Same Streets
← All stories

A Governor's Board Takes On a Militia Commander—and a Bribery Charge

A state investigation will examine Gen. Curry's reinstatement of a Spokane company and a sergeant's claim that he paid Adj. Gen. O'Brien for a camp-store monopoly.

The story, cleaned up

A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.

Tacoma, July 31.—[Special.]—In all probability the military investigating board, to be appointed by Gov. McGraw, will not content itself with arraigning mutinous privates, but is very likely to inquire into the acts of the commander of the state militia, Brig. Gen. Curry, in reinstating Company G of Spokane after Lieut. Col. McCarthy had taken away the company's arms and ordered it under arrest.

Besides this, the board will also very likely make a thorough investigation of the statements of ex-Commissary Sergeant Tom Box, of the First Battalion, particularly as to the assertion that he paid Adj. Gen. O'Brien a large sum of money for the exclusive privilege of running a supply store on the state encampment grounds. The report of Col. Davis, of this city, who looked into the matter for Gen. Curry, has not been published, but Davis found that Box had stated at different times that he paid Gen. O'Brien from $1,000 to $2,000.

The personnel of the military investigating board has not been decided upon, Gov. McGraw stated when here today, but it is presumed that one member will be chosen from Seattle, one from Tacoma and one from Olympia, no selection being made from east of the mountains, inasmuch as one of the companies involved is from that section. The board will be composed of active members of the state militia.

So far as Gen. Curry's acts are concerned, in connection with the reinstatement of Company G of Spokane, he courts investigation, and today, while in the city, made this point, which is considered a strong one, by way of justifying his acts: 'While some of the men stated what they would and would not do, it is a fact that they never failed to obey an order. They, on the other hand, as published fully in the Post-Intelligencer today, publicly declared their intentions to obey orders, when catechised by me.'

However, Col. McCarthy stated at the time that Gen. Curry's acts in undoing what he had done in taking away the company's arms was a 'snub' and out of harmony with military rules and regulations, and finally that the matter would be heard from again, and that it would be investigated.

Gen. Curry infers that any member of the militia found guilty of acts unbecoming a member of the National Guard would be dismissed from the service. He referred to the alleged mutinous acts of members of Company G of Spokane. As regards Tom Box, his fate will probably be a dishonorable discharge, if it is shown by the military investigating board that he told lies about Gen. O'Brien.

Gen. Curry was accompanied here today by Col. Scott. He was averse to talking about Tom Box's statement regarding the personal encounter in Gen. O'Brien's office, but he did explain how it first came to his ears that Box was charging a fee for the sale of goods on the grounds. 'He first came to me and stated that he paid for his exclusive privileges, and asked me what protection I could give him. I could give him none. I knew nothing about the matter of privileges. He came again and stated that some of the men had been buying bills from one of the parties to whom he had sublet privileges, and failed to pay for the same. He wanted to know what protection I could give him. Then followed hints and gossip about what Mr. Box had said, and an investigation followed.'

A full investigation is called for as being just to all concerned, as much to dissipate hints of misconduct as to fasten any blame upon the erring parties. Gen. Curry denies emphatically that he has been influenced by any political motives, as has been intimated by some of those who criticise his military conduct.

“While some of the men stated what they would and would not do, it is a fact that they never failed to obey an order.”

— Printed in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894
Then · 1894132 years apartNow · 2026

The fight over who controlled the state militia—and who profited from a camp-store monopoly—is a reminder that public authority and private gain have long been tangled in Washington. Modern investigations of police and military procurement still turn on the same questions: who got the contract, who looked away, and whether a board will follow the money.

The original page

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-08-01. Library of Congress, Chronicling America.

From readers

No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.

About this story

From
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, AUG 1, 1894, Page 2
Rights
Public domain
Place
47.24550, -122.43833 · placed automatically
The paper in the Library of Congress catalog ↗