New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-03-13
4 LESSON N GAMING.

That must have been an exceedingly inStruc-
five session which the Army Court of Inquiry
held with the Chicago packers on Friday. The
Court learned for one thing that canned roast
hccf' WAS only trade name for an entirely diff
fercnt article and that if the Army thought II was
buving roast beef it had an erroneous impress
sion. for IL was really buying boiled soup meat
instead II IS said that there is no such thing
os true canned roast beef" Perhaps that is
,rue but II was moi always true. Possibly the
hoiled .calners." as the lean CRITTERS" at the
lacking house are called. nave driven the good
canned roast beef out of the market. but few
wears ago it was possible TO find real canned
roast beef |; was to he found in this city. The
beef had been roasted. not boiled. II was cut
the proper size for the can from great rOastS
and had traces Of the crisp on the edges and
was rare inside. That was good beef. and made
n reputation FOR itself so good reputation that
others sought to gain market in it's name for Il
cheaper article of boiled meat. and that cheaper
article is what was sent 10 our soldiers as roast
beef containing all the elements Of fresh roast
beef.
The Court must have found material for
thought in the record Of the scales concerning
some Of The beef il saw roasted" \ quantity
weighing 743 pounds was put in tho caldron
and boiled, and il came out weighing 529
pounds If that were TO go 10 soldiers they
would get 2l4 pounds less Of something in their
meat than they would have received in an equal
bulk of fresh beef. That is, the beef lost nearly
Is per cent in the canning process. The mem
berS of the court must have recalled the recent
testimony Of Mr.. Arthur Meeker, the general
manager for great packing house, that the loss
IN the boiling was "infnitesimal" and that il
WAS impossible by boiling TO extract more than
IL or per cent of the nutriment OF the meat
II is no. to be wondered AT if they wanted to go
off in corner and think a while Oh the subject
Perhaps they will receive an explanation that
the % per cent Of loss Is not all nuriment. and
that OF the nourshing principle OF the beef a
much smaller percentage is extracted. That in
decd NAV be true, but il will hardly do credit
70 the ingenious character OF Mr.. Meckers
statement II is well known that beef extract
Is not principally the nutrtive part OF the beef,
but the stimulating and favoring part, and it is
no, 70 the point to meet the charge that the sol
diers Ind the refuse after beef extract had been
made by saving that only Il trifing percentage
~ the "nutrimpnt" was removed rs q necessary
stcp in the "roastng' process If In fact over n
ouorter Of the material which goes to make
beef beef had been extracted. 1t makes little
difference what is the chemical formula Of the
2S Der cent Of substance extracted from the
beef. What the soldiers wanted, what the
country was assured they had was the whole
beef. They were entitled 10 the stlmulant and
the flavor as well as the muscle fibre Of the
beef and they needed II all
If necessity compelled them TO put up with
boiled fibre the fact should have been faced.