Viewing page 14 of 75
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
MITCHELL CHARGES FACE HEAVY FIRE Washington Star 11/26/25 100 Witnesses Marshaled by Prosecution in Effort to Refute Colonel's Attack. The Mitchell general court-martial was in recess today. Tomorrow it will begin the fifth week of its existence with the presentation of testimony by prosecution witnesses in rebuttal to the volume of evidence offered by Col. William Mitchell as actual defense of the charge of "conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline." The defense rested its case yesterday afternoon and the prosecution immediately took up its task, but little headway was made before the hour for recess. Anxious to make as much headway as possible, the court denied a week-end recess as requested by both sides yesterday afternoon and decided to sit tomorrow, although it agreed not to hold a session Saturday. The Shenandoah naval court of inquiry, which has been dividing public attention during the last two weeks, adjourned yesterday subject to the call of its president after hearing the last witness under summons. It may, however, decide to again summon Col. Mitchell as a final witness, but this will depend on whether the court judge advocate concludes, from an examination of the colonel's testimony before the court-martial, that he could give information germane to the Shenandoah inquiry. On being summoned before the Navy court two months ago he refused to take the necessary oath as a witness when denied the privilege of making a prior statement to the court. 100 Witnesses Called. Blind to any ruling the court might make on how the defense testimony will be accepted-either in extenuation or mitigation or in actual defense-the prosecution is determined to break down the truth of the airmen's contentions. To carry out this endeavor it has marshaled about 100 witnesses from the Army and Navy, all of whom, however, will not be put on the stand if cumulative evidence becomes apparent. Maj. Allen J. Gullion, assistant trial judge advocate and chief cross-examiner during the past week, does not intend to make public the names of Army and Navy officers called or to be called. He admits, however, the among them will be Maj. Gen. Mason M. Patrick, chief of they Air Service; Admiral E. W. Eberle, chief of naval operations; Maj. Gen. Charles P. Summerall, president of the court as originally constituted; Rear Admiral William A. Moffett, chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics; Maj. Gen. Dennis El. Nolan, deputy chief of staff, and Brig, Gen. H. A. Drum, assistant chief of staff. 11-13-25 Mitchell's Mail Each day during his court-martial Col. William Mitchell receives almost a mailbag full of letters. About 99 per cent of the letters congratulate him on his stand and wish him well on the outcome of his trial. He received one today addressed as follows: "Col. William Mitchell, care of the Court mistrying him." THE LEGION RETALIATES. Post [[strikethrough]] 11/19/25 [[/strikethrough]] To the Editor of The Post-Sir: It is probably a matter of surprise to a great many people throughout the United States, including army and navy officers, to note the public approval of Col. Mitchell's attack on the War and Navy departments in connection with the air service. Perhaps there is some reason for this that is not apparent on the surface, as it is hardly to be supposed that there would be so general a sentiment of approval of such an attack, even before any evidence was adduced, unless there existed some such reason or explanation. The public at large, or course, does not believe, or did not at the beginning of this controversy, that the War and Navy departments are, generally speaking, incompetent, and certainly not "almost treasonable," but did know that the officers directing the war in France and at Washington could be tyrannous, self-seeking and unjust. Col. Mitchell, upon his arrival in Washington to testify before the aircraft board ordered by the President, was met and escorted with enthusiasm by the American Legion post of Washington. This incident might be regarded as an important straw indicating the source and direction of the tempest stirred up by this controversy. There has been smoldering deep in the hearts of the American expeditionary forces to France a resentment against the treatment accorded them during the winter following the armistice. The was was over, won by willing sacrifice and devotion to ideals scarcely equaled in history except by the Christian crusaders; but nevertheless, without apparent reason, the troops were kept all during the midwinter of 1918-1919 at the same vigorous training and hard work which had been found necessary to prepare them for the field before and during the war, with peremptory orders against an relaxation, however severe the weather, and with all hope cut off for any further promotion or reward for sacrifices already made. A coterie of ambitions young staff officers, saturated with pro-German theories and ideas, inherited from Leavenworth before the war, and who could very easily interpret their own desire for power and aggrandizement into a pretense of patriotism, seemed to be actuated by the feeling that now "We have this body of young Americans here in France under our hands, and we will make an army of them." Gen Pershing was not chargeable with this policy and could not always be conversant with the details of what was going on, being absorbed with many other important problems. These troops came back from France and scattered throughout the United States, and having a keen remembrance of the conditions imposed upon them during the winter of the armistice, now respond with a feeling which might perhaps be expressed as follows: "You soaked us when there was no occasion for it, and we now propose to get even, without regard to the merits of the case." The incident of Col Mitchell furnished the first opportunity since the close of the war to give voice to this sentiment. On this side of the Atlantic a not less harsh and selfish policy was pursued by the chief of staff of the War Department and his young and ambitious advisers there, advancing and rewarding favorites, accompanied by noisy acclaim of efficiency. These officers and those of the general staff in France, for the most part without any service at the front, embrace a large number who received the award of promotion afterward; and, with certain military attaches, are the most conspicuously bedecked and beribboned with home and foreign decorations. In fact, their appetite for foreign decorations seems to have been unappeasable. The War Department having "sowed the wind" is merely reaping a somewhat belated and perhaps unexpected harvest, whose sheaves and gathered not only from the public press of the country but also from members of Congress and many older officers of the regular army, who suffered on the one hand much discourteous and high-handed treatment and on the other a brutal injustice in the matters of promotion, assignment and reward, wherever it suited the selfish policy of those in high authority and drunk with temporary power. The air service is a very important issue before the country and very difficult of settlement, and it is unfortunate that the whole matter is beclouded by sentiments which have little to do with the case; and the general court-martial is not improving the situation. OBSERVER. Washington, Nov. 17. Battleships Must Fly--- [[image - photograph]] [[caption]] ADMIRAL WILLIAM S. SIMS (left), retired, came to the defense of Colonel William Mitchell (right), yesterday, with the startling assertion that the heyday of the battleship is past, and that seven admirals now on duty are unfit for command. INTERNATIONAL NEWS REEL PHOTO [[/caption]]
