The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1899-05-11

"The court is of the opinion that the |
canned roast beef was not suitable as q |
travel ration on transports, considering |
the absence of cooking facilities and |
the absence from that ration OF fresh |
vegetables and condiments. For use on |
shore as a field ration, where the COM |
panies had their camp cooking equip |
ment, and vegetables were available, |
canned roast beef is suitable for issue, |
say two days in ten, but not for two |
days in succession. In some organiza- |
tiOns it seems to have constituted at
last ono-half of the meat ration, and |
until after the surrender the troops had |
no means for other cooking than was |
practicable with the individual kit car |
ried. For such extensive use, or any
use, exceeding one day in five, the court
finds this beef unsuitable.
1.-THE refrigerated beef is, in the opin
ion of the court, suitable ration for
troops when it can be issued to them in
good condition"
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 fol-
| lows:
"The commanding general of the ex-
| pedition characterizes as absurd such a
| proposition, and many of his command.
| ing officers, whose opinion is given in
the testimony, conceded with him in
| the impracticability or inexpediency of
such project, The court censures in
the opinion of these men whose expert.
ence in active military service dated
from 1861"
An instruction of the presidents to
the court was that 'if the packers of
the country are guilty it must be
kuown." Replying to this direction
the court SAYS:
"The court finds that at the outbreak
| of hostilities in April, 1898, the packers
of canned beef were engaged in the
manufacture of an article of standard
quality, well known to the trade and the
subsistence department, under the name
of canned roast beef. The methods of
packing then in use were the same as
those habitually employed in the prepa.
ration of the meat as an article of COM
} merce, and the court does not find that
they underwent any change during the
progress of the war. The large pur-
, chases for the use of the military forces
during the months of May aud June,
: 1898, were made-not at the solicitation
} of the packers, or in consequence of ef-
forts put forth by them for that purpose
but by the order and upon the initia-
tive of the COmmissary general of sub
sistence, such purchases being made in
every case by officers of his department
i'll the usual manner"
t On another point connected with the
: packers the court says:
+ although the subject of readjust
ment of accounts between the United
!. States and contractors was not referred
| to the court, it appears from the testi.
!. mony that whenever any cans have
I been found to be defective, subsequent
i to their original delivery to the subsist
y ence department, such cans have beer
S replaced in every instance"
The charges Of General Miles as made
in newspaper interviews, as well as
e those made before the war investigating
{ commission, are referred TO at length
I among them being the interview with
!, the general sent out from New York
s by The Associated Press ON Jan. 81, in
o which General Miles was quoted as say,
S ing that he had Overwhelming evi
dence that the beef was treated with
J. chemicals to preserve it, and that he
e had attidavits from men who saw the
d beef undergoing the embalming pro.
= cess" The court notes the denial which
General Miles made of the conversation
e as 1t was printed in the New York
: Herald, but prints the charge as part
s of the allegations, saying on this point:
5 1.-THE testimony of both Mr.. Reid and
. Mr.. Berry of the New York Times
. agree in the verify of the interview as
s reported by the former, and this is
l found i'll The Herald clipping. The
Q court does not therefore ignore this
Q paragraph, but treats it as part of the
Z allegations which are under investiga.
| ton"
D Considerable attention is given to DIR.
Daly's testimony concerning the refrig-
> Grated beef on the transport Panama,
: and also to his report concerning the
t beef supplied to the immunes stationed
: at Chickamauga. Referring to the doc
S tors analysis of residium from beef Sc
+ cured on the transport, the court calls
t attention to the fact that he approved
l the finding of the board of survey, and
that, Notwithstanding there were other
5 medical officers ON board, no reference
} was made by him to his suspicion that
the meat had been chemically treated.
l Referring to this and another Incl.
l dent, the court says:
"The testimony shows that the beef
r treated by the Powell process which
3 was declared by DR.. DAILY to contain
: boric and salicylic acids was in fact,
1 treated by fumigation and the materials
+ employed contained neither boric nor
3 salicylic acid. The beef from which
t the broth was made on the Panama has
l not been positively identified as refrig-
Grated beef, and the connection be-
l tween the residuum Of the sample
= taken from the ship cauldron and that
. analysed by DIR, Clark has not been
4 established to the satisfaction of the
, court"
A chapter of the report is devoted to
the consideration of the cause of the
0 sickness i'll the army in the Santiago
t campaign, but "the court finds it i'm
D possible to conclude that either the
canned fresh beef or refrigerated beef
) appeared to any appreciable extent as
causes of intestinal disease"
! THREATENS STRONG ACTION