The Washburn leader. [volume] (Washburn, McLean County, N.D.) 1890-1986, 1899-02-25

+3-lIIs- ...lTE. Tt.Ef 4@E a- r- -.n rE
Washington, Feb. %. The Miles
court of inquiry yesterday made n good
start in its work. Calls of ceremony on
the president and the general COM
handing the army occupied a large
part Of the forenoon, and Immediately
thereafter Gen. Nelson A. Miles ap-
peared as the first witness. He and
three other army officers, summoned
as witnesses were examined and dis
posed of before the court closed it's
session at 3 o'clock. Gen. Miles testi-
mOny, of course. was the feature of
the days proceedings.
Gen. Miles submitted to the question
ing of Col. Davis, recorder of the court.
with equanimity except for a flash of
mingled indignation and irony when he
informed the recorder that lie was not
compelled to report" to the commits
ssal:y. general of. the army. This was
In reply to q question rs to whether or
not he had reported to the commissary
the fact that complaints
had been made to him as to the quality
of meat being issued to the troops. An
instant later, Gen. Miles resumed his
cool and carefully considered replies
to the inquiries of the court. AS indi-
Gated by a letter of the adjMtant gen
eral. read by the recorder for the in
formation of the court, the scope of the
inquiry was limited to the
Allegations Of Gen. Miles
before the war commission as to the
quality Of the army beef land the
matter purporting to have been fur
nished to the public press by the same
official" Only two interviews were
called up by the court, the first IN in
terview with n New York Journal rep
resentative early in the beef contro-
versy in which Gen. Miles was quoted
as charging that certain chemicals
were used in the preservation of the
army meat. and another Of the New
York Herald under date Of Feb. L,
covering about the same ground. Gen.
Miles al very slow and careful in his
replies to the recorders questions on
this point. He called attention to the
fact that in both instances he was
ing to answer certain questions. and
insisted that these refusals should be
given due weight in considering the
questions to which he did reply. FIe
said in the case Of the interview Of
Feb. 10 that he had q letter from the
man who wrote the story Offering to
swear that Gen. Miles had refused to
be interviewed and that the whole
story was made up in the Office from
the writer's general knowledge of the
facts. Notwithstanding this. when his
final answer, was asked as to the au-
'thenticity of the interview Gen. Miles
did rot specifically deny it. but merely
said that it did not quite fairly repre-
sent his " opinion in the case. The
same
Qunlified Denial
as to the journal interview Of Dec. %
ord as not assuming any responsibility
for the newspaper statements, but tac-
lily admitting that there was a good
deal in them with which he agreed:
Gen. Miles, in his testimony, said his
use of the phrase "pretense of expert
ment," in speaking of army beef was
unfortunate. He disclaimed intention
OF any inference Of fraud, and said
he should have said the refrigerated
beef issue was ION the theory of an
experiment. and "a very costly one"
The trend Of questions put to the
other witnesses OF the day Indicate
that 30 long as they agreed with Gen.
Miles rs to the quality Of the meat
furnished the troops in the field, the
only criticism Of their position the
court had to make was why they had
not taken some official steps to have
the matter remedied ut the time. In
every instance the reply was that the
circumstances III which the army was
placed in a sickly. foreign country with
a large amount of fighting and a great
scarcity Of transportation On hand
'precluded the possibility Of any such
action. In each instance the question
was. pushed no further on this line.
1t wasfsaidssnifter thescottrft adjourned
that DR.. Daily, whose original Fem
balmed beer report vas the genesis Of
the meat controversy, probably would
appear at to-day's session.
coNSAuaHT WELCOMED.