Viewing page 79 of 124

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

"A Marine Corps officer testified before the President's Aircraft Board that to his positive knowledge flying officers were afraid to testify and tell the truth.

"Col. Mitchell was demoted and transferred because he told the truth before the Aircraft Committee of the House of Representatives.

"We will prove by evidence that a board of officers studied the aviation question in its broader aspect years ago and recommended substantially the things which Col. Mitchell recommends today and the War Department refused to carry into effect the recommendations of this board and took no action whatever."

Failure of the War and Navy Departments to secure co-ordination, as evidenced in the recent Hawaiian maneuvers, will be gone into, as well as the policy for aviation outlined several years ago, which Mr. Reid says has been kicked about like a foot ball between various officers and today, two and one-half years later, neither the proceedings of the board nor any other definite plan has been put into effect.

Cites MacMillian Expedition.
He said they would prove friction between Comdr. MacMillian and the Navy Department were not in agreement as to the type of radio sets to be used, and "that this disagreement between Comdr. MacMillian and the Navy Department cost the government a large amount of money for the maintenance and operation cost of the destroyers which were ordered to deliver the radio sets to the MacMillian expositions then on the way to the Arctic."

By evidence he will attempt to go at length into battleship bombing, and provide proof that the Navy failed to supply vessels for tests.

Proof will be offered as to navy yard expenditures and the cost of maintaining a balanced surface fleet.

Turns to Air Defense.
Then, reverting to the air defense, Mr. Reid says:
"We will prove by evidence that a fleet equipped with aircraft carriers is more powerful than one without, and that victory will in all probability repose with the fleet equipped with aircraft carriers.

"That Great Britain has three aircraft carriers in commission at the present time.

"The Great Britain craft carriers commission since January, 1918.

"That during that time she has carried out continuous experiments with aircraft carriers and has had experience with sic different vessels used as aircraft carriers.

 "That the United States has not kept one aircraft carrier that can keep up with the fleet.

"The Langley, at present attached to the fleet, is not an aircraft carrier, but an experimental ship for carrying out preliminary experiments. That her speed is only about 15 knots an hour. In no sense can it be regarded as a service aircraft carrier.

"That Great Britain after having had seven years' experience with a conventional type of aircraft carrier, has lain down two new vessels which are part aircraft carrier and part armored cruiser.

"These ships are an advanced type over anything in existence today.

"The two aircraft carriers under construction for our fleet in the United States are not of this advanced type of carrier.

Finds Planes Unarmed.
"We will prove by evidence that the War Department was guilty of almost treasonable administration due to the fact that up to 1923 there were in Hawaii no plans for the employment of the Air Service in the aeronautical protection of the islands.

"No machine guns were mounted on the pursuit airplanes at the time of the inspection by the assistant chief of Air Service.

"Upon the arrival of the assistant chief of the Air Service in Hawaii he found not one single airplane equipped with armament, bomb racks, bomb sights, or any accessories necessary in observation aviation, pursuit aviation or bombardment aviation.

No Planes for War.
"There were no planes for the employment of aviation, either in the preliminary stages of war or in combat.

"There were no airways between the islands. There was no adequate signaling system for aviation, and there was no system of liaison between the Air Service and organizations such as the Light House Service in the various islands and other organizations which could use aicraft in its functions in the protection of the Hawaiian Islands.

"The defense of the Hawaiian Islands must be based very largely on aircraft, and that aircraft properly organized, operating from land bases, can destroy any surface fleet coming within its range of action.

"Aircraft operating from land bases such as the Hawaiian Islands can defent it from naval surface vessels within a radius of action of the aircraft."

Charges Islands Neglected.
"We will prove by evidence that the War Department was guilty of almost treasonable administration in that the air units in the Philippines in 1923 were disorganized, scattered, untrained and poorly equipped. * * *

"We will prove by evidence that:
"The conduct of aviation by the War Department has not been such as to keep the maximum development in our aviation, which will be establishd by proving the small importance attached to aviation by the War Department, and the result of the policy of the war Department on our aviations evidenced at the beginning of the World War.

"Diverting bombardment units to towing targets has prevented the development of bombardment aviation during the past Summer.

"Aviation matters handled by the general staff have been frequently decided without reference to an aviation officer.

"When an attempt was made by the Army air force in the Hawaiian maneuvers to get the naval air forces to carry out what was considered the primary mission of the air force at the time, which was to repulse the attack on the Island of Molaki, the result was that an adequate number of planes were not sent to repulse the landing, which was made by the hostile fleet of the air forces. * * *  

Had Only Five Bomb Sites.
"Nothing has been done during the past Summer to develop the air power of the Army Air Service.

"No heavy bomb practice has been had with the 1,100 or 2,000 pound bombs during the past two years, and that on September 5, 1925, when Col. Mitchell's statement was made, it was absolutely correct, because there were not more than four or five bomb sites on hand in the bombardment group.

"Army aeronautics is gradually wasting itself away under the present administration of the War Department.

"There is not a single Army flying unit in the United States fully equipped with personnel and equipment  even with peace-time strength to carry out the mission for which it exists.

"These conditions are not being improved, and that under the present organization there is little likelihood of marked improvement.

"We will prove by evidence that the War Department has spent a great deal of effort during the past Summer to lead the public to believe that anti-aircraft cannon and machine guns constitute a defense against aircraft, by conducting anti-aircraft practice to develop anti-aircraft defenses, thereby lulling the public in to a false sense of security against foreign invasion by enemy aircraft.

"The bulk of the flying personnel of the bombardment group was used during the entire Summer by the War Department to tow targets for anti-aircraft practice. This reduced the efficiency of the bombardment group by rendering bombing training impossible. * * *

"In a public demonstration that somewhat simulated actual conditions the aircraft reached their objective and delivered their blow before detection. * * *

"We will prove by evidence that the Navy Department and its representatives have attempted to disprove and deprecate the potentialities of aerial bombardment.

"1. By Permitting the public to get the impression that an attacking force, composed principally of an attacking fleet and a landing force, had captured the Hawaiian Islands.

"2. By leading the public to believe through the public utterances of its officers that the battleship was still supreme, and that aviation is only an auxiliary.

"3. By conducting an anti-aircraft test at a speed so slow that no airplane in the world could demain aloft, and then announcing the result of the hits made under these unreal conditions to show the effectiveness of anti-aircraft fire from surface vessels.

"4. By issuing a statement on the accidents to the Shenandoah and PN-9 to the effect that these accidents to aircraft demonstrated that in the present state of the development of aircraft the United States need have no fear of attack by aircraft from abroad.

"Actually the PN-9 No. 1 demonstrated that aircraft can remain at sea for days without help from surface craft; that with the Pacific fleet available for the purpose they failed to find the PN-9 No. 1 in their search; that the accuracy and hence the effectiveness of bombardment is developing more rapidly than defensive measures.


"We will prove by evidence that the War and Navy Departments, when their attention was forced to this matter by the issuance of the statements for which Col. Mitchell is now on trial, recommended to the President that exactly such an investigation as is outlined in the statements be made.

"The President of the United States constituted a board exactly as specified in Col. Mitchell's statement to study the question. * * * 

"We will prove by evidence that Col. Mitchell, after exhausting every usual means to safeguard the aerial defense of the United States, without result, took the only way possible that would cause a study of the true conditions of the national defense to be made.

"That Col. Mitchell made numerous recommendations looking toward the improvement of aeronautical conditions and bringing about a full development of aviation tactics and equipment; very few of which, if any, were ever acted on."

A long list then was given by Representative Reid, dating from 1919 annually until the present.

"We will prove by evidence that the bulk of the equipment in the Army Air Service at the present time is either obsolete or obsolescent; all the De Haviland planes now in use have wings that were made in war time, seven or more years ago.

"A total of 1,820 planes is used by the War Department in computing the strength of the United States in aircraft, of which 406 are standard and well suited for their purpose, minus six awaiting salvage, leaving 400; 237 of these were built in wartime, seven or more years ago, leaving 163; 1,368 planes are substitutes or obsolete; 22 per cent of Army Air Service planes are fit for service and 50 per cent of these were made in wartime, seven or more years ago, leaving 11 per cent fit for service, or 200.

Only 69 Modern Planes.

Only 69 planes are modern, up to date and designed for the purpose for which they are intended, and 60 are being used for training purposes, leaving 9 available for use against an enemy. ***

“The planes that crashed in the 1924 air races killing Lieut. Pierson and Capt. Skeel, had been in storage from one to two years and had deteriorated in storage. 
“Towing targets in anti-aircraft tests has prevented the bombardment group from practice.

“The number of personnel in the pursuits group is not even up to time standard. Throughout the whole United States there have never been sufficient pilots in the pursuit group to carry on tactical training. 

“The number of officers in the tical units has never been anywhere near up to even peace-time requirements.
"The development of tactical aviation been retarded by the War Department by putting Air Service officers on work not connected with training.

"The general controlling aviation policies not training fon this And the statement concluded:

“The War Department refuses to approve recommendations by the Army for gunnery practice.”

Long Trial Likely
 With the conclusion of the opening statement the defense Representative Rela announced he was ready to call his first witness, Gen. Fries, chief of the chemical warfare service. The court thereupon announced a recess of 15 after took the stand.
If It takes long to qualify the approximately 100 witnesses desired by the defense as it did in the case the first witness, this trial is going to last even longer than the most conservative had supposed. A good part of half hour was taken up in efforts Representative Reid to show the court that Gen. Fries what chemical warfare is all about.
The general was required to explain in detail just what mustard gas, chlorine and phosgene are, how they are launched against the certain amount of territory and wha effect they on human beings. 
As Representative Reid continued to question the witness for exact ures and specific data in connection with his statement the general and pencil and set to work while the of court, specators and press waited.

Court Grows Impatient. 

The patience of the court appeared to be sorely tried, and finally Gen. Graves broke in to ask what the object of all this questioning was. Are you trying to qualify the witness or show the court the relevancy of the testimony he is to give asked Gen. Graves Representative Reid. “We are trying to do both,” replied Mr. Reid. “I am perfectly willing to dispense with further questioning of the witnss along this line if the court will admit that he is duly qualified to testify as an expert on offensive gas warfare.”
There was no response from the court so Representative Reid resumed his lengthy inquiries. Gen. Fries went into a discussion of the various types of gas used in the war and their effectiveness in quantities on given areas. 
"Is there any one who has had as much experience as you in chemical warfare?” asked Representative Reid. Gen Fries replied he did not think unless it was the commander the chemical warfare battalion in France.

Planes More Accurate. 
Here Representative Reid finished his examination and Col. Moreland began. cross examination. He questioned the witness on his experience In bombing from airplanes, and Gen. Fries replied he had first-hand knowledge of the effectiveness one-half mile from the scene. 
He considered himself an expert on these matters in response to questions from the trial judge advocate. In giving his opinion on the amount of gas required to gas effectively the given area, Gen. Fries said his figures were based on experiences obtained in the war. No gas was dropped from the planes in the war, however, and when Col. Moreland recalled this statement later, Gen. Fries declared there was no difference in dropping an aerial bomb filled with gas or with high explosives. He took into consideration the opposition of an enemy air force and anti-aircraft in attacking an area with airplanes. The witness also said, in answer to questions, that at times gas dropped in bombs from airplanes was more accurate than when fired by the artillery.
Col. Moreland asked the witness how many planes it would take to gas an area the size of the District of Columbia in a given time. After considerable figuring consuming several minutes of the court's time, he said that it would take 960 planes to gas this area one trip.
At this juncture Col. Moreland moved that the entire testimony of the witness be stricken from the record as it had not been shown as relevant to the defense in this case. Representative Reid jumped to his feet and said that he expected to prove by presenting statements from congressional hearings that certain officers of the military service had testified to information which was untrue. 
Picking up the hearings before the committee on military affairs of the House of Representatives at the second session of the Sixty-eighth Congress on a bill to create a department aeronautics, he read statements