Viewing page 22 of 75

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

BRISK CROSS-FIRE IN MITCHELL TRIAL
Washington Star 12/2/25

Defense Counsel, in Questioning Witnesses, Seek to Develop Contradictions.

Prosecution witnesses were put under stiff cross-examination by the defense at yesterday afternoon's session of the Mitchell trial.
In one instance, that of Grover Loening, noted aeronautical engineer, who designed the amphibian planes used by the Navy for the MacMillan Arctic expedition, Col. Mitchell's counsel succeeded in getting the witness to apparently contradict himself through means of a letter introduced in the record.
Loening's Previous Statement.
Loening had testified to the effect that Mitchell's charge that the MacMillan planes were "designed for use in the tropics," was incorrect, as he had always had in mind their use for icy regions, but Representative Frank R. Reid, chief counsel for the accused, produced a letter written by Loening to Col. Mitchell, in which the former said: "If you feel you, must criticize the Navy, please remember that my amphibian planes were designed for use in Hawaii and the Caribbean Sea."
Mitchell's reply to this letter and another response from Loening also were read into the record. Loening's second communication defended his planes for "all purposes."
Loening Resents Attacks.
In Mr. Loening's reply to Col. Mitchell's response, the aircraft manufacturer showed strong resentment of Col. Mitchell's attacks on his amphibian plane as an Arctic ship. The letter pointed out that while it was true he had boosted his ship for use in the tropics, that did not mean that he had regarded it as not equally adaptable for operation in colder climates. He said the best proof of the fact that the amphibians were efficient under icy conditions was the record they made with the MacMillan expedition in the far North. He pointed out that not a ship had failed in flight during thousands of miles in the air under extremely difficult conditions.
Mr. Loening inquired of Col. Mitchell if he thought that by attacking his amphibian planes he was boosting aviation, and pointed out that the colonel himself had characterized these ships as very capable and ultra-modern. The writer also stated that Col. Mitchell's statements about the planes used by the MacMillan party had been circulated all over the world and would likely prove harmful to his business as a manufacturer.
Lieut. Col. T. C. Turner, U. S. M. C., in charge of the first aviation group at Quantico, Va., testified in defense of the DH type plane when first put on the stand, but under cross-examination admitted his flying equipment was far from sufficient.
"What nation can we lick with these planes now in service?" Mr. Reid asked the witness.
"Cuba," Col. Turner replied with a smile.

Mitchell Plea for One Air Force Right, Declares Mr. Hearst

LOS ANGELES, Calif., Dec. 4. TO THE EDITOR OF THE WASHINGTON HERALD. I am very much disappointed in the report of the President's air commission. It would seem as if the board had determined in advance to make a report against Mitchell and Mitchell's recommendations, and did so regardless of the evidence which had been developed and of the logic of the situation.
I have never met Mitchell and have no interest in him, but I think his statements have been substantiated by the facts presented in the trial, and of course everyone knows that only a small proportion of the facts have been revealed. I think, too, that Mitchell's recommendations are essentially sound. It is quite obvious that the airplane arm as a means of defense is becoming more important than either the army or the navy; and, furthermore, that it will continually become proportionately more and more important. 
It seems illogical, therefore, to put this most important of the three branches under the less important branches and to divide it into sections and to place the sections under commanding officers who, no matter how skillful they may be in their respective army and navy duties, are not as competent to conduct the air force as aircraft specialists. I should think that the very obvious organization is to make  three departments, army, navy and aeroplane departments, and to put each department under competent technical heads and to make the contact point of the three departments a secretary of national defense.
I don't think the American people like war or the idea of war or the name of war, and I think it is the settled policy of this country not to make war, but to maintain forces for defense in case we are warred upon. Therefore, I advocate the use of the word DEFENSE, and I think even the sentimentalists must realize or must be taught to realize that a long as there are warlike nations in the world the United States must be prepared not to make war, but to conduct an effective defense.

W. R. HEARST.

[[image]]
Whose sweet smile is this