Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-04-22
BEEF COURT AGAIN,
It Reviews Testimony and Reads
More Reports
PRESIDENTS INSTRUCTIONS,
These The Interesting Feature Of Ye;-
terday'S Session.
A MASS OF CORRESPONDENTS
especial Pleading" According to
Eagan, of Armour & Co., I'm Behalf
seryatiOn.

WASHINGTON, April 21.-The Wade
court Of inquiry devoted to-day's session
to reviewing testimony, and tonight held
another session, for the purpose of read
Ing reports, letters, depOsitions, and other
papers bearing upon the beef investiga-
tion. The most interesting matter de-
yeloped was President McKinlsy's instruc-
tions to the court Of inquiry, which were
delivered 10 the members of the court on
February 10th last. These Instructions
were read by Colonel Davis. In order to
make them a part of the record, and are
as follows:
1.-The character and quality of the meat,
refrigerated and canned, furnished to the
army; how purchased; how shipped 10
the soldiers; if good when shipped, what
the cause of its deterioration. If any?
"Ir the meat was doctored, did the
Commissary- General or any of his officers
have any knowledge of it, or means Of
knowledge?
WAS it the meat of commerce?
WAS it inspected by the government
inspectors, as provided by law?
WAS it an authorized ration in the
army?
IF good when purchased, what made it
bad?
WAS it anybody's neglect or fault, and
if SO, whose?
when unfit for use, II you should so
find, was the fact made known to the
War Department? When, and by whom?
"If, after leaving the depot commits
sary, It was not cared for and properly
preserved. whose fault?
Was il a suitable ration for the cam
paigns in Cuba and Porto Rico?
WAS there anything better that was
practicable?
Would it have been prudent for our
troops to have made the expeditions to
Santiago and Porto Rico without the
preserved meats, either refrigerated or
canned, with which they were supplied?
Gould the army. with any certainly,
rely upon cattle on the hoof on those
islands?
did the commanding officers I'm Santi-
ago or Porto Rico, or the major-general
commanding, report during the war that
was an unfit ration?
when were these reports first made,
and by whom?
IF the allegations of the major-general
commanding are established ] want the
court to find the cause and fix the re-
spOnsibility for the fact, that the guilty
may be properly punished.
did the cattle in Porto Rico make a
wholesome ration?
IF the packers OF the country are
guilty, IL must be known.
IF the officers of the C0mmissary De
partment, il must be known.
If any officer of the army is guilty, it
must be known"
AND CORRESPONDENCE.
Both Major Lee and Colonel Davis sub
mtted a number of reports and a mass
OF correspondence. Among the documents
read by Colonel Davis was a letter from
the Washington attorneys Of Messrs. Ar
mOur * Co. dated June l., 1898, after the |
contract for beef had been let asking for
a reconsideration Of the subject, In the |
interest OF their clients, and an endorse
ment by General Eagan, as cOmmissary-
general. opposing the request In their |
letter. the attorneys represented that the |
Armours controlled the Powell process |
for the treatment OF meat, and that this |
fact gave them such an advantage In |
the preservation of fresh beef as to justify |
the War Department in disregarding the |
difference in price and awarding them |
the contract. In his endorsement General |
Eagan referred 10 the letter OF the attor- |
neys as a special pleading" and said |
there was no reason in this plea why |
the subject should be reOpened
"The tests made by Armour & Co. are |
not the only tests that have been made" |
he said.
This document was introduced by Colo !
mel Davis to show that Colonel Eagan |
had not been influenced by the represen- |
tations concerning the Powell process" |
Major Lee submitted a statement made /
by James Armstrong, president of the |
Armstrong Company, Of Dallas, Tex, |
which gave, among other things, the SUBJ
stance OF a conversation with General |
Eagan.
The company were bidders for beef In |
block ana said that while Armstrong was |
N Washington he discussed with General |
lagan the question Of beef being kept |
Tor seventy-two hours after being taken
rom the refrigerator Mr.. Armstrong
,ald he expressed the opinion that this
vas impossible. to which General Eagan
.eplied that Swift a Co. and Armour
10Th had knowledge OF a process by which
,eef could be kept for that length Of
ime.