The Battle Over the Old Soldiers’ Home

The Grand Army men are not at all satisfied over the removal of S. E. Street from the commandancy of the soldiers’ home, and have also been pained by the conduct of the home regarding Mr. Street’s removal. A committee of seven has been inquiring into the treatment of Mr. Livesley at the home and will report to the department encampment in June.

Some light on the facts leading up to Mr. Street’s removal is given by the following communication:

“Seattle, May 21.

“To the Editor: In your yesterday’s issue an article appeared headed ‘A Veteran With a Grievance.’ Among other things it was said: ‘It is claimed by Mr. Boardman’s friends that old soldiers are endeavoring to stir up strife in the home simply because they are dissatisfied with the manner in which the home is run.’ As an old soldier I beg permission to rise and explain.

“Last October Mr. Boardman employed and sent to the home one J. W. Hapgood and his wife to act as engineer and laundress. This man Hapgood has publicly stated in various places, time and time again, to scores of men that he was hired and sent to the home for a purpose, and when Mr. Street was ousted that purpose was accomplished. He has tried in every way to blacken the character of Mr. Street by vilifying and using the most indecent and revolting language against him that was possible. Such outrageous treatment of the soldiers’ best friend the inmates have been dissatisfied with. Who would stand idly by and remain silent while such terrible means were employed to put down our old comrade and injure the reputation of his family? Hapgood pretended to be an engineer and electrician, but his talk of ‘incidentals’ for inside and ‘arc’ for outside illuminations and ‘opening the relief or drainage cocks on the radiators to discharge the vacuum’ shows plainly his qualifications in that line.

“On the first of January the board of trustees saw fit to employ this couple for another three months and allow them to act independent of the commandant and matron’s authority, which is in direct violation of law. Mrs. Hapgood was known as a morphine fiend, which habit unfitted her for the position of laundress, yet she was given an increase in pay and allowed to order Mrs. Street from the laundry when on her round of duty. The commandant was likewise ordered from the engine room. Mr. and Mrs. Street at once reported these people to the trustees and demanded their removal from the home. The full board met the 1st of April and soon thereafter notified Mr. Street that, owing to lack of confidence in his ability to manage the home and lack of harmony, he must resign, and in their magnanimity gave him until 5 o’clock to perform that duty, as his salary could run up to that hour. The engineer and laundry employees remained some time after that under full pay. The accounts at the home were correct and the affairs at the home were in excellent shape, the best in its history.

“The commandant can only be dismissed for cause. Now what produced the cause that Mr. Street should be so ruthlessly turned out? The board of trustees forced the cause, if any existed, and if that pair that was the antagonizing element at the home was given their positions contrary to law, Mr. Street’s removal was an unlawful act. Perhaps some judge would like to decide this proposition.

“If Boardman’s friends have anything to say, we would like to hear from them. I wonder if they still have that letter written by an inmate of the home and mailed to the editor of the Tacoma Ledger, or what did become of it? Old soldiers demand fair play for every one. It was said some G. A. R. men want to be on the staff of the commandant. Better the board had a full field and staff, as we are not yet off the skirmish line.

“I don’t know anything about Gen. McMicken’s talk with Mr. Livesley, but that gentleman stated before the committee appointed by Stevens post to examine into his case that he told Mr. Boardman, when asking for a bed at 10 o’clock at night, weary, footsore and hungry, that he was an old soldier and belonged to the Sixth Wisconsin infantry during the war. He was not traveling as a soldier, but to be recognized as such by another old soldier must he carry his credentials with him? The idea is ridiculous. It is thirty years since the war closed; a great many discharge papers have been lost or worn out by time. One would suppose that Boardman and company think an old soldier without his discharge papers on his person should be branded with ‘U. S. A.’ in order to be identified. K.”