Viewing page 108 of 124
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
It is the practice in the Army Air Service to use parachutes when making lighter-than-air flights, he said, and when asked by Mr. Reid if he considered it "criminal negligence to order men to make flights over land without parachutes, Maj. Gullion objected, and Col. Winship sustained it immediately. Under cross-examination the witness declared, to his knowledge, the Navy does not use parachutes on airships, adding that when he flew in the Los Angeles there were only two on board, although the crew numbered between 50 or 60 men. "Are you familiar with the fact that the Navy carefully considered this question and adopted a policy not to use parachutes on dirigibles" asked Maj. Gullion. "All I know is that they don't use them." Asked for Explanation. Capt. Clarke, upon testifying that he was aware of the reasons for not carrying parachutes on dirigibles, was asked by the rosecution if it were not because parachutes interffcere with the passage of members of the crew on the narrow runways of the ship, and that, furthermore, they might prove valueless in view of the rapid fall of a wrecked airship. The witness said he had heard of these suggestions. Col. John Pagelow, veteran lighter- than-air expert of the Army, told the court that rapid expansion of gas in the cells of a dirigible would destroy the ship unless some outlet was provided for the expanded gas. He declared that parachutes should be carried on all airships and said he would prosecute any man in his command who failed to carry one. Lieut. G. A. Anderson of the Army Air Service, considered an expert on lighter-than-air craft, told of the Shenandoah breaking away from its mooring mast, but his testimony was interrupted by a recess until 2 o'clock for luncheon. [article break] Admiral Sims’ Criticism Of Officers Unjustified. Mass. Star - 11/23/25. To the Editor of The Star: The times seem out of joint. Army and Navy officers of high rank are seeking to outdo each other in making grave charges, couched in abrupt and harsh terms, against their brothers officers and the services in which their lives have been passed. Col. Mitchell’s case is before an Army court, and the court will settle it. Bur my old friend Admiral Sims has broken into the limelight in the most startling and dramatic manner by a statement that seven of the admirals on the active list are uneducated and unfit to command. This statement reflects on the entire list of admirals, because he name only one of the seven. Will you permit one who has known and loved the Navy longer than Admiral Sims to say something in reply Sims is a big man physically and mentally, he has done good work for the Navy and rendered exceptiona service to the country, but he ha not received the promotion that wa due to him; perhaps this has left him a little sore, and inclined to tak jaundiced views. His theory seems to be that unles an admiral has taken a year’s cours at the Naval War College and receive its diploma he is “uneducated and unfit to command.” When, acting o this theory, he names Admiral Eberie chief of operations, as one of the seve he demolishes his theory, makes hi friends grieve and his enemies laugh As to his theory, Nelson never at tended a war college, neither did Farragut, Dewey or Sampson, but they all proved their fitness by commanding and succeeding, so has Eberie. He has attended the War College once for five months and once for seven, but in each case a deman came for his services elsewhere an his superiors called him away, so tha the handsome engraved diploma o the War College never came to him. But, like Nelson, Farragut, ‘Dewey and Sampson, he has “commande and proved his fitness.” Sims himself has born witness t his fitness as superintendent of th Naval Academy. In his younger day admirals like Barker, Wainwrigh and Clarke selected him for servic because of his proved capacity. In command of the fleet. he brought i to a state of highest efficiency and hi selection for “chief of operations,” th highest position in the Navy, came as a matter of course. He had demonstrated his “fitness to command.” Let us hope that some of the officers who have been condemning every one will take a sober second thought and conclude that the Army and Navy have not gone to the “eternal bow wows” after all. And it will be well that they remember that when they condemn the services because they do not spend more money, they are condemning the President of the United States, who i preaching economy, the Congress tha refuses appropriations and the American people who are clamoring for reduced taxes. ROBERT M. THOMPSON. [article break] MITCHELL COUNSEL IS GIVEN SURPRISE Long Badgered Prosecution Adopts Tactics That Make Reid’s Irony Seem Mild. Representative Frank R. Reid, chief of counsel for Col. William Mitchell, is right. Something has happened to the prosecution in the court-martial now trying the aggressive colonel for insubordination and contemptuous conduct and various other things alleged to have been involved in his sensational San Antonio statements. Mr. Reid discovered the change yesterday and called the court’s attention to it, and developments today proved that his perception was not amiss. After pawing around for several weeks in the face of vigorous assaults of the defense, the War Department has marshaled its legal and technical forces into a counter attack that left observers at the trial today gasping with surprise. Red Tape Goes to Discard. The prosecution has decided to meet the defense on its own grounds, and with its own weapons, after dodging around for some time in an apparent haze of uncertainty about what to do in the face of the verbal barrage leveled by the defense, under the able direction of Mr. Reid, the military forces stepped out today and relegating military red tape and reserve to the rear let loose a few oratorical attacks itself. Maj. Allen J. Gullion, newly appointed assistant judge advocate of the trial, relieved his commanding officer, Col. Sherman Moreland, of the burden of attack today and sallied forth in lusty style to meet the advances of Mr. Reid and his associates. Maj. Gullion pulled his chair out in front of Col Moreland and half a dozen of his assistants, technical advisers and observers from the War and Navy Departments, had preformed with such striking effect that several members of the court were seen to mumble among themselves about this sudden change in pace on the part of the prosecution. In Maj. Gullion the Army has found not only a judge advocate, but a real Kentucky lawyer of the ironic, oratorical type, to which Mr. Reid himself belongs, except that Mr. Reid comes from Illinois. If the reason for the passive attitude of the prosecution heretofore has been that it was reluctant to talk back to a Congressman, Maj. Gullion showed today that he belongs to an opposing school of thought. The major even dared to make snappy retorts to the equally snappy banterings of Mr. Reid. In strenuous manner, Maj. Gullion reprimanded Mr. Reid on several occasions for not talking loud enough. Mr. Reid showed his disgust after his first expression of amazement had worn off by turning to the court and saying: “They hear me all right. They just don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s all.” It was plain to every one that the general staff not only desires to assist Col. Moreland in the prosecution, but has determined to relive him of a good part of duties, to which he was appointed by President Coolidge. The appearance yesterday of Maj. Frances B. Wilby, another newly appointed assistant judge advocate, indicated this fact and today’s proceedings left no doubt about it whatever. [article break] NAVY MEN SCORED BY ADMIRAL SIMS Mass. Star- 11/19/25 High Officers “Unfit and Uneducated,” He Testifies, at Mitchell Court-Martial. Admiral William S. Sims, U. S. N., retired, commander of American forces in European waters during the World War and the Navy’s chief critic, went to the defense of Col. William Mitchell, on trial before the Army general court-martial yesterday afternoon, and in testimony fraught with pointed and ironical assertions, condemned high ranking naval officers who have not been educated at the Naval War College as “hidebound, unfit and uneducated.” Just as Capt. Anton Heinen, the noted German dirigible expert, furnished the outstanding testimony at the morning session, so did Admiral Sims with respect to the afternoon meeting. He had a close rival, however in Maj. Francis B. Wilby of the general staff and an assistant trial judge advocate, who sought to draw from Maj. W. R. Blair, metereological expert of the Signal Corps, admission that Col. Mitchell was directly responsible for the crash of the Curtiss Eagle in 1921 and the death of its six occupants. Names Freely Mentioned. Admiral Sims reiterated testimony given before the Lampert aircraft investigating committee last March and the President’s Air Board a few weeks ago about the “untrained” men in high command rank in the Navy. Names, however, were brought in by Maj. Allen. J. Gullion, assistant trial judge advocate, including Admiral Eberle, chief of naval operations, but this did not deter the witness from declaring “I certainly do” when asked if he thought they were unqualified for command duty. The witness repeated former statements that the order given the Shenandoah to “fly over State fairs” was “wrong” and “in violation of the first principles of command.” he also declared the aircraft carrier is the capital ship of today and the future, and hence the backbone of the fleet. His assertions that the Navy has “no policy for aviation other than that it is an auxiliary in a well balanced fleet, which means absolutely nothing” were challenged by the prosecution, which sought to prove that the admiral had attended many meetings of the general board when serious problems pertaining to aircraft were discussed and policies formulated. The witness denied positive recollection of these meetings. Maj. Blair, in the course of his testimony on the uncertainty of accurate weather forecasts, said a squall struck down the Curtiss Eagle between Langley and Bolling Fields in 1921 and killed six occupants. Maj. Wilby, after securing the admission that Col. Mitchell was the senior Air Service officer at Langley Field when the plane started for Washington, declared “the accused therefore is responsible for the lives lost.” Mitchell in Same Store. “I don’t think so.” said the witness. “He made the flight himself in another p[lane.” “I understand he did make the trip in a single-seated plane, but had a difficult time getting to Washington.” Maj. Blair emphatically declared at present it is virtually impossible to give accurate forecasts of spontaneous weather disturbances between two distant points, but declared better predictions could be given if more metereological stations were located along an airline. Ernest Sheehan a Cambridge, Ohio, newspaper man, testified an attempt had been made to control press reports from the scene of the Shenandoah disaster.
