Evening star., 1925-09-30

| "ouiu NC IeteSSdIy W put In0 LIS
trict OF Columbia "out Of commits
sion" He said the number Of planes
was determined on so square miles
in the District. "As matter of
, fact" he declared. there are only
five square miles Of close population
and 20 planes could put the District
out Of business"
Scores Propaganda Agencies.
The reason Col. Mitchell and his fol-
| lowers have not been able to get their
| recognition for It. was laid by the wit
| ness to the existence of propaganda
agencies in the two services in Wash
| ington." He said he had submitted
many reports to the general staff and
no report ever put in myself ever
received general consideration by the
whole body Of the general staff. They
were pigeonholed. and put aside. That
stuff can't be done nowadays"
On the conclusion of what he describ-
ed as his obstructive table," the
eighth to be presented to the board
since he began yesterday, Col. Mitchell
took up the ninth and last statement
which was a review of the air forces
in foreign countries.
The board was informed during a
brief recess that Comdr. John Rodgers
of the Hawaiian flight project, was in
the city and arrangements were made
for him to testify tomorrow. Lieut.
Leigh Wade, pilot Of the Boston world
cruiser, also was summoned by the
board and arrived in the committee
room this morning direct from New
London, Conn.
Col Mitchell, accompanied by Mrs.
Mitchell and his two aides, Capt.
Robert Oldys and Lieut.. David Lingle.
arrived in the committee room at 1920
o'clock, 10 minutes before the session
opened. and were greeted with loud
applause by the spectators. who taxed
the room to capacity.
Navy Restricted to Sea.
Col Mitchell concluded the presen-
tation Of his case at 1890 o'clock, and
aside from questioning from Repre-
sentative Vinson on what provisions
of the law were violated by sending
the Shenandoah to the midcontinent.
there was no examination. Repre-
sentative Vinson was told by Col.
Mitchell that the section which the
Navy violated restricts Navy air ac-
tivities to the sea.
Then, by sending 1t over land law
was violated?" asked Mr.. EinSon.
mo, I said sending it over a noun
tain" replied Col. Mitchell. ITO send
the ship over the coast or over land to
join a fleet is a different matter"
Don't you think you are putting
far-fetched Interpretation on the law"
On Propaganda Mission.
'I do not. The Shenandoah was
sent on a propaganda mission. The
law was evaded, not exactly disobey-
ed
In reply to a question from Repre-
sentative Vinson as to whether the
Shenandoah was improperly manned,
Col. Mitchell said:
II said nothing about the personnel
of the Shenandoah. I spoke only Of
the question of the application of the
law in sending the Shenandoah on
non-naval mission into the interior OF
the country and Of the absence OF
parachutes."
THE orders of the trip were from
Notifying officers"
Gives Prepared Data.
Resuming the stand at the after
noon session of the board yesterday,
Col. Mitchell waded into a mass Of pre-
pared data dealing with every con-
ceivable phase Of aviation. With the
exception of five-minute recess for q
breathing spell, he read continuously
until 5:45 O'Clock, when adjournment
was tdheIl uHtll lOudy. MOSt OI lllo
information given the board was taken
verbatim from his recent book
Winged Defense"
The air crusader created the unmis-
taxable impression that there wasn't
subject under the general heading Of
aeronautics that he was not thor
oughly familiar with in practice or
theory. His general statements were
backed with illustrations to carry his
point.
Defense Against Aircraft.
The second of the nine tables he
brought to the committee room dealt
with Defense Against Aircraft" He
recited experiences in the war with
anti-aircraft fire, stating that only one
tenth Of l per cent Of the American
airplanes were shot down from guns
on the ground. ANY system of de-
fense against aircraft from the ground
alone Is fallacious,' he declared, land
money put into 1t, If not spent along
carefully considered lines, is merely
thrown away. Ground armies, un-
familiar with the action of airpower,
are constantly setting up the claim
that anti-aircraft artillery is capable
of warding off air attack. This Is alb
solutely not in keeping with the facts,
and a doctrine of this kind is a dan
gerous thing to be propagated, because
rSSrSxESNUKSSSS1S