Evening star., 1925-12-16

responsible for it's administrative poll
cies. These latter officers are among
those distinguished men who conduct
ed operations on the other side. which
resulted in everia sting glory to Amer
lean arms and TO the winning Of the
war. No more uncon nsciona BILE attack
could have been made than the one
that these officers are in any way
impeding the progress OF the Air
Service or that they are not ,insistent
or it's development to the highest Eff
cheney. The report Of the, =La ssiter
hoard would indicate the certainty OF
this conclusion.
I'm addition To these matters. Gen.
MitChells whole course has been so
la awless. go contrary to the building up
Of an efficient organiza tion. so lacking
in rea asona BILE team work. 40 indicative
Of personal desire for publicity at
The expense OF every one with whom
he is associated that his actions rem
der him unfit for high administra
tive position such as he now occupies.
| write this With grVat regret because
he is a gallant officer with an excellent
war record hut his record since the
war has been such that he has Tor
feited the good opinion OF those who
are familiar with the facts and who
desire to promote the best interests
Of national defense.
After the letter was read Gen.
Nolan was turned over to the defense
for cross-exa mination. he was asked
il Cen Mitchell was not reappointeo
because he had testified on aviation
controversies before congressional
committees and Gen. Nolan said he
| thought the letter adequately exDlain-
ed why the reappointment had not
heen made. He denied that he him
self prepared the letter and explained
! that Secretary Weeks had dictated the
! letter personally. The general stan
| had nothing to do with it. he added.
Mr.. Reid called attention TO the fact
! that the letter bore the symbols
, ''OCS" and DEN
! What do they mean" he asked
They are the initials Of office
| chief Of staff" and my own initials" i"
! The witness insisted however. that
! the symbols did not infer in any way
! that either he or the chief of staff had
| the letter prepared or wrote 1t.
! Defends Statement.
Under direct examinatio yes, erday
afternoon, Gen. Drum explained state
ments he had made TO congressional
| committe ees which the defense. had
! charged were misleading and false
| When cross-exa mined by Mr.. Reid he
maintained solid front against the
attack TO break down his expla nations
| in direct testimony. Out nding
| among the statements he defended
was the amount of gas necessary to
| cause evacuation of an area the size
| of the District OF Columbia
| Having stated that more than 5000
! bombing planes would be required to
convey the gas in bombs to 60
| suuare-mue area. Gen. Drum declared
| his calculations We're based on train
ing manual approved by Maj. Gen
| Amos A. Fries. chief of the Chemical
/ Warfare Service and which is used in
| the training and education of officers
at the various service schools.
In upholding the accuracy OF his
calculations Gen. Drum charged Gen.
Fries himself was guilty of an error
| when he gave the court figures show.
ing that the area referred to could be
ga ssed by greatly reduced quantity
| of gas. The chemical warfare head
was described mot up to date on
the construction of gas bombs
Other declarations of Gen. Drum
aimed at defense testimony were:
Gen. Pershing, and not Col. Mitchell
| commanded the air forces in the Amer.
| lean expeditionary forces.
British unified air service partici.
pated with French and American air
| forces under Gen Pershing's com.
mand in the St Mihiel drive.
Gen. Pershine gave Col. Mitchell or
ders for the employment of America n
aircraft In France, in spite of the air
ofhcer's statement before the court to
the contrary.
The War Department does not &C,
cept the unified air service az a sound
organiZati ton for the Army"