The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-05-08
GEN. MILES, CHARGES
ARE NOT SUSTAINED.
Court of Inquiry Finds That Beef
Was Not Embalmed--rlild Gen.
sure for the General.

tue presiuent, VINO approves the nnulnSS,
Acting Secretary OF War Meiklejohn has
made public the report and findings OF
the military court appointed to investi-
gate the charges made by Major General
Miles. commanding the army, that the
beef supplied to the army during the war
with Spain was unfit for the troops.
The most important features OF the
report are: The finding that the gem
erals allegations that the refrigerated
beef was treated with chemicals were
not established; that his allegations
concerning the canned fresh. or canned
roast beef. were sustained as to it's un-
suitability for food as used on the trans
ports and as a long continued field ration
censure OF General Miles for error" In
falling TO promptly notify the secretary
Of war when he first formed the opinion
that the food was unfit; censure OF the
commissary general General Eagan)
for the too extensive purchases of the
canned beef as an untried ration: CEN
sure Of Colonel Maus OF General 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 supplied TO the trade generally and
the recommendation that no further
proceedings be taken In the premises.
The conclusion OF the court adverse 10
further proceedings based upon the
charges is as follows: 1T has been de-
veloped in the course OF the inquiry as
recited In this report that I'm some in
stances certain individuals failed TO per-
form the full measure OF duty or TO oh
serve the proprieties which dignity high
military command, but the court is Of
the opinion that the mere statement In
the Official report OF the facts developed
meets the ends OF discipline. and that the
interests OF the service will be best
subserved IL further proceedings be not
taken"
There Is moro or less criticism OF Gen.
eral Miles in various parts of the report.
Probably the most direct instance is the
one which states that. beyond the criti-
cism OF officers found elsewhere in the
report. 'the court finds that against
none of the efsieefs- commanding earps-
divisions, brigades and regiments and
their stan officers should a charge of
guilt be brought.
THE court also finds that the major
general commanding the army had no
sufIicient justification for alleging that
the refrigerated beef was embalmed or
was unht for issue to troops. IL also finds
that he committed an error In that. hav-
1nG belief or knowledge as claimed. that
the food was unfit, that II caused sick
ness and distress. that some of it Vas
supplied under the pretense OF experi-
ment that other beef was embalmed he
did not Immediately report such knowl-
edge or belief to the secretary OF war to
the end that proper remedy might be
applied"
The censure OF Colonel Maus, inspector
general on General Miles staff, is based
upon his failure to call attention to
charges concerning the beef at Chicka-
mauga contained in a report OF inspec-
tion made by DR.. (Major) Daily Oct. 26
last. in which he stated his belief that
the beef was chemically treated. The
silence OF Colonel Maus." says the court,
ION 80 important a matter as the chemi-
calixed beef. reported by Major Daily
and personally known to himself, is most
remarkable The remark is also made
that General Miles failure to draw
special attention TO this report is "unex-
planned
Commenting upon General Miles tes-
timony that he had first formed the
opinion last August that the refrigerated
beef had been processed. the court re-
marks: The court finds that the alle-
cations of the major general command
ing TO the effect that the refrigerated
beef supplied TO the troops was treated
with chemical preservatives have not
been established. The court also finds
that so much of the allegations of the
major general commanding in respect
10 the canned roast beef, as relates ats
unsuitability for food, as actually used
on the transports. and as TO its extensive
or long continued use as a field ration,
are sustained. In the opinion of the
court none of the other allegations in re-
lation to the canned fresh beef are sus-
tained. The evidence shows that Coll
onel John +. Weston. assistant COM
missary general OF subsistence. recom-
mended the adoption of the canned roast
beef as a component of the field ration,
and to that extent he is responsible"
The report places the quantity OF
canned roast beef purchased for the war
by the commissary department at 6,S47,-
IA pounds. including 35000O pounds
which was brought from Liverpool and
other English ports. This amount Is
characterized as excessive, and the com
missary general General Eagan) is Sc
verely criticised In several parts OF the
document on this score. One OF the
sevcrest rebukes is as follows: Con-
sidering the little use that had been made
OF this beef in the regular army the
probability that the volunteers were en-
tirely ignorant OF IL. that its use as a
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 unwarranted and recl-
lcss--in that he ordered the purchase OF
eIea cifofmous quantities Oi q tOod that
WAS practically untried and unknown.
and the court so finds. The court also
hnds that there is no ground for any
imputation whatever OF any other actu-
pting motive on the part OF the commits
sary general than the earnest desire to
procure the best possible food for the
troops. The court pronounces this act