Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1899-04-22

of commerce? Was it inspected by the
government inspectors as provided by
law? Was 1t an authorized ration N
the army? If good when purchased,
what made ii bad? Was it anybody's
neglect or fault, and if SO whose?
When unfit for use. if you should 50
find, was the fact made known to the
war department.: when and by whom?
If after leaving the depot commissary
it was not cared for and properly pre-
served, whose fault?
Was it a suitable ration for the
campaigns in Cuba and Porto Rico?
Was there anything better that was
practica BILE? Would it have been pru-
dent for our troops to have made the
expeditions to Santiago and Porto Rico
without the preserved meats, either re-
frigerated or canned. with which they
were supplied? Could the army with
any certainty rely upon the cattle on
the hoof on those islands? Did the
commanding officer in Santiago or Por-
to Rico, or the major general COM
handing report during the war that
either the refrigerated or canned beef
was an unfit ration? When were these
reports first made and by whom? If
the allegations of the major general
commanding are established ] want the
court to find the cause and fix the re-
sponsibility for the fact, that the
guilty may be properly punished. Did
the cattle in Porto Rico make a whole
some ration"
IF the packers of the country are
guilty it must be known: if the officers
of the commissary department arc
guilty it must be known: if any Off
Ger of the army is guilty is must Do
known"
Both Major Lee and Col. Davis sub
mited a number Of reports and mass
Of correspondence. Among the docu-
ments read by Col. Davis was letter
from the Washington attorneys Of
Mcssrs. Armour & Co dated June Is.
1898, after the contract for beef had
been let, asking for a reconsideration
Of the subject in the interest of their
clients and an endorsement by Gen.
lIagan as commissary general Oppos
ing the request. In their letter the at
torncys represented that the Armours
controlled the Powell process for tho
treatment of meat, and that this fact
gave them such an advantage in the
preservation of fresh beef as to justify
the war department in disrcgardirg
the difference in price ana awarding
them the contract. In his endorse
mcnt Gen. Pagan referred To the letter
of the attorneys as a special plead
ing" and said there was no reason in
the plea why the subject should be re-
opened The tests made by Armour &
CO. are not the onlyt tests that have been
made" he said. land there is no doubt
whatever in mind but that the beef
can be furnished as required" This
document was introduced by Col.
Davis to show that Gen. Eagan had not
been influenced by the representations
concerning the Powell process.
Major Lee submitted disposition By
J. s. Armstrong of Dallas, Tex. which
among other things set forth the sub
stance of conversation with Gen. Ea-
gan Mr. Armstrong was one Of the
bidders for beef on block and said that
while he was in Washington he dis
cuSsed with Gen. Eagan the question
of beef being kept for y hours after
being taken from the refrigerator. Mr.
Armstrong said he expressed the opin-
ion that ii was impossible. to which
Gen. Eagan replied that Swift K 90.
and Armour both had knowledge of
process by which beef could be kept
for that length of time.