Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-03-16

of their duties. to make a further personal
inspection, and did again, January -. 1904
make an additional personal inspection. 10
justify postponeuent OF what appeared
to be plain duty In the Hight OF the a0-
verse report OF the duly ordered inspection
of February o. 1906. Each of such inspec-
lions made by these defendants January
and %. 1905. were duly ordered and proper
notices thereof were duly issued to the COM
handing officer Of Naval Battalion Upon
such personal inspection on the oates men
toned the defendants found that the con-
dition OF the Naval Battalion had not Inn
proved since the report OF the inspector
general dated April 10. f0o6. but. on tn9
contrary had deteriorated: that there was
50 much Of INSTRUMENTATION and neglect OF
duty On the part Of the members OF the
battalion; 80 much pickering, such mck
Of discipline. such general confusion IN me
property and property accounts. 30 m ,a,ns1
Impossible to further continue the struggle
or to reasonably expect THAT the Naval Bat
TALON In It's then condition could ever reAcn
a proper standard of efficiency or that us
maintenance in such condition could be JUS
t!ded
Incompetent to Manage Ship.
The defendants further state that the
government Of the United States had as
signed te the Naval Battalion tho United
States steamship Puritan. with all proper
which is Of great value. and as commanding
officer Of the District militia Gen. Harries
has a direct stewardship OF such property.
and Is personally responsible to the govern
ment of the United States therefor. In the
then condition of the Naval Bcttalton. 1t is
declared It's officers and members were ut
teriy incompetent to manage or man the
Puritan. and were so completely without
drill, discipline and experience that to be
allowed to further use the vessel would III
volve great danger and liability of damage
to the steamship and OF accident to them
selves. After a thorough inspection and
conscientious review OF all the conditions
the defendant. Harries. as brigadier gen.
eral through the defendant, Brett. adju-
tant general. the oath of January, 1906, Is
sued general orders No. 2. dfsbanding the
Naval Battalion of the National Guard Of
the District of Columbia, and honorably
dischargfng the officers connected Herewith.
These defendants state that all of the
aforesaid acts were done under and by viz
tue of the authority of the statutes in such
case made and provided.
AS to the allegation that the respondents
are attempting to reorganfze create
new Naval Battalion and to substitute In
its place and In place of the complainants
the personal friends and other and different
officers and enlisted men. the defendants
aver the truth to be that at the present
time, and long before the filing of the bill,
a Naval Battalion. consisting of four divi-
sions was organized upon the disband-
ment of the old Naval Battalion, under and
by virtue Of the provisions of the statute.
The new Naval Battalion Is fully Differed,
and is having It's regular drills. The or
ganization of the new Naval Battalion was
complete prior to the date OF the fling of
the bill, its officers were all duly appointed
and commissioned Heretofore and other
wise the organization perfected will APP
pear by reference to a properly certified
transcript of the official records of the
headquarters of the District of Columbia
militia filed as an exhibit. All the officers Of
the Nacal Battalion, as shrown by Its ex-
Mblt- including the Office of lieutenant com
mander, and office of chief engineer, from
which the complainants respectively were
honorably discharged. have been duly ap-
pointed by the President of the United
States in the exercise of his prerosative as
of the date shown in the exhibit, and these
defendants state that at the time of the
filing of this bill. and at the present time
there was not and is not before the court
any matter over which the court has ju-
rtsdiction.
Statement of Commander Stratton,
Among the exhibits filed by the respon-
dents Is an affidavit of Samuel w. STRAIT
ton. commander of the Naval Battalion,
who states that when he assumed COM
mand he found the battalion in a dlsor-
ganzed condition and decidedly lacking in
discipline, both of which conditions, not
outstanding strenuous effort ON his part,
Increased until he felt compelled to call the
attention of the commanding general to
the state of affairs. Inspections were duly
ordered and notice posted, Commander
Stratton says. and he also certifes to the
private inspections referred to In the re-
spondents answer. He Is of opinion, he
says. that the order of disbandment was
the outcome of the inspections. Prior to
March j, 1876 deponent says new commits
sions were issued by the President of the
United States to fill vacancies caused by
the disbandment of the Naval Battalion
and that reorganization of the same was
completed by muster in of enlisted men:
that the new organization is now engaged
IN regular drills and that its standard of
efficiency and discipline is far superior to
that of the organization which was dis
banded