Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1899-05-11
IT ~cESsuREs shLEs
u OK the Beef Court Innutr
Made puhls,

maue Public. IL
washington, May 9.-By direction Of
the president, who approves the find.
ings, Acting Secretary of War Meikle.
lphn Yesterday made public the report
anu findings of the military court an
pointed TO Investigate the charges
made by Maj. Gen. Miles. command.
ing the army, that the beef supplied TO
the army during the war with Spain
was unit for the use of the troons
The most important features of the
report are:
FINDINGS are that the generals ale
cations that the refrigerated beef was
treated with chemicals were not es.
tablished; that his allegations concern
ing the canned fresh or canned roast
beer We're sustained as to it's unsuita-
Dility for food as used on the trans.
ports and as a long continued field ra-
tlon: censure OF Gen. Miles for error
IN failure to promptly notify the secre-
q OF war when he first formed the
opinion that the food was unfit: cen
sure OF the commissary general (then
ten. Eagan) for the too extensive
purchases Of the canned beef as an
untried ration; censure of Col. Maus.
of Gen. Miles staff; and. finally, that
the packers were not ut fault and the
meat supplied TO the army was of
the same quality as that supplied to
the trade generally, and the recon-
mendation is made that
No Further Proceedings
be taken in the premises. The con-
clusion 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 re-
port, that in some instances some indi-
viduals failed to perform their full
duty or 10 observe the proprieties
which dignity high military command,
but the court is of the opinion that the
mere statement in the official report of
the facts developed meets the ends
of discipline and that the interests of
the service will be best served if
further proceedings be not taken"
There is more or less criticism Of
Gen. Miles in various parts of the re-
port. Probably the most direct in
stance is the one which states that be-
yond the criticism of officers found
elsewhere in the report:
"rhe court finds that against none of
the officers commanding corps, divis-
ions, brigades and regiments and their
staff officers should a charge Of guilt
be brought. The court also finds that
the major general, commanding the
army, had no sufficient justification for
alleging that the refrigerated beef was
embalmed OF 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 pre-
tense of experiment, that other beef
was embalmed. he did not Immediately
report such knowledge or belief to the
secretary Of war to the end that a
proper remedy might be promptly APP
Piled
The censure Of Col. Maus. inspector
general on Gen. Miles staff, Is based
upon his failure TO call attention TO
charges concerning the beef at Chick
amauga contained IN a report of in
spection made by DR.. Tor major DAILY,
on the 26th of October last, in which
he stated his belief that the beef was
chemically treated.
Gen. Miles, when asked whether he
had any comment to make upon the re-
port, said he had read it, but Il have
nothing to say upon the report, the
decision reached, the manner of TAX
ing testimony or the exclusions"
Does that mean to say that as far
as you are concerned you will let the
matter rest where it lays?' asked the
reporter.
Il have nothing to say" said Gen.
Miles.