Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-05-08


but treats it as part of the allegations
which are under Investigation
Miles Failed to Report.
Taking up the Presidents memorandum
of inquiry and replying to the question
whether or not the alleged unfftness of the
meat was reported to the War Department.
the court states:
THE court has not been able to learn that
any report of unfitness was ever made
known to the rtntens prospecting canned
roast beef until December 21 1898. when
General Miles so stated, before tbe com
mission appointed to- Investigate the war
with Spain. This offfeerSalso stated in sub
stance, at the same TIME and place, that
the refrigerated beef was unfit for iss,Ie
General Miles testifies that when he
learned at Ponce. in August, that the beef
was to keep seventy-twO hours he s,,snect-
ed that there had been some processing. as
otherwise it would have spoiled. 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, 1t was his bounden duty.
IN the opinion of the court instantly to
take the most effective measures within
his control TO ascertain the actual fact and
to correct the wrong, If any should he
found. 1t would have been practicable TO
obtain samples of the beef then being SIM
piled to the army by contractors ana r.
nave submitted these samples to chemical
examination, which would have resulted IL,
the detection of the presence or absence Of
borlc and salicylic acids, OF any othar cba,,,
zeal agent that may have been used 90 q
preserVative agent. At that time more than
10000 American soldiers were being SIN
pned with refrigerated beef and surely it
was OF the utmost importance to detern,,na
II thelr efficiency or health was being i'm,
paired, yet no such precaution as that sup
sested was taken by the major general co,,,-
,ir.,a ins a. that tlme or at any subsequent
tllne, SO far as has been learned bv tho
court ny 'ie
Meat Not Doctored.
To the question: IF the meat u-,s aoo
tored. did the comm1ssary general or any
OF MS officers have any knowledge of 1t or
means of knowledge" the court replles:
Inc board has recorded Its opinion that
| the refrigerated beef, furnished under con-
tracts for the use of the armies. was NOT
'doctored' or treated with any other agent
than cold air If such treatment had been
applied it lis the opinion of the court thai a
knowledge of it could not have been con-
officers" ~
Answering the Presidents question. "wss
1t the meat Of commerce." the court states.
Both kinds-Tefrigerated and canned
We're such as are well known in both horn
ispheres as commercial articles, of which
there is and has been very large cOns,,mn
ton, not only by the trade generally hit
by the United States navy and by the
e"i tiffSo tIiIu IStSleS OIL Europe
The question WAS 1T an authorized rs flo,
In the arny?" received this reply:
FRESH beef Crefrgerated) Is an article Of
the authorized ration. Canned roast haaf
IS also authorized for the travel ration, but
mas never been prescribed as a component
Oh the field ration, 1t was first used az
such ration during the war with Spain. as
before stated" go
Neglect In Cuba and Porto Rico.
Inc report goes on to state answering the
Presidents questions, that there was no nm
usual loss of canned roast beef due to de-
terioration in quality or defective hacking
1T does not blame anybody for such as he
came bad. AS respects the time consumed
IN the transportation of refrigerated beef
from cold storage to the troops and az re
Spects the arrangements for its delivery and
It's care after delivery, the court finds that
tbere was neglect in Cuba and 10 }ass
degree. in Porto Rico The wagons assign
ed to carry the beef were sometimes not
Cream and often there was no protection
from sun and rain.
the court does not wish to state the
case more strongly than to say that the
HhdinS appears to be warrane ed that TOO
much time was consumed in distributing
TINS perishabie artiele-refrfgerated haef
Inc fauit, If any there was rested VIII h tho
pflsaae ana higher commanding officers and
Ilefr conlmlssaries and quarter1nasters hut
one testimony Is not so definite or specific
as TO warrant the naming by the CONT of
any particular officers"
Suitability of Ratfons.
me court Is of the opinion that the can
Heu roast peer was not suitable as a travel
iatloh on transports, considering the alb
sence 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 have their
camp cooking equipment. and vegetables
are available, canned roast beef Is suitable
Tor issue. say, two days in ten; but not
Iof Two days in succession. The refriger-
a.fa peer Is In the opinion of the court,
suitable ration for troops when it can be
ISSUED to them in good condition.
AS 10 there being any better food that
was as practicable the court states:
mat canned roast beef without cOnlf-
fmehis), with which the troops We're I'M
Latnillar, was far less desirable than the
canned corned beef, which was well known
ana liked by most Of the men.
"hile bacon is not regarded as a suit
dpie constant food in campaign for troops
serving IN the tropics. the court believes
tnat, combined with the vegetables that
We're available. it would have been more
suitable and fit than the unknown and I'M
familiar canned roast beef eaten direct
from the can
me use of refrigerated beef on Shore
after the troops had secured convenient
narbors and landing facilities, was wise and
desirable The court believes that there
was no better food available or practicable
l 'Statt oeei from snip retrlgeratorS was
available and issued at Santiago from and
AFTER July u, and at some Porto Rican
ports 1t was available early in August. 1t
heed not be said that beef derived from
good cattle, freshly slaughtered. would be
most acceptable. but when the Porto Rican
expedition was being organized nothing was
known, or could be known, as to whether
or not the landing would be unopposed
Cntli considerable areas had been occupied
ana the availability of native beef had been
eStabllShed. there was no better food than
reIrigerated beef that was practicable"
Inc PRESIDENTS question: Would it have
Deeh prudent for our troops to have made
the expeditions to Santiago and Porto Rico
without the preserved meats. either refrg-
Grated or canned. with which they were
suppiied! Is answered as follows:
me answer as respects the canned roast
peer is yes; but respects refrigerated
beef. no.
Cattle on the Hoof.
Inc court declares that no reliance should
nave been placed on the cattle of those
Islands as certain means of subsistence
IL ADDS that: ut has been contended that
peer cattle should have been sent to Cuba
from the states, landed through the surf
as were the. horses and mules. herded near
Inc troops, Slaughtered as required and the