Viewing page 98 of 124

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

FOLEY ASKS TO QUIT SHENANDOAH BODY PROBING DISASTER
Refused Right to Answer Mrs. Lansdowne in Mitchell Trial.
CHARGED WITH ATTEMPT TO "FIX" TESTIMONY
Says He Cannot Longer Consent to Sit on Court Inquiring Into Crash.
Star - 11/13/25

After being bluntly denied permission to defend himself before the general court-martial that is trying Col. Mitchell for criticism of the War and Navy departments, Capt. Paul Foley, who was the target for barbed charges from the lips of Mrs. Zachary Lansdowne, widow of the commander of the ill-starred Shenandoah, today requested Secretary of the Navy Wilbur to relieve him as judge advocate of the naval court that is inquiring into the dirigible disaster.
Immediately after the general court-martial resumed its sessions this afternoon Col. Sherman Moreland, trial judge advocate, appealed to the court to hear Capt. Foley "in the name of justice." Upon the insistent objections of Representative Frank Reid, chief of counsel for the defense, who pointed out that the prosecution could call the naval officer as its own witness at the proper time, the request was denied and Capt. Foley was invited to quit the chamber.

Accused by Mrs. Lansdowne.
Before leaving Capt. Foley indicated to newspaper men that he could no longer consent to act as the investigating prosecutor for the Shenandoah disaster. Yesterday Mrs. Lansdowne charged that Capt. Foley, who is also special aid to the Secretary of the Navy, had given her "canned" testimony to deliver before the naval court, and the officer sought to lay his side before the military trial board.
Less than two hours after Capt. Foley had left the court it was learned at the Navy Department that he had tendered his resignation as judge advocate of the naval court to Secretary Wilbur.
The hearing again grew heated this afternoon, Representative Reid accusing the War Department of "not willfully and promptly" producing records necessary to continue the case, charging the defense had not been treated fairly by the Government, and caustically criticizing the general staff of the Army for alleged "interferences" in the court-martial proceedings.

Court in Uproar.
The charges of the defense sent the proceedings into an uproar, with Col. Sherman Moreland of the prosecution defending the War Department against the accusations of defense counsel, Representative Reid insisting on his willingness that the trial go ahead without the records and members of the court suggesting that a recess be taken to enable the department to produce all the subpoenaed records.
The executive conferences were held by the court regarding the matter, the first decision being for an immediate adjournment for several days, but a later agreement being to hear the witness then in the chair and then to decide the matter of adjournment.
After the excitement had died down, Maj. H. A. Dargue gave testimony designed to support Col. Mitchell's charges that the War Department sought to thrust its own views on subordinate officers.
Earlier in the day, there was an unsuccessful effort made by the prosecution to have Mrs. Lansdowne's testimony stricken out.

Testimony Stands.
Mrs. Lansdowne's testimony was designed to support Col. Mitchell's prediction that the Navy would resort to "muzzling tactics in an effort to white wash itself in the Shenandoah crash."
The move to strike it out, initiated by Col. Moreland, came as a surprise at the outset of today's proceedings, as the prosecution at the close of yesterday's session apparently had given up its persistent efforts to have Mrs. Lansdowne's testimony ruled out.
It was apparent that something had happened over night, and those in touch with the trial saw in this eleventh-hour motion of the prosecution some influence designed to prevent the airing in court of the Shenandoah inquiry.

Testimony Held "False."
Col. Moreland based his motion on the grounds that the testimony given by Mrs. Lansdowne, who charged that Capt. Paul Foley, judge advocate of the Shenandoah board of inquiry, had sought to have her give "false" testimony before that board, was "immaterial, irrelevant, incompetent, improper," and could have no bearing on the alleged offense for which Col. Mitchell is being tried. He pointed out that the alleged attempt to include Mrs. Lansdowne occurred long after the issuance by Col. Mitchell of his San Antonio statements, for which he is being tried under the 96th article of war, and he cited legal precedents established by civil courts in this connection.
Representative Reid vigorously detended Mrs. Lansdowne's testimony.

Motion Overruled.
The motion of the prosecution did not impress Col. Blanton Winship, the court law member, and he recommended to the court that it be not sustained. An executive session was held to consider the recommendation and the court then announced that Mrs. Lansdowne's testimony would remain of record.
The testimony given this morning was mostly of a technical nature and was far from having the sensation characteristics of yesterday.
Col. J. Edward Cassidy, Army Reserve Corps, testified that Brig. Gen. Hugh Drum erred in testifying before a Congressional committee about the amount of gas necessary to evacuate an area the size of the District of Columbia.
The defense cited this as an instance of a "high ranking officer" giving misinformation to Congress, as charged by Col. Mitchell.
While the witness was attacking

Gen. Drum's statement, Maj. Francis Wilby, assistant to Gen. Drum, prompted the prosecution in its cross-examination of Col. Cassidy.
The only other witness this morning was Maj. H. A. Dargue, chief of the war plans section of the Army Air Service, who declared the commanding officer of the Second Corps Area had refused to use an anti-aircraft target one-half the size of one being shot at. The target which the Air Service sought to have substituted, Maj. Dargue said, was the result of careful tests at the Aberdeen proving grounds, made to determine the exact "danger area" of an exploding projectile. The size of the target used as a substitute was fixed arbitrarily, he asserted.
The motion to strike out Mrs. Lansdowne's testimony came at the very outset of today's proceedings. Col. Moreland began reciting to the court legal precedents regarding the reception of evidence relating to facts which occurred after the alleged offense being tried was committed. He cited the case of Stewart versus Sonneborn, before the United States Supreme Court, in which it was held the conduct of the defendant should be viewed in the light of facts occurring at the time of his act and not in the light of subsequent developments. 
The trial judge advocate declared there was no reason why subsequently occurring facts, even though closely associated with the alleged offense, should impress the court in determining what was in the mind of an alleged offender at the time of his alleged offense.
"I do not believe that the testimony of Mrs. Lansdowne will have any weight for the reasons I have just outlined," asserted the judge advocate, "and I therefore move that all of her testimony given yesterday be stricken out."
Representative Reid immediately responded in defense of Mrs. Lansdowne's testimony. The whole statement for which the accused is being tried, he pointed out, was predicated on the introductory phrase, "in my opinion," and all the specifications brought against the accused are formed on the basis of that opinion.

Assails Prosecution.
"How can they say now that becaused the accused prophesied something that came true, the proof of that prophecy should be stricken out?" demanded defense counsel. "Col. Mitchell predicted that the Navy would proceed to muzzle the Shenandoah's survivors, pending a whitewash board, and this was proved in Mrs. Lansdowne's testimony given yesterday. The prosecution in this case is violating all rules of court-martial procedure. The case is not being tried under the law and it is proceeding outside the Constitution. All the testimony bearing on the statements of the accused should be allowed to remain in evidence, for the final decision of this court is to be reviewed by a higher authority. This higher authority otherwise might have to call for other evidence."
Representative Reid quoted from the official manual for courts-martial in regard to the wide latitude in testimony that the military court should allow, in contrast to restrictions in the civil code. He charged that if the Shenandoah board had concluded its investigation and made public its verdict, the prosecution would have eagerly cited these findings to show that there was no whitewash.
"The only law of this court," declared Representative Reid, "is tradition. We are proceeding outside the Constitution. But now they are willing to bring in the law in civil cases in an endeavor to have Mrs. Lansdowne's testimony stricken out. You can't conscientiously nor legally act on these specifications unless you find whether or not the statements made by the accused are true or false, fair or unfair, as otherwise you can't determine whether the statements were intended to cause disorder, lack of discipline or to bring discredit on the military service."
Col. Moreland replied in vigorous language, declaring that the accused "can't hide behind his opinion." The judge advocate protested against the "unmeasured manner in which counsel speaks when he refers to disregard of the rule."
"Counsel for defense," Col. Moreland asserted, "refers to the manual and the rules there as being more liberal with regard to introduction of evidence than in a civil court. That is true, but the rules do not say anywhere that a military court should allow the introduction of evidence that is immaterial, irrelevant, incompetent, improper or that occurred subsequent to the act alleged to have been committed.

Holds Testimony Irrelevant.
"The testimony given by Mrs. Lansdowne was immaterial, irrelevant, incompetent, improper and had no possible influence on the alleged offense at the time it was committed. As for counsel's remark regarding the Constitution, I don't think a reply is necessary. If this testimony should not come to this court, neither should it go to the reviewing authority. If the court has erred in accepting evidence, then the confirming authority has the power to disapprove the findings and protect the rights of the accused.
"I repeat my motion, that all of Mrs. Lansdowne's testimony be stricken from the record."
Col. Winship, the court law member, with evident hesitation, recommended to the court that the prosecution's motion be overruled. Maj. Gen. Benjamin A. Poore announced that he did not concur in the legal opinion of the law member, and thereupon the court withdrew for a five-minute executive conference. Upon returning it was announced that the court had decided to accept the recommendation of the law member and that the motion to strike out Mrs. Lansdowne's testimony therefore was overruled.
The first witness following the argument over Mrs. Lansdowne's testimony was Col. J. Edward Cassidy of this city, a reserve officer of the Chemical Warfare division of the Army, who qualified himself as an expert on chemical warfare. Under questioning by Representative Reid, he said that he was chief engineer of the 92d Division overseas and was commander of the Corps of Engineers with the 1st Army Division throughout the Argonne offensive. He returned to the United States in March, 1919, and became executive officer in the office of the chief of engineer, retaining that post until 1920, when he left the service.
He said that he had made a study of chemical warfare for combat operations, had made a study of all information available on the subject, had conferred with officers of the Army and civilian experts on the matter and had frequently lectured on the subject. He testified that he served at the front for three months during the World War when gas operations were being put into effect on a small scale.

Witness Qualified.
The witness then was tested as to his knowledge as to the vehicle used for carrying such gases into the enemy territory, when Col. Sherman Moreland, trial judge advocate, interposed to ask the purpose of the line of questioning. Then Representative Reid directly qualified the witness by asking:
"Are you prepared to state from

your observations and study why amount of gas it takes to cause the evacuation of a certain area?"
When the witness replied in the affirmative Representative Reid produced the statements of Gen. Drum before a congressional committee in which the Army officer stated that to gas an area the size of the District of Columbia would take 3,439,150 pounds of mustard gas to cause a concentration, or 9,573,850 pounds of mustard gas to cause an evacuation of the area.
Mr. Reid asked if this was correct or incorrect, and he replied that the statements were absolutely incorrect. He then was turned over to the prosecution for cross-examination. When Col. Moreland asked him if he had read a certain book approved by Gen. Amos A. Fries, chief of the Chemical Warfare Service, as a text book fo rthat branch of the Army, He answered in the affirmative. Col. Moreland asked him what the book said about the amount of gas needed to gas a certain area. When he sought to read from the book Col. Moreland stopped him and directed him to give it from memory, as he said he had read it thoroughly. He then answered that every gas attack is a particular problem and would have to be considered by itself.

Discusses Calculation.
Col. Moreland then asked him if he undertook to say that Gen. Drum's statements were purely theoretical, and he said "no," that the "rule of thumb" method was used in calculating. Pressed as to what he meant by this, he said that, for instance, it was a "rule of thumb" that it took 700 artillery shells to cut through a barbed-wire area. This was not always true, he said, because it may take 2,000 shells, and it all depends upon the conditions and the artillery officers in charge of the fire.
Asked if he remembered what the book had to say as to the number of pounds of mustard gas required to cover an area of 100 square yards in order to force an evacuation, the witness said he did not think the book made any reference to square yards, but that the matter was based on a target of 100 meters square or 10,000 square meters.
"Do you know how many pounds of mustard gas it would be necessary to use on an area 100 yards square?" asked Colonel Moreland.
"Something like 185 pounds," responded the witness. 
"You are sure that it does not take 515 pounds of mustard gas for every 100 yards square?" pressed Col. Moreland.
"That quantity," responded the witness, "would destroy all life within the area."
"So, then, what the book states is erroneous."
That statement, responded the witness to Col. Moreland, "was made by Maj. West, who is a chemist and not familiar with combat operations. If the book made that statement it was wrong."
"You know that the book was approved by Gen. Fries," asked Col. Moreland.
"Yes, but there are a lot of things that slip through," responded the witness.
"If Gen. Drum based his statements on the book would it be inaccurate?" asked Col. Moreland.

Reid Raises Objection.
At this point Representative Reid arose and threw a bomerang into the prosecution's questioning when he said that this was not a proper question because it had not been shown that Gen. Drum at the time he made the statements ever knew the book was in existence or that he based his statements on it. Not knowing that the book was in existence it was not proper evidence.
This paralleled the prosecution's attempt to keep Mrs. Lansdowne's testimony out of the record because at the time that Gen. Mitchell made his statement the Shenandoah inquiry, which Gen. Mitchell said would "be a whitewash," had not been completed.
Col. Moreland said that Gen. Drum had based his statement on the book, after turning to an officer sitting by his side, from whom he obtained the information.
Representative Reid said that he wanted the records to show that Maj. Willoughby had vouched for this statement. Col. Moreland objected to this, and, for the record, stated that he was "reliably informed" that Gen. Drum had made the statements in the book.