The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-05-21
The Last Word for Gen. Miles-A Fit
ting Ending Of the Case.

We print in another column this morning
a communication from Mr.. HENRY II. Pro-
BAsco OF Cincinnati concerning The Suns
comments upon his widely published crit
icism OF the Court OF %Inquiry's report
upon the army beef. Mr.. PRoBAsco, who
was an adviser, and we believe is q relative,
Of Gen. MILES, accused the court Of find
ing Gen. MILEss charges unsustained
contrary to the evidence. His theory was
that the correspondence and testimony Of
Gen. EAGAN having referred to beef that
should keep seventy-two hours after de-
livery, the beef must have been embalmeo,
since natural beef would not SO keep. This
was the basis Of Mr.. PRoBAsCo's SANDER Of
the Court, and Of Major LEES summing up
for Gen. MILES, and The U pronounced it
a "lying argument" since the case, of
course, was governed not by words or cor
~respondence Of Gen. EAGAN, but by the con-
tract between the Government and the
butchers. That showed that the meat was
not to keep seventy-two hours after de-
livery but, with certain conditions OF care
in the handling, twenty-four hours. The
fact Of its great service to the troops and
Its rapid decay when not eaten soon after
delivery need not be reviewed again here.
To The Sun Mr.. PRoBAsCo has sent a
reply, which We publish in full in another
column. together with the contract, so that
all may read and construe it. And who
ever compares the two will agree with THE
SUN when it says again that Mr.. PRoBAsCo
has employed a lying argument. 1t will be
apparent also that Mr.. PRoBAsco has gone
still further.
Mr.. PRoBAsco merely repeats in support
OF his side Of the controversy statements
from different sources relating to the time
the meat should keep and processes for
keeping it. There is force in lone OF them.
He defends his extraordinary distortion
OF the contract with testimony of Mr..
ARMSTRONG, O rival and unsuccessful con-
tractor, as to what Gen. EAGAN had said;
with ARMOUR Co s notice that they had a
process by which beef could be preserved +;
and with evidence that EAGAN was confused
in regard to his intention and his interpreta-
ton OF the contract. Nothing Of this defence
| touches the point at issue. Mr.. ARMSTRONG
did not get the contract. ARMOUR & Co.
did not get the contract. The talk or the
correspondence or the surmises OF Gen.
EAGAN's about processed beef did not enter
into it. SWIFT & Co. got the contract and
that was, not to furnish beef to keep sew
enty-two hours after delivery, the Miles
party's imaginary proof Of "embalmment,"
but to keep twenty-four hours, and that
with restrictions as to care in covering.
Mr.. PRoBAsCo's letter teens with false
argument based on this sort Of misrepre-
sentation, for which refutation need not be
sought in the beef's delay already referred
to. The particular passage Of the report
dealing with DR.. DAILY, to whom Mr.. PRO-
BAsco appeals, shows that no court in the
world could havo attached the slightest
weight to the DAILY testimony.
How can any fair-minded man." says
Mr.. PRoBAsCo, fail to conclude that, mas
much as it was known to the Commissary-
General that meat would not remain sound
for s~eventy-two hours after delivery in the
tropics, he must have known that any con-
tractor proposing to deliver meat which
would remain sound for such a length OF
time must Of necessity be compelled to use
some process other than cold air" The
answer is that the contract for the meat
did not provide for what Mr.. PRoBAsco
says it did.
And this takes us back to the third par,
agraph in Mr., PRoBAsCo's communication,
in which he says that 1.-THE Commissary.
General. therefore. proceeded to enter