8 .66 'ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE .

not in the slightest degree . At the outset of the organization of the secon d
hoard of review we were given certain liberal and human standards of judg-
ment, both by Col . Reed, chief of the division, and by Gen. Ansell, the actin g
head of the office, which standards have been in no sense modified by th e
taking over of the office by Gen . Crowder .
Q . Are you aware of any personal unpleasantness which was brought on
by this controversy between officers of the division themselves, or betwee n
such officers and either Gen . Crowder of Gen . Ansell?A . All controversies
create partisanship in a sense, and there have been differences of opinion i n
the office respecting this controversy, but nothing of a bitter character or a t
all of a character that entered into the execution of the work . I can say
that there has been no division into parties or camps, or any division tha t
has the slightest effect upon the point of view or the getting out of the work .
WASHINGTON, D. C ., March 25, 1919 .
Recall of Maj. Sanner.
Q . You are amember of the special board of review, are you not?A . Yes ,
sir.
Q . State briefly the functions of that board .A. A board ordered by Gen .
Crowder to consider the legal sufficiency of records criticized by the hoard of
pardons as being either poorly tried or badly tried, or weak, or not convincing
upon the evidence. The board is required to advise the general in each ini-
stance of such criticism whether the same is just .
Q . State briefly the conclusions which you have formed as to the efficienc y
of this system .A . Just what proportion of the whole number are criticize d
by the clemency hoard in the first instance I am not able to say except b y
hearsay . My opinion is that not more than 1 in 10, if that many, are s o
criticized . The board finds that between 1 and 2 in 10 of these criticisms
is justified, so that the proportion of bad trials to the whole number of case s
is extremely smallway below the common experience of appellate procedure
in the civil law. As the result of four years' experience on the trial benc h
of Montana and nearly six years ' experience upon its appellate bench, m y
observation is that no system of judicature exhibits any better, if as good a
record .

EYHISIT 19.

WASHINGTON, D. C., March 18, 1919 .

Col . Lewis W. Call, Judge Advocate General's Department, being first duly
sworn, was interrogated by Maj . Gen . J. L. Chamberlain, Inspector General ,
and testified as follows :
Q . What is your name, rank, and organization? .A. Lewis W. Call ; colonel ;
Judge Advocate General's Department.
Q . You are on duty at the present time in the office of the Judge Advocat e
General?A . I ant, sir.
Q. How long have you been on duty in the office?A . As a commissioned
officer ?
Q. Yes .A. I have been on duty as a commissioned officer since August 20 ,
1917 .
Q . During the entire period have you been on duty in the Division of Militar y
Justice?A . No, sir .
Q . Have not been on that duty at all?A. No, sir .
Q . What duty are you on?A . I have been chief of the Division of Contracts ,
Claims, Accounts, and Fiscal Affairs.
Q . You are familiar with this controversy which is going on in connectio n
with the office of the Judge Advocate General?A. Simply as it appears in the
public press .
Q. So far as you have observed, has this controversy affected the morale o f
the office? A . I think that it has not to any appreciable degree . The matter
is talked over more or less, but I have not noticed that it affects the loyalty t o
the office of any officer .
Q . Do you consider that it has affected operations to such an extent as t p
,have affected the efficiency of the office?A. I do not.
Q . So far as you have observed has it affected the personal relations of the
personnel of the office?A . I have not observed that it has .