Evening Republican, Volume 21, Number 14, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 January 1918 — Case Of Col. Freyermuth. Stirs Camp Shelby [ARTICLE]

Case Of Col. Freyermuth. Stirs Camp Shelby

Hattiesburg, Mis£, Jan. 25.—The manner in which an Indiana colonel is said to have camouflaged an efficiency board is the subject of debate and the. cause of considerable agitation in Camp Shelby. Jt has a humorous side to it, because if the version given by the friends of the members of the board is correct, it is about the first time that an Dniiana national guardsman has been able to put one over on a bunch of regular army officers. has a serious side, too, and it the things that are told at the camp are correct, the people of Indiana should ascertain whether a colonel commanding an Indiana regiment violated his promise as an afficer and a gentleman or whether an efficiency board marked him efficient and competent to lead the brave young soldiers of Indiana into battle when, in fact, he was not competent. . It would be just about as easy to get the Egyptian sphynx to take part in a fox trot as it is to get any of the records or the testimony of witnesses in this particular case. Howevler, this story was related by an outside-of-Indiana officer, who is familar with the affairs. The colonel in question is George W. Treyermuth, commanding the 137th field artillery, formerly the 3rd Indiana. The efficiency board is composed of Brig-adier-General H. H. Whitney, commanding the 63rd brigade of which the 137th is a part; Brigadier-Gen-eral Roger D. Williams, commanding the 76th brigade, composed of Indiana troops, and Brigadier-Gen-eral William E. Harvey, commanding the 75th brigade, made up of troops from West Virginia and Kentucky. This board was appointed by Major-General William H. Sage, camp commander. It should be understood that the business of an efficiency board is to ascertain, by examination of witnesses, and records and any kind of evidence, whether an officer commanding troops is properly equipped to have placed in his charge the lives and health of the enlisted men. That is what the book says. But the threat to have an officer “brought before an efficiency board is a very common case, and carries with it considerable uneasiness on the part of the officer, because it is seldom that an officer ordered before an officiency board saves his commission. Do not understand that it is meant that the efficiency board is prejudiced and set up in advance—-it just "means that the officer on trial usually is “found” inefficient. The officers from Washington who inspected Camp Shelby recently made a very strong report against the 137th regiment and attached the blame for its conditions to Colonel George W. Freyennuth. This report has never been made public and the war department has refused to give it out. But because of the report and on the recommendaton of the inspector, Colonel Freyennuth was'ordered before the efficiency board. The story as told at camp is that before Colonel Freyermuth appeared be informed members of the that no matter what its decision might be he would resign his commission after standing trial. This promise, it is asserted was made by the colonel on his honor as an afficer and a gentleman. Colonel Freyermuth will not discuss it, but his friends say that he made no such promise. At the bar of the efficiency board Colonel Freyermuth conducted' his own case. He was cross-ex-amined by Major William S. Bowen, the division inspector, who at different times has acted as chief of staff and who is regarded as a competent officer. But before the case ended Colonel Freyermuth practically had Major Bowen on trail. As I stated before, it is not possible to give the testimony. Maybe United States Senator New might be able to get it, but no one around here is able to do so. The efficiency board found in favor of Colonel Freyermuth and ordered him retained in the service. Now comes the report that this decision was made with the distinct understanding that Colonel Freyermuth would resign and leave the service, as he had promised to do no matter what the decision of the efficiency board might be. After this decision Colonel Freyermuth received a nine days’ leave of absence and telegraphed here from South Bend that he had changed his mind about resigning—that the parents and relatives of the soldiers from Indiana in his command wished him to remain in their charge. This .started something in Camp Shelby. Now what the Indiana officers and men would like to know is whether Colonel George W. Freyermuth made such a promise and then broke it, and whether the efficiency board marked him efficient and sent him back to command nearly 2,000 of Indiana’s young men when he was not efficient. And they also would like to know whether all efficiency boards are conducted along the same lines—whether an officer will be marked efficient, providing he agrees to. resign after the board’s decision-