The L'Anse sentinel. (L'Anse, L.S., Mich.) 18??-current, 1899-05-13
Charges of Chemical Treatment
Of Refrigerated Beef Are
Not Established.
Gen. Miles Censured for DELAY in
Calling Attention of Depart
ment to the Matter.
Gen. Eagan Severely Rebuked for Ex-
cessive Purchases of an I'M
tried Ration.
-Itcport Recommends No Further
Proceedings In the Case.

-ucport RecOmme nds No Further
Proceedings In the Case.
Washington, May S.-By direction of the
president, who approves the findings Act
ing Secretary of War Meiklejohn has made
public the report and findings OF the mill
Iary court appointed to investigate the
charges made by Mai Gen. Miles, COM
manding the army. that the beef supplied
TO the army during the war with Spain
was UNIT for the use of the troops.
Its Findings.
The most important; features of the re-
port are: The finding that the generals
allegations that the refrigerated beef was
treated with chemicals were not estab-
lished: that his allega lions concerning the
canned fresh or canned roast beef were
sustained as to its unsuitablity for food
used OIL the transports and as a long
continued field ration censure of Gen.
Miles for error in failing 70 promptly
notify the secretary of war when he frs.
formed the opinion that the food was UNI
~; censure of the commissary general
chen Gen. Eagan) Tor the too extensive
purchases of the canned beef an I'M
tried ration: censurc OF Col. Maus. of Gen
Miles STAFF the finding that the packers
were not at fault and that the meats sup
piled TO the army were of the same quality
as those supplied to the trade generally.
and the recommendation tnat no further
proceedings be taken in the premises.
Oppose Further Proceedings.
The conclusion Of the court adverse TO
further proceedings based upon the
charges is as follows: "It has been dcvel-
oped in the course OF the inquiry, az rccited
In this report. that in some instances some
individuals failed 10 perform the full meas
urc OF duty or TO observe the proprieiies
which dignity high military command. but
the court is of the opinion that the mere
statement in the official report Of the facts
IaU IN nVAI tN. IL ~ sft,Itt
that the interests OF the service will he hest
subsefvcd If further proceedings be not
taken"
Criticism of Miles.
There is more or less criticism of Gen
Miles in various parts of the report Prob
ably the most direct instance is the one
which states that beyond the criticism of
officers found elsewhere is the report: THE
court finds that agains: none of the off,
GERS commanding corps, divisions, brigades
and regiments and their staff officers
should charge of guilt be brought. The
court also finds that the major general
commanding the army had no sufficient
justification for alleging that the refriger-
ated beef was embalmed or was unfit for
issue to troops. 1t also finds that he COM
mitted an error I'm that. having belief or
knowledge, as claimed. that the food was
unfit, that ii caused sickness and distress:
that some of II was supplied under the pre-
tense of experiment: that other beef was
embalmed. he did not Immediately report
such knowledge or heller TO tkc secretary
OF war, TO the end that proper remedy
might be promptly applied"
The censure OF Col. Maus. inspecio: gen
eral on Gen. Miles STAFF, is based upon his
failure TO call attention to charges con-
corning the beef NJ ChickamauRa. con-
tanned In report of inspection made by
Dr. Cor Maj) DAILY on the 10Th of October
last in which he stated his belief that the
beef was chemically treated.
The silence Col. MauS,' the
court, ION important u matter as the
chcmicalzed beef reported by Maj DAILY
and personally known to himself is most
remarkable"
The remark is also made that Gen Miles
failure to draw special attention to this
report Is ''uneNp lained"
Commenting upon Gen. Miles testimony
that he had frs. formed the opinion last
August that the refrigerated beef had been
processed. the court remarks: Whatever
the date upon which he formed a belief. or
reasonable suspicion. that the health of
the troops was being impaired by the use
of deleterious food. II was his bounden
duty, In the opinion of the court. instantly
10 take the most effective measures with
In his control to ascertain the actual fact
and to correct the wrong, II any should
be fourd. II would have been practicable
to obtain samples OF the beef Their being
supplied to the army by contractors and
10 have submitted these samples to chem
ical examination. which would have re-
suited In the detection of the presence or
absence of boric and salcylic acids or any
other chemical agent that may have been
used as preservative agent Yet no such
precaution as that suggested was taken
by the major general commanding at that
time or at any subsequent time, so far as
has been learned by the court"
Not Treated with Chemicals.
"The court finds tina. the allegations Of
tho major general commanding to the ef-
feet hat m
tho troops was treated with chemical pre-
se-vatives have not been established The
court also finds that so much OF the ale
cations OF the major general commanding
In respect to the canned roast beef as re-
lates TO It's unsuitability for food, as ac-
tually used on the transports. and as to its
extensive or long-conttnued use as field
ration, are sustained. 1t is the opinion OF
the court none OF the other allegations in
relation to the canned fresh beef are sus-
tanned. The evidence shows that Col. John
r. Weston, assistant commissary general
OF subsistence, recommended the adoption
Of the canned roast beef as component OF
the field ration. and TO this extent he is
responsible"
RehuIse for Esgnn.
The report places the quantity OF canned
roast beef purchased for the war by the
commissary department at fSI.iH pounds
r. including $50, 900 pounds which was brought
from Liverpool and other English ports.
This amount Is characterized Us excessive,
and the comsnissary general (Gon. Eagan)
Is severely criticised In several parts OF
the document on this score. One of the Sc
verest rebukes is as follows;
considering the little use that had been
made OF this beef In the regular army, the
proba biiity that tho volunteers were en-
tirely ignorant of IL, that it's use as a part
of the field ration had never been sane
toned by the president or secretary OF war.
the court can but characterize the action OF
the commissary general of subsistence as
unwaIranted and reckless In that he or