Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-04-24

reference to Swift & Co.'S bid as shown by
the context and subsequent award to Swift
& Co.
Changes In the Contract.
After various changes and notifications,
the addition of a seventy two-hour clause
In one article and a reduction to twenty
four hours in another, the contract was
awarded to Swift & Co. on July /, 1898, for
Cuba. From the changes made in the con-
tract, as shown in the testimony the con-
tract seems to have been subject to diverse
Interpretation as to the time limit in hours,
one clause stating that the beef should
Keep seventy-two hours after issue from the
ships refrigerator, or twenty-four hours
after issue from the refrigerator on shore
one commissary officer Interpreting it, in
practice. to mean only twenty-four hours
In either case. 1t may be here remarked
that the issue of refrigerated beef in Porto
Rico resulted in spelling in many Instances
similar to that issued in Santiago when
necessary to reach the troops not in the
immediate vicinity of the wharf and as
far as can be recalled, without restitution
to the soldier and without loss to the con-
tractor; and that the preventative process
failed is evident from the history of many
issues, both in Cuba and Porto Rico. That
1t was the expectation ana the intention
that some special preventative process
could and would be used by the refrigerat-
ing people, Armour & Co. or Swift Il CO.
seems to be established beyond all question
There are known or reputed to be several
processes and compounds for the preserva-
uon OF meats-boric acid, salicylic acid,
forinaldehyde, preservaline and probably
others-one or more of which could be used
as occasion might demand Of course
neither the process nor it's nature would
be incorporated in any contract See
Armour K Co.'S letter from their attorneys
on that subject
Thus far it seems evident that, amid the
per1ls and activities of war, but compare
lively few outside of the commissary gen.
erals office thought or knew much about
the experiment of processed or refrigerated
beef, which in neither case ever supplied
the wants of the soldiers until the war was
practically over. The secret of the preserv-
ing process was with those refrigerating
people who proposed to use 1t; beyond that,
its discovery might be a mere matter of ac-
cldent If the beef were satisfactory, no
one might have reason to suspect or COM
plain and the matter of detection or sus-
picion, of processed beef with secret pre-
servatives could ordinarily arise only in the
way as testified to before this court What
are the facts? Witnesses, unimpeached and
unlmpeachable, uninfiuenced and dsinter
ested, without motive for stating any
thing but the truth, have come forward
and testified as to facts within their knowl-
edge; and all the statements of interested
parties, all the evidence of those who
neither tested nor investigated, cannot
avail against those who give clear direct
and uncontradicted testimony as to facts.
SO we say that on no principle of justice
can the indirect allegations. the shadowy
statements of those who did not know,
those who did not suspect those who made
no inquiry, be of material weight against
the credible. the direct and positive testi-
mony of those who have not been and cam
not be successfully contradicted as to ma
terial facts within their personal knowl-
edge
Chemical Treatment
Among these witnesses is Dr.W. H. DAILY,
who, we claim, has not been successfully
contradicted by any reputable witness. He
testtfies in substance (pp.3270-332D that ION
the Panama he observed that the beef had
an odor similar to a dead body injected
with preserVatives. He later made a chem
ical analysis of the soup from this beef
with due CAFE and precaution, and in con-
junction with a Well-knoWn chemist, found
Dorlc ana SdIlcylic acids. DIR. DAILY $ in
spections and reports, read in evidence be-
fore this court, and sworn to by him, APP
pear to fully corrOborate his evidence in
the first instance as to chemcalized beef.
There has been conclusive evidence that
the beef examined by DIR. Daily was refrig
Grated beef which came from the Manitoba.
Capt. Williams (p. 1860, who was with
DR.. DAILY on the Panama; corroborates him
in stating that the disagreeable odor from
this meat did not appear to be due to de-
composition: that the odor was something
new, and was like the odor of bodies re
had seen operated on
DIR. Rush S. Huidekooper up. $685. 49,
who was on duty in Porto Rico, testifies
that he had known for fifteen years that
chemicals have been used in covering the
exterior surface of beef, as well as boric
acid, the salts &c
In confirmation of this testimony many
witnesses have testified as to the necessity
of cutting away scraping off the outside
of the beef when issued in order to use the
edible portion.
DR.. Edwin A. Nicodemus opp. 1899 -3349)
teStifieS that the beef had been cured or
embalmed; that the odor while cooking was
especially suggestive of a dissecting room"
Dr. Daniel A. Curries opp. 1884 etc., late
lieutenant colonel I'd New Jersey a physi-
clan of coed repute, and an officer of eff
cheney and integrity, details the circum-
stances of sickness of men of his detail at
Jacksonville Florida; his suspicion that the
beef had been processed, and the taste in
connection with the cooking, which con-
WINGED him that preventative chemicals had
been used-n his belief, boric and salicylic
ACIDS, suspected on examination and con-
tumed by subsequent analysis
Prof. Bigelow, chemist of the Agricultural
Department, was called, and gave as his
opinion that the tests of DR.. Currie showed
the absence of these acids. DR.. Currie had
returned home, and was not here in court
to meet those who sought to diScredit his
testimony. DR.. Currie is a gentleman of
eminent responsibility the was not on triaD
and that there was something wrong with
the beef other than decomposition seems
evident, not only from his testimony as to
the general sickness of his detail but from
other circumstances as we'll
John Ruch @. 3J6S), the head cook from
whom DR.. CHrrie obtained the beef for an
alysis, testifies that he heard that the
meat was embalmed which caused il TO
look so red after it was cooked. 1t was the
general talk that the beef was embalmed."
Randolph K. Spcer opp. 3I2-40O2) testi-
fies that in Porto Rico he observed that
beef brought from transport had green
scaly crystals on it; noticed this because
he has observed like results in the use
of embalming fluids, when engaged as an
embalmer.'
Capt. Galbraith (pp. 1850 1868 noticed at
Santiago that some of the beef smelied
suspiciously. and he thought he detected
the odor of drugs when helping to load
and unload it while going to camp.
On board the Chester en- route with his
regiment to Porto Rico, Mr.. George l..
Taylor, sanitary engineer and chemist Opp
4iS9-4507), detected slight odor of formal
dehyde on the fresh beef. After eating the
beef he himself and others suffered from
acute indigestion. and this could be caused
by the chemical named"
All the beef referred to by the foregoing
witnesses appears to have been furnished
by Swift & Co. incidentally. it may be
stated that last year-lS9S-Dr. e. P. Muir
dock Opp. 2J09-2516 made laboratory ex-
animation in Chicago of canned and fresh