In 3 sentences, the summary provides:
1) Identification of the document as a transcript of an interview
2) Identification of the topic as Lt. Col. Millar's views on the efficiency of the Military Justice Division in protecting enlisted men
3) A high-level statement that the summary covers Millar's perspective that the Division has protected enlisted men's interests to the extent of its powers, though there have been differences in policies over time.
In 3 sentences, the summary provides:
1) Identification of the document as a transcript of an interview
2) Identification of the topic as Lt. Col. Millar's views on the efficiency of the Military Justice Division in protecting enlisted men
3) A high-level statement that the summary covers Millar's perspective that the Division has protected enlisted men's interests to the extent of its powers, though there have been differences in policies over time.
In 3 sentences, the summary provides:
1) Identification of the document as a transcript of an interview
2) Identification of the topic as Lt. Col. Millar's views on the efficiency of the Military Justice Division in protecting enlisted men
3) A high-level statement that the summary covers Millar's perspective that the Division has protected enlisted men's interests to the extent of its powers, though there have been differences in policies over time.
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 .