Viewing page 60 of 75

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

This officer was challenged because he had delivered an address taking issue with the question of a united air force. The challenge was sustained, and then the accused attacked the right of the president, Maj. Gen. Charles P. Summerall, to sit, because he had, it was charged, ignored his report on condition of air defenses in the Hawaiian Islands. The challenge brought heated reply from Ge. Summerall, who characterized the report in question as "unfair, unsound and ignorant."

Gen. Sladen Removed.
Allowed one peremptory challenge, Col. Mitchell utilized this in removing Maj. Gen. Fred W. Sladen, superintendent of the United States Military Academy, a strict disciplinarian, and then the trial got under way. Those left to judge the accused were Maj. Gen. Robert L. Howze. commanding the 5th Corps Area, Columbus, Ohio, president of the court; Maj. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, commanding the 3d Corps Area, Baltimore; Maj. Gen. William S. Graves, commanding the 6th Corps Area, Chicago; Maj. Gen. Benjamin A. Poore, commanding the 7th Corps Area, Omaha; Brig. Gen. Edward L. Kind, commandant of the General Service Schools, Ft. Leavenworth, Kans.; Brig. Gen. Frank R. McCoy, commanding the 3d Infantry Brigade, Fort Sam Houston, Tex.; Brig. Gen Edwin B. Winans, Fort Clark, Tex.; Brig. Gen. George LeR. Irwin, commanding Fort Sill, Okla., and Brig. Gen. Ewing E. Booth, commandant of the Cavalry School, Fort Riley, Kans, and Col. Blanton Winship, the law member. on duty in the 1st corps Area, Boston.
  The trial was marked by sensation after sensation either due to the character of testimony offered by defense and prosecution witnesses or to heated arguments between counsel. One of the prime questions which the court never decided was whether the evidence presented was to be received in extenuation or mitigation, as the prosecution contended it should be, or as absolute defense, as the defense maintained it was. This subject came up three times for discussion and was a partial basis for Col. Mitchell's refusal yesterday to proceed further with the case.

COL. WINSHIP NAMED AIDE TO GEN. HULL

Mitchell Prosecutor Will Be Assistant Judge Advocate General of Army.
Star - 12/19/25
Col. Blanton Winship, law member of the Army general court-martial, which tried and convicted Col. William Mitchell, has been appointed assistant to Maj. Gen. John A. Hull, judge advocate general of the Army. Col. Winship will assume his new duties Monday.
At the time he was selected to serve as the legal authority on the jury of generals in the outstanding Army court-martial, Col. Winship was on Citizens' Military Training Camp duty at headquarters, 1st Corps Area, Boston, Mass.
The selection of Col. Winship was in recognition of his ability and experience as an Army legal expert and was one of the most prominent assignments of his career in the Army.
Col. Winship was born in Georgia, November 23, 1869, and was graduated from Mercer and Georgia Universities. He entered the Army during the Spanish-American War, and served in the Infantry for many years. During the World War he served as judge advocate of the 1st American Army and was overseas for two years. For this service with the A. E. F. he was decorated with the Distinguished Service Cross and the Distinguished Service Medal.

PRESIDENT SAVED WEIGHTY PROBLEM
Star - 12-18-25
Court Action Prevents Necessity for Decision by Chief Executive. 
BY DAVID LAWRENCE
Another "break" for President Coolidge may be recorded in the case of Col. Mitchell. The whole country has been expecting that it would devolve upon the President to say finally whether the stormy veteran would have to be dismissed from the Army, and the politicians were already beginning talk of the possible effects if Mr. Coolidge made a martyr of Mitchell or if he failed to stand by the court and maintain Army discipline. 
The verdict is all that Mr. Coolidge could possibly wish for. He doesn't have to make the decision on dismissal from the Army. In some respects the suspension for five years is a worse blow to Col. Mitchell than dismissal, for if the latter had occurred he would have been free at once to repeat his offense without further complication with Army law. Under the verdict he can, of course, attempt to resign. Ordinarily, an officer in a similar position would not be permitted to resign as he is under definite punishment which must be executed.
Resignation Foreseen.
The general belief now is that Col. Mitchell will resign and that his resignation will be accepted, though this will probably not take place until after he has delivered a few blasts at the military caste which tried him.
The kind of thing which marked the closing hours of the court martial is typical of what may be expected of the colonel from now on. He denounced his prosecutors and said almost as many things in criticism of the aviation policy and the Army as was contained in the original denunciation for which he was being tried.
It has been apparent for several days that the court had made up its mind not to dismiss Col. Mitchell. The word had been passed around in inner circles that it would be a mistake to set Mitchell free. Public opinion, it was argued, had manifested itself as more or less interested in Col. Mitchell's denunciation because there was nothing personal in his remarks, and, besides, he had made a record in the European war which entitled him to a hearing. 
Morrow Report Tabled. 
Meanwhile the friends of aviation development who have not been mixed up in the Mitchell case are afraid the big issue of aircraft expansion may be lost sight of in the quarrel over what Billy Mitchell said or did. The report made by Dwight Morrow is not altogether forgotten, but it has been for the moment put aside until Congress gets into the question more deeply. A better "break" for aviation would have been to publish the Morrow report after Col. Mitchell's case had been closed and sentence announced. 
Col. Mitchell has a number of stanch supporters in Congress who may agitate the question. He probably will be called before congressional committees, and in that case would hold the limelight again, being given a certain immunity from punishment by the Army when he testified. There is always a certain element interested in defending anybody if at the same time a bombardment of the party in power can be maintained. The next scene in the aviation row will be the committees of Congress. 
(Copyright. 1925.)  
Star 12-19-25
The Mitchell verdict was one of the easiest subjects the forecaster ever had to deal with. 

ONE COURSE HELD OPEN TO MITCHELL
Can Escape Penalty by Taking Civil Office to Get Ousted by Army. 
Star. 12-19-25
Endless avenues of discussion on what the five-year Army suspension, pronounced by the Army general court-martial against Col. William Mitchell Thursday night, really means, continued to be exploited throughout official Washington today with emphasis laid on the possibility that a recommendation will be made by the reviewing board for modifications in the sentence to clear up the airman's status for the next five years. 
Partiality has not or does not enter into the countless arguments on the subject. This is borne out by the fact that those officers who indirectly played a part against him in his trial, or were in sympathy with the prosecution are as much in a maze for a concise interpretation of the sentence as the pro-Mitchell element. 
Penalty Questioned.
The constitutionality of the sentence was raised in reliable quarters today because, it was argued, if the punishment is carried out to the letter, the personal welfare of the officer would be vitally affected. Although the colonel is wealthy, in the question of law the ability of a prisoner to withstand punishment, is not raised. Therefore, to deprive him of pay and allowances for five years and still retain control over him as an integral part of the Army, although without rank, command or duty, could not be sanctioned, it is claimed.
To this end, it was confidently predicted by legal experts in the Army, that the board of review, or possibly the President, could modify the sentense to include a portion of his pay and specify a certain line of duty, which would keep him just within the jurisdiction of the Army and prevent any outside activities. 
However, a loop-hole was thrown open to the colonel to escape from the punishment in case a resignation is not accepted, by a recent law to the effect that if an officer of the Army accepts and performs the duties of a civil office, he therefore vacates his connection with the Army. In fact, he is summarily dismissed. 
Court Lightens Burden. 
One thing stood out certain today as a means of preventing the general discussion from reaching serious proportions, which is that the court's findings as they now are constituted lack vitality. The court-martial would have made the colonel a martyr had it recommended dishonorable discharge from the service. By the decision it reached, the way was paved for other agencies to put the finishing touches on it and thereby relieve the jury of generals from any reflection that it was not severe enough in handing down punishment after the finding of guilt. 
There are many other Army law authorities who declare the findings of the court are legal in every detail.
At the White House it was made clear that no comment on the court's findings could be expected until after the President had finally passed on the case. That it would reach him for action early in the new year, after the review board had concluded its examination of the papers and transmitted them to the Secretary of War, was indicated as reasonably certain in other quarters. The normal procedure for transmitting courts-martial findings through the various channels requires about two months, but every indication at the War Department today pointed to expedition of the Mitchell case.
Further reaction to the court's decision was expected from the Capitol, where supporters of Col. Mitchell are numerous. Yesterday afternoon another resolution dealing with the case was offered by Representative Thomas L. Blanton of Texas. Mr. Blanton's resolution not only called for restoration of Col. Mitchell to the rank of brigadier general, he held as assistant chief of the Air Service, but would authorize his appointment as chief of the service. It also would place Maj. Gen. Dennis E. Nolan, deputy chief of staff, and Brig. Gen. Hugh A. Drum, assistant chief of staff, under suspension from the Army for five years each, and would require two members of the court, Maj. Gen. William S. Graves and Brig. Gen. Edward L. King, to forfeit half-pay and allowances for five years.