New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-05-07
THE BEEF INVESTIGATION.
p. TECUMsEH SHERMAN THINKS THE
COURT HAS NOT FOUND
ALI. THE TRUTH.

Sir: I write to express a bitter disappointment
which believe is shared by many Of our people,
that the Court OF Inquiry appointed 20 nvest-
gate General Mlless charges as 10 Army beef
has closed its investigation without really ex-
hausting the sources OF information on the SUBJ
ject. For the people want to know not only
a part but the whole truth. And the court has
not only refused to hear all Of the evidence
offered by General Miles. but II has also failed
entirely TO seek the hostile testimony Of civil
ians II this latter omission be necessity flow.
ing from the nature OF the court II II a serious
defect and we should have another court. broad
err In it's Jurisdiction, which can subpoena civil
ian witnesses in order to examine fully into this
question Why won't the beef people solve the
difficulty by suing somebody for libel?
The people are not much interested In the re-
port OF the court for the public. not the dis
tinguished officers composing that tribunal. are
the real judges. For instance what does II mat
ter to us whether or not they find canned boiled
beef TO be a suitable ration for the Army? We
know that the commanding General OF the
Army has charged that the food denomlnated
canned roast beef was absolutely UNIT, and was,
moreover. an experiment. And We know that It
has been proved that it was an experiment; that
IT was not roast beef at ALL but boiled beef, from
made from the leanest and cheapest beeves
that the Government inspection OF the slaugh-
er-houses was more or less OF farce; that the
military inspection OF the meat "a point much
insisted on in the Navy absolutely neg
Iected. that much Of the canned meat was
brought back from abroad where II had been
for a period as to the duration Of which we
have no unpreJudiced testimony; that 1t was bad
IN this country and on shipboard as we'll as In
the tropics that as marching ration. for which
its use is principally attempted to be Justified,
It was absolutely unfit because nauseous and
disgusting when uncooked. and that in the prac-
tically unanimous opinion OF the regimental ana
company officers-that is, OF the officers closest
10 the common soldiers-it was in every way ABB
solutely unit for human food. Therefore, what
may be the opinion OF II held by the three off,
GERS who composed the court Is. with all due re-
spect to them. Of comparatively little conse-
quence.
And presume, too, that IL the court should
crticise the commanding General for not sooner
reporting the character Of this meat, this tech
ncal point would be Of little interest TO the pub
lie, though I confess that personally / attach
some Importance TO the view that the court may
have taken on this question AS son OF
commanding General Of the Army have in
herted what may be a prejudiced opinion that
the commanding General is not subordinate 10
the heads OF departments such as the Commits
sary-General, who are his interiors in rank and
infinitely his interiors in service. and therefore
should not report to them. To me It seems that
when the commanding General directed that
no more Of this meat be sent TO his Army he
covered the point; his judgment as to the meat
was placed on record, and all necessary criti-
cisms were implied
But the point In which the public is interested.
and as TO which IL still remains in doubt. is the
question concerning the refrigerated beef why
old the court stop its investigation on that
point? Because II was proved that the beef was
embalmed. and the beef people had no further
evidence TO offer? II the report Is to that effect
we'll and good. But II the court finds TO the
contrary. why did 1t stop? Because General
Miles had no further evidence 10 offer? NO FOR
he had more And even admitting that he had
no more, should the court have stopped there!
II was not General Miles's duty 10 prove that
the beef poisoned. He had only TO prove
sufficient grounds to justify his charges. II Is
the people Of this country who are interested IN
having the entire truth proved. And 1t was
upon this court that the duty devolved OF prob
ing out the truth. And IL the court. stopping
whore n did has reported that this beef was
NOT chemically treated, in my opinion IL has not
unite done its full duty II may show reasons
FOR discrediting the testimony OF the of1cers VINO
analyzed the meat and found chemicals In IT, II
NAV impeach the veracity Of the officers and
soldiers who testified that an agent OF the con-
tractors admitted that the beef was "processed';
II may explain away the letter OF the packers
Offering 'processed" meat; and 1t may even
show good reasons for relying upon the testi-
mony. doubtful in its nature. OF the interested
witnesses for the packers as against the disinter-
ested testimony OF officers and soldiers.
But It's report will be most carefully scru-
tinzed TO discover and analyze its reasons Tor so
doing. and II those reasons are not good and suf-
ficient the public will rely upon the word OF It's
officers and disregard the opinion Of the court
But even II the report Is satisfactory on 'ha'
point. It is not conclusive on the subject. There
are yet many witnesses without whose evidence
no satisfactory report be made. AS An ex-
ample there is in Chicago wel-known chemist
who is employed in preparing formula and
chemicals 10 process beef for the packers VINO
furnished the beef to the Government He has
made statements TO this effect to reputable wit
nesses. and these facts have been reported TO
the court Naturally. he will not volunteer his
testimony or make any AFFIDAVIT. for 10 do so
would hurt his business. Now. do not know
whether or not the court has attempted 10 get
such witnesses. II II has not, submit that its
decision is not conclusive or entitled TO much
weight. II II has tried to do so but failed, IL
should have reported that It was unable fully to
investigate the truth.
am not attacking the moral integrity. but the
mental attitude of the court. II certainly
seems q little hard that the people cannot learn
the truth. and that the whole question seems TO
be degenerating into a personal fight for or
against General Miles. But the most distressing
part OF 1t all Is that the testimony OF any inter
ested witnesses for the Beef Trust seems TO be
given so much more weight than the word OF
the officers who led their men up San Juan Hill
p. TECUMSEH SHERMAN.
New Nav