Evening star., 1925-10-25
Unconstitutional If It Denies
Right of Free Speech,
Reid Asserts.
TRUTH OF STATEMENTS
NOT QUESTIONED, HE SAYS
Department Defends Separation of
Military Authority as Legal
and Necessary.
By the Associated Press.

The 96th Article of War, under
which Col. William Mitchell of the
Army Air Service has been indicted
for court.martial by the War Depart
ment. may itself be brought to trial.
This possibility developed last night
when Representative Reid of Illinois
counsel for the air officer made public
two statements challenging the con
stitutionality of the article, although
he failed to reveal any indication OF
the procedure he would follow when
the trial begins Wednesday.
Free Speech Issue.
THE right of freedom of speech is
undoubtedly guaranteed by the Con
stitution," Mr.. Reid said, land if the
96th Article of War abridges that right
1t is unconstitutional and void
In the second statement, Mr.. Reid
invited attention to the fact that al
though his client had been charged
with conduct pretudicial to good order
and military discipline by issuing Ger
tain statements in violation of the
96th Article of War, the truth of such
statements were not questioned in the
charge.
IF the construction attempted to be
put upon that article by the War De
partment is allowed to prevail, he
added, ''it will set at naught the Con
stitution of the United States. and the
Army and the War Department Will
become a law unto themselves, which
will never be permitted under our
form of government
Calls Statements mild"
Mr.. Reid asserted further that the
War and Navy Departments had pre-
viously been subjected to vigorous
criticism from within and that the
statements made by Col. Mitchell "are
Hooker, Gen. Mcclellan, Col. Theo
dore Roosevelt and Admiral Sims,
which were published broadcast, yet
no disciplinary action was ever taken
against them.'
Rome endured as long as there
were Romans; America will endure as
long as there are Mitchells." the Illi-
nois member said.
War Department legal officers de
clined to argue the question of con
stitutionality, but their conviction that
no court would agree with the Illinois
representative was clearly indicated
that freedom of speech, even though
secured by the Constitution, is not an
absolute license to speak anything a
person pleases, free from legal liabil
ity, either civil or criminal. Precedent
for this position by the courts could
be cited it was intimated,. If the neces
sity arose.
Separate Military Case.
In a general way the opinion was
obvious that Federal court decisions
dealing with questions raised under
military law tend to show conclusions
that a separate military code TO dea1
with military offenses is not only es
sential but legal. In drafting the arti
cles of war it was pointed out, Con
gress saw fit specifically to denounce
certain crimes and to group others un
der such a provision of law as the
96th article, described by Mr.. Reid
as a "catch-all.
Discussing Col. Mitchells attitude
on the question of free speech, Mr.
Reid said the offlcer stands for the
belief that in time Of peace soldiers
and sailors have the right to offer
constructive criticism which they be
ieve will work for the best interests
Of their services"
The officers civilian counsel re-
ferred also to the appalling condi-
ton in our Air Service" and asserted
that the many fatalities and acci-
dents are practically attributable to
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS."