The Legislature Tried to Starve the Militia. Seattle’s Officers Rebelled.

The action of the legislature last Monday in cutting down the appropriation for the maintenance of the National Guard during the coming two years to $8,400, and abolishing commissioned officers, has resulted in much talk among militiamen in this city. The law has been generally condemned by guardsmen, and they unite in saying that the measure is merely an indirect way of abolishing the militia in the state. Lieut. Falcon Joslin, of E company, the father of the Coon bill in the present legislature, and Lieut. Col. J. A. Hatfield, who has been identified with the militia since its organization, both condemn the action of the legislature in unmeasured terms.

Lieut. Joslin said yesterday: “I am not particularly opposed to declaring all commissioned offices vacant. Of course the law provides that the officers shall have certain qualifications, and necessarily some of them would be reappointed immediately and the service might not be materially impaired. But the small appropriation is simply amazing. When the legislature refuses to appropriate enough to keep the guard alive, it is an indirect way of abolishing the militia. A number of the officers in this city this morning telegraphed to Capt. Coon to concur in the senate amendment, but if the appropriation is not increased the whole militia must disband.”

“Who is responsible for this ill-feeling against the militia?” Lieut. Joslin was asked.

“It is due chiefly to inefficiency and extravagance in the adjutant general’s office under the workings of the old law.”

Lieut. Joslin, speaking of the Coon bill, which is now in conference, said that it would be a wise measure anyway. It provides for the reorganization of the militia, but of course it would be of no effect if not enough money is appropriated to keep the guard in the state alive. Continuing, he said:

“The Coon bill provides for twenty-two companies all told, and each of them is allowed an armory rent of from $12 to $40 per month, or a total of about $12,000 a year for armory rent alone. If this money is not appropriated, the companies will have to give up their armories and the uniforms and guns will have to be packed and stored away. If these uniforms and guns are stored away for two years and are not attended to, the uniforms would become useless and the guns would be ruined with rust. Thus at the end of two years the state’s property, aggregating about $100,000 or more, would be totally worthless. This happy result can be attributed to the niggardliness of the present legislature. The actual expenses under the Coon bill just passed in keeping the forces together will approximate $21,000 a year, or less than one-half the amount required under the old law, and less than the appropriation of any other state for similar purposes. The California law allows each company $100 a month for armory rent, while the Coon bill only allows an average of $32.50. The expenses of maintaining the guard under the workings of the Coon bill will be about one-third less than the appropriations of other states.

“The annual expense of maintaining a National Guard as a police force of the state, not considering the question of maintenance for the purposes of general military instruction, will be about $20,000. Compare these figures with those of Seattle in maintaining the police force here for one year, and see the difference. In 1893 it cost Seattle just $65,677.39, and in 1894, $51,752.83. A single strike such as occurred at Franklin, when more than 1,000 men were in a pitched battle, and which was promptly suppressed by the militia, would cost the citizens of the state more in one week than would be necessary to support the National Guard under the Coon bill for three years. The fact that public sentiment has been outraged by the extravagance in the adjutant general’s office is no reason why we should not have a good and wise law, and the legislature, having passed the law, should certainly provide sufficient to carry it into effect.”

The lieutenant further said regarding the extravagance of Adjutant General O’Brien: “The extravagance in past years is not altogether the fault of the adjutant general’s office, for it must be remembered that the guard has been established within the past four years and has been fully equipped, and at the present time an efficient force could be summoned at an hour’s notice to assemble a complete little army of 1,000 men with arms, uniforms and field equipments. The equipments now in the possession of the companies will represent a large part of the expenditures, so that it can be seen the state’s money has not been wholly squandered; but the money now invested in these equipments will certainly be squandered if no sufficient appropriation is made to preserve the property, which, as I said before, represents $100,000 or more.”

Col. Hatfield made no attempt to conceal his wrath, and said: “The action of the legislature in granting the guard but $8,400 for the militia during the coming two years means that the guard will be disbanded, for that sum of money will not even pay the rents. It has been said by some parties that they had done away with the Pinkertons, and when they had done away with the National Guard they would have things their own way. These remarks were made by persons who represent a certain political element in the present legislature. I do not understand the motive in cutting off the official heads of the militiamen, but if the officers were all cut off, it would be just as well to abolish the guard, for it would be some time before the newly appointed or elected officers would become familiar with the work and reach a degree of efficiency.”