Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1925-12-18
The Mitchell Verdict and Sentence.

Col. William Mitchell, former as
sistant chief of the Army Air service
has been found guilty of violating the
ninetv-sixth article Of war and sen
fenced to suspension from rank and
command for five years, with for
feit,,re If all nav and allowances. This
verdict Of the court-martial. which
has been sitting for several weeks IN
trial, is not surprising, but the SEN
tence is not at all what the public
e1pected. That Col. Mitchell was
technically guilty of characterization
was evident from the outset OF the
proceedings, indeed from the moment
of his public expressions In criticism
of the chiefs of the Army and the
Nayv. But that his punishment
would take the form of suspension
from rank and pay for n period or
five years rather than dismissal at
the ono extreme of severity. or rep
,ir1land at the other extreme OF mercy,
was not expected. Such a sentence IS
unprecedented.
This case has aroused an intense
public interest through sympathy with
Col. Mitchell i'll his self-dssumed role
ef critic of the Governments aviation
,selfcies and practices. The real issue
has been befogged in the public mind
in consequence of that sympathy. In
fact. there was but one question be-
fore the court martial, and that has
been specifically answered. though
after q protraCtion of proceedings
that was not in the least required for
an ADEQUATE consideration of the guilt
ef the accused officer. That issue is
one of discipline and subordination.
In permitting Col. Mitchell to en-
deavor' TO prove his charges against
the aviation administration OF the
Army and Navy, the court-martial
departed from precedent, perhaps by
direction, in order that the trial
should not have the sembiance OF a
''bottling" or gagging procedure. He
was afforded the amplest opportunity
TO demonstrate the truth Of his crit
icisms, even though 1t was Of no mo-
lnent technically AMI legally whether
he could prove them or not. His
guilt rested solely upon the question
Of whether a subordinate officer of
The Army, in public statement, ut
Tered words prejudicial to good order
and discipline. The truth or falsity
of his words had. in fact, nothing to
do with the case. but the court-mar-
tial, in consideration OF the intense
interest of the people OF this country
in questions incidentally raised by his
sweeping indictment. allowed a wide
range of testimony.
In finding Col Mitchell guilty of
violation of the ninety-sixth article of
war the court-martial does not lass
upon the merits of the dispute regard
ing the aircraft policies and practices
of this Government. Another body
has made inquiry into those matters
and already has reported in general
refutation of Col. Mitchells sweeping
charges, with some confirmation in
certain details and recommendation
Of correction Of the defects disclosed.
The questions involved In his broad
cast Of criticism will doubtless be in
vestigated and discussed by Congress.
That phase of the matter is, of course,
not settled by yesterdays verdict. It
could not be settled. What the court.
martial has determined is that an
oficer Of the Army cannot impugn
in personal utterances the motives of
his superiors IN terms prejudicial to
discipline. That question has been,
in fact. settled long ago. 1t is deter
mined by the very fundamentals of
military orga nization.
That Col. Mitchell was bidding for
martyrdom has been the prevalent
belief since he made his daring utter.
ances in September. He has not bee n
accommodated by the court martial to
the extent Of dismissal. He has been
awarded fair and just punishment,
which takes considerate account of
his admirable record as a soldier. his
past service and his patriotic motives
in his deliberate violation of the ar.
ticles of war which he has sworn as
an officer faithfully to respect.