Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1900-12-29
ALGER vs.. MILES.
Continued from page ID

might well be proud.
No other supply bureau Of the army
had cXcellcd the commissary depart
ment in promptncss, efficiency ana sue
cessful administration during the war.
Indeed, his zeal and anxiety for the
soldiers in camp and field were 50
great that his efforts in their behalf,
, during the long and weary days and
nights of the hot summer, nearly re-
suited in his prostration from over
work. The charges of Gen. Miles
seemed to Gen. Eagan in his nervous
condition. the more magniiied and hor-
! rible. Upon hearing them, he pitifully
exclaimed:
| Gen. Miles has crucified me upon
! cross OF falsehood and misrepresent1-
/ ton"
| Gen. Ea6an read his reply To the
I war investigation commission from d
carefully prepared typewriter manu-
script Lashcd To the quick his indig-
nation exceeded the limits of his self
/ control and his language became vitu-
pcrativc. extravagant and highly i'm
proper. Even yet. Invested Of its Of
/ fcnsive adjcctivcS, his reply to Gen.
Miles remains unanSWcrable in its
v logic and incontrovcrtiblc III its facts
/ The allegation that had inspired
/ or had any knowledge Of Cen. Eagan's
intended attack upon the statement Of
Y Gen. Miles. is absolutely untrue.
mover saw the reply, nor did I know
its character until a copy Of it WAS
\ handed to me by q member Of the
press.
Z The language of Gen. Eaean could
not lie overlooked. His courtmartial
/ was not the outcome Of Gen. Miles
! charges. hut the result Of Incorporate
and unmilitary language. conceived in
an Indignation, pardonable perhaps.
/ in its existence. but objectionable in
Z it's mode Of expression.
4 Gen. Miles seemed to he pleased with
\ the Dotoricty which the startling state
ments gave him. for he published adj
4 ditional charges. This interview, which
7 appeared on the morning of Fcb. ],
\ Gen. Miles was called upon to deny
under oath. and as he was unable to
DO 50. part of his statements in it were
used by the court of inquiry as Z
I basis for investigation.
II is proposed to treat Gen. Miles
allegations specifically and in detail.
His charges with respect to canned
I
Of the army ration and (by Inference
! had been issued to the army by the
secretary of war and the commissary
\ general without authority Of law and
/ that it was the meat reSidue-a beef
! pulp which was left after the extract
/ had been taken from it. With respect
\ to the refrigerated beef, he alleged that
I it was "embalmcd" beef. which had
/ been artifcialiy preserved by injecting
| chemicals into it: that he had over
! WhcminG evidence that the EN-
| balmed beef was treated with chem
| icals to preserve it: and that the re
/ frigcrated beef would not have been
| good in any country in the stomach
| of any man" lie also said, generally.
/ that bacon was not considered 4 suit
| able ration for the tropics and that
| the beef furnished the army was the
| cause Of much sickness and distress;
/ that it was largely responsible for the
| sickness Of the army, and that he had
medical authority for his statement.
General Miles should have known
| that neither the secretary of war nor
| the CommsSary general could legally
| altar or add to the ration of the army.
| The ration is fixed by law and its COM
ponents can be changed only by the
/ President Of the United States. If Gen.
| Miles did not know that canned fresh
beef was a part of the army ration,
then he displayed an ignorance of an
| important matter Of his profession; il
he did not know that canned fresh beef
was recognized part OF the ration,
then his allegation TO the contrary is
50 much more reprchenSible.
The allegations of Gen. Miles that
canned fresh beef was not a part of
the army ration and that it was issued
as the ''pretcnse of an experiment"
We're not only contrary to the fact but
were made absolutely without a parti-
Gle Of evidence or excuse
If we arc to believe written evidence to
the contrary, it does not appear chat
Gen. Miles was even honest in making
his dilatory charges that the timed beef
was issued as the pretcnce of an expert
mcnt and that il WAS not a part Of the
ration. on the 18th Of June, 1898. his
most confidential staff officers signed 4
letter by direction of the major general
commanding the army. instrUctinG the
depot CommiSSary at Tampa to furnish
to Gen. Nunez 1G.6ii pounds of canned
| roast beef. 10 DC issued from tie sub
sistence stores of the army.
1t was never intended by the commits
sary department that canned beef should
be used other than as an emergency or
travel ration. Gen. EaganS predecessors
in Office had, - years before the Spanish
American war, highly recommended its
use and it had been officially included in
the regular ration. Canned fresh beef
has. ever since the Civil War, been part
of the regular army ration.
Fresh canned beef was preferred over
coTned canned beef, because Of the fact
that the salt in the latter produced thirst
"a decided objection in a tropical coun-
try; but the timed beef should have been
used only when cooked with vegetables
and properly seasoned. The Only fault
found with the ration was that it was
unpalatable when served without addi
tional cooking and without vegetables
and condiments. The ration was not used
to any great extent in the camnS in the
United States, but only on the transports
to Cuba and Porto Rico, for a short time
in Cuba. and few issues We're also made
in Porto Rico And yet, despite the i'm
proper preraration of tho food. 10 COM
plants of its unpalatabilty reached the
war department..
After the charges made by Gen. Miles,
the most expert and scientific men in the
country We're therefore employed by the
government to further the investiga ton
such physiological chemists as Prof. Chit
tendon If Vale and Prof AtWatpr of