800 ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .

sion, who, in my opinion, is an officer of unusual ability and capacity, ha s

insisted at all times that no discussions in connection with this controvers y
should affect the work of his division . I think I can speak with assuranc e
that it has in no way colored the action of the Chief of the Military Justice
Division or the board of review acting under him .
Q . To what extent, if any, has this controversy and the discussions to whic h
you refer affected the personal relations of the officers in the Division of Mili-
tary Justice?A . So far as I know, sir, they have not affected the relations o f
the officers of the Military Justice Division at all .
Q. Have they, so far as you know, in any degree affected the personal relation s
between Gen . Crowder or Gen . Ansell on the one side and other officers in the
department on the other?A . It is rather difficult, sir, for me to answer tha t
question because most of the communications which either Gen . Crowder o r
Gen . Ansell have had with the Military Justice Division have been through th e
head of the division, Col . Read, and I have seen no indication that the relation s
which existed before this situation arose have been affected by it . I have no t
noticed that either Gen . Crowder or Gen . Ansell have given any signs of per-
- sonal feeling toward any officer growing out of the situation in question .
Q . You are familiar with General Order No . 7, 1918, and General Order No .
84?A. Yes, sir.
Q . Are you familiar with the discussions of memoranda from the Judge Advo-
cate General's Office preliminary to and in connection with the issuance o f
General Order No . 84 amending General Order No . 7?A . I don't believe, sir,
that I can say that I am . I was present at a discussion with reference to the
provisions of General Orders, No . 84, but I recall no information by way o f
memoranda or otherwise preliminary to that except one case, where the com-
manding general of the S . O . S . refused to follow the recommendation of the
Acting Judge Advocate General in France .
Q . Just what do you mean by saying you were present at a conference regard-
ing the wording of General Order No . 84?-A . I was present at a conference
where, as I recall it, some time ago the question of phrasing an order that woul d
go somewhat further than General Order No . 7 had gone would be prepared, an d
the question of my connection with it was merely as to the matter of phrase-
ology, as to how it should be worded to accomplish what it actually did accom-
plish. In regard to the question as to whether there was anything of a surrepti-
tious character in connection with the preparation of that order, I recall tha t
somebody made a suggestion as to whether Gen . McIntyre would agree with
that, and in my own mind, as it was published, I concluded that Gen . McIntyre
approved it .
Q. Do you associate that particular case with a discussion relative to th e
wording of General Orders, No . 84?-A . That I do not recall, sir . That was `th e
very thing, sir, I was trying to recall, and I can't recall whether that was th e
exact occasion or whether they were simply coincidental .
Q. Is there anything further you wish to state?A. In addition to the experi-
ence of one year as an officer in the Judge Advocate General's Department, I
have been interested in the administration of the civil criminal law for abou t
13 years and have made studies of the systems in England . Scotland, an d
Canada, the first two under the auspices of the then President Taft . From the
point of view of a civilian lawyer with this experience, as well as an officer of th e
Judge Advocate General's Department, I have been impressed with the fac t
that both Gen . Crowder and Gen . Ansell have done a great deal to improve th e
administration of the military law and toward making, it accord in spirit an d
in practice with the improvements in the administration of the civil crimina l
law . For instance, Gen . Crowder, I understand, was responsible for the creation
of the disciplinary barracks, with the accompanying feature of the indeter-
minate sentence, and also instituted the system of the suspended sentence, both
the indeterminate sentence and the suspended sentence being regarded as pro-
pressive of modern penology . Gen . Ansell during my connection with the offic e
on a number of occasions referred to the fact that in instances courts-martia l
were imposing what seemed to be excessive sentences and took steps in so fa r
as he had the power or influence to bring about the reduction of such sentences .
To my mind, although I speak with certain hesitancy regarding this particula r
matter, the creation of the board of review by Gen . Ansell, giving it in effect an d
in substance, though of course not officially, the functions of an appellat e
tribunal, was a most important step toward securing an adequate review o f
court-martial records and toward the consequent securing of substantial justic e
in the administration of the military law . In view of these considerations it