Viewing page 118 of 124

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

RECORD OF PICTURE OF BOMB FAILURES BARRED IN TRIAL

Memorandum Not Admitted Because Original Paper Is Not Found.

ONLY MISSES ADMITTED IN PHOTOPLAY, SAYS REID

Mitchell Counsel to Make Further Effort to Produce Original Navy Department Document.

Efforts by the defense for Col. Mitchell to have introduced into the court-martial record this afternoon a Navy Department memorandum concerning the production of a motion picture entitled "Eyes of the Fleet," which, defense counsel declared, stipulated that only those views showing misses of bombs on battleship targets should be used, failed this afternoon for want of the original document, which Capt. A. W. Johnston assistant chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics testified could not be found.

Representative Frank R. Reid. chief civilian defense counsel, held what purported to be a copy of the document and questioned Capt. Johnson closely on the original. Mr. Reid read a notation on the memorandum which said: "The object of this is to combat Gen. Mitchell's testimony and belittle the airplane." Mr. Reid declared he possessed a copy of the original and drew from Capt. Johnson details of a comprehensive search for the original. The witness was asked if, on March 21, he received such a memorandum regarding the motion picture, but Capt. Johnson replied he had "no recollection."

[[bold]]Could Not Be Found.[[/bold]]

Two or three days ago, Capt. Johnston said, defense counsel asked him if he would produce the original of the copy showed him. "I went to the Navy Department, notified the file clerks, two or three stenographers, a photograph officer, telephoned Mr. Coleman in New York and sent a telegram to Lieut. Patterson on the Pacific Coats. All made a diligent search for the original, but reported they knew nothing of it and it was not in the files." (The Lieut. Patterson referred to formerly was publicity officer of the bureau and Mr. Coleman was his assistant.)

At the conclusion of Capt. Johnston's testimony, Maj. Allen J. Gullion, assistant trial judge advocate, moved that the matter be stricken out because the original was not in the record. Mr. Reid responded it was impossible for him to get it in.

The afternoon session was given over to hearing testimony from Representative Randolph Perkins of New Jersey, examiner of the Lampert aircraft committee, and Chief Petty Officer J. H. Collier, a survivor of the Shenandoah. Mr. Perkins testified that when his committee was in session three naval officers told him they dare not testify their true beliefs because "Guam was a long way off." The witness said he asked them if they favored a united air force, and he added they replied they did.

"But," he quoted them as saying, "if you ask us this before the committee we will say we are not in favor of a united air force."

[[bold]]Gas Cells Ruptured.[[/bold]]

Mr. Collier testified several of the gas cells on the Shenandoah were ruptured during the dirigible's battle with the line squall, and that the structure broke up because of this. He said the craft had gone nearly 3,000 feet above its pressure height, and that if more automatic valves had been installed the helium expansion would have passed through them and not ruptured the cells.

Col. Mitchell, adopting the almost hostile attitude he maintained yesterday, snapped back answers to questions put by Maj. Gullion for nearly two hours defending every word he had written in the San Antonio statements and scoring a victory over all attempts to break down his previous assertions. The move of the prosecution regarding the book was a distinct surprise and caused tense excitement in the courtroom.

[[bold]]Gullion Pushes Fight.[[/bold]]

Maj. Gullion pressed his case without fear or favor and virtually shouted to the court, "I am going to show the accused cribbed page after page of this book he admits he wrote!"

The prosecution began its attack on the book in a quiet manner which gave no indications as to what would follow. The witness was asked if he wrote the book and on receiving admission Maj. Gullion then asked him to confirm his San Antonio statement that "whenever I make a statement it always is authentic."

Arising and taking up the book, Maj. Gullion addressed the court that he would read from page 102 of "Winged Defense" by William Mitchell. He read: "They (referring to the Germans) started the war with a total of 40 submarines. This was a good start considering the design and construction." He then turned to the witness and asked if he wrote that and Col. Mitchell replied, "Yes."

Returning to his desk, Maj. Gullion picked up a pamphlet and read the exact quotation that appeared in the Mitchell book. His enthusiasm, which had been gaining steadily, reached the climax when he declared on concluding the reading that the second quotation came from "a lecture given at the War College by Capt. Hart. U.S.N."

[[bold]]Courtroom Gets Thrill.[[/bold]]

The courtroom gasped and every one was shocked at the sudden turn of events. Without exception, it was the outstanding thrill of the trial. Representative Frank R. Reid of Illinois chief civilian defense counsel, lost no time to come to the rescue of the point. He declared the latest move by Maj. Gullion show "how much he knows of this case" and charged him with "wanting to try a copyright suit in this court." A heated argument ensued, Maj. Gullion's voice standing out over that of his opponent and declaring that his object was to prove that Col. Mitchell did not write the book for which he has received money.

There is no telling how far the battle would have gone had not Col. Blanton Winship, the law member of the court, interfered and sustained the objection of Mr. Reid. In doing so he rebuked the prosecution for bringing this angle into the case.

"If this court has got to go into libel matters we never will get through. Suppose he did take every word in the book from some one else. What has that got to do with the case?"

The law member's ruling and the court's indorsement [[endorsement]], which prohibited the pamphlet from being introduced as evidence, and the book "Winged Defense" also brought calm to the troubled waters and shortly afterwards the court recessed for luncheon.

[[bold]]Quizzed on Equipment.[[/bold]]

Prior to the bombardment of the prosecution on the Mitchell book the witness was deluged with questions regarding his charges that airmen know they will be killed sooner or later if they must continue flying in the "flaming coffins." and that airmen are "bluffed and bulldozed and afraid to tell the truth."

Despite the fact that reports of inquiries into fatal accidents were read to the accused, and which reports made no reference to faulty equipment or structural failure, Col. Mitchell stoutly maintained that had the dead aviators been in possession of modern planes and with modern instruments they perhaps would be alive today.

"It constitutes criminal negligence to keep us flying ships of that kind," declared the witness, referring to the DH observation planes and the JN training planes.

"They should have been done away with right after the war."

The accused air officer also defended his statements regarding intimidation of airmen, but declared he was one of the minority "not afraid to tell the truth" although "attempts have been made to bulldoze me."

[[bold]]Mitchell Resumes Stand.[[/bold]]

Col. Mitchell took the stand immediately after court convened and was reminded by Col. Sherman Moreland, the trial judge advocate, that he still was under oath. Maj. Gullion then continued the cross-examination where it was broken off yesterday afternoon.

"In your statement of September 5 and in your direct examination you referred to accidents in the Army Air Service," began the assistant trial judge advocate.

"Which ones were they?" replied the witness.

"You refer to 'flaming coffins'?"

"I did."

"Do you know the number of flying hours per fatality in 1921?"

"I haven't the records."

"If I said 934 hours of flying was done for its fatality in 192 would you be surprised?"

[[bold]]Says He Lacks Data.[[/bold]]

"I haven't the data."

"Do you know the number of flying hours per fatality in 1922?"

"I don't remember any of them."

"Do you know the number of flying hours per fatality in 1923?"

"Not without referring to my notes."

"They were 2,046."

"I don't know."

"Do you know the number in 1924?"

"I don't know."

"Does the number 3,365 coincide with your recollection?"

"I don't know."

"Do you know the number in 1925?"

"I don't remember."

"Does 5,269 coincide with your recollection?"

"I don't remember."

[[bold]]Declares Statement Misleading.[[/bold]]

"Do you not know that every year from 1921 to 1925 there was an increasing safety of flying which amounted to 550 per cent in that time?"

Mr. Reid objected, and Col. Winship asked that the question be put in another way.

"Do you know the number of flying hours in the Air Service has increased from 934 to 5,269 per fatality in the last five years?"

"I don't know without referring to my notes, and I will say that is a very misleading statement."

"Are you prepared to say that is not so?"

"I am not prepared to say it is not so, but it is very misleading."

"Do you know the percentage of increase in safety?"

"There is none. There is a decrease in safety."

"If, in 1921, there were 934 hours per fatality and in 1925, 5,269, doesn't that indicate an increase in percentage of over 500 per cent?"

"It does not. It is misleading."

[[bold]]Says DH Is Improved.[[/bold]]

"Since there were five times as many accidents five years ago in new equipment as there are now, in what you say 'war; and unsafe planes, does that indicate the equipment now is faulty?"

"It indicates that five years ago we were doing more military work than at the present time. The change in design of the DH has improved the plane, but they are still flaming coffins."

"Are you prepared to say there is an increase of safety of 500 per cent?"

"I am not."

"Do you know the flying hours per fatality in foreign services?"

"I know something about them in their relation to the United States."

"Is it not a fact that, according to published statistics, it is almost twice as safe in the American Air Service than in England's air force?"

Here Mr. Reid objected unless he could see the published statistics which Maj. Gullion declared to be confideential [[confidential]]. The paper was given to Mr. Reid and the entire defense counsel examined it, following which Mr. Reid and the entire defense counsel examined it, following which Mr. Reid announced his objection still stood, as there was no source of information in the statement and no way of checking its accuracy. Maj. Gullion then promised to "make up" this desired information and continued to examine the witness.

[[bold]]Denies Safety Here Greater.[[/bold]]

He asked Col. Mitchell if he knew that the ratio of safe flying between this country, France and Italy greatly favored the American air force. The witness replied that statement was not "a fact."

"Do you base your information on talk in the club or from reading newspapers?"

"No. It is based on personal observation of their organization - airways, equipment and meteorological services."

"Your personal observation, then, is more valuable than statistics?"

"Yes. Statistics are easily twisted. they may fly around an airdrome all their lives and never do cross-country work."

Maj. Gullion produced an Air Service report under date of October 24, 1925, ON preventing accidents in the Air Service. It was signed by the chief of Air Service. Mr. Reid objected to it, and Col. Winship sustained him, admonishing Maj. Gullion that he could not be expected to offer a paper in court which is not subject to cross-examination. He suggested that Maj. Gen. Mason M. Patrick, who signed the documents, be put on the stand on the particular subject, and Maj. Gullion replied:

"We'll produce Gen. Patrick."

"In your statements of September 5 you stated our pilots know they are going to be killed if they stay in the service and have to fly the old flaming coffins?" asked Maj. Gullion.

"I did," replied Col. Mitchell.

"What planes were you referring to as 'flaming coffins'?"

"DH's."

"You said yesterday, I believe, that the DH's and JN's (a war-time primary training plane) are dangerous?"

"I said nothing about JN's. However, they are dangerous. It constitutes criminal negligence to keep flying ships of that kind. They should have been done away with right after the war."

Maj. Gullion produced a crash-board report on the death of Capt. McAvoy near Langley Field, Va., March 10 of this year, which laid the blame of the accident on low flying during a fog.

He asked the witness if this crash was due to faulty equipment and Col. Mitchell replied: "Absolutely. The plane was a DH. It did not have fog-flying equipment, radio equipment to get bearings and navigating equipment."

"Have you any direct personal knowledge of the crash?"

"I have no direct personal knowledge. The simple fact that it was a DH plane is enough."

"Then you set your opinion above that of the board of officers who inquired into the crass?"

"I do."

Maj. Gullion then read from the report which said the exact cause "was not ascertainable" and that the pilot, Lieut. Col. W. G. Schauffler of this city, was flying low in a fog, "displaying poor judgement." 

"Do you agree with that?"

"No."

[[bold]]Says DH Plane at Fault.[[/bold]]

Maj. Gullion then read another report on a fatal accident and explained his object as being due to the desire of the prosecution that all crashes were not the result of faulty equipment, as Col. Mitchell had charged.

The second report dealt with the death of Capt. D. W. Bedinger of Fort Riley, Kans., whose DH plane spun to the field as he took off and made a right bank. The report said there was no evidence of mechanical or structural failure and added that the craft exploded on impact with the ground. The report as submitted by a board of officers was approved by Brig. Gen. Edward L. King, now a member of the court.

"Do you agree with that report?"

"Substantially. Nevertheless, it shows Capt. Bedinger had faulty equipment. The DH is prone to stalling and also catching fire when it crashes. If he had had proper equipment he possibly would have gotten away with it."

[[bold]]Plane Burst in Flames.[[/bold]]

"You are not unmindful that the board, acting under their oath, subscribed to the statement 'there was no evidence of mechanical or structural failure.'"

"Read the next sentence," interrupted Mr. Reid

Maj. Guillion acquiesced and read "Combustion was instantaneous on impact with the ground." The courtroom laughed at this, as Col. Mitchell had previously emphasized the fire hazard of DH's.

"Do you set up your opinion against the judgement of three officers on the ground at the time of the accident?"

"No," replied the witness.

[[bold]]Continues Attack on DH's[[/bold]]

Maj. Gullion continued to read the findings of boards of inquiry into the deaths of other pilots, including crashes in which the following officers met their death: Lieut. Noble P. Beasley, at Kelly Field, in 1924; Lieut Arthur G. Watson, at San Jose, Costa Rica, in May of this year; Lieut. L. R. Brown and Lieut Edward L. Searle, jr. near Brooks Field, Tex.

In each instance the prosecution read the findings of the board of inquiry, some of the findings attaching blame to the pilot, but none attributing the crash to defective equipment. Col. Mitchell had charged these men met their deaths through faulty equipment or lack of proper weather information. On the stand Col. Mitchell reiterated in each instance "his opinion" that each of these tragedies constituted another example of "flaming" coffins being assigned air officers by the Government." He pointed out often over the protest of the prosecution that these men were flying DH type airplane, "which are easily stalled and extremely dangerous and which have been so long trying to have eliminated from the service."

[[bold]]Wants Own Records.[[/bold]]

Determined efforts by Maj. Gullion to have Col. Mitchell set himself up before the court as a better judge of the reason for these accidents tan the "duly constituted officers who were on the ground and made the proper investigations," met defeat at the hands of the court, on recommendation of its law member, Col. Winship. As the findings were read to him, Col. Mitchell admitted that he did not agree entirely with the conclusion as stated, repeating that he felt the DH plane were responsible.

Maj. Gullion asked the witness in rapid succession how many fatal accidents in 1924 could be attributed to faulty engines, faulty judgment on the part of the pilot, structural defects or lack of weather information and in each instance Col. Mitchell replied he could not say without con