Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1926-01-26
Mitchell Case Officially Closed.

President Coolidge's approval of the
court-martial sentence imposed upon
Col. William Mitchell, found guilty of
highly censurable conduct" is ac-
companied by modification that
grants to the officer one-half Of his
regular pay and all of his allowances
during the period Of his suspension
from active duty. five years. This
partial remission of penalty is spe
officially stated 10 be during the pleas
ure of the President"
This closes the Mitchell case, Of
ficially. 1t may be reopened by the
commission of some act which war
rants the revocation OF the grant Of
half pay and allowances, or by the
resignation Of the officer. which has
Whether such a resignation would be
accepted is not assured. 1t might be
rejected, under the law, for the officer
is under sentence, which he may not
at pleasure nullify by withdrawal
from the service. Suggestion has boen
advanced that If the resignation is
rendered as ''for the good OF the serv-
ice" it might be accepted.
In his final finding the President
states the case against Col. Mitchell
in clear terms. He says:
The theory of government implies
that every official, SO long as he re-
tains Office, shall deport himself with
o,-l LII II,
especially true of those in the mill
tary service. Unless this rule is APP
piled there could be no discipline in
the Army and Navy, without which
those two forces would not only re
without value as means If defense
but would actually become a menace
to society.
That is all there is to this affair.
Col. Mitchell violated the rules of dis
cipline when he publicly rebuked his
superior officers and the officials Of
another department of the Govern.
ment-and by implication the Presi-
dent, as commander-in-chief Of the
Army and the Navy-in a statement
asters with which he was not asso-
ciated. By special grace at his trial
by court-martial he was permitted to
set up defense Of fact, whereas,
strictly speaking. The issue bore only
upon whether or not he uttered the
offending remarks. Whether he sue
ceeded in proving the truth Of lis
assertion was not to The point. The
court-martial was not competent in
law or in the proper practices of the
military service to pass upon such a
question. It was limited in its find.
ing to the issue Of the utterance and
whether 1t constituted Il breach Of
discipline. 1t answered those ques.
tons distinctly, to the point of con-
victing the accused Of conduct preju-
dicial to discipline, and sentenced him
accordingly, showing, indeed, mercy
in not recommending his dismissal.
The case is not without it's historic
parallel in regard to the sentence i'm
posed. which has just been approved
with slight modification. In October,
1903, Commodore James Barron was
tried by court martial on a charge Of
having. as commander Of the frigate
Chesapeake, failed to have his ship
in proper condition for defense when
she was fired upon by the Leopard OF
the British Navy. He was convicted
and sentenced to suspension for five
years without pay. This sentence was
approved by President Jefferson. Bar
ron entered the merchant service and
went to Europe. His suspension ended
in 1913 during the war with Great
Britain, but he did not return to The
United States and seek reinstatement
In active service until 1913, when he
was restored to his rank. In conse-
quence of feeling against him on the
part Of naval officers, he fought a
duel with Commodore Stephen Decatur
and slew him on the field Of honor"