Arizona weekly journal-miner., 1899-05-03
VERDICT oF T1E COURT oF
 INQUIRY.

been investigating the Niles scandal in regard to the beef furnished the army, has concluded its lAboz. While its findings have not been given out n full and will aot be for some time, enough is already known of it to kaow tkAt the sommisSioa finds that General Niles was a good many kinds of prevAFicAtor As al legged by General Pagan. Their verdict Is that the charges which General Miles made before the war investigating oommittee are not sas- tsined 10 reference to the rsfrigeFAi- ed beef, although his conteAtion that tLe canned roast beef vas not a suitable continuous ration is admitted. There is direct criticism of Niles for falling to promptly bring to the attention Of the war department the reports made to him concerning bad beef, And several individuAls are eensured for fAiling to observe the proprieties of their positions as commanding officers in this and other respeetA The count takes the position that the testi- mony is conclusive that both the refrigerated and canned beef we're i ln good condition when delivered to the government, and continued so until issued Co the troops. except in special instances, where the deter iora,ion was due to accidental con ditions in transportation, or to the influence of the troplcAl climate. The report admits the liability of re- ' frissrated beef to tAint quickly after removal from the ioe chests. The court Ends the charges of embalm- ing iresh beef to have been unsub- stan,iA,ed by testimony, and says no chemicals were used tO preserve it. ' It also says that it would have been imPraetieable to secure the beef on the hooi for the Cuban campaign. The finding is also adverse to the assertion, on the part of General Miles, that the use of the beef was An experiment..
 Much attention is given to the charges concerning the canned beef, and 1t is stated that the testimony proves it to have been wholesome and nutritious, where used in mod. eration and under favorable cireum> stances The position is taken thSt too much of this article of food was supplied to the men, aud that under the circumstances 1t was unpalztable and found undesirable As a eoutin- ued ration.
 In view of this fact the eommis- sary general of subsistenee is round ly criticised for the psrchase of the meat in such extensive quantities. As to the character of the meat foF wholesomeness and nutrition. the reports of frofA AtwAtsr and Chit. tenden are quoted at length. sus tsining the claims in this respect.
 Accordingly, the court finds that the meat was not "doetored;" that it was the beef of commerce; that there was no more neglect than was incidental to the hurreid preparation for the war; that the inspection, while generally according to regula- tions, was not always up to the re- quirements; and that the sickness of the troops was not to any great de- gree occAsioned by the use of either the canred or refrigerated beef. On the other hand, it is explained that General Miles himself did not re.. port during the war that the beef. either refrigerated or canned. was unit as a ration. Other officers who gave their testsmony before the court were found also to have ne- glected what the court coBceives tc have been their duty in this respect, snd all are blamed for this failure But the court does not think further proceedings necessary.