Salt Lake Tribune | 1919-03-09 | Page 24 | U.S. Uniform Ban to be Disregarded

0. S, UI01 Bl 10 BEJOEGMDEDj Western Headquarters Will Permit Discharged Men to Wear Service Suits. j l Special to Tile Tribune. j SAX FRANCISCO, March 8. It was auuounced today at headquarters of the western department, United j States army, that the military has do! intention at this time oi attempting to . enforce tho rulo which says, ''Uniforms ''Uni-forms must bo discarded by officers and enlisted men who have been discharged dis-charged from military service when thev return to the place of their enlistment, en-listment, and not longer than three months after discharge." Major General V. F. Morrison, department de-partment commander of the westcru divisiou, said today that uniforms may be worn oa government ceremonial occasions, oc-casions, such as a reception to tho president, funeral of the president or any similar affair for which army men wo'uld have to wear full-dress uniform. Ou such occasions, ho said, discharged men may wear uniforms whether they are invited to participate individually or as members of regiments of vetorans. They also may wear uniforms at regimental regi-mental reunions, but these are -the only exceptions that aro mado if tho letter of tho law were carried out as to the regulation of discarding uniforms when men have received their discharges. It was pointed out that if the law was to be lived up to tho enforcement would be up to the civil authorities, as violators would be civilians and. arrests ar-rests would bo made by department of justice mcfl or federal marshals. Prosecutions Prose-cutions would be made in the federal courts, as tho law ou United States military uniforms is defined in section 125, act of congress of June 3, 1916. The announcement liiday from the western division of the United States army, affecting the discarding of uniforms by men discharged from the service, created, no end of apprehension appre-hension in Salt. Lake yesterday, aud many of the rotur'ued soldiers who had not donned civiliau clothes believed thnt they were liable to prosecution. Many inquiries reached Major Fred Jorgenson, adjutant general of Utah, for advice in tho matter anil he, in turn, poiutcd out tho law of 1916. which prohibits pro-hibits tho wearing of uniform by a discharged man. But he assured his inquirers that it was his belief that tbo war department did not intend to adhere ad-here rigidly to strict enforcement, because be-cause of the fact, that many of the men who are just out of the army were unable un-able on such short notice to provido themselves with civilian clothes. Major Jorgenseu called attention to the recent act of congress which gave tne men permission to retain uniforms permauently. This, he believes, was interpreted by many as meaning tha,t they could wear the uniforms indefinitely, indefi-nitely, and the ruling by the war department de-partment that tbey should not be worn after the men had left the army came as a complete surprise to them. After reading the dispatch from San-Francisco San-Francisco last night, Major Jorgensen was much relieved to understand that discharged soldiers who are unablo to provide themselves with civiliau clothes would not in any way be subject to molestation or question as to tiie pro-prict3' pro-prict3' of wearing tho military uniform.