The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-05-08
GENERAL MILES ROASTED
BY THE COURT OF INQUIRY
Only One of the Charges Brought By Him Against
Army Beef Was Partially Sustained.
His Inspector General and Brigade Officers ScOred-Beef
Good, But Will Be No Further Investigation.

been made of this beef in the regular
army; the probability that the volun-
teers were entirely ignorant of it; that
Its use as part of the field ration had
never been sanctioned by the preSi-
dent or secretary of war; the court can
but characterize the action of the COM
missary general of subsistence as un-
warranted and reckless, in that he Or
dered the purchase of such enormous
quantities of food that was practically
untried and unknown, and the court so
finds. The court also finds that there
is no ground for an imputation what
ever of any other actuating motive on
the part OF the cOmmissary general
than the earnest desire TO procure the
best possible food for the troops The
court pronounceS this act of the COM
missary general of subsistence CO.
lossal error, for which there is no pail
liation."
The court finds that there was neg.
lect in Cuba, and to a less degree in
Porto Rico, in delivering the refriger-
ated beef.
Brigade Officers Scored.
The court" says the report, "does
not wish to state the case more strong
ly than TO say that the finding appears
10 be warranted that too much time
was consumed in distributing the per-
ishable article The fault, if any there
was. lies with the brigade and higher
commanding officers and their COM
miSSarieS and quartermasterS, but the
testimony is not so definite or specific.
as to warrant the naming by the court
of any particular officers
/, They say that the refrigerated beef
was at first received with great salts
faction There is also censure of the
delivery in unloading the refrigerating
! apparatus of Swift & Co. at Santiago
AN appeal by the contractors agents
to General Shafter for an order on the
| quartermaSter to expedite the delivery
from the transport of the refrigerating
plant, did not effect any result. The
delay in this matter was the cause Of
| serious loss"
| The court is of the opinion that the
canned roast beef was not suitable as
a travel ration on transports, consid-
/ ering the absence of cooking facilities
and the absence from that ration of
/ fresh vegetables and condiments. For
use on shore as a field ration. where
| the companies had their camp cooking
equipment, and vegetables were avail
1 able, canned roast beef is suitable for
issue say two days in ten, but not
for two days in succession In some
| organizations it seems to have consti-
! tuted at least one-half of the meat ra-
ton. and. until after the surrender. the
troops had no means for cooking other
than was practicable with the indi-
vidual kit carried. For such extensive
use, or any use exceeding one day in
| five. the court finds this beef insult
able.
Refrigerated Beef Is Good.
The refrigerated beef is. in the opin-
ion of the court a suitable ration for
troops when it can be issued to them
in good condition.
AS 10 whether anything better than
the beef was available for a ration, the
opinion is:
"First-That on the transports. the
reliance on canned fresh and canned.
Corned beef was wise. but that the
canned fresh beef was less desirable
than the cOrned.
"Second-That while bacon is not re-
garded as a suitable constant food ir
campaign for troops serving in the
tropics. combined with the vegetables
that were available. it would have been!
more suitable and fit than the unknown.
and unfamiliar canned roast beef eaten
direct from the can.
"Third-That the use of refrigerated
beef on shore. after the troops had Sc
cured convenient harbors and landing
facilities. was wise and desirable That
the court believes that there was TO
better food available or practicable"
The opinion is expressed that it would
have been impracticable to land beef
cattle on the hoof in Cuba. the remark
of the court on this point being as fol-
lows:
The commanding general of the ex-
pedition characterizeS as absurd such
a proposition, and many of the COM
manuing officers whose opinion is given
in the testimony coincided with him in
the impracticability or inexpediency of
such a project. The court concurS in
the opinion of those men whose expert
ence in active military service dated
from 1861"
Packers Are Exonerated.
An instruction of the presidents to
the court was:
IF the packers of the country are
guilty, it must be known
Replying to this direction, the court
says:
.'The court finds that at the outbreak
of hostilities in April, 1898, the packers
of canned beef were engaged in the
manufacture of an article Of standard
quality, well known to the trade and
the subsistence department under the
name of canned roast beef The meth
ods of packing then in use were the
same as those habitually employed in
the preparation of the meat as an ar
ticle of commerce, and the court does
not find that they underwent any
change during the progress of the war.
THE large purchases for the use of
the military forces during the months
of Nay and June, 1885, were made-not
at the solicitation of the packers. or in
consequence of efforts put forth by
them for that purpose-but by the or
der and upon the initiative of the COM
niissary general of subsistence, such
purchases being made in every case by
officers of his department, in the usual
manner"
on another point connected with the
packers. the court says:
although the subject of the read
justment of accounts between the Unit
el States and the contractors was not
referred to The court, it appears from
the testimony that whenever any cans
have been found to be defective, subse-
quent to their original delivery to the
subsistence department. such cans
have been replaced in every instance"
Meat Was Not Doctored-
Replying specifically to other ques-
tions set out by the president, the
court says:
THAT the canned beef was described
as fresh because it was not salted.
but that the meat was not old or
stale.
THAT the refrigerated beef furnished.
!