794 ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .

Q. What is the significance of this circular? Is it simply confirmation of a n

organization which already existed, or does it signify reorganization going int o
effect at this time?A. On this particular date, April 10, I was a member o f
the Legislative Division, and I had been a member of that division for som e
time prior to this date, and I don't recall definitely whether this organization a s
outlined here in this circular took effect from April 10 or not .
Q . Were you on duty in the office in November, 1917?A. No, sir.
Q . When did you come on duty?A . I came hack from France the latter par t
of January, 1918, and for a short while was unassigned and then was on dut y
in the Provost Marshal General's office for a short while . My recollection is
that it was the latter part of February when I was assigned to duty in th e
Judge Advocate General's office.
Q. The question has arisen during this controversy as to the exact status o f
Gen . Ansell during the period November, 1917, to about April 20, 1918, whe n
he departed for Europe ; whether or not his duties in the office as senior assist-
ant were in any way curtailed or whether his responsibilities and duties wer e
such as would ordinarily fall to a senior officer during a temporary absence o f
the chief. Can you throw any light on that subject?A. No, sir .
Q . When you came on duty in the office did you find, so far as appeared t o
you, cooperation and teamwork and good feeling in the office?A . Yes, sir . I
did not see anything to the contrary .
Q . What are the conditions in the office at the present time in that respec t
as you know them?A . Well, sir, I can only speak for my own division, whic h
is, of course, the largest and the most important division, there being about 5 0
officers in that division, and they are all officers from civil life except myself
I am the only Regular officer on duty in the divisionand I have seen nothing
to indicate on the part of these officers lack of what you refer to as teamwork .
Of course, they have been somewhat upset and disturbed on account of thi s
controversy, and particularly on account of what they regard, and I think very
properly regard, as unjust criticism of the court-martial system as that criticis m
appears in the public prints . They feel that it is a reflection on them as lawyer s
and as officers. They feel that a wholly erroneous and unjust impression ha s
gotten abroad throughout the country that the court-martial system is entirel y
wrong, and that is is unfair to the enlisted men, and that the soldiers are fre-
quently unjustly treated . I say they believe that that is the impression preva-
lent in the country, and they think that impression is due to the statements tha t
have been made in Congress and that have been published in the newspaper s
and other periodicals . They believe that a few cases where apparent injustic e
has been done have been brought to the attention of the people as,indicating th e
usual way that military justice is administered, and their experience here ha s
convinced them that that impression is not correct, that it is unfair, unjust . an d
they think, as I said a moment ago, that it reflects on them, because they believ e
that their friends at home consider that they are here in Washington sittin g
complacently in the office of the Judge Advocate General and seeing all sort s
of outrages committed in the way of punishment by court-martial, and that the y
are doing nothing to remedy this evil . Having those impressions, they hav e
been considerably disturbed, but it has not, of course, affected the amount o r
the character of their work or their efficiency in any way, but simply been a
disturbing element to the extent that I have mentioned .
Q . You have stated the views and the impressions regarding welfare of the
officers of your sections, regarding the justice and effect of these criticism s
which appeared in press . Does that voice your own views upon that subject,
as well as those of the department?A. Yes sir ; I think that. As I explaine d
very briefly to the Senate committee, so far as my knowledge goes there ha s
been no excessive portion of any severe sentence executed . I may say briefl y
during my time in France as judge advocate of the First Division, and durin g
my . time here, I have recommended against the imposition of these extremel y
severe sentences, not that I expected they would be served, but simply becaus e
I thought it would create the wrong impression on the public mind ; and',
secondly, it-has never-been my idea . that that is the way to enforce discipline .
T' think, of course, that sentences in time of war must in many instances b e
more severe than in time of peace, but they ought to be, of course, withi n
reason and not be imposed simply for their disciplinary effect, as these sen -
tenses were. Officers who imposed them, of course, did not expect they wer e
to be served, and everybody understood that ; but it did create a wrong impres -
Sion . r may say that I have been frequently told by the officers who hav e
come to my division that when they first joined and encountered those severe