Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1899-05-08
suitability for food. and as to its ex-
tensive or long continued use as field
ration
ARE SUSTAINED.

ARE SUSTAINED.
In the opinion of the court none of the
other allegations in relation to the cam
ned fresh oeef are sustained. The evil
0ence SHOWS that Col. John F. Weston,
| assistant commissary general of sub
! slstence, recommended the adoption of
the canned roast beef as a component
| OF the held ration, and to this extent he
/, is responsible
The report places the quantity Of
canned roast ueef purchased for the
war by the commissary department at
6,S4I,1l4 pounds, including 5000
pounds which were brought from Liver
T! pool and other English ports. This
amount is characterized as excessive,
1 ana the commlssary general General
Eagan) is severely criticized in several
parts OF the document ON this score.
| One of the severest rebukeS is as fol-
lows:
Considering the little use that has
| been made of this beef in the regular
army, the proba bility that the volun-
teers were entirety ignorant of it, that
| its use as 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 commits
/ sary general of subsistence as
UNWARRANTED AND RECKLESS
! in that he ordered the purchase of such
I enormous quantities of food that was
| practically untried and unknown, and
! the court so finds. The court also finds
| that there is no ground for any impu-
tation whatever of any other actuatlng
motive on the part of the commissary
! general than the earnest desire to pro-
cure the best food for the troops. The
| court pronounces this act of the com
| missary general of subsistence a colos-
| sal error for which there is no pallia-
| ton"
| The court finds that there was neglect
| in Cuba and to a less degree in Porto
/ Rico in delivering the refrigerated Beef
The court" says the report, docs
not wish TO state the case more strong
| ly than to say that the finding appears
to be warranted. that too much time
! was consumed in distributing this per-
! ishable article. The fault, if any there
was, rested with the brigade and higher
commanding officers, and their commits
| saries and quartermasters, but the tes-
timbny is not so definite or specific as
to warrant the naming by the court of
any particular officers
| They say that the refrigerated beef
was at first received with great salts
| faction. There is also criticism of the
| delay in unloading the refrigerating
apparatus of Swift & Co., at Santiago.
/ An appeal by the contractors agent
| to Gen. Shafter for an order on the
| quartermaster to expedite the delivery
! from the transport of the refrigerating
plant did not effect any result. The
delay in this matter was the cause or
| serious loss"
THE court is of the opinion that
| the canned roast beef
WAS NOT SUITABLE
as travel ration on transports. con-
| slderlng the absence of cooking facili-
ties and the absence from that ration
OF fresh vegetables and condiments,
For use on shore as a field ration,
where the companies had their camp
cooking equipment and vegetables
were available, canned roast beef Is
suitable for issue, say two days in ten,
| but not for two days in succession.
In some organizations it seems to have
! constituted at least one-half of the
fmeat ration, and until after the sur
render the troops had no means for
| other cooking than was practicable
with the individual kit carried. For
! such extensive use, or any use. ex-
ceeding one day in five, the court finds
| this beef unsuitable.
The refrigerated beef IS. in the
i opinion of the court, a suitable ration
I for troops when it can be Issued to
, them in good condition"
AS to whether anything better than
| the beef was available for a ration.
the opinion is:
THAT on the transports the re-
lance on canned fresh and canned
! cofned beef was wise, but that the
canned fresh beef was less desirable
/ than the corned beef
| THAT while bacon Is not regard
/ ed as suitable constant food in cam
! paign for troops serving in the tropics.
combined with the vegetables that
were available it would have been
more suitable and fit than the
UNKNOWN AND UNFAMILIAR
canned roast beef eaten direct from the
can.
S.-That the use of refrigerated beef
on shore after the troops had secured
| convenient harbors and landing facil-
tues, was wise and desirable. The
D~tANfN7 tleb NlItIt NdS no better
| foot available or practicable"
! The opinion is expressed that II
would have been impracticabIe TO land
/ beef cattle on the hoof in Cnpa. the
remark OF the court on this point
/ being as follows:
The commanding general OF the
| expedition characterizes as absurd
such proposition, and many Of hi
commanding officers whose opinion is
given in the testimony conceded with
MN in the impracticability or mex
pedlency OF such a project. The court
censures in the opinion OF these men
whose experience in active military
service dated from 1861.
An instruction of the Presidents IN
the court was that if the packers of
! the country are guilty it must he
known. Replying to this direction.
/ the court says:
The court finds that at the outbreak
Of hostilities in April. 1898. the nack-
ers OF canned beef were engaged in the
manufacture OF an article of standard
quality, well known to the trade and
the subsistence department under the
name Of canned roast beef. The
methods OF packing then in use were
the same as those habitually employed