New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-11-16
GENERAL ROE UPHELD.
CHARGES OF GENERAL BUTT HAD NOT
THE SLIGHTEST BASIS.
GOVERNOR CoNCURs WITH THE OPINIONS
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
THE ADJUTANT GENERAL

llE ADJOIAN GENERAL.
lBr TELEGRAPH TO THE TRBuSEl
Albany. Nov. Ex-Governor Roosevelt gave
out to-day the opinion OF Attorney General
Davies upon the charges preferred by General
Butt against Major General Roe. In brief, the
Attorney General holds that the assignment of
troops TO New-York armories on Dewey Day
was made for military reasons. and therefore
was legal
Governor Roosevelt week ago stated that
Adjutant General Andrews had informed him
that in his opinion General Butts charges were
not OF a sufficiently grav, nature to warrant
General Roe being subjected to court martial
Governor Roosevelt, after making public Attor-
ney General Davles's opinion, made the follow
ing official statement:
In the matter Of the charges against Major Gen
Returned TO the Adjutant Generals office:
and the Attorney General The power OF the Major
General 10 take the action he did is so obvious
consult the Attorney General There is no room
for difference OF opinion as to what the law means
To assign quarters TO a military organization IN
armory Is, OF course, to use that armory for
military There y not aS command
ing the Guard has acted in the matter not only
In strict compliance with the law. but with entire
propTiety and in the only way that he could act
consistently with the interests OF the Guard ana
of the State
ATTORNEY GENERALS OPlNloN'
Attorney General Davies's opinion was as fol-
lows
Albany November Il. 1899.
To the Honorable the Governor.
Dear Sir: / beg leave to acknowledge the receipt
Of your favor of November 8. inclosing copy
OF the charges and e sn6 kns asa y opinion
upon the same .,...uo. .ra,,s, ce,sraI
Roe is that on the occasion OF the recent parade
in New-York City in honor OF Admiral Dewey ne
York for the purpose Of participating in such pa
rade to be quartered in certain armorles wthout
jurisdiction the armories in question were located,
without the consent or direction OF the Governor
and without requiring them to give bona OF m
demnity against loss or injury to the armories or
The charges are formulated upon the theory that
the alleged conduct Of the Major Genera! was n IN
o 9TS sss Code as amended by ch'P'sF O Of the D
In my opinion this position IS untenable, and
and Specifications are deemed to be true The Major
The first clause OF Section 1i3 reads follows:
"Armories shall be used only by troops ana eadet
CORPS Of organizations of the National Guard ana
Naval Militia, and for such other military purposes
as may be approved 4y the seems to- furnish
abundant authority for the course pursued BY the
Major General, with the approval OF the Adlutan'
General
QUESTION NOT DEBATABLE.
It would seem not to be debatable that the use
of an armory by a military organization or by
body of troops is Of the same tor mini
tary purpose" bare statement or the proposition
carries with II its own demonstration
After providing that the armorl.s snail De useu
only for the purposes above enuInetaIed' 9ecnsU lin
143 then provides for certain exceptions 10 wiz
For their use by Grand Army posts ana other VET
eran organizations as provided in Section lo OF Ie
Military Code: second for their use by educational
institutions where military instruction Is dhpdI teu
with the approval Of the commanding onlcer ana
brigade commander; third for their use IN man,
ner not clearly defined upon occasions OF NatioIdI
inheritance upon the recommendation OF the Major
Genera the brigade commander ana tne ol .b III
charge Of the armory Ihen I0CWS t a he NAV
prescribe the Governor shall have the power 10 al
low the use Of such armorles for such other puI-
poses as may appear expedeIt 10 mn roro ma
however, that armory snalI De useu nOIc nan
twice nor more than twenty Gays III me ass s5a.e
in any one year. and then onhcPnI the delivery 10
inTTsdiction the arnory is ecatedfbf a bond APP
proved by him and executed py the person assoTa re-
tion partnership or corporation poposns ao u he
such commanding officer, ,enp. IN an amount ap-
proved by him, conditioned etc f4.---., -.
It is clear that none OF tHsse
any application to the case under CONSIDERATION
that heing clearly covered, We have already seen
nv the general provision contained In the nrst
clause of Section 49, II follows that tne cohsel VI
tba brteade commander the officer In charge or the
armory and the consent or direction OF me ooV-
ernor are necessary only in the excepted cases
As to the provision for the giving OF bond in
my opinion that provision Is aPpca9e Sny no iee
last exception-to wit TO the use OF rne ma,
deem expedent. In any event, IT applies only 10
the excepted cases and by no known rules OF
construction IL be held TO apply 10 cases OF
The use Of armories by the National Guard, the
Naval Militia or for other military purposes.
For the reasons stated ] am or the opinion that
iation OF the law by the Major General yours
raeenectfnlly !. c. DAVIES,
Attorney General.
R1rTr ARsFNT IN EUROPE.