'N A BARE, GARRET-LIKE ROOM in a ramshackle old red-brick warehouse in Washington, there came to a close on December 17 one of the most remarkable military trials in the history of the United States. The defendant was Col. William Mitchell, of the U. S. Army Air Service, formerly Assistant Chief of the Air Service, with the rank of BrigadierGeneral, war-time avi

ator with a string of citations and a breast covered with medals, charged with violating the 96th Article of War, which proscribes actions "to the prejudice of good order and military discipline." But the evidence heard during the seven weeks of this unusual court martial dealt as much with the alleged shortcomings of the General Staff of the Army and the General Board of the Navy in their attitude toward the Air Service as with the guilt of the defendant. The record of the trial, it is said, consists of 1,400,000 words. At the last Colonel Mitchell, after being denounced by the counsel for the prosecution as a "self-advertising demagog" and likened to Aaron Burr,

International Newsreel photograph

being, according to the statement in his own book, "the first American officer to participate in the attack with the French, as well as the first to cross the German lines in an airplane, and the first to be decorated with a War Cross for duty on the field of battle." With the temporary rank of Brigadier-General, he became Chief of the Air Service of the American Armies partici

was found guilty and sentenced "to be suspended from rank, command, and duty, with forfeiture of all pay and allowances, for five years." "The court is thus lenient," the verdict goes on to explain, "because of the military record of the accused during the World War." On hearing the sentence, Colonel Mitchell, we are told, sat motionless for a moment, "a blank look in his eyes." Then exclaiming: "Why these men are all my friends!" he walked up and shook hands with his judges, each of whom took their leave with a hearty "Good-by, Bill" or "Good-by, Billy."

The picturesque military career, which will be interrupted if Colonel Mitchell's sentence is approved by President Coolidge and goes into effect, began twenty-seven years ago with his enlistment as a private in the Spanish-American War. He went to Europe as a military observer in 1914 and when we went into the war he immediately joined the French forces at the front,

pating in the St. Mihiel offensive. After the war he served for four years, with the rank of Brigadier-General, as Assistant Chief of the Army Air Service. During these years, according to a statement in the New York Herald Tribune, he "aroused the ire of the Army General Staff and high officers in the naval establishments when he declared the superiority of the bombing airplanes over the battle-ships during the sinking of the former German warships off Norfolk following the Arms Conference." And again last winter at the hearings before the House of Representative's aircraft committee, Colonel Mitchell "lambasted the present air policy of the Govern ment and advanced the theory of a united air

service." When his term was up, President Coolidge refused to reappoint Colonel Mitchell, acting on the recommendation of Secretary of War Weeks, who wrote: "General Mitchell's whole course has been so lawless, so contrary to the building up of an efficient organization, so lacking in team work, so indicative of a desire for publicity at the expense of every one with whom he is associated, that his actions make him unfit for a high administrative position such as he now holds. . . . His record since the war has been such that he has forfeited the good opinion of those who are familiar with the facts and who desire to promote the best interests of national defense." He was then assigned to the position of air officer of the Eighth Army Corps at San Antonio, with his regular Army rank of Colonel. The story

from this point is thus briefly told by the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

"The great Navy dirigible Shenandoah was destroyed September 3. The flight of the naval plane PN-9-1 was then supposed

N A BARE, GARRET-LIKE ROOM in a ramshackle old red-brick warehouse in Washington, there came to a close on December 17 one of the most remarkable military trials in the history of the United States. The defendant was Col. William Mitchell, of the U. S. Army Air Service, formerly Assistant Chief of the Air Service, with the rank of BrigadierGeneral, war-time avi

ator with a string of citations and a breast covered with medals, charged with violating the 96th Article of War, which proscribes actions "to the prejudice of good order and military discipline." But the evidence heard during the seven weeks of this unusual court martial dealt as much with the alleged shortcomings of the General Staff of the Army and the General Board of the Navy in their attitude toward the Air Service as with the guilt of the defendant. The record of the trial, it is said, consists of 1,400,000 words. At the last Colonel Mitchell, after being denounced by the counsel for the prosecution as a "self-advertising demagog" and likened to Aaron Burr,

International Newsreel photograph

being, according to the statement in his own book, "the first American officer to participate in the attack with the French, as well as the first to cross the German lines in an airplane, and the first to be decorated with a War Cross for duty on the field of battle." With the temporary rank of Brigadier-General, he became Chief of the Air Service of the American Armies partici

was found guilty and sentenced "to be suspended from rank, command, and duty, with forfeiture of all pay and allowances, for five years." "The court is thus lenient," the verdict goes on to explain, "because of the military record of the accused during the World War." On hearing the sentence, Colonel Mitchell, we are told, sat motionless for a moment, "a blank look in his eyes." Then exclaiming: "Why these men are all my friends!" he walked up and shook hands with his judges, each of whom took their leave with a hearty "Good-by, Bill" or "Good-by, Billy."

The picturesque military career, which will be interrupted if Colonel Mitchell's sentence is approved by President Coolidge and goes into effect, began twenty-seven years ago with his enlistment as a private in the Spanish-American War. He went to Europe as a military observer in 1914 and when we went into the war he immediately joined the French forces at the front,

pating in the St. Mihiel offensive. After the war he served for four years, with the rank of Brigadier-General, as Assistant Chief of the Army Air Service. During these years, according to a statement in the New York Herald Tribune, he "aroused the ire of the Army General Staff and high officers in the naval establishments when he declared the superiority of the bombing airplanes over the battle-ships during the sinking of the former German warships off Norfolk following the Arms Conference." And again last winter at the hearings before the House of Representative's aircraft committee, Colonel Mitchell "lam

basted the present air policy of the Government and advanced the theory of a united air

service." When his term was up, President Coolidge refused to reappoint Colonel Mitchell, acting on the recommendation of Secretary of War Weeks, who wrote: "General Mitchell's whole course has been so lawless, so contrary to the building up of an efficient organization, so lacking in team work, so indicative of a desire for publicity at the expense of every one with whom he is associated, that his actions make him unfit for a high administrative position such as he now holds. . . . His record since the war has been such that he has forfeited the good opinion of those who are familiar with the facts and who desire to promote the best interests of national defense." He was then assigned to the position of air officer of the Eighth Army Corps at San Antonio, with his regular Army rank of Colonel. The story

from this point is thus briefly told by the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

"The great Navy dirigible Shenandoah was destroyed September 3. The flight of the naval plane PN-9-1 was then supposed

to have ended in tragic failure. Two days later Mitchell, already demoted for talking too much, undertook to explain these and other disasters in the Army and Navy Air Services.

"These accidents,' he told the world, 'are a direct result of incompetence, criminal negligence and almost treasonable administration of the national defense by the War and Navy Departments.'

"That was the accusation which brought Mitchell before a court martial-not a repentant or hesitant figure, but the figure of a man who appeared to think himself the hero of the whole proceeding. He was hailed by thousands as a man of vision and courage, who had bearded a lion and was entitled to keep the trophy."

In a

September 5 he conducted himself "to the prejudice of good order and military discipline"; that he had been "insubordinate" to the Administration of the War Department and "highly contemptuous and disrespectful" of the administration of both War and Navy Departments, "with intent to discredit the same to the prejudice of good order and military discipline." statement made on the final day of the trial, Colonel Mitchell told the court: "My trial before this court martial is the culmination of the efforts of the General Staff of the Army and the General Board of the Navy to depreciate the value of air power and keep it in an auxiliary position which absolutely compromises our whole system of national defense." For the prosecution Major A. W. Guillion summed up by asking Colonel Mitchell's dismissal "for the sake of the Army whose discipline he has endangered and whose fair name he has attempted to discredit"; "for the sake of those young officers of the Army Air Service whose ideals he has shattered and whose loyalty he has corrupted"; and "in the name of the American people whose fears he has played upon, whose hysteria he has fomented, and whose confidence he has beguiled, and whose faith he has betrayed." On the same day, December 17, Colonel Mitchell was found guilty.

But after all this dramatic shattering of precedent, editorial

observers agree, nothing is settled except the technical fact Colonel Mitchell's insubordination. The case of Colonel Mitchell versus the General Staff and General Board, instead of being ended, seems to have only begun. But it now moves from the courts to the floor of Congress. According to Representative Frank R. Reid, the Colonel's counsel: "Col. William Mitchell is a 1925 John Brown. 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."

Turning to the press, we find both the champions and the critics of Colonel Mitchell agreeing that technically the verdict of guilty was inevitable. But there are sharp differences of opinion about the justice of the sentence and about the bearing of the case upon the interests of the public. The five years' suspension without pay, it is pointed out, is equivalent to a fine of $50,000. The restrictions placed upon Colonel Mitchell by his sentence are tabulated as follows by a Washington correspondent of the New York Herald Tribune:

"No rights or duties as a military officer.

66

'Remains subject to military law, but unable to exert any military authority.

"Receives no pay or allowances, altho still retained in the military service, subject to call.

"Can not take any active part in any military service. "Can travel or reside anywhere in the United States, but must obtain permission of the Secretary of War to travel or reside abroad.

"Can engage in business, but can not hold public office."

In another dispatch to the same paper we read:

66

'As to the possibility of modifying Mitchell's sentence, it was held in Army circles that some action may be necessary to clear up the airman's status for the next five years. The constitutionality of the sentence was raised in another quarter, where, it was argued, if the punishment is carried out to the letter, the personal welfare of the officer would be vitally affected. To deprive him of pay and allowances for five years and still retain control over him as an integral part of the Army, altho without rank, command or duty, could not be sanctioned, it is claimed."

The New York World detects Machiavellian cunning and craft in the sentence of the court martial. We read:

"To have fired Mitchell out of the service would have made a martyr of him, and no doubt a very vocal martyr at that. To have kept him in the service would have given him a chance to resign with a blare of trumpets and become a martyr on his own motion. They avoided both pitfalls. They suspended him for five years, leaving him neither in the Army nor out of it; they take the wind out of his sails if he resigns, and they pose him like a schoolboy in a corner if he doesn't resign.

While the press as a whole upholds the conviction, if not the sentence, of Colonel Mitchell, the great majority of our newspapers take the view that, despite his technical guilt, he has done the country a service by focusing the attention of Congress and the public on the needs of American aviation. Let us hear first, however, those that are not sympathetic toward his activities. "The Colonel has been not only a troublemaker in his profession, but also a loosely grounded and regrettably visionary strategist," says the New York Herald Tribune. "He has been fairly tried, justly convicted and leniently sentenced," thinks the Boston Herald. "The general view was that he would be cashiered, the eagles cut from his shoulder-straps, and his name struck from the Army Register," remarks the New York Evening Post. The New York Evening World reminds us that "no military organization can tolerate insubordination and remain much better than a mob." "Mitchell lost the faith of the public because he ignored and defied the obviously necessary rules of the game," remarks the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin. As the Chicago Daily News sees it, "Colonel Mitchell destrozol his whole case when he admitted on the witness stand that his

intemperate assaults on the heads of the Army and Navy were merely vehement expressions of personal opinion." "By making unsupported accusations, Colonel Mitchell did a wrong to men who had brilliantly and efficiently served the American people," says the Los Angeles Times. And in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat we read:

"Indeed, there appears to have been little, if anything, in the conduct of military aviation to warrant his extravagant charges. "There have been four official investigations of the aviation situation by as many different bodies. In not one of them is any support given to Colonel Mitchell's charges against the competency and the patriotism of the War and Navy Departments, not one of them indorses the theories of organization which Colonel Mitchell has advocated with such spectacular methods, and not one of them finds that the country is in any danger of an air attack."

But more widely representative of newspaper sentiment toward the case is the remark of the New Haven Journal-Courier that "Colonel Mitchell is really a benefactor." "As a result of his trial, improvements in our military air service are sure to be made," says the Boston Post, which doubts if he could have accomplished this had he not laid himself open to discipline. "In the public mind the score still stands in favor of Col. William Mitchell," remarks the Pittsburgh Sun. "The Mitchell trial will serve the country a good purpose, and the convicted officer will go down in history in honor rather than in dishonor," declares the Atlanta Constitution. The case, says the Milwaukee Journal, "has revealed the need of a thorough overhauling of our air defenses." "To the public at large Colonel Mitchell seems to have brought out some very startling truths about the condition of the nation's air service," says the St. Louis Star. Colonel Mitchell, remarks the Indianapolis News, "has accomplished what he sought through paying heavily for it." The Brooklyn Eagle warns the Army that it "will make a grave mistake if it believes that the imposition of sentence upon Colonel Mitchell has settled the larger question involved efficiency in our air defense." "A great deal of what Colonel Mitchell charged had a kernel of truth in it, at the least," says the Philadelphia Inquirer. "He is guilty of the charges, but the country thinks

none the less of him," remarks the Albany Evening News. And in the Chicago Evening Post we read:

"We think Colonel Mitchell has done his country a service. He flouted discipline, but he has provoked-the word is fittinga movement which will not end without creating a greater efficiency in our military system. Further, he has helped to impress upon the public mind how strong is the tendency in any military system to become a self-defensive organization, entrenched against criticism, perpetuating its blunders along with its achievements under the cover of lay ignorance and official silence."

In similar vein we read in Senator Capper's Topeka Capital: "The decision of the court martial can have but one effect: the hastening of a change in the national defense policy of the United States.

"No jury composed of twelve men schooled in the Army's system could have returned a verdict different from that rendered by the court martial. But that verdict is not the verdict of the American people. They were with Billy Mitchell when he started his fight, and they are with him now. The will of the majority must ultimately be served. It can not even be turned aside by such a hard-boiled organization as the Army, the most removed of all branches of the Government from the citizens."

"An overwhelming majority of the people think Colonel Mitchell was substantially right, very courageous, but, of course, indiscreet," remarks the New York American. The severity of the sentence "is almost an affront to the American people," thinks the Detroit Free Press, which goes on to say:

"Colonel Mitchell demonstrated the substantial accuracy of his charges that the Army aircraft force has been mismanaged and neglected, if not deliberately allowed to deteriorate. He produced conclusive evidence of the inexcusable and criminal hazards to which American airmen are subjected because they are forced to use unfit machines. He proved beyond successful contradiction that this country is so far behind other leading Powers in the air that its flying defense is practically a joke. In view of these facts, if anybody suffers in the public estimation as a result of the sentence of the court, it will not be Colonel Mitchell, but rather those who are responsible for its extreme, savage character."

In the opinion of the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot:

"There was needed somebody with a good Air Service record who could sting the conservatives and reactionaries into action. Mitchell was the man. The mission executed, Air Service practise being headed for improvement, Army discipline being vindicated, and Colonel Mitchell remaining as popular an American figure as ever, everybody ought to be reasonably happy."