Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-05-08

riatencc nf unMnrranted and reckless
In that he ordered the purchase OF
such enormous quantities OF food that
was practically untricd and unknown.
and the court 70 finds. The court also
finds that there Ia no ground Tor any
imputation whatever, 81 any other
nctuating motive ON the tart Of the
commissary- general. than the earnest
desire 10 procure the best possible food
FOR the troops. The court pronounccs
this act of the commissnry-Ecnc
OF subsistence colossal error for
which there II no ualliation."
The court finds that there was neg
lcct IN cuba and to q less degree IA
Porto l,ico In delivering the rcfrlg-
Grated beef. THE court" says the re-
port does not wish to state the case
more strongly than TO say that the
too much time was consumed In dis
tributlng this rcrishahlc article. The
fault. II any there was. Hes with tho
brigade and higher commanding OH
Gers and their commiasnrica and quar-
tcrnnaters. hut the testimony Il not
80 definite or specific na In warrant the
naming by the court 81 any particular
officers" They say that the rcfrlg-
Grated beef was ut nrst received with
great satisfaction.
There II also ccnsuro N the delay In
unloading tho rcffiEerating apparatus
~ Swift q 60. at Santiago. AN APP
peal by the contractors agents to Gen.
Shnftcr for an order on the quarter
master TO expedite the delivery from
the transport OF the rcfrigcrating plant
did not erect any result. The delay In
this matter was the cause u serious
loss"
CANNED BEEF RATION.
The court IL Of the opinion that the
canned roast beef was not suitable NJ
a travel ration on transports. consider
ing the absence u cooking facilities,
and the absence from that ration ~
fresh vegetables and condiments. For
use on shore AZ field ration.whore tho
companies had their onmp.Cooklug
equipment and vegetables were avail
able canned roast beef " suitable Tor
Issue. say two days In ten, but not Tor
two days In succession, In some or
ganizationa " seems 10 have cnuatitu-
ted at least unc-half Of tho meat rution
and. until after the surrender. the
troops had no means for cooking other
than was practicable with the lndividu.
nj Kit carried. For such extensive Use.
or any use exceeding one day In i've,
the court finds this beef unsuitable.
THE refrigerated beef II. In the opin-
Ion OF the court. suitable ration for
troops when II can be Issued 10 them
In good condition.
WHAT WAS SUITABLE RATION.
A. TO whether anything better than
the bccf was available Tor a ration. the
opinion ini
"Firrt-That on the transports the
reliance on canned frcah and canned
corncd beef was wise. but that iho
canned fresh beef was less desirable
than the Corncd.
'sccond-rhat while bacon IL not t..
Earded aH q suitable constant food m
campaign FOR troops serving In tho
tropics. combined with the vegetables
that were available. II would have been
more suitable ana NJ than the unknown
and unfamiliar canned roast beef eaten
direct from the can.
"ThirdIrhat the use of refrigerated
beef on shore. after the troops had
secured convenient harborn ana land.
lng facilities, was wiHo and desirable
That the court believes that there was
no better food available or practicable"
The opinion u expressed that II
would have been impraCtionhle TO land
beef cattle on the hopf in cuba. the
remark Of the court on this point being
aa follows.
THE commanding general ~ tho ox.
pcdltion chnracteriEcH ~ absurd such
proposition ana many Of his com.
inandlnR officers whose opinion n given
IN the testimony coincide with him
~ WV Ut lNNAIit NNl nNN
OF such n project. The court cuncuru
Ia the opinion IT those men whose *.
perience In active military service
dated from 1891"
THE PACKERS.
An Instruction Of tho Presidents TO
the court was N the packers " tho
country arr guilty, u must be- known"
Replying 70 this direction. the court
says The court finds that at the
outbreak % hostilitica In April, isps
that IN. packers ~ canned beef were
engaged IL the Manufacture Of an artl.
Gle u standard quali;y, well known 10
tho trade and the Hubslstance depart
incnt under the name OF canned mast
becf' The methods of packing then In
Use were the same ~ those habltunily
employed IN the preparation ~ the
meat me- an article ~ commerce, aud
the court does not ma that they On.
dcrwcni any change during the pro-
TraH ~ tho war, The large purchases
for the une u the military f6rcra dur.
Ink the months Of May and June. 1895.
were mndc-u0t at the solicitation %
the packers, OF In consequence of 81.
forts put forth by them Tor that pur.
posc-hut by tho order and upon the
Initiative ~ the commlraary .tisnerni
% subsistence, such purchases boing
made IN every case By officers 81 hia
department IN the usual manner"
on another point connected with the
packers, the court says although
the subject ~ the reimbursement ~ nc.
counts between the United States and
tho contractors was not referred 90 the
court, IL appear. from the testimony
that whenever any cans have boon
found 90 be- defective. subsequent tn
their original delivery 20 the HuhHlH-
tcncc department. such cans have been
replaced In every Instance"
No EMnALMED BEEF.
Replying specifically 10 other aues-
lions set out hy tho President. the