The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-05-08

possible Tood for the troops. The court
pronounces this act of the commissary
general of subsistence a colossal error
for which there is no palliation.
The court finds that there was neg
lect in Cuba. and to less degree in
Porto Rico, on delivering the refriger-
ated beef
THE court. says the report, "does
not wish to state the case more strong
ly than to: say that the finding appears
to be warranted that too much time was
consumed in distributing this perishable
article. The fault, if any there was. lies
with the brigade and higher command
ing officers and their commissaries and
quartermasters, but the Testimony is
not 50 definite or specific as to warrant
the naming by the court of any partic,l-
lar officers"
They say that the refrigerated beef
was at first received with great salts
faction. There is also censure OF the
delay in unloading the refrigerating ap-
paratus of Swift & Co. at Santiago.
AN appeal by the contractors agents
to General Shafter for an order on the
quartermaster to expedite the delivery
from the transport of the refrigerating
plant did not effect any result. The
delay in this matter was the cause OF
serious loss"
The court is of the opinion that the
canned roast beef was not suitable as
a travel ration on transports, consider
ing the absence of cooking facilities and
the absence from that ration of fresh
vegetables and condiments. For use on
shore as field ration, where the COM
panies had their camp cooking equip
ment and vegetables were available,
canned roast beef is suitable. for issue,
say two days in 10, but not for two days
in succession. In some organizations 1T
seems to have constituted at least one
| half of the meat ration, and until after
| the surrender the troops had no means
for cooking other than was practical
with the individual kit carried. For
such extensive use, or any use exceed
ing one day in five, the court finds this
beef unsuitable.
1.-THE refrigerated beef is. in the opin-
ion of the court suitable ration for
troops when 1t can be issued to them
in good condition"
AS to whether anything better than
the beef was available for ration, the
poinion is:
"First-That on the transports the
| reliance on canned fresh and canned
corned beef was wise, but that the
| canned fresh beef was less desirable
| than the corned.
"Second-That while bacon is not re-
| garded as suitable constant food in
campaign for troops serving in the
| tropics, combined with the vegetables
| that were available it would have been
more suitable and fit than the I'M
| known and unfamiliar canned roast
| beef eaten direct from the can.
| "Third-That the use of refrigerated
| heef on shore. after the troops had Sc
cured convenient harbors and land ia
! cilities, was wise and desirable. That
| the court believes that there was no
| better food available"
| Couldn't Land Cattle.
The opinion is expressed that it would
| have been impracticable to land beef
| cattle on the hoof in Cuba, the remark
of the court on this point being as fol-
lows:
1.-THE commanding general of the ex-
petition characteriZes as absurd such
proposition, and many of his COM
manding officers, whose opinions are
given in the testimony, conceded with
him in the impracticability
The court concurred in the opinion
of those men whose experience in &C
tive military service dated from 1861.
An instruction of the president to the
court was:
IF the packers of the country are
guilty it must be known Replying
to this direction the court says:
1.-The court finds that at the out
break of hestilities in April, 1898, that
the packers of canned beef were en-
gagged in the manufacture of an arti-
Gle of standard quality, well known tc
the trade and the subsistence depart
| ment under the name of canned roaS1
beef The methods of packing Their
in use were the same as those habitu.
| ally employed in the preparation of the
meat as an article of commerce, anc
the court does not find that they under
went any change during the progress
Of the war. The large purchases fol
| = re f1,n How RI n 6
the months of May and June, 1898
were made-not at the solicitation Of
the packers, or in consequence of eff
forts put forth by them for that pur'
pose-but by the order and upon the
initiative of the comm.ssary genera
Of subsistence, such purchases beint
made in every case by officers of hi
department in the usual manner"
On other points connected with thu
packers, the court says:
although the subject of the read
justment of accounts between thu
United States and the contractors wa
not referred to the court, it appear
! from the testimony that whenever an.
cans have been found to be de.ectiv'
subsequent. to their original deliver,
to the subsistence department, sucl
have been replaced in every instance.
Replying specifically to other ques
,, tons set out by the president, the cour
says:
"That the canned beef was describ
| ed as fresh because it was not sailed
but that the meat was not old or stale.
Not Doctored.
THAT the refrigerated beef furnishe,
t the army was not doctored or treate
; with any agency other than cold air.
"That the meat purchased for tn
army was the meat of commerce.; tina
both kinds-refrigerated and canned
, | We're such as were well known in bot
{ hemispheres as commercial articles, o
| which there is, and has been, YER
l large consumption, not only by tn
t trade generally. but by the unite
r States navy and by the armies an
: navies of Europe
: THAT no reports of unfitness or un
, suitability of the beef sent from N
! United States were forwarded to tn
, | war department by any general ON
: Ger serving in Cuba or Porto Rlco VIII
, | the field generations were in progress
> nor were any such reports receive