Custer weekly chronicle. [volume] (Custer City, S.D.) 1890-1931, 1899-05-13
INQUIRY COURTS
REPORT GIVEN OUT
Considerable Criticism of General
Miles in the Findings Of
Beef Board,
EMBAlMING CHARGE UNF0UNDED
Commanding General Censured Tor
Not Reporting Complaints
About Becf---Packers
Are E~xonerated.

Washington, May 9.-By direction of
the president, who approves the hnd-
ing, Acting Secretary OF war MelKle-
john has made public the report ana
findings of the military court appoint
ed 10 investigate the charges mace ny
Major General Miles, commanding the
army. that the beef supplied to the
army during the war with SPAN was
unfit for use of the troops. ,
There is more or less criticism OF
General Miles in various parts OF the
report. Probably the most direct IN
stance is the one which states mat pc
yond the criticism of officers tound
elsewhere in the report, the court
feels that against none of the Officers
commanding corps, divisions, brigades
and regiments and their stan oilccFs
should a charge Of guilt he brought.
.'Thp court also finds that the major
general commanding the army a no
sufficient justification for alleging mat
thc refrigerated beef was embalmed or
was unfit for issue to troops. 1t also
finds hat he committed an error IN
that. having belief or knowledge, as
claimed. that the food was unfit, that
if caused sickness and distress; that
some of il was supplied under the pre-
tense of experiment, that other beef
WAS cmbalmed, he did not Immediately
rcr If such knowledge or belief TO the
secretary OF war to the N that n
proper remedy might be promptly APP
Piled
Colonel Maus, inspector general on
General Miles staff, is ccnsured for ms
failure To call attention TO charges
concerning the beef at Chickamauga
contained in a report of inspection
made by DR.. Tor Major Daily on the
goth of October last, in which he stated
his belief that the beef was chemically
treated. =.
Commenting upon General Miles
testimony that he had first formed the
o@piniOn last August that the rcfrlger-
atcd beef had been processed, the
court remarks:
"Whatcver the date upon which he
formed n belief or Il reasonable sus-
picion that the health of the troops
was being impaired by the use of dele
tcrious food, it was his boundcn duty,
i'm the opinion Of the court, instantly
~ NbNN Wv W ~
within his control to ascertain the ac-
tual fact and to correct the wrong, If
any should be found. IT should have
been possible TO secure samples OF the
beef supplied to the army by contrac-
tors and To have submitted these sam
pies to chemical examination which
would have resulted in the detection
of the presence or absence of bOric
and ~salicylic acid, or any other chem
zeal that may have been used as a
prescrvativc agent. Yet no such pre-
caution ms that suggested was taken
by the major general commanding at
that time or at any subsequent time
SO far ms has been learned by the
court"
EmbaIming Charge Not Sustained
The court finds that allegations of
the major general commanding to the
effect that the refrigerated beef sup
piled TO troops was treated with chem
zeal ~prcscrvativcs have not been cstab-
liShed.
The court also finds that so much of
the allegations Of the major general
commanding in respect to the canned
roast beef, as relates to its unsuitable
ity for food, rs actually used OH the
transports, and as to its extensive or
long continued use rs a field ration,
are sustained. I'm the opinion of the
court none OF the other allegations in
regard to the canned fresh beef are
sustained.
The evidence shows that Colonel
John +. Weston, assistant commissary
.A,,n. .f u,nl.,t,,,-, ,.,,,larlaI
the adoption of the canned roast beef
Il component of the field ration, and
to this extent he is responsible.
The report places the quantity Of
roast beet purchased for the
war by the commissary department at
6,si7,l ia pounds, including $4,000
pounds which was brought from Liv-
and other English ports. This
amount is characterized as excessive,
and the commissary general General
is severely criticised in sew
cral parts of the document on this
score. One of the severest rcbukcs is
follows:
considering the little use that had
been made Of this beef in the regular
army, the probability that the voIun-
were entirely ignorant Of il, that
its use as a part of the field ration had
never been sanctioned by the president
or secretary of war, the court can but
the action of the commits
sary general of subsistence as w
rantcd and reckless in that he ordered
the purchase Of such enormous guam
titles of a food that was practically UNI
tried and unknown, and the court so
finds. The court also finds that there
Is no ground for imputation whatever
Of any other actuating motive, on the
part Of the commissary general, than
he earnest desire to procure the best
possible food for the troops. The court
)ronounccs this act of the commissary
of subsistence a colossal error
Tor which there is no palliation."
Neglect in Delivering Beef.
The court finds that there was neg
cct in Cuba and to Il less degree III
'uerto Rico, in delivering the refrig-
beef.
"The fault, if any there was" says
he report, "rested with the brigade,
md higher commanding officers and
heir commissaries and quartermas-
ers, but the testimony is not so def
lite or specific as to warrant the nam
ng by the court of any particular Of
The refrigerated beef is, in the opin-
of the court, n suitable ration for
roops when it can be issued to them
II good condition.
BANKER STOUT ACQUITTED.