The record-union., 1899-05-08
GeneraI Eagan and Colonel Maus Also
Censured.
The Court Finds the Packers were
Not to Blame and That the
Meats Furnished the Army Were
of the Same Quality as Those
Furnished to the Trade-Rec-
ommendation That No Further
Proceedings be Taken in the
Premises.

WASHINGTON, May by direc-
ton of the President who approves the
findings, Acting Secretary Meiklejohn
to-day made public the report and find
ings of the military court appointed to
Investigate the charges made by Major
General Miles. commanding the army,
that the beef supplied the army dur
ing the war with Spain was unfit for
the use of the. troops.
The most important features of the
report are:
The finding that the Generals allega-
lions that the refrigerated beef was
treated with chemicals were not eStaD-
Hshed; that his allegations concerning
the canned fresh or canned roast beef
were sustained as to it's unsuitabillty
for food as used on the transports and
as a long-continued field ration; CEN
sure of General Miles for error in
failing to promptly notify the Secre-
tary of War when he first formed the
opinion that the food was unfit; CEN
sure of the Commissary General (then
General Eagan) for the too extensive
purchase of the canned beef as an
untried ration; censure of Colonel Maus
Of General Miles staff; 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 recon-
mendation that no further proceedings
will be taken in the premises.
The conclusion of the court adverse
to further proceedings based upon the
charges is as follows:
1T has been developed in the course
of the inquiry as recited in this report
that in some instances some individ-
uals failed to perform the full measure
of duty or to observe the proprieties
which dignity military command but
the court is of the opinion that the
mere statement in the official reports
of the facts developed meets the ends
of the discipline, and that the interests
of the service will be best SubSeryed
if further proceedings be not taken"
There is more or less criticism of
General Miles in various parts of the
report Probably the most direct in
stance is the one which states that
beyond the criticism of officers found
elsewhere in the report:
The court finds that against none of
the officers commanding corps. divis-
ions, brigades and regiments and their
staff officers should a charge of guilty
be brought
The court also finds that the Major
General commanding the army had no
sufficient justification for alleging that
the refrigerated beef was embalmed or
was unfit for issue to troops 1t also
finds that he committed an error in
Of In lodi q
claimed, that the food was unfit: that
it caused sickness and distress: that
some of it was supplied under the pre-
tense of experiment; that other beef
was embalmed-he did not immediate
~ report such knowledge or belief to
the Secretary of War. to the end that
a proper remedy might be applied
The censure of Colonel, Maus. In
spector General on General Miles staff
is based upon his failure to call atten-
ton to charges concerning the beef at
Chickamauga contained in a report of
inspection made by DR.. Cor Major DAILY
on the 26th of October last. in which
he stated his belief that the beef was
chemically treated.
The silence of Colonel Maus" says
the court, ''on so important a matter
as the chemicalized beef reported by
Major Daily and personally known to
himself is most remarkable
The remark is also made that Cen
eral Miles failure to draw special at
tention to this report is unexplained. ,"
Commenting upon General Miles
testimony that he had first formed the
opinion last August that the refriger-
ated beef had been processed. the re-
port remarks:
Whatever the date he formed be-
lief. or reasonable suspicion. that the
health of the troops was being, impaired
by the use of deleterious food. it was
his bounden duty, in the opinion of the
court, instantly to take the most eff
fective measures within his control to
ascertain the actual facts and to cor
rect the wrong, If any should be found
1t would have been practicable to OBJ
tain samples of the beef then being
supplied to the army by contractors,
and to have submitted these samples
to chemical examination, which would
have resulted in the detection of the
presence or absence of boracic or
saiycllic acids or any other chemical
agent that may have been used as a
pfeServative agent Yet no such pre-
caution as that suggested was taken
by the Major General commanding at
that TIME or any subsequent time, SO
Tar as has been learned by the court.
as as has been learned by the court .
The court finds that the allegations
OF the Major General commanding to
'he enect that the refrigerated best
supplied to the troops was treated with
chemical presevatives have not been
established. The court also finds that
SO much Of the allegations of the Major
General commanding in respect to the
canned roast beef as relate to its I'M
suitability for food, as actually used on
the transports and as to it's extensive
or long-continued use as field ration.
are sustained. In the opinion of the
court none of the other allegations in
relation to the canned fresh beef are
sustained. The evidence shows that
Colonel John F. Weston, Assistant Com
missary General of Subsistence recon-
mended the adoption of the canned
roast beef as a component of the field
ration, and to this extent he is respon-