Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1925-10-29
TRIAL OF MITCHELL HELD LEGAL;
REID ATTACKS CASE PROCEDURE
Colonies Counsel Asks Case Thrown Out on Techni-
cal Flaw in Its Preparation by Army Officials
After First Move Is Rejected.

We Is Rejected.
| that under the thirty-firs article of
| war the opinion of the law member
is made the ruling of the court and
will stand as SUCH
Col. Winship then said: "As TO
| the second specification under the
ninety sixth article OF war charges
| 1t is my opinion that the plea to
| jurisdiction be overruled and l SO
| recommend"
Brig. Gen. Ewing f.. Booth arose
and said 81 object to the opinion of
! the law member of the court" The
court was then cleared and on its
return after moments deliberation
the president made the same an
nouncement for the second specified
| ton as he did for the first. Col
Winship then recommended the plea
to jurisdiction on the third specifica-
ton be overruled and Brig. Gen.
George LeR. Irwin objected.
The court was cleared, and the
president again announced the opin-
ion of the law member would stand
and when Col. Winship recommended
the plea to jurisdiction on the fourth
specification Brig. Gen. Edwin b.
Winans objected
The same procedure followed for
the remaining four specifications.
Each time the opinion of the law
member was made the ruling of the
court and would stand. The president.
Brig. Gen. Edward l.. King. objected
to the fifth specification: Maj. Cen
Benjamin A. Poore objected to the
sixth, Gen. Booth to the seventh and
Gen. Irwin to the eighth.
AS the court filed in on the seventh
specification, Col Winship whispered
to Col. Moreland: THAT was the
seventh, wasn't it," and on being
Strengthened out in the tangle by the
trial judge advocate, the last one was
taken up.
Holds no Specific Charges Made.
After the plea to jurisdiction had
been disposed of Col. Mitchell's coun-
sci moved that the charges be
stricken out on the ground that no
specific charges were mentioned and
that procedure as set down in the
manual for courts-martial leading up
to trial had not been followed. The
defense maintained that there was no
investigation either in Texas or in the
district of Washington of Col.
Mttchells statements and there was
no formal recommendation by his
commanding officers that a court
martial be held.
Where is this strange power COM
Ing from that reaches over the heads
of commanding officers" asked Rep
resentative Reid. IF that is permit
ted you are merely figureheads and
are not in command of your areas
They can run your discipline as they
According
these proceedings are irregular. Fur
Their, we are entitled to have Specitica-
lions on what the prosecution claims
Is the offense."
Present Case Unusual
The trial judge advocate responded
that the present case was very "un-
usual" and it was prepared with the
view Of allowing the court to decide
the specific offense. He said the
specifications were accompanied by
the accused's own statement, and IF
that is sufficient to sustain the allega-
lions, that Is all we intended to do
II is a matter for the court to take
this article-the fairest thing in the
world for the accused-and then de-
termine If he violated the provisions
OF the ninety-siXth article of war"
The argument continued back and
forth. each side reiterating it's pre-
vious stand until the president of the
court called a recess for luncheon
until o'clock.
Study Question of Procedure.
After luncheon the court had be-
fore 1t the all-important question.
raised by the defense, as to whether
the charges filed against Col. Mitchell
originated vol
cation. as prescribed specifically in the
manual governing court-martial pro-
cedure. and were forwarded through
regular channels, as outlined therein
Representative Reid contended that
the exact procedure outlined by the
President and approved by Congress
had not been followed in the investiga-
ton which led to the filing Of the eight
specifications against the Air Service
officer. He pointed out that the ac-
cused had been furnished with q state
ment explaining what investigation
had been made and what the charges
were. He emphasized, however. that
nowhere in these papers was it stated
that Mitchell had been investigated by
order of his commanding officer or that
the charges leveled against his client
had been forwarded through the
commanding officer as required by the
manual.
Col. Moreland replied that there had
been an investigation and that the
commanding officer of Mitchell's juris-
diction had not been brought into
the trial because this was a presi-
Dental court-martial A commanding
officer, he contended. if such proceed
IRE were followed, might prevent the
Presidents orders from being directly
executed. He asserted that Col.
Mitchell had been hailed before the
court by perfectly legal processes.
Representative Reid then called
upon Col. Herbert White, Mitchell's
military counsel, for a further ex-
PLANTATION Of the regulations affecting
the drawing up Of charges against
an accused officer. He read several
passages from the Official manual stat.
ing that there must be full prelimi-
nary investigation of the alleged Of
Tense and including examination of
witnesses and calling Of the defendant
to testify in his own behalf, if he so
desired, and that from this probe the
formal charges, if any were warrant
ed, must be preferred.
Representative Reid caustically crit
icized the formulation of the charges
against Col. Mitchell and declared that
apparently Judge Advocate Moreland
believed this case to be outside of the
regulation. He declared that Mitch
ellis commanding officer had played no
part in the preparation of charges
allegedly in disregard Of those specific
procedures demanded by the manual
and sought to show that because of
this so-called irregularity all of the
charges should be thrown out.
Dfsagrees on Procedure.
II agree fully with Col. Moreland
when he said there should be an in
vestigation before charges are made"
Representative Reid stated The