Viewing page 49 of 75

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

TRIAL OF MITCHELL IS NEARING CLOSE
Court Grants Recess on Assurance That This Week Will End Case.
Star- 12-13-25
The Army general court-martial, which has threatened to become a permanent institution in Washington, will assemble tomorrow morning under a brilliant halo of optimism in the belief it will be the last Monday of the trial's existence.
  The court, shortly before 1 o'clock yesterday afternoon, was promised by counsel for both sides that all witnesses would be disposed of by Wednesday, and in return for this information it granted a recess for the day, which at first it had hesitated to do.
 When the motion to recess was made by Representative Frank R. Reid, chief civilian defense counsel, in order that papers, having a bearing on cross-examination of a prosecution witness then testifying, might be examined, and also to enable the Illinois Representative to attend a session of the House, two members of the court raised dissenting voices. The loss of valuable time was the main point against the motion.
  Court Voices Happiness.
 Argument of a pleading nature was heard from the prosecution and defense, and when Mr. Reid announced "we will be through with this for good on Wednesday," Maj. Gen. Robert L. Howze, the president declared:
 "That's the most encouraging news we've had yet. Court will stand in recess until 10 o'clock Monday morning."
 The witness on the stand when the proceedings were halted was Maj L.J. McNair, formerly of the Hawaiian Department. whose testimony was offered in rebuttal to Col Mitchell's charge that "the War Department is guilty of almost treasonable administration due to the fact that up to 1923 there was in Hawaii no defense plans for employment of the Air Service to protect the islands." He was submitted to a brief period of cross-examination which will continue tomorrow morning.
  Says Mitchell Erred.
 Maj. McNair's testimony, under direct examination by Maj. Francis B. Wilby of the general staff, an assistant trial judge advocate, was that there were and always have been defense plans for Hawaii, but instead of being in the form of "plans" or "projects" in 1923 as assistant chief of the Army Air Service, did not see the orders or was not made acquainted with the plans then in contemplation. As a result of this 
inspection trip. Col. Mitchell based his charge of "no defense plans in existence."
  Under cross-examination by Mr. Reid, the witness said that he, as a member of the staff of the commanding general of the Hawaiian department and concerned with war plans did not discuss the application of aviation in the defense of the islands with the accused nor was Col. Mitchell furnished with any set of defense plans, either verbally or in writing.
 In his direct examination Maj. McNair said that shortly after the close of the World War the then commanding general of the Hawaiian Department, Gen. Morton, directed that war plans be initiated. "The original war plans," explained the witness, "were prepared in the form of field orders. At that time the project was revised from time to time as conditions changed and as our knowledge became more complete. The whole process of arriving at such plans is one of gradual development and probably always will be. When certain plans were superseded they were destroyed."
---
Test of Orders Made.
 "Were there any tests of the field orders?" asked Maj. Wilby.
 "There were. Gen Summerall wanted to see what the troops themselves would do in an emergency, and they were familiarized with the plans. Fearing they would become a matter of common knowledge, he issued an order safeguarding them, the idea being that the actual details would be known by relatively few persons."
 "Did the accused see the them existing defense plans when he visited the islands?"
 "Not to my knowledge. I feel quite certain I would have known it if he had."
 "Were you aware of the purpose of his visit?"
 "Not in detail. There was some speculation as to just what he was seeking. He was very active and always moving about, but we were at a loss to find out what details he was after. I found out more about this the day before he left. I was called into the office of the chief of staff and the accused was there presenting the chief of staff with a copy of his report. He discussed it while I was in the office and went over it rapidly. I remember in particular his going over plans for reconnaissance. His plan was opposed to duplicating activities of the Navy. I cited a pamphlet of the joint Army and Navy action in coast defense and pointed out this was the Navy's duty. He replied to the effect the Navy was no good and it wouldn't do in time of need, and we would have to do it anyway."
  Referred to Base Need. 
 "Did he make reference to the necessity for air bases on the other islands?"
 "Yes: but it was not an original idea at that time. We fully recognized the possibility of hostile aircraft base being established on the other islands. There was no essential point brought up in the report which could be accepted and which we had no already contemplated or fully recognized in our plans."
 "Did his plans differ materially from the plans in the field orders?"
 "Yes, they did differ. The plan of the accused was an outline to be developed locally. These two plans may differ widely and still be effective. Both might well insure proper employment of troops in emergency. Our plans for the Air Service were quite brief. Its actions were put down as problematic in what would follow in an emergency. Our plans didn't attempt to go into detail. The accused went quite fully into what part of the Air Service would play after action began. However, since he didn't know where the action would begin he confined himself to air tactics. For that reason the accused's plans were much more elaborate and extensive than ours.
  Plan May Have Been Good.
 "I wouldn't say his plan was not a good one. If it had been presented to me by the air officer out there I would have questioned certain parts, but would have left them in if satisfactorily explained. There were three points in the plan we couldn't accept- air reconnaissance, communication and control of anti-aircraft defenses. The total scope really covered only of five we had in contemplation."
 "Was there a system of airways in December. 1923?" (Col. Mitchell charged none was in existence.)
 "There was a system in process of development, and it was well covered in the report of the accused. In this he said flights could be made every day in the year. If he had seen some of the storms we have he would have qualified it. While was there elaborate arrangements were made for him to fly to the Island of Hawaii. When the time came to leave he didn't go, for some reason or other, and the plane was taken over by boat. It was used by him on Hawaii and then returned by boat."
 Maj. McNair also testified that during Col. Mitchell's visit the defense plans were being revised and rewritten in accordance with instructions from the War Department. As a result, a project was perfected and expanded. It was decided to rewrite it entirely and place it in a definite form because so many details were involved. He said this project was approved by the War Department in August, 1924, and the prosecution sought to introduce it in evidence.
 Mr. Reid objected, declaring the project was formed after Col. Mitchell's 1923 visit, but Maj. Wilby said it was "in answer to the charge of treasonable administration," Mr. Reid declared: "Very glad to have it in under that understanding." Maj. McNair emphasized, however, that the project was under preparation a considerable time before the visit of the accused.
 Taking the witness in hand, Representative Reid had him read to the court a memorandum from the department adjutant to the commanding officers of Luke Field and Scofield Barracks which requested these officers to "affirm Gen. Mitchell every opportunity" to see the Air Service units "in order that the department may derive the maximum benefit from his visit." It further said that "in case he makes recommendations or suggestions." these should be reported to headquarters immediately in order that the necessary steps may be taken.
 "Was Gen. Mitchell furnished with any defense plans?" asked Mr. Reid.
 "Not so far as I know," replied the witness.
 "Was there any discussion by you as to whether any plans for the employment of the Air Service be submitted for his used in the inspection?" 
 "I have a recollection that possibly one of his acting aides may have made some inquiry about some questions that pertained to my office. I don't know whether he inquired about war plans or not. I have some recollection that it was about communications."
 Communications In Plan.
 "Are communications generally carried in plans for defense?"
 "Yes."
 "That's entirely everything you remember?"
 "Yes."
 "Mr. Reid produced a document entitled "Preliminary Report of Inspection Made by Brig. Gen. Mitchell," and asked the witness if he ever had a copy of it in his possession.
 "It looks very much like the report left at the time of his departure," replied Maj. McNair.
 "Did you look at it at the time?"
 "I made a hasty examination of it."
 "Was there any discussion on it?"
 "There was."
 "Do you want to tell the court that Gen. Mitchell was not furnished a set of plans for defense of the islands?"
 "When we looked over the report we did not see the statement 'there are no war plans in existence.'"
 "Did you tell him then that you had plans for employment of the Air Service?"
 "No. We didn't know he had questioned their existence."
 "Had there been some discussion with him about the condition of the islands?"
 "No."
Summerall in Command.
 "Who was the commanding general then?"
 "Maj. Gen. Charles P. Summerall."
 "Now, are you able to state to the court that he told Gen. Mitchell there was a set of plans for employment of the Air Service?"
 "I can't state that."
 "Did you ask Gen. Mitchell for any information to help you work out plans for the Air Service?"
 "No. I should have liked to talk with him but found no opportunity."
 "Were you too busy?"
 "No."
 "Did he ever refuse to talk to you?"
 "No."
"Were you afraid of him because he was a brigadier general?"
"No. I hardly saw him."
 "Should he have given you time?"
 "No, his time was at his own disposal."
 "Are you willing to state now that Gen. Mitchell never said if you wanted any help he would be glad to furnish it?"
   Interest Elsewhere.
 "No. I have no doubt if I had asked him, he would have been cordial. I hesitated to bother him. He was interested in other things."
 "was he interested in war plans?"
 "I didn't know he was."
 "You were, weren't you?"
 "Yes."
 "Did you think he might give you some information and you didn't avail yourself of the opportunity of getting it?"
 "No." emphatically replied the witness.
 "Then you had no conversation with Gen. Mitchell regarding the use of an air force?"
 "The only conversation I recall was at the time of his arrival. It was in the nature of greetings and casual remarks."
 "Now search your recollection. Was that the only conversation?"
 "I recall no other case until the day before his departure."
 "Now you said Gen. Mitchell didn't fly over to the island of Hawaii. Are 
 there any adequate arrangement patrol boats to rescue planes in of forced landings in the water?"
 "There are not all to be desired, had to restrict flying over the w [[cut off]] because there were not enough p [[cut off]] boats."
 "Did you have any listening de [[cut off]] when Gen. Mitchell was there?"
 "None on hand, but the places [[cut off]] selected."
  Documents Produced.
 The witness produced some documents and charts on this subject it was for the purpose of exami these, which Mr. Reid said would quire about two hours, that the recess was requested.
  The outstanding witnesses ye [[cut off]] be called by the prosecution are [[cut off]] Summerall and Maj. Gen. Denis Nolan, deputy chief of staff. Summerall, when challenged to is [[cut off]] a member of the court marital at [[cut off]] beginning of the trial because he [[cut off]]not followed the report of Mitchell, characterized the survey "unfair, unsound, and ignorant."

[[photo]]
William Mitchell