ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .

82 1

Q . What is your name, rank, and organization?A. Robert W . Millar ; lieu-

tenant colonel ; Judge Advocate .
Q . How long have you been on duty in the office of the Judge Advocat e
General?A . Since March 11, 1918 .
Q. In what division?A . Military Justice Division .
Q. During the entire period?A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are doubtless familiar with the controversy that has been going o n
in the public press relative to the affairs of the Judge Advocate General' s
Office?A . Yes, sir .
Q . I would like to have your views briefly as to the efficiency of the Divisio n
of Military Justice as administered under the laws as they exist in protectin g
the interests of the enlisted man .A. I would answer that, General, by saying
that it is my judgment that, on the whole, the interests of the enlisted ma n
have been efficiently protected by the Military Justice Division to the exten t
of its powers as construed by those in charge . Some difference of policy has
existed from time to time with reference to the powers of the office under
General Orders, No . 7, 1918 . When I entered the office, the Military Justice
Division, then being in charge of Col . Davis, the impression I received was
that there was then a disposition to make recommendations to commandin g
generals more freely than later in the spring when Col . Mayes became Actin g
Judge Advocate General. How far such recommendations included recom-
mendations of reduction of punishment I can not say. Col . Mayes mad e
it plain that he considered that the function of the office was limited t o
passing upon the legality of the sentence under General Orders, No . 7 .
Later, after Gen . Ansell took charge, there came about a policy of making
distinct recommendations in regard to the reduction of punishments mor e
freely than had been the case before . In October, 1918, as I recall, a memo-
randum was prepared by Gen . Ansell empowering the Military Justic e
Division to make such recommendations where it was thought the. case de-
manded it . I do not wish to be understood as saying that such recommenda-
tions were never made under General Orders, No . 7 during the time Col .
Mayes was Acting Judge Advocate General, but I would judge that no suc h
recommendations was had only in exceptional cases. In October, 1918, and
shortly before the memorandum of Gen . Ansell was prepared I became a
member of the board of review . Since the memorandum in question, there
has been no hesitancy in recommending reduction of punishment wherever th e
case seemed to require it, at least in the cases which have come before th e
first section of the board of review . The board of review at the time which I
became a member of it passed upon virtually all papers in the Military Justic e
Division except those relating to applications for clemency . Later, owing to
the accumulation of business its functions became restricted to a smaller clas s
of cases and at present it is occupied chiefly with cases involving commis-
sioned officers. Making allowance for this fluctuation in the construction o f
the powers conferred by General Orders, No . 7 upon the office of the Judge Ad-
vocate. General, I am of the opinion that, on the whole, the Military Justic e
Division, so far as its powers have extended, has protected the rights of ac-
cused to a degree which is not inferior to that protection accorded them i n
civil appellate courts .
Q. As to length and breadth of action, how do the operations under Genera l
Orders, No. 7 as applied at the present time compare with those which were
in force prior to the advent of Col . Mayes as chief of this division?A . Prior
to Col. Mayes taking charge of the office I was doing work of a subordinat e
character and consequently I am not in a position to make a satisfactory a n
swer to the question .
Q . How has the morale of the office been affected, if at all, by this contro-
versy?A . There has, of course, been considerable discussion among the mem-
bers of the Military Justice Division, which has to some extent perhaps inter-
fered with full attention to the work, but the resultant detriment has in m y
judgment been very slight and there has been in my opinion no impairment o f
any material character of the work of the division .
Q. Has this controversy given rise to any feeling on the part of any officer s
of that division, that an injustice had been done them, so far as you know ,
or had been done the division as a whole?A . Speaking for myself I woul d
sayand I think this view is shared by certain other members of the Militar y
Justice Division, civilian lawyersthat the newspaper statements purportin g
to give the testimony of Gen . Ansell before the Senate Military Committee hav e
had a tendency to unjustly reflect upon us and our work in the Military Jus-
tice Division .