The record-union., 1899-05-08

O,oo1, LA pounds, including 3oJ,oOU
pounds which was brought from Liver
pool and other English ports. This
amount is characterized as excessive,
and the Commissary General General
Eagan) is severely criticised in several
parts of the document on this score.
One of the severest rebukes is as fol-
lows:
Considering the little use that has
been made of this beef in the regular
army, the probability that the volun-
teers 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
|characterize the acton of the Commits
sary General of Subsistence as unwar-
ranted and reckless in that he ordered
the purchase of such enormous quanti-
ties of food that was practically untried
and unknown, and the court 50 finds.
The court also finds that there is no
ground for any imputation whatever OF
any other actuating motive on the
part of the Commissary General than
the earnest desire to procure the best
possible food for the troops. The court
pronounces this act of the Commtssary
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 delivering the. refrigerated beef.
f'The court says the report, does
not wish to state the case more strongly
than to say that the finding appears
to be warranted that too much time was
consumed in distributing this perlshable
article. The fault, if there was any,
rested with the brigade and higher
commanding officers and their commits
saries and quartermasters, but the tes-
timony is not so definite or specific
as to warrant the naming by the court
of any particular officers"
They say that the refrigerated beef
was at first received with great salts
faction There is also censure of de-
lay in unloading the refrigerating APP
partus of Swift & Co. at Santiago.
IAN appeal by the contractors agents
to General Shafter for an order on the
Quartermaster to expedite the delivery
from the transport Of the refrigerating
plant did not affect any result. The de-
Law in the matter was the cause of Sc
rious loss"
The court is of the opinion that the
canned roast beef was not suitable as
travel ration on transports, consid-
ering the absence of cooking facilities
and the absence from that ration of
fresh vegetables and condiments. For
use on shore as field ration, where the
companies had their camp cooking
equipment and vegetables were avail
able, canned roast beef is suitable for
issue, say two days in ten, but not for
fxx-0 1.,xv ir1e n
izations it seemed to have constituted
at least one-half of the meat ration,
and until after the surrender the troops
had no means for cooking other than
was practicable with the individual kit
carried. For such extensive use, or any
use exceeding one day in five, the court
finds this beef unsuitable.
The refrigerated beef is, in the
opinion of the court, suitable ration for
troops when it can be issued to them
in good condition"
AS to whether anything better than
beef was available for a ration, the
opinion is:
'.First-That on the transports the re-
lance on canned fresh and caned corn
ed beef was wise, but that the canned
fresh beef was less desirable than the
corned.
..Second-That while bacon is not re-
garded as suitable constant food in
campaign for troops serving in the
tropics combined with the vegetables
that were available it would have been
more suitable and fit than the unknown
and unfamiliar canned beef eaten direct
from the can.
..Third-That the use of the refriger-
ated beef on shore, after the troops
had secured convenient harbors and
landing facilities, was wise and desir-
able That the court believes that there
is no better food available or prac-
ticable.
That the opinion is expressed that
it would have been impracticable to
land beef cattle on the hoof in Cuba.
the remark of the court on this point
being as follows:
The commanding General of the ex-
petition characteriZes as absurd such
proposition, and many of his com :
handing officers whose opinion is given
in the testimony conceded with him in
the impracticability or inexpediency of
such a project. The court concurs in
the opinion of those men whose expert
ence in active military service dated
from 1861"
An instruction of the Presidents to
the court was:
IF the packers of the country are
guilty, it must be known" Replying
to this direction, the court says:
1.-The court finds that at the outbreak
of hostiMties in April, 1898, the
packers of canned beef were engaged
in the manufacture of an article of
standard quality, we'll known to the
trade and the Subsistence Department
under the name of canned roast beef.
The methods of packing then in use
We're the same as those habitually en-
ployed in the preparation of the meat
as an article of commerce, and the
court does not find that they under
went any change during the progress
of the war. The large purchases for
the use of the military forces during
the months of May and June, 1898,
We're made-not at the solicitation sof
the packers. or in consequence of eff
forts put forth by them for that pur-
pose-but by the order and upon the
initiative of the Commissary General
of Subsistence, such purchases being
made in every case by officers of his
department in the usual manner"
On another point connected with the
packers the court says:
Although the subject of the read
justment of accounts between the
United States and the contractors was
not referred to the court it appears
from the testimony that whenever any
cans have been found to be defective.
subsequent to their original delivery to
the Subsistence Depa s1ch oanc
have been replaced in every instance"