The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-05-08
BEEF COURTS CONCLUSIONS.
CENsURE OF COMMANDING GENER-
AL FOR HIS DELAY.

That the Canned Meat Was UnGt
for Travel RatiOn-Further Pro-
ceedings Not Necessary-Censureo of
Other Officers.
Washington, May by direction of the
President, who approves the finding, Act
ing Secretary of War AIeiklejohn to-day
made public the report and findings of
the military court appointed TO investl-
gate the charges made by Maj. Gen. Miles,
commanding the army, that the beef sup
piled TO the army during the war with
Spain was unfit for the use OF the troops
The most important features of the re-
port are: The finding that the generals
allegations that the refrigerated beef was
treated with chemicals were not estab-
lshed; that his allegations concerning the
canned fresh or canned roast beef were
sustained as to its unsuitabilty for food
as used on the transports and as a long
continued field ration; censure Of Gen.
Miles for error" in falling to promptly
notify the Secretary of War when he
first formed the opinion that the food was
unfit; censure OF the commissary general
0hen Gen. Eagan) for the too extensive
purchases of the canned beef as an un-
tried ration; censure of Col. Maus of Gen.
Miles staff; the finding that the packers
were not at fault and that the meats sun
piled the army were of the same quality
as those supplied the trade generally, and
the accommodation that no further pro
ceedings be taken in the premises.
The conclusion of the court adverse to
further proceedings based upon the
charges is as follows:
1T has been developed In the course Of
the investigation, as in this report. that in
some instances certain individuals failed
to perform the fun measure of duty or to
observe the proprieties, which dignity high
military command, but the court is of
the opinion that the mere statement in the
oftieial report of the facts developed, meeis
the ends of discipline, and that the inter
ests of the service will be best subserved
II further proceedings be not taken"
Criticism of Miles.
There Is more criticism of Gen. Miles in
various parts of the report Probably the
most direct instance is the one which
states that beyond the criticism of officers
found elsewhere in the report,
THE court finds that against none of
the officers commanding corps, divisions
brgades and regiments and their staff Of
fcers should a charge OF guilt be brought
THE court also finds that the major
general commanding the army had no suf-
ficient justification for alleging that the
refrigerated beef was embalmed or was
unfit for issue to the troops. 1t also finds
that he committed an error in that having
belief or knowledge as claimed that the
Ka~nu thaf a l-F.T -
distress, that some of it was supplied un-
der the pretense of experiment, that other
beef was embalmed, he did not immediate
ly report such knowledge to the Secretary
of War to the end that a proper remedy
might be promptly employed"
Col. Maus Censured.
The censure of Col. Maus, inspector gem
real on Gen. Miles staff Is based upon his
failure to call attention to charges CON
ceIning the beef at Chickamauga con-
tanned in a report Of inspection made by
DR.. or Major DAILY on Oct. &c last. IN
which he stated his belief that the beef
was chemically treated.
The Silence Of Col. Maus," says the
court "on so important a matter as the
chemicalized beef reported by Maj. DAILY.
and personally known to himself Is most
remarkable"
The remark is also made that Gen. Miles
failure to draw special attention to this
report is unexplained"
Commenting upon Gen. Miles testimony
that he had first formed the opinion last
August that the refrigerated beef had
been processed, the court remarks:
'Whatever the date upon which he
forms a belief or a reasonable suspicion
that the health of the troops was being
impaired by the use Of deleterious food it
was his bounden duty, in the opinion of
the court, instantly to take the most de-
cisiVe measures within mis- control to as
certain the actual facts and to correct the
wrong, if any should be found. 1t would
have been practicable TO obtain samples
Of the beef then being supplied to the
army by contractors, and to have submit
ted these samples to chemical examina-
ton which would have resulted In the de-
lection Of the presence or absence of boric
and salicylic acids or any other chemical
agent that may have been used as a pre-
servative agent yet no such precaution as
that suggested was taken by the major
general commanding at that time or at
any subsequent time, so far as has been
learned by the court
No Chemicals Used.
"The court finds that the allegations
Of the major general commanding 10 the
effect that the refrigerated beef supplied
to the troops was treated with chemical
preservatiYes, have not been established
The court also finds that so much Of the
allegations of the major general com
manding in respect 10 the canned roast
beef as relates to its unsutaDiity for
food, as actually used on the transports
and as to its extensive or long continued
use as a field ration, are sustained. In
the opinion Of the court none of the other
allegations in relation to the canned fresh
beef are sustained. The evidence shows
that Col. John f. Weston, assistant com
missary general Of subsistence, recon-
mended the adoption Of the canned roast
beef as a component Of the field ration.
and to this extent he is responsible"
The report places the quantity Of can
ned roast beef purchased for the war by
the commissary department at 6g47147 |
pounds, including 10000 pounds whicn |
was brought from Liverpool and other
English ports. This amount is character |
lied as excessive. and the commissary
general Gen. Eagan) Is severely criticised |
In several parts Of the document on this |
score. One Of the severest rebukes is as
follows: