New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-05-08
BEEF COURTS REPORT.
SOME OF MILES'S ALLEGATIONS FOUND
TO BE TRUE.

ON ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF GEN
ERAL FOR FAILURE TO INFORM
SECRETARY OF wAR-CHARGE
OF USE OF CHEMICALS
NOT SUSTAINED.
Washington. May by direction OF the Pres.
ident. who approves the findings. Mr. Meikle-
john. the Acting Secretary OF War. to-day made
public the report and findings OF the Military
Court appointed TO Investigate the charges made
by Major General Miles. commanding the Army.
that the beef supplied to the Army during the
war with Spain was unfit for the use OF the
troops.
The most important features OF the report are
the finding that the Generals allegations that
the refrigerated beef was treated with chem
cals not established that his allegations
concerning the canned fresh canned roast
beef sustained to its unsutability for
food as used on the transports and as a long
continued field ration: censure of General Miles
for error in failing promptly 10 notify tho
Secretary OF War when he first formed the opin-
ION that the food was unfit; censure OF tho
Ccmmissary General General Eagan) for the too
extensive purchases OF the canned beef as an
untried ration: censsre OF Colonel Maus. or
General Miles's staff; the finding that the pack
ers were not at fault. and that the meats sup
piled to the Army were Of the same quality a.
these supplied to the trade generally. and ths
recommendation that no further proceedings be
taken In the premises. The conclusion OF the
Court adverse to further proceedings based upon
the charges is as follows:
1t has been developed In the course Of tho In
quiry. recited in this report. that In some IN
stances certain individuals failed to perform
the full measure OF duty or 10 observe the pro-
prietes which dignity high military command.
but the Court is OF the opinion that the mere
statement in the official report OF the facts de-
veloped meets the ends OF discipline ana that
the interests Of the services will be best sub
served II further proceedings be not TAKEN
GENERAL MILES CRITICISED.
There is more or less criticism OF General
Miles in various parts OF the report. Added TO
the criticism OF officers found elsewhere is the
report: THE Court finds that against none OF
the officers commanding corps. divisions. bril-
gades and regiments and their staff officers.
should charge Of guilt be brought
"The Court also finds that the Major General
commanding the Army bad no sufficient justi-
fcation for alleging thst the refrigerated beef
was embaImed or was unfit for issue to troops
It also finds that ne committed an error In that
having belief or knowledge, claimed, that the
food was unfit that it caused sickness and dis
tress that some OF II was supplied under the
pretence Of experiment. that other beef was
embalmed, he did not Immediately report such
knowledge or belief 10 the Secretary OF War, to
the end that a remedy might be applied"
The censure Of Colonel Maus Inspector-Gen-
eral on General Mess staff is based upon his
failure to call attention TO charges concerning
the beef at Chickamauga contained In report
of inspection made by DR.. Cor Major) Daily on
October 26 in which he stated his belier that
the beef was chemically treated.
"The silence Of Colonel Maus" says the Court
ION so important a matter as the chemicalized
beef reported by Major DAILY and personally
known to himself is most remarkable" The
remark is also made that General Miess fall
ure to draw special attention TO this report is
unexplained"
Commenting upon General Miess testimony
that he had first formed the opinion last Au-
gust that the refrigerated beef had been proc
essed the Court remarks:
Whatever the date upon which he formed q
belief or a reasonable suspicion that the health
of the troops being impaired by the use OF
'deleterious food, 1t was his bounden duty, In
the opinion Of the Court, instantly to take the
most effective measures within his control 10
ascertain the actual fact and TO correct tne
wrong. If any should be found. 1t would nave
been practicable to obtain samples OF the beer
then being supplied to the Army by contrac-
tors. and to have submitted these samples 20
chemical examination. which would have re-
suited In the detection Of the presence or aD-
sence Of boric and salicylic acids or any other
chemical agent that may have been USED az
nreservative agent. Yet no such precaution as
that suggested was taken by the Major-deneraa
commanding at that time. or at any subsequent
cd nv
NO CHEMICALS IN THE BEEs.
The Court finds that the allegations OF the
Mator-General commanding to the effect thar
,,a refrieerated beef supplied TO the troops was
treated With chemical preservatives have NOS
heen established. The Court also finds that so
much Of the allegations OF the Major-General
commanding In respect to the canned roast Deet
as relates to its unsuitability for food, as ACT
ually used the transports, and as 10 its AZ
tensive or long-continued use as field ration
are sustained. In the opinion OF the Court none
Of the other allegations in relation 10 the canned
roas, beef are sustained. The evidence shows
that Colonel John F. Weston, Assistant Commis-
sarv-General OF Subsistence. recommended the
adoption OF the canned roast beef as COM
moment OF the field ration. and to an extent ne
is responsible.
The report places the quantity OF canned roast
beef purchased for the war by the commissary
department at 8,S47174 pounds. including Soo'-
600 pounds which was brought from Liverpooi
and other English ports. This amount Is charac-
terized as excessive and Commssary- -Genersi
Eagan is severely criticised in several parts OF
the document on this score One Of the severess
rebukes Is as follows;
Considering the little use that had been mace
- ,his heef In the Regular Army. the probabii-
ity that the volunteers were entireiy ishorans "a
n that it's use as part of the neid ration nau
never ne been sanctioned by the President or tne
Ga,ary ~ war the Court can but characterixe