Viewing page 42 of 124

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

FAIRMONT TIMES
FAIRMONT. WEST VIRGINA  SATURDAY MORNING, OCTOBER 31, 1925.

COL. MITCHELL SCORES EARLY IN TRIAL: HERE ARE REMAINING JUDGES

[[image - photograph]]
[[caption]] Seats in Emory building, Washington, scene of Mitchell court martial, are at a premium, with social and political notables fighting for a view of proceedings which Col. William Mitchell and his counsel are making sensational. Upper photo shows trial board of officers in session after the unseating of three Judges of high rank challenged by the defendant: (l. to r.) Generals E. E. Booth, Frank McCoy, B. A. Poore, Douglas MacArthur, R. L. Howze. presiding officer; Col. Blaton Winship; Generals W. S. Graves, E. L. King, E. B. Winans, George Irwin.  In the lower picture are shown (l. to r.), Col. Herbert White, William H. Webb, Rep. Frank Reid of Illinois, counsel for defense; Col. Mitchell, Mrs. Mitchell. [[/caption]]

The Case of Mitchell

Again the constitution of the United States is on trail - this time it looks as though all the betting odds will be against that venerable document. The case of Col. William Mitchell, U. S. A., now being heard by a peculiar institution allowed in spite of the constitution - the military court that refuses to place any credence in the constitution but hears cases under military precedence - will bring many to the sudden realization that the founders of the nation didn't know
what they were about. History has shown that the constitution has never been found wanting. But in the language of the barracks, everyone from the "dog-robber" to the "boss" has something more important to learn than the meaning of that masterpiece of liberty, our constitution. Be he assigned forever to the duties of the "buck private" or risen to the ranks of the leadership of armies, the soldier must forget he is an American as defined by the constitution, and remember that his conduct, as his name, height and post office address, is to be accounted for in musty volumes in the war department.
 
There is something more important to humanity than army procedure; and that something was fought for in 1776, 1812 and often since - the principle of which can be found in the constitution, not the manual on courts martial. But there is something much more important in this affair than the "talking out of turn" by an officer. It is that the army, a powerful arm of defense, will become more of a closed book than ever before, by staging such a spectacle as this grotesque by-play of military authority. The people of the United States have given, in millions of cases, their all to the army and navy in times of national crises. How long will the desire to serve unstintingly continue if there grows the feeling on the part of the entire population that the army is opposed to the principles of the constitution?

Colonel Mitchell may have stated a fallacy when his now historic statement was released. He may be mistaken. But he can never be charged with having conducted himself in a "manner not becoming an American." He might be "busted" and reduced in rank, but he will only be elevated in the estimation of the people of the United States. It is not Colonel Mitchell that is being tried in the real sense. It is the United States that stands on trial and the world looks on to see if the pronouncement upon which this nation was founded is as weighty a document as the minutes of preceding meetings of courts martial. The constitution of the United States is on trial- and we hope against great odds that it wins. We may expect to see a sturdy propaganda of speakers who will use their influence to sway public opinion from the present state of limitless disgust over this matter. But it will fail in the long run, because, despite the verdict of the military court, the judgment pronounced by the people of the United States will be sure and long remembered.