The record-union., 1899-03-14

the going off and the coming on or an
inspector, but we are supposed to be
very strict in regard to that
From your observation, would it be
possible to take out meat from the tank
when once thrown in?"
1T would be possible, but I don't
think it very probable"
What would be the condition of the
beef?''
1t would not be very inviting"
After once being thrown into the
tank, what would be the possibility Of
it's being used for food?"
Il don't think it could be-"
Where would it have to be taken t
be worked up?"
1T would have to be taken to the
sausage room or to the canning room. :
What would be the chances of de-
lection, in your opinion?''
THE chances of detection would be
in some of the employees being around
and seeing the meat in that condition.
think it would be readily recognized"
Have you ever had occasion to have
or suspect that that practice existed
in any registered packing houses?'
mot for five years.
"Eow was it them"
II never had any positive evidence
of anything occurring at that time, but
was stationed at a house where there
were rumors or reports that probably
such a thing was done"
what steps, if any, were taken to
prevent it? Did you make any inves-
tigation or report on the matter?
''This was merely a rumor. l had no
occasion myself to suspect anything OF
the sort After it was reported l used
all the vigilance 1 could"
Did you make any investigation or
report with reference to the matter?'
mo, SIR
.sWho did,"
ut was reported to me. 1t got
around to the inspectors in charge at
the time"
But you made no investigation, nor
participated in any investigation"
NO; it was outside of my duty. Some
cattle thrown out at the yards were
driven to what are known as Little
Houses'-houses that had no inspection,
and were killed under the SUPERVISION
of the city inspectors"
DR.. Dyson said that cattle condemned
at the anti-mortem examination in the
yards for various causes, if they passed
the post norton inspection, might be
brought into the packing house ana
used. He had never seen chemicals OF
any kind used except borax and things
of that sort around the houses. He
said that a case of lumpy jaw does not
necessarily condemn the meat unless
the disease is generalized.
DR.. Charles E Mcneil, bureau in
spector at the beef and sheep house of
Nelson Morris & Co. was the next wit
ness He was not aware of any chem
icals having been used in that estab-
lishment and had no reason to believe
or suspect that they were SO used
Charles H Emery, Superintendent of
the Libbey, Mcneil & Libbey Packing
house, testified next. Our business is
principally canning he said. I'VE do
not do any slaughtering directly, but
animals are killed for US by Swift &
Co. No chemicals are used or relied
upon by US to preserve canned beef. A
very small quantity of salt is used In
a two-pound can we use one-half ounce
of salt in solution
JAMS s. Morrow. Assistant Superin-
tendent at Libbey, Mcneil & Libbey,
corroborated the testimony of the pre-
vious witness as to the process of can
ming roast beef He said there was
scarcely any difference between grades
of roast beef. and that the distinction
was made mostly, he supposed, TO COM
pete with others in the business There
was very little difference as to quality
He did not know whether there was
any difference in the price to the Gov
i IL
cent. of COWS were used in canning.
The first witness at the afternoon
session was Arthur Meeker, manager
of Armour & Co. s packing house, who
had previously been questioned at
Washington. He said the accumula-
ton of canned goods were held in Chi
cago, but the firm had also a large
stock in Europe. They had on hand
at the outbreak of the Spanish war 800
coo pounds of canned roast beef in Chi
cago and 10000 pounds in New York.
They sold two million pounds to the
Government, and also 25O,000 pounds
of corned beef.
The witness stated that no chemicals
were used to preserve the beef either
while in transit or in storage in any
agency.
The witness stated that two ounces of
jelly were put into a two-pound can of
roast beef but no salt. The jelly gave
an attractive appearance to the meat
and added to the nourishment. About
one and one-half per cent. of the nour-
ishment came out in the first boiling
process-one and one-half per cent. of
soluble albumen. An extract of beef
was made. out of it. No date was
put on the label on the roast beef caLp.
the contents being guaranteed. Meat
thus preserved six, eight and nine years
was just as good as if put up last sum-
mer The French required a date on
the can. The same kind of meat was
used in the cans as furnished the Gov
eminent.
In reply to General Gillespie. the wit
ness stated that Powell was a meat
dealer, he understood, in New York
City. He had no connection whatever
with Armour & Co.. He visited the
New York office, and said that he had
a process for preserving refrigerated
beef for period. 1t was quite
a proposition to handle beef in
warm country, and the New York
office sent Mr.. Powell to Florida to ex-
pertinent. The experiment was not
satisfactory to the Government and
that was the end of it.
S. S. Conway, General Superintendent
of Armour & Co., and H. T. Walton,
superintendent of the canned meat de-
partment of Armour & Co. gave in de-
tail a description of the process of can
ming and the methods Of detecting
swellers and faulty cans.
The last witness of the day was w. E.
Pierce. in charge of the slaughtering