New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-05-10
"WVAT OF TTr

"The interests Of the service" says the Court
of Inquiry, will best be subserved II further
proceedings be not taken" So no one Is to
suffer, and nothing Is to be done to prevent
n repetition OF the bunders with the recital of
which the report itself fairly bristles. Not the
testimony, mind, whose trustworthness is open
10 question and criticism, but the report Itself
the findings" Of the Court. We quote almost
at random:
1.-THE evidence falls to show that the char
"acter of the ration was made the subject OF
"serlous study or extensive consideration.
Perhaps the Commissary- General, following an
illustrious example set him. will exclaim,
"What Of itT'
Again "Nor does 1t appear that the Sur
"geon- General of the Army consulted or
"that his opinion was obtained Mt any time
"prlor to the sailing of the expeditions In ref
"erence to the proper food supply Of the troops
whom It was proposed to employ In tropical
climate during the most unhealthy season of
"the year" The surgeon-General, too, no
doubt encouraged by that same example, Will
be tempted to ask, "What Of ltT
Ard again, when Colonel Weston advised an
inquiry to be set on foot as TO the best means
of feeding the Army the Court says: ut does
"qulry suggested by Colonel Weston was under
"taken; or. 4 undertaken, that It was carried
forward to completion Well II such An In
oulry was not undertaken, some cync may well
demand. what Of it?'
And still again: 1.-THE evidence fails to show
THAT any attempt was made to familiarize the
troops with the method Of preparing the
canned fresh beef as an article Of food" No
fo~ hat. ~ nd a
Of bureaucrats will no doubt presently shout,
what Of itT'
"The TRANSPORTATION" says the Court, (which
"accompanie the expedition was far below
minimum in point Of strength. having In view
"the needs of the troops and animals the care
"of the sick and wounded. and the demands
made by the several staff departments for
Transportation service" Yet the Quartermas-
er-General, unmindful, perhaps, Of the PRO
prieties which dignity high military command
may presently ask disdainfully, what Of it,
In the opinion Of the Court, 1.-THE testimony
as conclusive that the command was INSULT
"ciently subsisted from the landing TO the date
"of surrender and the occupation Of the city
"and bnrbor-a state OF affairs directly trace
cable to the deficiency in transportation" But
why change n system under which this Is not
/
Further on the Court remarks; short as
"thelr Journeys were, however. there were COM
"plalnts Of the want Of cooking facilities on
'the transports" How absurd. What was the
Court thinking when 1t penned those lines?
what Of it,
And then that final Judgment upon the pur-
chase by Eagan Of over 100000 pounds OF
canned fresh beef'-that Colossal error for
| fho RI
really mean that "the interests Of the service
will be best subserved il further proceedings
"be not taken? Does It mean TO Join In ask
ing, What Of it,"
"What Of IT, indeed. Why not consign re-
form once for all to perdItion, and boldly claim
that ours Is "the best army in the world" and
then go TO sleep? Only in 1.-THE best army in
the world" can further proceedings" be SUI
perfluous In "the best army in the world
alone the question may safely be put, What
| Of it?'