OF THE ACTING JUDGE-ADVOCATE-GENERAL TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR FOR THE YEAR 1891. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE SIR: I have the honor to submit my report for the year ending September 30, 1891: Commissioned officers tried by general court-martial: Records reported upon and submitted to the Secretary of War for action Records received, revised, and recorded, not requiring the action of the Cadets of the United States Military Academy tried by general court-martial: 8 10 1 Records received, revised, and recorded, not requiring further action, (convicted, 2).. 2 1,878 Military convicts tried by general court-martial (convicted, 7; acquitted, 1) . 8 Total tried by general court-martial. 1, 907 Enlisted men tried by general court-martial. Statement of the number of trials by general court-martial for the last twelve years. Trials by general June 30 courtmartial. courtmartial. Showing an increase this year as compared with last year of 125 cases Reports made upon petitions for clemency. 955 Reports made upon cases referred by the record and pension division. 110 Official applications from the War and Treasury Departments and Pension Copies of records of proceedings of general courts-martial furnished 211 10, 310 415 Number of convictions of various offences taken from the records of general courts-martial received at this office during the past year: Sleeping on post Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman (not included under previ ous heads) Disorders, etc., charged as "conduct to the prejudice of good order and mili- The number of trials by garrison and summary courts-martial in the various departments in which the courts were held is as follows: The number of trials by inferior courts-martial resulting in acquittal was 344, and the number of different enlisted men tried, 9,181-many having been tried more than once. During the period covered by this report an important reform in the administration of military justice has taken effect. What led to it was the want of uniformity of punishment which had become an intolerable evil in our Army and could not be checked. As far as possible to equalize punishment it had become necessary to maintain a close supervision over the subject at the War Department and to have constant recourse to the pardoning power, and scarcely a day passed without a batch of orders being issued for this purpose. It was seen, however, that this was not the proper way to reach the evil; that in fact it was an abuse of the pardoning power, and ought to be regarded as a temporary expedient only. At one time it was thought that the cure might be effected by a revision of the Articles of War, but the subject was not brought to the attention of Congress in this form, and as events have proved it was not necessary, for a reform which has now been tested and has been found to be entirely satisfactory has been accomplished much more easily in another way-by an act of Congress, (of about four lines, as printed in the Statutes,) viz.: That whenever by any of the Articles of War for the government of the Army the punishment on conviction of any military offense is left to the discretion of the court-martial the punishment there for shall not, in time of peace, be in excess of a limit which the President may prescribe. As thirty-two of the thirty-four Articles of War relating to the punishment of enlisted men leave the measure of punishment to the discretion of the court-martial, the needed modification of the articles could very well be made in this way; and accordingly the President has issued his executive order, published in General Orders, No. 21, 1891, Headquarters of the Army, prescribing the limits of punishment for the offences of enlisted men which are of most common occurrence. This order has been in force since March 28, and although in putting forth a new measure introducing such radical changes as this it was to be expected that experience would show some defects, none that I have been able to recognize as defects have been brought to my attention. It is true that there was at first some misgiving as to the result of the greatly reduced punishment for desertion, whereby in certain cases the deserter was to be retained in the service and not in all cases dishonorably discharged, as was lately the practice; but that apprehension must have disappeared in view of the continual decrease of the crime of desertion in the Army. No one, I think, can now doubt that the whole system is, in the first place a rational and humane change from a conception of military punishment which the country and age had outgrown, and in the second place a perfectly successful change. It has gone into effect so quietly-there was so little friction even in the starting of the machinery-that it has not attracted much attention; yet it marks a most important era in the history of the administration of military justice in the American Army. It may be thought that I am overestimating the value of this change, but with the records of all the trials by general court-martial passing through my hands and with the opportunity thus given me of comparing the present with the former system, I feel sure that such is not the case. Orders mitigating sentences are, it is true, still issued from the War Department, but that is principally due to the necessity of reducing to the limit of the present system punishments which had been awarded under the old. When that shall have been fully done recourse will no doubt much less frequently be had to the pardoning power, and it will probably not often be considered necessary to modify the action of the courts. My attention has indeed lately been attracted to the number of trials for disobedience of orders and other offences involving a failure of respect for authority, and I feared that in compiling the statistics for this report I should find that these offences had increased in number, but there is no material difference in this respect from last year. Nor, if |