Akron daily Democrat. [volume] (Akron, Ohio) 1892-1902, 1899-05-08
vas the cause of serious loss.

was the cause of serious loss. +"
The court is of the opinion that the
canned roast beef was not suitable as Il
rravel ration on transports, considering
the absence of cooking facilities and
the absence from that ration of fresh
vegetables and condiments. For use on
share as "a field ration, where the conf
panics had their camp cooking equip
mcnt, aud vegetables We're available,
canned roast beef is suitable for issue,
say two days i'll ten, but not for two
days III succession. In some organiza-
tions IL seems to have constituted at
last one-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. Fer such extensive use, OF any
use, exceeding one day i'll five. the court
finds this beef unsuitable.
The refrigerated beef is, i'll the opin-
ion of the court, Il suitable ration for
troops when it can be issued to them i'll
good condition.
The opinion is expressed that it would
have been impracticable to land beef
cattle on the hCof in. Cuba, the remark
Of the court OH this point being as fol-
lows:
1.-The commanding general of the eN-
pedition cEaracterizes as absurd such Il
proposition, and MANY of his command
lig officers. whose opinion is given in
fhe testimony, conceded with him in
the impracticability or ineXpediency of
such a project, The court censUres i'll
TIE opinion of these men svhose expert
ence i'll 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
known" Replying to this direction
the court s;uyS:
Tile court finds that at the outbreak
of hostilities in April, 1898, the packers
of canned beef We're engaged i'll 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 We're the same as
those habitua,ily employed i'll the prepa-
ration of the meat IT'S an article of COM
merce, and the court does not find that
they underwent any change during the
progress of the war. The large par
cllaSrs for the use of the military forces
iiit lIt'IIiilN vi MAY dutl
lS!,S, We're madc-not III the solicitation
OF the packers, or III consequence of eff
forts put forth 10y them for that purpose
but by the order aud upon the initia-
tive of the comnisSary general OF sub
sistence, such purchases being made i'll
every case by officers OF his department
i'll the usual manner
On another point connected with the
packers the court says:
although the subject of read1ust-
nlent 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
been found to be defective, subsequent
to their original delivery to the subsist-
ence department, such cans have been
replaced iii every instance F."
The charges of General Miles as mace
i'll newspaper interviews, as well as
those made before the war investigating
commission, are referred to at length.
among them being the interview with
the general sent out from New York
by The Associated Press on Jan 81. i'll
which General Miles was quoted as say
ing that lac had overwhelming evi-