Viewing page 61 of 75

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

[[Nash?]] [[Star?]] - 12/18/25
The Mitchell Verdict and Sentence.
Col. William Mitchell, former assistant chief of the Army Air Service, has been found guilty of violating the ninety-sixth article of war and sentenced to suspension from rank and command for five years, with forfeiture of all pay and allowances. This verdict of the court-material, which has been sitting for several weeks in trial, is not surprising, but the sentence is not at all what the public expected. That Col. Mitchell was technically guilty of insubordination was evident from the outset of the proceedings, indeed from the moment of his public expressions in criticism of the chiefs of the Army and the Navy. But that his punishment would take the form of suspension from rank and pay for a period of five years rather than dismissal at the one extreme of severity, or reprimand at the other extreme of mercy, was not expected. Such a sentence is unprecedented.
This case has aroused an intense public interest through sympathy with Col. Mitchell in his self-assumed role of critic of the Government's aviation policies and practices. The real issue has been befogged in the public mind in consequence of that sympathy. In fact, there was but one question before the court-material, and that has been specifically answered, though after a protraction of proceedings that was not in the least required for an adequate consideration of the guilt of the accused officer. That issue is one of discipline and subordination.
In permitting Col. Mitchell to endeavor to prove his charges against the aviation administration of the Army and Navy, the court-material departed from precedent, perhaps by direction, in order that the trial should not have the semblance of a "bottling" or gagging procedure. He was afforded the amplest opportunity to demonstrate the truth of his criticisms, even though it was of no moment technically and legally whether he could prove them or not. His guilt rested solely upon the question of whether a subordinate officer of the Army, in public statement, uttered words prejudicial to good order and discipline. The truth or falsity of his words had, in fact, nothing to do with the case, but the court-martial, in consideration of the intense interest of the people of this country in questions incidentally raised by his sweeping indictment, allowed a wide range of testimony.
In finding Col. Mitchell guilty of violation of the ninety-sixth article of war the court-martial does not pass upon the merits of the dispute regarding the aircraft policies and practices of the Government. Another body has made inquiry into those matters and already has reported in general refutation of Col. Mitchell's sweeping charges, with some confirmation in certain details and recommendation of correction of the defects disclosed. The questions involved in his broadcast of criticism will doubtless be investigated and discussed by Congress. That phase of the matter is, of course, not settled by yesterday's verdict. It could not be settled. What the court-martial has determined is that an officer of the Army cannot impugn in personal utterances the motives of his superiors in terms prejudicial to discipline. That question has been, in fact, settled long ago. It is determined by the very fundamentals of military organization.
That Col. Mitchell was bidding for martyrdom has been the prevalent belief since he made his daring utterances in September. He has not been accommodated by the court-martial to the extent of dismissal. He has been awarded a fair and just punishment, which takes considerate account of his admirable record as a soldier, his past service and his patriotic motives in his deliberate violation of the articles of war which he has sworn as an officer faithfully to respect.

Today
Herald - Dec 18
Convicted? Of What?
Col. Mitchell for Senator
If New York Had a Boom
We Are 100,000 Years Old
By Arthur Brisbane
(Copyright, 1925, by Star Company)
A COURT-MARTIAL finds Colonel Mitchell guilty. Guilty of what? TELLING THE TRUTH, of course, about a lot of official incompetents and rendering an important service to his country.
The "conviction" of Colonel Mitchell convicts the War Department, in the public estimation, not Mitchell.

IN THIS WHOLE PERFORMANCE the public can find one comfort. The political career of Mr. Weeks, formerly Secretary of War, is as completely ended as that of a mackerel carefully salted and pressed down at the bottom of the barrel.

COLONEL MITCHELL'S CAREER is just beginning. The people will not forget a man of courage, who has refused to join the lickspittle brigade of officers that say whatever they are expected to say, covering the stupidity of superiors that they may be rewarded with promotion.

MITCHELL OUGHT now to run for Senator on the Democratic ticket in Wisconsin. He would teach a useful lesson to some blind Republicans.
Wisconsin appreciates men of courage and has not forgotten that Colonel Mitchell's grandfather, in the early days, was one of the best builders of the great State of Wisconsin.

THE MAIN THING is that the people have learned the truth from Mitchell. What he has said about the miserable incompetency of our aircraft has been confirmed by men that understand flying.
The rest of the Mitchell story will be told inside of Congress and outside by Mitchell himself.

Today
Chicago Herald-Examiner - 12/19/25
Florida's Candidate.
Proving Greatness.
Wise Jewish Charity.
A Wise Biologist.
By Arthur Brisbane
(Copyright, 1925, by Star Company.)
IF you think the so-called "conviction" of Col Mitchell has injured him in public estimation, ask your neighbor in the street car what he thinks, or read this telegram from Bryan Mack, well-known citizen of booming Florida:
"It is all right for Wisconsin to want Gen. Mitchell for senator, but Florida Democrats want him for President. We have already begun fight, because on him both McAdoo and Smith factions may unite. Mitchell can sweep the country, and Florida nominates him. Tampa Tribune and other papers have taken up idea make Mitchell President.
"BRYAN MACK."
The President is still to be heard in regard to the Mitchell matter, and the President, unlike some other public gentlemen, spends his time listening, instead of talking.
He knows how the people feel about Mitchell. It would not be surprising if the President should give Col. Mitchell some fatherly advice, then send him back to his work in the army, assuming that Col. Mitchell would like to go.

The President is too wise to leave a sore spot in the public mind if it can be avoided, and as he hasn't spent his life harnessed up in a uniform, one million miles removed from public opinion, he knows what the Mitchell trial amounts to in the public mind— namely, persecuting a brave soldier for telling the truth direct to the public, as the President told the young students at Annapolis they had a right to do.

Baltimore Sun - 12/-18-25
THE MITCHELL VERDICT.
Th will be little surprise at the verdict of guilty in the court-martial proceedings inst Col. William Mitchell, though the character of testimony permitted may have caused confusion as to the charges upon which he was brought before the court. Wide opportunity was given for presentation of
could be offered in mitigation of his defense. Actually the truth or falsity of the criticisms made by Colonel Mitchell was not germane. He was on trial for iolation of explicit regulations of the military code, and the fact of this violation was not open to dispute. There was no alternative except to find that he had violated them.
In the course of the trial much that Colonel Mitchell had said and written was shown to be without basis or grossly exaggerated. On the other hand, there is little doubt left in the public mind that the aviation service needed a thorough overhauling. There is also widespread belief that the Mitchell broadsides hastened the overhauling and were responsible, certainly in part, for the energetic efforts that have been under way to reconstruct and improve it.
The value of this service may be recognized without approving the methods by which he sought to bring about the reforms he espoused. There must be obedience to authority in the army and navy if discipline worthy the name is to be maintained, and no such precedent as that set by Colonel Mitchell could be tolerated. Nobody understands this fact better than the defendant, and he probably is not in the least surprised at the verdict that as been returned.
Conceding that good has come out of the Mitchell atta ks; that needed attention has been tered upon our aviation policies; th ureaucracy has received a shaking at may have wholesome effec true that these results n been achieved by methods th not deliberately offend every can of military procedure. The court has properly performed a duty that Colonel Mitchell forced upon it.