Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1899-05-12

There is more or less criticism of Gen.
Miles in various parts of the report. Prob
ably the most direct instance is the one
which states that, be yond the criticism of
officers found elsewhere in the report,
''the court finds that against none of the
officers in command of corps, divisions,
brigades, or regiments, and their staff Of
fcers, should charge of guilt be brought
1.-THE court also finds that the major
general commanding the army had not
sufficient justification 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 be-
lief or knowledge as claimed that the food
was unfit, that it caused sickness and dis
tress, and that some of it was supplied un-
der the pretense of experiment, and that
other beef was embalmed, he did not i'm
mediately report such knowledge or belief
| to the secretary of war, to the end that
proper remedy might be applied"
The censure of Col. Maus, inspector gen
eral on Miles's staff is based upon his fail
ure to call attention to the charges con-
corning beef at Chickamauga contained in
a report of inspection made by DR.. Tor Maj
DAILY on the Goth of October last in which
he stated his belief that the beef was chem
ically treated.
/ Inc court mus IudL lue dleEdLlOuH vi
the major general commanding, to the eff
feet that the refrigerated beef supplied to
the troops was treated with chemical pre-
servatives, have not been established. The
court also finds that so much of the allega-
| tions of the major general commanding in
| respect to the canned roast beef as relates
to its unsuitability for food as actually used
on the transports and as to its extensive or
| long continued useaa field ration are sus-
tanned. In the opinion of the court none
| of the allegations in relation to the canned
fresh beef are sustained The evidence
shows that Col John +. Weston, assistant
commissary general of subsistence, rec
ommends the adoption of the canned
roast beef as component of the field ra-
ton, and to that extent he is responsible.
The report places the quantity of canned
roast beef purchased for the war by the
commissary department at 7,174
pounds, including $50 pounds which was
brought from Liverpool and other English
ports. This amount is characterized as ex-
cessive and the commissary general is Sc
verely criticised on this score.
| Considering the little use that had been
| made of this beef and the fact that the
volunteers were entirely ignorant of it,
that its use as a part of the field ration had
never been sanctioned by the President or
secretary of war, the court can but charac-
terize the action of the commissary general
of subsistence as unwarranted and reckless,
in the purchase of such enormous quaint
ties of food that was practically untried
and unknown, and the court so finds The
court also finds that there is no ground for
anv imputation whatever of any other act
uating motive on the part of the commits
sary general than the earnest desire to pro-
h. ,,oocibla food for tho
The court pronounces this act of the COM
missary general of subsistence a colossal
error for which there is no palliation. The
court finds that there was neglect in Cuba
| and to a less degree in Porto Rico in deliv
ering the refrigerated beef
An appeal by the contractors agent to
Gen. Shafter, or an order on the quarter
master to expedite the delivery from the
transport of the refrigerating plant did not
effect any result The delay in this matter
was the cause of serious loss.
The court is of the opinion that the
canned roast beef was not suitable as a
travel ration on transports, considering
J the absence of cooking facilities and the
absence from that ration of fresh vegeta-
bles and contingents, but fit for use on the
shore as food ration. To those compan-
les which have their camp cooking equip
ment and vegetables available, canned
roast beef is suitable for issue, but not two
days in succession. In some organizations
it seems to have constituted at least one
half the meat ration and, until after the
surrender, the troops had no means for
other cooking than was practicable with
the individual kit carried. For extensive
uses or any use, exceeding one day in five,
the court finds this beef unsuitable. The
refrigerated beef is, in the opinion of the
court, a suitable ration for the troops when
it can be issued to them in good condition