Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-03-01
FORMER OFFICERS
APPEAL TO COURT
Injunction Petition In Naval
Battalion Matter.
POINTS OF LAW ARE RAISED
Ask That Reorganization Of Command
Be Restrained.
GEN. HARRIES AT WHITE HOUSE
Letter Of Advice From Judge Hoyt
Referred to Commanding Gen
eral for Remark.
POINTS OF LAW ARE RAISED
Ask That Reorganization of Command
Be Restrained.
GEN. HARRIES AT WHITE HOUSE

Inc controversy over the status or tn9
Naval Battalion of the National Guard OF
the District of Columbia has reached tho
District Supreme Court. in which a petit
| tion was today filed by Randolph b. Brum-
NETT and William II. I.antz who held the
| positions of executive officer and chief en-
| gineer, respectively, in the Naval Bat-
| TALON prioc to the recent order of dis
| bandment made by General HarrIes, as
| commanding officer OF the District of Co.
| lumbia Militia.
| General Harries and his adjutsnt general.
Lieut.. Col. Lloyd NJ. Brett, are named de-
| PENDANTS in the petition, which ask tho
court to restrain the carrying into effect OF
| the attempted order dsbandng tho
Naval Battalion. and to enjon the defend-
ants from preventing the petitioners from
exercising their functions and performing
| their duties as members OF the Naval Bat
TALON.
| The reorganization of the battalion Is also
sought to be prevented.
The court Is informed that Mr.. Brummete
, was commissioned April 10, 1903. by the
President o: the United States as officer
OF the Naval Battalion, and 10 receive all
the emoluments. rewards and honors as
such officer. He was duly assigned ex-
ecutive officer with the rank OF Lieutenant
commander. Mr.. LantZ received his COM
mission September 20 1902. and was as
signed chief engineer of the Naval Bat
talon, with the rank of lieutenant. Both
officers continued to exercise the duties ana
privileges of their positions antil January
n 1905, when the order dishanding the
battalion was issued.
on the date mentioned General Harries,
acting by his adjutant general issued gem
eral order No. . Headquarters District or
Columbia Militia, 'purporting To disband
and dsorganiZe the Naval Battalion. the
peti.ioners state. and To discharge them
among other officers from the service bota
of the battalion and OF the National Guard
.E..- FOL lNK
date there WAS issued To the complainants
what purported 10 be their discharges.
Ignoring Deposed Officers.
The complainan;s aIlege that ever since
the issue of the orders referred 10 Gen.
Harries has attempted, and Is still ASSERT
ing and attempting to maintain and enforce
them He is repudating, they say, and ig-
noring the existence of the Naval Battalion
and preventing the officers thereof from be-
ing recognized as officers of the National
Guard and from exercising. performing and
enjoying their status, duties and privileges
as such. This action. IL Is contended. con-
stitutes an unlawful interference with inc
status of the Naval Battalion and the Pc
titioners.
Messrs Brummett and Lantz charge
that Gen Harries had no authority In law
10 disband or to issue an order puFportinS
10 disbani the battalion or TO dlscharge OF
issue an order purpofUng 10 discharge tno
complainants.
They impugned the motive of Gen. Har.
ries in ordering the disbandment by charg-
ing that the action was not taken Tor tno
good of the service nor for lack OF EN-
cheney or usefulness of the battalion. or
from any desire TO dispense with thar
branch of the militia. The sole purpose or
the order. the petitioners aver. Is TO depriVd
certain officers. including the complainants,
of their membership, with view 10 sur
rounding the commanding officer with per-
sonal favorites. In support OF this allega-
fhatr INN aar-ft IN k.2p
ton that they were first requested TO re.
sign, and upon their refusal, and not be-
fore. was the disbandment determined
Gen Harries, the court is informed, 10
now engaged in an attempt TO reorgan!ze
or create a new Naval Battalion IN tho
riace of the legally constituted organiza-
ton upon the assumption that hls order
of disbandment is legal and enforciDle.
Gen. Harries threatens, IL is said, and -
attempting to substitute in place of bat
talon and the complainants and their fei-
low officers his personal friends aud dff-
ferent officers and enlisted men of said
battalion.
No Adequate Remedy Exists.
No adequate remedy exists the conp,ain-
ants say. to prevent Gen. Harries from en-
forcing his order disbanding the battalion.
Should the court be of opinion that the
power of the commanding general 10 dis
band Q company of the land forces for
causes prescribed ny law extends to the
still unauthorized 10 disband the whole Ma
val Battalion, because for period not less
than ninety days no division thereof has
contained less than the minimum number
of enlisted men, nor on inspection has the
battalion or any company of II fallen below
a proper standard of efficiency.
on this showing the officers named asked
the court to prevent the attempted reor-
ganlzation, TO enjoln the execution Of the
order discharging them and to colppel the
commanding general TO yaeate the order
of disbandment- The power OF the court
is also invoked to require Gen. Harr.es, his
subordinates and associates to recognize
and reinstate the complainants as officers
and members of the Naval Battalion
Attached to the bill for injunction Is an
affidavit of s. Clifford Cox, who was sur
geon of the disbanded Naval Battalion, with
rank of lieutenant. which sets forth af-
fants knowledge of the orders OF disband-
ment and discharge, together with state
ment as to the efficiency of the Naval Bat
TALON Dr. Cox also says that the facts
contained in the petition were presented oy
him 10 President RoRoseyeit. who referred
the matter TO the Attorney General. AMI
am further says that the law officer or
the government has advised the President
IN written opinion that defendants had
no authority IN law TO disband the bat
TALON under the circumstances, nor had
they right to discharge the officers IN ques-
tion.
No action, ne hays, has been taken by
the executive on this written opinion look.
ing to the correction of the course pursued
by Gen. Harries.
The petition was presented TO justice
Stafford in Equity Court No z, VINO d.
rected the issuance of rule to show
cause returnabie the 9th instaIG
Attorneys James b. Archer. IT., and John
Lewis Smith represent the compialnants-
Topic of Discussion.
The letter or advice from Solicitor GEN