The Washington times., 1906-03-01

Acting Attorney General HOyt that the
recent order of General Harries, dis
banding the naval reserve, was unlaw-
full, came this morning another sensa-
tfonai move on the part Of two of the
deposed officers.
Restraining Order Asked.
Randolph B. Brummett and William II.
Lantz. in their own behalf and for 9TH
er members Of the organization. applied
to the Supreme Court of the District
for an order restraining General Harries,
in his official capacity. as brigadier gen
eraI, commanding the District of Co
lumbia Militia and Naval Battalion, and
Lloyd NJ. Brett his adjutant general
from carrying into effect the order dis
banding the naval battalion.
The court is also asked To enjOin the
defendants from preventing the com
plainants from exercising their functions
and performing their duties as members
OF the naval battalion. The reOrganiza-
uOn or attempt to TeOrganize the naval
battalion IS sought 10 be prevented by
the petitioners
Brummett was commissioned April 10,
1893. by the President of the United
States as an officer of the naval bat
talOnS and TO receive all the emOlu-
ments, rewards, and honOTs as such
officer He was duly assigned as eXeCu-
tive officer with the rank OF lieutenant
commander. Lantz received his com
mission September %, 1902 and was as
signed as chief engineer of the naval
battalion, with the rank of lieutenant.
Both officers continued TO exercise the
duties and privileges of their positions
until January =, 1906, when the order
disbanding the battalion was issued.
Brigadier General HaTrieS acting
through Adjutant General Brett. on the
date mentioned, issued an order known
as general order No ?, purpOTtlng 10
isl, nd 1fcn~c~erffV1 4 - naval l.
talon of the District and TO discharge
the cOmplainantS. among other comfnlS-
stoned officers. from the service of the
battalion and also from the National
Guard of the District.
Lack of Authority Gained.
The compliments contend that the
order of disarmament issued by Gen
eral Hauies was without authority in
law and was not due to a lack of use
fuluess Of the battalion, but was issued
for the sole purpose Of deprivlng Ger
tain officers. including the petitioners,
OF their membership. They also say
that General Harries acted in the mat
ter with a view of surrounding himself
with personal favorites.
In proof OF this they say that no
action looking TO dlsbandment until
they, the complaiuantS. had refused TO
resign their respective offices at the re-
quest OF the commanding officer. J. =.
AICflEIs Itss anu Ht4tii lev ~ s7AAAit tA5 are
named as counsel for the complain
ants
The decision o. the Acting Attorney
General was the result Of a letter sent
TO the President of the United States
by the three men whose designations
were demanded prior TO the disbaudiug
of the Naval Battalion. Surgeon ;. Cliff
ford Cox, Lieut.. Z. b Brummet, and
Engineer William II. Lantz believed
that they were still entitled TO the rank
that their commissions indicated. and
when the battalion was abolished by
General HarTies, they appealed the mat
ter TO the President To satisfy him
self that the action of the command
ing general was legal, the President
asked the opinion of the Attorney Gen
eral regarding the legality of the action
involved in the dls0rganlzatOn of the
battalion The decision that was re
turned by the Acting Attorney General
gave the matter an aspect that had not
been anticipated. What the action of
the President viii be after the decision
is unknown at present.
"Misquoted," Says Harries.
General HarTies said this morning:
'sThe letter from the Acting Attorney
General which was alleged TO have con
demned my action in the disbanding OF
the Naval Battalion has been misquOt-
ed As far as l know the decision was
that if inefficency or minimum at
tendance below the standard set by the
National Guard existed, disorganization
was the proper step to take. I disband-
cd the Naval Militia on account Of in
efficiency. There were men in the bat
talon who were engaged as public
servants who were incapable In their
Offices The public was not getting
just return for the money invested.
Dr. : Clifford Cox said today. The
course which my brother officers and I
took was the only one left open to US
We believed THAI we had the same
rights as other citizens Until the final
action, that of diSbdhding the com
mand, was taken by General HarTieS,
we did not murmuT in spite of the
avalanche of criticism that was poured
upon uS by those in command. We
waited until our positions were threat
ened and then appealed 10 the Presi-
dent for redress. The decision of the
Attorney General followed
we hold that General Harries had
no right to disorgdnize the battali0n
for inefficiency. IN the general orders
issued by him he emhOdles an order
promu ga ted by the President. 1t says:
Whenever in the opinion Of the com
mandinS general oT the militia Of the
District OF Columbia an officer of the
SIid Ttli-ia has DcC, nee inCapacitated
for the performance Of duty. for any
reason. the commanding general viii
submit the name OF such officer TO the
Secretary Of War with the view of his
being ordered before a board of exaui-
nation TO be appointed by the said
commanding general which board
shall examine said officer as to his
physical, mental and military qualffi-
cations.
The order further provides" said
DIR. Cox that If the officer fails TO
pass satisfactory examination, his
name shall be submitted by the COM
manding general 10 the Secretary OF
War with the recommendation that it
be submitted 10 the President"
"That is the redress that ought to
have been taken by General Harries
We should then have had an oppor-
tunity TO prove that the charges made
against our lnefhCiency were false"
The finding of the needle I'm the hay
stack was an easy task compared To 10
eating the decision from Acting AttOr-
ney General HOyt
There were but two copies Of the de-
cision IN existence. one in possession of
General Harries and the other in the
hands of Attorney John Lewis Smith.
who represents Lieutenant Commander
Brummet and Chief Engineer Lantz in
their efforts to have a restraining order
issued General HaTTieS refused TO NAL ke
the contents of the letter public, on the
grounds that II would he violating the
confidence Of the President and Attor-
ney Smith held that TO make the letter
public might in some way compromise
tho interests of his clients.
General HaTries returned the decision
of the Acting Attorney General with it's
accompanying papers TO the White