RELIEF OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE ARMY FROM THE DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE.

APRIL 8, 1912.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. HAY, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the

following

REPORT.

[To accompany H. Doc. 619.]

The Committee on Military Affairs, to which was referred certain papers relating to the relief of Maj. Gen. Frederick C. Ainsworth, The Adjutant General of the Army, from the duties of his office, and also the letter, House Document No. 619, of the Secretary of War, transmitting the said papers, have carefully considered the letter and papers and make the following report.

The letter of the Secretary of War, dated March 12, 1912, is as follows:

[House Document No. 619, Sixty-second Congress, second session.]

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, March 12, 1912.

SIR: In response to House resolution 415, of February 23, 1912, requesting the Secretary of War to furnish copies of all records on file in the War Department bearing on the extracts from the communications of The Adjutant General of the Army, quoted in the order of February 14, 1912, relieving him from duty, I have the honor to say that I am directed by the President to transmit to your honorable House these copies, as being public documents on the files of the War Department, the disclosure of which will not, in his opinion, be detrimental to the public interests.

I am, however, directed by the President to say that these papers relate to a matter of military discipline and executive action which, by the Constitution, is confided exclusively to the President as Commander in Chief of the Army, and that their transmittal is not to be construed as a recognition of the authority or jurisdiction of the House or of any of its committees to require of the Chief Executive a statement of the reasons of his official action in such matters or a disclosure of the evidence upon which such official action is based.

Very respectfully,

The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

HENRY L. STIMSON,
Secretary of War.

It will be observed that this letter denies the right of the House of Representatives to call for the papers above referred to, on the ground that they "relate to a matter of military discipline and executive action which, by the Constitution, is confided exclusively to the President as Commander in Chief of the Army." It will also be noted that the Secretary of War says that he is directed by the President to assert the principle above quoted.

A careful examination of the Constitution has failed to disclose any authority vested in the President which would justify him in withholding from the Congress, or either House thereof, information of a public nature regarding his acts as Commander in Chief of the Army, pertaining to the discipline of the Army or to any officer or man thereof. Certainly, in time of peace, the acts of the President with reference to the discipline of the Army are a matter which Congress has the right to inquire about, and to demand public papers with reference thereto. In this case the papers called for were public and official papers on file in the War Department, and certainly subject to such an inquiry. The committee calls the attention of the House to the attitude of the Secretary of War toward resolutions of inquiry. If there were any good and valid reasons why these papers should have been withheld from this House, those reasons should have been given in a different way and by the President himself. The Secretary of War, in the opinion of your committee, has a very erroneous idea as to what his relation is to the Congress of the United States. His office is not a constitutional one. He derives no power from the Executive. He is the creature of the Congress of the United States, and as such is amenable to it. He has no power which the Congress does not confer. The letter of the Secretary of War does not even say that he has laid the matter before the President, and that the President authorized him to make the claim therein set forth. If the matter had been called to the attention of the President, and he thought that the Congress was invading his prerogative, then he, and not the Secretary of War, was the proper person to assert his claim.

In considering the questions raised by the papers referred to your committee, including the question of what congressional action, if any, should be taken upon them, the committee does not feel authorized, nor, indeed, is it necessary to go beyond the papers themselves, the Congressional Record, and other public sources of information. In making this report the committee has therefore acted strictly within these limits.

An examination of these papers shows that under date of February 14, 1912, the Secretary of War addressed a letter to Maj. Gen. F. C. Ainsworth, The Adjutant General of the Army, charging him with insubordination and other improper official conduct, quoting in said letter extracts from various official and personal communications in support of that charge and relieving him from discharging the duties of his office and directing him to await further orders in this city.

From accounts in the public press it appears that this letter was delivered to The Adjutant General at sometime during the day of February 15, 1912, and on the same day, about or near the same time, a copy of said letter was read on the floor of the House of Representatives, while the Army appropriation bill was under consideration, and was printed in the Congressional Record of that day.

On February 22, 1912, the House of Representatives, by resolution No. 415, directed the Secretary of War to transmit to the House full copies of all papers containing, or having any bearing on, the extracts quoted in the letter of the Secretary of War, February 14, 1912. În response to this resolution the Secretary of War, on March 12, 1912, transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives copies of a large number of documents. These papers and the accompanying letter of the Secretary of War were referred to this committee on March 13, 1912. Upon an examination of these papers it has been found that many of them are not pertinent, or are of no importance, but those of them which are pertinent are embraced in, or appended to, this report.

The Secretary of War in his letter of February 14, 1912, addressed to The Adjutant General of the Army, uses language more intemperate and less justifiable than any which your committee has been able to find in these papers, or which has been quoted by the Secretary of War. The Secretary charges Gen. Ainsworth with impunging the fairness and intelligence of the Secretary of War; with criticizing and questioning the military capacity, experience, intelligence, fairmindedness, honor, and good faith of officers of the General Staff and the War College; with insubordination and impropriety of official conduct; with charging, by innuendo, the Chief of Staff with improper motives; with habitual rudeness and ill temper; with intolerance of subordination and readiness to impugn the motives or intelligence of associates; and with making official communications the occasion for contemptuous comments and aspersions upon fellow officers; and for insolence to superiors.

In order to support these accusations and to give color to these grave charges against an officer of the Army who had rendered long and distinguished service to his country, the Secretary of War, in his letter of February 14, 1912, quotes certain extracts from official communications by The Adjutant General, but even a careful reading of those extracts, without reference to their context, does not in any wise warrant or justify any of the grave accusations in support of which the extracts were adduced by the Secretary of War; and a careful examination of the full context of the papers sent to this committee in response to resolution No. 415, and from which these. extracts were taken, makes it plain not only that The Adjutant General was blameless in the matters to which those papers relate, but that great injustice has been done Gen. Ainsworth, because of the unwarranted assertions, misstatements, and suppression of facts contained in the widely published letter of the Secretary of War of February 14, 1912. The Secretary of War, in his letter of February 14, alleges as the principal ground of his action in suspending Gen. Ainsworth the contents of a memorandum addressed by Gen. Ainsworth to the Chief of Staff, dated February 3, 1912. It appears from these papers that this memorandum was prepared in compliance with instructions conveyed by the Chief of Staff to Gen. Ainsworth in a document of which the following is a copy:

[Memorandum of The Adjutant General.]

WAR DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF, Washington, December 15, 1911.

The Secretary of War directs that you submit for the consideration of this office your opinion concerning the following proposition to abolish the present

muster roll and to adopt as a part of this plan the descriptive list herewith. Should any feature or features of the proposition be, in your opinion, inadvisable or impracticable, a statement will be given in every case showing in detail wherein the matter is considered inadvisable or impracticable.

PROPOSITION.

It is proposed to abolish the muster roll, placing the information now contained on that roll on the descriptive list and company return. At the same time the descriptive list will be so modified as to give a complete military record of the soldier. It will follow the soldier throughout his entire enlistment, at the expiration of which or upon the soldier's severance from the service by death, desertion, or other cause it will be sent to The Adjutant General of the Army for file. There is no intention of abolishing the monthly ceremony of muster, and the mustering officers' certificates will be made as at the present time on the pay roll.

The requirements of the twelfth article of war will be complied with by designating the pay rolls of December 31 and June 30 “Muster and pay rolls" and entering thereon the data called for by this article of war.

PURPOSES OF THE MUSTER ROLL.

The purposes of the muster roll are:

(1) To furnish a complete history of the organization for the period covered by the roll.

(2) To furnish a complete military record of every member of the organization for the period covered by the roll.

(3) To enable the War Department to furnish the Commissioner of Pensions data in connection with pension claims made by former soldiers.

(4) To enable the War Department to furnish the Auditor for the War Department information necessary to settle the accounts of certain soldiers. (5) To enable the War Department to answer inquiries from friends, relatives, and others regarding the whereabouts, physical condition, etc., of soldiers. (6) To enable the recruiting branch of The Adjutant General's Office to determine the number of prospective vacancies in the various organizations. If the muster roll were abolished, these purposes would be accomplished, as follows:

(1) As at present, the complete history of the organization will be given on the monthly company return under the head "Record of events," which is consolidated and reported to the War Department on the regimental return. It is thought that the present practice of reporting the "Record of events on the muster rolls and on the company return also is merely a duplication of work with no corresponding benefit.

(2) The complete military record of every member of the organization will be given on the descriptive list. This record will be practically in carded form when it reaches The Adjutant General's Office, and much more accessible than at the present time on the muster roll.

(3) Information required by the Commissioner of Pensions will be obtained from the descriptive lists. As all such requests are about former soldiers, the descriptive list will be on file in The Adjutant General's Office when the request for information reaches there.

(4) Information required by the Auditor for the War Department will be obtained from the descriptive list. It is understood that over 95 per cent of the requests for information from the auditor are about former, dead, or reenlisted soldiers, or deserters.

(5) Many of the inquiries from friends, relatives, and others regarding soldiers could be answered by The Adjutant General with as much detail as at present. In case The Adjutant General's Office could not give the information requested from the records in his office he could direct the inquirer to communicate with the commander of the organization to which the soldier belongs. By having organization commanders report by name on the monthly returns all transfers, deaths, and desertions, which data would be consolidated on the regimental return, The Adjutant General's Office would always know the whereabouts and general status of every enlisted man in the Army.

(6) To determine the number of recruits needed in an organization at any given period, the organization commander could be required to furnish The Adjutant General with a periodical statement of the number of prospective vacancies in his organization

By adding the following headings to the new descriptive list herewith (which was prepared before the proposition to abolish the muster roll was considered): (1) Injuries, wounds, and sickness; (2) assignment or transfer to company; (3) extra duty, special duty, and detached service; (4) confinement or arrest in quarters the form will give all the information at present given by the muster roll except the record of events, which is now and will continue to be given on the company return, and which reaches the War Department in consolidated form on the regimental return.

SOME OF THE ADVANTAGES OF THE PROPOSED PLAN.

(1) The abolition of the muster roll, a periodically submitted return which contains much data that reaches The Adjutant General's Office in other ways, and the preparation of which roll requires much time and labor.

(2) Great simplification in the matter of the descriptive list. At present whenever a soldier is detached from his company a new descriptive list is prepared and forwarded to his commanding officer; should he return to his organization, or be sent to another command, another descriptive list is prepared and forwarded to the proper commanding officer, and so it goes, a new descriptive list being prepared in each case. The plan proposed would obviate the necessity of preparing a new descriptive list in every case, thus not only making away with the clerical work involved, but also making away with the possibility of errors, which always exist in copying.

(3) Assuming that a soldier, who is retired after 30 years' service, has spent two-fifths of his time on foreign service, his military record would be contained in something like 130 muster rolls. When this man applied for retirement The Adjutant General's Office would make a search of 130 muster rolls in order to get his military record. Under the proposed plan it would be necessary to make a search of only eight or nine descriptive lists. Furthermore, if it is ever desired to get any particular feature of a soldier's record, the information desired would be found on the same numbered page in every descriptive list. With the muster rolls it would be necessary to pick out the information desired from the various remarks after the man's name on every separate roll.

(4) After the Civil War it took a number of years, at a big cost of time and money, to card the muster rolls of the Volunteers.

It is understood that after the War with Spain it took several years to card the muster rolls of the Volunteers.

Under the proposed plan the muster rolls of both Volunteers and Regulars would be virtually carded as soon as war ended.

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN CASE A DESCRIPTIVE LIST WERE LOST.

To begin with, experience has shown that descriptive lists are very, very seldom lost. It may, with safety, be estimated that no more than 1 in every 50,000 is ever lost. The plan of having only one descriptive list is followed both in our Navy and Marine Corps. Inquiry in the Bureau of Navigation shows that during the last two and one-half years, during which time over 100,000 descriptive lists were handled, only one or two were lost. In the Marine Corps since 1904 descriptive lists have been forwarded from station to station about 100,000 times, and about 20 or 25 have been lost, 10 of these having been lost in the San Francisco fire. Of course, in the Navy and Marine Corps sailors and marines are transferred much more frequently than in the Army.

However, should a descriptive list be lost, a new one could easily be prepared. The four vital parts of a descriptive list are: First, the list of deposits; second, the soldier's clothing account; third, the soldier's medical history; fourth, the soldier's physical description.

The list of deposits could be obtained from the Paymaster General; the clothing account from the retained individual clothing slips in the soldier's organization; the medical history from the Surgeon General's Office and The Adjutant General's Office; the physical description from The Adjutant General's Office.

Nearly all the other information, which is only of secondary importance, contained in the descriptive list could be obtained by investigation, but even if such data as a complete record of extra duty, special duty, detached service, etc., could not be obtained, it would make no difference.

LEONARD WOOD, Major General, Chief of Staff.