Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1908-12-16
AIexanSia Gazette.
TEntered ct the PostonBce Of Alexandria, VI
giniA, as sscond-class matter.l
TIE MEMORY OWNERSHIP.

| To the Editor Of the Alexandra Gazette'
We read with considerable surprise
vour editorial in Saturdays issue OF
your paper, 10 reference to the contro-
yersy over ArmOry Hall, and We
btarlly agree with you in your express
sioos OF regret, and most respectfully
ask that you publish this communities
/ ~ for the information Of the citizens Of
Alexandria.
We wish to state that bal the mill
tary author ties disbsDded he Alezau-
dria Light IofaDtry 10 the manner pre-
scribed by iaE, tle transaction would
have been ga i-jactorv to as; tbst is. by
thu proper recuG pe' Jdstions, iospec'io'
ard motif alton, as 'Sss done 10 Oc'ober
1904, when the geDIleua who orgaulz-
the new military company requested lb'
state inspector 10 'ec 'mmeDd the dls-
bandment of the Alexaudra Light To-
fsnirg In order to teSch tbs cit zens OF
Alexandris q lesson, for DOT giving to'
military company proper support Ibis
Gss published by the State and sent to
all military organizations in the eta e.
Twas at this time that the under.
signed we're elected Captsin and fret
eutebtsBt Of the company, which We
did uUder very adverse circumstances,
and demODstra ed that the citizens we're
not guilty of non support, as during the
three years of our administration ne were
enabled through their support 10 place
about 81, 800 in Improvements on the
Armory sud have 1887 10 the state
treasury to our credit, besides paying
the running expenses aud having a
ta'ance ln the company treasury.
We claim that the company was 10
perfectly sound condition 10 every
respect at the time twas dista 1ded by
the governor without notice or any ap.
parent reason other than to give the
Armory to the new military company,
and we are in position to prove tha'
the oreauization of the new company
vas practically completed before our
c0mIa1y was disbauded; that is, that +.
l. 5lsy maker would be captain aud O.
Il. Nay one OF the lieuleDauts Of the
new company II our company was dis.
banded. This assertion is contained 10
a letter from Ool. w. ]. Perry t. the
a 4iutaat general under dsts Of April
90th, several days before the disbaud.
ment. We also have letter from Col.
Perry under da,e Of April 16tb, 10 which
be states that the company is in sound
condition.
There was also sent 10 the s6jutant
general letter written by Jas. E. King
which vas requested to be taken 10 con.
necti0n with the dist andment of our
company; this letter has been refused Us,
although 1t was used as q concealed
weapon against our company. We have
good authority for the statement tha
the names of two prominent politicians
are named In 1t. Are these honorable
means to deal with such csses Aud how
did poi tics become 10 be ipj jscted In this
matter?
This with the fact that the gentleman
that granted 40 Injunction on the
Armory, putting our company out and
putting another in, hsd previously tried
to taVe us obtain ten year lta'e on the
Armory for him. This proporsition was
promptly turned down.
There are other circumstances that We
cou d mention, but We believe that the
above is sufficient reason for the stand
that we have taken, ald we believe that
the public will uphold us in our position
In this matter, after learning the true
conditions.
In conclusion We will s'ate that we
do not expect or will we receive one cent
gain from the Armory litigation, no mat
ter what the urmir ion might be, but
will continue to fight the methods thst
haze been employed against US, and
place the Armory 10 possession Of the
ughlful owners.
We thank you for the publication Of
this communication ald leave the ver-
dict of our actions in the hands Of our
fellow citizens.
Yours respectfully,
p. J. MURPHY
W. W. DEMAINE.