The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-05-08
His Alteration that Refrigerator Beef
Had Been Treated with Chem
fcals In Not Sustained.
CHICAGO PACKERS ALL RIGHT
FURNISHED GOOD MEAT TO THE
ARMY AND ARE WITHOUT BLAME.
Gen. Eagan scored for Reckless EN-
q Slap at General shafter.

H
wASHINGTON, May by direction of
the President, who approves the findings.
acting Secretary OF War Meiklejohn to-day
made public the report and findings Of the
military court appointed TO investigate the
charges made by Major General Miles. COM
manding the armr. that the beef supplied to
the army during the war with Spain was
unfit for the use of the troops. The most
important features OF the report are:
The finding that the generals allegations
that the refrigerated beef was treated with
chemicals were not established.
That his allegations concerning the canned
fresh or canned roast beef were sustained
as to its unsuitab bility for food as used on
the transports and as a long continued field
ration
Censure OF General Miles for error" In
falling to promptly notify the secretary OF
war when he first formed the opinion that
the food was unfit
Censure of the commissary general (then
General Eagan) for the too extensive pur-
chases of the canned beef as an untried
ration.
censure of Colonel Maus. of General
MiIes's staff.
The finding that the packers were not at
fault.
That the meats supplied to the army were
of the same quality those supplied to the
trade generally.
Recommendation that no further proceed
ings will be taken in the premises.
The conclusion OF the court adverse to
further proceedings based on the charges is
follows: 1T has been developed In the
course of the inquiry, as recited in this re-
port. that in some instances some individ-
uals failed to perform the full measure of
duty or to obs rye the propreties which
dignity high military command. but the
court is OF the opinion that the mere state
ment In the official report of the facts de-
veloped meets the ends OF discipline, and
that interests of the service will be best
subserved II further proceedings be not
taken"
There Is more or less criticism OF Gen.
Miles In various parts of the report. Prob
ably the most direct instance is the one
which states that, beyond the criticism of
officers found elsewhere in the report, The
court finds that against none or the officers
commanding corps. divisions brigades and
regiments and their stan officers should
charge OF guilty be brought.
WHERE MILES ERRED.
THE court also finds that the major gen.
eral commanding the army had no sufficient
justification for alleging that she refrigerat-
ed beef was embalmed or was unit for issue
TO troops il also finds that he committed
an error I'm that, having belief or knowl-
edge. as claimed. that the food was unfit,
that IL caused sickness and distress; that
some of IL was supplied under the pretense
Of experiment that other beef was en-
balmed. he did not Immediately report such
knowledge or belief to the secretary of war
TO the end that a proper remedy might be
applied"
The censure of Col Maus, Inspector gen
eral on General Mies's staff, is based on
his failure TO call attention to charges con-
cerning the beef at Chickamauga contained
I'm a report of inspection made by DR.. Cor
Major) DAILY, on the 18th OF October last,
In which he stated his belief that the beef
was chemically treated.
The silence of Col. Maus." says the court.
con so important a matter as the chem
icalized beef reported by Major Daily and
personally known to himself is most re-
markable."
The remark Is also made that General
Miles's failure to draw special attention TO
this report Is unexplained"
Commenting on General Miles's testimony
that he had first formed the opinion last
August that the refrigerated beef had been
processed the court remarks: Whatever
the date on which he formed belief or a
reasonable suspicion. that the health of the
troops was being impaired by the use of
deleterious food, IL was his bounden duty
In the opinion OF the court. instantly TO
take the most effective measures within his
control TO ascertain the actual fact and TO
correct the wrong, II any should be found
IL would have been practicable 10 obtain
samples OF the beef then being supplied to
the army by contractors and to have SUBJ
mitted these samples 10 chemical examin-
alton, which would have resulted in the de-
lection OF the presence or absence OF boracic
or salyciic acids. or any other chemical
agent that may have been used as a pre-
servative agent. Yet no such precaution as
that suggested was taken by the major gen.
sral commanding at that time or at any
subsequent time so far as has been learned
BY the court.
The court finds that the allegations of
the major general commanding 10 the effect
that the refrigerated beef supplied to the
troops was treated with chemical preserva-
tives have not been established. The court
also finds that so much of the allegations
OF the major general commanding I'm re-
epect 10 the canned roast beef as relates 10
It's unsuitsbiiity for food actually used
on tho transports. and as TO its extensive
or long continued use as a field ration. are
sustained In the opinion OF the court none
OF the other allegations IN relation to the
canned fresh beef are sustained.
The evidence shows that Col. John. f.
Weston. assistant eommissary general OF
subsistence. recommended the adoption OF
the canned roast beef as component OF the