The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1925-11-14

'luSu MIN Win d forum III Tue SHAPE
If the Coolidge air-board. The go
asy" attitude Of the administration
owards Mitchell is accountable by
he following considerations: While
Mitchell is shouting loudly for sep
rate" air service he is not less noisy
and persistent about an adequate"
air service. The saying goes: IF
you like the SOW, you've got to like
her litter" Since the ADMINISTRATORS
goal is an adequate" air service, and
Mitchell advocates that, it allows him
to speak of separate air service,
even tho it is not fully in accord with
the latter proposal
Then there is the pressure of the
airplane interests, among whom Mr..
Henry Ford could be counted; they
are for the Mitchell idea of a separate
air department, because they see in
its establishment the first step to-
wards the discarding OF the Philadel-
phia naval air craft factory as well
as the engineering air craft division
of the army, thus placing the produc-
ton of military planes entirely into
private hands. By removing govern
mental competition from the field of
plane production, the private produc-
ers will be enabled to raise prices to
their hearts content.
A separate air service department
being free from army and particular
ly from naval restriction, which is
now the case. will develop more rap
dly both in its efficiency and quantity
Use Of planes. A well-developed mill
! lary aviation will encourage and give
moment to civil aviation--all of which
will mean increased profits to the pro
ducers. No wonder they favor
Mitchell, whose platform is A sep
arate" and adequate" air service.
The air service controversy is ad-
vertised as a clash of opinions on the
part Of military heads and nothing
more. While it is true that high mill
tary men differ in their opinions as to
the administration of the air craft
service (the reasons for which will
be explained) the conflict Is in real
| ity between the ship building and
steel interests on the one hand and
the aviation interests on the other.
1t is easy enough for the .,administra-
ton to dispose of disagreements be-
tween military heads, by administer
ing a "silencing" spanking. But it
cannot spank powerful financial
groups, who are encouraging and
utilizing the conflicting opinions and
traditional conservatism of military
and naval heads.
WE see that the military advocates
W of a separate air service become
the natural allies of air plane pro-
ducers. Their common desire is, a
rapid and unchecked development of
aviation. The naval officers' and ship
builders interests also have a certain
commences of purpose; to each for
reasons of his own. The high naval
officer Of the old school, With it's con-
servatism naturally views new arm
of service with skepticism, this is
supplemented by a fear of aviation
developing to height claimed for it
by it's proponents, and thereby great
| y minimizing the Importance of the
navy and hence the prestige of its
officers. The high naval" officer par
ticularly, is fearingly mindful of the
fact that an excellent military plane
could be had for $4,000, while the
cost of a modern battle ship reaches
several million. 1t is up to the naval
officer to prove that three or four
million dollar battle ship could not
easily be sunk by $4,000 plane.
This they are trying to, do by not
allowing aviation to show. up its eff
fectiveness to full advantage. Testi-
mony to this may be had from the
fact that during the Hawaiian man.
euvers commanded by naval officers,
planes were not permitted to bomb
ships from normal height.
A separate air service department
will become sort of free agent with
reputation of its own to make and
maintain, even tho it be at the cost
of naval growth and reputation.
The naval officer is not against avi-
alton as such; he merely wants con-
troll of it. and to limit it, particularly
when it threatens to surpass the navy
in importance. That is why the naval
officer is against separate air serv-
ice.
The ship building interests view a