The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-04-22
WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTS.
NUMEROUS QUESTIONS THAT HE
HAS ASKED MEAT COURT.

If Miles Charges Are True, He
Wants TO Know the Guilty Par
ties So That They May BE Punish
ed-Questions in McKinIey's order
Cover Nearly Everything That
Could Be Asked Witness-MOre
Dispositions Read.
Washington, April 21.-The Wade court
of inquiry devoted to-day's session to re-
viewing testimony and tonight he'd an
other session for the purpose of reading
reports letters. dispositions and other pa
pers bearing upon the beef investigation.
The most interesting matter developed
was President McKinley's instructions to
the court of inquiry, which were deliv-
cred 60 the members of the court on Feb
ruary last. These instructions were read
by Col. Davis in order to make them a
part of the record. and are as follows:
Questions Asked the Court.
The character and quality of the meat,
refrigerated and canned. furnished to the
army; how purchased; how shipped 10 the
soldiers; if good when shipped; what the
cause of its deterioration, if any; if the
meat was doctored. did the commissary
general or any of his officers have any
knowledge of it, or means of knowledge?
Was it the meat of commerce?
Was it inspected by the government IN
spector as provided by law?
Was it an authorized ration in the
army?
IF good, when purchased, what made it
bad?
Was it anybody's neglect or fault, and
if So whose?
When unfit for use. if you should so
find, was the fact made known to the
war department; when and by whom?
IF. after leaving the depot commissary,
it was not cared for and properly pre-
served, whose fault?
WAS it a suitable ration for the cam
paigns in Cuba and Porto Rico?
Was there anything better that was
practicable?"
Would it have been prudent for our
troops to have made the expeditions to
Santiago and Porto Rico without the pre-
| served meats, either refrigerated or can
ned, with which they were supplied?
Gould the army with any certainty rely
upon the cattle on the hoof on those is
lands?
Did the commanding officers in Santa
go or Porto Rico, or the major general
commanding report during the war that
either the refrigerated or canned beef was
unfit ration?
when were these first reports first
made and by whom?
IF the allegations of the major general
commanding are established, l want the
court to find the cause and fix the respon-
sibility for the fact, that the guilty may
be properly punished.
Did the cattle in Porto Rico make a
| wholesome ration?
IF the packers of the country are guilty
1t must be known.
IF the officers of the commissary de-
partment are guilty 1t must be known.
IF any officer of the army is guilty 1t
| must be known
Contract Not ReOpened.
Both Maj. Lee and Col. Davis submitted
| number of reports and a mas of cor
| respondence. Among the documents read
| by Col. Davis was a letter from the WASH
ington attorneys of Messrs. Armour & Co.,
dated June Is, 1898, after the contract for
beef had been let, asking for a reconsid-
| Grafton of the subject in the interest of
| their clients, and an endorsement by Gen.
| Eagan, as commissary general, opposing
| the request. In their letter the attorneys
| reported that the Armours controlled the
| Powell process for the treatment of meat
and that this fact gave them such an ad-
vantage in the preservation of fresh beef
| as to justify the war department in disre-
| gardng the difference In price and award
| ing the contract. In his endorsement Gen.
| Eagan referred to the letter of the attor-
neys as a special pleading and said
there was no reason in this plea why the
| subject should be reopened.
1.-THE tests made by Armour & Co are
| not the only tests that have been made, "
| he said, land there is no doubt whatever
| in my mind but that the beef can be fur
nished as required"
This document was introduced by Col.
Davis to show that Gen. Eagan had not
been influenced by the representations
concerning the Powell process.
Process for Preservation.
Mai. Lee submitted a deposition by ].
| S. Armstrong, president of the Armstrong
Packing Company of Dallas, Tex, which,
among other things, set forth the sub
stance of a conversation with Gen. Eagan.
\ Mr. Armstrong was one of the bidders for
| beef on the block, and said that while
he was in Washington, he discussed with
| Gen Eagan the question of beef being kent
| for seventy-two hours after being taken
from the refrigerator. Mr.. Armstrong
| said he expressed the opinion that 1t was
impossible, to which Gen. Eagan replied
| that Swift & Co. and Armour both had
| knowledge of a process by which beef
| could be kept for that length of time.
I