The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1899-05-13
Gen. MILES CENSURED.
Beef Report is Made Public by
the President.
EAGAN AND MAUS ALSO.
Canrt of Inquiry Fails to Uphold the
Allegations as to the
Army Meat.

Allegations as to the
Army Meat.
Washington, d. c., May S.-By direc-
tion of the President, who approves the
findings, Acting Secretary of War
MeiklejOhn has made public the report
and findings of the military court ap-
pointed to investigate the charges made
10y Maj.-Gen. Miles, commanding the
army. that the beef supplied to the army
during the war with Spain was unfit for
the use of the troops.
lhe most important features of the re-
port are:
The finding that the generals allegations
that the refrigerated beef was treated with
cnemicals We're not established.
That his allegations concerning the canned
fresh or canned roast beef were sustained
as TO its unsuitabilty OFF food as used on
ration.
Censure of Gen. Miles for error" in fail
ing promptly to notify the secretary of war
when he first formed the opinion that the
food was unfit.
Censure of the commlssary general Uhen
Gen Eagan) for the too extensive purchases
of the canned beef as an untried ration.
tenSure of Col. Maus of Gen. Miles stan.
The finding that the packers were not at
fault and that the meats supplied TO the
army were of the same quality as those sup
piled to the trade generally
The recommendation that no further pr
ceedlngs be taken in the premises.
AS to Further Proceedings.
The conclusion of the court lverse to
further proceedings based upon the
charges Is as follows:
IT has been developed in the course of the
inquiry, as recited in this report, that In
some instances some individuals failed to
perform the full measure of duty or to OBJ
serve the prOprieties which dignity high
military command, but the court is OF the
opinion that the mere statement in the Of
fetal report Of the facts developed meets
the ends of discipline. and that the interests
of the service Will be best subSeryed IL
further proceedings be not taken.
There is more or less criticism of Gen.
Miles in various parts of the report.
Probably the most direct instance is the
one which states that beyond the crit
ciSm of officers, found elsewhere i'll the
report: The court finds that against
none of the officers commanding corps,
divisions. hrigadeS and regiments and
their staff officers should n charge of guilt
he brought. The court also finds that the
major general commanding the army had
not sufficient justification for alleging
that the refrigerated beef was emhalm"d
or was unfit for issue to troops. 1t also
finds that hn committed an error in that,
having belief or knowledge, as claimed.
| that the food was unfit, that il caused
sickness and distress, that some of il was
supplied under the prctenSe of expert
Went, that other beef was emba lmed he
did not Immediately report such knowl-
edge or belief to the secretary Of war tc
the end that a proper remedy might be
promptly applied
Why Maus is Censnred.
The censure of Col Naus, inspector
general of Gen. Miles staff, is based upon
his failure 10 call attention to charges
concerning the beef at Chickamauga con
tanned in report Of inspection made i:y
DIR. tor Maj) DAILY on the Goth of Oc
tober last, in which he stated his belief
that the beef was chemically treated.
The silence Of Col. Maus," says the
court, "on 50 important n matter as the
chemicalized beef reported by Maj. Dai.-
and personally known to himself is most
remarkahle.' The remark is also made
that Gen. Miles failure to draw special
attention TO this report is unexplained" :"
Commenting upon Gen. Miles teSti-
mony that he had first formed the opin-
ion last August that the refrigerated bpvf
had been prOCeSsed the court remarks:
Whatever the date upon which he formed
a belief. or q reasonable suspicion, that the
health Of the troops was being impaired hy
the use of deleterouS food, il was his
hounden duty, in the opinion Of the court.
instantly to take the most effective meas
ureS within his control to ascertain the act
uai fact and to correct the wrong. II any
should be found. It would have been prac-
ttcable to obtain samples of the beef then
being supplied to the army hy the con
tractors and 10 have submitted these sam
pies To chemical examination which would
have resulted in the detection of the pres
enCe or absence of horiC and salicvIic acids
or any other chemical agent that may have
been used rs preservative agent. Yet no
such preCauti0n that suggested was taken
10y the major general commanding at that
time OF at any subsequent time, so far as
has been learned by the court.
The evidence shows that Col. John L.
Weston, assistant Commissary general of
subsistence, recommended the adoption of
the canned roast beef as n component of the
field ration, and TO this extent he is re
spOnSihle.
Criticism of Gen. Eagau.
The report places the quantity of
canned roast beef purchased for the war
by the CommiSsary department at g,
S41. Ia pounds. including $50. 900 pounds
which was brought from Liverpool and
other English ports. This amount is
characterized as excessive. and the COM
misSary general tGcn. Eagan) is severely
criticised in several parts of the dOCU-
ment on this score. One of the SeyereSt
rcbukeS is as follows:
Considering the little use that bad been
made OF this beef in the regular army, the
probability that the volunteers were en-
tirely ignorant of It, that its use as part
OF the field ration had never been sanctioned
by the President or secretary of war, the
court can but characterize the action of the
CommiSsary general OF subsistence as un-
warranted and reckless In that he ordered
the purchase of such enormous quantities of
a food that practically untried and un-
known, and the court so finds. The court
also finds that there Is ground for any
imputation whatever of any other actuating
motive on the part of the commissary gen
eral than the earnest desire to procure the
best possible food for the troops. The court
pron6unces this act OF the .commissary gen
eraI of subsistence n colossal error for
which there is no palliation-
Was Neglect in Cuba.
The court finds that there was neglect
in Cuha and to a less degree in Porto
Rico in delivering the refrigerated beef.
The court says the report, does not
wish TO state the case more strongly than
To say that the finding appears to he war
rantCd that too much time was consumed
in distributing this perishahe article.
The fault. if any there was, rested with
the brigade and higher commanding Off
cers and their commisSarieS and quarter
masters, but the testimony is not so def
pitc or specific as TO warrant the naming
by the court Of any particular officer"
There, is also criticism of the delay in
unloading the refrlgeratlng apparatus OF
Swift X Co. at Santiago. An appeal
hv the, contractors agents TO Gen. Shat
ter for an order on the qUartermaster to
rNpcditc the delivery from the transport
of the refrigcratinG plant did not effect
any result. The delay in this matter was
tho cause of serious loss For extensive
,,s., or any use exceeding one day in FIVE
tho court finds canned roast beef insult
able Tho refrigerated beef is. in the
opinion Of the court, a suitable ration
for troops when II can be issued To them
in good condition. The opinion is ex-
pressed that it ould have been imprac-
ticahIe TO land beef cattle on the hoof in
C>uha -