Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-01-13
MAY BE IGNORED
Continued from First Page.)
Gan. Miles and now being prosecuted by
the Inspector generals Office.

pected to take action, as the final dispose
ton of the case is not left to the cabinet.
Whatever is done will be in the hands Of
the President first and the Secretary of
War next. The President is expected to
take early action, after giving fun con-
sideration to the case.
The general belief among cabinet officials,
however. is that Gen. Eagan will be court
martialed. He may also be suspended pend
ing the action of the court-martial.
The consensus of opinion expressed in the
CABINET 1T was stated, was that Gen. Eagan
and officer and must answer" The greatest
regret was expressed that he should have
inundated himself and the army by the
use OF Incorporate and improper language"
bers spoke at the conclusion of the meet
ing. Little sympathy was expressed for
Gen. Eagan, and from cabinet members
who spoke at all there was an opinion that
Gen. Eagan should be held to the stricteSt
accountability for his language 1t was
stated that no matter what had been the
provocation, Gen. Eagan should have left
mis- vindicahon to the war commission 1t
Is known that the members of the COM
mission had expressed themselves as dis
posed to regard the charges about "em-
oalmed beef" as amounting to nothing.
summed up in & few words, the cabinet
view is a military one, and that looks to
respect to the superior officer.
An important question injected into the
cabinet discussion was the immunity which
General Eagan may claim because of the
general understanding that no man who
appeared before the commission should be
punished for his testimony, Notwithstanding
it might be in criticism of superior officer.
While no order was issued on this subject
by the President, he told various officials
that any witness would be protected to the
fII1 s.,
argued that the Presidents promise did
not contemplate a case of this kind, but
its technical enforcement may be claimed.
One member of the cabinet said that the
question was too delicate to make any COM
ment and that he preferred to leave the
matter entirely with the President and Sec
rotary of War
1t is indicated that some action may re-
suit against Gen. Miles, especially should
the war commission decide that there is
no foundation for the charges that chem
ically prepared beef was used.
Text of the Letter.
Gen. Miles has received the following let
ter from Gov Roosevelt in regard to army
beef:
STATE OF NEW YORK,
Executive Chamber. Albany,
January 3, 1899.
Gen. Nelson A. Miles, War Department,
Washington, D. C.:
My Dear General Miles: I do not dis
tinctly understand about this beef contro-
versy. but possibly what l have to write
may be of some use.
The canned corr beef we found to be
good The so-called canned roast beef that
was issued to us for travel rations. both on
the transport and on the train, and which
we occasionally got even at the front. was
practically worthless. Unless very hungry
the men would not touch it. and even when
suffering from lack of food, they never ate
d fifth of it. At the best it was tasteless;
at the worst. it was nauseating.
There was also supply of beef Tin the
shape of quarters), which was put aboard
our transport at Tampa. 1t was supposed
to be fitted by some process to withstand
tropical heat. 1t at once became putrid
and smelt so that we had to dispose of 1t
for fear of its creating disease. 1 think
We threw it overheard. At any rate, 1t was
condemned. The beef we got in Santiago
after about the oath or 25th of July--that
is. after the siege had ended, and when my
brigade had been without fresh meat or
vegetables for month-was generally
good.
By that time the cavalry division was in
a sickiy condition. The fact that the meat
ration was so bad as generally to be inedi-
bic caused very great hardship to my men
and reduced its supply of food below what
was necessary to keep them in proper con-
dition. Very sincerely yours,
(Signed) THEODORE ROOSEVELT.
In Army and Navy Circles.
The more the matter was discussed by
army and naval officers the stronger ap-
parently became the conviction that the
conduct of General Eagan was too grave
and serious to be overlooked by the Presi-
dent and the Secretary of War. regardless
of the personal views of General Miles on
the subject.
According to this view of the case Cen
eral Eagan had gone out of his way to
publicly insult and calumniate the com
manding general of the army, not simply
by his official statements before the war
investigating commission. but by furnish
Ing copies of such statements to the repre-
sentatives of the press associations in order
that his denunciation of General Miles
might be spread broadcast all over the
country.
1t is moreover contended that the Presi-
dent promise that witnesses before the
commission SHOULD be projected applied
simply to testimony given in regard to the
conduct of the war, and was not intended
to shield witness from improper conduct
outside of his testimony. AS one prominent
officer put it:
As Miles Friends Put 1t.
1T is entirely inconceivable that the Pres
ident intended to shield a witness who
should commit perjury or any other crime
known to the civil or military law. Nor is
it any more likely that his promise of pro-
lection was intended to cover clear breaches
of propriety on the part of the witness As
well understood it was the Presidents idea
that none of the witnesses should be per-
mitted to suffer on account of their testi-
mony.
If 1t is true the Secretary of War thinks
his hands are tied in this matter the nat
urai inference is that any witness SO de-
string was perfectly safe in abusing the
President, the members of the commission
or anybody else in his testimony before that
commission. To follow the reasoning to its
logical conclusion. he could not be punish
ed even for using personal violence toward
any member of the commission if he felt
so impelled during the course of his ex-
animation. Few if any. of the army Of
ficers think that Gen. Miles is called upon
to take any official notice of Gen. Eagan's
transgression unless 1t becomes necessary
by reason of the non-action of the head of
tie War Department.
AS understood he is simply waiting for
the department to take the action which
he thinks the offense calls for, and he is
justified in feeling confident that his su-
periors will not overlook such a fragrant
violation of official conduct on the part of
a man holding such an important office
with immense financial responsibilities as
the commissary general. The non-action of
the War Department in this matter is the
more conspicuous when the action of the