­ Quinn and Associate Judge Homer lem and, therefore, want to assure Ferguson and Mrs. Ferguson, Ma­ the members of this Association that jor General and Mrs. Reginald C. the civilian branches of the legal Harmon, Major General and Mrs. services in the Armed Forces favor George W. Hickman, and Rear Ad­ the purposes of the Thurmond Bill. miral Chester Ward. About 150 Col. King then introduced Col. persons attended the reception and Osmer Fitts as the member of the to list all the distinguished persons House of Delegates of the American would encompass a list of all those Bar Association and Director of this attending and be too long for this Association who was largely respon­ article. Following the reception, the sible for the A.B.A. resolution de­ guests retired to the dining room signed to help the Services retain where a fine supper was served. their uniformed lawyers. It was Master Montagu, the guest of the announced that Mr. Rhyne, Presi­ evening, spoke most interestingly dent ·of the American Bar Associa­ about the subject of his book, "The tion, had appointed Col. Fitts as Man Who Never Was". It was an chairman of its special committee engaging and exciting account of on the status of lawyers in the British Intelligence in World War Armed Forces. II and thoroughly appreciated and The meeting was then adjourned. enjoyed by all present. After the On the evening of the 25th of supper, the party adjourned to the July, members of the Association cabaret for post-prandial refresh­ and their guests met at the Dor­ ment, floor show and dancing. chester Hotel for a reception and The annual meetings of the Asso­ cocktails. Among the distinguished ciation in 1957 were indeed mem­ persons present were the Associa­ orable occasions and an appropriate tion's British guests, Sir Frederick part of the memorable 1957 meet­ Gentle, Judge Advocate of Her Maj­ ings of the American Bar Associa­ esty's Forces, and Lady Gentle, tion. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE HOOVER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS·

Appointed pursuant to action of posals by their almost unanimous the Board of Directors of the Judge acceptance by the House of Dele­ Advocates Association at a special gates of the American Bar Asso­ meeting on June 2nd, 1956, this ciation, and the submission of legis­ committee has thoroughly studied lation promulgating these proposals. the proposals of the Hoover Com­ On the other hand, many eminent mission dealing with legal services lawyers and teachers have dissented in the Government, considering par­ strongly from these recommenda­ ticularly the four recommendations tions. Of particular interest is an in Part II on legal reorganization article presently appearing in the of the Department of Defense and Journal of Public Law written by the three recommendations in Part Prof. Robert S. Pasley of the Cor­ IV on military attorneys. (Rec. 7, nell Law School, a member of this 8, 9, 10, Part II; Rec. 18, 19, 20, Committee. Presented after an ex­ Part IV) haustive study of the proposals and This committee would initially the organization of the Department like to acknowledge the impressive of Defense, both historically and authorship of the Hoover Commis­ contemporarily, Prof. Pasley offers sion report. While the outstanding one of the more sensible approaches legal ability of the distinguished to the problem. Although brevity members of the Commission natu­ permits no inclusion of this article rally lends great weight to the rec­ in the body of this report, it should ommendations, it seems that lack of be required reading for anyone con­ real experience with the actual op­ cerned officially with the Hoover eration of the legal organizations of Commission recommendations. the Department of Defense may Attached to the original copy of have, in some measure, contributed this Report there is set out the to proposals that are not only un­ material which provided the work­ workable, but harmful to the agen­ ing basis for this Committee. This cies concerned. Additionally, greater material outlines the position of each weight has been given these pro­ agency directly concerned with the

* This report is currently receiving the consideration of the Board of Directors of the Association and does not represent the official view 'Of the Association at this time. It does represent the view of the majority of the Association's Committee composed of Maj. Gen. E. M. Brannon, Gen. Edwin C. McNeil, Lt. Col. Robert S. Palsey, Cdr. Milton S. Kronheim, Jr., Gen. Herbert M. Kidner, Lt. Col. Allen G. Miller, and Cdr. J. Kenton Chapman, and is a matter of primary concern to military lawyers. 25 26 The Judge Advocate Journal implementation of the Hoover Com­ office of the Secretary of Defense mission recommendations. It is in­ under the direction of the General teresting to note that all agencies Counsel." are in direct opposition, including Recommendation No. 9, Part II, the General Counsels, and all con­ provides for the same type of legal sider the recommendations as un­ responsibility for each of the three workable, undesfrable, and uneco­ military departments. nomical. The House of Delegates uf the Although this committee in major­ American Bar Association following ity is opposed to the recommenda­ a study of the desirability of imple­ tions contained in Parts II and IV menting this recommended organiza­ of the Hoover Commission Report, tion, adopted the following resolu­ it is considered apropos at this time tion: to deal solely with those recom­ mentations which form the basis for "Resolution 6. Resolution No. 6 of the Special Com­ 6. Resolved, That, in urder to mittee on Legal Services and Pro­ accomplish desired improvements cedures to the 1956 Midyear Meet­ in the organization and legal serv­ ing of the House of Delegates of ices within the Department of De­ the American Bar Association, which fense, the American Bar Associa­ resolution formed the basis for Secs. tion recommends: 302(d); 303(c){l) and 501 of H.R. a. That, within the Department 3350, 85th Congress, 1st Session. of Defense and its constituent mili­ Enactment of this legislation will tary departments, professional re­ have the effect of subordinating the sponsibility over the entire legal Judge Advocates General of the staff, and for all legal services, Services to the appropriate General should be vested in a General Counsel. Counsel retaining the present rank The initial Hoover Commission of Assistant Secretary of Defense. recommendation providing the im­ b. That a career service for petus is recommendation No. 7, Part civilian legal personnel should be II of the report. developed and supervised by a "Within the Department of De­ civilian Legal Personnel Commit­ fense and its constituent military tee within the Department of De­ departments professional author­ fense. ity over the entire legal force and c. That professional responsibil­ all legal services should be vested ity over the entire legal staff, and in a General Counsel retaining for all legal services, in the three the present rank of Assistant military legal departments, sub­ Secretary of Defense. Legal ad­ ject to the professional supervi­ vice and services to the Secretary, sion of the Department uf Defense Deputy Secretary, and Assistant General Counsel, should be vested Secretary of Defense should be in the General Counsel of the furnished solely by a staff in the Army, the Navy, and the Air The Judge Advocate Journal 27

Force, each to have the rank of Lawyers in uniform are now per­ Assistant Secretary. forming duties in the fields of con­ d. That the Army, the Navy, tracts, tax, litigation, international and the Air Force should each law, patents, procurement, and legal have a Judge Advocate General's assistance to servicemen and their Corps or Department, under the dependents. These services are es­ direction of a Judge Advocate sential. At each military installa­ General with the rank of Lieu­ tion, civilian counsel must be em­ tenant General or Vice Admiral." ployed to take over a portion of the work now being capably handled by This Committee in majority opposes the military lawyer while the mili­ the Hoover Commission recommen­ tary lawyer's activities become dations Nos. 7 and 9, and that por­ strictly limited. Such a proposal is tion of the resolution of the House in complete opposition to the pur­ of Delegates set out above that per­ pose of the Hoover Commission. tains to these recommendations. It (3) The Commission recommends is therefore recommended that the a strict limitation upon the author­ Judge Advocates Association oppose ity of The Judge Advocate General these proposals. The following rea­ and the interposition of an inter­ sons are advanced: mediate higher authority on one (1) The General Counsel of the hand, and in the same breath recom­ Department of Defense is presently mends an elevation in rank, an the "Chief Legal Officer of that De­ anomalous situation even at first partment." Consequently, the pro­ glance. This factor, considered with posal could only contemplate that the present extreme difficulty in re­ the General Counsel of the Depart­ taining experienced military attor­ ment of Defense exercise detailed neys, seems to be calculated to de­ day to day supervision of the 4300 stroy the very morale which the lawyers in the Department, lawyers Commission hopes to build up among performing so many different and military lawyers. No young attor­ varied functions that the General ney will be interested in a military Counsel's staff would have to be in­ legal career which has been severely creased many fold to provide the limited to the extent recommended, necessary organization for such a when his training has been as com­ project. This necessity for expan­ plete and thorough and he has been sion would be also reflected in the required to pass the same examina­ military departments if this proposal tions as his civilian counterpart who were accepted. This is administra­ is allowed to act in a more unlimited tively unworkable. field. With the procurement of (2) The recommendations being young lawyers for even a short tour discussed, in conjunction with rec­ o~ active duty dependent almost en­ ommendation No. 20, would have the tirely upon their vulnerability to se­ effect of limiting the scope of ac­ lective service, this action would be tivity of the military lawyer to disastrous to the legal organizations military .justice and military affairs. of the military departments. 28 The Judge Advocate Journal

(4) Borrowing the thoughts of This Committee in this brief re­ Prof. Pasley-as a member of this port does not pretend to do other Committee, the Commission seems to than mention the above as major suffer from at least two major de­ reasons for its recommendation that fects: (a) an urge to impose uni­ the Hoover Commission proposals formity at all costs; and (b) a deep under study be opposed by the Judge seated distrust of lawyers in uni­ Advocates Association. A more com­ form. Although the Commission's prehensive and detailed analysis is proposals envision uniformity, the contained in the appendices of this imposition upon a department of report as filed with the Secretary such size could result in nothing but of the Association. It should also duplication, inflated staffs beyond all be mentioned that a committee of imaginable bounds, and additional the Federal Bar Association, after a thorough study, has recommended expense to the Government and the opposition to the Hoover Commis­ taxpayer. Insofar as military law­ sion recommendations concerned, al­ yers are concerned, an examination though they recommended equivalent of the qualifications and experience status for the General Counsels and of those lawyers presently serving the Judge Advocates General of the on active duty with the military military services. This Committee services will show a favorable com­ at this time reserves comment upon parison with the qualifications and this proposal. experience level of the civilian at­ Judge Milton S. Kronheim, Jr., torneys employed by the Depart­ dissents and indicates that he favors ment of Defense. the proposed legislation. STATEMENT OF POLICY The Judge Advocates Association, an affiliated organization of the Amer­ ican Bar Association, is composed of lawyers of all components of the Armed Forces. Membership is not restricted to those who are or have been serving as judge advocates or law specialists. The Judge Advocates Association is a group which seeks to explain to the organized bar the disciplinary needs of the armed forces, recalling, as the Supreme Court has said, that "An Army is not a deliberative body," and at the same time seeks to explain to the non-lawyers in the armed forces that the American tradition requires, for the citizen in uniform not less than for the citizen out of uniform, at least those minimal guarantees of fairness which go to make up the attainable ideal of "Equal justice under law." The Association is devoted to the development of military law and an efficient military legal and judicial system. It is vitally concerned with the prestige of the legal profession in the Armed Forces. If you are now a lawyer, if you have had service in any of the Armed Forces or are now connected with them in any capacity, active, inactive, or retired, and if you are interested in the aims herein set forth, the Judge Advocates Association solicits your membership. THE PRESIDENT1S REPORT:

I want to take this opportunity to direction set by S. 1165 will be made thank the members of the Associa­ in the next session of Congress. tion for having elected me to the It has been my pleasure to talk office of president and for having with officials in the Department of complemented my election with as Defense who are charged with per­ fine a group of officers and directors sonnel and manpower problems. as we have ever had. They are now fully appreciative of The Association is making prog­ the problem confronting the Services ress toward the goal of advancing in retaining their -- legal personnel. the prestige of the uniformed law­ Their position is that the Cordiner yers in the legal departments of the bill would do substantially all that military services. the administration can afford from Notwithstanding the unfavorable a financial point of view. As a mat­ repurt of the Department of De­ ter of fact, however, the administra­ fense on legislation dealing with the tion has not supported the Cordiner elevation of the Surgeons General Report. The only current legislative and The Judge Advocates General consideration being given the Cor­ to three star rank, it is my opinion diner Report is the product of bills that that legislation will be favor­ introduced by Senators Symington ably considered in the next session. and Goldwater based on parts of As you know, in the last session that report. It is my opinion that of Congress, Senator Thurmond, in legislation recommended by the Cor­ the Senate, and Congressmen Hyde diner Committee would not do what and Multer, in the House of Repre­ is necessary to be done to keep law­ sentatives, introduced bills designed yers in the military services. to help the Services secure and re­ The augmentation program of the tain the required number of fully regular services is a good base from qualified lawyers to provide neces­ which to make some appraisal. This sary legal services in the military program generally provides that establishment. These bills propose 50% of the officers on extended for lawyer-officers a minimum rank active duty will be regular officers. of Captain for those who have been For each of the positions available at the bar more than one year, under the augmentation program, three years' constructive service for almost every position vacancy, other promotion purposes, and increased than legal, has three applications pay graduated on length of service. made for it, whereas there are only Although these bills may not be two applications for each three va­ perfect legislation, it is my opinion cancies in legal positions. There that such legislation is necessary must be some selectivity in choosing and that substantial progress in the legal officers, and the experience of 29 The Judge Advocate Journal

the augmentation program certainly serving with the Armed Services affords no real selectivity in the commensurate with the special pro­ filling of the vacancies. It can be fessional pay schedules now avail­ clearly seen that the Services are able to the other learned professions. not having as much difficulty in se­ This can be accomplished by the curing physicians, dentists, pilots, enactment of Senate Bill 1165. engineers, and others to fill the per­ To accomplish the enactment of manent positions in the regular serv­ this legislation, it will be necessary ices as they are having in getting to rally the active help and support lawyers to make the military a per­ of the entire organized bar. I, manent career. It is estimated that therefore, recommend that you re­ in five years there will be only a quest your state and local bar asso­ small number of senior officers on ciations to adopt a resolution sup­ -aulyasTawyers. If--the--Selective porting S._1165. Many state and Service law is not continued in ef­ local bar associations have already fect, there will not be many young taken such action in the following lawyers taking commissions in the form: military services. With the draft WHEREAS, there has been intro­ being substantially reduced and duced in the Congress of the United many persons only required to take States Senate Bill 1165, which pro­ six months' active duty to satisfy vides for additional pay and promo­ their draft obligation, it is found tion for members of the legal pro­ that many young lawyers prefer six fession serving with the armed serv­ months' enlisted duty to three years ices in a legal capacity, bringing the active duty as first lieutenant law­ pay and promotion status of military yers. It becomes apparent that in lawyers to a level commensurate the light of present retention ex­ with the special professional pay perience, there won't be many junior and promotion schedule now avail­ officer lawyers on duty either. able to members of the medical and The resolutions passed by the other learned professions serving American Bar Association and the with the military; and Judge Advocates Association in Feb­ ruary 1957 called for legislation pro­ WHEREAS, it is the sense of this viding realistic, scientific pay sched­ Association that lawyers should re­ ules for all members of the Armed ceive such commensurate compensa­ Services so as to provide the in­ tion and rank, for their professional centive necessary to keep profes­ training and skill are certainly as sional officers and technical person­ valuable to the armed forces as nel in the Services on a career basis. those of the other learned profes­ There seems to be little prospect of sions; that the armed services are that being accomplished. Therefore, having great difficulty in procuring the alternative of our resolution and retaining even a minimum of must be our goal. We do consider military lawyers, and that if they additional compensation essential for are unable to do so, it will be im­ members of the legal profession possible to administer properly the The Judge Advocate Journal . 31

present Uniform Code of Military endorses Senate Bill 1165, and urges Justice; that said Code was made upon the Congress of the United the basis 'Of military justice largely States its passage, and the Secretary through the efforts of civilian law­ be and he is directed to send copies yers, and that we therefore have a of this Resolution to the members responsibility to ensure its success­ of the United States House of Rep­ ful operation; and that, finally, this resentatives and the United States Bar has a peculiar interest in and Senate from this state, and to the knowledge of the needs and prob­ American Bar Association and the lems of the armed services; Judge Advocates Associati'On. We hope that you will use your T H E R E F 0 R E , BE IT RE­ best effort in securing a resolution SOLVED, that this Bar Association from your own organization.

3ht !llrmnrium

Members of the Judge Advocates Association profoundly regret the pass­ ing of the following members whose deaths are here recorded:

Col. Benjamin A. Ayars of Arlington, Virginia Lt. Col. George J. Banigan of Chicago, Illinois Gol. Edward J. Kotrich of Washington, D. C. Col. Louis Rex Shaffer of Malden, Massachusetts Col. Charles T. Shanner of Chicago, Illinois SUPREME COURT REVERSES SELF IN SMITH AND COVERT CASES

The 1956 opinions of the Supreme the Smith case, but was denied.6 Court holding that civilian depend­ Without intermediate appeals, the ents of American military personnel Supreme Court heard both cases and stationed abroad are subject to trial handed down its short-lived holding by court-martial 1 were reversed and that courts-martial may constitu­ withdrawn 364 days later, after re­ tionally exercise jurisdiction over the hearing. Reid v. Covert and Kinsella civilian dependents of servicemen in v. Krueger, 354 U.S. 1, decided 10 overseas areas. The Court then June 1957.2 rested its decision ·on the ground Mrs. Covert had been convicted by that "the Constitution does not re­ an Air Force court-martial in Eng­ quire trial before an Article III land for the murder of her husband, court in a foreign country for of­ an enlisted airman; and, Mrs. Smith, fenses committed there by an Amer­ wife of an Army officer, had been ican citizen", relying on In re Ros·s, convicted by an Army court-martial 140 U.S. 453, and on certain of the in Japan for the murder of her hus­ so-called Insular Cases, Hawaii v. band. Military appellate reviews Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197; Dorr v. had resulted in the affirmance of the Unit.ed States, 195 U.S. 138; Balzac Smith conviction.a The Court of v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298. Military Appeals had ordered a re­ The 1956 opinion in the Smith hearing in the Covert case on tech­ and Covert cases was written for nical grounds arising out of the de­ the Court by Mr. Justice Clark with fense of insanity4; but pending the the concurrences of Justices Reed, rehearing, a successful application Burton, Minton and Harlan. Chief for the writ of habeas corpus was Justice Warren and Justices Black made on the constitutional ground and Douglas dissented and Mr. Jus­ that the civilian wife of a member tice Frankfurter reserved his opin­ of the military establishment could ion. Colonel Frederick Bernays Wie­ not be tried by court-martial.5 ner, attorney for the accused women, Habeas corpus was sought also in filed a petition for rehearing. The

1 Kinsella v. Krueger, 351 U. S. 470; Reid v. Covert, 351 U. S. 487. 2 According to the headnote in the official reports, 354 U.S. at 1, the earlier opinions were "withdrawn." a 5 USCMA 314.

4 6 USCMA 48. 5 U.S. ex rel. Covert v. Reid, D.D.C., 42 A.B.A.J. 162.

6 United States v. Kinsella, 137 F. Supp. 806 (S.D.W.Va.) 32 The iudge Advocate journal 33 petition was granted 7-the first such the judgment of the Court, and an petition granted by the Court after opinion in which the Chief Justice the filing of an opinion in seven and Justices Douglas and Brennan years.s The new decisi·on represents concurred; that opinion was to the the first time in fifteen years that effect that military courts-martial the Supreme Court has reached a have no jurisdiction to try civilians different result on a rehearing fol­ beyond that set forth in Article lowing a published opinion.9 On that 2 (10), UCMJ. After concluding occasion, the difference in result fol­ that Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, lowed a change in the composition was not distinguishable from the of the Court.IO The last time that present case, the opini·on stated its the Court reversed itself on rehear­ agreement with Winthrop [reprint, ing following a published opinion p. 107] that "a statute cannot be without a change in membership framed by which a civilian can law­ was in the Income Tax Case in fully be made amenable to the mili­ 1894,I 1 sixty-three years ago. tary jurisdiction in time of peace". On rehearing in the present cases, These four justices rejected the Gov­ the three prior dissenters adhered ernment's contention that the consti­ to their position; the new judge, tutional requirements of Article III, Mr. Justice Brennan, joined them, section 2, and the Fifth and Sixth as did Mr. Justice Frankfurter, who Amendments did not apply in United had previously reserved his vote; States trials in foreign lands, say­ and so did Mr. Justice Harlan, who ing that "when the United States changed his view. Thus on rehear­ acts against citizens abroad it can ing, Colonel Wiener, now First Vice­ (not) do so free of the Bill of President of the Judge Advocates Rights". They limited In re Ross to Association, turned a 5-3-1 defeat the peculiar setting and time of its into a 6-2 victory for his clients. decision and distinguished the In­ There was no opinion of the sular Cases on the ground that they Court. Mr. Justice Black announced did not concern military jurisdiction

1 352 U.S. 901. 8 Graver Mfg. Co. v. Linde Co., 336 U.S. 271, rehearing granted, 337 U.S. 910; second opinion reaching same conclusion, 339 U.S. 605. 9 Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584, affirming judgment below; rehearing granted, 318 U.S. 797; prior judgment vacated, and judgment below re· versed, 319 U.S. 103. 10 In the interim, Mr. Justice Byrnes resigned, and Mr. Justice Rutledge was appointed to the vacancy. The former voted to sustain the ordinance, the latter to hold it invalid. 11 Pollock v. Far1ners' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, court equally divided on constitutionality of income tax; rehearing granted, and tax held unconstitutional, 158 U.S. 601. Mr. Justice H. E. Jackson who had been absent because of illness the first time, dissented on the rehearing, which was a 5-4 decision. One judge, therefore, changed his vote; his identity has never been disclosed. 'l'he Judge Advocate Journal over civilians. In answer to the trial of dependents in foreign courts Government's contention that the which they characterized as an un­ constitutionality of Article 2 ( 11) of happy prospect. UCMJ should be upheld as 'neces­ The opinion of Mr. Justice Black sary and proper legislation to meet is copiously documented with legal the obligation of the United States and historical materials. How far under international agreements gov­ that opinion reflects either the quan­ erning the status of forces, the opin­ tity or the quality of the research ion stated that "no agreement with present in Colonel Wiener's nearly a foreign nation can confer power 300 pages of printed briefs filed in on the Congress or on another the original argument and on the branch of Government which is free rehearing may properly be left to from the restraint of the Constitu­ those students interested enough to tion". The opinion could not find in make the comparison. In any event, the natural meaning or historical the majority of the Court was ulti­ background of Article I, section 8, mately persuaded by his arguments. clause 14, any power in Congress to extend the jurisdiction of mili­ The lack of an opinion of the tary courts to civilians, even those Court save in the narrow instance living on military bases. of civilian dependents tried for capital offenses has naturally pro­ Mr. Justice Frankfurter concurred in the result, but limited the holding duced uncertainty. What is now the position of civilian employees serv­ to the particular cases. Mr. Justice Harlan also concurred in the result ing with the forces abroad, or of "on the narrow ground that where dependents convicted of non-capital offenses? the offense is capital, Article 2 (11) cannot constitutionally be applied to As to the latter group, it may the trial of civilian dependents of well be that none in that category members of the Armed Forces over­ can hereafter be tried by court­ seas in time of peace". martial except within the narrow Mr. Justice Clark joined by Mr. limitations of Art. 2 (10), UCMJ. Justice Burton dissented, finding an Thus, in one case, involving a de­ historical basis for the exercise of pendent convicted of premeditated military jurisdiction over civilians murder in a case declared non­ accompanying the armies in time of capital in order to enable the prose­ war and the conclusion that de­ cution to use depositions, and serv­ pendents of servicemen are part of ing a life sentence, the Army re­ the military community overseas. mitted the unexecuted portion, and The two dissenters said the only turned the lady loose. The press alternative to the exercise of court­ release cited "mitigating circum­ martial jurisdiction would be the stances," 12 which however were in­

12 This was Mrs. Eunice M. Brillhart, the British wife of an American soldier, who was tried by court-martial in Eritrea. CM 376967, review denied, 6 USCMA 808 (No. 6774). The Judge Advocate Journal 35 sufficient to warrant release until So far as is known, there have after 10 June 1957. been no decided cases in the civil More recently, there was released courts since June 1957 involving on habeas corpus a dependent wife convictions by court-martial of civil­ serving a three year sentence im­ ian employees. There are several posed by an army court-martial for such individuals still in confinement, unpremeditated murder 13 - and the but up to now they seem not to Government did not appeal. have bestirred themselves. RICHARD H. LOVE.

13 Louise E. C. Smith v. Kinsella, H.C. No. 1963, S.D.W.Va. The ruling was by Judge Moore, who earlier, see note 6 supra, had refused to release the other Mrs. Smith.

Career Opportunities -The Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army

It is news when the nation's-and that Corps two of the oldest and probably the world's-largest law most honored professions, the Jaw firm announces that it has career and the profession of arms. opportunities available under circum­ As to the types of law, the judge stances assuring a good income and advocate, even aside from advising stimulating cases of the first magni­ as to the private and personal legal tude to be handled throughout the problems of the members of the world, from Honolulu to Paris, from service, works in virtually every Fairbanks to Rio de Janeiro, and known field of law, including but from New York to Manila and Is­ not limited to real property, per­ tanbul. Yes, travel expenses paid sonal property, patents, trade-marks for the family too, as well as rea­ and copyrights, negligence, corpora­ sonably early retirement on pay tions, insurance, banking, criminal which permits of dignified leisure or law, taxes, international law, and of the pursuit of hobbies and spe­ contracts. For many millions of dol­ cial personal projects. lars to be involved in non-criminal The foregoing is not a flight of cases is commonplace. A vast fancy, but a succinct and reason­ amount of trial work is available, ably accurate description of the ca­ for those who like it, in cases be­ reer opportunities in The Judge Ad­ fore courts-martial, Boards of Re­ vocate General's Corps, United view, the United States Court of States Army. There are merged in Military Appeals, and Federal and U.S. Army Photograph General Hickman gives General McCaw his flag of office in the ceremony at the Pentagon. Mrs. McCaw and the little McCaws very proudly look on. The Judge Advocate Journal 37

State regulatory bodies. In addition Also, there is a continuing need to the stimulating work, advanced for clearly qualified applicants for schooling is available in various appointment in The Judge Advocate fields in the nation's best educational General's Corps Reserve, with con­ institutions. Thus, it is self-evident current call to active duty. In these that, for one really interested in the days when virtually all are subject law, The Judge Advocate General's to call for military duty, service in Corps affords great opportunities, as the Corps is considered by lawyers well as stirring challenges, for self­ a most profitable and advantageous development and self-realization. method of performing the required Many fine young lawyers are dedi­ duty. Senior law students, desiring cating their lives and their talents to meet their military obligations in to The Judge Advocate General's Corps of the Regular Army. How­ this fashion, should file their appli­ ever, more such lawyers are needed cations promptly and in advance of from time to time to meet the losses graduation and admission to the bar. by attrition. Some decide upon a Further information on appoint­ career in the Corps prior to gradu­ ments in The Judge Advocate Gen­ ation from law school and others eral's Corps of the Regular Army or after a few years of active practice. in The Judge Advocate General's Others do so as distinguished mili­ Corps Reserve is readily available tary students, with the result that upon request directed to the Military their active service in the Army is Personnel Division, Office of The postponed until after completion of Judge Advocate General, Department their legal training. of the Army, Washington 25, D. C.

McCAW GETS A STAR Robert H. McCaw of Boone, Iowa, practiced in Omaha, Nebraska, until was promoted to the rank of Briga­ 1942. He is a member of the Ne­ dier General on 1 June 1957. Gen­ braska State Bar Association, the eral McCaw served as Staff Judge California State Bar Association Advocate of the 78th Infantry Divi­ and the American Bar Association. sion and the 1st Airborne Task Having been a military lawyer for Force, ETO, during World War II. many years, he naturally belongs to He accepted a commission in the the bar association of military law­ regular Army in 1946 and after yers, the Judge Advocates Associa­ tours of duty in the Canal Zone and tion. the Far East, is now back in Wash­ ington as the Assistant Judge Advo­ General and Mrs. McCaw live at cate General for Civil Law. General 425 Argyle Drive, Alexandria, Vir­ McCaw graduated from Creighton ginia, with their two children, Rob­ University Law School in 1931 and ert and Martha. ieeceHt 7)ed4t

Right to Counsel at Pretrial ney of his own choice at pretrial Investigation investigation could not be limited by U.S. v. Nichols (Army), 12 July 1957, a service imposed obligation to ob­ 8 USCMA 119 tain clearance for access to service classified matter. The accused, a CIC agent, was found guilty of a number of offenses U.S. v. Gunnells (Air Force), 19 July relating to his relations with sub­ 1957, 8 USCMA 130 ordinates and misuse of his office. The accused was found guilty of The preliminary investigation and making a false official statement. the charges were classified "Confi­ During the investigation after ac­ dential". On this basis, the conven­ cused was informed of the charges ing authority denied the accused's against him and of his rights under civilian lawyer the right to attend Article 31, he went to the office of the Article 32 investigation because the SJA seeking counsel, but was he did not have the requisite secur­ advised that he could receive no ad­ ity clearance. The convening au­ vice from anyone in the office of the thority refused to initiate action to SJA. During subsequent investiga­ obtain the security clearance and tions at which the accused was not even after civilian counsel applied represented by counsel, he made the for the clearance, he was refused statement which was later charged permission to attend the investiga­ as a false official statement. The tion. Accordingly, the accused was conviction was affirmed by interme­ represented by military counsel at diate appellate agencies and reversed the investigation. At the trial, mo­ by CMA. The Court said the sus­ tion was made to dismiss the charge pect at a preliminary investigation on the ground that the accused was has no right to the appointment of denied his right to civilian counsel military counsel, but he does have during the investigation. After in­ a right to consult with a lawyer of termediate appellate agencies had his own choice. The failure of the affirmed the findings, CMA reversed SJA to inform him of his right to the board of review and ordered a counsel amounted to a denial of the new pretrial investigation and ap­ accused's right. Judge Latimer dis­ propriate subsequent proceedings. sented. The Court said the accused was Qualification of Court Members prejudicially deprived of a substan­ tial right, a proper pretrial investi­ U.S. v. Mansell (Air Force), 19 July gation, when he was denied the 1957, 8 USCMA 153 services of his civilian counsel. The After a finding of guilty by a accused's right to a civilian attar­ special court martial, the trial coun­ 38 The Judge Advocate Journal 39

sel offered in evidence a record of the law officer's review of the in­ previous convictions certified by one vestigating officer's report and ex­ of the members of the court. That pected testimony was not good prac­ certifying member of the court was tice, the record indicated that the challenged and excused. The pro­ accused was not harmed. The Court ceedings continued and sentence was said that the ineligibility of a law adjudged. A motion for mistrial was officer is based not on mere knowl­ denied. The board of review set edge of the evidence but the effect aside the conviction and ordered a which it produces upon him. Judge rehearing. On certification by TJAG, Latimer concurred in the affirmance, CMA reversed the board and ordered but expressed the belief that it is the record returned for reconsidera­ desirable for the law officer to fa­ tion. The Court said court person­ miliarize himself with the case in nel become ineligible for further advance of trial. service as court members when they U.S. v. Wilson (Air Force), 15 March become witnesses for the prosecution but such ineligibility vitiates only 1957, 7 USCMA 656 that part of the proceedings dur­ The accused pleaded guilty to lar­ ing which the member remains in ceny and housebreaking. After find­ the court after having become a ings of guilty were made, the prose­ prosecution witness. Prior partici­ cution offered in evidence a special pation as a member of the court did court martial order establishing the not vitiate the findings of guilty accused's prior conviction of two of­ since the challenged member par­ fenses. This order bore a statement ticipated in no further proceedings by the sitting law officer indicating when he became a witness for the that he had examined the record of prosecution. prior trial pursuant to Article 65c and found it legally sufficient. No U.S. v. Fry (Army), 5 April 1957, 7 challenge or protest was made at USCMA 682 the trial. The findings and sentence In preparation for the trial of ac­ were approved by intermediate ap­ cused, the law officer read the in­ pellate agencies and on appeal, the vestigating officer's report and copies accused urged that the law officer's of the summaries of expected testi­ participation was prejudicial error. mony. At the trial the defense chal­ CMA reversed the board, holding lenged the law officer for cause be­ that the receipt in evidence of the cause of this preparation. The law special court martial order made the officer indicated that he had formed law officer a witness for the prose­ no opinion concerning the accused's cution and disqualified him from guilt or innocence. The challenge acting further in the proceedings. was not sustained and the proceed­ Therefore, the court was without a ings continued to the conviction of proper law officer from that time on accused. The board of review af­ and ceased to be a court martial for firmed the findings and sentence. any purpose except for its own re­ CMA affirmed, holding that although constitution. 40 The Judge Advocate Journal

l\1ultiplicity of Charges At the trial, a motion for continu­ U.S. v. Brown (Air Force), 17 May ance on the same ground was denied 1957, 8 USCMA 18 by the law officer. The convening authority approved the findings and The accused was found guilty of sentence, but the board of review larceny and wrongful disposition of set aside the conviction because of an Air Force parka. Both specifica­ alleged error in failing to grant the tions related to the same incident motion for continuance. TJAG cer­ and alleged that the parka was mili­ tified the case to CMA. The board tary property of the United States. of review was reversed. The Court Intermediate appellate agencies af­ held that the accused was not en­ firmed the findings and sentence. titled to delay the trial to determine On appeal, on accused's contention whether there were other doctors that the charges were multiplicious, more sympathetic to the defense. the Court reversed the board of re­ There was no suggestion that other view and ordered the record re­ doctors would have disagreed with turned for reconsideration of the conclusions of the Air Force board sentence. The Court said that al­ or that the accused was anything though cursory examination would but sane. Therefore, the Court said indicate that each of the mentioned that the refusal to grant the con­ offenses required proof of an ele­ tinuance could not be said to be ment not involved in the other, prejudicial to the accused. Judge critical analysis of the specifications Ferguson dissented saying that the as framed revealed the differences denial of the continuance forced un­ to be illusory since in the circum­ prepared counsel to trial thereby stances of this case there was but prejudicing the accused. one act by the accused. Judge Lati­ mer dissented on the basis that Ar­ Influencing Action of Court Martial ticles 108 and 121 were intended to U.S. v. Schultz (Navy), 12 July 1957, create separate offenses. 8 USCMA 129 Denial of Motion for Continuance After announcing the sentence, the president of a special court martial U.S. v. Frye (Air Force), 19 July stated that the court felt that the 1957, 8 USCMA 137 sentence was in keeping with the ex­ The accused was found guilty of pressed policy of the Navy as set attempted rape and attempted sod­ forth in a designated Secretary of omy. Prior to trial, the accused was the Navy's instruction as well as an declared sane upon examination by instruction of the Commander of the an Air Force board of psychiatrists. Naval District and of the Manual The defense counsel requested delay for Courts Martial. These mentioned in trial by the convening authority instructions dealt with the adjudg­ so that he could obtain an opinion ing of adequate sentences in cases as to the accused's sanity from psy­ involving moral turpitude. The chiatrists from a different school of board of review affirmed the sen­ diagnosis. The request was denied. tence. CMA reversed the board and The Judge Advocate Journal 41

ordered a rehearing as to sentence. no homosexual tendencies. At the The Court stated that consideration request of the president and with of the Secretary of the Navy's in­ the law officer's approval, a copy of struction in sentencing the accused the Secretary of the Navy's instruc­ was prejudicial error. tion providing procedures for the On the same proposition, see U.S. administrative elimination of homo­ v. Estrada (Navy), 8 March 1957, sexuals from the Navy, including 7 USCMA 635. There the accused the provision that homosexuals con­ pleaded guilty and was found guilty fronted with court martial charges of larceny. During the presentenc­ may be informed that they will be ing proceedings, the trial counsel di­ tried unless they agree to accept an rected the attention of the court to undesirable discharge, was sub­ a Secretary of the Navy's instruc­ mitted to the court. Intermediate tion with regard to appropriate sen­ appellate agencies affirmed the find­ tences of persons convicted of lar­ ings, but CMA reversed the board ceny and other offenses involving of review and ordered a rehearing. moral turpitude. The defense coun­ The Court said that permitting the sel did not object. CMA there held court martial to consider the Secre­ that the injection of Departmental tary of the Navy's instruction was policy by way of the Secretary of prejudicially erroneous. It had the the Navy's instruction was preju­ effect of impressing upon the court dicial error. martial that the trial was a second­ To the same effect, see U.S. v. ary means to effect the accused's Holmes (Navy), 8 March 1957, 7 discharge after the primary means USCMA 642. There in addition to had failed. It was cited as an ex­ foe injection of the Departmental ample of forcefully introducing com­ policy by trial counsel at the trial, mand control into the trial proceed­ the staff legal officer in his review ings. See also U.S. v. Fowle, 7 of the case indicated that service USCMA 349. policies can properly influence a Duties of Defense Counsel court's decision as to punishment although they cannot control it. U.S. v. McFarlane (Army) 28 June 1957, 8 USCMA 96 CMA there noted that the comment of the staff legal officer was incor­ The accused pleaded not guilty to rect and in conflict with Article 37. murder of one victim and guilty of assault with attempt to murder an­ U.S. v. Walinch (Navy), 3 May 1957, other victim. He was found guilty 8 USCMA 3 of both charges and given the.death In this case the accused was sentence. After entering the pleas, charged with sodomy and was found defense counsel said to the court: guilty of committing an indecent, "Under the provisions of Article 45b lewd and lascivious act. The case of the Code, the accused is precluded presented a number of close ques­ from pleading guilty to felony mur­ . tions on the effect of a defense psy­ der", and the law officer so in­ chiatric report that the accused had structed the Court. The prosecu­ 42 The Judge Advocate Journal tion's case went on with little inter­ evidence showed that another sol­ ruption and both counsel waived ar­ dier had stolen the pistol and sold gument. There was very little of­ it to the accused. The accused's de­ fered by way of mitigation or ex­ fense counsel had represented. the tenuation after findings. Although thief in an earlier proceeding and the investigating officer recommended the thief was the prosecution's prin­ psychiatric examination of the ac­ cipal witness in the trial of the ac­ cused, only a routine examination cused. The defense counsel did not was made by a neuro-psychiatrist develop the facts surrounding the who recummended further psychi­ original larceny and it was on re­ atric testing. On mandatory review, direct examination of the thief that the Court directed itself to the is­ it was disclosed that the defense sue of whether the accused was counsel had represented him at his properly defended, reversed the con­ trial. The findings and sentence viction and ordered a rehearing. were affirmed, but CMA reversed the The Court said that for all prac­ board and ordered a rehearing. The tical purposes the accused pleaded Court said that the defense counsel's guilty to a capital offense in viola­ representation of the accused after tion of Article 45b. The defense having represented the prosecution's counsel's statement indicated that principal witness in a prior proceed­ the plea was merely a maneuver to ing was prejudicial under the cir­ avoid the death penalty, but as it cumstances. The defense counsel was developed the defense counsel had in the position of contending for the nothing of consequence to present accused's innocence and at the same in mitigation and extenuation. The time under a duty to protect and Court indicated that more inquiry safeguard the confidences derived should have been made concerning from the attorney-client relati'onship the accused's mental condition and formerly established and still exist­ more time should have been allowed ing between him and the prosecu­ for the preparation of the defense. tion witness. There was no show­ The Court noted with concern the ing that the accused knew of his obsession of Army commanders with counsel's conflicting interest. Judge a need for a speedy trial in capital Latimer dissented on this aspect of cases, particularly where the victim the case. is a foreign national. It admon­ U.S. v. Lovett (Army), 12 April 1957, ished that opportunities to fully ex­ 7 USCMA 704 plore, prepare and present possible defenses should not be denied to an The accused was found guilty of accused for this reason. an assault. Another soldier testified for the Government at the accused's U.S. v. Thornton (Army), 7 June trial stating that he and the ac­ 1957, 8 USC.MA 57 cused had committed the assault. The accused was found guilty of The victim was not able to identify unlawfully purchasing a pistol, the accused. On the same day of knowing the same to be stolen. The the trial, the witness in accordance The Judge Advocate Journal 43 with a pretrial agreement had been sertion and on a plea of not guilty brought to trial and pleaded guilty was found guilty of AWOL. The to the assault and was represented absence began 8 J anuar-y 1954 and in that proceeding by the same de­ was terminated by his return to fense counsel who represented the military control on 27 January 1956. accused at the later proceeding. The Sworn charges were filed with the board of review affirmed the finding. officer exerc1smg summary court CMA reversed and ordered a re­ martial jurisdiction ·on 13 February hearing saying that an accused in 1956. After the findings, the defense a criminal prosecution has a funda­ urged the statute of limitations as a mental right to counsel and that bar to sentencing. The law officer means counsel with undivided loy­ denied the motion. CMA held that alty. Counsel here had conflicting since there was no "time of war" interests for while presumably at­ during the period of absence, the tempting to establish the accused's two year period of limitations ap­ innocence, he was at the same time plied and the statute had run under a duty to protect the witness' against the offense of absence with­ rights when the rights of the ac­ out leave. The charges were ·ordered cused and the witness were directly dismissed. opposed. Jurisdiction of Courts Martial Statute of Limitations U.S. v. Taylor (Army), 17 May 1957, U.S. v. Carr (Army), 31 May 1957, 8 USCMA 24 8 USCMA 49 The accused was found guilty of The accused was found guilty of desertion on a record that disclosed desertion from 3 August 1953 until he enlisted in 1943 at the age of 6 December 1956. Sworn charges had 15 years and absented himself in been filed with the summary court the same year. He was apprehended martial convening authority -on 6 in 1956. At the trial, a motion to December 1956. The defense counsel dismiss the charge for lack of juris­ pleaded the statute of limitations diction was denied. CMA held that and moved for dismissal. The mo­ the charge should be dismissed since tion was denied. CMA ordered the the accused's enlistment was void charge dismissed because over 40 and accordingly, the court martial months had elapsed between the be­ lacked jurisdiction over him. ginning of the accused's absence and U.S. v. Blanton (Army), 15 March the filing of the sworn charges 1957, 7 USCMA 664 against him. The Court said that since the absence began in time of The accused was found guilty of peace, the statute of limitations was desertion. At the trial, it was estab­ an effective bar to prosecution. lished that the accused had enlisted in the Army in 1951 when he was 14 years U.S. v. Busbin (Air Force), 15 March of age and had absented himself in 1957, 7 USCMA 661 1952. The board of review reversed The accused was charged with de­ the findings and sentence on the 44 The Judge Advocate Journal ground that the court martial had one involved in this case. However, no jurisdiction because of the age the Court in U.S. v. Burgess of the accused at the time of his (Army), 19 July 1957, 8 USCMA enlistment and desertion. The ques­ 163, reached the same result in a tion was certified by TJAG to CMA case involving a 6 months' absence. which affirmed the board of review. Judge Latimer dissented in the Bur­ The Court said the accused did not gess case holding that a 6 months' acquire a military status by his en­ absence gives rise to a reasonable listment and at no time was on inference of an intent to remain active duty at an age when he was away permanently. legally competent to serve. Not be­ U.S. v. Hyatt (Army), 14 June 1957, ing a member of the Armed Forces, 8 USCMA 67 he could not have committed the offense of desertion and the court The accused was found guilty ·of had no jurisdiction over him. desertion with intent to shirk im­ portant service. The law officer in­ Proof of Intent to Desert structed the court as a matter of U.S. v. Cothern (Navy), 19 July 1957, law that "duty beyond the conti­ 8 USCMA 158 nental limits of the United States The accused was found guilty of is important service". With regard desertion. The evidence established to this instruction, CMA held that that he had been AWOL for a pe­ all overseas service is not important riod of 17 days. The accused denied service. The question is one of fact any intention to desert and pre­ for decision by members of the court sented evidence of family difficulties. and the Jaw officer's instruction in The law officer instructed the court this case precluded the court from "if the condition of absence with­ determining that issue. Earlier, the out proper authority is much pro­ Court had held that overseas serv­ longed and there is no satisfactory ice might be important service only explanation of it, the court will be when certain other circumstances justified in inferring from that fact are present in U.S. v. Boone, 1 alone an intent to remain absent USCMA 381. A contrary rule had permanently". CMA held that the been announced by the Court in U.S. law officer's instruction set forth an v. Vick, 3 USCMA 288 and U.S. v. erroneous principal of law in that Deller, 3 USCMA 409. it permitted the court to convict the Mistake of Fact accused of desertion without con­ sidering his intent. Length of ab­ U.S. v.. Bateman (Army), 21 June sence is merely one fact to be con­ 1957, 8 USCMA 88 sidered with all other facts on the The accused was found guilty of issue of intent. Judge Latimer in a bigamy. While estranged from his concurring opm10n expressed the wife, the accused was notified by view that the instruction might not her that she had started divorce be erroneous in cases involving action and that if he would sign longer periods of absence than the and return a waiver of appearance, The Judge Advocate Journal 45 she would obtain a decree. The ac­ the checks were negotiated by the cused returned a signed waiver and payees. The conviction was affirmed shortly thereafter remarried. At the by intermediate appellate authorities, trial, he contended that he believed but CMA on petition of the accused that he had been divorced by his reversed the board of review and wife and was entitled to marry. ordered the charges dismissed. The However, there was some evidence Court said to "apply criminal sanc­ to the effect that the accused had tion to the accused would be to been planning remarriage even be­ police the conduct of persons within fore he had heard from his wife and illegal operations that do not touch bad been deterred only because he the general public." The Court re­ had not been able to find a house. fused to act as a collection scheme The law officer refused a requested for gamblers within the service in defense instruction on mistake of order to intimidate payment by fact. The conviction was affirmed debtors of void gambling debts. by intermediate appellate agencies Judge Latimer dissented saying that and also by CMA. The Court said · the Court was making "unique law that the question of mistake of fact when we say we will not counte­ was not raised by the evidence; nance the conviction of a thief be­ therefore, the refusal 'Of the instruc­ cause he stole from a gambler". tion was not error. The accused Wife of Accused as Prosecution had plenty of time and opportunity Witness to investigate his marital status but U.S. v. Trudeau (Army), 17 May 1957, did not do so and received no in­ 8 USCMA 22 formation that his prior marriage had been dissolved. He merely as­ At the trial of the accused for sumed without inquiry or investiga­ committing indecent acts with a tion of any kind that be was free minor, the accused testified that the to marry. Such evidence was held child had attempted the indecent act not to raise the issue of mistake of alleged and that he had told his fact. Ju.dge Ferguson dissented. wife what had occurred, suggesting that the wife advise the child's par­ Bad Checks in Gambling Transaction ents. Over defense 'Objections, the Not an Offense prosecution called the accused's wife U.S. v. Walter (Air Force), 7 June as a rebuttal witness and her testi­ 1957, 8 USCMA 50 mony concerning the accused's con­ The accused was found guilty of versation with her materially dif­ larceny by check. The evidence fered from the testimony of the ac­ showed that while gambling, the ac­ cused. Before CMA the accused cused placed some worthless checks contended that permitting his wife in the pot and had other worthless to testify violated the privilege of checks cashed by other persons en­ confidential communications and the gaged in the game. The money ob­ privilege of a sp'Ouse not having his tained from the checks was used in spouse testify against him. CMA the C'Ontinuing gambling. None of affirmed the conviction saying that 46 The Judge Advocate Journal the accused's testimony concerning fully received valuable consideration his conversation with his wife on account of arranging for certain waived the p riv i 1 e g e . Having trainees to engage in sexual inter­ thrown open the subject which would course with a prostitute. The evi­ have otherwise been kept closed by dence established that the accused, the law, the accused could not deny· a sergeant, told a trainee that he the Government the opportunity to knew where they could get some challenge his credibility on it. women and suggested that someone Passenger of Vehicle Not Chargeable else could be taken along and that with Leaving Scene the accused took the trainee and three others to the house of ill fame U.S. v. Petree (Army), 10 May 1957, and was paid $5.00 by each of the 8 USCMA 9 passengers and that the accused The accused pleaded guilty to flee­ waited outside of the house while ing the scene of an accident. The the trainees participated in their specification alleged that the accused horizontal recreation and afterwards being a passenger in a vehicle at the drove the soldiers back to camp. It time of the accident wrongfully and was agreed that the accused had no unlawfully left the scene without arrangements with the prostitute. making his identity known. CMA The board of review set the convic­ reversed the conviction and ordered tion aside and TJAG certified the the charges dismissed. The Court question to CMA. The Court af­ referred to its decision in U.S. v. firmed the board, stating that the Wauliski, 6 USCMA 724, where it offense of pandering requires some­ was held that a passenger in a ve­ thing more than merely arranging hicle is not liable when the vehicle to transport patrons to a house of unlawfully flees the scene of an ac­ ill fame. cident unless there is evidence that the passenger aided and abetted the Use of Pretrial Statements driver in fleeing or evidence of the U.S. v. Carrier (Navy), 1 March 1957, existence of a superior-subordinate 7 USCMA 633 relationship between the passenger During a trial before a special and driver. The Court found neither court martial each witness for the of these theories in the specification prosecution was shown his pretrial against the accused and held that statement and upon identifying it it, therefore, failed to allege an as the signed statement given by offense. him to the investigating agent, it Transportation to House of Ill Fame was introduced in evidence. The Not Pandering witnesses were then each asked whether the statment was true and U.S. v. Gentry (Army), 10 May 1957, were permitted to read the state­ 8 USCMA 14 ment to the court. Part of the find­ The accused was found guilty of ings were affirmed by the intermedi­ pandering on a specification that al­ ate appellate authorities. CMA leged that he wrongful!y and unlaw­ stated that the proceedings followed The Judge Advocate Journal 47 were most extraordinary and set acquittal of every lesser included aside the conviction. The Court said offense and since AWOL is the that pretrial statements of witnesses lesser included offense of desertion, are inadmissible as hearsay and the court's a n n o u n c e d findings even if they had only been used as amounted to an acquittal of AWOL memorandum to refresh memory, the as well. In this case, CMA disap­ witness should have been called up­ proved the practice of providing a on to testify as to the facts involved, copy of the Manual for use in closed and the memorandum should not sessions. Judge Latimer dissented have been admitted into evidence. saying that the law officer had a Findings and Deliberations Thereon right to advise the court when il­ legal findings were returned and to U.S. v. Boswell (Army), 19 July 1957, return the court to closed session 8 USCMA 145 for further deliberations on proper The accused was charged with findings. He also failed to join in desertion terminated by apprehen­ the disapproval of the practice of sion and found guilty of AWOL. members' taking copies of the Manual After deliberations on the question into closed session. of guilt or innocence, the president announced in open court that the Scope of Review accused had been found not guilty U.S. v. Webb (Navy), 21 June 1957, of desertion but guilty of escape 8 USCMA 70 from confinement. The law officer The accused was found guilty of advised the court that escape from drug offenses. During the trial, court confinement was not a lesser in­ members were permitted to examine cluded offense of desertion and that a book entitled "Narcotics, USA". while the announced finding was an This fact was brought to the atten­ acquittal as to desertion, the court tion of the convening authority by could close and reconsider the ques­ affidavit of the defense counsel after tion of guilt or innocence of the trial. The board of review refused lesser included offense of AWOL. to consider the propriety of this The court closed for further deliber­ procedure since there was nothing ations and returned a finding of in the record of trial proper con­ guilty of AWOL. The conviction cerning it. CMA reversed the board was affirmed by intermediate appel­ and ordered a rehearing. The Court late authorities but CMA reversed held that the irregularity reported and ordered the charge dismissed. by the defense counsel's affidavit was The Court stated that as the find­ sufficiently raised before the conven­ ings originally announced by the ing authority to require considera­ president were the true findings of tion by the board of review. the court martial, they were final in U.S. v. Atkins (Navy), 21 June 1957, so far as they acquitted the accused of the offense charged and they 8 USCMA 77 could not be reconsidered. Acquittal In this case the board of review of the offense charged was also an affirmed a finding of guilty but dis­ 48 The Judge Advocate Journal approved a sentence of confinement prived the accused of a legally cor­ for three months on the ground that rect review by the convening au­ the accused had served a substantial thority. portion thereof prior to trial. TJAG certified the question to CMA on U.S. v. Johnson (Army) 26 July 1957, whether a board of review might 8 USCMA 173 affirm the findings of guilty and dis­ This case was a companion case approve a sentence. CMA affirmed to U.S. v. Grice. In the post trial the board citing Article 66c of the review to the convening authority, Code which provides that the board the SJA stated that the conflict of of review may approve such part evidence was for the court to re­ of the sentence as it finds correct in law and fact. The board thus has solve and since there was legally admissible evidence sufficient to sup­ power to determine appropriateness of the sentence and its decision on port the finding, it should not be disturbed. On appeal, an affidavit this question is not subject to re­ view. of the convening authority was filed as an exhibit to the Government's SJA's Post Trial Review appellate brief before CMA in which the convening authority described U.S. v. Grice (Army) 26 July 1957, his actions and the test applied by 8 USCMA 166 him in arriving at his decision. The SJA in a post trial review CMA reversed the board of review to the convening authority stated which had affirmed the conviction, that the sole issue in the case was ordered the affidavit stricken from resolved against the accused by the the record and the record returned court who saw and heard the wit­ to TJAG for review by another con­ nesses and that, therefore, he could vening authority. The Court said not disagree with that decision. Be­ that it would review material out­ fore CMA, it was contended that side the record dealing with insan­ the SJA's advice amounted to preju­ ity or jurisdiction or some exhibits dicial error. The Court agreed and omitted from the record by mistake returned the record for a new re­ or inadvertence. The Court said it view. The Court stated that since could not consider the affidavit as a the SJA has no command author­ part of the record in this case since ity, his advice must use the same it was not part of the reviewable standards which the commander material. Judge Latimer dissented. himself may use. Therefore, his U.S. v. Plummer (Army), 1 March statement that he could not dis­ 1957, 7 USCMA 630 agree with the findings of the court martial on the question of fact was In this case the accused had been the same as telling the convening found guilty of larceny among other authority that it too was bound by offenses and adjudged a sentence in­ the findings of the court martial. cluding a dishonorable discharge. This advice was erroneous and de­ An assistant SJA in a post trial The Judge Advocate Journal 49 review recommended suspension of turned to TJAG for review by a the DD, but the SJA upon further different convening authority. The review recommended approval of the Court said that a convening author­ sentence as adjudged and stated: ity in reviewing a court martial "It is the custom of the Army to case cannot be bound by an. in­ deal severely with a barracks thief. flexible administrative policy. The While this view may not be shared accused is entitled as a right to a by civilian agencies because they do careful and individualized review of not understand the problems in­ his sentence by the convening au­ volved and while the theory may not thority. There is a fair risk in this be understood by our highest appel­ case that the convening authority late agency, nevertheless, in this was misled by the review to the command I strongly recommend that prejudice of the rights of the ac­ we adhere to the elimination of all cused. The majority opinion also barracks thieves." The convening expressed shock at the SJA's re­ authority approved the sentence as marks and urged upon all military adjudged and a board of review af­ personnel their obligation to shape firmed. CMA reversed the board military law as an integral part of and ordered the record of trial re­ the American jurisprudence.

Your professional success, important cases, new appointments, political successes, office removals, and new partnerships are all matters of interest to the other members of the Association who want to know "What The Mem­ bers Are Doing." Use the Journal to make your announcements and dis­ seminate news concerning yourself. Send to the Editor any such informa­ tion that you wish to have published.

Use the Directory of Members when you wish local counsel in other jurisdictions. The use of the Directory in this way helps the Association perform one of its functions to its membership and will help you. You can be sure of getting reputable and capable counsel when you use the Directory of Members. Alabama Illinois Frank J. Mizell, Jr., of Montgom­ William W. Brady of Elgin re­ ery, was elected National Judge Ad­ cently announced the reorganizafron vocate of the Reserve Officers Asso­ of his law firm under the name, ciation of the United States at its Kirkland, Brady, McQueen and annual convention in Santa Barbara, Churchill. The firm's new address June 26-29. will be at 80 South Grove Avenue, Elgin. District of Columbia Maryland John Lewis Smith, Jr., was re­ William H. Adkins, II of Easton cently appointed as judge of the has become a member of the law Municipal Court for a ten year term. firm of Henry, Henry and Adkins. Judge Smith, before his elevation, The firm has offices in the Stewart was a member of the District of Building, Easton. Columbia Public Utility Commission. Michigan Col. James K. Gaynor, while on duty in the Ryukyu Islands, received Arnold M. Gold of Detroit, a his degree of Doctor of Juridical member of the law firm of Hart and Science from George Washington Gold announced recently the removal University. Col. Gaynor had com­ of the firm's offices to 1470 Penob­ pleted his residence requirements for scot Building, Detroit. the degree prior to his overseas as­ John A. DeJong of Grand Rapids signment but did not submit his dis­ is now a full Colonel in the Army sertation until after several years in JAG reserve. Col. DeJong, on a re­ Okinawa-the subject, "Common Law cent visit to Washington, was ad­ Military Offenses". He is now as­ mitted to practice before the Su­ signed to the Office of Legislative preme Court of the United States. Liaison in Washington. New York Florida Sidney Wolff of New York City Ainslee R. Ferdie of Miami an­ announced recently the removal of nounces the recent removal of his his law firm's offices to the 33rd law offices to 1782 West Flagler floor of 515 Madison Avenue. The Street, Miami. firm name is Goldstone and Wolff. Ely R. Katz of Miami Beach re­ South Carolina cently announced the formation of Robert 0. Muller, 9th O.C., after a law firm under the name, Katz 20 years of practice in New York and Rosen. The new firm's offices City, has become a South Carolina will be at 940 Lincoln Road, Miami lawyer with offices at 1805 Holly Beach. Street, Anderson. 50 The Judge Advocate Journal 51

Virginia Richard D. Gibbs, Washington, LOGEX-57, the ninth in a series D. C.; Coi. Michael L. Looney, Wash­ of annual logistical exercises pre­ ington, D. C.; Col. J. T. Mizell, Rich­ pared by the 1st Logistical Com­ mond, Virginia; Capt. Robert G. Gil­ mand under the supervision of the christ, Cleveland, Ohio; Capt. Walter Commanding General, U. S. Conti­ W. Regirer, Richmond, Virginia; and nental Army Command, was held Lt. Col. Manning E. Case, Shaker this summer at F-ort Lee, Virginia. Heights, Ohio. About 6,000 military personnel par­ Wyoming ticipated in the exercises including about 1,GOO student officers from the Bruce P. Badley, formerly As­ Army's technical and service schools sistant Attorney General for the as well as selected reserve officers. State of Wyoming, has entered the Among JAA members participating private practice of law with offices in the exercises were: Col. James in the Edelman Building at Sheri­ Arthur Gleason, Cleveland, Ohio; dan. Col. Royal R. Irwin, Denver, Colo­ George F. Guy, Attorney General r::>.do; Capt. Walter W. Regirer, of the State of Wyoming, reports Richmond, Virginia; Lt. Frederic R. that the Wyoming Legislature has Steele, Fairmont, West Virginia; recently passed several statutes giv­ and Lt. Col. Richard C. Cadwallader, ing unit commanders of the Guard Baton Rouge, Louisiana. necessary disciplinary control to en­ For the sixth year, the 2079th sure the attendance -of personnel at ARASU of Richmond conducted the drill, summe;_· encampments and other JAG School at Ft. Meade for Sec­ formations. These statutes make it ond Army JAG reservists taking a misdemeanor triable in the Justice summer training. The 137 students Courts for personnel who willfully enrolled at the school were from the disobey orders for drill and summer J AG-ORC schools throughout the encampments. Col. Guy earlier in Second Army area. Among the in­ the year was the guest of the Navy structors were Col. Charles P. on a cruise aboard the U. S. S. Han­ Light, Jr., Lexington, Virginia; Col. cock, an aircraft carrier. He was G. F. Hall, Pittsburgh, Pennsyl­ thoroughly impressed with the Navy vania; Maj. Gordon W. Gabell, carrier pilots and the hospitality of Springfield, Pennsylvania; Capt. the Navy. SUPPLEMENT TO DIRECTORY OF MEMBERS 1955*

NEW MEMBERS

Lt. Robert W. Aagaard Lt. Col. Merlin W. Baker 7486th Air Base Group USAFE Hq. 7th Air Division APO 115, New York, New York APO 125, New York, New York Paul J. Abbate Lt. Robert J. Baker 175 5th Avenue OMS Box 206 New York 10, New York Laredo Air Force Base Laredo, Texas Lt. Col. Jake L. Abraham Pratt House, Rt. # 2 Thomas F. Barry Prattville, Alabama 505 Park Avenue New York 22, New York Capt. Carl R. Abrams Hq. 4th F-D Wing R. R. Baxter APO 181, San Francisco, Calif. Harvard Law School Cambridge 38, Massachusetts Lt. Col. H. L. Allensworth Staff Judge Advocate Norman Bierman Sheppard Air Force Base, Calif. 705 Olive Street St. Louis 1, Missouri Capt. Robert S. Amery Hq. 1707th Air Transport W g., Lt. John C. Biggers Heavy (Tng) Hq. 3920th Air Base Group (SAC) Palm Beach Air Force Base APO 147, New York, New York West Palm Beach, Florida Maj. Eugene L. Blanck Col. George N. Anderson 4083rd Air Base Group Staff Judge Advocate 4083rd Strategic Wing Hq., Southern Area Command APO 23, New York, New York APO 407, New York, New York Alfred Avins Capt. Willis H. Bledsoe 895 West End Avenue Staff Judge Advocate New York 25, New York Lake Charles AFB, Louisiana Capt. William H. Babcock Raymond A. Brown 7240th Support Squadron 26 Journal Square APO 85, New York, New York Jersey City 6, New Jersey

* See 22 J AJ 48-53, 23 J AJ 44-48 and 24 J AJ 53-58, for changes and additions heretofore made. The additions and changes herein contained are as of September 25, 1957. 52 The Judge Advocate Journal 53

Col. George D. Bruch Maj. Robert E. Commins Box 1001, Area B 880 Troy Street Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio Aurora, Colorado Capt. Lew D. Brundage Capt. Jerry E. Conner Box 361, Hq. P ACAF Staff Judge Advocate APO 953, San Francisco, Calif. Turner AFB, Georgia John D. B'Smith Maj. Joseph F. Corrigan 40 Court Street 3C Fifth Ave., Freeman Knoll Hoston, Massachusetts Westover AFB, Massachusetts Lt. Eugene D. Buckley Capt. Charles H. Crawford, III Hq. Sq. 3911th ABGRU Box 85 APO 197, New York, New York APO 864, New York, New York Lt. Joseph M. Caffall Lt. Richard J. Cummins 46 Bonner Road 79 Plymouth Road Offutt AFB, Nebraska Hillsdale, New Jersey

Joseph A. Calamari Col. Claiborne Dameron 14 Glen Road Staff Judge Advocate Garden City, New York Hq. 12th Air Force Carmine Leo Calarco APO 12, New York, New York 74 Grove Street James 0. Davis, Jr. New York 14, New York Fowler, White, Gillen, Yancey Capt. William R. Campbell and Humkey Hq. 3920th Air Base Group 1002 Citizens Building APO 147, New York, New York Tampa, Florida Capt. Harry G. Charles, Jr. Capt. Vincent J. Del Beccaro Office of the Staff Judge Advocate Hqs. 72nd AB Gp 48th Fighter Bomber Wing APO 845, New York, New York APO 119, New York, New York Col. Robert R. Dickey, Jr. Maj. Harold Chase Staff Judge Advocate Staff Judge Advocate Hq., Strategic Air Command 317th Troop Carrier Wing Offutt Air Force Base APO 253, New York, New York Omaha, Nebraska

John H. Clark, Jr. Capt. Paul V. Dixon Eighth and Sproul Streets Box 513, Hq. 3960 Air Base Group Chester, Pennsylvania APO 334, San Francisco, Calif.

Lt. James R. Clouse, Jr. Capt. Hugh J. Dolan Hq., USURAL 3970th Air Base Group APO 949, Seattle, Washington APO 283, New York, New York 54 The Judge Advocate Journal

Capt. James E. Dotson Lt. Herman Gordon Hqs., 1607th Air Base Group Hqs. E.A.D.F., Office of the SJA Dover Air Force Base, Delaware Stewart AFB, Newburgh, New York Eugene W. DuFlocq Lt. Richard F. Gordon 12 East 41st Street 2618 Wells A venue New York 17, New York Raleigh, North Carolina Cdr. Andrew M. Egeland Lt. Zave H. Gussin Box 5, Staff, ComNavMarianas 103 N. Wayne Street FPO, San Francisco, Calif. Arlington 1, Virginia Lt. William P. Fagan Capt. Chester J. Halicki 127 S. Harvey Hq. 7th Air Division (SAC) Greenville, Mississippi APO 125, New York, New York Capt. John W. Fahrney Capt. J. Fred Hamblen 4 Harvey Lane 6927 Phyllis Lane Alexandria, Virginia Alexandria, Virginia

Lt. Paul A. Feiner Lt. Hazen V. Hatch 2948 Unruh Avenue 306 Preston Court Apts. Philadelphia 49, Pennsylvania Charlottesville, Virginia Edward R. Finch Richard S. Hawley 36 W. 44th Street Foreign Service of the U.S. New York 36, New York Dept. of State Lt. Frank J. Flynn Washington, D. C. U.S. Naval War College (Staff) Newport, Rhode Island F. J. Healy 2156 F St., N. W. Lt. Col. Herman W. Ford Washington, D. C. Hq. 5th Air Division APO 117, New York, New York Alonzo G. Hearne James L. Ford Wallingford Square 218 East 22nd Street Kittery, Maine Owensboro, Kentucky Maj. James M. Heidelberg Lt. Arthur L. Fuller, Jr. 2914 Sycamore Street ATF 13, TFKJ A Alexandria, Virginia APO 63, San Francisco, Calif. Edward R. Garber Maj. Donald C. Helling 29 Northfield Road 216 Tennessee Avenue Glen Cove, New York Alexandria, Virginia Capt. Nicholas E. Gasaway Maj. Edward G. Helvenston 3902d Air Base Wing 4818 Old Dominion Drive Offutt AFB, Nebraska Arlington 7, Virginia The Judge Advocate Journal 55

Lt. Col. Norman P. Herr Lt. William H. Keniry 1722 Crestwood Drive 1616 N. 21st Street Alexandria, Virginia Arlington, Virginia Roy G. Hollingshead, Jr. Capt. William C. Knopke Suite 202 Broadway Building Office of the Staff Judge Advocate 1079 B Street MacDill Air Force Base, Florida Hayward, California Maj. Albert R. Kuehl Maj. Andrew S. Horton 1220 Sunset HSS 814th AB Gp Waco, Texas Westover AFB, Massachusetts Capt. Fred R. Langford Lt. Merrill Q. Horton Hq. 36th AB Group Office of SJA APO 132, New York, New York MacDill AFB, Florida Lt. Col. Lee B. Ledford, Jr. Col. George K. Hughe! 123 North Wayne Street 15 Bristol Court Arlington 1, Virginia Alexandria, Virginia Col. Howard S. Levie Lt. Guy C. Hunt Office of The Judge Advocate Staff Judge Advocate General 4432d Air Base Squadron (TAC) Department of the Army Wendover Air Force Base Washington 25, D. C. Wendover, Utah Lt. Edward D. Lewis Lt. Richard B. Hutchinson 323 Bryn Mawr 1616 N. 21st St., Apt. 5 San Antonio, Texas Arlington, Virginia Maj. Walter L. Lewis Lt. Ralph L. Jewell 500 John Adams Drive 4324 Culpepper Drive San Antonio 1, Texas Bryan, Texas Edward George Lowry, III Lt. Isaac Norris Kantor 1810 Corcoran Street, N. W. Hq. Pacific Air Forces, Box 442 Washington, D. C. APO 953, San Francisco, Calif. Lt. Col. Samuel Mandel Charles I. Katz c/o Office of the SJA 250 West 57th Street Hq., USAFE New York 19, New York APO 633, New York, New York Capt. Eugene E. Kelly James H. Manns Staff Judge Advocate 702 Myers Building Hq. 17th Bombardment Wing Springfield, Illinois Tactical Lt. John P. Manwell, II Eglin AF Auxiliary Field Nr 9, Office of SJA Florida Mountain Home AFB, Idaho 56 The Judge Advocate Journal

Lt. Col. Thomas C. Marmon Lt. Col. Thomas J. Newton 6601 Woods Parkway, Apt. lB J A Sec., Hq. 4th Army Dundalk 22, Maryland Fort Sam Houston, Texas Col. S. S. Maxey Lt. Col. Guy Nichols SJA, Hqs., USAFE 435 Kensington Drive APO 633, New York, New York Biloxi, Mississippi Capt. Lee M. McHughes Lt. John E. Norton 2715 Woodley Place, N. W. Legal Office Washington 8, D. C. 7486th Air Base Group APO 115, New York, New York Frank G. Millard 4200 Cathedral Avenue Leo J. O'Brien Washington, D. C. Suite 702 Central Tower San Francisco 3, California Capt. Carl W. Milzer Hqs., 7030th Support Group Maj. Charles F. O'Connor APO 12, New York, New York Hq. Sq. Sec. NAMAP, Box 376 George E. Monk APO 323, San Francisco, California 810 Colorado Building Patrick C. O'Donoghue Washington 5, D. C. 831 Tower Building Robert W. Morrison Washington, D. C. 225 Bush St., Room 1920 San Francisco 4, Calif. Capt. Charles H. Parker 1906 St. James Place Capt. William G. Moses, Jr. Falls Church, Virginia Office of the Staff Judge Advocate MacDill AFB, Florida Capt. Wilton B. Persons, Jr. 8 Dickman Avenue Thomas M. Mullen Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas 34 E. Figueroa Street Santa Barbara, Calif. Norman W. Polovoy U.S. Court of Military Appeals Sydney P. Murman Washington 25, D. C. 614 First Western Bank Building 405 Montgomery Street Maj. Robert A. Prince San Francisco 4, California 5700 Channing Road Springfield, Virginia Lt. Col. James E. Nelson Office of the SJA Joseph Prindaville 810th Air Base Group 1855 186th Place Biggs AF Base, Texas Homewood, Illinois

Lt. Cay A. Newhouse, Jr. Ronald Ransier The Judge Advocate General's School 1307 Angora Avenue Charlottesville, Virginia Yeadon, Pennsylvania The Judge Advocate Journal 57

Lt. Vincent J. Raymond, Jr. Maj. Harold Shapiro 20160 Lichfield Road Office of SJA, Hq. EADF Detroit 21, Michigan Stewart AFB, New York Maf. Thomas H. Reese Lt. Col. Everett H. Smith JAGO, 8540 DU 808 Cannon Lane Department of the Army Alexandria, Virginia Washington 25, D. C. Capt. George W. Smith, Jr. Samuel Riaf Directorate of Military Justice 45 Broad Street OTJAG, Hq., USAF Boston 9, Massachusetts Washington 25, D. C. Lt. Col. Ralph K. Roberson Maj. Earl A. Snyder Office of Staff Judge Advocate Hq. 47th Bomb. Wing MacDill AFB, Florida APO 22, New York, New York Capt. Dana A. Robertson Capt. David B. Stevens Box 1194 Office of the SJA Homestead, Florida Hq., 66th Tac Recon Wing APO 130, New York, New York R. Hoke Robinson 1213 Washington St. Charles L. Strouss, Jr. Columbia 1, South Carolina 6th Floor, Title & Trust Bldg. Phoenix, Arizona Lt. Lawrence H. Rogovin Hq. Sq. Sec. 96th ABGp Lt. Col. Thomas H. Swan Altus AFB, Oklahoma 4507 31st St., South Arlington 6, Virginia Maj. Cecil F. Rowe Asst. Staff Judge Advocate Col. Thomas R. Taggart Hq. 5th Air Division Hq. Pacific Air Forces, Box 28 APO 117, New York, New York APO 953, San Francisco, Calif. Lt. Col. Frederick A. Ryker Maj. John TeSelle Hq. 16th AF 913 North Montana Street APO 285, New York, New York Arlington 5, Virginia

Capt. Joan A. Schevitz Maj. Troy R. Thigpen, Jr. 431 S. Alvernon, Apt. 1 HED 41st Air Division Tucson, Arizona APO 994, San Francisco, Calif. Lt. Col. Edwin G. Schuck Lt. Col. James R. Thorn 2909 N. Edison Street 1503 Sigmona Arlington 7, Virginia Falls Church, Virginia

Col. J. L. Searles Col. Alan B. Todd 4216 East West Highway 861 N. Patrick Henry Drive Chevy Chase 15, Maryland Arlington 5, Virginia 58 The Judge Advocate Journal

Lt. Robert S. Travis Lt. Francis P. Waters Hq. 3910th Air Base Group 45-49 4lst Street APO 179, New York, New York Long Island City 4, New York

Capt. George S. Vasil Lt. Donald E. Weight Hq. Sq. 66th ABGRU OMS Box 348 APO 130, New York, New York Laredo Air Force Base Capt. Hugh T. Verano Laredo, Texas 714 Parkway Terrace Capt. Samuel C. Wexler Alexandria, Virginia 38th Bomb. Wg. TAC Maj. Thomas H. Verdel APO 17, New York, New York P. 0. Box 4 Greenville AFB, Mississippi Maj. Lawrence H. Williams Military Affairs Div., JAGO Lt. Harry H. Voigt Department of the Army Hq. 818th ABGRU (SAC) Washington 25, D. C. Lincoln AFB, Nebraska Capt. Walter Dakin Williams Capt. Rose L. Volino Base Legal Office Hqs. 17th Air Force Scott AFB, IlJinois APO 231, New York, New York Robert B. Wilson, Jr. Col. Richard E. Walck Suite 212, Reynolds Building 9700 Falls Road, Route 3 Winston-Salem, North Carolina Bethesda 14, Maryland Lt. John V. Wortman William F. Walsh Hq. 5th Air Division 2232 Bellefontaine, Apt. 9 APO 117, New York, New York Houston, Texas Lt. Philip E. Walter Capt. Waldo E. Ximenes 717 West 4th Street Box 62 Loveland, Colorado Laredo AFB, Laredo, Texas Col. William H. Ward, Jr. Lt. Allan L. Zbar Quarters 204-B Hq. 72d ABG, Box 196 Lowry Air Force Base, Colorado APO 845, New York, New York The Judge Advocate Journal 59

CHANGES IN ADDRESS Capt. William B. Anderson Capt. Richard C. Boeken Suite 701 AFCJA 24, The Pentagon 705 Olive Street Washington 25, D. C. St. Louis 1, Missouri Capt. Rufus C. Boutwell Jr. Bruce P. Badley 5409 Kempsvi!le Street ' Attorney at Law Springfield, Virginia c/o Henry Burgess Attorney at Law John P. Bradshaw Edelman Bldg. 357 N. Park Sheridan, Wyoming Cape Girardeau, Missouri Col. Albert Barkin William W. Brady 1613 Harvard Street, N. W. 80 South Grove Avenue Washington, D. C. Elgin, Illinois Maj. C. Edwin Barnes William M. Briggs Barr Building 5978 9th Street, North Arlington, Virginia Washington 6, D. C. Herman M. Buck Harold D. Beatty 406 W. Berkley Street 43 West 11th Street Uniontown, Pennsylvania New York 11, New York James E. Bednar William E. Buder 5901 West Third Street Civil Courts Building Los Angeles 36, Calif. St. Louis, Missouri Laurence D. Benamati Maj. Perry H. Burnham 130 Montgomery Street Hq. Sq. Sec. N AMAP San Francisco 4, California APO 323, San Francisco, Calif. Maj. Engelbert J. Berger Lt. Robert Burns Box 691 Hq., USAF, Office of SJA Margarita, Canal Zone APO 633, New York, New York Lt. Go!. Myron L. Birnbaum Lt. Col. Frank E. Callinan . Office of TJAG Hq., USAFE Hq., USAF APO 633, New York, New York Washington 25, D. C. Lt. B. R. Carraway, USNR John L. Bishop NAAS, Whiting Field 6020 S. W. Arrowwood Lane Milton, Florida Portland, Oregon Lt. Col. George W. Carter, Jr. David M. Bloomberg Hq. U.S. Army Caribbean 717 Seybold Building QM Section, Box 50 Miami 32, Florida Fort Clayton, Canal Zone 60 The Judge Advocate Journal

Lt. Robert C. Carter Lt. Col. John R. Frazier Cave City, Kentucky Office of SJA 4737th Air Base Wing Lt. John Joseph Cassidy APO 862, New York, New York Staff Judge Advocate Section Hq., Iceland Defense Force-NATO Francis J. Gafford APO 81, New York, New York 2500 Wisconsin Ave., N. W. Washington, D. C. Maj. William G. Catts Hdq., Pacific Air Forces Col. James K. Gaynor APO 953, San Francisco, Calif. 785 N. Van Dorn Street Brookville Hillard Chapnick Alexandria, Virginia 622 Marion E. Taylor Building Capt. Robert G. Gilchrist Louisville 2, Kentucky 3070 Livingston Rd., Apt. 4 Col. Kenneth B. Chase Cleveland 20, Ohio Staff Judge Advocate Col. Martin R. Glenn Hq. 2nd A.F. 1293 Cherokee Road Barksdale AFB, Louisiana Louisville 4, Kentucky Col. William R. Cohen Arnold M. Gold 8328 Mt. Tacoma Dr., S. W. 1470 Penobscot Building Tacoma 99, Washington Detroit 26, Michigan

Edward F. Daly Robert R. Gooch 1025 Connecticut Ave., N. W. 30 No. 11th Washington, D. C. Terre Haute, Indiana Marion Price Daniel Cdr. Franklin P. Gould Governors Mansion University Club Austin, Texas Washington 6, D. C. Lt. Col. Dorothy S. Feddern Lt. Fielding D. Haas Hq., CAMAE, Box 610 737 N. Jordan APO 10, New York, New York Liberal, Kansas William B. Hanback Ainslee R. Ferdie 2152 F. Street, N. W. 1782 West Flagler Street Washington, D. C. Miami, Florida Col: M. W. Hazlehurst Lt. Bernard A. Feuerstein Judge Advocate Division 755 Bronx River Road Hq., Northern Area Command Bronxville, New York APO 757, New York, New York Maj. Francis C. Foley, Jr., USMCR Paul M. Hebert 1341 Oak Tree Road 2331 Kleinert Avenue Iselin, New Jersey Baton Rouge, Louisiana The Judge Advocate Journal 61

Capt. Edmond H. Heisler Maj. John A. Macomber Hq. Sq. Sec., 48th Ftr. Bmr. Wg. Transportation Supply & Maint. Cmd. APO 119, New York, New York 12th and Spruce Streets St. Louis 2, Missouri Joseph V. Hodgson 410 Kauikeolani Building Lt. Col. John J. Madden 116 So. King Street Hq. MDW Honolulu 13, Hawaii Office of the Judge Advocate Washington 25, D. C. Capt. Norman K. Hogue 1029 Woodley Place Lt. Col. Ernest R. Mattoon Falls Church, Virginia 4 Groomes Lane Woodstock, Howard County, Maj. Dugald W. Hudson Maryland Office of the Division SJA Brig. Gen. Robert H. McCaw Hqs., 24th Infantry Division Office 'Of TJAG APO 24, San Francisco, Calif. Department of the Army Cdr. David Hume Washington 25, D. C. Mt. Eagle John J. McGlew Bryantown, Maryland 432 Terrace Avenue Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey Lt. Col. Guy T. Huthnance Box 193 Donald I. Mitchell Hq., Fourteenth Air Force 623 Beacon Building Robins Air Force Base, Georgia Wichita 2, Kansas

Martin D. Jacobs George A. Mueller 26 Broadway 2401 S. Michigan Avenue New York, New York Chicago 16, Illinois

Lt. Col. Bernard A. Katz Robert A. Muldonian Hqs., 4th ATAF 9616 Byeforde Road APO 183, New York, New York Kensington, Maryland

Ely R. Katz Capt. Lee G. Norris 940 Lincoln Road 1514 No. Chambliss Street Miami Beach, Florida Alexandria, Virginia

Maj. Marcos E. Kinevan Col. John G. O'Brien 1210 No. Chambliss Street Commandant Alexandria, Virginia The Judge Advocate General's School Charlottesville, Virginia Col. Noah L. Lord U.S. Civil Admin. of the Harry V. Osborne, Jr. Ryukyus Island 11 Commerce Street APO 331, San Francisco, Calif. Newark 2, New Jersey 62 The Judge Advocate Journal

Alan M. Prewitt, Jr. Eulan Snyder Bolivar, Tennessee The Essex 4740 Connecticut Ave., N. W. John W. Prunty Washington 8, D. C. 817 Dade County Court House Miami, Florida Col. Henry J. Sommer Apt. 22 Gen. Nathaniel B. Rieger 4222 Columbia Pike Judge Advocate Arlington 4, Virginia Hq. U.S. Army, Europe APO 403, New York, New York Capt. Abraham Spector 16 Court Street Paul A. Rose Brooklyn 1, New York 777 14th Street, N. W. Washington 5, D. C. Col. Roy H. Steele Army Judge Advocate St. Julien Rosemond Hq. 7th U.S. Army 815 Ingraham Building APO 46, New York, New York Miami 32, Florida J. Feiler Stern Lt. Daniel L. Rotenberg 601 South 91st Street 712 Jackson Street Omaha, Nebraska Gary, Indiana John F. Sutton, Jr. Thomas B. Sawyer Sutton, Steib & Barr 835 W. 9th Petroleum Building San Pedro, California San Angelo, Texas Maj. Harry Scheiner Richard 0. Thorgrimson c/o Sentlar 1900 Northern Life Tower Park Crescent Hotel Seattle, Washington W. 87th St. & Riverside Drive New York, New York Lt. Col. Janna Tucker P. 0. Box 481 Charles R. Schram Randolph AFB, Texas 1539 Orange Street Clearwater, Florida Col. Nicholas R. Voorhis Col. Douglas Sharp SJA, Hqs., USAFFE Hqs., USAFE 8th Army Rear APO 633, New York, New York APO 343, San Francisco, Calif. Ira S. Siegler Lt. Col. William R. Ward 4101 Dana Court Staff Judge Advocate Kensington, Maryland Hq., 8th Inf. Div. APO 111, New York, New York Capt. Herbert K. Sloane 6102nd Air Base Wing Lt. Ralph T. Welch Pacific Air Forces 436 33rd Avenue APO 328, San Francisco, California San Francisco, Calif, The Judge Advocate Journal 63

Col. Howard Russell Whipple W. J. Woodger, Jr. 2606 Addison Avenue Treasurer Austin 5, Texas Warren Petroleum International Lt. Col. Chester W. Wilson Corp. 2413 Taylor Avenue Suite 5015, 60 East 42nd Street Alexandria, Virginia New York 17, New York Sidney A. Wolff Maj. Gladys R. Yeaman 515 Madison Avenue P. 0. Box 0-3 New York 22, New York Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. Col. Thomas D. Wood Col. Edward H. Young 2250 Ironton Street U. S. Soldiers Home Aurora, Colorado Washington 25, D. C.