![Transcription Center logo](/themes/custom/tc_theme/assets/image/logo.png)
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
COL. MITCHELL MUST PAY THIS TIME, ARMY MEN SAY Star Sept 6-25 Discipline in Some Form Held Certain to Be Given Colonel. Thorough Probe Planned Before Department Heads Make Move By the Associated Press. The consensus of opinion last night among the few War Department officials available over the week end was that the charges in the statement by Col. William Mitchell in San Antonio were of such a serious nature that disciplinary action against him no longer could be avoided, provided the statement was officially substantiated. That steps would be taken immediately to establish the facts as reported in press advices from the Texas city was taken for granted in the absence of any statement to the contrary by department officers here. Maj. Gen. John L. Hines, chief of staff and Acting Secretary of War, in the absence of Assistant Secretary Dwight Davis, conferred late yesterday with Maj. Gen. Dennis E. Nolan, deputy chief of staff. Both officers declined to say whether any decision concerning Col. Mitchell's future had been reached as a result of their meeting. Mr. Davis is expected to return early this week from Forest Hills, N. Y., where he went to attend the Davis Cup tennis matches. It was regarded as probable in the meantime Maj. Gen. Ernest Hinds, commanding the 8th Corps Area at San Antonio, would be instructed to obtain from Col. Mitchell a statement as to the authenticity of the press reports. The story then would be forwarded to Washington together with recommendations for disciplinary action, if that is warranted by the circumstances. It has been the time honored practice of the War Department, in dealing with problems such as are presented by the latest Mitchell pronouncement, to determine the facts in the case by official investigation and then proceed along lines laid down in Army regulations. Col. Mitchell has been called several times lately to explain statements attributed to him. Secretary Weeks directed him to explain some of his testimony before the House committee, where he advocated passage of the Curry bill for a unified air service which had been previously disapproved by the War Department. In this instance, Mr. Weeks said he was not concerned with expressions of personal views of the then Brig. Gen. Mitchell. But that his statements regarding War Department practices deserved careful examination. Was Demoted by Chiefs. Failure of Gen. Mitchell at that time to give the War Secretary a satisfactory explanation resulted in the appointment of Col. James E. Fechet to the office of assistant chief of the Army Air Service upon the expiration of Gen. Mitchell's term and led to transfer of the latter to duty in Texas as a colonel. Col. Mitchell has continuously put forward his ideas of the value of air-craft since he was transferred and on a recent visit to Air Service head-quarters declared he would carry the fight for a unified Air Service and for a general overhauling of the defense system to Congress at the December sessions. His statements aroused War Department resentment, but no official notice was taken of them. After his return to San Antonio, Col. Mitchell declared his intention to tell the country the "truth" about the Air Service. He said the book he had written on "Winged Defense" would be supplemented at an early date by a series of articles to lift the lid of secrecy which, he declared, the War Department had imposed on aviation conditions, but he disclaimed responsibility for the cartoons which appear in the volume and which were said by department officials to unfairly ridicule Secretary Weeks. [[image]] [[Miller]] Col. Mitchell Officials Doubt Statement. Accustomed as departmental executives, civilian and military, are to attacks by Col. Mitchell, some were doubtful that he believed that the Shenandoah and PN-9 No. 1 disasters were due to "incompetency, criminal negligence and almost treasonable administration of the national defense by the War and Navy departments." Another assertion they found difficulty in crediting to a brother officer was one stating that conduct of the Aviation Service had become so disgusting "as to make any self-respecting person ashamed of the clothes he wears." Instructions to Gen. Hines at San Antonio undoubtedly will contain specific references to these charges and efforts will be made to have Col. Mitchell explain whether he intended to given the public the impression that self-respecting Army officers are ashamed of their uniforms for reasons he set forth or any others. Legal experts of the Army admitted that an admission by Col. Mitchell that he had made any one of the statements attributed to him in this connection would provide more basis than is ordinarily required for institution of court-marital proceedings against him. Davis Is Silent. NEW YORK. September 5 (AP).- Asserting that it "wouldn't do to get into a public discussion with a subordinate," Dwight Davis, Acting Secretary of War, tonight declined to comment on the statement of Col. Mitchell concerning the Army and Navy Departments. He said that he would make no statement until he returned to Washington, which probably will be on Monday, and possibly would not say anything then. "Action and not words" is what is needed to deal with the situation, Mr. Davis said, and added that the public would know what that action was when it was taken. He spoke of his personal friendship for Col. Mitchell. No Leniency Expected. By a Staff Correspondent. SWAMPSCOTT, Mass., September 5. -President Coolidge could not be reached tp night to get a comment from him upon the Gen. Mitchell charges of criminal negligence and incompetency in the Army and Navy services, but it was intimated by one official close to the President that Gen. Mitchell may be called before a court martial to prove his charges. Gen. Mitchell's charges, which were taken as the latter's opinion as to the cause of the collapse of the Shenandoah, are considered by this associate of the President's as being very serious and will be so considered by the President. It is not thought that President Coolidge will be as leniently inclined toward Gen. Mitchell in this incident as with the general's recent dispute with this superiors. Today Chicago Herald-Examiner 9/8/25 Col. Mitchell's Case. The Joy of Work. Gold in the Arctic. Deep Plowing. By Arthur Brisbane {Copyright, 1925, by Star Company.) A Washington correspondent says "President Coolidge will keep out of the Mitchell fight," referring to Col. Mitchell's charges as to general incompetency in the management of United States air forces, and the suggestion that Col. Mitchell, lowered in rank for telling the truth once, should now be arrested for telling the truth twice. How could the President, who is head of the army and navy, keep out of the Mitchell matter? It is not conceivable that his subordinates, knowing of the President's readiness to hear both sides of any question, would undertake any action without his approval. The people do not believe that the President will permit any action against Col. Mitchell until the entire aviation question shall have been fully thrashed out, including the fiasco in the effort to fly to Hawaii and the catastrophe of the Shenandoah. It is to be hoped that the inquiry, when it comes, will not be a whitewashing enterprise, but a real investigation. The President will want to know why the protests of Commander Lansdowne, an experienced airman who had flown across the Atlantic in a dirigible, were ignored. The President will not want any whitewashing or any offhand suppression of Col. Mitchell, who isn't suppresses, by the way. He will want the facts, and will see that he gets them. THE most disquieting thing in our so-called defense programs is this statement, attributed to Judge Wilbur, Secretary of the Navy: "In view of the experience of the navy planes in the Arctic expedition, the failure of the Hawaiian flight and the Shenandoah disaster, we have come to the conclusion that the Atlantic and the Pacific are our best defenses. We have nothing to fear from enemy aircraft that is not on this continent." The experience in the Arctic, the failure of the Hawaiian flight, the dreadful Shenandoah disaster, had nothing to do with capable air navigation, but a great deal to do with incompetent management of our air force. We should have indeed nothing to fear from foreign aircraft if we could give to foreigners such management as our aircraft has. Mr. Wilbur's statement that our oceans are our best defense sounds like the statement of some ostrich saying: "I have nothing to fear. The sand is my best defense: I can stick my head into it."