Viewing page 63 of 124

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

"Why can't we get the original papers before this court?" demanded Col. Winship at this juncture. "It is apparent that there will be numerous objections to anything but the original on the ground that it might contain additional matter, and we are only taking the time of the court by delaying introduction of the original."

"We insist on standing on the law," broke in Representative Reid.

"Well, I am perfectly willing to stand on the evidence as I have sought to introduce it here except for the other printed matter not directly connected with it, and I maintain that there is nothing in this evidence beyond the statement itself to influence the court one way or the other," announced the judge advocate with some heat. "It is astonishing to me that counsel who had said that he didn't want to make any defense should make all these objections."

Representative Reid replied that the evidence which Col. Moreland sought to offer would not be admissible in any court of the land, and he said he would adhere firmly to his objections as previously stated.

"Any court would have disregarded it," replied Col. Moreland.

"Is that a copy of what we are charged with?" asked Mr. Reid.

"The type-written part is a copy," heatedly replied the judge advocate.

"I maintain it is not fair and legal," said Mr. Reid.

"We have another copy," continued Col. Moreland, "but it has some marks on it."

In answer to a question from Col. Winship, to state his objections, Mr. Reid said the exhibit is not admissable because it is not the statement "we are called upon to defend in this case."

Points Out Additions.

"It does not have the same words, phrases and sentences, as issued by Col. Mitchell," he said.

Col. Winship asked in what respect, and Mr. Reid said it contained words other than Col. Mitchell's.

Col. Winship than asked Mr. Reid to give specific illustrations of the variance in the copy and taking a position before the President's table, defense counsel read the following subheads and other notations placed in the statement by the newspaper editors and composing room force:

"Congress flouted, airmen are bluffed, departments unionized, conduct disgusting, equalized propaganda, people awakening, Hawaii captured, one really happened, Hawaiian flight, no fuel provided, great lumbering boat, entire publicity stunt, graphic picture, Department of Commerce crossed out and Department of Agriculture substituted, false conclusions, facts held back, ZR-2 story, order rescinded, Germans know how, anti-aircraft tests, page 11 copy changed, words in it crossed out and 'as' 'at' substituted; organization crossed out and organized substituted, cost enormous, only one carrier, Navy asks most money, test really laughable, a word crossed out and 'excess' written over it, an interesting example, bombs hit target, page 14, the word 'captain' is surrounded; cut down pay, asks nothing, and other marks of printers."

"The context," continued Mr. Reid, "is not in the same words as handed out."

Objection Overruled.

Col. Winship asked Col. Moreland if he was offering only the typewritten part as evidence, and on receiving an affirmative answer overruled the objection of defense counsel that the document should not be received in evidence, but added that all subheads and marks "should be disregarded absolutely by the court as not being part of it." The court upheld the opinion of its law member.

Turning to the witness in the chair, Mr. Yeager, Col. Moreland began questioning on the September 9 statement and produced a copy of the San Antonio Light, which carried the story.

When the judge advocate asked the witness to identify it, Mr. Reid objected on the ground that it was not the original statement, adding, "you don't mean that Col. Mitchell handed that newspaper to that man?"

The question of the whereabouts of the original statement developed the fact that after Mr. Yeager turned it into his city editor, it presumably was destroyed.

The witness added that he made no effort to find it and he did not know whether or not it was in existence.

Witness Is Excused.

When the prosecution finished its examination, the defense announced that there would be no cross-examination and Yeager was excused. After he left the room an orderly was sent after him, and on being returned to the chair, the president of the court asked for questions from the court. Hearing none, the witness again was excused.

Luis Felipe Recimos of La Prensa, a Spanish publication of San Antonio, was the second witness called by the prosecution. He identified Col. Mitchell and said he was sent to his office at Fort Sam Houston shortly before noon of September 5 "to get a statement." Col. Mitchell said nothing to him, he told Col. Moreland in reply to questioning. At the request of the prosecution he produced the statement which he said Col. Mitchell gave him. It was examined by the defense and the court and admitted as evidence on no objection. "Did you see Col. Mitchell after that date?"

"I saw him on the 9th of September at Fort Sam Houston."
"Did you say anything to him?"
"I asked him for news and he gave me another statement," the witness replied. This statement also was produced and Mr. Reid asked only one question, as follows: "What language is your paper printed in?" 
"My papers is published in Spanish," replied the witness. The court then took a 10-minute recess. 
Lieut. Col. George L. Hicks of Fort Sam Houston, Tex., was the next witness. He identified himself as the officer who made the preliminary investigation of the Mitchell case following publication of the statement. After the report was put in the record the witness was turned over to the defense for cross-examination, when Counsel Reid asked him:
"Would you say that the issuing of that statement caused any lack of discipline in your area?"
Col. Moreland, trial judge advocate, immediately jumped to his feet and interposed objection, following which there was discussion as to its relevancy. Col. Moreland contended that it was far afield of the case and that nothing was produced on direct examination on which such a question could be based.
The report itself formed the basis, and the court asked also if it did not relate to matter in the report.
After some hesitation Col. Moreland again rose to his feet to address the court, and replied that it would be all right to answer the question. Pressed by the court as to whether he withdrew his objection, he did after a moment's thinking withdraw, and the witness answered:
"No."
Col. Hicks then identified a copy of the clipping containing the Mitchell statement which was in the official files, and also the letters of indorsement as it passed through military channels to Col. Mitchell and back. 
At this juncture the court took a recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon. 
When the court reconvened this afternoon the prosecution continued its presentation of evidence and testimony designed to show the widespread publication given to the Mitchell statement. 
Harry Lee McCleary, a reporter on the San Antonio Evening News, told how he remined several hours at Mitchell's office on the morning of September 5, awaiting the statement which he had been tipped off would be given out. He said the statement was published by his paper that afternoon.

McCalla Testifies. 

Kenneth McCalla of the Houston Press and also correspondent for the Cleveland Press, testified that he was handed a copy of the Mitchell's statement by its author and added that he also voluntarily gave "the story" to the United Press.
George Gregory of Austin, Tex., identified himself as state editor of the Associated Press, and, over several objections on the part of the defense, testified of personal knowledge that the Associated Press received the statement on September 5, and explained that it went out to about 1,100 member newspapers. 
The next witness was Henry S. Parsons, chief of the periodical division of the Library of Congress.
He told the court that it was his duty to file for copyright purposes all newspapers submitted to the Library of Congress under the copyright law. The judge advocate, in turn, submitted to the witness copies of four well known newspapers, which had been filed at the Library and which contained either the Mitchell statement of September 5 or September 9. These papers were the St. Louis Glob-Democrat, the New York Times, the Chicago Sunday Tribune and the New Orleans Times-Picayune.

Asks Further Identification

Only the direct quotations of the Mitchell statements as printed were incorporated in the record by the prosecution, and after this had been done Col. Winship, the law officer of the court, announced that the judges felt that the articles had not been sufficiently identified as to their origin, mentioning that there had not been put into the record a statement as to whether each article was sponsored by the Associated Press, the United Press or some other news service. Col. Moreland said he did not think this was necessary, at which he received a slight rebuff from the court when the law officer announced that he would take the witness and find it out himself. Further identification was carried out some moments later.
When the papers had been duly made of record Representative Reid asked the witness how many papers had come to him under the copyright law. Parsons replied that only the Chicago Sunday Tribune had been sent to the library for copyright purposes, and counsel for the defense announced that this one paper was therefore, the only document legally before the court.
Mr. Reid then asked the witness to show whether the article in the Tribune was by the Associated Press, the United Press or some other news agency. The witness examined the paper and said he was unable to find anything to indicate such a source. Defense counsel then objected to the admission of the Tribune article, since it was not correlated with the Associated Press or any of the newspaper correspondents cited in the specifications. The point was overruled by the court, but it upheld an opinion by the law officer that the mention of the Associated Press in the specification of charges did not limit the prosecution in its efforts to show how widely the article was published. 
Lahoe 10/31/25
[title] "Billy" Mitchell 
(With the usual grateful apologies to Rudyard Kipling)
(As LABOR goes to press, the highest ranking court-martial ever convened in this country is trying Colonel "Billy" Mitchell for insubordination. The charge is based on his sensational attacks on the air service. Six major generals and six brigadiers compose the court, all selected by the General Staff, known to be bitterly hostile to the aviator. The proceedings have been sanctioned by President Coolidge. Congressman Frank Reid, the young Progressive from Illinois, heads Mitchell's array of counsel.
"What are the bugles blowin' for?" said Wilbur on parade.
"To bring you out, to bring you out," the old press agent said.
"What makes you look so pale, so pale?" said Wilbur on parade.
"I'm thinking of the hell I'll catch," the old press agent said.
"For they're hangin' Billy Mitchell, you can hear the trumpets play;
The staff has got its thumbs turned down, they're hangin' him today; 
They're chargin' of his service off, they'll cut his stars away,
They're hangin' Billy Mitchell in the morning."
"What made the blighter talk so much?" said Wilbur on parade. 
"He told the truth, he told the truth," the old press agent said.
"What makes that airplane pilot swear?" said Wilbur on parade.
"He knows his friend, he knows his friend," the old press agent said.
"For they're hangin' Billy Mitchell. 'cause he spilled the navy beans;
'Cause he told the grievin' people what an air disaster means;
And to stop his jaw they've got him, an' they'll wipe him from the scenes-
They're hanging' Billy Mitchell in the morning."
"What's that so black against the sky?" said Wilbur on parade.
"The broken Shenandoah's ghost," the old press agent said.
"What's that that mutters overhead?" said Wilbur on parade.
"The flying boys that died, that died," the old press agent said.
"For they're done with Billy Mitchell, you can hear the lobby play; 
The hangman's filled his orders and they're shooing us away. 
O, the staff feels mighty cocky, but they'll find there's hell to pay,
After hangin' Billy Mitchell in the morning." -G.L.K.
Herald  11-19-25 119/26
[title] Letters from the People
Editor, The Washington Herald-
Sir:
The war Department's handpicked military court has officially acknowledged that the rules and regulations governing courts-martial have been ignored in the case of General Mitchell. The explanation is made that, the President has the power to change the rules as he may see fit. Article 38, Articles of War, approved by Congress, gives the President a right to prescribe rules relative to courts-martial, but under very severe restrictions. This Article also requires the President to lay before Congress annually any rules that he may have laid down. An examination of public records fails to disclose where the President has promulgated a special set of rules and regulations, applying only to General Mitchell, as is claimed by the Military Court. The President must submit to Congress any such rules he has laid down, and it will be of decided interest not only to Congress but to the people of the country to see just what special rules have been made in order to permit the War and Navy Departments to wreak their vengeance on General Mitchell. Congress has granted the president the power to make rules subject to certain restrictions and if this power is used solely to promulgate rules to persecute particular individuals, then Congress must withdraw that grant of power.
It was probably quite a piece of news to the President to know that he had authorized the War Department to discard the provisions of military law governing the preparation of charges and conduct of courts-martial. 
The courts-martial conducting the trial of General Mitchell has promulgated the doctrine that is not bound by any rules or regulations, that the War Department through which it functions, is a law unto itself and that its acts no matter how high-handed are not to be questioned or reviewed. We may have military and naval dictators in this country sometime, but until that day arrives the law-making power will rest with Congress and not with executive departments.
J. Edward Cassidy