The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-05-08

the subsistence department. the deterlora-
ton OF the meat in the shipment was due
10 the fault OF NO one"
The charges OF General Miles as made
In newspaper interviews. as well as those
made before the war investigating COM
mittee. are referred 10 al length, among
them being the interview with the general
sent out from the New York Office OF the
Associated Press on January 81 in which
General Miles was quoted as saying that
he had Overwhelming evidence that the
beef was treated with chemicals to pre-.
serve IT, and that ne had afidavits from
men who saw the beef undergoing tine
embalming process. The court notes the
denial which General Miles made on his
part Of the conversation as II was printed
In the New York Herald, but prints the
charge AS part Of the allega-
tons, saying on this point: The testi-
mony of both Mr. Reed and Mr.. Berry Of
the New York Times agree in the verify
OF the interview as reported by the former
and that this IS found in the Herald clip
ping. The court does not therefore ignore
this paragraph, but treats II as a part Of
the allegations which are under investiga-
ton
Summing M the results of the lnvesti-
cations Of the chemists employed by the
court the court saws. THE contents of
all the cases which consisted OF boiled
rather than roast beef, were found 10 be
perfectly sweet with an odnr OF cooked
meat The beef IN nearly all the cans an
peared 70 have been lsoftened by exposure
to heat but apparently without injurious
effects as to IT'S quality; apart from this
/ the meat contents we're leund 10 be in a
good state OF preservation In every case.
| No trace OF Dreseryative acids we're found
in any Of the cans
'"tbere ~ no testimony to the erect
thnt nny Of the canned fresh meat
supplied 10 the aubsiafcnce depart
meut since April ~. ISos. Inns been
chemically trented or subjected to
the action OF preserVatives OF nny
Kind save as small quantities of
common salt have been added ns
| pnckcrs."
Detailing the numerous iuvestiga ions
made Of the keeping qualities OF the
! canned fresh beef the court concludes
| that In no cases did the number Of
swellcd or tainted cans discovered greatly
exceed in amount per cont of the entire
| amount examined"
| Several pages Of the report are devoted
| to the consideration OF the allegations
made by General Miles that the refris-
Grated beef was treated with preservatives.
|
mold OF this question that but little testi-
mcny was submitted by him In support OF
| this contention.
| The inference drawn by the court from
! the absence OF such testimony Is adverse
to the existence OF the practice alleged 10
prevail by the major general commanding.
Attention Is then called to the fact that
he testimony bearing upon the chemical
! izallon Of the beef deals with IL only at
the time Of its issuance to the troops and
an analysis OF this testimony is made with
| the result Of showing Considerable dir
| ference Of view as 80 the substance used
and the mode Of their application"
| considerable attention Is given to Or,
Days testimony concerning the refrlg-
| Grated beef on the transport Panama and
| also 20 his report concerning the beef
supplied 10 tho immunes stationed at
Chiekamauga. Referring to the doctors
! analysis al res!dum from beef secured on
! the transport the court calls attention To
the fact hat he approved the finding of
che beard of survey and that notwtth-
standing there were other medical officers
on board, no reference was made by him
70 this suspicion that the meat had been
chemically treated.
Referring TO this and another incident.
the court says:
The testimony shows that the beef
treated By the Powell process. which WAS
NtNA"ANh ". Ii phlg 10 contain hNraCic
and sallcylic acids, was in fact treated by
fumigation and the materials employed
contained neither bosaclc nor sallcylic
acids. The beef from which the broth
was made on the Panama has not been
positively identified as refrigerated beef
and the connection between the reslduum
OF the sample taken from the ship's
cAuidran and that analysed by DR. Clark
has not been established to the satisfaction
OF the court"
\ chapter of tho report Is devoted 10
the consideration OF the cause OF the sick
ness In the army In the Santiago cam
paien, but ''the court finds II imnossi0 Die
10 conclude that either canned roast hsef
or refrigerated beef appeared TO any ap.
disease"
Speaking of the ration as a whole the
court says:
AS 70 the effects of the food sl.pply
having regard 10 both sufficiency ana
quality, II seems to be clearly established
that the army ration as supplied without
modification 10 the troops serving in the
{. West Indies was by no means wen adapted
for use Ia a tropical climate II this be
true. the unftness OF the ration should
nave manifested itself by it's failure 10
keep the tl'oors who subsisted upon il in
the hest possible condition for service In
bot climates. This 4, the oniuion o. the
court, is fully established In evidence. The