Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1899-05-09
GEN. MILES CENSURED.
Beef Report is Made Public by
the President.
EAGAN AND MAUS ALSO.
Court of Inquiry Fails to Uphold the
Allegations as to the
Army Meat.

Army Meat.
Washington, d. c., May S.-By direc-
ton Of the President, who approves tho
findings, Acting Secretary of War
Meiklejohn has made public the report
and findings of the military court ap
pointed to investigate the charges made
by Maj.-Gen Miles, commanding the
army, that the beef supplied to the army
during the war with Spain was unfit for
the use of the troops.
The most important features of the re-
port are:
The finding that the generals allegations
that the refrigerated beef was treated with
chemicals were not established.
That his allegations concerning the canned
fresh or canned roast beef were sustained
as to its unsuitability orr food as used on
the transports and as Il ong-continued field
ration.
Censure of Gen. Miles for "error'' in fail
ing promptly to notify the secretary OF war
when he first formed the opinion that the
food was unfit.
Censure OF the commiSsary-g general then
Gen. Eagan) for the too extensive purchases
Of the canned beef as untried ration.
Censure of Col. Maus of Gen. 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 sup
piled to the trade generally.
The recommendation that no further pro-
ceedingS be taken in the premises.
AS to Further Proceedings.
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 individuals failed to
perform the full measure of duty or to OBJ
serve the proprietieS which dignity high
military command, but the court is Of the
opinion that the mere statement in the of
fetal report Of the facts developed meets
the ends of discipline and that the interests
of the service will be best subserved if
further proceedings be not taken.
There is more or less criticism of Gen.
Miles in various parts of the report.
Probably the most direct instance is the
one which states that beyond the crit
cism of officers, found elsewhere i'll the
report: 1.-The court finds that against
none Of the officers commanding corps,
divisions, brigades and regiments and
their staff officers should Il charge of guilt
be brought The court also finds that the
major general commanding the army had
not sufficient Justification for alleging
that the refrigerated beef was embalmcd
or was unfit for issue to troops. 1t also
finds that he committed an error in that,
having belief or knowledge, as claimed,
that the food was unfit, that it caused
sickness and distress, that some of it was
supplied under the pretense of expert
ment, that other beef was embalmed, he
did not Immediately report such knowl-
edge or belief to the secretary of war tc
the end that proper remedy might be
promptly applied.
Why Maus is Censured.
The censure of Col. Maus, inspector
general of Gen. Miles staff is based upon
his failure to call attention to charges
concerning. the beef at Chickamauga con
tanned III a report of inspection made Ey
DIR. tor Maj) DAILY on the Goth of Oc-
tober last, in which he stated his belief
that the beef was chemically treated
The silence of Col. MauS," saws the
court, ION SO important IL matter as the
chemicallzed beef reported by Maj. DAILY
and personally known to himself is most
remarkable" The remark is also made
that Gen. Miles failure to draw special
attention to this report is unexplained. ("
Commenting upon Gen. Miles testi-
mony that he had first formed the opin-
ion last August that the refrigerated be- f
had been prOcessed the court remarks:
Whatever the date upon which he formed
a belief, or reasonable suspicion. that the
health OF the troops was being impaired by
the use of deleteriOuS food ri was his
DOunden duty, in the opinion of the court
instantly to take the most effective meas
ureS within his control to ascertain the act
should be found. 1t would have been prac-
ticable to obtain samples of the beef then
being supplied to the army by the CON
tractors and to have submitted these sam
pies to chemical examination which would
have resulted in the detection of the pres
ence or absence Of boric and salicylic acids
or any other chemical agent that may have
been used as preventative agent. Yet no
such precautiOn us that suggested was taken
by the major general commanding at that
time or at any subsequent time, so far as
has been learned by the court.
The evidence shows that Col. John F.
weston, assistant cOmmiSSary- general of
subsistence, recommended the adoption of
the canned roast beef as component of the
field ration, and to this extent he is re-
SponSibe.
Criticism of Gen. Eagan.
The report places the quantity of
canned roast beef purchased for the war
by the commissary department at g.
SAT, ia pounds, including $50, 600 pounds
which was brought from Liverpool and
other English ports. This amount is
characterized as excessive, and the COM
missary-general (Gen. Eagan) is severely
criticised in several parts of the doc,!-
ment on this score. One of the seyerest
rebukes is as follows:
Considering the little use that had been
made Of this beef in the regular army the
probability that the volunteers were en-
tirely ignorant of it, that it's use as a part
Of the field ration had never been sanctioned
by the President or secretary of war, the
court can but characterize the action of the
commissary- general of subsistence as I'M
warranted and reckless in that he ordered
the purchase of such enormous quantities of
a food that was practically untried and I'M
known, and the court finds. The court
also finds that there is no ground for any
imputation whatever Of any other actuating
motive on the part of the commissary- gen
eral than the earnest desire to procure the
best possible food for the troops The court
prOnounces this act Of the cOmmissary- gen
era of subsistence colossal error for
which there is no palliation
Was Neglect in Cuba.
The court finds that there was neglect
in Cuba and to a less degree in Porto
Rico in delivering the refrigerated beef
The court" says the report, docs not
wish to state the case more strongly than
to say that the finding appears to be war
ranted that too much time was consumed
in distributing this perishable article.
The fault, if any there was, rested with
the brigade and higher commanding off
GERS and their cOmmiSSarieS and QUARTER