The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1925-10-29

plea Of jurisdiction should be over.
ruled and / so recommend.
That was all of Winship,a onkn.
ion. Then Brigadier General Frank
r Mccoy objected to the ruling
and the generals began their .'in
and out" march to the Jury room.
Returning moment later. H,
Howe announced:
Under the thirty-first article of
war. the court announces that the
opinion of the law member is made
the ruling of the court and, stands
as such.
Thereafter as Winship rendered
his decisions. one or another mem
Der of the court objected, and the
generals retired only to approve the
decision a moment later. The oh.
jections were raised by Generals
Booth, Irwin. Winans. King and
Poore
Attacks Authority Again
The reply Of the defense was to
strike anew at the authority of the
court. but from different angle.
Al plea charging the court martial
was ordered in, an irregular manner
was made by Congressman Frank
r. Reid. chief of Mitchell's civilian
counsel.
He contenasd that the .com-
mander of the accused did not
recommend the court-martiap and
that the charges were filed by an
officer inferior in rank" to Mitchell.
Both of these acts, Reid said.
made the court-martial null and
void.
Reid also challenged the specifi.
cations filed by the War Depart
ment against the flying colonel. He
declared the specifications did not
set out any disorders or neglects
prejudicial to military discipline"
1.-THE War Department, as such,
is a civil establishment" said Reid.
ut is not military service and
any criticism of it would not be
prejudiciai to discipline In the army.
1.-THE ninetyssixth article OF war
refers to disorders and neglects.
There is nothing in the charges
against Colonel Mitchell which al
Ieges disorders and neglects. For
this reason, I challenge the speclIi'
cations as inadequate.
Reid summed up his arguments
by moving to strike out" all the
charges against Mitchell. The mo-
ton was similar to a civil motion
to quash.
MoreIand Recalls Charges.
Colonel Sherman Moreland, judge
advocate, Immediately arose and de-
Tended the technicalities of the
charges.
The eight specifications against
Mitchell that the generals held did
not violate his constitutional guar
antees Of free speech" were based
on two statements given the press
at San Antonio by the flying col
onel last September.
The court-martiaI charges, brief
ly., were:
self to the prejudice Of good order
and military discipline and in a way
to bring discredit upon the military
service by issuing the first of his
so. That Mitchell did make a
statement insubordinate to the ad-
ministration of the War Depart
ment.
'3. That Mitchell, with intent to
discredit the administration Of the
War Department, did make state
ment highly contemptuous and dis
respectful OF said administration.
~. That Mitchell, with intent to
discredit the administration of the
Navy Department, did make a
statement highly contemptuous and
disrespectful Of said administra-
ton"
These charges are based on
MitchelPs statement of September
s. while the fifth, sixth, seventh
and eighth specifications, para
phrasipg the first four we're based
on his statement of September 8.
That Reid had scored with his
new motion was evidenced when
Colonel Winship. the courts Jaw
adviser, asked him why the judge
advocate did not point out what
part of the CMitchelD statements
constituted conduct prejudicial to
military discipline"
1--WE thought of doing that, More
land replied, "but we decided it
would be better for the court to de.
eide that.
Our procedure was much fairer
to the accused, az using portions of
the statements might give them
false light"
Reid also had scored with his
contention that the War Depart
ment had violated the army manual
by communicating Mitchell with
out having received a complaint
from his commanding officer in