The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-05-08
Of the Beef Inquiry Board Sub
mitted to the President,
EXCEPT TO GEN. MILES
And to Gen. Esgan, Who Are
Mildly Censured.
The Packers Are Made to APP
pear Immaculate.
The President Wants the
Whole Matter Dropped.

Washington, May S.-By direction of
the president, who approves the find
dngs, Acting Secretary of War Meikle-
john today made public the report and
findings of the military court appointed
10 investigate the charges made by Maj.
Gen. 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 gener-
ais finding that the refrigerated beef
was treated with chemicals was not es-
tablished; that his allegations concern
ing the canned fresh or canned roast
beef were sustained as to it's unsuita-
bility for food as used on the transports
and a long continued field ration;
censures of Gen. Miles for error in
failing to promptly notify the secretary
of war when he first formed the opinion
that the food was unfit; censure of the
commissary general (then Gen. Eagan)
for the too extensive purchase OF the
canned beef as an untr1ed ration; CEN
sure of Col. Maus, of Gen. Miles staff;
the finding that the packers were not at
fault and that the meats supplied to
the army were of the same quality as
those supplied to the trade generally,
and the recommendation that no fur
Their proceedings be taken in the prem
Uses.
The conclusion of the court adverse
to further proceedings and based upon
the charges is as follows:
1T has been developed in the course
of the inquiry, as recited in this report,
that in some instances some individuals
failed to perform the full measure of
duty or to observe the proprieties which
dignity high military command; but
the court is Of the opinion that the
mere statement in the official report of
facts developed meets the ends of the
discipline, and that the interests of the
will hest SIlhSRTVR0 if fur
fher proceedings be not taken.
There is more or less criticism OF Gen.
Miles in various parts of the report.
Probably the most direct instance is
the one that states that, beyond the
criticism Of officers found elsewhere in
the report, the court finds that against
none of the officers commanding corps,
divisions, brigadeS and regiments and
their staff officers should a charge of
guilty be brought.
1.-The court also finds that the major
general commanding the army had no
sufficient justification for alleging that
the refrigerated beef was embalmed or
was unfit for issue to troops. 1t also
finds that he committed an error in that,
Having belief or knowledge, as claimed,
that the food was unfit, that it caused
sickness and distress, and that some of
1T was supplied under the pretense of
experiment. that other beef was en-
BOalmed, he did not Immediately re-
port such knowledge or belief to the
secretary of war, to the end that proper
remedy might be promptly applied"
The censure of Col. Maus, inspector
general on Gen. Miles staff, is based
npon his failure to call attention to
charges concerning the beef at Chicl1a-
nnauga, contained in a report of in
Epection made by DR. Cor Major) Daily
on the 26th day of October last in
(which he stated his belief that the
beef was chemically treated.
THE silence of Col. Maus." says the
report, Ion so important a matter as
the chemicalized beef reported by Maj
DAILY, and personally known to himself,
HS most remarkable"
The remark is also made that Cen
Miles failure to draw special attention
TO this report is unexplained"
Commenting upon Gen. Miles testi-
Knony that he had first formed the
opinion last August that the refriger-
Rted beef had been prOcessed, the court
remarks: Whatever the date on
(which he formed a belief, or a reasona-
ble suspicion, that the health of the
troops was being impaired by the use
of deleterious food, it was his bounden
duty, in the opinion of the court, in
stantly to take the most effective meas
ureS within his control to ascertain the
actual fact and to correct the wrong,
IF any should be found. 1t would have
been practicable to obtain samples of
the beef then being supplied to the
army by contractors and to have sub
mitted these samples to chemical ex-
animation which would have resulted
sence of boracic or Salicylic acids, or
any other chemical agent that may
have been used as a preservative agent.
Yet no such precautiOn as that suggested
was taken by the major general COM
manding at that time, so far as has
been learned by the court.
THE court finds the allegations of
the major general commanding to the
effect that the refrigerated beef sup
piled to the troops was treated with
chemical preserves have not been eS-
tablished. The court also finds that so
much of the allegations of the major
general commanding in respect to the
canned roast beef as relates to its I'M
suitability for food. as actually used on
the transports, and as to it's extensive
or long continued use as a field ration
are sustained The evidence shows
that Col John F. Weston assistant
commended the adoption of the canned
roast beef as a component of the field
ration and to this extent he is re-
Sponsible.''
ned roast beef purchased for the war by
the commissary department at 6,S47 ia
pounds, including $50, 600 pounds which
was brought from Liverpool and other
terized as excessive and the commits
@ary general General Eagan) is severe
ay criticised in several parts of the doc
nments on this score. One Of the Sc
NereSt rebukeS is as follows:
Considering the little use that has
been made of this beef in the regular
the probability that the volunteers were
entirely ignorant of it, that its use a
part of the field ration had never been
sanctioned by the president or secretary
of war, the court can but characterize
the action of the commisSary general
of subsistence as unwarranted and
reckless in that he ordered the purchase
of such enormous quantities of food
that was practically untried and IN
known and the court so finds. The court