Viewing page 21 of 124

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

Washington Post
Name of Paper OCT 24 1925  D C

MITCHELL'S FIRST 
DEFENSE ACT MAY
CHALLENGE COURT
   _____

Three Members Are Reported as Holding Views Disqualifying Them From Serving.

WILL GUARD EVERY RIGHT, COUNSEL SAYS

Reid and Colonel Confer to Study Case; 8 Allegations in Charges Presented.

By JOHN EDWIN NEVIN.

With an insurmountable barrier of secrecy surrounding the planned defense of Col. William Mitchell, former chief of the air service, who goes on trial Monday for conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline, military circles last night were puzzled whether the accused and his counsel will accept the court as ordered by the Secretary of War.  It admittedly is a "hard boiled" aggregation.  It reflects, and many of those who have been named would be the first to admit it, the regular army first, last and all the time.
Because of this fact, and because certain of the members already have been reported as holding views which in an ordinary court of law would immediately disqualify them, there was a growing belief in official circles that the defense would challenge the right of at least three members of the court to sit.
Whether they will do so was impossible of confirmation.  Col. Mitchell, with his usual smile, referred all inquiries to his chief counsel, Representative Frank R. Reid of Illinois.  When the latter was approached he said:
"We will try this case on its merits.  We have certain rights under the law and intend to safeguard every one of them.  The people want to know why Col. Mitchell is to be denied the right to tell the truth.  If the court is prejudiced I assume that this will show when it assembles."
That the Mitchell defense will leave no stone unturned to present its complete case, at least before the bar of public opinion, was indicated when Representative Reid and Col. Mitchell conferred last evening.  They had before them all of the court-martial records of the army and the navy which deal with the charges brought against the air man, and it is considered very likely that right from the outset they will make a fight to develop the truth of the Mitchell charges and try to force the court to take cognizance of the facts rather than to limit its action to an allegation which very easily can cover every possible crime or misdemeanor, from disorderly conduct to murder.
It is within the province of the court to limit the defense to the actual charges under the articles of war.  This particular allegation has been a part of all military codes ever since organized armies came into being.  It never has been designed to cover actual acts of insubordination or what have been known as illegal acts.  It is most elastic in its construction and should the court be accepted as created and it stand squarely on the counts in the complaint, then it will be almost impossible for either Col. Mitchell or his counsel to get the merits of the controversy into the open.

No Plea in Abatement.

War Department officials have suggested that if the colonel should file an answer in which he would admit guilt, but would also insist on presenting a plea in abatement, he would be able to get around this point.  It was learned on the best possible authority last night that Mitchell would do nothing of the sort.
He is convinced, it was said, that he is absolutely within his rights in what he has said.  He considers his charges, as he very frankly told the Coolidge investigating committee, necessary and constructive criticism.
Incidentally in connection with the criticism of the navy authorities by the former army air chief it was pointed out here last night that his utterances were mild when compared with the language used by Admiral William Sims when he refused to accept the distinguished service medal tendered him by the then Secretary of the Navy, Josephus Daniels, and characterized the navy's awards as "unfair." Sims caustically referred in his refusal to the fact that a distinguished service medal had been awarded to a brother-in-law of the Naval Secretary, who was blown overboard from his own ship which was torpedoed and sunk, while the junior officer who had saved his life was passed over and no reward given.

Bolder Language by Sims.

Sims before a congressional committee, it was pointed out, used language against his superiors which make the Mitchell allegations seem tame in comparison, but nothing was done to him, neither was he summoned before any court-martial for conduct prejudicial to discipline.
This case is one of a number which may yet figure in the court-martial proceedings here. It also was certain last night that before the Mitchell court-martial is concluded the general subject of whether officers of the army and navy are subject to muzzling during times of peace will arise. Col. Mitchell some time ago called attention to the fact that he always has willingly obeyed the orders of his superiors when it came to commands of execution and in the present instance has insisted he acted as he did simply because he had exhausted all other methods of compelling reforms in the air service.
Because of the broad latitude which the court will have should it find Col. Mitchell guilty as charged-and there seemed little doublt in military circles at least last night that two-thirds--the number required by the code--of the members would vote against the colonel, there was much speculation concerning what the punishment would be. The court can recommend dismissal from the army. It can penalize by the loss of any number of files. It can order a reprimand. In any event the verdict of the court will have to be reviewed by President Coolidge so that in the last analysis he will [[??]] the court of last resort.

Big Political Issue.

[[??]] Mitchell case today is one of the biggest political issues in the history of the country. It eclipses in every way the famous civil war cases and the Sampson-Schley controversy as is indicated by the thousands of letters and telegrams which are being received by Mitchell and his counsel every day.
The general opinion is that if the court finds Mitchell guilty it will assess his punishment as a reprimand and will take advantage of that recommendation to make its own verdict a reprimand. Should it order dismissal then it will be up to Mr. Coolidge to determine whether the public will agree inasmuch as already there are plenty of indications that certain senators and representatives will promote legislation to reinstate Mitchell if dismissed and with promotion in rank.
The formal charges against Col. Mitchell were served on him yesterday by Col. Joseph R. McMullen, assistant judge advocate general. They specify eight violations of the military code.
The eight allegations against Col. Mitchell specify his criticism of the loss of the Shenandoah; his criticism of the administration of the War Department; his criticism of the Navy Department and cover the three statements which he issued while on duty at Fort Sam Houston, Tex.
Mitchell and his counsel inspected the quarters selected for the court-martial yesterday, but declined to comment on them in any way.

May Protest on Court Member.

RALEIGH, N. C., Oct. 24 (AP). -The Raleigh News and Observer tomorrow will say that friends of Colonel William Mitchell have lodged protests with the War Department against the appointment of Brig. Gen. A. J. Bowley, Fort Bragg commandant, to sit with the military court to try Colonel Mitchell for his alleged violation of the ninety-sixth article of war.
The protest, the paper will say, is based on the ground that the General expressed opinions hostile to Colonel Mitchell in a speech at Greenville, N. C., last Wednesday night, making his presence on the court prejudicial to the accused former Assistant Army Air Chief.
Illinois Lawyer Defends Flyer
gowrnal - 10/30/25
[[image]]
Representative Frank R. Reid of Aurora confers with his client, Col. William Mitchell, on trial in Washington for insubordination.