Brookings weekly register. (Brookings, Brookings County, S.D.) 1898-1903, 1899-02-23

washington, Feb. %. The Miles
,prt Of inquiry yesterday made good
.,rt in its work. Calls of ceremony on
hp president aud the general COM
0sndinc the army occupied large
an ~ the forenoon. and Immediately
Naeafter Gen. Nelson A. Miles ap-
cared as the first witness. He and
bree other army officers, summoned
witnesses were examined and dis
.sed of before the court closed it's
pssion at 3 o'clock. Gen. Miles teSti-
topy Of course, was the feature Of
he days proceedings.
Gen, Miles submitted 70 the question
10 Of Col. Davis. recorder of the court.
tith equanimity except for fash OF
ipsled Indignation aud irony when he
pfcrned the recorder that he was not
ompelled to report" TO the commits
Ey general Of the army. This was
reply TO a question as 10 whether or
pt be had reported TO the cOmmisSary
tpanment the fact that complaints
IA been made to him as to the quality
meat being issued to the troops. An
rSant later Gen. Miles resumed his
Ol and carefully considered replies
the inquiries of the court. AS indi-
sted by letter of the adjutant gpn-
raL read by the recorder for the in
Ematlon of the court. the scope of the
(q1iry was limited to the
Allegations of Cen Miles
eiGe the war commission as to the
laity of the army beef "and the
batter purporting 10 have been fur
shed TO the public press by the same
rcial' Only two interviews were
kled up by the court, the first an In
efriew with New York Journal rep
sentative early in the beef contro-
ersy in which Gen. Miles was quoted
charging that certain chemicals
Fere used In the preservation of the
tTy meat. and another of the New
ers Herald under date of Feb. |,
pyering about the same ground. Gen.
Lies was very slow and careful in his
piles to the recorders questions on
Bis point He called attention to the
.N""' III hblH lliStulFFS ilt NdS
Fedl'ed in the interviews with refus-
" 10 answer certain questions. and
slsied That these refusals should bf.
wen due weight in considering the
hps'ions to which he did reply. He
ld ID the case of the interview OF
co. ~ that he had Il letter from the
ah VINO wrote the story Offering to
year that Gen. Miles had refused to
interviewed and that the whole
ory was made up in the office from
Y writer's general knowledge of the
ee Notwithstanding this, when his
ral answer was asked as to the au-
Snlicty of the interview Gen. Miles
fot specifically deny it, but merely
va mat 1t did not quite fairly repre-
~ his own opinion in the case. The
Qualified Denial
10 the Journal interview of Dec. %
S ihade, leaving the witness on rec
as not assuming any responsibility
ee newspaper statements. but tac-
suiiI!tlhg that there was good
- "a them with which he agreed.
'tu. MileS, IN his testimony. said his
VI the phrase 'pretCnse of expert
pI III speaking Of army beef was
'orIuhate He disclaimcd intention
dtE Inference Of fraud. aud said
snoald have said the refrigerated
9 issue was ION the theory OF an
rsriihent.' ana n very costly one"
ile trend Of questions put to the
,i witnesses Of the day Indicate
= !" long as they agreed with Gen.
~ as to the quality Of the meat
nsned the troops in the field. the
~ vtitcism of their position the
VI. mad to make was why they had
aaAen some official steps to have
matter remedied at the time. In
s instance the reply was that the
instances in which the army was
L,su lsss N sickly foreign country with
e amount Of fighting and great
sa.' . Oh transportation on hand
u"ea the possibility OF any such
% IN each instance the question
pushed no further on this line.
"ds sald after the court adjourned
Dr' DAILY, whose original "em-
eu Deer report was the genesis OF
NH sat controversy. probably would
N"i at 'o-day's session.