Viewing page 45 of 124
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
PUBLIC LEDGER [[image - logo]] AND NORTH AMERICAN PHILADELPHIA, SATURDAY MORNING, OCTOBER 31, 1925 COPYRIGHT, 1925, BY THE PUBLIC LEDGER COMPANY COOLIDGE IMMUNE FROM TESTIFYING IN MITCHELL CASE War Department Lawyers Find Nothing Unusual in His Ordering Court-Martial of Airman COLONEL SHOWS DEFIANCE, REITERATING "NOT GUILTY" Public Ledger Bureau Washington, Oct. 30 Legal minds in the War Department tonight dug out historic court-martial records to prove that President Coolidge's action in ordering and convening the court-martial of Colonel William Mitchell was not unusual and did not necessitate the appearance of the Chief Executive or the Secretary of War, as proposed today by attorney for the defense, before Military Court trying the airman for conduct prejudicial to military discipline. The amazing possibility that President Coolidge and Secretary Davis, admittedly the accusers and prosecutors of the officer, might be called to testify threw the Capitol into a furore, until it developed that the President could not be reached by civil or military law except through the impeachment process. With the military body adjourned until Monday, this development shared interest with the dramatic scene in the court room when Colonel Mitchell, standing with his shoulders squared and his eyes on his prosecutor, answered in a firm and aggressive tone that he was "not guilty" of conduct prejudicial to military discipline or tending to bring discredit on the uniform he wears. Ten times colonel Sherman Moreland asked the doughty colonel how he wished to plead, his questions referring to the eight specifications in the indictment, to the general issue and to the complete charge. Ten times, his words steadier and more pronounced at each reiteration, Colonel Mitchell replied: "Not guilty!" Then Representative Frank Reid, Colonel Mitchell and Mrs. Mitchell, made a strategic move, though at considerable cost to the comfort and feelings of Colonel Mitchell and Mrs. Mitchell. Though the Court was inclines to waive reading of the Ninety-sixth Article of War, under which the accused airman is being tried. Mr. Reid insisted that it be droned out by the Trial Judge-Advocate. Mr. Reid's purpose was to show that the army, in its attempt to punish the colonel for what he conceived to be a public service, was resorting to a blanket article dating back to the near-medieval days of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden and framed to curb the roistering, swashbuckling mercenaries who reduced Europe to an ash head during the Thirty Years' War. Mrs. Mitchell, sitting beside her husband's vacant chair, seemed to crumple under the monotonous repetitio nof [of] such words as "guilty" nad [and] "punishments." Her husband maintained a defiant air toward the military power symbolized in a court of ten ranking officers, starred and braided and decorated-htough [though] his decorations ant of the men trying him-but the prosecutor's glib recital of charges and penalties seemed to touch her keenly. Her face flushed and she bowed her head. For the first time she seemed to show th [the] strain she must have undergone these last four months. Tragedy to Mr. Mitchell For the army this proceeding may be a necessary disciplinary action. For the country it may be the parting of the ways on the slow journey to a more balanced system of national defense. To the curious gallery, which fills the rear of the room each day, it may be but an impressive military spectacle. But to Mrs. Mitchell in that moment of pleading, it was a tragedy that involved her "Billy" and darkened her household. Thus she saw hum as he flung back his boyishly defiant answer of "Not guilty!" standing where she could'nt tap him on the shoulder comfortingly, as she had since the trial began. He was not Colonel William Mitchell the distinguished airman and the central and gallant figure of a military drama; he was her husband, paying, for the moment at least, for his daring and courage. As he sat down he bend toward her a grinned broadly, a grimace almost of relief that it was over. Tears welled in her eyes, but she shood her head bravely and smiled. Then he turned away, sat back in his chair and a grim, gray look came into his face. With tightened lips, taut muscles and brooding eyes he stared at the members of the court, apparently unseeing. The glamour of the fight, for the moment, was gone from him, too. Reid Puts Strain on Jury Colonel Moreland and the jury of generals were also subjected to a strain. due largely to the aggressiveness and subtleties of Mr. Reid , whose legal practice has consisted mostly of criminal cases. Twice encounters between the counsel for defense and Colonel Moreland brought warnings from Major General Howze, presiding officer. Mr. Reid's frequent use of colloquialisms, such as addressing the ten ranking and dignified generals as "you fellows," has proved something of a drag on their patience. Today he commented sarcastically on Colonel Moreland's refusal to furnish a bill of particulars setting forth what specific phrases and assertions in Colonel Mitchell's 6000-word statement constituted the offenses charged. "Yesterday," said Mr. Reid, "the trial judge advocated, apparently inspired by a sense of justice, intimated he might sit up all night to prepare this statement for us. The midnight oil may have been burning, but wose oil was it?" Colonel Moreland, kindly soul, portly and bald and the type of gracious and urbane lawyer who might be found in any county seat, blazed with wrath when Mitchell's statement was too long to expect the defense could be prepared to defend every paragraph in it. 'Whose fault is it," burst out the prosecutor, "that it is so long? Is it mine? Is it the Court's? Am I to be blamed for the defendant's voluminosity?" Good Humor Restored The courtroom roared with laughter. Colonel Mitchell and members of the court joined in and it seemed to restore the atmosphere of good humor. In a few seconds the lawyers were exchanging compliments. Colonel Moreland expressed the hope that if he had a son in the law, he would proce as "gracious and able" as Mr. Reid. The latter responded with the same hope for his hypothetical offspring. The request for a bill of particulars was denied, but Colonel Blanton Minship, the court's legal adviser, satisfied Mr. Reid by assuring him the court would take into consideration the whole context of the article in passing on any specific phrase cited as a violation. Mr. Reif explained his request was based on teh desire that the court consider Colonel Mitchell's intent as revealed in the article as a whole and not in fragmentary assertions. Major General Howze flared up when Colonel Moreland, in recommending a recess until Monday, suggested it would give the members of the court respite from their arduous labors. The presiding officer, as sturdy as a football fullback, who bore with ease the hardships of the punitive expedition after Villa in 1916, an dall but caught the Mexican ban lit, replied testily: "I might say for your information that the endurance of this Court is sufficient for all occasions and conditions and there is no need to be apologetic on our account." Despite this "hard-boiled" dig at the prosecutor, General Howze acted favorably on the petition that a recess be taken until Monday morning. President Coolidge may not relish the prominence given him in an action which has stirred the country because of its bearing on the question of national defense, but he sees no reason for discussing it or getting excited about it. Neither does Secretary Davis, though both the President and his war member will be the final arbiters, inasmuch as no court-martial sentence can become effective without presidential approval. Precedents Galore Precedents galore, Supreme Court decisions and army regulations were cited as proof that the President's course in ordering disciplinary action instead of leaving it to the immediate superior of the accused, was not only legal, but natural in this instance. The most pertinent case cited tonight by the judge-advocate general's office was the court-martial of Bridadier General David G. Swaim. At the time of his trial in 1886 he was judge-advocate general of the army, and the military court was convened exactly as was that trying Colonel Mitchell. In an effort to recover salary losses imposed on him, General Swaim carried he case to the Court of Claims and the Supreme Court on the constitutionality issue. In each instance, the officer's contention was not sustained. Neither is there anything in army regulations or the court-martial manual requiring the accuser to face the accused, which is one of the reasons why Mr. Reid wants to place the President of Secretary Davis on the stand. Though Secretary Davis is not protected from court summons as the President is, in the famous trial of General Fitz John Porter for alleged insubordination at the Second Battle of Manassas, an attempt was made to force Secretary of War Stanton on the stand, but without success. Mr. Davis may accept an invitation to explain the circumstances surrounding the inception of hte court-martial action, but he cannot be dragged before the military body.
