Viewing page 70 of 75

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

[[item 1/5]]
[[newspaper column]]
MITCHELL COULD HAVE RECEIVED 15 YEARS IN MILITARY PRISON
-
Sentence That Might Be Termed Studied Cruelty, Alternative to Making Martyr of Stormy Petrel of Air Service, Given Instead.

[[hand-written in pencil]]Mark Star - 17/19/25 [[/hand-written in pencil]]

BY ROBERT T. SMALL.
A careful search of the court-martial records of both the Army and Navy fails to reveal a case that can be considered a parallel to the now famous Mitchell episode. A somewhat startling discovery has been made, however, of the fact that the court which tried Col. Billy Mitchell could have sentenced him to 15 years in a military prison. That is the maximum sentence provided in Army and Navy general orders for conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline—as well as for insubordination.
the thing that really saved Gen. Mitchell from dismissal and possibly still more severe treatment is the fact that there is no precedent for the dismissal of an officer for conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline. Comparatively few officers ever have been tried for a serious violation of this article of war. There have been reprimands and reducitons in rank but no dismissals.
To have dismissed Col. Mitchell under the circumstances would have made him too much of a martyr, it seems, so the court gave a sentence of what might be termed studied cruelty.
Enlisted men of the Army and Navy have been punished rather more severely under the "conduct" specifications, but in such cases, it was pointed out, the man involved had no meritorious military record to excuse his transgressions, and his "conduct" had behind it no such high purpose as Col. Mitchell's friends say animated him.
Army and Navy punishments are extremely severe. Several attempts have been made in recent years to get legislation through Congress to lighten them, but inasmuch as the President of the United States always is the final authority in punishments of this kind and has the arbitrary right to lower or obliterate a sentence completely, Congress has taken the stand that it is just as well to leave such matters in the hands of the commander-in-chief.
Col. Mitchell was accused of conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline. The penalties permitted are dismissal and imprisonment up to 15 years in the case of an officer. For an enlisted man the punishment is 15 years and dishonorable discharge. No such penalties ever have been inflicted. For insubordination and disrespect to superior officers the penalties are the same. If one officer libels another he is subject to dismissal from the service.
If one officer treats another contemptuously he may be dismissed and confined for 18 months. The same penalties apply to enlisted men. For doing anything which would tend to reduce respect for a superior officer the penalty may be dismissal and two years in prison.
Penalties for breaches of discipline are made severe because discipline is the foundation stone of both the Army and the Navy and these armed services have been considered the foundation stones of the Government. It is held therefore that contempt of the discipline in Army or Navy is contempt of the Government.
Most of the older officers of the Army and the Navy regard Col. Mitchell's offense as probably the most deliberate with which a court ever had to deal. They say there is no precedent for his conduct in the annals of either Army or Navy and therefore no case with which to compare the severity of his punishment. It is recalled that during the Spanish War "embalmed beef" scandal Brig. Gen. P. J. Egan, of the Commissary Department, was tried for calling Gen. Nelson A. Miles a "black liar." Under this charge of disrespect for a fellow officer he was sentenced to dismissal. President McKinley reduced the sentence to suspension from duty for five years, but without loss of rank or pay and allowances. It is claimed Col. Mitchell's suspension is a violation of the Constitution because it sentences him to suspension without pay and deprives him of a means of livelihood.
[[end item 1/5]]

[[item 2/5]]
It is stated that Mitchell now is in a position to take orders from a corporal. Imagine the embarrassment of the corporal!
[[hand-written in pencil]] Star- 12/19/25 [[/hand-written in pencil]]
[[end item 2/5]]

[[item 3/5]]
[[newspaper clipping]]
MITCHELL VERDICT ASSAILED BY REID
[[handwritten in pencil]] [[Wark?]] Star 12/21/25 [[/hand-written in pencil]]
Colonel Should Have Been Dismissed or Acquitted, Counsel Says.
-
By the Associated Press
CHICAGO, December 21,—Col. William Mitchell should have been dismissed from the service or acquitted, Representative Frank R. Reid, Col. Mitchell's counsel before the court-martial proceedings in Washington, declared here yesterday.
"Col. William Mitchell is a 1925 John Brown," he said. "They may think they have silenced him, but his ideas will go marching on, and those who crucified him will be the first to put his aviation suggestions into use."
Col. Mitchell has had hundreds of offers from business organizations, who want such a man in their employ, Mr. Reid said.
"He will take no step," he added, "until President Coolidge acts on the court-martial proceedings. While the colonel is still under the supervision of Army orders without pay, I believe the President will not leave him in this slavery."
[[end item 3/5]]

[[item 4/5]]
[[image - photo]]
[[caption]] COLONEL GETS HUNDREDS OF TELEGRAMS. The end of the Mitchell court-martial was a signal for the telegrams to pour in upon the officer. This photograph was taken yesterday, when the messenger boys formed a crowd at the Mitchell home all day long.
Copyright by Underwood and Underwood [[/caption]]
[[handwritten in pencil]] Star 12/19/25 [[/hand-written in pencil]]
[[end item 4/5]]

[[item 5/5]]
Result of the court-martial apparently leaves Bill Mitchell no position whatever save that of a good listener.
[[end item 5/5]

Transcription Notes:
check the word "stark"