Viewing page 53 of 75

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

HOLDS AIR SERVICE ITSELF AT FAULT
Gen. Drum's Testimony Aimed to Clear War Department of Blame.

Brig. Gen. Hugh A. Drum, assistant chief of staff, today occupied the stand in the Mitchell court-martial proceedings and, as the prosecution explained to the court, gave testimony to show the Air Service and not the War Department is responsible for its own shortcomings.
The testimony of Gen. Drum consisted in the main, up until luncheon recess, of recitations and readings of regulations governing the control operation and management of the Air Service. At only one point did the direct examination of the witness threaten to produce a sensation. This occurred when Gen. Drum said Gen. Pershing was responsible for the present system of organization in the War Department as it affected the various branches.
"Then, in your opinion, the criticisms against this system is a direct attack on Gen. Pershing?" asked Lieut. Col. Joseph I. McMullen, assistant trial judge advocate.

Reid Objection Upheld.
Representative Frank R. Reid, chief civilian defense counsel, objected to the question and the court sustained him.
Before Gen. Drum took the stand Maj. Gen. Frank W. Coe, chief of Coast Artillery, was recalled to explain his testimony several days ago, when under cross-examination he declared 10,000 anti-aircraft guns could not protect the city of Washington from an aerial attack. Although he was a prosecution witness, the procedure adopted by Maj. Francis B. Wilby, an assistant trial judge advocate, in getting the witness to clarify his testimony caused Mr. Reid to insert many objections. Mr. Reid declared Maj. Wilby was "trying to impeach his own witness" by having him give an explanation that would break down his previous statements. When Gen. Coe finally was allowed to explain, he said for the past five years he had declared a great many times that 3-inch anti-aircraft guns could not defend a large area against an air invasion. "I haven't added anything by saying 10,000 guns could not do it," he said.
"What is your idea of an efficient defense for a city the size of Washington?" Maj. Wilby asked.

Need of Air Force.
"It is an efficient air force, which must take the offensive and keep the enemy out of the air," replied the witness. "It is necessary to protect certain points with anti-aircraft guns because a bombing plane will make certain it can see what those points are. But bombing planes don't have to see the City of Washington to bomb it."
Maj. Wilby presented Gen. Coe with his testimony before the Morrow board, in which he was quoted as having said that four anti-aircraft guns are effective defense against an attack by a squadron of planes. "When I used that statement," explained Gen. Coe, after it had been read to him, "I had in mind seven planes. I used the word squadron with the idea in mind of a single bombing formation."
Gen. Coe also was asked to clarify or explain his interpretation previously given of the statement last Winter by Gen. Drum that 12 anti-aircraft guns could keep bombers from doing serious destruction to an area. In his previous testimony Gen. Coe said it "didn't mean anything." Today he explained he should have said it was "ambiguous." He added he didn't know whether the statement meant the guns could keep any one bomber out of 100 from reaching its objective, or whether a single plane never could carry out its mission. 

Protection at Night. 
Finally confronted with the question as to whether 10,000 guns could protect the city, Gen. Coe said they could in clear weather and without any other opposition. Mr. Reid asked him if this would apply at night as well, and the witness said it would not.
"Did you ever hear of a war where one bomber was sent out to attack a city?" asked Mr. Reid. Gen. Coe said he did not.
After Gen. Drum had read numerous orders and regulations concerning the duties of the Air Service and also letters from the Secretary of War designating him to testify before various committees as a representative of the War Department, the court questioned the object of this line of direct examination. Col. McMullen replied that throughout col. Mitchell's San Antonio statements for which he is being tried, there was the general charge that the War Department had not carried out the National Defense act. "We want to show that the Air Service, and that includes the assistant chief, was responsible for its own organization," explained col. McMullen, and, therefore it is necessary to bring in the whole story." 
Gen. Drum testified that 70 per cent of all Air Service troops are under the direct command of the Chief of Air Service and the other 30 per cent are under corps area commanders. He also stated that there are 13 non-flying officers in the Air Service, four of whom are captains and the remainder lieutenants. None of these officers, he explained, are in command of flying units, but are on staff duty.
Gen. Drum is one of the several "high ranking officers" whom the accused has charged appeared before committees of Congress and gave "incomplete, misleading or false information about aeronautics." The specific statement under this characterization as referred to by the accused deals with the 12 anti-aircraft guns as a defense against aircraft.

Says He Was Misquoted.
Gen. Drum testified he had never made a statement that 12 anti-aircraft guns could defend New York City. "I have been misquoted," he explained. "Such a statement has been published in the newspapers, and is both absurd and foolish." His original statement before the Lampert committee referred to the defense of "an area" against "any" bombing plane that came within the range of those guns. 
Direct testimony by Col. Mitchell that he commanded both the air forces and the anti-aircraft ground batteries in France was denied by Gen. Drum, who was chief of staff of the 1st Army, and in which organization the accused was chief of Air Service.
The ground batteries, he testified, were commanded in France at all times by the chief of artillery, and that Gen. Pershing commanded the air forces. Orders were given Col. Mitchell for employment of air forces in the war and these were carried out.
The prosecution offered this testimony to prove that no unified air command existed in the American Expeditionary Forces, and to show that ground and air forces co-operated closely under a commander-in-chief in prosecuting the war. 
As a result of the anti-aircraft tests held during the Summer Gen. Drum said it was his opinion that 12-inch guns now would hit a bombing plane 18 times during the period it came and passed out of range.

GEN HUGH A DRUM

Gen. Drum and Rep. Reid Have Bitter Clash at Mitchell Court-Martial
Drum Doggedly Refuses for Three Hours to Answer Single Question; Weeks' Letter Censuring Mitchell Introduced

All the bitter4ness between the Army General Staff and the supporters of Col. William Mitchell flared up in the Mitchell court-martial today.
It was caused by Brig. Gen. Hugh Drum's antagonistic attitude toward the defense during cross-examination. It finally resulted in a recess of the court.
Drum, who declared himself an official representative of the War Department, for three hours refused to answer directly a single question put to him by Rep. Frank Reid, counsel for Mitchell.

Drum Belligerent
Drum's attitude was fierce and belligerent. He persisted in casting slurs at Congressional Committees, radical measures and the defense.
Reid made a vain attempt to have the court order Drum to make direct answers. Reid asked Drum how long he had been in the service.
Drum replied by asking Reid if he had ever served his country.
"I have done more for my country during wars than sitting in an office as a clerk in the War Department," Reid replied hotly. "If you want to start that sort of argument I can finish it." 
Maj. Gen. Graves, court member, hurriedly interrupted and asked Gen. Howze, president, to close the court.

Court Closed
In reopening court, Howze the court "hoped such incident would not rise again."
Reid declared the cross examination over and Drum was excused.
Maj. Gen. Dennis E. Nolan, Deputy chief of staff, and the last rebuttal witness, took the stand.
A letter from former Secretary War Weeks to President Cool censuring Col. Mitchell for his testimony before the House Air Committee that resulted in his motion last spring, was introduced.

Week's Letter
Weeks charges Mitchell with ing a "lawless course, so contra the building up of an efficient organization, so lacking in reasonable teamwork, so indicative of personal desire for publicity at the expense of every one with whom he is ciated that his action renders unfit for a high administrative position which he no occupies."
"I write this with great regret", continued Weeks, "because he gallant officer with an excellent record, but his record since the has been such that he has foref the good opinion of those who familiar with the facts and wh sire to promote the best interest National defense." 

Nill Rogers