The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1899-05-08

10 bno troops was treateu WIN cnemlchi
pressrvatives have not been established.
The court also finds that so much Of the
allegations Of the major general comman-
ding In respect to the canned roast beef.
as related to Its unsuitability for food,
as actually used on the transports, and as
to its extensive or long continued use as
n field ration arc sustained. In the opin-
ion of the court none OF the other aliega
tiops In relations to the canned fresh beef
Is sustained. The evidence shows that
Col. John n. Weston, assistant commits.
sary general Of subsistence. recommended
the adoption of the canned roat beef as
component Of the field ration and to that
extent he Is responsible.
The report places the quantity OF
cauDed roast beef purchased for the war
by the commissary department at ., S4',-
ia pounds, including $780, pounds
which was brought from Liverpool and
other English ports. This amount 10 cnar-
acterized as excessive and the commissary
general (Gen. Eagan1 Is severely oriti-
oized in several parts of the document
on this score. One of the seyersst re-
Dukes 10 as follows.
"Considering the little use that had
been made OF this beef in the regular
army, the probability that the volunteers
were entirely ignorant of 1t, that it's use
as part of the field ration had never
been sanctioned by the President or Sec
retary Of War, the court can but charac-
terize the action of the commissary gen.
eral of subsistence as unwRrranted and
reckless in that he ordered the purchase
Of such enormous quantities OF food
that was practically untried and un-
known and the court SO finds. The court
also finds that there Is no ground for any
imputation whatever of any other actuat
Ing motive on the part Of the commissary
general. than the earnest desire to procure
the best possible food for the troops.
The court pronouncss this act of the COM
missary general of subsistence colossal
error for which there Is no palliation."
The court finds that there was neglect
in Cuba and to less degree in Porto
Rico in delivering the refrigerated beef.
1.-The COURT says the report, 'does
not wish to state the case more strongly
than ~ say that the finding appears to
be warranted that too much time was
consumed In distributing this perishable
article. The fault. II any, there was, rest
ed with tn, brigade and higher COM
manding officers and their commissaries
and quartermasters. but the testimony Is
not so definite or specific as to warrant
the naming by the court of any particu-
lar officer" .
They say that the refrigerated beef was
at first received with great satisfaction.
There Is also criticism of the delnS In un- :
loading the refrigerating apparatus OF
Swift & Co., at santiago.
IAN appeal by the contractors agent to
General Shafter for an order on the quar-
termaster 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 considering
the absence OF cooking facilities and the
haa no from nj ration nf Trash vpOata-
bles and condiments. For use on shore
rs a food ration, where the companies had
their camp cooking equipment, and vege.
tables were available, canned roast beef
is suitable for issue, say two daysin ten,
but not for two days In succession. In
some organizations, 1t seems to have con-
stituted at least one-half of the meat ra-
tion and until after the surrender, the
troops had no means for other cooking
than was practicable With the Individual
kit carried. For such extensive use, or
any use exceeding one day in five, the
court finds this beef unsuitable.
The refrigerated beef is, in the opinion
of the court q suitable ration for troops
when it caa be issued to them in good
condition. As to whsther any thing bet
| ter than the beef was available for ra-
| tion, the opinion is:
First-That on the transport the reli-
ance on canned fresh and canned corned
| beef was wise, but that the canned fresh
beef was less desirable than the corned
| beef.
Second-That while bacon ia not regard
ed AS a suitable constant food in cam
paign for troops serving in the tropics,
com ned with the vegetables that were
| available it would have been more suita-
BILE and fi6 than the unknown and unfa.
miliar canned roast beef eaten direct
| from the can.
Third-That the use of refrigerated
beef ON shore, after the troops had secured
convenient har bors and landing facilities,
was wise and desirable. The court be-
| lieves that there was no better food avail
| able or practicable. The opinion Is ex
pressed that it would have been impracti-
| cable to land beef cattle on the hoof In
Cuba, the remark of the court on this
point being as follows:
1.-The commanding general of the expe.
dition characterizes as absurd, such d
proposition and many of his commanding
officers whose opinion is given in the tes-
| timony coincide with him in the 1mpraC
ticability or inexpediency OF such pro,
| iect. The court concurs in the opinion o1
these men whose experience IN active mil
itary service dated from 1861.
An instruction of the Presidents tc
the court was that, III the packers OF
the country are guilty 1t must be known. u
Replying to this direction, the court
| "The co1rt finds that at the outDreaR
of hostilities in April, 1858. the packers
| Of canned beef were engaged in the man
ufacture of AN article of standard quail
ty, well-known to the trade and the sub,
sistence department under the name o1
canned roast beef. The methods of pack
| ing them in use were the same es those
habitually employed in the preparation
Of the meats as an article of commerce,
and the court does not find that they un'
derwent any change during the 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 pack
ers or in consequence OF efforts put forti
| BY them for that purpose, but by the or
der and upon the initiative OF the com
missary general Of subsistence, such pur
ohases being made in every case by ONO
ers of his department in the usual man
| per."
On another point connected with the
packers the court says:
although the subject of re-adjustmen
of accounts between the United States
| end the contractors was not referred q
the court IT appeaIs from the testimony