Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-05-08


described as fresh because II was not
aaitcd, but that the meat was not old
or stale.
, THAT the refrigerated beef furnished
the army was not 'doctortd or treated
with amy agency other than cold sir
That the meat purchased for the
army was the meat u commerce. that
both knds-fcfrigcrntcd and canned
were such as were well known In both
hrmiaphtrcH M commercial articles Of
which there Il and has been a very
large consumption. not only by the
trade generally. hut by the United
States navy. ana by the armies and
nayies u Europe
"rhnt no reports Of unfitncas or un-
suitability of the beef sent from the
United States were forwarded TO the
war department by any general officer
serving IN cuba or Porto Rico while
the Held operations were In progress,
nor were any such reports received I'M
~ more than a month after HOSTILE
tics ceased.
"Thnt barring some defects In moth
ods NJ Inspecting the beef on H. dciiv-
ory to the subsistence department. the
deterioration of the meat In shipment
was due To the fault N no onc.'
MILES CHARGES.
Tho charges ~ Gen. Miles. M mndc
nnyoonon ycarhun-J"on ct-j oral-u
In newspaper interviews. rs wei ~
those made before the war Investigate
Ing commission. are referred o. NJ
length. among them being the intor-
Wow with the general Bent our iru y
the New York onicc ~ the Asa1ciiisl
Press on January 1iHt. IN whlsh Get
Miles was quoted me- saying that he
hal "oveewh lining cviifnfe 49, The
beef was TREATED with ch1fni eaif g. tfg-
serve ~ and that he hal aiudtviis
from mon Who rlw the BEEF urdcfE 'irf
the cmbaiminE process"
The cuut foias tho isrlN wi'ch
Cen Miles made of this part ~ the
conNtfaltirn 10 II was rflnici IN ihc
Nr.s Yck Herald but nrlais uir
CHARGE na part n the allegations,
aTsinu on thlr pnints 'arho testimony
of both Mr. Heed and Mr ngrry N
the New York Times agrees IN the Ner-
ncity ~ the Interview nn reported Wy
the formcf and this l. found In the
Herald clipping. The court dos not
therefore ignore this paragraph. but
treats u M pnft ~ the nilegntlonH
which are under investigation"
RESULTS or INVESTIGATION.
summing up the results Of the In
vcttirnti1ns 81 the chemists, employed
hy the court. tho court says The
contents II all the cases. which com
sisted ~ boiled rather than roast be. (,
were found 60 be- perfectly sweet Win
an odnr VI cooked meat. The boet w
nearly an the cans appeared 10 have
been auftencd by exposure tu heat, hut
apparently without Injurious eject 49,
10 ita quality. apart from this. the
meat contents were found 10 De IN
good state ~ preservation IN every
case. No trace ~ preventative acids
was found m any ~ the cans.
''rhcro IL no testimony 10 the cncct
that any of the canned fresh bcct'
supplied TO the subsistence depart
ment since April %. 1855, has been
chemically treated or subjected To the
action Of prgacrvailvcs u any Kind.
save small quantities ~ common salt
have been added az HcnHunlng TO the
production 81 the packcrs."
Detailing the numerous invcailEa-
tlunH ~ the kcopling quality ~ the
canned frenh beef. the court concludes
that in no case ala the number OF
Hweliod or tainted cans greatly ok
coed IN amount I per cent % the on
tire number examined
several pages ~ the report are de-
voted 20 the consideration of the al
legations made by Gen, Miles that the
refrigerated beef was treated with
prrrcrvntivca. but the statement u
made upon the Threshold u this
question. that but little testimony
this contention" The Inference drawn
hy the court from the absence 81 such
testimony " ndNcrrc tu the existence
n the practice alleged 90 prevail by
the major general commanding.
AttsA,lon u then called 90 the fact
that M. testimony bearing upon the
Standardization ~ the beef. deals with
ID only nj the time ~ it, Issuance
to tho troops. and analysis ~ this
testimony IL made with the result %
showing considerable difference %
Wow ~ 20 tho substance used and the
mode ~ their application"
Considerable attention II given 60
Dr. Days testimony concerning the
refrigerated beef on tho transport
Panama, and also 10 his report
concerning the hcef supplied 10 the
immuucs stationed az ChicknmauEa
referring o. the doctors analysis 81
rrnliuum from beef secured on tho
transport. the court calls attention 90
the fact that be approved tho hndlng
~ the board ~ surveys. and that not
withdrawing there were some mcdl-
cal Officers on board. no reference was
made hy him In his suspicion that
the meat had been chemically
treated.
THE POWELL pRocEI
Referring To this ana 20 another In
Y
shows thM the beef treated by the
Powell process. which was declared by
Dr. Dnly a. contain horacic ana sallcy.
lie acids. was IN fact treated ~ funl-
cation. and the material employed con.
tained Mother bnrnric nor faiicyllc
acids. Thr hocf from which The broth
was made on ;hO Panama han not
been positively Identified ns rcfrlRcr-
nted beef. ana tho connection between
the feHiduum ~ the sample taken
from tho ships cauldnn and that
analysed By Or. CLARK has not been
established 10 tho satisfaction OF the
court"
A chapter Of the report Is devoted
10 the consideration ~ tho cause ~ tho
sickness 20 the army IN the Santiago
campaign. hut "fhc court finds II im-
possible 10 conclude that either the
canned fresh beef or refrigerated beef
% any nppreclahle cNicnt ~
causes ~ Intestinal dlacnnen"
EXPECTS or FOOD SUPPLY.
Speaking ~ the ration a. a whole. tho
court alyf. "Aa 90 the effects OF the
food supply, having regard 90 both
NJ q 4.