Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-03-16
DISMISSED BY COURT
Rule to Show Cause in Naval
Battalion Case.
JUSTICE STAFF0RD'S ACTION
Answer Of the Respondents Placed on
Record Today.
AS TO STANDARD OF EFFICIENCY
Right to Sue General Harries and Ad-
jutant General Brett in Official
Capacities Denied.
JUSTICE STAFF0RD'S ACTION
AS TO STANDARD OF EFFICIENCY

late this afternoon dismissed the rule to
SOW cause issued against Brig en- George
H. Harries commanding the District of
Columbia militia, and his adjutant general
Lieut. Col. Lloyd M. Brett. in connection
witt the Injunction petition fled by Ran
dolph B. Brummett and William H. Lantz.
Messrs. Brummett and Lantz who were
formerly executive officer and chief en-
glneer. respectively, of the Naval Battalion
of the National Guard of the District Of
Columbia. are seeking the intervention Of
the court to prevent the execution of an
order of Gen Harrles dfsbanding re Naval
Battalion.
They also ask the court to decide that
they are officers of the National Guard and
entitled to be so recognized by Gen. Har-
rtes and his associates.
The answer to the rule was filed today by
Assistant United States Attorney Stuart
Mcnamara and Maj William s. Hodges.
Judge advocate general. District Of Column
bia Militia. on behalf of Gen Harries and
Col Brett. Denial of the right of the petit
TONERS to maintain the action against them
as officers of the guard is made In the an
swer, which declares The petitioners to be
no longer officers members of the Ma
tional Guard
Inefficiency Is assigned by Gen. Harris
as the sole motive for his order disband-
iHG tnt ndSdi DatI3ifOn. tie aiSO declares
that the court Is without Jurisdiction in the
controversy. since the naval battalion mas
been legally reorganized. and new officers
appointed by the President to the position
from which the complainants were honor
ably discharged.
Neither Gen. Harries nor Adjt. Gen. Brett
was present at the hearing today. but poIh
os the complainants We're In court with
their counsel. Attorneys James B. Archer,
IT, ana John Lewis Smith. and listened
attentfr@ly to the arguments for and
against their petition.
Answer of Respondents.
The joint answer Of the respondents ad-
mitS the citizenship of the complainants
but denies that they filed the bill of COM
plant as members and officers of the Naval
Battalion of the National Guard of the
District of Columbia, as 1t denies that the
complainants or either of them are MEM
ber5 of the Naval Battalion. The right to
sue the defendants In their official capacities
is also denied. The respondents admit the
portion of the bill of complaint touching
The commissions of the complainants to
during the pleasure of the Presi-
dent As to the right OF emoluments being
carried by the commissions strict proof is
demanded.
!, Is further admitted by the respondents
that Brummett and LantZ were assigned
executive officer and chief engineer. re-
spectively. but 1t Is urged that upon the
disbandment of the Naval Battalion these
OfucPrS were HONQrdDiS ufSCndF8eQ unOeF
provision OF law and the President has ap-
pointed officers in their places, namely.
Louis A. Fisher. lieutenant commander, has
appointment being made February II, 1906
ana Frank Van Week, chief engineer. whose
appointment was made February 3D. 1906,
both commissions having issued before the
fling OF the bill OF complaint.
The defendants aver that the cessation
OF the pleasure Of the appointing power
during which the appoientees. the complain
ants were TO hold the Offices in question was
indicated and established by the act of the
appointing power in exercising his jurfsdic-
ton 10 appoint new officers TO ~-cceed the
Complainants.
Order of Disarmament.
TIE Issuance Of the order of disbandment
which is complained of is acknowledged
by the respondents. who also affirm the
allegation of the bill that since January -.
1906 they have attempted TO enforce the
orders and have refused to recognize the
complainants as officers of the Naval Bat
talon or OF the National Guard The de-
PENDANTS say that they have very properly
refused to recognize the complainants as
officers of the Naval Battalion or of the
National Guard from the day In question.
because in fact and In truth the complain
ants then and there ceased to be members
and officers OF the Naval Battalion and Ma
tonal Guard. and the defendants have no
right authority to treat the complain
ants such members or officers of the
Naval battalion ana NATIONAL ana
that At the time of the fling of the bin
thp positions vacated by the honorable dis
charge OF the compliments were filed by
the appointment of such positions OF GER
tain other officers by The President of the
United States As to the allegations that 'ali
OF which constituted an unlawful interfer-
ence with the status of said battalion and
your complainants,' the defendants say
that the allegation is gratuitous, and the
same il. in so far as II may be material.
denied.
Inference as to Motive.
The inference contained In the bill of COM
plant that the motive actuating Gen. Har-
ries in disbanding the Naval Battalion was
not the good Of the service is denied by the
respondents. who also deny that the dis
bandment was not due to the want of eff
cheney usefulness OF the battalion.
AS To the request for the resignation of
Mr.. Brummett and other officers the re-
spondents say: In point of actual sequence
with regard 10 time II is true that the res
ignation OF complainants and of one other
y. Clifford Cox. formerly surgeon, with the
rank OF lieutenant, and attached to the
Naval Battalion, was asked officially prior
to the Issuance of general orders No. ., dis
banding the Naval Battalion and that the
same occurred In that wise because 1t had
been adjudged that the deplorabie lack of
discipline. want OF harmony and the mex
cusabiy bad condition of stores, property
and papers In the battalion and the irnpos-
siedity Of continuing the battalion with any
chance OF even appruximating proper
standard OF efficiency was due to the con-
nectlon of the compliments and Cox with
the battalion. and as am expedient amicabie
IN Its nature these defendants endeavored
IN the good or the service TO procure IL DOS.
sihle. the resignation of the compiaina nj 3
and Surgeon Cox. The DISARMAMENT of the
battalion was under consideration for more
than year prior to the issuance Of general
orders No. 2. and IL was found that the
nucleus OF all the failures of the Naval Bat
talon conferred in the connection of the com
plainants and Cox. and ii was endeayored. II
possible. TO retain the several divisions
known as the Naval Battalion by rid6ina
them OF the root of the evils"
Below Standard of Efficiency.
BY an inspection, the answer states. held
February o. 1905. II was found that the
battalion had fallen below the proper stand
ard of efficiency, and even in it's best aspec,
was no longer worth the expense of main.
tenance. Notwithstanding this report, which
advised the discontinuance of the three d.
visions constituting the Naval Battalion, the
defendants, hoping for the better, endeay-
ored TO improve the conditions OF the bat
talon to the end that 1t might be brought
TO that degree OF efficiency and discipline
which would justify its continuance as /
NJ Etaa.