The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-01-14

controversy, but the war investigating
commission today acted promptly to
redress the affront put upon the board
Itself, as the members regarded it, con-
tanned in the excessive language used
by Gen. Eagan. Their letter returning
the latters statement did not Indicate
positively whether or not they received
IL as evidence, even though the OBJ
jectionable language was excised, nor
did Gen. Eagan himself give any sign
of any intention on his part to avail
himself of the offer made by the board.
His friends did not hesitate to intimate
that he would expunge the objection
able language, but he would say moth
ms for himself and any intimation on
that score must be obtained from the
beard itself. The war department Off
Gals are not yet clear as to what would
be the effect of a withdrawal or modifi-
cation of the statement. One element
holds that officially the record failing to
show that any Objectionable language
Was used there was no legal offense.
Another takes the view that while the
amendment of the statement would
mitigate Gen. Eagan's offense it would
not wipe-it out Another aspect Of the
| case is the bringing forward of the
plea of exemption, which was guaran-
teed in the name of the president to all
witnesses before the board, from what
they might say but again the officials
were divided and this was also true of
the members Of the cabinet as to
whether the exemption could be claim
ed in this particular case.
Meanwhile, Gen. Miles is apparently
waiting for the war department to act.
taking the position that it is incumbent
upon 1t and the war commission to pro-
tect the army from such attacks
In the excitement created by this in
cident, the pending issue before the
| commission, the quality Of the army
beef, was well nigh lost sight Of There
are. however, two piquant additions to
that part of the proceedings, one con-
sisting of the testimony of Gen. Wood.
to the effect that no one who amounted
to anything had made any complaint as
to the rations, and another from Theo
dcre Roosevelt, making a very serious
complaint in regard to the beef.
MILITARY Law.
1t is said by persons who NAV be re-
garded as authorities in military law
that in it's present phase the contro-
versy between Gems. Miles and Eagan
is not one that will admit the calling
of court of inquiry. This is entirely
apart from the question of the right
to call a court martial. In the latter
case, under the strict rules of military
law, the court would be obliged to
to1x
cific charges, such as an attack upon
a brother officer, and would not be
permitted to go beyond that matter.
and into the extent Of inquiring into
the truthfulness Of the charges made
In the attack. The court of INQUIRY.
however, as it's name implies. has a
broader field of action, and might,
without being bound closely, INQUIRE
into all the facts, not even combining
its inquiry to the officer alleged to be
the offender, but, perhaps, as has been
known in the past, to return a find
ing that involved the courtmartial of
| more than one officer. The action of
court of inquiry in a case like this.
if it found reason, might indict before
court martial both parties to the
controversy. However, as above stat
ed, the best opinion is that, at the
present stage, a court of inquiry is
beyond reach. 1t has been known for
some time past that bad blood existed
between the commanding general of
the army and the commissary general.
but such has been the effect of mill
tary discipline that before yesterday
Continued on Fourth Pare