The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1899-05-13
INQUIRY COURTS
REPORT GIVEN OUT

considerable OTltlctSm OF ueheTai
Miles in the Findings Of
Beef Board,
EMBALMlkG CHARGE uNfouKDED
Commanding General Censured for
Not Reporting Complaints /
About Beef---Packers
Are Exonerated.
Washington, May BY direction Of
the president. who approves the ind
ing, Acting Secretary of War Meikle.
john has made public the report II
findings of the military court appoints
ed to investigate the charges made by
Major General Miles, commanding the
army, that the beef supplied to the
army during the war with Spain was
unfit for use of the troops.
There is more OF less criticism OF
General Miles in various parts of the
report. Probably the most direct in
stance is the one which states that be
yond the criticism of officers found
elsewhere i'll the report, the court
feels that against none of the officers
commanding corps, divisions, brigades
and regiments and their staff officers
should a charge Of guilt be brought.
.'The court also finds that the major
general commanding the army had 10
sufficient ius~tificationf for alleging that
the refrigerated beef was embalmed or
was unfit for issue to troops. 1t also
finds that he committed an error in
that, having belief or knowledge, as
claimed, that the food was unfit, that
it caused sickness and distress; that
some Of it was supplied under the pre-
tense of experiment, that other beef
was embalmed, he did not Immediately
repsrt such knowledge or belief to the
secretary of war to the end that a
proper remedy might be promptly app
Piled"
Colonel Maus, inspector general on
General Miles staff, is censured for his
failure to call attention to charges
concerning the beef at Chickamauga
contained in a report of inspection
made by DIR. Cor Major) Daily on the
26th 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
opinion last August that the refriger-
ated beef had been processed, the
court remarks:
tsWhatever the date upon which he
formed q belief or Il reasonable sns-
picion that the health of the troops
was being impaired by the use of dele
FERROUS food, it was his bounden duty.
in the opinion of the court, instantly
toEtake the most effective measures
within his control to ascertain the ac-
tual fact and to, correct the wrong, if
any should be found. 1t should have
been possible to secure samples of the
beef supplied to the army by. contrac-'
tors and to have submittedSthese sam
pies to chemical examination which
would have resulted in the detection
of4the presence or absence of boric
and salicylic acid, or any other chem
zeal that may have been used as a
preservative agent. Yet no such pre-
caution as that suggested was taken
by the major general commanding at
that time or at any subsequent time
So far as has been learned bv the
court"
Embalming 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
ical preservatives have not been estab-
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, as actually used on the
transports, and as to its extensive or
long continued use us q field ration,
are sustained. In the opinion of the
court zone of the other allegations in.
regard to the canned fresh beef are
sustained.
The evidence shows that Colonel
John L. Weston, assistant commissary
general of subsistence, recommended
the adoption of the canned roast beef
IS a component Of the field ration, and
to this extent he is responsible.
The report places the quantity Of
canned roast beet purchased for the
war by the commissary department Mt
6,s47,174 pounds, including 100000
pounds which was brought from Liv-
erpool and other English ports. This
mount is characterized as excessive,
and the commissary general General
Eagan) is severely criticised in sew
eral parts of the document on this
score. One of the severest rebukes is
as follows:
Considering the little use that had
been made of this beef in the regular
army, the probability that the volun-
teers We're entirely ignorant of it, that
its use us a part of the field ration had
never been sanctioned by the president
Or secretary of war, the court cur but
characterize the action of the commits
sary general of subsistence as nwar
ranted and reckless in that he ordered
the purchase of such enormous guam
titles of a food that was practically un-
tried and unknown, and the court SO
finds. The court also finds that there
is no ground for imputation whatever
OF any other nctuating motive, on the
part of the commissary general, than
the earnest desire to procure the best
possible food for the troops. The court
pronounces this act of the commissary
general of subsistence a colossal error
for which there is no palliation."
Neglect IN Delivering Beef.
The court finds that there was neg
lect in. Cuba and to Il less degree in
Puerto Rico, in delivering the refrig-
Grated beef.
...The fault, if any there was" says
the report, crested with the brigade.
and higher commanding officers and
their commissaries and quartermns-
ing by the court of any particular Of
f~cers."
The refrigerated beef is, in the opin-
ion of the court, n suitable ration for
troops when it can be issued to them
in good condition. 3