New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-02-08
BELL EDITS
Blue PENCILS YORK.
Not Only Changes O5cn Testi-
nlony, but Alters Questions.
CFrom The Tribune Bureau


washington, Feb. THE question OF
how far it is proper for witness to revise
testimony given before a committee of Con
gress IS agiteting members of the House
committee on Military Affairs having arisen
because Of the course of General J. Frank
lin Bell. who not only edited his tes-
timony almost beyond recognition, but even
made material changes in the form of some
of the questions put to him. The generals
! wholesale use of the blue pencil has as
/ founded the committee
General Bell recently appeared before
! that committee and expressed his views re-
/ garding pending leg Station providing for
/ the Increase of the army signal corps and
another measure. which aims TO add 612
/ officers to the commissioned personnel of
the army. At all these hearings before the
! committee the proceedings are recorded by
an official stenograPher, and the manuscript
report is submitted 10 the officer FOR correc-
ton, with the implied understanding, Gus
tomariIy observed, that changes made in the
report will be of a minor character and
that ne liberties will be taken with the
questions
When General Bell returned the report OF
his hearings 10 the House Military Com
mittee the members were surprised TO find
much new material had been inserted. in
Guiding an important change in the phrase
oogy of one of the questions, attributed to
Representative Anthony. who never asked it.
The original report showed that the
chairman, Representative Hull, of Iowa,
asked the question, Are the officers fur
nished under authority from the line now in
the signal corps TINS the general changed
to read: Are the places Of officers fur
nished from the line 10 the signal corps
now filled under the law
Den of the interpoIated passages which
General Bell attributed 10 himself was as
follows:
General Bell: I did not know, until the
chairman mentioned receiving the letter
dated December I, 1893. that the present
Secretary Of War had expressed his views
upon this bill. Never having taken the
matter I'D with him I am of course. not
acquainted with his views on the subject.
l recognize my duty, however, to give IN
formation TO the committee when sum
any information or nguTeS the committees
may desire. but whenever I express views
or opinions, IL must be understood that
am spea KING Tor myself alone as Cn1eI OF
staff, and not a representative of the
Secretary Of War or the War Department
Before stating further. would IKE to
preface my remarks by this explanation:
The chief of staff was created 10 advise
and assist the Secretary of War the Gen
SId SldI u 6QFlSe anu assist DOl-4 VI
them. The chief Of staff does not. Of
course. have to call on the General staff
for its views OF opinions. or for report
upon any question. unless he needs in
formation or assistance Il is for him 10
judge whether infOTma ton or assistance IS
needed. Much less is the Secretary of War
under any necessity for calling on the
chief of staff or the General Staff for views
or opinions, unless he needs information or
assistance.
II is apparent from this pamphlet that
has been handed to me that the bill after
being introduced was sent 10 the w ar
Department and was returned, recommend
ing favorable action. by the Secretary OF
War in his letter of January -. 1868 1t
viii be observed that this letter also trans
mitted extracts from reports which had
been made by the lieutenant general Of the
army, by The chief Of staff. by the com
maudant of the service schools at Fort
LeavenwoTI and by the chief signal ON
Ger, all giving COgenJ reasons why the
signal corps should be increased That
would certainly seem 10 be SuTnclenC EVIL
dence, without further Information, to con-
vince the Secretary of War that the in
crease was necessary. and II Is fair 10
presume that he so regarded IL
The original report read as follows:
dare say the committee recognizes that
when I am called upon TO testify concern
ing d matter that the Secretary OF Var
has never solicited my opinion about
7 find myself in rather d delicate situa-
ton. However. I recognize my duty TO give
information TO the committee when sum
TnOned for that purpose, and also my duty
OF accuracy ! am able to state them
Before stating anything further, however,
I would like 70 preface my remarks Oy
this statement. That the Secretary of ar.
of course, does not have TO call on the
General Staff for its opinions or for any
report upon any question CnleSE he desires
and needs information. 1t is for hin 70
Judge whether information Is needed Fur
thermOre, ny opinion concerning the ao-
visa bility OF increasing the signal. corps IS
in entire accordance with that OF both the
Secretary of War ard the President. L
have been asked whether or not the IN
crease is necessary to provide signal ser
vice for the army as = exists or Tor the
future needs of the army as II may exist
in time of war. I think possibly the most
satisfactory reply I can make 10 that ques-
ton TO this committee IS 70 read an e&-
tract from some remarks, etc.
It was here that General Bell inserted
Mr.. Anthony's alleged inquiry as follows:
Mr.. Anthony: That evidence related 10
the necessities of the signal corps IN war.
DO YOU regard an increase as necessary
for the requirement for the army. or only
10 provide for the contingency OF war
The other question which Nj Anthony
did not ask and which appears N General
Bells version of the report is as follows:
BEFORE finishing this subject I would like
n know definitely whether the signal corps
* now large enough to serve the mobile
o-r,17r ~ = present constituted