Viewing page 20 of 75

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

[[Newspaper article]]
Reid Objects to Query.
When the examination was turned to the PN-9 and the type of plane Amundsen used on his Polar dash a lengthy argument ensued, due to Mr. Reid's objections. The witness admitted his knowledge of the Dornier-Wal was obtained from the catalogue of the manufacturers and various foreign and American publications. He was unable to give a comparison of the two planes. Col. Mitchell, in his direct testimony, declared the Dornier-Wal was far superior to the American PN-9. 
The subject then turned to racing planes, and Maj. Gullion drew from the witness, after much difficulty, owing to numerous objections by the defense, that it is not dangerous to use a high-speed racer more than once. 
Recalling the transatlantic flight of 1919, in which the witness took part, Maj. Gullion questioned him on the plans for guardships. Comdr. Richardson said these vessels were placed 50 miles apart, and that two planes were lost, despite this short distance between stations. 
Says Own Plane Failed.
Turned over to Mr. Reid for cross-examination, Comdr. Richardson said the plane which he piloted, the NC-3, was forced down in the Atlantic 40 miles southwest of Horta, Azores, and was on the water 55 hours while trying to make port under its own power, which it finally succeeded in doing. He said his flight was a failure, but the NC-4 made a success by getting through to the end.
The witness then was subjected to a rapid fire of cross-examination on racing planes, and when Mr. Reid asked him if a racer was as good the second year as in the first Commissioner Richardson replied:
"It is ridiculous to think they could be worn out after only 15 or 20 hours in the air."
Mr. Reid questioned the witness on his first-hand knowledge of flying racing planes and competing in a race, but the witness was unable to give an expert answer, as he had neither flown a high-speed plane nor participated in a race. He agreed with Mr. Reid, however, that planes put into high dives are subjected to a great strain. 
Comdr. Richardson was questioned closely on his statement in direct testimony that DH's when remodeled are better than new. He was put through detailed questioning on the most minute parts of the plane which would be subject to deterioration.
Comdr. Richardson testified, under cross-examination, that during 1919, 1922 and 1923 the fabric of 30 percent of the DH-type planes sent to the naval factory for overhauling had to be replaced. He insisted, under repeated question of defense counsel, that no report ever had been received by him of a DH plane developing a structural defect in flight. If there had been structural failures, he sad [[misspelled]], he would have been advised of the fact. He said that most of the DH crashes in 1924 had been due to "insulation failures," explaining that he meant defective ignition, faulty gas lines, water-jacket breaks, and so forth. 
He declared he would rather fly an overhauled DH plane than a new one of the old type, explaining that improvements were made in overhauling that contributed largely to an increase in safety.
Lieut. Connell, under severe cross-examination by Mr. Reid, who endeavored to show ample preparations were not made for the Hawaiian flight, admitted that 20 hours' time was put in by the craft in piece-meal form. The longest flight was about three hours, he said.
Lieut. Connell declared it never was the intention of Comdr. Rodgers to fly direct non-stop to Honolulu, but to make a landing on the Island of Maui, refuel and then proceed to Pearl Harbor. If this could be done, the crew was prepared to refuel at one of the station ships, which the witness explained were not too far apart, in his opinion.
Every one of the five men carried on the flight was employed throughout the journey. Although Comdr. Rodgers never flew the ship himself for more than an hour he was busy with the navigation and the actual piloting was divided between himself and Pilot Pope. Failure of the tail wind and an error in radio bearings from the station ship Aroosstook were given by Lieut. Connell was the exact cause of the PN-9's inability to reach its objective.
[[/Newspaper article]]

[[Text box]]
Habitues of the Mitchell court-martial have noticed the important fact that Representative Reed, chief counsel for the defence [[alternate spelling]], in all the weeks of the trial has not once changed his gray suit nor him mulberry-hued tie. An inquiring reporter asked him why he stuck to the same tie so consistently.
"If I changed my tie, I would be accused of accepting a fee," was Reed's characteristic reply.
[[/Text box]]

[[Photograph]]
HIS SEAT IN MITCHELL HEARING CHALLENGED
[[Photo of Major General Graves]]
[[Caption]] Maj. Gen. William S. Graves [[/Caption]]
[[/Photograph]]

[[Newspaper article]]
The Washington Daily News
Entered as Second Class Matter at the Washington D. C. Post office
WASHINGTON, D. C., TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1925
Mitchell Juror Is Challenged
Rep. Reid Is Overruled, However
Flier's Counsel Claims That Gen. Graves Has Repeatedly Interrupted His Examination
By William J. McEvoy
The bitterest wrangle yet split the Mitchell court-martial trial wide open this morning.
Rep. Frank Reid, Mitchell's counsel, after an exchange of hot words with Maj. Gen. William S. Graves, challenged the right of Graves to sit as a member of the jury of generals.
The court went into executive session, refused to accept Reid's challenge, and announced that Graves would continue to serve as a mem- [[text missing]]
The mess started when Graves interrupted Reid's cross-examination of a witness to remark to Col. Blanton Winship, law member, that: "This wrangling between the opposing counsel is disgraceful and should be stopped."
[[Inset photo of GRAVES]]
Reid at once took up the issue.
"I challenge Gen. Graves to sit longer as a member of this court," he said, "for reasons that his actions show he is not impartial and that he has repeatedly interfered with my examination of witnesses."
"In justice and fairness to the accused, I insist on my right to challenge Gen. Graves."
"You cannot lecture me on my privileges," Graves shot back. "I have a right to object to cross-examination when I want to. I feel that I am impartial and see no reason why I cannot come to a proper decision."
Reid said that day after day Graves has carried on conversations when he was trying to bring out various points from witnesses. 
Maj. Gen. Robert Howze, president of the court, announced after the decision to refuse Reid's challenge that Graves intended his remarks to "uphold the dignity of the court."
The new ill-feeling broke out after Gen. Howze announced he had reported to Secretary of War Davis the incident of last Friday, when Brig. Gen. Edwin King characterized Reid's cross-examination as "damn rot." 
The action is required by military procedure, Howze said. 
[[/Newspaper article]]

Transcription Notes:
Text entered following a generally counter-clockwise direction