ma

(Thereupon the committee adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, March 1, 1938, at 10 a. m.)

COMMUNICATIONS AND MATERIAL PERTAINING TO LESTER P. BARLOW ORDERED INCLUDED IN THE RECORD

WASHINGTON, D. C., February 28, 1938.

Hon. CARL VINSON,

Chairman, Naval Affairs Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: I gladly accept the opportunity to have you get into the record, not all the facts but a few facts in answer to a slanderous and vicious statement read before the Naval Affairs Committee today and the attack upon my credibility and my qualifications as an engineer and also my loyalty to my country. I will not go into a long statement, it is not necessary, so I will make a number of short statements which refute-if the committee cares to go into it-the letter read by one of the members today.

In the first place, there was a Barlow bomb so-called and so designated officially in our Ordnance program in the early part of the war. In addition to this bomb, however, there was a very large number of bombs produced known as "Mark bombs." These bombs were marked 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. They ranged from bombs weighing around 20 pounds to bombs weighing half a ton, and it is upon these bombs that the United States Court of Claims has rendered a decision in my favor that the Government is liable to me for approximately $700,000 in royalties. These "Mark bombs" were not produced until the latter part of the A few of them were used in Europe and dropped from planes of foreign manufacture as we had no American airplanes capable of carrying them.

war.

I wish to call your attention to the notorious fiasco of the airplane manufacture during the war period. $800,000,000 was spent in the program and we did not receive a single fighting plane capable of remaining in the war operations. We had to depend upon foreign-built planes for what planes we used. As we had no bombers, we were not able to carry any bombs.

If you want to get the records of this fact clear, you should get Mr. Gutzon Borglum, the famous sculptor and engineer, who was the official investigator for the President of the aircraft facts which have subsequently been covered up so that the American people never knew what really happened.

The synchronized machine guns and all of the bombs, with the exception of one small bomb that was produced in this country during the war, were built around the Barlow patent designs, and even this one small British bomb referred to was altered to take certain of the Barlow safety features. From the period of the war up until recent years, the bombs built during the war were used for training and as military reserve by our national defense organizations, and so the Government has had considerable value from the great mass of bombs which we had no chance to use during the war, but I did my part in getting these bombs successfully produced in great quantities and produced so that they functioned as specified.

I built the first synchronized aircraft gun and got the company that I was with to go through with the work under a plan that I proposed, and that also was the most remarkable machine gun of the war and is so recorded in the records of the War Department of that time.

Now, back to the so-called "bomb test" in France. Contrary to the letter which you heard read in the Committee, I had nothing to do with any bomb tests being proposed in France. That was entirely a matter on the part of the Ordnance Department of the Army. It had been expected, however, prior to the bombs being shipped to France that I should go over there, knowing them as I did, and see that they were properly tested. Because of pressure from somewhere at the last moment, I was blocked from going to France to make the test. I subsequently found out that it was part of the efforts to sabotage and cause a failure of the tests in France so that the Birtish and French Government bombs would be forced on American manufacturers and later this Government would be required to pay a heavy indemnity to those two governments. Expecting that something was wrong, I went to the Secretary of War, Mr. Baker-my personal friend-and told him about it, and Mr. Baker himself took me to the Chief of Staff, General March, and instructed the general to prepare a letter of authority for me to proceed to France and conduct the tests of the "Barlow heavy-drop bombs."

I took no bombs to France; I had none in my possession, and there were no two carloads as the letter before the Committee today so stated. There were a couple of dozen bombs hauled into the aviation testing field by trucks over which I had

no control. I invited no ambassadors nor foreign officials. I did nothing except to see that the bombs were properly prepared and the tests were properly conducted. Any other statement is an absolute untruth.

For the first time I met the man who prepared the letter which was read to day. I found him extremely hostile to any American bombs being tested at all and he did everything in his power to block the successful testing of the bombs. By applying great pressure and determination on my part I forced a fair test of the bombs; and there are witnesses in this country who can be brought before this committee who will substantiate what I am now going to tell you.

When the British bombs were dropped from a kite balloon in these tests, British officials and French officials and Italian officials with this American officer-who went into the service from civilian life after war was declared and who I definitely know had never seen a bomb until war was declared-retired only about not more than 700 feet from where the bombs were to fall and sat on the ground during the tests. These British bombs were small bombs and they were dropped among wooden men which were 10 feet apart. The bombs blew a small hole in the ground and threw fragments upward in an inverted cone form of range. The nearest man to the bomb would receive a large number of small fragments. The second man, 10 feet back, would have no fragment below his hips but many in his head and shoulders. The third man back, who was 30 feet from the explosion, generally had no fragments except in his head; and the man 40 feet back rarely showed any marks at all.

When the Barlow bombs were dropped, and especially after the first one was dropped, all of the foreign officials there-including the American officer who wrote the report of the test and the one who wrote the letter which was read this morning-retired some 1,500 feet away behind heavy barricades for protection; and they saw to it that the citizens of that district were removed over a mile from the point of tests. This I can prove by witnesses here in America who were there then; and this claim on my part of the danger of the Barlow bomb to personnel will parallel a report of the Government tests of the Barlow bomb, several of which were made in this country perior to the test of the bomb in France; and these reports are available from the Government records to the committee. They do not have to take my word for it.

I can bring before the committee, if necessary, men who were high-ranking Army officers at that time and who will say that they consider yet today that it was one of the greatest mistakes that the "Barlow heavy drop bomb" was not put into field service during the war. There was nothing in the World War as devastating and of such wide dispersion of death-dealing fragmentation as the Barlow bomb. For its weight, I doubt whether it is equaled by anything today, although I am not quite sure.

As to the politics of the letter as spoken of this morning, it is just too silly and baseless to hardly discuss. The man rather compliments me when he infers that I had such tremendous political power in a period of war that I could control or coerce the whole United States military establishments. The facts of the matter are that at that time I was greatly respected by and I greatly respected the American regular Army and Navy officials. It was not until they had left the service that the attacks on the Barlow name commenced, and I have been forced for years to meet these assaults and at great expense.

In the courts, where the facts have been brought out, the Government representatives have been beaten in practically every case, and in no case has my loyalty ever been successfully assailed even thoguh it has been attacked many times in the courts. I have been there charged by the Government officials of technically being a spy for foreign governments, and that I obtained the long list of Barlow munitions patents by fraud and that I really had stolen these ideas from the officials of the War Department. All of these things have been disproved by the testimony of the officers of the Army at that time. My records as a munition designer for safety and efficiency are something that I need never be ashamed of but have just cause to be pround of.

The man who wrote the letter that was read this morning before the committee worked with former Lieutenant Colonel McMullen who "framed" the Barlow case in the first place. Colonel McMullen and the professor that wrote the letter sent in two separate reports to the Congress in 1925 similar to the letter this morning, assaulting my character and depreciating my ability. Both were proven without substance of fact, and subsequently Colonel McMullen, because of other things in which he was caught red-handed, was court-martialed from the service in disgrace as a common grafter and convicted in the Federal courts and sentenced to the penitentiary. Colonel McMullen made two separate attempts to work extortion on me in order to get my case settled and I would receive my money.

I refused to accede to his demands. Some of his cohorts are still in the Federal service, but that is another story which I am ready to go into any time that it is challenged, but it is despicable and vile and the record of which the Attorney General today does not dare to have revealed.

At this very moment, I have in my possession three separate written attacks against me by high public officials in an effort to discredit me before Members of the Congress. On top of that is the recent report to the Committee on Naval Affairs of the Advocate General of the Navy which shows that he did not hesitate in his attempt to deceive the committee by twisting the facts a complete 90° from the truth.

I want the committee to remember this too, that Admiral Cook in his testimony repeatedly said that he did not know me and that I had not consulted with him last summer. Immediately after the hearings, I went to the admiral and challenged his memory, and he admitted that his testimony was not the fact and that we had been in conference on these matters.

If the committee wants to continue in the position of receiving these vile reports, then those members of the committee who support the welcoming of these reports must take the consequences. I am prepared to more than make good in smashing every one of these vile attempts to discredit me.

Yours very truly,

LESTER P. BARLOW.

WORCESTER, MASS., March 2, 1938.

Hon. GEORGE J. BATES,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. BATES: I wish to thank you for the copy of the reply made by Mr. Barlow, and the opportunity to answer his statements.

If Mr. Barlow's letter is to be printed in the records, I would request that mine be also.

I remain,

Most sincerely yours,

ARTHUR W. EWELL.

REPLY OF ARTHUR W. EWELL, TO THE COMMUNICATION OF LESTER P. BARLOW, TO MEMBERS OF THE NAVAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D. C., DATED FEBRUARY 28, 1938

1. I will first consider the more important portions of Mr. Barlow's communica tion. On page 2 he agrees that he "saw to it that the bombs were properly prepared and the tests were properly conducted" and later he states that it was a fair test.

Fortunately, I have found a copy of the report of the French Air Service upon the tests referred to, which I enclose herewith. I will summarize the report and, if feasible, I would like to have the original returned to me.

As I stated in my previous communication, my recollection of the exact dates almost 20 years ago is uncertain. This French report shows that the tests in question were conducted on September 2, 1918, at La Ferte Alais testing field. The summary of the results on the second page shows that the efficiency of single Barlow, English "Cooper." and the 90-millimeter and 75-millimeter French bombs was approximately the same. Inasmuch as an airplane can only carry a limited weight of bombs, the proper efficiency (efficacit propre), which is the efficiency per unit weight (per pound or per kilogram of bomb weight) was always used throughout the war and is so used today. Because of the far greater weight of the Barlow bomb, the actual efficiency was about sixteenth that of the English and French bombs. (Allowing for limitations of memory over a period of almost 20 years, I stated in my previous letter less than one-half, while it should have been that for the same total weight of bomb the Barlow bomb was one-sixth that of the same weight of Allied bombs.

The third page gives in detail the observations upon the four Barlow bombs tested. Details of the tests of the other bombs are not given, presumably because of the large number of tests previously made and the well-accepted values of their efficiency. I made a similar report upon the tests but have no copy.

I have received an unsolicited letter from W. P. Buttrick, vice president of the R. F. Griggs Co., of Waterbury, Conn., formerly captain in the Ordnance Department, from which I quote: