New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-05-08

not so definite or specific as to warrant the NAM
ing by the Court Of any particular officers
1t SAYS that the refrigerated beef was at nrst
received with great satisfaction. There Is also
criticism Of the delay in unloading the re1riger-
ating apparatus of Swift & Co. at Santiago
IAN appeal by the contractors agent TO 1ehera'
Shafter for an order on the quartermaster 10
expedite the delivery from the transport OF the
refrigerating plant did not effect any result.
The delay in this matter was the cause OF seri-
Gus loss"
The Court is Of the opinion that the canned
roast beef was not suitable as a travel ration on
TRANSPORTS considering the absence OF cooking
facilities and the absence from that ration OF
fresh vegetables and condiments. For use on
shore as a food ration, where the companies hau
their camp cooking equipment and vegetables
were available. canned roast beef is suitable lor
issue say two days in ten, but not for TWO Gays
in succession. In some organizations II seems
10 have constituted at least one-half OF the meat
ration, and until after the surrender the troops
had no means for other cooking than was praE-
ticable with the individual KIT carried 70. sun
extensive use or any use. exceeding one DAY III
five. the Court finds this beef unsuitable
The refrigerated beef is. in the opinion OF the
Court a suitable ration for the troops when II
can be issued to them in good condition
REFRIGERATED BEEF PRAISED.
As TO whether anything better than the beer
trirst-That on the transports the reliance on
canned fresh and canned corned beef was wise
but that the canned fresh beef was less desiraoie
than the corned beer. os =
Second-That while bacon is not regarded as a
suitable constant food in campaign Tor troops
serving In the tropics. combined with the Vege-
tables that were available. 1t would nave peer,
more suitable and At than the UNKNOWN anu
,snfamiliar canned roast beef. eaten direct from
the ,.s 100 80,
hQ6
harbors and landing facilities, was wise ana
desirable
The Court believes that there was no better
food available or practicable. The opinion is ex-
pressed that it would have been impractcaole TO
land beef cattle OIL the hoof in Cuba. the remark
of the Court on this point being as follows;
The commanding General Of the expedition
characterizes as absurd" such proposition,
and many Of his commanding oficers; "n nose
opinion is given in the testimony, coincide WIN
him in the impracticabity or inexpedlency or
such project The Court concurs In the opln-
ion OF these men whose experience III active iiiii
itary service dated from 1861.
PACKERS ACTIONS INDICATED.
An instruction of the President to the Court
was that "If the packers of the country are
guilty II must be known" Replying to this
direction the Court says:
The Court finds that at the outbreak of hos.
were engaged in the manufacture OF an article
of standard quality well known to the trace ana
10 the subsistence department, under the nalne
Of canned roast beef. The methods or packing
then in Use were the same as those habitually
employed in the preparation of the meat as an
article OF commerce. and the Court does hot niu
that they underwent any change during tile
progress Of the war. The large purchases for the
use of the military forces during the months OF
May and June, 1898. were made not at the
solicitation of the packers, or in consequence OF
efforts nut forth by them for that purpose, out
by the order and upon the initiative OF the com
rnissary- General of Subsistence, such purchases
being made in every case by ofhcers OF Ills oe-
partment in the usual manner
On another point connected with the packers
the Court says:
counts between the United States and the con-
tractors was not referred to the Court, IL APP
pears from the testimony that whenever any
cans have been found to be defective, subsequent
10 their original delivery to the subsistence de-
partment, such cans have been replaced In every
instance. -t en-
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.
Replying specifically to other questions set out
by the President, the Court says:
That the canned beef was described as fresh
because 1t was not sailed, but that the meat
not old or stale
That the refrigerated beef furnished the Army
was mot doctored or treated with any other
agency than cold air
That the meat purchased LOT the ARMY was
the meat OF commerce: that both knds-re
frfgerated and oanned-were such as are well
known in both hemispheres as commercial arti-
Giles. Of which there is and has been very large
consumption not only by the trade generally.
but by the United States Navy and by the
armies and navies OF Europe
That no reports of unftness or unsuitability
OF the beef sent from the United States were
forwarded to the War Department by any gen
eral officer serving in Cuba or Porto Rico while
the field operations were in progress, nor were
any such reports received until more than one
month after hostties ceased.
That, barring some defects in methods Of in
srecting the beef on it's delivery to the sub
sistence department, the deterioration of the
meat in shipment due to the fault OF
one.
REFERENCE TO INTERVIEWS.
The charges Of General Miles as made in news
paper interviews. we'll those made before
the War Investigating Commission referred
to at length, among them being an interview
with the General sent out from the New-York
Office of The Associated Press January 81, in
which General Miles was quoted as saying that
he had overwhelming evidence that the beef
was treated with chemicals to preserve II. and
that he had afndavits from men who saw the
beef undergoing the embalming process" The
Court notes the denial which General Miles
made Of this part Of the conversation as il was
printed in The New-York Herald" but prints
the charge part of the allegations saying
on this point The testimony of both Mr.. Reid
and Mr. Berry Of The New York Times agrees
IN the verify OF the interview as reported by the
former, and this is found in The Herald clip