ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .

80 5
Ex HIBIT 17 .
MARCH 17, 1919.
Maj . Sherman Moreland, Military Justice Division, Judge Advocate General's
Office, after being duly sworn, testified as follows :
Questions by Gen . Chamberlain :
Q . Under the military code, as it now exists, what is your opinion as to th e
operation of the organizations of the Division of Military Justice of the Judg e
Advocate General's Office, in the protection of the enlisted man who has dis-
obeyed the laws?A . I think that, taking the system of military justice fro m
top to bottom, the accused gets justice oftener than he gets it in the civil courts .
It possibly is the fact that he gets injustice done to him, in the first instance ,
more frequenly than he gets it done to him in the civil courts, but, on th e
other hand, he gets justice done to him more frequently in the first instanc e
in military trials than he does in trials in civil courts, and the injustices whic h
are done to him in the first instance in military courts are corrected . I think ,
in a manner that is deserving of the highest commendation, and I think ca n
compare very favorably with the protection which he gets in civil courts .
Q : Has this unfortunate controversy, which has arisen in connection with th e
Judge Advocate General's Office, operated to affect the morale of the Divisio n
of Military Justice or - to affect the efficiency of its operation?A . Due to
things that occurred about the time the controversy opened, I do not think i t
has affected the morale or the efficiency of the office.
Q. Has it, so far as you have observed, affected the personal friendly rela-
tions between the officers of that division or between such officers and eithe r
Gen . Crowder or Gen . Ansell?A. I do not think it has . I believe that the pub-
lished reports of Gen . Ansell's attitude have produced a good deal of resentmen t
in the minds of many officers of the department of military justice .
Q . Because of what?A . The reason being that it was regarded by such of-
ficers as, if not an unfair, at least not a full statement of the work of the de-
partment and reflected on many who had reason to believe that they were act-
ing, not only legally, but conscientiously in regard to the matters put befor e
them. As an illustration of the effect of the published reports of Gen . Aus :'ll's
testimony, the two boards of review met together and requested Gen . Crowder
to permit them to make a statement to the press, and also requested him t o
obtain an opportunity for them to testify before the Senate committee . th e
members of those boards believing that the published report of Gen . Ansell' s
testimony had placed them in a false light with the people from whom the y
came, and that, in order to protect themselves, they would have to clear tha t
up in some way or other.

EXHIBIT 18.
MARCH 17, 1919.
Q. Give your full name, rank, and present duties.A. James Sidney Sanner ;
major ; member of the second board of review, Division of Military Justice ,
Judge Advocate General's office .
Q . How long have you been on duty in the office of the Judge Advocate Gen-
eral?A . Since the 28th or 29th of October, 1918.
Q . Have you been on duty in the Division of Military Justice during tha t
time?A . Continuously.
Q . As a result of your service in the Division of Military Justice, what i s
your opinion as to the protection given to officers and enlisted men tried by
court-martial? Does the system in force operate effectively and efficiently
to give to these men all the protection which the law permits?A . I kno w
nothing whatever about officers' cases. My duties are concerned altogethe r
with cases affecting enlisted men . As to them I would say that on review b y
the Judge Advocate General ' s office the machinery is extraordinarily elaborat e
for the protection of accused and convicted persons . In so far as the machin-
ery before review may be involved, the system, in my judgment, function s
as well as systems of judicature do generally, that is to say, here and there
will be found miscarriages and mistakes, which the Judge Advocate General ' s
Office is busily correcting .
Q. So far as you have observed has this controversy affected the morale o f
the office, or has it in any way interfered with cooperation and affected the
efficient working of the machinery?A. So far as I have been able to observe,