Press enter after choosing selection

Concerning Company A's Election

Concerning Company A's Election image
Parent Issue
Public Domain
OCR Text

Editor Argus:- Some of the members of company A do not seem to understand the position Lieut. H. D. Merrithew hts taken in the protest of Sidney V. Millard as captain of said company. In the certifieate of electioD of commissioned offlcers of said company, the presiding officer of the election must certify that the offlcers were elected solely by members of the company, who have been duly mustered into the service of the state. ïliis, Lieut. Merrithew, who was presidine officer, did except as to five persons who had been admitted to the eo.npany and took part in the election, but according to general order nnmber one, issued January lst, 1886, were not consideied in the service of the state and therefore had no nght to vote, but dld vote and gave S. VV. Millard two votes more than a majority. Tuis question should, according to section 11, page 97, of rules and regulations governing M. S. T., have been decided by the Judge Advocate but was not so decided. In justice to Lieut. Merrithew and members of the company, I think it should go to the proper authority for a decisión and not be decided by the military board, who have no authority to decide in a contested election. Section 11 pa?e 97, rules and regulation governing M. S. T. says: "The Judge Advocate shall have the care and management of all things lating to the admimstration of justice aoiong the military forces of the state. 11e shall in like marmer, report in all cases of eoutested elections . " Therefore j S. YV.Millard was not properly commissioned as captain of Company A, tst Regt., M. tí. ï.


Ann Arbor Argus
Old News