The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-05-08

August that the refrigerated beef had
been processed. the report remarks:
Whatever the date he formed q belief or
reasonable suspicion. that the health Of the
troops was being impaired by the use OF
such food. 1t was his bounden duty. in
the opinion OF the court. Instantly TO take
the mast effective measures within hts
control to ascertain the actual facts and
correct the wrong, II any should be found.
1t would have been practicable to obtain
samples OF beef then being supplied to the
army by contractors and 10 have submit
ted these samples 10 chemical exam.na-
ton which would have resulted IN the de-
lection Of the presence or absence OF boz
racic or sa,icylic acids. or any other chem
ical agent that may have been used as
preservative agent. Yet no such precau-
ton as that suggested was taken by the
major general commanding at that time,
or at any subsequent time So far as has
been learned by the court"
The court finds that the allegations of
the major general commanding to the ef-
feet that the refrigerated beef supplied 70
the troops was treated with chemical pro-
servattyes have not been established. The
court also finds that SO much OK the ale
cations OK the major general command
.LG IN respect TO the canned roast beef as
yesa.es TO Its unsuitabs,ity for food. as
actually used On the transports and as to
Its extensive or long continued use as a
field ration are sustained. In the opinion
cf tho court none OF the other allegations
In relation 20 the canned fresh beef are
sustained. The evidence shows that Col.
J. F. Weston, assistant commissary gem
eral OF subsistence. recommended the
adoption Of the canned roast beef az a
component OF the field ration. and TO this
extent he IS responsible.
The report places the quantity OF canned
-oas, beef purchased for the war by the
commissary department at 6.3s7.i4 pounds.
including 25oooo pounds which was brought
from Liverpool and ether English points.
This amount IS characterized as excessive.
and the commlssary general (Gen- EgaD
Is severely criticised in several parts of
the documents on this score. One Of the
severest rebukes is as follows:
Considering the little use that has been
made Of this beef IN the regular army.
the probability that the volunteers were
entirely ignoran, Of il: that its use as
part OF the field ration had never been
sanctioned by the president and secretary
Of war, the court can but characterize the
action o. the eomsnissary general Of sub
sixfence rs unwarranted and reckless IN
fha. he ordered the purchase u such enor-
nous quantities Of food that was pgacii-
caily untried ana unknown and the court
so anas. The court also hnds that there
Is no ground for any inpatation whatever
OF any other actuattng motive on the part
OF the conmtssary general, than the earn
es, desire to procure The best possible food
for the troops The court proaounces this
act Of the eomuissary general os subsist-
ence a colossal error, for which there is
no palliation.
Neglect in Handling Beef.
The court sras that there was neglec, IN
Cuba and to degree In Porto Rico In
delivering the refrigerated beef.
'FThe court" says the report does nat
wish to state the case more strongly than
20 s8y that the finding appears 20 be war
raate3 iaat too much time vas consumed
in distributing this peyishable arE.ele TIE
fault. Il any there was. lies with the nsi-
gz6e and higher com uaniinx officers and
their coznfnisssrtss and auar;eTmasteYs. hut
the testimony is not SO definite or specific
az TO wsrr4H; the naming by the court OK
any particular officers
They say that tns rvsysgera:ss beef was
st nrst received With great satisfaction.
There Is also censure Of the delay In un-
loading the feerfgerassng apparatus os
sw.ft 4 Co a. Santiago
"An appeal hy the contractors agents to
Ger. Shaft*r fer an order GA the quarter
snasteg 10 expedite th~ delivery frorr the
tTarsr0r; ot tNs refrixeTa.iHx plan, dsa NOT
effect any TessSlss. The aelsy IN this matter
was tae caass - serious loss"
Canned Beef Not - Good Ration.
The court r. ~ ths ep!rson .hAs tae can
re4 ro&s; beef wss nor suitable as a travel
ration oa transsso-sS cosssA1-ysng the ah-
ser.ce % cooking facilities and tAe absence
from shAs rattas Of fresh vegetables ans
csVt! zssnsx. FssF tAse cn shore as a Gel.
rasisn. ~hsre tese czsfr sssgssss had ;Ae.r camp
cooking equipment an5 vegetables were
Sv2slahie. canned roass beat Is sustAAss for
issue. sssy swa days 50 tsa. sas not ssr
t~e days II saec.ss&ag.. In scrae prgaasxa~
tSgns {; ssers1s 70 Save constituted ~ ssAst
cre-hsE OF the rs~As ration and antg AZ
sAr tie Sarrrrees the troops aai 10 EssAcs