Evening star., 1925-11-27

Continued from First Page)
much time. Mr.. Reid explained his
constant objections as being due to
the manner in which the rebuttal tes-
timony was offered.
The object of the prosecution this
morning was to deny the charges of
Col. Mitchell that no defense plans
are in existence for the Hawaiian Is.
lands. After more than two hours of
argument the only apparent result
was that the prosecution contended
there are plans for the defense of the
islands, but they are in Hawaii and
could not be produced in court. Fur
ther. the prosecution endeavored to
prove there is an Army project for
the Mid-Pacific possessions. With re.
spect to the latter. which was intro.
duced in court. this developed to con-
tain only defense plans for the Island
of Oahu, and, in fact, was SO labeled
on the cover.
Eltinge Qualified.
Gen. Eltinge, who commands the
Sth Infantry Brigade at the Georgia
fort, was brought on the stand as an
expert in war plans and projects. as
he was engaged in this work on his
last tour of duty in Washington. He
succeeded in getting into the record
definitions of these two terms, which
are not synonymous, and caused
much confusion in the court among
counsel for both sides and the audi
enCe.
Mai. Wilby. n member of the Army
general staff, who when he joined the
trial Judge advocates forces about
two weeks ago explained to the court
l. 10 Inl .
time matching wits with the alert MIR.
Reid. Col. Sherman Moreland. the
trial judge advocate. rushed to his
juniors defense three times with
pointed remarks about beefsteak and
horses which were not taken with as
much amusement either by the law
member or Mr.. Reid as by the specta.
tors.
Before the first witness actually
began TO testify much time was lost
in "A discussion over the old question
of how the court is to consider Col.
Mitchelrs defense-in eXtenuatiou
and mitigation or actual def enSe.
Again the matter was left undecided
but the fact was brought cut by the
|. court that the defense would be
given the right TO rebut the proseCu-
ton testimony now being offered in
rebuttal.
Gen. EItinge on Stand.
Brig. Gen. Leroy Eltinge. command
ing officer of the Sth Infantry Brigade
at Fort Mcpherson, Ga, was the first
witness placed on the stand by the
prosecution. Maj Francis B. Wilby of
the general staff and an assistant TO
the prosecution was in charge of di-
rect examination. He asked the wit
ness to detail his record of service and
Mr.. Reid interrupted to inquire for
what purpose the witness was teSti-
flying.
THAT purpose will appear in due
season." replied Col. Sherman More
land. the trial judge advocate.
IF this testimony Is to be offered
in eXtenuation or mitigation of the
acts of the general staff l object.
Please tell the court if you have
abandoned your decision that our tes-
timony was in eXtenuation and miti-
cation, and if you have, it is our con-
tention the prosecution testimony is
not admissible" said Mr.. Reid.
THE purpose of this IS in rebuttal
to the testimony given by the accused
and his witnesses. If evidence can be
introduced, other evidence can be
brought in in rebuttal,' said Col.
MOreland.
Voices Army Rights.
Further, this is to show that not
only the testimony of the accused Of
fered by way of mitigation can be
rebutted by the prosecution, but that
it is in reality. We have the right to
deny whatever may be worthy of de-
NAL, to dispute, to modify, and 1t
will be shown to the satisfaction of
this court that what he has put here
for extenuation is in reality aggra'
vation."
I'VE never contended or consented
to our case being in mitigation re-
piled Mr.. Reid. I'VE always took the
position that the truth was the en-
tire defense"
Col. Blanton Winship asked if Mr.
Reid had any authority for his stand
and the defense counsel replied 1t was
general authority"
Whether his testimony is in ex
tenuation or mitigation" said Col
Moreland, the accused comes into
court and claims he has proved the
truth of his charges, and then turning
to us says, What are you going to
deed. What they have a right to
disproye."
Reid Denies Claims.
IF they are Offering testimony in
eXtenuation of the acts Of the general
staff in not supplying our boys with
proper airplanes. and so FORTH said
Mr.. Reid. lit is all right with us. But
for them to bring in witnesses to deny
what we said, it is not admissible at
this time"
Col. Moreland answered Mr.. Reid
by declaring the War Department or
the general staff was not on trial.
I'VE are seeking to disprove the evi
dence he has offered on any grounds,
continued the colonel.
Mr.. Reid declared il the prosecu.
tion offered the testimony in denial of
his testimony the defense has a right
to rebut 1t. Don't overlook the fact
he said. addressing Col. Moreland
you are in the defense now and we
are in the prosecutions place. We
have the right to rebuttal. If they
claim our testimony was in mitigation
they have no right to introduce wit
nesses to deny the facts we pre-,
sented''
Col. Winship recalled that at the
outset of the trial the judge advocate
said he was willing to admit in evi.
dence any proof offered in extenua
tion or mitigation. Twice I raised
that question myself" said Col. Win
ship. MY opinion was that the char.
acter of the evidence would not be af.
fected one way or other, whether the
ruling was In actual defense or ex.
tenuation and mitigation. There we
are today"
Urged Decision Earlier.
We've been insistent that our proof
was in absolute Defense" said Mr.
Reid II suggested the matter be de.
cided when we finished our testimony
and now they are going ahead and
bringing in witnesses"