Army & Navy – COMMAND: Colman’s Court

The Air Forces court-martial of Colonel William T. Colman (TIME, Sept. 13), onetime commander of Selfridge Field, Mich., handed down its verdict. Charged with shooting a Negro private at the field, the defendant was found guilty of “careless use of firearms.” Charged with four instances of drunkenness on duty, he was convicted of “conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline.” The court’s sentence: reduction to the rank of captain, with promotion barred for three years.

Crime? The court had rejected the stiffer formula of “conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman” which would have cashiered Colonel Colman. It acquitted him altogether of 23 violations of the Articles of War, involving various charges of illegally transferring soldiers, accepting gifts from favor-seeking civilians, making away with government property.

Trial observers found the verdict all the stranger because the defense against the shooting charge had taken a clear line that Colonel Colman was mentally irresponsible at the time—indicating that he probably hoped to be let off with a medical discharge from the Army. As it was, the sentence merely canceled his temporary colonelcy. It left him a U.S. officer, plainly implied that he was still fit to command.

Punishment? Public indignation bubbled up in Detroit. Congressman Paul W. Shafer called the verdict a “farce,” a “travesty” and “disgustingly inadequate.” The Detroit Free Press called it a “white wash” and “an insult to the fighting forces.” The Detroit Times said “it will smell to heaven,” and went back 131 years to find a local parallel of military shame when “the coward Hull surrendered De troit to the British without even swinging a punch.”

Under Army legal procedure the court’s findings must be reviewed by higher military authorities, who can reverse the convictions or lighten the sentence, but cannot increase it. This week Lieut. Colonel Charles G. White, Colonel Colman’s former executive officer at Selfridge, was on trial charged with drunkenness and illegal transfer of men, before an entirely new court. The Detroit Times wondered acidly whether this was “a devious apology.”