56th Congress, 
1st Session. 
SENATE. 
Document 
No. 270. 
FOOD FURNISHED BY SUBSISTENCE DEPARTMENT 
TO TROOPS IN THE FIELD. 
LETTER 
FROM 
THE SECRETARY OF WAR, 
TRANSMITTING, 
IN RESPONSE TO RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE OF MARCH 30,1900, THE ORIGINAL 
RECORD OF THE COURT OF INQUIRY RELATIVE TO THE UNFITNESS 
FOR ISSUE OF CERTAIN ARTICLES OF FOOD FURNISHED BY 
THE SUBSISTENCE DEPARTMENT TO TROOPS IN THE 
FIELD DURING THE RECENT OPERATIONS 
IN CUBA AND PORTO RICO. 
PART II. 
WASHINGTON: 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
1900. FOOD FURNISHED BY SUBSISTENCE DEPARTMENT TO 
TROOPS DURING SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR. 
RECORD OF A COURT OF INQUIRY. 
< CONTINUED. > TESTIMONY OF FRANK S. HASTINGS. 
Frank S. Hastings was called as a witness by the recorder, and being duly sworn, 
testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. Frank S. Hastings; Kansas City, Mo.; in the employ of the Armour Packing 
Company. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. In what capacity, Mr. Hastings, are you employed by the Armour Packing 
Company? 
A. I am on what you probably call the provision side of the house-hams, break- 
fast bacon, dry salt stuff, and smoked stuff. 
Q. How long have you been in the employ of the Armour Packing Company? 
A. I think about ten years, Major. 
Q. Please state to the court whether, since the beginning of the late war, you vis- 
ited Tampa; and if so, for what purpose, in connection with this business with which 
you are charged. 
A. If you will allow me to preface why I visited Tampa, I will do so. 
Q. I wish you to make your own answer, just as you wish to make it. 
A. For a number of years, on the bacon side of the house, I was very much inter- 
ested in the possibility of canned bacon as an emergency ration, and I have taken a 
great deal of pains to furnish samples and conduct experiments along the line of a 
canned raw bacon as a possibility of an emergency ration. If you remember, two 
or three years ago there was a good deal of discussion on that point. We were the 
inventors of the process of canning beef; and when the war came out it occurred to 
us that possibly a canned bacon, something from which there is always more or less 
grease, would be specially available for a tropical country. That is, referring to the 
bacon portion of the ration. I believe that has always been a part of the ration. So 
I went to Tampa to familiarize myself with what was going to be used; that is, 
whether what we call the standard short clear or the bacon bellies were likely to be 
used; and after getting all the information I could I submitted samples, which went 
to Tampa. They were also sent to Chickamauga. They were sent to the Commis- 
sary-General. In fact, they were sent to anyone who was interested in it; and, based 
on those samples, we received some business. That was the object of my visiting 
there particularly, to familiarize myself with what was going to be used on the pro- 
vision side of the house. There is where my mission begins and ends. 
Q. I understand, then, that you were particularly interested in trying to have the 
introduction of this class of bacon in the Army? 
A. Not especially at the time of the war. When the matter of the emergency 
ration came up, you remember, boards were convened all over the United States, and 
each one of the boards was asked to encourage manufacturers to submit samples. 
Then, their report was made, and a board was convened to pass upon the reports of 
973 974 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
the different boards. I went before the board in Chicago at that time, and submitted 
a three-quarter pound ration, and my remembrance is that they submitted a sample 
with rather a favorable report on it. It came from other sections. The ration was 
adopted by the Army, though, finally, as an emergency ration, was the ordinary 
standard short clear bacon, cut into the size available for emergency purposes, and 
wrapped in a paraffin paper; so that my interest in that was not specially associated 
with the advent of war, but from the fact that we had made very good progress in it, 
in some form, with other governments, with the English Government notably, who 
used it in the Soudan. There has never been a time that bacon has not formed a 
portion of the Army ration. It was not to take the place of any other meat ration, 
but rather to investigate the possibility of putting the bacon ration, or some of it, in 
a canned form, something to be portable and easy to be carried, as opposed to the 
ordinary form of 200-pound cans or 100-pound cans, or whatever might have been 
selected. 
Q. I understand from you it was put up in three-quarter pound packages? 
A. It was put up in any size that was wanted. We furnished it in fives, in three- 
quarters, in sixes, and in nines. It was simply a matter of what was wanted. The 
process was the same. 
Q. Can you state approximately what was the price of that character of bacon 
that you were trying to introduce into the Army at that time? About how much a 
pound, or how much for the three-quarters of a pound, which is the standard regu- 
lation ration? 
A. We had one contract for-I have forgotten the exact quantity, but that was, I 
think, 11J cents for a three-quarter pound can; but that was just the standard short 
clear side. The price of the bacon would vary with the kind of bacon wanted. For 
instance, if you wanted the short clear side, it would be one price. If you wanted 
the bacon belly, it would be another. If you wanted another piece of meat, a 
lighter average, it would be another. Therefore, the price would be regulated, pri- 
marily, by what the market was worth; and, secondly, by the class that was wanted. 
For instance, the commercial bacon that we put out now in a pound can sells for 
about 20 cents a can. That is not used as an initial ration, but is purchased very 
largely, and repurchased, as I understand it, by the officers and men through the 
post commissaries. 
Q. Take the different grades of bacon which you have described, and give 
approximately what the price would be that it would have been furnished at. Just 
approximately. 
A. We sold some in 5-pound cans at 15| cents a pound. That was sliced. 
Another thing in connection with it is the form in which you want the bacon. The 
ordinary form of bacon, the ration used in the Army for years, was what we call the 
standard short clear side. If you remove the skin from that it would make another 
price. We sold it in various forms. We sold it as low as 10J cents a pound, I 
think, with the skin on in 9-pound cans. Then we sold it with the skin off- 
and that means every particle available; for instance, we take out the small pieces- 
I think that was sold at 15J or 16 cents. 
Q. A pound? 
A. Yes; in cans. All the while, Major, the price varied with the price of meat. 
For instance, you will remember there was a fluctuation in the market of about 
a cent a pound. All the while we would base it on what the markets were. If an 
inquiry would come in we would make a specification depending on the price that 
day, and that varied from day to day. 
Q. All I wanted was an approximate price, which runs all the way from 10 to 16 
cents. 
A. That would depend on the size of your can. The smaller the can, the more 
expensive to put it up. There were about three or four hundred thousand pounds FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
975 
of this three-quarter pound ration used during the war. That cost 11J cents, freight 
paid, Chicago, I think it was, for that size can. A 9-pound can would cost less. 
Q. In the discussion of this question, if there was any discussion in regard to it, 
was anything said, or did you say anything, about the impracticability or the prob- 
able unsatisfactory result from furnishing canned roast beef or beef of that kind to 
the troops down in the tropics? 
A. No; as I say, I am on the provision side of the house. In a big commercial 
concern, a man has just one little thing to attend to. Of course the desire is to push 
that product. We want to find a sale for our products. 
Q. Coming back to the question again, was anything said in regard to that matter 
at that time in the discussions to the effect that this canned roast beef, or whatever 
it was, 'would not prove as satisfactory as the bacon which you proposed to intro- 
duce down there for emergency purposes? 
A. No; Major, my argument was for bacon in its canned form, as opposed to its 
regular form; that is, not for all of the ration, but for the convenience of the thing. 
For instance, if you are unloading a ship, you can take a 6-pound can, and pass 
that from man to man ashore. We tried to introduce it into the Navy, too. 
Q. Passing from that subject, have you any knowledge of the contracts Armour & 
Co. had here, or the agreements, for the delivery of the fresh beef to the troops 
at Tampa? 
A. Absolutely none. 
Q. Do you know who was the agent there for transacting the business? You were 
there, I believe. 
A. I was there. My remembrance is that the contract changed at the time I was 
there from one firm to another; but my remembrance is that at that time Mr. 
Edwards had charge of it. 
Q. What time were you there? 
A. I was there sometime in May. 
Q. At that time, was he there in charge? 
A. He was there part of the time I was there, but he was not there all the time; 
but the beef business is not a part of my business. 
Q. I simply want you to refresh your recollection and state if possible who was 
there in charge about the time you were there. 
A. I think it was somewhere along toward the middle of May. 
Q. Beyond that you have no knowledge in reference to the extent to which the 
troops were supplied there under the agreement or contract of Armour & Co. with 
the Government? 
A. Absolutely nothing. My business there had nothing to do with it; and what 
little I saw was purely as a bird of passage. 
Q. Have you any knowledge of what chemicals are used in connection with the 
preparation of beef in the packing houses here? Have you any knowledge on that 
subject? 
A. I know absolutely nothing about beef; and I know of no chemicals that are used. 
Q. You know of none? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Do you know that none are used? 
A. I simply know nothing about the beef business. 
Q. I mean in regard to the preparation of meats, generally. Any chemicals used, 
such as borax, in the preparation of any meats? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. I wish you would state to the court whether there is a gentleman by the name 
of C. C. Galbraith or G. C. Galbraith connected with the firm. State whether you 
know of such a person. 
A. Galbraith is, I think, the general eastern manager. I think that is his title. 976 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
Q. What is his address? 
A. I presume it would be New York City. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, there are no more witnesses here. 
The court then (at 2 o'clock p. m.) took a recess until 7.30 p. m., to meet at 
Leavenworth, Kans. 
Fort Leavenworth, Kans., 
Saturday Evening, March 19, 1899. 
The court met at 7.40 p. m. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. Major Lee and the reporter were also 
present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Captain Galbraith, of the First United States Cavalry. 
TESTIMONY OF CAPT. J. G. GALBRAITH. 
Capt. Jacob G. Galbraith, U. S. A., was called as a witness by the recorder, and, 
having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. Jacob G. Galbraith; captain, First United States Cavalry; station, Fort 
Robinson, Nebr. 
Q. Were you present with the regiment during the operations in Cuba last year? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. On the voyage from Tampa to Cuba what meat component was issued to your 
command as the travel ration? 
A. Canned roast beef. 
Q. Is that all? 
A. That was the sole meat component of the travel ration during those fourteen 
days. 
Q. What complaints, if any, were received of the canned beef during the voyage 
to Cuba? 
A. Each meal was personally inspected by me-each meal of my troop. Tne men 
did not make complaints, but they grew tired of the rations during these fourteen 
days. 
Q. Was it presented to you by them in any way? 
A. Only that I was there each evening while it was served out to them at each 
meal, and I could see that it palled on them. 
Q. After the landing in Cuba, and up to the close of the siege operations, which 
closed with the surrender, what were the meat components of the ration that was 
issued to your command? 
A. Canned roast beef and bacon. 
Q. In about what proportion, to the best of your recollection? 
A. About equal proportions, as near as I can estimate. 
Q. What complaints, if any, were received of the canned roast beef during this 
period; that is, that period closing with the surrender? 
A. The men were dissatisfied with the roast beef. Whenever they could get bacon 
they very much preferred it. 
Q. How much of the roast beef that was issued to them was consumed by them? 
A. Well, there was considerable waste in this way: They would open a can and 
perhaps eat some of it. If it was not satisfactory, the remainder of it would be 
thrown away. Some cans seemed to be better than others, and there seemed to be 
different brands used. I used, of course, this same ration myself. The officers FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
977 
during that time had the same ration substantially as the men, and ate it under the 
same circumstances practically. 
Q. What brands were issued to your company, if you remember? 
A. Well, sir, the most of the cans that I remember to have seen had no label. I 
don't know what had become of the labels, or whether they had labels; but I don't 
remember any particular brands; I don't remember noticing brands. 
Q. Don't remember the name of any? 
A. No, sir; that is, I could not state that. 
Q. What was the appearance of the cans when opened? Please describe that to the 
court fully. 
A. There was a difference in the different cans. All of the canned roast beef did 
not appear to be alike, nor in the same condition. Some of it appeared to be older 
than the other or to have had rougher handling, and when the cans were opened the 
appearance was not the same in all cases. In some cans, when opened, there was an 
appearance of gelatin and of substantial particles of beef cut up in small chunks, 
while in others it appeared to be liquid with more stringy beef in the cans. It was 
not all alike. 
Q. What was the condition of health of your command at this time? 
A. Their good health continued from the time we left until we landed. There was 
no illness on the transport that amounted to anything. There was some seasickness, 
to be sure, or what I attributed to seasickness-vomiting; but when we first landed 
the men suffered to some extent from having been confined for two weeks on trans- 
ports, and they suffered some from giddiness and were easily fatigued in marching. 
They were marched as foot troops; but they got along very well until taking part in 
the action at Guasimas and the battle of San Juan Hill, until about the 10th of July, 
I should say. From that time there seemed to be a rapid breaking down of health. 
Q. Did it continue until the end? Did it increase or diminish? 
A. The stomach troubles seemed to become more aggravated, and progressed from 
diarrhea to dysentery in a good many cases, and their weakness became more mani- 
fest. They could stand less fatigue. Along about the 17th the surrender took place, 
and about the 20th we marched to find a camp farther away in the foot hills, where 
it was supposed to be more healthful, and the men could not march, as a rule, a half 
mile without falling out. They were in a very weak state generally. 
Q. When did you begin to receive refrigerated beef? 
A. About the 24th of July. 
Q. And how frequently was that issued from that time until you left Cuba? 
A. We had it during about two weeks. We left Cuba the 7th or 8th of August, 
and part of that time we had bacon issued to us and part of the time we had beef. 
Q. Refrigerated beef? 
A. Yes, sir; we did not get any canned beef, as far as I noticed, after the 24th of 
July. We had either refrigerated beef or bacon. 
Q. What complaints were made of the refrigerated beef? 
A. Sometimes the refrigerated beef was spoiled; sometimes we got very good beef 
out of it. 
Q. About what proportion of it, to the best of your recollection, was spoiled when 
it was seen by the company? 
A. About one-third. 
Q. Had you occasion to believe or suspect that it had been treated with chemicals 
or other preservatives with a view to its preservation? 
A. Well, sir; I did observe an odor that was new to me in connection with beef. 
Q. What was it? 
A. (Continuing.) In the first lot that came to our camp. I went into Santiago a oout 
the 24th-I could not say positively that that was the date-and found that the fresh 
beef was available then for issue. I had not been sent in for any, but I thought 
S. Doc. 270 62 978 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
they would be glad to get it at our camp, which was 6 miles out, and I succeeded in 
obtaining two wagons and a teamster and having them loaded with this beef. This 
was in the afternoon of that day that I started with this beef for that camp, and 
owing to the difficulties of transportation in that section at that time I failed to get 
through for twenty-four hours. It took me twenty-four hours to get to camp. We 
had to unload this beef several times, because we would get mired down, and we 
would have to reload it, and I rode part of the time on the wagon with the beef. It 
was under those circumstances that I noticed this odor which was not that of rotten 
beef, but rather struck me as that of drugs. I didn't at that time entertain any sus- 
picions regarding this beef; I simply remember that there was this odor that I 
remarked at the time. 
Q. Have you described it as fully as you can? 
A. I should say that the odor resembled chloroform more than anything else that 
I could describe. 
Q. During your stay in Cuba did you attribute the sickness of your command, 
wholly or in part, to the use of canned roast beef or refrigerated beef? 
A. Yes, sir; partially in this way: That the men failing to eat the meat, which 
was an important component of the ration, I think they had not sufficient suste- 
nance for the amount of fatigue and exposure that they were undertaking. In that 
way I think it tended to their physical breakdown. 
Q. Because of insufficiency? 
A. Partially, yes, sir; that is, insufficiency for the reason that they did not always 
eat it. 
Q. Did you attribute the sickness of the command directly to the use of either of 
these articles? 
A. Only as contributory in connection with climatic causes and fatigue and 
exposure. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee . 
Q. Captain, you may please state to the court how long you have been in the 
service, in the United States Army? 
A. I entered the Military Academy in 1873 and was commissioned in the First 
Cavalry in June, 1877, and have been continuously in the service ever since. 
Q. Prior to the campaign of the late war, state whether or not canned roast beef 
has ever been any part of the issue ration in field or in service of any kind, to your 
knowledge. 
A. I had not known of its use or issue prior to 1898, and had never tasted any 
myself. 
Q. To what point did you return in the United States from Santiago? 
A. Montauk Point, Long Island. 
Q. I don't know whether this question was asked or not, but I will ask it now: 
What ration was supplied as a meat ration on the return? 
A. The travel ration, the meat component being canned roast beef. 
Q. State to what extent, if any, it was eaten by the men. 
A. They generally let it alone. 
Q. Captain, you may state to the court, if you please, in your opinion as a troop 
commander in service there, to what extent the quantity and quality of the meat 
ration contributed to the disabling of the men of your command-as a matter of 
your own knowledge or in the opinion of other officers at the time, if it was dis- 
cussed among them. Give a general history of the matter as it occurred at that 
time. 
A. In my opinion, they would have stood up better against the privations of the 
Santiago campaign if a more satisfactory meat ration could have been supplied. This 
canned roast beef seemed to disorder their stomachs, resulting either in nausea or diar- FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
979 
rhea, and I believe, while they would probably have suffered from stomach dis- 
orders in any event, that the use of this diet aggravated those troubles and partially 
caused their breaking down and weakening. 
Q. In that connection, please state whether there were any other components of 
the travel ration that were regarded as unsatisfactory during that campaign? 
A. Yes, sir; there was, in my opinion, too much hard-tack; and while, presumably, 
it could not be avoided, the hard-tack was often mouldy. 
Q. There were, then, other components of the ration that were unsatisfactory 
besides the meat component? 
A. The other components of the ration were deficient in quantity. 
Q. Taking it altogether, which was the most unsatisfactory component of the 
ration in your troop? 
A. The canned roast beef. 
Q. Did you regard it as roast beef or something else? 
A. It looked to me like boiled beef, not roast beef. 
Q. Describe further, if you will, its characteristics, peculiar or otherwise. You 
speak in your testimony of there being a difference in it at different times. I wish 
you would detail to the court just exactly the different grades and kinds and the 
condition of it. 
A. There was a difference in the apparent freshness of the contents of the cans, 
and also in the kind of meat. I have seen some that looked good and tasted good. 
Others, when opened, the contents were repulsive and the meat evidently of poor 
quality. 
Q. Well in what respect. Describe that fully. 
A. I should describe it as tough and stringy and lacking in seasoning, and appar- 
ently in nutriment. There was no seasoning, and as a general thing the men could 
not get seasoning in those days. At least, if the meat ever had been seasoned it did 
not appear so to me. 
Q. In these cans that you examined or saw opened, or saw after they were opened, 
state to the court about what proportion was of meat; that is, meat proper-I don't 
refer to other ingredients. 
A. As distinguished from liquid or gelatine, do you mean? 
Q. Yes; I mean the meat portion of the can. What per cent-25, 50, <5, or what 
per cent of the can was of meat? 
A. Well, sir; it seemed to me that 75 per cent generally was meat. 
Q. Of what did the remainder consist? 
A. A liquid, in some cases, and in other cases apparently a gelatine or a gelatinous 
mass. 
Q. Did you discover any tallow or anything resembling tallow mixed through the 
meat? 
A. In some cases, yes, sir. All of the cans did not appear to have tallow. In 
some the meat was very lean and in some there appeared to be considerable fatty 
meat. 
Q. Was that that had the fatty portion less or more edible than the other, or 
equal to it? 
A. In the latter part of our camp around the intrenchments the meat which was 
fatty appeared to have become rancid; that is, the fat appeared to have become 
rancid. I supposed, as it seems to me natural, that the effect of the tropical heat 
made it so by that time. 
Q. Captain, about how long would that meat keep after being opened? 
A. It would not keep from one meal to the next, supposing that we would have 
three meals a day. 
Q. What kind of cans, or about what weight in cans, were issued to the men as a 
ration? * 980 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. One-pound cans. 
Q. That was considered what ration-a day's ration? 
A. As a general thing, yes, sir; although we understood that the ration was three- 
quarters of a pound-I did. 
Q. In what way did you prepare it or cause it to be prepared for the men of the 
troop? 
A. There was no company mess. Each soldier and officer had his field mess kit 
carried on his person. There was no combination cooking. 
Q. Under the condition, was or was not that practicable? 
A. It was not. 
Q. How long was that ration issued to you while in Cuba? 
A. From the 23d of June, when we landed, until about the 17th of July, my 
recollection is that there was more canned roast beef that reached the troop than 
there was bacon. After the 17th of July, until the 24th, we managed to get more 
bacon than canned beef. 
Q. In your testimony you refer to the refrigerated beef, the circumstances of 
going out to camp with a portion of it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In connection with refrigerated beef-as issued from that time on, will you 
please state to the court as to its keeping qualities, about how long it would keep. I 
don't mean on the average, but the longest time that any of it kept. 
A. Its keeping qualities were various. The longest that I had absolute occasion 
to observe was that first lot which I brought in. I, of course, knew how long that 
had kept from the time I received it at the wharf until I delivered it at the camp. 
That was twenty-four hours, and then it was distributed there to the troops of the 
cavalry brigade and they ate it, as far as I observed, and were glad to get it. Other 
beef that we received subsequently in many cases had spoiled before we received it, 
and this beef which had kept I noticed that the cooks of my troop boiled promptly, 
put it into boil right away, because they understood, of course, that the sooner it 
was boiled the better. 
Q. Do you mean that that be^f, the first issue, kept twenty-four hours from the 
time you drew it until it was issued to the troops? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. As to subsequent issues, about what interval, if you know or have information 
on the subject, elapsed from the time of drawing it until it was issued to the troops? 
A. The procuring of the beef after that was out of my hands. It was obtained at 
the wharf in Santiago by the brigade commissary or his representatives and hauled 
out, and often, I presume, it was subjected to delays similar to that which I experi- 
enced; but more generally I think that it was only probably four hours in transit 
from the wharf to the camp. 
Q. And this beef you have spoken of was how many hours? 
A. Not less than twenty-four hours. 
Q. It was out over night? 
A. Yes. 
Q. You landed at what point with the troops? 
A. Daiquiri. 
Q. You may state the fact, if within your knowledge, as to the landing of animals 
there at that time. 
A. Animals were landed there generally by being pushed off the transports into 
the sea, they swimming ashore. 
Q. State whether, in your opinion as an officer of experience in the service and 
from your observation of the landing of animals there, it would have been practic- 
able to have landed beef cattle. 
I should say that they could have been landed quite as readily as horses and 
mules. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
981 
Q. Was there or not, within your knowledge or information, any serious loss in 
the landing of the horses or mules? 
A. Some animals were lost, but not a large percentage, as far as I ever knew or 
heard. 
Q. Captain, you may please state to the court whether or not you made a report 
in regard to this matter, either during the campaign or subsequently thereto. 
The President. What matter is that, Major-the landing of cattle? 
Major Lee. No, sir. In regard to this beef-the ration. 
Q. (Continued.) Whether in Santiago or Cuba or subsequent to that time? 
A. Yes, sir; about the 10th or 12th of July, when I was temporarily in command 
of a dismounted squadron in the trenches, the officers of my squadron asked me to 
represent the matter, and I did so. I drew up a report on the subject of the-defective 
quantity and quality of the rations that we were receiving. We had at that time no 
field desks and no stationery except a pencil and pad that I carried in my shirt 
pocket. So this was roughly made out in pencil and handed in to the regimental adju- 
tant. Also, at Montauk Point, in response to a circular letter from regimental head- 
quarters, I made a report as troop commander with reference to the supplies gen- 
erally, including rations. And again, in response to a call of January 31, I then 
being called upon to report as troop commander on this subject of alleged unsatis- 
factory food furnished to troops during the Spanish war, I made a written report. 
Q. In the first report, that you speak of as being made in July, while in the 
trenches, did you refer to the canned roast beef? 
A. I did, sir. 
Q. Have you a retained copy of that report? 
A. For the reason that I stated, we had no retained records whatever, and I could 
not even spare the stationery. I would not have had enough to make out a retained 
copy, and I needed what little I had for more necessary purposes. So there is no 
retained copy of that in existence. 
Q. Do you know what became of the report that you gave to the adjutant on that 
subject at that time? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Then, will you please state to the court, according to your best recollection, 
the substance of that report with reference to canned roast beef? 
A. Well, the essential fact stated was that we were not receiving complete rations 
at that time, and that the ration which we did receive was mean and unpalatable, 
and that report was read to the eight officers of that squadron and by them duly 
approved, and it was at their urgent suggestion that I made it. 
Q. From your experience with the canned roast beef, under the conditions of serv- 
ice where you used it, from the time it was issued until it was suspended, if it was 
suspended, what can you say as to its being wholesome or unwholesome as an article 
of food? 
A. I should say decidedly that it was unwholesome and unsuitable for use or issue 
as a part of a ration for troops. 
By the President: 
Q. Did you make any report to higher authority of your suspicion that the refrig- 
erated beef was treated with chloroform? 
A. Not until recently. 
Q. You say the hard-bread ration was unsatisfactory during the time you were in 
the trenches? 
A. Its use was too long continued. 
Q. Do you think they should have had soft bread? Is that the idea you wish to 
convey? 
A. I don't know whether it was practicable to supply flour and baking powder, 
nor do I wish to be understood as blaming anybody for supplying us with hard-tack; 982 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
simply, when I was called upon to make a report in regard to unsatisfactory food I 
thought that should be mentioned. 
Q. You lived on it about how long-about seventeen days? 
A. We commenced its use when we got on board the transport at Tampa and used 
it continuously from that time-that was about the 7th or 8th of June-until certainly 
as late as the 20th of July. Then, of course, as a result of having to use so much the 
men were in the habit of frying this hard-tack, which, of course, is trying to the 
stomach. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. How recently was that last report made to you ? 
A. I beg your pardon 
Q. I mean with reference to the treating of meat by chloroform. You said in 
your testimony " until recently." How recently have you made it? 
A. This last report I mentioned as having been made in February in response to 
a call of January 31. 
Q. To whom was that report made ? 
A. To the Inspector-General. 
Q. Did you state in that that you believed that this meat had been treated with 
chloroform ? 
A. No, sir. I stated that the meat in bulk smelled, I thought, of drugs. 
Q. You did not mention the word "chloroform," then? 
A. Oh, no, sir. 
Q. At what time did you first observe this peculiar odor? At the wharf where the 
meat was delivered or subsequently? 
A. No, sir; on the way from the wharf to the camp. 
Q. You say that meat transported from the wharf to your camp was transported in 
an open wagon ? 
A. Yes, sir. We had a wagon cover. 
Q. So the meat was sheltered from the sun? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you think that this odor was anything further than the ordinary decom- 
position of meats? 
A. Yes, sir; that was the point I made or understood-that it was not that of 
decomposed meat, as it seemed to me, but 
Q. Well, the meat at the time you observed it was in a state of incipient decompo- 
sition, was it not? 
A. Well, sir, we distributed the beef, and it was eaten apparently without difficulty. 
Q. I thought your testimony was that a certain large portion of it was decomposed 
and had to be thrown away? 
A. That was afterwards. That was the only particular occasion I had observed it 
in bulk-in those wagons. 
Q. That first issue you say kept twenty-four hours from the time it was drawn? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And the command consumed the whole of it? 
A. I could not say except as to my own troop. Yes, sir; it was distributed to the 
brigade. 
By General Davis: 
Q. How many of those issues were there, Captain, that you refer to that you 
yourself obtained at the wharf? 
A. Just one. 
Q. And did you exercise any special precautions in protecting it from the sun or 
otherwise? 
A. Only to keep a wagon cover over it. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
983 
Q. Was the same precaution used with the subsequent issues of fresh beef, so far 
as you know? 
A. As far as I know; yes, sir. But 1 didn't have anything to do with the trans- 
portation of the beef after that. 
Q. There was a marked difference in the condition of the beef you yourself received 
and that afterwards received? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And was it on consecutive days? 
A. Yes, sir; we managed to get beef pretty generally. There were some days when 
it missed or some days when we received bacon. 
Q. When you made this first report to which you have referred had you com- 
menced to receive refrigerated beef? I mean this report that was made on a mem- 
orandum slip. 
A. No, sir. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. What made you suspect, Captain, that this beef had been treated with chem- 
icals? Had that question ever arisen in the command at all? 
A. No, sir; that was the first that I had seen in Cuba. 
Q. It was an original suggestion of yours, was it? 
A. Yes, sir; it had never been suggested to me. I had no suspicions of the beef 
itself. I simply remarked this odor; that was all. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Did you call the attention of the regimental surgeon to the odor of the beef? 
A. I didn't think at the time, sir, that there was necessarily anything harmful or 
wrong about this odor. I didn't know what it was. It was simply bound to attract 
my notice because I had not observed such an odor in connection with beef at any 
time before that. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Did you discuss the matter with other officers at that time? 
A. No, sir. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Captain Stanton, of the Sixth Cavalry. 
TESTIMONY OF CAPT. WILLIAM STANTON. 
Capt. William Stanton, U. S. A., was called as a witness by the recorder, and, 
having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. William Stanton; captain, of the Sixth Cavalry; Fort Leavenworth, Kans. 
Q. Did you accompany the Sixth Cavalry during the operations in Cuba last year? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. During the voyage from Tampa to Cuba what constituted the meat component 
of the travel ration? 
A. Canned corned beef. 
Q. Was there any canned roast beef? 
A. I don't remember that there was. 
Q. After the landing in Cuba, and until the close of the siege operations which 
terminated with the surrender, what constituted the meat component of the ration? 
A. Bacon, canned roast beef, and fresh beef. 
Q. Until the close of the siege operations-until the surrender? 984 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Oh, I beg your pardon. Bacon and canned beef. 
Q. About what proportion, to the best of your recollection? 
A. I don't recollect; I think a larger proportion was bacon. 
Q. What complaints, if any, were received of the canned roast beef during that 
period? 
A. Well, at first it was very much liked as a change from bacon. After that the 
men didn't eat it so freely. 
Q. Did you use it yourself? 
A. On one or two occasions; yes. 
Q. Did you see many of the cans opened or used? 
A. I do not recollect of seeing many of them opened. 
Q. Please state to the court what the appearance of the contents was of those cans 
you saw. 
A. It looked more like pieces of the flank than pieces cut out from the thicker 
portions of the beef. 
Q. Had it been affected by the heat? 
A. The grease that was in it was somewhat, as could be noted by the odor. 
Q. Do you remember any of the brands on the cans? 
A. I do not. 
Q. What proportion of cans, if you have any knowledge on the subject, was 
tainted? 
A. I don't remember seeing any that were tainted. 
Q. When was the refrigerated beef first issued? 
A. It was first issued, I think, when we went to Camp Hamilton-back some 4 
miles from the bay. 
Q. What complaints were received of the refrigerated beef during the rest of your 
stay in Cuba? 
A. The refrigerated beef was usually delivered to us late in the morning or toward 
noon. There were attempts made to keep it for dinner the next day, but they met 
with failure. After that it was always boiled as soon as it was brought into camp. 
Q. What proportion of it w'as lost in that way as part of the ration? ' 
A. I don't recollect that there was any great portion of it lost. 
Q. Were there any other complaints except of this loss from tainting or decom- 
position? 
A. It was remarked, and I noticed it, that when it was boiled it had a peculiar 
color. It boiled up more like corned beef than fresh beef. It had a red appearance 
which you see in good corned beef. 
Q. To what cause did you attribute that color? 
A. I was at a loss to understand it. 
Q. Did you undertake to assign a cause? 
A. I did not at that time. 
Q. Had you occasion to believe or to suspect at that time that chemicals had been 
used in the preservation of the beef? 
A. I was at a loss to account for this redness of the beef, and I don't know towhat 
I ascribed it at that time, if I made up my mind at all. I do not think it was at that 
time that I formed an opinion as to the reason of this. 
Q. What was the condition of your command in point of health during the latter 
part of your stay in Cuba? 
A. They were almost all sick. I should say they were almost all sick at different 
times. 
Q. Did you attribute this state of health to the beef component there-either 
canned roast beef or refrigerated beef? 
A. I don't think I did at that time. 
Q. Upon what steamer did your regiment embark for Montauk? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
985 
A. The Gate City. 
Q. And what was the meat component of the travel ration on the journey back? 
A. I think we had canned corned beef. 
Q. After reaching Montauk Point did you feel it your duty to make a report of 
the food supply in Cuba? 
A. I did not. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Were you called on in an official way to make a report in regard to the rations 
there? 
A. I don't recollect that I was. 
Q. Will you please state to the court the method of drawing, as far as you can 
recall, in regard to the canned roast beef prior to the surrender; how it was brought 
out and served to the men as issued? 
A. Most of the rations were brought out by pack train, and carried down to the 
foot of the hill. As to time? 
Q. Prior to the surrender. 
A. Most of the rations were brought out by pack trains to the foot of the hill 
where General Wheeler's headquarters were, and they were distributed by commis- 
saries from there and carried up the hill. 
Q. Then, I understand you did not send down to the commissary yourself to have 
these rations drawn? 
A. Yes; the regimental commissary went down there and drew them. It was but 
a step from our camp. 
Q. From the depot or the rendezvous 
A. Where they had the supplies; yes. 
Q. Were they brought up in cases, or were they brought up loose-the canned 
roast beef? 
A. I don't recollect. It was brought up in the most convenient manner, the best 
way it could be carried. 
Q. Was there any difficulty in supplying the command in that way? 
A. Not at all; it was only about 50 or 60 yards. 
Q. But from the landing, how was it brought? 
A. By pack train, which trains were constantly running, and at times by wagons. 
Q. The rations of canned roast beef as a rule you found apparently in good shape 
when they were brought to your company, did you not? 
A. I didn't say that. 
Q. I understood you found none that were tainted. 
A. I said I found none that were tainted, to my own knowledge. 
Q. None spoiled then, within your own knowledge, that were brought to the com- 
pany for issue. 
A. I said further, however, that the men declined to eat it, for their own reasons. 
Q. Can you state what those reasons were? 
A. Well, they didn't like it; they preferred bacon. 
Q. I believe you stated in your examination in chief that at that time you did not 
consider that part of this meat ration contributed to the sickness of the men. Since 
then have you had any reason to change your view in regard to that, by investiga- 
tion or otherwise, whether it had any bearing upon the matter of the health of the 
men? 
A. That is too complicated a question for me to form an opinion of. I have never 
studied medicine and I could not form an opinion as to the sickness of the men. I 
am inclined to ascribe most of it to the climate. 
Q. Was there anything substituted in place of the canned roast beef that the men 
did not consume; did they get anything to make it up, in the way of bacon? Was 
there a supply of bacon to make that up, so as to give them the full meat ration? 986 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I could not say whether the full ration was used or not. We took what rations 
we could get. 
Q. There was no system in regard to the ration, the issue of the ration, as to the 
exact quantities or allowances? 
A. I think not; I know there was not. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Had you been accustomed to the use of refrigerated beef before the issue was 
made to you at Santiago? 
A. Yes, sir; I think I have. I think all the beef that is ordinarily used is refrigerated 
beef. 
Q. You noticed a change in the color after it had been subjected to this partial 
cooking. Did you notice a change in the taste also? 
A. No; I don't think I did, except sometimes I noticed it was slightly tainted. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness, 
Captain Allen, of the Sixteenth Infantry. 
TESTIMONY OF CAPT. L. C. ALLEN. 
Capt. L. C. Allen, U. S. A., was called as a witness by the recorder and, having 
been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. L. C. Allen; captain, Sixteenth Infantry; station, Fort Leavenworth. 
Q. Did you accompany your regiment to Cuba during the operations there in 1898? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. On the transport during the voyage from Tampa to Cuba, what was the meat 
component of the travel ration? 
A. We had some canned corned beef and some canned roast beef. 
Q. Do you remember in what proportions? 
A. No; I don't. I think it was more roast beef than corned beef. 
Q. What complaints, if any, were received during the voyage in respect to the 
roast beef. 
A. Well, the first time we tried the roast beef they said they could not eat it. 
That was the only complaint I heard, except that they wanted to make stews of it 
so that they could eat it. 
Q. And what was done? Please go on and tell the court all about it. 
A. They took potatoes and onions and beans and corned beef, and when they got 
down to the roast beef they did the best they could. I got them several stews 
made and then they got along with it. 
Q. Were there any facilities for cooking on the ship? 
A. We had to pay the steward something for permission to make the stews. 
Q. After the landing in Cuba and until the surrender, what were the meat com- 
ponents of the ration that were issued to that command? 
A. It was bacon and canned roast beef, I think. I don't believe we had any 
corned beef then. 
Q. What complaints were received of the roast beef during that period; that is, 
up to the surrender? 
A. Well, there were not many complaints; it was just not fit to eat, that is all. 
Q. What was the appearance of the contents of the cans when they wTere opened? 
A. It was slimy, and the fiber in it was tasteless. It seemed to have been put up 
at two or three different times. There would be some lean meat, and then some 
scraps, and then a lot of slime. 
Q. What brands were on the crus? 
A. I don't know. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
987 
Q. What proportion of the cans that were opened under your observation were 
tainted; that is, were absolutely unfit for use? 
A. I didn't see any tainted cans. 
Q. What was the odor of the ordinary cans when they were opened? 
A. They didn't have much odor as I remember. 
Q. When was refrigerated beef first issued? 
A. A few days after the surrender; I don't know the date. 
Q. What complaints were received of the refrigerated beef from the time it was 
first issued until you left Cuba? 
A. It was sometimes partially spoiled. 
Q. Were there any other complaints? 
A. No; what was good I considered all right, but it was spoiled just like any beef 
would spoil; some of it. 
Q. About what proportion, to the best of your recollection, was lost in that way? 
A. I think more than half of it. 
Q. Was any ration issued in place of this meat that was lost? 
A. No. 
Q. Was your command insufficiently subsisted? 
A. Yes. 
Q. In consequence of the amount of refrigerated beef that was spoiled? 
A. Yes. 
Q. What efforts, if any, were made by you with a view to obtaining something in 
its place? 
A. Well, I went to the commissary and told him about it, and that was about all. 
He said he was doing the best he could. 
Q. Did you carry it higher than the commissary; did you carry it to the regimental 
commander? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Had you occasion to believe or to suspect at that time that the refrigerated 
beef had been treated with chemicals with a view to its preservation? 
A. No. 
Q. What was the health of your command during its stay in Cuba? 
A. They were all sick after the surrender. Every man in the company, I think. 
Q. What proportion of the illness, if any, did you attribute to the use of canned 
roast beef and refrigerated beef? 
A. I could not say; I have no idea. 
Q. How large was the sick report toward the close of your stay in Cuba; what 
proportion of your men were not fit for duty? 
A. I think we ran up to about 33, but that didn't mean sick people at all. 
Q. But what number, as a matter of fact, were unfit for duty? 
A. About 33 out of 75; 75 being the number I had. But quite a number of them 
were new men who came over after the fighting was over, just before the surrender. 
Q. On the voyage back to Montauk, what was issued as the meat component of 
the travel ration? 
A. Well, we had the things we had in camp; that is, canned roast beef, but the 
men didn't eat that. There were provisions in the ship somewhere and they got 
hold of them; canned bacon and fruit and beans, and I think that lasted them 
through. 
Q. Was any canned roast beef used on the voyage home, to your knowledge? 
A. I think not, sir. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Captain, from your experience with canned roast beef under the conditions 
under which it was issued, and under the conditions under which the men had to 988 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
use it, if they did use it, was it wholesome or unwholesome; was it fit food or unfit 
food? 
A. It was unfit food. 
Q. During the siege operations, or prior to the surrender, was there anything sub- 
stituted for this canned roast beef so as to keep the men up to their full strength; I 
mean a full allowance of the meat ration on which men depend? 
A. No; we had bacon. 
Q. As near as you can recall, about what was the proportion of the issue between 
canned roast beef and bacon? I mean approximately. Under the circumstances, 1 
don't expect you to answer that accurately. 
A. I think there was more bacon than there was canned roast beef. 
Q. And at the camps the men refused or declined to eat the canned roast beef, as 
I understood your testimony? 
A. Yes; they didn't like it. 
Q. What was done with it? 
A. I don't know exactly what was done with it. We had trouble in policing it 
out of camp. The men would eat at it, and throw it on the ground if we didn't 
watch them. 
Q. Take the case of a man being issued two days' rations, say a 2-pound can, 
if such was the case. After he opened that and took his first meal out of it, how long 
would that keep; say he took some out for breakfast in the morning, how long would 
that meat be good, under the conditions there? 
A. I don't know. I think they generally "divvied" up and opened what they 
wanted, when they tried it at all. 
Q. You were with the regiment, I believe, at Montauk? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you or not recall anything as to the abandonment, or as to the presence 
there of a large quantity, in the rear of your camp, of rations brought over? 
A. I remember it very well. 
Q. Will you please state of w'hat that mainly consisted, and about its quantity? 
A. Mostly canned roast beef. 
Q. About how much of it was there, approximately? 
A. A number of wagonloads. 
Q. What was done with that? 
A. I think it was distributed among the companies. I found a lot of it among my 
company when I got to Huntsville, and I traded it off at 2 cents a can and took it 
out in trade. 
Q. About what size cans were they? 
A. I think 2-pound cans. 
Q. Then, that would be at the rate of 1 cent a pound? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you ever buy any of that out of the commissary department? 
A. I bought some at Tampa when I first saw it. 
Q. What did you pay for it? 
A. I don't remember. 
Q. You say this that wyas brought back to Montauk you believed was distributed 
around among the companies. Was it consumed among the companies? 
A. No, sir; I don't think an ounce of it was ever consumed; I never heard of it 
being. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. How did you like that meat that you bought at Tampa? 
A. I opened a can of it the night before we landed-we were up nearly all night- 
and tried it and could not eat it. I tried it twice in stews, and that is all I know 
about the eating of it. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
989 
Q. At the time this collection of cans was made at Montauk, was fresh meat being 
issued to your command? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And how did these cans accumulate? 
A. How did they accumulate? 
Q. I am speaking of the accumulation of cans there that you have referred to. 
Wasn't an issue made to you at Montauk at all? 
A. No, sir; I think it must have been that they were some that had been on the 
transport; possibly some that we had had in the trenches. 
Recross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Please state whether within your knowledge that produced any nausea or 
dysentery-the consumption of it by the men down there when they did consume it? 
A. I don't know. There was a great deal of nausea in the command. That was 
one form that the sickness took. The men wrere vomiting all the time. 
Q. Did that occur after eating or attempting to eat that beef? 
A. Well, I don't know. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Corporal Skelly, of the Sixth Cavalry. 
TESTIMONY OF CORPORAL SKELLY. 
Corporal Skelly, U. S. A., was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having 
been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station. 
A. Corporal Skelly; Troop C, Sixth Cavalry; Fort Leavenworth. 
Q. Did you accompany the regiment during the operations in Cuba last year? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. On the voyage from Tampa to Cuba, what was the meat component of the 
travel ration? 
A. We had this canned roast beef and bacon. 
Q. Do you remember in what proportions? 
A. No, sir; I don't know in what proportions. 
Q. What complaint was there of the canned roast beef on the voyage? 
A. I didn't hear any. 
Q. Was it eaten by the men ? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. After you landed in Cuba, up to the time of the surrender-that is, during the 
fighting, while you were in the trenches-what kinds of meat did you receive? 
A. This canned roast beef and bacon. 
Q. Do you remember what the proportions were then ? 
A. No, sir; some nights we would get probably 4 cans of this beef and probably 
half a side of bacon, and then the next night we would probably get 6 cans of beef 
and a small allowance of bacon; I could not tell exactly what proportions. 
Q. What complaints were made of the canned roast beef during this period that 
is, up to the surrender? 
A. When we would open it it looked whitish on top and it was tasteless. 
Q. Go on and tell the court about it. 
A. The only way w'e could eat it with any satisfaction was to boil it or fry it in 
cakes. It tasted very good that way. 
Q. Did you have to cook individually, or was that cooking by company? 
A. We were cooking individually. 
Q. Did you eat it during that period? 990 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How generally was it eaten in the company? 
A. The men all tried to make soup out of it. As far as I knew, they thought that 
was the best way it could be eaten. It tasted better that way. 
Q. Were any vegetables furnished you during that time? 
A. Yes; we got some onions and some potatoes. 
Q. When did you begin to receive the refrigerated beef? 
A. After we got in Camp Hamilton; somewhere along about July 20, as near as I 
can remember. 
Q. What complaints were made of the refrigerated beef? 
A. When it first come I don't believe I.ever tasted beef that tasted better, it had 
been so long since I had had any, but it didn't look good; it looked funny looking on 
the outside. 
Q. And after that? Tell the court all about it. 
A. After that we started a troop mess, and I don't know anything more about it. 
Q. Did you see it when it came to the cooks? 
A. Yes, sir; I helped to carry it over from the division commissary. 
Q. Was it ever tainted? 
A. Along the edges it was greenish looking, but I never tasted any that was 
tainted. I don't know anything about the rest of them. 
Q. Could you tell about what proportion of it was lost on that account? 
A. No, sir; I don't know anything about that. 
Q. Was a great deal of it lost or only a little of it; did the cooks ever throw a good 
deal of it away or was only a little thrown away? 
A. I remember one forequarter that they had to throw away. They threw nearly 
all of that away. That is all I remember; I saw that when they were throwing it 
away. 
Q. On the voyage from Cuba to Montauk what meat was issued as a component of 
the travel ration? 
A. Canned roast beef. 
Q. How much of that was eaten on the way back? 
A. Very little was eaten. 
Q. What complaints were made of it? 
A. I could not eat it at all myself. I don't know how it was, but I couldn't eat it 
after looking at it. It made me sick to look at it. 
Q. What was there about it that made you feel sick? 
A. It was stringy looking and whitish, and I didn't like the looks of it at all. 
Q. Was that feeling general among the men? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was there any other meat furnished on the voyage? 
A. No, sir; not that I can remember. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Who was your troop commander in Cuba? 
A. Lieutenant Barnhart. 
Q. During the time of the drawing of the meat were you in charge of the cooking 
or the kitchen at any time after you started the troop mess ? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You only saw portions of it, then ; you didn't see all the meat that was drawn ? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. What sized cans of this roast beef were issued to you, we will say, after you 
got to Cuba ? 
A. Cans about that high [indicating about 4 or 5 inches] and round. 
Q. About how many pounds in a can? 
A. I should think about two pounds. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
991 
Q. Were they issued to men individually; that is, while you were at work individ- 
ually in the trenches and on the campaign before the surrender ? 
A. They issued it out to squads. There are four squads in a troop. First the troop 
got it and then it was issued to the squad leaders. There were ten or eleven men in 
a squad. It would be issued to them, so that that would make probably four men 
to one can. 
Q. Do you know how long a 2-pound can, for instance, would keep after you 
opened it ? 
A. It would not keep very long. I remember one can was opened and we tried 
to use it next morning and it smelled so we had to throw it away. It didn't last 
over night. 
Q. Did or not the company leave any quantity there when they broke camp 
and started to return to the States ? 
A. No, sir; I don't think they left any-none that I can remember. 
Q. What became of the quantity that was brought over from Cuba on the ship? 
The men didn't eat it. What was done with it, if you know? 
A. I don't know that. I was taken to the hospital as soon as we landed at Mon- 
tauk Point and didn't see that at all. 
Q. Do you know that it was intended that this meat might be eaten cold, that it 
was prepared to be eaten cold without having to cook it again? 
A. Yes, sir; I thought that that was what it was for. 
Q. Did you ever try it that way? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What was the result? 
A. They didn't like the taste of it; it didn't taste very good. 
Q. How about the nutriment in it; did it seem to be nutritous and to satisfy the 
men the same as the bacon? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Well, in what respect did it differ? Go on and tell fully and freely about it. 
A. It didn't taste palatable. I didn't enjoy the taste of it and it didn't seem after 
we ate it as though it did us any good. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
First Sergeant Boon, of the Sixth Cavalry. 
TESTIMONY OF SERGT. CHARLES E. BOON. 
Charles E. Boon was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been first 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. State your name, rank, and regiment. 
A. Charles E. Boon, First Sergeant Troop A, Sixth United States Cavalry. 
Q. Did you accompany the Sixth Cavalry during the operations in Cuba last year? 
4. Yes, sir. 
Q. On the voyage from Tampa to Cuba what were the meat components of the 
travel ration? 
A. About two-thirds corned beef and one-third canned roast beef. 
Q. What complaints, if any, were made of the canned roast beef during the voyage? 
A. The men all complained that it was unfit for use; that it was not fit to eat. 
Q. Did they eat it? 
A. Some of them did. 
Q. Did you carry the report or give the report to the captain? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Who is or who was the captain? 
A. Capt. J. B. Kerr. 992 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. What action, if any, was taken by him, to your knowledge? 
A, None that I know of. 
Q. After the landing in Cuba, and up to the surrender, what meat was issued to 
the troops? 
A. This same canned beef and bacon. 
Q. You remember in what proportions? 
A. No, sir; I do not. 
Q. What complaints were made of the canned beef during that period, while you 
were in the trenches, and during the fighting? 
A. The men complained that they could not eat the canned beef. 
Q. To the best of your recollection, how much of it was eaten? 
A. All that we received. 
Q. It was all eaten? 
A. As far as I know it was eaten-that which was issued. 
Q. What was the complaint about it? State it fully to the court. 
A. The complaint was that the meat looked soft and stringy and slimy and was 
tasteless and all considered unfit for food. 
Q. What brands were on the cans; do you remember any of them? 
A. No, sir; I don't remember any of them. 
Q. Do you remember whether or not there were any labels on the cans? 
A. I noticed labels on some. 
Q. And others not? 
A. On others not. 
Q. You don't remember the names, then, on any of the labels? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you carry that complaint to the captain? 
A. The captain was not there then. 
Q. Well, to the troop commander. 
A. No, sir; I don't think I did. 
Q. When did you first begin to receive refrigerated beef? 
A. That was after we moved over to Camp Hamilton, about the 20th of July. 
Q. What complaints were made of the refrigerated beef during the rest of your 
stay in Cuba? 
A. There was no particular complaint made of that. 
Q. In what condition did it reach the troop? 
A. The first received was in good condition. That was before we received our 
cooking utensils. It was cut up in small pieces and each man was issued about his 
ration and they cooked it themselves. All seemed to relish it as a change. But the 
next day they complained of diarrhea. 
Q. Go on. What complaints were there through all that period? 
A. After that the meat came up several times spoiled and it was thrown into the 
sink hole; it was buried. We didn't cook it, or make any attempt to cook it. 
Q. About what proportion of it was spoiled in each issue, to your best recollection? 
A. In each issue I could not hardly tell. Some of it was all spoiled and we threw 
it all away. 
Q. But taking it from the beginning to the end, about what proportion do you 
think was lost due to that cause? 
A. Probably we threw away one-third. 
Q. And what was the condition of the rest; was that good or bad; was that so 
that it could be eaten? 
A. As soon as we would receive it we would boil it right away, and then the next 
morning use it up. 
Q. Was there diarrhea after the first time? 
A. Yes, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
993 
Q. How long did it continue? 
A. Until we left there. 
Q. Did you attribute it to the use of the beef? 
A. No, sir; I didn't think of that. I don't know what caused it. 
Q. What meat was furnished you on the voyage back? 
A. I think that was all canned reast beef. 
Q. Was that used on the voyage? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What complaints were made of it on the voyage back? 
A. The men couldn't eat it, and they didn't eat but very little of it. 
Q. Was any other meat furnished you? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. No other meat in the travel ration-no corned beef? 
A. No, sir. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Sergeant, I believe you stated that during the siege operations down there and 
prior to the surrender the canned roast beef was issued. Do you mean by that that 
it was eaten by the men, or simply issued to the men, to do with it as they saw proper? 
A. It was issued to them to do as they wished with it. 
Q. As far as you know, from your duties and observation of the troops, about what 
part, approximately-I don't expect you to give it accurately-of that canned roast 
beef did the men use after you had landed in Cuba and prior to the surrender? 
Half of it, a third of it, or a quarter of it? 
A. I should judge that they used all of it. 
Q. You should judge that they used all of it? 
A. From what I saw, yes. 
Q. You have described its condition as it appeared to you, and the fact, also, that 
some had brands on it, and you do not remember those brands, and some had no 
brands. Can you state about how much meat there would be in a can? Take a 
pound can, for instance, if you received such a can. Tell us about what portion 
of it would be good, clear, and clean meat. 
A. Probably one-half of the contents of the can was meat. 
Q. What would the balance of the can be, as far as as you have observed? 
A. A soft, slimy looking substance. 
Q. Tallowy in appearance? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Kind of a mixture? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did it, or not, have a nauseating effect upon the men? 
A. It did upon me. 
Q. State your personal experience with it, Sergeant. 
A. My first experience was on board the Rio Grande. I ate a little of the first 
that was issued, and that satisfied me until we landed in Cuba. I didn't touch it any 
more until one day I tried to eat some more of it and it turned my stomach, and I 
left it alone after that. I didn't eat any more of it, or try to eat any more. 
Q. How long have you been in the service? 
A. I have been in the service forty years and eleven months. 
Q. Have you ever known of that article, known as canned roast beef, to be issued? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You have had considerable to do with the messing of your troops in your 
duties as noncommissioned officer, and I believe it is proper to ask you this question, 
whether you regard that as a wholesome or unwholesome article of food-a fit or 
unfit article of food? 
S. Doc. 270 63 994 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I regard it as unfit for issue to men for food. 
Q. From the result of your observation and information, is or not that the general 
experience in your troop among the men? 
A. Yes, sir. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. What was your condition of health, Sergeant, when you embarked on the 
steamer going to Santiago? 
A. It was good, sir. 
Q. Did you continue in good health during the voyage? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And you were unable to eat the canned roast beef at any time during the voyage? 
A. Only the one time that I just tasted it; that was all. 
By the President: 
Q. Let me ask you about the canned corned beef, Sergeant. Did the men like 
that? 
A. Some do and some do not. For myself, I don't. _ 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Sergeant Corcoran, of the Sixth Infantry. 
TESTIMONY OF SERGT. RICHARD CORCORAN 
Richard Corcoran was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been first 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and regiment. 
A. Richard Corcoran; sergeant, Company D, Sixth Infantry. 
Q. Did you accompany the regiment to Cuba in the operations there last year? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. On the voyage from Tampa to Cuba what was the meat component of the travel 
ration that was issued? 
A. It was mostly canned roast beef. 
Q. Was any other meat issued? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You say "mostly?" 
A. Yes; it was all canned roast beef. 
Q. What complaints were made of the canned roast beef during the voyage from 
Tampa to Cuba ? 
A. The complaints were that the men could not eat it; they were sick. 
Q. Did they eat it? 
A. They ate it for a time. 
Q. Go on and tell the court all about it. 
A. And afterwards they quit eating it and ate hard bread and coffee. 
Q. Was that state of affairs represented to the company commander? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did he take any action about it, to your knowledge; was he able to do anything 
about it? 
A. The company commander was killed the 1st of July. 
Q. During the voyage? That is what we are talking about now. 
A. I don't know. 
Q. And did the answers you made apply to the voyage from Tampa to Cuba? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Now, after landing in Cuba, through the fighting and siege operations, up to FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
995 
the time of the surrender, what meat did you receive as rations-what different 
meats? 
A. Well, bacon and roast beef; canned roast beef and bacon. 
Q. Do you remember in about what proportions? 
A. Some days we would get very little and other days we would get a little more; 
but it was pretty small. 
Q. But do you know how many days of bacon and how many days of roast beef ? 
A. No, sir. We used to get it every day; canned roast beef some days for six and 
seven men and other days canned roast beef for ten men, to divide it among them. 
Q. What complaints were made of the canned roast beef during this period, after 
you landed, up to the surrender? 
A. It was bad. 
Q. How did it look when the cans were opened? 
A. It looked stringy and slimy, and there were chunks or lumps of fat in it. We 
opened it and we could hardly smell it, let alone eat it. 
Q. Was much of it eaten? 
A. No, sir; it was thrown away and we would eat hard bread. 
Q. When did you begin to receive refrigerated beef ? 
A. About the 18th or 19th, or somewhere along there. I am not positive as to the 
date. 
Q. Sometime after the surrender? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What complaints w'ere made of the refrigerated beef? 
A. It was bad. It looked all right, but when it was cooked nobody could eat it. 
It looked all right at first, but when it was cooked we could not eat it. 
Q. Why not? 
A. It smelled bad and tasted bad. We had to bury it. 
Q. Well, what was the trouble with it? 
A. It was just bad; I don't know anything else. 
Q. Do you mean it was tainted? 
A. Yes, sir; tainted and smelt bad. It must be tainted when it smells bad. 
Q. How much of it, on an average, was destroyed or thrown away? ' 
A. Sometimes a company would throw away from 75 to 100 pounds. 
Q. Out of how many days' rations-one? 
A. Well, I don't know how many rations it included-75 pounds or 100 pounds, 
or whatever it would be. 
Q. Well, can you tell the court about what proportion, from day to day, had to be 
thrown away on that account-a quarter, a half, a third, three-quarters, or how 
much? 
A. About a half. 
Q. That is your best recollection? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And was that which was not thrown away eaten? 
A. That was thrown away before it was cooked, and then they would cook some 
more and they might have to throw that away. Some men would throw it away and 
others would eat it. Men that were any way sick could not look at it at all. 
Q. What was the condition of the company as regards health at that time? 
A. About 90 men in the company, and only about 20 or 21 for duty. 
Q. Then, was a very small part of the refrigerated beef eaten by the men then? 
A. Very small. Yes, sir. 
Q. What meat was issued as the travel ration coming back to Montauk Point? 
A. Canned roast beef and hard bread. 
Q. What other meat, if any, besides canned roast beef? 
A. I don't remember of any other. 996 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. What complaint was there of it on the voyage back? 
A. Oh, bad. 
Q. Was any of it eaten? 
A. I don't think; I know I didn't eat any of it. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. How long have you been in the service? 
A. Ten years and three months. 
Q. Is that your first experience with canned roast beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What sized cans were issued by the company when you were down there in 
Cuba, before the surrender? 
A. Two-pound cans. 
Q. How long did it keep after you cut it open-that is, how long did it keep 
apparently in nice, good condition, in the condition it was when you opened it? 
A. It was not in good condition when we opened it. It was bad then. 
Q. Did the men try to eat it? 
A. Yes. 
Q. What effect did it have on men who tried to eat it? 
A. It made them vomit; it made them sick. 
Q. Did it give any other trouble, any stomach trouble or diarrhea or dysentery, 
or anything of that kind? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you eat it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What effect had it on you? 
A. It made me sick; it made me vomit. 
Q. I want you to state, Sergeant, whether, from your observation and from your 
experience in regard to that beef, it made you and other men sick when you ate it; 
was that your experience-did you attribute the vomiting and the dysentery to that? 
A. Yes, sir. Of course, I can not speak for the other men. 
Q. I mean from your observation. You saw the men eat it; and then what would 
occur? 
A. They would go lay under the bush and vomit and lay there for about five or 
six hours, until some man would take a cup of coffee out to them and then they 
might get up. 
Q. Did they stop eating this beef then, after they tried it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did they get any better then? 
A. Yes, sir; we got bacon in place of it then, and it was better. 
Q. In your experience as a noncommissioned officer and a soldier, having eaten a 
Government ration as issued by the Government, do you consider and find that 
canned roast beef is wholesome or unwholesome? 
A. Unwholesome. 
Q. What was done with that that was brought back from Montauk, if you know- 
that is, if there was any left over? 
A. It was thrown away. We had lots to eat there; we didn't need it. 
Q. Did the men, in consequence of not being able to eat that canned roast beef 
while you were undergoing the hardships of the siege down there, suffer for want of 
meat? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Well, to about what extent? Just describe that, Sergeant, to the court in your 
own way, in your own words. 
A. Some days we got three or four hard tack; no bacon or beef either. Other days FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
997 
we would get a can of roast beef for about six men that was bad; and then we would 
get a little bacon the next day, and we could eat that all right. 
Q. Was there anything issued in place of the refrigerated beef that you had to 
throw away? Was anything issued to replace that? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. In cooking that refrigerated beef did you observe that pretty closely, in regard 
to its condition and how it was cooked? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How did it look; how did it appear? 
A. It appeared like any other beef until it was cut up, and then it was tainted and 
something was wrong with it. 
By General Davis: 
Q. How much of the roast beef did you eat in all, Sergeant; how much did you 
actually consume or swallow from first to last in Cuba? 
A. Well, I must have eaten four or five cans; that is, altogether, on the voyage 
from Tampa until I came back. 
Q. And when did you quit eating it? 
A. I quit eating it, I guess, about the 20th of July. 
Q. And when were you taken sick? 
A. I was never what you would say actually sick, but I used to go and vomit for 
half an hour or so and then I was all right again. 
Q. And after you commenced to get refrigerated beef was your health any better? 
A. No, sir. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it .s proposea to introduce as a witness 
Colonel Beck, of the Kansas Volunteers. 
TESTIMONY OF COL. JAMES BECK (COLORED). 
Col. James Beck (colored) was called as a witness by the recorder, and, being 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station. 
A. James Beck. I have been in command of the Twenty-third Kansas Volunteers 
since they were organized. 
Q. Did your regiment serve in Cuba? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. From what port in the United States did it sail for Santiago? 
A. New York City. 
Q. On the voyage from New York to Santiago, what meat was furnished you as 
part of the travel ration? 
A. The travel rations we had in New York City were furnished by the quarter- 
master. They were the ordinary Government travel rations-canned meat and 
cooked stuff, and so on. 
Q. What was the meat? 
A. Canned beef. 
Q. What kind of canned beef? 
A. I don't know whether it was what you call roast beef or corned beef. 
Q. Was it salt? 
A. Salted and prepared for eating. 
Q. What was the shape of the cans? 
A. We had no complaint of our travel rations. 
Q. But what was the shape of the cans-square cans? 998 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I am not positive. Some were square. I think most of them were smaller at 
the top, possibly, than at the bottom. 
Q. And were there any round cans, to the best of your recollection. 
A. I don't remember of any. Of course, I didn't eat but very little of the meat 
issued to the men; but I noticed them around there. I noticed the cans around 
there and also after we got to camp. 
Q. On the voyage were any complaints made of the meat issued? 
A. On the voyage we had meat as good as could be. Our meat was put in the 
refrigerator, and was good beef. 
Q. Then you got some refrigerated beef on the voyage over? . 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In addition to the corned beef? 
A. We didn't eat much of the corned beef. Most of it was this refrigerated beef. 
Q. When did you land in Cuba? 
A. We landed in Cuba the last day of August. We got out of the vessel the 1st 
day of September. 
QI And how long did you remain there; when did you leave Cuba? 
A. We left there the 1st day of March. 
Q. During your stay in Cuba what sort of beef was issued to you? 
A. Some of it was the beef that was brought from Santiago that came on the ves- 
sels. Some came from this country, and I suppose it was refrigerated beef, and other 
beef was beef we killed on foot. 
Q. About what proportion of each, to the best of your recollection, was issued to 
your command? 
A. Well, we had considerable of the canned beef issued when we first got there, 
along with bacon without any fresh meat; and then when there was considerable 
talk about the men not getting enough fresh-meat rations, about that being one of the 
causes of sickness, and so on, they bought a bunch of cattle for us in Porto Rico, I 
think, and by the time we had eaten them up we commenced to get refrigerated beef. 
Q. So, then, some canned beef was issued to your command? 
A. Yes, sir; quite a lot of it. 
. Q. And what satisfaction did it give? 
A. Men prefer good, fresh beef to canned beef, but we ate the corned beef. We 
didn't have much sickness. We had less than any other regimenton the island. 
Q. And wThat satisfaction did the refrigerated beef give? 
A. Some was good, and to some of it I should have preferred the canned beef. 
But none was very bad. We had a little meat that was condemned, and when we 
found that we could not get any more we cooked that and ate it. 
Q. How far from Santiago were you stationed? 
A. Twenty-six miles. 
Q. And you hauled refrigerated beef 26 miles? 
A. Yes, sir; the train left Santiago at 4 o'clock, and they would hustle the meat off 
the ice at 4 o'clock and send it to us, and we would have it the next morning for 
breakfast. Most of the meat we had was very good, and we had no just cause for 
complaint. 
Q. To the best of your recollection, about what proportion of it was spoiled and 
had to be thrown away? 
A. Very little; we didn't throw away but very little. 
Q. What, in the way of meat, was issued to you on the voyage back to the United 
States? 
A. The quartermaster could give you more exact figures on that than I could, but 
we had some fresh beef, some refrigerated beef, also along with canned meat. 
Q. Canned roast beef? 
A. I guess that word "roast" means about all the meat issued in cans by the 
Government, doesn't it? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
999 
Q. No; the Government issues corned beef and canned roast beef. 
A. That is what the boys call "mule." We got some of that. I don't know as 
much about it as I did about what we got on the voyage over. We had plenty to 
eat coming back. 
Q. What was the condition of your command in point of health during its stay in 
Cuba? 
A. We considered it good; considering the sick reports we got from Santiago and 
other camps. We had more men for duty, according to the reports we saw in the 
papers, than any other regiment. We had 850 enlisted men, and we lost only 9 
privates and 1 commissioned officer while we were over there. We did not think 
that was very bad. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Colonel, at what point were you stationed with your regiment in Cuba? 
A. Twenty-six miles from Santiago. We had a railroad there and telephone. 
Q. Was your beef brought to you by railroad or by wagons? 
A. The refrigerated beef was brought by rail, and I think the cattle were brought 
by rail. 
The Recorder: May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Sergeant Hanovan. 
TESTIMONY OF JOHN HANOVAN. 
John Hanovan was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been first duly 
sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and regiment. 
A. John Hana van; Company C, Sixteenth Infantry. 
Q. Did you accompany the regiment during its service in Cuba last year? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. On the voyage from Tampa to Cuba what was the meat component of the 
travel ration? 
A. It was composed of bacon and canned roast beef and some corned beef. 
Q. Do you remember what proportions? 
A. No, sir; I could not say. 
Q. What complaint was there of the canned roast beef on the voyage over? 
A. It was bad all through, sir. 
Q. Can you explain to the court in your own language in what way it was bad? 
A. It was slimy, and when it would be opened it would stink, sir; and it was 
greasy and stringy. 
Q. Were the first cans that were opened just after leaving Tampa the same as 
those that were opened after you had been in Cuba a month? 
A. Yes, sir; there was not much difference. I didn't notice any difference; it was 
bad from the start. 
Q. Did it continue so after you landed and up to the surrender? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What proportion of it was issued during the operations in front of the city; that 
is, from the time of the landing until the surrender what proportion of canned roast 
beef and of bacon? 
A. I could not very well describe the proportions, because there was always plenty 
of canned roast beef that was not always used, and when it would be issued to the 
men they would not open it. It would sit there. 
Q. How much of it was eaten? 
A. Well, it would only be in case there was nothing else to eat that it was eaten. 
Q. When did you begin to receive refrigerated beef? 1000 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Some time after the surrender. I don't remember the date, sir. 
Q. What complaint was made of the refrigerated beef? 
A. At times it was good, and more times it was bad. 
Q. What was the cause of the badness? 
A. I could not tell. 
Q. When you say it was bad, what do you mean? 
A. The taste was bad. 
Q. Do you mean it was tainted? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. To the best of your recollection what proportion, on an average, was tainted, 
what proportion of that which was issued? 
A. I could not say; I paid no attention to it. 
Q. Did you have to do with the issuing of the rations? 
A. At times. 
Q. When you had charge of the rations of the company, about wThat proportion of 
the amount issued each day did you throw away? Was it a quarter or a half or a 
third? 
A. One time, as I have said, we threw away a whole quarter. That was the only 
time a whole quarter was thrown away, so far as I remember. That had to be 
buried. 
Q. And then, generally, about how much would you lose on account of its being 
tainted? 
A. Some days it would be all right, and more times we would have to cut parts of 
it off. I could not say how much. 
Q. What satisfaction did that give which was not tainted? 
A. That which was not tainted was all right. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. You have spoken of this beef being spoiled and it being necessary to throw 
away a whole quarter at one time and at other times more or less being thrown 
away. Was anything given to the company in lieu of that or in place of that ration? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. What sized cans were these cans of roast beef? 
A. A round can, probably about 2| inches high. 
Q. You remember the different labels that were on these cans; can you recall dif- 
ferent cans and the colors of them, or the marks on them, or anything as to the 
identity of the cans? 
A. No, sir; I can not. 
Q. Were you issued any larger sized cans than the 2 or 3 pound can? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you open any of these cans yourself? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I wish you would describe to the court exactly how you found it, what pro- 
portion of it was meat and what proportion of it was tallow, and anything else that 
was in there; about what you would find in a can that you opened. 
A. Well, I should judge it would probably be about one-third fat, and then 
about one-third greasy and stringy stuff, and then the other third would be lean. I 
never could see anyone eating it. 
Q. Did the men habitually refuse to eat it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did they taste it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Where you observed men who did eat it, did it ever produce any sort of effect 
on the men? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
1001 
A. Yes, sir; it made them sick; it made them vomit. 
Q. How much of it did you eat? 
A. Occasionally I would eat some of it. I had to. 
Q. You only ate it when you could not get anything else? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Would men go without it sometimes when they could not get anything else? 
What would they live on then? 
A. They would have to get something. They would have to eat it if there wasn't 
anything else. 
Q. Then I understand y«u to say to the court that it was only in case of extreme 
necessity that your men ate any of this beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. About what proportion was abandoned, or thrown away, or not consumed? 
A. Do you mean of each can? 
Q. I mean of the canned roast beef generally? 
A. During the time prior to the surrender at least two-thirds of it, easily, was 
thrown away. 
Q. Were there any complaints made about it to the officers of your company; was 
anything said about it by them? 
A. Oh, yes, sir; there must have been. I never never did, sir, because it was not 
necessary. We had only one company commander at the time, and he had to eat it 
himself, and he knew what it was. 
Q. Well, I want you to state as a soldier and as a noncommissioned officer whether 
it would have been considered among the men there a soldierly thing to have com- 
plained of anything under the conditions that existed there? 
A. No, sir; I think it would have been an unsoldierly act, when there was no way 
to rectify it. 
Q. And your own officers were eating or trying to eat the same meat? 
A. Yes, sir. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Are there any cans of that beef in the post now, that you know of? 
A. Not that I know of. 
Q. None were brought up here? 
A. No, sir; not that I know of. I don't think there were. We have been in 
Huntsville, and I don't think there were any fetched here. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. You say in opening the cans down there that they would stink. Did every 
can stink? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Could you tell before opening a can whether it contained good beef? 
A. No, sir; I could not. 
Q. You had no means of telling that? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Were there any outside indications in the way of swelling, for instance, that 
would indicate a bad can? 
A. No, sir; I never noticed it. 
Q. Did anybody ever speak to you about that? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you ever tell your doctor that you thought this meat made you sick? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You never spoke to him on the subject? 
A. No, sir. 1002 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. What was the color of the can, if you remember? 
A. Red. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Sergeant Puckett. 
TESTIMONY OF SERGT. WILLIAM M. PUCKETT, U. S. A. 
Sergt. William M. Puckett, U. S. A., was called by the recorder as a witness, and, 
after being duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. State your name, rank, and station. 
A. William M. Puckett; ordnance sergeant, U. S. A.; I have no permanent station. 
I am ordered to stay here until further orders. 
Q. Did you accompany the Twentieth Infantry to Cuba during the operations 
there last year? 
A. Yes, sir; I was first sergeant of Company F. 
Q. On the voyage from Tampa to Cuba what was the meat component of the travel 
ration? 
A. It was mostly canned corned beef. 
Q. What else? 
A. Two days I think we had a round can-roast beef. 
Q. What complaint was made of the roast beef, if any? 
A. The men could not eat it-would not eat it. 
Q. Was any complaint made of the corned beef? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. After landing in Cuba, up to the time of the surrender what kinds of meat were 
issued to you? 
A. We had some corned beef and bacon until the 3d or 4th of July, when this 
canned beef first made its appearance. 
Q. The canned roast beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What complaints were made of it from the time it was first issued until the 
surrender? 
A. That the men could not eat it-would not eat it. It was repulsive in ap- 
pearance. 
Q. Tell the court all about it. 
A. They could not eat it; they would not eat it. I could not eat it myself. Most 
of it appeared to be meat that had been in the can for quite a while-as though it 
had been in stock for some time. Once in a while we would find a can that seemed 
to be new or that had not been put up a great while. Most of it had the appearance 
of being old meat. 
Q. Had you ever eaten it before? 
A. No, sir; except what we got on the boat. 
Q. Had you ever seen it opened before? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. How much of it was used by the company-by the men? 
A. Well, it was issued-there was quite a lot issued-but they threw the biggest part 
aw'ay. Sometimes we would get part bacon and sometimes it would be part of this 
canned roast beef with the ration. It would be enough to give a small slice of bacon 
to the men, and it ranged from three men to seven men to a can. 
Q. When was refrigerated beef first issued? 
A. After we went in camp on the hill after the surrender. . FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1003 
Q. What complaints were made of the refrigerated beef? 
A. It gave the men diarrhea and cramps of the stomach. There was something 
wrong with it. We didn't know what it was. 
Q. What was its condition when it reached the command? 
A. The first two days it appeared to be in pretty fair condition, and after that we 
had to throw the most of it away. There was more than half of it thrown away on 
the 3d, and from that on. 
Q. On the voyage from Santiago to Montauk what meat was issued for the travel 
ration? 
A. It was supposed to be fresh meat, and was taken out of the boat and taken to 
some mess in there and issued to the men. 
Q. Refrigerated meat or meat in quarters? 
A. I didn't know where they got it. It was in large pieces, but whether it was 
refrigerated beef I could not tell. It got so we could not eat it. There was some- 
thing Wrong with the taste of it and there was something wrong with the smell of it, 
and I don't know whether it was from pine boards or whether it had been on the ice, 
or what it was, but a great many men were sick and didn't stop to think what the 
matter was. They just could not eat it, and they would throw it overboard. 
Q. How was it cooked? 
A. It was put in one of those very large iron kettles in the fore part of the ship 
and boiled. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Sergeant, I wish you would state how long you have been in the service of 
United States as a soldier. 
A. A little over nineteen years. 
Q. Was the refrigerated beef that you have been speaking of, the condition of 
which caused a large per cent of it to be thrown away, replaced in any way? 
A. Not that I know of, sir. 
Q. In regard to the canned roast beef, you say that the most of it, you think, was 
thrown away? 
A. A great deal of it was thrown away right in my presence, and most of it was 
opened in my presence. 
Q. You saw the opening of a great deal of it, then? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you make any close examination of that beef; did you investigate it or 
examine it? 
A. Yes, sir; I examined quite a lot of it pretty closely, because I was interested in 
eating it myself. 
Q. Can you describe how much you ate of it and what the effect 6f it was? 
A. I did not attempt to eat much of it out of the can. When I could get hold of 
some potatoes, a few onions, and a few beans and make a stew out of it I could drink 
the soup. We might get hold of one of those big cans of tomatoes and some other 
vegetables and make a soup, and we could drink the soup, but very few ate the meat 
after the stew was made. It did not seem to have any substance in it. I think on 
the 3d and 4th we could not get a fire to cook it with, and the men had to eat it the 
best way they could; and it was those two days, I think, that they got very little 
bacon, and after about the first time a man ate it they just could not eat it. They 
would open it and you would hear one man say, "You can have my share;" and I 
don't think they would eat it out-of the can hardly a second time. 
Q. Did it produce any nausea or sickness among the men, they eating it in that 
way? 
A. Yes, sir. A great many would vomit it up before they would get out of the 
way of the other men. 1004 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. About what day was that? 
A. The first day we got the meat. 
Q. Then when you left off using it was there any improvement in the condition of 
the men, or did the vomiting continue? 
A. We didn't letup on that kind of meat until we got the fresh meat. The men 
were pretty sick during that time, and it was pretty hard to tell, but the diarrhea 
commenced after eating that fresh meat. Fresh meat nearly always gives men diar- 
rhea, but in this case there was too much griping their stomachs and it went into 
bloody diarrhea. I know I ate a little of it and it bothered me the same way and 
I quit it. 
C2. Did you get better? 
A. I had no trouble with it then. 
Q. What was the peculiarity about that refrigerated beef, if you can describe it 
fully from your experience with it from the time you first got it until you left; until 
you arrived at Montauk? 
A. It was pretty hard to tell what was the matter with it. The first we got seemed 
to be good, but the cook said there was some odor about it and we didn't know just 
what the matter was. It might have been in the ice box and the smell might 
have been new pine boards. It was a little too dry to have been on ice. Nobody 
knew exactly what it was, and not many tried to think what it was because they 
were sick and didn't care. 
Q. But it was remarked by a number of men at the time? 
A. Nearly all the men of the company. Of course the companies were camped 
close together and the cook houses were pretty close together, and the tents were 
close together; and it was complained of through the whole camp. Even the man 
that cut up the meat every day-a man out of my company, a butcher-said the 
meat was not just right, and he didn't know what the matter was. 
Q. I wish you would give the name of that butcher. 
A. His name was Henry P. Shans. I think he is in Manila now. 
Q. With the Twentieth Infantry? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. After your experience as a noncommissioned officer and a soldier in the service 
it is deemed proper to ask you to state your opinion as to whether that canned roast 
beef is a wholesome or unwholesome food for soldiers. 
A. The question was asked by the commanding officer of the regiment. He called 
up the first sergeants and quartermaster-sergeants of the regiment into his office and 
questioned us very closely about that; and the opinion of everybody was that it was 
not suited for soldiers in that climate. That was the condition he asked. 1 don't 
think it was. I don't think there is a great difference of opinion among the enlisted 
men that it is not a proper thing to feed men on in that climate. 
Q. I understand you to say that you had never had in the service any experience 
with that canned roast beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you not know that it is alleged in its advertisement that it is prepared all 
ready for the soldier to eat out of the can? Isn't it cooked? 
A. It has the appearance of being cooked-cooked to death. We didn't stop to 
read the directions on the can. We could not build a fire if we wanted to cook it 
when we first got it. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Was the refrigerated beef universally bad? 
A. The greater portion of it was thrown away, the greater portion that was issued. 
Q. A small portion was not thrown away? 
A. A very small portion; yes, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
1005 
Q. Was that good or bad? 
A. That is what gave the men diarrhea. It was trimmed, even that part of it. 
Q. Was it universally bad? 
A. I would state that the greater part of it was bad. 
Q. Was any of it good? 
A. I don't think it was very good. Of course we would not be competent judges 
as to whether the meat was good. It didn't suit us and it didn't seem to agree with 
the men, but to make a statement that it was not good would be pretty strong, 
because we didn't know positively. In our opinion it was not good. 
Q. Nearly all was thrown away, and I understand you to say what they did eat 
made them sick? 
A. Yes, sir. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Did you relish any kind of meat at that time? 
A. Yes, sir; good bacon came in mighty nice. We went through the whole cam- 
paign without being sick. We ate mostly the corned beef and the bacon. I confined 
myself to that when I could get it. 
By General Davis: 
Q. How much of the canned roast beef did you eat, if any? 
A. I did not eat much of the canned roast beef. I used as much as three or four 
cans all together there in making a stew, I suppose; but then I would not eat the 
meat. With the potatoes, and tomatoes, and onions, and a few beans we would 
make some kind of a stew out of it. 
Q. But you didn't eat any of the solid part of it ? 
A. Not after making the stews. I tried to eat it when we first got it, but I saw I 
could not eat it; that it would probably affect me the same as it did the other men, 
and so I would not eat it. 
Q. You ate the stew? 
A. I drank the soup from the stew. 
Q. But didn't eat any of the solid meat? 
A. No, sir. 
Thereupon, at 10.10 p. m., the court adjourned, to meet at the call of the president. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Fort Leavenworth, Kans., March 19, 1899. 
The court met at Fort Leavenworth, Kans., at 10.50 a. m., pursuant to a call of 
the president. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Present, also, Major Lee and the reporter. 
J. G. Urquhart was sworn as reporter. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Sergt. Edward Mason. 
TESTIMONY OF SERGT. EDWARD MASON. 
Sergt. Edward Mason was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been 
first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. State your name, rank, and regiment. 
A. Sergt. Edward Mason; Troop A, First United States Cavalry. 1006 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. What is your station? 
A. Fort Robinson, Nebr. 
Q. Did you accompany the First Cavalry during its operation in Cuba last year? 
A. I was with the regiment; yes, sir. 
Q. On the voyage from Tampa to Cuba what was the meat component of the travel 
ration? 
A. We had issued to us prime roast beef. 
Q. Anything else? 
A. Yes, sir; we had the regular travel ration-hard bread and 
Q. Never mind that. What complaints were made of the canned roast beef on 
the voyage from Tampa to Cuba? 
A. I can not say that I heard any complaints xnade on the way from Tampa to 
Cuba. 
Q. Was the ration satisfactory? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. In what respect was it unsatisfactory? 
A. The meat component was tasteless. It was not like the corned beef we had 
been having. A great part of it was thrown overboard. 
Q. From the time of landing in Cuba until the surrender what meat was issued in 
the way of ration? 
A. Generally bacon, sir. 
Q. Any canned roast beef? 
A. Yes, sir; probably we had canned roast beef twice. 
Q. Was the same fault found with it as on the voyage over? 
A. The men simply would not eat the meat. 
Q. Did they eat any of it? 
A. I can not say; I was not with the regiment. I do not believe that they did 
eat it there; they would throw it away. 
Q. You were not with the regiment then? 
A. No, sir; not with the regiment; with the brigade. 
Q. When did you begin to receive the refrigerated beef? 
A. The first was received at Chickamauga Park. 
Q. At what time in Cuba? 
A. In Cuba it was about the 19th or 20th of July. 
Q. After the surrender? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What fault was found with the refrigerated beef? 
A. In itself the beef was good, but it spoiled on us. 
Q. From the best of your recollection, what proportion spoiled, from first to last? 
A. That is very hard to say. 
Q. Well, to the best of your recollection. Think it over and see if you can answer 
the question. From the first to the last, from day to day, about what proportion 
spoiled? 
A. So far as I can recollect, we only lost two days' beef-about two days out of ten 
Q. Was the rest in fit condition to eat? 
A. It was eaten by the men. 
Q. Can you state particularly to the court any other fault found with the refriger- 
ated beef? 
A. We found no other fault, sir. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Were you on duty at Tampa, Fla.? 
A. No, sir; I was at Lakeland with the regiment. 
Q. What were your duties there? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1007 
A. I was the regimental commissary-sergeant-acting as such. 
Q. When did you enter on duty there with your regiment-about what time? 
A. I started from Chickamauga Park. I went there with the regiment as acting 
commissary-sergeant. 
Q. About what time? 
A. Well, sir, it was about the 29th or 30th of April I was detailed. From that 
time until we landed in Cuba I was with the regiment all the time. 
Q. Did you as commissary-sergeant, or acting commissary-sergeant, for the regi* 
ment draw any refrigerated beef at Tampa or Lakeland? 
A. I did, sir. 
Q. State as to its quality and character, and what occurred with reference to it. 
A. The meat that we received was fine in appearance, but it was undoubtedly 
chemically treated. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Undoubtedly what? 
A. It was chemically treated. One morning I went down to the refrigerating car 
to draw meat and I objected to the appearance of it. An agent of Armour & Co. was 
there. So far as the man's name is concerned, I do not know that. He told me at 
the time that this meat had been treated with what is called preservaline. It was as 
if it had been painted over with something like paraffin wax, a light coating on the 
outside of the meat. I objected to the color of the meat and refused to accept it; and 
our commissary officer came down, and he refused to accept it. The meat was rejected. 
Q. About what time was that? 
A. That was about the 28th or 29th of May. 
Q. Who was the officer that came down? 
A. Lieut. C. J. L. Hartman. 
Q. About how much of this meat was there at that time? 
A. Probably 3,000 pounds. It was in the car. 
Q. Did you notice it generally? What sort of an examination did you make of it? 
A. Oh, I examined the meat very carefully as commissary-sergeant. I had han- 
dled meat before and, of course, I inspected it closely. The meat was undoubtedly 
spoiled. 
Q. In what way spoiled? 
A. As to how-it was rotten. The meat had spoiled in the car. 
Q. Were any reports made by Armour's agent at the time as to the harmfulness 
or lack of harmfulness of this preparation; was it discussed? 
A. My recollection is that the man said that the preparation used did not hurt the 
meat; that it was safe. He also advised us to cut off the outside, and the meat would 
be all right in the interior next to the bone. 
Q. Did he state as to where this had been done? 
A. No. 
Q. Where had the meat come from before coming to Lakeland? 
A. I do not know, sir. It came in by the carload; probably from Chicago or 
Kansas City. 
Q. How were deliveries usually made; from Tampa? 
A. No, sir; they would send us a carful of meat down to Lakeland. We had 
four regiments there, and as soon as that was used up another car would come in; as 
to whether from Kansas City or Chicago, I could not say. 
Q. Might it not have come from Tampa? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you know as a matter of fact that there was a refrigerating establishment 
there, where meats were sent to the various commands? 
A. Yes; I know that. I think our meat came from Chicago. 1008 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. It was not billed in any way to the commissary; it came entirely to the agent? 
A. No, sir; it came to the agent entirely. 
Q. To whom would he report in regard to the meat? Would he report to the com- 
missary officer? 
A. He would probably notify the commissary officer. I could not say that he 
did. We would go down in wagons and get the meat every morning. 
Q. Was the meat issued out of the car-weighed there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Sergeant, are there any other facts in connection with the meat than at Lake- 
land or at Tampa that you have not stated? If so, state fully to the court as to the 
condition of it. 
A. No, sir; I don't know as I can say anything more. 
Q. Did you try any of the canned roast beef? 
A. I did, sir. 
Q. What effect had it upon you? 
A. It nauseated me. I could not eat it. 
Q. What as to nutrition? 
A. That is something I am not prepared to say. 
Q. What was the condition of the cans that you opened? Did you examine them? 
A. The cans that we received were in good condition; but it was not palatable 
at all. 
Q. Down there in Cuba, while you were on duty with the brigade, did you hapdle 
much of this canned roast beef in connection with your duties? 
A. Very little, sir. I think we received it about twice-that is, for the brigade or 
the division. 
Q. Brigade or division? 
A. I was on duty both with the brigade and the division. We probably received 
it two or three times. Generally we had bacon. 
Q. During your service there what complaints came within your observation in 
regard to the canned roast beef? 
A. I don't know, sir; I can not say that any complaints were made. The men 
simply would not eat canned roast beef. 
Q. Did you notice any in Cuba that had been opened? 
A. Yes, sir; we had some of it at Camp Hamilton. 
Q. What was its condition as compared with the condition when you first saw it- 
that is, from heat or any other causes? 
A. It appeared about the same, sir. 
Q. How many times did you eat of this canned roast beef during the campaign? 
A. During the campaign? They had it on an average of three times a week for 
fourteen or fifteen days. 
Q. About what proportion of it was consumed or eaten? 
A. Very little, sir. 
By the President: 
Q. You spoke of a car at Lakeland. Were you there when the car was opened? 
A. Yes, sir; I was there when that car was opened. 
Q. Was it a regular refrigerating car? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. It had only 3,000 pounds in it? 
A. No, sir-of this supply made at the time. The car wras full when it came in. 
Q. Was the meat that you got out of the car before that "treated?" 
A. Yes, sir; I suppose the same as the rest of it. 
Q. When did you first notice that the meat had been treated with anything? 
A. All the meat got out of that car was treated. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1009 
Q. Was that the only car of meat furnished? 
A. No, sir. We would take about a car a week. We had four regimeuts there- 
the Second Massachusetts, the Seventy-second New York, and the First and Tenth 
Cavalry-eating about a car a week. 
Q. Was all the meat that you got there treated with preservaline? 
A. That I could not say. The only thing I knew about it was what Armour's 
agent told me. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. How did the agent happen to tell you about the appearance of the meat? 
A. I went down there two or three times a week. The meat was supplied in the 
morning. It smelled bad and had a bad appearance. The agent, just simply speak- 
ing of it, said: "That is preservaline; that is the chemical we use to protect the 
meat, to preserve it." As to what preservaline was, I don't know. 
Q. Was this agent at Lakeland or Tampa? 
A. He came up from Tampa, sir. 
Q. Do you wish the court to understand that very much of the meat supplied to 
you of that refrigerated beef had been chemically treated? 
A. Well, I could not swear that it was. I will say that, in my opinion, it was. 
Q. Did you call the attention of the surgeon to the fact that the meat had been 
treated? 
A. I called the attention of my commissary officer, my immediate superior. 
Q. Was any sickness attributable to the consumption of this meat? 
A. That I could not say, sir. 
Q. What was the general condition of the health of the men at that time? 
A. Good. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Did all the meat that you got at Lakeland appear to have this white or glossy 
surface, like paraffine? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you say that it looked like paraffine was over it? 
A. Not all the meat we received there, because we received some meat sent from 
Tampa cut up. That meat did not, but all the car meat that we received had that 
appearance. 
Q. Whether in this particular car or any other car? 
A. Or any other car; yes, sir. 
Q. How about the beef you received later in Cuba? 
A. The majority of the meat we received in Cuba spoiled on us. It was the fault 
of the climate, as I thought at the time. 
Q. Did it have this wffiite appearance? 
A. I could not say, because it was all in cloths. 
Q. Did you, at any time, see any of the cloths taken off? 
A. I did, sir. 
Q. Did you see this white appearance under the cloths? 
A. No. 
Q. Who was present beside yourself at this interview with the agent of Armour 
& Co.? 
A. Lieutenant Hoffman, and probably Sergeant Able, who is now commissary 
sergeant. 
Q. Where? 
A. At Santiago. 
Q. Are you sure the agent was an Armour man? 
A. Yes, sir. I am positive of that, because I made out the vouchers. 
Q. Was he a resident of Tampa, or do you know? 
S. Doc. 270 64 1010 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I think he was probably a Chicago man. 
Q. You can not remember his name? 
A. No. 
Q. What was his appearance? 
A. He was a short, heavy-set man. In fact, Armour had two agents there-one a 
young man of 25; the other decidedly Jewish in appearance. 
Q. Which of the two was this man you refer to? 
A. The young man. 
Q. The young man? 
A. Yes, sir. If I ever heard the name I can not recollect it. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Was this meat incased in cloths? 
A. No, sir; it was in the cars open. 
Q. It was not covered with these cloths? 
A. No, sir; it was not covered with the cloths. 
Q. Could you scrape this material-the preservaline-off the surface of the meat? 
A. I could not say that you couli scrape it off. It would break; it was light, as if 
the meat had been painted; but I won't say it could be scraped off. 
The court then (at 11.30 a. m.) adjourned to meet at the Pullman Building, 
Chicago, Ill., Monday, March 20, 1899, at 11 o'clock a. m. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Pullman Building, Chicago, III., 
Monday, March 20, 1899. 
The court met at 11 o'clock a. m., pursuant to adjournment of yesterday. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Colonel Foster, of Chicago. 
TESTIMONY OF D. JACK FOSTER. 
D. Jack Foster was called as a witness by the recorder and, having been first duly 
sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name and residence. 
A. D. Jack Foster; Chicago, Ill. 
Q. Were you in the military service of the United States during the recent war 
with Spain? 
A. I was. 
Q. To what organization were you attached and in what capacity? 
A. I was colonel of the Sixth Illinois Volunteers. 
Q. Did your regiment serve outside of the United States? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Where? 
A. We were sent from Camp Alger, under General Garretson, to Charleston, and 
from there to Siboney, and held in reserve there seven or eight days, and then sent 
with General Miles on his first expedition to Porto Rico. 
Q. From what port in the United States did you sail for Cuba? 
A. Charleston, S. C. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1011 
Q. On what transport ? 
A. Thei regiment was divided into four or five parts. Half of the regiment-six 
companies-under my own command went on the transport Rita; that was a Span- 
ish transport; a prize capture. Three companies went on the Columbia, I think, 
and one on the Yale; and I think two companies on Transport No. 21. 
Q. What constituted the meat component of the travel ration on the voyage to 
Siboney ? 
A. My recollection now is it was almost entirely canned corned beef. 
Q. Was there any canned roast beef? 
A. I think not; I don't remember of any. 
Q. After landing at Siboney, how long did you remain in Cuba ? 
A. The regiment, as a regiment, did not land. I landed and reported, and then we 
were held there in reserve, I think, for seven or eight days. We went from there to 
Guantanamo Bay. 
Q. What meat was served to you as part of the ration during that time ? 
A. The same as before. We drew a naval ration from the naval commander at 
Guantanamo Bay-Captain McCalla, I think. 
Q. What was the meat component of that? 
A. Corned beef, I think. 
Q. Did you land in Porto Rico? 
A. Yes, sir; at Guanica. 
Q. How long did you serve there? 
A. We landed in July, and we served in Porto Rico until the middle of September. 
Q. About two months, or a little over? 
A. That is my recollection. 
Q. During your stay in Porto Rico, what different meats were furnished you as the 
meat component of the ration? 
A. My recollection is that when we left Guanica we drew the field ration, the meat 
we had mainly for our trip throughout the mountains being salt pork-sow belly, as 
it is called-and we had some native meat. We had very little, if any, corned meat 
on our trip, because we were under General Garretson in the expedition that went 
straight north from Ponce, and had to depend, at least part of the time, on pack 
trains, and we could carry the bacon in larger quantities than we could canned goods. 
So we had almost entirely canned goods, with seme of the native beef. 
[Note.-The witness afterwards corrected this last statement.] 
Q. Was canned roast beef issued to you during your stay in Porto Rico? 
A. I don't think we had any canned roast beef except a small quantity coming 
back. 
Q. On the steamer? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What complaints, if any, were made of it on the voyage back? 
A. We had comparatively little complaint about anything. Occasionally we 
would, perhaps, have a can that was bad, and then I would simply order it thrown 
over and a new can in its place. I don't think enough of it was bad to make me take 
any particular notice of it. My recollection is, through the orders of the commander 
in chief, we were issued what is called a special ration, and there may have been 
some addition to the travel ration coming back. There was comparatively little 
complaint in regard to the quantity of it. Of course the men were tired of that sort 
of a ration, and it was very natural that they should be; but I don't remember of 
any serious complaint in regard to the ration, except an occasional can, or something 
of that kind. 
Q. Did you receive any refrigerated beef while you were in Porto Rico? 
A. While we were at Ponce waiting for our transport I drew refrigerated beef 
once. I found I could get fresh beef-refrigerated beef-and we made requisition 1012 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
for it, and I happened down at Port Ponce at the time my detail was loading it. I 
recognized my sergeant and looked at the beef, and asked about it, and ordered him 
to report to the surgeon when he got to the camp, and have it examined before he 
gave it to the men. That was done, and the meat was pronounced bad, and a board 
of inquiry was convened and the meat was condemned, and I didn't draw any more 
of it. In fact, we were only there a few days afterwards. 
Q. So, with that exception, you drew no refrigerated beef in Porto Rico ? 
A. That was all, sir; we were about 6 miles from the port. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. How was refrigerated beef brought to your camp ? 
A. By our own wagons. We had three wagons that we hauled nothing but the 
stores in. 
Q. At what time of day was the beef drawn, if you recall that? 
A. I only know from hearsay; that is, I understood that the beef, by some mis- 
interpretation of orders, had been unloaded from the refrigerator the evening before, 
and we drew it in the morning. My recollection is that it was about 9 o'clock that 
the detail got it to load it in the wagons. It was about that time, I think, that I 
saw them loading it. 
Q. So it was only out of the refrigerator from the evening before until that time, 
as far as your information goes? 
A. Yes, sir; and of course that is from hearsay. 
Q. In marching across the country there as you did I believe you referred in your 
testimony to the fact that you carried on the packs the salt meat-that is, bacon ? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I think it is recorded in your testimony from one place you had native beef 
and canned meats? 
A. I don't remember that we had. 
Q. I mention that to give you an opportunity of correcting that, if it is wrong. 
A. I meant salt meats. I think I told the reason. 
Colonel Gillespie. I noticed the mistake at the time. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. And in view of the packs it was regarded as impracticable to carry canned 
stuff? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. The other was more convenient? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. State whether in your opinion it would have been practicable to have furnished 
the command with any refrigerated beef, considering that it had to be carried on the 
packs. 
A. No, sir. 
Q. State wThy. 
A. Because after we left there, going north from there, we depended entirely on 
the mule train. 
By General Davis: 
Q. What vessel did this fresh beef come out of? 
A. I was told the Manitoba. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Was the native beef satisfactory? 
A. I didn't like it for the reason that the temperature there, on account of the 
heavy rains we were in, was such that we could not cure it suitably, and it had to be 
cooked and eaten before the animal heat was out of it, and not allowed to be slowly 
issued, because I was afraid of giving the men bowel complaint. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1013 
Q. What was the character of the meat itself? 
A. I should think that if it could have been cured it would have been first class. 
The cattle were certainly fine-looking cattle. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Was there an abundance of cattle? 
A. There seemed to be, but I did not pay any attention to that part of it. They 
evidently bought them where they could and drove them along. 
Q. Drove them on foot? 
A. Yes, sir. 
I would like to say, in justice to myself, that all through the campaign, from the 
commander in chief down, every officer I came in contact with treated me with the 
greatest courtesy, and I came home wonderfully well satisfied with my experience 
down there. That is not testimony, perhaps, but I would like to add that. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Dimmick, of Chicago. 
TESTIMONY OF E. J. DIMMICK 
E. J. Dimmick was called as a witness by the recorder and, having been first duly 
sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. Edward J. Dimmick; Chicago, Ill.; insurance business. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. You may please state to the court whether you were in the military service in 
the late war with Spain, and if so, in what capacity. 
A. Yes, sir; captain of Company D, First Illinois Volunteer Infantry. I was at 
Chickamauga and Tampa. We left Port Tampa June 24 for Cuba. We landed in 
Siboney July 10. 
By the Recorder' 
Q. What meat was issued to your command as a travel ration on the voyage to 
Cuba? 
A. Canned roast beef. 
Q. Anything else? 
A. Yes, sir; there was some other canned meat issued to us. 
Q. Do you remember in what proportions? 
A. We were issued a ten days' field ration at Tampa to carry us through, but hav- 
ing a company fund we bought quantities of stores at Tampa and at Key West, being 
detained there four days; spent nearly $200 for such things as rice, oatmeal, prunes, 
and other things for the men. 
Q. How long did the voyage last? 
A. It lasted us ten days. We were detained four days at Key West. 
Q. Then ten days were consumed in the voyage all together. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What complaints, if any, were made of the canned roast beef during the 
voyage to Cuba? 
A. After the first meal the men could not eat the second meal of it. In opening a 
can, unless they came together in squads, they could not consume a can. There was 
a good deal spoiled in that way. And we also discovered some spoiled cans on that 
trip. 
Q. About what proportion of those issued to you were spoiled in that way? 1014 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Well, I understand, from hearsay, that there were a number of cans; but only 
about half a dozen were brought to my attention, which I ordered overboard. 
Q. That were tainted? 
A. Yes, sir; bulged and broken open. 
Q. Go on, and state fully all the complaint that there was during the voyage. 
A. The boat was crowded, and the men could not all get quarters down in the 
hold and the other decks of the ship, and a great many of them slept on the upper 
deck. Those where they messed together in fours opened this canned meat, and the. 
trip being very pleasant, they were certainly not seasick. There were a few cases of 
seasickness only. The men could not eat more than one or two meals from the 
canned meat, not having the proper things to cook it with, and could not mess as a 
company mess. We did make a company mess two or three times by getting the 
steward to help us, by getting permission to go into the steward's quarters, paying 
him for making us a stew, by buying onions and other things to put with it. 
Q. After you landed in Cuba, up to the close of the siege operations, what meat 
was furnished you as part of the ration? 
A. The same meat, sir. 
Q. And anything else? 
A. Up to when? 
Q. Up to the surrender. 
A. No, sir; we had nothing else issued us. 
Q. Nothing but canned roast beef ? 
A. Nothing but canned roast beef, except what we could buy from the commissary. 
Q. What complaints were made of the canned roast beef during that period? 
A. The same complaint I have stated. 
Q. When did you begin to receive refrigerated beef? 
A. After the surrender; I think about the 1st of August. 
Q. And was canned roast beef used by you up to the 1st of August? 
A. When it was used at all; ,yes, sir. 
Q. How much of it was consumed? 
A. How much of that issued to us? 
Q. Yes. 
A. I should say 50 per cent. We had no way of cooking that or making meals 
of it, unless it was the soldiers individually cooked it over a little fire. We had no 
transportation to bring forward our cooking ranges or utensils or anything else. We 
sent the men to Siboney; ten of my company volunteered, and they marched 14 
miles one night and then 14 miles back the next day to bring these cooking utensils 
and such rations as they could carry. In fact, we were out of rations two days 
there. 
Q. When did you begin to receive the refrigerated beef? 
A. About August 1, as near as I can recollect. 
Q. How frequently was it issued to you after that? 
A. I think every third day. We were occasionally issued other canned meats 
and "sow belly" instead. 
Q. What complaints were made of the refrigerated beef? 
A. We didn't take some of it off the wagon. One consignment, I remember, was 
not taken off the wagon. We were the closest battalion-our four companies-to 
Santiago. They delivered our meat first, and then went to the other two bat- 
talions of the regiment and the rest of the brigade. There was another consign- 
ment that came there that was buried as it was unloaded. Other meat was deliv- 
ered to us. As they divided up the quantity issued to us every day, some would 
take the fore quarter and some the hind quarter, and some the hind quarter and the 
ribs, and so on, and there were four different times that we buried fresh meat. I 
don't think that that was so much on account of the fault of the meat when it was FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1015 
issued to us as it was on account of the delay in getting it after it was issued. I 
understood from the detail that went down from my company one day to assist in 
the loading that that meat was unloaded at 2 o'clock in the morning, delivered to 
our teams at from 7 to 8 o'clock, and so by the time it got to our camp, at 10 or 11 
o'clock, preparations had been started for the noon meal, and we could not eat the 
meat until the night meal, not having the proper utensils to start in and cook that 
meat until the noon meal was through with. 
Q. How far were you from the dock when it was issued? 
A. About 3 miles. 
Q. And were four hours consumed by the teams in making the 3 miles? 
A. No; I don't think so. 
Q. How much time was taken up-you spoke of its being issued between 7 and 8 
o'clock and arriving about noon? 
A. No, I didn't say that; I said from 9 to 10 o'clock. 
Q. Then it was two hours? 
A. About two hours it took from the dock to our camp to deliver that meat. 
Q. Was the road bad. What was the cause of the delay? 
A. Very bad, and when the rain would come it would be almost impossible to get 
through. 
Q. How much beef was rejected, then, for one cause and another, of all that which 
was issued to you; about what per cent, to the best of your recollection? 
A. Twenty-five per cent. 
Q. And what disposition was made of the rest-the 75 per cent that was not 
rejected? 
A. We ate part of it, and part of it we buried. 
Q. Then, would the per cent not used, as given by you-I understood you to say 
25 per cent-be correct? The idea is to get the per cent, as near as you can recollect, 
of that which you could not use. 
A. I should say 25 per cent was bad and was buried. 
Q. And you spoke of some other that you could not eat. What per cent would 
you give, to the best of your recollection, if you included that also? 
A. Well, that means the cutting off and cutting down of the poor pieces of meat 
around the edges of the part that was delivered to us. That meat, I presume, would 
make about 25 per cent more. 
Q. So you would say 50 per cent? 
A. Fifty per cent would be ample. * 
Q. Was the other 50 per cent eaten? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And what satisfaction did that give? 
A. When it was properly cooked and put up in shape, I think it was very palatable. 
Q. Had you any occasion to believe or to suspect at that time that the meat had 
been chemically treated with a view to its preservation? 
A. We were ordered to keep the sack on-the sack which came around it-as long 
as we could before we used it. The boys thought they discovered some peculiar 
odor to it, but we never thought of its being chemically treated, and I didn't think 
so at the time. 
Q. What meat was issued to you as part of the travel ration coming back, on the 
voyage to Montauk? 
A. Well, there were different kinds of canned meats issued to us. 
Q. Canned roast beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How much; what proportion of that? 
A. I could not tell you the percentage of that now. 
Q. What complaints were there of that? 1016 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. They could not eat that canned roast beef they got on the transport, and they 
felt that they had had enough of that and would not touch it. 
Q. What was the condition of the regiment in point of health making the voyage 
back. 
A. We were very much depleted from fevers and other diseases. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Was any canned roast beef issued prior to your leaving Tampa for Cuba? 
A. Yes, sir. . 
Q. Where was that issued? 
A. We were delivered ten days' field rations at Tampa. 
Q. What I mean is, was any used in your company or in your command prior to 
your embarking on the boat for Cuba? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Where was that issued? 
A. At Tampa and at Chickamauga. 
Q. What was the condition of the meat and what satisfaction or dissatisfaction, if 
any, with reference to its use was there? 
A. There we had ranges, plenty of fuel, and plenty of cooking utensils, and we 
cooked it thoroughly. We didn't discover anything wrong with it at that time. 
We had plenty of salt and different things to season it with, and we cooked it up 
with other vegetables. We got tired of it by constant use. 
Q. How long did you use it; about ten days? 
A. Yes, sir; longer than that. 
Q. Did you have any other meat ration at that time with it; did you have bacon? 
A. Fresh meat and bacon, yes, sir. We could alternate in those meals so we could 
eat it. 
Q. In the ten days it was divided, then, between canned roast beef and fresh 
beef and bacon? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You speak of observing on the boat, to the best of your recollection, about 
half a dozen cans that were-absolutely spoiled upon opening. Do you refer to the 
cans of your company or to the cans of the organization? - 
A. The cans of the company. 
Q. Had you any conversation or information from the agent of the refrigerating 
company or from the contractor who was delivering the refrigerated beef with refer- 
ence to the beef that was delivered there in Santiago? 
A. I had. 
Q. Please state that fully to the court; all the circumstances connected with it. 
A. I was in Santiago on a pass for myself and four men to go to Miss Barton and 
get such supplies as she could deliver to us. The date was about August 8. I don't 
know whether it was the 8th, the 9th, or the 10th; but it was one of those three days 
that I was in there. I was in a restaurant with the boys getting a lemonade, and 
met a gentleman in citizen's clothes and asked him if he was from the States. He 
said he was; that he was Swift's representative. I said I was glad to see him, glad 
to get their beef, and one thing and another. He stated he was in trouble. I asked 
him what was the matter. He said, "I have just got a cargo of beef in, where the 
refrigerating plant has been stopped." He told me how long, but I can not recollect 
that-whether it was four days or two days or how long. He said he was going to 
General Shafter to get that beef accepted. I made a remark to him that I thought 
if poor beef came out to our camp we would bury it. He said, " It is not poor, it is 
simply discolored on the outside, and by cutting away the discolored parts the inside 
is perfectly good." 
We had some other little talk. I invited him to camp. I told him I would like FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1017 
to hear the outcome of it, whether he got that accepted or not. I happened to be 
in General Wood's headquarters an hour later and saw him there waiting for the 
interview with General Shafter, and I left there afterwards and didn't know whether 
he succeeded in having that beef accepted or not. 
That is all I know in relation to that. 
Q. Did you have any conversation with him at General Wood's or General Shaf- 
ter's headquarters? 
A. Yes, sir. He said that he was waiting for the interview; that he had sent his 
card in. 
Q. Was any statement made or any information brought by him to you as to any 
disposition of any of the meat that was on the refrigerating boat? 
A. I understand from outside parties-not directly from him, and I don't care to 
put it in evidence-that they threw overboard several tons of that meat. The balance 
was accepted. 
Q. Can you recall, by information or otherwise, what boat that was; what ship. 
A. I can not now. He told me at the time, but I didn't charge my mind with it. 
Q. You refer in your testimony to the fact that probably the loss in the fresh beef 
as issued to your company was about fifty per cent; that that would cover it. Was 
any of that beef replaced by any other meat ration as such, good beef or otherwise. 
A. No, sir. 
Q. In drawing the beef in Santiago, if you know, you may state how it was 
drawn, the method of drawing it, for the information of the court; whether your 
command that would go there would be able to get their beef at the time of report- 
ing, immediately, or whether they would be delayed necessarily in taking their 
chance for issue? 
A. I could not give you that intelligently. The commissary was a brigade com- 
missary, and he simply asked for a detail at different times from different companies 
to assist him in loading and unloading. 
Q. The commissary department, then, had charge of bringing it out? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And had charge of the wagons? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you know how the meat was brought out; whether it was covered in any 
way? 
A. It was covered with wagon covers. 
Q. With reference to the canned roast beef that was issued to your men prior to 
the surrender, or during the time after your landing, what effect, if any, did it have 
upon the health of the men? 
A. They would not issue it unless it could be cooked. I bought onions at differ- 
ent times. I paid $7.50 for a barrel of onions that I got from the commissary depart- 
ment, and I bought all that I was allowed to buy in the way of canned stuff for the 
use of the company. Then we could cook that meat after we got our cooking uten- 
sils in making stews and other things for the men. 
Q. About what proportion of it was found to be bad, or was rejected as being 
unsuitable, if you know? 
A. I couldn't tell you that, sir-that is, as to the percentage-but I know a great 
deal of it we did not use. 
Q. Why was it not used? 
A. Because after the surrender we could get into Santiago and buy more palatable 
food, which we did. 
Q. Did the food nauseate any of the men of your company? 
A. It did, sir. 
Q. To what extent? 
A. Well, I am satisfied in my own mind that the food caused diarrhea and 1018 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
nauseated them very much indeed, and when this sick call was sounded, and these 
men would go up to the surgeon, they would be advised to take tea and toast, which 
we didn't have to furnish the men. We bought tea and other things for those men 
to eat. 
Q. Was there any suggestion or understanding that it was well to discontinue or 
reduce any use of that meat? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Was the matter represented in any way? 
A. No, sir; we simply got along the best way we could with what we had to do 
with. 
Q. You just took what was furnished? 
A. Yes, sir; we knew it was war time and we would make the best of it. 
Q. Well, you say about 50 per cent of the canned roast beef was not used? 
A. No; I said 50 per cent 
Q. I misunderstood you, then. I thought you said about half of the canned roast 
beef was not used? 
A. I said refrigerated beef. 
Q. Well, to the best of your knowledge, about what proportion of this canned 
roast beef that was there was not used or consumed? 
A. I would have to guess at it. It would be about 25 per cent, as near as I can tell. 
Q. How was this canned roast beef issued and drawn by the men; from where 
was it drawn? 
A. From the commissary there at San Juan Hill. Our battalion had charge of the 
commissary stores-the loading and unloading of the wagons. Those issues were 
made through the regimental commissary. 
Q. Would it be issued in cases to your company or in cans? 
A. Sometimes cases and sometimes cans. The fractional part would be in cans, 
and if we were entitled to a full case we got a full case. 
Q. Do you recall finding any swelled or broken cans of the issues made there? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Do you regard, from your experience there with the canned roast beef that 
was issued, that that was wholesome or unwholesome for your men? 
A. Unwholesome. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Do you remember the name of Swift's agent that you had the conversation with 
at Santiago? 
A. No, sir; I could describe him, but I could not give his name. 
Q. Have you ever seen him since? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Had you ever seen him before that time? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Can you recall the name of the packer on those cans of roast beef, or the 
brand? 
A. Armour & Co. was on the cases. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Who informed you that a certain amount of this refrigerated beef had been 
thrown overboard? 
A. I could not tell you now, sir. 
Q. Was it stated to have been thrown overboard in the harbor of Santiago? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was the issue of the refrigerated beef to your command taken from this steamer 
the refrigerated plant of which was alleged to have been out of order? 
A. I don't know that, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1019 
Q. How did the use of the canned roast beef at Tampa-you say you used it for ten 
days-affect your men? Did they have diarrhea? 
A. We discovered no ill effects from it. 
Q. How was it at Chickamauga? 
A. The same. 
Q. It had no appreciable effect upon men? 
A. There was an occasional case of diarrhea among the men, but we did not 
attribute it to the beef then. 
Q. You speak about this refrigerated beef which you used at Santiago as being a 
little distasteful, I think I understood you to say. Did it have any taste that was 
peculiar to itself as distinct from any other refrigerated beef that you have seen or 
used? 
A. It did not taste like home beef as we get it here. 
Q. What was that taste; could you describe it in any way? 
A. Well, it was, I think, from the effects of sun and climate and everything of 
that kind. 
Q. It was the taste of decomposition then? 
A. Yes, sir. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I would like to ask if you remember what size cans of roast beef were issued to 
the company at Santiago? 
A. I think they were commonly called 4 and 6 pound cans. 
Q. State what effect, if any, from your observation as company commander, the 
refrigerated beef you had there had upon the men, if you know or have any opinion 
that you feel able to express on the subject. 
A. I think the first time we cooked it it had the effect of giving the men diarrhea, 
but we were very careful after that about quantities, and so on, and about giving it 
to the men and how we cooked it, so as to prevent that. We cooked it well. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Dr. Willard, of Chicago. 
TESTIMONY OF DR. WILLIAM G. WILLARD. 
Dr. William G. Willard was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been 
first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name and residence. 
A. William G. Willard; Chicago, Ill. 
Q. Were you in the military service of the United States during the recent war 
with Spain? 
A. I was. 
Q. To what organization were you attached and in what capacity? 
A. I was with the First Illinois Volunteers; the major-surgeon for that regiment. 
Q. On the voyage to Cuba, what was the meat component of the travel ration? 
A. Mainly what was called canned roast beef. 
Q. Did you observe its use among the men? 
A. To some extent. 
Q. Please state to the court what its condition was and what its effect was on the 
men. 
A. The meat was canned roast beef, so called. On opening the can it presented 
the appearance of strips or ribbons of meat which were rather pale or bleached in 
appearance, and it was tasteless, unpalatable, and very tough on eating. It was in 
the main sweet; that is, it had not undergone decomposition. Yet there were a good 1020 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
many cans that had been thrown overboard during the voyage from Tampa to Cuba. 
I recall the first day out from port-I think it was the first day-that one whole case 
of it was condemned because the cans were bulging. Their flat surfaces had become 
bulged and when opened the stench was very decided. After that there was an 
occasional can thrown overboard for the same reason. 
Q. After your landing in Cuba, up to the time when the refrigerated beef began 
to be issued, what was issued to the regiment in the way of meat? 
A. The so-called canned roast beef and salt meat; and I think there were a few 
cans of the corned beef; but it was mainly roast beef. 
Q. Can you recall the proportions? 
A. Of the canned roast beef and corned beef? 
Q. And the bacon; each of the three. 
A. The canned roast beef predominated, and there was but a small portion of 
canned corned beef, as I remember. 
Q. Go on and state your observations of it during that period. 
A. As I said before, it was tasteless and tough and unpalatable, and for that reason 
the men discarded its use as much as they could. If they could get anything else to 
eat they avoided the canned roast beef. 
Q. How was it cooked and prepared, if at all? 
A. It was sometimes simply warmed in the can. If the men had facilities for it, 
it was made into a stew, and occasionally it was eaten cold. 
Q. What was the condition of the command during this period, in point of health? 
A. Up to what time do you mean? 
Q. Up to the surrender and a little after that; up to the time you began to receive 
the refrigerated beef. 
A. That was about the 25th or the 26th of July. The health of the command was 
good up to about the 20th or 22d of July. The sick call amounted to perhaps 25 or 
30 men a day up to that time, and then it began to increase very rapidly, and by the 
28th or 29th it was as high as 300 per day. 
Q. What portion of the sickness, if any, do you attribute to the use of the canned 
roast beef? 
A. The amount of sickness we had, in common with al 1 other regiments, was due 
to a combination of circumstances and surroundings of which the condition of the 
canned beef was one. It was not the only one by any means, but it was one of the 
causes of sickness. 
Q. When did you begin to receive the refrigerated beef? 
A. As near as I can recollect about 25th or 26th of July-the latter part of July. 
Q. How close did you observe that as to its condition and the effect of its use 
upon the men of the command ? 
A. I inspected it and watched the effect of it as far as I could, at the same time 
doing my other duties. The regiment was divided into three battalions, in separate 
camps. Three sick calls had to be conducted. With this amount of sickness, con- 
sequently, we could not always see the meat as soon as it came in. 
Q. Go on and state fully in regard to your observations concerning the refrigerated 
beef. 
A. I would say, concerning the refrigerated beef, that when it was delivered 
promptly, when it had not been long away from the refrigerator on the transport, I 
should judge it was good, wholesome meat. It was palatable, tender, and whole- 
some when, as far as we could learn, it came quickly to camp and was quickly 
cooked. Otherwise it very quickly became tainted. 
Q. According to your observation about what proportion of it was unfit for use or 
was rejected? 
A. Upon arrival in camp? 
Q. Then or subsequently. I would like to get your idea of how much could not 
be used. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1021 
A. From what I saw myself and reports from various company commanders 1 
should say in the neighborhood of 25 or 30 per cent. I think that would cover it. 
Q. Had you any occasion to believe or to suspect at the time that it had been 
treated with chemicals with a view to its preservation? 
A. I had not. 
Q. What was the meat component issued to the regiment in its travel ration on the 
voyage to Montauk? 
A. The same, T think, as on going over to Cuba. 
Q. Please state to the court your observations in respect to that-as to its use and 
effects. 
A. The canned roast beef, so called, was never fit for a ration, and it was especially 
unfit for men in the condition of all the troops coming back from Cuba. Their 
digestive organs had been thoroughly deranged by repeated attacks of malaria and 
dysentery, and there were many cases of yellow fever, and consequently even the 
men who called themselves well were in no condition to eat and digest the canned 
meat. 
Q. What proportion of the command at about the time of your leaving Cuba was 
fit to do full duty, disregarding the sick list? 
A. I should say not over 20 per cent at the outside were fit to do full duty. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. I believe you inspected a number of cans and saw them? 
A. I did. 
Q. And you have described the components in general. I wish you would, if you 
can, give a full description of the contents of the cans, the relative proportion of 
meat and other substances as far as you observed, estimating it from your observation? 
A. On opening a can there was usually some vacant space. The meat, as I said 
before, was in strips or scraps of meat, more or less covered with a layer of granular 
fat, which in itself was rather uninviting in appearance. The canned roast beef, 
so called, had a bleached appearance, and was very tough and stringy. The nearest 
thing I can liken it to would be to take an ordinary roast of beef as prepared for 
domestic use and cut off the outside inch, which is very different from the interior 
of a roast. There is a strip on the circumference about an inch thick, and if you 
took that strip from a cheap roast of beef, a ribbon or strip about an inch wide and 
rather tough, stringy, and fibrous, that is about the way the canned roast beef 
appeared. 
Q. Do you recall the size of this can, whether the cans ranged from one to six, and 
about what they were? I don't mean as to the number, but the sizes of the different 
cans. 
A. I should say, to the best of my recollection, that there were 2-pound cans and 
some 4-pound cans. I think the most of them that I saw were 2 pounds. 
Q. Can you recall the brand or label that was on the cans? 
A. I only recall the Armour brand. There may have been other brands, but I 
can not recall seeing many such labels. 
Q. You don't recall, then, any other brand of meat 
A. I don't recall any other. 
Q. (Continued.) Issued to your regiment? You spoke of the roast beef, "so called." 
In your judgment, as a medical officer, inspecting this meat from time to time as you 
did, state whether or not, in your opinion, it was roast beef, or why you use the 
expression, "so-called" roast beef? 
A. I believe from what I have heard of its preparation that it was not roast beef, 
and it did not have the appearance of roast beef. I should say it was boiled beef. 
Q. Did you try eating any of it yourself? 
A. I did. 1022 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. What was your personal experience with it, and I mean in connection with 
your men in the hospital corps and others 
A. The same as the men in general. It was so tough and so tasteless that it was 
discarded. Men had to be very hungry in order to eat the canned roast beef. 
Q. Were those complaints general throughout the command or more particular 
instances? 
A. Well, the feeling was general. I don't know that I would say "complaint," 
but the feeling was general in the First Illinois and other regiments that I had to do 
with. 
Q. What other regiments did you have to do with, please? 
A. I conducted a few times sick call in the Third Regular Infantry and was medical 
inspector for General Bates's provisional division for several weeks; and, further than 
that, the day we arrived at the trenches the Seventh United States Infantry changed 
their location and left on our hands 60 sick men, men that were very sick, and the 
sickness of one of those men proved to be a typical case of scurvy, fully marked. 
I understood from those men that they had been on this ration of canned meat, sow 
belly, and hard tack for thirty odd days-thirty or thirty-three days. 
Q. Excuse me for interrupting you there, but you say that this meat was sow 
belly and they had hard tack 
A. And canned roast beef. They, I think, had come from Mobile to Tampa and 
had been detained there, and had come from Tampa to Cuba, and had been through 
the fighting, making a total of about thirty or thirty-three days on this ration. The 
result was in this case a beginning outcrop of scurvy. 
Q. That was as early as about what day in July? 
A. That was the morning of the 11th of July. 
Q. In your duties in connection with the other regiments and other duties where- 
ever they were, outside of your own regiment-as to which you have testified-was 
this matter of canned roast beef discussed or spoken of at that time as to its condition; 
I don't mean in regard to official complaints, but what was said about it generally in 
the Third Infantry? 
A. Well, the same opinion prevailed; that it was unpalatable, positively nauseating 
at times, and the men rejected it in the main. 
Q. Only ate it, as I understand you to state, as a rule, from necessity? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. From sheer hunger? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Then, will you please state to the court whether or not in your opinion the 
so-called canned roast beef of the kind that was furnished the army there under 
your observation, as far as you were brought in contact with it, is a wholesome or 
unwholesome ration for the American soldier, or a fit or unfit ration to be issued? 
A. I do not think it is a good ration under any circumstances, and totally unfit in 
a tropical climate. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Did you have a good deal of diarrhea in the First Infantry? 
A. A good deal in all the regiments I saw. 
Q. Did you attribute that to the defective food? 
A. In part; not wholly, by any means, but in part. 
Q. Did you eat any of this so-called canned roast beef yourself? 
A. I ate a little two or three times. 
Q. Did you think that the fresh beef had an influence in producing diarrhea also? 
A. If it was eaten unwisely, yes. After the second week the men's power of 
digestion was impaired by a great many circumstances connected with the campaign, 
and care was necessary in eating any food, including meat. 
Q. Was any native fruit consumed by the men? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1023 
A. Some; but not a large amount. A strict guard was maintained about the camp 
of the First Illinois, excluding the Cubans, and so the native fruit was not brought 
in, I believe, in any great amount. 
Q. Comparing roast beef with bacon in its possibility of producing scurvy, which 
would you regard as more deleterious? 
A. Well, scurvy is likely to appear when men are kept on any kind of a meat diet, 
when they have an exclusion of the fruits and vegetables containing the fruit acids. 
Q. Which is the more deleterious, if either? 
A. The salt meat. 
Q. Did you think that the canned roast beef had salt in it? 
A. No, sir. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Olson, of Chicago. 
TESTIMONY OF ALBERT A. OLSON. 
Albert A. Olson was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been first 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name and residence. 
A. Albert A. Olson; Chicago, Ill. 
Q. And your street? 
A. 1957 Deming Court. 
Q. Were you in the military service of the United States during the recent war 
with Spain? 
A. I was. 
Q. In what organization and in what capacity? 
A. Quartermaster and acting commissary officer of the First Illinois Volunteers. 
Q. During the voyage from the United States to Cuba, what was the meat compo- 
nent of the travel ration? 
A. Canned roast beef entirely. 
Q. What complaints were received of it during the voyage to Cuba? 
A. The complaints were general in character, and chiefly that it was unpalatable. 
In one instance I was called to inspect the canned meats of Company M. I found 
one case where the cans had swelled, and the entire case was thrown overboard. 
Aside from that I saw no bad canned beef on the voyage. 
Q. About what proportion of that issued was consumed; can you testify as to that? 
A. Actually eaten by the men, do you mean, Colonel? 
Q. Yes. 
A. Well, it is rather a hard matter to form a correct estimate on, but in one way or 
another it was disposed of. I should say that not over 5 per cent of the meat was 
actually condemned as being tainted. On the voyage it was eaten cold. The cans 
were placed in boiling water when it was available, and eaten hot, and in one or two 
cases the companies, after the boilers were in disuse for boiling coffee, made a sort of 
stew; but I should say that was only one or two companies that did that, and only 
one or two times, because the boilers were necessary for boiling coffee most all the 
time. 
Q. After the regiment landed in Cuba, prior to the surrender, what meat was fur- 
nished the regiment? 
A. We were still on our travel ration-canned roast beef. 
Q. Was any bacon or canned corned beef issued during that period? 
A. No canned corned beef. Possibly two days before the surrender we were issued 
bacon. 
Q. What complaints were made of the canned roast beef during this period? 1024 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Similar to those on board, with this exception: That we had a limited quantity, 
and the men were very glad to get that or anything else. When we started for the 
front from Siboney the colonel's orders were to take three days' rations. I will say 
in explanation here that the order did get around the regiment, but with no official 
standing whatever, and some of the companies took but' one day's ration, and those 
companies were short of rations when we got to the front. They were very glad to 
get anything they could-canned roast beef or anything else. 
Q. What efforts, if any, were made to get additional rations? 
A. Upon reaching the trenches, which was on the morning of July 11, I asked 
Colonel Turner's permission to report to the division commander and state our con- 
dition as to rations. I saw the adjutant-general of General Lawton's division and 
informed him that our ration would expire at sundown. He immediately had his 
clerk telephone to General Shafter's headquarters describing the condition of our 
rations, and when we would be out, and every effort was apparently made to get 
rations to us. They arrived the afternoon of the 12th. 
Q. In your opinion, what was the cause of the insufficiency during this period, up 
to the surrender? 
A. Up to the day of our first ration in the field? 
Q. From the day of your landing up to the surrender. 
A. Lack of transportation entirely. 
Q. When did you begin to receive refrigerated beef? 
A. July 21. 
Q. And how frequently was that issued? 
A. I should say every day, from memory. 
Q. Did you still continue on duty as regimental commissary? 
A. I was acting in that capacitj ; 1 was also quartermaster of the regiment. I had 
a sergeant who was virtually the commissary of the regiment, although I superin- 
tended whatever he did in that line. We were rationed by division commissaries 
all the time during our stay in Cuba. 
Q. What was the condition of the refrigerated beef when it reached the camp? 
A. Very fair. The quarters were encased in linen and were not exposed in any 
way. They were inviting looking and clean, and the beef was generally good. 
Q. To the best of your knowledge, about what proportion was rejected from all 
causes? 
A. Not over 25 per cent, in my judgment. 
Q. Had you occasion to believe or to suspect at any time that the beef had been 
chemically treated with a view to its preservation? 
A. Before being issued to our regiment? No; I had no suspicion of any such 
thing being done. 
Q. On the voyage to Montauk, what was the meat component of the travel ration? 
A. Canned roast beef. I interviewed the company commanders and asked them 
if they would pay their proportionate share of serving a hot meal each day, and 
with the assistance of the ship's quartermaster we were able to do that. They 
turned over the ship's galleys to us for the use of the regiment. We furnished one 
hot meal a day from Santiago to Montauk. There entered into that canned roast 
beef, potatoes which were bought on the ship, and onions, celery, and some little 
seasoning articles. 
Q. How was the beef prepared, then, for use on the voyage back-the canned 
roast beef? 
A. We made stews; we made hash. In fact, we used it entirely in that way; I 
don't know of any of it being used in any other way. And we purchased oatmeal 
also, and that made up the day's rations. 
Q. How was it received by the men? 
A. A marked improvement over all other travel rations we had had up to that 
date. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1025 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. In making any observation or examination of the meat during the campaign 
or on the way over to Cuba, did you notice especiallv as to the kind of meat in these 
cans, and what sort of meat it was, and how it was mixed up; can you describe the 
components of a can of that roast beef? 
A. I should use the words of the previous witness in describing that roast beef- 
the words of Dr. Willard-in that it was in ribbons or strips, and contained fat, and 
the solid meat qualities appeared to be lacking. 
Q. What would you term that, from your inspection; would you say that it was 
canned roast beef or canned boiled beef? 
A. I should hardly call it roast beef, as I would know roast beef in a private home. 
It was very stringy and it strips, as Major Willard stated-what we find in the out- 
side rim of a roast. 
Q. Did you make any careful examination of the contents of a can, by opening it 
and separating it to see as to its constituents? 
A. Yes, sir; I examined several cans very early in the campaign, but the only way 
I could describe them would be in the words I have used. 
Q. Yes, sir. Would that description you have given apply to the cans in going 
over, as well as the cans that have been subjected to the heat in Cuba? 
A. I found it all very much alike. 
Q. The heat, then, did not seem to make any appreciable difference in the 
appearance? 
A. It did make some difference. I believe the fat and that portion of the cans 
would perhaps look a little more greasy and not so inviting. 
Q. Considered as a meat ration for a soldier, how do you regard it as to quality- 
of inferior quality, or suitable? 
A. I regard it as an inferior grade of meat. 
Q. In what grade would you place it; about where would you put it? 
A. I have no way of getting at that. 
Q. I didn't know but what you might have, from general information. 
A. I should have placed it third grade if I was asked to name the grade. 
Q. You have seen better grades than that, have you not? 
A. This is the only canned roast beef I have ever seen. 
Q. Do you recall the labels on the cans; can you tell the different kinds of labels 
that were used in your issues? 
A. Armour & Co., Libbey, McNeil & Libbey, and a Kansas City firm that I can 
not recall at this moment. Those are the only three I recall. 
Q. Do you recall anything of a label having " Prairie State Packing Company " 
on it, or something of that kind? 
A. Yes, sir; I do. 
Q. Are you a resident of Chicago? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Have you any knowledge or have you ever received any information as to who 
manufactured that brand? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Have you made any'inquiries? 
A. I have not. I would state that I believe that "Prairie" roast beef to be the 
worst of the three. 
Q. And you had some of that? 
A. Yes, sir; we had quite a little of that. 
Q. And the other that you had coming over, as you saw it, you would class as 
third grade? 
A. Well, if I am asked to put it in grades, I would place it along there. 
Q. And in what grade would you regard the Prairie Company's meat, it being the 
worst of all? 
S. Doc. 270 65 1026 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I should put that a grade lower; yes, sir. 
Q. You spoke of an acting sergeant that was in charge of your commissary depart- 
ment there. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did he have specially to do with that, and would he have more knowledge 
than you with regard to that? 
A. He came in direct contact with all the company sergeants in making issues. 
Q. And would be more likely perhaps to know of complaints or dissatisfaction? 
A. In a general way; yes, sir. 
Q. Will you give the name of that sergeant, if you can, and his address? 
A. Frank V. Springer. He is in the employ of the Northwestern Railway at the 
present time, and I think is now on a surveying expedition in Iowa. That is the 
best I can do. His residence is at Wilmette, a suburb of Chicago. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, Major Lee has not had an opportunity to 
converse with the only other person who has been called as a witness for this after- 
noon, and if the court will take a recess now it will give him an opportunity to con- 
fer with this proposed witness. 
I would ask for a closed session in respect to the witnesses to be summoned for to- 
morrow. 
Thereupon, at 12.20 o'clock, the court went into executive session. 
A.t the expiration of the executive session the court adjourned until 2 o'clock 
p. m., March 20, 1899. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Pullman Building, Chicago, III., 
Tuesday Evening, March 21, 1899. 
The court met, pursuant to adjournment, at 6 o'clock p. m. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness Dr. 
Senn, of Chicago. 
TESTIMONY OF DR. NICHOLAS SENN. 
Dr. Nicholas Senn was called as a witness by the recorder, and having been duly 
sworn, testified as follows: 
Q. Please state your name and residence. 
A. Nicholas Senn, Chicago. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Will you please state to the court whether or not you were on duty with the 
troops during the late war with Spain? 
A. I was in the service five months, lacking a few days. 
Q. Please state to the court your entry into service, where it was, and what troops 
you accompanied to the scene of active operations, if you did so accompany them. 
A. I entered the State service the 27th of April in the capacity of surgeon-general, 
assisted in the organization of the Illinois troops for about four weeks, and then I 
was commissioned volunteer colonel in the Volunteer Army, Sixth Army Corps, and 
reported at Chickamauga. I served in that capacity for nearly four weeks, con- 
nected with Gen. James H. Wilson's division, and in Chickamauga established a 
hospital. Then I was assigned to duty with the forces in Cuba as chief of the FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1027 
operating staff of the army in the field, and as such sailed from Fortress Monroe 
July 3, and reported at headquarters at Siboney on the 7th, and served in the field 
at various hospitals and at the front until the Spanish troops surrendered. Then I 
was recalled to New York, and detailed on duty for Porto Rico, and remained on 
duty at Porto Rico, in the same capacity, as chief of the operating staff, until peace 
was declared on the 14th of August. Then I returned to New York, and was ordered 
by telegraph to Montauk, to take charge of the surgical work there. I remained in 
Montauk until the 17th of September, by which time all the troops had arrived 
from Cuba, and I finished my surgical work. At that time I was honorably dis- 
charged, upon request. 
Q. I wish you would please state to the court, in narrative form, your observa- 
tions in regard to the food supply, more especially as applied to the supply of meat 
rations to the Army, during your connection with it, as to canned roast beef; in the 
first place, as to the character of that food, and what observations or knowledge you 
can give to the court in regard to its quality, condition, and its suitableness as a 
ration for the Army, from your entrance into the service until your severance from 
it by your discharge. 
A. My observations in this respect were largely limited to my service in Cuba, 
where we lived largely on canned roast beef and bacon. When I was told that this 
was roast beef what attracted my attention was the character of the material. From 
the qualities of the meat furnished, I had every reason to believe that the meat was 
not roasted, but that it had been boiled. It was tasteless, and certainly appeared to 
lack nutritious qualities, as was apparent from the condition of the men who returned 
from Cuba to Montauk who had never been ill, but who were greatly emaciated, 
men apparently in fair health who were greatly emaciated. I judge, from the con- 
dition of the men, that the rations furnished lacked the proper amount of nutrition. 
I should therefore regard that beef that was furnished as roast beef as boiled beef; 
that it was tasteless, and I believe the boiling was overdone. That was my impres- 
sion. I believe that it was the fault of the process. We all know how difficult it is, 
even in family experience, to prepare a piece of roast beef properly, and I can read- 
ily conceive the difficulties encountered in preparing roast beef on such a large scale. 
I don't believe that this process has yet been perfected. Certainly that beef did not 
taste or look as if the process had been perfected. 
The bacon was of good quality. I have no fault to find with the bacon. 
I can not speak of fresh beef because I did not see any in my service in Cuba, and 
in Porto Rico I was largely connected with the hospitals, my time being occupied in 
visiting the different hospitals. 
Q. At what time, Doctor, did you leave Cuba for further service? 
A. Immediately after the surrender; just what date I don't remember. 
Q. Will you please state to the court whether you made any examination of this 
roast beef; that is, whether you made any inspection of it or whether you used it. 
A. No; I will have to base my statements entirely on the meat I ate myself. I never 
made any formal inspection, because that did not belong to my duties. I was there 
in a surgical capacity, and consequently I did not meddle with anybody's else affairs. 
Q. In connection with your own experience, did you observe the constituents of 
the canned roast beef, whether they were different or all the same? 
A. The beef that was furnished me seemed to be all alike. Whose brand it was I 
don't remember. I did not expect that anything of this kind would ever come up, 
but what struck me was the tastelessness of the meat. It certainly didn't taste like 
roast beef. That was what attracted my attention. 
Q. Did you observe, or did you at any time have occasion to observe, in connection 
with your duties or in your personal experience, anything as to the constituents or 
materials that entered into the canned roast beef? 1028 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Well, the meat was evidently good meat. I think the meat was of good quality, 
but it lacked proper preparation. That was my impression. I think it was of a good 
quality of beef, but not properly prepared. 
Q. You have stated that in your opinion, and from your experience, the meat 
seemed to be overcooked, not roasted, but overcooked in boiling? 
A. Yes, sir; that was my impression. 
Q. I wish you would please state to the court what effect that would have upon the 
nutriment of beef ? 
A. I think it is generally known that beef that is overdone loses much of its nutri- 
tive quality in the fluid that escapes. It is a loss of the nutritive part of the beef- 
a certain percentage is lost. The longer you boil it, the greater the loss. 
Q. What would you call the residue of that beef that was left after that excessive 
boiling; what would you term it? 
A. Those are combined products; small albuminoid substances, all valuable as far 
as the nutritive qualities are concerned. Every cook is anxious to retain that in the 
meat. 
Q. Do I understand that those qualities were retained or separated from the meat 
by the boiling process? 
A. I think the meat lost part of those qualities; just how much I could not tell. 
Q. You have never made any analysis or critical examination of it? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You spoke of observing the condition of the men when they returned; that the 
men were apparently in good health otherwise than that they were in a reduced con- 
dition? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. To what extent, Doctor, if to any extent, do you attribute the defective character 
of the meat ration as contributing to that condition? 
A. Of course there were many agencies active in reducing the men's strength and 
weight; there was the climate, the homesickness that was quite prevalent at certain 
times, the exposures, the influences operating in producing diseases-perhaps not 
enough to make an active disease, but a masked one-and then lack of nutrition 
in rations furnished; they all contributed, and how much each one contributed I 
don't know that I could estimate. 
Q. Then, within your experience and observation, from the beginning to the close, 
do you consider that the canned roast beef contributed in any degree to that disa- 
bility or diseased condition of the men. 
A. I have no doubt at all that if they had been furnished fresh beef their condi- 
tion would have been better. 
Q. You have spoken in your testimony, I believe, of being in Porto Rico and of 
not having had any experience there with the refrigerated beef ? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you see any of it? 
A. Well, I may have seen some, but I took no special notice of it. I was in 
Porto Rico visiting hospitals and particularly investigating typhoid fever, its intro- 
duction and spread. That consumed my time so much, day and night, that I had 
very little time to devote to that other part of my work. 
Q. Within your observation with reference to the fresh beef supply furnished in 
Cuba-the native beef-did you remark it at the time 
A. (Interrupting.) Do you mean in Cuba? 
Q. I mean in Porto Rico. 
A. No; I can only speak from what I heard; not from personal observation. 
Q. Well, from general information upon the matter, then. 
A. I had occasion to eat native beef there and I must say that the quality was FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1029 
excellent; and I never saw better looking cattle anywhere than those I saw in Porto 
Rico. I should judge that the meat furnished was of very excellent quality. 
Q. Doctor, if there are any other facts in connection with this matter that I have 
not brought out by detailed questioning, I wish you would state them fully to the 
court, as fully as if you had been questioned on them specially, in regard to the 
meat supply. 
A. My impression-of course I suspect the work that is being done here has as 
much reference to the future as to the past-is this: The army, in an invasion of 
that kind, should not be limited to any particular kind of meat. You may furnish 
an army a most excellent quality of meat, and if you cook it the same way day after 
day they will get tired of it. My impression is that there should be a variety, because 
an isolated diet of any kind, in course of time, is certainly injurious, whether it is 
roast beef or boiled beef or something else. I am in favor of a more varied diet, and 
am particularly anxious to see the beef prepared in such a way that it can be kept 
and shipped without spoiling in any climate. And, in this connection, I think that 
one of the beef supplies in the future should be dried beef. 
Q. I will ask you a question as a medical officer. From your personal experience 
and from your observation and information in regard to this canned roast beef or 
boiled beef, do you consider that that was a proper ration to furnish the soldiers 
of the American army? 
A. No; I think not. Perhaps men could be fed once or twice a week on that kind 
of beef without much ill effect upon their health, but certainly for a daily ration I 
should not consider it for any length of time a sufficient ration nor a good one. When 
they learn how to make roast beef-which our packers of course will take hold of 
now, and I think it can be done-it will be an excellent thing, but not an exclusive 
thing. r 
Q. Do you recall from information there as to about the extent of the use of this 
canned roast beef while you were in Cuba? 
A. Well, it was used very extensively. I know that, because that and a little 
bacon is about all I got. 
Q. How was it in Porto Rico? 
A. It was very much better there. The rations furnished there were very much 
better, and they were better prepared. 
By General Davis: 
Q. You spoke of the process as defective. Are you familiar with the process of 
preparing this fresh beef? 
A. I have never seen a beef prepared, but as I understand it from one of the 
chemists who volunteered his description of it, it is a kind of a steam process. They 
do not pretend to have it roasted at all; that is a misnomer. 
Q. So when you suggest an improvement in the process, you speak of something 
that is to be developed rather than something in sight? 
A. Exactly. Something that they have to develop, and there will be a wonder- 
ful improvement, and it will be done. 
Q. Have you ever seen an experiment tried of boiling fresh meat hermetically 
sealed, canned, and then cooked? 
A. No, sir; I have not. 
Q. Did you suspect the presence of any poisons in the use of this meat? 
A. No, sir; although I heard of ptomaine intoxication. I did not see any exam- 
ples of that kind that came under my personal observation. 
Q. If the meat was perfectly sterilized, how long a time would be required for the 
development of ptomaines when exposed to air in a tropical climate? 
A. If it is thoroughly sterilized and absolutely sealed it ought to keep. 1030 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. When opened? 
A. Oh, it does not take long. Within twenty-four hours decomposition may set in. 
Q. Would you express that as a limit of time? 
A. No, not as a limit; but I should not consider it safe after it has been opened 
twenty-four hours to use it for any length of time afterwards. 
Q. Are you willing to express a limit of time? 
A. No; I could not do that. That depends upon a good many different circum- 
stances. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. When and where did you hear that this meat had been chemically treated? 
A. I did not hear that. 
Colonel Gillespie. Then I misunderstood your testimony. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. I did not exactly hear your reply in regard to the use of fresh beef in Porto 
Rico. 
A. I think the native beef furnished was good. 
Q. Are you confident that all the meat you ate in Porto Rico was fresh native meat? 
A. I think so; I could not swear to that. 
Q. It was fresh meat, but you don't know whether it was refrigerated meat or not. 
A. No, sir; I could not be sure. It seemed to be wholesome and palatable. 
Q. Where were you stationed in Porto Rico? 
A. I was along the coast at Ponce, Arroyo, and other places. 
Q. You were not in the interior at all? 
A. To some extent, but not to any great extent. My work was largely in con- 
nection with the hospitals at those places. I picked up all the wounded and brought 
them to New York. 
Q. You spoke about this meat being overdone. Can you express an opinion as to 
the time of boiling and the temperature, to keep it within safe limits? 
A. There is a great difference in boiling beef. How this was done I don't know, 
but every good cook knows that the meat to be palatable and wholesome should be 
dropped in hot water first, so as to coat the surface with albumen and prevent the 
escape of the juices of the beef that are appreciated so much. I don't know whether 
the temperature was gradually raised, but that is the proper way to do it. I know 
it was overdone, because it was so soft. 
Q. And what do you say with reference to the exposure? 
A. I don't know how long it was exposed. 
Q. No; I mean how long is it necessary to boil it so it will not be overdone. 
A. It depends on the size. Those 2-pound cans, I should say an hour or an 
hour and one-half of boiling would be sufficient. 
By General Davis: 
Q. I would like to ask one more question. We will suppose a case, in order to 
arrive at your estimation of the loss of the nutritive value. We will say that pieces 
of meat of the weight of 2 or 3 pounds, or less, are immersed in boiling water and 
kept there twenty minutes, exposed to the atmosphere, of course the temperature 
being 212° F. Suppose, then, the meat be taken out and placed in cans and her- 
metically sealed and in that condition exposed to a temperature of from 230° to 240° 
F. for three hours. Now, when you open one of those cans of beef, what loss of 
nutritive value would you expect to find? 
A. Of course the meat would not lose so much by boiling in a sealed can as it 
would by boiling in a kettle or exposed to steam; the loss would be decidedly less. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1031 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Colonel Corliss, of the United States Army. 
TESTIMONY OF COL. A. W. CORLISS. 
Col. A. W. Corliss was called by the recorder as a witness, and, being duly sworn, 
testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. A. W. Corliss; lieutenant-colonel, Second Infantry; ordered to Denver station; 
I am on my way there now. 
Q. To what regiment were you attached during the operations in Cuba last year? 
A. The Seventh Infantry. 
Q. In what capacity ? 
A. As major. 
Q. Were you the regimental commander? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. On what transport did the troops under your command sail from Tampa to 
Cuba? 
A. The Iroquois. 
Q. What constituted the travel ration on the voyage over ? 
A. I don't know, as I had nothing to do with that at all. 
Q. To your knowledge was canned roast beef a part of the meat component of the 
travel ration? 
A. That I don't know. I know they had canned corned beef, because I saw it 
Q. Did you see any canned roast beef? 
A. No. 
Q. After landing in Cuba, from the time of landing up to the surrender what meat 
was issued to your command in the way of rations? 
A. I was shot on the 1st of July, and know nothing beyond that. 
Q. Up to.that day, then? 
A. Up to that date we got canned corned beef and canned roast beef and bacon- 
the last in small quantities. 
Q. What complaints, if any, were received of the canned roast beef prior to your 
wounding? 
A. It was disliked very much, indeed. We all lived alike-officers and men. We 
had no commissary to purchase for us, but we lived exactly as the men lived. 
Q. Can you state more fully about it; its condition and all that? 
A. Yes. When the issues were made to our brigade commissary, our regimental 
commissary would go over and draw our ration and bring it to headquarters and it 
would be distributed equally among the companies according to their strength, and 
some was kept out for the officers, as they had nothing else to eat. We tried to eat 
it, and we did eat it, but to do so we had to mix it up with hardtack, soaked soft, 
and then we had to fry it. We tried to eat it plain, but we could not; it made us 
sick; it gave us bowel trouble. 
Q. You were wounded on the 1st of July? 
A. Yes, sir. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, there are no other witnesses summoned for 
to-night, and I will, therefore, ask an adjournment. 
Thereupon, at 6.40 p. m., the court adjourned until to-morrow (Wednesday, March 
22), at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 1032 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Pullman Building, Chicago, III., 
Wednesday, March 22,1899. 
The court met at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Lieutenant Hartman, of the First Cavalry. 
TESTIMONY OF LIEUT. J. D. L. HARTMAN, U. S. A. 
Lieut. J. D. L. Hartman, U. S. A., was called as a witness by the recorder, and, hav- 
ing been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. J. D. L. Hartman, first lieutenant, First Cavalry, commanding Troop C, Fort 
Robinson, Nebr. 
Q. Upon what duty were you engaged in the latter part of May, 1898? 
A. On May 19 I was detailed as regimental commissary. 
Q. And how long did you continue upon that duty? 
A. The last issue of rations I made was on the 23d of June, after disembarking in 
Cuba. 
Q. Where were you stationed when you were detailed as regimental commissary? 
A. At Lakeland, Fla. 
Q. To what organization was your regiment attached and to what regiment were 
you attached at that time? 
A. I was with my own regiment. It was attached to the Second Cavalry Brigade- 
General Young's. 
Q. What other troops were stationed at Lakeland at that time? 
A. The Tenth Cavalry, regulars, the Seventy-first New York Volunteers, and the 
Second Massachusetts. 
Q. In the performance of your duty, did you make issues to those regiments? 
A. No, sir; only to the First Cavalry. I was regimental commissary. 
Q. And you made issues to the First Cavalry only? 
A. Only to the First Cavalry. 
Q. Was a brigade commissary there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Who was he? 
A. Lieutenant Ship, who was killed at the battle of Santiago. 
Q. Who was the regimental commissary-sergeant or the acting commissary-sergeant 
at that time? 
A. When I was detailed there, Private Edward C. Mason. I think his middle 
name is " C." He was acting regimental commissary-sergeant, and I then asked and 
had Sergeant Charles Able, of Troop I, detailed. 
Q. Was he detailed? 
A. He was; yes, sir. 
Q. How long did he continue on duty as acting regimental commissary-sergeant? 
A. Sergeant Able continued until I was relieved, and how much longer than that 
I do not know. 
Q. Who was assisting you in that capacity on the 28th and 29th of May, if you 
can recollect? 
A. Sergeant Able was the acting commissary-sergeant, but I had, as a clerk, an 
assistant, Private Mason. He was also in the office. 
Q. From whom did you receive fresh beef while you were stationed at Lakeland? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1033 
A. At first from Armour & Co., and later from a local dealer whose name I forget. 
I got authority to buy meat in open market. 
Q. What kind of beef was delivered to you by Armour & Co.? 
A. They brought the beef there in refrigerating cars, in carloads, and in some 
cases only half a carload at a time. When the beef first came it was very good. 
There was no trouble about it, but after we used beef out of that car for three or 
four days it began to get poorer in quality, and I had some trouble. The troop com- 
manders, in two cases at least, called for a board of survey on beef that had been 
issued to them. The beef was rejected by that board, and in some cases after I 
inspected the beef myself at the car between twenty and thirty minutes beforehand- 
before the board was called for. Then, in one case I rejected an entire carload; would 
take none at all out of that. The reason of this-do you wish me to give that? 
Q. Yes; give the reasons for the rejections in all cases. 
A. The beef was rejected because before the car was opened the stench, the smell, 
would be observed. After the car was opened the smell, of course, was very much 
stronger, and I rejected it all on the principle that although some good beef might 
be in there, where the conditions were such I should refuse to receive any of it. 
Q. What was done with it, if you know? 
A. I don't know; it was taken away. 
Q. What was the amount of rejection in all cases? 
A. Apparently mortification had set in. 
Q. Decomposition, you mean? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you prepare the vouchers for payment? 
A. I prepared some and some were prepared by Lieutenant Rivers. 
Q. Was the rejected beef accounted for in the vouchers? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. What beef did appear in the vouchers? 
A. Only the beef that was accepted. 
Q. Do you remember any conversation that took place in your presence between 
Private Mason and a member of Armour & Co.? 
A. Well, I can not recall any particular conversations now. 
Q. Did Private Mason, at any time, make any representations to you as to beef that 
was being delivered? 
A. Well, he generally had charge of delivering it to the troops, and in the case 
mentioned before, where boards of survey were called, he reported to me immedi- 
ately after the delivery. 
Q. Do you recall-to return to the question-any conversations or reports or repre- 
sentations made by Private Mason to yourself during that period as to the quality or 
character of the beef? 
A. I could not state that positively. 
Q. Did he make any representations to you with reference to the use of preserva- 
tives on it? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. If he had, would you be likely to remember that? 
A. Yes, sir. Nothing of that kind was mentioned. 
Q. If a conversation had taken place between a representative of Armour & Co. 
and him in your presence on that subject, please state what the chance would be of 
your remembering it. 
A. If I had heard it I certainly should remember it. 
Q. Had you at that time any occasion to believe or to suspect that the beef had 
been treated with preservatives? 
A. No, sir. The reason of its spoiling so readily I considered was due to the fact 
that it had been frozen and would not hold up after it was exposed to the severe 
climaLe, the excessive heat there at Lakeland. 1034 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Do you remember about what the average temperature was there during the 
latter part of May? 
A. I do not; but it was very hot. 
Q. How long did you remain at Lakeland; when did your command leave there? 
A. We left there, I think, the morning of the 8th of June. 
Q. Did you continue to receive the refrigerated beef up to the 8th of June? 
A. No, sir. After the rejection of that carload the agent of Armour & Co. came 
up there and said this would not do, referring to the way in which it had been 
supplied. Then, for one day, he tried to take the orders and fill them from Tampa, 
and ship them direct. He had a few regular shipping boxes, with ice on the outside, 
but not enough for the whole command; and in some cases, then, they shipped beef, 
and put the beef right in with the ice. It made a very slimy, repulsive looking 
appearance, and that day everything was rejected. I simply sent it back to him. 
Q. About what day was that? 
A. I think that was the 1st of June. Then I got authority from Colonel Weston. 
I telegraphed him, and got authority to buy beef in open market. I got that author- 
ity, and then I got that beef from the local dealer that I referred to. 
Q. What kind of beef did he deliver to you? 
A. The beef had very little fat. 
Q. Was it refrigerated beef or local beef? 
A. It was killed right there-local beef, yes, sir. 
Q. And how long did you continue to use that? 
A. Until we left. 
Q. On the voyage to Cuba, what was the meat component of the travel ration 
issued to your command? 
A. Roast beef entirely. 
Q. What complaints, if any, were received on the voyage to Cuba of it as a ration? 
A. Well, I can not recall any specific complaints. But I know that it did not give 
satisfaction. 
Q. Go on and state fully to the court about that. 
A. Well, when the cans were opened the beef looked more like boiled beef than it 
did like roast beef, and in some cases there was lots of fat and in other cases none at 
all, and there was a kind of gelatinous formation in the cans, and it did not seem to 
be nutritious. 
Q. Within your actual observation, how much of it was used? 
A. We embarked on the 8th. The beef was brought from Tampa in a car late that 
night. I got off at Tampa so as to see to that. Late at night, possibly about 11 
o'clock, we left that at Port Tampa, unloaded that, and it was taken on the ship the 
next morning. From that time until we disembarked there was no other meat com- 
ponent issued. We disembarked on the 23d of June. Then, after we disembarked, 
from that time on until after the surrender of Santiago, fully half the meat compo- 
nent issued was roast beef. 
Q. And what can you say as to its condition during that period-from the landing 
up to the time of the surrender? 
A. Well, if anything, it got worse by being carried around, and the heat, of course, 
making it that liquid and much less consistent. 
Q. What is the proportion of cans that were rejected on account of being spoiled? 
A. I know of none. 
Q. When did you begin to receive refrigerated beef? 
A. As soon as I was made regimental commissary. 
Q. I mean in Cuba, after the siege operations were over. 
A. I could not remember the exact date, but it was probably about a week after 
the surrender. 
Q. And did you continue to receive it as long as you remained in Cuba ? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1035 
A. Yes, sir; I think so. 
Q. What complaints were made of that ? 
A. The first beef we got was very satisfactory and it seemed to taste unusually 
good, possibly because wTe had not had any for such a long time. Afterwards it began 
to be poorer in appearance. After the gunny sacks, or whatever it was wrapped in, 
were removed, it often had a greenish appearance, and in some cases it had this 
moldy fungous growth which they used to call whiskers down there. And in my 
own case, in my own troop, I had to reject several times the beef that was issued. It 
was not fit to be used and had to be buried. 
Q. To what cause was this unfitness for use attributed ? 
A. I attributed the cause as due to the distance it had to be hauled from the 
refrigerator. 
Q. And for what reason was it rejected ? 
A. It was decomposed. 
Q. About what proportion, to the best of your recollection, was rejected for that 
cause during the time that it was issued to you as a part of the ration? 
A. Well, probably two or three issues between the 24th of July and the 7th of 
August. 
Q. What proportion was rejected, if any, on account of being cut away, where a 
part was good and a part bad? 
A. I could not tell that, sir. 
Q. Was that the case; was it necessary at times to do do that? 
A. At times it was necessary; yes, sir. 
Q. But you can not recollect about what proportion was lost in that way? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Was any other article of the ration supplied in place of the beef that was 
rejected? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. What was the condition of your command in point of health? 
A. It was very poor. We had hardly any well men when we started back to the 
United States. 
Q. What was the meat component of the travel ration that was furnished you on 
the voyage to Montauk? 
A. The same thing; canned roast beef. 
Q. Please state to the court what complaints you heard of that? 
A. It was just the same as in going down; it simply nauseated the men, and the 
men could not hold it on their stomachs. 
Q. Did you attribute at any time any portion of the sickness of the command to 
the use of canned roast beef or refrigerated beef? 
A. No, sir; I do not believe I did. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Lieutenant Hartman, who was Armour's agent at the time you referred to 
there at Tampa during the month of May and up to the time of which you speak of 
getting beef from him? 
A. Well, Armour had a local agent there-a boy you might say-whose name I 
don't know; but periodically he had a man there whose name was Haley or Haly, 
who would come up from Tampa. 
Q. Then the boy was the local agent at Lakeland? 
A. No, sir; he was one of Armour's men, he was in their employment. 
Q. About how often would this agent come up from Tampa? 
A. He was up probably three or four times during the time that I was acting 
commissary there. 
Q. Was Private Mason in the employ of your predecessor, Lieutenant Rivers? 1036 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In connection with the issuing and receiving of the beef, would or would not 
Sergeant Mason, as he is now, have it as a part of his duty to be down at the car and 
see about the beef being sent, or acting in connection with that work? 
A. He was at times. 
Q. And he would at times be in the car, I presume? 
A. Yes; I have been in the car when he was in there himself. I used to inspect it. 
Q. And Armour's agent would also be in the car at the time when the boy would 
be there also-one or the two of them? 
A. I don't remember of ever being in the car with the one I think was Mr. Haley. 
That young boy, who was the local agent there, and the colored man, whom they 
had for a butcher to cut up the meat, were there at all times when we were 
receiving meat. 
Q. I understand you to say that sometimes there would be part of a car sent up? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And in the case of a full car it would be issued out from day to day, would it 
not, until the car was exhausted? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you ever know when making those issues at times the latter portion of an 
issue, or when the smaller quantity was left there, that it was found objectionable? 
A. Yes, sir; in my testimony heretofore I have mentioned that. 
Q. Then Private Mason would be in a car and might be engaged in conversation 
with those people in your presence, as I understand? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. But that conversation might not have been within your hearing? 
A. Yes, sir; that is possible. 
Q. Do you wish the court to understand that in this matter the conversation may 
not have taken place between Sergeant Mason and this agent, or whoever he was, 
without your hearing it? 
A. I could not say as to that; no, sir. 
Q. You have known Sergeant Mason some time, have you not? 
A. Since 1892. 
Q. I would like to know what is his reputation in the regiment for truth and 
veracity, within your knowledge. 
A. I have never heard his reputation for veracity questioned. He is a good deal 
of a drunkard and constantly getting in trouble on that account. 
Q. He has always been regarded, though, as a truthful man. You never heard his 
veracity questioned ? 
A. I never heard that questioned; no. 
Q. Can you recall the brands of roast beef or boiled beef, as it may be termed, 
that were furnished your command or any part of it at any time from the time of 
leaving Tampa until your return to Montauk-the different brands ? 
A. I could not, sir. I know it always was the beef of some prominent packing 
establishment, but as to which one it was I could not recollect now. 
Q. But as to the size of the cans issued ? 
A. I think we had three sizes. I know we had two sizes, and I think that we had 
1-pound cans, 2-pound cans, and 3-pound cans. I know we had different sizes at 
different times. 
Q. Did you ever see much of it opened or open much of it yourself? 
A. I used to open it for myself, what I ate myself. 
Q. What was your personal experience with it from the time you started using it? 
A. I did not like it, but I did not have much of anything else. 
Q. Was it or not nauseating to the men of your troop? 
A. Yes, sir; I have frequently seen them vomiting after having eaten it. 
Q. About when did that begin, as near as you can recollect? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1037 
A. Well, I saw some of it on the voyage down, but of course that might be attrib- 
uted to seasickness; but it was a frequent occurrence in camp, just before and after 
the surrender. 
Q. To what did you attribute it? Did you attribute it to the roast beef or to other 
causes? 
A. I did not attribute it to roast beef. I thought it was due to the long and unu- 
sual exposure, and then the nervous strain was great. 
Q. Of the canned roast beef issued, can you give an idea of about what proportion 
was consumed by the men before the surrender? Did they eat 25 per cent, 50 per 
cent, or 75 per cent of it? 
A. I do not believe I quite understand the question. Do you mean of the meat 
issued? 
Q. I mean of the canned roast beef or boiled beef that was issued, of that ration 
which constituted one-half, as you say, of the meat ration at that time. Of that, 
about what proportion did the men actually consume? 
A. I think all of that was consumed; all we got while we were out in the trenches, 
because the meat ration frequently was only half or three-quarters of what it should 
have been. 
Q. As an officer commanding troops in the field, what is your opinion of the roast 
beef or boiled beef, as it is termed, as a part of the beef or meat ration, for soldiers 
under such conditions? 
A. I think it is unquestionably bad. 
Q. Do you regard it as wholesome or unwholesome? 
A. I regard it as unwholesome and not nutritious. 
By General Davis: 
Q. You speak of frozen beef. Did you see any that was actually frozen or frosted? 
A. By frozen beef I meant refrigerated beef. It is termed that sometimes. 
Q. This entire car was rejected. Do you remember whether it was a full car or 
part of a car? 
A. I am rather of the impression that it was a half-car load. 
Q. Do you know whether reicing of refrigerated beef in cars is customary where 
some days elapse from the beginning of the issues to the end? 
A. Yes, sir; I understand that is done. 
Q. Did the contracting company carry on that process at Lakeland? 
A. No, sir; the cars were brought there from some other point; my impression is 
that they were brought from Jacksonville. 
Q. Did they have any facilities for reicing at Lakeland? 
A. No, sir. I remember this agent made some remark about not being able to do 
that. 
Q. Did the color of the beef issued to your troops there vary in any respect from 
the ordinary color of refrigerated beef-the appearance on the surface? 
A. The color would be different, would be changed somewhat, toward the latter 
part of issue from a car. 
Q. And in what did that difference consist? 
A. It would become kind of darkish; whether it was of bluish appearance or 
blackish appearance I don't remember, but I know it had a darker appearance 
toward the end of a car. 
Q. Did you attend to the drawing of rations while the troops were in the trenches; 
did you go back to the rear to bring them up? 
A. No, sir; I was relieved as commissary the day of the battle of La Guasamas. 
I was relieved at that time. 
Q. So you had no further experience with that? 
A. No, sir. 1038 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Who was the colored butcher you have referred to who cut the meat up;*was 
he connected with the Army? 
A. No, sir; he was a civilian. 
Q. Employed by Armour & Co.? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you know his name? 
A. No, sir; I never knew it. 
Q. You speak of the drunkenness of Sergeant Mason. What were his habits while 
he was under your employ at Lakeland? 
A. I had him relieved on account of drinking at times-on account of being 
intoxicated at times. 
Q. Do you recall any incidents of an inspection of meat in the cars when he was 
under the influence of liquor? 
A. No, sir; when he was under the influence of liquor I sent Sergeant Able 
down. In fact, I could not say that he was under the influence of liquor after I was 
appointed commissary; but I knew of his past record, and I preferred to have a 
man in there that I could trust. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Private Mason continued on duty, did he not, in connection with the subsist- 
ence department there, and even after going to Cuba, in some capacity? 
A. He was retained to close up the papers of Lieutenant Rivers, my predecessor; 
and I remember seeing him detailed afterwards on this same duty in Cuba, as 
assistant to the brigade commissary. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Fleischman, of Chicago. 
TESTIMONY OF V. M. FLEISCHMAN. 
V. M. Fleischman was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been first 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. David M. Fleischman, 131 Ashland boulevard. I am an apprentice at the 
electrical business. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. What employment were you on during last summer, say in the months of May 
and June? 
A. As bell boy in the Hotel Morrison. 
Q. Where is the Hotel Morrison? 
A. It is on the southeast corner of Madison and Clark streets. 
Q. How far from the stock yards is it? 
A. I could not say exactly how far. 
Q. About how far? 
A. Four and a half or five miles, I should judge. 
Q. How long had you been employed as bell boy at that place? 
A. I believe about three months. 
Q. When did you cease employment there? 
A. I think in July, if I am not mistaken-during the latter part of June or the 
first part of July. 
Q. State whether or not in the month of June you visited the stock yards in con- 
nection with anyone or at the request of anyone; and if so, for what purpose and 
state what occurred. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1039 
A. Well, it was one day in June a gentleman in Room 131 asked me if I would be 
at leisure to go out to the stock yards with him, and I asked him how long it would 
take. He said he could not exactly state how long. Then he finally told me it 
would not take more than three hours. I was on long watch that day, twelve-hour 
watch, and I was off from 12 o'clock noon until 6 o'clock p. m. So I went there 
with him and had to carry two tin boxes or galvanized iron boxes, and I stayed out 
there and he went out to see some man about some meat he told me, and then we 
took the boxes and went to a car where there were three or four rows of meat, and 
we took the contents of these boxes-and the contents were four boxes in each of 
the large boxes; there were four boxes about that high [indicating about 12 
inches] and about 3 inches square. Those boxes contained, in my estimation, 
black and rather light grayish color, and we took the trays that were made for that 
purpose, perforated trays, put that in these, and this was poured in these trays and 
then he set fire to that and placed it under the meat. Then we come back from 
there and I asked him what that was done for. "Well," he said, "that was an 
experiment to preserve the meat." 
The next day I was to go back and get the cans or the galvanized iron boxes and 
I noticed the meat, and I just asked him what was that for, whether it was to kill 
germs or anything like that, and he said it was only to preserve meat again. So I 
took and put my finger on the meat and tasted it just as a matter of curiosity, and it 
burned the end of my tongue and I called his attention to the way the meat looked. 
It was larger than it looked when we were there before. He said that that had 
nothing to do with it, that that was simply the enlargement of the meat from the ice. 
That is all that was said; but before I went into the car-that is, when I went out 
to get the cans-I could not go into the car at all. . The first was rather a sulphurous 
smell, and then I noticed the other smell. I could not describe that smell. So we 
stayed outside for about five minutes, leaving the door open, and then we went in, 
and I took the cans back to the Hotel Morrison; and the cans were bound with a 
string, and each strap had a lock-a combination lock and buckle-so it could be 
locked and buckled at the same time. 
Q. I understand you to say that to your recollection you remember it was what 
room? 
A. 131; I thought it was 335 at first, but I have recalled it to be 131. I can state 
the number of the room now. 
Q. Did you notice anything further as to where the car was marked for, if there 
was anything? 
A. Well, I noticed on one end of the car they had a 6 by 8 inch card, or about 
that size, marked Tampa, Fla. 
Q. Where are you employed now? 
A. Well, I am employed by Mr. Haskey, electrical engineer? 
Q. How long have you been there? 
A. Well, I do work for him making batteries, and I have been there only about a 
year or a year and a half. I burn holes in cross sections of Bessemer steel. 
By General Davis: 
Q. What packinghouse was this that you visited? 
A. Armour & Co. 
Q. Was there more than one car? 
A. Only one car, because he told me it was only an experiment. 
Q. Was it filled with quarters of beef? 
A. No, sir; there were only about three rows, if I am not mistaken. 
Q. Do you know the name of the gentleman you went with? 
A. No, sir; but I asked him what he was, and, if I am not mistaken, he told me 
either quartermaster or quartermaster-general. 
Q. Have you seen him since? 1040 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did he remain at the hotel some time longer? 
A. I believe he left the hotel within two days after that. 
By Colonel ..Gillespie: 
Q. You are not certain of the room he occupied? 
A. Yes, sir; I am. 
Q. Did you see him go into that room? 
A. I have been in that room, and have taken the cans from that room, and can go 
to that room now. 
Q. You are positive he had room No. 131? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What kind of a looking man was he? 
A. He was a man that stood, I believe, about 5 feet 10 inches tall, and wore 
glasses-that is, he wore just pinchers for his nose-he did not wear glasses. He had 
his mustache shaven even with his upper lip. 
Q. What aged man was he? 
A. I should judge him to be somewhere around 45. 
Q. Did he tell you where he came from? 
A. No, sir; he did not. I did not ask him that. 
Q. Do you know how long he remained in the city? 
A. I do not. 
Redirect examination by Major Lee: 
Q. You speak of three or four rows of meat. About how much in a row; the full 
length of the car? 
A. No, sir; just the width of the car. 
Q. About how many quarters? 
A. Well, they were not quarters. These were in halves. 
Q. In halves? 
A. Yes, sir-if I am not mistaken. 
Q. Was this man a civilian, or did he have any kind of a uniform on? 
A. No kind of a uniform at all. 
Q. Did you or not understand from his reply-you speak of his being a quar- 
termaster or quartermaster-general-that he had any connection with the military 
service. 
A. Yes; I understood that much; that he did have some connection with the mili- 
tary service when he said quartermaster or quartermaster-general, or something to 
that effect. 
Q, That was w'hat you understood him to say? 
A. Yes, sir; either one of the two; either quartermaster or quartermaster-general, 
according to my best recollection. 
The Recorder. May it please the Court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Dr. E. P. Murdock. 
TESTIMONY OF DR. E. P. MURDOCK. 
Dr. E. P. Murdock was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been first 
duly sworn, testified as follows; 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name and residence. 
A. E. P. Murdock; I live in Chicago, 601 Washington boulevard. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Have you filled any position with reference to the board of health in this city? 
And, if so, state what and wrhen. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1041 
A. In the city I was two years president of the auxiliary medical staff in the 
Chicago health department. 
Q. Where were you residing during last summer or since the commencement 
of the war with Spain, up to its conclusion? 
A. At 601 Washington boulevard, Chicago. 
Q. Will you please state to the court whether since that time you have made an 
examination of beef, either fresh beef or canned beef; and if so, with what result, 
stating the nature of the examination and all the circumstances connected with it. 
I would like you to please state that in a narrative form, Doctor, in your own way. 
A. Well, I have made quite a number of examinations of meats of different char- 
acter. My examinations date back several years; in fact, back to the time when I 
was the medical director of the Ozone Sanitarium Company, of Chicago, when we 
experimented with the preservation of meat with ozone. 
I was at that time treating germ diseases with ozone. Since that time I have 
made examinations to determine the character of meat in the market, to determine 
the distinction between horseflesh and beef. I did some of that in the health 
department. Some specific examinations wTere made in the latter part of June, 1898. 
Some gentlemen brought meat to me (by the way, this was not the first that was 
brought to me, because I had been doing this work before that time) to determine 
the character of the meat. It was canned meat brought to me at that time. The 
first sample was brought to me with the assertion that it was horseflesh, and on 
examination I found it was not-that it was beef. I made further examinations to 
determine the character of the beef, as to the amount of the nutrition in the beef and 
the character of its nutritive qualities, and I reported to the gentlemen upon that 
basis. The meat seemed to be boiled beef, probably being boiled somewhat before 
it was sealed in the can and somewhat after it was sealed in the can. I say boiled 
after it was sealed in the can, because of the amount of gelatinous substance that 
existed there in the can that would have escaped if it had not been boiled after it 
was in the can. It had, as a preservative in the can, quite a quantity of common salt, 
chloride of sodium, and also nitrate of potash, or saltpeter. This preservative-salt 
and nitrate of potash-must have been in that beef before the boiling was completed, 
because it completely saturated the fiber of the meat and hardened it. 
In my report to the gentlemen I stated that that was the great objection to the 
canned meat. Meat should be cooked without salt in order to be nutritious, the 
seasoning being placed in it or on it after the cooking is nearly completed. The pres- 
ence of common salt and nitrate of potash, they coagulating, hardens the albumi- 
noids and proteids, and the character of that meat I have found to be largely of a 
poor grade, or rather, I should say, of a low grade, and I would say consisted of strips, 
not a great mass of fat, but a great mass of yellow connective tissue in which the fat 
ought to be, and some muscular tissue. 
Two of the cans contained but a very small quantity of muscular tissue, the nutri- 
tive portion of beef. One of the cans contained a good quantity of muscular tissue. 
But as a nutritive product it was of low grade. 
The examination of the tissue was continued by the boiling of the meat in a retort. 
We took two cans of that. They were 2-pound cans. We boiled them for a long 
time in order to see how much beef extract could be taken from the 4 pounds, and it 
was so small that it was not perceptible. In fact, the extract that I obtained could 
not even be used for the culture medium for my experiments in bacteriology. Con- 
sequently, little nutrition seemed to be in it. 
My impression was, and so I reported, that the meat had either been boiled before 
being placed in the cans-no doubt had been boiled before-so that a large portion of 
the nutrition was out, and then being heated afterwards in the can in the presence 
of chloride of sodium and nitrate of potash, so as to coagulate the albuminoids and 
harden them, it was impossible to extract the nutritive substance from the meat in 
S. Doc. 270 66 1042 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
the retort. I think that was about the nature of the report I gave; at least the sub- 
stance of it. 
Q. About when was that? 
A. In the latter part of June of 1898, I think. I remember it was a short time 
before the beginning of July,before the 4th of July, because I was out in the country 
the 1st of July. 
Q. Do you recall what brand or manufacture this was that you examined? 
A. No; I do not recall that. I did not desire to have any knowledge of just where 
it came from, because I was making the experiment solely for scientific purposes. 
Q. It was of the kind usually sold or furnished in the market? 
A. Just such as is easily obtained now, to-day; you can obtain it any time to-day. 
Q. Did you make any examination of a similar character about that time or dur- 
ing that year-about the time of the commencement of the war with Spain-in 
regard to fresh beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Please state to the court what examination you made, the circumstances con- 
nected with it, and what the result was? 
A. I had it three different times by two different parties; twice by one party and 
once by another party. There were some small pieces of meat; I should judge it 
was ordinary beef from the marks 
Q. Let me interrupt you there. Was that here in Chicago? 
A. Yes, sir; here in Chicago. It was meat that evidently had been kept some time. 
Hence I suppose it had been in a refrigerator. 
That meat was brought to me in little tin boxes. I suppose it was loosely placed 
in there for the purpose of its being carried in the pocket. They brought it down, 
and there were 2 or 3 pounds in each of the packages. I made an examination so as 
to determine the character of the preservative material used in it, and I found nearly 
all of it had some salt, a very small quantity, and that it was coated with boracic 
acid. And some of the packages were coated, probably, with both. I made the 
examination special; that is, in the examinations I made for boracic acid I did 
not examine the same specimens for salicylic acid; and when I examined for sali- 
cylic acid, I found in those specimens it had been covered or coated with a prepara- 
tion of salicylic acid for the purpose of preserving the meat. I made those examina- 
tions to determine, or for an opinion as to whether it would preserve meat any length 
of time, and the effect it would have on digestion. I gave the opinion after that 
examination that salicylic acid was not only detrimental to digestion but that it pro- 
duced nausea. While it is used largely in medicine, it antagonizes the process of 
digestion, and consequently I advised against the use of it as a preservative of nutri- 
tive material, especially meat, because it would delay digestion. The beef being in 
the stomach and digestion being delayed would of itself become nauseating, and the 
salicylic acid would add to the nausea. 
Boracic acid, while it is not nauseating and when given separately is not poison- 
ous, delays the process of digestion in meat, because it antagonizes fermentation, and 
hence is not a fit preservative for the use of meat that is used as a diet. 
Q. How many examinations did you make, if more than one, of the fresh beef 
here during the last season? 
A. I examined three different specimens that were brought to me. 
Q. Beef that you believed to be or understood to be refrigerated beef? 
A. I understood so, yes; I suppose it was refrigerated beef. 
Q. And you found in each the evidence of some chemical preservative? 
A. Yes, sir. Well, of course, all preservatives used in meats are chemicals, even 
chloride of sodium and nitrate of potash, the latter being the saltpeter in all corned 
Peef. 
Q. Did you find boracic acid in each experiment with the fresh beef? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1043 
A. No; I found boracic acid in two and salicylic acid in one. 
Q. That examination was made about what time? 
A. That wras made earlier than the examination of the canned beef; only about the 
middle of June. 
Q. Doctor, if there are any other facts or circumstances connected with the matter 
that you have not stated, please state them fully to the court. 
A. No; that is all that I call to my mind now of those examinations made at that 
time. 
Q. You have made none then, recently; I mean subsequent to June? 
A. Oh, yes 
Q. (Interrupting.) Or prior to September? 
A. Well, I made some examinations, not prior to September, however. I made 
some in September, and I have some specimens on hand now for examination, but 
they are separate from that work. 
Cross-examination by the Recorder: 
Q. What kind of beef was it in the can that you examined; was it canned corned 
beef, or canned fresh beef? 
A. Canned fresh beef. 
Q. Do you remember the brand? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Had it any connection with the Government? 
A. I don't know of any connection whatever with the Government. 
Q. Do you know whether it was to be delivered to the Government, or had been 
delivered to the Government? 
A. I don't know anything about that. 
Q. Was it delivered to you by anyone connected with the Government? 
A. Not that I know of. 
Q. As far as you know, had he contract relations with the United States? 
A. I don't know of any relation w'hatever with the United States that he had. 
Q. Did the refrigerated beef come to you from the packing house where it was 
killed, or from a market in the city? 
A. It was brought to me by a gentleman who did not state from whence it came. 
Q. He did not state? 
A. No. 
Q. Had you any reason to believe that it came from the packing house? 
A. I could not say anything about that. 
Q. In connection with your duty as an officer of the health department, w'hat do 
you find to be the practice among the butchers of the city as to the use of preserva- 
tives? 
A. Well, they do not use preservatives very much. 
Q. Do they use them at all? 
A. For certain classes of meats they use some preservatives. In all cases of corned 
beef they use nitrate of potash as wrell as common salt. 
Q. In fresh beef? 
A. No; there is not much used. Once in a while there is some used. Meat that 
has been kept for a time exposed once or twice becomes slightly tainted, and that 
taint is frequently removed by carbonate of sodium, and sometimes by dipping a 
piece of meat into a hot solution and then placing it immediately back into the refrig- 
erator, the taint being removed in that way. A hot solution of boracic acid, which 
simply coats the outside, will remove taint from meat, and being placed immediately 
in the refrigerator coats it over and reduces the chance of the taint being extended 
further, because boracic acid is largely soluble in hot water and very slightly soluble 
in cold water. So if it is dipped in very hot application and then placed in the 1044 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
refrigerator it precipitates on the surface and delays decomposition without interfering 
with the main part of the meat in the mass. 
Q. Were either of these samples tendered you by anyone connected with the pack- 
ing houses? 
A. I was not at liberty to inquire into that matter. I was simply consulted as a 
scientist on the subject; that is all. 
Q. I do not go into that further than to ask this question: Did they come from 
anybody connected with the packing houses or in their behalf or interest? 
A. They did not state to me that they came in behalf of the packing houses; they 
just came for an opinion on the meat. 
Q. Had you any occasion to think or to suspect that they came from the packing- 
house people? 
A. I do not believe a scientific man expects to go into these supposabie things. 
We only make our examinations as to facts laid before us; and the guesses and hear- 
says outside, of course, would not make much of an impression upon a scientist. 
We do not try to remember those things. 
Q. You say, then, from your experience as a health officer that preservatives are 
not used by the local butchers except to the'extent you have testified? 
A. Except to check decomposition when it has commenced. 
Q. Are they generally used for that purpose? 
A. I don't know whether they are generally used. It was not usual in my depart- 
ment to inquire into that. We only inquired into that at times. That was in the 
hands of the laboratory. 
Q. What was the result of your inquiry as to the use by the local butchers in 
Chicago of preservatives to keep their meat? 
A. The meat is kept almost entirely by refrigeration, except when it has been 
exposed upon the block, and then has been tainted on the surface. In such cases, 
to prevent the effect of the taint penetrating into the meat, sometimes a preservative 
is used. That is just for the time. 
Q. Is cold an efficient preservative? 
A. No, not when meat has been exposed after it has been in the cold. That is, 
they use a refrigerator because the temperature is usually 34° to 36°, which is above 
the freezing point, and cold is not a good preservative unless the meat is continuously 
kept in the cold. If it is once exposed and then put back into the refrigerator it is 
not an efficient preservative. 
Q. But if it is kept in the refrigerator, if it is continuously applied from the time 
it is killed, is it an efficient preservative then? 
A. If not exposed to the air it is an efficient preservative provided the temperature 
is below a certain point, provided the temperature is 38° to 40°. 
Q. That is the case we take. We are supposing a case where the temperature is 
below the figures you mention? 
A. Yes, nearly the freezing point. 
Q. And is it then an efficient preservative? 
A. Well, fairly efficient. 
Q. What would be the use of using any other preservative than that? 
A. There would be no use of any other preservative unless there was an exposure. 
By General Davis: 
Q. You say the meat that you examined in cans was fresh beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And you found chloride of sodium in the cans? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you ascertain the percentage of those? 
A. No, sir; I did not make a quantitative analysis, but there was a large quantity, 
more than ordinarily used in cooking and in the use of meat generally. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1045 
Q. Yet you call it fresh beef? 
A. Yes; it was put up fresh, no doubt. 
Q. Salt had to be applied? 
A. Salt was applied. 
Q. What was the shape of the can you opened? 
A. They were fiat. They were very shallow, round cans, with a little kind of a 
ring on one side; I don't know what that ring was for; it was a loop of some kind. 
Q. How much, if any, salt does natural fresh beef contain? 
A. Natural fresh beef contains a small amount of salt, which can be extracted by 
the decomposition of the meat. All flesh contains some salt. 
Q. Was the saltness of this meat that you examined considerably greater than 
A. (Interrupting.) Oh, yes. 
Q. Have you known of entire quarters of beef having been dipped in this hot solu- 
tion of borax? 
A. No, sir; I do not know of any. I have never been called upon to make any 
examinations of that kind. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. You say in your testimony that you did not take the brand. Have you any- 
thing but a professional interest in this examination? 
A. None whatever. 
Q. You examined it simply because the meat was given to you to examine? 
A. Just simply because it was brought to me for the purpose of examination. 
Q. Then, you did not care to know that certain brands of meat put upon the 
market for sale weTe wanting in nutrition? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you ever hear of any tainted meat, from a reputable packing house, being 
treated chemically for the purpose of arresting decomposition? 
A. I do not call to mind of ever having heard of any. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I would like to ask if in the examination of those two cans of beef that had the 
appearance of those that are sold in the markets from time to time you noticed any 
appearance of their having been tampered with or opened before they were sub- 
mitted to you? Did you open them, or were they opened by somebody else? 
A. They were brought to me unopened. I opened them. 
Q. You opened them yourself? 
A. Yes. 
Q. You speak of the use of boracic acid to arrest decomposition or prevent it, or 
remove the taint that might be on meat, and under certain conditions to preserve 
the meat. You say that of course would not be necessary in any case; that the meat 
would keep all right if kept in a refrigerator at a certain temperature for its preser- 
vation. How would it be in regard to a case of this kind: The transportation of 
such meat in cars a long distance to an extremely hot climate, say the southern part 
of the United States-Florida-and there necessitating removal with various appli- 
ances and to be carried and exposed somewhat to the sun and the heat, and then to 
be put in a refrigerator or something of that kind on board of a vessel, and then car- 
ried into the Tropics. Would the use of boracic acid in such cases as that be essen- 
tial to the preservation of meat, and aid in keeping it and making it to that extent 
suitable for issue to troops? 
The Recorder. One moment. There are some conditions that seem hardly plain. 
The Witness. That is what I was going to speak of. I take exceptions to the con- 
ditions. I would not know the whole facts. 
Major Lee. Please read the question. 
(The question was repeated.) 1046 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I don't think boracic acid would be necessary in that case, unless the exposure 
of the change of transportation from cars to a vessel took a longer time than my 
knowledge of the case would indicate would be necessary. If meat could be shipped 
or changed from a refrigerated car in a very few minutes and lowered in the refrig- 
erator of the vessel it ought to preserve, because the time of change would be so 
short that it could not have very much effect upon the meat if it is properly refrig- 
erated; that is, if it is kept below a temperature of 36° on the transportation. 
I can see, however, how a coating of some preservative of that kind would delay 
the tainting of the outside of meat if it was exposed to sunshine and a moist climate 
in low altitudes, provided the exposure lasted for five or six, or even two or three, 
hours. It might be a process of delaying the process of decomposition; and if some- 
thing of that kind was not used I can not see how it can be kept a great length of 
time in a very hot, moist climate. Of course it depends as much upon the amount 
of humidity in the atmosphere as it does upon the temperature of the atmosphere, 
because meat that has been refrigerated for a long time is very susceptible to rapid 
changes in a high temperature in a moist climate, very much more so than meat 
which has only been slaughtered a short length of time; so that decomposition would 
be extremely rapid when it did start, and it would seem to me that a preservative on 
the outside of meat would delay, for a short time anyway, the beginning of decom- 
position, and yet at the same time if that outside was cut away it would not affect 
the value of the meat as a ration when it is preserved and decomposition has not set in. 
Q. How long, in your opinion and from your scientific research or otherwise, would 
refrigerated beef that had been refrigerated a considerable length of time keep after 
it had been removed from the refrigerator and exposed to the conditions you have 
mentioned-that is, in a very hot climate, a low altitude, and moist, without any 
artificial process or coating, to which you refer? 
A. My opinion is that it could not keep more than a few hours-six or eight 
hours-without there being considerable taint to the meat. 
Q. You refer to the matter of experiments here with reference to horseflesh being 
found put up in cans, and you said that this examination had some reference to an 
investigation of that subject. Am I correct? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I would like to know whether as a result of your investigations you have ever 
found horseflesh put up in cans and sold in the market here in Chicago? 
A. No, sir; not put up in cans and sold on the market. 
Q. How put up? 
A. I have had samples brought to me. I had no means of knowing from whence 
the samples came, but I have had samples brought to me which were said to have 
been meat in the market; not put up in cans, however, and have found some of these 
samples to be horseflesh instead of beef; in fact, examinations of that kind in the 
Chicago health department resulted in suppressing an establishment out in the 
southern part of the city. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Doctor, can you readily detect by external appearance meat which has been 
treated with boracic acid? 
A. No, sir; not by a superficial examination; I would not give an opinion. I 
would not try to determine, because it could be determined by scientific examination 
whether it was or not, and there is no use in depending on a superficial examination. 
Q. Then a simple inspection of meat would not enable you to determine whether 
it had been treated chemically or not? 
A. An inspection of meat will determine whether it has been dipped in some kind 
of solution or not, but I do not believe you could determine whether that was a solu- 
tion of salt or saltpeter or some other chemical. If it is dipped in hot solution the 
very fact of its being in hot water would show its appearance upon the surface, but just FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1047 
what it was that was on the surface could not be determined-that is, I could not 
determine it-by superficial observation, and I would not think of trying to deter- 
mine it. 
Q. Then you wish the court to understand that if a quarter of beef has been dipped 
in a preservative solution that fact would be readily discerned by the external appear- 
ance of the meat? 
A. I think that could be determined. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. You were speaking of the process of cooking it with boracic acid, and said it 
would have to be applied hot, or with hot water, to be efficient? 
A. Yes; I said that boracic acid is largely soluble in hot water and slightly soluble 
in cold water; and if it is dipped in a hot solution-I have frequently done that myself, 
and have then removed from the hot solution and put into a refrigerator or cold 
place-it leaves a coating on the surface by the precipitation of the undissolved boracic 
acid. 
Q. What is the color, the physical appearance, of the external surface of the meat 
that enables you to determine that it has been so treated ? 
A. Whether it has been dipped in the hot solution or not? 
Q. Yes. 
A. The lightening of the color of the tissue, especially the yellow fibrous tissue; 
that is always detected by dipping in hot water, especially if it is dipped in salt water, 
or any chemical solution. 
Q. Suppose it was thoroughly washed with hot water while it is in the process of 
being butchered and being prepared, would that have the same effect in its external 
appearance ? 
A. No; the water would not produce coagulation enough. Simple washing would 
not produce coagulation enough to make an appearance that would be observable by 
simply looking at it. It would require boiling anyway. 
Q. Would it have to be put in boiling water in order to produce this appearance? 
A. That would depend on the length of time it would be left in. 
Q. Please state to the court, Doctor, fully what the conditions of this hot water 
treatment must be to leave a trace visible to the eye, assuming first hot water alone. 
' A. If it was hot water alone, then it would have to be water at a boiling point or 
nearly at a boiling point, and left in for a sufficient length of time to coagulate the 
albuminoids on the surface, in order to be able to retain that appearance after it is 
exposed later on. If it was not in there that length of time it would not show. 
Q. How long would it have to remain in that boiling water? 
A. Probably from fifteen to twenty minutes, or, if it is a very high temperature, a 
shorter time, and if not boiling a longer time. 
Q. And would the borax treatment be substantially the same? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Would it have to be dipped in hot water containing borax? 
A. Yes, sir; it would be substantially the same. If it was a strong solution of salt 
it would produce the effect more rapidly. 
Q. Salt, you mean, of borax? 
A. No; I mean common salt, chloride of sodium, because chloride of sodium is a 
remarkable conductor of heat. 
Q. But restricting ourselves to the borax in hot water? 
A. There is a distinction, of course, between borax and boracic acid. 
Q. I refer to boracic acid. I understand that boracic acid would be the preserv- 
ing agent? 
A. Boracic acid would be the preserving agent; yes. 
Q. Do I understand you to say that in order to make it an efficient preservative 
it would have to be applied in hot water? 1048 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Yes; unless it was largely rubbed upon the surface-that is, the pure powder. 
Q. What are the physical appearances in both cases that would enable you to say 
that it had been used? 
A. I could not determine. I do not believe anybody could determine that boracic 
acid had been used by a superficial examination-by just simply observing or look- 
ing at it. 
Q. I may have been mistaken, but did I understand you to say that you could tell 
by the physical appearance of the surface whether boracic acid had been used on it? 
A. No, sir; I did not say that I could determine that boracic acid had been used. 
I say if it is dipped in a hot solution of boracic acid or any other chemical-salt, I 
mean chloride of sodium, or nitrate of potash-the fact that it had been dipped into 
something would be observable by the appearance of the outside, but what it was 
could not be determined without a chemical examination. 
Q. Suppose that the meat, while in process of preparation, during the dressing, 
were steadily washed with a brush containing water at the boiling point, and w'ashed 
for a considerable length of time, how would the effect differ from dipping it into 
boiling water for the same time? 
A. I think in dipping it in boiling water it would show a little more the effect, 
because water thrown upon the surface readily evaporates-that is, heat is given off 
so that it would hardly be boiling water when it comes in contact with the meat. 
Q. But I assume the supply to be unlimited, from the hose, through the brush, 
and quite at the boiling point, assuming the washing to continue over the surface for 
a considerable length of time. What would be the difference in external appearance 
in the two cases? 
A. If it cooks the surface it would simply show that it had been cooked. 
Q. Then it is the cooking of the surface that would be relied upon as a physical 
evidence? 
A. That is all the physical evidence-just simply the cooking of the surface. 
Cooking is the term for coagulation of the albuminoids. That is the same thing- 
cooking the surface. 
By General Davis: 
Q. You spoke of the beef in cans having lost its nutritive value through cooking, 
through boiling, did you not? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Are you familiar with the processes by which canned roast beef is prepared? 
Were you familiar with the process by which the samples which you examined were 
prepared? 
A. I simply go by the sample which I examined. My knowledge of the prepara- 
tion of canned roast beef, or canned boiled beef, by the establishments that put that 
up, is only from hearsay. I am not investigating it. 
Q. Assume a piece of absolutely fresh meat containing no other salt than that sup- 
plied by nature to be immersed in boiling water and kept there for twenty minutes, 
the water continually at a temperature of 212°; how much loss of nutritive value 
would that piece of beef undergo? 
A. I could not determine that. I think that would depend somewhat upon the 
character of the meat fiber itself. 
Q. Assume ordinary fibrous meat-the kind of meat that contains the most 
albuminoids. 
A. Muscular fiber? 
Q. Muscular fiber. 
A. Muscular fiber, such as used in round steak-pure muscular fiber-of course 
would give more nutrition, but twenty minutes' boiling probably would not extract 
a great deal of the nutritive power of the meat. That is, the water poured off from FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1049 
that could not be condensed to produce a large amount of extract. It would produce 
a very small amount. 
Q. Suppose that same piece of meat, having received twenty minutes of boiling, 
with no other pressure than the external air-the ordinary atmosphere-to be sealed 
hermetically and kept sealed hermetically, with no salt or saltpeter added-the same 
piece of meat, without any addition, to be hermetically sealed and boiled for two 
hours-what change would the albuminoids undergo in that process, supposing it to 
have been boiled at a temperature of 230 or 240 degrees in a retort? 
A. If it is hermetically sealed, there could not be very much nutrition extracted 
from it; and if no salt or saltpeter was placed in it, it would only coagulate the albu- 
minoids and not part them sufficiently to render it indigestible. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Doctor Starritt, of Elgin, Ill. 
TESTIMONY OF DR. CARLTON E. STARRITT. 
Dr. Carlton E. Starritt was called as a witness by the recorder, and having been 
first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name and residence. 
A. Carlton E. Starritt; Elgin, Ill. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Doctor, did you have any connection with the military service during the late 
war? 
A. I did. 
Q. In what capacity? 
A. As assistant surgeon of the Third Illinois from the time they went out until the 
27th of September, and acting surgeon from then until the close of the campaign, 
until we were ordered home on the 2d of November. 
Q. When did you leave the United States and from what point? 
A. We left in the latter days of July from Newport News. 
Q. And went from there to what point? 
A. To Arroyo, Porto Rico. 
Q. You may state the service, that is, briefly, as to where you were and how long 
at those points. Just give a brief synopsis of the time that you served at various 
places, as near as you can, until your return. 
A. We landed on the 2d of August at Arroyo. On the 3d of August I was ordered 
by General Brooke, through Colonel Huidekofer, to organize the brigade hospital of 
the Second Brigade, First Army Corps. I was in charge of that hospital from then 
until the 12th of August, at which time it was merged into the reserve hospital of 
the First Army Corps. I had charge of the wards in that hospital from then until 
the 27th of September, at which date I became acting surgeon of the Third Illinois, 
as well as connected with the hospital wards. At about the 15th of October I had 
charge of the reserve hospital and the Third Illinois also until the disintegration of 
the hospital on or about the 1st of November. 
Q. Doctor, I wish you would state, with reference to your regiment, or within your 
observation, what meat was used by the regiment on the way to Porto Rico from 
the United States. 
A. The only meat ration that I ever knew of was canned corned beef. 
Q. On the trip over? 
A. From Newport News to Porto Rico. 
Q. You may state whether or not, in your official capacity, or in any way connected 
with your duties, you have any knowledge as to complaints of any kind in regard to 
any portion of the meat ration on the way over; if so, what, and describe them fully. 1050 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. There were complaints from both officers and men that the canned corned beef 
was an unpalatable, sickening mass. A certain amount of it wTas spoiled. The cans 
could not be used. It was thrown overboard. On one occasion, about the 31st of 
July, I took some of that canned corned beef to General Brooke, and Adjutant-Gen- 
eral Sheridan told me that it was unfit to eat and to have anything of that kind 
condemned. 
Q. Are you referring to the canned corned beef or the roast beef? 
A. The canned corned beef. I saw no canned roast beef at that time. 
Q. Was any issued to the command under your observation or within your knowl- 
edge after your arrival at Porto Rico? 
A. There was. 
Q. About what proportion of the meat was of that ration? 
A. About one-half. 
Q. During the stay there? 
A. From the time I first became acquainted with canned roast beef, which was 
about the 15th or 16th of August. They commenced to bring patients into the hos- 
pital at that time, and the complaint was that they had been made sick by the 
canned roast beef. 
Q. Did you make any investigation of the matter or any inquiry? 
A. I always inquired carefully, and I found that there were many eases in which 
the sickness could be attributed to no other cause. I made notes at that time of 
those cases. 
Q. You did make notes at that time? 
A. At that time. 
Q. Have you those notes? 
A. I have. 
Major Lee. Would the court like to see them or have them produced? It is a 
record made at the time of this sickness. 
(The witness produces a memorandum book J 
Major Lee. Perhaps the witness had better read it. 
A. Charles Peterstrama, private, of Company H, had marked diarrhea after a soup 
made from the canned roast beef. This was about the middle of September. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I understand these entries were made there at the time? 
A. They were. 
Q. Just give two or three instances of it. You need not read the entire book, 
Doctor. 
A. Nicholas Collett, with enteritis. He developed that after eating a soup made 
from roast beef, about the 20th of August. 
Q. Is that entry in the book? 
A. In the book. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Are you reading or commenting upon what you see there? 
A. I will read verbatim. Nicholas Collett, private, Company L, August 24, enter- 
itis. Roast beef is given in a note as the cause, and then follows the various tem- 
peratures of the pulse. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Please read it just as you have it on that record. Read the remarks. 
A. " R beef "-roast beef. 
Q. What else? 
A. Nothing else, except following on the rate of temperature. The temperature 
on admission was 39.3 centigrade; pulse, 104. The next day the temperature was 38; 
pulse, 74. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1051 
By Major Lee: 
Q. " R beef." What is that put under-what heading. 
A. That is where I put notes; and, as a sample, I have other notes referring to the 
character of the men; and as to a certain man, that he was a glutton or something 
like that, and whether his trouble was caused by drink, or things of that sort. 
Where I could discover a definite cause I put it down. 
Q. Now, state to the court whether you'made any special examination of the roast 
beef upon opening the cans; whether you noticed its particular condition or the con- 
stituents of the beef in the cans-speaking now of roast beef or boiled beef. 
A. I opened cans of it at the hospital. I ate some of it. It was unpalatable. The 
fat was often-separated and had glutinated to the cover of the can-to the surface- 
and after eating it once the stomach rebelled against it. I was always well, and 
could eat anything; and yet, after eating the canned roast beef once I could not go 
it again until I had had a rest from it. I ate a can of roast beef on a number of occa- 
sions, as I did also the corned beef, and practically all of the rations. 
Q. Did you visit the command, the regiment, in connection with your duties as to 
the issuance and use of rations? 
A. I frequently visited the regiment to acquaint myself with the causes, as far as 
I could, of the great amount of sickness that was in the hospital. 
Q. To what was that attributed? 
A. One of the causes was the unadaptability of the rations to the nature of the 
climate; and the meat, both the refrigerated beef, the canned corned beef, and the 
canned roast beef were considered causative of a certain percentage of the sickness. 
Q. Did you take any action or make any recommendation with reference to the 
use or disuse of meats; if so, with what result? 
A. While I had charge of the brigade hospital at Arroyo, I had none of the Gov- 
ernment meat used except twice. We were, in the first place, left without any rations 
whatever. Then came an issue of canned corned beef, and the men could not eat it. 
I had 30 patients on the 3d of August who were quite sick, and there was not any 
of them that could eat any of that beef-the canned corned beef. My cook was 
made sick by it, and he would not eat it any more; and after that I bought native 
beef. I bought native beef for my hospital until about the 9th of August, when 
the Massachusetts came in with the refrigerated.- beef. There was an issue of that and 
it seemed good; but there were complaints about it afterwards, so I went aboard the 
St. Louis in the harbor and I was told by a man, who was on the boat in some way 
connected with the engineer, that the refrigerating apparatus had not been a very 
great success. That was only hearsay. I used no more refrigerated beef after that 
in the brigade hospital. Afterwards, after the brigade hospital had been merged into 
the reserve hospital of the First Army Corps, the cook, Mr. Pressler, made me some 
meat broth out of refrigerated beef for four patients in my charge, three typhoids, 
one of whom seemed to have passed the crisis and one of whom had the dysentery. 
They developed violent symptoms after eating that meat broth. And the names of 
those men and of those commands I have. Then in my ward, the number of 
patients of which ranged from 60 up to 140, in round numbers, I used very little 
meat after that. Eggs, milk, and native beef were purchased for those wards by 
private funds, on account of the unadaptability of the rations. 
Q. Coming back to the discontinuance of the canned roast meat and of the refrig- 
erated meat which you referred to, what was the effect of the use of others; was 
there, or not, any improvement? 
A. There was a very decided improvement in the health; in the rapidity with 
which my hospital cases got along. They gathered strength there. 
Q. You were not at that time particularly connected with the regiment? 
A. No, sir; but on the 27th of September I became the acting surgeon of the regi- 
ment and had charge of the whole medical department. 1052 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. From that time until your return what proportion of the canned roast beef was 
used, and what was its effect, so far as you know? 
A. There was less canned roast beef used and more bacon. With the increase in 
the amount of bacon-regular old army bacon-there was an improvement in the 
health of the men; but there was another cause which operated there. We had 
moved the camp to a more healthy locality; but diarrheal troubles connected with 
the ration were very much less as we lessened the amount of canned roast beef. 
Q. In your experience with the regiment and with others, do you regard canned 
roast beef, or the beef that was furnished there, as a wholesome or unwholesome 
ration? 
A. I should regard it as in part unwholesome and in part lacking in, nutrient ma- 
terials. There were certain proportions of the cans that were spoiled. Of course 
those that showed themselves to be spoiled when they were opened were thrown 
away. 
Cross-examination by the Recorder: 
Q. You have read of two cases. How many have you there in which you attrib- 
uted it directly to canned roast beef? 
(The witness examined his memorandum book.) 
Q. There is no need of looking it over. Can you not trust your recollection? 
A. I can recall a number of cases. Perhaps with the aid of the book and my 
memory I can recall 6 or 8 cases that I attributed directly to that, because on careful 
inquiry, and reviewing the whole subject of their feeding, I could find nothing else. 
I have a note on one patient who complained that every time he ate meat of any 
kind, canned corned beef, canned roast beef, or refrigerated beef, he was made sick; 
and consequently no more meat was given him. Eggs and milk and things of that 
kind were supplied him in its place. 
Q. Was the refrigerated beef tainted at all? 
A. I saw some of the refrigerated beef that was tainted and sour. Some came to 
the hospital that they had to bury. In a supply of meat coming to the hospital there 
would be some that seemed all right and some in the same lot that had that mold on 
that the soldiers called whiskers and that smelt as if it had commenced to turn. In 
smelling it, if the surface smelt sour, it was discarded. 
Q. Are you certain that it was perfectly fresh-that meat which you used in the 
case about which you testified? 
A. Where the soup was made? 
Q. Yes. 
A. I took that piece myself. I went to the cook tent and had that made for those 
patients. 
Q. What was the condition of that piece? 
A. It seemed all right. 
Q. Did .you apply a test to it? 
A. I did not. I had no means of applying a test. I smelled of it and it smelled 
sweet and it looked all right. It was an inside piece. 
Q. What was the effect upon the patients? 
A. They all were purged right away. 
Q. To what did you attribute that? 
A. They had had nothing else to eat. They were confined to their beds, where 
they could get nothing else, and the most careful and painstaking supervision was 
exercised. Those four cases, two brothers and two others, developed diarrhea 
within two or three hours after taking it. 
Q. Had they had any meat before for some time? 
A. No; they had been living on cereals. There had been no meat for some little 
time. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1053 
Q. Then to what did you attribute its effect upon them? 
A. To a commencing of the change in the meat-to the commencing of the develop- 
ment of ptomaines, perhaps. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Was diarrhea an ordinary camp disease in Porto Rico? 
A. It was. 
Q. Was it ever attributable to any other cause than a dietary cause? 
A. Oh, yes. 
Q. What other causes induced it? 
A. A bilious diarrhea is one of the symptoms that goes with malarial poisoning. 
A dysentry is one of the symptoms of advanced kidney disease. It may come on in 
typhoids. I have had records of cases where the diarrhea was brought on by eating 
fruit. Others have laid it to tomatoes. If a soldier who was ordinarily well noticed 
that he had diarrhea every time he ate canned tomatoes, I made a note of it-that 
tomatoes were the cause of his diarrhea. Of course there were a vast number of 
cases where we could find no one cause. 
Q. Was the bad water supply ever a cause? 
A. Undoubtedly; but it never was the cause in the hospital, for my cases in the 
hospital had filtered water. The water was specially prepared for me, and I allowed 
no other water to be used in the ward. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. You speak of a canned roast beef and a canned corned beef and a fresh beef 
disagreeing with the men? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was that equally the case with bacon? 
A. Not so much so. I recall no cases where bacon was directly the cause. We 
opened cans of bacon that were not good and that were very offensive. It produced 
sometimes stomach trouble, but had less tendency to produce diarrhea. 
Q. As a matter of fact, were they, in their debilitated condition, able to retain 
anything practically on their stomachs? 
A. The question is a little general3 if you will excuse me. 
Q. You were limiting it to the meat diets, and I want to know whether there was 
anything else in the diet besides meat which they could not retain easily. 
A. Yesf sir; there w'ere some that could not retain the other articles of the ration, 
such as tomatoes. There were some who ate fruit and had troubles; and, as I said 
before, in those cases where I could lay the cause directly to one thing, I made a 
note of it. For instance, if a man had an attack of gastritis and he had been drink- 
ing Porto Rican rum, I made a note. I wrote " jagged " down after his name. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. You used the native beef, the refrigerated beef, and the canned beef; which 
proved the most satisfactory? I am not speaking of the bacon now'. 
A. Beyond all comparison, the native beef was the best. I used goat, mutton, 
and beef. The native beef was tough, but it made good soup. It made good broth 
and w'as always palatable. I had no cause to complain of it. I used a great deal 
of it. 
Q. Was the native beef in good order? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was there plenty of it? 
A. Plenty of it. There were thousands of cattle in sight of us all the time. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. How far was your hospital located from the refrigerator? 1054 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. The first hospital, from the 2d to the 12th of August, was right on the shore, 
and the meat came ashore from the refrigerator on the Massachusetts in the lighter, 
and was brought direct to our hospital. It was as far as from here across the street. 
The next place, it was about 5 miles. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
the Rev. Mr. O'Dell. 
TESTIMONY OF D. D. O'DELL. 
D. D. O'Dell was called as a witness by the recorder and, having been first duly 
sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name and residence. 
A. D. D. O'Dell; Joliet, Ill. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Will you please state whether you were connected with the Army during the 
late war, and, if so, in what capacity. 
A. I was sworn into the service on the 1st day of August ; landed at Ponce on the 
15th; reported to Colonel Bennett on the 17th at noon as chaplain of the Third Illi- 
nois Volunteer Infantry. 
Q. Did you leave this country with the regiment? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Captain, you may state in as brief a manner as practicable and as clearly as 
necessary the duties that you were on after you joined the regiment, as you have 
stated-with what duties you were charged in connection with the command? 
A. I was urged to act as chaplain by many of the people connected with the serv- 
ice, and especially with the mothers and friends, because I was acquainted very 
largely with the boys of the parish. When I went there I did not know what the 
duties of a chaplain were. I did not take into consideration what the duties were. 
I reported to Colonel Bennett, and he told me that my duties would be simply 
preaching upon the Sabbath day and the burying of the dead. Colonel Bennett said 
there would be very little preaching done, probably, and my duties would be princi- 
pally burying the dead; and he wanted that I would assist him as much as possible 
to make my duties as light as possible in that line. Therefore he askqd me if I 
would go to the hospitals and report to Dr. Starritt, whose testimony has just been 
taken, and see what I could do to help the condition at the hospitals, and also to 
return at night and do what I could at night to better the condition in the camp. I 
had money that had been given me, that had been placed in my hands for use of 
the regiment, especially for certain parts of it, but afterwards I used it for all. Dr. 
Starritt told me that my duty would be to purchase milk and eggs and fresh beef 
and bread and everything that I could get for the regiment to help them. I imme- 
diately established a sort of commissary department down there at the hospital, and 
another, which I called kitchens, at the regiment, and supplied those with such 
things as were needed. I bought hundreds of gallons of milk, and eggs, and every- 
thing along that line that could be purchased and used for sick soldiers. This brought 
me into immediate contact with the rations. I went around each morning to the 
company headquarters to eat with the boys and get acquainted with them, to find 
out how they were and what they were in need of. Of course there was a great 
deal of fault found. At first I laughed at the boys, telling them that their ration 
was vastly better than a vast number of people who live in Chicago get, and to show 
it I would eat it with them; and I did whenever I had an opportunity. I found 
that I was decreasing in avoirdupois. I lost 48 pounds in forty-eight days by show- 
ing that I could eat the ration all right. It did not make me sick. I was not sick 
any of this time; but in regard to the canned beef FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1055 
Q. Just wait a moment. I will ask you a question in regard to that. To what 
extent did the issue and the use of canned roast beef in connection with your duties 
or under your observation take place? 
A. I should say that the canned roast beef or boiled beef was the ration that was 
issued; perhaps a little more than one-half. I should say that it was a little more 
than one-half of the meat ration that was issued. 
Q. I wish you would go on and describe what you saw of that and what you know 
about it and what complaints were made in regard to the canned roast beef definitely 
and clearly. 
A. On my first introduction to the canned roast beef I rather thought it was a good 
diet. I told the boys that, and I said, "The trouble comes from the lack of the 
proper preparation of it. You go to work and cook it right and do right by it and 
it will be all right." So I suggested ways of it being cooked, and I ate of it myself 
in different ways. For instance, cooking it with tomatoes and breaking in hard-tack 
with it, etc.-cooking it up in patties, frying it in various ways; but it invariably, 
after a very short time, had a nauseating tendency on myself. I didn't let the boys 
know it. I thought I would be brave, anyhow'. But I have seen the boys, after 
they had eaten it, go out and vomit and swear. I had a great deal to do with it. I 
finally got to the point where I advised the boys to bury it, and they did-some. 
I promised, in some cases, if they would bury it to supply its place with native beef 
or something that I could buy with money. I told other boys not to eat it, but to 
come to my kitchen that I had established in connection with the retention hospital 
at the regiment and get milk and eggs and soups that I had made from native beef. 
This was done under my direction. I did not do it myself individually, but it was 
done under my direction, and for a time I supplied 200 men in that way, who came 
and got these things to eat. On this occasion I several times made complaints. 
I made complaints to the physician. I complained to Dr. Shaw. I made complaints 
to Dr. Starritt. I made complaints to the colonel. I made complaints to General 
Grant about it, stating that it was unwholesome and was making the boys sick, and 
General Grant issued an order on one occasion forbidding the use of tomatoes, think- 
ing that was the cause, perhaps, of the increased sickness. From the 25th to the 30th- 
somewhere along that time-Colonel Bennett ordered me to go to Ponce and to make 
representations of the condition to General Miles. I went to Ponce. I do not know 
exactly the date, but I knew that General Miles was very busy. I simply spoke to 
him and he had no more time to speak to me. I took dinner, however, with one of 
General Miles's staff. I have his name somewhere-Colonel Frank 
Q. Michler? 
A. Michler, I think the name was, and I made a full report to him. Of course I 
knew nothing about military life. I do not know now. I never learned anything 
about it, and I do not know w'hat would be required of a military man. I simply 
went down there to do what I could, and to help the boys as much as I could-to be 
a sort of father to them-not a spiritual father, particularly, but to help them and 
give them little moneys and in any way that I could. I told the Colonel the condi- 
tion of affairs and I asked him if it was breaking the military rules to do so. He 
said no, not unless I connected names with my report. He said I could state facts 
and that the facts should be stated to General Miles as I had stated them to him. He 
said he was greatly in sympathy with me, and gave me a large sponge that he had 
brought from New York, which he said 1 might use to sponge the boys instead of 
the old rag I was using. I took it back, and I have it as a souvenir. I also, on this 
occasion, represented the condition of the hospital. Many of the boys were lying 
on the ground-lying in the mud-and I stated that we had an insufficient number 
of cups. We had twelve that General Mullowney and myself had purchased and 
taken to the hospital, and told him there was an insufficient supply of drugs. The 
next day, however, there was sent to our camp from Ponce 125 cups and two 
ambulance wagons of other supplies. I believe it was the very next day at 4 o'clock 1056 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
they started. Whether it was from my representation or not, I know not, I inferred 
perhaps that had something to do with it. That is all the reports I made or all the 
protests I made in regard to the beef, with the exception of the letters I wrote home. 
Q. In your observations did you notice any general sickness caused by the use of 
canned roast beef, or any part of the command, as an organization? 
A. Company A on one occasion were all sick, I believe, very near to a man. They 
were sick after eating the canned roast beef. Every one of the commissioned officers 
was sick. I attributed it to the canned roast beef. 
Q. What was it as a matter of general information or general conversation at the 
time; not now, but at the time? 
A. At the time it was generally commented on as having been due to poisoning 
that came from the canned roast beef. 
Q. Have you described the constituents of this canned roast beef? Did you ever 
open a can and empty it out and see just how it was made and what it was com- 
posed of? 
A. I did, sir. 
Q. Whether it was good meat and whether there was an abundance in it; whether 
it had nutrition and what other constituents were in it, if any? If so, state fully. 
A. I opened a can of beef, turned it into a basin, and looked it over very carefully. 
It was stringy, and the fatty particles were entirely separated from the beef. It was 
filled with a liquid moisture. I do not know the technical term you would call it, but 
it was a stringy, pulpy kind of consistency that I got, and it was odorous. After it 
had been exposed for a few moments there was an unpleasant odor. Up to this time 
of opening the cans I had insisted that it was due very largely to other causes that 
the men were nauseated. I ate some of it then, and it nauseated me. 
Q. Immediately? 
A. Within a few moments. 
Q. I mean, of course, following that? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Did you have any experience with what was known as refrigerated beef? 
A. I did. 
Q. In connection with your duties in any way, or under your observation? 
. A. I did. 
Q. If so, please state what that was. 
A. I had no duties in regard to the matter that I am speaking of at the present 
time other than that my colonel intrusted me to establish kitchens, both at the 
reserve hospital and at the regimental quarters, for what we call invalids or conva- 
lescents, or men that were unfit for duty. They drew rations, of course, the same 
as the other men, but could not eat them. In regard to this refrigerated beef, I 
noticed especially that it was covered with a greenish yellow surface, and all that 
was brought to us I considered bad; but some of it was eaten. The way the boys 
did was to cut off this yellow surface and whittle it down and take the core of the 
meat, and usually it was boiled. They boiled it, but there was an odor connected 
even with the boiling of it that was unpleasant. I advised many of the companies 
to bury it, and I offered to supply them with other stuff that would take the place 
of it that was good and fresh. 
Q. Had you any impression at the time, or did you express any opinion, that this 
refrigerated beef had been treated in any way? 
A. When I lived and worked on a farm we always had to treat our corned beef 
and all kinds of beef; and I thought, of course, it was the thing to do. 
Q. I am speaking of refrigerated beef. 
A. Yes; I thought the refrigerated beef had been treated, but that it had not been 
treated enough. 
Q. In what way; with some chemical? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1057 
A. Yes; I thought it had been treated with a chemical, but had been insufficiently 
treated; that it ought to have had more treatment. Of course, I am not a medical 
man, and I do not know what the treatment would be; but I thought it was not 
treated enough to keep it. 
Q. What w'as the odor, then, from it? Do you make any remarks in regard to 
that? How would you describe it? 
A. The odor was unpleasant. The remark was made frequently among the boys 
that it smelt like a dead man, or something of the kind. 
Q. How did it compare with the native beef, if you had any means of making a 
comparison? 
A. The native beef was infinitely better in every way. The native beef was always 
sweet, wholesome. It was a little tough, but it was always wholesome and sweet, 
nice beef, as nice as anyone could ask for, and there was an abundance of it. I never 
was in a country where I saw so many cattle as I did there. 
Q. Chaplain, if there are any other facts in connection with the roast beef, or 
boiled beef, as it may be termed, and the refrigerated beef, please state them to the 
court fully. 
A. I have nothing further. 
Cross-examination by the Recorder : 
Q. Speaking of the fresh beef being treated on the farm when you were a boy, what 
was it treated with? 
A. We used to corn it, what we called corned beef. 
Q. Had you any reason to believe that this had been treated in any other way 
than that? 
A. No; I wouldn't have any reason to believe that it was treated in any other way. 
Q. About what proportion of it was spoiled or tainted on an average? 
A. The pieces that I examined, I should say, were all spoiled. That is, if I had 
been home I would have rejected the whole of it; but we did cut it down so that we, 
I presume, saved on an average of about-well, say half; perhaps not quite half. 
Q. How far was your camp from the steamer from which it was drawn? 
A. Six and one-half miles, I should say? 
Q. What time did it reach the camp? 
A. At different times. 
Q. Upon an average, what was the usual time? 
A. I can not tell you the time of day. I never carried a watch in my life, and I 
do not carry one now; but I always tried to cook it for dinner. Sometimes I know 
we received it at night, because I remember helping carry a quarter of beef down 
across, myself, to Company A on one occasion. 
Q. Had it been issued on the morning of that day when it was received at night? 
A. I could not tell you. I went to the hospital in the morning and stayed usually 
from 9 until 12 o'clock. Then I came back to my regimental quarters and stayed 
there until about half past 1 o'clock and went again to the hospital and stayed, every 
day, until 3 or 4 o'clock, or as long as I could do any good there. 
Q. In what respects did this smell differ from that of ordinary decomposed meat? 
A. There w'as an odor about it that I would not call stinking meat. I would not 
call it that, as the term is used. I would not call it decayed meat. In fact, it did 
not look like decayed meat. It had usually a consistency that decayed meat has 
not; but there was an odor about it that was offensive. 
Q. What was the odor? 
A. It is very hard, General, to describe an odor or a taste. 
Q. You are a clergyman, accustomed to the use of the English language. Please 
describe to the court, to the best of your recollection, what the odor was. 
A. It was an unpleasant odor that would remind you of being in the presence of 
something that was decayed. 
S. Doc. 270 67 1058 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Flesh? 
A. Flesh; yes. 
Q. There is where I would like to have the distinction made. What is the differ- 
ence between decaying flesh and decayed flesh? 
A. I can not describe it; I can not tell you. 
Q. It made a sufficient impression on you to recall the distinction. Some basis 
for that distinction must remain in your mind. 
A. There is a basis for it. I do not know but possibly it might be described by 
saying that it reminded you of a dead person. There is an odor about a dead person. 
Q. It is meat, is it not-that is, it is animal tissue? 
A. But there are ways of preserving even a dead person that give an odor to the 
person-a peculiar odor-are there not? 
Q. I do not know that there are. We are trying to get the evidence from you. 
In both cases it is animal tissue. It is worked on by the same laws, is it not? It is 
decomposition, and I would like to find the difference in the odor, say, of a decom- 
posed human body and a piece of decomposed beef. 
A. There is a peculiar odor to fish, for instance. A fish that is decayed has a 
peculiar odor that beef has not. There is a peculiar odor to decayed fish that you 
would distinguish the difference between the decayed fish and the decayed meat. 
Q. The tissue of fish is considerably different from other animal tissue, either 
human or animal, properly treated. It contains more nitrogen, I believe. 
A. The meat that we had there had a peculiar odor. At first I thought it was 
due entirely to the fact of its being in the ship and supposed it had caught some 
connection with the refrigerator itself-that it had brought with it that peculiar 
odor from the refrigerator. 
Q. What odor has the refrigerator? 
A. You go into a refrigerator, and it has a peculiar odor. 
Q. Of anything but the contents? 
A. Yes; I think so, if you keep meat there for quite a long time. 
Q. Have you ever been in the refrigerator of a ship? 
A. I was to the door of a refrigerator of a ship once. I did not go in. 
Q. What is the peculiar odor there? Was this like a dead human body? 
A. Yes-no; I would not say that. I would not say it was like a dead human 
body, but there was a peculiar odor that you would not say was like rotting meat. 
You would not call it rotting meat. 
Q. Why not? Is it not meat? Is it not flesh? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Where is the difference? That is what I would like to have you explain to the 
court-the difference between decomposed human tissue from the body of a human 
being and decomposing tissue from the body of an animal so closely related in 
structure as beef is to the human structure. 
A. I could not describe it to you. 
Redirect examination by Major Lee: 
Q. In regard to making a description of an odor, you say it might have been from 
some connection with the refrigerator. Are you or not aware, Chaplain, that refrig- 
erated beef comingout of a refrigerator and being exposed under various and different 
conditions, and even meat coming out of an ice box will smell differently from meat 
that is hung up and kept under other conditions. Is not that a fact? 
A. I don't know, sir. I could not tell you. 
Q. Meat that is brought in contact with pine boards and kept in a close place, will 
it have the same odor that it has when kept out where the air circulates freely? 
Have you noticed any distinctions of that kind? 
A. I never have, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1059 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Dr. Byrne, of Chicago. 
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN G. BYRNE 
Dr. John G. Byrne was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been first 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name and residence. 
A. Dr. John G. Byrne; 5000 Calumet, Chicago. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Were you in the service of the United States during the late war? 
A. I was, sir. 
Q. In what capacity? 
A. I was assistant surgeon of the Second Illinois Volunteer Infantry. We left the 
State encampment on the 17th or 18th, I believe, of May, reached Jacksonville on 
the 21st, and I was acting in the capacity of assistant surgeon of the regiment until 
the 1st of June. From there I was detailed on detached duty as commander of the 
Ambulance Company, Second Division, Seventh Army Corps. 
Q. So you did not leave the United States, then? 
A. I did not. 
Q. State whether in connection with your duties or under your observation you 
had any knowledge of the beef furnished the men of your command. 
A. I have, sir. I personally inspected the issue of refrigerated beef that was 
issued to my command, a command of 117 men, every morning. That was in the 
ambulance company, and I also inspected during the time I was with the regiment 
the issue of fresh beef and canned material, although we had very small amounts of 
canned material issued. 
Q. What fresh meat was this-what kind? 
A. It was refrigerated beef, generally the forequarter, that I drew for the company. 
Q. Do you know from what firm it came? 
A. Swift & Co. 
Q. Did you hear any complaints, or did you have any occasion to make any remarks 
or report in regard to this beef, or did you see any of it that was unsuitable in any 
way for a ration? If so, please state fully in regard to it. 
A. On several occasions I condemned the beef. The beef was issued to me at the 
shunt, where the refrigerated cars were located, about a thousand yards from my 
camp, and it took from fifteen to twenty minutes to bring the beef up from the wagon 
to my command. I inspected it personally every morning before it left the wagon. 
Several times I condemned the beef before it left the wagon, and afterwards on the 
table, and returned it. 1 also took some of the beef in the ambulance down to Swift's 
packing house in Jacksonville, where I turned it in and said I could not use it; and 
was issued beef from the beef that was issued in the markets in Jacksonville. 
Q. What beef was that, native beef? 
A. The meat that was used simply for the market use. I could not say whether 
it was anything in the town of Jacksonville, or whether it was Northern beef. I 
received a new issue of beef and took it back to the camp. I think at least seven 
times within the month of June I refused beef on account of its bad appearance 
and the bad odor it had and the bad taste it had. The men complained bitterly 
at times to me that they could not eat it. We had every facility for cooking that 
beef. We had four large ovens in which we roasted it well, and even after roasting 
it at times the beef was unsuitable for them to eat; they could not eat it. I examined 
the beef as it came from the wagon at times, and there was a peculiar sheen to the 1060 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
facia covering the muscles, and on cutting through this facia into the muscular struc- 
ture of the beef, there was a serum in there; not that the serum would not be present 
in fresh beef, but the odor and character of that serum was different from what I 
observed in the ordinary fresh beef in the home markets, or when I had seen it on 
my own table. It had an odor of decay-a peculiar decaying odor to it, as if it had 
been spoiled; and other portions of the beef wrere very clear pinkish color of good 
fresh beef. That we used. We cut out these portions. Where the serum ran in the 
tissues between the bubbles of muscular structure, we cut those out and threw' them 
away. I can say that I destroyed a third of the morning beef at times. 
Q. You say that was cut out. Do you mean it was all trimmed off, or cut off in 
various places over the beef? 
A. It was cut out in various places over the beef. There would be a spot here ana 
a spot there, probably a spot on the fore quarter. Of the 115 pounds I drew in the 
morning there would be two to three spots at times that had to be cut out that I 
could not use. Frequently we just denuded the facia from the beef, and we found 
it wras better tasting than it had been when we would leave the facia on. It seemed 
to dry when it left the refrigerator very quickly. It was oidy twenty minutes from 
the time it left the refrigerator until I got it, and the character of the meat seemed 
to change. There was a peculiar dry condition of the beef as it came out of the 
refrigerator. Of course, the climate was hot, but we got it at 4 o'clock in the morn- 
ing and it changed very rapidly. I had ice, too. I had 2,000 pounds of ice every 
morning from the Bed Cross Association, but still we could not keep the beef for six 
hours. 
Q. What did you remark as to the beef at the time as to any process, if anything? 
A. I made no direct statement in regard to that matter. 
Q. How did it impress itself upon your mind at the time? 
A. I often suggested in my own mind that there had been some way in which the 
beef had been kept well in these refrigerator cars, because of the change I observed 
so quickly in the meat. It seemed to change so rapidly that it occurred to my mind 
that there had been some material used in keeping that beef in refrigerator cars, of 
which I had no knowledge and do not know. 
Q. I understand you to say to the court that that did impress itself upon your 
mind at that time? 
A. It did impress itself upon my mind. My officers also spoke of the condition of 
the beef. I had five medical officers under me in the company. I detailed them to 
take this beef back into town. I frequently tasted the beef, and while I observed no 
taste of any chemical that I could discover, it did not have the same fresh taste of 
fresh beefsteak or of fresh beef for roasting that I had on my own table at home. 
Being a physician, I frequently inspect all the beef I buy for my home, simply to 
see the character of the beef. 
Q. As to the beef, or any of it that you would have cooked, prepared for your 
own men or for the mess, that seemed to be in all respects all right, was there any- 
thing noticed in regard to the taste of that at any time, or any portions of it? 
A. I can only remember one occurrence. That was not while I was commander 
of the ambulance company, but while I was in the regiment. On the 30th of May 
the regiment was out decorating graves of the Confederate dead in the cemetery 
near Jacksonville; andon returning, I believe Company F of the regiment, especially, 
they were issued beef and ate it for their supper. Along in the night I was called 
from my tent by complaints of officers and the sergeant of the company that there 
was trouble there in the company. The men were vomiting, some of them, and 
some of them complaining of colic. We had had a great deal of dysentery in the 
regiment, or diarrhea properly, and I believed possibly they had eaten some canned 
material, tomatoes or something, that disagreed with their stomachs. I did not 
know at that time what it was. I did not go to the company. The chief surgeon 
of the regiment, or a previous surgeon, Major Marquis, I believe, inspected it that FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1061 
night, but I received seven of those men in the hospital next morning, troubled 
with considerable colic and considerable diarrhea. A rumor spread through the 
regiment that Company F had been poisoned by eating beef. What it was I never 
knew. I never made any inspection, although an affidavit was made of the charac- 
ter of the beef by the sergeant of the company, and it was partially investigated by 
the typhoid commission, which visited our camp, and whom I had charge of escort- 
ing around the camp. 
Q. An affidavit made at that time? 
A. I believe so; yes, sir. I was under that impression. 
Q. This company and other companies had been receiving beef prior to that date, 
had they? 
A. Yes, sir; I condemned beef in the morning, while I was with those companies, 
a week or two while they got that fresh beef. 
Q. Can you tell approximately about what per cent of meat under your observa- 
tion you had to condemn? I do not mean all the issues, but I mean where you 
would have the inspection of meat. About what proportion of the fresh meat was 
condemned; that is, during the time you were there? 
A. In the regiment, I would say only a third. That is the only estimate I can 
give of it. A third of the beef had to be cut out. The issue to different companies 
depended, of course, on the men. We had no facilities for weighing it. I know I 
got 100 pounds every morning as the ambulance officer. 
Q. What I was speaking of was the percentage more than any particular weight. 
I do not expect you to have that at all. 
A. All I can give is the individual meat that I condemned. I condemned a third 
of it. 
Q. That is, a third had to be thrown away and buried? 
A. Thrown away; yes, sir. 
Q. Two-thirds of it was accepted as being good? 
A. Two-thirds; yes, sir. 
Q. As to the canned roast beef you had at Jacksonville, or anywhere else in your 
service, you may state about what you had of it at Jacksonville, or anywhere else in 
your service; you may state as to about what proportion you had of it, what you used 
of it, what its condition was, whether there were any complaints about it, or whether 
it was satisfactory. 
A. We used very little of that, because we had almost immediately fresh beef, but 
we had a travel ration of. it from Springfield to Jacksonville, and I opened the cans 
myself on the train. I could not eat the beef. It nauseated me a few minutes after- 
wards. It was of a stringy character, and reminded me very much of beef that I 
had seen in my experimentations as an interne in the hospital, that I had boiled in 
order to extract the beef tea. The beef tea was extracted by compressing the beef 
or by boiling the beef and taking the beef tea itself. I often tasted the beef there in 
the hospital, and it was of a nauseating character. After the extracts, the salts of the 
meat, had been extracted from it the beef was tasteless, even with salt on it. I never 
could eat it, and it nauseated me. The men complained of it. Many cans were 
thrown out of the cars. I can not give any percentage of the number of cans thrown 
away, for we had plenty of money, and we bought canned corned beef, which was of 
a better character than the fresh beef. A year before, in the State camp, we had this 
trial ration, and we had the same character of canned beef. I do not know whether 
it was the same beef or not, but we had beef in cans, and we could not eat it then. 
I complained of it. That was a year ago, when we were drawing the travel ration. 
Q. A year ago when? 
A. A year ago from last June, when we were in the State encampment; but on the 
cars frequently I heard the men complain about this beef. They would joke about 
it and so on, and holler "Horse beef," and joke as men will about material they 
could not eat; and they bought all kinds of sandwiches on the way. 1062 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. From your examination of it, or from your opportunities to eat it, can you 
describe it as to its nutritive qualities and as to the contents of a can? You opened 
it and used it here in the United States? 
A. Yes, sir; I can not tell how much nutriment there was in it, only from the 
effect of the appearance of it, because you can not tell what the nutriment in canned 
meat is unless you examine it chemically. You can not tell the percentage of nutri- 
ment. I can give the appearance of it. The meat was of a stringy character, and 
green. There was a gelatinous substance in the cans. There was very little fat, if 
any. It was never present in the meat or in the layers between the fibrous structure. 
There was considerable tough connected tissue in there. There was some liquid 
besides the gelatinous material in the cans. On opening the can the odor was not 
remarkably bad, but still I can not say that I liked it at all, and the taste afterwards 
when you got it in the month was slimy, and one would have the tendency to chew 
it out of the mouth. That was the feeling I was impressed with, and when I tasted 
it I did not need to eat it. The officers ate it in their car, a number of them, but 
very little of it, because we had an officers' mess then, and bought canned corned 
beef. That was better. We also bought canned tongue. Those we liked very much 
better. 
Q. Then you did not use it in the mess? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. If there are any other facts connected with this matter in regard to the refriger- 
ated beef or roast beef that you have not stated, you may state them fully to the 
court. 
A. I do not know of any others, sir. 
Cross-examination by the Recorder: 
Q. Had you occasion to believe or suspect at Jacksonville that the Swift beef which 
was issued to you had been chemically treated with a view to its preservation? 
A. I had no notion of it, sir, only as it occurred to me as a medical man. It had 
never been suggested to me and I had no knowledge of any such thing. 
Q. Had you any occasion to suspect that the Swift beef had been chemically treated? 
A. I can not answer that question in that way only so far as I have answered it. 
Q. What ground had you for that belief at the time? 
A. Simply that there was a difference in the fresh beef that I had observed on the 
market here and the beef that was issued to me twenty minutes from the car. There 
was a peculiar character to the beef. 
Q. What was the peculiarity? 
A. I said it had a deadened, white appearance as it came from the refrigerator, and 
a few minutes afterwards a greenish peculiar color on the facia covering the muscular 
layers. 
Q. Would there be a change in the color? 
A. Yes; from the time I observed it in the car. 
Q. What chemicals would operate to produce such a change? 
A. That, I think, is a scientific question. I can not answer that question because 
I do not know. 
Q. You make suggestions. You must have thought about it and observed it at 
the time? 
A. I thought no more about it then. I observed the change there and wondered 
in my own mind about it. 
Q. Due to decomposition? 
A. I do not think that that is the way that decomposition sets in in human flesh 
that is decomposed. 
Q. How does it set in in beef that has been refrigerated? Where does it set in? 
A. That I can not state; I never observed any refrigerated beef. 
Q. Where did it begin, as a scientific fact? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1063 
A. Decomposition begins nearest the surface. The facia covering the muscular 
structure would prevent the air from gaining admission to the tissue. 
Q. Decomposition would begin at the surface? 
A. It would set in there first; yes, sir. 
Q. Are you able to say that this was not decomposition advancing that you saw? 
A. I would not like to make that statement; no. I said it did not appear to me 
to be so. 
Q. What led you to suspect that it was not decomposition, but something else? 
A. I don't believe that I can define the peculiar idea that came into my mind why 
that was so, sir. 
Q. Would the fact that meat was more or less tainted cause the symptoms of sick- 
ness that you have described? 
A. Tainted beef would cause symptoms of illness, and I attributed considerable 
sickness to tainted beef, at times. 
Q. Did you attribute any of the sickness to any other cause than the tainted beef, 
as the chemical treatment of beef? 
A. No, sir; I formed no opinion in regard to it. 
By General Davis: 
Q. About what period of time does this relate to? 
A. During June, July, and August and the first part of September. I left there 
about the 6th of September. 
Q. Who was the issuing commissary from whom you obtained this beef? 
A. I can not tell you his name exactly. As I remember it, he was the chief com- 
missary of the corps. I know him by sight, but his name I do not remember. 
Colonel Smith, I think his name was, but I would not be certain. 
Q. You obtained it from the depot commissary direct, or from some brigade 
commissary? 
A. No, sir; we got it directly from the car. We had some trouble about the cut- 
ting up of the beef, and the butchers supplied us with a man right out at the car to 
cut the beef up for us. We did not receive whole quarters, you know, because indi- 
vidual companies could get it right at the car. For the regiment, of course the quar- 
termaster was present, and the commissary, but who issued the beef to us I do not 
know. 
Q. You gave your receipts for beef to some commissary officer, did you not? 
A. No, sir; we did not give any receipt for beef. We just took it from the car 
right direct to our camp. 
Q. Was the objectionable character of the meat greater or less at any particular 
period of these three months to which you allude? 
A. It was more objectionable in the beginning. We had very few complaints 
toward the end of our campaign there. My wife and myself both dined from that 
beef in the officers' mess the latter part of August, and I can not say there was any 
complaint from it at any time. 
Q. Was it meat from the same contractor? 
A. I presume so; I could not say. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. William J. Griffin, of Chicago. 
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM J. GRIFFIN. 
William J. Griffin was called as a witness by the recorder and, having been first 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name and residence. 
A. William J. Griffin; 504 Humboldt street. 1064 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Were you in the service of the United States during the late war? 
A. I was. 
Q. In what capacity? 
A. I was sergeant of Company F, and acting sergeant of the Second Battalion, Second 
Illinois Volunteers, 
Q. When did you enter the service and when were you discharged? 
A. I entered the service at Springfield the 15th or 16th of May, arrived in Jack- 
sonville, Fla., the 21st of May, and we were honorably discharged the 26th of October. 
Q. You served at Jacksonville, Fla.? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What rations of meat were issued to you at Jacksonville, Fla., during your service 
there; I mean w'hat kind of meat? 
A. The so-called bacon and refrigerated beef. 
Q. Did you draw any canned roast beef, that you remember? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you have any on any journeys that you made? 
A. No; sir. 
Q. Any travel ration in moving from one point to another? 
A. We had canned corned beef, but no canned roast beef. 
Q. In regard to the refrigerated beef that was issued to you there, do you know of 
your own knowledge or from information as to its condition or whether any com- 
plaints were ever made in regard to it? If so, state them fully to the court. 
A. We frequently had to reject beef. It sometimes looked bad, and then again it 
looked like very good beef. It had a bright look, but when cut open and held close 
to the nose it had a peculiar odor-a sort of a stench; and on one occasion especially, 
on the 30th of May, on Decoration Day, after returning from a march we were served 
with a fresh-beef stew. Immediately after the supper was over the entire company, 
including myself, with the exception of three or four, were taken violently sick with 
excessive vomiting, diarrhea, and cramps. We lay all night as close as possible to 
the sinks, and the diarrhea was so-I don't know what word to use; but the sinks 
were composed of buckets-that is, tubs-with a stringer running along over the 
tubs-the diarrhea was so great that it was frequently the case that one tub was 
occupied by two men. There were eight tubs in the sink. We lay outside in blankets 
that night, and we did not sleep in our tents, most of us, and you would hardly get 
off the stringer and go back to the outside until you would have to go back again. 
For two weeks afterwards we never had more than 37 men fit for duty out of the com- 
pany. 
Q. How many men were there in the company? 
A. Eighty-four, I think it was. Within six weeks three men died from the com- 
pany, and, although the records showed that they died of fever, I know that their 
sickness really dated from the day we ate this beef and got sick. 
Q. Had the company, previous to that, been in good health? 
A. Very good health. Frequently after that we had over 30 men in the hospital 
at once. 
Q. How far were you from the railroad station or the place where this meat would 
be issued? 
A. Practically about two miles and a half. 
Q. How long would it take to get the beef up from there in the wagons, when you 
drew it? 
A. They came out in the wagons and generally got the beef out there early in the 
morning. I can say it would take about half an hour. 
Q. About how many instances can you recall when beef was spoiled upon being 
issued, not referring to this particular time? 
A. Probably about half a dozen times. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1065 
Q. What was the nature of the spoiling? About what per cent of it would be 
spoiled and what would you do with it? 
A. There wTould be practically a third of it. That which we used to cut away 
sometimes would be buried and sometimes we would give it to negroes that hung 
around the camp, and let them take it off and eat it if they wanted it. Occasion- 
ally we sent the beef back and got other meat in place of it. 
Q. Did you always get other meat in the company in place of it? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You did not? 
A. No, sir. 
Cross-examination by the Recorder: 
Q. Do you know what the orders were about issuing fresh beef? 
A. No, sir; I can not say that I do. 
Q. Do you know the orders were that the beef was not to be receipted for until it 
was received and the companies were satisfied with it? 
A. No; I do not. I was not a commissary. I don't know anything about it. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Was any special effort made to trace this particular issue of beef that made the 
company sick? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was any investigation made? 
A. Yes, sir; the surgeon major of the regiment, Mr. Marquis, came over there and 
inspected it. There was some of the beef left the next morning. He inspected that, 
and I believe he took down some statements of the officers of the company, and 
some of the noncommissioned officers and privates, and I believe there was some 
effort made to trace what the cause was. At the time there was talk of poisoning- 
that the beef was poisoned-but we had no evidence to show that it was poisoned. 
After that I had forgotten it and paid no more attention to it. 
The Recorder: May it please the court, it is proposed to recall Colonel Smith, of 
the subsistence department. 
TESTIMONY OF COL. OSCALOOSA M. SMITH, U. S. A. 
Col. Oscaloosa M. Smith, U. S. A., was recalled by the recorder and, being warned 
that the oath previously taken by him was still binding, testified as follows: 
By General Davis: 
Q. You have furnished the court with some samples of canned roast beef, I think, 
Colonel? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Will you give a statement of what those samples are, what you know about 
them, when they were purchased, where they were sent, and how they came into 
your possession? 
A. There are three samples of each purchase, six samples altogether here- 
Fresh boiled beef. From case labeled Armour Canning Co., Chicago, Ill. No 
purchase marks. Shipping directions: Commissary, Tampa, Florida, care the Q. M. 
Received at depot from Lt. F. V. Krug, 20th U. S. Inft., M. O., Springfield. Ill., Oct. 
4, 1898, being surplus travel rations turned over to him by 6th Ill. Vol. Inft. 
B. Prime roast beef. From case marked U. S. Sub. Dept., O. M. S., May, 1898, 
from Libby, McNeill & Libby, Chicago., Ill. Shipping directions: Depot Commis- 
sary, Tampa, Florida. Received at depot from Lt. George G. Tronjo, 3rd Ill. Vol. 
Inft., Joliet, Ill., Feb. 7, 1899. 
C. Roast beef. From case marked U. S. Sub. Dept., O. M. S., July, 1898, from 
M. Smith, Chicago, Ill. Brand, Wilson Packing Co., extra choice roast beef, New 
York. Shipping directions: Commissary, aboard transport Massachusetts, Newport 1066 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
News, Va. Received at depot from Lt. F. V. Krug, 20th U. S. Inft., M. O., Spring- 
field, Ill., Oct. 4, 1898, being surplus travel rations turned over to him by 6th Ill. 
Vol. Inft. 
D. Premier roast beef. From case marked U. S. Sub. Dept., O.M. S., June, 1898, 
from Libby, McNeill & Libby, Chicago, 111. Brand, The Emery Provision Co., 
Chicago, U. S. A. Shipping directions: Depot Commissary, Port Tampa, Fla. 
Received at Depot from Lt. Geo. G. Tronjo, 3rd Ill. Vol. Inft., Joliet, Ill., Feb. 7, 
1899. 
E. Prime roast beef. From case marked U. S. Sub. Dept., O. M. S., July, 1898, 
from Armour & Company, Chicago, Ill. Shipping directions: Commissary, aboard 
Transport Massachusetts, Newport News, Va. Received at depot from Lt. F. V. 
Krug, 20th U. S. Inft., M. O., Springfield, Ill., Oct. 4, 1898, being surplus travel 
rations turned over to him by 6th Ill. Vol. Inft. 
F. Roast beef. From case labeled Armour Packing Co., Kansas City, U. S. A. 
Marked U. S. Sub. Dept., A. L. S., C. S. 4-29-1898. Shipping directions: Depot 
Qr. Master, Tampa Fla. Received at depot from Lt. F. V. Krug, 20th U. S. Inft., 
M. 0., Springfield, Ill., Oct. 4, 1898, being surplus travel rations turned over to him 
by 6th Ill. Vol. Inft. 
Q. Three cans of each sample, and six samples in all? 
A. There are six samples. 
Q. All have been derived, according to your information, from the travel rations 
of the Third and the Sixth Illinois? 
A. Yes, sir; the Third and the Sixth Illinois, and they have all been returned. 
Q. Do you know what were the initial points of the journeys of those two regi- 
ments in that journey for which these travel rations were issued? 
A. No, sir; I do not know. 
Q. Another question: You made several purchases of canned roast beef here in 
this city? 
A. Yes sir. 
Q. And at the time you made those purchases had you definite information con- 
cerning the processes by which they were prepared? 
A. Yes, sir; I knew the processes. 
Q. Did you know of any differences in the processes? 
Q. Did you know of any differences in the processes that different packing com- 
panies used in preparing the canned roast beef? 
A. No, sir; there is only one difference. My impression is that all of the canning 
houses put a little salt in the beef, except Armour's. My impression is the Armour 
company do not put any salt at all in the roast beef. 
Q. As to the method of preparation and the time of cooking, the differences that 
might exist in these different houses as to the time of cooking; are you familiar with 
that? 
A. Yes, sir; they cook that roast beef about forty minutes. I think, as a general 
rule, it is about forty minutes. Then they put it in the can and subject it to a very 
high temperature of steam with a puncture in the can. Then they take that out 
and they solder the puncture and then put it back again for about an hour and a half. 
Q. Is it your information that all of the companies continue the meat in these 
different stages the same periods of time? 
A. Yes; that is my impression. 
Q. Do you know whether any of them are salted or not before they are boiled the 
first time, or soaked in any pickle? 
A. The roast-beef cans are not subject to any pickle at all; but I do not know 
when the salt is put in. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Did you ever investigate this process by personal investigation before the pur- 
chases? Did you ever make a personal inspection? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1067 
A. I made several personal investigations of the process of canning the meat. 
Q. In the houses? 
A. In the different houses. 
Q. There are a number of other brands. I do not suppose, however, that it 
applies in this. I do not understand that as clearly as I would like. These samples 
you speak of have been where? Have they been to Porto Rico or Cuba? 
A. Two of the brands have been to Porto Rico, supposedly. They went on the 
steamer Massachusetts. The Armour brand and the Wilson, which is a Nelson Morris 
brand, went to the steamer Massachusetts to go to Porto Rico. The others went to 
Tampa. 
Q. When was it they were sent there? I want to get at exactly how that fact is 
known that these were sent. 
A. From the shipping marks on the boxes. 
Q. Is there any way of determining when they went there, how long they were 
there, and when they were sent back? 
A. I commenced purchasing on the 11th of May, and ended some time in July; 
and they were all shipped there during that time. 
Q. To your knowledge has any been shipped there since? 
A. I do not think so. I had a statement here the other day that told exactly; but 
I am satisfied I did not send anything there after July. 
Q. I am not speaking in regard to that; but I understand that large quantities 
were left at Tampa, and were not shipped over there at all. You do not know in 
regard to that? 
A. I do not know in regard to that. 
Redirect examination by General Davis: 
Q. You say that the date of purchase is determinable from the marks on the pack- 
ages in all cases but one? 
A. In all but one; yes, sir. There is one of which there is no date of purchase, 
and I do not know who bought it. 
Q. That is the boiled beef? 
A. Boiled beef. The boiled beef and the roast beef are practically the same thing, 
as far as I know. 
Q. Have you purchased any of the canned roast beef here since July for shipment 
anywhere? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. I understood you to say the other day you purchased some in February to go 
to the Pacific coast? 
A. I don't think so. It was not in February. I don't think I have purchased 
any since July. 
Q. This Emory beef that was purchased by the Commissary-General; you say the 
package shows a mark indicating your initials? 
A. It gives my initials; yes, sir; but I never purchased it, because I never pur- 
chased any of that brand. 
Q. How could that mark have been applied to the package? _ 
A. I presume they had the stencil there. I do not know. I made inquiry of the 
packing house, and they said it was accidental; that my initials were put on acci- 
dentally. It was not my purchase at all, because their records show that I have 
never purchased any of that brand, and my records show it also. The price of that 
beef was about 8J cents, whereas the price of the other beef at the same time was 
about 10-10j, perhaps. 
Q. You said, I think, in your testimony the other day that you made a purchase 
of Hammond? 
A. Yes, sir. 1068 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. And you ascertained, after you had bought it, that it was an inferior quality, 
if I remember right? 
A. No; not an inferior quality. 
Q. Second quality, then? 
A. They claim that that brand is just as good as the first quality, but they put the 
name "Interstate" on it, so that when they cut prices, they sell that at a lower 
price, whereas they keep their first grade at a higher price. 
Q. What is the name of the other grade? 
A. It is called "Coin," I think. 
Q. The Interstate was the one that the Government bought? 
A. That was the one. It was the only kind they had, or it was so stated; and 1 
did not know it was regarded as their second grade. 
Q. Do you know, as a matter of fact, that the two brands or labels cover goods pre- 
pared in exactly the same way? 
A. No; I do not know that. I believe they are, to the best of my knowledge and 
belief, prepared in the same way. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Here seems to be some of the correspondence that was not submitted the other 
day? 
A. Yes, sir; that was about some complaints. 
Q. The correspondence begins with an inquiry from Colonel Weston, Tampa, Fla., 
June 3, 1898. Is this all the correspondence in connection with it? 
A. Yes, sir; that is all the correspondence in connection with it. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, I submit that correspondence in evidence. 
The said papers are appended hereto, marked "18." • 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I believe you stated on your examination before that these stencil marks were 
put on entirely by the packing companies? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. They had your stencil there? 
A. They had my stencil there; yes, sir. 
Q. You had no agent in your employ representing you, had you? 
A. No, sir. There is another letter there, Colonel, regarding those complaints. 
The Recorder. The correspondence all relates to it, does it not? 
A. Yes, sir. 
The Recorder. It is all offered in evidence. 
The court then (at 1.15 o'clock p. m.) took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m. 
, AFTERNOON SESSION. * 
At the expiration of the recess the court reassembled. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Lieutenant Hedekin, of the Third Cavalry. 
TESTIMONY OF LIEUT. C. A. HEDEKIN. 
Lieut. C. A. Hedekin was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been 
first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station. 
A. C. A. Hgdekin; first lieutenant, Third Cavalry; Fort Sheridan, Ill. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1069 
Q. Did you accompany that regiment to Cuba during the operations on that island 
last year? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you go with it to Tampa; did you take part in the operations in Cuba? 
A. I joined my troop, Troop B, Third Cavalry, on the 29th of July. 
Q. What meats were issued to the troops, after you joined them, in the way of 
rations? 
A. I believe there was some bacon issued. The principal meat, however, was 
refrigerated fresh beef. 
Q. What complaint was there of the refrigerated beef? 
A. The complaint was that it was rotten. 
Q. How far was your camp from the place where it was issued? 
A. About 5| miles. 
Q. And what time of day did it reach your camp? 
A. Ordinarily about 11 or 12 o'clock in the morning. 
Q. Was the wagon w'hich carried it provided with a cover? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Were any special precautions taken to protect it during the journey from the 
place of issue to the camp? 
A. Apparently not, sir. 
Q. About wrhat proportion of meat was spoiled or rejected on account of being 
spoiled? 
A. From a quarter to a half of each issue that I saw was cut off and buried imme- 
diately upon receipt, but the remainder was all more or less spoiled. 
Q. Was any article of ration issued in place of it? 
A. No, sir; not that I know of. 
Q. What constituted the meat component of the travel ration on the voyage back 
to Montauk? 
A. It was so-called canned roast beef, excepting a few cans of corned beef. 
Q. What complaint was there of the roast beef on the voyage back? 
A. That it was tasteless and nauseating and uninviting in appearance. After a can 
was opened it would only last a very short time. 
Q. What proportion of it was consumed? 
A. I do not know, sir; it was impossible to tell how much was thrown overboard. 
I should say, however, that much less than half was consumed. 
Q. Had you occasion to believe or to suspect at any time that the refrigerated beef 
issued in Santiago had been treated with chemicals with a view to its preservation? 
A. Well, I formed some such idea as that from my personal experience with it. 
Q. What was your personal experience? 
A. The night after I joined my troop refrigerated beef appeared on my mess table 
in the form of beefsteak. That was the first beef that I saw or ate after I joined 
them. Upon tasting it I remarked it was a very peculiar taste, that I had never 
noticed beef tasting that way before. That was independent of its being tainted-I 
have tasted tainted beef-but it was not specially objectionable and I ate heartily of 
it. That night I had diarrhea, which developed into dysentery shortly afterwards, 
and I was unable to ascribe this disease to any other cause. 
Q. Had you been eating beef before this? 
A. On the boat; yes, sir. 
Q. And how long since you had eaten any beef before you began to eat the refrig- 
erated beef? 
A. About thirty-six hours. 
Q. What peculiarity was there in the taste? 
A. It is very difficult to describe the taste, sir, except to say that it was different 
from anything else that I ever ate. 1070 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. What led you to ascribe that to preservatives? 
A. The fact that it was different from anything that I had ever tasted, and it made 
me sick. 
Q. What preservatives would have that effect? 
A. I do not know, sir. 
Q. Then why did you attribute it to preservatives? 
A. I considered it was something different from the ordinary beef I had eaten 
before that, and the appearance of the beef was different. 
Q. What led you to connect that with chemical preservatives? 
A. Only that it would seem to be a natural proceeding to endeavor to preserve the 
beef under the circumstances. 
Q. Was that all you had to base your opinion on? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What chemicals are used, to your knowledge, in the preservation of refrigerated 
beef? 
A. I have no idea, sir. 
Q. Do you know what chemicals are used generally in the preservation of beef? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Have you ever heard of boric acid used in that connection? 
A. No, sir; not until this investigation was begun and I saw it in the newspapers. 
Q. Do you know what the taste of boric acid is? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Or of any other chemical used in the preservation of beef? 
A. No, sir. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Did that refrigerated beef which you ate appear to be of good quality and 
appearance? 
A. No, sir. The beef on the outside was slimy and of a yellowish-green color, and 
it was rotten; more or less of it was rotten. It appeared well on the table-at least 
the piece I ate. 
Q. That is what I am referring to. 
A. Oh; yes, sir. 
Q. You discriminate between the taste of that and the taste of what you call 
tainted meat, as I understand? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In regard to the canned roast beef, what experience had you with that? That 
is, as to opening it or seeing the contents of it, and examining it in any way. 
A. When my troop was leaving Montauk Point I was at that time commander of 
Troop L, Third Cavalry. A civilian employee of the Quartermaster's Department 
came to me, and I was in company with Captain Boughton, of the Third Cavalry, 
and that civilian told me that a number of cases had been abandoned there by a 
Massachusetts regiment and we might have them if we wished. So we divided up 
these cases. There were 23 of them all together, and Captain Boughton took 12 of 
them and I took 11. When we arrived at our station, Fort Ethan Allen, and after- 
wards at Camp Augusta, I tried in every way to induce the men of Troop L to eat 
that meat. We tried it straight; we tried it cooked; we tried it in stew and in hash; 
we tried it in stew and hash mixed with good fresh beef; but I was unable to get 
them to eat it except by making a very large percentage of the mixture fresh beef. 
Whenever it was detected they refused to eat it, and I never did succeed in using up 
those 11 cases. 
Q. Did you ever try that meat yourself? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you ever make any special inspection of the cans or contents, separating it 
and seeing what it was composed of? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1071 
A. Yes, sir; I have often looked at the cans and found that one end of the can 
would be filled with a fatty substance and some little liquid, and the lean beef,of a 
stringy appearance, was all together in a hunk in the other end of the can. 
Q. Take for instance, a two pound can-or whatever size there was. About what 
proportion of meat would there be in a can of that kind as compared with the other 
constituents in the can? 
A. I should say it would be three-quarters meat. 
Q. The other quarter consisting of the other ingredients? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you hear any complaints from the men in regard to it in Cuba? 
A. Yes, sir; they would not use it at all. 
Q. They did not use it at all? 
A. No, sir. The ration was ample without getting the full ration, because there 
were very few men that had a normal appetite, and a very little went a long way at 
the time I joined the troop. 
Q. Were you on duty with the troops at Tampa prior to your joining them at 
Santiago? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You had no prior experience with them, then? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Have you ever known of its being used prior to this as a field or travel ration? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. In your opinion, as an officer of the Army, associated with troops, please state 
whether you regard it as a wholesome or unwholesome, or a fit or unfit, ration to 
issue to the American soldier? 
A. I regard it as unwholesome and unfit. 
Q. Were there any complaints from your company in regard to the refrigerated 
beef? 
A. Y es, sir. 
Q. What were they, generally? 
A. That the beef was rotten, and that it made the men sick. 
The Recorder. M?} it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. W. A. Robinson, cf Chicago. 
TESTIMONY OF W. A. ROBINSON. 
W. A. Robinson was called as a witness by the recorder and, having been first 
duly sworn, tesffied as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. W. A. Robinson; Rockford, Ill.; traveling representative of Pfizer & Co., New 
York. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. What is your business in connection with that firm? 
A. I am their traveling representative. 
Q. What do you sell, or what orders do you solicit? 
A. A general line of heavy chemicals, and some light ones, but not many. 
Q. What chemicals-will you please mention them? 
A. Well, a line of mercurial, erosive chemicals, such as calomel, red and white 
precipitates, borax, boracic acid, strychnine, and so on; some 200 items altogether. 
I could not enumerate them all. 
Q. Do you or not solicit orders for chemicals with reference to the preservation of 
meats? 1072 
FOOD FUKNISHED THE ABMY. 
A. Not at the present time; I have done so. I have not been connected with the 
packing trade for a little over a year now. Since the Dingley bill passed 1 have not 
been much with the packing trade. 
Q. Do you recall being in St. Louis last winter in connection with your business? 
A. I have been in St. Louis probably once a month for the last year. I do not 
particularly recall any time, but I know I have been there every month this winter, 
and sometimes twice a month. 
Q. Have you any knowledge or information in connection with the sale of quanti- 
ties of boric acid or other substance to the packers during the last year? 
A. Not to amount to anything; no. As I have said, I have not been identified 
with that trade. 
Q. Within your information, has your firm sold any considerable quantities of that 
to the packers? 
A. No. I do know that they sell chemicals to the packers, but I have no access 
to the books and have no occasion to have access to them. 
Q. And you can not state what quantities have been disposed of during the last 
year? Do you know whether or not any have been sold in Chicago during the last 
year? 
A. No, sir. I never had anything to do with Chicago. 
Q. State whether or not within your knowledge or information what use is made 
of boracic acid or other chemicals as applied to, we will say, fresh beef. 
A. Well, beef is a little out of my jurisdiction. The only knowledge of chemicals 
I have in connection with fresh meat is in connection with the export pork. That 
is quoted in the English market, I think, as being treated with borax or being salted 
meat. But that does not apply to beef at all, as far as my knowledge goes. In fact, 
when I was in the packing business I did not call on the packers that killed cattle 
exclusively, because they had no use for what I wanted to sell. 
Q. Prior to last year, were you engaged in the disposition of borax, boracic acid, 
and salicylic acid? 
A. No, sir; not salicylic acid. I never sold a pound of that in my life. 
Q. Were you engaged in the sale of boracic acid? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Please give what information you can in regard to the disposition of that to the 
packers here? 
A. I have no information in regard to Chicago at all. I never sold a pound of 
goods here. 
Q. Well, take Omaha. 
A. In Omaha I have sold some borax, as I have stated before. Although I do 
not know about it personally, my understanding was that it was to go into export 
pork for the English market. Of course I sold other chemicals at different times to 
the packing houses. The packers were experimenting. But I did not sell them any 
large quantity of anything. 
Q. Have you any knowledge, by information or otherwise, as to the use of any 
preservatives, in connection with the shipments or use of fresh meat or refrigerated 
meat? 
A. No, sir; I know nothing about refrigerated meat at all. That has all come up 
since the severance of my connection with the packing trade. 
Q. Then, as I understand you, you know nothing of the use of boric acid or bor- 
acic acid except in connection with the pork trade? 
A. That is the limit of my knowledge, sir. 
Q. Have you any knowledge or information in regard to any chemicals in connec- 
tion with the cloth or cheese cloth used in beef export trade? 
A. No, sir; I was not aware they used it. I don't know anything about that. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1073 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to recall Mr. Gardner, of the 
Swift Packing Company. 
Horace C. Gardner was recalled as a witness by the recorder, and, being reminded 
that he was still under oath, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Are you familiar with the chemicals that are purchased and used by Swift & 
Co. in their establishment? 
A. Yes, sir; most of them. 
Q. Please state to the court what they are. Please name them, and as you do, 
please name the departments in which they are used. 
A. Beginning with our meat-curing department, we use salt, sugar, saltpeter, car- 
bonate of soda, boracic acid, and borax. 
In our fertilizer works we use sulphuric acid and acid phosphate-otherwise 
known as phosphate of lime. 
In our department where we handle sheepskins and pull the wool from them, we 
use carbonate of potash for scouring the wool, and we use lime and sulphide of 
sodium mixed together as a depilatory, and to some extent lime alone for drawing 
the trimmings off the sheepskins; and also some hydrochloric acid for neutralizing 
the effects of the lime in the skins after they come out of the lime bath. 
In our tallow and grease refinery we use sulphuric acid and carbonate of soda and 
carbonate of potash. 
In our soap factory we use caustic. 
In our glue factory we use lime, boracic acid, oxalic acid, and sulphureous acid; 
and also, to some extent, hydrochloric acid and sulphate of zinc. 
In our tin shop we use hydrochloric acid and sulphuric acid. 
In our refrigerating department we use ammonia. 
In our paint shop we use alcohol, wood alcohol, hydrocarbon oils. 
In our electrical department we use blue vitriol. 
Q. Is that all? 
A. I might say in our chemical laboratory we use all the ordinary chemical agents 
used in making analyses. That includes a very large list of chemicals and I could 
not enumerate them all. 
Q. Are these purchased in the open market? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Are the purchases usually made in Chicago or elsewhere, or is there any rule 
about that? 
A. There is no rule about that. We buy them wherever we can get them 
cheapest-largely in Chicago. 
Q. Do you use salicylic acid for any purpose? 
A. I never knew of it being used in our premises for any purpose. 
Q. In what department is borax or boracic acid used? 
A. To a slight extent in our glue factory, and also in the curing of pork and pork 
products. 
Q. Do you use borax separately from boracic acid? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In what department is that? 
A. The pork-curing department. 
Q. In the refrigerated-beef department, what chemicals are used, if any? 
A. There are none used. 
Q. In the curing of corned beef, in the preparation of that, what chemicals or 
chemical salts are employed? 
A. We do not do any canning of beef. We are not in that line, 
TESTIMONY OF HORACE C. GARDNER-Recalled. 
S. Doc. 270 68 1074 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Mr. Gardner, how are the cloths prepared that are used in encasing the beef 
shipped to the army or beef intended to be used otherwise? 
A. The cloth is folded into a large number of folds, and is then cut out to a proper 
size and shape and sewn up into bags with the ordinary thread. 
Q. Is any solution of any kind applied to those cloths in any way? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. I understand from your testimony that in no respect, either by sprinkling, 
spraying, rubbing, or in any other way whatever, is anything applied externally to 
the fresh beef product that is shipped out from your establishment? 
A. In no way whatever, either externally or internally-no chemical whatever. 
Q. Is there anything that is applied beyond what I believe you have testified to 
in your previous testimony in washing it with the water that is used? 
A. We wash with hot water. That is all we apply to it. 
Q. Can you state of your own knowledge or by information whether or not chem- 
icals were purchased or acquired, or whether your agent was authorized to purchase 
or use any chemicals for beef at various stations where you sent refrigerated beef for 
the supply of the Army, as at Tampa, Lakeland, or wherever it was sent? 
A. There never was any chemicals purchased or supplied or authorized to be used 
anywhere on fresh meat supplied by us. Whether or not we furnished any meat at 
those places you have named I can not tell you. 
Q. I was simply speaking of those for illustration. I do not recall just the points 
at which you supplied beef. 
A. I mention that because I do not recall having supplied any outside of Cuba and 
Porto Rico. I do not know of any beef supplied out of those places, if we did sup- 
ply it. 
Q. Did you supply any at Chickamauga? Did you furnish any beef at Chicka- 
mauga? 
A. Not to my knowledge. I do not know. 
Q. In the consignment of beef to your agent for shipment to Cuba or Porto Rico, 
who had supervision of the beef from that time on? Was there any Government 
agent of any kind had anything to do with it prior to its delivery to the Government 
at Porto Rico? 
A. It was in charge of our own agents all the time, from the time it left our 
slaughter house until it was accepted for delivery to the Government at its destina- 
tion. 
Q. The Government inspectors here, then, would have nothing to do with the 
sealing or the closing of the cars? 
A. That would be within our own control and the control of the railroad com- 
panies. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Do you know whether any of your beef supplied at Santiago spoiled and was 
thrown overboard in the bay? 
A. It is my recollection-not a very clear recollection, but I think it is true-that, 
I think, some of the beef from one of the vessels that first went to Porto Rico and 
afterwards returned to Santiago toward the end spoiled and was thrown into the sea; 
whether directly from the vessel or whether it had been landed in the meantime I 
do not know. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I would ask you if you know what reports were received by your company, if 
any, in regard to the quantity or quantities of beef that was found unfit for use or 
that was returned after being issued. Have you any reports of that kind? I refer 
to issues to the troops. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1075 
A. I have no reports of that kind. As already stated, I think I remember having 
heard of one instance. That is all 1 recall now. I have no reports, nor have I 
refreshed my memory on the matter of late. 
Q. Your agent, I presume, would make reports of that kind? 
A. In regard to rejections of beef? 
Q. Yes. To whom would they report it? Would it come under your supervision 
or some other one connected with the company? 
A. Our agents would not report to me, and I would not read their reports. Our 
refrigerating engineers, if it was anything connected with refrigeration, would report 
to me, and I had some cases of reports of that kind. 
Q. I understand, then, that reports by boards of survey or otherwise in regard to 
any beef that had been condemned would not come within your knowledge? 
A. No, sir; it would not come to me. 
Q. What officer or agent of the company would have information on that subject 
or be most likely to have? 
A. It would go naturally to our fresh-beef department. What particular person 
in that department would be the one would be a little hard for me to tell. I couldn't 
answer that. 
Q. I suppose there would be some person that would have the custody of such a 
report? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I just wanted to get at where that information could be obtained if it was 
obtainable. 
Q. Our fresh beef department could furnish it if there was any such report. Per- 
sonally, I do not know. 
Q. Who is in charge of that department; who has immediate charge of that? 
A. Mr. Edward F. Swift is at the head of it. 
Q. I wanted to find out what information could be obtained on that subject and 
the source from which it could be obtained-the superintendent or whatever official 
of the company would be liable to be able to furnish that information. I do not sup- 
pose the president of the company would have charge of that, and I was simply try- 
ing to find out where we could get that information, as to the quantity of bad beef as 
reported by the agents of the company as having been rejected on tender of delivery. 
A. I don't know anything beyond what I have stated. 
By the Recorder : 
Q. To what cause do you attribute the loss of the beef upon the Manitoba? 
A. To the fact that it was not eaten up before it spoiled. 
Q. And to what cause do you attribute the spoiling? 
A. The lapse of time between when it was taken down there and when it was 
issued. 
Q. Was the refrigerating apparatus in good order all the time? 
A. I think there was once or twice after the beef had been out a good while that 
there was something wrong with the machines. But for the most part, the temper- 
ature was held down to what it ought to be and the meat was kept in good condition. 
And it arrived in New York in the same condition, I understand. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Where was that beef shipped from? I am referring to the beef on the Mani- 
toba. Was it shipped from Newport News? 
A. My understanding was it went from Newport News. I did not see it shipped? 
Q. Please state whether or not that beef was delivered there to go aboard the 
Manitoba before or after the execution of the contract. 
A. Before the execution of the Porto Rican contract and after the execution of the 
Cuban contract. 1076 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. It was beef for Porto Rico, was it not? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And it was delivered there to go on that vessel before the contract had been 
executed? 
A. Yes, sir; it was delivered by virtue of a special arrangement by which it was to 
apply on the Cuban contract. 
Q. Have you personal knowledge as to what that special arrangement was? 
A. No more than I saw a telegram asking us to make a shipment, applying it on 
the Cuban contract. The telegram I believe, came from our agent at Washington, 
a Mr. Barry. 
Q. Who was your agent that had charge of it on the Manitoba? 
A. Our engineer was William Wallace. He was head engineer. I think a man 
named Nealy was our agent on the boat. 
Q. Do you recall whether there was a gentleman by the name of Murphy that had 
anything to do with it? 
A. Murphy had charge of the beef when it was loaded, and tended personally to 
the loading of that beef on the Manitoba, and the dispatching of it to Newport News. 
By General Davis: 
Q. How long can beef be kept in a refrigerator, at a satisfactory temperature for 
refrigeration, sound and wholesome? 
A. Beef will reach its most edible condition, if it is properly and well refrigerated, 
and kept in a good refrigerator, in about three weeks after it is slaughtered; and after 
that period it begins gradually to deteriorate, and that deterioration will go on quite 
slowly until it finally becomes too bad to eat. 1 think that four or five weeks is as 
long as anybody ought to expect to keep fresh beef, although I have known it to be 
kept six weeks and still be in pretty good condition. But it is better not to keep it 
over three or four weeks. This gradual change that I speak of in the meat is not so 
much in the nature of spoiling as that it loses its ability to withstand the effects of 
putrefaction when removed from the refrigerator. The longer it is kept the more 
quickly it will spoil after being taken out of the refrigerator, and that is true of beef 
during the first three weeks also. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness Mr. 
Manns, of Armour & Co. 
TESTIMONY OF ALBERT GEORGE MANNS. 
Albert George Manns was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been 
first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. Albert George Manns, chemist for Armour & Co. 
Q. Are you familiar in the performance of your duties with the chemicals that are 
received and used by Armour & Co. in their business? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Have you a list of them? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Can you recall what chemicals are used? 
A. Yes, sir, a part of them. 
Q. Please name the chemicals that are used in the different departments. 
A. The chemicals which are used are used mainly in the manufacturing depart- 
ment. The packing house does not use any chemicals, and my work is almost 
exclusively confined to the manufacturing department; that is, to the utilization 
of waste products, such as fertilizer, soap, glycerin, pepsin, and like products. Now, 
any one of these departments uses a great many chemicals. Fertilizer probably uses FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1077 
thousands of tons of all kinds of chemicals. For instance, they use nitrate of soda, 
sulphate of potash, muriate of potash, sulphate ammonia, phosphate rock, sulphuric 
acid, and probably others. 
The glue works use a great many chemicals. I do not know that you are interested 
in having me enumerate them. 
Q. You might enumerate some of them. 
A. Alum. They use sulphuric acid and sulphate of iron. They use dyes and 
colors of all kinds in dyeing the felts. We make colored felts, you know. Some 
glues are colored. That is all I can recollect at present. There are, no doubt, others. 
The wool house uses sulphide and sulphuric acid to pickle the hides, and they use 
lime to kill the acid. The pepsin department uses muriatic acid. They use bicar- 
bonate of soda. 
The tin shops use soldering flux for soldering the cans, which is a chemical. I 
think that going through the manufacturing department you will find that they use 
a variety of all kinds of chemicals. For instance, the car shops use a great many in 
the form of paints; the printing works also use a great many chemicals. But these 
manufacturing departments are entirely distinct from the packing business. 
Q. What are used in the packing business? 
A. In the packing business the only chemicals I know we use are borax and boric 
acid inforeign goods. I think I have seen it used, and the boxes are labeled "Packed 
in borax." 
Q. Is salt used? 
A. Salt is used a great deal. Salt is one of the methods of curing. There are 
three kinds, or three ways of treating meat used in the packing house. The first 
method is the refrigeration, where no chemicals are necessary. The second method 
is sterilization as applied to canned goods. The third is the salt curing. The salt 
curing applies to pork products and to beef products as well. 
Q. What chemicals, if any, are used in the preparation of refrigerated beef? 
A. None whatever. Of course, there are chemicals used in producing the cold 
necessary to produce the temperature, but there is nothing used on the beef. 
Q. In the preparation of corned beef, what chemicals, if any, are used? 
A. Saltpeter and salt. 
Q. Is any salicylic acid used in the establishment? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. And in what department is the borax and boracic acid used? 
A. As far as I know, they call that department the sweet-pickle department, but 
the use of the borax does not come in the pickle department proper. It is simply 
used in that department because that is where they pack the meats to be shipped 
abroad, and I understand-I can not swear to it, but I understand-that that is used 
only on foreign meats. I have no supervision there. I have free access there, but I 
give no orders whatever. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Are you familiar with the steps taken for the preservation of beef in shipping? 
A. I would like to ask you what you mean by " preservation? " 
Q. I mean to ship it. 
A. The steps taken in shipping beef? 
Q. Yes; in shipping fresh beef. Are you'familiar with the steps taken for the 
preservation of beef in shipping it? 
A. I am familiar with the process of handling beef and shipping it; yes, sir. 
Q. You represent Armour & Co., I believe? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you know what steps were taken for the preservation of beef shipped for 
the use of troops in the southern part of the country during the last year under con- 
tract or purchase made from your company? 1078 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. As far as I can be sure of anything, I ana sure that I can testify as to how the 
beef was shipped. I know that it was shipped as beef always has been shipped, and 
that no chemicals were used. I have no supervision of that department, but I go 
into that department frequently, almost daily. If chemicals were used on the beef 
it would require a force for putting them on, and the employment of a number of 
men to put them on, and I should undoubtedly have known something about it. I 
have never seen anything used on the beef. 
Q. Then, I understand your statement to be that nothing whatever is used on the 
beef in the nature of chemicals in any way, either by sprinkling, spraying, rubbing, 
or otherwise. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Has your company shipped beef put up in cloths of any kind? 
A. I could not tell you that. 
Q. You do not know what the purpose of that is, then? 
A. No. 
Q. How is the export beef prepared for shipment? 
A. I would not know the difference between export beef and beef used in this 
country. 
Q. You do not know whether one is covered and the other is free from covering? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You have no information on that subject? 
A. No, sir. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. What is preservaline; have you ever heard of it? 
A. Yes, sir; I have analyzed that. I did that two years ago-probably three or 
four years ago; I could not tell the exact date. It is a preservative that is put up by 
a company. I think their factory is in New York. They manufacture several dif- 
ferent brands. The one I am familiar with and the one I have tested is composed 
of borax. That is the main ingredient. They may have some more ingredients in 
there; perhaps they have salt and some other things, but its chief ingredient is borax. 
That is the one I am familiar with. 
Q. Do you know what use it is applied to in the trade, or any trade? 
A. Yes, sir; it is used in preserving vegetables, milk, cheese, butter, and it is a 
general preservative. It is used pharmaceutically. Borax is also used as a mouth 
wash for infants, for instance, mixed with honey. Boracic acid is used medicinally 
in a saturated solution-I forget the strength of the solution, but a saturated solu- 
tion, at any rate-and dropped into the eye for a correction of inflammation of the 
eye. It is quite harmless in its nature-both boracic acid and borax. 
Q. Which enters into the composition of preservaline? 
A. Borax. 
Recross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. I would like to ask if preservaline is not advertised to be used on meat? 
A. It is advertised to be used on meat, but it is not used on either fresh meat or 
on canned meat. 
Q. What effect would it have if used on fresh meats? Would it have a preserving 
effect? . 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Would it be in any degree harmful? 
A. No, sir. Professor Chittenden, of Harvard University, has made extended 
experiments in that direction, and he finds that digestion is promoted, if anything, 
by the use of borax and boracic acid. His references are on file and could be easily 
referred to. Others have repeated his experiments, and that is a part of the reason 
why I say that borax and boracic acid are harmless. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1079 
Q. Has the company where you are employed experimented with this preserva- 
line on any meat; that is, on fresh beef? 
A. Not on fresh beef; no, sir. 
Q. I understood you to say that it would be harmless if used on any fresh meat? 
A. That is my private opinion; yes, sir. That opinion is based on what Professor 
Chittenden has done and what others have done. 
Q. About how long, then, would it preserve a piece of meat, in your opinion, 
under the normal conditions? Take fresh meats sent down to any of those ports. 
A. I do not think much of boric acid and borax as a preservative. I do not think 
they tend to make the meat fresh longer than it would naturally keep. 
Q. Can you give a limit-twenty-four hours or forty-eight hours? 
A. Yes, sir. I think it would keep that long. 
Q. Do you think it would keep seventy-two hours? 
A. Yes, sir; if it were properly applied. 
Q. How would you apply the preservaline? 
A. It would have to be powdered on and it would be necessary to be careful that 
every spot of meat was touched with the powder. The piece of meat would then 
look as though you had wet your hand and then dipped it into flour. 
Q. Could it be put on as a wash? 
A. It could be, but I am afraid that it would be difficult to get much on in that 
way. In order to preserve, no matter what the preservative is, you have to get the 
proper proportion between the meat you expect to use and the agent you are employ- 
ing. If you use it as a wash you would not get enough on there to do any good, 
probably. 
Q. Have you heard of the Powell process? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did your company have any correspondence in regard to that to your knowl- 
edge? 
A. My knowledge of the Powell process is that our superintendent told me about 
an outsider by the name of Powell who wanted to make some experiments, and did 
make some experiments. I did not see the experiments performed. I think they 
were made by Mr. Powell himself, and I think he observed great secrecy about it. 
That is, he was afraid if the chemist of the house saw the process that the chemist 
might know what is was. I was not admitted to the place where the experiments 
were made. 
Q. Where were they made? 
A. I don't know, sir. 
Q. Can you state whether they were made in the car where the beef was or other- 
wise? 
A. I would not even have that information. I would not know where they were 
made. I saw a piece of meat hanging out on the platform that had been treated 
that way, but where it came from I don't know. 
Q. Where was that? 
A. That was hanging on the platform where they loaded the cars. 
Q. You saw that there? 
A. Yes, sir; it was in full view of the street I pass in going to my home. 
Q. In Chicago? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. When was that experiment made, if you recall? 
A. I could not tell the dates. It was some time last spring. It may have been as 
late as June. I could not tell the date. I was not consulted in any way and took 
little interest in it. I simply saw that piece of meat hanging there. 
Q. Who, if anyone, would have the correspondence of Mr. Powell in regard to 
that-what officer of the Armour Company? 
A. I don't know. You could find that out from our general manager, I suppose. 1080 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Dr. Day, of Chicago. 
TESTIMONY OF DR. L. E. DAY. 
Dr. L. E. Day was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been first 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. L. E. Day; 2968 South Park avenue, Chicago; I am an assistant inspector in 
the Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. How long have you been on that duty? 
A. Since the 15th of April, 1897. 
Q. What part of the inspection do you have charge of or do you assist in? 
A. At the present time I am stationed at Viles & Robbins. They kill hogs only; 
and also at A. Stearns & Co.'s. They kill cattle and sheep and calves at that abattoir. 
Q. In regard to cattle, have you been familiar with the inspection of the cattle 
prior to their killing or afterwards? 
A. While they are being killed. When I reported for duty here I was stationed 
at Swift & Co.'s. I was transferred to Viles & Robbins last April. 
Q. You have, then, nothing to do with the ante-mortem inspection of cattle in the 
yards, have you? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. And your inspection is confined to the killing of the cattle, when you have had 
that work, and the inspection after they were killed? 
A. Yes, sir; the post-mortem. 
Q. Are you familiar with the killing of cattle that is done outside of the stock 
yards; that is, a slaughtering place where cattle that are undergoing condemnation 
or that are being slaughtered subsequent to condemnation; are you familiar with 
that? 
A. Yes, sir. At Stearns & Co. there are a large number-not of cattle, but a large 
number of cattle and sheep-that are slaughtered there that have been condemned 
in the yard. 
Q. I was speaking more particularly whether you have knowledge in regard to 
the cattle. 
A. No; I have no knowledge only as to this one abattoir of Stearns & Co. There 
are a few cattle killed there that have been condemned in the yards. 
Q. They are subject to condemnation or to inspection, after being killed, to deter- 
mine whether they are suitable for food, are they not? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. When they are found not suitable, what is done with them? 
A. They are condemned and placed in a tank. 
Q. And ret jrring to this tank that is filled up, or partially filled, during the day, 
or before the meat has been destroyed as an article of food, what charge or super- 
vision is taken by the Government over it after that time and until the next day, if 
it would be left so long? 
A. Well, we put condemned articles in the tank, and it has always been my prac- 
tice to see that other material has gone into the tank on top of the carcasses that I 
would have put in, such as offal, intestines, and offal around about the slaughtering 
floor. 
Q. Would there be any left over sometimes until the next day? 
A. No. 
Q. Or would they continue work during the evening or night in order to destroy 
that? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1081 
A. A good many times they turn the steam on while we are there, and it is cooked 
then, that evening? 
Q. Are there any cases where it would be left over to be disposed of next day, or 
when the tank would receive other condemned cattle probably on the next day? 
A. You mean the tank in which we put condemned cattle; would that be left 
over? 
Q. Yes. Would that work always be concluded on that day? 
A. Yes, sir; that day and night. 
Q. Well, would any Government inspector stay there during the night, or do you 
have any any guarantee or precaution in regard to its proper disposition during the 
night? 
A. Always-I should say usually, not always-when we put the condemned car- 
casses in we see that other stuff is put on top, and see that the tank is closed up, and 
that steam is turned on. 
Q. If a tank is closed, and you go away and the meat is not yet destroyed, what 
precautions are taken that it is not interfered with in any way; or, are there any 
precautions other than what you have stated? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You are familiar with the class or classes of cattle that go in the canneries to 
be canned from the yards; you have seen them? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What grade of cattle do you consider them? 
A. Inferior grade. 
Q. An inferior grade? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You may explain to the court fully in regard to the use of that term "of an 
inferior grade;" whether they are the lowest-priced cattle that would be gotten in 
the market, as a rule. 
A. My understanding is that they are the lowest priced. 
Q. Please go on and explain, then, as to that class of cattle that goes into the can- 
neries. 
A. Well, they usually consist of cattle that are poor in flesh, and quite a number 
of them are old cattle. A number of them are old cows and cattle of that class that 
are poor in flesh Many of them come from the range where the grass has been very 
short and where other causes would operate to make them poor. 
Q. Then I understand you to say to the court that that class of cattle that go to the 
canneries are of the lowest price and of an inferior grade? 
A. Yes, sir; I think generally they are. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. You say "you think." What means of observation have you? 
A. As I stated, I never was stationed in the yard-that is, being on ante-mortem 
work-and if there are any poorer cattle than these I have spoken of, I did not see 
them. They are cattle used for feeders. People come to buy them up and take 
them into the country. They may be a poorer class than those used for canning. 
Q. I say, what observation have you that they are used for canners? Do you 
follow the beef from the killing floor to the canning department? 
A. Yes, sir. I was stationed at Swift's a whiie, and the cattle that Libby, McNeill 
& Libby can are killed in one of Swift's houses. Of course, I understood from every- 
body that they were Libby's cattle and for canning purposes, and I have gone over 
there a great many times when one of them would have a little bruised spot on it, 
and I went over to Libby, McNeill & Libby's and condemned a portion of it. They 
did canning over there. I went over there where they cut them up for canning. 
Q. Are you familiar with the grading of cattle in the stock yards? 1082 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. No; I am not. 
Q. How long have you been engaged in that sort of business? 
A. Well, I have been familiar with the work of our department, as I say, since 
April, 1897, but I never was placed in ante-mortem work, so that I was out among 
the cattle. I am fairly familiar with the grading of cattle after they are slaughtered, 
but not before they have been killed. 
Q. How and by whom are they graded after they are slaughtered? 
A. They are graded by parties that are employed by the houses where they are 
killed. Swift's have men who do their grading for them, and Libby, McNeill & Libby 
have men who do their grading. 
Q. Do all these cattle that are packed pass the Government inspection? 
A. Are they all packed? 
Q. They all pass the Government inspection? 
A. No, sir; no. 
Q. They do not? 
A. They do not. 
Q. How do you account, then, for cattle that have not passed the Government 
inspection being shipped out? 
A. I have no knowledge that they ever were. 
Q. Has Armour & Co., for example, shipped as refrigerated beef or as canned beef 
any animals that have not passed the Government inspection? 
A. I think not. However, I never was at Armour's. 
Q. Do Swift's or anybody else where you have been ship out any meat as refrig- 
erated beef, or as canned beef, that has not passed the Government inspection? 
A. Not to my knowledge. 
Q. All animals that are shipped as refrigerated beef or as canned beef have passed 
the Government inspection? 
A. So far as I know, they have; yes, sir. 
Q. What does the law require as to what standard of beef is required in order to 
pass the inspection that you make? 
A. Well, the rules and regulations state that any cattle that are suffering with any 
contagious disease, such as pleuro-pneumonia and Texas fever, tuberculosis, advanced 
stages of pregnancy, and those suffering with tapeworm, cyst of any kind, or hogs 
suffering with cholera-of course that would not effect cattle-all of those should be 
condemned. 
Q. Well, what does the law say or the regulation say as to the quality of beef that 
you pass? 
A. It does not draw any fine mark. 
Q. The law says what conditions the meat must fulfill in order to pass the exami- 
nation, does it not? 
A. It must be considered as edible food. 
Q. Does it say that it must be wholesome and fit for use as human food? 
A. That would be considered as edible food. 
Q. Does the law say so? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you ever pass a steer yourself that did not conform to those conditions? 
A. No, sir. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. In regard to your statement of the grades of cattle, you refer to the various grades 
of cattle as between the export cattle and what would be used in the home market for 
sale as beef, and what would be used in canning. I believe you rather qualify it that 
way, do you not? 
A. I do not classify them at all as an inspector. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1083 
Q. But in your testimony here in speaking of the inferior grade of cattle that are 
used in canning, you speak of a grade that is at the lowest price in the market, and 
that is an inferior kind of cattle that are passed by the inspectors. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And you have no duties as inspector, have you? If so, you can state them. 
I mean with reference to the inspection of just what they put into the cans after the 
cattle have passed this inspection-this inferior grade. 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You have no supervision over that? 
A. Over the canning rooms? 
Q. Yes. 
A. No, sir. 
Q. They can put in anything of the animal so long as it has passed through? 
A. Yes, sir. Any portion of the animal. 
Q. Anything they may pick out; either the inside lining or the various strips that 
would be the inferior portion of the inferior grade of cattle. And of that you have no 
jurisdiction? 
A. No; no jurisdiction over that. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. They may also reject all those things that the Major has described, may they 
not? 
A. Yes, sir; in fact they do reject, so I have been informed, but never have seen- 
they do reject the yellow tissues along about the abdominal muscles. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Or they could put them in if they chose? 
A. Yes, sir; if they chose. 
By General Davis: 
Q. You spoke of " feeders. " Of what grade are they? Are they those that are 
sold to be fattened? 
A. My understanding of them is that they are young cattle that are poor; that is, 
they are, say, a year or a year and one-half old. They are poor in flesh, and a great 
many people buy them up here and take them out in the country and feed them. 
Q. And regarding price; how do they compare with what you call "canners?" 
A. I do not really know. I think they are a little higher in price, but I do not 
know and I would not say. 
Q. Does all the meat of the cattle sold as ' ' canners ' ' go into cans? 
A. I am not positive about that; I don't know. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. John Bierma, of Chicago. 
TESTIMONY OF JOHN BIERMA 
John Bierma was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been first duly 
sworn, testified as follows. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. John Bierma, 405 West Erie street. I am a law student. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Mr. Bierma, you may state whether you were in the service of the United States 
during the late war with Spain; and if so, when you entered the service. 
A. I was in Company E, First Illinois Volunteers. I was in Springfield, Chicka- 1084 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
manga, and Tampa, Fla. At Tampa, Fla., a provisional battalion of engineers was 
made up, to which I was assigned. I went from Tampa to Santiago, under com- 
mand of Colonel Black, and I went from Santiago to Guantanamo Bay, and from 
there I was with the expedition at Porto Rico. I landed at Guanica, and also was 
at Ponce for some time; after which I returned home. 
Q. What was your grade-private? 
A. Private; yes, sir. 
Q. What time did you leave Tampa? 
A. I think it was on or about July 10, 1898. 
Q. When did you arrive at Santiago? 
A. Some four or five days later; I don't remember just the date. I was only in 
Santiago for three or four hours. In fact, we did not land; we simply put in there 
and then got out. 
Q. What time did you reach Porto Rico, and at what point? 
A. I don't remember the exact date. We landed at Guanica with the first troop 
that landed there, but I can not remember the exact date. 
Q. Well, about how many days were you going over? 
A. I suppose it was probably between July 25 and August 5, sometime in there. 
Q. During the time that you were going from Tampa, Fla., until you arrived at 
Porto Rico, as you have stated, what kind of meat ration did you have on the trip? 
A. Canned roast beef and canned salmon. 
Q. In what proportions? 
A. 1 should say three-fourths of the rations was canned roast beef and the other 
quarter was canned salmon, with beans once in a while and canned tomatoes. 
Q. What satisfaction or dissatisfaction was expressed, if any, with regard to the 
canned roast beef on the voyage over? 
A. The men were dissatisfied with the canned roast beef, and refused to eat it. 
They issued one can of beef to about one squad of men, and I have seen, time after 
time, when the cans of beef would remain entirely unopened. We used it first, but 
after the first or second day the men positively refused to eat it. While some of 
them would eat some of it, I have seen lots of cans afterwards which were entirely 
unopened and thrown overboard. 
Q. What was the objection to it? 
A. That it was unpalatable and they could not eat it; that their stomachs rebelled 
against it, and they would be attacked with vomiting if they did eat it. 
Q. Were they so attacked? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you see them? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. On the way over? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How long after they had first begun using it-soon or late? 
A. About the second time after they took it. 
Q. What condition of health was the command in at the time of going over? 
A. Fairly good. 
Q. Was that vomiting due to seasickness or to the meat? 
A. I don't think it was due to seasickness because the trip was very smooth and I 
saw very few who complained of seasickness. If they had been seasick they would 
have been sick from the beginning, and I never noticed any of them seasick, and we 
started the canned roast beef before we struck any rough weather and the men 
became sick at that time. So they claimed it was the meat. Of course, I don't 
know. 
Q. About how long were you in Porto Rico? 
A. I should judge about a month and a half. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1085 
Q. What kind of meat ration did you have there? 
A. I lived on the transport most of the time; in fact, the company lived on the 
transport, and we were afterwards sent over to Ponce and we were encamped about a 
mile from the Port of Ponce, about halfway between the Port of Ponce and the city 
of Ponce. I don't remember the name of the place. The canned roast beef was 
issued to us and sometime afterwards we started to get this refrigerated beef. 
Q. What was said or done with regard to canned roast beef there? 
A. The boys very seldom ate any of the canned roast beef while their money 
lasted. The health of the boys started to run down about that time, soon after we 
landed at Ponce, and with the introduction of the refrigerated roast beef the health 
of the boys commenced to run down right along, and our company was made up, I 
think, of 74 men and I have seen day after day when we would have between 25 and 
35 answer to the sick call in the morning; and I should judge that 20 of them had 
complaints of the stomach, either that or diarrhea or dysentery of some kind. 
Q. Will you please explain to the court what you mean by the term "refrigerated 
roast beef?" You used that expression. 
A. I mean refrigerated beef. I will take that back. 
Q. Going back a little, did you examine any of the cans when they were opened; 
and if so, were they spoiled, or in what condition did you find them? Did you 
ever empty them out and see? 
A. Yes, sir; we emptied them. I can not say that the cans were spoiled; I can 
not say that I ever saw a can that was spoiled-that smelled bad. It was simply 
bad to the taste; it never smelled bad-at least, I never saw any that smelled bad 
except one, and I found out the cause of that smelling bad. That can had a little 
hole in it. But I never saw any except that one can which was rotten. It was a 
■ stringy looking substance of about three-quarters meat and one-quarter fat or grease, 
which stuck to the edges of the can and the top of the can. 
Q. Well, you ate some of it. What effect had it on you as to satisfying your appe- 
tite or giving you strength? I mean now with regard to its nutriment. 1 do not 
mean in regard to its chemical analysis. When a man eats anything he either feels 
that it strengthens him or not. How did that turn out? 
A. If he was hungry, I suppose it would satisfy his appetite to a certain extent, 
but I can not answer as to how nutritious it was, because the boys would not eat it 
and I would not eat it. 
Q. In regard to the refrigerated beef you speak of, you say they ate that and that 
the sick report was about thirty men? 
A. Between twenty and thirty men. 
k Q. And that was attributed to what, if you know; or was there any information or 
talk about it? 
♦ A. The only thing I can answer is that we had a surgeon. Our battalion was so 
(•mail that we picked up a surgeon somewhere. I think he had been a surgeon in 
the Cuban army; he was a Dr. Vogal. He told all the men as they came up in the 
morning: "That meat is not fit to eat, and I can not do anything for you with my 
medicine if you have to eat that meat." I have heard him make a statement to that 
effect several times-that the meat was not fit to eat. 
Q. What meat is that? 
A. The refrigerated beef. The canned meat he condemned long before that, but 
the refrigerated beef he said was of such a kind that if the men ate it he could not 
get the men in good condition with his medicine. Time after time I have seen him 
hand the boys money, if they did not have any, and tell them to go out and buy 
other food and not use that beef at all. 
At our own officers' mess-this surgeon messed with the officers-after the officers 
were through, he generally fed seven or eight of the men that were sick. He fed 1086 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
them at the table in the officers' mess and kept them away from the beef altogether, 
and paid for their food and kept them in better health in that way. 
Q. Now, I wish you would state to the court what was the matter with that refrig- 
erated beef. You say you were eating it and it made you sick. Now, I would like 
you to tell what was the matter with it-if you know from your own knowledge or 
by general information. You ought to be able to tell, if you ate it. 
A. I have eaten the stuff and I can not say what is the matter with it, except that 
a person was attacked with diarrhea and stomach troubles afterwards. It didn't 
make me sick, because I ate very little of it. 
Q. When they left off eating it did they improve or get worse? 
A. They improved-that is, the sick men improved. 
Q. Was it spoiled or tainted, or was there something else about it that you noticed? 
Do you claim it was tainted or spoiled? 
A. No; it may have been tainted sometimes. I don't know as to that. I have 
seen a greenish-yellowish color outside of the meat, but what they did to it in the 
kitchen I don't know. I could not distinguish any difference in the taste to amount 
to anything, except it may have been a little tougher. 
Q. Did you bring any of that canned beef back to the United States? 
A. I understand the adjutant of our battalion did. I did not personally. 
Q. Did you have a can of it here that was represented to have been brought back? 
A. I wrote an article in the Journal some time ago, and I had a chemist make a 
request of me for a can of the beef. I went to the adjutant of our battalion, Lieu- 
tenant Larmey, and he gave me a can that I turned over to the chemist, and I opened 
it in his presence, and at the time I opened it I told him that the meat looked con- 
siderably better than the average can. It seemed to be all meat. He claimed to 
have analyzed it, and I saw him once since, but he was rather indefinite about it, 
and I left him. 
Q. Did you experiment with it, or did any member of your family eat that meat? 
A. Yes; my mother took some of it; she tasted it. 
Q. With what result? 
A. She did not like it. 
Q. If there are any other facts within your knowledge concerning the refrigerated 
beef or the canned roast beef, I wish you would state them to the court just as fully 
as if you had been questioned specifically. 
A. No, sir; I don't know of any other facts. 
Q. When you came back, what did you have on the boat? I don't know whether 
I asked you that. 
A. We had some canned roast beef, but we carried most of that back with us. 
We obtained two large boxes of supplies. They were directed to the First Regiment 
to Santiago, and the First Regiment had left there, and they were sent on to Port 
Rico, and we used those boxes going back. So we did not have to depend at aL 
upon the canned roast beef. 
Q. The boxes were not boxes of canned roast beef, then? 
A. No, sir; I think they were meant for an officers' mess. 
Q. And you did not use any of the canned roast beef whatever in returning? 
A. Very little, if any. 
Q. Do you know what brands you saw? Can you recall any of the brands or the 
sizes of the cans? 
A. There was Armour & Co.'s and Libby, McNeill & Libby's and Swift & Co.'s, I 
think. I am not sure as to Swift & Co., but I recall Armour & Co. and Libby, 
McNeill & Libby. Libby, McNeill & Libby's first cans that I saw were a larger size 
of can than Armour & Co.'s. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. How many men did you see vomit on the steamer going over? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1087 
A. Oh, I have seen them vomit at different times. 
Q. About how many? 
A. Sometimes I was in different groups 
Q. I mean within your observation, how many times did you see anybody vomit? 
A. I don't know how many times. I have seen them vomit at different times. 
Q. What did the canned beef look like when you opened it on the steamer going 
over? 
A. It was white meat-well, fairly white-with a lot of grease on it, and it was 
very stringy. 
Q. And how did it taste? 
A. It had no taste to amount to anything. 
Q. What did you eat with it? 
A. The canned beans, when we could get them, or canned tomatoes. 
Q. Had you any facilities for cooking on the steamer? 
A. Yes, sir; we made an arrangement with the steward. 
Q. How was the beef prepared? 
A. In different ways. 
Q. Please tell us some of them. 
A. Sometimes it was made into a stew and sometimes it was made into a hash. 
After we got to Porto Rico we lived in a transport for some time. 
Q. In which form was it most acceptable? 
A. In the hash; it was more acceptable that way than any other way. 
Q. What was the trouble with the hash? 
A. I can not say. I do not know what trouble there was with the hash to amount 
to anything. Of course the men had to eat it; they had to eat something. 
Q. When did you land at Porto Rico? 
A. As I said before, I don't know the exact date. 
Q. Well, approximately? 
A. I should judge that it was between July 25 and July 30, or around the 1st of 
August. 
Q. And how long did you stay there? 
A. We stayed there until about the 17th or 18th of September, I think. 
Q. And then where did you go? 
A. We came back to the United States; back to Chicago. 
Q. And did you eat the refrigerated beef all of that time? 
A. Part of the time in Ponce; not all of the time. 
Q. Which part of the time? 
A. Probably the last three weeks that we were in Porto Rico. 
Q. You ate it the last three weeks? 
A. Three or four weeks. 
Q. Ending some time in September? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And what did you notice peculiar about the refrigerated beef? 
A. Nothing, except the outer covering. 
Q. What was that? 
A. It seemed to be somewhat discolored. It had a green, yellowish appearance. 
Q. Did you eat any of the native beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How was that prepared? 
A. In steak and hash and so on. 
Q. Did you eat that at the same time that you were eating the refrigerated beef? 
A. As far as I can remember, I had the native beef twice. That was-little differ- 
ent. Still it had an entirely different taste from the refrigerated beef. 
Q. How many times all together did you have refrigerated beef? 1088 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Of course, I don't know just how many meals. We were detailed quite often 
to go on guard at the fort. I don't know just how many meals I had of the refrig- 
erated beef off and on during that period. 
Q. Did you eat any fruit? 
A. Bananas. 
Q. Nothing else? 
A. Nothing else. Our surgeon enjoined us to keep away from everything else. 
Q. Everybody obeyed the surgeon, I suppose? Nobody had anything except 
what he recommended? 
A. I know of but one exception in the company. Outside of that, I don't know 
of any of the men who ate any of it except bananas or oranges. 
By General Davis: 
Q. What regiment of engineers was this to which you were attached? 
A. A provisional battalion of engineers, made up of details of 6 and 7 men from the 
Seventh Regiment, and one company in a body from the First District of Columbia 
Volunteers, under command of Lieutenant-Colonel Black. 
Q. Lieutenant-Colonel Black of what regiment? 
A. I think he is of the battalion of engineers in New York. I think he is a cap- 
tain of some company there, or was, in the Regular Army. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. In mentioning the names of the different brands of canned roast beef, you men- 
tioned the name of Swift & Co.? 
A. I did. 
Q. Yon say you are not certain about it? 
A. I am not certain about Swift & Co. 
Q. What suggested the name to your mind? 
A. I have seen Swift & Co.'s name there, but whether it has been spoken to me 
or I have seen it on cans on a label of some kind I don't know. 
Q. Are you any more certain about Armour & Co. than you are about Swift? 
A. Yes; I am certain of Armour's, because the name "Armour's Prime Roast 
Beef" was a byword in the company. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Marshall, of Chicago. 
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM CLARKE MARSHALL. 
William Clarke Marshall was called as a witness by the recorder, and, being 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. William Clarke Marshall; 6653 Harvard avenue, Chicago. 
Q. And your occupation? 
A. I have no special occupation, except as a specialist. 
Q. A specialist in what? 
A. In provisions. 
Q. How long have you been engaged in that capacity? 
A. Seventy years. 
Q. In what sort of provisions? 
A. All sorts. 
Q. Are you familiar with the processes of preparing and handling beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How recently have you visited the establishments? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1089 
A. I haven't been in any of the establishments in seven or eight years. 
Q. So your familiarity is with the establishments as then carried on, I presume? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. You speak of visiting the establishments. Do you mean by that simply going 
there, or having an interest in the establishments? 
A. I haven't had any particular business in the establishments in the last four or 
five years. 
Q. You are familiar with the working of the establishments, are you not? 
A. Quite familiar. 
Q. Up to date? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I wish you would please state to the court, Mr. Marshall, as you claim to be a 
specialist in regard to meat products, the nature and character of your experience 
with reference to canned meats, more especially with reference to canned roast 
meats, so called, or canned boiled meats, which is one of the matters under investi- 
gation here. Go on in a narrative form and state what knowledge you have in 
regard to its preparation, as to its constituents, and as to its suitableness or unsuita- 
bleness as an article of food, giving a full, clear, and comprehensive answer to the 
question. 
A. You want it in narrative form? 
Q. Yes, sir; I said in a narrative form; in regard to canned meats more particu- 
larly, and especially in regard to canned roast meats or canned boiled meats. 
The Recorder. Is this witness put on as an expert? 
Major Lee. He claims, in answer to the question of the recorder, to have had some 
sixty or seventy years' experience in this matter. I understand that his experience 
is quite extensive, and that he has knowledge of the progress of the matter of canned 
meats during that time, and perhaps can give the court information on the subject. 
The Recorder. I make no objection to his testimony. I only desire to draw atten- 
tion to the rule of evidence which requires that when a witness is tendered it shall 
be shown that he is an expert, and then his testimony may be taken. 
Major Lee. I will do that. That, perhaps, was something of an oversight. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. You may state, Mr. Marshall, what time you have been engaged in this work, 
and about when you began it. 
A. I have been familiar with it since 1848. I have been familiar with the business 
of canning meat since I commenced in 1848. 
Q. Wait a moment, now. Since that time up to the present time, approximately, 
have you investigated the matter? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And have you experimented with the matter? 
A. Very thoroughly. I commenced the manufacture of it in 1861 for the purposes 
of the Army, expecting to succeed in concentrating the meat in the small spaces, that 
it might be carried by the soldiers, and have it full of nutrition. I did not succeed 
in manufacturing and in conveying the full nutritive values of the meat. Although 
I manufactured small quantities during the war, it was sold principally to the sutlers. 
I gave it up then, and patented the invention-that is, for compressing the meat. 
All processes theretofore had been under the Appert process, which put the meat in 
a can and kept it there. The result of it was that the preparation of a can in the 
processes blackened the meat and blackened the tin and gave it a very unsightly 
appearance; but the meat was fully nutritious and valuable as food. It was used by 
the French Government from the beginning for many years. I disposed of the proc- 
ess to Libby, McNeill & Libby here, who used the process which is- principally in 
S. Doc. 270 69 1090 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
vogue. The process to-day in operation robs the meat of all its nutritive value, leav- 
ing but fiber, fat, and gelatin in the can. I consider it a matter entirely unfitted for 
human food. The Government chemist describes it as a mass of insoluble nitrog- 
enous matter. A mass of insoluble nitrogenous matter in the packing business 
comes under the head of tankage, and is used as a fertilizer. The Government 
chemist, however, goes on and states in his analysis that it is fit for food. There are 
thousands of experiments in all the colleges, known to all the scientists, to show that 
animals treated with it as food will starve to death; and I consider the corned canned 
beef a still more dangerous article than the roast beef. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, I think the witness should be kept to the 
subject of fresh beef. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. We are not going into canned corned beef, Mr. Marshall. The court is investi- 
gating the matter of the canned roast beef and refrigerated beef more especially. 
A. I thought the object of the inquiry was the meat of the ration. 
MajoR Lee. If it please the court, I suppose incidentally in connection with canned 
meats, the witness might refer to that. 
The Recorder. I object to any testimony from this witness that does not relate 
strictly to the objects of the inquiry. 
Major Lee. I believe that at times in the examination the questions of the recorder 
have gone outside of the subject of inquiry. I wish the witness, of course, to keep 
within the bounds. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Is there anything further on that head, canned roast meats? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Mr. Marshall, have you any knowledge of an establishment in Chicago known 
as O'Malley's butchering place? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Where is it, or where was it? 
A. It is on Archer road, I think about Twenty-third or Twenty-fourth street, or 
thereabouts. 
Q. What is the business conducted there? 
A. An abattoir for general slaughtering. 
Q. Have you any knowledge about the time, or shortly prior to the time, that Dr. 
Devoe took charge of the inspection work here, as to the condemnation and use of 
any cattle that were reputed, by information or from your knowledge, to be affected 
with any disease, or that were the subject of condemnation? 
A. There was a herd of cattle, I think about thirty in number, condemned for 
pleuro-pneumonia; but that was before Dr. Devoe was there. 
Q. 1 said prior to that. 
A. They were driven down to O'Malley's to slaughter. 
Q. About how many wTere there? 
A. I think there were between thirty and forty, if I am not mistaken. 
Q. What became of them? 
A. I don't know what became of them finally, but I saw them the next day in the 
market-a portion of them, at any rate. I didn't stop to count them, but 1 saw a 
large portion of them in market. 
Q. Did you follow up the matter in any way? 
A. No, sir; I did not, and I didn't propose to, but I accidentally saw them going 
into a cannery afterwards. 
Q. Where, in the slaughterhouses or in the canneries here? 
A. Yes, sir; in a cannery in the city here. 
Q. At the stock yards, I mean; in that vicinity? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1091 
A. I would prefer not to mention the name of that concern, if it is not overim- 
portant, unless the concern will deny it. I simply state the fact that they went into 
a cannery. 
Q. About how long prior to the coming here of Dr. Devoe was that, as near as you 
can remember? 
A. I am under the impression it was in the neighborhood of eighteen months pre- 
vious to his coming here. 
Q. You may state how long it is claimed that the hermetically sealed canned roast 
beef or boiled beef will keep for use. 
A. It should keep, if it is properly done, for twenty years. 
The Recorder. I have no questions. Has the court any questions? 
By General Davis: 
Q. You say you are familiar with the process of canning as conducted now? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In what respects is it producing a noxious food? 
A. In the first place, it is robbed of its nutrition, utterly, entirely. 
Q. How? 
A. First by salting, next by leaking-the leaking process-then a cooking process, 
and then the process itself; because that portion which preserves the meat, called 
processing, is subjecting the can, either in retorts or in a hot liquid, to extreme heat, 
until steam is raised on the inside of the can, and the cans are then bulged out. 
They are then opened, and the gas that is accumulated in there, which is a poison- 
ous gas, by the way-a sulphureted hydrogen, as near as I can fix it; it is an explosive 
gas-gives rise to what is called the peculiar taste of the meat. I am not prepared 
to say it is absolutely poisonous to the system, but it poisons the meat beyond a doubt, 
and it is a poisonous gas. It certainly is not fitted for weak stomachs. That is one 
thing sure. 
Q. That is developed in the cans in the second boiling? 
A. That is in the last process, the sterilization process. Then the reprocessing: 
Where a can is missed, is imperfect in the first process, it undergoes another process 
for the purpose of securing the can, to avoid wasting it. That gives it a still further 
injury. It overcooks it, for instance, and possibly gives rise to the ptomaine poison- 
ing you have heard spoken about. If it is not done in time, it certainly gives rise to 
that. If it is done immediately, it escapes that point. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. If you have not stated fully in answer to these questions that have been asked 
you, I wish you would add any further facts which may be pertinent to the matter 
before the court. 
A. I could not, without leaving the roast beef. 
Q. Have you any knowledge in regard to the refrigerated beef? 
A. Yes, sir; I know the processes. I know what is done with it, as a rule. Do 
you mean as regards its chemicalization? 
A. Yes; whether within your knowledge or to your information, any time prior 
to shipment from here or after shipment, it has been treated in any way, directly or 
indirectly, with any chemical of any nature whatever. 
A. Without knowing it, I should say on general principles, and from a thorough 
knowledge of the business, a man would be a fool who did not treat his meat chem- 
ically, if he was shipping it any great distance under ordinary refrigeration; because 
the meat that is made here to go to London, for instance, could not be sent there 
under the normal temperature of the ordinary ice house, which is about 40 degrees, 
without becoming sticky, clammy. There would be a deposit upon it from the 
atmospheric germs, we will say. That gives rise to what they call whiskers. The 
meat would then be unsalable in London and in Liverpool, and I have seen that meat 1092 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
arrive there. When it came to the ice house it was perfectly dry and clean and 
pure, and that could not be done, I think, without the treatment of chemicals. I 
do not consider there is any harm in treating the meat with chemicals if it is only 
intelligently done; but if it is in the hands of ignorant people, as evidently some of 
this meat was from the testimony, that settles it. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. When were you last in one of these prominent packing houses here? 
A. I was last here probably about-well, I am not in the habit of going into the 
stock yards unless I have business. I go a great deal in the stock yards, however, 
as a matter of business; but I very rarely visit any of the big establishments. It has 
probably been three years since I was in any of them. 
Q. What was the object of your business when you went there? 
A. I had some meat under process-under experiment. On my last visit to a 
packing house in the stock yards I had some meat that I was experimenting with. 
Q. What sized meat was it? 
A. It was pork meat. 
Q. Did you go there for any purposes of fresh meat? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Fresh beef, I mean? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. When was the last visit you made to one of those packing houses for the pur- 
pose of investigating the process of fresh meat? 
A. I never went there for the purpose of investigating anything. 
Q. The last time you went there and witnessed anything of that nature? 
A. If anything of that kind would come under my observation, I would certainly 
have noted it, but I never went there for the purpose of noting anything I did not 
know or could not get by asking. 
Q. How long since you visited one of those packing houses? 
A. I should say it was six years ago. 
Q. What operations did you witness at that time? 
A. I witnessed all. I think in one of the houses when I was there-I was there 
in two or three of them during that summer-they were boiling the meat for canning, 
they were soldering the cans, they were making sausages. The whole business was 
going on while I was there. 
Q. Did you witness the canning? 
A. I was in one of the canning establishments; yes, I witnessed the canning. 
Q. What part of the process of canning did you see? 
A. They were processing while I was there-that is, the last process of the canning 
business-the sterilization of the cans. 
Q. What did you witness in the sterilization of the cans? 
A. I simply witnessed the cans coming out of a retort-at least, not to say a retort; 
but they were processed by wet steam, they call it. 
Q. Did you see the cans all go in? 
A. I saw them all come out. 
Q. Did you have a perfect knowledge of the process or not? 
A. I did; yes, sir. 
Q. Did you at that time? 
A. Yes, sir; and I have now. 
Q. Did you have any knowledge of the length of time the cans were exposed to the 
heat? 
A. They have in different houses 
Q. At this particular time? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1093 
A. No. I did not know what kind they were using. The different operators have 
different plans of their own. 
Q. You have no knowledge of this particular process? 
A. Of which particular process? 
Q. That you witnessed the last time? 
A. Oh, yes. I had a full knowledge of that, except the point of time they sub- 
jected it to the heat. I don't know what they did there. 
Q. Is the length of time in the process an important factor or not? 
A. Yes, sir; it is apt to overcook the meat. 
Q. Do you know whether they overcooked the meat in this case? 
A. No, sir. I couldn't tell that unless the cans had been opened. The operator 
is the judge, you know. He finds from experience what time is necessary to cook 
the meat properly, to properly sterilize it, and all of them have different times and 
use different degrees of heat. There is no principle laid down for them. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Captain Wainwright, of the First Cavalry. 
TESTIMONY OF CAPT. R. PAGE WAINWRIGHT, U. S. A. 
Capt. R. Page Wainwright, U. S. A., was called by the recorder as a witness, and, 
having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. R. Page Wainwright; captain, First United States Cavalry; now stationed in 
Chicago on duty as chief mustering officer of the State of Illinois. 
Q. Did you accompany the First Cavalry to Cuba in the operations last year? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What was the meat component of the travel ration on the voyage from Tampa 
to Siboney? 
A. The portion issued was canned roast beef, as it was called. We had some little 
bacon that we had taken along, but it was not issued for that voyage. 
Q. Was any canned corned beef issued? 
A. No, sir; not to my knowledge. 
Q. What complaints were there, if any, of the canned roast beef during the voyage 
to Cuba? 
A. None that I heard. 
Q. Was it generally eaten by the men? 
A. Yes, sir; at that time. 
Q. From the landing in Cuba until the close of the siege operations, what kinds 
of meat were furnished? 
A. Until the close of the siege operations? 
Q. Until the close of the siege operations. 
A. Canned roast beef, as it was called, and bacon-bacon sides. 
Q. What complaint was there during that time? 
A. I heard no complaint at all from the men-no official complaint. There was a 
general dissatisfaction with that canned roast beef, as to its palatableness, its appe- 
tizing qualities, etc., but I heard no official complaint in my troop. 
Q. What proportion of it, to the best of your knowledge, was consumed or eaten 
by the men? 
A. As far as I know, it was all eaten. 
Q. When did you begin to get the refrigerated beef? 
A. A short time after the surrender; somewhere, I should judge, about the 21st or 
22d of July; possibly a day or two later than that. 1094 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. What complaint was there of the refrigerated beef? 
A. There was no complaint whatever. It was considered excellent. 
Q. What proportion of it was tainted or spoiled when it reached your camp for 
issue? 
A. I do not recall but one issue that was spoiled, and I think that was the first 
one. It was drawn in the afternoon in Santiago and started out on the wagons to 
our camp, which was Camp Hamilton, about 6 miles from the landing, the docks. 
The wagons were stuck in the mud that night and stayed there that night, and that 
beef was spoiled the next morning and was not issued. 
Q. What was the condition of your command in point of health at that time? 
A. It was very bad, indeed. A large proportion of the men were on the sick 
report almost all the time at this particular time. 
Q. What portion of the sickness, if any, was attributable, in your opinion, to the 
use of canned roast beef or refrigerated beef? 
A. To my knowledge there was none. I did not attribute the sickness at all to 
any of the meat that was issued. I attributed it to malarial troubles, diarrhea, and 
dysentery, which was a result of these malarial troubles. 
Q. Was your command insufficiently subsisted in Cuba? 
A. Yes, they were at times. That is, I do not mean by that that the men were 
starved, but we did not have the full ration for a greater portion of the time until 
after the surrender. 
Q. To what cause did you attribute that insufficiency? 
A. To the lack of transportation. 
Q. What was the meat component of the travel ration on the voyage to Montauk? 
A. It was canned roast beef. 
Q. What complaint was there of that during the voyage home? 
A. There was a complaint that the men could not eat it and did not eat it. It was 
reported to me in my troop by the first sergeant and others that it was unpalatable 
and they could not eat it, and they went without eating any of the meat. 
Q. So that practically none of it was consumed on the voyage back? 
A. Of course some of it was. I saw it every day, in inspecting the messing arrange- 
ments of the troop. This would be mixed up with tomatoes and other articles that 
we had, to make it as palatable as possible. Some of the men ate it; I saw them 
eating it; but others stated to me that they could not eat it and could not eat any of 
the meat. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Do you recall what brands of cans you had in your command of the roast beef 
going over, and also during the siege operations? 
A. I can not exactly. I only remember this brand of Libby, McNeill & Libby. 
There were undoubtedly others, but that was the only one I noticed especially. 
Q. I believe you stated that it wras canned roast beef, so called. Can you give any 
explanation as to the qualifications of "so called?" 
A. Yes; because it was not roast beef at all. It was boiled beef. 
Q. Then its being labeled roast beef was not true as to the contents of the can? 
A. No, it was not. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I have asked for Hon. Mr. Molloney, 
ex-attorney-general, who accompanied the troops to Porto Rico, but he can not be 
down yet, and I do not know that I care to wait. There is another witness also, but 
he is not forthcoming. 
The Recorder. Perhaps the court could take a recess for a few minutes, if you 
think they will turn up, either of them. 
The President. Is there any prospect of getting them? Are they in the city? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1095 
Major Lee. Mr. Mulloney may have a case in court, or something of that sort. I 
will go down to the hotel where he is stopping, the Leland, and find out about it. 
The court then took an informal recess. 
The court reassembled at the expiration of the recess. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Present also, Major Lee and the reporter. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Frank J. Wall, of Chicago. 
TESTIMONY OF FRANK J. WALL 
Frank J. Wall was called as a witness by the recorder and, being duly sworn, 
testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. Frank J. Wall; Forty-second and Lake avenue. 
Q. And your occupation? 
A. Agent. 
Q. Agent, simply? 
A. Yes, sir; for Charles Fizer & Co. 
Q. What business is that company engaged in? 
A. The chemical business. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. What chemicals do you supply or dispose of with reference to meats, generally? 
A. We sell the packing trade borax, principally. 
Q. Do you sell any boracic acid? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Any others-salicylic acid? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You are familiar with the chemicals that may be used in the preservation of 
meats, are you not? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. How long have you been in business in this city? 
A. You mean in this special line? 
Q. Yes. 
A. About eight years. 
Q. Can you state to the court about what amount of chemicals, such as borax, 
boracic acid, and salicylic acid you have disposed of for the use of the packers of this 
city during the past year? 
A. I have not disposed of any salicylic acid. 
Q. Well, of the others that I have named. 
A. No; it would only be a guess on my part, because that is only one item out of 
two hundred or three hundred others that we manufacture. 
Q. Have your sales to the packers here of borax and boracic acid increased during 
the last year, or after the declaration of war, or during the war operations? 
A. I could not tell you that, because I have not compared them. 
Q. Do you dispose of these things to the packers in Omaha? 
A. Very little. 
Q. Kansas City? 
A. Very little there. 
Q. St. Jo? 
A. Very little there, if any. 1096 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. You dispose of some at each of those places, then? 
A. Sometimes. It depends upon market conditions. 
Q. Are you the agent that solicits orders or travels or visits these packing estab- 
lishments with a view of making sales? 
A. No; not personally. I am here in the office. I have charge of the office. 
Q. Who is your traveling agent, if you have one? 
A. F. B. Tracey. 
Q. What is his address? 
A. At 121 Franklin street. 
Q. Where are the headquarters of the Charles Fizer Company? 
A. At 81 Maiden Lane, New York. 
Q. In regard to these chemicals, borax and boracic acid, do you know for what 
purpose they are used by those packers, from conversation or by information gen- 
erally, in taking their orders? Have you any knowledge of the use they make of them 
in that way? 
A. I understand they are used on export meats-pork especially. 
Q. Do you or not have any information on the subject that these things were used, 
have been used, during the last year, or at any time, for that matter, on fresh meat 
product, as shipped or used? Is it so recommended. 
A. No, sir; not that I know of. 
Q. You have conversed with them, I presume, or their agents in regard to the use 
of these things? 
A. Not especially; no. 
Q. In selling them you know what they are usually applied to, do you not, Mr. 
Wall? 
A. No, sir; I do not. 
Q. In regard to packing establishments? , 
A. I don't know what use they put them to. 
Q. You do not know, then, whether they use them entirely on the hog products 
exported from this country, or whether they use them on other meat products? 
A. I don't know what they might use them on. 
Q. You have, then, as you have stated, no knowledge as to whether there was any 
increase in the quantity sold by your firm here during the last year or not? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. I do not mean any accurate striking of a balance, but generally in the business, 
as you have been here some time. Can you not give the information whether there 
was an increased demand during the last year-that, is, say since last April or May- 
whether your sales of these things that go to packers have been rather heavier than 
they were before? 
A. Any information that I might be able to give you in that way would have no 
bearing, because I might get an order one time and a competitor might get it another 
time; so I could not give you any accurate information. 
Q. I was not going into that point particularly, only with reference to your own 
house. If we should get it from another house we might be able to draw some con- 
clusion if there was more sold there and more received by the packers. Then we 
might get at some definite information about it. 
A. I don't think there has been any great increase in the sales. 
Q. Has there been an increase by your firm in the last year? 
A. I could not tell you, because, as I told you, I have not gone into it. It would 
be only guesswork. 
Q. Has it impressed itself upon your mind in any way whether you have made 
dispositions of larger quantities than heretofore? 
A. No, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1097 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Hartwell, of Chicago. 
D. E. Hartwell was called as a witness by the recorder, and, being duly sworn, 
testified as follows. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name and residence. 
A. D. E. Hartwell; Chicago. 
Q. Your occupation? 
A. Secretary of Swift & Co. 
Q. Are you familiar with the contracts which Swift & Co. had with the United 
States for the delivery of refrigerated beef? 
A. Not personally; in general. 
Q. Had they a contract to deliver fresh beef to the United States troops at Jack- 
sonville, Fla.? 
A. At what time, sir? 
Q. Last summer? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You can swear, then, that they did not deliver any beef at that point last 
summer? 
A. I can. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. When you say " summer" do yoa include after May? 
A. June, July, August, and September, 1898. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Did you have any contract for Florida, or did you sell any beef there to the 
Government? 
A. We did not. 
Q. Where were your contracts confined to in this country for the troops? 
A. I have no specific information except upon the point about which 1 have testi- 
fied at the present time. 
Q. Only that? 
A. That is all. 
Q. You are the secretary of the Swift company, I understand? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. As such you would have charge of the correspondence; that is, portions of it, 
telegrams, and so on? 
A. I have the charge in general; not specific cases of all kinds. 
Q. I suppose it is divided up in various departments there in the company, is it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
The Recorder. There are no other witnesses, I believe. 
Major Lee. I telephoned for Mr. Mulloney, and he seemed to have an important 
case or important business op hand. He said he would endeavor to be here within 
an hour, if it was a possible thing. That was fifteen minutes ago. I would like to 
present his testimony to the court if it can be done. I do not want to delay the 
court, however. 
TESTIMONY OF D. E. HARTWELL. 1098 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
The Recorder. May it please the court it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Lewis II. Wilson, of Chicago. 
TESTIMONY OF LEWIS H. WILSON. 
Lewis H. Wilson was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been first 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. Lewis H. Wilson; Chicago, Ill.; clerk. 
Q. Were you in the military service of the United States during the wrar with 
Spain? 
A. -Yes, sir. 
Q. To what organization were you attached, and in what capacity? 
A. As first-class private, Seventh Company, United States Volunteer Signal Corps. 
Q. Where did you serve during the active operations? 
A. Washington, Chickamauga, and Porto Rico. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. When did you leave this country for Porto Rico? 
A. The 28th day of July. 
Q. With what command? 
A. With the Seventh Company, Volunteer Signal Corps. I sailed on a separate 
detail on the City of Washington. My company sailed on the Massachusetts. 
Q. What time was that? 
A. The 28th day of July. 
Q. When did you reach Porto Rico? 
A. We arrived at Ponce on the 2d day of August, and landed at Arroyo on the 3d. 
Q. During your trip over what meat rations had you? 
A. My detail reported on the City of Washington with no rations. During the 
hurry of the detail, the City of Washington pulled out, and there wras no way of send- 
ing rations on board with us. We reported to Colonel Case, of the Fourth Pennsylva- 
nia, and he made arrangements for us to mess with the different companies on board. 
Q. I understand that Colonel Case wras on board with your regiment? 
A. Yes, sir; two battalions of it. 
Q. Go ahead. 
A. The rations of the troops on board consisted of canned corned beef, canned 
roast beef, hard-tack, coffee, and canned tomatoes; but after some skirmishing around 
for not over a day we got disgusted with the canned meats, and after that we sub- 
sisted almost entirely on stuff that we bought from the cook of the ship with personal 
money. 
Q. On the wTay over I wish you would state -within your knowledge, or by infor- 
mation that you had, what were the complaints, if any, with regard to any part of 
the meat ration; that is, more particularly with reference to the canned roast beef; 
whether there were any concerning that. 
A. The canned roast beef -was complained of by the soldiers as not being fit to eat, 
nauseating and unpalatable; and there was very little of it actually used. 
Q. To what extent did that come under your observation? 
A. Every mess that I saw that had the canned roast beef did not use it very much 
because the men claimed they could not use it. It was unpalatable and nauseating. 
Q. When did you first begin using the canned roast beef yourself? 
A. When I joined the company, on the 12th of August. 
Q. Where was that? 
A. At Guayama, Porto Rico. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1099 
Q. What experience had you with the canned roast beef there? To what extent 
was it used; that is, about what percentage of the ration was it-a half, a third, a 
quarter, or how much? 
A. I reported to the company on the 12th of August at Guayama, and we were 
encamped there until the 6th of September. During that time we had one ration of 
bacon, which made about two meals, and one ration of native beef-all the fresh- 
meat ration was native meat-canned corned beef and canned roast beef. Of the 
canned roast beef, there was not over 10 per cent of it eaten by the men. 
Q. By what men? 
A. All the men in the company. 
Q. How many were there in the company? 
A. There were 64 in the company, when they were present. There were not 
always all of them there. They were detailed. 
Q. What was the objection to it? 
A. That it was unpalatable, nauseating, and the men did not eat it. It made them 
sick. It caused diarrhea and vomiting. 
Q. How did it make them sick? How did you observe that? State fully as to 
that, and also your personal experience with it. 
A. It nauseated me. If I tried to eat it once or twice I vomited it up. It gave 
me diarrhea; and after that I did not try to eat it. It was very repulsive to look at 
and very nauseating, and it was almost impossible to force it down. We tried fixing 
it up in stews and every way possible. We had two good cooks, and they did their 
best to try to make it palatable, but they could not fix it so the men could eat it. 
Q. Who was in command of your company? 
A. Part of the time Captain Inman and part of the time Captain McConnell. 
Q. Did you continue using it or trying to use it while you were there? 
A. Yes, sir; it was issued to us all the time. 
Q. You state that only about 10 per cent of it was used. What was done with 
the balance? 
A. Part of it was thrown away and part of it was traded off to the natives; and I 
believe part of it was traded off for milk and eggs. 
Q. To whom? 
A. The natives. That was not done under directions of the company. That was 
done by the men, though. 
Q. To what extent did it produce sickness. Explain that clearly, fully, briefly? 
A. The whole company ran down, deteriorated in health, and we had a very large 
sick report; the men were debilitated; they had no strength; they were run 
down to-well, not quite skeletons, but they were run down very poor, and they 
had no strength. They couldn't do any work. They would go out in the sun and 
drill for two hours, and they were completely done up; in fact, they couldn't drill 
two hours. Their drill was almost entirely cut out on that account. It was 
especially noticeable when we left Guayama to go to Ponce on the 6th of September. 
We started out in the morning about 6 o'clock, and at the end of an hour there were 
only about ten men in the company able to march. 
Q. Was that due to the using of the canned roast beef or to the want of it in any 
way; if so, to what extent? 
A. We considered it was due to the roast beef not being fit to eat. If it had been 
fit to eat, so we could eat it, it would have been all right; but it was so nauseating 
and unpalatable that we couldn't eat it, and what they did eat didn't do them any 
good. If we had eaten more, I don't think it would have done us any good. 
Q. Did you get anything in place of it? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You say at that time while in service there what per cent of the ration was 
roast beef? 
A. It was all canned beef except one ration of bacon and one ration of fresh meat; 1100 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
but as to the proportion of canned roast beef and canned corned beef, I think it 
was about half of each. 
Q. So you practically had but very little of the other, either bacon or the fresh beef? 
A. Yes, sir; we lived almost entirely on outside subsistence purchased by private 
funds of the company, by the captain and by the men themselves. 
Q. Did you quit using the canned meats; that is, the canned roast beef particularly? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. After you quit using it, what was your condition? Did you improve? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Or did you get worse, or did you keep about the same? 
A. We improved. 
Q. How was it with the other men? 
A. The same. 
Q. Who was the doctor who attended the men? 
A. We had no surgeon. Our sick were sent to the hospital under Colonel Hui- 
dekoper. 
Q. Who was that? 
A. Colonel Huidekoper was the name, I believe, of the surgeon in charge. 
Q. When you left there to return to the United States, with what command did 
you come, and what rations were furnished as to the meat rations? 
A. We came home on the Seneca, and there were rations issued to us of canned 
corned beef and canned roast beef; but there was almost none of it used. We had 
outside supplies. We purchased hams and rice, and such, by private means, and 
used them almost entirely on our return trip. 
The Recorder. If it please the court, I believe the witness, Mr. Mulloney, was 
regularly summoned by subpoena. I think we have waited as long as courtesy and 
comity demand, especially as his testimony, if important, can be taken by deposi- 
tion, or he can be summoned to testify elsewhere. 
Major Lee. With that, if it please the court, I do not insist upon waiting for him, 
Mr. Mulloney is an ex-attorney-general and has very important cases here. I did 
leave a subpoena there for him, with a note hoping he would be around. He has 
probably been here to-day, but was not called; but with that understanding, I cer- 
tainly do not insist upon waiting. 
The court then (at 5 o'clock p. m.) adjourned to meet at the Army building, 
Whitehall street, New York, at 11 o'clock a. m. on Saturday, March 25, 1899. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieut. Col., Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Army Building, New York, 
Saturday, March 25, 1899. 
The court met, pursuant to adjournment, at 11 o'clock a. m. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Present also Major Lee and the reporter. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
his excellency Governor Roosevelt, of New York. 
TESTIMONY OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT. 
Theodore Roosevelt was called as a witness by the recorder and, having been 
first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name and residence. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1101 
A. Theodore Roosevelt; executive mansion, Albany. 
Q. Were you in the military service of the United States during the operations in 
Cuba last year? 
A. I was, sir. 
Q. To what organization were you attached and in what capacity? 
A. I was lieutenant-colonel of the First United States Volunteer Cavalry and after- 
wards colonel. 
Q. Where was that regiment organized? 
A. It was organized in San Antonio, Tex. It was mustered in chiefly in New 
Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Indian Territory. 
Q. Was there a concentration of the troops at San Antonio before the regiment 
moved from Tampa? 
A. There was a concentration of the troops of the regiment at Tampa and San 
Antonio. 
Q. Were you in command of one of the detachments as it moved from San 
Antonio? 
A. I was, sir. 
Q. What was the meat component of the travel ration that was furnished you on 
that journey? 
A. Corned beef. 
Q. Only? 
A. Corned beef only in my detachment, and it was good. 
Q. On the voyage from Tampa to Cuba what was the meat component of the 
travel ration? 
A. The so-called canned roast beef. 
Q. What complaints, if any, were made of the canned roast beef during the voy- 
age to Cuba? 
A. May I answer that in my own wTay? 
Q. Certainly. It is the desire of the court that that should be done. 
A. The first I knew that there was any trouble with the canned roast beef was 
while we were still lying off the quay at Tampa Bay. I saw one of the men-I 
think he was a man named Ash from Kentucky, but I can not be certain; he was a 
big red-headed fellow-preparing to throw away his portion of the canned roast 
beef. I said something to him about the trouble. He said, " I can't eat the canned 
meat." I said, "If you are a baby, you had better not have come to the war. Eat 
it and be a man. You can't expect to have fresh beef." He started to eat it, but it 
made him vomit. I then asked him, "Look here, are you seasick, or what?" He 
said, "No; I am not seasick, but I can't eat that stuff." I then asked some of the 
others and found that there was a general complaint that the canned roast beef was 
not good; but I did not know at the time whether it was merely that certain cans 
were not good, or whether it was that the men were grumbling because they were 
on army fare. I made inquiries and found that this was the regular ration, and at 
the time I was told, by whoever I inquired from, that only volunteers would grum- 
ble about that; that the regulars were all right. I told some of the men, "This is 
what the regulars are getting and you can not expect to fare any differently from the 
regulars." I paid no more heed to it. I ate a mouthful or two of it myself there, 
and while I did not think it was good from the can I then opened, that can had no 
putrid smell, and there was nothing to make me feel that I had to take any positive 
action. I spoke about the matter to Colonel Wood; but the transports were just get- 
ting off, and there was nothing we could do. We simply took it and went on with 
it. Of course, we were then out at sea. 
Q. No other action was taken, then, during the voyage, than that which you have 
described ? 
A. No other action was taken, that I know of, during the voyage. You must 1102 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
remember, sir, that there may have been other action taken, but I was not in com- 
mand of the regiment. I was simply the lieutenant-colonel. 
Q. Was the canned roast beef the sole meat component of the travel ration? 
A. My recollection is that it was the sole meat component of the travel ration. 
In fact, I am certain that it was until the last two days, when we ran out of travel 
rations and took to the field rations on board the boat, and then the men had raw 
pork. 
Q. After landing in Cuba, and up to the surrender, what was furnished you in the 
way of meat? 
A. Most often, pork; sometimes canned roast beef; but I alwrays would get the 
pork if I possibly could, because by that time I found that all the regulars with 
whom I came in contact, objected to the canned roast beef quite as much as my men 
did; and, moreover, 1 had by that time tried to eat some of it myself when I was 
hungry, and found that I could not. Out of the cans I got, I could not eat it- 
taking it out cold there. I was not able to eat it. 
Q. Please describe to the court the appearance of the contents when a can was 
opened. 
A. The cans when opened would show usually on top what looked like a layer of 
slime, a very disagreeable looking substance. The beef inside was stringy and 
coarse. It was like a bundle of fibers. Sometimes we could stew it. If you could 
stew it with potatoes and onions, which was done there when we got some potatoes 
and onions, you could eat it; but I think I could have eaten my hat with potatoes 
and onions at that time. I think the men would have eaten anything with pota- 
toes and onions in a stew. We tried stewing it with mangoes, and if there was a 
chance of fixing it up in that way, a good deal of it could be eaten by certain of the 
men. There were a very few men who would eat almost all of the canned beef 
ration, even when it was cold. There were some others who could not eat it at all, 
in stew or otherwise. They could not eat it at all. The great majority of the men, 
if put upon it for two or three days, would become sick. They would seem to suffer 
from indigestion, and after two or three days hardly any of them would touch the 
meat, even if they were hungry. And where possible they very much preferred the 
salt pork. 
Q. In about what proportion were these two components issued during this period 
from the landing up to the surrender? 
A. As I say, I made every opportunity to get the pork instead of the canned beef, 
and I think we got, especially toward the end, a good deal more than half the time 
the pork. I would like to finish one thing before you ask me another question, and 
just tell me if I am stating facts at a time when you do not want them stated. 
Q. Go on. 
A. I think I would like to say this-that at the time I never heard anybody ques- 
tion the fact that the canned roast was a bad ration. It was a matter of great 
surprise to me to find that it was regarded as a subject of controversy when I came 
back, for I never, in the cavalry division, or in the few infantrymen with whom I 
came in contact, from the generals down to the privates, heard anybody speak of 
the canned roast beef when they did not take it as a matter of course that it was a 
bad ration. Some spoke of it as if it was merely insipid and undesirable for men 
who were half sick or sickly under the Tropics. Others spoke of it as being unhealthy 
and utterly uneatable, and there would be all grades of between, but I never heard 
anyone-doubtless there may have been an occasional person-among all of the 
officers to whom I spoke and among all the enlisted men that occasionally spoke to 
me, I never heard anyone speak of it save as an unfit ration. 
Q. Do you remember the brands upon any of the cans? 
A. I do not, at all. I remember once an officer saying that he thought one brand 
had better meat in it than the other, but I did not investigate it. I had no chance FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1103 
at the time, and, as it is a matter of hearsay, I would rather not mention the name of 
the brand that he gave. 
Q. What efforts, if any, were made to obtain some other meat in place of it during 
the period prior to the close of the siege operations? 
A. Just before the refrigerated beef came I made a report-it was about July 20- 
in which I called attention to the general deficiency of proper rations, but the canned 
roast beef was only one of the things where we thought a change should be made. 
My own chief trouble, for instance, was with the lack of transportation. When I 
could get transportation I could get down to the seacoast, and I could get beans and all 
sorts of things, and if I could get them up I did not care whether there was canned 
roast beef or not. If I could get vegetables I would not care whether there was 
canned roast beef or not. My men were all out of clothing, and they had very unsat- 
isfactory clothing for the Tropics. For instance, they were wearing heavy canton 
flannel drawers, which became as stiff as boards under the sweat. Their shirts were 
excellent, only they were suitable for Manitoba. They were just the shirts I have 
used in the fall in Montana, and they were too heavy for the Tropics. Their trousers 
were not good and were tearing all to pieces. In my report, which was chiefly a 
report on the military operations, I dwelt upon the fact that we were not receiving 
a sufficiency of the food I thought necessary for the men, and especially for the 
sick and the very numerous half-sick men. I dwelt still more strongly upon the 
need of more transportation. I used to organize a pack train of the officers' horses 
and some short mules that my men got hold of and doctored up. We had some 
captured Spanish cavalry horses and a couple of Cuban ponies, and we would organize 
a pack train and go down and get the food, and then somebody would come along 
and confiscate the pack train and I would be left without any again. My report was 
more aimed at the lack of transportation, which I regarded as a far more serious 
evil, than it was even at the general shortage or insufficiency of food. Also, I would 
inquire verbally, and I would hear of other men inquiring verbally, if they could not 
get something different from the canned roast beef, and we would be told that that 
was all there was. We none of us liked to seem to be demanding impossibilities. I 
knew there was the greatest possible strain upon the pack trains that were in use to 
get up any food at all, and one did not like to grumble. On the firing lines, as we 
were informed at the time, there was never more than one day's food in advance. 
There was food down at the beach at Siboney, but up at the front there was never 
more than one day's food in advance, and sometimes we were threatened with a very 
serious shortage when there would be heavy rains and interruptions on the roads, 
but I did finally, a couple of days, I think, before we got the fresh beef, put in this 
report. That was after Santiago had fallen, and the next day I took Lieutenants 
Brent and Jack Greenway, and we got a wagon and some Cuban carts at Santiago 
and purchased a large number of articles. I recollect I got some 600 pounds of rice 
in the city itself, and I got from the Red Cross several hundred pounds of flour and 
some corn meal. I got some oatmeal and some condensed milk, and while down 
there we found the boats had come in with refrigerated beef, and I got hold of my 
share of that through the kindness of Colonel Weston, who always helped us in 
every way. I put that beef on the carts, and I think my regiment was the very 
first regiment in the army that got the refrigerated beef. 
Q. Did you make more than one report, Colonel? 
A. On September 10 I made a formal report, which I read over to every officer 
who had been with me in Cuba, listening to make any changes they suggested, and 
getting their assent to every proposition contained in it before sending it in. With 
that report I sent in the report of Lieut. Sherard Coleman, the regimental quarter- 
master; of Dr. Church, who was the regimental surgeon; of Captain Llewellyn and 
Lieutenants Day and Mclllhenny, who had had certain experiences, mainly in con- 
nection with the transport ships going up, and in that report I set forth much more at 1104 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
length than in my report of July 20 the different shortcomings in the clothing, the 
food, and the transportation; and among the items I mentioned was the item of 
beef. I do not think any of those reports are to be found published in the reports 
issued last year, but will be published in the next reports of the War Department. 
Q. They were submitted to the headquarters of the Fifth Army Corps? 
A. They were submitted through military channels to the headquarters of the 
Fifth Army Corps. 
Q. When did you begin receiving the refrigerated beef? 
A. About July 22, when we had been ashore just a month. 
Q. How frequently was that issued during your stay in Cuba? 
A. I should say nearly every day. We had plenty of that from that time on. 
Q. At about what time of day did it reach your camp? 
A. If sent out through the regular channels, my impression is that it didn't reach 
our camp usually, sometimes not until the afternoon, if the going was very bad; but 
on two or three occasions I would send in a special train-an improvised train-and 
get it out myself, so as to avoid any heat. 
Q. What was its condition, as a rule, when it was received at your camp? 
A. Its condition, as a rule, was good. Sometimes part of it had spoiled, and the 
outer covering-I will not say the covering, but the rind, so to speak, of it-was 
sometimes black or sometimes a little bad; but it seemed awfully good to us. 
Q. About what proportion, from first to last, was thrown away-rejected-on 
account of being unfit food? 
A. I could not give it to you with any exactness, but speaking simply from mem- 
ory, I doubt if there were more than one or two issues where the proportion thrown 
away was so great as to be serious. 
Q. Can you state what per cent was cut away from each issue to that which w*as 
in such condition as to be used? 
A. No, I could not. Sometimes a good deal would be thrown away, and I would 
sometimes find that one troop would have to cut away a good deal, and another 
troop would have to cut away a very little, and sometimes hardly any; but it was in 
pretty satisfactory shape, take it as a whole. 
Q. Had you -occasion to believe or suspect that the refrigerated beef issued to you 
in Cuba had been treated with chemicals with a view to its preservation? 
A. I never thought about the matter at all until I came home. The beef I consid- 
ered good. We ate it and enjoyed it, but it did undoubtedly give most of the men 
diarrhea. On a hunting trip in the West, if you go without meat for a week or two, 
and then kill a bull elk, I have seen that give everybody diarrhea. 
Q. To what cause did you attribute the diarrhea? 
A. I attributed it purely to the fact that the fresh meat, to which the men were 
unaccustomed, being eaten by them, and being eaten in large quantities. I attrib- 
uted it to that alone during the time I was down in Santiago, and the first part of the 
time, indeed, at Montauk. Afterwards I heard, what I had not heard at the time, 
that there were men, and I think officers, who believed that there was something 
the matter with the meat, and attributed their having the diarrhea to the meat being, 
as they expressed it, physicked; but I did not hear that at the time, and I did not 
suspect it myself. The beef I ate I thought was first rate. It was the same beef 
exactly. It gave me diarrhea, but we were not any of us very well down there. 
Q. What was the condition of your command during the last days, the latter part, 
of the service in Cuba? 
A. Like every other command in Cuba, it was sick, and it was much sicker than 
the number of men on the sick roll would show. Take the six regiments of the 
cavalry division. I would say that we, taking the reports on the average, would 
stand somewhere about third. There were usually two or three regiments worse off 
than oups. Of the five regiments, I should say usually three of them would show a FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1105 
slightly greater percentage of sickness than ours, and two of them a less percentage. 
I can not say that definitely. That is only from the sick reports that I looked at 
when I was in command of the brigade. I was made brigade commander during 
the end of the time, and I know that the number of men on the sick rate gave no 
idea of the number of men in the regiment who were weakly. For instance, when 
we would shift camp 4 miles, the march of 4 miles, usually undertaken in the sun, 
and the men carrying their packs, would be followed next day by a doubling of the 
sick list. The sick list would go up to double next day right away, and toward the 
end of the day in Cuba I did not regard 20 per cent of my men as being fit for any 
active work. If we had to undertake at all a heavy march, in heavy marching order, 
I would not have regarded more than one-fifth of my men as fit to go and do it 
without injury. Others would have gone through it, and plenty of them, but they 
would have gone through it straggling along, dropping their packs, and being sick 
the next morning. I did not regard more than one-fifth of the men as being in fit 
condition, and I do not think there was more than 2 per cent of the men who were 
as fit as when they went down there. 
Q. What was issued as the meat component of the travel ration on the voyage 
back to Montauk? 
A. The canned roast beef. 
Q. How acceptable was it on that trip? 
A. It was utterly and hopelessly unacceptable. 
Q. Was any of it consumed? 
A. Yes; a proportion of it was consumed. I should say that, roughly, not a fifth 
was consumed. I, of course, had gotten much more used to taking care of the men 
than when I went down. I was in command of the regiment, and also, indeed, was 
in command of the ship. I had a squadron of the Third Cavalry there, and the 
whole ship was put in my charge by General Wheeler. I was not only responsible, 
which I was not coming down, but also I was more used to taking care of the men 
and knew what to do with them. I kept a pretty careful lookout after the men's 
food and water, with-if you will let me interject it-the gratifying result that mine 
was one of the very few transports where the men were permitted to land at once. 
Out of the sixty or seventy transports sent up north I had a smaller sick rate than any 
but about eight on the way up. I kept the ship in apple-pie order, and when I 
found the men could not eat the canned beef I purchased from the ship's stores 
flour, and I think there was some potatoes-anything they could sell at all. We also 
gave the sick men a good many things from the officers' mess. The officers had 
bought their provisions for the voyage in Santiago, and we gave the sick men all we 
could from the officers' mess. Our chief difficulty on the way home was with the 
water and with the lack of ice; but the canned roast beef could not be eaten by the 
half sick, by the ailing, and many of those that were well could not eat it. There 
was one case of what you might call embalmed beef that I would like to mention. 
Before our transport left Tampa a couple of quarters, or two or three quarters, of 
beef, which we were informed was specially treated chemically, was put aboard. I 
knew nothing as to the order by which it was put aboard, beyond that I knew it 
was told to be put aboard, and I was to put it in the shade, forward on the deck, 
and that it was specially treated, chemically treated, so as to last in the tropics. It 
lasted about one day, and then it became so offensive that I reported it, and by the 
next day it was so offensive that I summoned the court and we condemned it and 
threw it overboard; and, since getting back to the United States, and being mustered 
out, I have been informed that that beef was only put on as an experiment. 
Q. Yes; there is testimony to that effect. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Governor, can you state what you understood that process to be and the name 
of the man who had it, or have you learned since? 
S. Doc. 270 70 1106 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
A. I think somebody told me, but I have forgotten. 
Q. I believe, Governor, you stated you were in commond of a part of your regi. 
ment when it left San Antonio; that is, one detachment going to Tampa? 
A. Yes; I was in command of the rearmost four of the seven sections in which the 
regiment went to Tampa. 
Q. How many troops were under your immediate command coming over from San 
Antonio? 
A. Under my immediate command, I think, there were eight of the twelve troops. 
I think four troops and a mule train went in the first three sections and eight troops 
in the last four. 
Q. Have you any knowledge or information as to what travel rations the four 
troops who were not under your immediate command had in going to Tampa? Did 
they have the same or may they have had some other? 
A. They may have had someting else, but my understanding was that they had 
corned beef, because there were complaints made to me about the canned roast beef, 
and they often took the form of saying, "If they would give us the corned beef we 
had on the train, that would be all right." I had no complaints about the corned 
beef, and the men would say to me, " If we could have the corned beef we had on 
the train that would be all right. " 
Q. There were no complaints, then, that you heard in regard to the corned beef? 
A. I heard no complaint whatever. Whenever I heard it mentioned, I heard it 
mentioned as being good, and I liked it myself when I got it. 
Q. Can you recall any of the brands of this canned roast beef, so called, or any of 
the labels? Can you recall, either at Montauk or while in Cuba or while going over, 
any of those different brands or labels, one, two or more of them, if you can? 
A. No; I can not. I would say some of them were Armour's and some of them 
Swift's, but I have seen so many Armour's and Swift's cans that it may be simply 
that I am mixing my memory of those up with the memory of those I saw on the 
transport. I could not answer that with any definiteness. 
Q. I understood you to say in your testimony that the first complaint you heard or 
the first fault that appeared to be found with the canned roast beef was, in fact, 
before you sailed from Tampa. 
A. It was before we sailed from Tampa. 
Q. Was any of it issued to your command for use while encamped at Tampa prior 
to sailing? Was it used there or only while going on the transport? 
A. That I can not answer. I was not in command of the regiment at Tampa, and 
my business was chiefly drilling the men under orders of Colonel Wood. 
Q. About on what date did you succeed to the command of the regiment? 
A. I succeeded to the command of the regiment on June 30, the day before the 
fight at San Juan. 
Q. You continued in command of the regiment until what date? 
A. I continued in command of the regiment until August 1, when I took com- 
mand of the brigade and I kept command of the brigade up until about September 
7 or 8, when I took command of the regiment for the purpose of disbanding it. 
Q. I believe you stated, Governor, that you made some reports. I think the first 
one was July 20? 
A. About July 20. 
Q. That had some reference to the food of the command, as well as other matters? 
A. It had some reference to the food of the command. 
Q. Have you retained a copy of that report? 
A. No, I have not. 
Q. Do you know what has become of it? Can you give any information to lead 
the court to the point of finding it? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1107 
A. You can certainly get those reports from the War Department. That report, I 
am told, was not printed in the annual report of the War Department this year 
through an oversight. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I -would like to make the request a matter of 
record now' that the report referred to be produced and brought before the court. 
The Recorder. Certainly. 
The Witness. The September 10 report, with the supplementary reports, is a more 
important report for your purposes, because I there went some length into the question 
of the food. That September 10 report included the reports I have mentioned-the 
report from the quartermaster, from the surgeon, from two captains, and a lieuten- 
ant, which went with it, and also a report from Captain Brown, of one of the regular 
regiments of the cavalry, on an emergency ration, which I wanted to submit with 
it, for I had gotten Captain Brown to draw up this report. They had in the War 
Department an emergency ration that they used with very good effect, as he asserted, 
two years before that, and he had felt that it would have been a very great advan- 
tage to the command if those emergency rations had been sent down with them. I 
got that while I was in command of the brigade. I had started preparing my report 
while I w'as in command of the brigade, and then was taken out of that and put back 
in command of my regiment, and I put the report in its final form while I was in 
command of the regiment. 
Major Lee. If it please the court, I would like to make a similar request in regard 
to the report of September 10, and also all papers connected with the report, to be 
submitted to the court as part of the evidence of the case. 
Q. Did you make any report in August that you recall in regard to this matter, 
either verbally or in writing, in regard to the food? 
A. I made no report in writing whatever during that time. I would only make 
the report verbally in this way: When I was in command of the brigade, I would 
go over to General Wheeler's headquarters and I would speak to Colonel Garlington, 
the inspector-general there, and tell him-1 won't say I would tell him; it would be 
rather that he and I and others would talk over the fact that we were not having the 
right kind of food. I know in his report he speaks of a shortage of food and a 
shortage of transportation, I think. 
Q. Governor, from your experience with the First Volunteer Cavalry on the way 
over, during the campaign, and on the return, will you please give the court your 
opinion as to the fitness or unfitness of that canned roast beef as a ration, or as to its 
wholesomeness or unwholesomeness as a ration for troops? 
A. I regard it as an utterly unfit and utterly unwholesome ration for troops. The 
canned roast beef that we had in Santiago was an unfit and an unwholesome ration. 
I want to make that statement without any qualifications. I have seen that the 
cans have been tested up here, and are said to be wholesome, but I wish to state 
most emphatically, that the experience that I had in my regiment with that canned 
roast beef during the Santiago campaign proved to me beyond a shadow of question 
that the canned roast beef that we had with us was at the best unpalatable, at the 
worst uneatable and unw'holesome, and that to the majority of the men under me, it 
was not only so unpalatable that but a fraction of it could be eaten, but it was suffi- 
ciently unwholesome to tend to make many of them sick during the time when they 
did eat it. It was not merely my own experience, but it was the experience of the 
men with whom I was thrown. I recollect, for instance, Lieutenant Parker, of the 
gatling gun detachment, mentioning to me that though he could stew the beef up so 
as to make it palatable for some days, after it had been eaten for some days his 
men seemed to sicken under it. 
The court then (at 12 o'clock m.) took a recess until 1 o'clock p. m., to meet at 
Governors Island, New' York. 1108 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Governors Island, New York, 
Saturday, March 25, 1899. 
The court reassembled at the expiration of the recess. 
Present: All the members and the recorded. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Captain McAlexander, of the Thirteenth Infantry. 
TESTIMONY OF CAPT. EUGENE McALEXANDER, U. S. A. 
Capt. Eugene McAlexander, U. S. A., was called as a witness by the recorder 
and, being duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. Eugene McAlexander; captain and assistant quartermaster, United States Vol- 
unteers; first lieutenant, Thirteenth Infantry. 
Q. Did you accompany the Thirteenth Regiment to Cuba during the operations 
there last year? 
A. I was on the staff of General Kent, who commanded the First Division of the 
Fifth Army Corps, in which the Thirteenth Infantry was. 
Q. Were you attached to the headquarters staff on the voyage from Tampa to Cuba? 
A. I was. 
Q. On what transport was passage provided? 
A. On the Santiago. 
Q. What troops were on board that transport? 
A. One entire regiment, and a battalion of the other. 
Q. What organizations were on board? 
A. The Ninth Infantry and one battalion of the Tenth. 
Q. What was the meat component of the travel ration that was furnished those 
commands on the voyage to Cuba? 
A. As far as I know, what was ordinarily called the travel ration. I was not con- 
nected with the commissary department and did not see the ration issued, but in 
going through the boat several times I saw cans of beef open, constituting the travel 
ration. 
Q. What were the cans which you saw opened? 
A. I didn't notice the brands on them, but they were a round tin, I suppose about 
8 inches in diameter, some of them, and about 3 inches in the length of the cylinder. 
Q. In height? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was any of the canned roast beef issued and consumed on the steamer, to your 
knowledge? 
A. I don't know. 
Q. After the landing of the expedition in Cuba, until the surrender, you were 
attached to General Kent's headquarters? 
A. I was. 
Q. Did the canned roast beef come under your observation; if so, to what extent? 
Please state fully to the court in narrative form all you know about it during that 
period. 
A. I know of it only as it came to our mess. We had to provide ourselves with 
meat, and that was the only available meat. That which was served to us was ordi- 
narily called the canned roast beef. We used it at headquarters' mess. 
Q. Tell all you know about it. 
A. In opening the cans-I saw some opened at the cook's tent-it seemed to con- 
sist in some cases of a sort of gelatinous whitish mass, and there was a white stringy FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1109 
material in it, I suppose the tissues, and there was a little, a rather small portion, 1 
should say in some cases not to exceed from 4 to 8 ounces of really palatable meat in 
the 2-pound cans or 3-pound cans. Some of the cans were better than others but the 
majority of the contents of every can that I saw could not be eaten. They would be 
refused. 
Q. To what extent was it issued to the division as a portion of the ration? 
A. I can not say positively in reference to that, but I believe it was from the time 
that we landed at Siboney on June 25, up until the capture of the city. The sur- 
render was on the 17th, and I think it was a few dayslater we began getting another 
kind of meat. I recollect this, because as I was the quartermaster I had to furnish 
transportation for the meat being brought up from the city from the transports. 
Q. Was the transportation which brought provisions to the division under your 
control? 
A. There was very little under my control. I think at this particular time I was 
permitted three wagons for the entire division for the purpose of bringing meat, and 
I turned those wagons over one to each brigade, right over to the brigade quarter- 
masters, and they secured the meat and brought it up to camp from the city. 
Q. What complaints, if any, were received of the canned roast beef at division 
headquarters? 
A. That I don't know, sir. 
Q. What attempts were made, if you are aware of any, to procure something else, 
some other meat, in its place? 
A. I don't know' of any. 
Q. As you passed through the division in the performance of your duties during 
this period prior to the close of the siege operations did you see the canned roast 
beef being used? 
A. I sawr quite a good deal of it that had been throwm aw'ay, or portions of it- 
cans with quite a lot of material in them that had been discarded completely. 
Q. Have you given all the testimony you can; all that you recall on that point? 
A. Yes; that is all that I can recall. 
Q. During this period were any reports received from headquarters, to your 
knowledge? 
A. I don't know'. 
Q. Were any complaints received? 
A. I don't know in reference to that. 
Q. Was any action taken, to your knowledge, in respect to it of any sort? 
A. None whatever. There were plenty of complaints coming from our own mess 
in reference to it. 
Q. Did you see the cans opened that were used in your mess? 
A. I saw a few of them, and that was more by accident than anything else. 
Q. Have you fully described their appearance? 
A. I think I have. It was a stringy lot of material, and the lean portion of the 
meat looked like it had been boiled. It had the appearance of boiled meat. 
Q. Did you see any of the cans opened for the use of the headquarters guard and 
parties attached to headquarters? 
A. I did not. 
Q. When did you begin to receive refrigerated beef? 
A. I can not be sure about that. I think it was about the 20th-within two or 
three days, as I recollect, of the date of the surrender. 
Q. What duties, if any, in connection with the transportation of the refrigerated 
beef to camp did you have? 
A. Simply the turning over of a wagon to each brigade quartermaster for the use 
of the brigade in bringing it out. I think, as I recollect now, there were about two 
W'agons, one sent down for bread in the morning and one sent for the meat. They 
went very early. 1110 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Were there any orders with respect to the time when those wagons should go 
down and when they should return, or as to their use for any other purpose than to 
bring up the beef and bread? 
A. The wagons were turned over to the brigade quartermasters for the purpose of 
bringing their supplies to camp. They themselves would take the wagons, and 
particularly for the beef, would go very early for the purpose of getting it back into 
camp as early in the morning as possible. While I did not see any of these wagons, 
except occasionally, coming back the most of them returned early. The bread 
wagons'retumed at such time as they could be accommodated from the bakeries. 
Q. Did the shortage in transportation continue, as far as you were concerned, until 
the troops returned to the United States? 
A. We had shortage of transportation from the minute we started. We were 
always short of transportation. There was a question as to whether we had enough 
to get through with the bare necessities. 
Q. Did any of the refrigerated beef that was issued come under your observation? 
A. Only that part that came to our mess-the officers' mess. 
Q. Did you see it used through the regiments in the division at any time? Did it 
come under your observation? 
A. No; not particularly. 
Q. What was the condition of that which was received for the headquarters mess? 
A. A part of it, I would say a majority of it, appeared to be very fair meat; I don't 
know as to whether any of that that came to our camp was rejected or spoiled or not. 
Q. You can not recollect? 
A. I was paying no attention to details of that kind, being glad to get anything 
else that I could. 
Q. Were you acting as division quartermaster on the return of the headquarters 
to the United States? 
A. I was not. I should have made the remark that a volunteer quartermaster, 
who ranked me, was sent to the division just previous to the surrender of the city, 
and from that time on I was his assistant; that is, from about the 10th of July. 
Q. Did you serve directly with the troops after that date? 
A. I did not. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. In your official capacity as quartermaster would any reports or complaints in 
regard to the rations come to you? 
A. No. 
Q. You may state to the court whether at any time you heard any general remark 
or general complaints or general talk in regard to the quality or satisfaction or the 
dissatisfaction with the roast beef; and if so, you may state fully in answer to the 
question. 
A. I only know this: That there were complaints of the meat, both while we were 
there and while we were coming home. The men were complaining that they could 
not eat it, or could eat but a very small portion of it; and, as I remarked, owing to 
the conditions by which we were surrounded, everyone made the best of it possible. 
Q. Then I understand from that qualification of your answer that complaints were 
not necessarily incurred, and it was not much use to make complaints? 
A. It was absolutely of no use, because matters could not be bettered at that partic- 
ular time. 
Q. You have no information, or can give no estimate, approximately, as to about 
what was the proportion of this canned beef to the other meat rations, such as bacon 
or pork? 
A. No; I have no means of knowing. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1111 
Q. In your own mess you had it almost exclusively, I understood you to say, during 
the campaign? 
A. During the campaign, yes; that was the only meat we had. 
Q. Did you observe any of the brands or the labels on that meat that was opened 
there at headquarters? 
A. I did not. 
Q. You speak of the meat being spoiled. I understood you to say there was 
probably 6 or 8 ounces in a 2-pound can of meat, you would judge, and that appeared 
to be boiled? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In opening the cans did you ever find any that had the appearance of being 
roasted, of being roast beef? 
A. I never saw any beef that looked as if it had ever been near a roasting apparatus. 
Q. You speak of a majority of a small quantity of refrigerated beef as being 
thoroughly good beef. How as to the other part, if you know? 
A. I don't know. I say I don't know whether any had been rejected at the mess 
or not. 
Q. In drawing the refrigerated beef after the surrender, beginning about the 20th 
of July, about how far was your camp or the headquarters of the division from the 
place where the beef was drawn, at the top? 
A. Between 2| miles and 3 miles, I think. 
Q. Were the troops encamped between you and the town, or as near to the town 
as your headquarters? 
A. We were within about 200 yards, I should judge, of the line on which the 
division was encamped. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Sergeant Guthrie, of the Thirteenth Infantry. 
TESTIMONY OF SERGT. JAMES B. GUTHRIE, U. S. A. 
Sergt. James B. Guthrie, U. S. A., was called as a witness by the recorder and, 
being duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. State your name, rank, regiment, and company. 
A. James B. Guthrie; sergeant; Company D, Thirteenth Infantry. 
Q. Did you accompany the Thirteenth Infantry to Cuba during the operations 
there last year? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. On what transport did the regiment take passage from Tampa to Cuba? 
A. The Saratoga. 
Q. How long a time was consumed in the voyage? 
A. From the 8th to the 20th of June, I think, sir. 
Q. What was the meat component or the meat components of the travel ration, if 
there were more than one? 
A. Canned corned beef, principally, sir. 
Q. Was there any canned roast beef issued on the voyage? 
A. I didn't see any, sir. 
Q. After landing in Cuba and until after the surrender, what was furnished you in 
the way of rations? 
A. Bacon and canned roast beef, sir. 
Q. What complaint have you to make of the canned roast beef during that period, 
from the landing until the surrender? 1112 
EOOI) FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I found the beef to be tough and stringy. 
Q. Tell the court all about it. 
A, It did not have a good odor. It smelt very strong at times. There seemed to 
be no nourishment in it at all; just dry beef. 
Q. Did you open any cans or see many cans opened? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. About what proportion of them was tainted-that is, spoiled-so that they 
could not be used at all? 
A. When they were first opened there was a very small proportion of them tainted. 
Q. How did it change, if at all, after that? 
A. It seemed to change very quickly, and had a sour smell. 
Q. I want to get, now, the number of cans that were absolutely tainted and that 
you could not use at all? 
A. I shoukbsay about 15 per cent, sir. 
Q. How long would it keep after being opened? 
A. It generally spoiled in five or ten minutes. That was the longest I ever kept it. 
Q. What brands were on the cans, if you remember any of them? 
A. Armour's and Cudahy's, principally. 
Q. Were either of them entirely fresh meat-that is, without salt-or did either of 
them have salt in them? 
A. I don't think either of them were entirely fresh, sir. 
Q. Were they as salt as the canned corned beef? 
A. No, sir; they didn't seem to be. 
Q. When did you begin to receive, refrigerated beef? 
A. About the 24th or the 25th of July, as near as I can remember. 
Q. How frequently was that issued? 
A. It was issued four or five times a week. 
Q. Upon what duties were you engaged at that time? Were you a noncommis- 
sioned officer? 
A. I was a corporal in the company; yes, sir. 
Q. Simply a duty corporal? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you see the refrigerated beef as it was brought into camp for issue? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What was its condition, as a rule? 
A. As a rule it was very good. 
Q. Was any portion of it tainted or unfit for use? 
A. Yes, sir; frequently a portion of it wras tainted and had to be buried at once. 
Q. In about what proportion, to the best of your recollection, was tainted upon 
an average and could not be used for that reason? 
A. About 20 per cent I should say, sir. 
Q. Was any other meat issued in its place? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. On the voyage from Cuba to Montauk, what was the meat component of the 
travel ration? 
A. Principally roast beef and bacon, sir. 
Q. Do you remember in about what proportions? 
A. About 75 per cent of it was canned roast beef and the rest bacon, sir. 
Q. What complaint was there of the canned roast beef during the voyage to 
Montauk? 
A. The same complaint that was found in Cuba. It was tasteless and tough and 
stringy, and frequently smelt bad. 
Q. In cooking it, during the siege operations, was the cooking done individually or 
by companies? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1113 
A. It was done individually until the surrender, and after the surrender our com- 
pany messed by the company. There was one cook. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. How long have you been in the service, Sergeant? 
A. Two years, sir. 
Q. What sized cans were issued to the company, as a rule, when you were engaged 
in active operations? 
A. The 2-pound cans, sir. 
Q. You recall only two brands on the round cans; that is, the Armour brand and 
Cudahy's? 
A. Yes; Armour & Co.-the Armour Packing Company-and Cudahy & Co. 
Q. Was there any difference noticed in the brands-that is, as to quality or kind 
of beef-in any way? Did any seem to be better or worse than others? 
A. I have heard the men say that Cudahy's was the best, sir. I didn't notice it 
myself. 
Q. During that time you were drawing the canned roast beef, if you have not 
already answered the question, can you tell about how much bacon or other meat 
you got during the siege operations; that is, before the surrender, before you began 
to get refrigerated beef-about the proportion between the canned roast beef and 
the bacon you drew, if you drew any? 
A. I think they were about equal, sir. 
Q. About half and half? 
A. About half and half; yes, sir. 
Q. You say the men would eat or consume about half of the canned roast beef, you 
think? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What would they do with the balance? 
A. Throw it away, sir. 
Q. Did they get any meat to replace that which was thrown away? That would 
make about one-quarter of their meat ration. Did they get anything in place of that? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You said in your testimony that it seemed to have no nourishment in it. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I would like for you to tell the court about how much real meat was in the 
cans had you opened them. In other words, describe about what was in the cans- 
about how much real meat you could get out of a 2-pound can. State what your 
estimate would be of that. 
A. When the can wTas opened there would be a coating of hard fat-it looked like 
tallow-about an inch, I should say, from the top; and on an average, I should 
think, about three-quarters of a pound of beef was in the can. 
Q. About three-quarters of a pound in what sized can? 
A. In a 2-pound can. 
Q. Could you use the tallow in any way? Could you eat it? 
A. No, sir; you couldn't eat it unless it was cooked. 
Q. What, as a matter of fact, did you do with that tallow? Did the men try to 
eat it? 
A. They took the top, generally, and threw it away, and in the middle of the can 
was the fresh beef. 
Q. You say there was how much of that meat? 
A. There was three-quarters of a pound, I should say, sir. 
Q. In a 2-pound can? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Would that be, as a rule, all the men would eat-that portion of the meat? 1114 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Yes; as a rule it would be. 
Q. Then when you say they would eat about half of it would they eat half of the 
meat or half of the contents of the can? 
A. They would eat all of the meat that was in the can, sir, I should say. 
Q. And throw the balance away? 
A. Throw the balance away; yes, sir. 
Q. Did you notice any inconvenience from eating it in your own experience. Did 
it produce any kind of dissatisfaction at all with your stomach? 
A. I ate it once, but it made me sick, and I never touched it after that. 
Q. What was the sickness? 
A. Sick stomach-vomiting. 
Q. What did you eat after that? 
A. Bacon. 
Q. After you took the bacon how was it? Did you have vomiting then? 
A. No, sir; I was all right. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Have you any of these cans here at the post, or have you seen any of them 
since you came home? 
A. Not since; no, sir. 
Q. None were brought back? 
A. No, sir. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Were any of these cans you threw away cans of good beef? You say you 
threw away about one-half of them. 
A. The meat seemed to be good, sir, only it smelled. 
Q. Do you wish the court to understand that the meat that was thrown away was 
tainted? 
A. Yes, sir. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Sergeant Patjens, of the Thirteenth Infantry. 
TESTIMONY OF SERGT. CHARLES PATJENS, U. S. A. 
Sergt. Charles Patjens, U. S. A., was called by the recorder as a witness, and, 
being duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. State your name, rank, regiment, and company. 
A. My name is Charles Patjens; Company F, Thirteenth Infantry. 
Q. Were you present with the regiment during its operations in Cuba last year? 
A. I was present, sir, until the 1st of July. 
Q. On the voyage from Tampa to Cuba what was the meat component or what 
were the meat components of the travel ration? 
A. We had corned beef and pork and beans-canned beans. 
Q. After landing in Cuba, so long as you remained with the command, were you 
wounded? 
A. Yes, sir; I was wounded on the 1st of July. 
Q. Then from the time of your landing until you were wounded what was issued 
to you in the way of meat? 
A. Pork-pork and tomatoes. 
Q. Was any canned roast beef issued to you? 
A. No, sir; we didn't have any. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1115 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Sergeant Peck, of the Thirteenth Infantry. 
TESTIMONY OF SERGT. MICHAEL PECK, IT. S. A. 
Sergt. Michael Peck, U. S. A., was called by the recorder as a witness, and, hav- 
ing been duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. State your name, rank, company, and regiment. 
A. Sergt. Michael Peck; Company B, Thirteenth Infantry. 
Q. Did you accompany the regiment to Cuba during its operations there last year? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. What were the meat components of the travel ration on the voyage from Tampa 
to Cuba? 
A. We had bacon and corned beef, I think-canned corned beef. 
Q. Was any canned roast beef issued on the voyage? 
A. A few times; once or twice; that is about all. 
Q. Once or twice? 
A. Yes; very seldom. 
Q. On the voyage over what complaints were there of the canned roast beef, if 
any? 
A. The men did not seem to like it as well as what they called this here corned 
beef. 
Q. From the time of landing in Cuba until the close of the siege operations, Ser- 
geant, what was issued to you in the way of meat? 
A. I don't know much about that, sir. I landed on the 25th and I was shipped 
away from there again on the 2d of July. In the meantime we had bacon; that is, 
in my command. 
Q. Was any canned roast beef issued to you during that period? 
A. There was some issued on the last day of June to the company, but I didn't 
stay there to eat any of that. 
Q. Did you see any of it eaten? 
A. I sawr some opened and eaten, but I didn't take notice of it. It was the last day 
of June when we first got the canned roast beef. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. You did not eat any of it yourself? 
A. No, sir; I had bacon. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Were you sick? 
A. No, sir; I was wounded on the first day. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Captain Saffold, of the Thirteenth Infantry. 
TESTIMONY OF CAPT. M. B. SAFFOLD, U. S. A. 
Capt. M. B. Saffold, U. S. A., was called by the recorder as a witness, and, being 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. M. B. Saffold; captain, Thirteenth Infantry; Fort Columbus, New York Harbor. 
Q. Did you accompany the Thirteenth Infantry to Cuba during the operations 
there last year? 1116 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Yes. sir. 
Q. What was the meat component of the travel ration on the voyage from Tampa 
to Siboney? 
A. It was bacon, mainly. I saw nothing else except bacon. 
Q. From the time of landing until the close of the siege operations, what was issued 
to the regiment in the way of meat? 
A. Bacon, until a little after the 1st, arid then canned roast beef. 
Q. What complaint was there of the canned roast beef during this period, up to 
the time you began to receive the refrigerated beef? 
A. There was no complaint by the men of my company except when I asked them, 
and then they complained that it made them sick. I inspected it after that. 
Q. Please state fully to the court all of your experience with it during that period. 
A. The canned roast beef, which was in cans, as near as I remember, of about 6 
pounds, was stringy water, and tallow. The odor was bad, the taste was bad, and 
the men would not eat it, or did not eat it. I know more by what they said when 
I asked them than I do from my own experience, as I never did anything more than 
try to eat it; but that was the condition of it. It was a can of-I am not sure about 
the 6 pounds-but when you opened it it is what I called boiled beef, with every- 
thing boiled out of it-water, and tallow. That is the only way I can describe it. 
The men did not like it, and would not eat it. They ate some of it, but how much 
I don't know. 
Q. About what proportion, to the best of your recollection, was consumed by them? 
A. To the best of my recollection, they ate none of it except just what was simply 
necessary. They experhnented^on it; that is my opinion. 
Q. Was the cooking at this time done individually or by company? 
A. It was done by company, in my regiment. 
Q. By company, before the close of the siege? 
A. Yes, sir; by company in my battalion and my regiment. 
Q. Did you have your cooking apparatus for the company at the front? 
A. Yes, sir; we had what we could carry. We carried enough. The roast beef 
was not consumed in the cans, but by cooking in the company. 
Q. As a rule, the witnesses testify that the cooking was individual during that 
period. What is your recollection as to that? 
A. When we first went up there, when the men had to cook, they did individual 
cooking, and as soon as we got our pots, our camp kettles, we cooked by companies. 
Q. Do you remember about what time you received those? 
A. Yes, sir; on the afternoon of the 2d. 
Q. And from that time on the cooks cooked for the company, did they? 
A. They cooked, in the main. The men may have cooked individually, but in the 
main they cooked by company. We had company cooks. 
Q. How did they prepare this roast beef then for issue and use? 
A. As far as I know, they rejected it. The making of stews or anything of that 
kind may have been done, but I do not know that myself personally; hut they 
rejected the roast beef and preferred the bacon. 
Q. Was bacon issued from time to time? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. When did you begin to receive refrigerated beef? 
A. I can't remember the date exactly. 
Q. State it to the best of your recollection. 
A. It was somewhere about the 20th of July-somewhere about that time. 
Q. How frequently was it issued during the rest of your stay in Cuba? 
A. It was issued about every day. 
Q. What complaint was there of the refrigerated beef? 
A. There was none that I know. The refrigerated beef was all right, as far it was FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1117 
issued to my company. There was something the matter with it; but there was no 
more dispute, no more trouble with it than in a post, one company claiming they 
did not get their share. The refrigerated beef, as far as I know, was all right. 
Q. What portion of it was tainted, unfit for use, for that reason, when it reached 
your company? 
A. Some of it was tainted; but to the best of my knowledge it was tainted from the 
time it was landed and sent up to the company. The refrigerated beef, in my opin- 
ion, was all right. Any fault with it was just an accident that you will find in any 
post. 
Q. What time of day would it reach the company, on an average? 
A. That varied a little; but it reached the company somewhere about 9 o'clock in 
the morning-somewhere early in the morning. 
Q. Could you put an estimate on it as to the per cent that was rejected for one 
cause and another? 
A. I don't think any of it was rejected. I am perfectly sure my company did not 
reject any, and I do not think the Thirteenth Infantry rejected it. They just simply 
accepted the fact that they were over there and had to get what they could, and that 
was the idea we went on. I am perfectly sure my company rejected none. I don't 
think the Thirteenth Infantry offered any objection at all. 
Q. Did your company find it necessary to bury any of it because it was tainted? 
A. Not my company; no, sir. 
Q. Had you occasion to believe or suspect at that time that it had been treated 
with chemicals with a view to its preservation? 
A. I have absolutely none, Colonel. I never thought of that idea at all-abso- 
lutely none. The meat was good-that is, the refrigerated beef. The canned roast 
beef was bad, without any question. The refrigerated beef, as far as I know, was 
good, and as far as I had any report from my company. 
Q. What meat was issued to your company on the voyage back to Montauk Point, 
as part of its travel ration? 
A. I can't tell. There was a commissary, Lieutenant Lawton, of the Ninth Infan- 
try, who was in charge of that, and I merely inspected what my company was eating 
at the time. What meats were issued, I can not tell, because Lieutenant Lawton, of 
the Ninth Infantry, was commissary. 
Q. To the best of your recollection, was any canned roast beef issued? 
A. I think not, but I can not be sure about that. 
Q. Did you observe at any of these inspections what kind of meat the men were 
eating? 
A. Yes, I did. I watched their meals, and I am perfectly sure that no roast beef 
was issued on returning. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. These cans that were issued of the roast beef were of various sizes. Can you 
give the sizes? 
A. No, sir. The cans that were issued to my knowledge wrere of the same size. I 
have not looked the matter up, but I think they were about 6-pound cans. 
Q. Do you remember the brands? Have you testified to the brands that were on 
the cans? 
A. No, sir; I have not said and I don't know. I never noticed it at all. When 
the company did not want that I threw it aside and paid no further attention to it, 
and we got other rations, as we have done time and time again, without carrying 
very much roast beef. 
Q. Do you know about the proportion-that is, on an approximate estimate-of 
this canned roast beef to the other beef that you drew prior to the surrender, after 
you began drawing the canned roast beef? 1118 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. No, sir; I do not. 
Q. Could you give any estimate of it? 
A. I can not even tell whether it is half or two-thirds. What we lived on mainly 
was the refrigerated beef. 
Q. I am not speaking of the refrigerated beef. After you began drawing the 
canned roast beef, after the landing and prior to the surrender, up to the time you 
got the refrigerated beef, about how much did the beef issue run, as near as you 
know; about what percentage of the meat would be canned roast beef and what 
percentage would be bacon? 
A. I can not tell anything more than that we used the bacon and refused the 
other. 
Q. Did you notice how long one. of these cans would keep after you opened it? 
A. No, sir; the only thing I noticed was it was bad when it was opened, .and 
that the men refused to eat it. I was not thinking of anything else excepting to 
throw that aside and get something we could use. 
Q. You had some personal experience with it on one occasion? 
A. Yes; I tried to eat it, but I could not. 
Q. What was its effect? 
A. It was bad in appearance, in odor, and in taste; and, except I could get some- 
thing else to eat, I did not eat that. I think that was the men's idea also. What I 
mean to say is the canned roast beef was bad. The refrigerated beef was as good as 
we could expect out there. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Corporal Kelly, of the Thirteenth Infantry. 
TESTIMONY OF CORPL. MICHAEL KELLY, U. S. A. 
Corpl. Michael Kelly, U. S. A., was called by the recorder as a witness, and, 
being duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. State your name, rank, company, and regiment. 
A. Michael Kelly; corporal, Company B, Thirteenth United States Infantry. 
Q. Did you accompany the Thirteenth Infantry to Cuba during its operations 
there last year? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. On the voyage from Tampa to Cuba, what meat was issued to you as a travel 
ration? 
A. Canned corned beef, sir. 
Q. From the lime of landing until the close of the siege operations-that is, until 
you began to receive refrigerated beef-what different kinds of beef were issued to 
you in the way of rations? 
A. Bacon and canned roast beef. 
Q. Do you remember in about what proportions? 
A. No, sir; I do not. 
Q. There was a period of about a month. Do you remember about how many 
days you had bacon and how many days you had canned roast beef? 
A. No, sir; I didn't take any notice of it at the time, sir. 
Q. Was it a quarter of one and three-quarters of the other, or half and half, or any- 
thing of that sort; or can you recall? 
A. I wouldn't be sure; but I will say about half and half. 
Q. Please state to the court all that you know with reference to the canned roast 
beef; about opening it, and using it, and all that. 
A. I didn't find any bad canned roast beef while I was down there. Do you want 
me to give my opinion of the beef? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1119 
Q. Yes. 
A I thought the beef was stringy. I thought there was no salt used in the cooking 
of it. and I thought it would have been better if there had been salt used in the 
cooking of it, instead of putting salt on afterwards, after it was cooked. I didn't find 
any of it bad, but I didn't care much about it. I didn't eat very much of it. I was 
looking for bread more than anything else. 
Q. What was the experience of the other men in your company with it, besides 
yourself? 
A. I didn't hear any of them saying it was bad, sir-not the canned roast beef. 
Q. About when did you begin to get the refrigerated beef? 
A. I should think a couple of weeks before we left there. 
Q. About how frequently was it issued? 
A. Once a day, sir. 
Q. How many days out of seven, or how' many days out of ten? 
A. I think it was issued four or five days a week. 
Q. Please state to the court how that appeared to you? 
A. What we got of it, I found it all right, except I heard the quartermaster- 
sergeant say one day that he refused it because it was getting bad. It seemed to be 
turning black, losing color; so we didn't draw' that beef. 
Q. You did not draw that? 
A. No, sir; it wras not good. 
Q. He declined to receive it? 
A. Yes, sir; he wouldn't have it. 
Q. About what proportion of that which you did receive was rejected; throwm 
away, as unfit for use? 
A. There was none thrown away that came to the company, as the quartermaster- 
sergeant declined to take it before it came to the company. I don't know how many 
days he declined to take it; I heard him mention it once. 
Q. On the voyage from Santiago to Montauk Point, what wras issued to you as the 
meat component of the travel ration? 
A. We got canned roast beef, sir. 
Q. Tell the court all about your experience with it on the voyage back. 
A. I didn't find it bad on the voyage back, either. I didn't see any of it bad- 
what I got of it, sir. 
Q. Did you open cans yourself? 
A. No, sir; I ate it after it was opened. The men that we employed to do the 
kitchen work opened the cans-the men that w'orked in the kitchen. 
Q. And it was cooked for the company by the company cooks, was it? 
A. No, sir; it was not cooked. 
Q. It was just opened and issued by them? 
A. Eaten out of the cans; yes, sir. 
Q. Were any vegetables issued to you during the siege operations? 
A. We got onions and potatoes, sir. 
Q. Frequently or infrequently? 
A. Nearly all the time, sir. 
Q. Were those used in cooking with the beef? 
A. That is, in cooking the canned roast beef? 
Q. Yes. 
A. No, sir; it was not cooked at all with the potatoes or onions, as far as I remem- 
ber, sir. z 
Q. How did you use the potatoes and onions? 
A. We used to cut them up in our mess kits and fry them with the grease of the 
bacon, sir. 1120 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Who commanded your company, Corporal, during the siege operations? 
A. Lieutenant Saffold, who is now captain. 
Q. In the issuing of the canned roast beef to the company there, did you notice 
what proportion of it the men actually consumed? Did they consume all of it, or 
only part of it? 
A. I couldn't tell how much they consumed, sir. There always seemed to be 
enough there for the men. I couldn't say whether they ate much of it or not. 
Q. About how long would it keep after you opened a can and set it aside? 
A. I couldn't tell about that, sir, because they just opened what they wanted to 
use for the time and ate it all up, sir. 
Q. You say you ate it a few times. About how many times did you eat of it, 
Corporal? 
A. I have eaten it about fifteen times, I guess. 
Q. Altogether? 
A. Yes, sir; I guess so. 
Q. Down there and returning home? 
A. Yes, sir; I didn't feel inclined to eat a good part of the way home, because 
my stomach was disturbed on account of seasickness. 
Q. What brand of cans do you remember, and what sized cans? 
A. I think they were tall-that is, high cans. I believe there are two kinds. I am 
not sure about the shape of the cans. I think there might be some about the shape 
of my cap. I won't be sure of it, though. 
Q. About what size were they? 
A. I think they were about 2 pounds or so. 
Q. You did not notice the label or any mark on the cans? 
A. I don't remember the label on it, sir. I didn't take notice of it. 
Q. Did you notice and examine the contents of the cans to see how much meat 
there would be in a 2-pound can? About what proportion was meat and what pro- 
portion something else? I mean merely an estimate-of course I know that you did 
not weigh it. 
A. What other ingredients? 
Q. Yes. I want to knowT what other ingredients you got out of the cans? 
A. It seemed to be full of beef, sir; but it didn't look like regular roast beef. It 
seemed to be stringy beef. It seemed to look more like corned beef, to look at it, I 
think. 
Q. Boiled beef? 
A. Boiled beef; yes. 
Q. Not roast beef? 
A. It didn't seem like roast beef to me, sir. 
The Recorder. If it please the court, this concludes the list of witnesses who have 
been summoned to testify in New York. No more have appeared. 
Major Lee. I would like to ask the court whether it would be agreeable to call 
Lieutenant Fieger, on duty with the Thirteenth Infantry here. I would also like to 
have called, if he is here, Lieutenant Gose. 
The President. There is no objection to that. 
(The two officers referred to by Major Lee were sent for by the Recorder, but were 
not at the post.) 
The court then (at 2.15 o'clock p. m.), adjourned until Monday, March 27,1899, at 
2 o'clock p. m., to meet at the Lemon Building, Washington, D. 0. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1121 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C., 
Monday, March 27, 1899. 
The court met, pursuant to agreement, at 2 o'clock p. m. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Present also, Major Lee and the reporter. 
The Recorder: May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. E. C. Swift. 
TESTIMONY OF EDWIN C. SWIFT. 
Edwin C. Swift was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been first 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name and residence. 
A. Edwin C. Swift, residence Lowell, Mass. 
Q. You are connected with Swift & Company? 
A. Yes, sir; I am vice-president of the company. 
Q. What are your duties generally in connection with that company? 
A. More particularly to look after such interests of the company as are located in 
the East, or the New England States. 
Q. Did you represent the company in the preparation of the contracts for furnish- 
ing beef in Porto Rico and Cuba last year? 
A. Yes, sir; to some extent. 
Q. Will you please state to the court, in narrative form, your connection with the 
negotiations that resulted in the making of the contract in connection with the Com- 
missary-General of Subsistence? 
A. The first I had to do with it was on the 23d of June. I received a telegram 
from the president of the company, stating that General Eagan wished some officer of 
the company to come to Washington with reference to contracts that were in course. 
I replied that 1 would be there on the morning of the 24th, Friday, I think. I came 
to Washington, and was here on that day. 
Q. When did you appear before the Commissary-General in connection with the 
arrangements having reference to the contract? 
A. I think my train was due at 10.40, and I met the General very soon after, per- 
haps an hour and a half after that. I had an interview with him. 
Q. Please state as fully as you can recall the circumstances of the interview, what 
it consisted of? 
A. We had been the lowest bidders in reference to furnishing supplies for Cuba, 
and he wished to consult in regard to matters in connection with the contract; also, 
to some extent, with regard to suitable ships for the service. We had, as I remem- 
ber, a short conversation. I then retired for lunch. I went to my hotel, and after 
lunch we met by appointment again at the General's office, and the interview lasted 
but a short time. The conversation was general, as to how we did the business, 
etc., and with regard to suitable ships; and it led to his stating, at the close of the 
interview, that he was then about to award, and he did award the contract-the first 
time he had done it formally, as I understood him. He said that he did not care to 
go into the details further than he had until they could investigate more fully than 
they had been able to do, in regard to suitable ships, etc. He wished me to go back 
to Boston. He asked me to visit one ship on my way back, and report to him re- 
garding her, through Mr. Gardner, who was present at the interview-present at 
all the interviews, in fact, that I had with the General. He asked me to hold myself in 
readiness to come to Washington on his call, which I promised to do. 
Q. Was that all of the interview that you remember at this moment? 
S. Doc. 270 71 1122 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. There were two interviews on that visit of mine to Washington. Of course I 
have not stated all the conversation, because it was a conversation in a general way. 
Q. Did the advertisement provide that the refrigerating apparatus on the ship 
should be furnished by the United States or by the contractor? 
A. I do not know what the advertisement of the Government did require. I never 
read it, in reality. The negotiations were conducted from our general office in Chi- 
cago, up to the point where I was asked to come to Washington, on the 23d of June. 
Q. Was the question of furnishing the refrigerating apparatus on the ship discussed 
at the interviews? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you remember what the conversation was in that regard? 
A. It was a discussion as to the capacity, to some extent, and with regard to the 
time it would take to fit a plant on a ship, which I explained to the general would 
depend on circumstances. I explained that if the ship was lying in New York, we 
could do it much more quickly than we could at any other port, for the reason that 
that was the source of supply of refrigerating machinery; that it was practically at 
home to us, we doing more or less business in New York, as compared with any port 
that would be farther south. 
Q. Was Swift & Co. required to furnish the refrigerating apparatus upon any of the 
ships? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you remember what ones? 
A. I say they were required to furnish it. They were required by their contract 
to furnish it. The particular parts or what ships I can't state now. It is a detail I 
had not to do with. 
Q. Do you remember whether they did establish the refrigerating apparatus upon 
any of the ships, or was that furnished by the United States with the vessel? 
A. We did more or less of that, and in one or more cases we took refrigeration, 
which was "in order to save time, but was expensive to do, as I explained to the 
general, and was of doubtful value, except in point of time. 
Q. Was the question of erecting refrigerating plants in Cuba and Porto Rico dis- 
cussed in those preliminary conversations? 
A. Not with regard to Porto Rico in detail. In a general way he said that 
he should want us to erect refrigerators at seaport towns in Cuba. He said in that 
connection that he wished to discuss as to the number of ships it would take to 
perform the service. He said it was his idea to have refrigerating machinery placed 
on a sufficient number of ships to make substantially a three days' service, and he 
thought it would be more practicable than otherwise to have those ships follow in line 
and encircle the island; that that was probably what would take place-the estab- 
lishing of a line of ships, so that they would follow practically three days apart at the 
different ports, one following the other. He wanted my idea as to the number of 
ships. I told him it was a thing that I could hardly say about, because it depended 
entirely on what American ports they were to be loaded at; that there were a great 
many things to be considered in that respect; that if he could fix a port and elect the 
ships, that we might know the speed of the ships, then it would not be difficult to 
approximate the time it would take to discharge the various classes of merchandise, 
or what need we should have to do so; but in order to do it with any degree of accu- 
racy, it would be necessary to know all those things. 
Q. Did you see the contract or a draft of it while you were here? 
A. Yes, sir; the second time. When I left the first time, General Eagan said that 
when he called me again he would be able to present a draft of the contract and dis- 
cuss details with me, which was done on our next meeting, on the 29th of June. On 
the 28th of June I had a telegram stating that General Eagan wished me to come FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1123 
immediately to Washington. I replied that I would be here the morning of the 
29th, and I was here at that time. 
Q. If you were to take a copy of the contract, would the reading of the several 
clauses refresh your memory as to any discussion that may have been had as to those 
clauses? « 
A. I don't know as I can say as to that, but I recollect distinctly the first objection 
that I made to the contract. I can not tell what the wording was, but the inference 
was we should furnish beef 
Q. Is that the Santiago contract? 
A. Yes, sir; I have never had anything to do with any other than the Santiago 
contract. 
Q. Here is a copy of the contract. Please read over the clauses. 
A. The first objection I made to the contract was that it might require us to deliver 
beef by lighter, or to a port not reached at all conveniently by railroad. I told him 
I could not agree to deliver and would not deliver beef to them under an agreement 
that it should be in good condition except where the railroads had side tracks to 
wharves at which the ships should lie when being loaded. 
Q.- In the United States? 
A. In the United States. I think that was modified, so that my interpretation 
is it provided for that. 
Q. Will you look over the clauses and see the one that is opened up? 
A. I discussed pretty fully with General Eagan the necessity of not requiring us to 
build refrigerators materially larger than were liable to be used, explaining to him it 
would be a hardship to do so; and there was some modification of that, that they 
should be only of such capacity as would be approximately required. (After exam- 
ining contract.) There was a modification and discussion over the way in which 
the men in care of refrigerators should be cared for on the ships. It seemed to be a 
little inconsistent, somehow. They seemed to be required there to look after the 
ship refrigerators, and at the same time they did not seem to have any place on the 
ships as to their food, and I do not know but as to their quarters; but the General 
explained that that was a matter that had to be so and so. It was written as it is 
shown here. There was a modification of the clause covering the time in which the 
company should be responsible for the good condition of the beef. 
Q. Please explain that as fully as you can recall it. 
A. All our discussion was on the basis that we were to supply beef to the seacoast 
cities. He said, in a general way, that the interior points were to be furnished with 
beef from fresh-slaughtered cattle on the island, and the question came up as to the 
time that we would care for the beef and have it in good, merchantable condition for 
food at our refrigerators on the shore. All our conversation was based on having 
refrigerators built at these points, which should be designated by the Commissary- 
General, and which we agreed to build immediately on instructions to do so. It was 
agreed that the refrigerators should be sufficient for seventy-two hours' supply, on 
what he would estimate as seventy-two hours' supply for the Army at any given 
point. That, however, was to be the maximum for which we were to be responsible 
for its condition in the refrigerators, except that we were to be responsible for 
twenty-four hours beyond that, with reasonable care on the part of the Government; 
and in respect to that there was considerable conversation in a general way as to 
what would be expected. The General said that he could foresee that a refrigerat- 
ing plant would want to be set up at Santiago immediately. He believed that our 
forces would be in possession of Santiago in the very near future, and he wanted 
refrigerators set up there right away, so to speak, probably as soon as any ship could 
get away from here, in the ordinary course. With regard to that particular refriger- 
ator, as also all others, I insisted that it should be specified that they should be 1124 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
located at the wharves, practically the same as I had insisted that we needed to 
deliver our beef by rail to the ships in the United States. The General said, in 
regard to that, that we should have every possible facility for doing the work prop- 
erly; that we would be located on the wharf, or as near there as practicable, but as 
for the matter of the location it was a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of the 
commanding officer, who, however, would be advised of the necessity of prompt 
handling, etc., of the beef, careful handling, and would render every assistance. 
Q. Is that all the conversation you recall on that clause? 
A. That is the substance of it. I told him we could not undertake to deliver beef 
away from the coast; that it was a country that we had no knowledge of except in a 
general way as to the climate, etc., which we could provide against while on our 
territory, so to speak; and I felt that while we were under our flag and had coal and 
water and machinery, we could take care of the temperature until the delivery of 
the beef. The General said he would expect the beef rations to be delivered to the 
agents of the Government daily. 
Q. Does the clause of the contract in reference to the seventy-two hours embody 
your understanding of the undertaking as it is expressed there? 
A. That is my understanding of it-that the beef should be good seventy-two 
hours after leaving the ship, by shore frigeration, which was contemplated in all our 
conversation. 
Q. Was there any conversation in respect to the deliveries of beef where no shore 
refrigeration existed? 
A. It was not even discussed, in my presence. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Mr. Swift, I believe you have stated that the first conversation you had with 
General Eagan in regard to the beef to be supplied to the troops was on the 24th of 
June? 
A. The 24th of June; yes, sir. 
Q. Who was present when you had the conversation? 
A. There were present Mr. H. C. Gardner, of Chicago, and Mr. Barry. 
Q. Who is Mr. H. C. Gardner-in what capacity does he act? 
A. He has charge of buildings and machinery, both stationary and on shipboard, 
the building of cars, and the general construction of matters that come up in our 
business. 
Q. He is connected with your company? 
A. Yes, sir; he is in the employ of our company. 
Q. And Mr. Barry; what was his capacity at that time? 
A. His capacity was representing the company as salesman, I should say. 
Q. Were the details of the contract discussed in any way on the 24th of June, at 
your first interview? 
A. The details of the contract? 
Q. Yes. 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You had been awarded the contract, I believe; your bid had been the success- 
ful bid? You were so informed by the Commissary-General? 
A. I understood that he awarded it just at the moment of our leaving; that it had 
not been awarded up to that time. 
Q. That is, on the 24th? 
A. The 24th; yes, sir. 
Q. There was no conversation, then, in regard to the details, and that was reserved 
until the subsequent interview? 
A. The General said he did not want to enter into the details of the contract until 
he had gotten more information with regard to ships for the service. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1125 
Q. Did you at that time call on any other officer or official of the War Department 
with reference to the contract? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. I understand, then, that there were no other persons present at the first interview 
than those you have named, as you recollect? 
A.* Or at the second, or at any other at which I was present. 
Q. Mr. Swift, was there any discussion at that time, either on the 24th of June or 
on the 29th of June, as to any process by which this beef might be delivered to the 
troops in Cuba in good condition? Was there anything said in reference to any special 
process; if so, state fully. 
A. There was the very slightest reference made to it, and I think it was at the 
time of awarding the contract. I think the General made some reference to having 
received propositions or having been solicited in the matter of some process; but there 
was only the slightest reference. I don't think I spoke of it at all. It was just the 
barest reference. 
Q. The reference was entirely on his part? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Can you state what the process was? 
A. No, sir; there was no reference made to the process. There was only the slight- 
est reference made to it at all. I think perhaps he had had some conversation with 
Mr. Gardner, who had been in Washington for two or three days previously, and 
with whom I understand General Eagan had discussed the methods of our transporta- 
tion and refrigeration of fresh beef. 
Q. Was the matter discussed between you and Mr. Gardner with reference to any 
process? 
A. Not at all. 
Q. There was no reference made to it? 
A. Not at all. 
Q. Can you recall the name of that process that General Eagan, as you say, 
just referred to? 
A. I don't think he mentioned any names. 
Q. In connection with that, was it as to the length of time that beef would keep? 
Did he specify any hours?- 
A. No, sir; there was only the slightest reference made to it at all. 
Q. Did he in the course of conversation ask you whether you had any special process 
by which you could preserve beef and insure its delivery in good condition to the 
troops other than that spoken of as the cold air? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. He asked, then, no question of you on the subject at all? 
A. He asked no questions of me whatsoever in reference to any process. 
Q. Can you state whether within your knowledge, whether you had before that 
time, or about that time, or have had subsequent to that time, any correspondence 
with any party who alleged he had a process that would insure the safe delivery of 
beef other than that which is ordinarily pursued in this country? 
A. I have had no correspondence within five years. Previous to that I may have 
had a letter from someone claiming to have had a process, but if I did I never 
answered it. 
Q. You, I presume, in your official capacity in the East here, would not have 
charge of correspondence of that kind? 
A. No, sir; not of the company correspondence. 
Q. If I understand you correctly, I believe you stated in your testimony that the 
company guaranteed or took upon itself the obligation to have the beef kept for 
seventy-two hours after leaving the refrigerator of the ship and going into the refrig- 
erator on shore? 1126 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Yes, sir; seventy-two hours from the time it left the ship refrigerator until it 
should leave the shore refrigerator. 
Q. And then a further period of twenty-four hours from the time it was issued 
from the refrigerator on shore? * 
A. Yes, sir; under reasonable care on the part of the Government. 
Q. Who was to determine that? • 
A. General Eagan promised that every care should be exercised. I explained to 
him that it would be impracticable to attempt to keep beef twenty-four hours in a 
broiling tropical sun; that it should be covered, or in the shade. 
Q. As a matter of fact, Mr. Swift, you did not make any agreement which bound 
you that the beef twenty-four hours after it was issued out of the refrigerator on shore 
to the troops should be in good condition when it reached the troops? Did not your 
obligation end at the time you issued it at the refrigerator on shore? 
A. Technically, according to the contract, I think it does; but that was not the 
understanding. 
Q. The understanding was one wTay and technically the contract might be construed 
another? 
A. I think technically it might be construed the other; but the understanding was 
that the beef should be serviceable good food twenty-four hours after leaving the 
refrigerators, or if issued from the ship. 
Q. How long after being issued from the ship? 
A. Twenty-four hours, just the same in either case. He explained that his object 
in having those refrigerators on shore was not necessarily to keep beef seventy-two 
hours, but to have it possible to do so. That was made the limit. 
Q. In the delivery of beef at Santiago or to the troops in Cuba, in which contract I 
believe you were only concerned, has your company had any charges made against 
it, or has it made good any quantities of beef that were spoiled, and were found 
spoiled on arriving at the camps of the troops, inside of the twenty-four hours? Have 
you any knowledge on that subject? 
A. I have no knowledge on the subject whatever. 
Q. So far as you know, full payment was made for all beef delivered from the 
refrigerators? 
A. So far as I know; yes. 
Q. If I am in error, I wish to be corrected. I think it has appeared in the testi- 
mony of General Eagan before this court that his understanding of the contract was 
that the beef should keep seventy-two hours after leaving the refrigerator on ship- 
board, or seventy-two hours from the time it left the refrigerator on shore, in either 
case. That being his understanding, will you please, in view of your testimony, 
reconcile the discrepancy or explain it? 
A. I can only say that I felt sure that General Eagan interpreted the contract as I 
did at the time of making it; but, in view of his evidence, I can only say that the 
General is mistaken. 
Q. I believe it is in evidence that General Eagan claims that the figures and words 
" twenty-four hours " were in the contract through a clerical error. 
A. It could not be so. They were there because of my objection to the clause 
that was there previously. 
Q. Did you read the draft of the contract? Was it read to you in General Eagan's 
presence? 
A. Yes, sir; I not only did that, but I took a draft to lunch with me and gave it 
attention there. 
Q. From the draft the formal contracts were drawn up, I presume? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How far, if there was any conversation on that subject, did General Eagan 
expect to supply the troops from these port cities or towns on the coast of Cuba? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1127 
A. I understood from him that he expected to supply them only at those ports. 
Q. That would be a reasonable distance-a distance of a few miles. Was there any 
conversation between you and him as to the practicability of supplying the troops of 
an army operating in the interior? 
A. The General said he expected to supply them with fresh beef from cattle slaugh- 
tered there on the island. 
Q. Did he state how he expected to get the cattle there? Was that a subject of 
conversation? 
A. He did not say; but he told of a man who was there, I think, at that time, or 
if he was not there he had just been there, from Texas, who had made a proposition. 
Q. I beg your pardon for interrupting you. Please give his name. 
A. I can not. He stated in a general way he had had a bid from a man in Texas, 
and I think he asked my opinion of the bid. I told him I did not consider I was 
competent to judge; that there were so many classes of cattle, etc., that I was not 
competent to judge; that I was not directly in contact with that end of the business 
and had not been for the last few years. 
Q. Are you engaged in exporting cattle on the hoof-that is, unslaughtered cattle- 
or is your company so engaged? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You are familiar then, perhaps, with about the exports yearly. Could you give 
a reasonable estimate as to the number of cattle exported in the last seven or eight 
months of last year? 
A. I could not give anything that would be very close. 
Q. I would not expect that. You are familiar with the cattle business, Mr. Swift, 
and some of us are not. We would like to have the information. 
A. I should think there has been an average of 6,500 to 7,000 cattle a week 
shipped. 
Q.. From the various shipping points in the United States? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That would include the Atlantic coast and the Gulf coast as well? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did General Eagan in the course of conversation speak of any apprehension in 
regard to the supplying of the troops down there with either refrigerated beef or 
cattle on the hoof? Did that enter in the conversation; and if so, I would like to 
have you detail it in full. 
A. In a general way, General Eagan said he had had a great deal of conversation 
with Mr. Gardiner, and also, I think he said, with Mr. Barry, in regard to our 
methods, and he felt sure that our reports were correct; that the climate had very 
little to do with our beef until it became exposed; and that he believed the army 
could be successfully fed on the seacoast in the manner proposed. 
Q. Had there been any reference to any experience in matters of that kind? 
A. There was some talk about our trade in England. He wanted to know how 
long we had been doing it, etc., and what success we had made. 
Q. I refer more particularly to a climate perhaps similar to that of the Tropics-of 
Cuba. 
A. I don't think there was any reference made to that directly. 
Q. Had there, as a matter of fact, been any experience on the part of your com- 
pany in delivering refrigerated beef to an army or large bodies of men under those 
conditions in tropical countries? 
A. Certainly not. 
Q. It was then to that extent in the nature of an experiment, was it not? 
A. Not at all, sir. 
Q. It was the first instance of the kind in this country, was it not? 
A. Yes; but it was not an experiment. I don't think it makes any difference 1128 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
whether you go to a tropical climate or any other climate, even the North Pole, if you 
have the temperature right, so far as the delivery of the beef is concerned. Of course, 
when you come to take it out into the natural air that changes the conditions. 
Q. It could only be delivered in that way to an army-as a matter of general infor- 
mation-operating as that army was. It would necessarily have to be exposed more 
or less to the air, would it not? 
A. Only to a very limited extent. General Eagan said he expected to have a great 
deal of use for beef in supplying the inhabitants of those cities on the coast. He 
expected very large amounts of beef would be wanted. 
Q. Do you know whether, up to that time, during the operations, or up to Sep- 
tember, you supplied the inhabitants with any very large quantities of beef? 
A. I don't know whether we supplied them with any or not, as a matter of fact. 
Q. In the course of conversation, did General Eagan state, or was it discussed, as to 
the precautions that would be necessary when that meat was taken out of the refrig- 
erators under the.conditions of an army in active operation, in order that it might be 
delivered safely to the troops? 
A. He said his commissary agents would have instructions to use care to protect 
the beef from the tropical sun. I told him if it was protected from the sun there 
could be no doubt of its being good food at the end of twenty-four hours. 
Q. If the sun happened to strike it a few hours, how long would it keep, in your 
opinion? Have you any knowledge on that subject? 
A. If I am allowed to explain in my own way in that matter, I would say this: 
That the beef would be good for a much longer time than it would, by the ordinary 
person not acquainted with it, be pronounced good; and I wish to make this explan- 
ation, if you will allow me to diverge just a little. 
Q. Answer the question in your own way, sir. 
A. At any time of extreme heat, there is great difficulty in cooling off cattle when 
they are first slaughtered, extracting the animal heat nroperly; and that is just what 
would take place in a tropical climate. If the cattle were of very good quality, the 
the chances are a great percentage of them would be spoiled before they ever went 
through. They would spoil at the bone by the failure of the animal heat to pass 
out, and that produces the most putrid smell that is imaginable. With a piece of 
refrigerated beef, if you lay it in the sun, or expose it to unusual wear of any kind, 
it will begin to wear from the outside, precisely as a hard cheese would do if it was 
rolled around on the floor. It would begin to look very bad before it was injured; 
and it would be quite a good while-I am unable to state how long-before that beef 
would be injured to the bone. 
Q. Were all these details as to the care of that beef in its delivery discussed with 
General Eagan? Was that entered into, and was it explained just what he and his 
commissary agents would have to have? Did he explain how he would have this 
beef sent out to the camp, with the information that you have on the subject? 
A. He had more conversation with Mr. Gardner regarding that than he had with 
me; but he said to me in a general way that the beef should have good attention; 
that his agents should be instructed that it must be protected from the sun, and 
that it should have such care as perishable goods require. There was more or less 
discussion in regard to the men going on the ships. I explained to him that we 
would require two engineers, etc. 
By General Davis: 
Q. How did the original draft of the contract respecting this seventy-two-hour 
clause vary in its verbiage from the same phrases found in the contract as signed? 
A. I am unable to state that; but it looked to me as though it could be construed as 
an obligation on our part to insure the good condition of beef in the open air seventy 
hours; and I told General Eagan that we could not commit ourselves to any such 
proposition. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1129 
Q. But you can not remember what words were struck out nor what substitutions 
were made in order to give expression to your interpretation? 
A. No; and I do not think, from my conversation with General Eagan, that he 
expected that he was putting in a seventy-two-hour clause. We had no conversa- 
tion which led to any proposition on our part or any requirement on his part and he 
did not even make a request that it should be seventy-two hours exposed to the 
atmosphere. 
Q. But when you read the draft, you found it expressed an idea to which you 
demurred? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And there was a verbal change made from the draft? 
A. Yes, sir; there was a change made in the draft itself. 
Q. So that this instrument as complete is different in that respect from what the 
draft presented? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was the change made in your presence? Can you recall that circumstance, 
and by whom it was made? 
A. The contract or the form was changed quite a number of times, and generally, 
I think, by the general making notes in pencil and sending it out for that sheet to 
be corrected or changed. 
Q. In the refrigeration of beef generally, is its durability or suitability or sound- 
ness in any degree dependent upon the length of time it has previously been refrig- 
erated? 
A. I don't know that I quite understand your question. I will say this, that if 
beef is not started right to commence with, it will never be very good. 
Q. Take two quarters of beef of exactly the same kind, both of which have had 
the animal heat entirely removed, one having been refrigerated for four weeks and 
the other for one day. Will one or the other last longer exposed to the atmosphere 
or the heat, and which will last longer, if either? 
A. To some extent, the one that has been refrigerated only one day. I will have 
to modify that. If one had been refrigerated three days and the other a month, I 
think the one that had been refrigerated three days, perhaps, will not show the effects 
of the weather quite as quickly as the other. It probably would not; but if it is a 
matter of refrigeration only for one day, I should say it would be in favor of the 
other quarter of beef. 
Q. Do you know whether any of the beef you sent to Santiago spoiled on board the 
ships and were thrown overboard? 
A. I don't know that it was. I do not know that it was not. I have no informa- 
tion on the subject whatever. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Mr. Swift, who originated this time limit for the preservation of the beef? Was 
it a requirement about the Commissary-General, or was it yours? 
A. The first I knew about the time limit was when the question came up of how 
long it would be practicable to keep beef in refrigerators on the shore, and still have 
it serviceable for the Army. I do not know that that was not discussed before with 
Mr. Gardner or Mr. Barry, but so far as my connection with it was concerned, it 
came up in that way. 
Q. At what time does meat begin to deteriorate in quality, even under the very 
best refrigeration? 
A. In quality? 
Q. Yes. 
A. I think it can be kept two or three months-I do not know how long without 
deterioration of quality under the most favorable conditions. I want to answer your 
question as you would like to have it answered. 1130 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. The point was how long could you expect to keep it unchanged in quality with 
refrigeration? 
A. I consider the quality would improve for a very long time; and the quality will 
not be injured until it is injured by deterioration. Our hotels in New England, after 
we have refrigerated the beef and deliver it to them, will not eat it under an average 
time of less than nine or ten days. They buy it after that in the market, cut it up 
in pieces and have it carried a long time before they use it on their tables. Of course 
you will understand that beef having once been exposed to the air and then cut up 
in pieces and put into a local refrigerator that is opened every day, will not stand at 
all as it would in a refrigerator that is intact. It is pretty hard to tell just at what 
point it injures the quality. 
Redirect examination by the Recorder: 
Q. You have testified, Mr. Swift, as to being familiar with the trade in live cattle 
between the United States and Europe. Are you also familiar with the trade in 
refrigerated beef? 
A. I do not know that I testified I was familiar with the trade in live cattle. 
Q. I think you testified as to the number that were shipped weekly. 
A. I was asked the question how many I thought were shipped, and I said in a 
general way that I am more or less acquainted with it; but I don't think I testified 
I was familiar with it. 
Q. I would like to ask this question, if the answer lies within your knowledge: Is 
either trade gaining at the expense of the other? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Which, if you recall? 
A. The dressed beef trade is growing very much faster than the live cattle trade- 
very much faster. 
Recross-exam mation by Major Lee: 
Q. I would like to ask whether you know of the live cattle that are exported to 
England, for instance, and of the refrigerated beef, which brings the better price in 
England per pound, the refrigerated beef or the export cattle - that is, if it is 
reasonably within your knowledge? 
A. I think my former answer is about as good a one as I can give. People like to 
do business so as not to lose much money. The live-cattle business has been so hard 
that it is decreasing; or if it is not decreasing, it is not growing in proportion to 
wbat the dressed beef trade is, which shows that the prices that can be derived for 
the dressed beef, and the demand for it are superior to that which exist for the 
cattle; and I will say this, without any fear of contradiction, that the best trade of 
London use refrigerated beef. That I know within my own knowledge. 
Q. It has been claimed that there is a difference in the price. I am speaking of 
export cattle, not necessarily of Texas cattle, but a class of export cattle that will 
come from the central West, from Indiana, and those places, which is frequently 
shipped out. It is claimed that it commands a better price or, I will say, there is a 
difference in price between that and the refrigerated beef. Just what the difference 
is I do not know. I would like to find out what it is. 
A. When there is any shortage of refrigerated beef in London, it advances more 
rapidly in price, in my opinion, than does a shortage in the beef from fresh cattle. 
Q. I understand, then, you are not sure and can not state within your knowledge 
positively as to which commands the better price, the export cattle that go to Lon- 
don, or the refrigerated beef? 
A. I believe the refrigerated beef commands the better price. 
Q. That is your belief? 
A. Yes. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1131 
Q. That could, perhaps, best be determined by market quotations^ if they are 
reliable. I have no further questions. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Barry. 
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES E. BARRY. 
Charles E. Barry was called as a witness by the recorder and, having been first 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name and residence. 
A. Charles E. Barry, Chicago, Ill. 
Q. Are you connected with the establishment of Swift & Co., and if so, in what 
capacity? 
A. I have been traveling salesman for Swift & Co. since 1890. 
Q. Did you take part in the negotiations in June of last year in respect to the 
delivery of refrigerated beef to Cuba and Porto Rico? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Please state to the court in narrative form, as nearly and closely as you can 
recollect, what the conversations were and with whom and where they took place. 
A. I came to Washington the latter part of May, and shortly after my arrival here 
General Eagan had a conversation regarding the supplying of troops in Cuba with 
fresh beef. We had several interdews before I was called upon to have someone 
come from Chicago who understood refrigeration and work of that nature, that would 
have to be taken up to carry out a contract, if entered into. This was all prelimi- 
nary conversation on this work. 1 did not even think that it would be entered into, 
but I was asked to give such information as I could. After being asked by General 
Eagan to have someone come who understood refrigeration, I notified Chicago, and 
they sent here Mr. II. C. Gardner. Mr. Gardner and myself called upon General 
Eagan, and this same form of work came up as to refrigeration and what packers, if 
any, or all of them, could provide such refrigeration as would send fresh beef and 
keep fresh beef in Cuba. 
Q. Before going on any further, had you seen the advertisement at that time that 
had been issued by the Government? 
A. Oh, no, sir. This was weeks before the advertisement was issued. This was 
a preliminary matter that led up to the advertisements. 
Q. Can you fix about the date when it took place? 
A. I should think it was along in the latter part of May. 1 couldn't say what date 
it was, because I didn't give very much attention to it. 
Q. Go on, if you please. 
A. In the conversation which took place between Mr. Gardner and General Eagan 
and myself, the question was, Could steamers be refrigerated so as to haul this beef 
from the States into Cuba? Mr. Gardner told him we had already had such things 
in doing export work between here and England. Then he wanted to know about 
the beef in Cuba. Mr. Gardner told him he could not tell very much about that, as 
to the beef after its landing, because he did not know anything as to the climatic 
conditions there. The General at all times said that if a contract was let to any one 
of the packers, he would be prepared to assist in any way possible to see that the 
beef had protection on shore. Then the bid was advertised and sent to Chicago, and 
it was returned to me for the opening on June 13. In the meantime, after the 
bids had been opened 
Q. Let me interrupt. Did you read the advertisement at that time? 
A. No; I did not. The first bid was sent to Chicago before I read it. He sent it 
from his office to Chicago. 1132 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. The advertisement? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you see it at any time. 
A. Later, before it was opened? 
Q. Do you know what the advertisement says in the way of provisions in respect 
to the delivery of fresh beef? 
A. Only that the steamers shall be refrigerated either by the Government or the 
contractor. 
Q. This is a copy of the advertisement that has already been submitted in evidence. 
Will you read that portion of it relating to refrigerated beef? 
A. That seems to be a copy of what I read at that time; yes, sir. 
Q. Will you please read the clause relating to the refrigerated beef? 
A. "You are invited to bid for supplying the troops at the various seacoast points 
which may be occupied by them in the island of Cuba with refrigerated, chilled, or 
frozen beef in such quantities and in such places as may be required. Please make 
your proposition, you to furnish the steamers or the Government to furnish the steam- 
ers. If the Government furnishes the steamers, then you must put in your own re- 
frigerating plant and undertake to deliver the beef, in either event so that it will be 
perfectly good and fit for use seventy-two hours after delivery; this so that the beef 
will last until a new supply arrives. Or you can build and put up any chilling or 
refrigerating process you please at the points in Cuba occupied by the troops, but in 
that case if the troops move from one seaport to another, then it will be obligatory 
on you to move your plant with the troops, that the supply may be kept up." 
Q. Now go on, please, with the subsequent interviews. 
A. After the bid was opened and the different prices made known from those bid- 
dings it was some two weeks, I think, before the contract was awarded; but General 
Eagan asked me to have Mr. Gardner come to Washington again, as he was chief of 
our construction and refrigeration, and that he would like to have him go to New 
York City and inspect some steamers for him and report on the refrigeration appa- 
ratus that was on those steamers; that if acceptable both to himself and to Mr. 
Gardner, such steamers would be recommended for purchase, as he was very anxious 
and in a hurry to get beef into Cuba. I had Mr. Gardner come to Washington, and 
he did, under General Eagan's instructions, go to New York and inspect several of 
the steamers there. He passed upon the refrigeration of them, and wherever it was 
necessary for repairs to be made to make a steamer acceptable, such repairs were 
made under Mr. Gardner's supervision. Later, I was leaving his office about half 
past 5, and he asked me to have one of the officers of the company come to 'Wash- 
ington, he wanted to have an interview with him. I wired Chicago. It was impos- 
sible for Mr. G. F. Swift, the president of the company to come on, and he so tele- 
graphed me. Then Mr. E. C. Swift, of Boston, first vice-president of the company, 
was advised to come to Washington and take up with General Eagan anything he 
had in reference to the bid that had been opened, Swift & Co. understanding 
that they were the low bidders, but that no award had been made, and they had no 
knowledge that they were to receive the award. Mr. E. C. Swift came over and 
held this first interview that he has spoken of on June 24. At that time there 
were no contract papers lying before him at all; but they talked over the matter of 
Swift & Co. being able to ship any order of beef that he gave under the con- 
tract, and that they could handle refrigerated beef in such quantities as he should 
order, and what would be necessary in refrigerating plants on shore to protect the 
beef. The General wanted to know whether Swift & Co. would put up as many as 
were wanted. There was general conversation along that line. All of it was agreed 
upon-that they would build these refrigerators if called upon to do so. The Gen- 
eral said he was not prepared to draw up a contract paper at that time, but would do 
so later, and would ask Mr. Swift to be in readiness to return to Washington when FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1133 
called upon. The following Tuesday evening he asked me to wire Mr. Swift to 
return to Washington, as he wanted to close the contract at once. I wired Mr. Swift 
and he was in Washington the next Wednesday morning. This matter of the con- 
tracts was taken up, and the first copy was laid before Mr. Swift for his perusal and 
to talk over as it should be agreed upon; and as to whether there were things in it 
that could not be undertaken by Swift & Co. Along that general line of work the 
contract was talked over. The understanding of the contract was that Swift & Co. 
should supply the seacoast towns and, where called upon, have refrigerators on 
shore. There never was anything talked of as to interior towns at all. 
Q. Will you please run over the clauses of the contract and see if that recalls any 
special conversations with reference to any one of them. 
A. In one article here-article 2-it calls for refrigeration of steamers for 300,000 
pounds. It says: " These refrigerators shall be of such size as the Commissary-Gen- 
eral of Subsistence shall direct, but of size not less than three hundred thousand 
(300,000) pounds each." That was based upon the belief of General Eagan that 
there were to be 100,000 men on the island in the army, and to feed 100,000 men he 
had to have at least a 300,000-pound shipment. Figuring the ration at a pound and 
a quarter a day, 300,000 pounds would hardly last three days. The ration was to be 
provided for fresh beef seven days out of ten, and the other three days there was to be 
salt meat, etc. I don't know just the form of the ration, but my understanding was 
that fresh beef was to be issued seven out of ten days; and in order to supply these 
100,000 men with sufficient beef, steamers were to be run every three days with 
refrigerated beef. What was not supplied from the ship direct to the commissaries 
on the first unloading was to be stored in the refrigerating plant asked for by the 
Commissary-General, and to be put up wherever he directed. It was to be good for 
seventy-two hours in that refrigerator. There is also this wording here: "They shall 
keep not less than two experts with each cargo on shipboard, and after landing until 
the beef is delivered to the proper officers of the Government, which shall not be 
more than seventy-two (72) hours from the time of storing same in such refrigera- 
tors." That is, he would not ask for the delivery of good beef more than seventy- 
two hours after we had stored it in the refrigerator, according to the second clause in 
the contract. That is the way I interpret it. The seventy-two hours were talked 
over only in regard to the beef that was placed in the refrigerators on shore. Then 
Mr. E. C. Swift, thinking it might be better, added a twenty-four hours clause from the 
refrigerator, because they could not obligate themselves to provide beef seventy-two 
hours away in the open sun to the men. In regard to the twenty-four hours, Gen- 
eral Eagan was to give such assistance as possible. The commissary in charge and 
the regimental commissary were to have advices that the beef on its delivery was to 
be covered by blankets or tarpaulins; that it was not to be too closely packed, but a 
sufficient amount of air was to be allowed to pass around them, and to keep the sun 
from them they were to have either blankets or tarpaulins. There was even a pre- 
liminary conversation between General Eagan and myself in regard to whether it 
was necessary for a shed to be built-that is, having a roof but open sides, and if the 
beef was kept at all in the regiment anywhere, it was to be kept under this roof and 
covered by blankets or tarpaulins. That was all preliminary, to lead up, to show 
that the commissary in charge and the regimental commissary would have sufficient 
advice to protect the beef when it came to them after having left the refrigerator. 
Q. Did you see any of the preliminary drafts of those clauses? 
A. No; I did not. The first contract was handed to Mr. E. D. Swift, and he read 
it there in the Commissary-General's office and then carried it with him to the hotel 
when he had his luncheon. I went where 1 am stopping to have luncheon, and I 
did not see the original contract-not the original paper. 
Q. Do you remember any conversation about lighterage? 1134 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Swift & Co., in the contract, asked that wharfage and lighterage, if necessary, 
be supplied, but at that time the General did not think that lighterage would be 
needed. He was trying to get vessels of such draft for his department that they 
could dock at the wharf instead of having to lighter from the steamer in. 
Q. Have you any recollection as to the determination of the price that should be 
inserted in the bid? By whom was that determined, if you know? 
A. I could not say who determined the price in Chicago, but the price came to me 
by telegraph. I first received the bid and their proposal by mail, with a letter 
inclosed, and stating that later the price would be wired to me. I received that 
price the morning of the 13th and entered it on the contract, sealed the contract, 
and left it with the General. 
Q. Had you anything to do with the preliminary discussions having in view the 
preparation of the Porto Rico contract? 
A. That wTas taken up under the same consideration. That was done only with 
myself. We had no one else here at the time. He simply said, "I intend to adver- 
tise a bid along the same lines of the Cuban contract for Porto Rico. ' ' I wired the 
house that such a proposition was coming out, and at the time he advertised he also 
wired that to Swift & Co. The original telegram left his office first, and then the 
representatives of the different houses here received a copy the next day. 
Q. Do you remember what your bid was in the Santiago case? 
A. In the Cuban contract. 
Q. Yes. 
A. Nine dollars and forty-seven cents. 
Q. What was it in the Porto Rico contract? 
A. Nine dollars and thirty-nine cents. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
€2. You were present, I understand, Mr. Barry, at the first interview with General 
Eagan with Mr. Swift? Was it Mr. Barry or Mr. Gardner? 
A. We were both present. 
Q. That was the first interview; that was on what date? 
A. I think it was June 24-about that time. I know it was some ten or eleven 
days after the proposal was opened. 
Q. Have you stated fully all the conversation that occurred with reference to the 
contract there at that time, or with reference to the bid? 
A. I think I have; yes, sir. 
Q. Was the contract awarded at that time? 
A. Yes; it was awarded in this way: He said, " I make known now, for the first 
time, my intention of awarding this contract to Swift & Co." 
Q. Had you had any previous conversation with General Eagan on the subject 
with reference to this refrigerated beef, and supplying it in Cuba? 
A. From w'hat time? 
Q. Prior to the 24th of June. 
A. Not from the time that his proposition was opened. He would not allow any 
of us to have anything to say to him on it. He would not talk on it with us. 
Q. I mean prior to this time, had you any conversations with reference to the mat- 
ter of supplying beef down there-prior to the 24th of June? 
A. I had up to the time the bid was opened-when he asked me to have Mr. Gard- 
ner come to Washington. 
Q. The first interview, I believe, was about the latter part of May? 
A. In the latter part of May sometime; yes, sir-between the latter part of May 
and the first part of June it came up. 
Q. Who were present at those interviews? 
A. No one but myself. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1135 
Q. In connection with this beef contract, or the bids or anything pertaining to it 
prior to this award, did you apply to any other official of the War Department in 
connection with it? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. In the course of conversation with General Eagan at various times in connec- 
tion with this, either prior to the time or at the time that the award was made, or 
immediately following it, was there anything said with reference to the preserva- 
tion of the beef by any process? Did he speak of any sort of process? Did you dis- 
cuss the matter in any way? 
A. The only thing that passed bet ween General Eagan and myself on that was that 
I was with him one day in the office, and he had a letter in his hand folded like 
that [indicating]. He said: "I am bothered to death by people sending me letters 
and things for processing beef." He said: "There has even been a woman here 
who says she has an idea she wants to sell to the Government." He said: "I dis- 
missed her as courteously as I could." He handed this letter to me and said, 
"Read that." I read the letter. It was a letter from-I believe the man's name 
was Powell, of New York City, in which he said he had shipped his meats to differ- 
ent hotels in the South, and so on. 
Q. Did he mention any hotels? Did he mention the places to which he shipped it? 
A. He mentioned St. Augustine and Tampa, I believe. I don't just recall the 
letter in its detail, but it struck me at the time, from General Eagan's behavior 
when he was reading that letter, that he was rather disgusted with the thought of 
anything of the kind; that he could not use anything of the kind and would not use 
it. In fact, he stated that he would not use anything of the kind; that he was 
depending on refrigerated beef, and expected to deal only with such people as could 
furnish him refrigerated beef; but this was prior to the opening of the proposal. 
Q. About w'hat date was that? 
A. That was along in the first of June somewhere, I think. 
Q. Before the making of the contract? 
A. Yes; before the making of the contract, if I remember rightly. 
Q. Was there anything said to you in discussion between you and General Eagan 
as to the time that you proposed to keep the beef, so that the soldiers of the American 
Army could get it in good condition in the operations down there in Cuba? 
A. No; not between General Eagan and myself. That would have been useless. 
I am not a practical beef man, and I could not have given him any positive 
information. 
Q. Were you present when there was any such conversation had? 
A. Only the conversation between Mr. E. 0. Swift and him at the time the con- 
tracts were drawn. That was all. 
Q. Do you recall any conversation as to the duration of time that General Eagan 
insisted that beef should keep in order that he might supply the troops? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Nothing was said as to the number of hours? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Either at that conversation or subsequently? 
A. Only what was lined in the contract-the seventy-two hours that he asked in 
the refrigerators on shore. 
Q. Were you present when the draft of the contract was made? 
A. No; the draft was made by his chief clerk in another room. It was then 
brought in and laid before him, and he submitted it to Mr. Swift. I did not see the 
original contract. 
Q. Did you see any changes made in it afterwards, or did you know of any change? 
A. I know there was some change asked by Mr. E. C. Swift, and this contract here 
was the result of it. 1136 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Your understanding of the contract from the conversation was that the beef 
should keep seventy-two hours after leaving the ships' refrigerators and going into 
the refrigerator on shore? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Only that? 
A. That is all. 
Q. Where were the deliveries to be made to the Government? Who was to receive 
the beef? Did Swift & Co. still have the beef until it was issued, and were they 
responsible for it? I do not know that I have made myself clear. 
A. I was just going to say I did not understand the question. 
Q. What I want to get at is this: When did the responsibility of Swift & Co. under 
the contract end? 
A. I should say seventy-two hours. 
Q. In the refrigerators on shore? 
A. Yes; in the contract here he asked for seventy-two hours in the refrigerators 
on shore. 
Q. And then it would be issued in due course to the troops? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. As called for-to the commissary officers? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I believe you stated, Mr. Barry, you heard something about the conversation 
in reference to the seventy-two hour clause, and that your company certainly could 
not guarantee to keep the beef seventy-two hours in the sun. I believe you stated 
that you objected at once to that. 
A. That was in the interview with Mr. E. C. Swift on the contract. Mr. E. C. 
Swift objected to that. 
Q. He objected to that? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. The agreement, you say, was then reduced to how many hours? 
A. To seventy-two hours in the refrigerators on shore. 
Q. Where did the twenty-four hours come in? 
A. That was added as obligating Swift & Co., with proper and sufficient care 
from the commissary and the regimental commissary, that they would guarantee the 
beef twenty-four hours from the refrigerator. 
Q. I want to ask you this: The instant they issued the beef and it was accepted 
by the commissary at the refrigerator on shore, did not the responsibility of Mr. 
Swift end there-when the commissary accepted the beef? 
A. I don't believe I understand that clearly. 
Q. I will make it plain in this way: Swift has a contract, say, to deliver beef in 
refrigerators on ships and keep it there a certain length of time-seventy-two hours. 
When the Government sends a regimental commissary, as you call him, or a brigade 
commissary, down there to draw the beef, and he receives the beef and loads it on 
his mules or whatever he has, or has his men carry it away or put it in a wagon- 
when it is issued and Swift & Co. get a receipt for that beef there at that time, does 
not their responsibility, as a matter of fact, end right there? 
A. I should think it would technically. 
Q. Do you know of your own knowledge, by information or otherwise, that beef 
that was spoiled inside of the twenty-four hours, inside of twelve hours, inside of 
eight hours, was e\er made good by the Swift Refrigerating Company? 
A. I can't say as to that, because that would come from Chicago. 
Q. Have you any information on that subject? 
A. No; that would be taken up in Chicago. 
Q. Who would have charge of that? Who would know that? 
A. The manager of the fresh-meat department. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1137 
Q. You have stated with particularity in regard to General Eagan guaranteeing to 
the company that these regimental commissaries out there with that army, operating 
along at these points or at the posts at these port cities, would provide, I believe, 
sheds and the various facilities for taking care of and protecting that beef. Are you 
sure that General Eagan made that kind of a stipulation with Mr. Swift in regard to 
that? 
A. I didn't say, if I remember right, that General Eagan made that stipulation. 
I said this came along as he was talking over what could be done to protect the beef 
by the commissaries of this country. 
Q. In this country? 
A. Where it was to be delivered-in Cuba. 
Q. You spoke of sheds being built, did you not? 
A. That he had with me alone, not with Mr. Swift. 
Q. I want that conversation particularly. I understood you to state in your testi- 
mony that he would send instructions to the commissaries. Am I correct in that? 
A. No; not in regard to the sheds. 
Q. In regard to what? 
A. He said that the commissaries would be advised to protect the beef to the best 
of their ability. He did not say he would advise them to protect the beef with 
blankets and tarpaulins and sheds, but he said such could be done. 
Q. Please refresh your memory on that point and try to recall whether General 
Eagan said he would advise the commissaries to protect the beef, or whether he said 
they would protect it to the best of their ability. 
A. He said he would advise them to protect the beef to the best of their ability, 
but he did not say how they would protect it. 
Q. Have you any knowledge that he sent any advice or instructions of that tenor 
or effect to these commissaries? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. In the event of lightering the beef from the vessel, where it could not get to 
the dock, which would 1^ 'a possibility, in fact a probability, who was to bear the 
expense of that? 
A. The Government was to do that, sir. . 
Q. Who was to bear the expense of putting in a refrigerator on shore? 
A. I don't know that that subject came up. I don't know. 
Q. I was taking the case of beef having to be lightered and brought off the ship, 
brought in there and put in the refrigerator on shore, if you are familiar with the 
understanding of the contract. It was to be at somebody's expense. 
A. I understood that Swift & Co. were to load it on this side. I do not know 
who was to unload it. 
Q. Who was the local agent of the company here in this city at that time, Mr. 
Bary, if you had one here? 
A. Do you mean of the refrigerator company? 
Q. I mean of Swift & Co. 
A. Of their plant here? 
Q. Yes. 
A. Mr. C. E. Lyman. 
Q. Who attends to the ordinary business of the city here? 
A. Mr. C. E. Lyman; yes, sir. 
Q. In the discussions with General Eagan in regard to this beef and these various 
interviews which you had, do you recall any conversation or any remark being made 
as to some companies not being able to keep the beef for delivery as long as your 
company-Armour & Co., for instance? Was there any conversation in regard to 
the respective abilities of the companies about the time that they could keep beef 
down there? 
S. Doc. 270 72 1138 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Not with me; no, sir. 
Q. Do you know whether your company ever had any correspondence with Mr. 
Powell in regard to the Powell process? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. In Chicago or elsewhere? 
A. No, sir; I would not know that. 
Q. You would not know that? 
A. No, sir; it would be out of my limit. 
Q. Who would have the custody of such correspondence? 
A. That I can't say. I don't know which department that would enter. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is nearly 4 o'clock, and, although one 
more witness has been called for this afternoon, there are some matters in connec- 
tion with the summoning of witnesses for the other days of this week that should 
be taken up and determined at an early moment. I therefore suggest that the court 
go into executive session for that purpose. 
The President. Very well. 
The court then (at 3.15 p. m.) went into executive session, aftei which an adjourn- 
ment was taken until Tuesday, March 28, 1899, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C., 
Tuesday, March 28, 1899. 
The court met at 10 o'clock a. m., pursuant to adjournment. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Captain Davis, of the Subsistence Department. 
TESTIMONY OF CAPT. GEORGE B. DAVIS, U. S. A. 
Capt. George B. Davis, U. S. A., was called as a witness by the recorder, and, 
having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. George B. Davis; captain, commissary of subsistence, United States Army; 
station, Washington, D. C. 
Q. How long have you been on duty in the office of the Commissary-General of 
Subsistence? • 
A. Since February, 1898-the end of February. 
Q. Were you present in the office when the advertisement was drawn for the beef 
contracts at Cuba-Santiago-and Porto Rico? 
A. I was on duty in the office, but the afternoon they were sent out I was not in. 
Q. Were you present when the Santiago contract was prepared? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Please state to the court what portions of the w ork in connection with the prep- 
aration of that contract passed under your observation. 
A. The clerk who was drawing it up explained to me that he did not understand 
how some of the provisions were to be drawn, and he asked me to read them. I 
went into the Commissary-General's office and asked the Commissary-General what 
he desired, and after conversation with him I found out what was desired, and I 
went back and told the clerk what to put in. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1139 
Q. What did that relate to? 
A. That related more particularly to the clause with reference to refrigerators on 
shore and the time limits that were to be put in with reference to the keeping of the 
beef. 
Q. And was your action simply to formulate the instructions of the Commissary- 
General? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Go on and state whatever passed within your observation in connection with 
the execution of the contract. 
A. As I have said, I asked the Commissary-General what he desired to have put 
in. He explained to me that it was desired to have the clause with reference to the 
time that the beef was to keep coming out of the refrigerator on the ship seventy-two 
hours, and that the time when it was placed in the refrigerator on shore and taken 
from the refrigerator on the shore was to be twenty-four hours, and this was for the 
purpose of enabling them to have beef in the refrigerator when the refrigerator might 
be some little distance from where the ship was anchored that had the beef on it. 
Q. Does that cover all of your observation in connection with the execution of the 
contract? • 
A. Well, after the contract was finally drawn I went over it to see that it contained 
the provisions as I understood that they were to be in it. 
Q. Were you present at the opening of the bids? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Have you an abstract of them? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Will you please read the bids as they are set forth in the abstract? In the first 
place, what different undertakings were called for in the advertisement-what were 
people asked to bid on? 
A. They were asked to bid on refrigerated beef and the beef on the block for other 
points in the island. 
Q. Go on with the abstract. 
A. The first bid is that of C. 0. McClure, and the price is 22J cents; Government 
to furnish transportation for cattle, feed, and men from Tampa. 
Q. What was that bid for? 
A. That was for beef on the block, sir. 
Q. Go on with the next. 
A. The next was No. 2, C. 0. McClure. It is a duplicate of No. 1. He submitted 
one by letter and one by telegraph. 
Bid No. 3 is from J. E. Goodwin. The price is 20 cents net. That was for beef 
on the block also; Nashville, Tenn. 
No. 4, William M. Rice; 14 cents. Government to furnish steamer from Galves- 
ton. That is for beef on the block also. 
The next was No. 5, from C. O. McClure. Price, 22j cents, Tampa; Pensacola, 
21J cents; Mobile, 21 cents; New Orleans, 20| cents. 
The next is E. H. McCaleb, jr. Price, 7^ cents. He bid from New Orleans. 
No. 7 is Borden & Borden; 14 cents, dressed weight. Contractor furnishes vessel. 
Galveston, Tex. 
No. 8 is Jasper Summerlin. Price, 15 cents; carcass any point from Caibarien to 
Montazuelo. The Government also was to allow $5 a head for delivery. 
The next one was from Jasper Summerlin, and he bid at Neuvitas, at 17 cents; $6 
per head for delivery allowed Government. He bid 9 cents for beef dressed on board 
at Tampa. 
The next bid, No. 9, is Fulton Bros. Price, 17 cents. Fresh dressed at Santiago 
and Porto Rico, Habana, and Matanzas, 15 cents per pound. 1140 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
The next, No. 10, C. Casburn. He had no bid in. It was under the form of a bid, 
but it was simply some instructions. 
The next, No. 11, is H. Mosle & Co. He submitted no bid. 
The next, No. 12, W. H. Towles, 7 J cents. This was for beef expressed here on 
Government boat, Key West; any Cuban port, 14| cents. Transportation, foot, and 
slaughtered in Cuba, 16 cents. 
The next bid is Robert Wills; price, 12| cents net, on hoof in Cuba; Chicago, Ill. 
No. 14 is from William T. Clark; 7.625 cents on hoof in Cuba. 
The next one is William T. Clark; price is 14.875 cents on block at Cuba. 
No. 16, C. O. McClure, price 221 cents; on block, Government to furnish trans- 
portation. 
No. 17, William M. Rice Ranch; price, 14 cents; on block, Government to furnish 
transportation from Galveston. 
No. 18, W. T. Clark; price, 5 cents on hoof, f. o. b., Galveston or New Orleans. 
The next is W. T. Clark, 7/5 cents, on hoof in Cuba. 
The next, W. T. Clark, 14f cents on block; all points in Cuba. 
The next one is No. 19, Frederick F. Lyden, 9.99 cents net, the Government to 
furnish steamers or contractor to furnish steamers, refrigeration optional; steamers 
optional. This man withdrew his bid. He bid under a misapprehension. 
The next is E. H. McCaleb, jr. I might explain that this McCaleb was an attorney 
who was the receiver for the New Orleans Abattoir Company, which was a defunct 
concern, and they bid for the beef delivered in New Orleans on board the Govern- 
ment steamers, provided they were required to put in refrigeration on the ship. The 
Government was to give them $6,000 for each refrigerator to be put in. They were 
not responsible beyond the point of delivery. 
No. 20 is from E. H. McCaleb, jr.; price, 7.70 cents f. o. b. New Orleans. 
No. 21 is J. W. Overton; price, 13 cents for cows; 15 cents for steers; Government 
to furnish transportation for horses used in herding. 
The next is Stoller, commissioner; price, 16f cents; contractor furnish transportation. 
No. 23 is from E. H. McCaleb, jr.; price, 7.65 cents; steamers furnished by Govern- 
ment. Government to pay $6,000 per steamer for refrigeration. 
No. 24, R. H. Gardner; 15J cents; any point in Cuba. 
No. 25, J. Summerlin; 3f cents; gross on board boat at Port Tampa. 
No. 26, J. L. Myers; 9 cents, Baltimore; 91 cents, Newport News; 10^ cents, Habana; 
11| cents, Port Tampa. 
The next bid is also from J. L. Myers; 15 cents in Cuba, Government to furnish 
steamer; 17 cents, contractor furnish steamer; Government to furnish steamer, 16 
cents; contractor to furnish steamer, 18 cents; for Cubans 16, on block. 
No. 27, H. B. Stoddard; 4f cents, on hoof Galveston; New Orleans, 4f cents; Tampa, 
5j cents; in Cuba on hoof, 6| cents; on block, 12| cents. 
No. 28, H.' B. Cullum; 6| cents, on hoof. 
No. 29, H. B. Cullum; 4^ cents; f. o. b. Galveston, Tex., live cattle. 
The next is Armstrong Packing Company; 9.75 cents; dressed beef. 
No. 31, Nelson Morris Company; 10.19 cents for steers. Government to furnish 
steamer. 
No. 32, G. H. Giddings; 27 cents net 1 pound, in Cuba; beef cattle, 9 cents, gross 
weight, 4J cents, Galveston; New Orleans, 4$ cents. 
No. 33, Armour & Co. price, 10.37 cents; carcass. Government supply steamers 
f. o. b. any American port, 7.39 cents. 
No. 34, Swift & Co.; price, 9.47 cents. All points in Cuba. 
No. 35, United Dressed Beef Company; price, 19 cents, all points in Cuba, and 40 
cents interior, on the block; and 43 cents all points. 
No. 36, John N. Simpson; price, 5.06 cents, Galveston; 5.16 cents, New Orleans; 
5.56 cents, Tampa. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1141 
No. 37, John C. Biddle & Co.; 14 cents; Government to furnish steamers. 
No. 38, I. C. Thompson; 3f cents gross, at Tampa. 
Major Lee. Is that all on the hoof? 
A. Yes, sir. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. That contains all the bids that were received in response to the advertisement 
under the Santiago proposition? 
A. Yes, sir. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, I submit a copy of this abstract of pro- 
posals in evidence, and ask that it be appended to the record and marked 5. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. This is a copy of the Santiago contract. Please read the seventh clause in 
reference to the calling for a board of survey. 
A. (Witness reading from contract.) 
" Whenever the fresh beef presented at steamships or at the refrigerator buildings 
in Cuba for delivery under this contract is, in the opinion of the receiving commis- 
sary, not of the kind, quality, or condition stipulated for, he shall immediately 
apply to the commanding officer at the point of delivery for a board of officers to 
consist of as many members, not exceeding three, as can be assembled. The board 
shall at once examine the beef presented and its findings, when approved by the 
commanding officer, shall be conclusive in regard thereto." 
Q. Please explain to the court how a case would arise under that clause of the 
contract? 
A. Well, when the beef was delivered at the refrigerator, if the commissary con- 
sidered that it was not in the condition that the other paragraphs of this contract 
required, or if he considered in any way that it was not up to the standard required, 
he could immediately call upon the commanding officer to convene a board of 
officers to determine whether the beef was in accordance with the contract or not. 
Q. Would that clause apply in a case, for instance, of a regimental commissary 
who drew it from the commissary, who received it from Swift & Co.? 
A. Yes, sir; they could apply that there if he wanted to; but it was not necessary 
for him to do that. 
Q. Who would take it up, then? Who would have to make the request for the 
board? 
A. The commissary can do so. The commissary of the regiment could make the 
request. That would be the ordinary board of survey, though. 
Q. Not under that clause? 
A. No. 
Q. So, if anyone else than the commissary who received it from the contractor had 
occasion to raise the point it would be under the regulations and not under that 
clause? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Have any cases arisen in the execution of the contract in which boards of sur- 
vey have been called for? If so, please state what they were to the court. 
A. There was a board of survey called by the commissary at Manzanillo to deter- 
mine the condition of the beef that was in the refrigerator. He was not satisfied as 
to its quality and this board was convened by the commanding officer at that point, 
and they sustained the commissary in his contentions and the beef was not accepted. 
Q. Do you know of any other cases? 
A. Another case arose in Santiago, in which 
General Davis. At what time? 
A. (Continued.) I don't recollect the exact time. It was while Colonel Osgood 
was commissary in Santiago. I do not recollect the date, sir. It was before General 
Lawton left Santiago. They were not satisfied as to the condition of the beef, 1142 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
although the commissary in this case did not call for a board. This board of survey 
came down there and examined the forequarters of the beef and rejected on a super- 
ficial examination, as Colonel Osgood said, of these forequarters, some 40,000 
pounds. Colonel Osgood then telegraphed that he considered that this was not a fair 
finding and the Commissary-General telegraphed back to him and asked that General 
Wood inspect the beef in person. General Wood and General Lawton and some 
other officer-I don't know his name-went down there and examined the beef. 
They reversed the findings of this board of survey and decided that it was to be 
accepted, decreasing the weights by 15 per cent. 
Q. Were there any written proceedings of that board? 
A. We never received any, sir. 
Q. Have there been proceedings of boards of survey in any other cases, to your 
recollection? 
A. None, sir; I have never seen any. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. How did you obtain that information in regard to General Wood looking at 
the beef; is that a matter of record? 
A. That is a matter of record, in that Colonel Osgood telegraphed the Subsistence 
Department of their findings. 
Q. You have no record from the officers themselves? 
A. No record from the officers themselves; no, sir. 
Q. Is there a copy of that telegram of Colonel Osgood? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Can that be produced? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I would like to have that laid before the court. 
The Witness. I will try to have it here this afternoon. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. When was it that the other beef was rejected; I believe you speak of some beef 
at some other point being rejected? 
A. Manzanillo? 
Q. Yes. 
A. That wyas not over two or three months ago. 
Q. Under whose contract was that? 
A. That is under Swift & Co.'s contract, sir. 
Q. How much was there of it? 
A. I don't know, sir. 
Q. Is there any record of that? 
A. There may be, but I won't say for certain. 
Q. Where is your information that you testify on the subject from? 
A. That is from the commissary. 
Q. What commissary? 
A. Captain Ryan; he is the commissary at that point. 
Q. Is there any written information on the subject on file in the office? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. As to the quantity? 
A. I am not sure about the quantity. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I would like to have that produced before 
the court, so that the court may see the record in that case. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Captain, have you any knowledge of any other beef, or any information that 
any other beef was rejected or found unfit for consumption by the troops when 
delivered at the camp? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1143 
A. No, sir; I have never had any official information. 
Q. Well, have you any information on the subject? 
A. The only information I have on the subject is what I have seen in the news- 
papers and from what I have heard has been testified before this court. 
Q. I believe you stated that you were on duty at the Commissary-General's Office 
when the contracts were made and the terms and stipulations about the refrigera- 
tors were being considered and corrected and finally written out? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you know when a copy of that contract was furnished the commissary offi- 
cers at Santiago or in Cuba or in Porto Rico for their information and guidance? 
A. It was furnished by the first steamers that were available for the purpose. 
Q. When was the first delivery made at Santiago? I believe that is a matter of 
record, but I do not recall the date. 
A. I do not recall the date, either. I know it got into Santiago the day after the 
surrender. 
Q. That would be about the 18th of July? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Then when did that copy of the contract get there? 
A. When the copy of the contract got there I could not tell. 
Q. Is there anv information on that subject on file in the Commissary-General's 
Office? 
A. We can give you the date on which it was sent, but can not give you the date 
on which it was received. 
Q. Do you know whether any telegrams were received from the commissary offi- 
cers there wanting to know about its terms-from General Weston, or any other 
commissary officer? 
A. No, sir. On the first boat that went out there was a letter explaining to him 
the provisions in regard to the beef being taken off of the refrigerator on the boat, 
which were that it was to be good for seventy-two hours taken from the refrigerator 
on the boat, and that it was thought that perhaps they might have a little trouble 
unless they had possession of Santiago, and it might be by taking it off at night and 
carrying it forward during the night that they would have no difficulty with it. 
Q. Let me ask you right there, under that instruction, as you have stated, under 
that condition, the contract having been made before the surrender and while the 
Army was engaged in active operations, do you wish the court to understand that it 
was expected that that beef would last seventy-two hours after being taken off the 
refrigerator under those conditions? 
A. Provided good care was taken of it. 
Q. Who would be responsible for the care? 
A. The people that received the beef. 
Q. The responsibility of the contractor would absolutely end, would it not, when 
he delivered it in good condition to the commissary officer? 
A. It would not end unless the people took good care of it. 
Q. How would that question be determined? 
A. When he got his receipt 
Q. Upon delivery to the commissary officer? 
A. He would not get his receipt 
Q. Until the troops got it? 
A. That is, until the people that finally gave the receipt. You see the commissary 
would issue to those people, and if the various officers that received it returned the 
beef to the commissary he would throw it right back on the contractor to take that 
out of the weight. 
Q. I believe that matter has been made pretty clear to the court anyway. Coming 
back to the point, was it expected, under those conditions, that that refrigerated 1144 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
beef would, under such care or under all the precautions that might be taken in a 
country of that kind, getting it over to the troops who might be some little distance 
away from the shore, was it expected that it would last seventy-two hours with all 
the reasonable precautions that could be taken; was that the xpectation? 
A. That seventy-two hours was the extreme limit, and it was not supposed at any 
time that it would be over twenty-four hours away from the ships. 
Q. Then why were instructions sent to the effect that it would be seventy-two 
hours? 
A. Because that was the extreme limit, and that was what the contract stated. 
Q. As a matter of fact, have you any knowledge that any beef alleged to have 
been supplied was ever thrown back on the contractor when it reached the troops 
inside of those limits? 
A. That I could not say anything about. 
Q. Is there any information in the office on file to that effect? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. There would not be any record of that, I presume? 
A. No, sir; no record of that. 
Q. If you know, I would like for you to describe the system in detail under which 
that beef was to be delivered by the contractor under contract; that is, as to where 
he was to get his receipts that would determine what he would receive pay on. 
Would it be the regimental commissary or the brigade commissary, or what commis- 
sary officer? 
A. The commissary officer at the ship or the depot commissary that would give 
him the receipt. 
Q. Were you present during the conversation that occurred prior to the letting of 
this contract in the Commissary-General's Office? 
A. No, sir; that is, if you mean 
Q. I mean with any of them-with Swift or any of those parties. Were you in 
there and did you hear the conversation that occurred between the agent of Swift & 
Co. or Armour & Co. and the Commissary-General? 
A. No, sir; I was not. 
Q. What bond was given for the full performance of this contract; do you recall 
that? 
A. No, sir; I do not. 
Q. Was there any bond given? 
A. Yes, sir; there was a bond given, but I have forgotten the amount. 
Q. Could you have that information furnished to the court? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Captain, during all these conversations and up to the letting of the contract, 
up to the time it was awarded and finally made out, did you have any information or 
hear any converations with reference to any preserving process that would protect 
that meat so as to keep it in good condition for delivery in that climate to the army 
operating there? 
A. Up to the time of letting the contract? 
Q. Yes, up to about that time. 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you ever hear of the Powell process? 
A. Yes, sir; that was after all the bids were opened and the contract decided on. 
Q. After the bids were opened. When was the contract decided on? 
A. It was decided on practically as soon as the bids were opened and it was seen 
who was the lowest bidder who complied with the conditions. 
Q. Did you hear of any experiments being made in regard to the Powell process 
by any of those companies that were bidding? 
A. I didn't hear of any of the companies having any experiments at all. 
Q. What did you hear with reference to the Powell experiment? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1145 
A. I heard that this man Powell had had some quarters of beef down at Tampa 
and that he had used his preserving process on the different quarters and that it was 
reported at the office finally by Colonel Weston that it had kept well and had kept, 
I think, about eighty hours, finally. That process, by the way, I might say, was 
submitted at the beginning of the war to the office and we declined to have anything 
to do with it. 
Q. Then this was a renewed application or information on the subject from Gen- 
eral Weston? 
A. Yes, sir; General Weston did not know it had ever been presented to the Com- 
missary-General. 
Q. Have you information as to when that experiment was tried by Mr. Powell, if 
it was tried at Tampa? 
A. Well, just before the troops sailed for Santiago. 
Q. About the 7th of June? 
A. Yes, sir; about that. 
Q. When was the contract let to Swift? 
A. This contract is dated July 30, 1898. 
Q. Is there one earlier than that? 
A. I beg your pardon. The one I referred to was Porto Rico. I got hold of the 
wrong one. This was let July 1, 1898. 
Q. Do you know or have you information whether any notice was received from 
General Weston at the Commissary-General's office of the Powell experiment prior 
to the letting of this contract? 
A. That was not received prior to this. I only know that we received from him 
information about an experiment in regard to some frozen quarters that Captain Rid- 
ley testified about; but we did not receive anything in regard to this Powell process 
until later. 
Q. Wasn't that notice from General Weston sent about the time of the sailing of the 
command from Tampa, where the Powell experiment was carried on? 
A. I am not sure. I never saw it then. It was after the bids were opened that I 
saw that his experiment had been carried on. 
Q. And after the letting of the contract? 
A. After the awarding of the contract. You see it took some days 
Q. The point I am trying to get at is this: That as a matter of fact the experiment 
in evidence was tried, I think, about the 7th of June or about the time the troops 
sailed, and General Weston accompanied that expedition, and the report from Gen- 
eral Weston as to when they were made, whether they were made after he went to 
Santiago or before 
A. General Weston has never given any very definite notice about the experiment 
of that Powell process. 
Q. I am getting at when that report was made by General Weston. Was it before 
he sailed? 
A. It must have been before he sailed. 
Q. It must have been before he sailed? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Captain, it appears in evidence-and if I am wrong the court or the recorder 
will correct me-that the Commissary-General testified that it was his understanding, 
in the conversation and in the preparation of the contract, that the refrigerated beef 
was to last seventy-two hours after being taken from the refrigerator on board the 
ship, or seventy-two hours after being taken from the refrigerator ashore. Your 
testimony is that by his direction or under certain conditions by some clerk, who 
simply did the writing, one clause of that contract was changed to twenty-four hours, 
or was made twenty-four hours. In view of the testimony, as stated by General 
Eagan, how can you reconcile the discrepancy? 1146 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
The Recorder. One moment, please. I only wish to say that I do not accept any 
such second-hand account as evidence or anything else. General Eagan is going to 
be recalled, and if you want to find and put to the witness a question about his testi- 
mony, there is but one thing to do, and that is to get it out of the record. I have 
no earthly objection to the question being answered as it has been put, but I simply 
do not want to appear as recognizing that sort of way of doing, when the record is in 
possession of the court. 
Major Lee. I was quoting simply from my recollection of the testimony given by 
General Eagan. Here is an officer that was on duty in the Commissary-General's 
office that had much to do with the preparation of this contract, in connection with 
his chief. I simply stated my recollection of the evidence, and I said if I was wrong 
the court or the Recorder would correct me. 'According to my recollection of the 
evidence, I said that there is* a vast distinction between the statements of Captain 
Davis and the testimony of his chief on that subject. Now, I ask him, in view of 
that, how can he reconcile that discrepancy; whether that discrepancy be due to a 
clerical error or some misunderstanding not yet fully explained. 
The Recorder. My point is simply that if the witness is to be asked upon a matter 
that is already in evidence, the immediate piece of evidence which is put to him should 
come from the record and not from the recollection of anybody. I simply say that 
in behalf of the rules of evidence. 
Major Lee. I could call for the reading of the record, but what I have done in this 
case has been done on another occasion during the proceedings of this court, and I 
tried to state it fairly, as fairly as my memory could guide me in the matter, and if in 
error I certainly want to be corrected. If I am wrong in regard to that evidence I 
am willing to stand corrected. If I am not wrong I would like the witness to answer 
the question. 
General Davis. The record is right here; let us refer to it. 
Colonel Gillespie. (After an examination of the record.) You will find it on page 
465 of the record. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. This is the gist of it. In answer to a question General Eagan stated in his 
testimony before this court: 
"My intention and my interpretation was"-referring to the contract-"that it 
should be good for seventy-two hours, no matter where taken from. This must be a 
clerical error which I never noticed at the time and I only learned of it here when 
the commission asked me about it." 
Having referred to the record, I would now like the question answered. 
A. Well, in regard to that I would say that General Eagan had simply forgotten. 
He had not seen the contract probably for six months, and it is not customary to 
depend upon memory in interpreting any contract or in answering any questions in 
regard to it. The contracts are on file and are used whenever any question comes up. 
Q. That is your explanation of the discrepancy, then, is it? 
A. I think that is it, sir. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. In this connection, I would like to ask a question. Did you see the original 
draft of General Eagan upon which the contract was based? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You have no knowledge of the terms contained in that original draft? 
A. No, sir. 
Major Lee. In this connection I wish to invite the attention of the court to the 
answers on this point. I read from the record: 
"Q. At whose suggestion or for what reason or with what consideration in view 
was that clause inserted?" FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1147 
That has reference to the beef having to keep seventy-two hours. 
"A. It was inserted by me. I insisted upon it. I did not want to furnish beef 
that would not keep long enough to reach the troops, and as the people thought they 
could do that I, of course, put the risk on them." 
The Witness. I might say that the advertisement did not call for any time limit. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. The advertisement for bids? 
A. The advertisement for bids for beef from refrigerators does not call for any 
time limit at all. 
Q. I would like to have that advertisement that was produced before the court 
yesterday reread, if I could. 
A. This is a copy of it. To begin in the part that would cover this 
" Please state your proposition, you to furnish the steamers, or the Government 
to furnish the steamers. If the Government furnishes the steamers then you must 
put in your own refrigerating plant and undertake to deliver the beef in either event 
so that it will be perfectly good and fit for use for seventy-two hours after delivery. 
This is so that the beef will last until a new supply arrives. Or you can build or 
put up any chilling or refrigerating process you please at the points in Cuba occupied 
by the troops; but in that case if the troops move from one seaport to the other, 
then it will be obligatory for you to move your plant, in order that the supply may 
be kept up." 
There is no reference whatever to the time limit when the meat is taken from the 
refrigerators on shore. It is only when it is taken from vessels. 
Major Lee. I would like to look at that advertisement a minute. 
The Witness. That is a press copy. 
Colonel Gillespie. Have you with you a copy of the bid that was actually 
submitted? 
A. No, sir. Colonel Davis asked me if I would get it. They go to the return 
office, so we do not have it. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I wish to call your attention to this, which has already been read: 
"Please state your proposition, you to furnish the steamers or the Government to 
furnish the steamers. If the Government furnishes the steamers then you must put 
in your own refrigerating plant and undertake to deliver the beef in either event so 
that it will be perfectly good and fit for use seventy-two hours after delivery." 
Do you know or are you familiar with the kind of steamers that were used or that 
were procured for transporting this beef; do you know what they had been previ- 
ously used for; do you know how many steamers there were and the names of them? 
A. Well, I can not tell all; I can tell some of them, sir. There was the Missis- 
sippi- 
Q. Let me ask what had been the previous history of that steamer. Was it a pas- 
senger steamer, or a cattle steamer, or what? 
A. I can not tell you that. I have never seen the steamers at all. I can tell you 
that those I am mentioning all had large refrigerating apparatus aboard, but one of 
them-the Manitoba-I heard was a cattle ship, but I don't know anything about 
that. 
Q. For carrying cattle in what way? 
A. On the hoof, I understand. With the refrigerating apparatus aboard there 
were the Port Victor, the Mississippi, the Manitoba, the Michigan, and I think that the 
Mobile and two others had refrigerating apparatus. The three last named are now 
called the Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan. I think that they had the refrigerating 
apparatus on board, but we never used them for that purpose, as I recollect. 
Q. Did the Government put in the refrigerating plants on those boats? 1148 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. No; they were already in when the Government purchased them. 
Q. I understand you to say that you did not use the refrigerators on those vessels? 
A. No; I said the Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan, that while they were refrigerator 
ships, as I recollect, the refrigerators were never used by us. The others at different 
times were used. 
Q. How long have you been on duty in the Commissary Department? 
A. Since January, 1897. 
Q. During that time you have been in the Commissary-General's office? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Where were you prior to being in the Commissary-General's office? 
A. I was in Chicago; I was on duty with the overflow Mississippi sufferers; then 
I was in the office writing up a report for a short time; then I was out in Denver; 
then I was brought on here. 
Q. In the discussion about the beef, was anything said about the practicability or 
impracticability of supplying the army operating in Cuba with beef on the hoof; 
was that a matter discussed in your presence? 
A. Yes, sir; I had some conversation about that. 
Q. With the Commissary-General? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And with bidders? 
A. No, sir; not with bidders. 
Q. Well, with parties that were interested? 
A. No, sir; I never had conversation especially with them. 
Q. Give the substance of the conclusions arrived at in regard to supplying the 
troops there with beef on the hoof, or the fact that they might not be supplied. 
A. It was thought to be impracticable, the reason being, or one of the reasons, 
that it was difficult at that time to get a sufficient number of ships to transport the 
men and transport the cattle in addition. There was difficulty in getting any landings 
when they got down there. Another reason was the difficulty of keeping them after 
you got them down there. There was a liability to fever; and another reason was the 
difficulty of killing them and eating them before the animal heat was out of the body- 
the liability to sickness from eating them in that way. Another reason was the 
fact that you would have to keep the cattle at rest some time before you could kill 
them in order to give good results, from an eating point of view. 
Q. And it was finally decided that the experiment would not be tried; that is, that 
no effort would be made to supply them, and these objections that you have named 
was the ground for such a decision, was it? 
A. Yes; it would not be tried in any event as long as they were on the seacoast. 
Q. And then, from your testimony, it was expected that arrangements could be 
made, even in active operations, to get that beef to keep seventy-two hours-the 
refrigerated beef? 
A. I never said that, sir. I said that was the extreme limit. The anticipation 
was this: That the refrigerator boxes would be put up almost immediately; but 
owing to a mishap the refrigerator at Santiago was not put up for a long time after it 
should have been put up.' In loading the boat I understand the refrigerating appa- 
ratus w'as put in the last thing, but when it got down to Santiago it was found to be 
in the bottom of the ship. I don't know how that occurred. 
Q. You speak in your testimony of the difficulty of procuring ships to transport 
beef during that time. Are you familiar or have you any knowledge as to the 
exportation of live stock from this country? Was that matter investigated at that 
time-as to what ships were running at that time and exporting live stock? 
A. In the first place, we had nothing to do with the ships. All we can do is to 
ask for the ships, and I am judging by the difficulty we had in being able to get 
ships for transporting refrigerated beef or ships that were suitable to put in refriger 
ators. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1149 
Major Lee. In this connection, I would .like to introduce a statement made from 
Mr. 0. P. Austin, chief of the Bureau of Domestic Cattle, of the cattle exported from 
the United States during the six months from April 1 to September 30, from the 
various ports to the United States. I will simply read the totals, and would like 
to have it submitted in evidence. I will not give the details of the numbers 
from all points. 
From Baltimore, Md.; Bangor, Me.; New York City, Key West, Mobile, New 
Orleans, Pensacola, Galveston, including the Atlantic and Gulf points: 30,622 head 
were exported from those ports in April, 26,338 in May, 28,000 in round numbers in 
June, 28,000 in round numbers in July, 31,011 in August, 27,993 in September, or a 
total of six months of 174,455 head of cattle that were exported from the various ship- 
ping points of the United States-live cattle-on cattle ships. 
The Witness. I would like to ask one question. Could the Government have pur- 
chased those ships? 1 have heard the quartermaster speak so much of the trouble 
of getting ships of American register that I would ask that question. Were those of 
American register and could the quartermaster have purchased them? 
Major Lee. I am only taking this from the record. I don't know the names of 
the ships. That is the amount of cattle that were shipped from those various ports. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Do you know what contracts Armour & Co. had in reference to supplying beef 
to troops during the war? 
A. I could not say specifically, but they have had them at various southern camps 
and also at one time, I think, at Camp Alger. But without looking it up I could 
not state specifically what camps or at what times they had the contracts. 
Q. Did anyone else besides Armour & Co. have contracts, that you recall, in this 
country for fresh beef; that is, I mean for supplying the army in the field? 
A. Yes; the Armour Packing Company had contracts; Swift & Co. had contracts; 
Nelson Morris & Co. had contracts, and Swalsberger & Schwartzchild-I think that 
is the name of the firm; it is something like that-also had contracts. 
Q. Can you produce the contract or statement as to the purchases of beef made from 
Armour & Co. at Tampa, beginning in April, from the time the troops occupied the 
place? 
A. We could give the quantities purchased; yes, sir. 
Q. And whether it was under contract or not? 
A. Yes, sir; it may take a little time, because we would have to go through all the 
vouchers. 
Q. Well, I mean where they had a contract down there; I don't care so much 
about the absolute quantities. I believe that is all. 
Colonel Gillespie. You want the date of the contract and the time it ran? 
Major Lee. Yes. I would like it for Tampa, Lakeland, Pensacola, and that division 
of the country. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Did you have any conversation with the Commissary-General respecting any 
intention on his part to supply beef on the hoof to troops operating inland from the 
seacoast in Cuba? 
A. Well, I have a recollection that when they got in the interior, if they got there, 
that they would let a contract for cattle on the block, but not on the hoof. 
Q. Was any action taken to carry out such an intention, or preparations made to 
make contracts with that object? 
A. No; except gathering the names of all the people who would be apt to bid on 
such a contract. We gathered those in from pretty much all over the country. 
Q. What was known in the Subsistence Department at that time respecting the 
availability of fresh beef in Cuba? 1150 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. So far as our information went, there was none there to be had. 
Q. What points of supply had been considered as available then for fresh beef on 
the hoof? 
A. We had considered particularly this country, sir. We had had some corre- 
spondence and talk with some of the Venezuela, or rather from representatives of 
Venezuela firms whom they had sent here, they saying that they desired to bid; 
but it was not thought desirable to give contracts to foreign parties, provided our 
own people could give the supply. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Edward Morris, of Chicago. 
TESTIMONY OF EDWARD MORRIS. 
Edward Morris was called as a witness by the recorder and, having been first 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name and residence. 
A. Edward Morris; Chicago, Ill.. 
Q. Are you connected with the firm of Morris & Co.? 
A. I am. 
Q. In what capacity? 
A. I am a partner. 
Q. Have you at any time caused canned roast beef or other meats to be stored on 
Staten Island? 
A. We have. 
Q. If so, please state to the court what your practice is in that respect. 
A. We have for a period of ten years or more used warehouses of the Baltimore & 
Ohio Railroad for storage of all kinds of canned beef, both roast and corned, and 
other meats; and we do so now. 
Q. Does the practice continue? 
A. Yes, sir. I don't know that there is any in storage to-day, but there would be 
probably in the fall of the year, when we do most of our packing. 
Q. What amounts were in storage there in the early part of 1898? 
A. I can not tell you on corned beef because I have not looked it up. 
Q. On canned roast beef, then? 
A. On canned roast beef I can give you a statement of it. In fact, I have a memo- 
randum here. 
Q. Very well. Please give all the facts to the court. 
A. This is dated Chicago, March 21,1899. I dictated it myself. 
" Chicago, March 21, 1899. 
"At Staten Island the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company have warehouses at 
the terminus of their road, at which place we have been in the habit for a number 
of years of storing canned meats for shipment, either for export or to domestic 
points easily reached therefrom. The following is a correct statement of what 
canned roast beef we had on storage at Staten Island March 29,1898, prior to the 
commencement of the war, when sent there, and disposition of the same. 
"On July 8,1896, we shipped there from Chicago for storage, 2,400 cases of canned 
roast beef; again on November 27,1896, 4,000 cases; and again on December 15, 
1896, 4,000 cases. This meat was disposed of as follows: 
Cases. 
March 29,1898, by steam'er for Southampton 50 
March 29,1898, by steamer for Newcastle 250 
March 29,1898, by steamer for London 250 
March 30,1898, by steamer for Newcastle 250 
April 26,1898, by steamer for London 500 FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1151 
Cases. 
April 26,1898, by steamer for Bristol 500 
April 26,1898, by steamer for Hull 300 
May 12,1898, shipped by Baltimore and Ohio Railroad to Chicago 6,000 
June 30,1898, sold in New York : 950 
August 16,1898, by steamer for London 400 
August 16,1898, by steamer for Liverpool 400 
August 16,1898, by steamer for Bristol 400 
August 16,1898, by steamer for Southampton 150 
"Of the 6,000 cases shipped as above to Chicago on May 12,1898, 5,557 were sold by 
us to the Steele, Wedeles Company, my recollection is, over the telephone at Chicago, 
a few days prior thereto, and they were ordered by telegram to be shipped from 
Staten Island to Chicago. They were taken from the warehouse at Staten Island and 
loaded on Baltimore and Ohio cars and consigned to Nelson Morris & Co., Union 
Stock Yards, Chicago. At Chicago, 5,557 cases were transferred to other cars and the 
same day shipped under orders from the Steele, Wedeles Company as follows, having 
been invoiced to them and consigned as follows: 2,278 cases, car 12453, car 14757, car 
12546, car 12616, car 12966, car 12703, via Chicago and Northwestern Railroad, to 
depot commissary, San Francisco, Cal.; 2,778 cases, car 25149, car 28135, car 26683, 
car 1812, car 27883, car 9506, car 7144, car 10792, via Chicago, Burlington and Quincy 
Railroad, to depot commissary, San Francisco, Cal.; 501 cases, car 6458, car 6469, via 
Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad, to depot commissary, Tampa, Fla. There was 
no change of label made on these goods (as they were all labeled the 'Wilson Pack- 
ing Company ') nor were the cases opened from the time they were stored at Staten 
Inland until they were delivered by us to the Steele, Wedeles Company in Chicago 
as aforesaid. 
"The remaining 443 cases of [the 6,000 were placed in stock in our storehouse at 
Union Stock Yards, Chicago, and were sold to the trade in the usual course of busi- 
ness. These goods were canned at Chicago within sixty days of their shipment to 
Staten Island. 
"Edward Morris." 
During the reading of the foregoing paper the following occurred; 
Major Lee. Who are Steele, Wedeles & Co.? 
The Witness. That is a large wholesale grocery house. 
Major Lee. Of Chicago? 
The Witness. Yes, sir. 
The reading of the paper was then completed. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. So the total amount was about 6,000 cases? 
A. A little more than that, but there were 6,000 that came to Chicago. 
Q. And, to the best of your recollection, when was that beef packed? 
A. Well, the dates are there, from December of 1896 on. 
Q. You have testified to that? 
A. Yes, sir. It is in the letter I have read. 
Q. And what brands did the labels contain-in the 6,000 cases? 
A. The Wilson Packing Company. 
Q. When they were put in storage? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And what change, if any, was made in the brand? 
A. None whatever. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Was there any date on these labels or on the cases, or anything of that kind to 
indicate when they were packed? 1152 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Do you ever put any date on them? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Have you since the war? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Who is your agent in New York that handled and looked out for those goods? 
A. Our railroad man happened to be in New York and we telegraphed to him and 
he saw that they were shipped out the same day. 
Q. Your railroad man? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Ci. Have you no agent there? 
A. We have an agent there, but, as I have said, our railroad man from Chicago 
happened to be there, and they wanted them in a great hurry and we got them 
shipped special; I think we got them out there in about three days by the Balti- 
more and Ohio Railroad fast freight. He attended to the whole of it. 
Q. How was this statement prepared, and when? 
A. Within two weeks. By information that I looked up and obtained. 
Q. You were not present, were you, when those transactions occurred? 
A. The transactions occurred in Chicago. 
Q. All of them? 
A. All of the sale of the goods; yes, sir. 
Q. Did you sell any canned roast beef in New York to the Government? 
A. I don't know whether we did or not. 
Q. You seem to have information on other matters. Did you sell any to Colonel 
Woodruff or ship any to any of the posts in the South? 
A. Not to amount to anything. The New York house might have sold them a few 
hundred cases out of stock. 
Q. Who is in charge of your New York house? 
A. Mr. L. H. Heyman. 
Q. Was he in charge at that time? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Mr. Morris, can you state, to your knowledge, whether any of this beef had 
been sold or had been tendered to any foreign Government in any way? 
A. I can. 
Q. Please so state. 
A. I can state it was not. 
Q. Never any of it? 
A. No, sir; it was not. 
Q. Can you state under oath that none of that beef was ever tendered and 
rejected? 
A. I can and I do so state that it was not. 
Q. Do you keep it there for sale? Do you ship much abroad? 
A. Yes, sir; to England, principally. The sales show that nearly 50 per cent of 
this went to England. 
Q. This statement shows it, I understand. Nearly 50 per cent. Was any of it 
ever returned from England for the purpose of selling it here? 
A. No; not one case. We didn't bring back a case. 
Q. Did you ever tender any of it to any foreign agent in New York City 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Wait till I get through the question. Did you ever tender any of that canned 
beef to any foreign agent in New York City and have any of it rejected? 
A. No, sir; never. 
Q. You never had any rejected? 
A. No, sir; none of it was. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1153 
Q. Did you ever tender any to the United States that was rejected? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Not a can? 
A. Not a can. 
Q. What inspection was made when you sold this to the Government of the United 
States? I suppose you sold some of it. There seems to have been 950 cases shipped 
down to some point or a considerable quantity shipped from New York. Please 
correct me on that if I am wrong. You shipped how much from New York? 
A. Nine hundred and fifty cases were taken by our New York house. 
Q. Was any sold to the Government in New York? 
A. If there was there was no great quantity sold to the Government. It would 
be a small matter that I would not be advised of. There was no large quantity. 
Q. These statements are all from advices you have received? 
A. And off our books. 
Q. Off your books? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I would like for you to state in regard to that you sold to the Government. 
What officer of the Government did you sell it to and what inspection was made of 
it at the time? 
A. You are referring to the goods that came to Chicago? 
Q. I am referring to any sales to the Government at either place. I believe you 
stated that you did not make any at New York to the Government unless it was a 
small quantity? 
A. I said that, and at Chicago we made none. We sold to a Chicago grocery 
house there, and found that they sold it to the Government and shipped it to San 
Francisco, 90 per cent of it going to Manila. 
Q. And some to Tampa? 
A. Five hundred odd cases. 
Q. Then, I understand you to say you have sold no canned roast beef to the 
Government? 
A. No; you did not understand that. 
Q. Of this lot? 
A. Unless the New York house sold part of that 900 odd cases; otherwise not. 
Q. You sold other canned roast beef, I believe, to the Government? 
A. I think so. 
Q. Do you know what quantity; can you give it approximately? 
A. Well, our sales of most canned beef and corned beef only amounted to about 
$150,000 to the Government all told. 
Q. About how much of that was canned roast beef and where was that sold? 
A. I would say probably not more than half of it. 
Q. That was sold at Chicago? 
A. I think so, most of it. 
Q. Are you cognizant of the circumstances of the sale and the action taken? 
A. No. I am only giving it as my memory serves me; I would not know if we 
sold the Government a few hundred cases. 
Q. You have no personal knowledge in regard to these matters. You take these 
from the reports? 
A. I have as much knowledge probably as anyone in regard to these matters. 
Q. What I am trying to get at is to find somebody who had something to do with 
the delivery of this stuff to the Government and how it was inspected. If there is 
anyone connected with your firm-if you don't know it-who can give me this infor- 
mation, and you will tell me who it is, I will be much obliged. 
A. I think I can answer any question you ask me. 
S. Doc. 270 73 1154 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. I ask you to give me the name of some person who delivered this canned roast 
beef to the Government in Chicago. You say there was something over $75,000? 
A. I say I think we sold the Government over $75,000 worth, part of which would 
have been delivered from Chicago, and delivery would be made by our packing house. 
There would be nothing special about it except it would be loaded in the cars and 
sent out and billed to the Government. 
Q. Y on know nothing of the inspection of the cases or cans or how it was sold or 
how it was marked? 
(The witness did not answer.) 
Q. Who is your superintendent in Chicago? 
A. Superintendent of the meat house or superintendent of the canning house? 
Q. Well, I will ask you is there a gentleman there named Vogel, who is superin- 
tendent? 
A. Yes, sir; Mr. Vogel is a partner of the firm. 
Q. What is his given name? 
A. Frank E. 
Q. Is there a gentleman there by the name of I. N. Faris connected with your 
business in any way in New York City? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Or who handles your stores there as a warehouse man or otherwise, if you know? 
A. Not that I know of. 
Q. Did you ever make any deliveries of canned roast beef to the Navy? 
A. I presume we have. 
Q. I am asking you whether you know as a matter of fact. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. When was that? 
A. I have no recollection of dates. 
Q. I don't want any actual dates. Was it last year, two years ago, or five years ago? 
A. We sell them every year; that is, if we are the lowest bidders; we generally do 
every year. 
Q. Did you ever have any rejected by the Navy? 
A. Not that I recollect of. 
Q. Yon would not know as a matter of fact whether it was the case or not, if they 
rejected a tender? 
A. If it amounted to anything I would probably know it. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Charles E. Smith, of Florida. 
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES E. SMITH. 
Charles E. Smith was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been first 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. Charles E. Smith; Jacksonville, Fla.; I have been in the beef business there 
for fifteen years. 
Q. What relation existed between yourself and Armour & Co. in May, 1898? 
A. In May I was employed by Armour & Co. as their local army beef man at 
Tampa, Fla. 
Q. When did that employment begin? 
A. In April. 
Q. And how long did it continue? 
A. Until July 10. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1155 
Q. In that capacity, as their representative at Tampa, what had you to do, if any- 
thing, with the supply of the beef to troops at Lakeland? 
A. I went to Lakeland on May 16 to make arrangements for the four regiments 
that were there stationed, they consisting of the Seventy-first New York, the Second 
Massachusetts, the First Cavalry, and the Tenth Cavalry. 
Q. About how much beef would they require? 
A. Well, we were using there at that time about six cattle a day, I think it was. 
Q. Did you remain at Lakeland all the time? 
A. No, sir; I was there off and on at different times. 
Q. Who was at Lakeland attending to business of issuing the beef there? 
A. I took over there on my first trip a man by the name of Murtaugh, who was 
in the employ of Armour & Co., and also a colored man who cut up the beef. 
Q. How long did you continue to supply beef from Tampa to Lakeland? 
A. Only once. 
Q. To those four regiments? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And after that from where was the beef supplied? 
A. From Jacksonville, Fla. 
Q. Did you see the beef yourself that was delivered in Lakeland? 
A. Yes, sir; on several occasions. 
Q. How long have you been in the beef business? 
A. For fifteen years, catering to the best hotels and private families in the State of 
Florida. 
Q. Are you familiar with refrigerated beef? 
A. Thoroughly. 
Q. And you saw this beef that was delivered to the troops? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In what respect, ii any, did it differ from the refrigerated beef that you had 
handled before that time and have been handling since then? 
A. None whatever. 
Q. Had you any reason to believe or suspect that it had been treated with pre- 
servatives. 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Was there anything upon the surface of the beef that indicated that it had 
been so treated? 
A. No, sir; none whatever. 
Q. Did you see anything resembling a coating of any sort. Please search your 
memory very carefully and tell the court if you saw anything on the surface 
sembling a coating of any sort; and if so, describe it. 
A. None whatever. The beef that was delivered to the troops in Lakeland was 
the same I had handled for the last fifteen years-identical with it. 
Q. Were any rejections made of the beef at Lakeland? 
A. Yes; on one occasion. 
Q. Who was the commissary officer with whom you transacted the business there. 
A. Lieutenant Ship at first and after that Lieutenant Hartman. 
Q. And what rejections were made by Lieutenant Hartman, if any? 
A. On May 28 I was at Tampa and there were 83 pounds rejected out of a car. 
Q. At Tampa? 
A. I should say at Lakeland; they claiming it was bad and they wanted to have 
a board of survey. I told him a board of survey was not necessary, that if the beef 
was not what it should be that Armour & Co. did not want them to have it. And 
it was returned to us. 
Q. And what did you do with it? 1156 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. We had it buried. 
Q. And were any other rejections of beef made-beef tendered to Lieutenant Hart- 
man as commissary? 
A. Not while I was there. 
Q. How would you ship it; by the carload? 
A. We would ship it in carload lots; that is, from ten to fifteen cattle in a car. 
Q. Would that be a full carload? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. How many cattle make a full carload? 
A. From thirty to thirty-five. * 
Q. Please state to the court what arrangements, if any, were made for re-icing the 
cars at Lakeland. 
A. We had ice shipped to us from Jacksonville and also had arrangements made 
with the local ice company to supply us with ice. 
Q. At Lakeland? 
A. At Lakeland. 
Q. And was any ice supplied to the car? 
A. Yes, sir; it was thoroughly iced there under instructions. 
Q. How long would the car stand there before being unloaded? 
A. About two or three days. This beef I have reference to, on May 28, was 
there the third morning. 
Q. Who cut it up for use? 
A. Mr. Murtaugh and the butcher-the colored man I had reference to. 
Q. And what was the practice of the troops in the matter of drawing it from the 
car? 
A. We tried to have them get it out all at one time, but we could not do so, and 
consequently the car was opened at all times of the day, four times a day. I went 
to Lieutenant Ship and asked him if he could not make arrangements to have the 
troops come there early in the morning, before the sun got hot, so as not to Iqf the 
hot air get into the car any more than necessary. He said that he would try to do 
so. I also asked him to try to arrange so that the regiments would all take the beef 
during seven days and then there would be three days when none of them would 
take any beef, so that we would not have any car standing on the track then. He 
said he would try to arrange that. 
Q. How long did this command continue at Lakeland? 
A. We shipped beef there on five different cars. The last car, I think, was ship- 
ped there May 28. 
Q. During the time you were delivering beef at Lakeland did you see Private or 
Corporal or Sergeant Mason of the First Cavalry? 
A. Yes, sir; on two occasions. 
Q. In what capacity did he appear to be employed? 
A. He came down with the detail to take up this beef for the regiment. 
Q. What conversations, if any, did you have with him or what conversation of 
Mason with others took place in your presence? 
A. He always spoke of the beef being of very high quality, the best they had had 
since they left the post. 
Q. What remarks, if any, did Mason make in your hearing in respect to the treat- 
ment of the beef? 
A. None whatever. 
Q. In what respect did the beef furnished to the troops at Lakeland differ from 
that supplied by you to the hotels in the vicinity of Tampa, and to the restaurants? 
A. It was identically the same beef. What I mean by that is that we took beef 
and sold it to people in Tampa the same as we would to the soldiers. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1157 
Q. What complaints, if any, were received from the troops or the officers repre- 
senting them in respect to the beef issued, aside from that which you have already 
testified to? 
A. None whatever; the other regiments seemed to be perfectly satisfied. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Are you in the employ of Armour & Co.? 
A. No, sir; I am in business on my own account. 
Q. When did you cease to be employed by them? 
A. On the 10th of July. 
Q. Who succeeded you there in the delivery of beef at Lakeland to the troops? 
A. I left Tampa at that time, sir. 
Q. Do you know what agent of Armour & Co., or what local agent there, took 
charge of the delivery of beef ? 
A. Yes, sir; Mr. Moorhouse. 
Q. Do you know what his given name is? 
A. Charles. 
Q. How long were you in Tampa in charge of the delivery of beef to the commands 
there? 
A. I arrived at Tampa the latter part of April and remained there until the 10th 
of July. 
Q. How often did you go to see the place at Lakeland? 
A. I think I was at Lakeland three or four different times. 
Q. You speak of this beef coming from Jacksonville-most of it-to Lakeland. 
Did any come from Tampa, from the refrigerator there? 
A. One car. 
Q. One carload. Was that loaded from the refrigerator in Tampa, or did it come 
down as a car and was it shipped over to Lakeland? 
A. It came down as a car, and was shipped over to Lakeland. 
Q. And the other came right from Jacksonville? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Who had charge of it in Lakeland upon its arrival there? 
A. I was with the first car? 
Q. But after that? 
A. Mr. Murtaugh. 
Q. Mr. Murtaugh would have charge of it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. To your knowledge, you say at that time there was but one rejection, and that 
was of 93 pounds? 
A. Eighty-three pounds, under my supervision. 
Q. May there have been other rejections that did not come under your supervision? 
A. I think there was one other; a rejection of 82 pounds. 
Q. No other rejections that you know of? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you continue to furnish beef out there to the troops, or was there a pur- 
chase made in open market to supply the deficiencies? 
A. After I left I think there was an arrangement made with the local butcher 
there. 
Q. Do you know why? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you hear anything about complaints of the beef that caused that change? 
A. There was a very small number of soldiers there at that time. 
Q. Do you know about how many? 1158 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. No, sir; but very few. 
Q. Do you know why the change was made, as a matter of fact; was it due to dis- 
satisfaction with the beef, or to the fact of there being a small command there? 
A. A small command there. 
Q. After Lieutenant Ship ceased being commissary, you made all deliveries to 
Lieutenant Hartman? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. As commissary officer? 
A. As commissary officer. 
Q. Who had charge of these cars after they left Jacksonville? 
A. Mr. Murtagh, after they arrived at Lakeland. 
Q. Do you recall any case, Mr. Smith, of objection being made to beef that wTas 
sent up to the camp at Lakeland, or being sent there in ice in tin cans or in some 
arrangement of that kind; do you recall such a circumstance, or hearing of it? 
A. That was done after 
Q. You heard of it, then? 
A. I heard of it, but I was not there at the time. 
Q. Do you recall the conversation that you had with this man, Sergeant Mason; 
do you recall the particulars of that conversation in the car on the 28th of May? 
A. He was down there on two different occasions, speaking about the beef. He 
would say that that was the finest beef that they had had since they left the post. 
Q. Was that all he said? 
A. About all. 
Q. That is all you said to him? 
A. About all. We told him that was the kind of beef we were serving to the 
Army. 
Q. How do you fix that particular day? How do you know it was the 28th of 
May? 
A. On account of Lieutenant Hartman rejecting that 83 pounds of beef. 
Q. Lieutenant Hartman rejected 83 pounds? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was there or not some exception made to a considerable quantity in there? 
Did not Mason speak in regard to the discoloration of this beef in that car at that 
time? 
A. No, sir. That was the only piece that was left in the car when I came there. 
The car was cleaned out and 83 pounds of beef were sent back. That day another 
car arrived with beef. 
Q. Did you have charge of that? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Who had charge of the issuing of that? 
A. Mr. Murtaugh. 
Q. Do you know whether any fault was found with that at that time? 
A. I think some parts of that were issued and some parts of it were returned to 
Jacksonville. 
Q. You say some of it was returned. Do you know why? 
A. They claimed that the car had a bad smell to it, and they objected to taking 
the beef out on account of the odor of the car. 
Q. You were not there on the 29th of May, then? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Mr. Murtaugh would have charge of that? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And the colored man; the butcher? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You have been in the meat business for fifteen years; where? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1159 
A. Yes, sir; at Jacksonville, Fla. 
Q. What is the extent of your operations; do you mean that you have been in the 
business as a local dealer, supplying beef? 
A. As a local dealer; and our business is to furnish hotels and steamboats all 
through the State of Florida. 
Q. And furnish butchers? 
A. And butchers. 
Q. Did you ever hear or know of any process that is used on fresh meats for pre- 
serving them in that hot climate? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you ever hear of anything being used on meat of any kind? 
A. Never. 
Q. Did you ever hear of preservaline? 
A. Only since this controversy in the newspapers. 
Q. Did you ever hear of boric acid? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you ever hear of boric acid being used on pork or anything else? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You never heard there were chemicals used in the preservation of any meats? 
A. None whatever. 
Q. You never used any? 
A. Never; I don't know what it is. 
Q. Did you ever have any recommended to you by any agents, or otherwise? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Then, I understand, Mr. Smith, to your knowledge, no chemicals of any kind 
are used in preserving meat? 
A. Not in preserving refrigerated beef; no, sir. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Were you supplying the market in Lakeland at the same time that you were 
supplying the troops with this beef? 
A. Yes, sir; we were supplying the local butcher there with fresh quarters of beef 
on several occasions. 
Q. Did they come out of a different car from the car from which you supplied the 
troops? 
A. No, sir; the same car. 
Q. Did you ever hear of the Powell process for the preservation of beef? 
A. I have heard of it; that is all. I heard of it while I was in Tampa. 
Q. Do you know of any claim on the part of Powell or his agents that he had fur- 
nished large quantities of meat to the hotels in Florida that had been treated and 
preserved? 
A. No, sir. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Murtagh. 
TESTIMONY OF BERNARD F. MURTAGH. 
Bernard F. Murtagh was called as a witness by the recorder, and, being duly 
sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. State your name, residence, and occupation, Mr. Murtagh. 
A. Bernard F. Murtagh; residence, Jacksonville, Fla.; employed by Armour & 
Company. 
Q. How long have you been in the employ of Armour & Co.? 
A. Since 1896. 1160 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Where were you employed in May of 1898? 
A. At Lakeland, Fla. 
Q. What were you doing there? Please state to the court fully what your duties 
were at Lakeland. 
A. I was appointed the local agent to look after the supply of beef furnished to 
four regiments encamped at Lakeland, Fla. 
Q. What regiments were they? 
A. The Second Massachusetts, the Seventy-first New York, the First and the 
Tenth Cavalry. 
Q. From what quarter did you receive the beef that was issued to them? 
A. The first car was from Tampa, Fla. The other four cars that we received there 
came from Jacksonville, Fla. 
Q. About how many carcasses were used daily for issue at Lakeland? 
A. About six cattle. 
Q. How was it shipped to you; in full carloads or in smaller lots? 
A. It was shipped in part carloads, about from ten to fifteen cattle in a car. 
Q. How long would a car be kept at Lakeland in order to issue its contents, upon 
an average? 
A. From two to three days. 
Q. What facilities were there at Lakeland for reicing the car? 
A. We had a carload of ice at Jacksonville, and also a contract with the local 
factory there at Lakeland to supply us with all the ice we would use to ice any of 
our cars going on the tracks there. 
Q. What was your practice with respect to icing the car out of which you issued 
from day to day? 
A. We had positive instructions to keep them well iced. 
Q. How frequently did you put ice on them? 
A. We iced them daily. 
Q. You say you first received meat from Tampa. How long did you continue to 
receive it from Tampa? 
A. It was the only car we received from Tampa-the first car. 
Q. What complaint, if any, was received from the troops as to the contents of 
that car? 
A. None whatever. 
Q. Was any complaint received as to the next car? 
A. Yes; there was 82 pounds rejected of the next car on the last day of the issue 
of meat from that car. 
Q. By what officer was the objection made? 
A. The objection was made by Lieutenant Hartman, of the First Cavalry. 
Q. On what ground? What objection did he make? 
A. His chief objection seemed to be that the beef was from the fore quarter. 
Before I accepted the meat back I saw Lieutenant Shipp, who was brigade com- 
missary at that point, and he told me to take the beef back and doubtless some 
other commissary officer would accept it. I did this, and the meat was hung up in 
the car and accepted-nearly all of it except a small piece-by Lieutenant Phillipps, 
of the Second Massachusetts. The small piece I gave to Mr. Watson. 
Q. Who was Mr. Watson? 
A. Mr. Watson was the local agent there connected with the Plant System freight 
depot. 
Q. So of the first car that came from Tampa, what objection was there? 
A. None whatever. 
Q. And of the second, any save that to which you have testified? 
A. None. 
Q. Go on with the third ear. Where did that come from? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1161 
A. The third car came from Jacksonville. 
Q. Was there any objection to any of that? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Where did the next one come from? 
A. From Jacksonville, too. 
Q. About what time was that, can you recall? 
A. It was about the 25th of May. It left Jacksonville the 25th and arrivea in 
Lakeland on the morning of the 26th. 
Q. What objection was made to any of that car? State it fully to the court. 
A. The third day of issue there was objection made to 82 pounds. 
Q. What was done about that? 
A. That was taken back. It was the last car. Instead of keeping it we destroyed 
it, and had it buried about a mile and a half from Lakeland. 
Q. Where did the next car come from? 
A. It came from Jacksonville also. 
Q. What objection was there to that? 
A. There was two days' beef issued out of that car, and the third day Lieutenant 
Hartman objected to the smell from the car. I advised with Mr. Moorhouse, who 
was at Tampa at that time, and he came up and had the car reshipped to Jackson- 
ville. 
Q. Was there any more meat issued out of it to troops at that time? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. It was reshipped, then, upon the objection of Lieutenant Hartman? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How was meat shipped to Lakeland after that? 
A. In refrigerator boxes. 
Q. Please explain to the court what a refrigerator box is, how it is iced, and how 
it is used. Tell the court all about it. 
A. The box, from what I know of it, is a pine box, I think, of different sizes. It 
has zinc inside, or tin, and the meat is packed on oiled paper inside the tin. The 
cover is then put on the tin and it is iced on the side and on the top. 
Q. Does the ice come in contact with the meat? 
A. It does not; no, sir. 
Q. What are these refrigerator boxes used for? 
A. Shipping meat. 
Q. In what quantities? 
A. In small quantities, too small to be shipped in a car. 
Q. So after Lieutenant Hartman's objection the beef was shipped to Lakeland in 
these refrigerator boxes, was it? 
A. Yes, sir; because there were only two regiments there at that time, or parts of 
two regiments. They were not full regiments. The Second Massachusetts and the 
Seventy-first New York had sailed for Cuba at that time. 
Q. What objections were received as the meat that came in the refrigerator 
boxes? 
A. The first day, as I remember, the meat was only for the First and Tenth 
Cavalry. The Tenth Cavalry accepted their meat that came in these boxes, and the 
First Cavalry accepted part of theirs. 
Q. What about the rest, that they did not accept? 
A. The balance was returned to Tampa, from where it was shipped. 
Q. Did you continue from that time on to furnish it to the troops in the same way? 
A. I did not, sir. I left there the next day. 
Q. While you were engaged in the performance of your duties at Tampa did you 
see Sergeant Mason? 
A. Not at Tampa; no, sir. 1162 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. I mean at Lakeland. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How frequently did you see him? 
A. I saw him every day from the time he was in charge of the detail that came 
there to draw the First Cavalry's beef. 
Q. What conversations did you have with him about the meat? Please state them 
fully to the court. 
A. The only conversation I ever had with him was about the 20th of May. He 
remarked about the second car of beef that we had at Lakeland that the beef was 
the best issued to his command since they had been called out from the post. 
Q. Did you see him on or about the 28th of May? 
A. I did not; no, sir. 
Q. Did you have any conversation with him about that time? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you have any conversation subsequent to the 20th? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You have been employed by Armour & Co. since 1896? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Have you been employed in connection with the handling of refrigerated beef? 
A. I have been around their meat house; yes, sir. 
Q. In what respects, if any, did the refrigerated beef issued to the troops at Lake- 
land differ from that which you have been handling for two years previous? 
A. None whatever; it was apparently the same, to me, as any meat I had ever seen. 
Q. Did its exterior surface present any differences whatever? If so, state them 
fully to the court. 
A. No, sir; the beef had the same appearance of all I had seen before, or have 
seen since. 
Q. Had you anything to do with putting on any preservatives of any sort? 
A. No, sir; in fact, I didn't know what it was until after Sergeant Mason had 
testified. 
Q. Did you ever see such preservatives applied? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you ever have occasion to believe, or to suspect, that they had been applied 
by Armour & Co., or by anybody acting in their behalf? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you ever see upon the meat a coating of any sort, a substance that coated 
the meat that was delivered to the troops? 
A. I did not. 
Q. At what time of day was the beef issued to the troops while at Lakeland? 
A. It was issued in the forenoon. 
Q. Did the details come at the same hour? 
A. They did not. They tried to make some arrangement so that they could get 
there at the same hour before the sun go^ too hot in the morning, but it could not 
be done. They fell into the habit of coming all during the morning, and the car was 
opened at four different times in the morning to accommodate them. 
Q. How much ice was put in each day in the cars as long as refrigerated cars were 
sent there, upon an average? 
A. When the cars arrived in Lakeland they were about from a quarter to a third 
full. They were immediately re-iced, using all the ice that was necessary to fill the 
tanks. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. The first beef that was rejected you say weighed how much? 
A. Eighty-two pounds. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1163 
Q. When was that? 
A. It was the second car. 
Q. Where was that car from? 
A. From Jacksonville, Fla. 
Q. Eighty-two pounds; did you weigh it? 
A. I did not; no, sir. 
Q. How do you know it was 82 pounds, then? 
A. Because that is what the sergeant told me it weighed by his scales. I had no 
scales in the car at that time. 
Q. How did you issue this meat? 
A. By the quarter. 
Q. With marked weight on the quarter? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You issued it that way? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And the second lot which was rejected weighed how much? 
A. Eighty-three pounds. 
Q. I believe you testified before that it was 82 pounds. However, 1 pound does 
not make much difference. Did you weigh that? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Who weighed it? 
A. Sergeant Abel, I think. 
Q. Who is Sergeant Abel? 
A. He was the sergeant that commanded the detail that relieved Sergeant or Pri- 
vate Mason at that time. 
Q. Relieved him of what? 
A. In charge of the detail. 
Q. The detail that drew the meat? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You stated a portion of this meat was shipped back to Jacksonville, not being 
good. How much? All that was in the car, or only a part of it? 
A. What was left in the car-the balance that was left in the car. 
Q. How much was there of that? 
A. I don't know the exact amount. 
Q. I don't want you to give the exact amount. You say these quarters were all 
marked. You had charge of the issues, did you not? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. When you sent back rejected meat, did you make any report of it? 
A. The meat was not rejected. It was sent back because Lieutenant Hartman 
objected to the smell in the car. That was attended to by Mr. Moorhouse. 
Q. You had nothing to do with it then? 
A. I had nothing to do with sending that car back; no, sir. 
Q. You do not know how much was in it when it went back? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. When was that? 
A. That car was sent back about the 30th of May. 
Q. Do you know whether there might have been 1,000 pounds, 2,000, 3000, 5,000 
pounds in it? 
A. There may have been 3,000 pounds in it, but I don't know. 
Q. Could you give a reasonable estimate of it, something near. I do not expect 
you to be exact or very particular in regard to this testimony, as you did not weigh 
the meat. If you saw the inside of the car, can you not tell about how much went 
back? 1164 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. No, sir; I don't think I could. I had not seen the billings of the car. We had 
issued two days' beef out of the car. I don't know how much came in the car. 
Q. As a rule, about how much came out in the car? Were the cars full? 
A. From 5 to 6 cattle a day. There may have been 10 cattle in the car; there may 
have been 15; I don't know. 
Q. Originally? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You issued one or two days out of it? 
A. Two days. 
Q. Did you see Mason after the 20th of May? 
A. I saw him; yes, sir. 
Q. Where? 
A. Around Lakeland. I think he was in charge of the detail after that. 
Q. He was in charge of the detail after the 20th of May? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was it your business to issue any of the meat out of the car there to the details? 
A. Yes, sir; that was my business. 
Q. He was in charge of the details after the 20th of May? 
A. A short while; yes, sir. 
Q. He would come to you for his meat? 
A. Into the car; yes, sir. 
Q. He would come into the car? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I believe you testified you had no conversation with him after the 20th of May? 
A. Not that I can remember; no, sir. 
Q. What do you mean by no conversation? Would he not apply to you for the 
meat-talk about it? 
A. He would not talk about it. He would come in the car. He had a memoran- 
dum of how much each company was to get. 
Q. To whom would he come with that memorandum? 
A. He would hold it in his hand. 
Q. Would he come to you and say, "Here is my order for meat?" 
A. No, sir. 
Q. What would he do? 
A. He would tell me how much he wanted. 
Q. What would you say? 
A. I would stick out as near as I could to that weight. 
Q. Then you did have some conversation with him about that after the 20th of 
May? 
A. I had conversation in a general way; yes, sir. 
Q. I understood you to testify you had not any conversation with him after the 
20th of May? 
A. Not in regard to the beef. 
Q. This was in regard to the beef, was it not? 
A. Only in regard to his.order-how much he wanted. 
Q. As a matter of fact, Mr. Murtagh, would he not speak about the beef, its good 
quality, or things of that kind? Would he not say, "That is satisfactory; that is all 
right," or look around him? 
A. Yes; he said the meat was all right for him. 
Q. He would say that after the 20th of May? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You remember that? 
A. He took the meat and accepted it as being good. 
Q. You remember him speaking about it after the 20th of May? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1165 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was anyone else in the car there when he came there? 
A. Only the negro butcher. 
Q. Do you remember any officers down there? Do you remember Lieutenant 
Ganser? 
A. No, sir; he was not there during my time. 
Q. You do not remember about him? How long did you work there? 
A. I stayed there until the early part of June-July I mean. No; this was June. 
Q. Fix the date, please. You left there when? 
A. The early part of June. 
Q. Who succeeded you then? 
A. There was nobody stayed at Lakeland after I left there. 
Q. Nobody stayed there? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Where did you go after you left there? 
A. Tampa. 
Q. Who forwarded the beef from Tampa out there? 
A. Armour & Co. 
Q. In w'hat way? 
A. In ice boxes. 
Q. Did you ever hear any complaints after that as to the ice boxes not being sat- 
isfactory? 
A. No, sir; I was not connected with the shipping department after that. 
Q. You were not after going back to Tampa? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Who was? Who had charge of the shipments? You were still in Armour's 
employ, were you not? 
A. Yes, sir; our warehouse and office were separate. I was in the office. 
Q. You had no knowledge, then, in regard to the shipment of the beef? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Who did ship the beef out there? Who was the agent that attended to that? 
A. At Tampa? 
Q. Yes; who attended to shipping the beef from Tampa to Lakeland? 
A. Mr. Moorhouse was our manager. 
Q. Did he remain there, or did anybody remain at Lakeland? 
A. Nobody remained there. 
Q. How long did you remain at Tampa in this work? 
A. I stayed in Tampa about four months. 
Q. Who was the agent of Armour & Co. there during the four months? 
A. Mr. Moorhouse was the manager. 
Q. Mr. Moorhouse still continued as agent there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You speak of never having heard of any sort of preservatives or anything of 
that kind being used on meat, I believe? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you mean all kinds of meat? 
A. Any kind of meat. 
Q. You never heard of any chemicals ever being used to preserve meat and 
keep it? 
A. I did not. 
Q. Pork? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You never heard of that? 
A. No, sir. 1166 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Moorhouse, of Tampa. 
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES H. MOORHOUSE. 
Charles H. Moorhouse was called as a witness by the recorder and, being duly 
sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name and residence. 
A. Charles H. Moorhouse; Tampa, Fla. 
Q. What is your occupation at Tampa? 
A. At the present time? 
Q. Yes. 
A. I am manager at the present time. 
Q. Of what concern? 
A. Of the branch there of Armour & Co. 
Q. How long have you been employed there by Armour & Co. at Tampa? 
A. Off and on, about eight years; since 1891. 
Q. How long have you been in their service altogether? 
A. Since 1891. 
Q. The greater part of the time have you been in Tampa? 
A. No, sir; I used to be on the road, traveling, sir. 
Q. How long have you been there continuously? 
A. Since May, when I first had charge of the correspondence and transportation. 
Q. Since May of what year? 
A. May of 1898. 
Q. Was the meat that was supplied to the troops furnished under your direction? 
A. Yes, sir; that is, under my direction, with the approval of my superior officer. 
Q. How much was sent to Tampa from Lakeland for the use of the troops there? 
A. From 10 to 15 cattle. 
Q. Was Lakeland under your jurisdiction? 
A. Not at that time; no, sir. 
Q. How many cars did you send there altogether? 
A. From Tampa? 
Q. From Tampa. 
A. Only one, sir. That was done merely to facilitate matters. It was a hurry-up 
order. 
Q. From what point was Lakeland afterwards supplied? 
A. From Jacksonville. 
Q. Was Jacksonville under your control? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. What connection had you with the issue of beef at Lakeland after you ceased 
to send it up from Tampa? 
A. Merely to look after the cars; that is, the movement of the cars from Jackson- 
ville down; I had to look out for that somewhat. 
Q. Who was responsible for the icing of the cars? 
A. I was, sir. 
Q. What arrangements were made by you w'ith a view to reicing the cars at Lakeland? 
A. On the 19th of May I had a car come down from Jacksonville containing 10 
tons of ice; I have the bill of lading here for it; and on the 20th I went up to Lake- 
land. 
Q. The 20th of May? 
A. The 20th of May; yes, sir. I then made a contract with the Lakeland Ice Works, 
whereby they should furnish us with ice at a specified price, which is stated here, FOOD FURNI&HED THE ARMY. 
1167 
sufficient to reice any or all of their refrigerated cars-referring to Armour Company. 
Then in connection with that I also have-the statement of the Lakeland Ice Works, 
which goes to show that from the 23d of May, in connection with this bill of lading 
of this ear, until the 1st of June we used in those cars there 29,800 pounds of ice. 
Q. From what dates? 
A. Really it is from the 20th of May. It left Jacksonville on the 19th and arrived 
in Lakeland on the 20th; so really from the 20th of May, inclusive of June 1, we 
used 29,800 pounds. 
Q. Did you visit Lakeland at any time? 
A. Yes, sir; I visited it the first time to make this contract. 
Q. Did you go there at any other time subsequent to that? 
A. Yes, sir; I did. 
Q. Did you see the beef that was issued to the troops at Lakeland? 
A. I saw some of the deliveries; yes, sir; and as far as I could see everything was 
all O. K. 
Q. In what respect, if any, did the beef issued to the troops at Lakeland differ from 
the beef supplied to the public generally at Tampa, in years previous to that transac- 
tion? 
A. None whatever. I have had an opportunity to see a great deal of that beef that 
has been issued during my experience. I traveled over the State considerably, 
and stopped at some of the best hotels there, and I have seen the beef received at 
these different hotels, and as far as I could see there was no difference whatever-not 
the slightest. 
Q. Had you occasion to observe the exterior appearance of the beef that was 
supplied to the troops at Lakeland? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you see any of the carcasses? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you notice the surface of the beef? 
A. Not particularly, because there was no reason for me to notice it. I could not 
see that it differed any whatever from the beef that we had been using prior to that 
time. 
Q. Was your observation of it sufficiently close to enable you to testify to that? 
A. I hardly think so. 
Q. To your knowledge, were any preservatives of any sort used with the beef 
furnished to troops at Lakeland or elsewhere in Florida within your jurisdiction? 
A. No, sir; to my knowledge there was none. 
Q. Could such preservatives have been used without your knowledge after the beef 
came into your jurisdiction? 
A. I suppose possibly so. 
Q. Would it have been the ordinary course of business for anything to have been 
done to the beef without your knowledge? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. So, then, how positively can you testify to the use or nonuse of preservatives? 
A. Oh, in Florida? 
Q. Yes. 
A. I could make any oath at all, as far as that is concerned-take any oath in 
regard to it. 
Q. As to what? 
A. As to no preservatives of any kind being used. 
Q. Did you see Sergeant Mason at any time during your visits to Lakeland? 
A. Yes, sir; I did. I think-I am not positive about that-that Sergeant Mason 
was there when I made the arrangement with Mr. Harman to send this meat up in 
those ice boxes. I am not positive about that. 1168 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Do you know him when you see him? 
A. No, sir; I wouldn't know him. 
Q. Were you present at any conversations between Sergeant Mason and any of 
your subordinates? 
A. No, sir. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Did Armour & Co., or the company which you represent, have the contract for 
furnishing the beef there all through the months of May, June, July, and August? 
A. Whereabouts, sir? 
Q. At Tampa. 
A. Oh, no; not all that time. We had some contracts down there-some very 
short contracts. The length of time I don't remember, but, however, in July was 
when the specified contract came up, and that was awarded to Swift & Co. 
Q. To Swift & Co.? 
A. Yes, sir; in July. 
Q. Do you know who furnished, as a matter of fact, the beef at Lakeland from the 
middle of July and up through August? 
A. Yes, sir; we secured that at the same time that Swift secured the contract at 
Tampa. 
Q. Swift had it at Tampa and you had it for the troops at Lakeland? 
A. We got it on the outside. 
Q. Did you have it at Port Tampa? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Or was that included in the Tampa contract for Swift, if you know? 
A. No, sir; it was not Port Tampa. 
Q. You did not have Port Tampa? 
A. Not Port Tampa-Port Tampa City. That is just a short distance outside of 
Port Tampa. 
Q. That would all be included in the Port Tampa contract, presumably? 
A. Yes, sir; in our contract. 
Q. Do you recall meeting a commissary officer, or an officer of the Subsistence 
Department, by the name of Captain Carmichael, at Lakeland, or in that vicinity, or 
having dealings with him? 
A. In July; yes, sir. 
Q. Do you recall meeting another officer of the Commissary Department of one of 
the regiments there by the name of Ganser? 
A. I can't remember him; no, sir. My dealings were principally with Carmichael 
and with Lieutenant Dixon-H. B. Dixon, I think it is. 
Q. Do you remember a surgeon there by the name of Dr. Castle? 
A. Yes, sir; I remember him. 
Q. Do you remember having any dealings with him or any conversation with him 
in regard to the beef? 
A. He made an examination of the beef out there, sir. 
Q. On what ground? 
A. Captain Carmichael had rejected it. 
Q. How much? 
A. As near as I can recollect, there were, I think, about two lots that he rejected. 
When I went up there 
By General Davis: 
Q. Where was this? 
A. This was at Lakeland. When I went up there my understanding with Captain 
Carmichael-with Dixon-was that this beef could be shipped in burlaps in the 
original quarter. We tried that and the business was extremely satisfactory to FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1169 
Lieutenant Dixon; but then Captain Carmichael took charge, and the very first ship- 
ment we had a complaint. He said the beef was not good; so I had to go up there 
and attend to it. 
Q. Go on and state what was done. Give all the circumstances connected with 
that case, within your knowledge. 
A. This beef, those quarters, was shipped 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Excuse me a moment. Can you tell about when that was? Have you any 
memorandum or notes in regard to this rejected beef? 
A. No; I have not, referring to that at all. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Was that in June or July? 
A. That was in July, sir; after we had the contract at Lakeland; that is, the regu- 
lar contract. This beef, those quarters, left Tampa about 8 o'clock in the morning. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. You have not stated what the quantity was. You said "a lot." 
A. It was a carcass and a half; that is, three hinds and three fores. These left there 
about 8 o'clock in the morning; I went up on the next train, which I think left 
about an hour later, and I was very much surprised to see this beef lying on the 
platform there and subjected to the heat, which is very usual in July weather. So I 
went to see Captain Carmichael, and he advised me that the meat had been rejected. 
Q. It had been? 
A. That he rejected it; yes, sir. So then he told me if necessary he would have a 
board of survey. I went up to see Colonel Day in regard to it. Colonel Day appointed 
this board of survey of three lieutenants. We went down and they accepted the 
beef, after it had remained in the sun that length of time. It was taken out. I 
immediately had it put in the wagon and it was taken out to camp. I went to din- 
ner, and in the afternoon about 3 o'clock I went out there and to my surprise this meat 
was all in the wagon yet. Captain Carmichael met me, and he told me that he 
would resign before he would accept the meat. So he then insisted upon my going 
up to Colonel Day's again, and I asked Colonel Day what was the object of a board 
of survey if it was not final, and he told me that it rested with Captain Carmichael, 
if I recollect aright. So that was the way it was. That beef, then, I turned over to the 
local butcher at Lakeland, T. B. Hendricks. I gave it to him. A quarter of that 
beef was afterwards sold to F. M. Smith, another butcher in that place, by this party 
Hendricks. It was used around the town, and I don't think there were any com- 
plaints made of that same beef, after it had remained up there from 8 o'clock or pos- 
sibly 9 o'clock in the morning until 3 or half past 3 in the afternoon. 
Q. In the heat of the sun? 
A. In the heat of the sun; yes, sir. 
Q. That would be about six or seven hours in that hot sun. It did not affect it 
at all? 
A. I suppose it affected the outside, but it could not have affected it very much, 
when one local butcher would sell it to another one. 
Q. Did you have any conversation with the doctor there-Dr. Castle? Do you 
recall any conversation with these officers in regard to the meat-Dr. Castle, or Lieu- 
tenant Ganser? Captain Carmichael, I believe, is dead, and can not be subpoenaed as 
a witness. 
A. There was a lot of meat there on my second visit there-to go back a little bit. 
I then made an agreement with Captain Carmichael that I should send this beef in 
refrigerator boxes. I did so. The first lot, if I recollect aright, was accepted by him. 
The second lot went up there and I went up at the same time to see it. I got up 
S. Doc. 270 74 1170 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
there and there was some controversy about the meat. So Surgeon Castle was sent 
for, and after some few considerations, after Captain Carmichael had said the beef 
was not any good at all, Surgeon Castle then looked over the beef, and it was accepted, 
with possibly the exception of one or two little pieces, which I have forgotten now. 
Q. That, as far as you remember, then, was the extent of the conversation you had 
with the brigade surgeon-Dr. Castle? 
A. I met him in,Tampa a long while afterwards 
Q. I mean in regard to the delivery of the beef. 
A. That is about all I recollect; yes, sir. 
Q. You continued there in charge of all these deliveries until after the troops left 
there. I believe you were in charge there? 
A. Yes. 
Q. About how long did you supply beef up there in considerable quantities? 
A. In July. I can't recollect how long it was, but there was only a small portion at 
the trench, because there were merely detachments that were left there at Lakeland. 
I don't recollect what the length of time was. 
Q. And all of that, during your charge, came from Tampa-was sent up from 
Tampa? 
A. All the express business; yes, sir. 
Q. All the beef you supplied there? 
A. That was sent from Tampa. 
Q. Had you charge of the refrigerating cars in Tampa-had you immediate charge 
of it? 
A. Not all the time. 
Q. There were other men under you, in charge of it? 
A. Yes, sir; I didn't have charge of it at that time. 
Q. Cars that would come down would be shipped in from where? From Jackson- 
ville? 
A. You mean into Tampa? 
Q. Yes. 
A. They would be shipped from all over. 
Q. They would come from Chicago, would they? 
A. Either from Chicago or from Kansas City. 
Q. When they would come down you had a refrigerator there and you had men to 
take charge of that? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Of course the cars would come to you, consigned to you or your agent. You 
would not open them or inspect each car. You trusted that to the men under you? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. So that you probably would not see a quarter of beef when it would come in? 
A. I saw every car, sir. 
Q. You inspected every car? 
A. I was in every car; yes, sir. 
Q. Did you open it and go through it? 
A. Within a very few minutes, I might say, afterwards. 
Q. Then the beef would be unloaded from that car and put into your refrigerator, 
ready for delivery? 
A. The beef was invariably left in the car, sir. 
Q. Do I understand these two or three quarters that you speak of-that beef and a 
half-were sent up in a refrigerated car? 
A. No, sir; that was sent up canvased, burlapped. We only make very extensive 
shipments that way. 
Q. What do you mean by burlaps? 
A. Burlaps is a cloth covering. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1171 
Q. Cheese cloth? 
A. No, sir; it is a heavy cloth that is used for bags. You might call it bagging. 
Q. Do you use that in shipments in this country extensively? 
A. In Florida? 
Q. Yes. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you use it in the same way for export? 
A. Not for export. I ship it to Key West that way, sir. That is a distance of 
two hundred and some odd miles from Tampa. 
Q. What is the object of the use of it? 
A. Just cheapness, and not only that-wTell, that is the principal thing, too. It is 
cheaper, that is all, and it is a good deal easier to put up that way. 
Q. How do you mean "cheaper?" 
A. What I mean is there is no expense attached to it. You have got to ice 
those boxes, and they vaty in their capacity of ice from, say, 50 up to 200 pounds, as 
far as that is concerned, in the capacity of the ice. Then we have to cut the beef to 
go in those boxes. So, consequently, that is what I refer to in regard to burlapping. 
It does away with that labor, you see, and also facilitates matters. If you are in a 
hurry, it facilitates matters. 
Q. I understand when you speak of burlapping; it is burlapping meat in the 
quarter? 
A. In the whole quarter when it is burlapped; yes, sir; invariably. 
Q. Did you ever hear of that being treated with anything, salt or any mixture, in 
order to keep flies off the meat? I refer to this burlaps-to keep the flies away, or 
anything of that kind? 
A. No, sir; I never did in my life. 
Q. You never heard of any preservative process in connection with fresh meat? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Nothing whatever? 
A. No, sir; nothing whatever. 
Q. Nor pork? 
A. No, sir. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. I do not think you have stated to the court what the ground of objection 
was of Captain Carmichael. You stated when you arrived at Lakeland you found 
the meat on the platform? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You have not stated the ground of Captain Carmichael's objection. 
A. I can explain that to you very thoroughly. In the hind quarter of meat there 
is the flank. That is in the outside of the loin. That is doubled over, and where 
that flank came down on the surface of the meat it left, naturally, being wet, you 
know, to a certain extent-that is, the condensation taking place outside after 
the quarters are moved from the ice car-a white place, as you know it will on a 
piece of meat. Two pieces of meat coming together will leave a white place. He 
looked at that, and on those grounds rejected that beef. As I inferred, he had been 
to Panama, and knew absolutely nothing about the beef whatever. That was the 
great difficulty we had to contend with right straight along. 
Q. He did not assert that it had been treated with chemicals? 
A. No, sir; and he would not to this day, sir. 
Q. When you speak about this bagging, do you refer to the refrigerated meat that 
has been taken out of the car ami bagged by you? 
A. Yes, sir; the beef invariably comes in the quarter, without any burlaps, in the car. 
Q. It is your own work? 
A. It is our own work, the bagging is; yes, sir. 1172 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
By General Davis: 
Q. What is the object of putting the burlap on the beef? 
A. Just to protect it and keep it clean, sir, in shipping. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. You say all your trouble, or a great deal of your trouble, was on that account, 
and you speak of Captain Carmichael knowing nothing whatever about beef. 
A. Absolutely nothing whatever, sir. 
Q. That was your principal trouble, about commissaries, as I understood you. 
You made a general sweeping remark. 
A. No, sir; I didn't mean that. I meant Captain Carmichael. I did not mean 
that, if I made a sweeping remark, because that is not so. 
Q. You meant that the captain was ignorant and could not tell the difference- 
that he was ignorant of the quality of the beef? 
A. He was ignorant of the quality of the beef; yes, sir. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Watson, of Lakeland, Fla. 
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE W. WATSON 
George W. Watson was called as a witness by the recorder and, having been first 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. George W. Watson; Lakeland, Fla.; freight clerk for the Plant System. 
Q. You are employed, then, by the railroad company? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Are you, or have you at any time been employed by Armour & Co.? 
A. Never. 
Q. Were the cars containing refrigerated beef for the troops at Lakeland placed on 
the tracks near your office? 
A. Most of the time they were quite close. 
Q. How close were they to your office? 
A. They were as close as 12 feet from my desk, with the open window between us. 
Q. Did they come under your observation when they were opened for the purpose 
of making issues? 
A. They did, on several occasions. Just for curiosity I would walk into the car, 
while my business did not lead me to. 
Q. Did you examine the meat? 
A. Not particularly. 
Q. Did you look at it? Were you where you could see it? 
A. Yes; I would look at it just as a person would, out of curiosity, going into the car. 
Q. Are you familiar with dressed beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In what respects, if any, did the beef that was there at Lakeland for the use 
of the troops, and which fell under your observation, differ from that which you had 
been in the habit of seeing? 
A. It was the same. 
Q. Was the surface of it coated with anything? 
A. Not that I know of. 
Q. Was there a white substance or any other colored substance on the surface of 
the beef at any time? 
A. Not that I noticed. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1173 
Q. Had you any occasion to believe or to suspect that it had been chemically 
treated in any way? 
A. I never heard of such a thing until after this investigation started and I saw it 
in the papers. 
Q. Did you eat any of the beef? 
A. I did. 
Q. Under what circumstances? What beef was it you ate? 
A. Mr. Murtagh gave me beef on one occasion, and the day following he asked me 
how I liked it. I told him it was as good as I ever ate. He said that while he 
would not give me spoiled meat, that meat had been rejected. 
Q. By whom? 
A. My understanding at the time was that it had been rejected by the Commissary 
Department. I don't know just whom. 
Q. Did you see the operation of reicing these cars? 
A. I did. 
Q. How frequently was it done? 
A. It was done daily. 
Q. From whom was the ice received? 
A. They got one car from Jacksonville to start with, and after that the local fac- 
tory there furnished the ice for them. 
Q. Is there an ice-machine establishment at Lakeland? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. When did the greater part of the troops leave Lakeland-about what time? 
A. About the 1st of June-either before or after. I can't recollect just when. 
Q. Did some troops continue there all summer? 
A. The remainder of the First and the Tenth Cavalry remained there. 
Q. Quite a number of them? 
A. Yes; about three or four hundred. 
Q. How were they supplied with beef? 
A. I don't know. I think they got it by express, although it didn't come under 
my observation at all, because I am not connected at all with the express department. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Do you remember whether the First Ohio Volunteer Cavalry was stationed 
there at that time, along in July and August? 
A. I believe they were; yes, sir. 
Q. About what was the capacity of that ice plant you had there in Lakeland? 
A. It is 5 tons, I believe. 
Q. Did they sell much of it to the troops? 
A. Yes; they sold considerable, because I know they were not able to supply the 
demand, and they would have to call on factories up and down the road for more ice. 
Q. During that time, then, they could not supply all the demand there? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. What is the population of Lakeland? 
A. I should think about 1,500. 
Q. How is your town supplied with beef now? 
A. I think they get some Chicago beef; that is, some refrigerated beef, by express; 
but the principal supply is by local butchers, from our own beef. 
Q. You had no occasion to make any particular inspection of the beef, did you- 
nothing more than passing along out of curiosity. You had seen such beef before, 
had you not? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You had seen beef hanging up in that way? 
A. Yes, sir. 1174 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. You were not called upon to make any inspection? 
A. I was not called upon to make it. 
Q. That beef was not supplied to anyone but the troops under contract, was it? 
A. I believe they did sell some to the local butchers. I don't know that, only 
from hearsay. 
Q. The troops would come down and draw it from this place in the morning? 
A. Yes; I have seen them do that. 
Q. About what time did they begin; do you know? 
A. They would generally come between 8 and 10 o'clock. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to recall Mr. Murtagh. 
TESTIMONY OF BERNARD F. MURTAGH. 
Bernard F. Murtagh was recalled by the recorder, and after being warned that 
he was still under oath, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Do you recall the car of beef that was sent back to Jacksonville? 
A. Do you mean the number of the car or anything like that? 
Q. No; the fact that a car was returned. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you go into that car and examine it, look it over? 
A. I was in the car the first two days that the beef was drawn from the car. 
Q. Please tell the court about the odor you observed in the car, if any, at that 
time. 
A. There was a slight odor. After the second day's issue in the car the floor of 
the car was not clean, and there was an odor from the car. The odor was objected 
to by Lieutenant Hartman, as I testified before; and I notified Mr. Moorhouse, who 
had charge of the movement of the cars at that time. He came there and had the 
car reshipped to Jacksonville. 
Q. Did he come himself? 
A. He came himself; yes, sir. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. The car would be closed and the meat subjected to that odor about how long? 
After you first noticed the odor in the car, then the issues would be made and then 
the car closed up. You say the car was not clean. How long was the meat in there 
subjected to that odor? 
A. The car was there the third day. The third day it was sent back. There was 
no beef drawn out of it the third day. 
Q. When was that odor discovered? 
A. In the morning of the third day. 
Q. Do you know what final disposition was made of the beef? 
A. I had no means of knowing; no, sir. I was transferred to Tampa after that. 
Q. You do not know how much meat there was in there? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You can not estimate it? 
A. No, sir. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. To the best of your knowledge, did the odor come from the floor of the car or 
did it come from any of the meat hanging in the car? 
A. It seemed to come from the car. The odor was not so very strong-just a slight 
odor. It was a musty odor. 
By Colonel Davis: 
Q. You say the car was dirty. In what way; dirty with what? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1175 
A. There was sawdust on the floor. I supposed the car had been used before- 
beef had been shipped in it before. 
Q. Was there blood, do you mean, or something like that? 
A. No, sir; sawdust. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. You describe that simply as a musty smell. Was it from apparent decomposi- 
tion of the meat or anything of that kind? 
A. No; just as a damp closet would smell-a damp, musty smell. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to recall Mr. Moorhouse. 
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES H. MOORHOUSE-Recalled. 
Charles H. Moorhouse was recalled by the recorder, and, being warned that he 
was still under oath, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Do you remember the report being made that a car was objected to by Lieuten- 
ant Hartman? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you go up and examine it? 
A. I did not examine the car; no, sir. I went up there and immediately had that 
car returned to Jacksonville. My instructions were to do everything possible to give 
the Army satisfaction. 
Q. Do you know how much meat there was in it? 
A. No, sir; I do not. I will tell you the reason why. Mr. Watson was the agent 
at that time, and I had that car returned to Jacksonville. I was talking to him 
about a minimum car-whether we have to pay the freight on the entire car, you 
understand, loaded. He told me I could have that car returned to Jacksonville on 
what we call shipper's account. Then they would take our weights for it. I had no 
way of weighing anything of the kind. Consequently I had the car returned to 
Jacksonville to repack. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. You stated you did not examine the meat in the car at all? 
A. No, sir; the car about that time, I think, was sealed up, if I am not mistaken, sir. 
It had already been sealed up on my arrival there, so I immediately had it returned to 
Jacksonville. 
Q. Is not that an unusual transaction, to accept the weight? 
A. No, sir; our man had been up there-Mr.Murtagh. No, sir; not at all. 
Q. There could be only one reasonable ground, and that was that the meat was 
tainted, or something of that kind, when it was rejected? 
A. Having the car rejected? 
Q. Yes. 
A. No, sir; I had instructions to do everything possible to give the Army satisfac- 
tion. In regard to that I have some telegrams here that I would very much like to 
read to you. 
Q. If they bear on the question, I would like to hear them. 
A. Some of these telegrams were sent by me subject to Mr. Edwards's approval. 
This telegram was sent on May 17. I think this will prove the care we took or 
endeavored to take, at least, of this first car. The telegram says: "Ship Wednes- 
day compartment car, Lakeland, via J., T. & K. W., 15 cattle weighed and packed." 
That was to facilitate matters, the weighing and packing. Here is the next one: 
" Ship 15 small cattle Sunday to Lakeland." 
By Major Lee: 
Q. What date is that? 1176 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. This is May 21. The next one was the 25th: " Ship Lakeland to-night 15 
choice bright steers." And here is the one that I wanted to read. This is dated the 
28th and refers to the last car, the car that Lieutenant Hartman rejected: ' ' Ship Lake- 
land to-night, new car, thoroughly clean, 10 choice, bright, medium-weight steers." 
There is the telegram. 
Q. That shipment of the 10th, you say, was to replace those rejected? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. That was the shipment that was made? 
A. That was the original shipment that was made. That was the shipment that 
was rejected. 
By General Davis: 
Q. That is the lot that was rejected? 
A. That was rejected. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Who sealed the car. You say you got there and the car was sealed. Whose 
business was it to seal the car? 
A. The agent there. 
Q. The freight agent? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Who is Mr. Edwards, to whom you refer? 
A. Mr. Edwards is our Southern manager, or something of that kind. He has 
general charge down there in that section. 
Q. Was he at Tampa? 
A. Not all the time. 
Q. Was he stationed there principally while the troops were there? 
A. He was, off and on. He was all over. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, there are no more witnesses that have 
been summoned for this morning. 
The court thereupon (at 12.45 p. m.) took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m. 
The court reassembled at the expiration of the recess. x 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
The court then went into executive session, after which an adjournment was taken 
until Wednesday, March 29, 1899, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, 
Washington, D. C., March 29, 1899. 
The court met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. Major Lee and the reporter were 
also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Paymaster-General Stewart, of the Navy. 
TESTIMONY OF REAR-ADMIRAL EDWIN STEWART. 
Rear-Admiral Edwin Stewart, U. S. N., was called by the recorder as a witness 
and, having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the naval service. 
A. Edwin Stewart; rear-admiral; Paymaster-General of the Navy. 
Q. You have charge of the procurement of supplies for the ships of the Navy? 1177 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I have. 
Q. Is canned roast beef an article that is used in the Navy for subsistence? 
A. It is. 
Q. Will you please state to the court what the requirements are in respect to 
canned roast beef that is furnished by contract for the use of the Navy? 
A. Shall I read the specification? 
Q. If you will, or I will read it. 
A. It is as follows: "Shall be of the best quality ox beef, full weight, in tins of 
2 pounds each, the weight of tins not included." The rest of the specification 
relates more to the packages than to the beef. "Two sample tins of beef which the 
bidder proposes to furnish must be submitted to the general storekeeper, navy-yard, 
New York, prior to the time fixed for opening bids, and must be of ample size to 
enable a correct opinion to be formed of the article offered and to admit of its being 
thoroughly tested, and no sample will be received after the bids are opened. The 
samples shall be marked with the bidder's name and date of opening of bid. The 
sample is intended to show only the quality of the article which the bidder purposes 
to furnish. The article when delivered must be in strict accordance with the speci- 
fications and the sample submitted; otherwise they will be rejected. Bids unaccom- 
panied by samples will not be considered. The award will be made to the lowest 
bidder whose sample, in the opinion of the board of inspection, meets the requirements 
of the specification." 
Q. Please state, if you will, what the detail of inspection is when the supplies are 
received; that is, in the case of canned roast beef. 
A. We have a board of officers at each navy-yard, called a board of inspection. 
Most of the supplies are delivered at the New York Navy-Yard. As stated in this 
specification, two samples must be furnished by each bidder. One of these samples- 
cans-is opened and carefully examined by the board of inspection by testing it, 
trying it. The board of inspection then reports to me whose sample or how many 
samples are satisfactory. It frequently happens that where there are from six to ten 
bidders probably only two samples will be found satisfactory-by the board of inspec- 
tion. The award is then made to the lowest bidder whose sample is pronounced 
satisfactory. The second sample is held against the delivery, and when that deliv- 
ery is made a new inspection is made; that can is opened and the various several 
cans from the delivery are opened, and if they correspond and if the quality is the 
best quality of roast beef, it is accepted; otherwise it is rejected. Sometimes it has 
happened that on a delivery a rejection has been made because the delivery did not 
correspond with the sample first furnished. But usually that method of inspection 
is a sufficient safeguard. 
Q. Is a report of the inspection made? 
A. A report is made every day of all inspections. 
Q. Does the action of the board appear upon the purchase voucher in any form? 
A. Except the certificate that the inspection has been made and that the goods 
delivered conform to the specifications. 
Q. That is attached to the voucher? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Is this inspection required by statute or by regulation? 
A. It is required by regulation. 
Q. In making the inspection at the delivery of the beef about how many cans are 
selected upon which to condition the whole delivery; is there any rule about that? 
A. There is no rule. It rests entirely with the board of inspection. They open 
enough to satisfy themselves. 
Q. Is there any practice in that regard, within your knowledge, to such an extent 
that you could inform the court as to about how many? 
A. I can not tell you how many cans they open; no. Perhaps Mr. Colby can tell 
you when he comes on the stand. 1178 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. About how much of this article is used in the Navy-purchased for the Navy 
from year to year? 
A. I can give you a memorandum of that. [After reference to memorandum.] 
Probably 500,000 pounds. 
Q. Five hundred thousand pounds a year? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Does the amount change from year to year materially? 
A. Oh, yes, sir; we have purchased much larger amounts in the last year than we 
have ordinarily purchased. 
Q. Take the ten years prior to the outbreak of the war. If your recollection will 
serve you to that extent, did the amount purchased from year to year during that 
period change materially? 
A. I don't think it varied very much up to the breaking out of the war. 
Q. And are those 500,000 pounds the amount purchased the war year? 
A. That is what I should say offhand. Of course, I can give you the exact amount 
we purchased. I can tell you now what we purchased from the contracts. 
Q. If you will, I will be obliged. 
A. December, 1897, 30,000 pounds from L. H. Heyman, who, I understand, rep- 
resents Nelson Morris & Co. May 10, 1898, 50,000 pounds, F. J. Dessaur, who, I 
understand, represents Armour & Co. June 21, 1898, 50,000 pounds, Eastman Com- 
pany, New York. November 22, 1898, 25,000 pounds, Samuel Heyman, represent- 
ing Nelson Morris & Co., as I understand it. I don't know certainly that he repre- 
sents them, but that is my impression. We opened the bids yesterday for 50,000 
pounds. That award has not been made. The bidders were B. D. Armour, Chicago; 
Schwartzchild & Sulzberger Company, New York; Eastman Company, New York; 
Samuel Brown; Thaddeus A. Kidd; C. J. Cowerd; Potter & Wrightington, and 
Samuel Heyman. In addition to those, which was purchased after public adver- 
tisement, we purchased a considerable quantity-I can not say offhand how much- 
in the open market. Our purchases in the open market are made generally through 
the navy pay office in New York. The purchasing officer sends out a number of bids or 
invitations to bid to the principal dealers and requires samples to be furnished in the 
same way; that is, the same routine is gone through with, except that it is bought in 
the open market under competition instead of after public advertisement. 
Q. Can you inform the court as to the amount of canned roast beef that is con- 
demned in the Navy? 
A. I can not give you the percentage, but it is very small. 
Q. It is very small? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Is it a portion of the regular navy ration? 
A. It is. 
Q. Can you inform the court the particular purpose for which it is used in the 
Navy? 
A. Simply to give variety to the ration. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. I believe you have stated in your testimony that there have been some rejec- 
tions in the offers that have been made. Have you any record of that which would 
determine what rejections have been made in the last year or two years? 
A. Well, I could get it up for you, probably. I can not give it to you offhand. But I 
know that there have been frequent rejections. Our inspections are very strict, and 
unless we get the very best quality of beef the beef is rejected. 
Q. I understand from your testimony that the samples, after being furnished and 
delivery made, that the sample is compared then with a sufficient number of selected 
cans to determine the deliveries in accordance with 
A. That sample. In the first place, the fact must be established that that sample FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1179 
conforms to our standard, which is the very best beef we can find in the market. 
Then when the delivery is made we see that we get what we ask for. 
Q. General, will you please state to the court, within your knowledge, or as a 
matter of information in connection with your official duties, what have been the 
principal causes of these frequent rejections that have been made in the tenders of 
beef? 
A. The rejections at the navy-yard? 
Q. Yes, sir. 
A. Simply the quality of the beef. There are very many grades, as I understand 
it, of canned beef. 
Q. About how many grades would you designate, as far as you can recall in regard 
to that? You speak of quite a number of grades. 
A. Well, I don't know how many. I only know, as I said a while ago, that where 
there are a number of bidders to furnish samples, probably it sometimes happens that 
there will be only two out of whoever sends in bids whose samples will be pronounced 
satisfactory, simply because the grade of beef offered by the other bidders is not high 
enough to conform to our standard. 
Q. Does your board of inspectors, or anyone connected with the board, make any 
analysis of the nutriment of the beef to determine that it is up to the fixed standard 
and that it possesses all the properties necessary for giving strength-that it is proper 
food? 
A. Chemical analyses, you mean? 
Q. Yes. 
A. Well, they have chemical analyses made of many articles delivered. Whether 
they examine the beef in that way or not I don't know; but if they had any 
suspicion that it was not what it should be they certainly would have it examined 
chemically. 
Q. I believe in the specification you read it says "that the beef shall be of the best 
quality ox beef." Do I remember correctly? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Would that specification include, for ins ance, another class of cattle known as 
cows, and so on? 
A. I think not. It simply indicates the best quality of beef, as far as I know. 
Q. The best quality of beef? 
A. Yes. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Is any inspection made in the packing houses to determine what goes into these 
cans-any inspection by the Navy Department or any of its officers? 
A. Not that I know of. 
Q. Were the marines who were serving in Cuba at Guantanamo supplied with this 
canned roast beef-the troops at Guantanamo, or near there? 
A. I think they were. All their supplies, I think, were drawn from our 
Q. Was any complaint brought to the attention of the Navy Department respecting 
the beef that was issued for service on shore to the marines? 
A. I never heard of any. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. What satisfaction in general did that canned roast beef give to the Navy? 
A. Excellent satisfaction, as far as I know. I never have heard of any complaint 
of it. 
Q. How frequently was it issued as a ration 
A. Twice a week isn't it, Mr. Colby? 
Mr. Colby. There are several kinds of tinned meat, but they take their choice 
between the different kinds. They are issued, as you say, twice a week, but that is 
used very extensively. 1180 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Do you know of any complaints at all made against canned roast beef? 
A. (The witness, Admiral Stewart.) I do not. 
Q. What was the object in making such a careful specification in regard to the 
tin which contains the meat? 
A. Well, for the sake of the preservation of the beef on board of the ship and the 
handling of it. Most of our beef, to conform to this specification, would have to 
be specially packed. In the first place, you notice that we require full-weight tins, 
and then the tins must be of such a character and the boxes of such a weight to pre- 
serve the meat and to prevent the breaking in handling. 
Q. What care was taken in storing this canned roast beef on board the ship? 
A. Well, no special care, except that it was stored to the best advantage. 
Q. Was it stored in refrigerators? 
A. The canned roast beef? Oh, no. 
By General Davis: 
Q. How high a temperature might be reached in the storerooms of the vessel, or 
the holds of the vessel, serving in the Tropics, where the canned roast beef was 
deposited? 
A. I would rather you would ask that of Mr. Colby, who has been more recently 
at sea than I have and can tell you better than I can regarding that. 
Q. Did any of the cans of roast beef resemble this sample in external appearance? 
(Referring to a round can of roast beef on the court-room table.) 
A. I can not tell anything about it from the outside. It is not the same size, I 
think, as our cans were. Mr. Colby can tell you more about that than 1 can. 
Major Lee. I would like to submit to the court whether it would be practicable to 
have a sample of the meat that has been received by the Navy Department sub- 
mitted to the court, inasmuch as this has been brought up. I mean the kind of 
roast beef that has been submitted to an inspection by the Navy Department that 
the General has referred to. 
The Recorder. There would be no objection to that; that can be done. 
The Witness. I can give you a can of such beef as we are issuing now. 
Major Lee. Anything within the discretion of the court. 
The Witness. Beef that has been passed by our board of inspection. 
Major Lee. That is, under the system you use. 
Colonel Gillespie. I think it would be more satisfactory if you can give us a can 
from the lot you have received and inspected since May last. 
The Witness. Certainly. We have not anything else. 
By General Davis: 
Q. How long ago was canned roast beef made an article of the navy ration? 
A. I entered the Navy in 1861. We were using it then. 
Major Lee. I presume it would not be practicable to get a sample of the beef that 
was rejected by the Navy? 
General Davis. It is not likely, but we would be glad if we could get it. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Paymaster Colby, of the United States Navy. 
TESTIMONY OF PAYMASTER HENRY G. COLBY. 
Paymaster Henry G. Colby, U. S. N., was called as a witness by the recorder, 
and, having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the naval service of the United 
States. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1181 
A. Henry G. Colby; paymaster in the Navy; assistant chief of the Bureau of Sup- 
plies and Accounts. 
Q. Are you familiar, by personal experience, with the inspection of canned goods 
received for use in the Navy? 
A. Yes, sir; somewhat. 
Q. Will you please state to the court, in making an inspection of canned roast beef 
which is tendered for acceptance, about what per cent of cans are opened in order to 
make the comparison that is required by the regulations? 
A. Well, it depends largely on the quantity of the delivery, of course; but I could 
not give you the exact number-that is, the percentage. The idea is that the board 
shall satisfy themselves, upon a sufficient number, to satisfy themselves that the 
delivery is all right. The great secret, I think, in making an inspection of that kind 
is to take a sample here and a sample there of different deliveries in a way that 
makes it pretty sure to get at the average; but I don't think there is any rule as to 
how many cans shall be opened. 
Q. Can you recall a case of inspection that would give some sort of idea of the 
percentage that would be opened? 
A. Well, I know of one inspection where I think they averaged about one in a 
hundred. That was a small delivery. 
Major Lee. One in a hundred what? 
By the Recorder: 
Q. One in a hundred cans? 
A. Yes, sir; one tin in a hundred. But I say a large delivery of 50,000 or 100,000 
cans would not have such a large percentage of cans opened. 
Q. Are the contractors required to deliver any extra cans for that purpose? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Then the cans that are used are dropped from the papers in some way? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How does the board satisfy itself as to the quality of the beef or as to the con- 
dition of the specification in respect to quality? 
A. Largely by appearance and by taste; and where there is any question about 
the chemical analysis of it, we have a chemist in the New York yard who is called 
upon for inspections. 
Q. Where a particular condition is insisted upon in the specification, as, for 
instance, that ox beef shall be tendered, how is that performed? 
A. Well, if there was any question about the quality of the beef, as often occurs in 
other inspections, if there is any question between the board of inspection and the 
contractor, experts are called in to settle the question. 
Q. To your knowledge, has any such question ever arisen in dealing with canned 
roast beef? 
A. I have no knowledge of any such. 
Q. What is your experience, if the fact is within your knowledge, as to the keep- 
ing qualities of the roast beef in the general naval service? 
A. We have had no trouble whatever. The only tins that we ever find on board 
ship that are bad are those which were not tight, and once in a while you will find 
a tin that has been punctured by a nail in nailing the box up. There have been no 
other cases of failure of beef that I know of. 
Q. Does the age of the beef affect its quality in point of use? 
A. Not as far as my experience goes. 
Q. Does much of it remain on hand from year to year? That is, of the stock pur- 
chased for the Navy, is there much left over for the next year? 
A. No; not a large quantity. 
Q. Can you say as to whether it is the purpose 1182 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. (Continued.) We may have sometimes, on a foreign station or a storehouse, 
meat that remains on hand sometimes, but with our storehouses at home of course it 
is largely used up every year. 
Q. As to its keeping qualities, have you ever personally examined cans that were 
opened in the Tropics. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What is their appearance, if you can recall it? 
A. There is no difference in their appearance except in a colder climate of course 
the fat or tallow-if there is tallow in it-will be thicker. The whole substance or 
material of the cans, of course, in a hot climate, subjected to heat, will be somewhat 
different in appearance. 
Q. Can you give the court an idea as to the temperature to which it is subjected in 
a hot climate? 
A. The temperature on board of our steamers-that is, our battle ships and those 
that are under steam, that are constantly under steam, in the Tropics-is a very high 
one in the storerooms. I should say that it would be from 100° to 110° F. a great 
deal of the time. I know that that is so, from experience. 
Q. Ordinarily how is it used; that is, how is it supplied to the men in the Navy as 
food? 
A. Well, it is used largly for making soups, and used largely for making soups for 
the officers' mess also; and they make it up also in the form of a hash with potatoes, 
and sometimes it is served in the shape of a stew with potatoes in it; and there are 
various ways of using it. 
Q. How is it regarded by the men? 
A. Very favorably. 
Q. How long has refrigerated beef or frozen beef been used in the Navy? 
A. Only since the commencement of the late war. 
Q. Have you standard specifications for frozen beef ? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Will you please read them to the court? 
A. Here it is. Shall I read it? 
Q. Yes; if you will. 
A. (Reading specification.) " pounds, more or less, good steers, of the best 
quality; carcasses weighing not less than six hundred and fifty (650) or more than 
seven hundred and fifty (750) pounds, in the proportion of three hind quarters to 
two fore, free from bruises; stags, bulls, and cows excluded; carefully wrapped in 
white muslin; to be thoroughly frozen when delivered; all quarters not sufficiently 
frozen to prevent the insertion of a knife will be rejected." 
Q. At what temperature are they received? 
A. Received alongside of ship? 
Q. Yes; alongside of the ship. 
A. We have had it received usually in a refrigerator lighter at a temperature at 
about the freezing point-a little below. 
Q. And what is the temperature of your refrigerator room? 
A. That is carried at about 20°, and can be carried as low as 10°. 
Q. Are all modern ships provided with refrigerating apparatus? 
A. No. Ships are purchased for that purpose. There is nothing under the Ameri- 
can flag at this time that have refrigerating plants. 
Q. Is there a refrigerator room on the modern battle ship? 
A. There is, on a very small scale, but it won't freeze meat. It is simply for the 
purpose of preserving it for the time being; that is all. It is chilled, you might say. 
It is not frozen. 
Q. Then the vessel which receives it in behalf of the Navy is a storeship or a sup- 
ply ship? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1183 
A. A supply ship; yes. 
Q. With a refrigerating apparatus? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Please state to the court how it is issued from that to the ships of the fleet. 
A. It is issued at stated times. For instance, our vessels sometimes, when they 
have not had a supply steamer for some time, would issue this beef from it. It is 
delivered early in the morning-of course, the coolest time of the day-and delivered 
in this frozen condition in the boat, with ice. They usually carry a large quantity of 
ice. They are vessels that have a refrigerating plant aboard, sufficient to carry beef 
for a few days. All our battle ships are'provided in that way. They make their own 
ice. Smaller vessels that have nothing of that kind brought sufficient ice to keep it 
in ice boxes for some little time-for a day or two. But where they are issuing it 
every day they come alongside this storeship every morning. In serving it out from 
this they don't open the main refrigerator every time. They have a compartment 
attached to it where a sufficient quantity for a day's issue or two days' issue is 
placed, and it is served from there to avoid lowering the temperature of the main 
refrigerator room. 
Q. Have there been any losses of frozen beef? 
A. None to speak of. 
Q. Are its keeping qualities satisfactory to the Navy Department? 
A. Perfectly. I will give you an instance. The Celtic arrived in San Francisco a 
month ago, or a little over a month ago. She went around the Horn with the battle 
ships. She arrived there with beef that had been in her refrigerator eight months, 
and was in perfect order, and that is about arriving in Manila now-that same beef. 
We have no trouble whatever about keeping the temperature down. 
Q. Is the fleet in Manila supplied with beef from the United States or from 
Australia? 
A. From Australia. 
Q. Is it frozen? 
A. Frozen; yes, sir. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Will you please state to the court, in connection with the matter of the inspec- 
tions of canned roast beef, as to the rejections that are made, if you have any knowl- 
edge or information on that subject. 
A. I have not anything that I can give you. I can find out from the records of 
the Bureau just what the objections have been and the reasons why there have been 
rejections. 
Q. There have been rejections? 
A. Oh, there is no doubt of it. 
Q. What are usually the grounds for objection? State it in a general way. 
A. Largely bad quality. 
Q. Inferior quality? 
A. Inferior quality. You might say odds and ends and tallow. 
Q. The proportion, I believe you stated, in small quantities would be approx- 
imately 1 can taken at random to every 100 cans; approximately that? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In large quantities it would, of course, not run in that proportion? 
A. The board of inspection have no rule, as I said. They simply opened enough 
cans to satisfy themselves. 
Q. In a large quantity that percentage might be opened, or it might be a different 
percentage? 
A. Yes, sir. Of course if they had any doubt as to the quality, in case of a large 
quantity, if they saw anything to arouse suspicion, they would open a great many 
more cans than otherwise. 1184 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. I believe that is the rule always in regard to inspections-to be thoroughly 
satisfied that it is up to the sample. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And not receive it unless that is the case? 
A. Yes, sir. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Is the process by which the beef is prepared in the packing houses inspected 
by the navy inspectors? 
A. No, sir; not that I know of. I suppose they may have seen it. I have seen 
the process myself, but never with a view to 
Q. You speak of it as canned roast beef? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Does that word "roast" have a technical meaning? Do you understand that it 
is actually roasted? 
A. No, sir; I don't understand it that way. I think it is simply cooked. In pre- 
paring that beef there should never be anything extracted from it and put up in 
another shape. For instance, there should be no extract of beef or anything of that 
kind extracted; that should be left with it. 
Q. Do you know, as a matter of fact, whether any of the beef the Navy Depart- 
ment has purchased recently has not been treated by a process that resulted in the 
production of an extract; do you know that as a matter of fact? 
A. I beg your pardon. 
Q. I say do you know, as a matter of fact, that in the recent purchases of beef for 
the Navy Department 
A. You are speaking of tinned beef? 
Q. Yes. That the process was one that did not result in the production of an extract? 
A. No; I do not. 
Q. In sending ashore from vessels of war detachments of sailors and marines for 
service on shore, who would be supplied with rations for one or more days, is canned 
roast beef furnished for such use? 
A. That would be left largely with the detachment itself. We haven't only roast 
beef, but we have tinned corned beef, and tinned ham and sausage, and various 
kinds of those meats, and I should say on an expedition of that kind they would use 
one of those others rather than canned roast beef. 
Q. Is the navy ration fixed by law or by regulation? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Colonel Gillespie. He did not say which. 
A. By law. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Could you furnish a statement of what the complements of the navy ration 
are? 
A. Yes, sir; I haven't it here, but I can do it. 
Q. Do you know whether any of these landing parties on shore have ever used 
this canned roast beef fresh from the can without any cooking? 
A. I don't, to my knowledge; no, sir. 
Q. Did you hear of any complaints from the marines who were serving at Guan- 
tanamo of this roast beef that may have been issued to them? 
A. No, sir. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Does the board of inspection consider the age of the manufactured article in 
this canned roast beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Is there any limit of age? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1185 
A. No; I don't know that there is any limit. That is another question that 
would be left to the judgment of the board, I think; it would be left entirely with 
the judgment of the board. 
By General Davis: 
Q. You have served on boards of inspection, have you not? 
A. Not to any great extent. I have on one or two occasions, several years ago; 
I have not lately. 
Q. Do you know of any way of discriminating between the ox beef and cow beef? 
A. I would not know; no, sir. I think it would be a very difficult thing to make 
the discrimination. 
Recross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. I would like to ask, if you can state, within your knowledge and information, 
about how many grades of this canned roast beef have been tendered to the Navy 
Department? 
A. I could not tell you about how many, but I know that there have been several 
grades. 
Q. Several grades as to the quality of the beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I understand that these boards under the specifications accept only the best 
quality? 
A. Only the best quality. • 
Q. Rejecting the others? 
A. Yes, sir; rejecting the others. 
Q. Could you please state to the court, from your recollection, the different kinds 
of meats that are furnished the Navy? You speak of tinned ham and other meats. 
A. Tinned ham, yes, sir; tinned corned beef, sausage, and roast beef and bacon. 
Q. How was that bacon put up, as a rule? 
A. We have not used that ration very extensively. We found great trouble in 
keeping it aboard ship. But where it has been put up it has been put up in painted 
cans. It has been packed in cases with chaff to keep the air from it, or something 
of that kind. 
Q. Have you had it in small cans? 
A. Yes, sir; we have had it that way. 
Q. Do you require, or is it known, that the date of manufacture of this canned 
roast beef is given, or the date of its receipt in any way, so as to identify it? 
A. I don't understand the question. 
(The question was read by the stenographer.) 
A. Oh, if its inspection was placed on every case and the name of the contractor. 
I don't know. 
Rear-Admiral Stewart. The date of packing is put on. 
The Witness (Mr. Colby). Yes; I think it is in those specifications. 
Major Lee. The date of packing in the cases? 
A. The date of packing the meat. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Major Black, of the Subsistence Department. 
TESTIMONY OF MAJ. JOHN B. BLACK. 
Maj. John B. Black, U. S. V., was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having 
been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: * 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
S. Doc. 270 75 1186 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. John B. Black; by appointment a major and chief commissary of subsistence 
in the volunteers. 
Q. When did you enter the military service of the United States? 
A. I was appointed on the 3d of June, 1898. 
Q. Please state in narrative form to the court, as briefly as may be, the different 
stations that you have occupied while in the service. 
A. (Referring to memorandum.) On the 24th of June, 1898, by section 10 of 
Special Order, No. 1.48, I was ordered to report in person to the Major-General Com- 
manding the Army for assignment to duty. My next order was on board the United 
States steamer Yale, and en route for Porto Rico. 
Q. Where did you report? 
A. I reported to General Miles, in Washington. 
Q. Where did you serve under that order? 
A. I served with him at Porto Rico. 
Q. No; you reported to him at Washington, and did you enter upon the perform- 
ance of your duties in Washington? 
A. I had no duties assigned to me here. Shortly after reporting I accompanied 
him on his expedition to Porto Rico. My first order of detail was on board the 
United States steamer Yale en route for Porto Rico, July 23,1898, Special Field Orders, 
No. 3: 
"1. Maj. J. B. Black, chief commissary of subsistence, U. S. V., is hereby 
appointed an acting assistant quartermaster. He will'take charge of the unload- 
ing of all the property and supplies on board the transports, and will see to their 
proper distribution and storage. After the transports are unloaded and ready for 
sea he will give the necessary orders directing them to proceed to their destination." 
It was signed by J. C. Gilmore, brigadier-general, by order of General Miles, 
major-general commanding. 
Q. And did you have any other assignment? 
A. That is the only assignment I have had during that expedition. 
Q. And what duties did you perform there in the Subsistence Department? 
A. Simply in transferring the stores as I found them in the transport to the com- 
missary depot; in fact, taking charge of all stores as they came off the transports and 
distributing them at various depots and warehouses. 
Q. At what port did you land in Porto Rico? 
A. ■ First at Guanica, on the morning of the 25th of July. 
Q. And how long did you remain there? 
A. Until the morning of the 28th. 
Q. Were any stores there to be unloaded? 
A. They were for the troops that disembarked at that point. 
Q. What stores? 
A. General Garretson's brigade and a portion of the engineer corps of Colonel Black, 
the engineer officer. Their stores, camp and garrison equipage, was included, and 
they had a large supply of travel rations. They were taken off the vessels at that 
point. Considerable artillery was taken off there, with a stock for it. Then the 
transports, by an order from General Gilmore, were taken around to Ponce on the 
28th. 
Q. On your arrival at Ponce, were the transports in the harbor loaded with rations 
and supplies? 
A. The transports that accompanied General Miles on the expedition. 
Q. How many were there, approximately? 
A. I think there were some eight or ten. 
Q. Did all of them contain subsistence stores? 
A. Not all of them. There were two of these that I mentioned particularly-the 
City of Macon and the Comanche-that took 100,000 rations on; and the other vessels 
had the supplies of the different commands that were on them, and in many of them FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1187 
we would find commissary stores, quartermaster stores, forage, and everything per- 
taining to the expedition. 
Q. In the execution of the order which you have just cited, what stores were 
unloaded at Ponce? 
A. All the stores of the vessels were unloaded. I will explain it in this way: 
Very shortly after our arrival there there was an order came to the effect that as fast 
as the vessels could be unloaded they should return to Siboney for General Shafter; 
and the verbal orders I received were to expedite the unloading as fast as possible, 
so that those vessels could be returned. 
Q. What duties at this time did you perform in the Subsistence Department? 
A. In supplying the depot, which was under the control of Captain Pomeroy, with 
all supplies that were necessary to fill the requisitions made by the various troops. 
I would say, in connection with that, that it required a great deal of extra labor, 
because these vessels came to us without any manifest; without any invoice of stores. 
And in that way we had a great deal of trouble in securing certain component parts 
of the rations that were necessary to keep the depot commissary supplied. 
Q. Did you find canned roast beef among the stores? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And what disposition was made of them? 
A. That was taken out of the stores and stored in the depot and it stood in other 
warehouses. I would say, in connection with that, that Major Barnadoe, General 
Wilson's commissary officer, had a large supply of stores that were unloaded and 
placed in a warehouse that we called the Morelles, as the space in the depot commis- 
sary was limited and we could not place anything in there. Then Lieutenant Foster, 
quartermaster and commissary of the Nineteenth Infantry, got a large amount of 
stores, that were turned into the commissary and were eventually issued. 
Q. When did the steamer Manitoba reach Ponce? 
A. On the 10th of August. 
Q. And what did she bring in the way of subsistence stores? 
A. She had a large supply of stores and two troops of cavalry and two batteries of 
artillery, with their camp and garrison equipage and all stores pertaining to their 
commands. 
Q. And what disposition was made of the stores brought on the Manitoba? 
A. They were not unloaded, but other stores were transferred to the Manitoba and, 
in conjunction with the Alamo, she was sent to Mayaguez and Arecibo to supply Gen- 
eral Garretson and General Schwan's brigades. 
Q. And what subsistence stores were on board the Manitoba; that is, what different 
kinds? 
A. There were 40,000 pounds of officers' stores, consisting of canned goods, bread, 
tobacco, etc.; and then there were potatoes, onions, tomatoes, hard bread, fresh beef, 
and canned goods that were in the regular line of commissary supplies. 
Q. Any bacon? 
A. No, there was no bacon. 
Q. What disposition was made of the fresh beef? 
A. There was no disposition made of it during the time she remained in the 
harbor. I will state in getting into the harbor she ran onto a reef about 2 or 2| 
miles out and she was there four days, during which time the troops and stock were 
taken off. There were 653 men and 711 horses and mules that were taken off, and 
then the vessel was warped off and came into the harbor. She came in, I think, on 
the 14th, and that being Sunday we could not get the stevedores to work, and so 
the work of unloading was not commenced until the 15th. By the 17th she was 
unloaded of the stores belonging to the commands that she brought down, and on 
the 18th she was sent outside with a force of stevedores to clean her up and throw 
off the refuse, the manure, etc., on her. Then on the morning of the 19th of August 1188 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
there was a telegram received from Davidson, depot quartermaster under General 
Schwan, as follows: 
"Must have the following supplies as soon as possible: Clothing for 1,500 men; 
forage for 600 animals. Have less than 200 sacks of oats and only 45 bales of hay." 
At the same time there was a telegram came from Alexander, brigade commissary 
of General Schwan, mentioning a large amount of supplies for the brigade, and also 
on the same day a telegram from General Ludington to General Gilmore, asking if 
these brigades could not be supplied by some vessel. I think I have a copy of that 
telegram here. Here it it is [reading from telegram]: 
"General Gilmore, Ponce: Pullman sails Rita 15th, Tampa to Ponce, with large 
supplies clothing and quartermaster stores. ' ' 
We had no stores and no clothing-no clothing, at least, that was called for by 
the quartermaster. [Reading from telegram :] 
"About 400 tons of oats and Concho sailing to New York 13th. Can not you arrange 
to supply Schwan from these stores by sending some vessel from Ponce?" 
Here is another telegram which I will read: 
" Mayaguez, August 20,1898. General Gilmore, Ponce: Necessity for prompt sup- 
ply of clothing, forage, and flour or hard bread for this command most urgent. 
Many men barefooted and shirts are rotting on men's backs. At the most only three 
days' forage and six days' supplies of breadstuffs remain on hand. Supplies must 
be brought here by transport. Our transportation is taxed to the utmost in carrying 
supplies to the troops in the mountains. Our draft animals are in poor condition." 
It was then decided to send the Manitoba, in connection with the Alamo, after certain 
stores had been placed on her, to supply General Schwan at Mayaguez and General 
Garretson at Arecibo. 
Q. What other transports were in the harbor at that time? 
A. There was the Whitney, the Maverick, Gussie, Aransas, the Uto, the Mississippi, 
the Chester, the Manitoba, the Roumania, and the Alamo. 
Q. Why was the Manitoba selected rather than any other? 
A. Because she had certain stores on and some of the other vessels were unloaded 
and about ready to leave. The Gussie, the Whitney, and the Aransas were unloaded, 
but short of coal. The Uto was loaded with lumber. The Maverick was a tank or 
waterboat. The Roumania was unloading and sailed about the 21st. The Chester 
was loaded with the First United States Volunteers, they then being disembarked. 
The Mississippi had nothing but flour, bacon, hay, and oats on board. Those stores 
were transferred to the Manitoba. The Alamo, in conjunction with the Manitoba, 
was loaded with hard bread, bacon, salt, coffee, canned beef, cases of smoked bacon, 
and sugar. 
Q. What steps, if any, were taken to issue the fresh beef on the Manitoba while 
she remained at Ponce? 
A. No particular steps were taken anything more than to inform the different com- 
mands that there was a vessel in the harbor with refrigerated beef. 
Q. And was any effort made by anyone to secure its issue? 
A. To the best of my knowledge there were no requisitions made, not even a 
request made for it. That I give by hearsay because my duties were such that I had 
but very little time to attend to that portion of the work and this was a verbal report 
of Captain Pomeroy's. 
Q. You were aware that this beef was on board? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you examine it? Did you know what its condition was? 
A. I did not. I took the word of Captain Aspinwall who had charge 
Q. Did you then, as chief commissary, take any steps or make any efforts to issue 
the refrigerated beef which was on board the Manitoba during its stay in the harbor 
of Ponce? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1189 
A. I did not really consider that I was acting commissary under the orders under 
which I was acting-acting assistant quartermaster-but I made no special effort on 
account of the duties 
Q. What officer in General Miles's command performed the duties of chief commis- 
sary at this time? 
A. Well, there was no chief commissary, aside from my rank as that, with the 
command. 
Q. Then, please state fully to the court what efforts, if any, you made to issue the 
refrigerated beef; and if not, why no efforts were made, as an article of Government 
property. 
A. The fact of this beef being on this vessel was reported and as no requisitions or 
requests came for it, there was none issued. On the shore there was no place for 
storing this meat. In the hold of the vessel where it was then was the only place 
we had for keeping it. There was no refrigerator plant on the shore and the very 
little ice that was being manufactured in Ponce was wholly taken by the hospitals. 
Q. Then I understand you to say that no efforts were made to issue it during the 
time it remained in Ponce? 
A. Anything more than informing the different commands that it was there. 
Q. How long did it remain there; that is, when did it leave? 
A. It left on the 24th of August. 
Q. And how long was it absent? 
A. I don't remember. I think it was on the 31st; I was relieved on the 22d. 
Q. Relieved in what capacity? 
A. Relieved as acting assistant quartermaster. 
Q. And when did it return? 
A. I think it was on the 31st of August. 
Q. And where did it go on this short voyage? 
A. It was ordered to go to Mayoguez and Arecibo. 
Q. And carried stores to those points? 
A. Yes, sir; to supply General Garretson and General Schwann's brigades with 
rations. 
Q. How long did it remain at Ponce? 
A. That I don't know. I left there on the 1st of September. I was relieved on 
the 22d of August, two days before the vessel sailed, and then left on the 1st of 
September. 
Q. Who was the depot commissary at Ponce at this time? 
A. Captain Pomeroy. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Major, you speak of the notice being sent out to the effect, or information, that 
there was refrigerated beef on that vessel. Was the vessel at that time on the reef, 
aground, and could not be gotten off, or was that afterwards? 
A. That was afterwards. 
Q. State whether or not it was practicable- to do anything in regard to the beef 
before the vessel got off the reef; whether it was practicable to do anything except to 
get the troops and animals off? 
A. Almost impossible. A very high sea was running, so much so that two of the 
vessels went ashore in attempting to warp the vessel off the reef. One of the vessels 
was the Columbia, the naval vessel, and it was about all we could do to get the stock 
off safely. The sea was running very high at the time. 
Q. Did you receive any information or any notification or any copy of a contract, or 
anything indicating that a quantity-300,000 pounds, more or less-of refrigerated 
beef would be sent there to supply those troops? 
A. No, sir; the first information was the report of Captain Aspinwall that there 
were 1,755 quarters of this beef on the Manitoba, which was then on the reef. 1190 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. You may state, in view of that fact, or perhaps taking the usual and ordinary 
precautions about supplying the commands, whether any steps have been taken 
by anybody within your opinion or information, to get any fresh beef for the com- 
mand down there-any kind of fresh beef. 
A. I will say that I was aware of a telegram being sent on the 2d of August not to 
send any fresh beef. I think I can give you that. 
The Recorder. General Miles has testified to that. 
Major Lee. To what? 
The Recorder. To a telegram being sent not to send any of that. 
Major Lee. I would like the witness to go on with his story. There has been a 
good deal of repetition; necessarily 1 can not remember all that has been testified to. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Now, you arrived there what date? 
A. We arrived at Guanica on the morning of the 25th of July. We moved the 
vessels over to Ponce on the 28th of July. 
Q. And this Manitoba arrived when? 
A. On the 10th of August. 
Q. And was on the reef until when? 
A. Until the 14th. She was four days on the reef. She came inside on Sunday, 
the 14th. 
Q. What troops and where were they located around Ponce; about how far away, 
if you know? 
A. At-that time there were 498 officers and men of the Nineteenth Infantry; Bat- 
tery G, Fifth Artillery; Battery C of the Seventh; Troop A, New York Cavalry. 
They were within 2 miles of Ponce. 
Q. Where were the others? 
A. The other troops were scattered over the island. 
Q. Well, I want to get at about how many were within reach, or could get their 
supplies from Ponce; and about how far they were away? 
A. From August 13th, 1898, to August 24, within 2 miles there were 954 men. 
Now, that is exclusive of the First United States Volunteer Engineers, who arrived 
with 1,126 men. They came on the Chester, and they had their own supply of fresh 
beef. So, in making this report, which was made by Captain Whitney, the engineers 
are not included. There were 954 men within 2 miles of Ponce. 
Q. What part was out within other distances-I mean within a radius of some 
miles around there-within that section? About how far were other troops away? 
I want to get at this fresh beef business, if I can, about the facilities of getting out 
quarters of fresh beef and getting it to the command. 
A. At Arroyo, 40 miles from Ponce, there were 4,790 men; at Utuado, on the 
15th 
Q. Perhaps you misapprehend me. I want to get at what other troops were in the 
vicinity of Ponce. I mean within 15 or 20 miles-or approximately that distance- 
to Ponce. 
A. There were but very few, I think. There were within 45 miles of Ponce about 
1,400 men. 
Q. And about how much beef was on the Manitoba? 
A. One thousand seven hundred and fifty-five quarters-approximately, 300,000 
pounds. 
Q. Prior to the arrival of the Manitoba and any knowledge that you had that fresh 
beef was to be sent down there in that way, were the troops supplied with any native 
fresh beef or any arrangements made of that kind? 
A. To the best of my knowledge, they were supplying themselves in the interior 
with beef on the hoof. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1191 
Q. Then this Manitoba came, as I understand you testified, with this fresh beef, 
without any knowledge that it was to be sent? 
A. I had no knowledge until it arrived. 
Q. Who was in command there at that time? 
A. General Miles. 
Q. By wrhose direction was the Manitoba, selected to go up to carry stores to these 
other commands; who gave the order? 
A. General Gilmore, I think, gave the order. 
Q. In whose name? 
A. I didn't see the order. The order passed through somebody else. 
Q. It was not General Gilmore's own order? 
A. General Miles, I suppose. 
Q. Was-General Miles still there? 
A. I understand the order was given in the ordinary course of operations. 
Q. Selecting a vessel to go up there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Can you state whether or not there was anything said or done to the effect that 
that ship was selected to get rid of the refrigerated beef? Was anything of that 
kind said or talked of at all? 
A. This beef in connection with the other stores could be issued to the troops 
near Mayaguez and Arecibo, and there were a great many more troops there than 
were near Ponce? 
Q. So it could be issued more readily than where you were? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I believe you testified that you had no knowledge of what occurred with this 
beef after the return of the Manitoba to Ponce? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. The other vessels, I understood you to state-or a part of them-were being 
unloaded and preparing to return to some point in Cuba. Where was that? 
A. Santiago-or Siboney-to General Shafter. 
Q. So other vessels were unloaded for that purpose? 
A. Yes; as fast as they were unloaded, with the order to report to General Shafter. 
Q. Did you have any conversation with the officer who claimed to be in charge of 
this beef, or did he talk to you about it; did he report to you in regard to the beef? 
A. Yes. 
Q. What did he say? 
A. That he had a large supply of beef on board and was fearful that it might spoil. 
Q. Did he say why he was afraid it would spoil? 
A. That while lying on the reef the vessel in backing off had clogged one or two 
of her pipes that were used in refrigerating. 
Q. Did he state whose beef it was? 
A. He did not. 
Q. Did he show you any copy of the contract or anything in regard to that to 
give you any information as to the beef? 
A. No, sir; nothing more than verbal reports. 
Q. No invoices of it? 
A. No invoice. 
Q. No price? 
A. No price. 
Q. Whose beef was it? Can you say whether it belonged to the United States or 
belonged to some company? 
A. I can not recall now that there was any mention made of that more than that 
the refrigerating plant was under control of beef men; that is, that he had no 
control over the refrigerating process. That experts had been sent down with the 
vessel to look after that; experts of the beef company, I took them to be. 1192 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Then, do you want the court to understand that he conveyed to you no instruc- 
tions in regard to that beef any more than saying that he had some beef over there? 
A. No instructions at all. He had the beef and was anxious to get rid of it. 
Q. What did he want to do with it? How did he want to get rid of 300,000 
pounds of beef, if the matter was discussed, considering the small number of troops 
there, not including the engineers, who brought their own beef, as I understood you 
to say? 
A. There w as nothing special said about that. He wished to handle as much of 
the beef as was possible. 
Q. Did you refer him to anyone-did you refer him to the depot commissary, for 
instance-about it, or was the depot commissary there? 
A. I did; the depot commissary was there. 
Q. You knew of your own knowledge that there were no facilities for taking care 
of that beef ashore? 
A. I was perfectly well aware of that. 
Q. Was that matter discussed with him at all? 
A. It was. 
Q. Tell what was said. 
A. That we had no facilities for caring for this beef at all; no refrigerator; nothing 
of the kind; and his idea was that the proper place for it would be on the vessel 
until such times as it could be issued to troops direct. 
Q. Did he state how that could be carried out? How it could be gotten off and 
who would take charge of it? 
A. In issuing it would be delivered to the depot commissary and by him issued. I 
would furnish the transportation; that is, the lighters to carry it from the vessel to 
the shore, as having charge of unloading the vessels. 
Q. How far away were the farthest troops that would have been supplied there 
from that beef at that time, or about that time? 
A. From Ponce, General Schwann would have been 70 miles. 
Q. I mean supplied with beef from Ponce. I don't understand that you could 
supply them there? 
A. No. 
Q. I mean in the vicinity of Ponce. How far away were those troops-the farth- 
est troops that could be supplied? 
A. From 2 to 5 miles. 
Redirect-examination by the Recorder: 
Q. I would like to verify a few dates. The steamer, you say, came in about the 
14th? 
A. It went on the reef the 10th and was warped off on the 14th. 
Q. And wrhen was the advertisement for native beef issued, or the agreement 
made. 
Major Lee. I beg you pardon, he didn't say anything about that at all. 
The Recorder. I was not examining him in reference to what you asked him. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. When was the fresh beef first furnished? 
A. None was furnished from the commissary department as I ever had any knowl- 
edge of. 
Q. None purchased by the United States w'hile you remained there? 
A. The different commands in the interior, I understood, were purchasing beef on 
the hoof and butchering it. 
Q. And none was purchased throught the commissary at Ponce while you w7ere 
there? 
A. Not to my knowledge. 
Q. Where was General Brooke's command at that time? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1193 
A. At Arroyo. 
Q. How far was that from Ponce? 
A. Forty miles from Ponce. 
Q. And how large a command had he? 
A. I don't know really how large a command he did have. 
Q. Well, approximately, to the best of your knowledge? 
A. About 5,000 men. 
Q. Was there any discussion as to the propriety of sending this beef to him? 
A. No, sir; from the fact that the Massachusetts containing this beef had gone to 
General Brooke with a large supply. 
Q. Of refrigerated beef? 
A. Yes, sir; of refrigerated beef. 
Q. Had you any doubt as to the ownership of this beef, as to whether it belonged 
to the United States or to private parties? 
A. I had not. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Was any of this beef issued from the Manitoba at all from the 10th to the 22d? 
A. No, sir; not to my knowledge. 
Q. Did you hear any conversation between General Gilmore and Captain Aspin- 
wall in respect to the fresh beef? 
A. I did not. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Did the agent inform you that this refrigerated beef was delivered under a 
contract with the Government? 
A. There was nothing said about that, to the best of my recollection; simply the 
fact that he had brought the meat down for issue. 
Q. Were any orders issued by any person in authority not to issue this beef from 
the Manitoba? 
A. None that I received; no, sir. 
Q. You say that the First Volunteer Engineers brought their fresh beef with them? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What kind of fresh beef w'as it? 
A. I know of that from this: The officer, a commissary of the volunteer engineers, 
came ashore and procured a number of barrels and packed this meat, as it was spoil- 
ing by the time they arrived there. He procured salt, I think, from the commissary 
department. I am very sure of that, and then this was taken off the vessel and an 
attempt made to corn this beef on the Chester, so as to save it. 
Q. But at that time it was not ready as fresh beef? 
A. This was not for issue. It belonged to the engineers. 
Q. But you speak of that regiment having come supplied with fresh beef and you 
now say it was not in a condition to issue as fresh beef, but that they tried to corn it. 
A. They were attempting to corn it so as to preserve it, with what success I don't 
know. 
By the President: 
Q. How many days of fresh beef did the engineers have? 
A. They never reported to me. 
Q. You don't know they had any, then? 
A. I know they had a large amount of it, because they took barrels in order to 
cure the beef. 
Q. Where? 
A. On the vessel. 
Q. Then they did not have any fresh beef when they landed, or don't you know 
about it? 1194 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I don't know, because the Chester had no stores aside from what belonged to the 
engineers, and they took charge of the unloading of the vessel themselves. I simply 
furnished them with the lighters with which to unload. 
Q. Who reported to you with regard to the fresh beef on the Manitoba? 
A. Captain Aspinwall. 
Q. What was he? 
A. He was commissary. 
Q. From the Commissary Department-a regular officer? 
A. Yes, sir; he had charge of the commissary supplies on the Manitoba. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I would like to ask if Captain Aspinwall stated whether prior to the time of 
sailing they had any bother with that fresh beef on the way down there, or any trouble 
with a failure to keep the temperature down. Did he refer to it in any way-that 
there was danger of its spoiling, or that some of it had spoiled? 
A. I can not recall anything of that kind, at least anything more than that he 
was afraid it would spoil by reason of the stoppage of these pipes. 
Q. As a matter of fact, if the conditions had been absolutely favorable, and the 
ship had not been on this reef, and there had not been other impediments, how 
much of that beef could you have issued a day to that command that was there? 
You know about the number of the men. I have forgotten the number. 
A. Well, there were, perhaps, 2,000 men. There could have been issued 
Q. I don't mean to issue the beef every day, because the men would probably 
want something else besides fresh beef. 
A. About 2,500 pounds. 
Q. A day? 
A. Twenty-five hundred pounds a day, yes, sir, could be issued. 
Q. Then in seven days that would make about 17,000 pounds? 
A. Yes,' sir. 
Q. That would be 17,000 pounds every ten days, and in one hundred days-that 
is, three and one-half months-it would be ten times that, or 170,000 pounds? 
A. There would be six and one-half months' rations for 2,000 men; that is, 
placing it on the basis of six days of fresh meat out of every ten days, which would 
be the ordinary issue. 
Q. In answer to the question as to when you went into the military service, I 
would like you to state whether your service in the late war is the only service you 
ever had in the United States Army? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. State what other service you have had. 
A. I served in the civil war from the 15th of April, 1861, until the 1st of Novem- 
ber, 1865. 
Q. In what capacity? 
A. At first as a private, and in the three months' service 1 was appointed an 
officer. 
Q. And left in what grade? 
A. With the rank of major. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Captain Pomroy. 
TESTIMONY OF CAPT. FREDERIC POMROY. 
Capt. Frederic Pomroy, U. S. V., was called as a witness by the recorder, and, 
having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name and rank in the military service. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1195 
A. Frederic Pomroy, captain. 
Q. When did you enter the military service? 
A. June 8 of last year. 
Q. Where were you first assigned to duty? 
A. Brigade commissary on the staff of General Rogers, heavy artillery, Tampa. 
Q. And how long did you continue there? 
A. A few days. 
Q. And where did you go next? 
A. I was transferred to the staff of General Schwann, who commanded the regular 
brigade of the Second Division, Fourth Corps. 
Q. From what port of the United States did you sail for Porto Rico? 
A. Tampa. 
Q. And where did you land in Porto Rico? 
A. Ponce. 
Q. Upon what duty were you assigned there? 
A. As assistant to Major Black. 
Q. What was the date of your arrival? 
A. I think the 29th of July. 
Q. Who was in charge of the subsistence department at Ponce? Who issued 
stores? Who received stores and who issued them? 
A. Major Black, I believe. 
Q. Did you sign receipts for any yourself? 
A. I signed memorandum receipts of his name by myself as assistant. 
Q. And how long did you continue in that capacity? 
A. Until the 25th of August. 
Q. When did you land in Ponce? 
A. The 29th of July. I was assigned as assistant to him on the 2d of August. 
Q. How long did you continue on that duty? 
A. Until the 1st of March. 
Q. Until after he left the island you were his assistant? 
A. No; on the 22d of August Iwas appointed depot commissary there, and on the 
25th of the same month entered on the duties of that office. 
Q. The 25th of August? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You were depot commissary, then, when the Manitoba wras there? 
A. No; not when she got there. When she got back from Miaguez, on the 31st of 
August, I was depot commissary. 
Q. What had she on board in the way of subsistence stores when she returned? 
A. Articles for sale to officers and fresh beef and certain components of the ration. 
Q. What troops were serving in the immediate vicinity of Ponce on her return; in 
point of strength, what numbers? 
A. I am not able to say positively, but my best recollection is that the garrison did 
not exceed 2,000. 
Q. Who was in command? 
A. I think that Lieutenant-Colonel Hood, of the Nineteenth Infantry, was in com- 
mand of the district. 
Q. Where were his headquarters? 
A. Up in the city, about 2 miles from Playa. 
Q. When the Manitoba returned, what action was taken by you in respect to the 
issue of the refrigerated beef that was on board of her? 
A. Lighters were sent out to the ship each morning about 6 o'clock, and a number 
of quarters, estimated the night before as the amount that probably could be issued 
to the troops in the immediate vicinity, was put on board the lighters, and brought 
ashore and taken into the commissary depot there and from there issued to the 
troops that came for them, from 7 o'clock till 12 o'clock in the morning. 1196 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. About what amount was issued daily? 
A. A fair average, I think, would be 2,000 pounds. 
Q. How long did the Manitoba continue at Ponce? 
A. Eight days. 
Q. Where did she go then? 
A. She went back to the States. I don't know which port. 
Q. To the United States? 
A. Yes. 
Q. By what order did she sail to the United States? 
A. That I don't know. 
Q. And how much beef had been issued from her prior to her sailing? 
A. I receipted to Captain Aspinwall for about 21,000 pounds. I understand that 
other beef had been taken off at Mayaguez. 
Q. What complaints, if any, were received of the refrigerated beef during the 
period that the Manitoba was in the port of Ponce? 
A. There were complaints of that refrigerated beef before any had been unloaded 
from the Manitoba. 
Q. What were they? 
A. They were of a rather hazy nature, and really nothing but camp gossip. It 
was reported that that beef had been refused by Colonel Weston at Santiago, and the 
men allowed that they did not care to use any of it; that if it was not good enough 
for Colonel Weston it was not good enough for them. But, as a matter of fact, it 
had not been refused by Colonel Weston. That ship had not been to Santiago, and 
I didn't attach any great weight to the complaint made before any of it had been 
actually issued. As I said, there were those complaints-or objections, I think, would 
be a better word to use. 
Q. What complaints were made after it began to be issued? 
A. That it was tainted and decomposed and spoiled in large part, and those com- 
plaints were in a measure true. 
Q. What action was taken about that? 
A. Well, various boards of survey were called for, and the beef that was con- 
demned by them was destroyed, was buried. 
Q. Was it replaced? Did the troops receive something else in its place? 
A. Yes. 
Q. They were given other beef? 
A. Yes. 
Q. In every case? 
A. Not in every case. 
Q. If beef was not issued, why wasn't it issued? 
A. Because it was not asked for. 
Q. Was any article of the ration issued in its stead? 
A. Sometimes, and sometimes not. For instance, when a regiment would draw 
some of that beef and didn't like it, and condemn it either officially or unofficially 
and destroy it, they frequently did not come back and report that fact, but went out 
on their own responsibility and bought other beef or bought something else. When 
they did come back with proper evidence that beef had been properly destroyed, 
they were given the option of any other of the meat components of the ration to 
replace it. 
Q. Upon what date did the Manitoba finally leave for the United States? 
A. The 8th of September. 
Q. Was any beef issued to the Steamer Panama, while you were commissary? 
A. Yes. 
Q. And from what supply was that issued? 
A. From the fresh beef brought down by the Manitoba. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1197 
Q. Was any other fresh beef issued to the Panama? 
A. Not by me. 
Q. Was there any commissary there that could have issued it? 
A. Not that I know of. 
Q. How much was issued? 
A. My recollection is that there was about 1,800 or 1,900 pounds issued. 
Q. About what date was that issued? 
A. The 31st of August a part was issued, and a part was issued the 3d of 
September. 
Q. Are you certain that no native beef was issued to the Panama? 
A. I am certain that none was issued by the Commissary Department there. 
Q. Were you receiving native beef there at that time? 
A. Yes, sir, with this exception: Native beef was contracted for, and troops 
would go and get it of the contractor, and then the proper commissary officer would 
take it up on his papers and on the contractor's bill, and then I would pay the bill. 
In that way I received it. 
Q. When was that contract entered into? 
A. Either the latter part of August or the first part of September. 
Q. Do you remember about what date? 
A. I can not remember more nearly than that. The contract was made by Col. 
A. J. Smith, of the Regular Army. 
Q. For the native beef? 
A. Yes, str. 
Q. Was it after advertisements or bids received or in open market? 
A. The bids were informal, verbal bids. There was no advertising, I think. I 
am pretty certain there was not-not during the month. At the close of the month, 
for the following month, the regular formal bids were asked for, and the regular 
formal contracts entered into. 
Q. At the close of August. 
A. At the close of September. 
Q. How long did you continue on duty in Porto Rico in the Subsistence 
Department? 
A. Until I was cabled for to come here. 
Q. Is refrigerated beef issued there now? 
A. Yes. 
Q. How long has it been issued? 
A. Since the last of January. 
Q. Is native beef still delivered to troops at certain places? 
A. Certain places-yes, sir. 
Q. Where is the native beef delivered-inland or at the seacoast? 
A. Both. When I left there there were two refrigerator plants that Swift & Co. 
were operating, one of them at San Juan and one at Ponce. From the one at Ponce 
I supplied the troops at Coamo, Guanica, Honitas, and other places. 
Q. Were those points on the seacoast? 
A. No; they are all inland. 
Q. What beef was furnished them? 
A. Refrigerated beet, but I had built refrigerating boxes. 
Q. You put the beef in those boxes? 
A. Yes, sir. I had built boxes that the refrigerated beef was put into, and an ice 
plant, and it was preserved in that way. But the troops up at Mayaguez buy the 
native beef now. 
Q. Is that on the seacoast? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Is it reached by steamer? 1198 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. It can be. 
Q. Why is the refrigerated beef not issued there? 
A. Because Mayaguez is in the district of Ponce and the quartermaster facilities 
are, in my judgment, totally inadequate for the business of that port, and the meat 
could not be transported overland from Ponce to Mayaguez, and if refrigerated beef 
was furnished to the troops there stationed it would have to be sent from San Juan, 
because all the facilities for transporting by water are at San Juan. Now why that 
is done you probably know better than I do. 
Q. And in what other places in the island is native beef still issued? 
A. I think at Coamo and at Abanito, at Cayey. Those places are in the district 
of Ponce. They are the only places 1 know about. What inland places in the dis- 
trict of San Juan are furnished native beef 1 don't know. I was commissary of the 
district of Ponce. 
Q. Are those posts all inland? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Could they be reached with refrigerated beef? 
A. Not very well. - 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. How far are they inland? 
A. Coamo is about 20 miles, and it is reached by a military road from Ponce. 
Abanito is about 12 or 13 miles farther on; and then Cayey is about 15 or 18 miles 
beyond Abanito. So it is about 50 miles from Ponce to the farthest one of these 
points. 
Q. Then these places range from 50 miles away to how many miles away? 
A. About 20 miles; the nearest. 
Q. How long does it take to go the distance of 20 miles on that road with an ordi- 
nary good army wagon? Four or five hours? 
A. About five hours I should say; five or six hours. 
Q. You were assisting Major Black in the capacity of commissary down there at 
the time of the arrival of the Manitoba? 
A. I was. 
Q. Do you know anything in regard to the circumstances of the supplying of the 
refrigerated beef to the troops there, any difficulties, if there were any, in regard to 
it, and what success you had and what you had to use and dispose of or throw away, 
if any? I would like you to go On and begin at that Manitoba business and trace it 
all down in a narrative way until the vessel finally left there, giving a-description of 
the quantity and the number of troops, as near as you can; giving it in a narrative 
form. You may begin with when you first knew anything about the Manitoba having 
any beef there for troops. 
A. I didn't know that she had on board fresh beef until after she had been gotten 
off the reef. She was not gotten off until several days after her arrival there. And 
then it was some days after that before I knew she had fresh beef on board. Then 
I met Captain Aspinwall, simply by accident, and he told me that the Manitoba had 
commissary stores on board, and among other things beef; and he was anxious to 
get rid of all he had on board. I, too, was anxious to get the commissary stores that 
he had on board the ship into the warehouse, because there were many of them, 
particularly the sales articles, such as tobacco and canned fruit and things of that 
sort that were in very great demand, and there was almost no supply. And I spoke 
to Major Black about having the Manitoba unloaded, and was informed by him then 
that there were other plans for the Manitoba, and that it was not expedient to have 
her unloaded at that time; that she was to be sent around with what she had on 
board and certain other articles to General Schwann's troops and General Garret- 
son's brigade. So, for that reason, and because of the almost total lack of facilities FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1199 
for receiving and handling such a perishable article of ration as fresh beef, no very 
great effort was made to issue the fresh beef in that interval between the time of my 
discovery she had it on board and her departure, the reasons for not issuing it at 
that time being, as I have stated, and seeming to me to be sufficient. On her return 
I did make an effort to issue the beef, and did issue it as much as could be done. 
Now, for what reason I won't attempt to say, the beef, when it was sent ashore, 
beginning the 31st of August, was not in the best condition imaginable. There would 
be quarters apparently all right, and in the same lighter load other quarters that had 
an unpleasant appearance, sort of a greenish-blue film over them. Some of them 
were cut in two in the course of issuing, and some were not, and some of those that 
had this greenish blue film on them had a good appearance inside, a red appearance. 
And the comments on that beef by various officers who drew it were not unanimous. 
Q. Well, what were they? Go on and give some of those comments and general 
remarks in regard to the beef. Don't let me interrupt you in your narrative, but I 
would like you to particularize a little more. 
A. Captain Evans's battalion of the Nineteenth Infantry ate the meat right along 
every day, and when it had an unpleasant appearance on the outside or appeared to 
be tainted, that was cut off and throwm away and the rest eaten. His, however, was 
the only battalion that did eat it without complaint, so far as I know. Other bat- 
talions than the Nineteenth Infantry had numerous boards of survey and destroyed 
the meat right along, and simply refused to receive it, and went into the open mar- 
ket and bought it and then sent in bills. I speak of the Nineteenth Infantry 
because they were right there nearer than any of the other troops to the Playa. The 
troops farther away took the beef as it was issued to them at camps, and I dare say 
it was not in as good condition when it reached the camps as it was when it left the 
commissary depot, which was naturally to be expected. The wagons that trans- 
ported it were not always covered. More often than not they were uncovered. The 
sun was very hot and the climate moist-that is, in the rainy season--and the beef 
got to the camps in more or less bad shape. There was a prejudice against it any- 
way-whether reasonable or unreasonable I will not attempt to say-and it was 
sometimes eaten, but more often condemned, either officially or unofficially; and 
what was brought off in the morning and not actually issued in the course of the fore- 
noon-of course there were seldom, if any, calls for it in the afternoon-was thrown 
into the harbor at night. Colonel Smith, who came down there the latter part of 
August, told me he would give a certificate for all that it was necessary to throw 
away and destroy without the necessity of having a board of survey every afternoon. 
And because of the experience which this beef had given us and because of the 
appearance which a large number of quarters presented, it was not deemed desirable 
to try any experiments with it, and it was not desired to give troops any meat about 
which there was any reasonable doubt. For that reason, if quarters had a bad 
appearance along toward noon, those were not issued but destroyed. The total 
amount destroyed in those eight days was between six and seven thousand pounds. 
Q. The total amount received by you was about 21,000? 
A. About 21,000. 
Q. That would make, counting 6,000 pounds there, 15,000 pounds. Was that 
receipted for to the contractor? 
A. I receipted to him for that which 1 issued and also that which I destroyed. 
Q. To whom-Captain Aspinwall? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You spoke of Colonel Smith. When did he come there? 
A. He got there the last of August, coming down on the Obdam, and he told me 
when he got there that he was to be depot and purchasing commissary for the island. 
But he and Colonel Sharp had some conversation, and then he acted as chief 
commissary. 1200 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. He acted as chief commissary? 
A. Yes, sir; Colonel Smith acted as chief commissary instead of as depot and pur- 
chasing commissary. 
Q. From about what time did he so act there? And what was your relation to him? 
A. From two or three days after his arrival until he left he acted as chief commis- 
sary, and I acted as depot commissary. 
Q. You were under hia instructions or directions? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you have any conversation with Colonel Smith in regard to this beef, any 
further than what you have stated, as to the time the beef was expected to keep, or 
would keep? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You spoke of the beef being destroyed and thrown away. How long had you 
kept that beef on hand before you decided to put it aside, or was there any length of 
time designated? 
A. We destroyed at night the beef that had been taken off the boat that morning 
and had not been issued that day, and I do not think there can be any question but 
that that was the proper thing to do with it-to destroy it. 
Q. Where had it been kept during the day? Had it been in the sun? 
A. No; it had been in the depot under canvas paulins. You said what conver- 
sation- 
Q. Yes; now you may go on and answer the question whether you had any other 
conversation, and what you stated to Colonel Smith, the commissary officer there, 
in regard to this beef; whether you discussed the matter as to the keeping of this 
beef. 
A. The depot there was hot. Pretty nearly everything in Porto Rico was hot at 
that time, and the beef did not keep as w'ell as I thought it would, or as well as he 
thought it would, and we had some conversation on that subject. In the course of 
that conversation he told me that the beef was guaranteed to keep seventy-two 
hours, and I asked him how they could keep it seventy-two hours in that climate, 
and he said they had some process by which it was guaranteed to keep seventy-two 
hours. He didn't know what the process was and neither did I, and I didn't go into 
the subject very particularly, because I didn't believe there was any process, and I 
didn't believe that the beef would keep seventy-two hours. Experience showed it 
would not, and it was because it didn't keep as well as either of us expected that we 
had that conversation about how long it would keep, and so it was partly a result of 
that he told me to throw overboard every night what we didn't use. 
Q. In the course of the conversation was it stated in express terms that the pro- 
cess was not known, or substantially that? 
A. We didn't talk very much about the process. My recollection is that I asked 
him what sort of a process it was, and he said he didn't know. 
Q. You are positive in regard to the statement that it was understood to be 
guaranteed to keep seventy-two hours? 
A. Oh, yes. 
Q. Did you have any conversation with Captain Aspinwall on that subject at all? 
A. No. 
Q. Did you have any invoices of the beef; anything more than a mere memo- 
randum? 
A. Captain Aspinwall invoiced to me some 21,000 pounds. 
Q. And you receipted direct to him? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was the price given? 
A. No. 
Q. Did you make any sales of it to officers? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1201 
A. I think a few. I am not certain, but my recollection is that when sales were 
made to officers it was invoiced at the price we were paying for native beef. 
Q. In regard to the native beef, you stated that Colonel Smith and yourself, or 
that Colonel Smith-I believe his name was Col. A. L. Smith 
A. Yes. 
Q. That you started in buying native beef. State how that came about, and when 
it was, and the price paid for it. 
A. The native beef that was bought in the month of August was for the most part 
beef bought before Colonel Smith's arrival, and he had nothing whatever to do with 
any of those purchases, as far as I know. The price then was 6| cents. 
Q. Do you mean gross or net? 
A. Net; and in September Colonel Smith made an informal contract with De Mol- 
enas to furnish beef at either 61 cents or 7 cents a pound, and it was furnished. I 
can not remember the date of the making of that contract. 
Q. About what time? It was a sort of an open-market purchase, wasn't it? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Informal bids? 
A. (Continued.) Of course, after the departure of the Manitoba, on the 8th of 
September, all the beef that was consumed there until the 9th of January was native 
beef, or fresh beef. 
Q. Was any refrigerating plant there or any facilities there for having ice? 
A. No; there were a couple of little ice factories at Ponce, but their capacity was 
very limited, and the demands on them were a great deal greater than they could 
supply for hospitals and things of that sort. 
Q. Captain, you may state to the court what experience you have had, if any, 
with canned roast beef, in connection with your duties and in connection with its 
issue to troops, its consumption by troops, or their failure to consume it, as may be 
the facts. 
A. Well, in point of pounds I had rather a considerable experience; I should say 
about 400,000 or 450,000 pounds. Of that, the amount that was actually issued and 
consumed was comparatively small. The troops that came down there-with the 
exception of the Chester, which came afterwards-did not bring any fresh beef with 
them. They brought bacon, and corned beef, and canned roast beef, and when they 
left the ship and went inland they took with them only a few days'-a comparatively 
few days'-ration, and left the rest there. That which was left was collected together 
by Major Black and putin a different commissary storehouse there, and other rations 
collected. There was a large quantity of this canned roast beef. 
Q. About how much did you have there under your charge as depot commissary, 
first and last; that is, from the time you went there until in September? 
A. About 400,000 or 450,000 pounds. 
Q. Now, you may go on with reference to its issues and use, and complaints in regard 
to it, if any, in your personal experience with it, if any. 
A. It was always complained of; that is to say, there never was a pound of that canned 
roast beef, as far as I know, issued without remonstrance on the part of those to whom 
it was issued. I do not mean by that to say that there was not a pound of canned 
roast beef issued that was not spoiled. That is not so, but the complaints were that 
it was repulsive in appearance, and unappetizing, tasteless, and not nourishing. So 
it was with great difficulty we could get troops to take it at all. In fact, out of 400,000 
pounds I had I did not issue more than 10 per cent, not more than 40,000 pounds of 
itaU told. They would not take it; that is all. They would come in and draw rations, 
and when it came to the meat component of it, if they were offered this canned 
beef they would refuse to take it. They would leave it in the commissary and go 
out and buy on their own hook native fresh beef. 
Q. Would that be made good or would they just do that of their own motion? 
S. Doc. 270 76 1202 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. They just did that of their own motion. 
Q. So far as you know, in the canned roast beef that was issued about what pro- 
portion of it was consumed by the men, if you have any knowledge on the subject 
or any case to illustrate the matter? 
A. They got pretty well tired of it on the ship coming down, so that after they got 
ashore and this beef was offered to them, if they were compelled to take it they some- 
times took it and sometimes didn't, and when they took it they sometimes ate it and 
sometimes did not; more frequently did not, but simply threw it away. At first they 
tried to sell it to the natives, and at first they did sell some, but the market for it soon 
disappeared. The natives did not like it and would not eat it. As a matter of fact, 
in my opinion, that canned roast beef that was furnished to the troops was of little, 
if any, value as a food article. 
Q. Do you remember what brands, or any of them, they were? 
A. Oh, there was the Armour Canning Company, and Armour & Co., and the Wil- 
son Packing Company, and the Libby, McNeill & Libby, and either the Prairie 
Packing Company or the Prairie State Canning Company-something of that sort. 
Q. In that was there any preference expressed or indicated as to any superiority 
of one brand over another? 
A. My recollection is that Libby, McNeill & Libby's was preferred. 
Q. You had, then, about 450,000 pounds of that. What proportion did you have to 
the other meat components of the ration, such as bacon? 
A. We had fully as much bacon. 
Q. What about the proportion-half and half or less? 
A. I should say about equal parts of bacon and canned roast beef. In fact, there 
is bacon down there now I got last August. 
Q. Was there any other brand of canned beef that was down there other than the 
roast beef? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Describe that, whether it was accepted or not. 
A. There was canned boiled beef, a very small amount of that, and canned corn 
beef. The canned corned beef, as far as I know, was always satisfactory. Once in a 
while we would get a bad can, the same as of anything else, but for the most part it 
was satisfactory. 
Q. You say there was a canned boiled beef there. Please describe that. 
A. It was exactly the same, as far as 1 could judge, as the roast beef. The only 
difference that I could see was in the label. 
Q. Was there any other brand that Colonel Smith spoke of as having furnished? 
A. Oh, yes, yes; there was a meat we got in small quantities, called preserved 
beef. It came in pails, holding, I should judge, about 12 or 15 pounds each, and it 
was put up by Jacob Dole Packing Company, Kansas City. That was not cooked. 
It was chopped and flavored. I don't know just what the process was. It was a 
secret process. It was very good. Colonel Smith took particular pride in that 
because he bought it himself, and so we took a pail up where we boarded and tried 
it, and it was very good. That is a long ways the best of any canned beef we had 
down there. 
Q. Was there any of that issued to the troops? 
A. Yes; we issued it all-about a ton of it. 
Q. Any complaint about it? 
A. None at all. They all liked it. ' 
Q. Do you know its cost, about, in comparison with the cost of the other? 
A. I am not certain about the cost, but it was less than 7 cents a pound, I think. 
I can find out the cost exactly. 
Q. I don't care about the exact cost. About how many troops, if you can estimate, 
during the time of the operations down there, from the time you went down until FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1203 
up to September, until through September, might have been supplied with refriger- 
ated beef if there had been proper facilities in the immediate vicinity of the coast? 
A. Well, if we had had ice boxes or ice or cold storage ashore, there were, I should 
think, during that month, about 5,000 troops that might have been supplied; but 
they were not supplied, and they could not be supplied because we did not have this 
ice or cold storage. 
Q. About how many pounds of beef on the Manitoba that was sent there? 
A. About 300,000. 
Q. Do you know how much was sent on the Massachusetts, by information or 
otherwise? 
A. About 200,000 pounds, I think. 
Q. That would be 500,000 pounds altogether? 
A. I believe so. 
Q. If you could have had facilities you say that there might have been supplied 
somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 troops? 
A. No. The Manitoba might have, under the most favorable circumstances, sup- 
plied about 5,000, and the Massachusetts, which went to Arroyo, might have supplied 
about 3,000. 
Q. The two making about 8,000 altogether? 
A. That is the maximum. That is my judgment. 
Q. Did you have any personal experience with this canned roast beef, in eating it? 
A. No; I didn't eat any of it. I saw a bad can of it once when I was sick, and 
the sight of it made me sick of it. So I didn't venture to eat any of it. 
Q. Did you ever notice or observe its immediate effect in any way, or was that 
brought to your knowledge? 
A. My clerk, who was a retired commissary sergeant, got his meals with the artillery 
mess, down at the Playa, and he ate some of it one day and he said that was what 
made him sick. He was laid up a couple of days, and I asked him how it affected 
him, and he said that it made him vomit. 
Q. Did he get better afterwards and go on with his duties? 
A. Yes. 
By General Davis: 
Q. You say that during the period after the return of the Manitoba from Mayaguez 
you issued about 21,000 pounds in a period of how many days? 
A. Eight days. 
Q. And of that about 6,000 were thrown overboard? 
A. Yes. 
Q. And also you were told that this beef had been received under a guaranty that 
it would keep seventy-two hours? 
A. That was in the course of a casual conversation with Colonel Smith. 
Q. And you gave receipts for the full quantity you received to Captain Aspinwall? 
A. Yes. 
Q. What use was made of those receipts, so far as you understand; for what pur- 
pose were they given? 
A. Those receipts I gave him were just as good to him as an equal number of 
pounds of beef? 
Q. A basis of payment? 
A. They were the means of enabling him to account for the absence of 21,000 
pounds of beef. 
Q. And you infer that the contractor received full credit for 21,000 pounds? 
A. There was no reason why he should not. 
Q. And yet you understood from your superior officer that that beef was guaran- 
teed for seventy-two hours? 
A. Yes, sir. 1204 
Food furnished the army. 
Q. And you gave him a receipt for that amount? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And that was thrown overboard? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And which the United States received no benefit from? 
A. Yes, sir. That was under instructions also from my superior officer. 
Q. I understood you to say that there were two refrigerators, one at Ponce and 
one at San Juan. 
A. Yes, sir; there are two at Ponce. 
Q. The refrigerators on shore, I mean. 
A. Cold-storage plants? 
Q. Yes. 
A. Yes; there is one at Ponce and one at San Juan. Then those were put up by 
Swift & Co. 
Q. And from each of those dressed beef is now being issued? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And the troops stationed within a radius of how many miles get that beef? 
A. I can only speak with reference to the one at Ponce. I should say with refer- 
ence to that, within a radius of 20 miles. 
Q. And then at Mayaguez there is no cold-storage plant? 
A. There was none on the 1st of March, when I left there. 
Q. And the posts receiving fresh beef are within a radius of 20 miles from this 
cold-storage plant? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That is regarded, then, as about the radius within which it is practicable to 
supply it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Was this delivered within 20 miles satisfactorily? 
A. Usually. 
Q. Can it reach the troops without deterioration? 
A. Usually. 
Q. What is the means of delivery? 
A. The troops at Coamo and Abanito got theirs in wagons. Those at Guanica and 
a few other places got theirs by rail, and then in wagons part of the way. 
Q. You said the troops were supplied with the native beef at Mayaguez, and that 
in January they began to get refrigerated beef? 
A. Yes; Swift & Co. made a contract with the Government to furnish refrigerated 
beef, and it was sent down in transports to San Juan and Ponce, and then put in cold 
storage there and delivered from day to day as the troops wanted. 
Q. What number of troops at Mayaguez were originally supplied with this native 
beef? 
A. I don't know. 1 don't know much about Mayaguez, because 1 never was 
there. 
Q. Did this native beef give satisfaction? 
A. Fair satisfaction. 
Q. Is it as good as the refrigerated beef? 
A. The refrigerated beef under the most favorable conditions, in my opinion, is 
better than the native beef under the conditions under which they are obliged to 
get it. 
Q. At the time this refrigerated beef was issued at Ponce, have you any knowl- 
edge as to the condition of the refrigerator on board the ship? 
A. No; none whatever. 
Q. Was any statement made as to its being out of order? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1205 
A. Yes; I heard that when the vessel went on the reef it interfered with the refrig- 
erating plant on the ship to such an extent that the temperature went up, and they 
had to put ice in there. 
Q. Do you know whether the proper conditions were restored? 
A. No; I don't. 
Q. You spoke of the objections the troops made to the receipt of this refrigerated 
beef and its issue. Was there any statement made as to the reason why Colonel 
Weston had rejected it? 
A. I don't recall. As I said in my original testimony, I did not attach any great 
importance to those complaints, because they were based on a total lack of infor- 
mation. 
Q. I did not know but what some cause had been assigned by Colonel Weston as 
to the> rejection. 
A. No; I did not hear of any reason being assigned, or if I did hear it I have for- 
gotten it. 
Q. There was no statement made that they suspected that it had been treated 
chemically? 
A. No; I didn't hear of that until long afterwards. 
Q. When did you first become acquainted with the terms of the contract of the 
Government with Swift & Co. for the delivery of the refrigerated beef? 
A. In the latter part of December I had a dispatch from Major Little, in San Juan, 
saying that the Port Victor would be down on a certain day with refrigerated beef, 
and to issue that instead of the native beef. 
Q. That was a second contract, was it? 
A. It was the only one that I know anything of. 
Q. Did you receive no information at all with reference to the Government con- 
tract in regard to the refrigerated beef on the Manitoba? 
A. None whatever. 
Q. And when did you first receive any information with regard to the time limit 
of preservation of the refrigerated beef? 
A. It was in the month of September. 
Q. And who gave it to you? 
A. Col. A. L. Smith. 
By General Davis: 
Q. How much beef was brought there or landed from the Chester or the City of 
Chester? 
A. I really don't know. 
Q. Do you know if any was landed? 
A. No; except by hearsay. 
Q. Do you know if any was thrown overboard? 
A. I don't; I heard some was. 
Q. Of the 21,000 pounds of beef that were issued in eight days, besides the 6,000 
pounds you threw overboard, you think a large part of that which went to the troops 
was also destroyed? 
A. A part was, I know. 
Q. Could you estimate the part that was destroyed or thrown away? 
A. Not very well, without reference to my papers, which I haven't with me. I 
know that the Nineteenth Infantry had three boards of survey and destroyed three 
days' issues; the Sixth Illinois, I think, had a board of survey, and also the Third 
Wisconsin. Those I am positive of, and there were others. 
Q. And all of this beef that was destroyed was destroyed within twelve hours 
from the time it came out of the ship? 
A. Yes; I think so. 
Major Lee. I would like to recall Major Black for a question or two. 1206 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to recall Major Black. 
TESTIMONY OF MAJ. JOHN B. BLACK. 
Maj. John B. Black, U. S. V., was called as a witness, and being reminded that 
he was still under oath, testified as follows: 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I would like to ask you, upon your return to the United States from Porto 
Rico, whether you had any conversation with the Commissary-General with refer- 
ence to the beef supply down there; and if so, what was it? What was said between 
you and him with reference to it? 
A. I had a conversation with General Eagan with regard to the condition of affairs 
down there. I had better probably go into full details, as that would explain an 
apparent discrepancy between Captain Pomroy's statements and mine. 
Q. I want you to answer the question fully; make your own answer. 
A. Captain Pomroy reported to me-this is going back some little distance-on 
the 2d of August, I think it was-and was assigned to the duty of depot commissary, 
verbally, and my duties were such that it was utterly impossible for me to attend to 
that. He objected to issuing to the troops from the fact that they had no regular 
requisitions. I informed him that the troops must be supplied, and if he would issue 
and take memorandum receipts I would become responsible for those memorandum 
receipts, and make my returns accordingly. When I returned I called on General 
Eagan in regard to making my returns up from those memorandum receipts. Many 
of them were taken on strips of brown wrapping paper, and it was a question in my 
mind whether I could make satisfactory returns to General Eagan. A conversation 
followed, and the question came up in regard to the refrigerated beef. 
The question was asked why it was not issued. I told him, to the best of my 
knowledge, that the issuing commissaries did not care for it; that they were purchas- 
ing the native beef, and objected to issing the refrigerated beef. He seemed to me 
considerably exercised over it, and replied " God damn them, they had no right to 
refuse it; I consider that the best beef there is in the United States," and followed 
with "God damn them, I would have made them take it." He seemed to be very 
much excited over the fact of the commissaries making no requisitions, not caring 
for this beef. 
Q. Was that all? 
A. The conversation then changed and returned to the fact of making returns with 
these memorandum receipts I had received. 
Q. Was there any other conversation in regard to the meat? 
A. Not further conversation in regard to the meat. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Did the Commissary-General ask you why these commissaries declined to 
receive it? 
A. Yes. 
Q. And what reply did you give then? 
A. That I had no means of knowing why they refused. There were no requisi- 
tions made, and they objected to receiving this beef. 
Q. Well, did it suggest itself to your mind to find out what their objection was- 
whether it was a reasonable objection or not? 
A. It was, in effect, that they believed the meat to be in bad condition. Consider- 
able of this meat had come, for instance, on the Chester, and it was well known to 
the troops there that this meat on the Chester was in pretty bad condition. I think 
that had a great deal to do with it. 
Q. Did the Chester have a refrigerator? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1207 
A. Not that I am aware of. 
Q. Was she carrying any refrigerated beef? 
A. No; only for her own troops, the First Engineers. But there was a current 
report, or at least I heard of it, that the meat on the Manitoba was not in good condi- 
tion. I think it arose from the fact that Captain Aspinwall was fearful that it would 
spoil on his hands. Whether there was any well-grounded excuse for that report 
I don't know, but the impression seems to have gone out. 
Q. Did you make it the subject of any conversation with General Miles or the 
Adj utan t-General? 
A. These matters were talked over. 
Q. What instructions did you receive, or what suggestions did you receive, from 
them with reference to the issue or use of refrigerated beef? 
A. There were no special orders that I remember of. It was casually remarked. 
When this vessel Went onto the reef the General was very much exercised and fear- 
ful of the result of the storm; that the vessel would go to pieces and that the troops 
or some of the stock might be injured or destroyed. Every effort was made to get 
those off at once, and in reporting the contents of the vessel, its condition, etc., this 
beef, among other things was mentioned. I do not recall any special order. In 
fact, there was none at that time. The whole effort was given to getting the troops 
and stock off the vessel. At times the lighters would sway up and down 6 and 8 feet, 
with the waves coming in. It was a very severe storm. 
Q. Was it made the subject of any special reports to the Major-General Commanding? 
A. Only verbally. 
Q. And no special instructions were received about it? 
A. None. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, there are no more witnesses that have 
been summoned for this morning. The next are to report at 2 o'clock. 
The court then (at 12.35 p. m.) took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m. 
AFTER RECESS. 
The court reassembled at the expiration of the recess. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. Present also: Major Lee and the 
reporter. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to recall Gen. Charles P. 
Eagan, Commissary-General of Subsistence. 
TESTIMONY OF BRIG. GEN. CHARLES P. EAGAN. 
Brig. Gen. Charles P. Eagan, U. S. A., was called by the recorder as a witness, 
and, being reminded that he was still under oath, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. There were some conversations with the representatives of Swift & Co., were 
there not, prior to the execution of the Santiago and Porto Rico contracts? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Will you please state to the court, as nearly as you can recall them, the sub- 
stance of those conversations, which led up to the making of the contracts? 
A. I could not possibly do that. I do not recall them. 
Q. Can you not recall what they were about? 
A. Except in a general way, in regard to the making of the contracts. As I say, I 
desire now to correct my testimony in the matter of twenty-four hours. 
Q. That will come in a moment. Do you not recall any of the substance of those 
conversations? 
A. Not with those people, any more than with any others. There was general con- 1208 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
versation with various representatives of different firms in regard to furnishing beef. 
There was a great deal of conversation with people who wanted to furnish beef on 
the hoof, and all sorts of things. I could not possibly recall any particular conversa- 
tion. 
Q. Do you recall any conversations with the representatives of Swift & Co. in 
respect to details of the contract? 
A. Yes; I remember talking with Mr. Swift, who came on from Boston in regard to 
the details of the contract. 
Q. State to the court, if you will, as you recall it, what the substance of the con- 
versation was, giving it as fully as you can recollect. 
A. I can not recall the conversations, except that we spoke of the details of the 
contract. My recollection is he considered some of my views very harsh, very hard, 
and we spoke of the possibility of executing them. Finally, I had, if 1 remember 
correctly, a draft drawn and submitted to him to show to his lawyer. That is my 
recollection, as far as it goes. 
Q. To what did that draft relate? 
A. The proposed contract. 
Q. Do you remember whether he took exceptions to any of the clauses or con- 
ditions? 
A. I can not recall just now. My impression is he thought there was some hard- 
ship in some of the features that I contemplated, not so much a hardship as the 
feasibility of carrying it out. 
Q. Sometimes between the issuing of the advertisement and the opening of tin 
bids, the idea of using any other than refrigerated beef seems to have passed away. 
Can you recollect when that was, when the change of mind occurred? 
A. The change of mind on the part of whom? 
Q. The original advertisements for beef on the hoof, beef on the block, and refrig- 
erated beef. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. When the bids were opened, all bids except those for refrigerated beef were 
rejected. When was it determined to adhere to the refrigerated beef and to reject 
the other kinds? 
A. I can best answer that by explaining to you my theories in regard to the whole 
business. It was, first, to procure for the Army, if possible, in so far as possible, 
refrigerated beef. Failing in that, if unable to furnish it to the Army, then to have a 
contractor furnish beef on the block, as we call it. Failing in that, then for the Gov- 
ernment to own its own herd, the last proposition the dernier resort, because I did 
not want to do that if we could possibly avoid it. The first proposition, and the pre- 
ferred proposition, was refrigerated beef, provided we could furnish the Army with 
it. When I advertised for it all together, it was so that I could have the propositions 
from all. I was not certain that anybody would furnish refrigerated beef, and there 
was no time to publish one advertisement, then another one, and then another. 
Q. When were the bidders notified that the bids of others than those for refriger- 
ated beef would not be considered? 
A. It is not usual to notify all bidders that their bids will not be considered. 
Those people who came there to the office, or those who made inquiries, were informed 
that the award was made for refrigerated beef. 
Q. Was any such information given to bidders, or intending bidders, before the 
opening of the bids? 
A. Information as to what, sir? 
Q. As to the fact that only bids for refrigerated beef would be considered? 
A. I think everybody who talked with me understood that my preference was for 
refrigerated beef. I think there was no question about it. I never for a moment 
kept that to myself from anyone-provided I could get the refrigerated beef. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1209 
Q. So, when the bids were opened, there was a formal rejection of all those except 
for refrigerated beef? 
A. Yes, sir; except those, and the responsible bidder had the award made to him, 
Swift & Co.-that is, I am speaking now of the contracts that I myself let here. 
There were other contracts let all over the country by other commissaries. 
Q. It is only with reference to those that you made yourself that I ask you. I 
would like to ask you for your interpretation of two clauses of the contract; and in 
order that you may understand what they relate to, I will read them: 
(The recorder then read clauses 2 and 3 of the Santiago contract.) 
By the Recorder: 
Q. General, I will now ask for your interpretation of those clauses of the contract. 
A. Which particular clause do you refer to which you first wish interpreted? 
Q. Both of them; they are both to be considered together. 
A. To interpret all you have read? 
Q. Yes. 
A. It seems to me it interprets itself. 
Q. In respect to the keeping of the beef and the time it should keep after leaving 
the ship and in the refrigerator on shore. 
A. When this matter of supplying the beef to the Army was considered it was 
regarded as a very serious problem where the A rmy would be and how it could be 
supplied. Originally, in my own mind, I had the thought of steamers loaded with 
it to go up and down the coast, if necessary, for nobody then knew where the Army 
would be. That was the original idea that I had; and the idea of seventy-two hours 
was that there would be time to deliver there, then for the ship to go somewhere else. 
It was with that view that I thought to get beef that would last seventy-two hours. 
Later on, knowing something of the military movements there, I found that was not 
necessary. 
I was satisfied in my own mind that our operations would be limited to Santiago 
and its neighborhood. Then I desired the seventy-two hours because I did not know 
the distance the ships would have to lie from shore nor the length of time required 
to get it ashore, nor, after getting it ashore, the delay there would be in reaching the 
troops. I was impressed with the delay from shipboard to shore and the obtaining 
of transportation. Those were the ideas in my mind. Those were the ideas that 
controlled me in making this contract. I originally stated that I intended it to be 
seventy-two hours from every point. That was my intention. When I was asked 
here about the twenty-four hours I had totally forgotten that I had changed my mind 
in regard to the seventy-two hours to twenty-four. I recalled afterwards, in conver- 
sation with Colonel Davis, my assistant, who reminded me that I had changed it; and 
for the first time in months I then thought of that matter; and I recalled since, in 
thinking it over, that I was impelled to change the delivery to twenty-four hours from 
the refrigerator ashore, because I was afraid of transportation. I felt that twenty- 
four hours from the refrigerator would be ample to reach the troops, and I did not 
know that I wanted the troops to know it would keep seventy-two hours. I wanted 
to deliver it every day if possible. As a matter of fact, while we had an experiment 
at Tampa, and the beef did keep, it was not an absolute certainty, without full trial, 
that it would keep seventy-two hours. Still, the contractor had to take that risk; 
but I did not deem it necessary that it should keep seventy-two hours from the refriger- 
ator. All that I had forgotten. I had many things to think of-a great many. 
Q. When the question of furnishing refrigerated beef was undergoing considera- 
tion in the subsistence department, what conference or consultation was there with 
the paymaster's department of the Navy with respect to their use of similar food? 
A. I did not have any consultations with them. I had knowledge that they 
carried around in their ships refrigerated beef. That was my general information. 1210 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. I understand, then, that there were no conferences with respect to the methods 
pursued by the Government. 
A. Official conferences? Formal conferences? 
Q. Yes. 
A. No, sir. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, these questions I will ask relate to the Gen- 
eral's examination heretofore, as well as the one here to-day. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. I believe, General, you stated in your examination in chief some time ago that 
you, as Commissary-General, made the contracts for supplying the troops in Cuba 
and Porto Rico? 
A. I did, sir. 
Q. General, will you please state whether in every instance you exercised your 
own discretion as regards the making of such contracts, or were suggestions or direc- 
tions made or given to you in this respect by the Secretary of War or any other 
superior officer? 
A. I exercised my own discretion. 
Q. There were no other directions or suggestions? 
A. None; except that when I made an award of a contract, before I made the 
award, I submitted to the Secretary of War the bids and an abstract of them, in 
precisely the same manner that I did when I was chief commissary of department, 
and would submit them to a department commander. I went through the same 
form and made my recommendations to him in regard to the award; and he, learn- 
ing that it was the lowest bidder, concurred in my recommendation. 
Q. That was when the award was made? 
A. Certainly. Prior to that, none that I recall or know or have any recollection of. 
Q. I understood from your testimony that when the matter of making these con- 
tracts was under consideration by the department of which you are chief, you had 
under consideration the making of a contract for the supply of live beef cattle. Am 
I right in that? 
A. As I have already stated. 
Q. And you invited bids from the agents or the owners of such cattle. Can you 
recall any of them at this time? 
A. The names of them? 
Q. Yes. 
A. No, sir; I could furnish you the abstract in the office, I suppose. There were 
a great many bidders. I could furnish you an abstract showing you the names of 
the bidders and their prices. 
Major Lee. I believe that is in evidence. 
The Recorder. It is in evidence. 
Major Lee. And I believe Mr. Giddings's name appears on that as one of the bid- 
ders, if I mistake not. 
The Witness. Mr. Giddings-I do not know. 
By Major Lee : 
Q. Have you a preference, or having a preference of the meat ration as between 
live and refrigerated beef, upon what was this preference based, for supplying the 
troops in Cuba? 
A. It was based on my knowledge and experience of beef in tropical countries. 
Q. Will you state what that was? 
A. I served in Arizona, where I had an awful problem with beef, and at Fort Mojave. 
I am positively of the conviction that beef put to the fire before the animal heat is 
out of the body is positively unwholesome. It gives men dysentery and diarrhea. 
That is my positive conviction-absolutely. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1211 
Q. In your experience in Arizona or in the service with troops in Arizona, within 
your knowledge, was ever any refrigerated beef furnished to the troops? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Have you any knowledge as to the beef at other posts besides Mojave and 
McDowell and Thomas, for instance, and those places? How was beef supplied 
there? 
A. Beef on the block. I contracted for it at those points on the block. I was 
chief commissary of that department for nearly eight years. 
Q. Every preliminary negotiation w hich you had with the representatives of these 
companies, say Swift & Co. and Armour & Co., can you recall who were the respective 
representatives in that matter of these concerns prior to the awarding of the contract? 
A. I would know them if I saw them here-if they came in here. I don't remem- 
ber their names. I have heard their names. I never met Mr. Armour in my life. 
I never met Mr. Swift until one of the trips when he came from Boston to arrange 
the terms of the contract. Libby, McNeill & Libby, Nelson Morris, and those people, 
I never saw. Their agents and representatives came in and out of the office there 
constantly. I only knew they w'ere their agents when they said so. I had a great 
deal to do. 
Q. Recognizing that fact, General, I would ask whether the particular question as 
to the ability of those desiring to furnish refrigerated beef, to deliver it so as to keep 
sound and sweet for seventy-two hours after delivery, was discussed? 
A. Yes, sir; that was discussed. That was very seriously discussed. 1 particularly 
recall a gentleman named Mr. Gardner, of the firm of Swift & Co., who I understood 
was an expert. I was very very forcibly impressed with him as a capable man. He 
believed, and expressed his belief to me, that the beef would keep seventy-two hours 
provided it was properly taken care of. He did not seem, so far as my recollection 
goes, to have any doubt about it, and I don't think anyone so fully impressed me in 
favor of seventy-two hours as that young man did. 
Q. Was the matter discussed with Armour's representative, if you recall, or any 
other representatives? 
A. Very likely, sir. I merely single out Mr. Gardner because of the impression 
he made on me. 
Q. Do you recall that any of them stated that there would be difficulty in keeping 
the beef seventy-two hours? 
A. Yes, sir; I believe many of them did. I believe all the cattlemen talked gen- 
erally in that way, naturally. I did not pay very much attention to it, because they 
did not have refrigerated beef to sell. It was natural. 
Q. Will you state if you recall, or whether you can refresh your memory to that 
end, as to how they expected to keep the beef seventy-two hours after being issued 
to the troops dowm there under the conditions under which it would have to be 
issued? 
A. That problem came to my mind. That was one reason wffiy I concluded twenty- 
four hours was best out of the refrigerator, though not from the ship. The reports 
I had of the wTay in which subsistence stores had been handled in some places, Camp 
Alger and other places, led me to distrust our own people taking care of such a deli- 
cate thing as meat; and my best impression is I wanted them to understand it was 
only good for twenty-four hours, to the end that they would deliver every day so 
the soldiers would get it. If it kept for one hundred hours, so much the better. 
Q. Suppose there was no refrigerator on shore, and the army happened to be at a 
certain point, and one of these boats would come in there? 
A. Yes. 
Q. While the contract may explain itself, still it does not seem to be entirely clear 
to my mind. Under the conditions of the contract is it your understanding that in 
that case it would keep seventy-two hours after being issued from the refrigerator on 
the ship? 1212 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Yea, sir; that is the undertaking of the company. That was their lookout. I 
did not want it unless I was sure I could get it in such condition that the troops 
could use it. That was the risk of the contractor. 
Q. When the beef was turned over to the commissaries there at the landing at that 
time would not the responsibility of the contractor practically end? 
A. Not at all, sir. If it was turned over to those commissaries in twenty-four 
hours and was decayed in six hours the contractor would not be paid for it, provided 
we did our duty and kept it in the shade. I have it in my mind-you have brought 
my mind to that point-that while it might be delivered to the commissary ashore 
from the ship 10, 15, or 20 miles out in the harbor, the transportation might not be 
there just then. The commissary might have had to struggle for the transportation, 
as the commissaries in this war have, very seriously, struggled for transportation. 
That was the risk the contractor had to take, and that is why I insisted on seventy- 
two hours. Indeed, my idea was in regard to seventy-two hours all through. That 
is the reason I made the error, when my mind had been taken up with other mat- 
ters-that the seventy-two hours was so much in my head. 
Q. I understand with that explanation that it was originally in your mind that 
from the time it left the refrigerator until it had a chance to get to the troops, wher- 
ever they might be, in allowing that seventy-two hours you considered that it would 
be good and wholesome meat? , 
A. From the ship, certainly. 
Q. General, had there been any experience, within your knowledge, of so supply- 
ing troops under such conditions in a tropical country with an army operating in that 
way? 
A. How do you mean, an army operating in that way? 
Q. I mean an army that was in Cuba-that might be some 10, 15, 20, or 25 miles 
in the interior. I say had there been any experience, within your knowledge, of a 
trial of that kind being made of getting refrigerated beef to them instead of supplying 
what had been usually recommended? 
A. To an army in the field, no. That cuts no figure with me; because a thing was 
not done yesterday is no reason why I would not do it to-day. 
Q. In regard to troops that would be located so that they could not receive this 
refrigerated beef in the operations there, was there any method, or was that plan 
entertained, of supplying them with beef? 
A. Yes; every officer was authorized to purchase beef if it was purchasable in his 
neighborhood. Every officer had ample authority to buy, and did buy, beef wher- 
ever they could. When they could not purchase it, then the troops had bacon and 
tinned roast beef, so called; and for just such emergencies those things were furnished. 
Q Had you knowledge or information that there was no purchasable beef in 
Cuba? 
A. All my information was that there was no purchasable beef there. 
Q. How then would it have been practicable to so supply troops? 
A. How do you mean, to so supply them? 
Q. With fresh beef. 
A. So far as the refrigerated beef would go; then if we could not reach an outlying 
place just beyond it, there was bacon and tinned beef; but twenty-four hours is a 
good long time. You can carry beef a good long distance in twenty-four hours. 
Q. As a matter of fact, much of the supplies in a country of that kind, having to be 
carried on pack mules to troops, did you consider that it was practicable to so deliver 
refrigerated beef to troops? 
A. Yes; I thought so, if it was kept from the sun. I thought it was perfectly safe 
for twenty-four hours. I think very much longer. If it is left open in the sun or 
dumped into a filthy manure cart, or something of that kind, or neglected, that is 
another proposition. 
Q. Speaking of dumping it into carts of that kind, have you any knowledge or FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1213 
information that such was the practice among the troops down there that were sug- 
plied with refrigerated beef? 
A. I never heard it was done there. I heard it was done elsewhere. 
Q. As a practice? 
A. Oh, no; not as a practice. I heard it was done. 
Q. In how many instances, do you recall? 
A. I think I have heard of as many as two or three where it was thrown into 
dirty carts. I don't recall the exact number. I heard it as I heard many other 
things. Of course, it made an impression upon me because it was made by officers. 
Q. Will you state whether the question of the letting of these contracts with either 
Armour & Co. or Swift & Co. was discussed between the Secretary of War and 
yourself? If so, who were present at these conferences? 
A. The only discussion with regard to the letting of those contracts-as I say, I 
submitted the abstract, and I held in my hand the bids. He looked over the 
abstract, I made my recommendation, and he approved it. There was no form that 
I knew of of procedure for the Commissary-General to act in person in a case of that 
kind. The reason I let those contracts was, there was no subsistence officer to do it. 
Neither Cuba nor Porto Rico at that time belonged to any department, and I made 
the contracts myself. In doing so, I took it upon ipyself to go through the same 
procedure as Commissary-General that I used to go through when I was chief com- 
missary with the commanding general. There was no special rule by which it 
should be done, but I did it in that way. 
Q. Will you please state whether at any time you determined or had it in your 
mind to submit the feasibility of the contract of refrigerated beef with the seventy- 
two hour clause in it to the Surgeon-General? 
A. I don't recall anything about that, sir. It is barely possible I may have talked 
with the Surgeon-General on the subject. I did a vast amount of business then, and 
I can not recall all these little details. I know that I did talk to the Surgeon-General 
on the subject of refrigerated beef, and I know, furthermore, that I asked the Secre- 
tary of War one day to ask the Surgeon-General whether in his official opinion refrig- 
erated beef was not better for the troops than any other beef in tropical climates. 
The Surgeon-General was so questioned by the Secretary of War in my presence, and 
he promptly answered yes, that the refrigerated beef was the best. 
Q. Did he specify any condition in connection with it? 
A. Oh, no; he did not go into that, sir. 
Major Lee. If it please the court, I believe I have a copy of the Surgeon-General's 
remarks upon the matter, but I do not know that I have it here. I will submit it 
later. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I was asking you, General, with reference to the seventy-two hour clause, par- 
ticularly. You do not recall that that was specially submitted to the Surgeon-General 
in any way for an expression of opinion? 
A. I don't recall it. Possibly it may have been done. It is quite possible. I 
know that in my efforts to fully subserve the interests of the army, I sought infor- 
mation as correct as I could get from all sources and everywhere. 
Q. Will you please state, General, whether at any time you entertained a convic- 
tion in your own mind that it would be best for the troops, under the conditions there, 
or the probable conditions, to be supplied with live beef cattle to be killed when 
needed or used, rather than to be supplied with refrigerated beef? 
A. No, sir; I never had such an idea, never then, nor since, nor now-never. 
Q. Will you please state whether, in connection with the matter at any time, if 
you recall, the Secretary of War requested you or directed you to enter into this con- 
tract with Armour & Co., either or both of them, for refrigerated beef as a trial? 1214 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I never entered into a contract with Armour & Co. for refrigerated beef, to 
begin with. 
Q. Armour and Swift, either or both? 
A. No; I have no knowledge of the Secretary of War giving me any such instruc- 
tion. 
Q. Nor suggestion? 
A. Nor suggestion. I have no knowledge of it. The Secretary of War gave me 
what I might call a free hand, and I know of no case where he attempted to domi- 
nate. I mean by that, to control or overrule. 
Q. I did not mean my question exactly in that sense. 
A. I give it to you so there will be no misunderstanding about it. 
Q. I mean any consultation or conferences with the Secretary of War regarding 
the army-whether any such suggestion as that was made to give it to this company 
or that company for refrigerated beef as a trial? 
A. As I have told you, sir, and I wish to repeat it, he approved my recommenda- 
tion to make an award to the lowest bidder. That covers that whole thing, does it 
not? 
Q. Yes, sir; I simply wanted to get at 
A. I know, but I repeat it. 
Q. General, will you please state to the court what reports, if any, you received 
from General Weston as to the results, satisfactory or otherwise, of what was known 
or is known as the Powell process, at Tampa, Fla? 
A. I got a telegram from him about the Powell process, but I guess it was a mat- 
ter of maybe five or six months afterwards before I knew what he referred to. There 
was some beef sent down there with my knowledge, refrigerated and in ice by, I 
think, the Armour Packing Company, prior to the making of this contract. I kept 
the run of that, as I asked Weston to have it closely watched and report to me. He 
did, and he made written reports, and I think he telegraphed me. The telegram 
came one day. It really referred to the Powell process, but it was long afterwards, 
when Colonel Davis, my assistant, drew my attention to the fact that telegram 
referred to the Powell process. I did not know that there was any such thing going 
on as a lot of Powell beef on shipboard. I did know and was interested in the beef, 
refrigerated and iced, that was sent there for actual trial and for the information of 
the subsistence department. 
Q. Then 1 understand, General, that you say you have no recollection of hearing 
anything of the Powell process prior to the making of the contracts? 
A. If I did hear it I did not associate it with the Powell process. As the two 
experiments were going on at the same time, and as I had knowledge of one but not 
of the other, I attributed his telegram to refer to the refrigerated beef and the iced 
beef. Colonel Davis, I think, knew more about that than I did. I was interested 
only in the legitimate tests that were going on under our official observation. 
Q. Under General Weston? 
A. Yes, sir; I gave a copy of the report to you, Colonel Davis. You have it, have 
you not? 
The Recorder. Yes. 
Major Lee. That has been read in evidence, I believe, has it? 
The Recorder. It has been read and submitted, I think. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Do you recall directing your subordinate, Colonel Davis-I believe he is the 
officer who was your assistant ? 
A. He was my assistant. 
Q. Do you recall his writing a letter or having any correspondence with one Alex- 
ander Powell, supposed to be the author of the Powell process? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1215 
A. Yes, sir; I remember that. 
Q. About when was that? 
A. I can give that to you exactly. (After examining letter.) That letter was 
dated May 26. 
Q. Have you a retained copy of the letter? 
A. I have, sir. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I would like to have a copy of the letter, if 
the General has no' objection. 
The Witness. I have none whatever, sir. I will hand it to the judge-advocate for 
the court. 
The recorder read thfe letter just handed to him by the witness, as follows: 
War Department, 
Office of the Commissary-General of Subsistence, 
Washington, May 26, 1898. 
Mr. Alexander B. Powell, 
99 Barclay Street, New York. 
Sir: Your letter of the 20th instant to the President of the United States on the 
subject of preservation and shipment of fresh beef, pork, mutton, etc., to Cuba has 
been referred to this office. In reply have to say that the subject of furnishing fresh 
beef in Cuba is now being considered. This Department is not engaging any one 
with methods to cure meats. If it purchases meats it will be from some one who 
will furnish meat and guarantee its good condition on arrival and for seventy-two 
hours thereafter, or will slaughter and deliver as required, wherever the troops may 
be. 
By direction of the Commissary-General of Subsistence: 
Very respectfully, 
George B. Davis, 
Captain and Commissary of Subsistence, 
Assistant to the Commissary-General of Subsistence. 
The Witness: That was written by my authority. I directed it. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I wish to ask you whether this Powell process was referred to by Armour's men 
or Swift's representatives? 
A. I heard he induced them to look into it. I don't know from whom. 
Q. I was asking whether it was a matter brought up or discussed in any way by 
them in connection with their interviews with you in regard to the proposals for 
furnishing beef, or their anticipated bidding? 
A. I don't know that there was any talk about it, but I think their bids proposed 
to use it. I do not know that there was any talk before that. There was another 
party, somebody from Michigan, I think, who had some sort of a process; and there 
were people in and out of the office with all sorts of talk of processes. The Powell 
matter was merely one. I do not know that the others became a subject of corres- 
pondence. There was a great deal of talk about this man Powell-that he had sent 
his meat in baskets, and that he would do this, that, and the other. I paid no atten- 
tion to it because I did not propose to have anything to do with any such thing at all. 
I wanted the same kind of beef that is furnished at the best hotels in America, with- 
out any chemicals or process whatsoever but cold air-refrigerated or frozen. 
Q. General, as to the letting of these contracts, did you receive any information, 
official or otherwise, that the Powell process or any other process had been used by 
Armour & Co. in the preservation of beef? 
A. No, sir; not to this day. 
Q. I will ask you, General, if you will please state whether, in connection with the 1216 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
negotiations leading up to the execution of these contracts for the supply of beef, you 
ever saw or conferred with, or whether you were ever present at a conference 
between anyone else and Senator Hanna? 
A. And Senator Hanna? 
Q. Yes. 
A. I am pretty positive that I never spoke to Senator Hanna in my life, and if he 
were to come in here now I am quite confident that I would not know him. Yes, I 
think he was once pointed out to me at a distance. 
Q. Part of the question is, or were you ever present at any conference between 
anyone else and Senator Hanna where this matter of the beef was discussed. 
A. The secretary sent, for me one day in regard to an award. Somebody had 
spoken to him about an award. I can not exactly recall it; and there were a couple 
of gentlemen there in the room with him. I don't know who they were. I replied 
to his question that the award had been made to the lowest responsible bidder, and 
that was all. If Senator Hanna was there, I did not know it. As I say, I would 
not know him if he were to come in here now. 
Q. General, will you please state to the court whether during the last year you 
purchased what was called canned roast beef directly? 
A. I myself, individually? 
Q. Yes, sir. 
A. No, sir; but my assistant did on my order. 
Q. That was Colonel Davis? 
A. Colonel Davis. 
Q. Can you'state when and to whom, as near as possible? 
A. I can not give you the dates. We can get them from the office. I can give 
you the reasons for it, which is, 1 suppose, what you want to know. The prices 
asked in Chicago and St. Louis attracted the attention of both Colonel Davis and 
myself, and we were impressed with the idea that we, the Subsistence Department, 
were bidding against each other in St. Louis and Chicago; and as the agents were all 
there in my office we found we could buy cheaper than our purchasing commissary 
in St. Louis or Chicago. - The Subsistance Department can give you the purchases 
made in that way and the prices. You can get that from the Department. 
Q. And from whom? 
A. Certainly; and from whom. That was the reason for those purchases. My 
impression-although I will not swear to it, because I am not positive-is that the 
price, at least that is what I recall, ran up to 14 cents, and I became startled at that. 
Indeed, if you will summon the representatives of the houses (they are all here in 
Washington) I think they will be able to tell you just how they came to sell beef to 
the Commissary-General's assistant. 
Q. Can you recall from memory as to where these purchases were made? Do you 
recall the points? 
A. I think we purchased probably both in Chicago and St. Louis. That is to say, 
deliveries were to be made there subject to inspection, the prices being lower than 
the prices asked at those points at that time. There was a scarcity of the article and 
naturally merchants were anxious to get all they could for their property. 
Q. WilLyou please state to the court, in connection with the purchase of canned 
roast beef, as to what was required in your Department as to the inspections of the 
beef by the purchasing officer? 
A. The purchasing officer would do with the roast beef as he does with coffee, as 
he does with anything and everything he buys. He would have samples furnished 
him, compare the samples with the delivery, and purchase only standard goods. In 
many cases we had a standard of standard goods. That is the rule in the Depart- 
ment. 
Q. I do not know that it has appeared in evidence, but it is a fact very wel 1 known, 
I believe-and if I am in error correct me-that the samples would be furnished in FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1217 
that case and then comparisons made between the samples and the deliveries, 
enough to satisfy the officer that the delivery was equal to the sample. 
A. Precisely. I cases such as the purchase of a standard article like that in Wash- 
ington, subject to the inspection of the officer there buying a great deal of it and 
being thoroughly familiar with it, he would of course exact and expect to exact 
and get the character or the quality he was buying. Furthermore, if it is not up to 
the standard, and if it escaped the attention of the officer, or if from any cause later 
on at any time it was found not to be what was intended to be purchased it would 
be thrown back upon the hands of the contractor and he would have to replace it 
with good supplies. That is a settled principle of the Subsistence Department. 
Q. Do you recall that during the late war any complaints were made to your office 
with reference to the canned roast beef by the troops or any officer of the troops or 
any officer of the Commissary Department or any other officer acting for the Com- 
missary Department? 
A. Not until pretty well along. The first I can recall to my knowledge at all was 
a report from Captain Phil. Reed, Acting Inspector-General. That attracted my 
attention, and my recollection of that report was the men did not like it, simply. On 
top of that report, probably a week, or a very short time afterwards, Captain Evans 
of my own regiment, the Twelfth Infantry, came into my office and I asked all sorts 
of questions of him. I asked him about the tinned roast beef. He told me that it 
was excellent, that he had eaten it, and I said: " Will you write me a letter to that 
effect?" He said, "Certainly," and he did so. The letter is in the Commissary- 
General's Office. 
Q. Do you remember the date of the letter? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. The letter, when we receive it, will show for itself? 
A. Yes, sir. His name was Capt. Robert K. Evans, of the Twelfth Infantry. 
Q. Was he in command of the regiment or of a company? 
A. He was in command of his company, I think. 
Q. Were there any other complaints that you remember? 
A. I don't remember any until quite late, and I don't remember the date. Then 
all along I would hear one thing against it and I would hear another *hing in favor 
of it. I know that I stopped the purchase of it the moment that I discovered it was 
not acceptable, because, while I did not believe that those who did not like it were 
justified, nevertheless I did not desire to furnish what was not wanted, from any 
cause. I believed that ignorance and prejudice was the reason, because I have seen 
that ever since I have been a subsistence officer. Some of the finest things the Sub- 
sistence Department has had, I have known to be abused because of the ignorance 
of those who abused them. I go back ten, fifteen, and twenty years. 
Q. Do you apply that to this canned roast beef that the soldiers ate or that was 
issued to them down in Cuba? That you consider, from all the facts brought to your 
knowledge, that it was a matter of prejudice that they did not like that? 
A. Not wholly so, but partly so, and sickness the rest. 
Q. About when was it that the purchase was discontinued? Do you remember 
about the time? 
A. About July. I think I ordered a purchase stopped about July; maybe about 
the middle of July. 
Q. Will you state whether to your knowledge it has been resumed? 
A. I think not, sir. I have no knowledge that it has been; and I have further- 
more to add that the total amount purchased would feed the entire Army for about 
twenty-four days, if fed to them. 
Q. General, have you any information, or can you point to the source where it 
can be obtained, as to what portion of the meat ration consisted of the canned roast 
beef, as it is called, taken with the army to Santiago? 
S. Doc. 270 77 1218 
FOOD FUKNISHED THE AKMY. 
A. My annual report, which is on part of the records of this court, will show 
every pound that was sent there. 
Q. I want to get at something near the proportion between that and the other 
meat ration. 
A. I wish to say in that connection that General Shafter and his chief commissary, 
out of 6,000,000 of rations at Tampa, helped themselves and took what they wanted, 
what they chose. The Commissary-General and the office of the Commissary- 
General did not direct any particular amount of anything to Santiago, but the com- 
manding general and his chief commissary took out of the stores at Tampa what 
they chose. The amount that they took and the amount that was afterwards sent 
is shown in my annual report. They need not have taken any tinned roast beef at 
all if they did not want to. They could have done as we did for many years- 
depend entirely on bacon. 
Q. Within your experience, had that tinned roast beef, as it is termed, been issued 
to the Army? 
A. I have heard it has been issued to the Army, but not within my personal 
observation. I have not been stationed for a great while where there has been any 
need for any such thing, for any makeshift or any emergency ration. This tin ed 
roast beef was intended as a makeshift, to be used only when fresh beef could not be 
supplied. 
Q. It was intended, then, as a substitute for the fresh beef? 
A. When the fresh beef could not be obtained. 
Q. I say when it could not be obtained? 
A. Yes; and if they did not want bacon it did not take the place of bacon. A ^om - 
pany commander or a regimental commander could draw from the commissarv that 
which he preferred. If he did not like the tinned roast beef he could draw bacon- 
that is, where there was no fresh beef. 
Q. I believe those proportions are, as a rule, pretty closely fixed by regulations as 
to the proportion of fresh beef and the proportion of bacon that is habitually 
issued. 
A. It is not a fixed thing at all. There is neither law nor positive rule on that. 
It is a usage, a custom, and the company commander always could and always can 
buy that if he prefers it for his company. 
Q. I was asking the question with reference to a general rule or usage. 
A. Usage, yes; I am not aware of its being a rule or regulation. The company 
commander or the regimental commander in the field can alter those proportions it 
he wishes. The commissary can not refuse him if he wishes it. 
Q. That would depend somewhat on the supply on hand? 
A. Certainly. 
Q. General, do you recall, or have you any information, that there was sent directly 
from your department canned roast beef or refrigerated beef to the commissary at 
Dun Loring, Camp Alger? 
A. Directly from my department? I don't quite understand what you mean by 
that. Do you mean my office? 
Q. Yes; I mean directly by the orders of your office. 
A. Very likely, sir-very likely; I do not recall it, but it is highly probable. 
Q. Do you recall whether the commissary at that point declined to issue to the 
troops such beef, whatever it was, whether canned roast beef or somethfng else? 
A. The commissary at Dun Loring declined to issue it to the troops there? 
Q. Yes. 
A. I never heard of such a thing. 
Q. Was there any information or any reports received, within your knowledge 
that there was a dissatisfaction with the roast beef there, and it had to be ordered 
elsewhere for issue to other troops? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1219 
A. I don't recall anything of that sort. If sent to Dun Loring, it was not sent to 
be issued at Camp Alger while the troops were in Camp Alger. If sent there it was 
sent there simply to be available if the troops took the road, because Camp Alger 
was supplied with fresh refrigerated beef every day. If any roast beef was sent there, 
it was to have it on hand for the troops to take with them if they moved. 
Q. That canned roast beef, then, was regarded in the nature of a travel ration, 
similar to the canned corned beef? 
A. No; I never regarded it as a travel ration at all. I regarded it as a makeshift 
between fresh beef and bacon. Whether you traveled or you did not travel, when 
from any casue you could not get fresh beef and the men all tired of bacon, they could 
use this; and they did not need to use it if they did not want to; if they preferred 
the bacon. That was the intention. That was the desire. In other words, it was, 
as it were, an addition to the ration. Of course, it was already a part of the rations, 
made so by regulation many years ago, 1888,1 think, or 1887; but it was not designed 
or intended as a travel ration, but, between bacon and fresh beef, to fill the time 
between. 
Q. You say this canned roast beef was established as a part of the regular ration 
in 1888? 
A. No, sir; not as the regular ration-which regular ration do you mean? They 
have got several regular rations. It was intended as a travel ration. 
Q. As a travel ration at that time? 
A. Yes. 
Q. And on this occasion you did not intend it to be used as a travel ration? 
A. Not merely as a travel ration; no, sir. It was laid in with the purpose of sup- 
plying the men with fresh meat when other fresh meat could not be procured-that 
and that only. 
Q. General, will you please state whether in the month of June last you recall any 
conversation or conversations with Mr. G. H. Giddings, of this city, representing 
himself as an agent or concerned with the cattle men of Texas relative to a contract 
which Mr. Giddings desired to make with the Government to supply a large number 
of beef cattle to be delivered in Cuba or Porto Rico? 
A. I suppose I talked with, perhaps, ten, fifteen, or twenty of those men. They 
were in and out of the office at times every day, and I don't know how many times. 
If the Giddings that you speak of is the man I have in mind I would know him if I 
would see him. He is the man that I had determined to forbid entering my office. 
However, I won't say it is Mr. Giddings. I would have to see the man in order to 
be positive. It was somebody, however, who purported to represent large cattle 
interests, and he made bids. His bids are of record. See them and contrast the 
prices with the prices of others. 
Q. Do you recall any conversations with Gen. or Hon. J. L. Sypher, as represent- 
ing Mr. Giddings or the cattle dealers of Texas, in reference to beef? 
A. No, sir; I do not recall any, if I had any. If you please to bear in mind, there 
were anywhere from seventy-five to perhaps as many as two hundred people a day 
in my office, and it is impossible to recall conversations. 
Q. I understand, then, if I am clear on it, that you do not recall any conversations 
with Mr. Giddings with regard to the matter? 
A. If Mr. Giddings is the man I have in mind, I had many conversations with 
him-a great many-because he annoyed me by the repetition of his incessant visits 
and insistant desire to find out everything, and to know everything, and to get what 
possible information he could. Of course, I was polite to everybody who came there 
on public business; and while I do not remember what I said to him, nor remember 
the conversations, he talked about beef. 
Q. You had conversations, I presume, with a number of those men who wanted 
to furnish beef on the hoof? 1220 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Quite a number of them, sir. 
Q. Live cattle? 
A. There were several people who came there about that. Some of the people 
came from Texas. There was a Mr.-I think his name was Armstrong; I remem- 
ber him. 
Q. Do you recall expressing to any of them at any time while the matter was under 
consideration the thought that probably the best way to supply beef to the Army 
would be by beef on the block or on the hoof? 
A. Everybody who talked with me understood perfectly my preference for refrig- 
erated beef. I do not think I failed to convey to any man who talked to me, just as 
I have explained here, that my preference was for refrigerated beef; failing that, next 
beef on the block; that is, a contractor to furnish it, and as dernier resort, and if I 
could not do otherwise, then for the Government to own its herds. So far as I talked 
with anybody, so far as the subject was touched upon, I explained to everybody that 
those were my preferences, and they are so put in my advertisement. You will find 
them so arranged in the advertisement, in that identical order; that is my recollection. 
Q. In the discussions or conversations with these people in regard to supplying beef 
on the hoof, if that became necessary, was the matter of the transportation-ship 
transportation-taken under consideration in the discussion, in regard to the ability 
of these people-Mr. Giddings, or Sypher, or Armstrong, or any one else in connec- 
tion with that feature of the case? 
A. There were some references to transportation. Many of them would want to 
know from me whether in case I bought beef in that way I would furnish the trans- 
portation. There were questions of that kind, and all sorts of questions asked by the 
different pfeople. I do not remember Mr. Giddings' s questions any more than I remem- 
ber any other, except that if he is the man I think he is, I had to tell him one day 
after he made his bid and followed it up to immediately talk with me, that he must 
not come there to talk with me after his bid was made and before it was opened. I 
had to be peremptory with him-always provided this is the man I have in my mind. 
I do not know that his name is Giddings. I would know the man if I saw him, but 
I do not know the name as Giddings. 
Q. In any of these conversations with these parties can you recall that anything 
was said with regard to any preservative process or that some process should be used, 
other than the ordinary cold-air refrigerating process for keeping beef, that would 
last in that climate seventy-two hours? 
A. I may have mentioned to some of them that Mr. Powell had made such a prop- 
osition. I may have done that. I know many of these beef men did not think the 
refrigerated beef would keep any length of time. 
Q. Was there anything said within your recollection, either by yourself or anyone 
else, to the effect that Swift & Co. or Armour & Co. had a process, or were inaugu- 
rating a process by which they could keep this beef seventy-two hours, when the 
question, or the dispute as to the impracticability of keeping it that long, was under 
discussion? 
A. You mean did I say that? 
Q. Was anything said, either by you or to you? 
A. I don't remember, sir; I took no interest in the Powell or any other process. I 
dismissed it, except when it was incidentally alluded to. I would not touch it my- 
self. I would not be a party to it. I advertised for and I proposed to purchase refrig- 
erated, chilled, or rfozen beef, not process meat. I would not touch it, no matter who 
brought it. If anybody had proposed to me to furnish such beef, I would have 
rejected it. Swift & Co. proposed to furnish refrigerated beef. They stated so. That 
is their bid, and I accepted it. I would not accept anybody's bid for processed or 
chemically treated beef. 
Q. What I was getting at was whether anything was said to the effect that they 
had some process by which it might be kept. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1221 
A. I could not pretend to recall, sir. There was so much talk-all sorts of talk 
about meat and beef and everything-that I could not pretend to recall it. Some- 
body may have told me it was the intention of some of the people to do so. That 
may be. I do not recall it. I could not possibly recall it. 
Q. Had you any information in any way to lead to the remark in regard to the 
matter that Armour & Co. or Swift & Co. had some certain process by which they 
would insure the safe-keeping of that beef? 
A. I never had the slightest idea in the world that either Armour, Swift, or any of 
the reputable large firms in America intended to furnish or proposed to furnish any- 
thing other than what I called for in the advertisement. I think Armour did bid to 
furnish some processed beef. I would not take it from anybody. 
Q. What was that bid for? 
A. Beef. 
Q. Was it for Cuba and Porto Rico? 
A. Yes; those were the only bids I received. All bids for the other places were 
let by the chief commissary under the direction of their commanding generals. 
Q. At that time, in June, at the time of the letting of the beef contracts and during 
the beginning of the operations, Swift & Co. were the only ones who had the contract 
in Cuba and Porto Rico? 
A. Yes; those were the only contracts I let. 
Q. Did they at that time have any contracts in the United States with the troops? 
A. Yes, sir; I think they had a great many. 
Q. At the same time? 
A. I think they had a great many; but those were contracts that were made by the 
different chief commissaries or depot commissaries, as the case might be. They came 
to me for approval. If the price was reasonable I approved it and it went right on 
the files. 
Q. Can you recall in regard to the proposition of Armour & Co. about furnishing 
processed beef down there, what they referred to-what kind of process? 
A. I can not remember, sir; I don't know that? 
Q. Can you recall what agent made the statement or a proposition of that kind or 
discussed that? 
A. No, sir; I do not. I couldn't remember that. There were so many people that 
I can not recall one more than another. As a matter of fact, as often as I have seen 
the agents of these different firms, I am not certain now which are Armour's or 
which are Swift's agents, with the exception of one or two that I have seen oftener 
than the others. They were in the office, in and out. They were in the office 
adjoining mine-the assistant's office-during these busy days. Nearly every day 
they were looking for business. 
Q. In order to get that just right in regard to this proposition or intimation, or 
whatever it was, it was from Armour & Co.? 
A. I think so. 
Q. Through their agent, whoever he was, before the letting of the contract for 
Cuba and Porto Rico? 
A. Yes; I think so. 
Q. And I understand there was no information as to what the process was? 
A. None. I did not know what the process was, and I did not care to. I did not 
want .to know. I would not touch it. 
Q. Can you recall about in what terms they expressed this idea. 
A. No, sir; I can not. 
Q. Did it impress you at the time as being a rather secret process? 
A. It impressed me at the time in this way, sir: Here is an abstract of bids with 
ten, fifteen, or twenty people. I run down the names and I run down the figures. 
I find the house of Rothchild & Co., a well-known banking house, is the lowest bid- 1222 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
der and perfectly responsible, and I stop right at that; and that is the way Swift & 
Co. got it. Those bids were abstracted for me. They were opened by myself and 
read in the presence of the public, as is usual. Then they were abstracted, and when 
it was brought before me I ran down the names and the figures opposite the names, 
and I stopped at the lowest responsible bidder, and I did not bother myself about 
the others, nor the details. When the lowest responsible bidder met the require- 
ments of the public advertisement under the requirements of the Government, J 
stopped right there and made that award to that man in that way, as is usual and 
proper. 
Q. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I was not touching upon that point. 
A. I wish to answer it as fully as I can. 
Q. I want to speak more especially with reference to this process of Armour. 
A. I explained to you that it is an impossible thing to know, because I took no 
interest in it, as I say; and I described it to you why I can not know. 
Redirect examination by the Recorder: 
Q. Do you remember, General, whether that proposition was in Armour's bid 
or not? 
A. I think it was, sir-something of it was in the bid; but, as I described, it was 
a matter of indifference to me. When I ran down the cities and the figures and 
found a responsible house offering at the lowest figure to furnish the article desired, 
my mind centered instantly on that and that only. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, a certified copy of the bid can be obtained 
from the office of the Commissary-General. 
The Witness. I think a copy of the abstract and the whole thing can be obtained. 
The Recorder. The bid itself? 
The Witness. I do not know but the Commissary-General's Office has a copy of 
the bid. At all events you can get it. 
By General Davis: 
Q. In your testimony in chief, you spoke about obtaining a report of Captain Reed 
or Major Reed? 
A. He was acting inspector-general, and it was a long delayed report, because per- 
sonally afterwards he asked me if I had got his report, and I told him yes. He 
asked me when. I told him, and he spoke very bitterly against the office of the 
Inspector-General because of the delay. So far as I can recall now, unless it was 
very late, I guess may be up to September, I do not recall any other report of an 
inspecting officer. 
Q. In your testimony the other day you said that that report was on file in your 
office, the Commissary-General's Office? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You said you would obtain it? 
A. Did I, and did I not? 
Q. I have not seen it. It may have been given to the recorder. 
A. I asked that it be furnished. I asked the office to furnish it. 
Q. It may be here. 
A. All the matters that Colonel Davis required I asked to be sent over here; but 
it ought to be of record in the office of the Commissary-General, and, of course, can 
be obtained. But, as I say, shortly afterwards I met Captain Evans and this was in 
my mind, and I very promptly asked him about it; just as when I met you, I would 
ask questions for my information as Commissary-General. He immediately spoke in 
favor of it, and it impressed me so much that I asked him if he would write a letter 
about it. He said certainly, and did so. The letter is in the office of the Commis- 
sary-General. I set the one against the other. I had served with both Captain 
Reed and Captain Evans in Arizona. I knew them both well. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1223 
Q. In your testimony in chief, you spoke of a conversation with General Brooke 
in regard to the kind of rations that were to be supplied or the methods of supply 
of subsistence for the expedition to Porto Rico under his command. 
. A. Yes. 
Q. Did you have any conversations with General Shafter or any other command- 
ing general? 
A. No, sir; I did not see them, you know. I was here and General Shafter was 
down at Tampa. I never saw General Shafter from the time he left New Orleans to 
come here to Washington until, of course, after the Cuban campaign. 
Q. Did you have any conversation with the Commanding General of the Army in 
regard to the rations? 
A. No, sir. General Brooke asked me if I could have put up for his command a 
ration of bacon, three-quarters of a pound in a tin, so that 3 men could eat it, make a 
meal of it, and then throw the tin away and not soil their haversacks; and if I could 
put up a little sack, a little bag, for their tea and coffee. I told him certainly, and I 
ordered it done in Chicago. I had about half of it done when the Porto Rican thing 
was all over, and we did not need it any more. I asked the packers to let me off 
from completion of it. They had filled about half of it. They set to work at once; 
and they did so. That was what he wanted. 
Q. You doubtless recall, General, two or three years ago, perhaps four years ago, 
that by orders of the Secretary of War a board was convened to consider the subject 
of an emergency ration? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And that board made a report suggesting certain articles as proper for an emer- 
gency ration in connection with the operations of troops in the tropics. Did you 
consider the subject of an emergency ration for troops moving away from a base and 
consider the recommendations of that board? 
A. I did, sir. I thought of it, but if you will look at that emergency ration, and 
look at the full ration, you will see that you can "make out of the full ration, if you 
want to at any time, with the solitary exception of a substitute for sugar, your emer- 
gency ration; and I did not want to confound commissaries with too many different 
kinds of things. I wanted to simplify it. You wrote me a letter on that very sub- 
ject once-the matter of simplifying things. I wanted to simplify the thing as much 
as possible. 
Major Lee. If it please the court, I would like to have attached to the record as 
an exhibit a copy of report of export of domestic cattle from ports on the Atlantic 
coast during the six months ending September 30, 1898. I have given it in gross; I 
want to have it in detail. This is a copy I have here. 
The Recorder. Does it come from an executive department? 
Major Lee. There is the original report, signed by O. P. Austin, Chief of the 
Bureau of Statistics. 
The Recorder. That is from the Treasury. It would be well, as it comes from 
the Treasury, that it should come under the seal of the Treasury. All these other 
papers are under seal. There is no objection, of course, to admitting it. 
Major Lee. I simply want to get the matter in detail. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, the witnesses in behalf of the Major- 
General Commanding are not able to appear this afternoon, so that there are none 
of them here. 
The President. None of them are here at all? a 
Major Lee. One gentleman has an important case in the court that he has to attend 
to, and I really have not had sufficient time to prepare any examination, as I would 
like to, to expedite the time. In this connection I would like to inquire whether 
the report in regard to Dr. Degoe, that he referred to, has been furnished to the 
court. 1224 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
The Recorder. I am still engaged in getting it. I have an appointment this after- 
noon in connection with it. 
Major Lee. Will this letter of Captain Evans, that General Eagan referred to, be 
submitted in. evidence? 
The Recorder. Yes, if it is obtainable. You asked him to furnish it. It will 
come in the shape of a copy under the seal of the Department. 
Major Lee. I do not know that I asked him for the copy. I wanted to know 
whether his mere letter to the Commissary-General, written at his request, would be 
submitted as evidence to the court, or whether the witness would be called. If his 
report in that way is admitted, of course there are a good many reports that I would 
like to submit to the court in the same way. 
The court then (at 3.30 o'clock p. m.) adjourned until Thursday, March 30, 1899, 
at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C., March 30, 1899. 
The court met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. Major Lee and the reporter were 
also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, Major Lee has a statement to make in 
reference to the two witnesses who were to have appeared at the beginning of the 
session this morning. 
Major Lee. I expected the two witnesses, General Sypher and Mr. Gittings, to be 
here this morning. I interviewed General Sypher last evening, and ascertained that 
he had a case in the supreme court-I suppose the supreme court of the District, or 
the Supreme Court of the United States-and that his attendance there is absolutely 
necessary. I desired, when General Sypher appeared, to have him precede in his 
testimony, Mr. Gittings; the two came together, and I did not want one without the 
other. That is the difficulty. I had submitted to the court, a few days ago, a list 
of a number of witnesses here in the city, and did not know but what there would 
be enough of those subpoenaed to fill out the time until these gentlemen would be 
forthcoming. But I do not know whether the subpoena or process of this court could 
interfere with an important case, where a man is counsel before another court that is 
in session or not. I presume it is not desirable to go into that matter. But I have 
used all reasonable endeavor in the matter, and I regret very much that I have 
occasioned any delay to the court. I was of the opinion, however, that there might 
be a number of witnesses here in the city who could fill in the gap. I believe there 
are to be some here at 1 o'clock in the afternoon. 
The President. Do you know when those two witnesses can appear? 
Major Lee. I do not know when General Sypher's case will be finished. He 
expected to have gotten through with it yesterday, at 3 o'clock; but they took an 
adjournment in the case until 10 this morning. As the court is aware, those things 
sometimes hang on for a day or two, and then suddenly end, so that I will simply 
hold them in reserve, without reference to the time, until I can get hold of them. 
The Recorder. The case being as Major Lee has stated, and as there are some 
matters in connection with the summoning of witnesses to appear at future sessions 
of the court to be considered, I suggest that the court go into executive session, with 
a view to the consideration of that list of witnesses. 
(Thereupon, at 10:30 o'clock a. m., the court went into executive session, after 
which a recess was taken until 2 o'clock p. m.) FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
1225 
AFTER RECESS. 
The court reassembled at 2 o'clock. 
Present all the members and the recorder. Major Lee and the reporter were 
also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Gampfer. 
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE A. J. GAMPFER. 
George A. J. Gampfer was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been 
first duly sworn, testified as follows. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. George A. J. Gampfer; 1304 Sycamore street, Cincinnati, Ohio. I am a clerk by 
occupation. 
Q. Were you in the military service of the United States during the war with 
Spain? 
A. I was. 
Q. In what organization? 
A. The First Ohio Volunteer Cavalry. 
Q. And in what capacity? 
A. As second lieutenant and squadron adjutant and acting commissary of sub- 
sistence. 
Q. Where was that regiment encamped in the South? 
A. Camp Thomas, Chickamauga, Lakeland, and at Camp Wheeler, Huntsville, Ala. 
Q. Did it ever leave the United States? 
A. No. 
Q. When did it go into camp at Lakeland, Fla.? 
A. On the 15th of July, 1898. 
Q. And how long did it remain there? 
A. Until the 20th day of August, 1898. 
Q. Upon what duty were you engaged while the regiment was at Lakeland? 
A. As acting commissary of subsistence originally. 
Q. During what period of time? 
A. I was commissary of subsistence from the time the regiment was organized 
until it was mustered out. 
Q. Then, during the entire time? 
A. During the entire time of service. 
Q. What were your duties as commissary? 
A. To draw and issue rations. 
Q. Did all the rations which were consumed by the regiment pass through your 
hands? 
A. They did. 
Q. From whom did you receive them? 
A. I received them at Columbus from Lieutenant Ham. 
Q. No; I mean at Lakeland. 
A. I received them in July from Lieutenant Dixon, of the Tenth Cavalry, and in 
August from Captain Carmichael. 
Q. What sort of fresh meat was issued to the regiment during the period you were 
at Lakeland? 
A. Fresh beef? 
Q. And what firm supplied it? 1226 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Armour & Co. 
Q. From whom was it received, from what supply depot, and in what manner? 
A. It was received from the Southern Express Company at Lakeland, who received 
it from Armour & Co.'s depot at Tampa. 
Q. All of the time that you were at Lakeland? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was none received from any other point than Tampa? 
A. None. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Did you have any other duties to perform beside those of regimental commis- 
sary? Did you succeed to any other duties? and if so, please state them to the court. 
A. I succeeded Captain Carmichael as brigade commissary on the 17th day of 
August, the day of his death. 
Q. How long did you continue in that capacity? 
A. Until the 20th when the regiment went to Lakeland. 
Q. What duty was Captain Carmichael on prior to that, and how long had he 
been brigade commissary? 
A. He had been brigade commissary from the first day of August until the 17th. 
Q. I wish you would please state to the court in detail just how your command 
was supplied with meat; first, your regiment and then when you succeeded to the 
business of brigade commissary, just how the fresh beef was supplied to the com- 
mand there. Give it in detail, just how it came up, and the times and the manner 
of issue, and what was done as to precautions, if any. In fact, give it in narrative 
form, stating it fully, Mr. Gampfer. 
A. As regimental commissary I received my beef first from Lieutenant Dixon, who 
was brigade commissary. 
Q. He was brigade commissary? 
A. Yes, sir; he was brigade commissary when we arrived at Lakeland. But it was 
received at the regimental commissary's quarters and cut up and issued to the troops. 
That method was also used under the administration of Captain Carmichael as brigade 
commissary. The brigade commissary received the meat from the Southern Express 
Company, usually having covered wagons at the depot just before the trains pulled 
in. The trains got there about 9 o'clock or 9.30 o'clock in the morning. Sometimes 
the train was late. 
Q. Excuse me for interrupting you, but I want to know how the beef came up by 
the express company. Did it come up in quarters or how? 
A. It came in quarters wrapped in burlap in an ordinary express car, and the 
wagons waiting for the beef would haul it to the brigade commissary, which was an 
exhibit house used in the fair grounds in Lakeland; and the quarters were then 
weighed, and each regiment drew its portion and issued it to the troops. 
Q. Well, you may go on and state how long that method continued, and give in 
brief the change, if any, made in the method of delivery. Just go on and state 
whether that method continued all the while you were there or whether any change 
was made in it. 
A. The method of issuing the beef practically remained the same, but there was a 
change in the way the meat was delivered. That occurred after the administration 
of Captain Carmichael. After he was brigade commissary we found it was not as 
good as it had been before, and Captain Carmichael telegraphed to Tampa several 
times complaining of the meat. Two consignments of beef were rejected on the 
advice of the surgeon. Then, in answer to these telegrams, there appeared at Lake- 
land an agent of Armour & Co., and while he was there there was a consignment of 
beef received. He wanted to know the cause of those complaints, and we told him 
that the beef was evidently sour. We removed the burlaps in his presence and FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1227 
showed him where it was sort of greenish in color. There were large spots and the 
meat emitted a sour taste. And after we showed it to him he passed it off saying, 
"Oh, that is all right; that beef is all right; the beef is good. Those spots are due 
to the chemical that is used on it to preserve it." And he further said that this 
chemical was put on there in order to keep the beef from spoiling within the sixty- 
hour limit the contract called for. They could not keep the meat that length of 
time without using those chemicals, so he said. Then he said he would arrange it 
to have the beef cut up in pieces and put in zinc boxes and these zinc boxes incased 
in ice. That was done, but the same spots appeared, and there were, I think, two 
consignments rejected. In several consignments there were several chunks taken 
out and rejected and the rest was accepted. 
Q. And what would be done, as a rule, with the chunks that would be cut off of 
this beef, the balance being accepted. What would be done with the rejected 
portion? 
A. The rejected portion was turned over to a man by the name of Hendricks at 
Lakeland. He had been appointed the local agent of Armour & Co., at Lakeland, 
to my knowledge. He delivered the beef to us after that at the brigade commissary 
and it was just turned over to him as rejected beef. 
Q. You don't know what disposition was made of it? 
A. I do not. 
Q. You don't know whether it was sent back to Tampa or whether it was buried? 
A. No, sir; I do not. 
Q. Have you any means of determining the times when meat was rejected there 
during your incumbency there as brigade commissary or as regimental commissary? 
A. I have by referring to some memorandum. 
Q. You may make reference to that memorandum and state what it is and how it 
came into your possession. 
A. (Referring to memorandum.) This memorandum is part of Captain Carmi- 
chael's memorandum while he was brigade commissary. After I succeeded Captain 
Carmichael this little memorandum book, by accident, was mixed with my papers 
and I could not find it until I had been asked to give my testimony before this 
court. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. How do you identify it as his? 
A. By his handwriting. 
Q. Are you familiar with that? 
A. Yes, sir. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. You may exhibit or read from that memorandum as to the rejection of beef 
or the reception of beef in full. 
A. On August 1 there were 1,069 pounds of beef accepted. On August 2 there 
were 682 pounds of beef accepted and 2821 pounds rejected. On August 3 there 
were 1,135 pounds accepted. On August 4 there were 967 pounds accepted. On 
August 5 the whole consignment was rejected. On August 6 the whole consignment 
was rejected. On August 7 the whole consignment was rejected. There was 834 
pounds bought from a local butcher at Lakeland at that time. On August 8 there 
were 974 pounds accepted. On August 9 there were l,402f pounds accepted. On 
August 10 there were 922 pounds accepted. On August 11 there were 1,081 pounds 
accepted. On August 12 there were 1,050 pounds accepted. On August 13 there 
were 1,071 pounds accepted. On August 14 there is no entry. On August 15 
there were 1,087 pounds accepted. On August 16 there is no entry. 
Q. The meat was to be delivered daily, and was, as a matter of fact, delivered 
daily? 1228 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What number of troops were stationed there, approximately, during your 
incumbency as regimental or brigade commissary? 
A. There were about 1,500 men in the brigade. 
Q. Up to about the 1st of August what was the condition of the beef, as far as you 
know? 
A. The beef was fair. There was no trouble. 
Q. Referring to the memorandum again, please state when the first rejection of the 
entire consignment occurred. 
A. On August 5 the total amount was condemned, or rejected, I should say. 
Q. Were there any other rejections, to your knowledge, other than those to which 
you have testified-that is, parts of deliveries? 
A. In some cases there were chunks taken out and sent back as rejected meat. I 
don't know the exact dates of those occurrences. 
Q. Well, about how often did that occur? 
A. Oh, about once in three deliveries. 
Q. When did you leave Lakeland, and where did you go? 
A. August 20 we left Lakeland and went to Huntsville, Ala. 
Q. Can you recall who was the agent who made that statement that the beef had 
been chemically treated, as you have testified? 
A. I am not positive, but I think his name is Moorhouse. 
Q. Can you recall his appearance-give any description of his appearance? 
A. He was light complexioned, has a light mustache, weighed about 145 pounds, I 
should judge, and rather heavy set. I think he was about 5 feet 8 inches. 
Q. When and where did this conversation occur that you heard, and to whom was 
it addressed? I would like you to give that with all the particularity you can, from 
your recollection. 
A. It occurred at the brigade commissary. Those present were the agent, Captain 
Carmichael, Captain Castle, and myself. The beef was there at the time the conver' 
sation took place, and the agent spoke in the presence of the three officers men- 
tioned, and while they were holding conversations at times I would step away from 
them and superintend the cutting off of the burlaps on the beef, and there was other 
conversations held with other officers, which I don't know anything of. 
Q. Can you state from recollection to whom these remarks were addressed or that 
explanation made by Armour's agent, as to the preservative process which had been 
used on this beef? 
A. Chiefly to Captain Carmichael. 
Q. You may state how long Captain Carmichael continued on duty. I don't know 
that that is in evidence. 
A. He continued on duty until the morning of the 17th of August, when he com- 
mitted suicide. 
Q. Then you immediately succeeded him in the duties? 
A. Yes, sir; as soon as the board of survey had taken an inventory of his stock on 
hand. 
Q. As to the condition of this beef, did you observe it afterwards as to these spots 
particularly? 
A. After we spoke to the agent of it he sent it up in zinc cans and the spots still 
continued to appear, and that acrid, bitter, sour smell was still on the meat. 
Q. I wish you would please explain about how this beef was cut up. Was it cut 
up in large pieces or in small pieces? 
A. In pieces about 25 or 30 pounds apiece, and the boxes were lined with paper so 
that the beef could not come in contact with the zinc. 
Q. Was the subject of this beef or its alleged chemical treatment, as stated to you 
by the agent, or as stated in your hearing by the agent, a matter of any discussion 
between yourself and other officers? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1229 
A. No, sir. I thought if there were any chemicals used on it that it was harmless. 
Q. It didn't, then, make any special impression upon your mind? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Do you know the brigade surgeon or doctor, Castle; did he make any investi- 
gation or inquiries in regard to the matter? 
A. I didn't hear him say anything further than just to speak of the chemical. 
Q. He just spoke of the chemical? 
A. And sort of acknowledged that there must have been a sort of chemical there. 
He took the agent's word for granted. 
Q. Were you a party to the conversation? 
A. Yes, sir; Iwas a party to the conversation. We were grouped together within 
a circle of 5 feet in diameter, I should think. 
Q. Can you state anything as to the contract-whether you had seen that contract 
down there? 
A. The contract was in my hands after I relieved Captain Carmichael. It required 
that the beef should be in good condition sixty hours after delivery. 
Q. Was anything said about that? 
A. The agent said that they could not keep the beef sixty hours after delivery 
unless they put chemicals on the meat. 
Q. In removing the meat or handling the meat issued to your command, either 
as regimental or as brigade commissary, you may state what occurred or what precau- 
tions, if any, were taken with reference to it. 
A. The meat was handled just as quickly as was possible, always keeping it in the 
shade, and we were very careful about keeping flies off it. 
Q. Mr. Gampfer, I will ask you whether there is anything further in connection 
with that beef matter that you have not stated. If so, I wish you would state it 
fully to the court, as fully as if you were questioned especially with reference thereto. 
A. I have no recollection just now; I think I have gone over my testimony. 
Q. When this agent of Armour was speaking of this matter of chemicals being 
used, was it with reference to an explanation or was it called for in any particular 
way? Do you know just how it happened to be developed? 
A. He just told us, sort of passed it off, when we showed him the beef and asked 
him to smell of it. 
Q. And asked him what? 
A. We asked him to smell the beef, and he did so, and he said, " Oh, that meat is 
all right; that meat is good; the spots and smell of that beef are due to chemicals we 
put on," as an excuse or apology for the complaints. 
Q. Was there any question asked, or did you ask him any question as to what 
chemicals were used? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Are you positive he used the word "chemicals?" 
A. Yes, sir. 
Redirect examination by the Recorder: 
Q. What was your occupation prior to going into the service? 
A. Clerk at the Cincinnati Hospital. 
Q. Had you anything to do with beef prior to going into service? 
A. I received it at the hospital several times. We received 200 pounds of beef 
every morning. 
Q. What sort of beef was it? 
A. Fresh beef. 
Q. Refrigerated beef? 
A. I don't know. 
Q. Do you know refrigerated beef when you see it? 1230 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I don't know whether I would or not know the difference between refrigerated 
beef and fresh beef killed after an ordinary length of time. 
Q. Did you see it delivered every morning? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Had you any duties in connection with it? 
A. I had to receive it. 
Q. Did you handle it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
€2. Did it make no impression upon you at all as to whether it was merely fresh 
beef, fresh slaughtered beef, or refrigerated beef? 
A. It never made an impression. 
Q. Were you familiar with the contract under which it was received, or the agree- 
ment? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did the agreement call, to your knowledge, for refrigerated beef or otherwise? 
A. I don't know. 
Q. To what extent did you examine and handle the beef that was furnished to 
your regiment when you were commissary? 
A. I handled it almost every day and looked at it carefully to see that it was not 
flyblown, or I smelled of it. 
Q. Was it all covered when received? 
A. It was covered with burlaps. 
Q. And what was done with the burlaps? 
A. They were taken off and the meat cut up and issued to the troops. 
Q. What was its color? 
A. Dark red. 
Q. How did it compare in color with that you received at Cincinnati? 
A. Do you refer to the beef at Lakeland? 
Q. Yes. 
A. The ouside of the beef at Lakeland had a color that was dark greenish in places, 
with a glossy surface as though it had been varnished, although the inside of the 
beef had a good, healthy color after it was cut up. 
Q. And what was there unhealthy about the color on the outside? 
A. The smell was sour and these spots we could not account for. 
Q. What do you mean by a sour smell? 
A. As though there had been something bitter or acrid put in connection with it. 
Q. Is a smell susceptible to a description of "bitter?" Doesn't the word "bitter" 
apply rather to taste than to smell? 
A. That is the only word I can use-that or sour. 
Q. Can you describe the smell? 
A. Only by the word "sour" or "bitter." 
Q. Well, what would sourness indicate? Did decomposition appear to have set in? 
A. From the spots it looked as though decomposition had 
Q. Are you familiar with beef that is undergoing the process of decomposition? 
Have you seen it so frequently that you can tell it? 
A. I have not seen it, but I have seen so much healthy beef that I saw the differ- 
ence in a moment. 
Q. And was there no smell of decomposition? 
A. There was no smell of decomposition, only, as I say, a sour smell. 
Q. Could you say whether that is the beginning of decomposition or not? 
A. I do not know. 
Q. What did you say the color was? 
A. A light-greenish hue. 
Q. Was the smell the same all over the surface? • FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
1231 
A. We only smelled the spots. 
Q. Did you smeM the other places? 
A. Sometimes in cutting the meat we would push our finger into the carcass 
nearest the bone and smell of that. That would smell sweet, as though the beef 
were good on the inside. 
Q. How near the surface did that sweet smell go? 
A. I don't know how near the surface. 
Q. How did this beef at the surface smell, except at the spots? 
A. I didn't smell that that was not spotted. 
Q. Are you only familiar with the smell at the spots? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And to what cause did you attribute that? 
A. At first we attributed it to the heat. 
Q. What was the temperature? 
A. I don't know the exact temperature, but it must have been somewhere near 100°. 
Q. Was it continuous during the day and night, or only during the day? 
A. Only during the day. It cooled off at night. 
Q. How long had this beef been out of the refrigerator? 
A. I don't know the exact time, but I know the train left Tampa about half past 7 
and arrived at Lakeland at about 9 o'clock, if it was on time. 
Q. And when did you first notice these spots? 
A. On the 2d day of August. 
Q. How frequently after that did you notice them? 
A. I don't know exactly the number of days, but there were about five or six con- 
signments rejected. 
Q. For what reason? 
A. For the reason of those spots and the sour smell. 
Q. And were consignments accepted? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Had those consignments spots? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. So, then, some days, you would have us understand, the meat was chemically 
treated and other days not? 
A. So it seemed. 
Q. Why would that be? 
A. I can not account for it. 
Q. And to what cause did you attribute these spots? 
A. To the heat of the climate down there, at first. 
Q. But afterjvards? 
A. And then, after they came up there in zinc boxes, we thought perhaps the 
meat came in contact with the zinc and that that produced the spots, and we com- 
plained again, and they had the boxes lined with paper. 
Q. Well, what conclusion did you finally reach as to the spots? 
A. We came to the conclusion that the agent was right; that there were chemicals 
used. 
Q. Well, before you brought it to his attention? 
A. Before we brought it to his attention we were under the impression that it was 
the heat that put the spots there. 
Q. And what did he say to you as to the cause of the spots? 
A. He said that the beef was all right. He said it was good; that the spots and 
smell were due to chemicals that were used in the preservation of the beef. 
Q. Then the beef was treated in spots and not elsewhere? 
A. I don't know. 
Q. What chemicals did you imagine had been used? 
A. I could not say. 1232 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Did the agent say anything to you as to the manner of the'application of the 
chemicals, whether it was a liquid or a solid? 
A. He did not. He seemed to infer that it was rubbed over, by saying that the 
chemicals were put on the meat. 
Q. Was there any indication on the surface of the meat that there was anything 
put on in that way? 
A. Only by smell and by this glossy surface. 
Q. Could you see with your eye anything on the meat? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. No coating? 
A. No coating, only a glossy surface as though it had been varnished; transparent 
and colorless. 
Q. Was the surface of the meat uniformly glossy or only glossy in those spots? 
A. Mostly in those spots, and on the flanks of the fore quarters was where we 
found the glossy surface mostly. 
Q. What was the date of this conversation between you and the agent? 
A. I don't remember the exact date, but it was in the early part of August. 
Q. Was the subject ever mentioned again by the agent? 
A. Not in my presence. 
Q. Did you ev6r speak to the agent about it afterwards? 
A. I think I met him once after that. He and I said nothing on the beef question. 
Q. Did you speak to Captain Carmichael about it? 
A. Yes; just gave it a passing remark at the time. 
Q. What was Captain Carmichael's reply? 
A. I don't remember his reply. 
By General Davis: 
Q. You say the 5th of August was the first day when all the consignment was 
rejected? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And the agent came up directly after that? 
A. Just right after that, a few days. 
Q. And while you were brigade commissary for the three days did this beef con- 
tinue to come from Tampa? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Shipped in the same manner? 
A. It was shipped in the same manner, in zinc boxes. 
Q. Did the eating of the meat by the troops cause any sickness? 
A. Not to my knowledge. _ 
Q. At other posts at which you have served, did you get refrigerated beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was there any manifestation similar to what you saw in the beef received at 
Lakeland? 
A. The beef at other places had a sweet and healthy smell. I was in the cars 
both at Chickamauga and at Huntsville when the beef was issued. 
Recross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Was it different from the beef you received at Tampa? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You speak of the glossy surface on the beef; that you only noticed that there 
was a glossy surface, as though it had been varnished. It was transparent? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. It was not a thing that particularly attracted your attention at the time, except 
that it was glossy? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1233 
A. No, sir; it was glossy. 
Q. I understood that you said you were brigade commissary there how many days? 
A. Three days. 
Q. Was there anyone else there as Armour's agent, or acting in the capacity of 
Armour's agent, with whom you had any conversation or with whom any remarks 
were made with reference to that beef? 
A. Only this man named Hendricks, who was afterwards appointed a sort of a local 
agent for Armour & Co. It was chiefly his duty to receive meat at the depot and 
haul it to the brigade commissary, and it wras to him that we returned this rejected 
beef. 
Q. Was there any special disagreement or contention between Captain Carmichael 
and the agent of the Armour Company delivering this beef? 
A. Only that Captain Carmichael was firm in saying that he would not receive it. 
Q. Had that beef that Captain Carmichael declined to receive been exposed in any 
particular way to the sun? 
A. Not to my knowledge. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Major Webb, of New York. 
TESTIMONY OF G. CREIGHTON WEBB. 
G. Creighton Webb was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name and residence. 
A. G. Creighton Webb, New York. 
Q. Were you in the military service of the United States during the recent war 
with Spain? 
A. I w'as. 
Q. In what capacity? 
A. Major and inspector-general in the volunteers. 
Q. To what command were you attached? 
A. I was the inspector-general of the Second Division, on General Lawton's staff, 
Fifth Army Corps. 
Q. And did you accompany the division to Cuba during the operations before 
Santiago? 
A. I did. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Major, will you please state on the way over to Cuba what meat rations were 
used by the command, within your knowledge; or what meat ration was used on the 
boat, what kind of meat rations? 
A. I don't remember. 
Q. Will you please state what time you landed in Cuba? 
A. The 22d of June at 9 o'clock in the morning. 
Q. From that time until the surrender on the 17th of July-as I recall the date- 
will you please state to the court how your division or the command ov£r which you 
were inspector-general was supplied with rations; that is, as to what were the com- 
ponents of the meat rations? 
A. The greater part of the division, or two-thirds of the division, landed on the 
22d. The other third of the division landed on the 23d, early in the morning, at 
Siboney. We landed on the 22d with three days' rations, and the rations issued then 
were coffee, hard bread, and bacon, the canned roast beef being unwieldly and diffi- 
cult to carry. Then the regular army rations were landed, as you know, at Siboney 
S. Doc. 270 78 1234 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
and it was not until after that that canned roast beef came to be issued as a ration, 
to the best of my recollection. I suppose the men got those rations along about the 
26th or 27th. 
Q. I was going to ask about what time they began to receive the canned roast beef 
rations. Up to that time you say that the meat component of the ration was princi- 
pally bacon? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And then, after the 26th or 27th, about what proportion of the meat compo- 
nent of the ration was roast beef and what proportion other meat, furnished to your 
command? 
A. The men had their choice, and there was about as much canned roast beef 
issued as there was bacon. We were very short of transportation and the most 
accessible of the stores that were landed at Siboney were the stores that were natu- 
rally put upon the pack mules brought up to the front. One day it would be one 
thing, and another day it would be another thing, and I should say that they were 
issued in about equal proportions. 
Q. As they could be brought up? 
A. As they could be brought up. 
Q. Please state what complaints there were, if any, with reference to the canned 
roast beef,within your knowledge or observation or within the scope of your duties 
as inspector-general. I would like you to state fully in regard to that in narrative 
form. 
A. Well, the canned roast beef was not food; it was not appetizing to look at- 
although to a hungry man that did not mean much. It looked like the tag ends of 
beefsteaks. It was stringy, fibrous, greasy, and nonnutritive. It had no odor; it 
had no taste. I have read of putrid cans of the stuff, of its becoming putrid after 
being exposed to the sun, but I never saw anything of that kind, and nothing of 
that kind ever came under my notice. It simply was without nutriment. To eat 
this meat was like opening your mouth and having the moon shine into it, so far as 
getting food was concerned. The palate knew what it wanted and after you had 
taken a mouthful of it, had gotten a taste of it, you could not eat it, you could not 
chew it. It was food in name only. I did not see anything disgusting about it, but, 
as I have said, there was no nutriment in it and we could not dispose of it. At first 
the Cubans would take it, but after one or two doses they wouldn't take it and were 
glad to get hard-tack. 
Q. You may state generally what Cubans you refer to and what their condition 
was as regards requiring food. 
A. Well, the men that didn't wrant the canned roast beef and wouldn't take it 
were the soldiers. The refugees at El Caney took it. We gave 18,500 rations to the 
refugees there and they would take anything. They were literally dying of hunger. 
They were, many of them, well-bred men and women. They stood around dying of 
hunger, but the troops who got their rations daily would not have it. They would 
infinitely rather have hard bread. Our own troops gave it up, and would not take it 
if they could possibly get anything else, until the city fell, and then we got onions 
and potatoes and other vegetables and made it into a hash. We hashed it up then 
and they could eat it, but I don't suppose it acquired any nutritive quality by being 
hashed up with other things. 
Q. What was your personal experience with it, Major? 
A. Well, I ate it several times in very small quantities under the stress of great 
hunger. On the morning of the 2d, after tw'enty-four hours at El Caney, wThen I 
was very hungry, I tried to eat a little of it. I wanted to eat it but my palate 
declined to accept it. I put up with a large cup of soldier's coffee and got along 
with that. 
Q. In your experience there w ith the army FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1235 
A. Oh, pardon me; I would like to add one more thing. I on two occasions kept 
my canned roast beef. I opened it in the morning and took what I could eat out of 
the can and kept it until afternoon, and, to my surprise, it kept. I attributed the fact 
of its keeping to the fact that it had no healthy beef juice in it; because, in a climate 
where milk will not keep and where butter is an impossibility, and honest roast beef 
after being exposed six or eight hours in the sun spoils-becomes bad-I thought 
that this stuff also ought to turn bad, but it didn't. It was as good and swreet to the 
smell four or five hours after it had been opened as when it was opened. 
Q. To what did you attribute that fact? 
A. To the fact that it had been desiccated; that there was nothing it; that it was not 
nutritive. I don't think there was anything unhealthy in it. I never suffered any 
ill result from eating it or trying to eat it; but it was like chewing moonshine, as far as 
any nutrition was concerned. 
Q. Major, in your experience there with the army and its operations, do you 
regard that meat as a fit or unfit ration for the American soldier? 
A. I should say that the canned roast beef that was issued to us there would be an 
unfit ration, as a weighty thing to carry and a waste of time to eat. 
Q. Did you notice the brands or that there were different qualities of it there 
issued to the troops; did that come within your observation? 
A. No; I was looking at the brands on the table here just now and wondering if 
I could fix w'hich one or which brand we had down there, and I could not do so. 
All I can remember is that it was canned roast beef. Food was food then, and we 
didn't look at what contained it. 
Q. It was issued as canned roast beef. As a matter of fact, what is it, canned roast 
beef or canned boiled beef? 
A. I could not say. 
Q. Did you have any experience with refrigerated beef or fresh beef in any way? 
A. I did. 
Q. From about what time was that delivered? 
A. From the fall of the city, the afternoon of the 17th. The transports came in 
then, and one of them brought in ice, another brought beef, and we almost imme- 
diately had our fresh beef issued. 
Q. What was your experience or observation in reference to that beef during the 
time that you were there? 
A. It was uniformly good. The beef would be frequently putrid when it reached 
camp, and the men would take their knives and slice off anywhere from an inch to 
3 inches of it, and it would be issued to them then and they would immediately pro- 
ceed to cook it. That putrescence was accepted with the philosophy that marked 
the regular soldier all through that campaign. They understood that in a climate 
where they could not get milk, where they could not get butter, that beef that had 
been refrigerated, or in fact any beef, could not be exposed to the sun for four or five 
hours without suffering. This would be unloaded in the early morning on the dock. 
We were always short of transportation, and there was always a delay in getting it 
loaded on to the army teams. After it was loaded on it would be drawn up in the 
teams a distance of from 1 to 5 miles, and sometimes it would not reach the men until 
the afternoon. It was covered with burlaps, and when it got out to the camp it would 
come out in all manner of colors. But after the first delivery the men understood 
that. And although I have had queer-tasting beef in my own camp-and I attrib- 
uted the queer taste more to the cooking than anything else-I visited various other 
camps, and the beef always seemed to be the best. I never heard of the word "em- 
balmed" beef until I got north. 
Q. Within your observation, what was the approximate percentage of loss of the 
beef in your command, or within your information? 
A. It varied. It would be very difficult to say. It depended largely upon the 1236 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
manner in which it was delivered. Sometimes an army team would be on hand 
there and would strike the beef at the gangway, and it would be brought up to the 
camp in the early morning and be delivered to the men, and that would be good beef. 
And then, sometimes it would not turn up until late in the afternoon. It would rain 
there, and when it rained it was like Niagara Falls let loose, and the roads would then 
become bogs. When the roads were that way it would take a 6-mule team five or six 
hours to go the distance it would ordinarily take only an hour and a half to go. 
Q. And then would the beef be bad? 
A. Then, in such cases, the beef would be exposed, and it would sometimes come 
in in good condition and sometimes not. As far as it came under my notice I would 
say that it was rather good than bad; that its condition on arrival would be more 
often good than bad. 
Q. In the majority of instances it would be good? 
A. Yes, sir; in the majority of cases. Only in one or two cases did it come to my 
notice where the beef was thoroughly bad and had to be buried. 
Q. But in other cases you say it sometimes had to be trimmed-the outside had to 
be trimmed off? 
A. Yes, sir; in the minority of cases that had to be done. 
Q. From 1 to 3 inches had to be trimmed off? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you remember any instance of that beef being kept from the time it was 
issued as long as twenty-four hours? 
A. I do not. The beef we had-and by "we" I mean the staff-we put in a sort 
of an improvised refrigerator. We dug a hole in the ground and surrounded it with 
planks and then dug another hole and put ice around and made an improvised 
refrigerator and kept it. But the men took their beef the minute they got it and 
cooked it. 
Q. I believe that is all, unless there is something else on the subject of refrigerated 
beef or canned roast beef that you desire to state. If so, I would like you to state it 
as though you were specially questioned. 
A. That is all I have to say, sir. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to recall as a witness Colonel 
Woodruff, of the Subsistence Department. 
TESTIMONY OF COL. C. A. WOODRUFF. 
Col. C. A. Woodruff, U. S. A., was recalled as a witness and, having been first 
reminded that he was still under oath, testified as follows: 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Colonel, I believe you say in your testimony (page 322 of the record) in your 
previous examination in this case as follows: The question was asked you- 
' ' Q. What is the difference between canned roast beef and canned boiled beef ?' ' 
Your answer was: 
"Practically none, sir. It is merely an attractive title, 1 suppose, adopted by 
dealers to enable them to sell their goods." 
When you made your purchases referred to on page 322 of your testimony did you 
then understand that there was practically no difference between the terms "canned 
boiled beef" and "canned roast beef." 
A. I did, sir. 
Q. And that the term "canned roast beef" was simply an attractive title for the 
purpose of selling the goods? 
A. Yes; a title adopted by the manufacturers. 
Q. Do you regard it as canned roast beef or canned boiled beef? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1237 
A. Well, as I understand it, it goes through two processes. The first one is dis- 
tinctively boiling, and the other might be considered a species of roasting, I suppose. 
I don't think it is exactly boiled beef or exactly roast beef, as we use the term in 
domestic affairs, in household kitchens. 
Q. There was some bought with the labels or marks, "boiled beef." Did you 
examine that and compare that with this, so as to notice whether there was any 
distinction or difference? 
A. I have; yes, sir. 
Q. And there was none? 
A. I could distinguish none. 
Q. You made, I believe, quite extensive purchases of the canned roast or boiled 
beef-whichever it may be termed-when on duty as purchasing officer or chief 
commissary, or whatever your designation was in New York City-some 800,000 or 
900,000 pounds, as I remember? 
A. I think so; yes, sir. Those purchases were made as purchasing commissary, of 
course, not as chief commissary? 
Q. I say, whatever the title was. In making those purchases of the 800,000 or 
900,000 pounds, will you please state whether you had occasion to reject any tenders 
of canned roast beef? 
A. I did. 
Q. Whose? 
A. I don't remember at the present time. These purchases were made. If a man 
submitted a sample that was not satisfactory I rejected it. 
Q. I wanted to get at whether there was any record as to whose beef you rejected 
there in New York in making the purchases? 
A. No, sir; that would simply be a reason why I would not take the lower-priced 
beef. For instance, if two men bid-and there were usually more than two bid-and 
one bid a fraction under the other, the lower bid would get it if, in my opinion, the 
lowest-priced one would equal in quality the higher-priced one. If it was not, I never 
did hesitate to reject the lower and take the higher. 
Q. What I am trying to get at is this: Whether in making the purchases any beef 
was rejected by you on account of its bad quality. Have you any record of any beef 
being rejected as being unsuitable; that is, after inspection or whatever method was 
used? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. It was not suitable? 
A. I did not consider it so. 
Q. Can you recall or can you point at a source of information as to what companies 
or what agents tendered this beef? 
A. No, sir; as long as we rejected it, if the contractor did not complain, there was 
nobody else to complain. 
Q. Can you recall any tender of any considerable quantity that was rejected? 
A. No, sir; I have an idea of only two lots that were bought-two comparatively 
small lots that I have in mind. Those are the only two that I recall. I remember 
that I rejected those. 
Q. Can you state approximately how much they were? 
A. No, I could not. If I said 12,000 it might be twice that and it might be half 
that. I could not tell at all. 
Q. And you can not tell at all as to what firms or packing companies that rejected 
meat belonged to? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Colonel, will you please detail to the court the method of inspection of this 
canned roast beef that you purchased, the method pursued in regard to its delivery; 
how it was inspected and compared? Please state that fully to the court. 1238 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. You mean after award was made? 
Q. Yes. 
A. (Continued.) Or before? 
Q. Well, take the history of it from the time, for instance, you got an order to buy 
and ship a given quantity. 
A. I would ask for proposals from different dealers and have them submit me 
samples of their goods which they proposed to deliver. Then from those samples I 
would make the award. Of course, sometimes the interval between the asking for 
and the receiving of the samples was short and sometimes it was longer. It varied, 
of course, owing to the circumstances of the case. 
Q. Excuse me for interrupting you, but let me ask, in these samples these companies 
would submit, about how many cans would be submitted? Would two cans or three 
cans? 
A. They would send the sample; yes, sir. 
Q. There was no fixed number sent? 
A. I usually require in those cases one can. 
Q. That, I understand, then, would be the standard? 
A. That would be the one by which they would be bound; yes, sir. 
Q. Then you may proceed. Excuse me for the interruption. 
A. Then, considering the price and quality of the goods, I would make the award. 
In some cases it might be that one man could not furnish it all, and then a portion 
would go to a second man, and so on. Then I would call upon the party to deliver 
the quantity he had agreed to deliver, or the quantity on hand, or the portion I agreed 
to buy, whichever was the case. Sometimes a portion would go into one of my store- 
houses, and then another portion might be shipped direct. If it was sent to the store- 
house, then it was examined in there. I would look at one particular can a man had 
agreed to furnish. Then we would take a case of that and see if, in my judgment, or 
in the judgment of my storekeeper, or in the judgment of my assistant-I then had 
a very able assistant, an experienced officer, Colonel Willard, now retired, there 
with me-that came up to the standard. That examination governed. It had to 
correspond with the sample upon which the award was made. If it did so correspond 
I considered that as satisfactory. Sometimes I would examine more then one can, 
and ordinarily one lot would be of the same pack, the same manufacture. In such 
cases I would consider that one can would be amply sufficient for a pretty large 
delivery. Then, when it was shipped out, if a portion of it was being shipped direct 
from the contractor's to the train or the boats, I had a man see that the goods delivered 
were of the kind bought. 
Q. That is, going from the 
A. The jobbers, you might say. 
Q. Or from the contractors? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Going from his warehouse? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You say that you would consider one can a sufficient test for a considerable 
quantity. What do you mean by a considerable quantity-10,000 pounds or 50,000 
pounds? 
A. No, sir. I would consider one can sufficient for, say, sometimes a hundred 
cases. 
Q. A hundred cases? 
A. Yes, sir; that is quite a lot of it. 
Q. That would be 2,400 cans? 
A. Well, sometimes there were 12 cans 
Q. If there were 24 in a case, I mean. 
A. It was the same as buying, for instance, Apollinaris water. I did not open the FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1239 
cases at all. As long as they delivered a case of Apollinaris water (and I bought a 
good deal of it) I took the case; I did not open it. 
Q. Would the cases be marked with any mark to indicate the date of purchase, 
and the purchasing officer? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. By whom would that be made? 
A. We required that to be done by the contractor. 
Q. By the contractor? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Ue would have your stencil ? 
A. He makes his own stencil. We give him the style. 
Q. That is, he would have the stencil with, say, your name, or any name 
A. The purchasing officer, and the firm, and the date. 
Q. And then these stores would be turned over to the Quartermaster Department 
for shipment, I presume. 
A. When we would ship them away; yes, sir. Then I would mark them. I had 
my men, usually, mark them, in addition to that-mark the party to whom they 
were going, you know. 
Q. Where would that take place? 
A. In my storehouse; or if they were going to the ship's wharf, very often I some- 
times had as many as four men over there marking. And sometimes I would have 
the contractor do it himself. 
Q. In taking out these cans, as you say (either personally or through your 
employees or assistants), did you, in making the comparison with the sample of this 
can or cans, taken out, you say, at random, as I understand 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Say one from-I do not know how many cases it was. 
A. I mentioned there 100 cases. I did not have any standard to govern me in that 
matter. 
Q. No, I understand that-say, 100 cases. Did you, as I-started to say, ever find 
in any case any cause for rejection or further investigation? 
A. No, sir, never-not a can that I opened. I have found some of what we call 
swells in the lot; and of course if I found a lot that had some swells in it, I went 
right straight through it, and opened every case. 
Q. In accepting these cases, will you please describe the method, as to whether 
they would be opened or closed cases; would the covers be on them, or knocked off. 
A. No; closed. 
Q. All closed? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And then, in selecting one of these cans, it would be necessary to open a case 
to get it out, I understand? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I believe that, on page 323 of your previous testimony, you said something 
about the purchase of 350,000 pounds of meat which had been shipped to Europe by 
the Armour Packing Company for supply there to the English and French armies. 
I believe that was stated in your former testimony? 
A. I understood so, sir. 
Q. And which was brought back to this country? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What inquiry did you make and what information did you obtain as to the 
history of that particular meat? Did you make any? Or was it purchased and 
received in the same manner as the other meat of which you have spoken generally? 
A. It was purchased by Colonel Smith-that is, the buying part, the negotiations, 
if you please. 1240 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Yes. 
A. And I received it. 
Q. Do you refer to Col. A. L. Smith? 
A. Col. O. M. Smith. 
Q. Where was he? 
A. He was in Chicago. 
Q. It was purchased, I understand, by him. 
A. By him; yes, sir. He negotiated for the purchase. 
Q. And you simply received it? 
A. I received it, for convenience, you know. I was the first agent of the Govern- 
ment whom it would strike in coming to this country; and of course we wanted to 
ship it the shortest possible distance. 
Q. Then you had no knowledge in regard to what the negotiations were, or any- 
thing of that kind? You were simply the receiving officer. 
A. I knew that he had bought it at a certain price; that is all. 
Q. At what price? 
A. I do not remember, sir. He notified me that he had negotiated for so much 
beef that they had. 
Q. Abroad? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And that was shipped back? 
A. It was shipped back. 
Q. What information had you on the subject further than that as to the history of 
this meat, with regard to when it was shipped abroad, and in regard to what was 
done with it after it was shipped abroad-whether there had been anything done 
or not? 
A. I had no official information. The manager of Armour & Co., in New York, 
informed me, when I asked him in reference to the matter, that it had been shipped 
the fall before, I think, if I am not mistaken. I am under the impression that he 
said it was in December, but I am not sure about that-December of 1897. 
Q. To what Government or to what country? 
A. I think to the English Government, sir; not to the Government, but for sale to 
the Government. 
Q. For sale? 
A. I understood him to say, if I am not mistaken, that it wras stored in Liverpool; 
but I was not especially interested in it, only as a matter of curiosity. 
Q. Do you recall the name of the agent? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Will you please give his name and address? 
A. Mr. H. Raphael; 1 think his address is 182 Duane street, New York City. It 
is Duane street, at any rate, and I think the number is 182. 
Q. What were the inspections and examinations you made of this beef when it 
came back? Did you receive it as an original purchasing officer, in that same sense? 
A. Yes, sir; in that sense. I received it for the Government. 
Q. Did you make any special inspection or any special inquiry with reference 
to it? 
A. I examined it, to make the inspection just the same as I would ordinarily, and 
then, as a matter of curiosity, I opened, perhaps, a few more cases than I otherwise 
would. 
Q. Of what manufacture was that beef, if you recall? Was it manufactured by the 
Armour Packing Company or Armour & Co.? 
A. If I am not mistaken, sir, it was the Armour Company, not the Armour Pack- 
ing Company. The two companies are entirely distinct as I understand; their busi- 
ness seems to be. This was from the Armour Company. On this date I could not FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1241 
tell, upon reflection, whether it was the Armour Company or the Prairie Packing 
Company. They put up their goods under both brands. 
Q. Under both brands? 
A. Yes, sir; I understand they do. 
Q. Did you purchase any of the Prairie Packing Company's brand? 
A. I think not, unless there was some in this lot. I do not know, but I would be 
very liable to do so. 
Q. All your purchases, I understand, were confined to New York City, were they 
not? Did you purchase any elsewhere? I refer to purchases of canned roast beef, 
for the Army. 
A. Not delivered elsewhere. I purchased everything delivered in New York. 
Sometimes I would purchase some things in Philadelphia, and some in Baltimore, 
and some in Boston. 
Q. Do you mean this canned roast beef? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. I refer to that. 
A. No; all that I purchased was in New York. 
Q. In the case of this beef that was purchased by Colonel Smith, who had made 
the negotiations and asked you to receive it, the cans being submitted as samples in 
the same way, was that a special transaction or was it connected with any other 
purchase? I refer to this that was brought back. 
A. I just inferred-this is entirely an inference-that this was only a part of 
the purchase; that he made a purchase, and they filled a portion of it, and then 
had this balance to complete the purchase, to be delivered there in New York. I do 
not know that, though, sir. 
Q. And that was there subject, of course, to orders, for you to have it consigned 
to various places? 
A. Yes, sir; I used it just the same as though I had made a regular purchase of it 
there. 
Q. I believe that you said you are not sure as to the agent's statement that it was 
the December prior? 
A. No, sir; I am not sure whether he said December or whether he said ten 
months before. 
Q. Was there anything on those cases to indicate in any way the age of that beef? 
I mean that which was brought back from Europe or from abroad. 
A. No, sir. I have never seen anything on the cans to indicate that, except 
where it was packed especially for the Government, and none of that which was 
delivered to me happened to be that which was packed especially. 
Q. You never had bought any quantity of canned roast beef, then, prior to the 
late war? 
A. Any large quantity? No, sir.. 
Q. Have you ever bought or issued any of it in your capacity as an officer of the 
Subsistence Department to troops in the campaign or in the field? 
A. Have I? 
Q. Yes, sir. 
A. I have never issued anything to troops in the field. 
Q. I mean purchased or issued or procured? Have you ever handled any of this 
canned roast beef prior to the late war; that is, for issue or supply to troops in 
campaigns or in the field? 
A. No, sir, except as chief commissary in reference to regulating the supply. For 
instance, there was some at your post, I believe, Madison Barracks. They wanted 
to issue it to the troops there and have it renewed, and the Commissary-General 
would not allow that at the time. But later on it was issued under my jurisdiction. 
Q. It was issued to the troops at Madison Barracks as part of the rations? 1242 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. When was that? 
A. That was in 1896. They wanted to issue it in the fall of 1895, and asked to 
have the canned roast beef and canned corned beef renewed. I think that was in 
September, 1895; in the fall of 1895. 
Q. Are you quite positive that it was sent there for issue to the troops? 
A. It was there; it was at the post. 
Q. It was already there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And the commissary asked that it be renewed? 
A. That he be authorized to issue it, and that a new supply be sent of the roast 
beef and the corned beef. 
Q. Do you know how much there was of that? Can you furnish the information 
on that point or inform us where it can be procured? 
A. I think there were between four and five hundred pounds. 
Q. In your testimony (I can not now refer to the page) I believe you stated, in 
regard to the canned roast beef, that all the stock was soon exhausted? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Have you any knowledge how long the stock had been on hand; or was there 
anything to indicate that? Have you any information, or could you obtain any, on 
that subject? 
A. No, sir; except that I understood it had not been on hand long. I think I 
have a letter here w hich touches on that subject. I think this one does [producing 
a letter]. This one would indicate that it was from three to six months. 
Q. Whose letter is that? 
A. That is a letter from the representative of Francis H. Leggett. 
Q. Is that a firm furnishing canned roast beef? 
A. Yes, sir; it is one of the leading grocery houses of New York, if not the leading 
one. 
Q. They do not put it* up, do they? They handle it. 
A. No, sir; they handle it. [The witness produced another letter]. I think that 
indicates that, also. 
Colonel Gillespie. I think that the letter should be read, in order that we may 
know what the witness is talking about. 
The Witness. I have three of them here. I would be pleased to read them all. 
Major Lee. The witness desires to include the letter as part of his answer. I shall 
not enter any formal objection to his doing so. 
The Witness. I would like to introduce the three. 
The Recorder. Read them, if you will. 
The Witness. (Reading.) 
New York, February 26, 1899. 
Sir: The roast beef purchased from me during the months of May and June, 1898, 
by you wras from purchases made by us at various times between December 1, 1897, 
and June 1, 1898, from Armour & Co., Armour Packing Co., Libby, McNeill & 
Libby, Hammond & Co., Eastman & Co., Schwartzchilds, Shurtzberger & Co., 
Cudahy & Co., Burnham & Morrill, and Potter & Wrightington. 
Our purchases of canned meats, and all canned vegetables, fruits, etc., are made 
considerably in advance of our immediate wants-say three to six months before 
delivery is made-and at such times as we consider most advantageous; before pur- 
chases are made samples are submitted, from which selections are made; when 
deliveries are made samples of each lot are inspected, and if equal to sample sub- 
mitted at time of purchase, the article is accepted; otherwise the goods are rejected. 
As we have about 15,000 different customers to cater to, every effort on our part is 
made to procure such articles as wTill be acceptable, and have the approval of a large 
number of merchants. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1243 
The roast beef furnished you was taken from our regular stock, and is the same in 
quality as sold to our regular trade. During the past ten years I have sold under 
contract to the United States Navy larger quantities of roast beef of same quality or 
grade as that furnished you. 
Our claim department shows the loss for swells, etc., to be infinitesimal, consider- 
ing the magnitude of our business in this department. 
Very respectfully, 
C. J. Caughey, 
Representing Francis H. Leggett & Co. 
To C. A. Woodruff, 
Col. and A. C. G. S., U. S. A., 39 Whitehall Street, New York. 
The Witness. I had this letter when I was on the witness stand before, but I did 
not think it necessary to introduce it at that time. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. This is a letter dated February 18, 1899. In that letter the writer states, I 
believe, that he orders from three to six months in advance of what he believes will 
be his demands? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That has no reference to the date of manufacture or the age of the beef? 
A. No, sir; I should say not. He would probably try to get it as fresh as he could. 
I now read the second letter: 
Armour Packing Company, Kansas City, U. S. A., 
New York, N. Y., February 17, 1899. 
Col. C. A. Woodruff, A. C. G. S., 
Army Building, 39 Whitehall Street, City: 
Sir: Referring to your inquiry of the 15th, in relation to canned roast beef fur- 
nished you by our Mr. Brown during the months of May, June, July, and August, 
1898, and the succeeding months, we have the honor to report that the beef fur- 
nished you had on every case a Government inspection stamp, and was of the same 
character and quality as that which we deliver to the German and English Govern- 
ments and the United States Navy under their specifications, and was in every 
respect prime merchantable goods, such as is sold by every prominent retail dealer in 
the United States, beginning with Park & Tilford and Acker, Merrall & Condit, 
and has been so sold for the last fifteen years. It is the same grade of beef as we 
furnish almost every steamship and sailing vessel that leaves this port for all parts of 
the globe. 
In view of the fact that the German Government and some of the European gov- 
ernments have instituted stringent laws in regard to the packing, preparation, and 
cure of this roast beef, we have found it necessary to make all our goods to fill these 
requirements, simply because we can not very well distinguish or separate the 
product after it arrives here. These goods go to the torrid zones and to the frigid 
zones, and we can truthfully say that we have never had a complaint about the 
character of these goods from any quarter whatever in the last five years. Inasmuch 
as there is scarcely a country on the face of the globe that does not purchase these 
goods, we think that is a very fair test. 
We may say also that at the outbreak of the Spanish war we were found with 
very little stock on hand, and, owing to the urgent requirements of the Government, 
were compelled to work night and day to make the goods sufficiently fast to fill the 
orders. For that reason, so far as we can now tell from our books, almost every case 
you received from us must have been prepared in the year 1898. There may have 
been a few cases mixed in a trifle older, but the quantity in proportion to your 
entire purchase w'ould be trifling. 
Regarding the fresh beef (refrigerated) which we delivered to you in 1898, the 1244 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
writer can say that in almost every instance it passed under his personal supervision 
and inspection. The goods were all first class, taken indiscriminately out of our 
refrigerators, and were exactly the same grade of beef that we are selling on the 
market to all the local trade. The fresh beef was of the same character as furnished 
the United States Navy under their specifications, and we inclose you copy of their 
specifications for your inspection. 
As your orders were very urgent generally, and for immediate delivery in almost 
every case, they were taken from our beef refrigerators in this city, and our records 
show was from the same stock, as stated above, as that delivered to all the local 
butchers. 
We have had commendations from the stewards of those ships, praising the quality of 
the goods, and we can refer you to Lieutenant Crabb, of West Point (who superin- 
tended the loading of the hospital steamer Relief), who repeatedly requested that 
the goods come from us, owing to their good quality. 
Yours, truly, 
Armour Packing Company, 
W. B. Crag in, Agent. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Who was the agent of this company from whom you made the purchases? 
A. Mr. W. B. Cragin, sir. 
Q. This letter appears to be in answer to one which you had written on the 15th 
of February, I believe? 
A. I think the inquiry was by telephone, but I am not sure. 
Q. " Referring to your inquiry of the 15th, in relation to canned roast beef fur- 
nished you by our Mr. Brown during the months of May, June, July, and August, 
1898, and the succeeding months" 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You have not a retained record of that? 
A. I say I think it was by 'phone. 
Q. Yes; I say, then, there would be no record of that. 
A. No, sir. 
Q. There would be no record to show what the inquiry was? 
A. No, sir; but the inquiry was simply that I wished he would give me a letter in 
regard to the quality of the beef furnished by him to the United States Government, 
through me. I did not suggest anything in the letter. 
Q. Was that inquiry made in consequence of complaints that you had heard, or 
that were current, in regard to the roast beef? 
A. No, sir; it was more especially in consequence of the fact I was to come before 
this court. 
Q. Very well. 
The witness thereupon read the third letter, as follows: 
New York City, February 21, 1899. 
Col. C. A. Woodruff, A. C. G. S., 
New York City. 
Dear Sir: In reply to your inquiry, I beg to inform you that the roast beef fur- 
nished by me during the month of June was the Fairbank Canning Co.'s Wilson 
brand, and was the same quality as I furnished the Navy, and was packed from Gov- 
ernment inspected cattle. 
Yours, very respectfully, 
Samuel Heyman. 
The Witness. Samuel Heyman is the agent of the Nelson Morris Company. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Is that all of the letter? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1245 
A. That is all of it, sir. 
Q. These letters, I understand, Colonel, would cover all of the different transactions 
in regard to the purchase of canned roast beef in New York? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Are there any other companies? 
A. Yes, sir; I purchased more from the Armour Packing Company than I did from 
either one of those three. 
Q. You wish to incorporate these letters as part of your answer to the questions 
that have gone before? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Major Lee. Subject to the calling of any of the parties who wrote these letters, I 
enter no objection. 
The Recorder. This is your witness. 
Major Lee. I thought he was recalled. 
The Recorder. Not at my request, but in response to your wish that he be recalled. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I was not in court when the colonel was 
examined; and while I do not object to saying that he is my witness on this point, 
I understood, strictly, that he would be recalled for examination on my part as repre- 
senting General Miles, from the fact that I had not been present at the court when 
he was examined-that is, I do not think I heard his testimony. 
The Recorder. Certainly. That is nothing with which I have any concern, of 
course. The examination was completed. If General Miles was not represented at 
that time that is another affair. But I had no desire to recall him. I only recalled 
him at your request. 
Major Lee. Provided the matter is understood, it is not material to me, as to that 
phase particularly. I merely wanted it to be put right, that I understood the colonel 
would be recalled, because I had not had the opportunity of cross-examining him. 
That is all. Let it go the other way, however. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. You cite, in your testimony, an instance in regard to some canned roast beef 
being sent to Madison Barracks. 
A. It was there. 
Q. It was there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And that they wished to issue it to the troops and furnish a new quantity? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What is that quantity of 400 pounds, of which you speak as being sent there? 
Was it in the nature of a travel ration? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How is this canned roast beef 
A. It was sent there as a travel ration. 
Q. I presume that you have no knowledge of how it got there-in what way it 
came there? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Whether with a detachment of troops that were sent out at one time? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. What has been the habitual meat travel ration in the Army? 
A. It has been corned beef and roast beef; more generally corned beef. I think 
the first three years the roast beef was on the list as a travel ration-there was some- 
thing like 2,500 pounds of it issued as a travel ration. 
Q. As a travel ration? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And after that its issue practically ceased? 1246 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. No, sir; in 1895 there were some posts in the Department of the East that had 
it. The post at Preble was using it-one battery post, composed of about 70 men. 
They used it at the rate of, I should say, 300 pounds a year. 
Q. The records of the Subsistence Department, with which you are of course famil- 
iar, would show the amount of canned roast beef that was purchased, would they 
not? The return there would show how much had been purchased and used in the 
last twenty years-say, prior to the war? 
A. Well, yes, sir; from 1878, the time when I think they started. I think the 
Army first purchased it in 1878. 
Q. In making your examinations and inspections of this canned roast beef, which 
you bought last year, did you ever have any occasion to or did you verify the contents 
of the cans as to weight, when purchased? 
A. No, sir; we bought it by the can. 
Q. You bought it by the can? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Would not the returns show so many 6-pound cans, or 3-pound cans, or 2-pound 
vans? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How was it borne on the returns, as pounds? 
A. No, sir; as so many cans. 
Q. Under the heading of 
A. Of different sizes. 
Q. Different sizes? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. A 2-pound can, then, would be supposed to contain 2 pounds of beef, would it 
not? 
A. A 2-pound can will not contain 2 pounds, net. 
Q. Did you ever test it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Can you state about what percentage of salt, if any, there was in the canned 
roast beef which you bought? 
A. A very small percentage, I should say. You could not tell from tasting it. The 
only information that I have on the subject is that I have understood there were 
something like four-tenths of 1 per cent. 
Q. Can you tell about what proportion there was of what they call foot jelly, 1 
believe? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you ever open these cans and take them apart to see about the constituents? 
A. I opened a good many of them; yes, sir. 
Q. Then you had no information on that point? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. As to the tallow, or grease, or whatever it might be, that was there? 
A. I thought that was a part of the meat. 
Q. Have you any knowledge of the kind of cattle which were used in canning, and 
what parts of the cattle? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Have you ever investigated that subject? 
A. The parts, I should say, were mostly the same parts that they usually use for 
corning. I have always understood so-that is, I do not think they used the whole 
animal. 
Q. What parts of it, so far as you know, within your knowledge? 
A. I should imagine that they used the flank and the chuck. 
Q. How many complaints come to you in regard to the canned roast beef which 
was furnished the Army this last year? Have any complaints been brought to your 
attention in any way? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1247 
A. You mean- 
Q. As to canned roast beef? 
A. Prior to any particular time? 
Q. No; I will say during the operations, or up to the end of the year, December. 
A. December? 
Q. November or December. 
A. Yes, sir; I saw quite a large number of the officers, acquaintances of mine, in 
New York, who came by way of Camp Wykoff. My impression is that one or two 
of them spoke very favorably of the roast beef. The majority of them did not. The 
majority of them spoke unfavorably of it. Both the favorable and the unfavorable 
comments, however, were entirely personal matters, you understand? 
Q. Yes, sir; of course, that was a matter of general information? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. It came to your knowledge in that way? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. The majority of officers who spoke about it spoke about it unfavorably; they 
said it was not satisfactory? 
A. Yes, sir; the majority of them did not speak favorably of it as a ration. 
Q. Will you please state whether you had made any recommendation with reference 
to its use as a ration for the Army? Were you called upon for any recommendation 
by the Commissary-General with regard to its use? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. I believe, in answer to a question, on your examination you stated that in the 
last twenty-five years you were in a position to be cognizant of provisioning large 
expeditions, except that of Wounded Knee, in 1891; and in answer to a further ques- 
tion as to fresh beef on the hoof being taken as an article of ration, you answered, 
"Not to my knowledge; I never saw it and never participated when any was taken 
along." Now, Colonel, being in a position to know, I would like you to name any 
detail, or so far as you can, any of those large expeditions in the West, when beef on 
the hoof was not taken along, either by the commissary department or the con- 
tractor. 
A. I am pretty sure none was taken along in the expedition of 1874, the one which 
guarded the Northern Pacific boundary survey, which went down from Montana. 
And then in the case of the expedition of General Terry, well, that was hardly an 
expedition; there were only two companies that were out about five months in 
1875 
Q. Excuse me for interrupting; I am referring to the larger expeditions? 
A. Yes, sir; then in the 1876 campaign, General Terry, General Gibbon, and 
General Custer, we left the post on the 17th of March, 1876, and returned, I think, 
early in October. Then we met General Crooke, coming down the Rosebud. There 
were six companies of the Seventh Infantry in the Montana column, four of the 
Second Cavalry; General Custer had his whole regiment; then General Miles came 
with his regiment; then General Otis came with a battalion, I believe, which was 
composed partially of his-no, his battalion, I think, was entirely of the Twenty-sec- 
ond Infantry, his old regiment-and Colonel Moore had a battalion of the Sixth and 
Seventeenth, I think; and General Crooke's outfit, I think; I do not know how many 
regiments, but a large number of companies belonging to different organizations. I 
do not remember of seeing any beef cattle taken along by the commissary department, 
or driven by the contractor of either one of these outfits. General Crooke, of course, 
came up to Goose Creek, and established a camp there, from which he made his 
expedition, when he had his fight there on the Rosebud about the middle of June. 
From there he made his expeditions, at the time that he met General Terry, on the 
Rosebud. I think there were over one-half of the organizations of the Army repre- 
sented there, and I did not know of any being in that expedition. 1248 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
The next largest one was the troops gathering from the Department of the Mis- 
souri, which was then the largest department; and I was temporarily acting as chief 
commissary at the time of what was called the Thornburg massacre. Of course the 
troops went from the Department of the Missouri, and also from the Department of 
the Platte. I do not recall purchasing any beef cattle for them, those coming from 
that department. 
Then in New Mexico, the five years I was there, there was almost constant cam- 
paigning. The largest outfit there was the one of 1880; and, to the best of my 
knowledge, no beef cattle were taken along on that expedition. Beef cattle were 
purchased by the commissary for the permanent camp at Old Fort Cummings. That 
was a fort which had really been abandoned. I have forgotten how many companies 
there were there, but it was a very large outfit. 
Then the fall before they had campaigned out into the Navajo country, and around 
the present new Fort Lewis, as we used to call it; and I never knew of them taking 
any. I was chief commissary of the Department of the Columbia for five years. 
There were no extended operations there, no extensive ones, except some of the 
movements of the troops, practice-marching, and that sort of thing; and I think 
none was taken along in any of those. And I had al ways understood that none was 
taken along in the Department of Arizona, while they were pursuing Geronimo. I 
do not know that; I was not there. 
Q. Generally speaking in regard to that, how would the troops be supplied with 
fresh beef? You spoke of the matter of one camp; how would these troops occasion- 
ally get an issue of fresh beef? * 
A. They did not get it. 
Q. They did not get it? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Have you any knowledge, or do you recall, whether General Crooke's expedi- 
tion of March, 1876 (what was called the Crazy Horse campaign, when General 
Reynolds of the cavalry accompanied him), took any fresh beef along, driven beef? 
A. No, sir; I do not know. 
Q. You have no knowledge of that? 
A. No, sir; I was in Montana. In his report he did not say anything about it. 
That is, I looked at his report, and I do not recall that he said anything about it. 
Q. You do not recall that they started out with some fresh beef? 
A. The records of the Commissary-General's office would show that exactly, I 
imagine. 
Q. You are familiar with those records. Do you recall that a question came up 
there and that the Commissary Department declined to replace the beef, in conse- 
quence of the Indians having stolen or run off a portion of the herd? Do you recall 
that they declined to replace the beef, or had some correspondence about it, and it 
ended in that way? 
A. No, sir; I do not recall that. 
Q. And in General Crooke's Powder River expedition of the fall or winter of 1876 
and 1877, up in the vicinity of McKinney and Crazy Woman, do you know, or is it 
within your knowledge, whether he had any fresh beef taken along-I mean by con- 
tractors or anyone else-to give the troops an occasional issue of fresh beef, on that 
expedition? 
A. No, sir; I was a line officer up in Montana. 
Q. You have no knowledge of those expeditions? 
A. No knowledge of those details; no, sir. 
Q. You were in General Gibbon's campaigns in 1876 or 1877, were you not? 
A. Both. 
Q. Can you be positive that you had none on the hoof in such campaigns or any 
of them? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1249 
A. Well, I am pretty positive; I do not recall seeing any driven along. 
Q. Of course, I mean fresh beef being furnished on the hoof. 
A. Certainly; I understand what you mean. 
Q. Being brought in in some way. It might have met the command, or 
A. Well, before we got down there, until we reached civilization, there were five 
months when we did not see a house or a building. Before that, on the way down, 
we made a pretty long march-a matter of 200 miles or so-and I am rather under the 
impression that I did it myself-I was acting partially at the time in a capacity 
which necessitated my looking after that a little-we would buy a steer or something. 
Q. You had fresh beef in that way? 
A. On this marching down; yes, sir. 
Q. You are not positive in your recollection as to whether any was brought along 
or taken along with the command? 
A. I am quite positive. 
Q. That none was, with either expedition? 
A. Yes, sir; I know there was none taken along in the 1877 campaign. I am posi- 
tive of that, because we had pack animals and we traveled faster than cattle 
usually go. 
Q. And in 1876? 
A. We had wagons there. I know we got half rations for some time, and I am 
quite positive there was no beef issued-quite positive. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Has any of the beef that was sent by you to the troops in Cuba or Porto Rico 
been returned to New York, to your knowledge? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Have you examined it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Please state to the court what its condition is. 
A. Some came there that was purchased by me and some that was purchased by 
Colonel Smith. That which Colonel Smith purchased went to Tampa, and from 
there, on the transports, to Siboney; and that which I purchased went to Newport 
News, and from there, I believe, indirectly, by way of Ponce, to Siboney, and later 
it was brought to Camp Wikoff, and got there about the 1st of September, and 
remained at Camp Wikoff until that camp was broken up, and was sent from there 
into my depot. I overhauled it to see in w'hat condition it was. I opened quite a 
number of cans. I opened it and made stews with green vegetables-that is, fresh 
potatoes and onions, and with evaporated potatoes and evaporated onions-and 1 
never opened a can that was not good ami palatable. The postmaster of Stamford, 
Conn., asked me if I would send him some. I sent him three cans by express, at his 
expense, and wrote him a letter giving a history of it, and he acknowledged the 
receipt of it, and said that he had used it as a stew with onions and potatoes, and 
also cold, sliced, as a sandwich. 
Q. How much of it was returned? 
A. There was, as I remember, all told, I should say, about twelve or fifteen thou- 
sand pounds-quite a quantity. 
Q. How much was recovered at Montauk after the troops had left there? 
A. Quite a quantity. Some of it was taken off by some of the troops South, so I 
was informed; that is, they picked it up and took it along for future use. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I did not quite catch what you said in regard to the matter of this beef which 
was sent back. Who sent this beef back? 
A. It was beef that was put on board these transports. It went to Siboney and 
then floated there in the transports until they got into Santiago; and then, at San- 
S. Doc. 270 79 1250 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
tiago, it was issued to some of our returning troops from there. Nearly every one 
of these cases, for instance, which T opened had stenciled on it the name of some 
particular regiment. 
Q. Then there was a record, or a means of identifying the fact that they absolutely 
went into the hands of the troops, and that this was beef which they had discarded, 
or brought back in this way? 
A. Not necessarily discarded; they had brought back these cases of which I am 
speaking; yes, sir. There was my mark on it, showing that I was the purchasing 
officer, and the shipping directions. I have a stencil cutter, so that I can recognize 
my stencils. Of course other people may have similar stencils, but I can almost 
alwrays tell them, anyhow. This showed where it went. For instance, take one of 
my own, if you please, that went to Newport News; that fact was shown, and then 
that it went to Siboney and Santiago, because it was marked with the number of one 
of those regiments that was down there, as part of their ration to come back with-I 
imagined that it was to come back with-and it was brought back to Montauk. I 
shipped all the stores to Montauk that did not come in by sea, and then, when they 
broke that camp up, they turned it into me. 
Q. Who turned it in, Colonel; the commissary? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. The commissary officer? 
A. Lieutenant Hayes, I think his name is, of the artillery. 
Q. Have you any information on the subject that an effort was made there by 
one or more regiments to turn in to the commissary this canned roast beef, and 
get some other meat ration, and that it was declined? 
A. At Montauk? 
Q. Yes, sir. Have you any knowledge or information on that subject? 
A. No, sir; and considering, Major, that those troops at Montauk were supplied 
with an abundance that no other troops, I think, in the world, ever received, in- 
cluding fresh beef-and I had made the contracts for Montauk; I was not stationed 
there; I had made the contracts there, and the beef was down there before anybody 
got back from Siboney, by the carload-I say, considering that, and considering that a 
man like General Weston was sent down there to issue those stores, I should hardly 
think that that was done. 
Q. I am speaking of the canned roast beef. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That came on the ships. 
A. I do not think General Weston would make them eat canned roast beef when 
he had fresh beef on hand. 
Q. You entirely misapprehend my question, I believe. I have not made myself 
sufficiently clear in regard to that point. 
A. I beg your pardon. 
Q. The point I. was trying to get at was, that there was a lot of canned roast beef 
which had come back in your possession. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And I wanted to get at whether this came from troops that had received that 
beef and had turned it back, or whether it came back from any officers of the Sub- 
sistence Department? 
A. It came from troops who brought it back there, and an officer of the Subsistence 
Department-that is, a lieutenant of artillery-who gathered up the remnants at 
Camp Wikoff, and he shipped the subsistence stores in to me. Those stores were 
issued to a regiment coming from Santiago; and when they got to Wikoff they either 
threw them aw'ay or turned them in to the commissary. 
Q. That is just the point. 
A. In other words, they left them at Wikoff. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1251 
Q. That is the point I was getting at. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. My point was that that was done; that more or less of the canned roast beef had 
been discarded by the troops. 
A. Not discarded in that way, Major. It is a custom in the Army, and I think it 
was maintained in this war, for the Subsistence Department to issue fully the amount 
that would be required.' For instance, I was issuing orders yesterday relative to 
troops traveling to California, and I designated ten days as the time for making the 
trip from Fort Hamilton to San Francisco so as to make sure that they would have 
an abundance of supplies; and these troops coming to Montauk were so supplied, I 
imagine. I did not issue down there at Santiago; I never was at Santiago, sir. When 
they got there they had more stores than they wanted-more than they had used on 
the trip; and it would certainly have been cruelty to have compelled those men to 
eat travel rations after they reached Montauk, and I do not think it was done. Then 
the natural thing would be to turn them in and issue something else to them, and I 
have not any doubt but what General Westson did it. In fact, there are positive 
orders to the contrary, that travel rations shall not be used when the troops reach 
their destination, because they cost more. 
Q. Coming back to the main point of the matter, I want to know whether it was 
brought to your knowledge that the troops there had abandoned and thrown away or 
discarded quite a considerable quantity or quantities of the travel ration, as it is 
termed, of the canned roast beef, and left it there at Montauk, which was gathered up 
by the commissary officer and of which this beef perhaps forms a part? 
A. Major, you use the word "discarded." I do not exactly know what you mean 
by that. The official modus operandi is that if a company reached Montauk Point 
with any travel rations on hand, they should turn them in to the Subsistence 
Department. 
Q. Yes. 
A. To the officer of the Subsistence Department. We will say that they arrived 
there on the first, and they were rationed to the fifth. 
Q. Yes. 
A. They would turn in five days' rations, and they would be entitled then to five 
days of such rations as were being issued at Montauk; and if you choose to use the 
term "discarded," they would discard the travel ration and the Subsistence Depart- 
ment would take it. 
Q. The point that I meant to bring out in regard to the discarding of this canned 
roast beef was that the regiments had had more of it than they could use. I do not 
know that there was any record kept; there was no ration return or anything of that 
kind with reference to it, I believe; and the point I was trying to get at was that a 
good deal of that canned roast beef was abandoned by the troops and left on the 
ground at Montauk. 
A. Yes, sir; I presume it was, sir. 
Q. And what I was trying to ascertain was whether you had any information that 
that was gathered up? 
A. Undoubtedly. 
Q. But not turned in by these officers, or anything in its place; but it was gath- 
ered up? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And in that way this has come into your possession? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I am simply trying to trace how this canned roast beef which you have now, 
to which you refer, came into your possession? 
A. That is the way it came into my possession. It came up from Santiago, accom- 
panying the troops, for a part of their sustenance on the trip. 1252 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Yes. 
A. When the transports reached Montauk these stores were taken out and left at 
Montauk. 
Q. Yes. 
A. And when the camp was abandoned they were sent to me. There was not any 
need, perhaps, of ration returns there, because we did not issue rations much at 
Camp Wikoff; we issued everything. 
Q. If you are familiar with the subject, I will simply invite your attention to this 
fact in connection with that matter-not in any spirit of discussion of this matter 
with the witness at all-that in one or more instances, at least one case, an officer 
who had several barrels, not having a very large command, sought to turn it in to 
the commissary department at Montauk, and it was declined with the statement that 
they did not wish to receive it; and that was simply abandoned? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Probably some of that may have been gathered up. I simply invite your atten- 
tention to that as a matter of testimony before the court here, 
A. I presume that possibly that particular commissary did not, sir. There was an 
abundance of rations there of all kinds and descriptions, from fresh oranges and 
lemons to eggs, and oatmeal, and milk, and everything of that kind, so that it was 
not necessary for them to hang onto the canned roast beef. 
Q. I am not going to discuss that matter at all. I was there and know something 
of the conditions; and of course I do not wish to pursue that line of interrogation on 
that subject, because while some were surfeited others were not. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. The only point in that matter, Colonel, is that these stores came to you, not 
directly, as I understand, from the troops immediately, but 
A. No, sir. 
Q. But had come around in that way and through an officer of the Subsistence 
Department? 
A. The troops had not had them for five or six months. 
Major Lee. That is all. 
The Witness. I want to say one thing, simply, as the senior officer of the Sub- 
sistence Department on duty, and that is that all through this war, whether the 
Subsistence Department succeeded or failed, it was animated, I think, by a desire 
to do all it could for the benefit of the line of the Army. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. These stores which you received, and which have been discussed so elaborately 
here, were all good articles, were they not? 
A. Yes, sir; they were. 
Q. Just the same as when they were first delivered? 
A. Yes, sir. I showed them to Dr. Gilman, of the Army, in the Army Building. 
I had him down to examine them. He was a division surgeon at Siboney; had a 
hospital there, so he informed me; and I brought him down especially to look at 
them. He said that they had a better appearance there than they had down at 
Siboney, owing, he presumed, to the climate. 
Q. Therefore the abandonment of these articles in the camp at Montauk Point 
was no discredit to the article itself? 
A. I suppose they did not want them, sir. No, sir, not because the article had 
deteriorated-simply because they did not want the articles. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Could you state whether they disliked them, or liked them, or did not care 
for them, or what? 
A. Well, I imagine that they did not care for them and did not want them. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1253 
The Recorder. There is one more witness whom I desire to call to-day-Mr. 
Moorhouse. I wish to recall him. 
TESTIMONY OF C. H. MOORHOUSE. 
C. H. Moorhouse was recalled as a witness by the Recorder, and, being warned 
that he was still under oath, was examined. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Upon what duty were you engaged during the latter part of July, 1898, and the 
month of August, 1898? 
A. I was with the Armour Company at Tampa at that time. 
Q. And in what capacity? 
A. I had charge of the correspondence and also the transportation. 
Q. What troops were at Lakeland about the 1st of August? 
A. A detachment of the First Cavalry, I think the First Ohio, and a detachment 
of the Fifth. I believe that was all. 
Q. Did you supply beef to that command at that time? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Please state what rejections there were after the 1st of August. 
A. As near as I can recollect, there were two rejections. There were more than 
that, but two that I saw myself. 
Q. About how many were there altogether, to the best of your recollection? 
A. Possibly three or four. 
Q. And in how many cases was the entire proffer of meat rejected? 
A. Twice, I think. 
Q. Do you remember about what date? 
A. Along about the 1st of August and later on, which I do not remember. 
Q. About how far on in the month? 
A. Oh, I should think six or eight days. 
Q. Were there any other complaints aside from these rejections of the entire 
quantity? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What action was taken by you with respect to this? 
A. At the time of the second rejection I went up there; and if I remember right, 
there was only one very small piece rejected in that shipment. 
Q. At about what day of the month was that? 
A. I suppose that was the 13th or 14th of August, something like that. 
Q. Did you go up in August prior to the 13th or 14th? 
A. At one time; yes, sir. 
Q. And was that in consequence of the rejection or for any other reason? 
A. No, sir; it was just accidentally that I went there, and the rejection took place 
that day. 
Q. To the best of your recollection, about what day of August was that? 
A. I should say the 2d or 3d, along there; the very first part of August. 
Q. Could you swear positively that it was very near the 1st, say the 1st, 2d, or 3d? 
A. Yes; the early part of August. 
Q. Would it be as late as the 5th or 6th? 
A. I don't remember, sir. 
Q. State what took place at your first visit to Lakeland in August, whatever the 
date may have been, near the beginning of the month. 
A. The beef was shipped up there about 8 o'clock, I think that was the time the 
train left Tampa, and I went up on a train possibly an hour or an hour and a half 
later. I saw these six quarters of beef lying on the depot platform. I was very 
much surprised, and I saw that the burlaps had been opened; and I immediately 1254 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
went out to the camp and saw Captain Carmichael. I asked him in regard to this, 
in regard to why this had been done, what was the matter, and he said it was 
rejected. That is all that I remember in connection with it. 
Q. What other conversation was there at that time with any other persons? 
A. None at all that I know of, sir. 
Q. Who was the brigade commissary at that time? 
A. Captain Carmichael. 
Q. Did you have any conversation whatever at this first visit in August with any 
other persons than Captain Carmichael? 
A. Oh, yes, sir. 
Q. And what were they? 
A. That was in regard to the board of survey that was appointed in connection 
with that. 
Q. When was that? 
A. That was at the same time. Captain Carmichael referred me to Colonel Day, 
1 think it was. 
Q. Please state all of the conversation that took place with him. 
A. I went up to see Colonel Day, or, rather, Captain Carmichael informed me that 
I could have a board of survey appointed. I went up to see Colonel Day and he 
appointed this board of survey. It was composed of three lieutenants, whom I do 
not know; I would not know them again if I saw them. They went down to the 
depot and accepted the beef; and Mr. Hendricks, the local butcher, immediately 
hauled it up to the camp again. 
Q. Who was Hendricks? 
A. Hendricks was the local butcher of Lakeland, sir. 
Q. Was he present at the meeting of the board of survey? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you see them examine the beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Who else was present at the interview with Captain Carmichael, and where 
did that interview take place? 
A. That interview took place out at the camp. 
Q. At the camp? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was it in his office, or his storehouse? Please state fully. 
A. It was in his storehouse; then I went up there, I recollect now, to check up 
the account; and I referred to this meat and he told me that he was very sorry about 
the rejection. That is how it was. That was the first intimation I recollect of hav- 
ing about it. So then he told me I could have this board of survey and he was the 
only party that I remember as being present. Lieutenant Dixon might have been 
there. 
Q. Was it in the storehouse or in his office? 
A. In the storehouse, sir. 
Q. How large was it? 
A. A very large building. 
Q. Was anyone else in the building, that you saw? 
A. I think Lieutenant Dixon was all. 
Q. And was Lieutenant Dixon present at the hearing? 
A. I do not think so. 
Q. How far away was he from those who were parties to the interview? 
A. I suppose from 12 to 15 feet, possibly. 
Q. Are you acquainted with Lieutenant Gampfer, formerly of the First Ohio Cav- 
alry? 
A. I do not remember him at all, sir. 
Q. Did you have any interview with him? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1255 
A. Not that I can remember. 
Q. When were you next at Lakeland after this visit very early in the month? 
A. I think it was four or five days afterwards, at least; possibly a little longer than 
that. 
Q. With whom was that interview, or did you have interviews with anybody 
during that visit? 
A. With Captain Carmichael. 
Q. And what was the subject of it? What was the conversation? 
A. It was in regard to the ice boxes. We were then shipping in these ice boxes, 
and the cases were opened up; and he did not like the looks of the beef and decided 
to reject it. Then, after consideration-after making an examination of every piece- 
there was one very small piece rejected, if I recollect right, not over 6 or 7 pounds. 
That was all that was rejected of the lot. 
Q. During this period-that is, the latter part of July and the greater part of the 
month of August-who attended to your business at Lakeland? 
A. Mr. D. B. Hendricks. 
Q. And what was his duty there? 
A. To accept the beef and take it out. 
Q. And what was his occupation? 
A. He was the butcher. 
Q. Was he present at either of these interviews? 
A. At every one of them, sir. 
Q. At every one of them? 
A. I think without exception. 
Q. Were there any questions addressed to you, during either of your interviews at 
Lakeland, by anybody, with respect to the chemical preservation of the beef? 
A. No, sir; not at all. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. You are testifying in regard to the rejections of beef down there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Have you any record of the rejections or did you keep any record of it? 
A. Not I, personally; no, sir. 
Q. You did not? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Have you got a record in your office of just what was rejected by your troops 
there, and why? 
A. I think we can find it. 
Q. All of it? 
A. We should have all of it. 
Q. You are now testifying in regard to rejections of meat, from memory only, are 
you not? 
A. Yes, sir; entirely from memory. 
Q. You are not positive in regard to that? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You would not put your memory against the written statements and memo- 
randums of the subsistence officer there, would you, in regard to rejections, if they 
happened to disagree with your memory? 
A. I would with the exception of dates, sir. 
Q. That is, if the subsistence officer of the Government, a United States officer 
there who was receiving meat, would note down, for instance, that on a certain date 
so much was rejected, and it should happen to be one, or two, or three days more 
than what you have testified to, will you put your memory in regard to the matter 
against his record? I believe that you stated that you would. But would you, on 
reflection? 1256 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I would, with the exception of dates, as I say. 
Q. You would, with the exception of dates. Would you as to the number of 
rejections? If he had put down in his book, in his own handwriting four rejec- 
tions-and you remember only two, as I recall? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You would put your recollection, without reference to any memorandum, as 
against his written declaration? 
A. I would, yes, sir. 
Q. All right; that is what I wanted to get at. So that you consider that your 
recollection, from memory, would be better than the officer's entry in that case, if 
it disagreed with your recollection? 
A. Yes, as far as 
Q. That is what I wanted. You said that when you came up there, you saw these 
quarters lying on the platform there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And that the burlaps were off of them, and you were very much surprised. 
For what purpose did you suppose the burlaps had been taken off-to examine the 
beef, or taken off wantonly? 
A. To examine the beef, sir. 
Q. You speak about a board of survey being in session, and that there were three 
lieutenants. Are you sure they were all lieutenants who were on the board? 
A. I am quite sure, sir. 
Q. Well, what wTere they-first or second lieutenants? 
A. First and second both, I understand. 
Q. How many first lieutenants? 
A. I could not tell you, sir. 
Q. How many second lieutenants? 
A. I could not tell you that, either. 
Q. Do you know the names of any of them? 
A. No, sir; I do not. 
Q. Did you see the order that convened the board? Did you see any paper in 
reference to it? 
A. I did not; no sir. 
Q. Were you asked to make any statement before the board? 
A. No, sir; they were merely to go down there and see the beef. 
Q. They were merely to go down and look at it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And where was that, that you first saw them? Where did you meet them? 
At Colonel Day's? 
A. I did not see all of them at Colonel Day's; no, sir. » 
Q. How many did you see at Colonel Day's? 
A. I think only one, sir. 
Q. Only one; who was that? A first lieutenant, or a second lieutenant? 
A. I could not tell you, sir. 
Q. Might it not have been a captain? 
A. I do not think so; no, sir. 
Q. You saw one there. Where did you see the other two? 
A. When they arrived at the depot. 
Q. On their arrival at the depot? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How long was the board in session? 
A. Just a very few minutes. 
Q. When did it make up its proceedings? 
A. Right there, immediately. 
Q. Did it write the proceedings out there? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1257 
A. No; I do not think there was any writing done at all. 
Q. So far as you know there was not? 
A. So far as I know. 
Q. Do you know whether they made a report to the commanding officer in regard 
to their action-an official report? 
A. I do not; I suppose they did. 
Q. You presume that they did? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. So that would be a part of their proceedings? You were there during their 
entire proceedings? 
A. At the depot? 
Q. Yes, at the depot. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. At further proceedings you were not present? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. At their deliberations? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Where was this man Hendricks? 
A. Hendricks was standing right along side of me. 
Q. Right along side of you? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What was his particular business there? 
A. His particular business was to haul the beef out to the camps. 
Q. You were hauling it out to the camps? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. The troops did not come after that, then? 
A. They decided not to do it, then. 
Q. When did you begin delivering it at the camp? 
A. We received a letter from Captain Carmichael requesting us to do it, sir. 
Q. Requesting you to deliver it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. To the various camps? 
A. No, sir; just merely to his commissary. 
Q. To his commissary? 
A. At his warehouse; yes, sir. 
Q. That was part of your contract, was it not? 
A. To make the delivery? 
Q. You were not to deliver it at the depots, but were to deliver it to the commis- 
saries, were you not? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. To the commissary officers? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. So he invited your attention to that clause of the contract, and you delivered 
it up there, and you had this man take it? 
A. Prior to that it was subject to his approval about doing that. 
Q. You speak of these two occasions when you went up there; and you say once 
you went up by accident, I believe? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. To Lakeland? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That was about when? 
A. That was the early part of August. 
Q. What do you mean by the early part? Do you mean any where from the 1st 
to the 10th? 
A. No, sir. 1258 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. What do you mean; on the 1st or 2d? 
A. I should say on the 1st to the 4th or 5th. 
Q. Then you call the early part of August from the 1st to the 5th? 
A. Yes, sir; you might call it that. 
Q. You went there, you say, by accident? 
A. So far as the rejection of the beef was concerned, yes, sir; I went up there 
merely to check the account. 
Q. Did you receive any telegrams or notices prior to that, or did the company 
which you represented there receive them, as to the beef sometimes not being just 
what it ought to be; or had you received any information to that effect? 
A. I do not remember anything about that. 
Q. You do not remember it; you still may have had it, and not remember it? Or 
are you so accurate in your memory that you could state positively to the court that 
you did not receive any such telegrams? 
A. No, sir; I am not. 
Q. You memory is not accurate upon that point, then? 
A. About any prior rejections? No, sir. 
Q. Then about the 5th of August, between the 1st and 5th, you were up there, 
and at this time this affair occurred in regard to this beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Whom did you see when you first went up there; whom did you call on? 
A. At Lakeland, you mean? 
Q. Yes, at that time. Where did you go? 
A. I got off the train at the platform and saw that beef all over the platform there 
promiscuously. 
Q. How much was there of it? 
A. There were six quarters-a carcass and a half, I think, sir. 
Q. Where did you go then? 
A. Then I immediately w7ent up to the camp to see Captain Carmichael. 
Q. How far was the camp from there? 
A. I think it was nearly a mile. 
Q. Did you walk or ride? 
A. I walked. 
Q. To whom did you report, or whom did you see when you went there? Where 
did you go when you first got there? 
A. I saw Captain Carmichael. 
Q. You went to his office? 
A. I w'ent to his office in the warehouse; yes, sir. 
Q. You went into his office? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Where was his office? 
A. In the warehouse. 
Q. Separated from the other part of the place, or a part of it? 1 mean, was it a 
distinct room in the warehouse? 
A. No, sir; merely a desk. 
Q. Merely a desk in the warehouse? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you see anyone else there at all? Were there any men about there, any 
soldiers? 
A. I think Lieutenant Dixon was there. 
Q. Were there any soldiers about there; any fatigue parties or other men about 
there? 
A. No, sir; I did not see any. 
Q. Will you swear that there were not any there? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1259 
A. No, sir; I could not. 
Q. Could you swear, of your own knowledge, that there was not any other person 
in that warehouse but Lieutenant Dixon? 
A. No, I could not. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. You say you do not remember Lieutenant Gampfer at all? 
A. No, sir; I do not. 
Q. At any visit that you made to Lakeland? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Do you remember meeting Dr. Castle? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you ever have any conversation with Dr. Castle? 
A. Upon one occasion; yes, sir. 
Q. What occasion was that? 
A. The rejection of the beef that was shipped in ice cases, when I think I first met 
him. 
Q. What was the subject of the conversation? 
A. Captain Carmichael merely sent for him and he came down there. That was 
upon the occasion when they afterwards accepted, the beef, sir. He came down and 
looked it over, and it was through his instrumentality that the beef was accepted. 
Q. The beef that had been shipped in these ice boxes? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was that the first shipment in the ice box? 
A. No, sir; I do not think so. 
Q. Was it at that time that the ice box was required to be lined with paper for 
future shipments? 
' A. Well, we invariably did that, anyhow. 
Q. You did that from the beginning? 
A. I could not state as to that. 
Q. Was there anyone else present besides Dr. Castle? 
A. Mr. Hendricks was there and Captain Carmichael, and Lieutenant Dixon came 
over and looked at it. 
Q. Was all this consignment accepted? 
A. With the exception of one very small piece. 
Q. Why was not that accepted? 
A. I think it was the outside of a fore quarter, or something of the kind. I think 
that was the beef that was not accepted. I am not positive. 
Q. Was there any mention made at that time that chemicals had been used? 
A. None at all that I can recollect; no, sir. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Do I understand that this Mr. Hendricks was present at both your interviews 
with Captain Carmichael? 
A. No, sir; not the first one. 
Q. He was present at the second but not at the first? 
A. At the second; yes, sir. 
Q. And this beef that the board of survey reported favorably upon, as I under- 
stand you to say, was not finally accepted? I think you said that in your original 
testimony. 
A. Yes, sir; it was not finally accepted. 
Q. And was that the beef which was taken away and a part of it given to someone 
whose name you gave? 
A. To this same Mr. Hendricks, who was there on the occasion. 
Q. So that that issue never reached the troops? 1260 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. No, sir. 
Q. And the colonel of the regiment was Colonel Day? 
A. Colonel Day. 
Q. He was the person who appointed the board? 
A. Yes, sir. 
0. How do you know that these lieutenants approved of the beef and reported 
favorably upon it? 
A. Because the one who had charge-the foreman-rather advised me 
Q. He told you so? 
A. (Continuing.) That such was the case, and I immediately had it put on the 
wagons and sent out. 
Q. And who told you, finally, that it was rejected? 
A. Captain Carmichael. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Captain Carmichael was present at both of these interviews, I understand? 
A. At both; yes, sir. 
Q. At the first interview Mr. Hendricks was present? 
A. With Captain Carmichael? 
Q. Yes. 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Was the lieutenant of the Tenth Cavalry present at that one? 
A. I don't know; who was he? 
Q. Lieutenant Dixon. 
A. Yes, sir; I am quite positive he was. 
Q. At the first? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And was he at the second? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Lieutenant Dixon was present at both? 
A. At both times; yes, sir. 
Q. And Mr. Hendricks at both, or only one? 
A. When I went out to see Captain Carmichael, Mr. Hendricks was not there. 
He was present when the board of survey accepted the beef, sir. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I want to ask you if you can state, under oath, that you did not make use of 
expressions in regard to the chemical preservation of beef, or words to that effect, to 
either Lieutenant Gampfer, or Dr. Castle, at any time? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You can swear that no such expression was used by you? 
A. By me. 
Q. To them, or to anyone in the party? 
A. Or to anyone else. 
Q. Were the discolored portions of any beef sent back to you at Tampa-I mean 
cut out; were any parts cut out and sent back or disposed of in such way as to be 
replaced, or indicating that it was not accepted? 
A. Of those shipments, sir? 
Q. At any time during your supply of these troops, I mean-at any time. 
A. I did not see all of it on its return. 
Q. That was not what I asked you. 
(The reporter read the question, as follows:) 
"Q. Were the discolored portions of any beef sent back to you at Tampa-I mean, 
cut out; were any parts cut out and sent back, or disposed of in such a way as to be 
replaced, or indicating that it was not accepted?" FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1261 
A. I do not think so, sir. 
Q. You do not think that any was. Can you swear that there was none sent back 
to you from there, from this camp? 
A. No, sir; I can not. 
By General Davis: 
Q. I think you mentioned two complete rejections of beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Then, if I am not mistaken, you said there were several other partial rejections? 
A. Two complete rejections? 
Q. Two rejections of the whole amount, and several others. I am not quite sure 
whether I understood you correctly? 
A. I do not think I said anything about two complete rejections. I said there 
were several rejections. 
Q. Several rejections? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And how many where the whole amount was rejected? 
A. There was one complete rejection of the quarters when I was there, sir. 
Q. And several others? 
A. Several others, I think. 
General Davis. Partial rejections. That is all. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, there are no more witnesses who have 
been summoned to appear to-day. 
Thereupon (at 4.20 o'clock p. m.) the court adjourned until Friday, March 31, 
1899, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C., 
Friday, March 31, 1899. 
The court met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
The Recorder: May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness Col- 
onel Greenleaf, of the Medical Department. 
TESTIMONY OF COL. CHARLES R. GREENLEAF. 
Col. Charles R. Greenleaf, U. S. A., was called as a witness by the recorder, 
and, having been first duly sworn, testified as follows. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. Charles R. Greenleaf; colonel, assistant surgeon-general. My present station 
is Washington, and my duty medical inspector of the Army. 
Q. On what duties were you engaged during the hostilities with Spain in 1898? 
A. I was chief surgeon of the Army in the field. 
Q. From what port in the United States did you sail? 
A. Charleston, S. C. 
Q. And about what date? 
A. I don't remember the date, but I sailed with General Miles. It was some time 
in July, I think. 
Q. Please state to the court, in narrative form, what your movements -were, after 
sailing from Charleston, in the field in active operations. 1262 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. We went to Cuba, stopping at Siboney; were there some days and then went 
to Guantanamo, where General Miles was organizing the Porto Rican campaign- 
from Guantanamo we sailed to Porto Rico, Guanica being the first point we reached, 
and then going to Ponce; there we stayed until, I think, about the 1st of September, 
when the General and his staff came back to the United States, landing in New 
York. 
Q. Did you return with him? 
A. I did. I was with him all the time. 
Q. While in Cuba what observations, if any, did you make in regard to the food 
supply of the Army there? 
A. Very little. My time was occupied with the management of the yellow-fever 
epidemic, which had appeared in the Army. 
Q. Do you remember whether the question was brought to your attention in any 
way during your stay in Cuba as the chief medical officer of the Army in the field? 
A. No, sir; it was not. 
Q. Do you remember whether any representations of any sort were made about it? 
A. About the food supply? 
Q. About the food supply. 
A. No, sir; except the hospital supplies. That was all. The only thing was with 
regard to the food for the hospitals. 
Q. None with reference to the supply of food for troops in the field? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. How long did you remain in Porto Rico? 
A. I forget exactly the time we reached Guanica, but I think July 25 was the 
date. We left Ponce about the 1st of September. 
Q. Did the matter of food supply come under your observation in Porto Rico as 
to the troops that were then serving there? 
A. In a general way, and through my inspectors and the inspections that I made 
myself. 
Q. Please state to the court, in narrative form, to what extent the food question 
came under your observation. State it as fully as you can to the court, in narrative 
form, what you know in respect to it. 
A. It was in a very general way. As a part of my duty as a medical officer I 
inquired, when inspecting troops in the field, and inquired, in regard to the manner 
in which cooking was done, whether the food was satisfactory to the troops, and 
required the inspectors to do the same thing. There were no complaints to speak 
of, except as to the difficulties of cookery in the field and poor cooks. But beyond 
that there were no complaints. The men were very busy. 
Q. Was the article of canned roast beef brought to your attention at any time 
while you were in the field? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Was your attention in any way drawn to the refrigerated beef supplied? 
A. No, sir, I don't think there was any refrigerated beef at Porto Rico while I 
was there. I think all the beef was what they called fresh beef. 
Q. Are you familiar with the article of the ration which is known as canned roast 
beef? 
A. No; not very familiar with it. 
Q. Did you ever use it yourself? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In the field? 
A. In Porto Rico. 
Q. Please state to the court what your experience with it was? 
A. Well, it was not pleasant to the sight, mawkish to the taste, without condiments, 
salt and pepper. I don't know' that I can say more than that. Personally, I dislike 
any food like that in the Tropics and so I ate very little of it. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1263 
Q. Are you able to say, from your observation of it, what its effects wrould be 
likely to be upon the health of the troops in the field who were assigned it as an 
article of ration? 
A. Well, I think that like all canned beef, if it is good and if it is prepared with 
condiments, salt and pepper, or mixed in stews of vegetables and is not used too 
much, that it is a proper food. I don't know that I should say a proper food; it is 
a food that might be used without detriment. 
Q. Suppose the circumstances were such as to require it to be used continually 
without the advantages of vegetables and condiments. What would be your esti- 
mate of it then? 
A. Well, I think it would pall so on the parties that were to eat it that they could 
not very well eat it. It is like anything else of that kind; if it is eaten continuously 
the stomach revolts. 
Q. Was it reported to you as the chief medical officer at any time that the sick- 
ness of the Army was attributable to either the canned roast beef or the refrigerated 
beef? 
A. No, sir. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Will you please state whether you made any special investigation with refer- 
ence to the canned roast beef there? 
A. No, sir; I did not. It was not brought to my attention at all. 
Q. You did not make any observation with reference to any cans opened or any 
examination of any cans with reference to any cans? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Your duties, as I understand from your testimony, were principally occupied 
with reference to the hospital. Do you mean that that was so both in Cuba and 
Porto Rico? 
A. Yes; I had the general management of the medical department of the troops 
in the field. 
Q. Will you please state, Colonel, whether any reference has been made to your 
department as to the suitability of this canned roast beef as a ration for our troops 
in the field under those circumstances. Have there been any recommendations or 
references made for a report from your department as to its suitability? 
A. No, sir, because that would not belong to my department; that would be in 
the Surgeon-General's Office. 
Q. Have you any information as to whether any such reference has been made 
there? 
A. No, sir; I have not. 
Q. By personal or general information? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. What was the extent of your experience with this canned roast beef? Please 
state to the court under what conditions you tried it down there. 
A. Well, as a part of my luncheon I was obliged to take what I could get when I 
was away from my proper mess outfit. 
Q. Please state approximately or to your best recollection how often you had 
occasion 
A. Only once or twice. 
Q. The matter, then, I understand, was not especially inquired into in connection 
with your duties? 
A. No, sir. The fact is we were so overwhelmed at that time with the necessary 
steps to care for the sick, and to cleanse the buildings, and get hospitals ready, and 
get material ashore, that there was very little time to devote to anything else. 
Q. In regard to the matter of complaints as to the food, was that matter gone into 1264 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
specifically as a subject of inquiry throughout the Army-an investigation of com- 
plaints as to the character and quantity and quality of the food? 
A. No, sir; it simply came up to me incidentally. The particular case was 
inquired into, and, as a rule, when it came to my attention it had been settled. They 
merely reported to me that it had happened and had been settled. 
Q. The troops were in active operation in the field, and, of course, under the con- 
ditions there had to accept what was provided for them? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Are you aware or not, Doctor, that any beef, or what is called canned roast 
beef, comes in different grades, that there are different grades of it, and as to the 
method of preparation, and of what it is generally composed? 
A. I know nothing about it, Major. I have never looked into it at all. 
Q. I believe you said you had made no special examination of the cans with refer- 
ence to the constituents? 
A. No, sir; none at all. 
Q. Please state whether or not, in your opinion, the canned roast beef that would 
be used by the troops under such conditions would tend or might tend to produce 
nausea or sickness or dysentery or diarrhea among the men. 
A. Well, only under the conditions I mentioned a while ago. If that beef were 
spoiled, of course it would produce sickness. Probably, if it were eaten for many 
days consecutively it would 
Q. Produce that effect? 
A. Well, it would produce sickness. I can not say it would produce dysentery or 
anything of that sort. 
Q. I mean produce sickness or nausea? 
A. Yes; it would become so offensive to the individual that the probabilities are 
that he would reject it, just as he would reject anything else that would be sent to 
him consecutively. 
Q. Then in the case of rather a weak condition, as is frequently the case with men 
who still go on and do their duty, those men becoming slightly indisposed under 
those conditions, would it aggravate their weakened condition or sickness? 
A. Well, I could not answer that. I think each case would have to be decided on 
its own merits. There are so many conditions that might arise, it would be hard to 
answer that question. 
Q. Do you know, or have you any knowledge by information, as to the keeping 
qualities of this canned roast beef after being opened; as to how long in that climate, 
under the usual conditions there, it would keep, so as to be edible if otherwise good? 
A. Only with reference to that which I used myself. It spoiled very quickly-in 
a few hours after being opened. 
Q. To what did you attribute that? 
A. Simply to the temperature. 
By General Davis: 
Q. How long a time after a can was opened do you expect to find the development 
of any poisonous condition in the meat? 
A. That would depend on the temperature of the place. 
Q. Suppose a tropical climate and a saturated temperature? 
A. I suppose a very few hours would bring about putrefacted changes. 
Q. Could you indicate the number of hours? 
A. I could not. I suppose it wrould differ under different conditions; different 
rates of temperature or degrees. 
Q. What was the condition of the health of the troops at Porto Rico at the time 
you left the island. 
A. It was fairly good. In fact, und.er the circumstances, I may say it was very 
good. They were, however, in a position on the firing line at the time the armistice FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1265 
was declared that very soon brought about sickness. There were very heavy rains 
and subsequently high temperature. 
Q. Did you attribute the sickness to climatic conditions? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. To what extent, if at all, did you think that unsuitable food or insufficient food 
entered into the determination of the physical condition of the troops? 
A. Well, I did not take it into account at all. The food question did not come up 
in that way. The dominant feature of the case was the climate; malaria and its 
attendant results. 
Q. Was any canned roast beef used in the hospital diet? 
A. No, sir; we had fresh beef. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. You were at Santiago, Doctor, were you not? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. About five or six days, or longer? 
A. About that time, I think. 
Q. Were you through the different camps? 
A. No, sir; I was busy at Siboney looking out for yellow-fever conditions. I didn't 
have time to go through the camps. 
Q. You didn't go to the entrenchments? 
A. No, sir; I didn't go there at all. I was at Siboney and the yellow-fever camp 
hospital and the country just about there. 
Q. And during your stay there you had frequent conferences with the doctors at 
the front, did you not? 
A. No, sir; we were cut off from communication as much as could be. The doctors 
at the front were very busy with their people and we were very busy with our peo- 
ple. The only conferences I had were with the medical officers who were directly 
at Siboney. Of course, over the wire there I talked to Colonel Pope, who was chief 
surgeon. 
Q. But while you were at Siboney, did you or not hear anything about insufficiency 
of the food? 
A. No, sir; I didn't hear it spoken of at all. 
Q. During the period of your stay in Porto Rico, where did you remain-at Ponce? 
A. Yes, sir; at Ponce, and of course making excursions out into the country as 
necessary. 
Q. How far did you go? 
A. Just to the lines of encampment about Ponce. 
Q. Did you visit many of them? 
A. All of them, and then my inspectors were with the troops in their camps. 
Q. Did you hear anything about the subject of the unwholesomeness of the food 
from any of these attending surgeons, or from reports from others? 
A. No, sir; it was not mentioned at all. I had no report while I was in Porto 
Rico about the insufficiency of food. 
Q. Was any report made about native beef, or did you observe anything relative 
to native beef? 
A. Only incidentally. I knew it was furnished to the hospital. I inspected the 
hospital nearly every day, and they drew fresh beef. 
Q. Did it give satisfaction, so far as you know? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Recross-examination by Major Lee: v 
Q. The subject of food for the army was not a matter that was reported upon at 
all to you down there, as I understand? 
A. No, sir; it only came before me incidentally, as I say, in connection with the 
general sanitary inspections of the men. 
S. Doc. 270 80 1266 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. The same as in a post? 
A. Exactly. 
Q. Not a matter for any special report one way or the other? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Are you familiar, by information or otherwise, with the operations or the work 
of the marines at Guantanamo? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. (Continued.) During the length of time they were there and as to the health 
of that command. Has that been brought to you in anyway; I mean in a general 
way, by information or by any inquiry or any knowledge which you had? 
A. Nothing more than I have seen in the papers. I was at their camp. 
Q. About how long were they there, if you know? 
A. We found them there. 
Q. They were there before the army, I believe? 
A. They were there when we reached Guantanamo. No, sir; I don't know any- 
thing about it. I had no business at all. I simply saw their camp. 
Q. About how many were there encamped, approximately? 
A. I should suppose there were about 100 to 200; but that is the merest guess. 
Q. Well, it was a good organized camp? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And was any matter of sickness among those men brought to your observation 
or knowledge there when you went there; what was their health? 
A. Only in a passing way I inquired of an officer how they were getting along and 
the answer was, "Very well." I don't remember anything special about that only 
that. 
Q. There was no mention of any epidemic or anything of that kind in the camp? 
A. No, sir. I think I did ask if they had had any yellow fever, because that was 
a point I was most interested in. I was told that they had not, and that they had 
burned all the buildings as soon as they got there, and they attributed a good deal 
of their exemption to that. 
Q. Had there been any general sickness in the camp it would probably have 
been brought to your attention, would it not? 
A. It might, possibly. 
Q. Do you know the manner of getting their supplies, or what they had? 
A. No, sir; I don't know anything about it. 
Q. You don't know whether they had canned roast beef or what food supplies 
they had? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Have you any general information-I don't mean personal knowledge-as to 
the state of health among the men and officers of the Navy operating down there, as 
well as in regard to these marines? 
A. Only in a general way. I have understood it was very good. 
Q. Very good? 
A. Yes, sir. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Col. B. F. Pope, of the Medical Department. 
TESTIMONY OF COL. B. F. POPE. 
Col. B. F. Pope, U. S. A., was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having 
been first duly sworn, testified as follow's: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service of the United 
States. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1267 
A. Benjamin F. Pope; lieutenant-colonel, deputy surgeon-general, United States 
Army; station, Columbus Barracks, Ohio. 
Q. On what duty were you engaged during the operations in the West Indies of 
last year? 
A. I was chief surgeon of the Fifth Army Corps. 
Q. When did you enter upon the performance of the duties of that office? 
A. It was some time in April or May; I have forgotten the exact date. I remained 
on duty as chief surgeon of the corps until July 23, when, on account of illness, I 
was relieved from duty. 
Q. Of course you accompanied the expedition to Cuba? 
A. I accompanied the expedition to Santiago. 
Q. In your capacity as chief surgeon of the Army, what examination, if any, did 
you make of the food supply during the active operations before Santiago? 
A. In Santiago? 
Q. Yes. 
A. I was unable to see any large amount of the food supply as issued to the troops 
on account of the press of other matters. I did see, though, a good deal of the supply. 
Q. Please state to the court, in narrative form, what your observations were in 
that regard. 
A. The commissary depot, I think, was moved up near the Fifth Army Corps head- 
quarters about the 7th or 8th of July. While it was there I had an opportunity of 
inspecting the supplies; they were issuing at that time the field rations and a moder- 
ate supply of canned vegetables, tomatoes, and I also saw some potatoes there and 
onions. I did not see any of the fresh beef until after the landing of ships in San- 
tiago Harbor when it was unloaded. The hard bread seemed to be uniformly good 
and so was the coffee and the sugar and the rice. The potatoes were somewhat 
decayed, but they were sorted over and the bad ones rejected. There was quite a 
large quantity of rejected potatoes. The onions seemed to be good. The canned 
tomatoes were good and so was the canned corn. The canned beef, labeled "roast 
beef," was really boiled beef. I saw some of it in the camps and in the field hospital 
and also at department headquarters. I used it myself and it was used in the head- 
quarters mess. The canned beef at the time we accepted as being a part of the ration, 
and ate it as well as we could. I must admit that it had a decidedly unsatisfactory 
appearance, and it was lacking entirely in savor, as it had no salt in it, and it was 
stringy and seemed to be covered with sort of a suet. A few of the cans showed evi- 
dences of decomposition, being swelled, and they were rejected. I noticed that the 
canned beef very shortly after it was opened would deteriorate so it would be unsuit- 
able as diet. That was probably due to the heat and moisture of the climate. The great 
trouble seemed to be the lack of facilities for cooking it. I saw it cooked and ate it 
cooked in the form of hash and stews when we could get some vegetables, and it was 
not so bad in that form, but as given to the soldier before they had their cooking 
apparatus, opened with a knife and a fork dipped in and taken out without cooking, 
it was a very unsatisfactory diet. It had a washedout and bleached appearance, exsan- 
guinated, I might call it, and it didn't occur to me at that time, but it has since, that 
possibly too much of the nutritive parts of the beef had been extracted by boiling. 
It really looked like beef that is left over after making beef tea. I guess you have 
all seen that. 
In regard to its nutritive value I would say that I received no reports at all from 
medical officers upon the subject. My personal experience is that it was a very low 
order of nutrition, but medical officers were so pressed with other matters and look- 
ing after the fevers the troops had that they made no particular reports in regard to 
the canned beef. 
The refrigerated beef which we received after the surrender of Santiago, or all that 
fame under my observation at headquarters camp, was good. At that time I was ill 1268 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
and did not go outside of camp. The cooks had to trim it a good deal to get off the 
parts that were spoiled; but after it was trimmed and nicely cooked, broiled or 
roasted, it was very nice. In talking with medical officers whom I met in regard to 
it the conclusion generally reached was that it had been spoiled by reason of a delay 
in delivering it to the different commands. That seemed to be the universal opinion. 
We got ours early, usually by 10 o'clock in the morning, and so it was in pretty good 
condition most of the time; but commands that were 4 and 5 miles away from the 
commissary department seemed to have a great deal of trouble. Some of them appar- 
ently would not get their beef until 4 or 5 o'clock in the afternoon, and then 
very frequently it would be spoiled. However, that is hearsay; I only got that from 
conversation with medical officers about it. 
In regard to the effect of the ration upon the health of the command I will say 
that I was unable to trace any special diseases directly to the ration, either the canned 
beef, or the refrigerated beef, or any other part of the ration. Intestinal troubles, 
which usually follow the use of decomposed or bad beef were not common until- 
well, it must have been the latter part of July. They formed a part of the cause of 
debility, but it was not a prominent one. Later, in August, I understand that there 
was a great deal of diarrhea and dysentery. Up to about the 8th or 10th of July 
the health of the command was fine. I think we disembarked in Cuba with perhaps 
150 sick men we had gathered on the Olivette, and I think that that composed the 
large proportion of those who were not able to march at once to the front. 
In Tampa our sick list was very low, averaging less than 2 j per cent, and it kept 
low, as I say, until about the 8th of July. Then, when the fevers commenced, the 
sickness came with a rush. As the command became broken down from malarial 
poisoning the demand of medical officers was for diets for the sick, and particularly 
for vegetables, no special complaint being made about the beef that I can recollect. 
After the command was broken down that way of course the travel ration became 
almost unendurable and could hardly be eaten by the sick men. The whole Fifth 
Army Corps was sick at the time I left, along about the 1st of August. 
Q. Have you fully answered the question? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What representations, if any, were made or reached you as the principal med- 
ical officer in respect to the excessive amount of canned roast beef that was used? 
A. Nothing whatever. Medical officers did not mention it particularly in any of 
their reports, and I received, I think, after the 10th of July, almost daily reports from 
the medical officers. They were consolidated reports, consolidated from regiments 
into brigade reports, and from brigade reports into a report of the chief surgeon of 
the division, and aside from the demand for fresh vegetables there was no special 
mention made of the ration in their requests. 
Q. What discussion was there, if any, to your knowledge, at Tampa as to the 
food supply that was to be furnished the expedition to Cuba? 
A. I was unaware of any discussion on the subject. If there was one I was not 
present. 
Q. Had you occasion to believe or to suspect at the time that the refrigerated beef 
had been chemically treated with a view to its preservation? 
A. No, sir. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Colonel, will you please state, within your knowledge or by information, as to the 
extent of the use of the canned roast beef by the men on the firing line or by the 
troops in the operations before Santiago prior to the surrender? Did that matter come 
under your particular information? 
A. No, sir; it did not, although I was under the impression that they all used it. 
I know that they all used it. We had nothing else. 
Q. Did you have any bacon? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1269 
A. Yes, sir; I think we had. Well, I am not so sure about that-about having 
bacon-at that time, until the vessel got into the harbor of Santiago. 
Q. Was it brought to your knowledge, or did you have any information on the 
subject, that requests would be sent down? I don't mean formal requests, because I 
understand there were no desks or writing materials used there, but that brown paper 
or memorandum books 
A. (Interrupting.) Or a piece of cracker box. 
Q. Yes. As to the preference on the part of troops along the line for bacon instead 
of the canned roast beef. Do you remember of hearing of that down there at that 
time from the commissary who was about headquarters, or in connection with the 
operations? 
A. I can not recollect to have heard anything of that kind. The commissary offi- 
cer was for the greater part of the time, I think, at Siboney, until he moved up near 
to department headquarters, but he never was right in the headquarters camp. He 
was probably a thousand yards away. 
Q. I understood you to testify, Colonel, that in such use as you made of the canned 
roast beef at the headquarters mess there you used it under the condition of having 
vegetables with it, making hashes and stews. 
A. For a while. At first we had not. At first we had to eat it right out of the 
cans, but later we got some onions and canned tomatoes, and potatoes, and our cook 
used to make it into stews and hashes. 
Q. I believe you have stated that it seemed in some cases to be lacking in nutri- 
tion; that is, that it was like meat after the extract had been taken from it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Like beef tea? 
A. Yes, sir. . 
Q. Did you make any special investigation or examination with reference to that, 
to determine to what extent this deficiency was? 
A. No; we had no opportunity to do that at all. 
Q. Within your experience, as I understand, you have never known of this being 
used in the Army as a ration? 
A. No. I had only seen canned beef as canned corned beef. 
Q. You never had seen any canned roast beef before? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. There has been considerable discussion as to the distinction between canned 
roast beef and canned boiled beef. Some of this beef has been represented as being 
labeled "boiled beef." What was the distinction between that beef, if any, and 
boiled beef, that was labeled canned roast beef? 
A. I never saw canned roast beef that was not boiled beef. It had every evidence 
of being subjected either to steam or water. I have never seen in a can of so-called 
roast beef anything like the roast beef as we get it in the homes. It has all been 
boiled beef. 
Q. You would not designate any of this as roast beef? 
A. No, sir. That is on the labels, but it isn't in the cans. 
Q. The roast isn't there? 
A. No, sir; as far as I could judge by appearances. Another thing I discovered 
was a great many of the cans of the so-called roast beef were canned corn beef. 
That is, I mean it was beef that had been subjected to pickling and saltpeter, which 
is the old way of pickling corned beef. I recognized that as corned beef. 
Q. It was labeled as canned roast beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you see much of that? 
A. Once in a while I would come across a can of it. The labels seemed to be put 
on wrong. It had apparently got in accidentally with other beef. 1270 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Will you please state whether, under the conditions of service there you mention 
and this beef lacking in the nutritive qualities which you have described, the sol- 
diers being subjected to exposure and the hardships of warfare, it would tend to 
aggravate or weaken or debilitate the condition of the men where men could not get 
other rations in place of it? 
A. I should think it would; yes, sir. 
Q. To that extent it would, then, contribute to their debility? 
A. I think it would, to weakened men. Where men are fatigued and their digestive 
organs are weak also, they are unable to assimilate beef of that character. It requires 
a pretty strong digestion to assimilate it. 
Q. Did you make any special examination or investigation as to the constituents 
of these cans-as to the preparation of beef that was in the cans-say a 2-pound can 
or a 6-pound can, or whatever it was that you had? 
A. Only such as in using the cans. The cans seemed to have, I should say, four- 
fifths of beef and the other of suet poured on top of it, or an oily mixture which 
looked like suet. I judge, by the appearance of it, it w'as beef tallow that had been 
melted and poured in for the purpose of solidifying in the cans. 
Q. Was that in a melted condition? 
A. Usually melted on account of the heat. I think that would be about the 
proportion. 
Q. Was that in such condition as to be edible to the soldiers who would have to 
use it on the firing line, in your opinion as an officer, under the conditions that they 
must use it? 
A. Well, it would be rather trying food unless a man was desperately hungry and 
eat it with his eyes shut, between two pieces of hard-tack, under the conditions then 
existing. 
Q. Was there a surgeon or an acting surgeon, that you recall, by the name of 
Dr. Calhoun under your orders there? 
A. Dr. Calhoun was attached to the Ninth Infantry, I think. He was under my 
orders; yes, sir. That is, he was up to the 23d. 
Q. That was in General Kent's division, I believe? 
A. General Kent's division; yes, sir. 
Q. Taking canned roast beef as it was issued and as you found it-that is, for the 
men, under the conditions of service there-would you regard it as a good and whole- 
some ration for the men there? 
A. Not in the Tropics. Upon the high plains of America, m healthy locations, I 
think it might be used. In a tropical service I would not advise it. 
Q. The refrigerated beef that you refer to was received at your headquarters-the 
portions were received there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. At General Shafter's headquarters? 
A. Yes, sir; at General Shafter's headquarters. 
Q. Aside from that you have no personal observation 
A. No, sir; I did not. The refrigerated beef came in after the 23d of July, I think. 
By General Davis: 
Q. To what extent, if at all, did you attribute the illness or sickness of troops to 
insufficient or improper nutrition? 
A. Up to about July 10 the troops had been on what was called the travel ration 
for nearly thirty days. I think we embarked on the 8th of June. The vegetables 
had not been received, I think, until about the 4th or 5th or 6th of July-somewhere 
along there. I was quite apprehensive of scurvy, knowing the troops had been so 
long on that ration, but there was no evidence of debility due to the ration up to 
that time; that is, up to about the 10th of July. Then came this enormous number FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1271 
of cases of fever, which may have massed any debility caused by the ration. In fact, 
I think I may say that 90 per cent of all cases of disease then appearing were dpe to 
the various kinds of fevers which we had. And so we had to take that in considera- 
tion when we came to estimate the amount of debility produced by the ration. I 
was looking for the effects of scurvy from lack of vegetables, and it did not occur to 
me at that time that canned beef was doing any particular damage, because the rest 
of our ration was good. We had good hard bread and good beans and good coffee 
and good canned tomatoes, and some of the troops were getting canned fruits. So, 
I say, that it was massed by the fevers if there was any debility existing by reason of 
the ration. 
Q. Did scurvy make its appearance? 
A. I saw cases which I thought gave evidence of scurvy; but as soon as we got our 
vegetables that seemed to disappear. 
Q. You say some of the cans contained what resembled corned beef. How com- 
pletely saturated with salt did it seem to be-salt and saltpeter? 
A. Well, it was enough to make it appetizing. It w'asas red as corned beef is, and 
did not look like the bleached out, ex-sanguinated boiled beef, and had a different 
fiber. 
Q. Do you remember the names on the cans that had that kind of beef? 
A. They had the same label-the same maker. Some of the corned beef seemed 
to have gotten in accidentally with the other beef. 
Q. What was the name of the maker? 
A. I think I can pick out the can here from among these on the table. This was 
the can we had principally [indicating a round can marked, ' ' Extra choice roast 
beef; Wilson Packing Company"]. That was the can that I saw usually among the 
men. This can also I saw occasionally [indicating another can], 
Q. Do you recollect that red can [indicating a dark-red can on table]. 
A. I do not recollect that at all. They may have issued that to commands that 
I did not see. 
By the President: 
Q. Doctor, had the commands been fed entirely on bacon while they were on 
shipboard and until fresh beef could have been furnished on shore, do you think 
they would have been in a better condition; that is, if no canned beef had been used 
at all by the command and they had gone back to the old-style rations? 
A. Yes, sir. I think the old ration would have been a better one, especially if 
we could have gotten the small cans of bacon. 
Q. I don't mean canned bacon. 
A. The regular issue of bacon? 
Q. Yes. 
A. That is a pretty hard ration for a tropical climate, but still I think it would 
have been better than the beef. In fact, I believe the men preferred the ration of 
bacon, or most of the men with whom I spoke, to the canned beef. These men I 
refer to are men I have spoken to since then, men of the Seventeenth Infantry that 
I have seen. I have talked the matter over with them after they came back. 
Q. That is what they think now-what they think they would have liked? 
A. Yes. Of course, thSy have all been hearing these accounts and they are mak- 
ing complaints now when they were never making them down there. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Are you familiar with the preparation of this canned beef? 
A. No, sir; I am not. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. As I understand, you make the statement that in your opinion the canned 
roast beef is more objectionable than the bacon in a tropical climate? 1272 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. From my limited experience, I should say so. You know I was there under 
those exceptional conditions, the conditions of an active campaign before Santiago. 
The troops living in barracks, as they are now in Cuba, would not come under the 
same rule, and I would not like to give an opinion on the subject under existing 
conditions, but for service such as we had there, I think that bacon would have 
been preferable. 
Q. You say that the surgeons under you made references in their reports to their 
desire to have vegetables? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. If they had deemed the meat component unwholesome or insufficient, would 
they have made reference to that? 
A. I think very likely they would have spoken of it, because I required prior to 
leaving Tampa a report on Wednesday and Sunday from the chief medical officers 
of brigade and division as to the health of the command and the sanitary condition 
of the troops, in regard to diet and camp sanitation and everything of that kind. 
There was no exception taken to the diet in Tampa by any of the medical officers. 
That is my best recollection. When we got into Cuba, after we got settled down, I 
required a daily report, which usually reached me from 11 o'clock in the morning 
until 4 o'clock in the afternoon somewhere, of the number of sick and the number 
of dead and so on, and any remarks that the medical officers might make. I can 
not recollect of any specific reference to the ration except the desire to get vegeta- 
bles and canned fruit. 
Q. What period of time was necessary to pass from this low percentage of sickness 
to what you call the maximum percentage? 
A. The 22d of July, to my best recollection, we had over 4,000 sick on the sick 
report, and of course there must have been 2,000 more than that who were not on 
the sick report. I think we had over 4,000 on the sick report out of a command of 
16,000 men-25 per cent. 
Q. In your testimony you say that on the 8th of July the command was in fairly 
good order? 
A. Yes, sir; in fairly good order then. At the time of the fight our command was 
in splendid health. 
Q. What fight do you mean? 
A. On the 1st of July. 
Q. So, in a period of fifteen days 
A. They melted right down. 
Recross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. I would like to ask whether any canned roast beef was issued at all prior to 
the sailing of the expedition? 
A. I didn't see any. 
Q. Probably it would not be a matter that would come under your observation. 
A. I came to Tampa with the Seventeenth Infantry. We had the ordinary travel 
ration from Columbus Barracks to Tampa. 
Q. That included what kind of meat, the canned roast beef or the canned corn 
beef? 
A. I think it was canned corned beef. I think it was that; in fact, I am pretty 
sure of it. As soon as we got there, within a day, I think, fresh beef was issued. 
Q. Will you please state to the court, Colonel, whether or not the canned roast beef 
which you have described, as issued down there, would have a tendency with men 
under the conditions there to produce nausea, or diarrhea, or dysentery, as it may be 
termed. , 
A. Well, under the conditions existing as late as July, I think it would. 
Q. Prior to the surrender? 
A. Prior to the 8th it did not seem to have much effect upon them, but when they FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1273 
became weakened by fatigue and the intense heat and the malarial poisoning, then I 
think the canned beef would have some effect. 
Q. It seemed to produce that result, nausea? 
A. Nausea and vomiting was extremely common, but it was associated so often with 
fever that we could hardly differentiate. Diarrhea was not extremely common until 
late in July and August. I was told by Cuban physicians that that was the month 
diarrhea would be most apt to appear. 
Q. Let us suppose a hypothetical case of soldiers, many of the older men, who 
prior to the surrender were eating or trying to eat this canned roast beef; that they 
would eat some of it and become nauseated, and soon after, perhaps within a few 
hours, before the next meal, would be attacked with dysentery or diarrhea and 
would leave off eating the roast beef and would go back to bacon, and that they 
would then get along all right for a number of days. What would be your profes- 
sional opinion in such a contingency as that? 
A. My opinion would be that the meat disagreed with them and produced indi- 
gestion. It may have been that that special can did it. My idea would be that it 
produced indigestion, ptomaines, as we call them, the result of decomposition of 
cans. I have seen them produced by canned corned beef sometimes. 
Q. That would develop immediately following its being opened? 
A. Very rapidly. In fact, ptomaines may be in existence before the can is opened. 
Q. What would that be due to? 
A. Partial decomposition. When there is not enough gas to swell the cans still 
there may be a partial decomposition that will produce ptomaines, and that condition 
might obtain with reference to this canned roast beef. It might obtain with refer- 
ence to any canned beef. It is peculiar to canned meats of various kinds. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. I would like to know whether that would be distinguishable by odor-that 
ptomaine character of the beef before it is opened? 
A. I think not, sir. 
Q. It might not be distinguished by the odor? 
A. A slight decomposition might not be. Of course a man who is very hungry 
will not notice a slight decomposition. I have never analyzed a can of roast beef for 
the purpose of determining the question of these articles, but it seems to me that 
where there is any odor at all a soldier will naturally throw it away. As I have 
said, I know that even in canned corned beef where there was no decomposition and 
no offensive odor, this poisoning would sometimes appear. For a long time it 
was not known what that poisoning was due to. It has only been recently that we 
have known the cause of it. It is the development of these ptomaines. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Major La Garde. 
TESTIMONY OF MAJ. LOUIS A. LA GARDE. 
Maj. Louis A. La Garde was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been 
first sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your full name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. Louis A. La Garde; major and surgeon, U. S. A.; on duty at Soldiers' Home, 
Washington, D. C. 
Q. Did you accompany the Fifth Army Corps to Cuba during the operations at 
Santiago? 
A. I did, sir. 
Q. In what capacity or upon what duty were you engaged when you landed there 
in Cuba? 1274 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I was commanding divisional hospital of the Fifth Corps. 
Q. Did you continue on that duty while you remained on the island? 
A. Yes, sir; until I was taken ill on the 5th of August. 
Q. Where was the hospital located? 
A. At Siboney. 
Q. To what extent did the food supply come under your observation in connection 
with your duties as chief of that hospital? 
A. Only in a general way, and the fact that I messed with the rest of the officers 
on the food'that was supplied to the hospital. 
Q. Did the article of the ration known as canned roast beef come under your 
observation at all? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Please state to the court, in narrative form, and as fully as you can, all of your 
experience with the canned roast beef. 
A. The principal experience is my individual experience with it at the mess. I 
saw it on the table at nearly every meal, I suppose. We had it in the form of hash, 
mostly. In fact, sometimes I think that it was heated and put on the table. I don't 
know that we were especially fond of it, but it seemed to me that as a substitute it 
took the place of beef; and whenever we could get potatoes and onions, or potatoes, 
to make a hash with it, it was rendered all that much more palatable, and in that 
way we consumed ft. I don't know that we would have selected it if we had had 
anything better. Still we were satisfied. At least I was, speaking for myself. 
Q. To what extent was it used by the patients in the hospital under your charge? 
A. Well, it was used by those who were able to eat the rations, as it was given 
right straight along, as far as I know. There was certainly no special complaint 
about it that came to my knowledge. 
Q. Did you receive any fresh beef other than canned roast beef? 
A. Yes, sir; we did; starting from the latter part of July. From that time until 
I left the island the 15th of August, we were getting this meat about daily. It was 
issued to us from the commissary department of the Twenty-fourth Infantry. 
Q. Were you at the front at the time? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. In what form was the canned roast beef used in the hospital for the patients? 
A. We got it from the commissary in cases, so many of these tins in a case. We 
used it. 
Q. And in what form was it furnished to the patients? 
A. Very much the same form that it was prepared for the officers' mess. Theie 
was no discrimination made. The meat wras prepared in the same way, either as a 
hash or heated. I don't know that it was ever given to them cold. I think there 
was always an attempt made by the cook to prepare it in some way. 
Q. What was the condition of your vegetable supply? 
A. Well, it wras short in the commencement, but after a wrhile the commissary 
furnished us with onions, and always, as I remember, we had canned tomatoes, and 
we had canned beans. 
Q. What were the effects of this article upon the patients as a portion of their diet, 
so far as came under your observation? 
A. Well, there was complaint of diarrhea to a large extent, and I presume a good 
deal of it came from this meat and eating the meat in that climate. I think that our 
ration had probably more meat for the climate than it should have had; and inasmuch 
as there was not much variety, we had to resort to the consumption of meat when we 
might have been better off with something else. 
Q. Did you have something else? 
A. Well, we had meat, wre had beans, and we had the sugar and the coffee and 
the vegetables that I have spoken of. The meat ration preponderated to some extent, FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1275 
and we being meat eaters I suppose we felt that we ought to eat meat, which was not 
very good for us in that climate. 
Q. Were the sick sent from the front down to your hospital, or were any con- 
siderable numbers of them sent? 
A. Oh, yes; they were all sent until some time after the fall of Santiago-until, I 
might say, some time early in July. All the transports that sailed with sick men-all 
the transports that sailed from Siboney-had sick men who came to my hospital. 
Q. Please state to the court what the principal diseases were from which the sick 
were suffering that were sent to the rear. 
A. Fevers, malaria, and what was said to be yellow fever; typhoid fever and 
intestinal disorders. 
Q. To what extent did you attribute sickness to the food supply or any particular 
article of it? 
A. We attributed a great deal of the intestinal disorder to the meat or to the food 
supply-its preparation. The fact that the field cooks had poor facilities for cooking 
articles like bread, if they attempted it, would contribute to that. Of course I was 
not at the front, and I don't know whether they were subsisting on hard-tack or 
whether they had flour. But we attributed some of the intestinal disorder to the 
consumption of meat in that climate and the fact that we had probably a limited 
quantity of vegetables; that the food or the ration was too heating for that climate. 
While the same ration used in our Northwestern country in the winter time would 
have done admirably, yet down there it was very poorly adapted to use as a ration. 
Q. Did any of the meat components of the ration impress you as contributing 
specially to the sickness? 
A. In that climate? 
Q. Well, in that climate and under those conditions, did any one of the meat 
components impress you as contributing to the sickness of the men? 
A. I don't think it contributed any more than any other meat would have done. 
The consumption of too much meat of any kind in the Tropics would have done the 
same thing. 
Q. Did you see any considerable number of the cans of roast beef opened? 
A. Well, of course I was not specially doing duty where I could see the cans 
opened. They were opened at the kitchen, and my attention was not specially 
drawn to the opening of them. 
Q. Of course the court is aware of the nature of your duties, and it is not presumed 
that you would have an opportunity of seeing them opened. That was the purpose 
of the question. Did you at any time see any number of the cans opened? 
A. My attention was drawn to the beef particularly when it was on the table, and 
I don't remember noticing specially the cans when it was opened, sir. 
Q. Was the refrigerated beef supplied before you came away? 
A. Yea, sir. 
Q. Please state to the court what your experience was with that. 
A. Well, that was in the same way. I saw it on the table. Now and then I saw this 
beef come up on the cars and sometimes on wagons. It was generally put in a rail- 
road shed and cut up by the commissary-sergeant under the supervision of Lieuten- 
ant Jenks of the Twenty-fourth Infantry. Dr. Ireland, or Captain Ireland, of the 
Medical Department was chiefly concerned in selecting or overseeing that which was 
furnished the Medical Department, and he knows more than I do about the appear- 
ance of it. I saw some once or twice. There seemed to be a sort of a mold on it, 
a sort of a greenish scum, you might say, which was attributed to the fact that it had 
been in cold storage, probably, and in a moist chamber. That was always washed 
away before cooking. 
Q. Did you use it as a diet for the sick? 
A. Yes, sir. 1276 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. State to the court, if you will, what your experience with it was in that regard. 
A. Well, I know that in conversations with officers we remarked that it was noticed 
that diarrhea was apt to follow the eating of this beef; that we attributed to the 
ingestion of meat under the circumstances they were placed in in that climate. 
Q. Had you any reason to believe or to suspect at any time that it had been chem- 
ically treated with a view to its preservation? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you see any indications of such treatment? 
A. I never did. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. How long did that meat keep after being issued by the commissary or issued to 
the commissary-how long after being taken from the refrigerator, under the con- 
ditions existing in that country? 
A. Well, I don't know. We got some of it that was spoiled, decomposed, once or 
twice, and we attributed it to the fact that it had been too long out of the refrigera- 
tor. I imagined that it probably had been out twenty-four hours. That is, that it 
had been in transit to us twenty-four hours; how much longer it had lain on the 
wharf, or how long it had been since it had come out of the refrigerator, we did not 
know. Sometimes there were difficulties in getting the meat transported at once 
from Santiago to Siboney and the meat would lie out. I don't know, really, how 
long it would keep outside the refrigerator, but it seqms to me it should have kept 
twenty-four hours or thirty-six hours, anyway, even in that hot climate. 
Q. Have you any information of the guaranty, or promise on the part of the con- 
tractor in regard to hospitals and sick men as to how long meat would keep before it 
reached them, so they could use it? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You began getting it the latter part of July? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. About the 20th or 22d? 
A. Along there. 
Q. You got it by rail principally? 
A. Yes, sir; and then the commanding officer would send a spring wagon or an 
escort wagon in now and then and get it in that way. 
Q. About how often was it spoiled so that you had to have it trimmed off in any 
appreciable quantities? 
A. To my knowledge what we got for the hospital was not spoiled more than twice. 
I remember that I once recommended that it be cooked at once for fear that another 
night would make it spoil. Although we had ice to keep it on, we did not consider 
it safe to try to keep it long, and I recommended to Dr. Ireland that it had better be 
cooked immediately on receipt. 
Q. In those cases when some of it was spoiled, about what quantities were spoiled? 
A. Not so much more than a quarter. 
Q. Was that replaced by the contractor? 
A. I have no knowledge of that. 
Q. You speak of the men having too much meat down in that country. Do you 
know what the proportion of beef was, or do you know how much was issued there 
to the men engaged in the operations, whether they were issued the full allowance 
or less than that ? 
A. Well, we drew our canned roast beef, for instance, and the canned articles and 
rations from the commissary. He would draw, say, a thousand or two thousand 
rations at a time, and I suppose that they issued the regulation amount. The cooks 
cooked whatever was ordered for the day. 
Q. I am speaking more especially with reference to the rations that went to the FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1277 
army operating in front, whether or not you had any knowledge of what proportion 
of the ration was sent there. 
A. I had not. 
Q. Was there any bacon or canned roast beef? 
A. I know nothing about that. 
Q. Did you make any special examination of this canned roast beef in the can with 
reference to its constituents or with reference to its nutritive qualities in any way? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Have you any information personally or by conversation with officers at the 
front as to the satisfaction or as to the like or the dislike of the canned roast beef, or 
of the preference of anything else in its place, if that preference was expressed? 
Did you hear any call for some other kind of meat, or any effort to get some other 
kind of meat? I don't mean whether it was reported to you officiallv, but whether 
it was within your knowledge or information. 
A. The subject of the quality of the meat was discussed on tne transport across. 
I was on the Saratoga and part of the Twenty-first and the Thirteenth Infantry-in 
fact the whole of the latter-were on that boat. Then for the first time I heard the 
officers and men talk about this roast beef, and as a rule they were not in favor of it. 
At least, they did not like it; it was not a favorite article of diet with them. 
Q. That was going over? 
A. Going over, yes, sir-the travel ration. 
Q. Then, after that? 
A. And the same sentiment prevailed with the people generally, I think. Conver- 
sations which I can not recall now have made that impression on my mind. The 
idea was if it was not inviting to the senses it might have been a poor quality of meat 
when it was put up. I have heard officers speak about it, who had noticed especially 
about the coarseness of the fiber and the fact that it was tough and that it might be 
overdone in cooking and that it was a gelatinous mass, etc., that was not inviting 
to the senses. 
Q. As a medical officer I will ask you if it was overdone, what effect it would nave 
as to its nutrition considering it either as roast beef or boiled beef, whichever vou 
term it, from your experience? 
A. It depends on how long it was boiled; if it was boiled for hours witn a large 
amount of water, I suppose it might have no nutrition in it. But it never impressed 
me as meat that had no nutrition in it. It was not like eating straw. I felt when I 
was eating it that there was something left in it in the way of nutrition. 
Q. Had it been deprived of any nutrition by this process-as you say it had-can 
you estimate, from your personal experience or knowledge of it, about what propor- 
tion of nutrition had been extracted from it. I mean from eating it, not from making 
a chemical analysis of it. 
A. Well, I felt that however much nutrition had been extracted from it that it still 
had more than was required in that climate, and that it was not impaired as an article 
of diet wholly by the cooking process to which it had been subjected. 
Q. Well, coming back to the question, if you can answer it, approximately-or I 
will ask you first whether you consider this boiled beef or roast beef. 
A. It impressed me as being boiled. 
Q. Coming back to the question, could you express, approximately, about what per- 
centage of nutrition had been extracted from it in the process of boiling or in its 
preparation for the can? 
A. I could not. 
Q. Referring to your testimony that the Army had too much of a meat ration 
down there, under those conditions about what reduction would you consider as safe 
for the men undergoing the hardships they were undergoing on the firing lines? 1278 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
What reduction in the meat ration would you consider as beneficial to the men 
under those circumstances there ? 
A. I think it could have suffered a reduction of at least one-half, provided that the 
vegetables had been increased correspondingly. 
Q. In the absence of the vegetables-and from the testimony it seems there was 
an absence of them-what would you consider to be a proper reduction in the meat 
ration? 
A. I should not have made any reduction. I should have allowed the men to eat 
according to their individual fancy. 
Q. I believe you did not visit the firing line; that is, you were not present with the 
troops at the time of the operations prior to the surrender ? 
A. No, sir; I was not. 
Q. You have no personal knowledge, then, in regard to the conditions or the 
effects of the canned roast beef or other food upon them there at that time ? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Excepting as to the cases coming under your observation of intestinal troubles 
which you attributed 
A. Yes; by inference; we supposed that the diet had something to do with their 
disorders. 
Q. In expressing an opinion as a medical officer, do you or not consider that this 
canned roast beef or canned boiled beef issued under the conditions there which 
men had to use, would or would not produce nausea or diarrhea? I am speaking 
now specifically of the so-called canned roast beef. 
A. It would produce diarrhea and nausea provided they ate too much of it, the 
same way I think that under the same circumstances and under the conditions 
which prevailed in that hot climate, the men having clothing that was poorly 
adapted for the climate, that they might be weakened and made sick by any other 
kind of meat. I doubt if they were made sick specially because there were ptoma- 
ines in the meat, although ptomaines are celebrated for causing intestinal disorders, 
such as vomiting and diarrhea, and so forth. Still, regardless of the fact that there 
were or were not ptomaines in the meat, the meat could have caused the same thing 
in that climate. 
Q. This particular meat? 
A. Yes, sir. I believe that the ingestion of too much beef, refrigerated beef or 
even beef on the hoof in that climate, would have caused a condition of affairs in 
the intestinal tract that might have induced vomiting. It is a well-known fact that 
in hot climates people rather revolt at the idea of eating meat. They prefer vege- 
tables and fruits. Our own individual senses teach us that in the summer time, and 
in that climate, with the clothing that we were wearing at the time, we might have 
congestion of the intestines, the liver, and the other digestive organs that would 
especially prone one to vomiting and diarrhea. 
Q. Well, Doctor, suppose the case of a soldier of considerable experience, a private, 
corporal, or a sergeant, who ate a portion of this canned roast beef. I don't mean 
one who would gorge himself with it-and immeadiately after eating under the con- 
ditions of the service existing there during the campaign, he should be attacked with 
vomiting to some extent, and within a few hours, perhaps, with dysentery or 
diarrhea, and he should leave off using this canned roast beef and go back and 
restrict himself to bacon and use that as the strengthening food in connection with 
his coffee-not superabundance of it-and his crackers, would or not you give it as 
your opinion that in such cases the canned roast beef had caused the sickness? I 
say, using the bacon and going along with his duties for days, perhaps weeks. 
A. I should say that it was suspicious that the canned roast beef was spoiled, 
decomposed, and yet I can imagine the same condition of affairs transpiring in cer- 
tain people when they had eaten too much of fresh beef. Fresh beef will cause FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
1279 
diarrhea in the summer, as I stated before, in the tropics, if you eat too much of it, 
and it takes very little to "do" one. 
Q. I understand that; but I am taking the cases now of men under the conditions 
J have named, of men testifying under oath to what happened to them personally in 
regard to the consumption or attempted consumption, not any extraordinary quanti- 
ties, of canned roast beef, and of leaving it off and returning to the bacon, and the 
troubles and the disorders disappearing. 
A. That sounds very much like ptomaine poisoning in those individual cases. 
Q. If that should be general or quite frequent among the men of a regiment or 
company, would you regard it as ptomaine poisoning in all cases, or decomposition 
of the meat? 
A. I should think that it was highly probable that it was due to ptomaine poison- 
ing under those circumstances. 
Q. That the meat may, in your opinion, produce such an effect as that without 
the soldier realizing or discovering any offensive odor as to its being spoiled? 
A. Yes; such a condition in the meat could exist without any offensive odor. 
Q. Do you recall the brands of the canned roast beef? Did you ever notice par- 
ticularly in regard to the brands? 
A. I did not. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Would several hours boiling of that canned beef in a hermetically sealed can at 
a temperature of 240° F. permit the existence of conditions that would result in the 
development of ptomaines immediately, instantly, upon opening? 
A. I should think not. 
Q. Are you familiar with canned baked beans that have been issued to troops- 
what we call canned baked beans? 
A. Yes, sir; I have seen and eaten them. 
Q. Do you regard them as wholesome food? 
A. I believe it is wholesome food under certain conditions of climate and service. 
Q. Would they have been suitable in the Tropics? 
A. I don't think so. 
Q. Do you know whether those beans described as canned baked beans are baked 
at all? 
A. I do not; I imagine they are boiled, though, judging from what I have seen. 
Q. Did you observe the presence of salt in considerable quantities in the canned 
roast beef? 
A. I could not testify as to that. I never tasted it except when it had been pre- 
pared by the cook. 
By Colonel'Gillespie: 
Q. As a rule, was this refrigerated beef palatable? Did it have any peculiar flavor 
that designated it from ordinary fresh beef? 
A. It seemed to be more tasteless than the meats we have in the markets at home. 
It did not have the flavor of beef as we get beef here in the markets. This gave the 
impression of beef that had been kept on ice a long time, which I believe causes it 
to lose its flavor. It was rather tasteless. 
Q. Do you know whether this refrigerated beef was kept on ice at all? 
A. I was told that it came out of the refrigerator. That is all I know. I don't 
know whether it was iced. 
Q. You don't know whether it was in contact with the ice or not? 
A. I don't; I have been told, upon inquiring, that it was kept at a temperature of 
about 33° F. 
Q. Was this absence of taste marked? 
A, Not specially. 1280 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Then you regard it as palatable? 
A. Yes, sir. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Captain Ireland. 
TESTIMONY OF CAPT. M. W. IRELAND. 
Capt. M. W. Ireland, U. S. A., was called as a witness by the recorder and, having 
been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. State your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. M. W. Ireland; captain, assistant surgeon. Do you wish my service from the 
beginning? 
Q. What is your present station? 
A. Fort Wayne, Mich. 
Q. Did you accompany the Fifth Army Corps to Cuba during the operations in 
that island last year? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In what capacity? 
A. I was executive officer oi the Reserve Divisional Hospital. 
Q. Where was that located? 
A. Siboney, Cuba. 
Q. Who had charge of the diet of the patients-which of the medical officers? 
A. I don't know, sir, who had charge of that. 
Q. Had you any duties in connection with it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And what were they? 
A. I supplied the hospitals with provisions from the commissary, and after the 
meat came dowm from Chicago I inspected the meat as it came down every day. 
Q. Was any canned roast beef used for the sick and wounded? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Please state to the court your experience with that as an article of food. State 
it in a narrative form as near as you can recall it. 
A. Well, sir, I think the canned roast beef was a coarse grade of beef. It looked 
very greasy and it was not acceptable to the sight or to the taste. 
Q. Go on and give your entire experience with it as it was used for the sick and 
the wounded in the hospital. 
A. It wras cooked at the fire in the kitchen. As a general thing we could get 
potatoes and onions, and it was mostly made into hash. 
Q. How generally was it used by the sick? 
A. It was not generally used by the sick. It was generally used by the wounded 
as they came in, and in fact it was about the only beef to be had for a time. 
Q. And with what success or satisfaction or dissatisfaction was it used? 
A. It wras not popular at all. It was not liked at all by the men. 
Q. What effect had it upon those that used it? 
A. It became repulsive to them in a very short time, and quite a good many men 
complained that it gave them intestinal trouble and diarrhea. 
Q. How long had it been used, to your knowledge, before you came into the 
hospital? 
A. I don't know. We were stationed just at the landing, and I could not say. 
Q. Were you at the front at any time? 
A. No, sir; I never left Siboney. 
Q. Did numbers of sick come down from the front? 
A. A great many; yes, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1281 
Q. And with what diseases were they suffering? 
A. Well, with yellow fever, typhoid fever, malarial fever, and dysentery. 
Q. Which of those, if any, were caused by anything connected with the food supply, 
in your opinion? 
A. I might add intestinal troubles in the form of diarrhea. If any of them were 
caused, it would be the intestinal troubles, and the condition that that would bring 
about in the intestines would be a favorable site for the reception of typhoid fever. 
Q. Would typhoid fever follow in such cases? 
A. They were more liable to it. 
Q. What proportion of cases that came down were diseases caused, or caused to any 
extent, by the food supply? 
A. I could not tell, sir. 
Q. Can you say whether they were numerous or not numerous? Can you give 
anything like a per cent? 
A. No, sir; I can not give a per cent. 
Q. Can you give any idea as to whether they were numerous as compared with 
other diseases? 
A. All I can say is this: That a great many men thought that the meat gave them 
the diarrhea. 
Q. Please state that phase of the case fully to the court, as you recall it-the num- 
ber that talked that way about it and what they said. 
A. I would not want to state any number. It would be a guess altogether. I did 
not have to make any observations there. It was a mere matter of work and getting 
patients recovered to send them home. I have no percentage to give. Any per cent 
I should give would be a mere guess. 
Q. And in those men who talked to you about the food causing disease, will you 
state what they said, as near as you recollect? 
A. They did not speak of the food causing disease except in the way that they 
objected to the canned beef. 
Q. And what were their objections? 
A. They said it was objectionable and it caused intestinal irritation. They said it 
was too greasy, too coarse. 
Q. Did you see cans opened? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Please state to the court what their appearance was when opened. 
A. The beef was very coarse beef, but it looked very greasy. Well, the best way 
I can express it is: It had a kind of a washed-out appearance. 
Q. Was it absolutely fresh, or did some of it appear to have salt or other condi- 
ments in it? Did you notice any difference in the cans? 
A. No, sir; I only noticed the cans opened while we were landing along about the 
27th or 28th, and it was always opened in the kitchen after that. 
Q. And did you visit the kitchen occasionally to see how things were going on? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you see any of it opened there? 
A. I don't recollect that I did. 
Q. Did you see any after it had been opened? 
A. Oh yes, sir; I ate it. 
Q. When did you begin to receive the refrigerated beef? 
A. I can not recall the date. I think it was the last of July-along toward the last 
of July. 
Q. And how frequently was that used at the hospital? 
A. Every day, sir. 
Q. Did you examine that as it arrived? 
A. Yes, sir. 
S. Doc. 270 81 1282 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. And what was its condition? Please state that fully to the court. 
A. Well, sir, it was of a soft consistency and had rather a repulsive look to the eye 
when it came to you; and in the cars where it had come a considerable amount 
would be damp; it would be damp in the car where it had been laid. I would like 
to explain how we got our meat. 
Q. Go on and state it fully. 
A. As I understand, the meat was taken off the ship about 4 o'clock in the morn- 
ing at Santiago and was brought from there to La Cruz, at the end of the railroad 
from Sibony. It was gotten there about 8 o'clock and we got it about noon. In 
other words, this had been in the sun, we will say, an average of four hours. 
Q. Did you ever notice its temperature when you received it? 
A. No, sir; I never noticed the temperature. 
Q. Did you ever notice whether it was about the same temperature as the air? 
A. I can not say that I did, sir. 
Q. To go back, did you notice whether the canned roast beef so opened appeared 
to be affected by heat? 
A. Well, I can only say that it had been sitting out in the sun, where it was 
exposed, and that it was warm. 
Q. The canned beef ? 
A. Yes, sir; where the cans had been exposed it was warm. I remember the first 
can I opened was warm. It was not cool. 
Q. What was the appearance of the contents? 
A. Just as I have explained; coarse and greasy. 
Q. Did you encounter any cans that had apparently not been affected by the heat 
at all? 
A. I don't believe I did. 
Q; That looked as they might have looked when the can was packed? 
A. I don't believe I have. All the cans that I opened, or saw opened, had the 
greasy appearance I have described. 
Q. What portion of the refrigerated beef was rejected as being unfit for use? 
A. I think three or four times, sir. Almost always we had to trim off some of 
the outside of the meat, and three or four times we had to dispose of the beef. 
Q. In its entirety? 
A. Yes, sir. I remember that was particularly true of some we sent to the yellow- 
fever hospital, about 2 miles above us. After the meat was divided for the hospital 
by the commissary of the Twenty-fourth Infantry we sent another share of it to the 
yellow-fever hospital, about 2 miles up the railroad, and on two or three occasions 
they reported they had to bury the beef. 
Q. To the best of your recollection, what percentage of the I>eef had to be rejected 
for that cause? 
A. Well, we were getting beef eighteen days before I left there, and I think it 
would be fair to say that we rejected beef three times. 
Q. You include in your estimate what you had to trim off each day? 
A. I don't know how much they had to trim off. 
Q. Could you not give some approximation to it? 
A. No, sir; I could not. I know the cook said he had to trim the meat; that is all. 
Q. Did every issue of it have to be trimmed? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Then some refrigerated beef arrived in good condition? 
A. Some arrived in such a condition that they boiled it at once and it was used. 
Q. Can you state as to the satisfaction or dissatisfaction that the beef that had to 
be trimmed gave? 
A. Well, the meat tasted fairly well. It did not taste like fresh beef-that is, beef 
as we get it here-it did not taste as meat when it comes from the refrigerator, because 
it had been in the sun too long. It did not give that satisfaction, but it did fairly well. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1283 
Q. Did you use it in making beef tea? 
A. I don't think we did; nox sir. 
Q. What did you use for that purpose? 
A. We had beef tea there. 
Q. Already prepared? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Had you occasion to believe or suspect at any time that the refrigerated beef 
had been chemically treated with a view to its preservation? 
A. I never thought of it, sir. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Will you please state to the court about the number of men in this hospital 
when you were on duty there? I don't mean accurately from day to day; but, 
approximately, about what would you estimate as the average number of men you 
had there? 
A. Taking it clear through, 500 men. The day I left there we had 815 patients in 
the Siboney hospital and the yellow-fever hospital. 
Q. In, we will say, within the limit of 500? 
A. Yes, sir; the 1st of July we started with nothing. 
Q. The beef coming down every day that you drew would be on a basis of about 
that number of men? 
A. Yes. 
Q. For the meat that was rejected and thrown away was any other meat furnished 
by the contractor? 
A. Not that I know of. I would like to say this: That we did not make requisitions 
for beef there. I would just go to Lieutenant Jenks and say that we would like to 
have a little more beef. 
Q. There was no system of report or return or records kept with reference to it? 
A. Not with us. 
Q. That was the case generally, wasn't it, with regard to the issue? 
A. Yes, sir. They just said what they wanted and got it. 
Q. They would issue it out? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you know anything as to any stipulation or any agreement that that meat 
was guaranteed to keep twenty-four hours or a greater length of time after it left the 
refrigerator? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. As a matter of fact, did any of it that you received there ever keep twenty-four 
hours? 
A. No, sir. The beef we got there usually was boiled at once. 
Q. Well, would it have kept twenty-four hours from the time of issue from the 
refrigerator? Could you have kept it? 
A. I don't think so. 
Q. Do you know about what time the issue of this canned roast beef began at your 
hospital, or the use of it? 
A. I only know when I saw it first. 
Q. About when was that? 
A. The 27th of June. 
Q. The 27th of June you first saw it? 
A. Yes, sir; just as I landed at Siboney. 
Q. About what portion of it would be consumed there by the wounded that came 
back? As I understand you did not give it to the men that were sick. 
A. No. 
Q. You only gave it to those men 
A. (Interrupting.) The wounded men. 1284 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Can you tell about what would be consumed on an average a day? 
A. No, sir; I don't believe I could, sir. 
* Q. When did the wounded begin arriving there from the battles? 
A. About half past 3. 
Q. What day? 
A. July 1. They came from Aquadores. The wounded from San Juan Hill came 
in that evening. 
Q. In the use of this canned roast beef did you consider it nutritious or possessing 
any special nutrition? Did you consider it contained nutriment? 
A. No, sir; I did not. 
Q. I wish you would describe that. There may be some question on that point. 
You speak of that as though it had been washed out. 
A. I speak of its appearance-that it appeared as if it had been washed out. 
Q. In eating it a man can tell whether there is any strength in it or not? 
A. It was not palatable. 
Q. Did it give satisfaction to a man after eating it? Take yourself. Did you 
feel 
A. (Interrupting.) No, sir. It did fairly well when it was cooked up in a hash, 
with vegetables. 
Q. Was that due so much to the meat or to the hash and onions? 
A. I think the vegetables helped a good deal. 
Q. Did you note the brands of any of that meat? 
A. No, sir. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Major Kilborn, of the Medical Department. 
TESTIMONY OF MAJ. HENRY KILBORN 
Maj. Henry Kilborn, surgeon, U. S. A., was called as a witness by the recorder, 
and, having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. Henry Kilborn; major and surgeon, United States Army; station, New York 
City. 
Q. Did you accompany the Fifth Army Corps to Cuba during the operations there 
last year? 
A. I went to Tampa from Madison Barracks with the Ninth Infantry and very 
soon after my arrival I was detached as the chief medical officer of the Second 
Division of the Fifth Army Corps, General Lawton. 
Q. How long did you continue to perform the duties of that position? 
A. I continued to perform the duties throughout the campaign, from the landing 
at Daiquiri, to the embarkation. And later at Montauk I became, in succession, 
the chief medical officer of the Fifth Army Corps. 
Q. During the operations before Santiago did the food supply of the troops of 
General Lawton's division come under your observation? 
A. In this way, Colonel. The Fifth Army Corps were aboard transports and 
remained in the harbor at Tampa. The men were packed in like sardines in a 
box between decks, and were living on the travel ration during this time. I made 
several visits to the different transports to see how the men were getting along. 
Incidentally I inspected their food. What particularly attracted my attention was 
that in the last few days, and before the movement began, the men were throw- 
ing away their rations. I was walking along the dock with General Chaffee, who 
commanded the brigade, and I called his attention to the fact that hard-tack and 
cans of all kinds were floating on the water around there, showing that the men FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1285 
were wasting their rations and throwing them away. I made no special inquiry. I 
made up my own mind what the trouble was: That the men had been on board 
the transports for weeks, and in living on this canned stuff-canned beans and 
canned beef-and hard bread, sugar, and coffee, which is the travel ration, I believe. 
They had also, in some few cases, canned tomatoes. The men had been inactive; 
they had been packed away, and they had had no exercise, and they were becom- 
ing cloyed with this travel ration, and they didn't eat it. They not only threw 
away the canned beef, but they threw away pretty much everything they had; not 
all the men, of course, but here and there a man would throw his stuff away. He 
simply didn't want it, and he wanted to get it out of his way. 
That was my experience with the travel ration until it came to the landing. We 
were nearly one week on the transports backing and filling and getting ready to 
land; and finally, on the 1st of June; I think it was, we landed. As soon as the 
men were ashore, and as soon as the transports could be reached, the regular field 
ration took the place of the travel ration. That was the hard-tack and bacon. There 
was no bacon on board the transports that I saw,'and there were no facilities on any 
of them for cooking anything but a little coffee. There were no cook's galleys, and 
what little coffee they had was made by the captain of the galley and the crew, 
when weak coffee was made and handed around. The canned tomatoes were eaten 
raw. The canned beef was eaten as it was taken out of the can, and so with the 
canned beans. There was no cooking done. 
Q. Go on, if you please, with your experience on shore. 
A. On shore we landed, and the men were supplied with three days' rations, 
which included bacon. The field ration was bacon and hard-tack and sugar and 
coffee, as. far as my personal knowledge went. We marched on up to Siboney and 
captured the place. We captured a lot of Spanish rations there, mostly flour, rice, 
and what they call vino-wine that they supplied the troops; but no use was made 
of this as far as I know. It added very little, if anything, to our own ration. The 
march was continued on the next day toward Santiago, and the only ration we had 
and the only ration that I saw until the surrender, which occurred on the 17th of 
July, 1 believe, was this field ration-bacon, hard-tack, sugar, and coffee. 
Q. Was any canned roast beef issued to the men of Lawton's division, to your 
knowledge? 
A. In the field, before the surrender? 
Q. Yes. 
A. Not that I am aware of. I will not say that none was issued to them, but I 
saw none. It was not the usual field ration. We got none of the canned roast beef, 
to my knowledge. 
Q. When did refrigerated beef begin to be used? 
A. Immediately after the surrender the transports came into the harbor as soon as 
the mines were taken up, which did not take very long, I believe-within a day or 
two, I should say, transports containing refrigerated beef arrived there. They may 
have arrived at Siboney. I do not know. I saw none. I knew nothing of any beef 
coming up on the line of our march. The issue of refrigerated beef began very soon 
after the surrender, I would say the 18th, 19th, or 20th of July. 
Q. Please state to the court in narrative form the result of your observation of 
refrigerated beef in Lawton's division. 
A. A few days after the surrender, with the General's assistance, I established a 
field hospital in front of our lines, between the line of investment and the city, and 
almost immediately after I was ready to receive patients. After I got the thing run- 
ning they began sending me from the city ice by the wagon load and refrigerated 
beef. The amount that I received for my hospital, that had an accommodation 
for 300 or 400 men, would be, say, one or two quarters of this refrigerated beef. 
It was delivered by the commissary of the division in a wagon and dumped off 1286 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
near my hospital, where my men were ready to receive it in the morning, before 
noon. The beef I had occasion to look at. On one particular occasion there was 
a late delivery of beef. Something interfered to prevent its coming at the usual 
time. The hospital steward reported to me that the beef was spoiling or spoiled. I 
looked at it and saw that it was out of condition and had an odor. I simply ordered 
that it be destroyed-thrown away. I did not ask for a board of survey; I simply 
disposed of it. All this beef that I speak of was in good condition. The men ate 
it. Even the sick men ate it. The well men ate all they could get of it. The 
attendants, and the Hospital Corps men, and the nurses, men and women, all ate this 
beef. It was, I considered, pretty good beef for the situation in which we were- 
better than I expected to receive. 
Q. About what proportion of it had to be rejected, upon an average, on account of 
being spoiled or tainted, or otherwise unfit for use? 
A. The beef that I rejected, or had any personal knowledge of being rejected, was 
this single quarter that I speak of that had arrived late in the day and probably had 
been exposed to the sun. It was not very bad, Colonel. It was simply beginning to 
be decomposed. The beef had a little odor, and rather than have any question 
about it I said, "Throw it away; let itgo, and to-morrow we will get a new quarter. " 
The beef from that time on until the time I left there was uniformly good. 
Q. What was the result of your observations as to its use in the division? 
A. As to what, sir? 
Q. As to the use of refrigerated beef in Lawton's division inside of the hospital? 
A. My information on that point is simply hearsay. On account of lack of time, 
in the excitement and disturbance, the question did not reach me at all officially. I 
received no reports from medical officers or others that the beef was bad. 
Q. Do you remember having any conversation with General Lawton about it? 
A. About the beef? 
Q. Yes. 
A. None at all. 
Q. Do you remember any conversations with him about the food supply generally 
of the division in Cuba prior to the surrender? 
A. Only this, that the rations were short. They had to get up ammunition first. 
Everything that was brought up on the lines came up on the backs of pack mules. 
The road was impassable for wagons, and everything until the surrender was brought 
up on pack mules from Siboney. They brought up hard-tack in boxes, and they 
brought up bacon in slabs and sides, loaded on these pack mules. I will not say 
they did not bring any of the canned beef. I did not see it; that is all. No refrig- 
erated beef, as far as I knew, came up on pack-mule trains. The issue of that began 
with the opening of the port and the surrender of the city. 
Q. What was the health of the division when it landed in Cuba? 
A. The men were weakened and upset more or less from this prolonged confine- 
ment on shipboard and their confinement to this travel ration. They were nut of 
condition to that extent. They were not sick. They were a healthy lot when they 
were taken on board at Tampa, probably as fine a lot of men as ever went anywhere 
on any expedition. The confinement and the sameness of diet and the lack of their 
usual diet put them out of condition. They were more or less seasick. I do not 
suppose one man out of ten had ever been to sea in his life. They were not very 
seasick, because the Gulf was smooth. It was a remarkably fine trip, as far as that 
is concerned; but a good many of the men were seasick, and there was a good deal 
of vomiting and purging among them, but nothing that disabled them or prevented 
them from landing. There were practically no sick when we landed, Colonel. 
Q. When did a change take place in that regard? 
A. I think the change began with the surrender, when this pressure was relaxed. 
The men held up through all this business, the constant skirmishing, fighting, and FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1287 
exposure. The men were largely, as we say, traveling on their nerves, and a sort of 
collapse seemed to overtake the whole army after the surrender, as though they 
would say, "It is done now, and we are done,'' and they began to be sick. They 
began to have fevers and dysentery; mostly fever, however; Cuban fever, malarial 
fever. 
Q. What portion of the sickness at that time did you attribute to the food supply 
as-a cause? 
A. Not at all directly to any particular article of food. It was simply the lack of fresh 
articles. The men were out of condition; but there was no portion of the ration, as 
far as I knew, that did them any injury or that was likely to do them any injury, except 
that a man can not live a week or ten days or two weeks on canned beef and hard- 
tack without getting out of order. His stomach and bowels, you know, will rebel 
after a while. This ration is only intended for an emergency, for a few days, as a 
travel ration. To keep men on it for half a month is a very remarkable state of 
affairs-unprecedented. 
Q. Was any portion of the disease, in your opinion, attributable to the use of 
refrigerated beef? 
A. None at all, sir. This spoiled beef, that which was unloaded and delayed in 
its shipment to troops, was due to the lack of transportation. That was the reason it 
did not go through to the front-simply the lack of wagons. That beef when 
received was simply condemned, thrown away, not eaten. I do not tell you this 
from my personal knowledge, but I knew it was going on from hearing officers speak 
about it. I knew a great deal of it was thrown away on account of its being in a 
more or less advanced state of putrefaction, the effect of the moisture and the heat 
of the climate. 
Q. Had you occasion to believe or to suspect at this time that the refrigerated beef 
had been treated with chemicals with a view to its preservation? 
A. Nothing was farther from my idea. I had no reason to suspect or suppose at 
the time that it had been chemically treated, nor have I any reason since. 
Q. How large a number of troops were there at Montauk after the Fifth Corps 
returned to that point? 
A. You may say that half the army passed through the hospitals there; perhaps 
more than that. We brought about from 2,200 to 2,500 men who were on the sick 
report. 
Q. What were the principal diseases from which they were suffering-the largest 
classes? 
A. Largely malarial fever, and next to that intestinal disorders. 
Q. To what were the intestinal disorders attributed by you from your observation 
of a large number of cases? 
A. To hardships and exposure, to the deprivation of food that they could digest, 
from being confined to the field ration, but, more than the diet, it was simply the 
enormous strain of that campaign. Officers and men suffered alike. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Your duties and observations, I believe, Major, were confined to General 
Lawton's division? 
A. They were until I reached Montauk. 
Q. That is, I mean in Cuba. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I understand, as far as you recall, that his division, prior to the surrender, suc- 
ceeded in having bacon, as far as you observed. You did not have any canned roast 
beef brought up there for issue? 
A. None at all. I saw none, excepting what was brought up for officers' supplies. 
I ate the canned roast beef there in the mess headquarters of the Second Division. 1288 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
We had it on the lines. It came up from Siboney, I suppose supplied from the com- 
missary there, but it was not within my knowledge supplied to the troops as an issue. 
Q. Have you ever, in your experience in the service, known of that canned roast 
beef being supplied, even as a travel ration? 
A. Never before. 
Q. To that extent, then, it would be regarded, within your information or from 
conversation with officers, as an experiment? 
A. Yes, sir. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, there are one or two questions in connec- 
tion with the witnesses who are to appear this afternoon that will have to be dis- 
cussed and decided, and I would suggest that we go into closed session for that purpose. 
The court then (at 12.35 p. m.) went into executive session, after which a recess 
was taken until 2 o'clock p. m. 
AFTER RECESS. 
The court reassembled at the expiration of the recess. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Captain Heil. 
TESTIMONY OF CAPT. ASHTON B. HEIL. 
Capt. Ashton B. Heil was called as a witness by the recorder, and, being duly sworn, 
testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. Ashton B. Heil; captain and assistant surgeon, United States Army; stationed 
now at Fort Thomas, Ky. 
Q. Did you accompany the Fifth Army Corps to Cuba during the operations before 
Santiago? 
A. I did. 
Q. To what command were you attached and in what capacity? 
A. I was assigned as brigade surgeon to the Second Cavalry Brigade, consisting of 
the First and Tenth Cavalry and First Volunteer Cavalry, or Rough Riders. 
Q. In your capacity as chief surgeon of the brigade, please state to the court, in 
narrative form, what observations you made in respect to the food supply during the 
operations, from the date of landing until the surrender of the city of Santiago. 
A. I can't date quite so far as that. I was injured and rendered unfit for service, 
and was returned to the United States from Cuba on July 5. 
Q. Then go on after that date. 
A. As regards food? 
Q. Yes. 
A. On landing, the troops took with them-of that I can speak more especially for 
my own men; I presume they all took the same-a variety of canned beef and some 
small amount of bacon, hardtack, some tomatoes in cans, etc. That is all I remem- 
ber of their taking with them, if that is what you refer to. 
Q. State to the court, also in narrative form, what your observation was in respect 
to canned roast beef that was used by men of the brigade. 
A. The first few days the canned roast beef was not resorted to by my men. They 
used principally the bacon, and it was not until later on, probably three or four days 
after the arrival on land, that canned roast beef was used. I can speak more espe- 
cially about the canned roast beef from my own personal observation, although I saw, 
of course, a number of other illustrations while on duty. One of the men opened a FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1289 
can, the label of which I do not remember-I remember, now, that there were sev- 
eral different kinds, but just which one this one was I do not remember-and it had 
a very unpleasant sort of look. It seemed to be covered with either a paraffin, or 
tallow, or wax, or something of the kind. I presume that that was there as a means 
of preserving it. I can not assign any other reason for it. At any rate, I tried to eat 
some of it cold, thinking that was the way it might be eaten, as any corned beef 
might be. I made quite a meal of it, as I was pretty hungry. I ate most of it 
with some hardtack that I had. I then went about whatever work I had to do-I 
have forgotten just now what it was-but in the course of twenty minutes I began 
to feel exceedingly ill at ease. My stomach felt as if I were going to be sick at the 
stomach. I had headache, etc. And probably half an hour after I had eaten it 
the pain became so great that I emitted it, I vomited the whole thing up. I 
ascribed this vomiting to the fact that I might have upset my stomach by eating 
mangoes, which I tried. Therefore I did not consider that the beef had anything 
to do with it. Two of my men, however, came to me and stated that they thought 
they were poisoned, and I thought, perhaps, maybe, they had been using some 
mangoes, and I questioned them closely on the subject. They said they had not; 
that they had nothing to do with it whatever; that they had stuck closely to the 
orders, etc., which had been given about abstaining from that variety of food. A 
day or so later I again ate some of this canned beef. I was an excellent subject to 
eat anything about that time, as I was quite hungry and had not had very much. I 
drank a large cup of coffee, an4 one of the men had made a sort of stew with some 
water and I think he had gotten a potato and some canned tomatoes, and he made a 
sort of soup or stew out of it, and I ate that. There was some of it left, and my man, 
who was attending to me, and several others partook of what remained. The result 
of it was that in the course of about three-quarters of an hour we all were violently 
sick and threw up. I immediately began to suspect then that that was perhaps the 
trouble; and while walking along the road I picked up a piece of bacon that I found 
that some one had evidently dropped. It was not a very inviting sort of morsel, but 
I took it up and had it cleaned and had it properly cooked in one of the mess pans. 
I ate it and ate it with a relish, and I felt perfectly well. I digested it; and I con- 
cluded that maybe there was still something the matter with that beef. I then tried 
this beef for the first time. I am not able to say whether each time I was using the 
same or different cans of beef. In fact, at the time I did not know that there was 
more than one brand of if. I tried it again with exactly the same result. So then I 
noticed a number of the men-I say a number of the men. There were more of them 
I remember distinctly who all described their condition as being sore over the pit 
of the stomach. That was their remark. After that I confined myself strictly to 
mangoes and cocoanuts and things of that kind, until the day I was taken off and 
put on the hospital ship. On the hospital ship I received a fair substitute for good 
fare-very good fare. 
Q. Did you observe the men of the brigade of which you were chief surgeon in 
respect to their use of it? 
A. I did not observe the men individually; no, but the surgeon, who was the 
regimental surgeon of the Tenth Cavalry, Doctor-I will get his name shortly- 
reported to me that he noticed his men were getting sick at the stomach, and he 
described it as being "violently sick at the stomach." I asked him if bethought 
perhaps it might not be the result of some fruit or something of that kind that they 
had eaten, or some indiscretion they had committed. He said he had inquired very 
closely into that, and was unable to discover that that was the cause of that. The 
gentleman's name was Dr. Brewer. 
Q. Was it on the transport upon which you sailed from Tampa to Cuba? 
A. Some of it was; yes, sir. 
Q. Will you please state to the court your observation of its use during that 
voyage? 1290 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Very little of it in my opinion was used. Most of it, after opening it, presented 
a distasteful appearance. Some of the men did come on the sick report as being 
sick and were reported to me; but I never was able to ascribe it particularly to the 
beef. 
Q. Prior to your leaving the command on the 5th of July was there much or little 
sickness in the brigade? 
A. Comparatively speaking, little. 
Q. What was its nature; what was the principal disease? 
A. Principally alimentary troubles. Most of the men were troubled with what 
was known as gastro enteritis, a variety of upsetting of the stomach. 
Q. Were there any others? 
A. Yes; we had other maladies there which were not of the same nature. 
Q. What proportion of those were affected by the stomach disorder of the entire 
sick list? 
A. I can not carry the figures exactly in my head. 
Q. To the best of your recollection? 
A. I imagine it was about 2 per cent-a very small quantity. I think there was 
not over thirty men on the sick report of the whole brigade at that time. 
Q. In what proportion of those cases did you attribute the sickness, or was the 
sickness due, to the stomach trouble? 
A. Those I did not see individually each time, because they were reported to me 
by the different regimental surgeons. I did not h^ve the personal observation of 
that and I don't think I can quite give you what you want. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee : 
Q. Captain, when you were experimenting or eating, I will say, this canned roast 
beef, what was your own physical condition? Were you in a fairly good state of 
health? 
A. I think I was. 
Q. The men that you speak of that you noticed particularly-were they men con- 
nected with your immediate headquarters? You speak of several cases that came 
under your observation. 
A. Men of my hospital corps. Those I observed most closely, because they were 
under my observation all the time. 
Q. To about what extent were they trying to use this banned roast beef; that is, 
about what proportion of the ration? I do not mean to have you give it exactly, but 
about how much of that was given in proportion to other rations that you got at the 
time? 
A. It formed the major part of it. 
Q. Did the complaints in regard to that ration begin soon after the issue, or imme- 
diately after? 
A. I don't think I know when it was originally issued. 
Q. To the best of your recollection? 
A. We heard complaints of it, of course, going down on the transport, and, of 
course, they continued from then on down. In fact, I can anticipate that a little. 
Complaints began shortly after the men embarked, because we were some time at 
Tampa afterwards. 
Q. Was any of the canned roast beef issued to the men at Tampa fox-use there in 
any way? Do you recall any use of it there? 
A. I can't remember the time when it was originally issued. 
Q. Doctor, you speak of it as canned roast beef. As a matter of fact, was it canned 
roast beef or some other kind of beef? What did you consider it after an examina- 
tion and from your experience with it? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1291 
A. It was beef, I think; but whether it was roasted or how it was prepared Ixlon't 
think I could exactly say. 
Q. Did you notice as to the constituents of the can? You have described, I believe, 
the general condition of the can. Did you notice the appearance of the meat? How 
did it seem? Did it seem to possess any sort of adequate nutrition-that is, as beef- 
as a soldier would regard his ration? 
A. It struck me as being, in the first place, distasteful to the sight, owing to the 
fact that it has this extremely greasy appearance, which, I presume, might be on 
the surface of any can of beef or any other meat. It was tough; it was stringy, and 
it was more or less tasteless, apparently without the adequate quantity of salt, and, 
to my mind, was devoid of the necessary amount of nutrition. 
Q. Can you recall about what time it was that the surgeon or the medical officer of 
the Tenth Cavalry reported to you as his belief that this was causing stomach trouble 
among the men of that regiment? 
A. It was in the neighborhood of the 26th of June. 
Q. About what time did the cavalry regiment land there, if you recall? 
A. Part of it landed on the 22d and part of it on the 23d of June. 
Q. In your experience as a medical officer, from your experience with that beef, 
under the conditions stated there, or under your observation or experience generally 
with it, if you had any prior to that, state whether you regarded it as a fit or unfit 
ration for the American soldiers. 
A. I regarded it as unfit. 
Q. Do you or not consider, as a medical officer, that it contributed in any degree 
to disability or sickness of any kind among the men of the command? I will qualify 
that question by saying the use of it. To what extent did the use of it, or the fact, 
if such be the fact, that the men did not use it, for the reasons which you have 
stated, operate as a factor of sickness? 
The Recorder. Do I understand by that that the not using it was a cause of 
sickness? 
Major Lee. If it please the court, if a man has half rations, or if the majority of 
his ration is canned roast beef and he can not eat it, and he is undergoing a great 
deal of hard work and exposure, the fact that he has not sufficient food in conse- 
quence, it seems to me, may contribute to his disability. It has to me in certain 
instances-not that particular one. That is the only point. 
A. If you mean that the lack of food contributed to their illness, I will say I think 
it did. Do I interpret you correctly? 
Q. Generally, in regard to this canned roast beef and its use among the men as a 
ration, as you have testified it was an unfit ration, to what extent, in your opinion 
as a medical officer, would it contribute to sickness or debility under the conditions 
of service that you mention there? 
A. I think it had a great deal to do with it. 
Q. You may goon and answer the question fully, giving your opinion and the 
reasons for it as a medical officer. 
A. The fact that the men could not or would not eat it owing to the fact that it 
was distasteful to them, or else created stomachic disturbances, in my mind unques- 
tionably caused the men to suffer for the want of a certain amount of required food. 
Is that what you wish ? 
Q. Just cover the point of the question. That is all. 
A. That is the nearest answer to that that I think I can give. 
Q. Your observation was limited to those immediately around you there about 
headquarters? 
A. Yes; and of course the personal inspections which I made daily. I made my 
regular inspections up until two days prior to my departure from Cuba. 1292 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Please state what those inspections were and their extent and character. 
A. In the first place, I saw some of the men who apparently did not know how to 
handle the ration, and frequently I would stop and tell them how to prepare it. 
Some of the men did not know how to make coffee individually and others did. Of 
course, they would congregate together and learn from one another. I have shown 
them what little I knew about it. The mode of preparing the food seemed to be 
-entirely on an individual form, each man having his own kit, etc., and the rations 
issued to him and carried in his haversack; and while no special hour was desig- 
nated-that is, I will not say designated, I mean to say was used-as the hour for 
which meals were served or prepared, they usually selected an hour somewhere 
along toward the most convenient time in the day. I was especially careful with all 
the men, and I took particular pains to explain to all the commanding officers of the 
various troops of the necessity to avoid the tropical fruits of the country, etc., so that 
they would not disarrange their alimentary canals with new and untried things. 
Each day I would go around and I would usually take the medical officers of the 
respective regiments and have them go with me, so as to comment with them on what 
was necessary in the way of changes that could be made with regard to the food 
allowed them. 
Q. In these inspections that you made, what did you notice with reference to this 
canned roast beef in the way of comments or general remarks that were made in 
regard to it? 
A. I don't know that I can attach much importance to what I heard, because 
frequently I might be passing these men unobserved, and they might be joking or 
they might not be joking. At all events, I never attached very much importance to 
what they said. I generally relied on my observation. 
Q. Did you personally observe the use or failure to use any of this canned meat 
among the men of your command of which you were surgeon? 
A. In some instances; yes. 
Q. What was the objection or complaint in regard to it, if any? 
A. One particular case I have in mind was that the man said he had tried repeatedly 
to, as he called it, stomach this stuff, and he said it would not,stay down. 
Q. As a medical officer, to what do you attribute that defective condition, as testified 
to by you, of this canned roast beef or boiled beef, or whatever it was. 
A. I am entirely at a loss to assign the proper cause. 
Q. Did it appear to be put up of a good quality of beef? 
A. It presented the appearance as if it had been subjected to some severe or long 
boiling process, or any process which would apparently extract its supposedly nutri- 
tious elements. 
Q. Did you observe the size of the cans in connection with the investigation or 
inspection? 
A. I saw the sizes of the cans. 
Q. What sizes would they run? 
A. I thought they were about 5 to 6 inches in diameter, and maybe 3 J inches high. 
Q. They contained about what quantities of meat; that is, as to the number of 
pounds. Do you remember anything about the size of the cans issued? 
A. I do not really know anything about how much they did hold. I never made 
any investigation about that. 
Q. Your observation and investigation and inspections concluded the 7th of July, 
when you left there? 
A. They concluded prior to that, because I was rendered unfit for service prior to 
that time. 
Q. After leaving there, you have no further knowledge of the investigation? 
A. No further knowledge at all. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1293 
Major Lee. I believe that is all, unless there is something omitted. If so, I would 
like the Doctor to state fully in regard to it. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Were you at Lakeland, Doctor? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. At what time were you there? 
A. Between the time that the Second Cavalry Brigade moved from Chickamauga 
and the time it left. 
Q. What month, if you can tell? 
A. It was the early part of June, I think. 
Q. Do you remember any complaints being made against the beef as served there? 
A. I heard, incidentally, that something of the kind was made, but it was never 
made personally to me. 
Q. What was the nature of the complaint? 
A. It seems to me that there was something said about some of the meat being 
old or decayed, or something of that kind; and I learned, as I say, incidentally, that 
it was rejected by the commissary then in charge and other had been supplied. 
That was all that I heard about it. 
Q. So far as you personally know, what was the character of the meat? 
A. The beef that was furnished down there for my inspections daily was a very 
fair meat. You are speaking of the fresh beef? 
Q. Yes; fresh beef. Did you have any occasion to condemn any part of it? 
A. No, sir; my attention was never called to it. 
Q. Speaking about canned roast beef, you say that you observed in opening it was 
covered with a white substance apparently put in to preserve it. Do you mean to 
say that it was anything else than the suet or natural product of beef. 
A. No, sir; I do not mean to infer that. I mean to say it was the suet or what- 
ever it was-nothing to preserve the meat itself. 
Q. It was not a chemical? 
A. I did not intend to infer that; no, sir. 
By General Davis: 
Q. You ate of this canned roast beef three times, I think, Doctor? 
A. Yes, sir, 
Q. And only three times? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did any of the men of the brigade, so far as you know, consume this beef with- 
out those effects? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What proportion of them complained, or were any complaining? 
A. I don't really believe I can give you the proportion or even approximate it, 
because things were changing so much about that time. 
Q. You were disabled before the close of the campaign, I think, you said? 
A. Yes, sir; I was disabled there on the 3d. A sunstroke, principally, was the first 
injury I had. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Was this beef that was issued at Lakeland during the time you were there, 
in June, native or refrigerated beef? 
A. I don't know where it came from. 
Q. You were at Lakeland until about what time in June; until the expedition 
sailed? 
A. Until the expedition sailed. My impression is that the beef came there in 
cars, but I don't know whether it was native or not. 1294 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. You had, in your official capacity, nothing to do with the inspection of the beef 
at all? 
A. I was never called upon to do that. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Giddings, of Washington. 
TESTIMONY OF G. H. GIDDINGS. 
G. H. Giddings was called as a witness by the recorder, and, being duly sworn, 
testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name and residence. 
A. G. H. Giddings; residence, San Antonio, Tex. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Were you in the city of Washington during last May and June? 
A. Yes, sir; I was. 
Q. Did you have any relation or any concern in regard to the bids or proposals for 
furnishing beef to the Army in connection with the late war with Spain? 
A. Yes, sir; I bid to furnish the beef in Cuba on the block; also to deliver, if they 
pleased, at Galveston, New Orleans, or at any seaports in Cuba to be designated. 
Q. Mr. Giddings, it has been testified by General Eagan, during his examination 
before this court, that it was well understood by everyone, quoting his evidence, 
" that his purpose in making the contracts for the supply of beef to the Army during 
the late war with Spain was for refrigerated beef." I wish you to please state all 
you know in connection with this matter, brought out by conversation, if any had, 
between you and General Eagan, and in the same connection state, if you can, about 
when these conversations took place and who were present. Please go on and state 
in a narrative form in your own way all that occurred within your recollection, in 
answer to the question, giving as near as you can the dates or about the time. 
A. That is a pretty long question to answer. I will say that his first adver- 
tisement was that bids were to be opened at the office on the 1st of June, I think 
it was. I saw him several times before that, two or three times, I guess, and got 
information from him in regard to the advertisements. I told him the adver- 
tisement was very vague; that it called for beef without stating the quantity or 
where to be delivered, or when to be delivered in Cuba. He said he could not 
give me any more information; that he did not know himself in regard to that. I 
told him that several of our Texas men would not bid on that account. He stated 
that his preference would be, if he had any confidence in it, for refrigerated beef, 
but he did not think it could be made available in Cuba, in that climate, and for 
that reason he had advertised for beef on the block. He said he wished he could 
be satisfied that it could be made available. I told him that I had been in Cuba 
considerable, and I did not think it could be unless they had refrigerators. We had, 
perhaps, two or three conversations on that subject. Mr. Hawley, a member from 
Texas, was with me on two or three occasions and heard pretty much of this conver- 
sation. I told him, of course, I did not think it could be made available. Then it 
ran along, you know. The bids were opened on the 13th, and I called on him two 
or three times, I think, between that and the 1st of July-along about that time. 
He told me the Secretary had sent for him the night before and told him there was 
so much difference in the price of refrigerated beef and beef on the block that he 
had better give these men a trial. Said he: "I am bound to give them a trial." 
Said I: "General, have you any confidence that they can do it, that they can keep 
Beef there?" "Well," he said, "they offer to give me a bond for any amount that I 
may require that they can do it. They claim that they have a preparation, known FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1295 
only to themselves, by which they can treat the beef that will keep it seventy-two 
hours in any climate." I said: "General, do you believe that?" "Well," he says, 
' ' I think I am bound to believe it. " I thi nk those were the words he used. ' ' When 
they offer to give me a bond for any amount I have got to give them a trial," he says. 
"But," he says, "if there is any bother or dissatisfaction with the refrigerated beef 
by our soldier boys in Cuba, I will upset the contract there quick and give it to the 
Texas cattle man." I said: "General, in that case I am so certain that there will be 
a failure that, with your permission, I will file a statement that in case there is a 
failure, I will take up the contract on so many days' notice-blank days' notice-and 
furnish good fresh meat daily to the troops in Cuba." He said: "All right; I wish 
you would." So I delivered to him a statement to that effect, which he read and 
said, "All right." He put it away with some papers that I took to be the list of 
bids. He said: " If it is a failure, you will hear from me. " I then left. I only saw 
him two or three times after that. I believe that answers your question as near as X 
can answer it. 
Q. Mr. Giddings, have you a copy of that statement that was made? 
A. Yes, sir; I have. I keep a copy of everything. I have got a copy of all my 
bids. 
Q. Will you please produce that statement you submitted to General Eagan, the 
Commissary-General? 
A. Yes, sir; I will give you a copy of it. 
(The witness produces a paper.) 
Major Lee. If it please the court, I would like that paper submitted and read in 
connection with the evidence of the witness, if it is not objected to. 
Major Lee then read the above-mentioned paper, as follows: 
Washington, D. C., July 1, 1898. 
Dear Sir: In case the experiment of furnishing our troops in Cuba with cold 
storage of beef should be a failure, of which there is a possibility, I hereby inform 
you that I will take the contract on days' notice, in accordance with my bid 
of June 12, 1898, and will keep my combination of Texas cattle men and my finan- 
cial arrangements in such shape as to make a success, and insure good fresh beef 
killed daily at the camps in Cuba. 
Very truly yours, G. H. Giddings. 
General Eagan, 
United States Commissary-General, Washington, D. C. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Mr. Giddings, will you please state to the court whether the question as to the 
ability of yourself and those with whom you were associated to carry out your pro- 
posal, more particularly your ability to deliver the cattle that you offered to sell, was 
brought out and discussed, and the details of it, if there were any? 
A. Yes, sir; Mr. Hawley, I remember, went with me to General Eagan. I showed 
him the arrangements I had with these cattle men in Texas, and that they owned 
between 50,000 and 60,000 head of cattle on their own ranches, and of course joined 
me in any contract I got. I explained to him about my financial arrangements and 
so on, which he said were perfectly satisfactory. 
Q. Will you please state to the court whether or not, to your knowledge or within 
your information, cattle were being shipped from the various ports of the United 
States-the Atlantic and Gulf ports, Galveston and others-to other countries on 
cattle ships? 
A. Cattle have been shipped from Texas to Cuba for years, you know; and one of 
the men that was connected with me has taken there since the war, as they call it, 
over 8,000 head. That is Mr. Prior. I think he is furnishing the troops there now. 1296 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. You may in your previous answer have answered this, but I will pursue it 
even at the risk of repetition. On page 2941 of General Eagan's testimony, he was 
asked if at any time he entertained a conviction that it would be best for the troops 
under the conditions there (Cuba), or the probable conditions, to be supplied with 
live beef cattle to be killed when needed, rather than to be supplied with refrig- 
erated beef, to which he answered: " No, sir; I never had such an idea; never then 
nor since nor now-never." Please say whether or not General Eagan ever expressed 
any opinion to you upon this subject; if so, what it was and the reasons he gave 
therefor. 
A. In one of the conversations in regard to the question of refrigerated beef, he 
told me that while he was in the field himself with troops they always drove along 
a drove of beeves and slaughtered them as they needed them, and he thought that 
was the proper way to supply beef to troops in the army; and he was in grave 
doubts whether they could use refrigerated beef in Cuba. There were several con- 
versations that took place. I had perhaps five or six conversations with him. 
Q. Was Mr. Hawley,-the member of Congress from Texas, present at any of these 
conversations? 
A. He was, at several of them. Mr. Hawley took very much interest in the cattle 
men of Texas, and was trying to get a contract for them. 
On page 2941 of the record, General Eagan wTas asked whether in connection with 
these beef contracts the Secretary of War requested or directed him to enter into a 
contract with either Armour or Swift, his reply being: "No; I have no knowledge 
of the Secretary of War giving me any such instructions or suggestions." That the 
Secretary of War gave him what he termed a free hand. Please state whether or not 
you had any conversation with General Eagan relating to this particular matter, in 
which the Secretary of War was referred to. State fully in answer to that question. 
A. At the time a part of this conversation took place which I repeated-I think it 
was on the first day of July, and on the evening before when I had been there with 
Mr. Hawley, he had, as we considered, about made up his mind to give the contract 
for beef on the block, you know-I went in and Mr. Eagan said: " Well, Giddings," 
he says, "the Secretary of War sent for me last night and he told me that there was 
so much difference in the cost that I had better give those refrigerating men a trial," 
and said he, "I am bound to do it; I am bound to give them a trial." Said I, 
"Did he order you to do it?" He said, "No; he didn't order me to do it, but it 
amounts to about the same thing, and I have got to give them a trial." That is his 
exact language. 
Q. Did he say anything further? 
A. He repeated it again, and he said he did not intend to have our boys poisoned 
with a lot of rotten meat, or something of that kind. 
Q. Will you please state what were your relations with the Commissary-General at 
that time-General Eagan-as to access to the office and as to your reception there; 
whether you ever received any indication of unwelcomeness or otherwise? 
A. No, sir; they were always most pleasant. He treated me like a gentleman and 
I treated him the same. I would not allow him to treat me any other way. His 
statement about his refusing to see me was not so. Everything was pleasant between 
us. There was no friction or anything of the kind up to the last time I saw him. 
Q. Did you ever receive any intimation in his office from him or from anyone in 
his office forbidding or indicating that you were forbidden or not desired to enter his 
office? 
A. No, sir; nothing of the kind. There was no indication from him or anybody 
else of that sort. I went there with perfect freedom, considering I had a perfect 
right to go, and was always treated very respectfully by him. 
Q. Will you please state whether or not anything was said as to your ability to 
transport by ship the cattle that you proposed to furnish, if awarded the contract? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1297 
A. Yes, sir; I told him that I had under conditional contract vessels that I could 
have by telegraph; that we could commence loading and delivering these in Cuba in 
ten days from that time. 
Q. Are you familiar or have you within your experience any knowledge of trans- 
porting cattle or taking cattle off of a boat and swimming cattle. 
A. I have shipped cattle to Chicago from Texas and put them on boats at the 
mouth of the Red River, but I want to say this: That during the war I assisted in 
crossing over the Mississippi River some 3,000 odd head of beeves one day when the 
river was a mile and a half wide, without losing one of them. They swam across 
with perfect ease. We did not lose a head. 
Q. Do you know whether there was any difficulty in swimming cattle as compared 
with other animals, such as horses or mules? 
A. We always consider they swim better than horses or mules. 
Q. In the cattle drives from Texas are you familiar with the result-the cattle 
drives that used to be made from Texas, the extensive drives that were made all over 
the country years ago. 
A. Only from hearsay. I never had anything to do with driving any of them. 
Q. Do you know, as a matter of fact, that hundreds of thousands of head of cattle 
were driven to the Western country and there disposed of? 
A. Yes, sir; I had eight thousand and odd head driven to the mouth of the Red 
River and shipped them to Chicago-on steamers to Cairo and then from there by 
rail. I did not go with the cattle. I had men to drive them. 
Q. Do you know, as a matter of fact, that there were streams to cross at various 
seasons that would be very high? 
A. There is no trouble in swimming cattle at all. 
Q. If there are any other facts in connection with these conversations relating to 
this contract, or the advertisement for bids or proposals received, that you have 
not stated, I would like you to state them as fully to the court as though you were 
questioned in relation to each particular item. 
A. I believe I have stated everything that I know of my own knowledge. I have 
some of the copies of the advertisements that were sent me. If you wish, I can give 
you one of them. 
Q. Have you one with you, in your possession? 
A. Yes, sir. 
The Recorder. It is already before the court. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. You testified, I believe, that there was a process, known only to themselves, 
for keeping the beef seventy-two hours; that was discussed to what extent, and to 
what company (if a company or companies) did that refer. 
A. General Eagan told me that Mr. Swift, to whom he was going to give the con- 
tract, claimed that he had a process known to himself by which he could treat beef 
to keep it seventy-two hours. The most I said was: " General, do you believe that? " 
I said, " I do not. I do not know what the process is." " Well," he said, " I have 
got to believe it; I have got to give it a trial." It was not discussed much, because I 
never discussed much with him. When I went there to ask any questions or to get 
any information, I did so and left. I did not stay five minutes after I got through 
with my business. 
Q. I will ask you, in this connection, whether you have ever heard of, or had 
brought to your knowledge, any of these processes or alleged processes for keeping 
beef-whether you have any knowledge of them, or can give any information on 
the subject which was brought to you by parties proposing to do a thing of that 
kind? 
A. Well, no, sir; only from-after I heard this, the first I ever heard about pro- 
cessed beef, or anything of that kind, was that I talked to some beef men handling 
S. Doc. 270 82 1298 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
beef here, and they told me they understood that there was such a thing, but they 
claimed that they would not handle that kind of beef. I know nothing personally 
about it. I tried to get information on the subject from some beef men. They said 
they had heard of it, but that they did not handle that kind of beef. 
Q. Did you ever hear of what was called the "Powell process?" 
A. Only from the papers; that is all I have heard of it. 
The Recorder. I have no questions. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. You have just stated that the Commissary-General stated to you that Mr. 
Swift alleged that he had this process. Are you sure Mr. Swift was the person? 
A. Yes, sir; he said he was going to give the contract to Mr. Swift; that he was 
the lowest bidder; and he said they claimed-he did not say whether Swift him- 
self or his men-that they had a process. He did not say they were going to use 
that process. 
Q. The person to whom the contract was awarded had the process? 
A. He said the person to whom he was going to give it. He did not say he had 
given it. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Sypher, of Washington. 
TESTIMONY OF J. HALE SYPHER. 
J. Hale Sypher was called as a witness by the recorder, and, being duly sworn, 
testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name and residence. 
A. My name is J. Hale Sypher; my legal residence is in New Orleans, La.; I am 
a temporary resident of Washington. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Will you please state to the court whether you were in any way last year, 
prior to the letting of the beef contracts, connected with that matter, as representing 
any cattle interests here in the city of Washington or elsewhere in the country? 
A. I have a clientage interested in beef cattle in this country, and when it was 
announced that proposals would be invited for furnishing beef for the Army, I went 
to the Commissary-General to inquire concerning it, particularly as to what kind of 
beef was desired, how much, where to be delivered, and when. 
Q. Will you please go on and state to the court, in a narrative form, in your own 
way, as to these conversations; about when they were had, and who were present, 
as far as you recall, and all that was said in connection with the subject between 
yourself and General Eagan, or any representative of his in the office, in relation to 
this matter? 
A. I visited the Commissary-General several times prior to the letting, which, I 
believe, was advertised on the 13th of June. I discussed it with him pretty freely, 
especially with reference to the kind of beef he desired to furnish the Army. He 
conveyed the impression to me, most decidedly and positively, that he desired beef 
on the hoof, "on the block," as he expressed it. 
That was the matter in which my clients were interested, and I immediately com- 
municated with them that that was the wish of the Department. Some of them 
came here to look after the matter themselves upon that representation from me, I 
having derived my information from the Commissary-General. 
He inquired something as to the ability and resources of my clients to furnish cat- 
tle, in what quantity, as to whether they had ships ready to transport them to Cuba, FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1299 
and as to what they could do when they had been landed in Cuba, who there was 
there to take charge of them, corral them, who was to slaughter them, and how they 
were to be delivered. Those questions we discussed freely. I explained them fully. 
I stated that we were prepared with cattle ships to carry cattle from the Texas ports 
or from New Orleans to Cuba and Porto Rico; that we had made arrangements with 
the Cuban butchers to take charge of the cattle'and butcher them, and deliver them 
from the block to the commissaries as they required them. 
He entertained that proposition courteously and favorably, and I communicated 
these facts to my clients; and they began to make preparations, so that, in the event 
they should get the contract, they could carry it out expeditiously and satisfactorily. 
I saw him afterwards, a number of times. He said, in reply to the question as to 
when the beef would be required, "I have about twenty days of dry rations on hand; 
and during that time you can have all the arrangements perfected to carry out the 
contract, in the event you get it." I was going entirely upon the supposition that 
he desired beef upon the block. I had no clientage and no interest in refrigerated 
beef. 
After the bids were submitted and opened, the day they were opened I called on 
the Commissary-General, and he very kindly gave me a memorandum of the bids 
before they were compiled. He had a small slip for his own use; and he called his 
private secretary, and he allowed me, with my own pencil, to write on his tablet 
each bid, and the amount, etc. That was a memorandum which gave me the 
information which I wanted, to show to my clients, as to what the result of the 
bidding was. I carried that away with me, and communicated it to them in the 
evening. 
I called on him again, I think the next day or the day following, and I thought I 
discovered a little change of opinion in his position on the beef question. I thought 
I discovered that he was leaning toward refrigerated beef, and I was very desirous 
of knowing what was the cause of his change of mind on the subject. I then stated 
that I had understood from him that he wanted beef on the block, and that now he 
seemed to prefer refrigerated beef, and I wanted to know what the cause of his 
change of mind on that subject was. 
He then-disclosed to me that the refrigerated people had offered him a bond that 
they would have their beef delivered and preserved sweet for seventy-jwo hours after 
it left the refrigerator-that is, the refrigerator ship. I said to him: "General, I do 
not believe that is possible. I have had experience in hot climates, as you have 
had, and I submit that question to your judgment. Do you think that is possible?" 
He said: "I do not believe it is, unless they put up cold-storage plants," and at 
that point something was said about a process of curing the beef to have it kept. I 
do not recollect distinctly just what was said on that subject of a process. I gave it 
very little consideration, because I thought it was not worthy of consideration. I did 
not believe it myself, and I did not think that any sensible man would believe it, 
whether they offered a bond or not. Therefore I did not give it much attention. 
I visited him again, several days afterwards, and he informed me that owing to 
the large difference between the bids of the refrigerated people and the live-cattle 
people, (the live-cattle people's bid being 22 cents, and that of the refrigerated beef 
people, if I recollect aright, something like 9), he would have to give the refrigerated 
people a trial. He used that exact expression, " a trial." 
I think that was about the last conversation I had with him on the subject. 
Q. I would like to have you state, if you please, whether anything was said in the 
conversation, if you recall, as to why he must give those people a trial, if anything? 
A. There was something said-I do not recall it distinctly-in regard to the 
pressure brought upon him in behalf of the refrigerator people; to which I remarked: 
" General, the law makes you responsible for these contracts; as I understand it, the 
Secretary of War has little to do with it, if anything; and the country will hold you 1300 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
responsible, at any rate." " Well," he said, " I think, in consideration of the great 
difference in the price of the bids, and the fact that they offer a bond of indemnity, ' ' 
or, at least, " conditional security," "for the condition of their beef, I will have to 
give them a trial." 
Q. Did he or not state from what source this pressure or influence was brought to 
bear to influence him to make the award to the refrigerated people? State your best 
recollection on that subject, if any. 
A. Well, I would not like to state. I do not recollect distinctly and positively just 
exactly what the conversation was. He left the impression on my mind that it was 
political influenoe and pressure, which is always potent in this great Government of 
ours with all classes of men, whether they are civilians or wear shoulder straps. 
Q. Please state to the court whether any statement was made as to any request or 
suggestion or direction from any superior authority toe him with reference to this, if 
you recall-whether there had been any conference, or the submission of any ques- 
tions to any such authority, if any. 
A. I think what Colonel Giddings has stated on that subject is about the substance 
of it; that there was a conference with the Secretary of War at some time on the 
subject, but the exact result of it I do not bear clearly in my mind. 
Q. Were you, in the course of these conversations with the Commissary-General, 
present with Mr. Giddings at any time in connection with the matter, if you recall? 
A. I do not recollect that I was present at any time with Mr. Giddings-not that 
I recollect. 
Mr. Giddings. No; he was not. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Was Mr. Giddings one of your clientage in any way? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. The question in regard to the shipping of cattle, and the ships, was discussed 
between you and General Eagan? 
A. Yes, sir; fully. 
Q. What was the discussion on that point? 
A. I had, for many years, been counsel for Morgan's Louisiana Railroad and 
Steamship Company. We had 20 to 30 iron steamships. We ran our ships from 
New Orleans to all the Texas ports, and to Mexico, and to Habana, and New York; 
and I am familiar with all that business, that trade. We had many cattle ships 
in that company; and I explained to the Commissary-General how' we trans- 
ported cattle, and in what character of ships, and the question of feeding cattle in 
transit, and the question of feeding them after they landed in Cuba-because they 
said there was no grass at that time in that part of Cuba; that was my experience- 
I mentioned that fact, that there was no feed there, and we would have to carry the 
feed over on these ships for these cattle. He says "Yes; that must all be done;" 
and he said: "You had better make your bids to cover your cost." Said he: "I 
don't want this thing done for nothing." And all those things were taken into con- 
sideration by my clients when they bid 22 cents. 
Q. Please state to the court, from your knowledge and experience and information 
in regard to the cattle interests of this country-exporting cattle from the Gulf 
ports-as to the extent to which that exportation goes on, and whether it is con- 
tinual, and whether there is any difficulty in connection with supplying cattle to any 
of those points, as Cuba, Porto Rico, or any other of the islands that are near or, 
in fact, remote from the United States. 
A. The records of the Treasury Department will disclose that that is a very large 
and important trade, the cattle trade-the export cattle trade from Texas to different 
parts of the world. There is a large and profitable continuous trade; that is a well- 
known fact, and the records of the Treasury Department will show it fully. 
Q. Are there to-day, and were there last year during all this time, facilities for FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1301 
readily supplying cattle-live cattle-to an army operating in Cuba, or wherever 
needed? 
A. Ample facilities. If the Texas people had been given these contracts they 
would have complied with them; they would have executed them promptly and 
satisfactorily, I am sure, because they have ample facilities, plenty of cattle, abun- 
dance of money, and plenty of ships. There would have been no difficulty whatever. 
Q. Please state, if it is within your knowledge or information, whether there is 
any difference in the price of cattle exported from the United States-we will say to 
England-and refrigerated beef, if you have that matter within your knowledge? 
A. I have really no experience on that subject. 
Q. If you have not stated fully in reference to the matter of conversations and 
understandings with the Commissary-General or others in connection with the letting 
of the beef contracts of last year, please state fully to the court, as though questioned 
especially with reference thereto. 
A. I think I have answered, in substance, substantially what occurred within my 
own knowledge. 
The Recorder. I have no questions. Has the court any? 
(The court having no questions to ask, the witness withdrew.) 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Major Harvey. 
TESTIMONY OF MAJ. PHILIP F. HARVEY. 
Maj. Philip F. Harvey, U. S. A., was called by the recorder as a witness, and, 
being duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. Philip F. Harvey; major and surgeon, United States Army. 
Q. Did you accompany the Fifth Army Corps to Cuba during the operations near 
Santiago last year? 
A. I did. 
Q. To what command were you attached and in what capacity? 
A. I was attached to the First Division, as chief surgeon. 
Q. How long did you remain in the vicinity of Santiago? 
A. I remained until the 3d of July. 
Q. During the time that you continued in Cuba, please state to the court, in nar- 
rative form, what observations you made as the chief medical officer of that division in 
respect to the food supply of the division from day to day. 
A. During the time I was at Siboney the observations that I made were such as 
would be of no importance to the court, because I remained on the boat that I went 
on, and the troops had disembarked. The character of the food had been, up to the 
time of the disembarkation, the ordinary travel ration. 
Q. What meat, if it is within your knowledge, was furnished the division while 
you continued on duty with it in Cuba? 
A. It is not within my positive knowledge just what was furnished the division 
while it was in Cuba. 
Q. What was furnished on the voyage from the United States to Cuba as the meat 
component of the travel ration? 
A. The canned roast beef, so called. My impression is that there was some canned 
corned beef on the boat also. 
Q. Did you see the canned roast beef used? 
A. I would not be positive as regards the exact source of the meat that I saw. I 
am under the impression that it was the canned roast beef that was used by the men 
going over. I saw it upon their plates. 1302 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Were any complaints made of it? 
A. I heard none. 
Q. In what way did you return to the United States? 
A. I returned in charge of the hospital ship Iroquois. I had on board about 200 
wounded men and about 150 sick men. 
Q. With what diseases wrere the sick suffering-the principal ones? 
A. There were, as I recall at present, a very few cases of typhoid fever, a few cases 
of malarial fever, a few men suffering from heat prostration, and some cases of bowel 
trouble. Most of the cases, as I recall, were of bowel affections. 
Q. To what cause did you attribute that class of diseases. 
A. It is quite possible that they may have arisen from confinement upon the trans- 
port, and the heat due to sleeping between decks, as well as to lack of exercise and 
a deficiency of fresh vegetables in the ration. 
Q. Did you attribute any portion of them to the use of improper food? 
A. It is quite probable that some of the intestinal troubles were due to overeat- 
ing, and possibly to badly prepared food. 
Q. Did any facts in that connection develop in your examination of the patients 
as to the cause of their diseases? 
A. I was unable to trace, in the cases of which I speak, upon the transport Iroquois 
the exact cause, because the diseases had been contracted before I went on board the 
ship. The sick men were there when I took charge of the vessel; but I can say that 
on our trip over, on the steamship Santiago, the percentage of sickness was very 
small. There were very few sick men indeed. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. You left Cuba at what time, Doctor? 
A. On the morning of the 3d of July. 
Q. And these sick men were already on board the vessel when you went there? 
A. I went on the vessel about the last day of June, or very late in June, and the 
sick were then on the boat. The wounded were transferred from the boat during 
the 1st and 2d of July. 
Q. How many assistants had you on the boat on your return trip? 
A. I had no assistants. 
Q. None? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you make any special investigation as to the cause of any bowel trouble, as 
to how it had occurred, having all these wounded men and the sick generally to look 
after? 
A. I investigated the food on the way back as thoroughly as I could. I was very 
busy attending to the wounded. 
Q. Excuse me for interrupting you, Doctor; I am referring to investigating as to 
the prior cases, what it was that had made these men sick. You found these men 
on the boat there with various complaints. I want to know whether you took up 
the matter of getting from the doctors or medical officers who had preceded you, who 
had charge of these men, any diagnosis, or any paper indicating anything a,s to the 
cause of the sickness? 
A. I understand. I had no opportunity of communicating with any medical officers 
who had had charge of these men before I took charge. 
Q. So, in connection with your very pressing duties there at that time, that was 
a matter which you could not take up, to go back to investigate? 
A. No; it was impossible. We received 200 wounded men there in the two days 
that I speak of, and we were busy day and night attending to them. 
Q. You speak of going over on the transport. I believe you state that possibly or 
probably you saw some of the canned roast beef on the plates of the men, or some of FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1303 
them, and that you do not recall hearing any complaints in regard to the matter. 
In your capacity, would the complaints have probably come to you in regard to it? 
A. They would most assuredly have come to me. 
Q. In what way? 
A. As chief surgeon of the division. 
Q. What division? 
A. There was a medical officer of the day, who inspected the food every day, to the 
best of my belief, and also the ventilation and the water supply, and the sleeping 
places of the men, and whenever anything was found that was not right it was 
reported to me. 
Q. In regard to this canned roast beef, were there any reports received by you 
concerning it? 
A. Not at all going over. 
Q. Do you know as a matter of fact, whether it was canned roast beef or canned 
corned beef? 
A. I do not know as an absolute fact. The meat I saw upon the plates of some of 
the men I know was not canned corned beef; but I am under the impression that I 
saw some canned corned beef on my boat going over. 
Q. And there were no complaints about it? 
A. There were no complaints about it. I am quite sure I saw some coming back. 
Q. On the boat? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Did you ever hear of any complaints down there or after the cessation of opera- 
tions in regard to any dissatisfaction on the part of the Army, on the part of the 
men, with the canned roast beef that was sent down? 
A. Not directly. 
Q. I mean, in a general way, have those come to your knowledge, either through 
your own department or otherwise? I do not mean strictly official complaints; but 
has it come to your knowledge that that article was not a satisfactory ration to the 
men; or have you heard to the contrary, that it was a satisfactory ration? 
A. No complaint had been made to me prior to my return from Cuba that any 
articles of the ration were not satisfactory. 
Q. You started back about what date? 
A. On the 3d of July; the morning of the 3d of July. 
Q. Do you know at what time, what I might term the continuous issue of this 
canned roast beef to the Army began? Have you any knowledge on that subject? 
A. My opinion is that the men were given this canned roast beef from the time 
they began to go upon the transports; it was a constituent part of their travel ration. 
Q. And then, after landing in Cuba, have you any knowledge as to its issue there, 
and as to its continuous issue as a part of the ration? I do not mean the entire 
meat ration, but as a very material part of the ration. Have you any knowledge on 
that point? 
A. Not of my own personal observation. 
Q. Have you ever had any experience with canned roast beef in connection with 
your service with troops? 
A. I have never had any experience with it, sir. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Major Appel. 
TESTIMONY OF MAJ. A. H. APPEL. 
Maj. A. H. Appel, U. S. A., was called by the recorder as a witness, and, being 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 1304 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. A. H. Appel, major, of the Medical Department, United States Army. 
Q. And your station? 
A. My station is Jackson Barracks, La. 
Q. Did you accompany the Fifth Army Corps to Cuba during the operations near 
Santiago last year? 
A. I did, sir. 
Q. To what organization were you attached, and in what capacity? 
A. I was the commanding officer of divisional hospital No. 2 of the Fifth Army 
Corps. 
Q. To what division was that assigned? 
A. It was not assigned to any division. It was at Tampa Heights. This was a 
general hospital for the corps, and it was designated as divisional hospital No. 2. It 
was practically a corps hospital, and it was transferred to the hospital ship Olivette, 
and the staff of the hospital were taken on board this ship and remained with it as a 
hospital ship. 
Q. And was it established on land in Cuba? 
A. No, sir; not on land. 
Q. And was your service rendered on board the hospital ship during the war? 
A. On board the hospital ship during the war. 
Q. Then you were not on land at all, except casually? 
A. Excepting casually, to take patients on board the ship. 
Q. Did you make a number of trips to the United States with patients from Cuba? 
A. I made two trips. 
Q. And what cases did you bring? Were they surgical or hospital cases? 
A. My first return to the United States was with surgical cases principally, about 
300 in number. The second bringing home of the sick was of medical cases entirely, 
about'200. 
Q. To what point in the United States did you bring them? 
A. The surgical cases were brought to New York and the medical cases to Boston. 
Q. What were the principal diseases from which the men w ho constituted your 
corps were suffering? 
A. I should say the principal disease was malaria in its various forms, and then, 
next in order, typhoid fever and dysentery. 
Q. From your examination of the patients on the voyage, to what cause were you 
led to attribute the dysentery? 
A. I was of the opinion that the dysentery was caused principally by climatic 
conditions. 
Q. To what extent, in your opinion, did food enter in, in any way? 
A. I think that the men wmuld have been about as badly off, no matter what food 
they got, those that came under my attention. 
Q. In your examination of the cases did you find any that had made use of 
canned roast beef? 
A. I had heard a good bit of the canned roast beef from the officers that were on 
board as patients, and they, as a rule, condemned it as an article of food. They 
spoke as if it had made them and their men sick; but, of course, I did not give any 
to any of my people-my patients. 
Q. You used none on the ship? 
A. I used none on the ship, as none of the patients were in condition to use meat 
of any sort. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Major, will you please state to the court whether you had any experience with 
this canned roast beef, whether you have ever investigated the subject? I do not 
mean here particularly, but about that time, or soon after, in Cuba. Did the mat- 
ter come under your observation down there in any wray? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1305 
A. Not officially. 
Q. Well, in any way? 
A. No more than what I have said, that I had heard a great deal said about the beef, 
in condemnation of it, from the line officers in command of troops on shore. They 
spoke of the beef as being repulsive in appearance, and stringy, and fatty, and unfit 
to eat. 
Q. Did you hear any remarks as to its possessing the full qualities of nutritive meat, 
such as men should eat to give them strength? Was that spoken of in connection 
with it, whether or not it lacked nutrition? Did they refer to that? 
A. Yes; though I can not recall any exact conversation on the subject. I recall, in 
a general way, that that was spoken of; that there was a great deal of fat in it, that 
it was soft, and that the fat took the place of the nutritive part of the meat. 
Q. You carried quite a number of sick officers back on the boat, I presume, in con- 
nection with the men, and met quite a number of officers down there? 
A. Oh, I met a large number of officers. 
Q. Was this condemnation, or were these complaints, rather general? Was there 
a general consensus of opinion on the subject, so far as it was discussed, in the way 
that it came to you? 
A. I did not hear a good word for it. 
Q. That is just the point I want to ask about, whether you ever heard any com- 
pany or line officer commend it as a proper article of food for his men? 
A. I did not. 
Q. I believe you were afterwards on duty in New York City, and handled (if I 
may use such a term) a great many of our sick men from Montauk, who came from 
Cuba-several thousand of them. 
A. I think you have got me mixed up with my brother. I wTent to Pablo Beach, 
and my brother was on duty supervising the hospital in New York City. He is here 
in town. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Testimony has been given before this court to the effect that in some cases 
men have returned from Cuba greatly emaciated, and have alleged that this emacia- 
tion or condition was due to deficient food, or defective food. Did any such cases 
come under your observation-cases of men who were emaciated, without any well- 
defined disease? 
A. Yes, sir; on the second trip that I made, about the middle of August, from 
Santiago, all the men were very much emaciated, yellow, pulled down; and a large 
number of them attributed their condition to the poor food which they had got in 
the trenches. But I think a great deal of it was due to the disease they contracted. 
Q. What was the derivation of that disease, in your opinion? 
A. Well, it is an infection. The malarial diseases, of course, were all infections; 
and likewise the dysenteries and the typhoids. 
Q. My question referred to cases of extreme emaciation without any well-defined 
disease and attributable to insufficient or unwholesome food. Did any such cases 
come under your observation? 
A. I should say not-qualifying it, of course, w'ith the statement that there were a 
great many men who were emaciated and in advanced stages of infectious disease who 
attributed their illness, possibly, to a lack of food. 
Q. Yes; but were there any cases of approximation to starvation, emaciation due 
to starvation, without any disease? 
A. No; I should say not. There was no starvation simply from lack of food. But 
there were men in different stages of starvation who got food, but could not assimi- 
late it on account of the inflamed condition of their alimentary canal. 1306 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Without putting words in the mouth of the witness, it is a matter within the 
knowledge of nearly everybody that there were a great many men who died of what 
is called inanition. What is that? I have talked with a number of medical officers 
and company commanders in regard to it. The company commanders would not 
know exactly what was the matter with the men, you know. These men would just 
seem to give away, and break down, and they call it inanition. What is that? 
A. Inanition is practically marasmus-that is to say, it is inability to renew the 
tissues of the body through the food that is taken. Of course it may be due to 
starvation; and then, again, it may be due to disease which prevents the assimila- 
tion of the food. 
Q. Taking the hypothetical case of men (not one man, but a number of men in 
various companies and regiments) who took this article of canned roast beef, under 
the conditions of service in the field such as men have, exposure, etc., and would eat 
of it or try to eat of it, and become immediately nauseated,' or, within a very short 
time throw it up, or parts of it, or would have, within a few hours, diarrhea, dysen- 
tery, and, not knowung the cause, they would repeat that, perhaps, the next day 
and have about the same result, and then leave it off and get hold of bacon and eat 
that and get along all right-what would be your inference, as a medical officer, 
from that condition of those men in regard to that food; that it was a proper food or 
not? 
A. Under those circumstances, I should certainly say that it was not a proper food. 
Q. Have you any knowledge, or did you make any examination, of the canned 
roast beef that was down there, that was used by the troops down there-I mean that 
was opened; did you see any of it which was opened and used? 
A. None came under my personal observation. 
Q. You had no personal experience with it? 
A. No personal experience with it; I did not use it myself. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. You have had no personal experience with canned roast beef, I understand you 
to say? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Suppose the conditions were reversed, and you found those people vomiting 
from the use of bacon, and they ceased to use it, and began to use canned roast beef, 
and got better; what would you say as to the bacon as an article of food? 
A. I should say exactly the same as I would of the canned roast beef-that it was 
highly improper food, under the circumstances. 
By Major Lee: 
Under the condition of that state of affairs occurring frequently and habitually, 
with reference to a great many men, under one condition, and occurring very rarely, 
if at all, under the other condition 
The Recorder. Excuse me; I put my hypothetical question. If there are any 
changes to be made in it I will take the privilege of making them myself. 
Major Lee. I am not changing it. I am endeavoring, may it please the court, to 
ask the witness with regard to what I believe to be a matter of evidence before the 
court, and in the record, in regard to that matter. If there are three cases that have 
been mentioned where a man went from bacon, because it was nauseating, to canned 
roast beef, down there, and improved, I will withdraw any question or any inquiry 
on that line. 
That is all; I have no further questions. 
The Recorder (to the witness). That will do. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1307 
The Recorder. May it please the court, I believe no more witnesses have been 
summoned for this afternoon. 
Thereupon (at 3.50 o'clock p. m.) the court adjourned until Saturday, April 1, 
1899, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieut. Col. Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, 
Washington, D. C., Saturday, April 1, 1899. 
The court met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Major Taylor, of the Medical Department. 
TESTIMONY OF MAJ. BLAIR D. TAYLOR, U. S. A. 
Maj. Blair D. Taylor, U. S. A., was called by the recorder as a witness and, 
being first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. Blair D. Taylor; major and surgeon, United States Army; in command of the 
general hospital at Fort McPherson since the 14th of May last. I have been in the 
service nearly twenty-four years. 
Q. Was the hospital established on the 14th of May? 
A. I consider it to have begun at that time, as that was the first time I received 
any patients. 
Q. How many patients had you to do with, approximately, that were sent there 
from the armies in the field? 
A. I can tell you how many I treated up to the 31st of December-3,260. 
Q. From what quarter were they received? 
A. From Tampa, from Fernandina, Chickamauga, Jacksonville, Anniston, and other 
camps, and 235 wounded men from Santiago. 
Q. Were any sick received from Cuba? 
A. No, sir; I did not receive any sick from Cuba, except possibly one or two men 
that straggled in, men on furlough, but not that amounted to anything. 
Q. What were the principal diseases with which they were suffering? 
A. Typhoid fever constituted most of the cases. We had 1,211 cases of typhoid 
and malarial diseases, and out of that number only 52 cases of diarrhea and dysen- 
tery-out of the 3,260. I have the statistics here, if you want them. 
Q. It is not important to read those. Of those that were received with intestinal 
disorders, how many cases do you attribute to insufficient or improper food? 
A. I could not say that there were any, sir. 
Q. Did you make any inquiry? 
A. I never heard any complaint in regard to that matter at all. All these men 
came from the camps around Tampa, Jacksonville, and those places. 
Q. What fresh meat did you use in the hospital? 
A. I used beef from the contractor there and beef that I bought in town. 
Q. Refrigerated beef? 
A. I think the beef that Sawtelle furnished was refrigerated beef from the Armour 
Company. 1308 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Please state to the court what your experience was with it as an article of food. 
A. It was an excellent dish, that which we had at Fort McPherson. We hadn't 
any trouble at all. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Were you furnished with any native beef down there, Doctor? 
A. No, sir; I think not. I am not sure about that. I am not sure where the con- 
tractor got his beef from, but I know a good deal I bought for the use of the hospital 
came from the Armour Packing Company. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Major Heisman, of the Medical Department. 
TESTIMONY OF MAJ. CHARLES L. HEISMAN, U. S. A. 
Maj. Charles L. Heisman, U. S. A., was called as a witness by the recorder, and, 
having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. Charles L. Heisman, major and surgeon, United States Army. 
Q. What is your present station? 
A. Fort Sam Houston, Tex. 
Q. Were you stationed at Montauk Point at any time last year? 
A. I was. 
Q. When did you enter upon duty there? 
A. On the 14th of August. 
Q. Upon what duty were you engaged? 
A. I had charge of the general hospital. 
Q. Approximately, how many patients had you in that hospital? That is, how 
many cases were received, approximately? 
A. During the entire existence of the hospital, I think about 10,000 patients passed 
through. 
Q. Where had they been serving? 
A. In Cuba, principally; a few in Florida. 
Q. What were the principal diseases with which they were suffering? 
A. The principal diseases were typhoid fever and malarial diseases and dysentery. 
Q. About ■what proportion, if you can give it to the court, did the intestinal disor- 
ders bear to the total number of cases? 
A. I never made the record at all. 
Q. Could you trust your recollection for an approximation that would assist the 
court? 
A. Excluding typhoid fever? 
Q. Yes; excluding typhoid fever, of course. That is a separate disease. 
A. Perhaps 15 or 20 per cent. 
Q. What proportion, if you can give it, of those affected with intestinal disorders 
in the nature of dysentery, diarrhea, and that sort of thing, were attributable to 
improper food? 
A. None at all. In my experience there the question never came up of the sufficient 
cause for the diarrheas. We attributed all the diarrheas to malarial affection. 
The causes were due to climate and malaria. The question of its being due to diet 
never came up at all. 
Q. To your recollection, were there any cases that came under your observation of 
sickness of any sort that were due to improper food? 
A. No, sir; none at all. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1309 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Do you refer to the causes at Montauk, or any and all antecedent causes, as to 
the food the men ate? 
A. All antecedent causes. 
Q. Were you familiar with the food the men had been furnished in Cuba? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Have you any knowledge as to what canned meats, etc., had been provided 
and as to what deprivations or sufficient or insufficient food had been provided for 
these men during the campaign? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. That matter, then, did not come under your observation at all? 
A. Not at all. 
Q. Insufficient or perhaps improper food would contribute in a certain degree to 
sickness and debility, would it not, if they had gone through such in that country? 
A. Undoubtedly it would. 
Q. No canned roast meats were used within your knowledge at Montauk Point in 
the hospital, were they? 
A. No; none whatsoever. 
Q. To your knowledge or information, nad there not been a marked change in the 
diet, and Quite a great many delicacies furnished to the entire command by various 
societies, and in fact by the Government? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In regard to typhoid fever, being a layman in that regard, I will ask you whether 
dysentery and troubles of that kind would render a man under exposure in the 
service liable, or more liable if he had it, to typhoid fever than perhaps one who had 
not been so troubled? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you hear any complaints from men or others-any remarks at all-in 
regard to the kind of food that had been received during the campaign down there 
in Cuba? 
A. Not among the sick; no, sir. 
Q. The matter was not gone into? 
A. No, sir; not at all. 
Q. No investigation was made by the Medical Department there? 
A. No, sir; not at all. There was no occasion for it. 
Q. Yet I understand, if there was any insufficient or improper food, that would 
aggravate sickness down there among the men? 
A. Yes, sir. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Colonel De Witt, of the Medical Department. 
TESTIMONY OF COL. CALVIN DE WITT, U. S. A. 
Col. Calvin DeWitt, U. S. A., was called by the recorder as a witness, and, being 
first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. Calvin De Witt, lieutenant-colonel and deputy surgeon-general, United States 
Army; at present stationed at Fort Monroe, Va. 
Q. Were you stationed at Fort Monroe during the war with Spain? 
A. During the entire war; yes. 
Q. Were patients received there from Cuba and Porto Rico? 
A. I was in charge of the United States general hospital there, and patients were 
received from Cuba and Porto Rico. 1310 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Can you recall approximately the total number of cases that you treated com- 
ing from Cuba ? 
A. About 1,600-in that neighborhood. 
Q. Can you also recall, for the information of the court, approximately, what num- 
ber of those patients was suffering with intestinal disorders in the nature of diarrhea, 
dysentery, or disorders of the stomach ? 
A. I have not charged my mind with the statistics. I can not give you the exact 
number, but I know it was a very small percentage. 
Q. What were the principal diseases? 
A. I got about 300 wounded men and about 425 typhoid cases; not all from Cuba 
and Porto Rico, but from Chickamauga. Then I had measles, and I had mumps, 
and various other diseases in smaller numbers. I can not recall them. 
Q. Of those patients who were suffering from intestinal disorders, from such obser- 
vations as you made at the time, what proportion would you say were suffering from 
insufficient or improper food? 
A. While in charge of the hospital 1 had also charge of the post, which was very 
large, and my entire time was taken up with the administrative duties of the hospital 
and of the post; so I had no opportunity, no time, to see any of the patients myself 
or to treat them. They were treated entirely by my assistants; but I do not recall 
any of them mentioning the fact that these intestinal diseases-these very few that 
we had-were due to insufficient diet or improper diet. 
Q. You had professional conferences with your assistants, did you not? 
A. I hadn't exactly professional conferences. I had general conversations. The 
organization of the hospital was such that I had one or two aged medical officers of 
reputation from civil life, whom I called the board of consultation. It was utterly 
impossible for me to even go into consultation, as I had so much to attend to. 
Q. I refer to the conference in the nature of an administrative conference? 
A. Yes; no medical consultations at all. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. You had, I believe, altogether during that time about 1,600 sick? 
A. Sixteen hundred received at the general hospital from abroad. 
Q. About what date was that? That is, within what dates? 
A. I received the first wounded on July 14. I sent the last patient from the hos- 
pital to the neighboring hospital, the Josiah Simpson, on November 19. I recall 
those dates distinctly. 
Q. Had the greater part of these patients been received prior to the return of the 
army to Montauk, which was in August, I believe, or the early part of September? 
A. About half of them, I should say. 
Q. About half of them were received prior to that? 
A. Prior to that; yes. My first invoice was the wounded from the battles before 
Santiago-the first two invoices. They came on two successive days. Then I received 
them from Porto Rico. Then a large number of patients were brought from Newport 
News, where General Grant's brigade were camped with the expectation of being 
embarked for Porto Rico just after General Brooke left. 
Q. In regard to those that were received from Cuba-from Santiago, we will say- 
that is, up to perhaps September, about what number were received from there of 
sick on hospital ships? 
A. I can't state the number, but a large majority were the wounded. 
Q. They were received approximately all in July or mostly in July? 
A. Yes, sir; July 14 and 15 and later in July. 
Q. You received, then, comparatively few sick from Cuba after that? 
A. Yes, sir; comparatively few. 
Q. Have you any information or knowledge as to the character and kind of food 
that had been furnished to the Army, especially in Cuba? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1311 
A. No, sir; no definite information. I did not talk with many of the men. I 
inspected the hospital and looked at it, but I did not talk with them much about it. 
I was so very busy, night and day. 
Q. You had no experience, then, directly, in any way with an article of the 
rations that was issued there known as canned roast beef? 
A. I have never seen a can of it, sir. Beef that we received was received from the 
contractor for the post, and also the contractor for the general hospital. 
Q. In your experience as a medical officer with the troops and from your long 
service in the Army, please state whether that canned roast beef has ever come 
under your observation? 
A. It has never come under my observation. 
Q. Can you recall whether any reports were ever asked of the medical department 
in relation to it in any way? 
A. Not from me, sir. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Major Hall, of the medical department. 
TESTIMONY OF MAJ. WILLIAM R. HALL, U. S. A. 
Maj. William R. Hall, U. S. A., was called as a witness by the recorder, and, 
being duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. William R. Hall, major and surgeon United States Army; attending surgeon, 
Washington, D. C.; on temporary duty at Camp Meade, Pennsylvania. 
Q. Were you engaged in the performance of duty in the South during the war 
with Spain last year? 
A. I was in charge of the general hospital at Key West from late in April until 
about the 5th of August. 
Q. State for the information of the court, to the best of your recollection, about 
how many patients passed through your hands there? 
A. I had, I think, between 300 and 400 men from the Navy. This was a conjoint 
hospital. There may have been over 400; and ail I had from the Army was one 
shipload, sent from Santiago,*of wounded men-in the neighborhood of 300. 
Q. Were there any sick that came under your observation? 
A. There may have been 30 or 40 of them sick and not wounded; not over that. 
Q. Sick and not wounded? 
A. Sick and not wounded, out of the 300. I may have had 40 sick. 
Q. Of the 40 what proportion would you say were suffering from intestinal disor- 
ders of any sort? 
A. I had 2 or 3 cases of dysentery, and there may have been half a dozen cases 
of diarrhea. This is all from memory. I never thought of this thing at all. 
Q. Of course. 
A. It was a very small number. There were some cases of typhoid. 
Q. To what cause did you attribute the intestinal disorders? 
A. I supposed it was from living in a tropical climate. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. About how many patients did you receive from Santiago? 
A. One shipload, in the neighborhood of 300 men. 
Q. About when was that? 
A. About the 5th or 6th of July. The first boat that left Santiago came to my 
hospital. 
Q. They were all of the sick and not of the wounded? 1312 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. They were nearly all wounded men. About 40, I should think, were sick. 
Q. Did you receive any others from Cuba; that is, any numbers from Cuba, after 
that? 
A. No. 
Q. Had you any knowledge of the kind of food that had been furnished these men 
in Cuba? Was that brought under your knowledge in any way? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Had you any knowledge of an article of the ration that was then used and 
issued to the Army known as canned roast beef? 
A. I have never seen a can of it and I don't know anything about it. 
Q. The matter did not come under your observation in any way, either for inves- 
tigation of complaints, or otherwise, in connection with it? 
A. No; I heard talk just as other people have, but nothing officially. 
Q. Did you hear any at the time down there at Key West among any of the men? 
A. The only complaints that I attached any importance to or could remember was 
that the men had been on very short rations. This was in the midst of the excite- 
ment of the wounded, you know, and whether there was anything said especially at 
that time about what the food was, I don't know; but men were certainly very much 
run down when they came. They had been on short rations. 
Q. In the midst of your duties, caring for the wounded and otherwise, you heard 
no complaints? 
A. No, sir. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. What kind of fresh meat did you have? 
A. I was on the general hospital and I bought everything in the open market 
there. I bought the ordinary meats of commerce-beef. 
Q. That is, native beef? 
A. Beef that was probably slaughtered in Florida and brought over there. It was 
rather poor beef. I think it was native beef. 
Q. You got no refrigerated beef at all? 
A. No; none at all. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce, as a witness, 
Major Birmingham, of the Medical Department. 
TESTIMONY OF MAJ. HENRY P. BIRMINGHAM, U. S. A. 
Maj. Henry P. Birmingham, U. S. A., was called as a witness by the recorder, 
and, being duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. Henry P. Birmingham, major and surgeon, United States Army. 
Q. Where are you stationed ? 
A. At Fort Douglas, Utah. 
Q. Upon what duty were you engaged during the military operations in the West 
Indies last year? 
A. I was commanding the United States general hospital at Ponce. 
Q. When did you enter upon the performance of that duty? 
A. To the best of my recollection it was about the 15th of August. 
Q. How long did you continue there? 
A. Until the 2d of December. 
Q. While engaged upon the performance of that duty did you have occasion to use 
canned roast beef? 
A. I did, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1313 
Q. Please state to the court in narrative form, as fully as you can recall them, all 
the circumstances in connection with your experience with that article of food. 
A. The only way in which canned beef was used in the hospital was in the form 
of stews and hashes, mixed up with potatoes, onions, and other vegetables, and with 
condiments, pepper and salt. It was never used as an article of food by itself, that 
is, in the condition in which it came out of the cans. 
Q. Go on and state what experience you had with it. 
A. It was not used very extensively, but I never heard any complaints against it 
in that form, and it seemed to give good satisfaction used in that way. 
Q. Were any complaints made by the patients who used it? 
A. No, sir; I never heard of any. 
Q. Did you use any other beef than the canned roast beef-any other fresh beef? 
A. Oh, yes; we used some of the refrigerated beef. 
Q. Please state to the court your experience of that. 
A. The refrigerated beef that was issued to the hospital gave good satisfaction. It 
was not of a very inviting appearance whan you first looked at it. Sometimes it was 
necessary to remove small parts of the exterior. But after being cleaned thoroughly 
it was good, wholesome beef. I never had any fault to find with it. 
Q. How much of it did you use; that is, how long? 
A. I think there were only three issues of the beef made. The beef at that time 
gave out. There was no more of it. 
Q. About what proportion of it had to be thrown away or rejected? 
A. A very small portion. Now and then a very thin piece of the flank, that 
external layer of muscle on the outside was thrown away. 
Q. Did you use any of the native beef? 
A. Yes, sir; that was the principal thing we used there. 
Q. Please state your experience with that. 
A. The refrigerated beef was preferred to the native beef. The native beef had to 
be used the day it was killed. It would be killed in the morning and it had to be 
used that day as a rule. Of course, I understood that beef with the bodily heat still 
in it is apt to be tough and not as good as that which has had sufficient time for cool- 
ing. It was fairly good beef. There was not any particular complaint about it, 
although it was not as tender as the other. 
Q. Had you occasion to believe or to suspect at any time during your stay in Porto 
Rico that the refrigerated beef had been chemically treated with a view to its 
preservation? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Can you recall about how many patients passed through your hands while you 
were in charge of the hospital? 
A. I think there were in the neighborhood of 3,000-between 2,500 and 3,000. 
Q. To the best of your recollection, what were the principal diseases from which 
they were suffering? 
A. Typhoid fever and malaria-principally typhoid fever. Eighty or 85 per cent 
of the cases treated at the hospitals I think were cases of typhoid fever. 
Q. About what proportion of the cases coming under your observation were those 
of persons suffering from intestinal disorders-stomach troubles? 
A. There were very few. 
Q. To what cause did you attribute those? 
A. I attributed some of it to the fact that the men were in the habit of eating the 
unripe fruit and candies and stuff that they obtained from' the natives around there. 
Of course these men never came under my observation until they entered the hos- 
pital. I did not see them in their camps, and I can not be positive as to that. 
Q. Were any of the cases of intestinal disorders that came under your notice 
S. Doc. 270 83 1314 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
attributed by you to the use of improper food, other than fruits and that sort of 
thing that they could get in that country? 
A. No, sir. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Where you the only medical officer there in charge of the hospital, or had you 
assistants? 
A. I had assistants. 
Q. Who were they? 
A. There were about ten acting assistant surgeons? 
Q. Were they all there about the same time, on an average? 
A. Yes, sir; I think up to the time I left there were about that number. 
Q. Who had the refrigerated beef, or selected it, and how far from the place of 
issue was the hospital? 
A. The hospital was about miles from the port-the dock-about that, I should 
say. 
Q. You would have some special one designated to go and get that beef there? 
A. Yes; we found out when the beef would be landed and I had a wagon there to 
meet it. 
Q. It was issued direct to the hospital? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. It did not go through the hands of the commissary officers, other than at the 
dock? 
A. No; it was sent right up. 
Q. Did you have ice for the use of your hospital? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was there a considerable quantity of ice manufactured in that place, or about 
enough for your needs? 
A. There was enough for the hospital. We got what we needed there. 
Q. Not enough for any general distribution in the camps? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you have enough for the purpose of providing a place and keeping it cool 
for the native beef you had to use? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You did not have enough for that purpose? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. In regard to these rations you speak of-the canned roast beef that you used- 
how extensively and up to what time did you use it in the hospital? What class of 
men were furnished with it; I mean about the extent of its use generally? 
A. I think altogether, to the best of my recollection, there were about 100 cans or 
thereabouts-perhaps 120 cans. 
Q. Used there? 
A. Altogether, as near as I can recall now. 
Q. That would make about five cases of twenty-four cans to the case. Do you 
remember the size of the cans or the brands on any of those cans? 
A. I don't remember the brands. I remember the cans. 
Q. What size cans were they, about; two pounds, three pounds, or six pounds? 
A. I think they were two-pound cans, if I remember rightly. 
Q. Have you any knowledge or information with regard to the rations used by the 
troops with respect to the beef ration, or the canned roast beef, as used by the troops? 
A. No, sir; I had no connection with the troops at all. 
Q. None whatever? 
A. No, sir; until they entered the hospital. 
Q. You do not know to what extent, then, they may have used or not used this 
canned roast beef there? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1315 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Or what satisfaction or dissatisfaction it may have given? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Or what sickness it may have caused there? 
A. No, sir. 
By General Davis: 
Q. What organizations were serving in that region which furnished patients to 
your hospital? 
A. There was the Second and Third Wisconsin, the First Kentucky, the Fourth 
Ohio, the Nineteenth Infantry, the First Volunteer Engineers, and a number of 
others. 
Q. Was the Third Pennsylvania among them? 
A. I think the Third Pennsylvania was, but I am not quite sure. There were a 
quite a number of others, but that is all I can recall just now. 
Q. What particular native fruits did the men use, within your observation? 
A. They ate mangoes and bananas and all sorts of things-cocoanuts. They used 
a great deal of this fresh cocoanut. The natives would chop it in two for them and 
they would eat quite a lot of that. I have seen them eating it on the streets of 
Ponce. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Do you know in what condition the refrigerated beef, or any of it, was when it 
was delivered to the troops? 
A. I do not, sir. 
Q. Then it would not have been a matter coming under your observation or 
notice? 
A. No, sir. 
By General Davis: 
Q. What ship did the refrigerated beef come out of? 
A. It came dowm on the Manitoba. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Maj. George H. Tawney. 
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE H. TAWNEY. 
George H. Tawney was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been 
first duly sworn, is examined. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. George H. Tawney, major and surgeon, United States Army, Fort Leaven- 
worth, Kansas. 
Q. Upon what duty were you engaged during the war with Spain, in the operations 
in the West Indies last year? 
A. 1 was in charge of the hospital ship Relief in part of the campaign in Cuba and 
all of that, or nearly all of that, in Porto Rico. 
Q. For what purpose was that ship required? 
A. It was required for the purpose of caring for the sick and wounded of the army 
in Cuba and Porto Rico. 
Q. Were any sick brought north? 
A. While I remained in charge of her we made three trips north, one from Cuba 
and two from Porto Rico. 
Q. Can you recall about how many patients altogether were brought up on the 
Relief? 
A. Altogether we received on the Relief about 750 or 775 while I was in charge. 1316 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. What proportion of those were sick and what were surgical patients? 
A. Of that number we had about 500 sick and the balance surgical cases. 
Q. What were the principal diseases with which they were suffering? 
A. Typhoid fever. 
Q. A large number of cases of typhoid? 
A. The majority of them were typhoid cases. 
Q. What number, to the best of your recollection, were suffering with intestinal 
disorders-disorders of the stomach? 
A. Typhoid fever in itself is primarily an intestinal disorder. 
Q. Excepting typhoid fever? 
A. A very small proportion. There were a great many cases that came to us as 
cases of dysentery which turned out to be typhoid fever. 
Q. Of those suffering with intestinal troubles, what proportion, if any' did you 
think were caused by improper or insufficient food? 
A. I do not know that I could observe that any one of them was caused by any 
such condition. 
Q. What other causes would operate to produce intestinal troubles? 
A. Well, the excesses of the men and the condition of the climate-the climatic 
conditions which existed there, men sleeping at night on the ground and exposing 
themselves in the way they did. It is possible that the men did indulge freely in a 
great many things they ought not to have done, but, as a matter of fact, that very 
rarely came under my personal observation. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. When was the first trip made, Major? 
A. We left New York on the 2d day of July 
Q. I mean from Cuba? 
A. We left Cuba on the 19th of July, coming north. 
Q. At that time about how many had you? 
A. We had on the trip about 250, but as we expected to remain in Cuba and 
received sudden telegraphic orders to come north, we brought north 137, I think. 
Q. Had your duties brought you into immediate contact with the troops encamped 
in the firing line at the front? 
A. Only those that were at Siboney and afterwards. 
Q. That were brought there? 
A. Brought there. 
Q. You have no personal knowledge, then, of the kind or character of food that 
the men used from the day of landing there in Cuba up to, we will say, the surren- 
der-that is, as to the various kinds? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you have any experience with canned roast beef? 
A. I did not. 
Q. In your experience in the service, for many years, doubtless, have you ever had 
any experience with it in the Army ? 
A. I have never used it. I have never seen it used. 
Q. You speak of intestinal troubles. I believe that typhoid fever has a relation to 
that. As a layman, I would like to ask whether improper food or great exposure 
and the want of food, or the want of proper food, would in anyway aggravate the 
tendency to sickness, typhoid or any other, in connection with the other causes you 
have mentioned ? 
A. Only in the way of lowering the vitality, in resisting the invasion of the 
disease, the systematic invasion. 
Q. Suppose the case of a certain article of food producing with men under the gen- 
eral conditions of service that they were undergoing prior to the surrender, produc- 
ing nausea, vomiting, followed by stomach troubles, and that prevalent to a consid- FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1317 
erable extent among men; the abstaining from that food being followed by a recovery 
from that and the trial of it again producing the same result or practically the same 
result, would you consider such an article of food as that as wholesome or unwhole- 
some, or suitable, or contributing to the sickness under those conditions? 
A. Well, accepting your statement as it is given, I should consider it an unwhole- 
some food. 
Major Lee. I believe that is all. 
The Recorder. Has the court any questions? 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Did you use the refrigerated meat at all in the hospital ship ? 
A. Altogether, sir. We had no other kind of meat. 
Q. Who supplied it? 
A. It was supplied, I think, by the Armour Packing Company in New York- 
their agent in New York. 
Q. Did it give satisfaction? 
A. Entirely. We had a refrigerating plant on the ship and the meat was preserved 
and we carried it back and forth from the United States to Cuba and then back to 
Porto Rico. It was entirely satisfactory. 
Q. From your familiarity with it have you any reason to suspect that chemicals 
were used in its preparation? 
A. I think that none were used. I used it altogether myself; saw the meat when 
it was delivered, and saw it frequently when it was being issued. 
Q. Was there any appearance from the exterior of the meat that would indicate 
that anything had been applied to the meat at all in the way of a coating? 
A. The only appearance was that which refrigerated beef has. It shows a colora- 
tion or rather a whitish discoloration which is due, I think, to the method of prepar- 
ing it-that is, by the use of steam on it to cleanse it-and that appearance was pres- 
ent, but there were no chemicals used in any such preparation as that. It is a mere 
whitening, a coloration of the surface albumen of the tissue. 
By General Davis: 
Q. How long was the beef on the ship, the longest period of time that you kept 
it in an extreme case? 
A. We received it, I think, the morning of the 1st or 2d of July. We were still 
using it when we returned to New York and we were using it sometime after, when 
we >eft New York on the 3d of August. 
Q. You received it the 2d of July? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That was a little over a month? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Major Lee. I want to ask the Major if he will kindly state whether he had any 
experience or observation of the use of refrigerated beef down in Cuba taken ashore 
and used on shore, sent out to any command or any hospital? 
A. Not in Cuba, I did not. I saw it in Porto Rico, some of it being delivered. 
Q. From what vessel was that? 
A. The Manitoba. She was there at the same time that we were. 
Q. Do you know the farthest point to which it was sent to the troops, by informa- 
tion? 
A. No, sir; I do not. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. You say you saw that meat coming out of the Manitoba?. 
A. I saw it delivered on the dock, General. 
Q. Did it differ in appearance from the meat you were using on your own steamer? 
A. Not at all. 1318 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Did you make any inspection of it or did you just see it casually? 
A. No; I was on the dock. It was being delivered on the same dock where we 
were landing. 
Q. Was it covered? 
A. No; it was being carried from the little lighter. 
Q. Was it sacked or inclosed in any cloths? 
A. Some of it was, I think. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Major Appel. 
TESTIMONY OF DANIEL M. APPEL. 
Daniel M. Appel was called by the recorder as a witness, and, having been first 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. Daniel M. Appel, major and surgeon in charge of the general hospital at 
Savannah. 
Q. Upon what duties were you engaged during the war with Spain last year? 
A. I was first chief surgeon of the camp at Mobile, then at Miami, and on August 
20 I arrived at New York City to take charge of and distribute the sick who were 
brought there. 
Q. At Mobile or Miami did the use of canned roast beef come under your observa- 
tion at all? 
A. It was not issued there at all. 
Q. And from the date you have mentioned in August you were in charge of the 
sick in New York Harbor? 
A. In New York City and vicinity, all that were brought there. 
Q. Can you state for the information of the court about how many patients came 
under your control in that capacity? 
A. In New York City? 
Q. Yes. 
A. Over 7,000. 
Q. And what were the principal diseases with which they were suffering? 
A. Malarial and typhoid. 
Q. Can you recall about what proportion were suffering from intestinal disorders 
and stomach troubles apart from typhoid? 
A. I might add there were a great many dysentery cases. 
Q. About what proportion would you give as your best recollection? 
A. I should think that, apart from typhoid, about 8 per cent. 
Q. To what causes did you attribute the intestinal trouble that would be classed 
with dysentery, diarrhea, and the like? 
A. There were a great many causes which contributed to the condition. One of 
the principal causes oi dysentery and diarrheal troubles is, of course, improper food, 
but that would include the quality of the food and the method of preparation. 
Q. Did you make any special investigation or inquiry as to the food as the cause 
of disease? 
A. I did not. I did not inquire into the history of any of the cases personally. 
My work was entirely administrative. 
Q. Did the papers in respect to the sick pass through your hands? 
A. Simply the transfer slips with the diagnosis. 
Q. To your recollection did canned roast beef appear as a cause of any sickness? 
A. No; the cause of the sickness was not shown on any of the papers officially. I FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1319 
simply remember that there were a large number of complaints from the men as they 
came there about the food that they had had. 
Q. Please state to the court in narrative form as you recall them what those com- 
plaints were. 
A. It would be very hard to make it a regular categorical statement of the com- 
plaints. They were simply general complaints of the food, especially on the transports, 
that I heard at first. 
Q. Of the food furnished them on the transports. 
A. Of the food furnished them on the transports? A large number of the com- 
plaints when investigated were found to be unfounded, but many of the transports 
were not furnished with food such as would be satisfactory to the sick-advisable to 
give to the sick. 
Q. Upon any of the transports did you see canned roast beef that was used or that 
had been used as a part of the diet of the sick coming north? 
A. I never saw any of the canned roast beef until quite recently at Savannah. 
Q. When did you go on duty at Savannah? 
A. On the 5th of January. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. In your conversation or I might say investigation or talks with the officers and 
the sick men passing through New York in such large numbers did you hear the 
matter of the rations used during the campaign referred to in any particular way as 
to canned roast beef or any other article of ration, more especially the meat? 
A. I heard frequent complaints that the men declined to receive the meat; that 
when they had tried to eat it that they were made sick-the canned roast beef. Many 
of the men who came up North were very much emaciated, but I attributed that to 
the inanition due to the sickness, the disease. 
Q. There were reported cases, or cases within the knowledge of many who were 
there, of men dying of what was called inanition and it would seem as though these 
men ought to have gotten along in some way. They had no particular fever. Such 
cases were reported in Cuba and spoken of at that time there. Will you please state 
to the court what is meant by the term inanition in cases of that kind, if I am cor- 
rect in my description. 
A. Inanition in a technical sense is a condition in which the nutritive processes are 
so impaired by disease that food is not assimilated. 
Q. Well, would improper food, or food that a man's stomach would reject when 
under hardships, and performing duties during a campaign, would that food that 
would bring on this nausea or sickness be such as to induce sickness under those 
conditions or aggravate it or further produce weakness on the part of a man? 
A. Unquestionably. 
Q. Did you ever examine any of that canned roast beef that was alleged to have 
come back from Porto Rico or Cuba? 
A. No; I never saw any of it until quite recently at Savannah, in the commissary 
storehouse there. 
Q. Was it issued or used there? 
A. It is not used there. It is being sent down on transports and on relief ships. 
Q. For what purpose? Do you know? 
A. On relief ships for the Cubans. 
Q. It is no longer used, then, in connection with the troops at Savannah or at the 
hospitals? 
A. It never has been used in the hospitals. 
Q. Have you made an examination of it as a ration? 
A. Never. It has never been used in any camp with which I was connected. 
Q. These 7,000 sick who passed through your hands; were they held there in New 1320 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
York, or were they sent immediately to various places and hospitals, passing out of 
your jurisdiction? 
A. Those were mostly kept in the hospitals in New York City and vicinity, includ- 
ing the military hospitals. They were not all from abroad. A great many cases 
came from the Southern camps. 
Q. From the Southern camps? 
A. From the Southern camps. 
Q. From what points? 
A. Chickamauga, Alger, and Jacksonville. 
Q. Have you any knowledge or information as to the sickness at Jacksonville dur- 
ing the encampment of the corps there? 
A. I know from a telegram of the chief surgeon, Colonel Greenleaf, early in Octo- 
ber, that nearly 25 per cent, if not fully that number, of the men of the Seventh Corps 
at Jacksonville were sick. v 
Q. Were sick at that time? 
A. Were sick on the day the telegram was sent. 
Q. That was last October? 
A. Early in October. 
Major Lee. I believe that is all. 
The Recorder. Has the court any questions? 
By General Davis: 
Q. Is inanition unknown where food of all kinds is abundant? 
A. Oh, no; it is a diseased condition. It is known in a great many nervous affec- 
tions where everything can be had in great abundance. We find it among the rich 
as well as the poor, where they could get anything they wanted. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Major, you spoke about complaints received in regard to unwholesome food. 
Were those complaints made to you when the sick first reported on the relief ship at 
Santiago or some point in Cuba? 
A. I was not at Santiago. It was when they came to New York. 
Q. I mean then. 
A. When they were taken from the transports in the harbor. 
Q. It was made there? 
A. It was made there; yes, sir. A number of complaints were made by the sur- 
geons in charge of the sick as they were transferring them to me in the harbor. 
Q. Did the surgeons attribute it in any case to unwholesome food? 
A. Not the sickness; but they complained that they did not have such food as the 
sick should have; not that the sickness was originally caused by the food so much as 
that they did not have such food as the sick should have. 
Q. Did this complaint of the physicians refer to food on shore at Cuba or on the 
transports from Cuba to the United States? 
A. To both. There were a number of complaints from officers and men of the food 
there in Cuba and Porto Rico. 
Q. Did they complain of any other portion of the ration than the meat? 
A. I don't remember ever having heard any other complaints. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness Mr. 
Simpson. 
TESTIMONY OF GREENLEAF W. SIMPSON. 
Greenleaf W. Simpson was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been 
first duly sworn, was examined. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1321 
A. Greenleaf W. Simpson. I am a merchant and contractor also, largely interested 
in stock yards, and am president of a refrigerator line. 
Q. Was your residence stated? 
A. Boston is my place of business. Somerville, Mass., is the suburb where I live. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. You stated that you are connected with the stock-yard business, or the refriger- 
ator business, or various businesses of that kind. Please state the history of your con- 
nection with the beef business, Mr. Simpson. 
A. Well, I was engaged in the beef business in a retail market in Boston when 1 
was 17 years old and continued in that for several years. Since that time I have 
been engaged in the live-cattle business in the West. I was general manager and 
president'of the Hammond Company-general manager some four years, president 
about two years. That is a packing company which slaughters cattle, hogs, and 
sheep and exports beef largely abroad. 
Q. What was your connection with this business during the summer of 1898 or the 
spring of last year, from about the time of the outbreak of the war with Spain, and 
during that period? 
A. I received a proposal from Commissary-General Eagan asking for a bid either 
for refrigerated beef, live cattle, or beef on the block. 
Q. Please state whether or not you or any company, partnership, or association of 
gentlemen engaged in the cattle business made a proposition in response to an invi- 
tation from the Commissary-General for the supply of live beef cattle to the Govern- 
ment for any use. And have you a copy of the invitation which you received, if you 
received any? 
A. I did receive such an invitation, and I have it. 
Q. Will you please produce it if you have it, and read it or submit it to the court? 
A. It is dated the 5th of June. 
(Paper produced and handed to the recorder.) 
The Recorder. It is already in evidence. 
Major Lee. It is in evidence, is it? 
A. Well, I don't know whether this was sent, whether that particular one-I have 
two of them. One was in my name and one came to the stock-yard company. 
The Recorder. The same thing has been submitted and read to the court. 
Major Lee. The recorder informs me it is already in evidence, so that it will not 
be necessary to read it. Mr. Simpson, before making any bid or proposition, if you 
made any, did you have any communication with the Commissary-General? And if 
so, state fully what that was and about the date of such communication. 
A. I did; yes, sir. I received this message. It is dated the 6th, and I think 
about the 8th I replied to General Eagan by wire. I had known General Eagan 
personally and I applied by wire, stating that I had visited the island of Cuba in 
the interest of the cattle business and also as food commissioner for the United States 
Government to secure such information as I might be able to relative to the food 
supply of Cuba. 
Q. If it will not interrupt you too much, you spoke of being food commissioner 
for the United States Government. Have you any appointment or document appoint- 
ing you in that capacity? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Can you submit that to the court for its inspection? 
A. I will, if you wish. It is in my pocketbook. 
The Recorder. We will admit his appointment. 
Major Lee. I should like the court to see his commission. 
The President. There is no question that he was appointed. 
(The witness produced a paper.) 1322 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. This is the appointment you received from the Commissioner of Agriculture? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, it is signed by the Commissioner of Agricul- 
ture, and it is submitted for the inspection of the court. I don't know whether it is 
necessary to have it read. There are also letters signed by the Assistant Secretary 
of State, one dated January 19, 1898, with reference to the duties of this gentleman, 
one signed by the Secretary of Agriculture of November 2, 1897, another one from 
the Secretary of Agriculture introducing this gentleman. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Was this simply your duty in connection with the Cuban relief commission? 
A. No, sir; it was not that at all. It was apart from that. I did not mean that 
that should go in. That was a matter that I took up with the President after I 
returned, and at his request I joined the people in Massachusetts and we raised quite 
a sum of money, but that had no bearing on this case, and should not have been in 
there. Neither should another letter which you have there-a private letter. It was 
inside of the others. 
Q. All I want to know is this. This says simply ' ' Honorary. ' ' Does it mean that 
you were to perform duty for the United States? 
A. Yes, sir; but without expense to the United States. Of course, at that time 
there was apparently a great shortage in cattle in Cuba. 
By General Davis: 
Q. What time was this? 
A. This was in December, 1897, just prior to the war. There was a great short- 
age of cattle, and I was in the cattle business, and I thought I would go over there 
and learn as nearly as possible the condition, and when the Secretary of Agriculture 
found that I was going-I was personally acquainted w'ith him-when he found 
that I was going he said: "We would like to appoint you as one of our food com- 
missioners. It will enable you to go to the consuls of the different countries and 
to find out from them something about the supply of cattle they have and the 
prices and the competition we shall have to meet." So I was appointed, and I 
investigated the question very thoroughly and met the consuls of a great many 
countries, and when I presented my credentials they were willing to answer me 
very fully. 
By General Davis: 
Q. You were traveling in your own interest? 
A. Yes, sir; but the Government wished me to take this up and report upon it 
when I got back, which I did. 
Q. You made a report, a formal report, to the Government, which was received? 
A. Yes, sir. As I have stated, I wired General Eagan, informing him that I did 
not see how it was possible to use refrigerated beef under the conditions which 
existed in Cuba; that I should be in Washington on the day before the bids were 
opened and would be pleased to discuss the matter with him, which I did, arriving 
here on the evening of the 11th and meeting him on the morning of the 13th. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I wish you would go on and state in a narrative form your interview and tell 
as nearly as you can who were present, and the date of the conversation. 
A. The date of the conversation was on the morning of the 13th. The call for 
bids stated that they were to be opened on the 13th, but at no specified hour. I 
had an interview with General Eagan in the morning and set forth, of course, more 
generally than I could by message the conditions which existed and the difficulties 
in handling or furnishing refrigerated beef in the island of Cuba. After discussing FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1323 
it very thoroughly he asked me if I would not remain over another day. I told him 
I would be pleased to if he would like to have me, and I did so. The next morning 
I met General Eagan and he stated to me that he felt that he must purchase refrig- 
erated beef. That was his judgment. I then said to him: "If that is the case, 
General, of course there is no use for me to put in a bid for beef on the block," and 
I did not put in any bid. I sat and listened to the other bids which were received- 
some for live cattle, some for one thing and another, but none of them were 
considered except the refrigerated beef. 
Q. Did the statement of General Eagan that he must use or purchase refrigerated 
beef-did that influence you in any way to withhold a bid? 
A. Yes, sir; I did not feel that I had any right to do so; that if they did not call 
for beef on the block there was no use for me to bid on it, because I felt that it 
would be thrown out, and I did not bid. 
Q. That was after you had received this knowledge, of course? 
A. Yes, sir; I came here prepared to bid or to submit a proposal, but when the 
time came General Eagan had decided that they would use nothing but refrigerated 
beef at that time. 
Q. And no bids for any other beef would be entertained? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was that before the opening of the bids? 
A. Yes, sir. Of course there were a number of other bids opened. The gentle- 
men were not here, and their bids were opened but not considered. 
Q. Did you, or not, in your conversation with the Commissary-General, take up 
the question with reference to a preservative, as to whether preservatives would or 
should or could be used; and if so, what was said upon the subject to the Commis- 
sary-General, and what did he say to you, if anything? 
A. Well, in a general way the matter was discussed. There was, of course, some 
investigation being made with regard to a preservative, probably by people who 
believed it to be harmless, and that it might be an improvement in having it if it 
could be done, and the General informed me that the investigation was going on in 
the South, I think by a Mr. Howell-I think that is the name-whereby beef was 
kept seventy-six hours, and I said, of course, that if they had a preservative that was 
beyond me, that in the march of progress they might have discovered something 
that would cause this refrigerated beef to keep in almost any climate the length of 
time that he had stated, but otherwise it would not be possible-that it would not be 
possible to do that for even twenty-four hours-and after discussing it a little while 
we dropped the matter. The next morning I saw him again, and he said "Well, 
that beef was spoiled in eighty hours," and I made the remark that I could not 
understand how that could be spoiled in eighty hours if it was sweet at seventy-six; 
that it must have been in a rather bad condition in seventy-six hours if it would 
spoil in eighty hours. After that I had no conversation with him in regard to the 
preservative. 
Q. Was this conversation generally with reference to contracts for refrigerated 
beef, or did it have any special application to any one contract or proposal? 
A. No, sir; I would think not. I would think it was simply that the question was 
whether it would be an improvement or not. I think that was it. 
Q. Did he state at whose instance the experiment was being introduced? 
A. No, sir; but I inferred it was one in which all were interested, the packers and 
the Government, to see if there were something that could be used to improve the 
keeping qualities of the refrigerated beef. 
Q. Please state whether or not, prior to your conversation with General Eagan that 
you have referred to you had any with a beef packer who it was believed might bid 
on beef; and if so, who it was, when, and where, and what was said-a conversation 
relating to supplies of refrigerated beef for the army. 1324 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I had a conversation with several of them, of course, in regard to this. This 
matter was being discussed pretty generally as to how the troops could be best sup- 
plied with beef. 
Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Armour or his agent on the subject of 
preservatives? 
A. Yes, sir; I think I had a little general conversation with them. 
Q. Can you recall that, Mr. Simpson? 
A. Well, I met Mr. Armour's agent here in Washington, and the matter was dis- 
cussed somewhat. Of course I don't remember the conversation at that time. Of 
course the whole thing was in the future and there had not been sufficient develop- 
ments in it to warrant any man in saying that he should use it, but they were all 
watching it; were interested. There is no doubt about that. 
Q. This was Mr. Armour's agent? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you recall the name of the agent? 
A. I should think it was Mr. Conners. 
Q. Did General Eagan, after your first visit, give you any other invitation to bid? 
A. Yes, sir; I was invited three times after that to bid. 
Q. Were you well received? 
A. Yes, sir; always as a perfect gentleman, and he always conveyed to me the 
idea that he wanted to buy the best product that he could. 
Q. You stated in your testimony that General Eagan had stated before opening 
the bids that he must give the contract to the refrigerated beef people. Did he say 
anything indicating that he was directed or instructed or was obliged in any way to do 
that, or what impression did it make upon your mind as to that matter at that time? 
A. Well, it made the impression upon my mind that he had decided to give the 
contract to the refrigerator beef people, just as he said, but I don't know what 
influence caused him to say that, I am sure. 
Q. Did he mention any superior official in connection with the War Department? 
A. No, sir; he did not. 
Q. I believe you have narrated the first and second conversations you had. Did 
you have any further conversations? 
A. Yes, sir; I had one proposal on the 1st of June, which we have disposed of, 
and another October 4, another November 5, and December 22 and 27, relating to 
the delivery of fresh beef on the block to the troops at interior points in Cuba. 
Q. Please state in full, as nearly as you can remember, the conversation on that 
subject and where it was and whether anyone was present; and if so, who was it? 
A. At one time Mr. J. F. Burndice was present. He is a large dealer in cattle in 
Havana and the Austrian consul there. He came to New York, and at my invita- 
tion came down here to meet General Eagan and the Secretary of Agriculture, with 
a view to supplying fresh beef on the block, feeling confident that the refrigerated 
beef could not continue to be used under the conditions with safety or with regu- 
larity; that it could not at all times be furnished in good condition. After discuss- 
ing the matter very thoroughly with General Eagan, he made the remark that what 
he would like to see done would be to see a refrigerator on the island, have the 
cattle slaughtered there, and the beef delivered within one or two days to the troops, 
always fresh and sweet and cooled down. I told him this was what our intention 
was, if possible, and we would do everything we could-that I should-to further 
that end. It was my idea when I was in Cuba, a year ago, before the war, that it 
was the only thing to do, and I am still of the same opinion. 
Q. Did you receive an invitation to bid other than the one you have referred to; 
and if so, when was it and what was it? 
A. On November 5, as I stated, and 22d. There were two proposals relating to 
furnishing beef on the block. The first proposal was as advertised for bids for cattle FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1325 
from outside the fever district, from above the quarantine line. This would be 
impossible, as all of the cattle in Cuba are infested with the tick which causes the 
splenetic fever, and if cattle were shipped there from north of the line they would 
die, so that the cattle must come from below. When General Eagan found his mis- 
take he did not open those proposals. He found it out just an hour, perhaps, before 
the proposals were to be opened. He did not open them, but called for new bids for 
cattle the other side of the line, below the quarantine line, and I again bid. The 
first bid was not considered at all, but the next one I was the third lowest bidder. 
The two others below me failed to qualify, and I was the next bidder, but the con- 
tract was not awarded. General Eagan decided that he would issue other bids or 
proposals, which he did, to be opened January 3, for beef on the block at interior 
points. I was at this time the lowest bidder with the exception of one or two who 
failed to qualify-brought in no bond-and inasmuch as the proposal stated that no 
bids would be considered unless accompanied by a satisfactory bond, it was decided 
the next day to award me the contract, which was on the 4th of January, and I have 
since been furnishing the beef at interior points largely, with satisfaction to the 
commissary on the island, Commissary Smith. He has informed me that he had 
reported to the general office in Washington-informed me that two weeks ago last 
Monday in Cuba-that he had reported to the general office in Washington that my 
beef had been satisfactory, and that it was the best beef that could be procured on 
the island. 
Q. Have you obtained a copy of that communication? 
A. No, sir. I asked for that this morning, but it has either been overlooked or 
they have not received it; but the statement was made to me by Colonel Smith at 
the time. 
Q. What Smith is that? 
A. Col. A. L. Smith. 
Q. You are still supplying beef down there at these points, are you; still supply- 
ing beef on the contracts there? 
A. Yes, sir; I am supplying beef at most of the points. There is some refrigerated 
beef going in, and there are some cattle being furnished by Mr. Swift, at Quomades, 
which I consider an interior point; but he is supplying some meat from live cattle. 
Q. He is supplying from the live cattle at this time? 
A. Some meat, yes. 
Q. You may go on and state the experience you have had in filling this contract 
with the live cattle, where you get your cattle from, and what facilities there are for 
getting cattle in there in that way. 
A. We are receiving cattle from the United States of Colombia, some from Vene- 
zuela, some from Texas. The best cattle we are getting from Texas. 
The Recorder. I should like to ask what bearing this has upon the investigation 
which we are conducting ? He delivers cattle in Cuba now, but I can not see how 
that delivery has anything to do with this investigation. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, the court is investigating the question of the 
delivery of refrigerated beef. I propose to introduce this witness, Mr. Simpson, a 
gentleman of capacity and character, who has had perhaps as much or more experi- 
ence in regard to the beef business than almost anyone who has testified before the 
court, and to show by the evidence and by the facts that he will elicit that it has 
been practicable to supply in that country cattle on the hoof, and that it was per- 
fectly practicable to have so supplied cattle on the hoof at the time of the war; that 
the supply of refrigerated beef to the army people down there under the conditions 
which have existed, and in fact under the conditions that still exist is an unsolved 
problem, to have that bearing upon the question. To that extent I desire to have 
the witness go on. I do not wish to tire the court 
The President. You will have to limit his evidence to Santiago and vicinity, the 1326 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
only place that could have possibly been supplied during the war. That has a very 
small relation to the whole island, and the rest of the country was in the hands of 
the enemy at the time. 
Major Lee. I expect to prove by the witness that cattle could have been landed 
the same as animals; that they would have undertaken a contract to have landed 
cattle, to have swam them ashore from cattle ships. 
The President. His testimony as to the whole island or as to interior points would 
merely be taking up time unnecessarily. Santiago and the immediate vicinity was 
the only place during the war where they could have been delivered. 
Major Lee. Well, it was only for the purpose of illustrating the method that could 
have been used or could be used. 
The President. We all know that cattle can be landed at any point in Cuba now 
without any trouble. The railroads and ports are opened, and conditions are very 
different. 
Major Lee. Very well, I will restrict that. I will ask the witness to state whether 
at the time, in June,, when you were considering the matter of supplying the army 
with beef on the hoof, when you were considering the matter of first making a bid, 
what preparations and what expectations you had as to the method by which you 
would supply the army. 
A. I expected to secure the cattle from near Galveston, Tex.-cattle which were 
adapted for the purpose-and I stated to General Eagan that within one week I 
could deliver cattle at any point in Cuba where they could unload them, and that 
there were plenty of butchers in the army who could be secured, if we could not get 
them from here, which we could have done without any trouble, and furnish the 
troops with fresh beef every day. 
Q. Do you know anything about the transportation of refrigerated beef between 
this country and Europe and the relative prices between export cattle sent, we will 
say, to the London market and refrigerated beef sent there? That has been referred 
to in the testimony heretofore. 
A. I do, sir. 
Q. Will you please answer the question? 
A. I have exported beef as manager of the Hammond Company, refrigerated beef, 
in large quantities nearly every week for some four years. I have followed it across 
the ocean and investigated refrigerators and the beef during the trip, and from that 
observation have realized fully the difficulties which then existed in delivering beef 
in England in first-class condition. At that time refrigeration was by means of ice. 
Conditions are changed now on account of improved refrigeration. At the present 
time it is chemical refrigeration, and they carry large quantities now regularly, but 
it was a very difficult thing to deliver the beef then always. There was a great deal 
of it which was out of condition when it arrived, more or less of it spoiled in transit. 
That condition has been changed now, so that they get it there in much better con- 
dition. The average price of refrigerated beef in Liverpool and London markets is 
about 2 cents below the price of beef from the live cattle which go over on the 
steamers alive, and the quality when shipped on the one is as good as the other. 
They ship only the very best quality of cattle and the very best quality of refrigerated 
beef. The best quality of refrigerated beef will stand up much longer to be shipped 
than an inferior quality of beef, and then the English market demands the best 
quality; but they have never taken the dressed beef with as much favor as they have 
the home dressed. They call it frozen meat. It is not, but they call it such, and 
although now it is perfectly good they prefer to pay the price and get the home- 
dressed beef. Sometimes the price of refrigerated beef goes as much as 3 cents a 
pound less, but on the average I think it is about 2 cents. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I will read a quotation from the Chicago daily 
Drovers' Journal for March 17, 1899. It is from New York, on its transportation, an FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1327 
extract under the reports from New York. It speaks of refrigerated beef on that 
day, March 17, as "higher at 9 J cents per pound, no exports yesterday, none to-day. 
Cables quote live cattle as low as 11| and 12 cents, dressed weight." 
Q. When was your second bid? 
A. November 5. 
Q. And the first one was made when? 
A. June 6. 
Q. Did you make any bids other than those? 
A. I did not; no, sir. I received a proposal but did not make the bid. 
Major Lee. .Under the ruling of the court, as I understand, with reference to a 
matter of subsequent bids, the court does not desire them to be gone into. 
The President. That is a matter long since the close of the war and supplying the 
troops under entirely different conditions at different places. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. State whether or not you know anything about the question as to how long 
refrigerated beef will keep from the time it is taken out of the refrigerator, in a tropi- 
cal country. That is to say, how many hours will it keep? You have had consider- 
able experience with those matters. 
A. Well, it will change in its appearance in twm hours with the temperature such 
as they have in Cuba, and under the conditions which they undoubtedly have. I 
have seen them myself. I do not think it would be possible to have beef kept in 
Cuba outside of the refrigerator tw'enty-four hours and be in what could be called 
good condition for use without a great deal of trimming, to say the least. The beef 
will mold in a very few hours. 'It will begin to change in its appearance and then 
begin to mold. If properly trimmed it could be used, a portion of it, but I have 
seen several shipments down in Cuba of the refrigerated beef, and one in particular, 
that arrived in good condition, so stated. 
Q. When was that? 
A. I would think that would be about the middle of January. A portion of that 
beef was unloaded in the night, by some misunderstanding between the commissary 
and the quartermaster, and it rained on it, and of course, it molded very quickly. I 
was asked to go down to the refrigerator box and look at it, for the reason that there 
was rather a disagreement between the Government and the contractor as to who 
was responsible. I went down and looked at it the next day, and of course it had 
become moldy, for the reason that it was unloaded and then taken and carted in ox 
teams 2 miles in what they call slat wagons, and then shipped down by the cars to 
the refrigerator and unloaded, so that several hours had elapsed from the time the 
beef was taken out of the ship refrigerator until it was delivered at the refrigerator 
on shore. The beef molded, but it was used very quickly, and I suppose perhaps all 
used. Of course, there would have to be some trimming to it. The balance of the 
shipment was unloaded two or three days afterwards, put into the refrigerator. 
This did not get rained on, but it was very much out of condition, very much, so 
that it was covered with mold. The refrigerator smelt very moldy. It needed a 
great deal of trimming. 
Q. You have been in Cuba recently? 
A: Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you know to what extent heretofore refrigerated beef has been delivered 
from the coast to the interior, or attempted to be delivered, in good condition? 
A. The farthest point I know is at Quomades, where the Seventh Army Corps is 
stationed, which is 10 miles from the unloading place-from the dock. 
Q. There is evidence with regard to the contracts that were made last June as to 
the time that refrigerated beef should keep. Are you familiar with the contracts 
that have been made now, or is there any time limit set in them? 
A. There was a contract made on a proposal sent out on the 5th of February, no 1328 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
time limit being mentioned, and the contractor informed me when I was in Cuba 
that when the delivery of the beef was made the contractor's responsibility ceased, 
that it was then the property of the Government and that it made no difference what 
complaints they made. 
Q. Have you a copy of one of those proposals showing the difference in that 
respect? 
A. I think I have. 
Major Lee. I just want to invite the attention of the court to the fact that as to the 
refrigerated beef being contracted for now there is no time limit specified in the pro- 
posal, and inferentially none in the contract, as to how long it shall keep after deliv- 
ery. This is February 6. I do not desire to read it unless the court desires to hear 
it read. 
The President. Where is it from? 
Major Lee. A proposal from the War Department, office of the Commissary-Gen- 
eral of Subsistence; an advertisement for proposals. 
The Witness. I refused the bid because I have nothing to do with refrigerated 
beef, but I received the copy. 
Major Lee. I submit it for the inspection of the court. I wish to show that he 
has seen other proposals in regard to refrigerated beef, to show that there is a differ- 
ence with regard to the matter of the time. 
Q. Have you delivered any other beef to the army in Cuba except beef on the 
block? 
A. No, sir; I have not. 
Q. Please state whether at any time you had a conversation with General Eagan 
about Swift & Co. specifically, in which anything was said with regard to the ability 
of Swift & Co. to carry out their contract, and if so, state what the conversation was, 
if you can recall it. 
A. I think I had a conversation with General Eagan relating to the contract or 
proposed contract 
Q. That is the one I refer to 
A. In which I set forth as strongly as I was able the impracticability of using 
refrigerated beef, and in the conversation he said that the Government was protected 
by a bond, or would be protected by a bond of Swift & Co., and asked if that was not 
good, and I said perfectly good in every way, form, and manner, and that Messrs. 
Swift & Co. were experts in their line; that the giving of a satisfactory bond might 
protect the Government, but it would not furnish the soldiers with good beef under 
the conditions existing in Cuba. 
Q. Mr. Simpson, please state whether or not you know something about canned 
roast beef? 
A. I am not aware that there is such an article, except it may be a trade name. I 
was not aware that any roast beef has been put up in cans. 
Major Lee. I believe that is all. 
Cross-examination by the Recorder: 
Q. You said you were connected with Hammond & Co.? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do they can fresh beef? 
A. They did not at that time; they do now. 
Q. Not when you were connected with them in any way? 
A. No, sir. 
The Recorder. I have no other questions. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Do I understand you to say that if you had obtained this contract in June you 
intended to ship cattle to Cuba and slaughter them in Cuba, and hold the meat in 
cold storage and then issue from there? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1329 
A. No, sir; not at that time, but I said that was the proper way to do after we 
were located-that is, after the troops were located so they would know where they 
were; but my point was that we could furnish the cattle and kill them each day, 
every night, the same as was done by the Spaniards and the same as was done dur- 
ing our civil war, furnish the beef, killed that night and delivered in the morning. 
Q. I understood you to say something about refrigeration, and that was what I was 
asking about. 
A. I did. I believed it was the proper thing to do, and I believed eventually it 
would be done in Cuba. In that way they can not only have the beef killed there, 
but they can have it always sweet and cool. In that way it could be kept for two 
weeks, and that is about as long as it could stand, anyhow. 
Q. Do you know whether moldy beef is ever preferred by any class of customers? 
A. No; I don't think that there are any class of customers who prefer moldy beef; 
but this is done, and it is always done by some people. People will buy a piece of 
beef and hang it up to ripen, as they term it, but all the mold must be trimmed off 
before it is used. 
Q. Does it mold? 
A. Yes, sir; it gets what we call sweaty a little on the outside, but that can be 
trimmed off. It is only on the outside, where it can be seen. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. You spoke of being ready to ship the cattle from Galveston? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you expect the Government of the United States to guarantee you protec- 
tion in delivering your cattle from Galveston to some point in Cuba ? 
A. That matter was not considered at that time. The only thing was this, that 
they had to have the beef, and I supposed they would naturally afford me some pro- 
tection, the same protection that they said they would against the common enemy 
on the land. They had claimed in their proposal that they would on land, and I 
inferred they would do the same thing on the water. 
Q. Suppose the Government of the United States had declined for any reason 
whatever to guarantee protection to you, what would you have done then ? 
A. I don't think I should have bid if I could not have gotten proper protection to 
get the cattle there, because the Spanish fleet was supposed to be about the Gulf at 
that time or near somewhere. I should not have wanted to take the chance. But 
I supposed, as I said, that I would have the same protection in the Gulf that I would 
on the shore. There were Spanish troops in one place and Spanish ships perhaps in 
the other. 
Q. You expected protection whether the meat was transported in your ships or in 
ships that belonged to the Government? 
A. Yes, sir; I would expect the Government to take the same responsibility that 
they did as to refrigerated beef. They furnished transportation for them, free trans- 
portation. It would make no difference to me whether they furnished free transpor- 
tation or not, if they simply furnished me a convoy, so I would not take the risk of 
losing our cattle by being captured. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. From your experience and your knowledge of Cuba and the handling of cattle, 
would you have had any difficulty in putting off cattle ashore at Siboney or Daiquiri 
or wherever the troops had landed? 
A. No, sir; I don't think I would have had any difficulty. 
Q. 
A. Yes, sir; they hoist cattle by the horns and then drop them through the holes, 
some of them to the lower deck, and they are taken out in the same manner. And 
those cattle could have been taken out and dropped over the side of the vessel, and 
S. Doc. 270 84 1330 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
as the water is warm down there they would have swum the distance necessary to 
get them ashore as well as horses can. There is no doubt about that. A great 
many cattle get ashore that way, which are cast away in the Atlantic. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Are you speaking now of a protected harbor or speaking now of the open 
coast, delivering cattle in a landlocked harbor or on an open coast? 
A. Wherever it was that it was necessary to land them. They could go on shore 
in one place as well as they could in another. Of course where there are docks they 
could not climb up the sides, but in almost all harbors there are more or less places 
where they could get ashore without difficulty. 
Q. Have you been at Daiquiri? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You don't know the character of that coast? 
A. No, sir. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. You are aware that troops landed there and that animals were landed there? 
A. Yes, sir; horses. 
Q. Swam ashore? 
A. Yes, sir. 
The Recorder: May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Lieutenant Conrad, United States Army. 
William D. Conrad was called as a witness by the recorder, and having been first 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. William D. Conrad, second lieutenant, Twenty-third United States Infantry, 
stationed at Columbus Barracks. 
Q. Were you in the Army during last summer; and if so, what was your rank and 
regiment at that time? 
A. I was second lieutenant of the Twenty-third Infantry. 
Q. Where were you stationed during the months of July and August, 1898? 
A. We left San Francisco on the 27th of June, arriving in Manila Bay on the 1st 
day of August. 
Q. On what vessel did you sail? 
A. The Indiana. 
Q. Did they have a refrigerator apparatus? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was the method of refrigeration by artificial ice, or what was the apparatus? 
A. Why it was worked by machinery, ammonia pipes, and also they had ice in 
this cold storage on the floor. 
Q. Did they have a supply of fresh beef aboard? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did they have any canned roast beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What were your duties going over? First, about how many men were there 
on the vessel? 
A. Nine hundred and twenty-three. 
Q. What command? 
A. Part of the Twenty-third Infantry and a company of the volunteer signal corps, 
a company of engineers, and a company of South Dakota or North Dakota troops; 
I don't remember which. 
Q. What connection had you with the mess on board the vessel? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1331 
A. I was placed in charge of the consolidated mess, which was formed abont three 
days after we left San Francisco, and attended to the cooking of the food and issuing it. 
Q. Did your duties take you to the hold in which the fresh beef was stored. 
A. Yes, sir; I went down there every two or three days. 
Q. What was its condition from the day you left until you arrived at your destina- 
tion? 
A. The beef at first was very good, but finally it became much tainted, although 
the cold storage was in excellent condition; and very cold down below, and finally 
we had to have the outside of the meat and the meat around the bone cut off. It 
was very green in color, and the men complained a great deal of it, some of them 
refusing to eat it. 
Q. How soon did you begin to lose beef in that way; about how long after you had 
sailed? 
A. About two w'eeks, I should judge. 
Q. What was the condition of the canned roast beef, as regards the matter of food, 
between the time of departure from San Francisco and arrival at destination? 
A. I issued the canned roast beef about twice a week, and the men complained a 
great deal about it; said it was not fit to eat; and I finally put it down in the cold 
storage and had it thoroughly chilled, and then it improved it, because we could cut 
it up in slices. Before that time it was rather mushy and soft and very stringy. 
Q. Were these complaints made to you generally? 
A. I heard the complaints in walking around among the men. I had to go back 
and forth from the hold, and around to different parts of the vessel all the time. 
Q_ Where your duties took you in connection with the messing? 
A. Yes, sir; and I would hear these complaints. 
Q. Go ahead. 
A. After we arrived at Cavite, I think the day after, the company I belonged to, 
of the Twenty-third, the sea company, about thirty men were taken violently sick. 
They had eaten roast beef hash made up of crackers and this canned roast beef, and 
they were sick at their stomachs and had violent headaches and diarrhea, and they 
were laid out. All of them complained that it was the roast beef they had eaten, 
and I suppose it was. 
Q. They had not been sick immediately before that? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. In fairly good condition? 
A. Fairly good until they ate this roast beef that day. 
Q. How long did it affect them in that way? 
A. Well, they were all right the next day. Some of them were a little shaky. 
Q. Who was the medical officer that attended them? 
A. I think it w'as a contract doctor, Dr. Titus. He is out there now. 
Q. Did you speak to a number of the men? 
A. Yes, sir; I questioned all of them, and they seemed to be convinced that it was 
the roast beef. 
Q. You made an investigation? 
A. Yes, sir; the captain sent me dowm to see about the men and I w'ent down- 
Captain Nichols, of the Twenty-third infantry. 
Q. Was any fresh beef condemned going over by any board? 
A. I reported to the commissary officer that a great deal of the beef had spoiled, 
and he called for two or three different boards, and I think in the neighborhood of 
about 8,000 pounds was thrown overboard; I am not exactly sure about the weight, 
but I think that was what the butcher told me. We were taking out supplies for 
Admiral Dewey's fleet, fresh meat. It was all more or less tainted. 
Q. Were other articles of food in the refrigerator affected in any way? 
A. Yes, sir; all the game and fish and all the vegetables were affected by this 1332 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
meat. We ran out of ice for the water and we took a bucket full of water down 
there and left it about three hours, and when we went down to get it it had a pecu- 
liar color and tasted very strongly, the same as the meat smelled, a very strong odor. 
Q. If you can, you may give such descriptions as you deem correct in regard to 
the odor in the refrigerating room in which the fresh beef was stored, if you can 
describe it. 
A. The odor was very strong of this tainted meat, and when it was brought up on 
the deck out of the hold, the nearest way I could describe it, it smells like a dead 
horse that had been dead about a week or two, smells very strong, and all the men 
would get out of the road as soon as they could to avoid this terrible odor. 
Q. Was there an officer on the boat, Captain Steele? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Of what regiment is he? 
A. Belongs to the Eighteenth Infantry. 
Q. Can you recall the name of his first sergeant? 
A. No, sir; I don't remember. I know him very well by sight, but I don't remem- 
ber his name. 
Q. From your experience in connection with your duties, and in fact your entire 
experience with canned roast beef, I wish you would state to the court whether that 
aboard was suitable food for the men. 
A. I do not think it was and I lived on it quite a while myself. I really had to 
eat it because we had nothing else, and I do not think it is a suitable ration for the 
troops at all. 
Q. Do you regard it as a fit or an unfit ration for men; I mean from your knowl- 
edge of it, and from what the men generally say of it? 
A. I think it is an unfit ration. 
Major Lee. I believe that is all. 
Cross-examination by the Recorder: 
Q. Was there more than the one case of sickness of the kind you have described 
in which a number of men were affected? 
A. I understand that some men were taken sick in different companies, but noth- 
ing as marked as that case. 
Q. What better arrangement for provisioning a transport for a long voyage can 
you suggest than that which was adopted in taking the troops to Manila? 
A. I think instead of canned roast beef if they would furnish canned salmon and 
things like that, or canned fish, that they are very much better. We had a great 
deal of that, and the men seemed to be very fond of it; liked it very much. 
Q. Is that the only change you would suggest? 
A. Of course they could take fresh meat, I should suppose, if it was good meat to 
start in with, probably, and was packed properly in the cold storage. 
Q. What defect was there in the packing of this? Are you familiar with cold 
storage? Do you understand the use of the refrigerating apparatus of that sort? 
A. I don't understand very much about it; no, sir. 
Q. Have you any reason to believe that any precautions were neglected to make 
the refrigeration a success? 
A. No; the cold storage was in perfect condition. I knew the chief engineer very 
well, and went down there with him two or three times, and it was in excellent con- 
dition every time I went down there; always kept at an even temperature. 
Q. Would it then be your idea, in supplying troops for a voyage of a month, to 
keep them on canned salmon? What else would you have? 
A.. Canned salmon and dried fruits are very useful, and rice. 
Q. Canned salmon, dried fruits, rice, and what else? 
A. And beans also are very good. 
Q. Any meat? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1333 
A. Salt pork, and this barreled corn beef is very good indeed. 
The Recorder. I have no other questions. 
By General Davis: 
Q. I understand you to say you were taking out provisions for Admiral Dewey's fleet? 
A. Yes, sir; that is what I was told on board the boat, that we were taking out 
fresh meat for Admiral Dewey's fleet. 
Q. Did any of that fresh meat arrive there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What was done with it? 
A. It was issued. 
Q. In what condition was it? 
A. It was all tainted. They could use it by cutting off the outside and around the 
bone. 
Q. It was delivered, was it, to the Navy Department? 
A. I understand it was; yes, sir; as soon as we arrived there. 
Q. How large a quantity was there? 
A. I have not any knowledge about the quantity. I know the cold storage was 
full when we left-as full as it could be. 
Q. Full when you left where? 
A. Left San Francisco. 
Q. Did you see the beef come aboard the ship at San Francisco? 
A. No, sir; I did not. 
Q. Do you know where the beef was slaughtered? 
A. I understand it was furnished by a firm in San Francisco. 
Q. Slaughtered there? 
A. I suppose it was. Yes, sir; although I am not positive. 
Q. Did any of the men eat this canned roast beef, or did many of them eat the 
canned roast beef aboard the ship? 
A. I issued it about twice a week. 
Q. How large an amount of it was consumed, probably? 
A. Well, with 923 men, I think a can is 2 pounds, and that is about a meal for 
five men. 
Q. What name was on the label-what packing house? 
A. I don't remember the name; I didn't pay any attention to it. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. How long after you left San Francisco did you notice that the beef began to be 
tainted? 
A. About two weeks, I think. 
Q. Do you know whether the temperature of the cold storage had gone up in the 
meanwhile or not? 
A. I understand that it was the same all the time. From my experience when I 
went down there I did not notice any difference in the temperature at all. It was 
very cold; I noticed that at the time. 
Q. Have you any knowledge what the temperature was? Did you hear the engi- 
neer say anything about it? 
A. Why, it was about freezing, I think, most of the time. 
Q. And notwithstanding that, the meat began to decay? 
A. Yes, sir. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Who was the commanding officer of the troops aboard the transport? 
A. General MacArthur was on the Indiana, in command of the whole fleet, and 
Colonel Ovenshine was the next in rank. 1334 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Thomas B. Hendrix, of Lakeland, Fla. 
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS B. HENDRIX. 
Thomas B. Hendrix was called as a witness by the recorder, and, being first duly 
sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. Thomas B. Hendrix; Lakeland, Fla.; engaged in the meat business. 
Q. How long have you resided there? 
A. Four years. 
Q. How long have you been engaged in the meat business there? 
A. Four years. 
Q. From what source do you obtain the meat that you sell in your market? 
A. Both kinds, native and refrigerated meat. 
Q. Were you engaged in this business in July, 1898? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What arrangement did you enter into with Armour & Co. during that month 
in reference to assisting in their business? 
A. I also run a delivery wagon, an express wagon. 1 only hauled his meat from 
the depot to the commissary. 
Q. How far was the commissary building from the depot? 
A. Three-quarters of a mile. 
Q. How long did you continue this arrangement? 
A. Until the soldiers all left there. 
Q. In the delivering of that beef, what observation did you make of it as you 
delivered it from day to day? 
A. Why, I only delivered it to them. 
Q. In what shape did it come in July and August? 
A. Part of the time it was in burlap at first, and then in refrigerators in the latter 
part. 
Q. Who was the commissary to whom you delivered it? 
A. To Captain Carmichael. 
Q. Did you deliver it to any other commissary? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Who else? 
A. Lieutenant Gampfer. 
Q. To any others? 
A. And to Lieutenant Dickson. 
Q. Were they generally present when you delivered it? 
A. Oh, yes. 
Q. How frequently were those officers present when you delivered the meat? 
A. Well, now, they might not have all three been there at each time, but the man 
that I delivered the meat to was always there. 
Q. And what examination was made by him at the time of delivery? 
A. Why, he inspected the meat and had no trouble with it only that 
Q. Were you present always? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you see it, too? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Please state to the court how that beef looked during July and August, as you 
delivered it from day to day. In your own words just state how it looked. 
A. Well, sir, it was in better shape than any beef we could possibly get in our FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1335 
local butcher shops there. You see it is true that meat, when it gets as far south as 
we are there, the climate is warm, and when it gets taken off from the ice there is a 
little gloss forms over it, and still that doesn't hurt it. The meat is as sound as a 
dollar, and this meat that was in the burlap, that had been off the ice a little while, 
and it made it look a little bit sticky like, but that is only just because the air strikes 
it after it comes off the ice. Now, the meat that came in the refrigerators was simply 
fine, elegant. 
Q. When you speak of it coming in refrigerators what do you mean? 
A. In those tin boxes. 
Q. When did it cease to come in burlap? 
A. When Captain Carmichael refused a lot that was in burlap. 
Q. Who was the first commissary that received it? Was there anyone previous to 
Captain Carmichael? 
A. Not that I delivered to. 
Q. Captain Carmichael was the first one you delivered to? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you deliver any to Lieutenant Dixon? 
A. Not of the Western beef. He hauled it himself. Lieutenant Dixon hauled it 
himself with his own men. 
Q. And your first deliveries, then, were made to Captain Carmichael? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Please state to the court, to the best of your recollection, the exact appearance 
of the surface in respect to spots. What spots, if any, did you see on the surface of 
the beef, as you delivered it from day to day? 
A. I never seen any. 
Q. Was any representative of Armour & Co. present at any of these deliveries? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What conversation did you hear between the representative of Armour and 
the officer to whom it was delivered? Repeat all you ever heard between those 
persons. 
A. Well, I never heard any only with Captain Carmichael and Mr. Morehouse. 
The captain refused the beef. 
Q. Upon what ground? State all the circumstances. 
A. That it was not the best in the world or as good as he wanted. I think the 
trouble, though, was that he was not used to refrigerator meat, and did not exactly 
understand it. 
Q. Please state to the court what you observed with reference to Captain Car- 
michael's familiarity with beef? 
A. Well 
Q. What ground would he assign for rejecting it? 
A. Well, when it would be the least bit sticky on the outer edge or anything like 
that he would refuse it. 
Q. Was the representative of Armour present upon any of those occasions? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What reply did he make? 
A. He was there, I think, a couple of times. He could not say anything in par- 
ticular because-of course, they all talked about it. I can't remember the exact 
words that were said. 
Q. What would be the nature of the remarks made by the. Armour representa- 
tive? 
A. He said the meat was good. 
Q. Did he make any offer to replace it, or anything of that sort? 
A. Not that I heard of. He told them that it was good. 
Q. How many times was it rejected, to your knowledge? 1336 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I think about three times, the whole consignment, and then may be once or 
twice or three times just a piece. 
Q. Just a piece? 
A. Yes, sir; each time. 
Q. Was the rejection final? That is, was the beef taken away? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What was done with it? 
A. The first lot I used myself in my own shop. 
Q. Did you sell it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What was done with the other? 
A. Shipped back to Tampa, the other two whole lots. 
Q. Where a part was rejected, what was done with that? 
A. I taken it to my shop and sold it. 
Q. What conversation did you hear, if any, between Lieutenant Gampfer and the 
representative of Armour & Co.? Were you present when both those persons were 
present in connection with the receipt of the beef? 
A. No, sir; I never seen him talking about it at all. 
Q. Never present when they talked about it? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Do you know Lieutenant Gampfer? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Had you any official relations or business relations with him? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. As commissary? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What were they and what relations had you with him as commissary? 
A. I delivered native meat to him. 
Q. Why was that bought? What was the reason for buying that? 
A. Well, at times when they rejected this other meat I killed native meat. 
Q. And sold that to them? 
A. Yes, sir; and once or twice Armour's meat was not there or something, would 
be late in coming, and they used mine. That is why I had dealings with Lieuten- 
ant Gampfer. 
Q. How long was he commissary? 
A. Only a short time after Captain Carmichael's death. 
Q. Then you were never present at any interview between Lieutenant Gampfer 
and the agent of Armour & Co.? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. How long have you handled refrigerated beef? 
A. About six years. 
Q. Please state to the court if the beef tendered to the United States and trans- 
ported by you to the storehouse differed in any respect from that which you have 
been in the habit of handling before, or which you have handled since. 
A. That that came in burlap was the same that I handled. That that came in 
tin boxes was in a great deal better shape than any we get. 
Q. Now, in what respect, if any, did this beef furnished for the troops at Lakeland 
differ in appearance from that which you have handled before and since? 
A. None in the world; the burlap beef was just identically the same, only a better 
class of beef. What I mean by a better class is fatter and largei' beeves than we get, 
because my trade will not demand large beeVes and we use small ones, which are 
second-class beef, are not the best. They use large beeves. 
Q. What satisfaction did your native beef give to the troops there? 
A. Very good, only it was tough. They kicked on that terribly. 
Q. Did they or did they not prefer it to the refrigerated beef? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1337 
A. I could not say. Well, I can too. Part of them wanted the refrigerated meat; 
said they did not like the other because it was too tough; told me so. 
Q. Did any chemicals appear to have been used on any of this beef that you 
tendered to the commissary? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. When did you first hear that chemicals had been used in its preservation? 
A. Yesterday. 
Q. How did you happen to hear it then? 
A. Read it in a newspaper. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. How long have you been in business at Lakeland? 
A. About four years. 
Q. In business on your own account? 
A. Oh, yes. 
Q. Do you keep a butcher shop-do you butcher cattle? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Native cattle? 
A. Native cattle; yes, sir. 
Q. Slaughter? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you sell refrigerated beef in your butcher shop? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Much of it? 
A. Right smart. 
Q. Sell more native or more refrigerated? 
A. More native. 
Q. More native than the other? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Has that been generally the case there, that there is more demand for native 
beef than for refrigerated beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. About how much greater proportion of native beef do you sell than refrigerated 
beef? I don't want you to give it exactly in pounds or anything like that, but you 
are handling it and can tell. 
A. About two to one. 
Q. About two of native to one of refrigerated? That is the market in Lakeland? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And continues so now? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Where do you get your refrigerated beef from? 
A. Armour & Co., and sometimes Swift & Co. 
Q. Where? 
A. From Tampa. 
Q. It comes from their agent there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Were you in the employ of Armour A Co., at that time? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Are you in their employ or under their pay to-day? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. In any way? 
A. No, sir; unless it is that JI am here. I don't know who pays for that. No 
other way in the world. 
Q. Can you state whether you hauled the beef that was delivered there, to Lieu- 
tenant Gampfer and Captain Carmichael and Lieutenant DixonY 1338 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I did not haul his. 
Q. Lieutenant Dixon hauled his? 
A. He hauled it himself. 
Q. How far is his place from your place of business, or the place of hauling? How 
far is your butcher shop away from that? 
A. Three-quarters of a mile. 
Q. And you know that his own men hauled the beef up there, and your place of 
business was three-quarters of a mile from where they were hauling it from? 
A. I was down at the depot. 
Q. And then you know what men would come for beef there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Were you concerned with it in any way? 
A. Nothing at that time; only what I could work in myself of my own native 
beef. 
Q. Work it in on the troops? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In hauling this beef what kind of a team did you use-a one-horse or a two- 
horse team? 
A. Sometimes I used one and sometimes I used two. 
Q. In hauling up this beef that came up there-that which was covered with 
cheese cloth-did you remove the cheese cloth, or did you have anything to do with 
removing the cheese cloth? 
A. At the commissary's there. 
Q. Were you employed to cut it up for the troops? 
A. They only asked me to. 
Q. Did you do it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And divided it up? 
A. Yes, sir; when I had nothing else to do. When I had the time I did it. 
Q. Without any compensation? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How often did you cut up the beef issued to the troops? 
A. Why, nearly all of it. 
Q. As soon as the meat was delivered you would then proceed to strip it of the 
covering? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How about the other beef? 
A. Which, in the refrigerators? 
Q. Yes. 
A. Why, I would open it up and take it out. 
Q. Cut that up? 
A. Just the same as the beef in burlap. 
Q. What sizes would you cut it, about? 
A. According to what each troop wanted. 
Q. A troop would take how many pounds? 
A. Anywhere from 30 to 60 pounds. 
Q. Then the pieces that came in this tin arrangement, would you cut that into two 
or into how many pieces? 
A. Why, some of the pieces would not have to be cut at all and some we would 
cut once or twice. 
Q. Did any come in any smaller pieces after that? 
A. No. 
Q. They all came in that way? 
A. All came that way. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1339 
Q. Then you took this beef in your wagon and hauled it up? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Who would help you to put the beef into your wagon at the depot? 
A. The express agent. 
Q. Would he go with you? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You would go off by yourself? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Drive up to the commissary's? Who would take it up and put it in the com- 
missary building, or was it a building? 
A. A building; yes, sir. The commissary negroes, they would lift it and take 
it up. 
Q. They would help you get it out? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You would always find one of these officers there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You would always deliver it to one of these officers there? 
A. Oh, yes. 
Q. Did you ever deliver any to a commissary-sergeant? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Never did? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Do you know what I mean by a commissary-sergeant? 
A. I do. 
Q. Your instructions were to deliver it to an officer, but would you wait, suppose 
he was not there? 
A. No; I would not have waited. 
Q. Can you swear that every delivery you made was made to an officer? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Every one? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Without any exception? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And with regard to any conversations tnat occurred there, you say that you do 
not recall any conversation between Lieutenant Gampfer and the agent there or any- 
one else? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Do you remember Dr. Castle? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was he there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was he about the storehouse? 
A. He was there when he was sent for. 
Q. Standing there, all together, talking? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Who else was there at that time? 
A. Captain Carmichael, Lieutenant Dixon, Mr. Morehouse, myself, and a young 
man, a sergeant I think he was, Captain Carmichael's clerk. 
Q. A sergeant, his clerk? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you know his name? 
A. No, sir; I don't. 
Q. Do you know a man named Sergeant Mason there? 
A. Yes, sir. 1340 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Did he have anything to do with it?. 
A. He was there at first with the regulars. He was not there then. 
Q. Now, coming back to this conversation, do you remember Lieutenant Gampier 
being there with Captain Carmichael, or Dr. Castle, or any of those? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Can you swear that he was not there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Will you swear he was not? 
A. Well, he was there-at what time? 
Q. You are on the witness stand. I want you to answer about these times of the 
deliveries there. I am asking about the times when he was there. 
A. One that he mentioned, I will swear that he was not there. 
Q. At any time did you see him there; when Dr. Castle was present or Captain 
Carmichael? 
A. Yes, sir; I have seen him there present with them. 
Q. So there were times that he was there with them, then? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. When and where did you first meet Lieutenant Gampfer? 
A. In a tent. 
Q. Where was that and when was it? 
A. I first met him one Sunday morning in his own tent where they were in camp 
at Lakeland. 
Q. Do you know about when that was? You have been pretty accurate about 
some other dates. 
A. It was the first Sunday or second Sunday, I believe, he was in Lakeland. Get 
the time he came there and you will get it exactly-the second Sunday morning, I 
think. I killed a beef for one of his men and his man did not come for it, and I 
taken it over and I was sent to Lieutenant Gampfer. It was in his troop, and he 
taken the beef and paid me for it. That is the first time I met Lieutenant Gampfer. 
Q. On that occasion, when you took your beef up there, what did you do with your 
team? 
A. When I took it to the commissary? 
Q. Yes; when you took it to the commissary. 
A. I would hold it right there until I went back. I did not hold it myself but 
kept it there. I did not have to hold it. 
Q. It remained around loose? 
A. Yes, sir. I took the empty boxes back to the depot. 
Q. Did you buy this rejected beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You would buy it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Of whom did you buy it? 
A. Not the rejected beef; no. That was given to me. 
Q. Given to you by whom? 
A. By Armour's agent. 
Q. By his agent? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And you sold it in your shop? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you tell your customers that it was rejected meat? 
A. Yes, sir; they all knew it. 
Q. They all knew it, did they? 
A. Everybody knew it; yes, sir. 
Q. Did you make any difference in the price of it? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
1341 
A. No, sir; only in some parts of it I would. 
Q. How much did you sell of that kind of beef that had been rejected there by 
the troops? 
A. Why, I never weighed it. 
Q. Well, you are a butcher. You have spoken of three rejections, have mentioned 
specifically three times when meat was rejected? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And you hauled the meat and lifted it? 
A. Yes, sir; but I never weighed it. I can guess at it. 
Q. I don't want you to guess at it. I want you to estimate it? 
A. Well, I should judge about a thousand pounds altogether. 
Q. Did you buy any rejected meat that came up in the refrigerator boxes or 
chests? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Refresh your memory and recall if you were there all the time when this meat 
was cut up, and whether at any time some portions of that meat were cut out and 
sent back to Lakeland or to Tampa? 
A. No, sir; not in small quantities; I kept it. 
Q. You kept it yourself? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you cut the spots out of it? 
A. There were not any spots in it. 
Q. Do you know why it was rejected? 
A. Because it was neck pieces, and they would be bloody or something-not as 
first-class as the others. 
Q. Not as first-class what? 
A. Not as first-class pieces as the others. 
Q. I thought you testified that the meat which came in canvas was very good, and 
that that which came in the boxes was finer still? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Now, you say some of this was not first-class? 
A. Well, understand me now. 
Q. Well? 
A. Pieces of that was cut off-the neck pieces, all these little, small pieces that were 
rejected. 
Q. You sky that part of the men told you that they preferred the refrigerated 
beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. The refrigerated beef which you sell down there in your butcher shop, does it 
command a better price than the native beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You have to pay more for it? 
A. Considerable more. 
Q. And you sell it higher? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Now, the native cattle; do you buy them at a pretty low rate? 
A. No, sir; not now. 
Q. Did you then-along at that time? 
A. No, sir; the war had begun and it ran our cattle away up. 
Q. On which beef do you make the greater profit? 
A. About six of one and a half a dozen of the other. 
Q. About the same? 
A. Yes, sir; about the same. 
Q. You say part of the men told you that they liked this refrigerated beef? 1342 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You are sure of that-that a part did? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. The other part did not say anything about it, did they? 
A. Some of them would say-these were not officers. You see I carried the native 
meat around to the kitchen for them. I had it in my wagon and would carry it to 
every man's kitchen, all through the troop, and some of them would say they were 
glad I brought that kind, and some of them would curse it and want the refrigerated 
beef. 
Q. So there was divided opinion upon it, then? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. When the refrigerated beef came up there and was rejected, you had an oppor- 
tunity to sell your native beef to them? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Then you got the rejected beef and sold it to your customers? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In that way you won on both ends of the game? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Major Lee. I believe that is all. 
Redirect examination by the Recorder: 
Q. I understand you to say that you were present upon how many occasions when 
Mr. Morehouse came up, early in August, or in August, to your knowledge? 
A. I think it was a couple or three times. 
Q. Now', upon any of those occasions wTas Mr. Gampfer present when the beef was 
delivered? 
A. Neither one that I remember of; no, sir. 
Q. Did you, during the month of August, see Lieutenant Gampfer and Mr. More- 
house together? 
The Recorder. Has the court any questions? 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. You say twice as much native beef is sold in Lakeland as refrigerated beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was that because the beef was better in quality or lower in price? 
A. Lower in price. 
Q. That wras the reason? 
A. Oh, if the price was the same I could not sell a pound of native beef, because 
at this time of the year it is very poor. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Did you eat any of this rejected beef yourself? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. When you delivered the beef in the performance of your agreement, did any- 
body make a note of the amount that you delivered of the meat? 
A. Of the refrigerated meat? 
Q. Of the army meat. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Who did it? 
A. A clerk of Captain Carmichael's. 
Q. And did he enter it in a book or on a paper or -what? 
A. On a book. He had a little book there that he kept an account on. 
Q. He made the entries in a book? 
A. This young man did right there at the time, I suppose. 
Q. Would you recognize the book if you sawr it again? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1343 
A. I don't know whether I could or not exactly. I never had hold of it or any- 
thing like that. He did that and I did the cutting. 
Q. Did you see any entries that were made in the book or see him make them? 
A. No, sir. I have seen him while he was writing. 
Q. Did you ever see Captain Carmichael make any entry on any book when the 
beef was delivered? 
A. No, sir; he did not. 
Q. Do you think you would recognize the book if you saw it now? 
A. I think I could, but I could not say positively. You know I paid no attention 
as to the color of the book. 
Q. [Producing a memorandum book.] Please examine that. 
A. I think that is it. 
Q. Please examine that and tell me to the best of your recollection whether that 
is the one or not. 
A. Yes, sir; this is the book. 
Q. How do you recognize it? What is there about it that enables you to recog- 
nize it? 
A. Well, just when I look at the book it appears as the same book. 
Q. Would you swear positively that it was the same one? 
A. I could not swear positively, because it could be another one just exactly like it. 
You see it is nothing but a common little account book. 
Q. To the best of your knowledge, is that the book? 
A. To the best of my knowledge, this is it. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. You never have had this book in your hands before it was handed to you now, 
have you? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. And you say that it was this book, or another one exactly like this book? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You have looked at this book, and you have such a perfect memory, I wish you 
would describe something on the face of this book. You have just looked at it. 
A. Yes, sir; but understand me I have read nothing on the outside of it. I don't 
know 
Q. Did not look? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You looked on the inside of the book? 
A. Yes, sir. 
• Q. Why did you look inside of this book? 
A. Because I have stood like this [illustrating] around him when he was figuring 
on it, and would see how much it was as I was standing there waiting for him to 
tell me, and he would figure it up and put it down on the book. 
Q. Did he give you the weight or did you give him the weight? Did you weigh 
the beef or did the man weigh the beef? 
A. Well, we all weighed it. I got the meat and put it on the scale and set it, and 
this young man 
Q. I am not referring to the issues to the men; I am not talking of the issuing of 
the meat at all. I am talking about the receipt of the meat. 
A. The receipt of the meat? 
Q. Yes. He kept the book there when they were issuing it and put down the 
number of pounds as it was issued. 
A. Yes, sir; the sergeant, the clerk. 
Q. That was when it went to the different companies? 
A. Yes, sir. 1344 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. That was not, then, the receipt of the beef originally; that was after it was 
cut up and weighed out to the companies? 
A. Yes, sir; and then he charged it up and put it down on the book. He kept 
account of all the weights. 
Q. That was the sergeant who made the issues? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You said before that whenever you made a delivery of any meat you always 
delivered it to one of those officers? 
A. I did, delivered it to the officer; and the officer came in and told me to open it 
up and issue it. 
Q. That is right. Will you swear that this is the record of issue? 
A. That is the full amount. He receipted for the full amount. 
Q. It is the full amount? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. This is not the record, then, that was originally made? You could not swear 
that this is the original record? 
A. I could not swear positively, no. 
Q. I thought not. 
A. But I think it is. 
Q. You think it is the one made by the sergeant of the issues to the companies? 
A. That is the one made by the sergeant, I think. 
Q. You know the system of issues to the companies, when he puts down the beef, 
so many pounds to a company? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you ever have this memorandum book in your hand? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You never did? 
A. No, sir; not till now. I told you that a while ago. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Are you familiar with the handwriting of that clerk? 
A. No, sir; I am not; I never paid any attention to it, only just standing there and 
saw him write it down. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Are you familiar with the handwriting of Captain Carmichael? 
A. No, sir; I am not. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Major Williams, of the subsistence department, volunteers. 
Maj. William Williams was called as a witness by the recorder, and, being first 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name and residence. 
A. William Williams; I reside in New York. 
Q. Were you in the military service of the United States during the war with Spain? 
A. I was. I took the field first as a private in Troop A, New York Cavalry, and 
went to Camp Alger, and on July 16 I was commissioned commissary, made commis- 
sary of subsistence with the rank of major. 
Q. Where did you serve under that commission? 
A. I served first for a few days at Newport News and then I was placed in charge 
of transport No. 32, which sailed for Ponce in the early part of August, and on reach- 
TESTIMONY OF MAJ. WILLIAM WILLIAMS. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1345 
ing Ponce I was made commissary of subsistence at Ponce, remaining there about 
three weeks. In the early part of September I was restored to my status on trans- 
port No. 32, and brought her to New York, acting as commissary quartermaster. 
Q. What is the name of that transport? 
A. The Chester. 
Q. And you went down on board of her? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you remember what meat was furnished to the troops on board? 
A. The troops carried rations. 
Q. What regiment was on board? 
A. The First Regiment of Volunteer Engineers. 
Q. What meat or meats were furnished to them for their subsistence on that voy- 
age? 
A. They carried their own rations, and that was looked after by the regimental 
authorities. 
Q. Of course you had nothing to do with it? 
A. I remember seeing them eat canned roast beef and canned beans 
Q. In what shape were the cans of roast beef? 
A. They appeared to be in good shape. I should like to correct my statement. 
It was canned corned beef and not canned roast beef that they appeared to be eating. 
Q. Was fresh meat issued? 
A. Fresh meat was placed on board by the regimental authorities and the ques- 
tion of giving that out to the soldiers was entirely in their hands. I believe they 
gave out some, and facilities were afforded for them to cook it. 
Q. Did you make issues while you were at Ponce as commissary? 
A. No; the issues were made by the depot commissary, Captain Pomroy, who 
had charge of that particular branch. 
Q. What duties did you perform? 
A. My duties were chiefly those of disbursing commissary, and it will, perhaps, 
facilitate the examination and bring it to a head if I say that I had occasion to hear 
something about the refrigerated beef that came to Porto Rico once. 
Q. On what steamer did it come? 
A. On ths Manitoba. 
Q. Did you examine it? 
A. I did not examine it. 
Q. Please state what occurred, from your experience, what connection you had 
with it. 
A. Ail I know about it is this, that one Sunday morning Col. A. L. Smith, who in 
the meantime had arrived after me at Ponce, and was then the chief commissary 
officer there, told me this beef was on the ship and he wished to distribute it to the 
various commands, and he told me to take steps to do so. I sent word to all of the 
commands that the beef would be there Sunday night, and to send and get it of the 
depot commissary, and that was done, and the next day I happened to ask the Troop 
A men of New York, who were friends of mine, as I was formerly with that Troop, 
how they liked the beef, and they said that it was very good, and I heard no com- 
plaints about it. 
Q. Did you have any other connection with it than that? 
A. I did not. 
Q. And very shortly then you returned to the United States after that? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Where was your company that you formerly belonged to located at that time- 
how far from the dock or landing? 
A. About 2 miles, I suppose. 
S. Doc. 270--85 1346 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Were any troops further out than those at that time, that you remember? 
A. Yes, sir; there was a Kentucky regiment, I think, about 4 miles away from 
the beach. 
Q. Any out as far as 10 or 15 miles, do you know? 
A. None to whom the beef was delivered. 
Q. Did you have charge of the delivering of the beef? 
A. No. 
Q. Did you receive any reports from anyone as to where the deliveries had been 
made? 
A. Yes, sir; because I sent my clerk to all the various commands to give notice 
that the beef would be given out, and he told me where he had been. It took him 
about three hours to make the rounds. 
Q. To send the notices out about this beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How long after the beef was received was that notice sent out? 
A. I could not say that. 
Q. Was it at the time when the boat was on a reef or was it so they could get at it? 
A. It was so they could get at it, because it was brought on shore. It was 
undoubtedly the same beef that was testified to by an earlier witness here this morn- 
ing, a surgeon, with the rank of major, whose name I forget, because he referred to 
refrigerated beef being brought out on the Manitoba. 
Q. You had nothing to do with the issuing of that beef at all? 
A. Not otherwise than as stated. 
Q. And you made no extended inquiry, beyond an inquiry in your own company, 
as to the extent of the satisfaction with it? 
A. No, sir. 
Major Lee. That is all. 
The Recorder. Has the court any questions? 
By General Davis: 
Q. Did you see any of the canned roast beef used during the war? 
A. I did. 
Q. Did you have anything to do with the issues of it? 
A. I put some on board the Chester upon the return trip, and I tasted several cans 
of it myself. ' 
Q. Were you associated directly with any troops who used it, or did you issue any 
of it to troops? 
A. I am not sure whether I issued any to the troops. I would not undertake to 
say whether any was issued except that coming back on the Chester, or not. 
Q. Did you find it a satisfactory or unsatisfactory food for yourself. 
A. I found it rather tasteless, but always good. By good I mean wholesome. 
By Major Lee : 
Q. In your experience as commissary, would you make a recommendation over 
your signature to the Commissary-General or military authorities that it was a 
proper ration to issue to the soldiers of the American Army? 
A. Possibly, to the extent that it is used in the Navy. 
Q. I am speaking about the Army and I am speaking in regard to the service of 
troops in the Army, under the conditions under which they have to serve. Would 
you, in view of your knowledge of that, and your information on that subject, would 
you as a commissary officer recommend it? I believe you are still in the service? 
A. No, I have received my discharge. There are other things that I would 
prefer. 
Q. Are you an applicant for a position in the commissary department? 
A. I am not. I have returned to the practice of the law. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1347 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to recall Mr. Gampfer, of 
Cincinnati. 
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE A. J. GAMPFER-Recalled. 
George A. J. Gampfer was recalled by the recorder, and, being warned that he 
was still under oath, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. You have already been sworn? 
A. Yes, sir. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Mr. Gampfer, I would like you to state to the court when and where and under 
what circumstances you met a man by the name of Hendrix, if you did, at Lake- 
land, Fla? 
A. It was after some beef had been rejected by Captain Carmichael. Captain 
Carmichael asked me if I would go down to the depot the next morning to assist 
him in looking at that beef that was to come up on the 9 o'clock train. I told him 
that I would be there at 9 o'clock, and at 9 o'clock I got there. The train had not 
come in, so we waited. We had a wagon from the Tenth Cavalry waiting there, and 
as soon as the beef came on the train it was unloaded and put on the platform. The 
platform was covered, shady. Before signing for it to the Southern Express Com- 
pany, Captain Carmichael tore the burlap off it, and these greenish spots appearing 
on it, he told the express agent he would not sign for it, would not receive it. The 
express agent did not know what to do, and Captain McClure said, "Well, just send 
it back to Armour & Co., and tell them we won't receive it." Then Captain Car- 
michael, in fairness to Armour & Co., said, "Well, we should have somebody here to 
represent Armour & Co. Somebody suggested a local butcher, so they called Mr. 
Hendrix over. Mr. Hendrix came over, and I don't remember just what he said 
about the beef, but there is where I first met him. 
Q. I wish you wmuld detail to the court specifically the place and the relative 
positions, as nearly as you can from memory, where the conversations occurred 
which you testified to, with reference to the statement being made that the beef was 
chemically treated. I wish you would indicate about the spot, as nearly as you can, 
and the relative positions of the parties, as to who were there. I would like to get 
that fixed. 
A. The place was just about 10 feet from the middle door of the building in which 
the brigade commissary department was located, and those present were Captain 
Carmichael, Mr. Morehouse, Captain Castle, and myself. There was a detail of 
men there-I don't know how many, and I don't remember who they were-to do 
the work. 
Q. Where was the beef that you were acting upon at that time, with reference to 
yourselves there, if it was there? 
A. The beef was there, although I don't remember whether it was on the wagon, 
or whether all of it was off, but I know some of it was off the wagon. 
Q. It was not all off the wagon? 
A. I don't think so. I say some of it was off the wagon. 
Q. Now, who brought it up that day, if you recall; was it Hendrix or someone else? 
A. I don't remember. 
Q. You may go on and tell us with reference to the place. 
A. The place, as I said, was just before that door. The relative positions of the 
four men, Captain Carmichael, Captain Castle, and myself, stood in a sort of a semi- 
circle in the order named, with Captain Carmichael on the right. The agent stood 
directly before us, as I remember, when he made the statement. 1348 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Was the statement addressed to the party or addressed to you? Who was con- 
versing with him at the time? 
A. All of us did at times speak to him, but as I remember the statement was made 
to Captain Carmichael. 
Q. When and where did you meet Mr. Morehouse? Did you have any acquaint- 
ance with him before you came up here? 
A. Before I came to Washington? 
Q. Did you have any acquaintance with him before you came to Washington? 
A. I saw him, met him, was introduced to him at Lakeland. 
Q. You saw him about how often? 
A. I don't remember whether it was twice or once. Once I am positive, and it 
may have been twice. 
Q. Do you remember who introduced you to him? 
A. Captain Carmichael. 
Q. At his office? 
A. No, sir; it was in the camp of the First Ohio Cavalry. 
Q. Have you recognized Mr. Morehouse since then as the one who made the 
remark? Have you recognized the person? 
A. I have. 
Q. State the circumstances of the recognition. 
A. As I was leaving the witness stand last Thursda, a gentleman approached me 
and asked me if I could see Mr. Morehouse in the room. I think those were almost 
the exact words. I glanced around and surely enough he was standing with his 
back toward the table, on that side. I pointed him out and the gentleman said that 
it was Mr. Morehouse, and then I went and spoke to him. I shook hands with him 
and said: " How are you, Mr. Morehouse?" and he said, "I don't remember ever 
meeting you before." 
Q. Mr. Gampfer, you were discharged from the service when? 
A. October 22, 1898. 
Q. Have you your discharge with you as an officer? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Major Lee. I would like to present it and read it to the court. 
(The witness here produces his discharge.) 
Major Lee. May it please the court, this is a discharge paper, reciting that George 
A. Gampfer, a second lieutenant and squadron adjutant of the First Regiment Ohio 
Cavalry Volunteers, enrolled 30th April, 1898, to serve two years; discharged by reason 
of muster out of regiment, in compliance with General Orders, Nos. 124 and 130, P. S. 
Headquarters Army, A. G. 0. The said George A. Gampfer was born in Cincinnati, 
State of Ohio-this gives a description, which perhaps need not be read, as he is 
pretty well identified. This discharge is signed by M. W. Day, First Ohio Volunteer 
Cavalry, commanding the regiment, and countersigned by Melvin W. Rowell, first 
lieutenant, Fifth Cavalry, mustering officer. 
Remarks on the back of the discharge by Colonel Day, his commanding officer: 
"Character, excellent; service, honest and faithful; an exceptionally competent 
commissary officer." Signed, M. W. Day, lieutenant-colonel First Ohio Volunteer 
Cavalry, commanding regiment. 
Does the court wish to inspect the paper. 
By Major Lee. 
Q. I should like to ask one more question in regard to this book, as to the hand- 
writing and as to the method of issuing beef. How were the weights of the beef 
taken there? 
A. The weights were taken on a platform scale. 
Q. How would they be recorded in the first instance? 
A. They were recorded, as I remember, in a memorandum book somewhat larger FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1349 
i ;fi that, and then I think-I say I think, because that was Captain Carmichael's 
• v. sonal memorandum, as far as I know, I think Captain Carmichael took the 
weights from that book and entered them upon his own personal memorandum. 
Major Lee. That is all. 
The recorder. May it please the court, there are no other witnesses present who 
have been summoned for to-day. 
Thereupon, at 1.20 p. m., the court adjourned until Monday, April 3, 1899, at 10.30 
o'clock a. m. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C., 
Monday, April 3, 1899. 
The court met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, I wish to state that Major Lee, represent- 
ing the Major-General Commanding, is prepared to submit a list of witnesses; and I 
therefore suggest that the court go into executive session with a view to the consid- 
eration of that list. 
The court then (at 10.10 a. m.) went into executive session, after which an 
adjournment was taken until Tuesday, April 4, 1899, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C. 
Tuesday, April 4, 1899. 
The court met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to recall Dr. Daly as a witness. 
TESTIMONY OF DR. WILLIAM H. DALY. 
Dr. William H. Daly was recalled by the recorder, and, being warned that the 
oath previously administered to him was still binding, is examined. 
By Major Lee: 
Major Lee. May it please the court, not being present when the Doctor was exam- 
ined, I perhaps will have to go over some questions that were asked in regard to his 
service. 
Colonel Gillespie. You have read the testimony, have you not? 
Major Lee. No; I don't think I have read his testimony. He can state it briefly. 
Q. Doctor, will you please state to the court when you entered the service during 
the late war and in what capacity and where as nearly as you can briefly from 
recollection. 
A. I believe my commission is dated the 28th of May, 1898. The appointment 
is to the rank of major and chief surgeon of the United States Volunteers. 
Q. Where was your first tour of duty in connection with it? 
A. I was assigned to special duty on the staff of the Commanding General of the 
Army; first went to Tampa with the headquarters of the Army. 
Q. About what time was that? 1350 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I think we reached Tampa the 1st day of June, as nearly as I can remember. 
Q. And you continued on duty .there about how long? 
A. I could hardly tell exactly as to dates. I am under the impression that I was 
on duty at Tampa until about a few days after the Shafter expedition sailed for 
Cuba. 
Q. And you proceeded where? 
A. I was ordered to make an inspection of camp sites at Key West, Miami, etc. 
Q. Did you after that proceed to Porto Rico? 
A. I endeavored to reach headquarters; came to Washington and found General 
Miles and staff had gone forward to Cuba. I hastened on the next train, but reached 
Charleston about four hours after his vessel had sailed. I was detained there about 
ten days. I was instructed to go to Cuba by the Grand Duchess, but she was de- 
tained for some reason for about ten days, and when she sailed she sailed to Porto 
Rico and not to Cuba, as I expected. I reached Guanica-may I consult a memo- 
randum as to dates? 
The Recorder. Certainly. 
Major Lee. Certainly. You may consult any papers which you have in your 
possession. 
A. I don't know that my paper is correct. It is simply an itinerary that I made 
from memory, and it is subject to amendment if there is any reason why it should 
be amended. I kept no diary of events. I arrived at Guanica on the early morn- 
ing of the 26th. I don't know whether it was the 25th or 26th. 
Q. Of what month? 
A. Of July. 
Q. And you continued on duty there about how long? 
A. I remained on duty with headquarters, performing a great variety of services in 
a professional capacity, chiefly, until I brought the transport Panama away from 
Porto Rico loaded with convalescents. 
Q. About what time was that? 
A. About September 1 we started with the ship partially prepared; started for 
the various ports to get our allotments of convalescents from Arroyo, Mayaguez, and 
Ponce. - 
Q. Then you returrfed to the United States? 
A. Returned to the United States and landed at Fortress Monroe about the evening 
of September 10, where I landed the convalescents-most of them. 
Q. Then, from that time what were your duties? 
A. I was then very ill, and I had a short leave of absence, after which, and before I 
was well, I was again ordered to proceed with a board of officers to make inspections 
of the several regiments of so-called immunes, the United States Volunteers located 
at Jacksonville, Chickamauga, near Lexington, etc. 
Q. Doctor, you may please state to the court your length of experience of service 
in the Army as a medical officer and your length of experience as a physician or as 
belonging to the medical profession. 
A. I have been in the active practice of my profession about thirty-three or thirty- 
four years. I was a medical officer in the wTar of the rebellion, and served in this 
capacity during the Spanish war. 
Q. Are you connected with any medical society, and if so, in what capacity? 
A. I am connected with a great many medical societies-more than I can tell. 
Q. Mention some of the prominent ones-not all, necessarily. 
A. Well, I am a member of nearly all of the medical societies of America. I have 
been made president of quite a number of national bodies, as well as local bodies, and 
have held positions in the international medical bodies, and am a member of many of 
the foreign medical societies; was tendered memberships on account of scientific work 
that I had done without any seeking on my part for membership. I could not tell FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1351 
you the list. It is a very long one, sir, and growing. The national bodies made 
me their president seriatim-various ones-without any seeking on my part, and I was 
given to understand it was on account of scientific work I had done. 
Q. I just wish to arrive generally at what your connections have been with these 
societies without going into minute details. 
A. I could not give you the details. There is a long list. The names of the 
societies can be found in a directory of the medical profession of the country. I 
happened to look it over casually a few weeks ago and I was somewhat surprised to 
find the list was a very large one. 
Q. Doctor, will you please state to the court, in a narrative form and in your own 
way, refreshing your memory from any memoranda that you may have, the extent 
of any investigation or investigations that you may have made in connection with your 
duties, and more especially with reference to fresh beef, or even canned roast beef, 
and also state whether you made any reports in regard to the matter or matters 
embraced in the question, and, at the proper time, if such reports were made, so 
reference will be made to the reports. This question refers to the late war. 
A. I would not like to dignify what I call my observations with reference to the 
so-called refrigerated beef; I do not think they originally should be called investi- 
gations. They were observations made in the line of my duty, and I do not think 
they should be dignified by the word investigations at that time. I made sufficient 
observations, in my judgment, to warrant me in making a report. Subsequently, or 
about the time of making that report, in order to satisfy myself as a prudent man 
that my observations were properly based, I made then some investigations, as I say, 
for my own private satisfaction, to the extent of making analyses of some of the 
residuum of an extract of beef. That part of it might properly be called investigation, 
although I did not feel called upon to do that, because I believed then, and I believe 
now, it was the Government's province to take that matter up and with her own 
experts make investigations. I think that might be considered my answer to that 
question. 
Q. Your observations in regard to the beef question were about when, and on what 
vessel; that is, as to the character and quality of the beef? 
A. Well, my first observation was purely accidental. It was purely accidental at 
Tampa. On one of the transports; I don't remember the name. It had been said it 
was the Comal. I don't know. I did not look at the name of the vessel. I was shown 
a quarter of beef hanging up above the bridge in the sun. Colonel Weston attracted 
my attention to it and made some remark. My interest was awakened in it, and I 
believed if it would prove what they expected it to that it would be a very good 
thing. I was rather pleased and was really interested. I went back several times 
during the day and looked at it again, and my interest was sufficient to cause me to 
take a piece off of it, which the following day I cooked and ate. There were some 
disagreeable symptoms followed. I was not altogether sure whether the symptoms 
were due to the eating of that meat or due to some other causes which occurred. I 
was riding a very wild and vicious horse, and the day was very hot, and the horse 
had thrown me two or three times and injured me a little bit; not very seriously, not 
sufficiently for me not to ride him again, and I was made ill and rejected the food 
from my stomach. 
Q. Let me interrupt you to ask about when was that. Was it shortly prior to 
the sailing of the expedition? 
A. As nearly as I can remember it was about the day before or two days before. 
I would not like to say positively. It was close to the date of the sailing of this 
expedition. 
Q. Let me interrupt you a little further there. Did you at that time hear or 
receive any information as to the name of the process that it was claimed was used 
in connection with this beef? 1352 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. The only remark that Colonel Weston made to me about that beef was, he 
said: "Major, here is a quarter of beef hanging up here in the sun. It has been 
hanging here sixty hours. We are going to see what it will do." Now, I have no 
recollection whatever. I asked some questions as to how it was done, and there was 
no reply made, except, I think, that the Colonel winked at me, or something of the 
sort. The conversation ended there. I have no recollection of any further conver- 
sation about that beef, but I have a distinct recollection-I want to emphasize that- 
that there was no further conversation about that beef that day, because we talked 
on other subjects entirely, a subject foreign to beef, and that we had a conversation 
foreign to that beef is verified by subsequent conversation I had with Colonel Weston 
after the war, in General Schwann's office, where I met him casually, when the sub- 
ject foreign to the matter of the beef question was also spoken about. 
Q. Let me ask you there if there was a man by the name of Powell that you 
heard of at the time, or if such a man was present, or any one was present, with 
General Weston at the time, if you recall? 
A. I never heard Powell's name in my life, so far as I can recall, until the matter 
of the war commission brought it forward, or some newspaper report possibly 
previous to that. I certainly never at that time nor till after I had come to the 
United States from the West Indies. 
Q. Did Colonel Weston say anything to you as to what meat it was; whether it 
had been furnished by contract? 
A. I have detailed all the words of Colonel Weston in our conversation. 
Q. Doctor, if you will, please go on and state the next observation and investigation, 
whichever you may term it, that you made. 
A. I would not like to have the word "investigation" used, because it ought not to 
be dignified by that. 
Q. Your next observation. 
A. It was simply observation. 
Q. Of the matter of the beef, and when it was? 
A. I sometimes made them without any suspicion of anything but what would be 
favorable. 
Q. You may state, in answer to the question, when you next observed the beef, or 
its condition, and where. 
A. Well, I could hardly give the data in detail. I made observations wherever I 
had an opportunity. They were varied and I might say rather numerous, still not 
sufficient to arouse any suspicion that there was anything in the question that was 
working detrimentally to the health or the lives of soldiers, I can say even up to the 
time that I had made my report and the subsequent analysis. I must say that when 
I made my analysis I was somewhat alarmed at the confirmatory conditions of what 
I had only suspected. 
Q. When in Porto Rico did you see any of the meat on the Manitoba or that came 
from the Manitoba, either that was issued to the troops or that was transferred and 
put on other vessels? 
A. I should not like to be asked that question. I have no means of tracing up 
the meats, and did not attempt to; I was leading a very busy life. I had orders every 
day to perform service more than was possible unless I would hasten about every- 
thing I did. 
Q. Then, Doctor, leaving that, please state what experience you had with the beef 
that was on the Panama, if you had any, on returning. I believe you returned on 
the Panama? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And that you had some charge of the vessel in an official capacity? 
A. I had entire charge of the vessel. 
Q. And what experience, if any, did you have with beef on the Panama? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1353 
A. The beef we had on the Panama was the best we could get, so far as I know. 
After conversing with the officers who were sent to Report to me for duty, I advised 
that they get the best beef that was obtainable. There had been some talk the day 
before about difficulties, and I said, "Well, we are meeting difficulties of all kinds. 
Just get the best beef you can." The beef came on board. Itdid not look so badly; 
that is, comparing it to other beef that we have seen, but it did not smell right, and 
while I tried to be as circumspect as possible, not to arouse any discontent, it seems 
from letters that I have received from soldiers who were on the Panama that some- 
one did overhear me say something about the beef not being what it should be. We 
put it into the refrigerator, and I want to say now that there was a well-built refrig- 
erator on the Panama-a large, well-built refrigerator. I want to emphasize that, 
because in the report of the war commission they indicate that the beef could not 
keep on the Panama because there was no refrigerator. I want to emphasize the 
fact that there was a good refrigerator, not newly built, but that had been on the 
vessel. She is a well-built vessel, a good, staunch old vessel, well built and well 
adapted for the preservation of meats. Nothing could be better adapted. It was a 
room, as nearly as I can designate it, reaching from the deck to the ceiling between 
decks, the height being about 7 feet, and probably about 15 or 20 feet square, being 
very capacious. We had altogether about ten tons and a half of ice to preserve one 
ton or less of beef. You will readily see the proportion is enormous, so that every 
facility was afforded that that beef should remain pure and sweet if the other con- 
ditions were equal. I want to emphasize that, because of the report of the war com- 
mission going to the country, making that statement, which is contrary to my testi- 
mony, which could have been verified by over three hundred people on the Panama 
if they had chosen to get that testimony. I dare say it can be verified yet, unless 
the ship has been altered, because it was a part of the ship, not a temporary affair. 
make this statement in the belief that this court wants to get at the truth. 
Q. Were there any further developments with regard to the beef on the voyage 
home that you recall; any disposed of, thrown overboard, or otherwise used? 
A. From the first there were loud complaints on the part of the sick men and the 
convalescents. I did what I could to quiet them, but the complaints were justified. 
At my officers' call every morning I was careful to have everybody present, even 
the captain of the ship and the engineers. I wanted everything to work smoothly. 
They reported loud complaints on the part of the soldiers, and the stench was rap- 
idly pervading the entire ship, a most indescribable stench of the most wretched 
character, until finally I suggested that a board of survey be had and the meat dis- 
posed of. Now, I want to say that in my testimony before the war commission 
there was a great deal of cross-questioning there about the odor of boric acid, and it 
created some confusion in my mind. The multitude of questions that were fired at 
me that day, I never for a moment thought what they were driving at. It was based 
upon an expression in my report that the beef had the odor of decomposed boric 
acid. It is as difficult for a physician to indicate what a smell is like in words as it 
may be for an artist to paint a dying groan. I used what I supposed to be a mild 
term. If that term was offensive, I might probably have used the words of the sol- 
diers. Some of them said it smelt like hell, others said it smelt like the devil. I 
heard others say it smelt like a bouquet of cesspools. I heard some of them call 
' ' Bring me the sewer gas till I get something sweet to smell, after this door is opened, ' ' 
referring the refrigerator door, and I might go further and say some other things 
that are not very seemly, but I simply used the mildest terms that I could. But as 
a matter of fact, I have made some experiments since with boric acid and beef, and if 
any gentleman here wishes to verify it he can do the same thing, and without going 
into the chemistry of decomposed boric acid with the juices of meats, I think any- 
body can demonstrate to their own satisfaction that it is as foul a smell as anybody 
could object to being subjected to. 1354 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. I believe, Doctor, you spoke of the meat being disposed of. I do not recall just 
now. Was it thrown overboard? 
A. Yes, sir; it was thrown overboard by my orders after the report of the board of 
survey-the rest-what remained. 
Q. Yes; I was referring to that. To what extent did the deprivation of beef affect 
the men; that is, as to hardship in the denial of rations, if there was any, as to that 
class of rations/ 
A. Well, I considered it, and we all considered it a very serious deprivation. It 
was the basis of our soups, and if it had been proper beef the basis or one of the 
important factors or elements in enabling me to bring those convalescents to the 
United States, as I was enjoined to do, in a proper condition. The whole country 
was aroused by a scandal, whether based or not, about the way soldiers were being 
brought home, and I was enjoined orally by the commanding general to bring those 
convalescents to the United States in a manner above reproach. His last words were, 
' ' I shall depend upon you to bring those soldiers in the best possible condition. ' ' 
Q. Your inspection of the Fourth United States Volunteer Infantry you referred 
to in your report made at Jacksonville. Will you please state the circumstances and 
your observations there of the Fourth? 
A. I have not read those reports for a long time. I doubt whether I have read 
them since I made them. I lead a very busy life in my profession. I am under the 
impression, however, that so far as the food question was concerned, as it was sup- 
plied to the troops, that in order to bring that question before the commanding gen- 
eral of the Army I reserved any remark adverse to its qualities for this special report, 
and so far as I know there will probably be nothing much found of an untoward 
character in thdse reports concerning the beef supply. I can not say positively, but 
that is my impression. 
Q. Let me interrupt you. Your report would be your best guide in regard to what 
was done and said at that time. 
A. But I can say this from memory, that regiment that you speak of at Jackson- 
ville, I don't know what regiment-did you say the Fourth? 
Q. The Fourth United States Volunteer Infantry. 
A. If it was the Fourth, it was a very fine body of men, well officered. They had 
a very good lot of cooks. Their meals were well prepared. They had good bread, 
and the prepared beef looked pretty well. Their stews tasted pretty well, with some 
exceptions, but the exceptions were rather markedly bad; so that my suspicions were 
sufficiently aroused to make me go back to those places a number of times. I found 
that the superior taste of the stews was due to the very superior cooks. I spoke to one 
of them-I could not locate the company-there was some complaint. I said, "That 
stew tastes very good; that is very nice." And he said, "Yes; that is very nice, 
because I have it highly seasoned. We have plenty of onions and plenty of pepper, 
but if you didn't fix it that way, with a great deal of care, the men would not eat it." 
And in one of the companies at my first visit I happened to see the men in line wait- 
ing for their dinner, and I jumped off my horse and went forward and examined the 
meat. It did not taste right. It had an indescribable, insipid, bitterish taste, and 
the men were refusing it, and I quietly asked the cook why the men refused it. 
"Well," he said, "if I have it seasoned up highly with pepper and onions they take 
it; if I don't they won't have it. There is something wrong with it; I don't know 
what it is." I said, "What is there wrong?" He said, " I don't know; there is some- 
thing; I can't tell what it is. They won't eat it unless we have it seasoned, and we 
are out of onions and out of these things, and you see there it is; they refuse it." 
Q. Do you recall the kind of meat that was? 
A. Beef, so-called refrigerator beef. 
Q. I will hand you this paper and ask you to look at it and see whether you iden- 
tify it as a report? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1355 
A. Yes, sir. That report is genuine. That is my report. 
Major Lee. I desire in connection with Dr. Daly's testimony to have this report 
read in evidence. 
The Recorder. It has been heretofore introduced. 
Major Lee. Pittsburg, Pa., October 21, 1898. W. H. Daly, October 21, 1898. 
There is a pencil notation on the margin, a change in date made by Dr. Daly in 
my office 21st of January, 1899. 
A. I should like to explain here that that confusion of dates appears to have 
occurred in that way. The report was dictated to my private stenographer at home, 
one who has been in my employ for some years in that capacity and in whom I have 
a great deal of confidence. The person has typewritten my scientific articles and 
essays and such as that for the profession. I signed that report like many reports I 
sign without reading it, and I would like it to be understood that I was very ill, but 
as near as I can get at it from data, from my family, that report should be dated 
about the 14th of October. 
Q. Then with that explanation I will read the report. I desire to submit that in 
connection with the Doctor's testimony. 
(The report in question, which has heretofore been offered in evidence, dated Pitts- 
burg, Pa., October 21, 1898, to the Assistant Adjutant-General, Headquarters of the 
Army, Washington, D. C., and signed by W. H. Daly, major and cheif surgeon, 
U. S. V., was here read in full.) 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I have here a report of an inspection of the 
Sixth United States Volunteer Infantry Immunes, dated Lexington, October 2,1898. 
Of course it is not all Dr. Daly's report. It appears from the inclosure dated 
Camp, Chickamauga Park, Ga., October 1, 1898, that Dr. Daly, over what appears 
to be his signature, submitted a letter as an inclosure to Lieut. Col. M. D. Moss, 
Inspector-General U. S. Volunteers. A portion of the report refers to matters, I believe, 
that are relevant to this investigation. I will submit this to Dr. Daly before reading 
it, and ask him to examine it. 
A. That report is genuine, sir; I dictated it. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I do not believe it is necessary to read all the 
report. I have given the date of it. 
The Witness. One moment. There is a word that should be inserted here, probably 
a mistake of typewriting. Instead of the word ' ' but ''the wo^d ' ' apparently ' ' should 
be used. I will just mark it in asterisks here. 
(The witness makes the change indicated.) 
Colonel Gillespie. Is that the original letter or is it a copy? 
By Major Lee: 
Q. This is your original report? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. A letter to the inspecting officer? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Major Lee. I will only read the extract which is marked: 
' ' Complaints about the insufficiency of food were numerous. The messes do not 
seem to be satisfactorily managed in all companies, and the cooking of the food, in 
some instances, indicated lack of experience and attention. I found much ignorance 
shown by officers (and the quartermaster-sergeants of companies who draw the 
rations) regarding the quantities to which they are entitled. This seems to be a gen- 
eral defect, and instructions should be issued requiring the presence of officers at all 
issues, especially in volunteer troops. They seem to depend too much on the accu- 
racy of the commissary officers and noncommissioned officers. I frequently found 
that they did not know how much beef should be coming to them. This may have 
been the cause of many complaints of food. The ration at best is not too large for 1356 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
many men that come into the service, and a failure to get the full ration naturally 
gives rise to complaint and discontent. I endeavored to give the necessary informa- 
tion, and called the attention of regimental and company commanders to this subject, 
but would recommend general and explicit instructions be issued on the subject, 
giving also the component parts of the various kinds of rations to be furnished all 
officers, many of whom do not see the regulations." 
General Davis. What is the date of that? 
Major Lee. This is dated October 1, 1898, and received by Colonel Moss October 
7, 1898. These other reports I have not had time to look at. (See Appendix 19.) 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Doctor, I will hand you a further report, not in the order of dates; Camp Cuba 
Libre, Jacksonville, Fla., September 25, 1898, a letter addressed to Lieut. Col. 
M. D. Moss, Inspector-General of Volunteers. I will ask you to examine that and 
state whether this is a genuine report submitted by you at the time of its date, or 
about that time? 
A. That is genuine. 
Major Lee. If there is no objection I should like to introduce an extract from that 
report, so far as it is pertinent to the matter under investigation. (After examining 
the report.) Going over this, it appears to relate more to the personnel and some 
general remarks. 
A. I endeavored to explain a while ago that I supposed I had withheld all of the 
matter concerning beef from those reports, intending to incorporate it in a special 
report. 
Major Lee. Well, there is nothing in this report that I find that relates directly to 
that subject, and I will not take up the time of the court to go over the matter that 
does not relate to this. If the same is true in regard to the other reports I do not 
see that there is any necessity to make any further examination of them. They are 
before the court, I presume, and can be read in evidence. 
The Recorder. I have no intention of reading them. I simply got them. 
Major Lee. I had not seen them until this morning. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Will you please state, Doctor, whether anything is detailed in the reports? 
Your impression is that it is not, that it is all embodied in that special report? 
A. Embodied in that report, but I think there is, maybe, some testimony with ref- 
erence to the observations by men at Chickamauga camp, the fresh beef that was 
there. The fresh beef that was there before it was cut up by the non commissioned 
officers for distribution to the company. I don't think it is in there. It may be. 
Major Lee. This is a report in regard to Lexington, Ky., the inspection of the 
Tenth Immunes. I don't think there is anything in that. 
A. I don't know whether I told the court about the conversation of the soldiers 
who were cutting up that meat. I went in, followed the wagon in, and while they 
were cutting it up we smelt it, and one of the men, whether he was a non- 
commissioned officer, a commissioned officer, or a soldier I don't remember, said, 
"This beef does not smell right. It looks all right, but it doesn't smell right, and 1 
have observed that a number of times." Inorder to quiet any apprehensions, I 
said, "I don't find anything serious." There was a good deal of complaint about 
the food and I was naturally disposed to quiet such a tendency; but the meat had 
some odor in a lesser degree than that which I had spoken about in other places. 
That was in the inspection, I think, if I remember right, of Colonel Tyson's regi- 
ment of United States Volunteers at Chickamauga. 
Q. Is that one of the immune regiments? 
A. Yes, sir; I think the Sixth. 
Q. You don't know what the number of the regiment is? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1357 
A. I think the Sixth. 
The President. The Sixth. 
A. Now, if those commissary men should be examined by the court they could 
cell about that. The commissary officer, who is a tall gentleman, a captain or 
lieutenant of one of the companies, could be examined, and I suppose he could give 
the court valuable testimony about that. 
Q. Have you the name of the officer? 
A. No; he was a tall, dark man, a captain of one of the companies. 
Q. In Colonel Tyson's regiment, as you remember? 
A. Yes, sir; I am satisfied now, with the large amount of testimony about chem- 
ically prepared meat-I am satisfied that that beef was chemically prepared. That 
is, I am as well satisfied as anyone can be without making a chemical analysis. 
Q. The inclosure from Camp Thomas, Chickamauga, dated October 12, has no 
special report as to the matter before the court? 
A. Show me the one read last, please. 
(The paper was handed to the witness.) 
A. Here is the one; here it is, sir. 
Q. Well, if I omitted to read it, it is an oversight. 
A. You read it. 
Major Lee. I did read it. It has been read to the court-the same matter? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. The report of October 11, Lexington, Ky., is similar to the other that has just 
been examined. There is no special reference to those matters. It goes more into 
the matter of the personnel and the general condition of the hospital and medical 
department specially, so I will not take up the time of the court by reading that. 
Q. After the rendering of these reports, at any time subsequent to the sending of 
them in, what further examination did you make as to the beef, any analysis or 
laboratory or other examination that you made, as to determining in your own mind 
or in connection with others, as far as you were informed on the subject-what, if 
any, such examinations were made and with what result? 
A. After my report went in, in order to satisfy my own mind as to conditions, I, 
while ill, got at the chemical analysis of some residuums I obtained from some of the 
soup made from refrigerated beef on the Panama. The first one or two times was 
while I was ill, and they were very incomplete, simply preliminary ones, not at all 
satisfactory. I was obliged to leave the matter to obey the orders of the command- 
ing general to go on this tour of inspection. After that, however, I made my analy- 
ses more carefully and without interruption, and each one seemed to be strongly con- 
firmatory of the previous ones. In that residuum I found distinct evidence of the 
presence of boric acid as indicated by the flame test. I also found the presence of 
salicylic acid as indicated by the ferric chloride test. As I say, that analysis was 
made purely for my own satisfaction, to show myself whether I had been right or 
wrong in my suspicions, which were aroused on the Panama. 
It might be as well to say here that the report of the War Commission intimates 
that a trace of those chemicals, which are deleterious or not to be used in foods with 
safety in any degree at all. I want to emphasize the fact. No matter what chemist 
or what authority says they are safe, they are not safe. They are unsafe. They are 
detrimental to health, and their use can only result in destroying the vitality of 
anybody who consumes such foods. I know there has been a good deal of interested 
writing in journals to the opposite effect. One editor of a journal spoke of 18 or 20 
wood choppers who subsisted for so many days on food prepared with salicylic acid 
and boric acid, and that their health did not seem to be affected. That only proves 
one thing-that wood choppers are hard to kill. That is all it proves. It also proves 
that that man's writings were colored by his advertisement bills. I want to submit 1358 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
the report, a copy. In the report of the War Commission, as I have said, they 
suppressed a report of the chemists 
The Recorder. May it please the court, the War Commission was a body created 
by the President, which performed certain duties, I suppose under instructions from 
the President, and made a report. I respectfully submit that this is not a forum in 
which the report of a tribunal over which this body has no control, and with which 
it has no connection-I say this is not the forum in which the report or any acts of 
the War Commission can be.investigated. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I suppose the witness would be allowed to go 
on and state in his testimony the facts within his knowledge, and also the fact that 
he has been called to testify heretofore, and the further fact may be elicited that a 
portion of the testimony that he gave there does not appear, and he might be asked 
questions in regard to the matter as to whether he had testified on this subject here- 
tofore, which would be a very proper inquiry before this court. This is not exactly, 
perhaps, a trial court, and there has been considerable latitude allowed to a witness 
in giving his testimony. One witness, as I recall, was allowed to introduce a paper 
that was two or three years old and read it in evidence and no objection was made, 
and I would like this witness to go on and read the report, or give his testimony in 
his own way. Then if there is any evidence that should be stricken out for any con- 
sideration, the court can do that. 
The Recorder. There is no disposition on my part to do anything whatever to 
restrict the scope of this inquiry. I simply make the point that this is not the place 
to call in question the acts or conclusions of the War Commission, a body over which 
this court has no control, and With which it has no possible connection. It seems to 
me that question can be so directed as to bring out the truth, as it lies in the mind 
of the witness, without taking that turn. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I should like the witness to proceed, and after 
he has proceeded, the evidence, if it is found to be objectionable, after the matter is 
before the court, let the court pass upon it. 
The President. What is the paper? 
The Witness. The paper is a copy of the report made by the expert chemists to 
the War Commission, in which they say in their own language that my analysis is 
sustained. 
The Recorder. It is possible to call that witness in behalf of the Major-General 
Commanding and get it from him. 
Major Lee. I was going to ask the doctor a question as to whether by information 
or otherwise any other analysis had been made, whether he had any knowledge or 
information in regard to any other analysis or examination of this having been made, 
he being interested to the extent that he made an official report over his own signa- 
ture in his own time. It seems to me it is perfectly proper he should answer the 
question. I did not ask him in express terms, but I would like to know and would 
like to have the court know w hether there was any other analysis made at the time 
to his knowledge. If it is disputed, if there is any question in regard to it, if it is 
contradicted, then let the witness be called to say that this witness has made a state- 
ment to the court that was not borne out by the facts; but he so understood, and I 
hope the court will allow the report to be read that he may answer the question as 
to whether he has any knowledge or information as to any other analysis being made 
or the beef or any residuum of the beef in connection with the matter under 
investigation. 
The Recorder. The answTer to that question will probably bring out the fact that 
some chemist did make an examination; and it seems to me that chemist is the one 
to put on the stand to testify. 
Major Lee. I would like to find out who he is and what he said. 
The President. There is no objection to that. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1359 
Major Lee. I should like the matter to go before the court and let the court deter- 
mine whether it wants to call the witness. 
Colonel Gillespie. What was the question that the witness was answering? 
(The testimony referred to was read.) 
The Recorder. That answer is argumentative to the last degree, and clearly in 
criticism of the proceedings and findings of the War Commission, which, as I have 
already stated, is a matter with which this court has no concern. 
Major Lee. I would like to have the stenographer read the last question that I 
asked in making my argument. 
The stenographer read as follows: 
' ' I hope the court will allow the report to be read, that he may answer the ques- 
tion as to whether he has any knowledge or information as to any other analysis 
having been made of the meat or any residuum of the meat in connection with the 
matter under investigation." 
Major Lee. That was embodied in my first question on the subject. 
The Recorder. Standing alone, I have no objection to that question being an- 
swered. 
Colonel Gillespie. Is this an investigation by Dr. Daly himself or by another 
person? I do not exactly get the meaning of the question. 
Major Lee. I simply asked him whether, in connection with this investigation that 
he made, there was brought to his knowledge or information any other investiga- 
tion of this particular beef. Of course, he would have to be a party to it or would 
have to know something about it, but I want to know to what extent it was brought 
to his knowledge. 
Colonel Gillespie. I ask the question whether this was an investigation made 
solely by Dr. Daly or whether it was made by Dr. Daly in connection with someone 
else. 
Major Lee. I think the question will bring out the fact that there was someone 
else. 
Colonel Gillespie. I ask whether it was made by Dr. Daly directly or by Dr. 
Daly in connection with somebody else? 
Major Lee. I can only answer that by saying that the answer to the question 
would determine just what was done. 
Colonel Gillespie. You can put the question to him. 
Major Lee. I have no objection, may it please the court, to the question whether 
he has any knowledge of any other investigations having been made other than the 
one to which he has testified. 
Colonel Gillespie. The question I ask is a question he can answer directly, I 
think. 
Major Lee. If the question is whether someone was present with him when he 
made his analysis-if that is the intention, I do not think 
Colonel Gillespie. It is clearly what you want to introduce. 
Major Lee. I think if the witness answers the question that is before him now it 
will bring out the result. 
The President. Let him answer the question whether there has been another 
analysis made to his knowledge. 
Major Lee. Or information. 
Colonel Gillespie. That is right. 
Major Lee. That seems to be the ruling of the court. 
The Witness. If the court will permit me, I will simply read the report of the 
chemist of the Government. 
The Recorder. Can not the question be answered directly? 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Has there, or has there not, been another examination? 1360 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Yes, sir; the expert chemist of the Government made an analysis of the same 
residuum and confirmed my analysis as being correct, in unmeasured terms. 
Major Lee. Now I will ask the witness if he has a copy of the report that was 
made. 
A. I have a copy written by the chief chemist in his own hand, in script, as you 
see, on the Government paper, and signed by himself and assistant. 
Major Lee. I will ask that that be submitted to the court. 
The Witness. I can not let this go out of my possession. It is a very lucky thing 
for me that I had this. I will submit this for the inspection of the court, but I must 
retain this copy, because it is a very fortunate thing that I had the foresight to get 
that copy from the chemist, or otherwise it might have been asserted that my analy- 
sis was not correct. I am exceedingly pleased that I obtained that copy at the time. 
Major Lee. Now, may it please the court, I ask the witness to read that in con- 
nection with his answer, if he so desires. 
The Witness (reading). "Department of the Interior, United States Geological 
Survey, January 21, 1899. Dr. P. S. Connor. Sir: In accordance with your request 
we have examined the powder submitted by Dr. W. H. Daly for boric and salicylic 
acids. Both the flame test and the turmeric paper test give distinct evidence of the 
presence of boric acid. We submit herewith the slips of turmeric paper showing 
the red coloration given by the sample examined and also the slip showing the reac- 
tion obtained with boric acid alone. We also obtained good reaction with ferric 
chloride, showing the presence of salicylic acid in the powder. The total weight of 
the sample submitted was 0.2836 gram. Of this, 0.1336 gram have been returned to 
Dr. Daly, in whose presence the tests were conducted. Very respectfully, (signed) 
F. W. Clark, chief chemist, W. H. Hillebrand, chemist." 
I would say that some other chemists were present from the other departments 
who declined to sign the paper because they were not authorized to do so. 
By General Davis: 
Q. In whose handwriting is the paper? 
A. It is in the handwriting of the chief chemist, his own handwriting, and signed 
by him. 
The Recorder. Dr. Clark? 
A. Yes, sir; written by him in my presence and in the presence of two or three 
others. I also state to the court that there has been an impression abroad through 
the press that the analyses might have been made from the beef that I saw on the 
transport at Tampa. It should be understood by the court, of course, as well as 
everybody else concerned, that I got no samples of that beef that I saw on the trans- 
port at Tampa. I simply ate some of it and ejected it from my stomach. The 
analyses I made from beef obtained on the Panama about three months later. There 
is an interval of three months between the time that I saw the quarter of beef on the 
transport at Tampa and the date of September 7, when I obtained the extract from 
the beef on the Panama. In the interest of truth that ought to be known, that it is 
not the same beef, and that there was an interval of three months. 
Q. And that report that you referred to is as to the residuum of the beef from the 
Panama? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And kept in your custody for the analyses, as you have testified? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Doctor, I will ask you a question in regard to canned roast beef. It does not 
appear that you have had much to do with that. Did you have any knowledge in 
regard to the quality, character, or result of the rations of canned roast beef furnished 
to the army during the last war under your observation? I should like to have you 
state. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1361 
A. I wish, the court would not ask me. I think they have had an abundance of 
that. 
Q. If you have any knowledge in regard to this matter, I should like to present it 
to the court. 
A. I want to answer every question, but I will ask to be excused from that. I 
have gone over a good deal of ground, and there seems to be such a mountain of 
testimony that I really would ask to be excused. I do not want to be discourteous. 
Q. I will not insist upon the question. 
A. Well, my observations were very few, and I do not think they would be of any 
interest. Unless the court insist upon it, and I would ask, unless the court insists 
Colonel Gillespie. You have extensive familiarity with the camps and also went 
to Porto Rico, and I think the court has a right to your statement. 
A. Do not understand me to be discourteous, sir. I wish to answer any question 
that the court desires me to answer. I must say that my observations were such 
that they would lead me to give an opinion that the so-called canned roast beef was 
not a proper thing for soldiers. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I will ask you one further question, Doctor, and that is this: Please state to the 
court any other facts within your knowledge or coming to your knowledge during 
the late war with Spain or since, pertinent to the matter under investigation, as 
though you had been specially asked regarding them. If there be anything further, 
in answer to that question, I would like you to state anything that may have been 
omitted in the detailed questioning. 
A. Well, I have a great deal of information, but it was obtained in such a way 
that a ban was placed upon me before I got it. Gentlemen volunteered certain 
things upon certain conditions, that I would not have them summoned, and it was 
either a choice for me to say I did not want to hear it, or make that promise. 
I have a great deal of information such as that, and I do not know that I am at lib- 
erty to give it, although my promise only went so far that I would not use their 
names nor have them summoned. There were manufacturers of chemicals. There 
were men who had been in the beef-selling business who were so situated that they 
thought it was rather a perilous thing for them to give their names. There were 
creditors of beef packers, who were purchasers of their plants, etc., but all of that is 
strongly confirmatory of my report. A manufacturer of chemicals gave me the 
information that his best customers were the beef packers, and that if he had not 
been able to sell his chemicals to them he would have been obliged to go out of 
business as far as the manufacture of that particular drug was concerned, and a very 
dangerous, deleterious drug it is too, one that should never be used internally in any 
quantity. The information I have had has been confirmatory along all the lines. I 
am sure that a great mass of testimony can be had by this court in the interest of 
the truth. There can be a great many persons brought forward to testify. I already 
have in my possession a list of some forty or fifty who corroborate the chemical 
treatment of beef, and many more can be had. 
Colonel Gillespie. How can we get the testimony if the gentlemen to whom you 
refer withhold their names? 
A. Well, one instance occurred like this, sir. I was riding in the street car with 
an old acquaintance and he said, "Doctor, you do not know all about the chemical 
treatment of beef yet." "Well," I said, "I don't suppose I do. I am under the 
impression that there are others that can tell me a good deal if they will." He said, 
"Surely; but we don't like to have our business destroyed." "Well," I said, "it 
seems a queer thing that patriotism comes in last after business and money and 
everything else; that the lives and health of our soldiers should be considered as 
a trifling matter compared to a few dollars." 
S. Doc. 270 86 1362 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
Colonel Gillespie. I do not know whether this should continue. He has not 
given names. 
The Witness. 1 am not allowed to give names. 
The President. If you know of your own knoweledge the names of people who 
will go on the stand we will be very glad to have them, but a general observation of 
this kind 
The Witness. I have answered the question that was asked me as to how I got 
this information. I was giving you the answer. I am ready to give the answer. I 
am not ready to violate the confidence, and I did not think the court would ask me 
to do that. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, does the court desire the witness to proceed 
to give any names that he is at liberty to give, or, as I understand the witness, that 
he is not at liberty to give? 
The Recorder. May it please the court, the original question was as to facts. The 
witnesses are to testify as to facts. So far the testimony of this witness has been 
purely argumentative. If the witness has any facts in response to the question, why, 
he should be compelled to testify to them; but if not, certainly the argumentative 
turn which his testimony has taken should cease. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I must mildly object to characterizing the 
testimony of the witness as so far argumentative. I don't know whether it refers to 
the last question or whether it refers to his entire testimony. I understand the wit- 
ness to be answering a question as to how the court will be enabled to get at this infor- 
mation. I understand the witness to say that a great deal of this information comes 
to him in a confidential way, and he is not at liberty to give the names and he pro- 
ceeds to explain, to cite an illustration of that. Perhaps the witness may have some 
names that might be submitted to the court, and that those might be subpoenaed to 
further elucidate this matter. That was the point that I was trying, finally, to get 
out. 
The Recorder. The witness certainly knows the desire of the court, that facts 
and names are necessary. That ought to have been made apparent by this time. 
Q. Well, Doctor, I believe you understand about the situation that the case is in 
now. Are there any names that you feel it advisable to give in connection with this 
investigation, for the information of the court, with a view to having the parties 
subpoenaed to testify before the court? 
A. Will the court permit me to give you the names if I find I can give them? 
General Davis. The court wants the names. 
The President. The question has been asked and it can be either answered or not. 
You can give the names or say you have no names to give. 
Major Lee. Can the witness submit the names to me after he retires from the stand 
and let me present them to the court? 
General Davis. I do not see any difference. 
Major Lee. He may want to go over the list of names. I am perfectly cognizant 
of what the witness refers to in regard to parties, perhaps. I have had the same 
difficulty. 
General Davis. He can either give us the names or not. It is an easy question to 
answer. 
The President. If he has any information for the court, why let the court know. 
Major Lee. Then, may it please the court, if the witness can not give the names 
now, if he will give them to me I will submit the same names to the court that he 
may give. 
The President. He can answer the question whether he has any names to give. 
Major Lee. What is your wish in the matter, Doctor? 
A. I will endeavor to give the names to you for the use of the court. 
The President. Let it go at that, as an answer to the question. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1363 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Is there anything further in answer to the general question that I asked you as 
to the matter now before the court for investigation? 
A. Nothing that I think of, sir. 
Major Lee. I believe that is all. 
Cross-examination by the Recorder: 
Q. I believe, Doctor, that you first noticed, or your attention was first drawn, to 
the chemicalization of beef at Tampa. Is that correct? 
A. Well, as subsequent events have transpired; it was, but at that time I did not 
suspect it to be so. 
Q. And I think you have testified that the particular chemicals which made an 
impression upon you were boric and salicylic acids? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Will you please state to the court wThat is the odor of boric acid? 
A. Well, that is a sort of a catch question. I don't think that I can answer it to 
the satisfaction of the court. 
Q. The commercial article, as it would be described in a text-book on the sub- 
ject. That is all that I would care to get. 
A. I do not believe that I could answer that question to the satisfaction of this 
court. As I said, subsequently the smell made an impression upon my mind which 
I endeavored to indicate by that expression which I used, but I could have and 
could now substitute other expressions. 
Q. It is the simple, plain boric acid that I ask for. 
A. Weil, boric acid in itself, so far as any quick perception is concerned, has not 
much odor. 
Q. Has the commercial article any odor? 
A. A little. 
Q. And what is it? Is it characteristic in any way? 
A. You will have to ask me something easy. I can not give the odor to you in 
words; and I don't believe anybody else can. 
Q. What is its taste? 
A. Oh, its taste is not easily described, either. 
Q. Has it a taste? 
A. Oh, it has some taste; yes. 
Q. Will you please describe it as well as you can? 
A. Well, I can not do it. I would be glad to do it, but you must not ask me im- 
possibilities. 
Q. Take salicylic acid for example. Has that an odor-the chemical product? 
A. No; not a very marked odor. I think it has a slightish odor, but nothing 
marked. I suppose it would be generally called odorless. 
Q. Generally called so? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Has it a taste? 
A. Oh, yes; a very disagreeable taste. 
Q. Salicylic acid alone? 
A. It has a disagreeable taste that grows on you. If you leave it on your palate 
it increases, I suppose by combination with the sodium and the alkaline salts in 
the saliva. 
Q. Suppose the two acids should be combined, would there be a change of odor, or 
would the combination be odorless? 
A. I could not answer that, sir; as to the simple combination of the two acids; 
but with the combination of the acids and the juices of meats it would make a very 
disagreeable combination, 1364 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. With the juices of meats? 
A. Yes, sir; in meats. 
Q. Would the mere combination of the two acids, quite apart from meat and apart 
from application of them, acquire a new flavor or a new taste? 
A. I could not answer that from observation. 
Q. Now, in your testimony I think you conveyed the idea that these preservatives 
were injected. 
A. Well, I used the word injected merely to express the belief that they were 
used. They might be injected, they might be applied dry, they might be applied 
by dipping in a wet solution, or in a solution. 
Q. Well, the word injected would have a technical meaning, would it not? 
A. Oh, not necessarily. I think it is a word that can be used with some latitude. 
Q. For example, there would be a way of injecting these chemicals or a solution 
of them arterially, would there not? 
A. Yes, sir; and I believe that has been done. 
Q. And would there be a way of doing it as hypodermic work is done? 
A. I believe that has been done. 
Q. And then it might be applied to the surface. Nowr, I would like you to give 
to the court your information or observations as to each of these methods. 
A. Well, in the light of what I have learned since, I believe they have all been 
adopted. 
Q. Then that would be your answer, that the meat that was treated was treated 
in all of those methods? 
A. As to this particular beef I don't know, but in the light of what I have learned 
in various ways, I believe that all of these methods have been used. I believe the 
people in the boarding houses who want to preserve their beef, instead of buying 
ice, have an antitoxin syringe with an elongated needle that they use to inject it 
with. 
Q. So, then, you have the idea that needles were used in the injection? 
A. Do not ask me to answer a question like that. I do not know. I simply give 
you my report there, and give such information as a witness for the Government, to 
enable the Government to carry that investigation along different lines. 
Q. You use technical terms, and I would like to know what you mean by them. 
A. " Injected " is not a technical term. 
Q. I would like to get your ideas of those technical terms. 
A. Injected is not a technical term. 
Q. "Inject'' would seem to me rather technical in this connection. 
A. Not at all, sir. 
Q. Then the first observation was that at Tampa? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was there an odor there to the meat? 
A. No; when I examined that it was in the open air, and I did not detect any odor 
that made any particular impression upon me. 
Q. Was there a taste? You ate some of it? 
A. I ate some of it. There was nothing particular at the time that attracted my 
attention to the article. I do not know that there was. I could not depend upon my 
memory. I ate it. 
Q. What is your recollection as to the appearance of the surface? 
A. The surface looked very red-looked pretty good. 
Q. Did it look normal? 
A. It looked as though the color of the beef was heightened, was exaggerated. 
Q. That is, the red made redder? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And the white made whiter? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1365 
A. Well, I would not call it white. It is a peculiar flesh tint. 
Q. Well, the fatty parts, were they changed? 
A. Yes, sir; rendered a little lighter in color. 
Q. Lighter in color? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. After observing it at Tampa, where was your attention next directed to it? Or, 
one moment. You made no report of the inquiry that was raised at Tampa, did you? 
A. No; I did not. I was rather interested. I believed it to be a good thing, sir, 
if they could do what it was stated they could do. But I did not feel called upon to 
make any report. I supposed that those who were doing that thing knew their 
business, and were doing what was right. 
Q. Had you had any experience before with the treatment of food products with 
a view to their preservation? 
A. I think only some experience while on a hunting expedition in the Rocky 
Mountains. 
Q. From your experience, would you regard the general practice of treating them 
as favorable to health? 
A. Now I would not, in the light of my experience up to this time. 
Q. Well, what was it then? 
A. At that time, I had not given it much attention, for after my experience I have 
heard a number of persons say they had heard of the same means that I had used 
experimentally, and that it had not made them ill and I had not any very fixed 
convictions at the time. 
Q. This beef was to be used in the Army, was it not? 
A. I suppose so. 
Q. If the experiment was successful, it would be used in beef for the Army. 
Would it not have been a good thing for the commanding general to know? 
A. If I had the convictions that I have now, it would, and he would have known it. 
Q. But was it not, just as the case stood, rather an important matter for the general 
commanding to know, in view of the service to which the armies were to be put and 
in which they were to be engaged? 
A. As it looks now it was, but as it looked to me then it did not seem to be. 
Q. That a proposition to chemically treat the beef did not appear to you, as a 
medical officer, important at that time? 
A. Wait, please; do not put words in my mouth, Colonel. 
Q. I am not putting any words in your mouth. I am simply asking you a question. 
A. I would like to hear that question read. 
The question was read, as follows: 
' ' Q. That a proposition to chemically treat the beef did not appear to you, as a 
medical officer, important at that time? ' ' 
Major Lee. May it please the court, if I remember correctly, the testimony of the 
witness on his direct examination here at my instance, that he knew of no process, 
as I remember, in regard to that beef, or what they called it, or what it was, or any- 
thing in particular about it at the time; merely that they were having some experi- 
ments made with beef and he asked what it was and the commissary officer simply 
winked at him, as he thought, and it passed at that. I did not know he had said 
anything about chemicals on the beef. If I am in error, I shall be glad to be cor- 
rected. 
The Recorder. Will the counsel for the Major-General Commanding the Army 
have us believe that nothing was to be used? Some chemical was to be used in 
order to constitute a process unless the ordinary forces of nature alone were to 
operate upon the beef. There was something that caused a change in its character, 
that is described as a process, and there must have been an agent to bring about 
that change, and that is what I am asking for, and I use the term chemical because 1366 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
something of that sort would probably have to be employed. The witness -van 
answer the question anyway. 
A. I knew nothing of any process at that time. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Well, will you fully answer the question, Doctor. 
A. I think that answers it. 
Q. That a proposition to use beef that had been processed was not of sufficient 
importance for you, as a medical officer, to look into and report upon? 
A. Certainly; my answer is that I knew nothing of a process. How could I? 
Q. Nothing of a process, but did you know that something was being done to the 
beef? 
A. I hadn't any distinct idea as to what was being done. 
Q. What was it that attracted your attention about it? 
A. Colonel Weston attracted my attention to it personally. 
Q. And he said something had been done. 
A. No; I beg your pardon, please do not put words into my mouth. 
Q. I am not putting words in your mouth. It would be putting words into Colonel 
Weston's mouth, if anybody's. 
A. He simply said, "Here is a quarter of beef that is hanging in the sun, and it 
has hung here sixty hours, and we are going to see what it will do." 
Q. Had you an idea that nothing had been done to it? 
A. I did not form any idea at the time. I had no right to. It was simply an 
observation, which I thought was a good thing, that if they had something that they 
could have beef hang sixty hours in the sun, it would be a very good thing. I was 
rather pleased, if other things were equal. I had no personal opinion. 
Q. Then it was your notion that it was an untreated quarter of beef? 
A. I had not any notion. I had not any data to base a notion upon. 
Q. Did he make any impression upon you that anything whatever had been done 
with the beef to cause it to keep sixty hours? 
A. I have told you the words. 
Q. You ate some of it,-did you not, yourself? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And it had an effect? 
A. Well, I would not like to say. There were certain symptoms followed, but we 
can not always argue from that. 
Q. Where did you next observe the character of the refrigerated beef? 
A. In Porto Rico. 
Q. In Porto Rico? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you observe it there more than once? 
A. I did, sir; several times. 
Q. And what was it that impressed itself upon you at that time? 
A. Well, I thought I detected a mawkish, flat, unpalatable taste upon it. 
Q. Any odor? 
A. There was an indescribable odor about it, on the cold meat, after it was spoiled 
and allowed to get cold, an unnatural odor, very difficult to describe, and the impres- 
sion made upon my mind was simply the impression that was made by the odor at 
the time. 
Q. Could you describe it? 
A. Oh, I could not describe it. I have described it in my report there, which I 
stand by. 
Q. So, prior to the sailing of the Panama, then, you observed it upon a number of 
occasions? 
A. Yes, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1367 
Q. And was the result of your observations identical in each case-w'as it the same 
odor and the same taste? 
A. Oh, well, now, I would not like to say that. You might take two apples and 
taste them and both be apples unmistakably, but not have the same flavor or the 
same taste. 
Q. But were the essentials of the odor, so far as you observed them, identical, or 
as like as two apples? 
A. Well, there was a very great similarity in the impression made upon me. 
Q. About what time were you assigned to duty in connection with the Panama? 
A. Somewhere about the latter part of August, I think. 
Q. And it was to take sick and wounded to the United States, was it not? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Were you charged with the equipment and fitting out of the vessel? 
A. I was charged with the overseeing of it. 
Q. That is the idea I was getting at. 
A. Yes, sir; the superintending of it. 
Q. And what steps did you take with reference to the preparation of the ship, or 
with causing the ship to be prepared, for the particular work upon which it was to 
be employed? 
A. I had her thoroughly cleansed and fumigated and whitewashed-cleansed as 
well as possible under the circumstances. 
Q. Did you have the usual stock of medicines put on that would be necessary for 
a transport ship, a hospital ship? 
A. We had not the usual equipment for a hospital ship. 
Q. Of course, that is very extensive; but did you have the ordinary supply of 
medicines that are furnished by the Medical Department? 
A. We had a pretty fair supply of medicines. 
Q. Did you select them? 
A. Personally? 
Q. Well, somebody had to make a list. 
A. One of my surgeons did that. 
Q. Did you examine it with a view to see that it was properly or sufficiently filled 
for the purposes intended? 
A. Well, I can only answer that by saying that I got the best supplies I could. It 
was not possible to get everything, perhaps, you needed. 
Q. And as to the food supply apart from the beef and the articles for the use of the 
sick, did you secure a supply of those? 
A. The best I could obtain. 
Q. As far as it was possible? 
A. The best I could obtain. 
Q. From what source was that obtained? 
A. It was got from the commissary at that point. 
Q. Did you see the beef before it went aboard? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Are you certain that it was refrigerated beef? 
A. We had a little native beef when we started from Ponce to go to Arroyo, but 
most of the beef we got on after coming to Ponce and before going to Mayaguez was 
refrigerated beef. 
Q. Was it covered? 
A. Some covered and some uncovered. 
Q. Some uncovered? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Had that which was uncovered been cut? 
A. The covering had been taken off to examine it 1368 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Did you examine it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Please state to the court, to the best of your recollection, how it appeared to 
you. 
A. Well, it did not look very nice. Its color was not so bad, but even in the air, 
when being hoisted on board it had a very suspicious odor, when you got the odor 
from it. 
Q. How long had it then been out of the refrigerators on the Manitoba? Was your 
ship at a considerable distance from her? 
A. Oh, I think our ship was about half a mile out in the offing. I think so. 
Q. Was the transfer made during the day or during the night or early in the 
morning? 
A. I think it was made early in the morning, sir. I would not like to say that 
positively. 
Q. Are you positive that the beef came from the Manitoba? Were there any other 
transports in the harbor? 
A. No; as I said before, I can not be positive, because I had no opportunity to 
trace it. 
Q. When did you first begin to have dissatisfaction with it on the Panama? How 
soon after the voyage began? 
A. Well, I was not satisfied with it at any time, but it was the best we could obtain. 
Q. And when did its condition become such as to attract your attention? 
A. I was about the ship a great deal looking over things every day and every night 
as much as my time would permit me, and I think after the beef had been in there 
a fewT hours the odor when I opened the refrigerator door was very, very bad. 
Q. Did you notice any odor when it was received, when you were examining it, 
when it was in the open air? 
A. Well, you do not often get much odor when meat is being handled in the open 
air. There is more or less air blowing. You take spoiled game or spoiled meat into 
the open air and it will have to be very bad before you detect it. 
Q. So, a few hours, then, after you got the beef it was first called to your atten- 
tion? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What was it used for? How was it prepared for the sick? 
A. Oh, in the various ways that cooks would prepare it. It was boiled and stewed. 
Some of it was roasted and much of it made into soup. The men were convalescents, 
and we were endeavoring to get such food as would be easily assimilated. 
Q. Now, let us go to the case in which soup was made, from which you took the 
sample. What was the condition of the caldron, the soup kettle, when that soup 
was prepared? Did you take any precautions as to that? 
A. As to cleanliness? 
Q. Yes. 
A. Every part of the ship and the cooking utensils were always scrupulously clean. 
I personally looked after that. 
Q. Did you give any special attention in this case? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. So that before the meat was put in, and the ingredients of the soup, you per- 
sonally examined the caldron? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How much water was put in; that is, about how large a soup was it? 
A. I think the caldron would hold over a barrel. 
Q. Thirty-odd gallons? 
A. Well, probably more than that, a 40-gallon caldron. They were very large, 
and the caldron I took that soup from was filled with the particles of beef, which 
were sticking up out of the wrater. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1369 
Q. How much beef should you say went in? 
A. Well, I should say there was well on to a hundred pounds of beef in it. 
Q. Was it done when you took the sample? 
A. It had been stewing for about an hour and a half. 
Q. Will you go on and state to the court in narrative form the details of taking the 
sample and preserving it, and all that kind of thing? 
A. I just got a clean quart measure, what appeared to be a quart measure, and 
dipped it up, and after cooling it off took a couple of aerated water bottles. 
Q. Of what capacity? . 
A. Oh, I think they hold more than a pint and less than a quart. 
Q. Each? 
A. Yes, sir; and I filled them after I think I probably had left the fluid to chill, 
and took some of the fat off the top of it. I locked the bottles in a portmanteau, an 
English portmanteau, that I used to carry my clothing. I examined them from 
time to time, and after getting home, and on unpacking, I found one of the bottles 
was broken and the other was intact. 
Q. About how many ounces did it contain? 
A. Oh, I would say 16 or 18, or maybe 20 ounces in the bottle. 
Q. What treatment had you subjected it to, if any, after it was taken out and 
before you reached Pittsburg? 
A. None, except to remove some of the fat. 
Q. Had it been filtered? 
A. I think I filtered it through some raw cotton. 
Q. Absorbent cotton? 
A. Absorbent cotton; yes, sir. 
Q. Not through paper? 
A. No; through some of our absorbent cotton, which was ample to remove the fat. 
Q. And then you obtained the solid residuum from these 20 ounces? 
A. Yes, sir; I evaporated it and got a brownish mass which I triturated. 
Q. And about what was the weight of that? 
A. I didn't weigh it, sir. 
Q. To the best of your observation? 
A. I could not tell you, sir. I didn't weigh it. It is one of the things that no man 
could guess at, the weight of drugs, because they vary so much that nothing but 
actual weight would do. I might as well try to guess at the medicine in a prescrip- 
tion bottle that had a dozen things in it. 
Q. Was there a considerable deposit? 
A. Not very considerable. 
Q. Did it cover the bottom over pretty fully? 
A. No; the residuum was small in quantity. I had to be careful not to waste any 
of it. 
Q. And when it was examined is it in evidence anywhere that there were about 
3 grains or something of that sort? 
A. I am not very well up in grams. The chemist estimated in a fraction of grams. 
Q. That was done by someone? 
A. When we made the analysis up at the Department we weighed the entire re- 
siduum, what I had left. 
Q. Did you make any experiment on board the Panama? 
A. No, nothing. I examined it from day to day to see whether it was decaying. 
Q. Would it have been possible to apply the test on the Panama? 
A. Oh, no; not possible. 
Q. Could the ferric chloride test have been applied there? 
A. Oh, no. 
Q. Had you any ferric chloride aboard? 1370 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Yes, sir; but you could not tell anything-it is very difficult, first of all, in 
making a chemical analysis, when the other tests are conducted 
Q. Simply a qualitative analysis? 
A. I would not be satisfied with any such analysis. 
Q. Would it have been possible to have made it? 
A. I did not attempt any such thing. It was folly to talk about any such thing. 
Q. What would have been the effect chemically if a small quantity of ferric chloride 
had been dropped into a portion of the soup? 
A. I could not answer such a question. 
Q. Would there have been any reaction showing boric or salicylic acid? 
A. I could not answer that question, sir. Nobody can answer a question of that 
sort. There is so much foreign matter and fat and all that sort of thing 
Q. You don't know whether a reaction would have resulted? 
A. I don't know anything about it. 
Q. Was any similar test for boric acid applied? 
A. Well, now, you have got mixed a little on your analysis. You are speaking 
about applying the ferric-chloride test for boric acid. 
Q. I was quite incorrect. I mean salicylic acid. 
A. I can not answer any impossible questions. 
Q. Revising the question, then, assuming that the liquid contained salicylic acid, 
suppose a small quantity of ferric chloride had been dropped in, would there have 
been a reaction? 
A. Oh, I don't know. 
Q. Suppose that boric acid, with hydrochloric acid, had been used, and you used 
turmeric paper, would that have brought it out? 
A. I could not answer that, sir; I don't know. • 
Q. How soon after you took the sample before the board of survey was ordered? 
A. I am under the impression it was the day after the board of survey was ordered, 
or just about that time. I think it was the last day we cooked it. 
Q. How many days out had you been then? 
A. I think about three or four. I would not like to be positive about that. 
Q. Who composed the board? 
A. I think it was Major Boyd, Dr. Brewer 
Q. Was Major Boyd a medical officer? 
A. Yes, sir; and I don't remember the other officer. I would recognize his name 
if you would read it. 
Q. Did you communicate your suspicions to either of the medical officers? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Or to the line officer? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. What was the recommendation of the board, if you recall it-what was the 
report? 
A. I don't remember the wording of the report, what the substance was; the 
result was that he threw the meat overboard after complying, as we believed, with 
the military regulations. 
Q. And upon what ground was its destruction recommended? 
A. That it was unfit for food. 
Q. And what was the particular trouble? Was it tainted? 
A. Tainted. 
Q. And the stench? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Upon those grounds? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You have testified, I believe, that at Tampa you made no report to General FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1371 
Miles. When did you first make a report to him on the food subject-your suspicions 
as to chemical treatment? 
A. As to chemical treatment? 
Q. Yes. 
A. Oh, I don't know. I could not answer that positively. I am under the 
impression, though, that I made an oral report in a casual way in Porto Rico some 
time in August. I have no data. 
Q. Subsequently, did you, as a medical officer, bring it to the attention of the 
Major-General Commanding, or the War Department? 
A. Oh, I was making observations. I had not any conviction, had not any data 
at that time. Understand, the only data that I regarded as sufficient to warrant a 
report, or rather the combination of those observations, was on the Panama. 
Q. How soon was a report of that made? 
A. Made within a few weeks. 
Q. Why such a delay? 
A. Well, my illness chiefly was the reason. I was quite ill. When I arrived in 
Washington I was very ill; I was unable to do anything. 
Q. Well, the mere communication of the fact would not have been a serious task, 
would it? 
A. Well, I am stating the facts. 
Q. Yes, but if this was doing an injury to the troops, could a remedy be too 
promptly applied? 
A. Well, the question might be asked, Why should I make a report at all? There 
■was no remedy applied. Since I made my report I have simply been put on the 
rack for having made a report at all. 
Q. You say no remedy was applied? 
A. No; none that I know of, except to annoy myself and others who had made 
reports. 
Q. Then except as you have made reports here, no other recommendations were 
made on the subject? 
A. My reports were made in due time, and there was no unnecessary delay, under 
the circumstances. 
Q. What date did you assign for your official report-the one that was submitted 
to the Major-General Commanding? 
A. So far as I could learn from my family-I was very ill then-I think the report 
ought to be dated about the 14th of October. 
Q. Well, quite a considerable time had passed since your suspicions were first 
aroused? 
A. Oh, it is not a long time from the 7th of September to the 14th of October. 
Q. From Tampa to the 14th of October? 
A. Yes; but you must remember that I had no fixed suspicions at Tampa, or for a 
long time after. 
O. The culmination of the report I suggest would be an investigation, which would 
hurt nobody, but would tend to develop any errors, would it not? 
(No answer.) 
Q. Could you not answer that? 
A. I beg your pardon. 
Q. The result of communicating your suspicions or ideas would have only resulted 
in an investigation. An investigation could hurt nobody, and might have done 
some good. 
A. Are you referring now to Tampa? 
Q. Yes. 
A. I had no suspicions. I thought it was a good thing. I said that, and repeat 
it now. 1372 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Then when it was first reported to General Miles, an investigation then would 
have accomplished something, would it not? 
A. I did not regret it then, as my convictions were not formed. I had not had 
enough observation to make any very strong convictions. 
Q. Would a conviction be necessary in order to arouse an inquiry if it was made 
the subject of food for the troops. 
A. I don't think a man ought to make a report idly, without proper data. I 
would not. 
Q. Well, if the purpose was to cause a full investigation to be made, that might 
spring from less complete grounds than would constitute a basis for a report, might 
it not? 
A. I should hesitate very much to make a report, unless on more complete grounds 
than I have made this one-in view of the experience I have had. 
The Recorder. Has the court any questions. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Why was not that meat that was delivered on board the Panama rejected on 
its receipt? You stated that it had an appreciable odor when it was being lifted 
from the lighter into the vessel. 
A. When did I state that? When did I use the word "appreciable?" 
Major Lee. I think he stated that it was rather difficult to detect any odor in the 
open air. 
The Witness. If you will read my words; please quote my words. 
Colonel Gillespie. Well, then, without going back to that, do you remember any- 
thing about the odor of the beef when it was being tranferred from the lighter to the 
vessel? 
A. No; I stated that it was very difficult to get an odor in the open air. 
Q. 1 know you made that statement, but that was long subsequent to the state- 
ment which I took a record of at the time in the other part of your testimony, in 
which you stated, if I am correct, that you appreciated the odor as it was lifted from 
the lighter into the vessel. 
A. I don't think I used the word "appreciated" in my whole examination. 
Q. That is a paraphrase of what you stated. I simply wanted to kndw why, if 
you had appreciated there was something peculiar about it, it had not been rejected 
at that time? 
A. Even had I, as you quote me-which I do not concede to be a correct quota- 
tion-we were simply getting the best supplies we could find. 
Q. This was a hospital ship for convalescents, was it not? 
A. It was not a hospital ship; it was a common transport. 
Q. It was used for convalescents, was it not? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Used for convalescents; and it would strike me as a little singular, if you had 
found anything that was characteristic or peculiar about this beef intended for 
convalescents, why you did not reject it. That was the question in my mind. 
A. Many things might seem singular, but under the circumstances at that time 
they were not singular. We were doing the best we could under very adverse 
circumstances, and angels can do no more than the best they can. 
Q. I may have been mistaken in the testimony. That was simply a matter that 
I could not understand. 
Redirect examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Will you please state, if you remember, who was the commissary officer at 
Ponce at the time you were moving these men to the Panama to bring them North? 
A. I don't knowr. 
Q. Do you remember Captain Pomroy? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1373 
A. I met Captain Pomroy, but I considered I was meeting him as a different sort 
of an officer, in another department. 
Q. Your time, as I understand, was fully occupied in a multitude of duties 
A. Yes, sir; I did not get an average of half an hour's sleep the whole ten days I 
was on that voyage, sick and all as I was. I was always at work looking after the 
comfort of the men. 
Q. I would like for you to state-as I understand from your testimony, you took 
that soup out to make a test-did it with good faith, with all necessary precautions 
that you could take at the time. 
A. I surely did, with the expectation of serving my Government. 
Q. Your report that you submitted was from the information such as you could 
obtain at the time, and was submitted with the view, as stated in the report, was it 
not, of having a careful investigation, a further investigation, pursued and made? 
A. Surely. I never supposed that I would be put through so terrible an experi- 
ence as I have had for simply doing my duty. 
Q. In connection with your report you say, "I respectfully recommend that the 
matter be investigated by experts, making a quantitative and qualitative analysis of 
the several preservatives suspected to be used, by getting samples of beef furnished 
for export to Porto Rico and Cuba." That is a part of your report at the time. It 
was your view at the time. Have you any reason to change it to-day? 
A. None whatever. I am stronger in that report than I ever was, from the mass 
of testimony that has come unbidden, so far as I am concerned. 
Q. You had the assistance of a doctor or doctors and whatever men you could 
utilize in connection with the work of putting these men on the vessel. Now, can 
you recall who was directed to have charge of putting on the beef among other 
supplies? 
A. I think that was intrusted to my commissary. 
Q. Who was that officer? 
A. Captain Irvine. 
Q. I understood you testified that you had given instructions, of course, in these 
duties, for them to do the best they could and to get the best that they could? 
A. Yes, sir; the best was bad enough in all respects. 
Q. Are there any other things in connection with this matter that you wish to 
state that you have not stated? 
A. Oh, no; I have nothing. 
Major Lee. I have no further questions. 
General Davis. Was native fresh beef obtainable at Ponce? 
A. There is fine beef on the island of 1 orto Rico, sir. 
Q. Was that not the best to be had? 
A. What? 
Q. The native fresh beef. 
A. If it had been properly selected the native fresh beef was the best. 
Q. You say you obtained the best supplies you could. Could not you obtain the 
native fresh beef? 
A. Well, if you had had the experience I had there, you would find it was very 
easy to ask for things, and pretty sure not to get what you asked for. 
Q. Then your answer would be that it was not to be had? 
A. I simply got the best I could obtain, and with a great deal of difficulty. 
Q. Did you ask for the other? 
A. Oh, well, now, that is a question that is hardly fair to ask me. I told you that 
I delegated the commissary officer to get the best he could obtain. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, before proceeding with further testimony, if 
I may be permitted, I desire to have it of record that the Major-General Command- 
ing the Army, on February 10, 1899, transmitted to the Secretary of War original 1374 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
official reports of 147 officers, representing 26 regiments and some 26,000 troops, 
called for by circular order from the Headquarters of the Army, September 20,1898. 
On February 22, 1899, the Major-General Commanding the Army submitted, with 
his letter to you of that date, additional reports and originals of communications vol- 
untarily sent to the Headquarters of the Army, arranged as per said letter of Feb- 
ruary 22,1899. 
I now offer as evidence in this case the reports of the 147 officers transmitted as 
aforesaid to the Secretary of War, and the additional reports of officers now in your 
custody. It need not be argued that the officers who made these reports, made 
them upon their honor and in the discharge of their official duties, and that the 
same credence should be given to the statements made in the above report as though 
their contents had been sworn to. It is an axiom that the official reports of an 
officer of the Army import truth. 
On yesterday the following was submitted: 
Headquarters of the Army, 
Washington, D. C., April 3, 1899. 
The President of the Court of Inquiry, 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C. 
Sir: I have the honor to inclose a list of witnesses, all of whom will give material 
and pertinent testimony in the matter now being inquired into; and to the end that 
the whole truth may be arrived at, I respectfully but urgently request that these 
witnesses be called and examined in the order in which their names appear, or, if 
it is found impossible to secure their presence, that their testimony be obtained by 
other usual methods. 
As far as it can be now determined, in view of the facts that have already been 
presented and soon will be presented, it is not thought that any additional testi- 
mony will be required. I reserve, however, the privilege of adding to the above- 
mentioned list such other witnesses as may be necessary hereafter in case of new 
developments. 
Very respectfully, Nelson A. Miles, 
Major-General Commanding. 
The list herein referred to contained the names and brief synopsis of 131 witnesses. 
I simply desire to submit this matter and to have it made a part of the record in the 
case, for which I am thankful to the court. 
The Recorder. If it please the court, I have no desire to instruct the court in the 
application of rules of evidence, as to what in the nature of written or oral testimony 
shall or shall not be received. You are all quite familiar with it. In respect to the 
written reports which come before this court it hardly seems to be clear that there 
is a single rule which will apply to them all, except the rule of the best evidence- 
that is, that the best evidence obtainable shall be submitted. Applying that rule to 
the various written communications which have been tendered, I think that a very 
marked difference must be observed. Take the case of reports that were strictly or 
very nearly contemporaneous with the operations in Cuba and Porto Rico. Those, 
of course, constitute evidence of the highest and most valuable sort. That is not the 
case, however, with reports that have been submitted at a distance of eight or nine 
months from the facts to which they relate and of which they purport to give an 
account; and in such cases it is a question of taking the memory of the witness on 
the witness stand or taking his memory from a written report made long after the 
facts to which it relates occur, and sometimes in response to a circular from the 
Major-General Commanding which calls for a specific opinion, for example, or a 
report upon a specific state of facts. It seems to me that every report, every piece 
of written evidence which this court embodies in its record, should be embodied FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1375 
because of the circumstances of the case, the circumstances under which it was 
made, and all that, and that no single general rule can be applied, it seems to me, 
to written documents of such various authority as those which it is proposed to 
introduce. 
Major Lee. Now, may it please the court, it is not my intention to go into a dis- 
cussion of the fixed rules of evidence in regard to this matter. I only want to advert 
to one fact that is within my knowledge, and within the knowledge of living wit- 
nesses to-day, and that is in regard to reports being made, concurrent reports, at the 
time that these things occurred or are alleged to have occurred. I want to invite the 
attention of the court to the fact that soldiers in the presence of an enemy and 
fighting a battle are not prone-good soldiers are not prone at those times-to indulge 
in complaints or reports, nor are the officers disposed to incourage it, but put up 
with it, bring out the best they can. So in a battle in the war of the rebellion men 
fought for three days practically without any food, yet there was no murmuring, no 
complaint. In regard to the conditions down there, as to people sitting down and 
making official reports, there are many of them that I believe that are current reports, 
that have not yet been read in evidence. I think there is one of Colonel Roosevelt's. 
I think there is one of Colonel Reed that was sent as soon as it could be. There 
were officers there who had not pens, paper, or ink enough to write a letter to wife, 
or mother, or sister, and the fact that they were called upon, after returning to 
the States, to make reports does not detract from those reports, and the suggestion 
that any officer of the Army would put his name to a report that would not stand 
the test of any examination I say is something I have never heard of, and I believe 
every report that is signed by an officer of the Army is a report that he would verify 
and stand by if called as a witness. Otherwise he would imperil his commission, and 
whether the evidence comes to-day, whether it came yesterday, or whether it comes 
in six months, I say may not be material. Crimes may be committed, offenses may 
be committed, and you may not get the evidence of the offenses, and it may not be 
brought out for two weeks, or six weeks, or eight weeks. I hope that officers who 
have made these reports and statements are not to be discredited by this court, and 
I do not believe that they will be, simply because they were called for in the way 
in which they were called for, when there was no other way to call for them. I 
simply want to make the' request a matter of record. If I can, I would like to intro- 
duce this paper in evidence in the case, if I can do it, which tended to bring up the 
matter in connection with the Powell process. 
The Recorder. I have no objection to any item of evidence being introduced at 
any time. 
Major Lee. I do not want to interfere. You may have somebody to examine. 
The Recorder. I have proposed to read the written evidence at some time wThen 
it would be convenient to the court to have it read because there are no witnesses to 
testify orally. 
Major Lee. If there is no objection I will read this now; or if I could know when 
Mr. Powell would be here 
The Recorder. He will be here in a day or two. 
Major Lee. This is simply a letter explanatory of the bid signed by Armour & Co., 
per P. J. Connor, superintendent. I do not care to introduce it. It refers to the 
Powell process of preserving the meat, in connection with the bid, or is supplemental 
to it. I will defer it until the other papers are read. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, the hour for recess has arrived. 
Thereupon the court took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m. 
The court reassembled at the expiration of the recess. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present, 1376 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness Mr. 
Nicodemus, of Philadelphia. 
TESTIMONY OF EDWIN A. NICODEMUS. 
Edwin A. Nicodemus was called as a witness by the recorder, and, being duly sworn, 
testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name and residence. 
A. Edwin A. Nicodemus; 5156 Lancaster avenue, Philadelphia; I am a physician. 
Q. Were you in the military service of the United States during the war with Spain 
of last year? 
A. I was, as a second lieutenant of cavalry, Pennsylvania Volunteers. 
Q. What was the organization to which you were attached? 
A. The Governor's Troop. 
Q. Where did it serve; in what theater of operations? 
A. We were mustered in at Mount Gretna and moved to Camp Alger in July, 
thence to Newport News at the end of July, and thence to Porto Rico. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. You are practicing medicine, I believe, Doctor? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That was your profession at the time the war broke out? 
A. Yes, sir; but I was not in the service in a medical capacity. 
Q. What time did you arrive in Porto Rico, about? 
A. About the 10th or 11th of August. 
Q. At what point in Porto Rico? 
A. At La Playa-well, the port of Ponce. 
Q. How long did you remain there? 
A. We were there until the 2d of September. 
Q. What were your duties during the time you were there? 
A. I was detailed as adjutant; that is, for the cavalry squadron. 
Q. About how long did you perform those duties? 
A. From about the 27th of July until we were returned to the States. 
Q. What supplies of rations, in regard to meat rations, were furnished to the com- 
mand to which you belonged on your way over? 
A. We had several rations issued for the trip; we had the canned meats. 
Q. What kind of canned meats? 
A. Canned roast beef. 
Q. From what port was it you sailed? 
A. Newport News. 
Q. On what vessel? 
A. The Manitoba. 
Q. Did you use the canned roast beef after you had arrived in Porto Rico? Was 
that issued to the command to which you were attached and belonged? 
A. To my knowledge we only had fresh beef issued twice to us while we were on 
the island, and that was native beef. 
Q. You had canned roast beef at other times; and did you have any other part of 
the meat ration-bacon? 
A. We had bacon; yes. 
Q. About what proportion of canned roast beef was issued as a part of the ration, 
as far as you remember, while they were in Porto Rico? 
A. What proportion of the ration? 
Q. Yes; about what proportion of canned roast beef? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1377 
A. I should say one-half of the meat issued. 
Q. On the way over you had all canned roast beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I wish you would state, in a narrative form, to the court what was your experi- 
ence, or observation, or information in regard to the canned roast beef as a meat 
ration for the command, including in your answer the use of it as a travel ration 
going over and the use of it after you were on the island. Give a full answer to the 
question as to whether it was satisfactory or unsatisfactory, and in what respects. 
A. As a travel ration, where the men were only to be subsisted for a few days on 
it, we found very little complaint; that is, during the transport life. But after we 
wrere on shore they complained of its being tasteless, flat, apparently with no meat 
flavor to it; that it had a dead taste to them. They objected to it. They seemed to 
tire of it very quickly. 
Q. Did you have any personal experience wTith it? 
A. I did; we used some of it. At different times, possibly half a dozen times, we 
used it ourselves in our own mess. It was not such meat as we would use at home. 
We would not select it as a diet. In the field we were virtually compelled to subsist 
on it. It was not to say appetizing. The appearance of it was of meat that had been 
spoiled, and contained very few of the meat juices, or the taste of the meat juice. 
Q. It seemed to be defective in that respect? 
A. In nutritive value it did seem to be defective. 
Q. Not satisfying?' 
A. No; there seemed to be a greater percentage of tallow or trimmings or shreds 
of meat than should be in the same bulk of meat as it is taken on the run or the 
average. 
Q. Did you notice any of the cans opened? I do not mean did you open them 
personally. 
A. I have seen the cooks open them almost daily. 
Q. Do you know anything about any rejections of cans, or was that matter not 
under your observation? 
A. I saw none rejected. 
Q. You did not draw the canned roast beef? 
A. No; I had nothing to do with that. 
Q. You were on the Manitoba from Newport News. Did you observe the refriger- 
ated beef that was placed on that vessel on the way over? 
A. I saw nothing of the beef until we were ordered to leave Ponce. We were 
told that it formed part of the cargo on the way out, but there was none issued to the 
men, and the hold or the storage rooms were not opened. I saw none of it. 
Q. You did not visit them, then? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you eat of the beef afterwards? 
A. On the return trip I did; yes. 
Q. State in a narrative form all you know with reference to that; how many times 
you ate of it. 
A. On the second day after leaving, on the 4th of September, the men complained 
that the meat was not fit to eat. We were told when the meat was drawn at Ponce 
that it was from the supply brought down on the Manitoba. 
Q. What vessel did you return on? 
A. The Mississippi. Acting as agent for Major Jones, I instructed Lieutenant 
McFadden, of the City Troop, to draw meat for the return ration. I started to say 
that on the second day out the men made complaint to me that the meat was not fit 
to eat; that the odor from the meat was offensive. I went to the cook's galley, or 
the galley that had been prepared for the cooking, and the odor was not pleasant. 
It was a heavy, sweetish, oppressive odor; and some of the beef that had not been 
S. Doc. 270 87 1378 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
put in the caldrons yet was lying about. The deeper parts of the meat looked well, 
while the surface was of a dry, brownish, or deep-red color-not the appearance Of 
fresh beef. I tasted the beef at the time, and could not have eaten it. I advised the 
cooks at the next issue to pare off that dark and hard exterior; and I found that 
part of the meat, the interior, to be fair. There was still some of the same odor 
there, but not anywhere near the same degree that there wras at first. The deeper 
structures, well seasoned, were fairly palatable. 
Q. About how deep did you have to cut it away? 
A. I told the cooks to cut off all the dark part. They told me they cut off about 
one-fourth of it; that they took off a layer of 2 inches or a little better. 
Q. Who had charge of the issuing of this beef? Did you have charge of it, or did 
some commissary officer? 
A. Lieutenant McFadden, of the City Troop, of Philadelphia. 
Q. This meat had been turned over by whom, if you know? 
A. That I do not know. The order, over the signature of General Gilmore, instructed 
him to report to the depot commissary. There were no names given, and I did not 
know who it was. 
Q. Do you know about how much meat was taken aboard the vessel for the sub- 
sistence of the men? 
A. No. 
Q. Could you give any reasonable estimate-that is, within a satisfactory limit? 
A. No. Never having had anything to do with the commissary, I do not know 
the quantities. 
Q. This had been received and accepted by the commissary, then? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That is, turned over as a ration of beef on the way back? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Had you any other meat ration on the way back? 
A. We had the canned roast beef. 
Q. Was it used? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. With what result? 
A. There were complaints almost daily from it, but no more than we had experi- 
enced on the island. 
Q. There were daily complaints about it? 
A. Almost daily; yes. 
Q. What was the nature of those complaints? 
A. The men complained that the beef was flat and insipid, and that their appetites 
were not appeased with it. It was repugnant to them. 
Q. How was it eaten? 
A. It was made into soup. It was fried with potatoes and with onions, and fixed 
up with tomatoes. Of course the commissary supplies did not cover the same scope 
as they did before we left the States, but the cooks took advantage of everything 
which was possible in flavoring and changing the taste in that way. 
Q. You say that under those conditions there was still complaint about it? 
A. There was complaint; yes. 
Q. Going down, did you have the same facilities for cooking that you did coming 
back? 
A. They were not as good. 
Q. You had some, however? 
A. We had some. The caldrons were a part of the ship's equipment, and the 
men had to do their cooking at night; but on the return trip they had apparatus of 
their own. 
Q. From your knowledge of this refrigerated beef, on the way back did you think FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1379 
or say anything at the time with reference to it as to its peculiar odor or condition? 
Did it impress itself upon your mind in any way? I am speaking now of your 
experience as a physician. 
A. The odor was very suggestive to me of a dissecting room. It was not the odor 
of decomposing animal matter, but it had the heavy, oppressive odor that is charac- 
teristic of an embalmed body. At the time I did remark and make a suggestion to 
one of the men, who was a dentist by profession, if there was anything familiar 
about it. He said there was, but he could not place it. I asked him how about the 
dissecting room. He said he remembered the odor very well. We had a conversa- 
tion that brought up the question of embalming the beef; but there were no asser- 
tions made at the time. I did think that there was some process used. Whether it 
was chemical or not I did not know. On the way down we were told that the 
refrigerating apparatus of the Manitoba had broken down and the meat had been 
hauled around the southern part of the island and brought back to us; and we were 
using it, to my knowledge, at least a month after the meat had been put on board; 
and there was very little change in it. There was no natural decomposition. 
Q. This odor as described, or rather as you refer to it, did not suggest to you, then, 
that of the usual decomposition of meat? 
A. No. 
Q. How did the beef appear with reference to that? Decomposed beef, of course, 
makes ijself known pretty quickly. 
A. The surface of the meat was firm, resisting, and of a dark brownish red color, 
and very dry, in comparison with interior; but after those first 2 inches of the 
beef had been cut off it was fairly juicy, and very much more the color like the 
natural color of meat. 
Q. That is, inside? 
A. Yes; the deep structures. 
Q. As to the taste, did you notice anything as to the taste; that is, in the outer part 
of the meat? 
A. The outer part of the meat I could not eat; some of the men that did eat it 
were, in the course of a few minutes to several hours, taken with almost symptoms 
of ptomaine poisoning-griping pains in the alimentary tract, vomiting, purging-and 
the meat, when I got it in my first trip to the cooks' galley, had a sweetish, acrid 
taste, and almost astringent-well, there was a mild astringent taste to it. 
Q. You observed that at the time? 
A. I did, on my first trip there. There was very much less, it was almost imper- 
ceptible, on the second trip. The complaint then was principally about the odor. 
Q. You say you observed it on what trip? 
A. On my first trip to the cooks' galley. 
Q. You state that on the way down there was some report or some information 
that came to you in regard to the refrigerating apparatus not working, not being in 
order on the Manitoba! 
A. On the Manitoba; yes, sir. 
Q. When was that, soon after sailing or about the time of sailing? 
A. It was several days out from Newport News. 
Q. How did you get that information? 
A. I got that from one of the ship's officers, one of the mates. The rations that 
the officers were living on were ship's stores, and they had brought spoiled fish and 
meat on the table in such condition that we could not eat it. We were making com- 
plaints to the ship's officers about it, and one of the mates said that their refrigerating 
apparatus had broken down. 
Q. Was that the refrigerating apparatus where this beef was kept? Did you 
understand it so? 
A. That I don't know. 1380 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
Q. There was only one refrigerating apparatus on the boat, was there not? 
A. To my knowledge there was only one. 
Q. Did you get any of that refrigerated beef for use on the way down, served to 
the officers' mess? 
A. The beef intended for the troops? 
Q. Yes. 
A. No, sir; on the way down we had nothing but ship's stores. 
Q. This griping and pains in the stomach and sickness that followed soon after the 
eating of the meat-was that due to overeating, or was it due to the meat? 
A. I considered it due to the meat; but that condition existed only where the 
surface of the meat was used. 
Q. Can you recall about how often you received fresh beef while you were in Porto 
Rico? 
A. I am not positive of more than two issues. Of course, the men purchased 
meat once themselves; and we officers formed a pool and furnished them a fourth 
ration of meat. 
Q. How did you get fresh meat down there? 
A. From the native butchers. 
Q. How did that compare with the refrigerated beef that you ate on the way back? 
A. It was very much more palatable. It was killed during the night and deliv- 
ered to us very early in the morning. 
Q. Did that produce any trouble among the men? 
A. No; it was only given in very limited quantities. 
Q. It was cooked at once? 
A. Cooked at once. 
Q. Doctor, if there are any other facts in connection with the trip down there, the 
stay there, or the voyage back, that you have not testified to in regard to the canned 
roast beef or the refrigerated beef, I wish you would please state the facts fully to the 
court as though you were questioned especially with reference thereto. I do not 
know that I have covered everything. > 
A. There is nothing that I can recall now. 
Cross-examination by the Recorder: 
Q. From whom did you ascertain that the refrigerator containing the refrigerated 
beef for issue to the troops was out of order? 
A. I don't know whether there was more than one refrigerator on the boat or not. 
When we made complaint about the meats that were served on our table we were 
told that their refrigerating apparatus was broken. 
Q. Who told you? 
A. One of the mates of the boat. 
Q. Do you know whether there was any other refrigerating apparatus than this 
belonging to Swift & Co.? 
A. I do not. 
Q. Can you swear there was not? 
A. I have no knowledge of any apparatus excepting the words "refrigerating 
apparatus" being used by the mate, and his saying that it was broken. 
Q. Other than that you have no knowledge of its getting out of order? 
A. I have no other knowledge of a refrigerator. 
Q. What was the odor? Please describe it to the court-the odor of the refriger- 
ated beef. 
A. An odor is something that it is very difficult to describe. It is a thing that has 
to be tested to make it positive. There was a sense of oppression-a sort of heavy, 
oppressive, and, you might say, sweetish, odor connected with it, not fragrant, but 
in the sense of sweetness as given off from a sirup. 
Q. You speak of it resembling the odor of a dissecting room. Was it that? 1381 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. That is the best description I can give of it. 
Q. Describe it. You must be quite familiar with that, being a practicing physician. 
A. I can only apply the same description-a heavy, oppressive odor. 
Q. What is it caused by? What gives rise to it? 
A. That is a question of chemistry that I can not answer. I don't know. 
Q. Is it decomposing flesh? 
A. No. 
Q. In the dissecting room? 
A. No. 
Q. What is it? What causes it? 
A. I don't know. 
Q. Then you can not describe the odor or its causes? What agents would you 
suppose had been used that caused this sweetish odor? 
A. I have no idea whatever. 
Q. The meat, then, gave rise to an offensive odor of some sort? 
A. Yes, sir; that was developed while the meat was being cooked. Before cook- 
ing it was not nearly so perceptible. 
Q. But to bring it into play, heat was necessary? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And you have described a taste that was very apparent at the surface? 
A. Yes; a sweetish and slightly acid taste. 
Q. Does that fully describe it? 
A. It was acid in the effect that it was mildly astringent. 
Q. What sort of a chemical would cause such a taste, among the preservatives? 
A. Almost any acid and a good many of the salts would give the astringent. 
Q. What are the usual ordinary chemical preparations that have that preservative 
effect? 
A. The salicylates are the most permanent. 
Q. A salicylate of something? 
A. Salicylic acid is the one usually used. 
Q. What is the smell of that? 
A. There is very little odor or smell about the pure salicylic acid. At times there 
might be a slight trace of wintergreen in it. 
Q. Did you get any wintergreen down there? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You have spoken of it as sweetish. Is there a sweetish smell to salicylic acid? 
A. Slightly so; yes, sir. 
Q. Would it be dormant, and only brought out when it was applied to meat? 
A. That I don't know. 
Q. You do not know'? 
A. That is a question of chemistry that I am not conversant with. 
Q. Is there any other preservative that would be likely to be used in that con- 
nection? 
A. I have no knowdedge of any preservatives being used. 
Q. Do you assert under oath that a preservative was used? 
A. No, sir; I have no knowledge either way on the question. 
Q. You speak of a certain smell and a certain taste, do you not? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Would that be a very w'ise proceeding on the part of those w'ho use it, to use 
something which had such an easily developed smell and such a taste? 
A. I took that taste and smell from the meat as it was given to the men. 
Q. You took it from the meat? 
A. I don't know that it was the result of any treatment or lack of treatment. 
Q. But you attribute it to certain preservative causes, do you not? 1382 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. In my own opinion, I would consider that it was the result of some treatment, 
because the odor and taste were entirely different from what would be the smell of 
untreated meat-unpreserved meat. 
Q. Are you familiar with the smell of untreated meat under those conditions, 
carried for such a length of time in the refrigerator and taken out in a tropical 
climate? 
A. Nothing more than my experience covers the markets of our own city, in pur- 
chasing meat for the table. 
Q. Philadelphia is considerably farther north than Porto Rico; and I ask, are you 
familiar with the effects upon meat of a journey of that length, and of its being 
taken out in a tropical climate? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Are you prepared to say that the facts which you observed would have been 
due to the climate in some respects, and to the peculiar conditions under which the 
beef was carried? 
A. I know of no cause at all. My observation came from the simple fact of detect- 
ing the taste and odor, and the effect on the men after eating the meat. Those that 
did not eat it were not affected in the same way. 
Q. Do you suggest that salicylic acid would have that odor and that taste? 
A. It is possible. 
Q. How could it have been applied in order to get that result? 
A. My knowledge of preserving consists only in the preparation of anatomical 
specimens for laboratory work, demonstrations, and so on. We preserve by injec- 
tion. That may be done either by a coating and allowing the material to be 
absorbed, by using cannulas and forcing it in hypodermically, and by immersion in 
fluids. 
Q. Did you see any evidences of the use of cannulas on the surface of the beef? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. How far in would salicylic acid go, if applied to the surface? 
A. That is more than I can say. 
Q. Were there appearances of injection? You speak of its being good after you 
got a certain distance below the surface. 
A. Yes, sir; the beef was good. 
Q. Would that lead you to believe there had been an injection of fluid? 
A. I don't know that the difference between the appearance on the surface and 
the deeper parts was caused by natural sequence of cold storage, or whether it was 
from treatment. I know of no reason why there should be any. 
By General Davis: 
Q. How long was this fresh beef used, or how many days out did they stop using 
it on the return voyage? 
A. I think the men had three issues on the return trip, given to them on alternate 
days. 
Q. So the third issue would be on the fifth day? 
A. The first, third, and fifth; yes sir. I think so. 
Q. Was any of the beef consumed-any at all? 
A. Oh, yes; from half to three-quarters of it was consumed. 
Q. And every man who ate it was made sick, I understand you to say? 
A. Only those who ate of the surface meat. 
Q. Those who ate of the surface were made sick? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And those who ate of the interior were not; is that right? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In what form was it prepared? 
A. The men made soups out of it. It was boiled. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
1383 
Q. Was it boiled in a common caldron or a common cooking place, or in an indi- 
vidual cooking place? What kind of a cooking apparatus was it? 
A. It was boiled in big ship's caldrons. I think they are copper lined. I am not 
positive about that. It is done with steam apparatus. 
Q. So the cooking was done for the whole ship's company, for the whole garrison 
or whole complement of men, at one time? 
A. Yes; I think we had five troops and one light battery on board, and they 
divided up the time between themselves to cook for each organization separately. 
Q. So after the soup was prepared, a man could easily tell a piece of the interior 
meat from the exterior meat, could he-easily discriminate; there was no doubt 
about that? 
A. No; because there was very little of the meat used of the first issue, and after 
my telling the cooks to throw' away the exterior, there was no chance for them to 
differentiate, because it was not component. 
Q. After the meat had undergone this trimming, the use of it after that did not 
make them sick? 
A. No; there was complaint about the odor, but the physical effect was wanting. 
Q. As to the use of canned roast beef ashore; was much of it used? 
A. Yes, sir; not less than half of the meat ration was canned roast beef. 
Q. No meat was used from the Manitoba's stock on hand on your voyage out? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. This was all on the return voyage? 
A. Yes, sir. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. What was the general appearance of the exterior surface of this meat that you 
say was so objectionable? 
A. It was dry and of a very deep red color, almost a brick red. It had not the 
light, juicy appearance of meat. It seemed to be deprived of the meat juices. 
Whether they had been-well, I can give no reason for it, but it was a lack of the 
usual appearance that w'e see in meat. 
Q. Did it seem to have been covered with anything? 
A. I think the meat was cut in quarters and each one sewn in a canvas bag. 
Q. I do not mean that. Did the external surface seem to have been changed in 
any way by an artificial covering? 
A. That I don't know. I didn't see anything that would indicate it to me. 
Q. Were there any indications of decay? 
A. No; I saw none. The only softening I did see was in one piece of meat. When 
the cooks cut into the bone there was some softening near the bone, but that was the 
only one that showed decomposition. 
Q. Then, in general, it had the appearance of ordinary meat? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You speak of the meat, after having been trimmed, having an odor. Was that 
a marked odor or not-an odor distinct from that of natural beef? 
A. Slightly so. It only developed in the cooking. 
Redirect examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Do you remember meeting a gentleman on the boat going down by the name 
of Mullowney, ex-attorney-general of the State of Illinois? Did you see him on the 
boat that left Newport News? 
A. No, sir. The boat going down was in charge of Major Castleman. I was sim- 
ply put back on my troop, doing lieutenant's duty. 
Q. Who was quartermaster on the boat? That is, who had charge of the boat? 
Do you remember that officer? 
A. No, sir; I do not. 1384 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. If you have not stated it, please state to whom you made a remark at the time 
that you thought the meat had been cured or embalmed or treated with some proc- 
ess that attracted your attention. 
A. That was the subject of a general conversation near the cook's galley. 
Q. The subject of general conversation? 
A. Yes. The whole conversation at the time was addressed to a man named 
Keifer, who had been a dentist, simply asking him if he could recognize anything 
familiar in the odor. 
Q. In the cook's galley, who started that conversation or remark? How was it 
spoken of or discussed? Was it'by several or only one or two? 
A. The whole cook's detail. 
Q. They spoke of it? 
A. Yes. They asked me what was the matter with the meat; why it should smell so. 
Q. Then you investigated the matter and told them to cut off 
A. Yes. They came to me with a complaint that the meat was spoiled; that it 
was not fit to eat, and so on. 
Q. Your examination resulted in finding no decomposition, as much as you had 
ordinarily observed in meat? 
A. No. 
Q. How did that compare generally with the refrigerated beef that you had been 
getting at your home North, or supplied out of a refrigerator, if you had been using 
it? 
A. I had not been using it. That is one of the things that I had been careful of 
in my buying. 
Q. You used native beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Had the refrigerated beef come under your observation in the North? 
A. Only at exceptional times, and then simply in the meat shops. I made no 
observations. 
Q. You are not prepared to institute any special comparison? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. This boat that you came back on, did it have a good refrigerator on board? 
A. It was a fairly good apparatus, and the meat was hung in the room that we had 
stored our ice in. Before leaving the island we had succeeded in getting about five 
tons of ice for the use of the men on the way back, and it was stored in the room 
where the meat was hung. 
Q. After the men quit eating that meat that you speak of, the outside of it, did 
they improve in condition or did they have attacks of this griping pain, and so on? 
A. I had no cases reported to me. 
Q. What was the health of your command when it came back? 
A. Very good. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Lieutenant Dixon, of the Army. 
TESTIMONY OF LIEUT. HENRY B. DIXON, U. S. A. 
Lieut. Henry B. Dixon, U. S. A., was called by the recorder as a witness and, 
being duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. Henry B. Dixon; second lieutenant, Tenth Cavalry; station, Fort Brown, Tex. 
Q. Upon what duty were you engaged during the month of August last? 
A. During the month of August I was with my troop. During the months of June 
and July I was commissary of the Provisional Brigade at Lakeland, Fla. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1385 
Q. From whom did you receive fresh beef? 
A. During the month of June I bought beef in the local market at Lakeland. 
During July, beef was received from Armour & Co. 
Q. From whom was it received in August? You used it in your troop, did you 
not? 
A. Yes, sir. Armour & Co. 
Q. Do you know the agent of Armour & Co. at Tampa? Are you acquainted with 
him? 
A. I have met their agent, Mr. Moorhouse. 
Q. Have you ever met him at Lakeland? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. To the best of your recollection, how many times have you met him there? 
A. Twice or three times. 
Q. Do you remember who was present at the interviews with him? 
A. No one, as I remember it. 
Q. Except yourself? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Are you acquainted with Lieutenant Gampfer, who was an officer of the First 
Ohio? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you remember of any interviews at Lakeland with Mr. Moorhouse, at which 
Lieutenant Gampfer was present? Please think the question over carefully, and see 
whether you recall any of the interviews. 
A. I think on Mr. Moorhouse's last visit Lieutenant Gampfer was there, though I 
don't recollect that he was interested in the business that I was concluding with 
Armour & Co. through Mr. Moorhouse. 
Q. What conversation did you have with Mr. Moorhouse, or what conversation 
did Mr. Moorhouse have with Lieutenant Gampfer? 
A. I don't recollect that I talked of anything except the settlement of the beef 
accounts with Moorhouse. 
Q. What was the character of the beef that you received from Armour & Co. dur- 
ing the period of your stay at Lakeland? 
A. It was the refrigerated beef and was always good. 
Q. What was its appearance to the eye as it arrived and was distributed? 
A. Not different in any particular from beef as I have seen it taken from the 
refrigerator cars myself. 
Q. Did you observe the sides or quarters as they were taken out for issue? 
A. Yes, sir; I saw and inspected every quarter that was brought, and saw it cut up. 
Q. What spots were there, if any, on the surface, to your recollection? 
A. I don't recollect that any spots appeared at all that attracted my attention to 
being due to any unnatural condition of the beef. 
Q. Were portions of it at times rejected? 
A. Not during my administration. There was not a pound rejected excepting 
once there was a good deal of tallow in the beef, which I rejected. 
Q. Is it within your knowledge that any was rejected after you ceased to be com- 
missary? 
A. I know that some was rejected; yes, sir. 
Q. Who succeeded you as the commissary of the command? 
A. Captain Carmichael, volunteer commissary. 
Q. While he was acting as commissary, were you ever present when the beef was 
received? 
A. I was present a number of times, but paid no attention to the meat. 
Q. Do you remember being present when any rejections were made? 
A. I was present when some meat was rejected, but I did not interest myself with 
the causes particularly. 1386 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY, 
Q. Had you, then, any responsibility in connection with its acceptance or rejec- 
tion? 
A. None at all; no, sir. 
Q. Had you occasion to believe at any time while you were stationed at Lakeland 
in any capacity that the meat had been treated with chemicals, with a view to its 
preservation? 
A. The idea never occurred to me, and I don't think that it ever was. 
Q. Within your presence and hearing did anyone make the assertion that it had 
been so treated, to the best of your recollection? 
A. I am quite sure that no one ever mentioned it, because I never thought of it. 
The beef did not taste differently nor have any different appearance than that 
which I know to have come from the refrigerator cars, which I would see taken out 
myself. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. You remained on duty at Lakeland until the 1st of August in what capacity? 
A. As commissary of the troops. 
Q. Of the entire command? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. The brigade? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Were you relieved on the 1st of August? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Then what were your duties, with the troop or as commissary? 
A. Merely with the troop, but I did not do troop duty. I was sick and did not 
attempt anything but clearing up my papers as well as I could. 
Q. Did you have a clerk by the name of Mason at that time? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Who preceded you as commissary? 
A. Lieut. W. E. Shipp, of the Tenth Cavalry. 
Q. After the 1st of August, and when you were sick and simply occupied with 
your papers, did you have any concern or any investigation in regard to the beef 
issued? 
A. I did not. 
Q. You know nothing, then, as to what occurred during the month of August, as to 
the details of receipts and issues and rejections and acceptances; that is, you know 
nothing of the details of the matter in August? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. What time did you leave Lakeland? 
A. About the 17th of August. 
Q. Where did you go then? 
A. Montauk, N. Y. 
Q. You met Mr. Moorhouse, I believe you said, the last time in connection with 
a settlement that was to be made? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. During the month of August did you meet him at any time in connection with 
his issues of beef to the command, when you were not in charge of the issues, when 
you had nothing to do with them? 
A. I saw him, but I did not talk with him. 
Q. Were you in a party that did talk with him? 
A. No, sir. I saw that it was business that I had nothing to do with, and I had 
other work on my hands, so I attended to that. 
Q. You did not concern yourself with that which belonged to the other officers, 
of course? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1387 
A. No, sir. 
Q. It is hardly necessary to ask that. Then you do not recall being present at any 
time after you were relieved as commissary in the warehouse, when Captain Car- 
michael and Lieutenant Gampfer and Mr. Moorhouse and a butcher by the name of 
Hendrix were engaged in the matter of the beef investigation, reception or rejection? 
You have no recollection of anything of that kind? 
A. I saw some considerable discussion over some beef, but I did notinterest myself 
with it. 
Q. You did not hear the discussion; that is, you did not note it in your mind? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You were not near enough to take in all that was said? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Do you remember Lieutenant Gampfer being present at that discussion of 
Captain Carmichael? 
A. I remember Captain Carmichael and Mr. Moorhouse and Mr. Hendrix. I don't 
recollect Lieutenant Gampfer so well as being there. 
Q. He might fiave been there and you not have noticed it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Dr. Castle you knew, I believe? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you recall any occasion when he was present at such conversation or consul- 
tation? 
A. I think he was there that same day, afterwards. 
Q. In the same party; with that party about that time? 
A. Yes, sir; I think they sent for him to the camp, and he came down and was 
there an hour or so afterwards. 
Q. But you were not present to hear the conversation that occurred between them? 
A. I was not. 
Q. Mr. Dixon, will you please state to the court whether you have had any expe- 
rience with canned roast beef. We will leave the refrigerated beef now. 
A. There was no canned roast beef issued to the troops at Lakeland while I was 
commissary. We got some of it for our officers' mess, supposing that we would go in 
a very short time to Cuba and need some of it to use in the field. We tried to use 
some of it, but never found any way that we could cook it so that it made a good 
article of food. 
Q. How did you try it? 
A. We tried it by roasting it, and in stews and hashes, but never found any way 
that was satisfactory. 
Q. I wish you would please describe to the court what was the condition of it, 
and the objection in detail to it. It was apparently of good quality, that which you 
had; it was not a bulged can, was it, that you tried? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Just describe that fully, now; what your personal experience with that meat 
was there at Lakeland, Fla. 
A. I never saw a can opened. I saw it only as it came on the table, and if it had 
had the qualities that we desired, there is no reason why it should not have been a 
good article of food, because the cook did his best, and he was a good cook. We 
discussed the matter, and we thought that it had lost a good deal of its nutritive 
properties in some way. We thought it had been soaked in cold water and perhaps 
subjected to pressure to get out the soluble matter for extract of beef, perhaps, before 
we used it. We had no means of knowing that that process was used, but we thought 
that if that process was used the result would be just what we found. 
Q. And that was satisfactory, was it, or unsatisfactory? 
A. It was unsatisfactory so -far as the roast beef was concerned. 1388 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to recall as a witness Dr. 
Devoe, of Chicago. 
TESTIMONY OF DR. W. S. DEVOE-Recalled. 
Dr. W. S. Devoe was recalled as a witness by the recorder, and, being warned that 
he was still under oath, testified as follows: 
Cross-examination resumed by Major Lee: 
Q. Doctor, in your testimony in Chicago you referred, in answer to a question to 
some investigation that you had been directed to make on some complaints with 
reference to tankage, or the improper use of condemned material that had been put in 
there, of cattle; and your examination was stopped from the fact that the report was 
considered the best evidence, and when the report was called for not being forth- 
coming. I will ask you now to whom you sent that report. 
A. To the Secretary of Agriculture, J. Sterling Morton. 
Q. Can you recall, from any memoranda or from your recollection, when you sent 
that report? 
A. All my papers and notebooks are in New York. I have not seen anything in 
regard to it since that time. 1 made the reports, and I thought that was the end 
of it. 
Q. About when was that, Doctor? 
A. That was about May, 1894. 
Q. Have you among your papers a retained copy of that report? 
A. I should have to examine them in order to determine that. 
Q. Did you have any correspondence with the Department aside from the report 
that you made? Was there any correspondence carried on with the Department on 
the subject? 
A. I think there were two or three letters sent at that time. 
Q. Were those letters made a part of your report, or were they not connected 
with it? 
A. No; they were not made a part of the report. 
Major Lee. I will inquire of the recorder whether any of those letters in coimec- 
tion with that matter have been received. 
The Recorder. They were asked for, but none were found. 
Major Lee. Have you here the letter from the Department of Agriculture stating 
that they can not find the report? 
The Recorder. It was read to the court. 
Major Lee. If it was read and made a part of the record that is all that is necessary. 
The Recorder. It stated that a search had been made and that they were unable 
to find it. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Doctor, I wish you w'ould state, then, in view of the fact that you do not know that 
you could find a retained copy of that report, whether you might not be able to search 
your papers and ascertain whether there is a retained copy of it among your papers. 
A. There probably is a copy of the report. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, in view of the fact that the examination of the 
witness apparently shows that the original report seems to have been lost, and as the 
witness states that he has or believes he may have with his papers a retained copy 
of that report, it would seem under the rules of evidence, perhaps, that failing in the 
original, a copy would then be the next best evidence if it can be procured; and fail- 
ing in that, then the oral testimony of the witness as to his report. I submit that 
matter to the court, whether the witness shall not be allowed to proceed to search 
his papers and find the copy of the original report. 
The Recorder. I do not know that it is in the power of the court to order the wit- FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1389 
ness about to do that kind of thing. It is within the power of the court to subpoena 
him to appear, and that has been done; but the idea of giving him such instructions 
that he will go about the country to find copies would seem to be something beyond 
tlje power of the court. If the Major-General Commanding desires it it could be pre- 
sented to the Secretary of War with a view to obtain authority for such a journey. 
Colonel Gillespie. Are you sure that the witness has a copy? 
The Recorder. I do not know; I have only heard the questions that have been 
asked. 
Colonel Gillespie. I thought he rather indicated in his testimony that he might 
not have a copy. 
Major Lee. I will ask the witness. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Can you probably find a copy among your papers? Do you remember making 
a retained copy of the report? 
A. I have a faint recollection of it; yes, sir. 
Q. There is no reasonable certainty about it? 
A. No; that is too far back to trust to my memory. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I only desire to follow the rules of evidence. 
I do not want the witness to travel all over the country to find a report. I do not 
want to go to any extra trouble or to put the Government to any extra expense; but 
I was perfectly willing to interrogate him as to the report he made when he was 
there in Chicago, as to what it was, on one or two points. As the report w'as here, I 
was stopped in that examination on account of the fact that the report was the best 
evidence. Now it appears that the report can not be found, and in view of the fact 
that the witness states that he has made a copy, but is not reasonably certain that he 
will be able to find it, with the permission of the court I will go on and ask him 
what the report was, if he can remember. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Please state to the court the occasion for making that investigation. On whose 
complaint was it? 
A. I couldn't state that. 
Q. How did it happen to be made, then? On whose order was it made? 
A. On an order from the Secretary of Agriculture. 
Q. Were you furnished with the statement of the party who made the complaint? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. What order did you receive from the Secretary? Can you recall that? Let me 
ask: Were you on duty in the bureau here at that time? 
A. No, sir; I don't know in what section of the country I was at that time. 
Q. Were you connected with the bureau? 
A. Yes, sir; I was ordered to report to Chicago. 
Q. You received a letter of instructions in connection with the matter? 
A. Yes, sir. _ 
Q. Have you a copy of that letter of instructions, or the original? 
A. I really couldn't say. 
Q. You may go on, then, Doctor, and state as near as you can recollect what the 
instructions were, what you were to do, what your -investigation was, and the report 
you made. 
A. I do not like to trust my memory in regard to that, so long back, as to what I 
had to do then, because there were other circumstances that I inquired into. 
Q. You may state all of them. 
A. The others were in connection with employees of the force-as to how many 
men were required here. 1390 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. I meant generally, so as to lead up to this particular matter. 
A. How many men were required here and how many men were required in the 
yards at the packing houses? What houses were engaged in local trade and in inter- 
state trade? It was a request to gain any information or to forward any suggestions 
to the bureau that I found worth sending. 
Q. You may go on, Doctor, and state with reference to this matter in answer to the 
question, as nearly as you can recollect. 
A. I really fail to recollect a great many things as to what that was. I have not had 
a chance to even examine letters that 1 forwarded at the time which might refresh 
my memory. 
Q. I will ask you what packing houses you were to investigate-one or more? 
A. We were to investigate the general practices there in Chicago of houses that 
were not under inspection. 
Q. You were to investigate those? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was that the order in this particular case from the Secretary of Agriculture? 
A. Also general instructions to find out the condition of inspection there in 
Chicago. 
Q. Doctor, I understood from the question that was asked you on your examina- 
tion in Chicago and from your answer thereto that you had an order to make an 
investigation with reference to certain complaints in regard to some packing house or 
houses as to alleged irregularities on what was called tankage; that was about four 
years ago; and that you proceeded there to make an investigation; that you made a 
report on that special subject, about the improper use of some of this tankage, to the 
effect that instead of having it destroyed it was alleged it was not destroyed, or that 
portions of it were not destroyed. That is what I am getting at. If you will be kind 
enough to go on with that it will answer the purposes of the investigation and of my 
question. 
A. That is an event of four years ago. I do not see where it is relevant to this 
question now of embalmed meat. I do not wish to be discourteous to you, but I do 
not wish to besmirch a firm or any firms that have obeyed the laws in the most 
minute particulars in the last few years. I do not see what would be gained by it. 
Q. Doctor, I am not discussing that at all with reference to any matter of courtesy 
or discourtesy on that point. I appreciate your remarks in regard to that. It is no 
discourtesy to me for you to refuse to answer the question. It is a matter that has 
been laid before the court. You have been summoned here from Chicago to answer 
that question, because the written report is not forthcoming from the Agricultural 
Department. It is with the view of elucidating what the practices may have been at 
that time that the question was asked. Whether it exists now or not may be deter- 
mined, or whether they existed last year, and to what extent; and how far your 
inspections and the inspections of the officers and agents under you covered all these 
things. That may all come out. I think a great deal of it has been brought out. 
I submit to the court whether the witness should not go right on and answer the ques- 
tion. If a house, three years ago or four years ago, was engaged in practices of that 
kind, and the witness, as a Government officer, went there and investigated it, and 
found a condition of affairs that was not right, I think it is relevant to this issue to 
show what they were. 
The Recorder. I agree fully with the counsel for the Major-General Commanding 
that, as far as the memory of the witness will serve him, he should answer the 
questions. 
The Witness. Must I answer the question? 
The Recorder. Yes. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. There seems to be no objection to the question being answered. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1391 
A. The firm of Nelson, Morris & Co. But since that time they have, as I say, 
obeyed the rules and regulations in every particular. We have no cause of complaint 
to find against them. That occurred, as I say, four years ago. 
Q. What was your report? What did you find? In other words, what was your 
investigation, as to what, and what did you report as a result of it? 
A. The finding was not conclusive. What evidence we did find, or what state- 
ments we did receive, were from some discharged, disgruntled employees, that they 
had removed carcasses from the tanks. 
Q. For what purpose? 
A. And placed them on the local market. 
Q. To what extent was that done, as reported by you from the evidence and the 
statements that you obtained on your investigation? 
A. We only know of one occasion. We were immediately informed of it and 
stopped it. 
Q. Was any action taken toward prosecuting the guilty parties? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Was any information lodged with a view of bringing action in the courts? 
A. My duties ended there. 
Q. I am merely asking you as a matter of information whether anything had been 
done by the other officers of the Government who were charged with the duty. 
A. That I couldn't say. 
Q. You do not know that anything was done? 
A. No. 
Q. You say that the only instance that there seemed to be from the evidence was 
one case? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Can you state how many cattle were put on the market in that one case? 
A. No, sir; that was not stated. 
Q. Put on the Chicago market or the general market? 
A. The local market, in Chicago. 
Q. And you say that since that time, to the best of your knowledge, or since you 
have been in charge there, the law has been obeyed? 
A.'Yes. 
Q. And, so far as you know, nothing of that kind has occurred since? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. There are a few other questions I would like to ask. It may be in the nature 
of a rehearsal, but it is not very clearly fixed in my mind. You speak of an investi- 
gation as to what houses were subject to Government inspection and what houses 
were not subject to Government inspection? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I wish you would state to the court what slaughterhouses, within your knowl- 
edge or within your information, in or about Chicago are not subject to the inspec- 
tion which you have described heretofore in your testimony. 
A. The firm of Noonan & Hoff. 
Q. Who are they, and what do they do? 
A. They principally slaughter hogs. 
Q. How is it that they are not subject to inspection? 
A. Because they are simply in the local trade. They do not ship outside of the 
State. They come under the local laws. 
Q. You say they do not ship outside of the State? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. May they not ship outside of the State? 
A. They can. 
Q. Then may they not sell over in Indiana? 1392 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Yes; they can do it. Then they would come under our inspection. 
Q. If they do do it they escape your inspection in that way? I mean they violate 
the law, then. 
A. They could violate the law; yes. If it came to our knowledge we would take 
action. 
Q. What others? Excuse the interruption. 
A. D. Levi. 
Q. Where is he, and what does he do? 
A. He kills cattle and sheep. 
Q. Where does he slaughter? 
A. That is on the corner of Thirty-ninth street and Center avenue, in Chicago. 
Q. What is the extent of his work, and how is it he does not come under any 
inspection of the Government? 
A. He simply kills for the local market. 
Q. Does he kill rather extensively? 
A. No, he is a small killer. I don't suppose he kills over 50 or 60 carcasses a day. 
Q. Say 300 a week? 
A. Say between 200 and 300 a week. That includes cattle sheep, and calves. 
Q. What market does he supply? 
A. The local market. 
Q. Where does he get his cattle from? 
A. From the stock yards. 
Q. Are they subject to any Government inspection? 
A. Yes, sir; they are inspected in the yards. 
Q. By the United States inspector? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. But after killing they are not inspected? 
A. No, sir; except by the city inspectors. 
Q. And there is no restriction on that man sending out of the State, to Indiana, or 
to other points? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Then who is the next? 
A. That is all. 
Q. Just those two? 
A. Yes, sir; oh, one minute; there is another firm there-Ruddy Brothers. 
Q. What do they slaughter, and where and to what extent? 
A. Cattle; they are on the corner of Emerald avenue and Fortieth street, Chicago; 
they kill principally cattle and calves. 
Q. What market do they supply? 
A. The local market. 
Q. There is no inspection beyond that of the city? 
A. That is all; the city inspection. 
Q. There would be no restriction against their sending cattle out of the State? 
A. No, sir; if they did, and it came to our notice, we would place them under 
inspection. 
Q. Do you recall a place called Fulton Market, in Chicago? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What is that, and to what extent is beef sold there? 
A. That is a place where the wholesalers sell to smaller butchers throughout the 
city; calves and cattle arriving in the city from outside sources. 
Q. Is there any retail business done there? 
A. It is of a retail nature, where they will sell a carcass of a sheep or hog in a 
small way. You would call them retailers. 
Q. Do these firms you speak of do their own slaughtering entirely? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1393 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do they do any canning? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Could they do any? 
A. No, sir; they have not the facilities. 
Q. What class of cattle do they use, if you know, in their local market there for 
this purpose? What class of cattle do they buy? 
A. They buy good cattle; also they buy a variety of cattle, according to the local 
demand. 
Q. They would not buy a class of what might be termed canners? They would 
not have occasion to buy that class or grade of cattle, would they? 
A. Not unless it was a good, fair canner, with some flesh on it, which they could 
place on the local market. 
Q. Doctor, I want to ask you in regard to that matter of canners. It has been a 
good deal discussed. I do not know but you may have been asked the question 
before, but I do not remember it. In regard to this class of cattle known as canners 
they are the lowest-priced cattle sold in the market, as a rule, are they not? 
A. The rejected cattle are the lowest-priced cattle. 
Q. What do you mean by " rejected? " 
A. Cattle that have come there for inspection, and which we will not allow to pass 
to the packing houses. 
Q. They are the lowest priced? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That is, cattle that are considered as unfit, absolutely, for food. They are 
taken outside and slaughtered, and some of those may come in afterwards and be 
put on the market, under the conditions stated in the testimony? 
A. They go out to these outside houses, yes; and may be placed on the market. 
Q. Then, of the cattle that are sold, with the exception of those that are rejected 
as unfit, we will say, the canners would be the lowest-priced cattle, as a rule? The 
market quotations are substantially correct in regard to that? 
A. Yes; but it is according to what the demand is and what the supply is in the 
market. Some days these packers have to pay a pretty fair price for canners. 
Q. Is it not a matter of fact that during the last year, when there was such a rush 
in the canning business and so many orders to fill, that the price of that grade of 
cattle, the canners, advanced a little? Do you recall that? 
A. Last summer? 
Q. Yes. 
A. There were not many canners came in-what we call canners. At that time 
there was a better class of cattle coming in. 
Q. At that time there was a better class of cattle? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Then the canners that came in afterwards were of a poorer class than those 
that were canned last summer? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In the examination of cattle, the mere fact of their being lean is not a cause for 
rejection, is it? 
A. Not unless they are very much emaciated. 
Q. So as to give evidences of disease or bad health? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. But being lean and thin and poor would not be a cause of rejection, would it? 
A. No, sir; not necessarily. 
Q. I believe you have testified that the principal percentage of cattle that go 
in as canners, or at any rate 50 per cent, are cow's. I believe that was your testi- 
mony; or did you not give that testimony? 
S. Doc. 270 88 1394 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. No; I think there was some other inspector testified to that. 
Q. How is that, as a matter of fact? Within your recollection, are they not as a 
rule the larger percentage or an equal percentage of cows that go in? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Have you ever made any special examination of the cattle that come from St. 
Joseph, Mo., that are shipped to Libby, McNeill & Libby, of Chicago, for canning? 
A. We see every car of cattle that comes into the house. 
<2. You see every car? 
A. Our inspector does-the man stationed at the house. 
Q. For the purpose of verifying, simply? He does not make any inspection as to 
the quality of the cattle. The beef is inspected at St. Joseph, is it not? 
A. Yes, sir; it is inspected. The car is wired and sealed and tagged. The num- 
ber is put on the tag. The office is notified, and we send a notice to the inspector, 
and he must be present. 
Q. Who breaks the seal? 
A. The inspector is supposed to break the seal. 
Q. He is supposed to break the seal? 
A. The house generally informs him of the arrival of the car. 
Q. The house informs him when it comes? 
A. Yes. 
Q. I would like to ask you, Doctor, when you had finished the inspection of cattle 
after they have been killed and tagged them in the cooling room, whether when these 
cattle are shipped out into interstate commerce-for instance, during the late war- 
when shipped by Swift & Co., or Armour & Co., to any point South, who seals that 
car and who inspects that car? 
A. Armour & Co. places the seal on it, and the railroad company places the seal 
on it. 
Q. Is there or not any chance under those conditions of the car going there, under 
those conditions, consigned to their agents, for any experimental treatment, -without 
the knowledge, the jurisdiction, or the interest of the Bureau of Animal Industry in 
that matter? 
A. There may be a possibility where there are none of our inspectors. 
Q. The point I am getting at is, when the beef would be shipped to Tampa or Jack- 
sonville under the conditions you have mentioned, you have nothing further to do 
with it after it goes in the car? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You have no jurisdiction over it? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Your bureau would not be responsible for any chemicalizing or anything of 
that sort in any way, shape, or form? 
A. No, sir, 
Q. In regard to this canvas or cheese-cloth-covered beef. You have nothing to do 
with seeing that put on, and none of your agents have anything to do with that in 
any way? That is not a matter you are concerned in? You simply look at the beef 
after it is slaughtered and there your responsibility ends? 
A. Yes, sir; that is right. 
Q. That other matter does not concern you or affect you in any way? 
A. Oh, we see the process. Our men are working in the coolers all the time. We 
see the sacking. 
Q. You have to see it, but it is not a matter of inspection or report. 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You see it in the same way as I think some man testified that he went fif- 
teen times a day into the canning room. You have nothing to do with that what- 
ever? 
A. Yes. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1395 
A. No, sir. 
Q. The stamps, then, which are affixed to the packages give no indication-that is, 
in regard to the canned roast meats and the canners-as to what they may have put 
in the cans, the amount and the grade and the cost of the animal that had been 
inspected? 
A. They come from the animals that have been inspected. 
Q. But as to the various parts, you would have nothing to do with that? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Are you familiar with the signature of D. E. Salmon? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I will hand you this paper and ask if you recognize that as his signature? 
A. (After examining letter.) Yes, sir; that is his writing. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, as illustrating the testimony on this point, 
there is an extract in that letter which I wish to read in regard to that same matter. 
The balance can be read if it is desired, but it is of no importance. 
Major Lee then read from the letter above identified, as follows: 
United States Department of Agriculture, 
Bureau of Animal Industry, 
Washington, D. C., November 5, 1897. 
Sir: Your letter of the 1st instant addressed to the Secretary has been referred to 
this Bureau. The inspection of live animals and meat products by this Bureau is 
made before and at the time of slaughter to determine the diseased or unsound 
and unwholesome condition of the animal or meat at that time. The stamps which are 
affixed to the packages are simply to indicate that an inspection, as stated above, 
had been made, and is no guarantee that the meat has been properly cured and 
packed. 
Very respectfully, 
D. E. Salmon, Chief of Bureau. 
Mr. Walter J. Condon, 
Rock Falls, 111. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. In your investigations in connection with your work as inspector, or as being 
in charge of the inspecting work, have you had any occasion to remind the packers 
of infringement or attempted infringement on the part of themselves or of their 
employees in regard to this duty that you are to perform? 
A. No, sir; they generally comply with all the rules and regulations. 
Q. Has there been any exception to that rule? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You have not had a single case since you have been there? 
A. No. When you speak of that, I will say this: For instance, an order went out 
that all stamps on packages sent to foreign countries should be covered with a tin. 
When they figured it up, the packers found that it would cost about a cent and a 
quarter a tin, including labor. As some of the packers shipped from a million to a 
million and a half packages a year to the other side, that was a very expensive order 
for them. They objected to that and got a modification of it. 
Q. Have you detected, or have any of your employees the detection of, any bad 
practices on the part of any of these parties that you recall in the packing houses? 
A. No, sir. 
Redirect examination by the Recorder: 
Q. In the investigation to which you have testified, Doctor, what did I understand 
you to say was done with the meat that was taken out of the tank? 1396 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. It was placed on the local market. 
Q. By whom? 
A. I suppose the 
Q. I do not care for the name, but what was the grade or employment of the person 
who did it? 
A. The employees of the house. 
Q. What evidence was there, if any, of the connivance or consent of the owners? 
A. There was no evidence that they connived at it at all. In fact, I understood 
afterwards that some of those men were discharged. 
Q. From whom was the evidence obtained that the beef had been taken out and 
sold? 
A. From discharged employees-the beginning of it. 
Q. Was their evidence in rebuttal? 
A. We did not try to obtain-there was a denial of it. 
Q. By whom was that made? 
A. By the firm, the superintendent. 
Q. How complete, how thorough, was the investigation? 
A. It was really not a thorough investigation. 
Q. There were witnesses called on both sides? 
A. No, sir; witnesses were not called on the other side at all. 
Q. There was only evidence in favor of the taking? 
A. Yes, sir; that is all. 
Q. Was inquiry made of others with a view of obtaining a presentation of the 
other side? 
A. That we simply referred to the bureau. Whatever action they took, I don't 
know. 
Q. What evidence was there, if any, showing that the meat that was taken out of 
the tank did or did not go into interstate commerce? 
A. Simply the report of these employees, that it went to the local trade. 
Q. Their testimony then was what? 
A. That it went into local trade-the Chicago markets. 
Q. Is there anything unlawful in A setting up a butcher shop in Chicago to kill 
meat for consumption within the State? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. In point of fact, are many such butchers in the State of Illinois? 
A. All over the State. 
Q. It is not a criminal offense, then, to kill meat to be used in the State in which 
it is killed? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Under what conditions does the law of the United States take cognizance of 
the beef business? 
A. Only on meat shipped outside of the State. 
Q. Has it jurisdiction over meat killed and used entirely within a State? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. In speaking of the practice of rejecting cattle alive-after the rejection is made, 
may they be killed at an outside slaughterhouse? Did I understand you to say 
that? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Would it be one registered under the Government inspection? 
A. The local houses are not registered. The rejected cattle can be killed at those 
houses. 
Q. Is there any rule at the stock yards that would affect that subject? 
A. Yes, sir; there is a rule of the exchange in regard to lumpy-jawed cattle. 
Q. What is that? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1397 
A. If a commission firm receives a lumpy jaw here, or actinomocosic steer, the 
rules of the exchange compel him to notify the State inspector. If he attempts to 
sell that animal he is subject to a fine of $50. The State inspector examines the 
animal, and if it is a subject of condemnation he quarantines it, places it in a pen in 
the yards, and tags it. It is held here until the following Saturday, and then taken 
to a house under Government, State, and city inspection, and slaughtered. 
Q. What is done with the proceeds? 
A. The proceeds go to a commission firm for the account of the shipper. 
Q. Can that meat or any of it go into interstate commerce in any way? 
A. If it is a registered house and the animal passes inspection on post-mortem 
examination, it could go into interstate commerce. In that case the animal would 
be branded by the Government brand; or if it was going outside the State, we would 
tag it. Some of the firms requested to be both branded and tagged. 
Q. Do the concerns which can beef within your knowledge deal in such cattle? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. They do not? 
A. They do not kill any meats that come from uninspected houses. We do not 
allow it to enter the packing houses at all from any of these outside houses that are 
not under Government inspection. Of course, as I say, if it is in a registered house 
and the carcass is branded, that branding shows that it is fit for edible food; and if 
it shows the brand we allow it to go into the house. 
Q. Why is the term "outside house" used in that connection? 
A. Outside of the Government inspection. 
Q. Is there any rule of the Stock Yards Association that requires the beef to go in 
that way to an outside house? 
A. Yes, sir; there is a rule of the exchange that compels that meat to be killed in 
one house and no other. 
Q. Is the house so designated by the association? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What amount of cooperation is there, if any, between the Federal inspectors 
and the State inspectors? 
A. We cooperate in regard to carrying out the laws in respect to diseased animals. 
Q. Do you assist each other-have conferences with each other? 
A. Yes, sir; in a case where an animal is condemned by a Government inspector, 
and the owner says he wants to take that animal out into the State, we notify the 
State inspector, and he puts his condemned tag on it and prevents it from going out 
into the State, and holds it there in the yards. 
Q. Suppose a person who engages in the business of killing steers for consumption 
in the State, and so does not obtain a Government register, should undertake to send 
that out into the State. What would be his attitude in respect to the law? 
A. He would violate the Government law. 
Q. Have there been any prosecutions within your knowledge since the laws went 
into effect? Have you any knowledge as to whether the practice exists? 
A. No, sir; I have not. 
Q. Suppose dressed beef is sent from one registered house to another in another 
city. The supervision of that transaction is under whom? 
A. Under the Government. 
Q. You have testified, have you not, as to the details? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Suppose there were dressed cattle in any city, St. Joseph for example, that 
were likely to spoil-meat that was beginning to spoil. What would be the chance 
of discovery if it was attempted to ship them from St. Joseph to St. Louis or to 
Omaha? 
A. We have had occasions where there was shipment of cattle from a registered 1398 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
house, and where there has been a wreck on the road, and they could not reice the 
car for some reason; the meat would not be actually spoiled, but when it came under 
our supervision we would condemn it and tank it. 
Q. Is there an examination of such transferred meat when it arrives at its destina- 
tion always? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And under what conditions would it be condemned? 
A. If we found that it had been undergoing putrefaction, or was what we call 
spoiled meat, it would be condemned. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. I would like to ask, for my own information, with regard to that investigation 
that you made. If I understand you aright, in your evidence you say that the find- 
ings of your investigation were not conclusive? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Was that your remark? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you mean by that that the charge, so far as your investigation had been 
made, had not been sustained, or what did you mean? 
A. I mean it required still further investigation. Before I was through I was 
detailed to another section of the country. 
Q. In other words, so far as your investigation went, you were not able to report 
definitely as to whether the charge was correct or not? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Is that the idea? 
A. That is right. 
Recross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Who took up the investigation, then, after you made the report that you had 
not been able to conclude it? 
A. That I don't know. As I say, I was transferred to another section of the coun- 
try, and that was all I knew of it. 
Q. Had you ever made any investigation of that kind before, or have you since? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. And you say the evidence that you took was the evidence of discharged em- 
ployees? 
A. Mostly. 
Q. You took some evidence of employees that were there, did you not? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. So to that extent you did hear the other side. You heard employees that were 
still in the employ of the company, and you heard employees that had been discharged? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Some of these employees were subsequently discharged, were they not? Was 
not that testified before you? 
A. I could not say as to that. 
Q. I understood you to so state. If I am mistaken I would like you to correct it. 
A. No; I could not say that they were discharged because they gave information, 
because I do not think the firm knew 
Q. You were ordered to make an investigation on charges that certain practices had 
been going on there. You made a partial investigation and you made a report, and 
said the matter should be still further investigated. Will you please explain how 
further investigated. Did you mean that someone else should go there and take up 
this same matter? 
A. No; I simply made the suggestion to the Department for them to follow out any 
action that they wanted to take themselves. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1399 
Q. Were you not, from the investigation that you made, reasonably well satisfied 
in your own mind that the law had not been complied with in that house; and did 
you not make the report that while there was no absolute certainty, you were reason- 
ably impressed with the belief, from the information that you had obtained, that the 
practice had obtained at least in that instance? 
A. At that time the rules and regulations and the methods of the bureau had not 
been systematized. 
Q. I will ask you to answer the question. 
A. Will you please repeat it? 
The question was repeated as follows: 
"Q. Were you not, from the investigation that you made, reasonably well satisfied 
in your own mind that the law had not been complied with in that house; and did 
you not make the report that while there was no absolute certainty, you were rea- 
sonably impressed with the belief, from the information that you had obtained, that 
the practice had obtained at least in that instance?" 
A. Yes. 
Q. Whose outside house is it out there that you speak of-this one house where 
the cattle organization has this perfect system in operation? 
A. The exchange. 
Q. The one house that does the slaughtering. Is that called the exchange? 
A. No; it is the B. Wolf Slaughtering Company. The exchange has picked out 
that house for the slaughtering. 
Q. You state that your men, Government employees, inspect the cattle that are 
slaughtered in these houses that are not under Government inspection. They inspect 
the cattle on the hoof? 
A. They inspect cattle on the hoof. 
Q. That is, if they come to the yards? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. If they come otherwise, your men would not inspect them, would they? 
. A. No, sir; but they don't bring cattle in except through the yards. 
Q. I did not know who that was exactly; but these cattle are simply inspected in 
lots with other cattle, and then they are sold? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Other cattle that are slaughtered around promiscuously, that come in on the 
hoof, you do not have any Government inspectors to inspect them? 
A. At other places? 
Q. Yes; I mean outside of the city. 
A. No, sir; we don't inspect them except in East St. Louis and Bloomington. 
Q. You have an inspector there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. To get this matter clear in my mind: In the case of a shipment of beef that 
has been inspected, for instance, in St. Joe, by your Government inspectors-I pre- 
sume you have some there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. They inspect the cattle on the hoof there; then they are inspected after they 
are killed; then they are put in a car and shipped over, and a report is made and 
sent in? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. The car is sealed and sent over, and the company notifies you it has come. Do 
you mean to inform the court that you or your agents go there and make another 
inspection of those quarters of beef that are in the car, or that you simply see that 
that car of inspected cattle has arrived there? 
A. Our inspector is there to see whether the carcasses are branded. 
Q. That is all? 1400 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. He sees the unloading of the car. 
Q. Does he stay there and watch the unloading of it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. He goes in and verifies each quarter or each half, and sees that it is branded? 
A. No, sir; he sees them as they are run off from the car on the rail. 
Q. He has nothing to do with the inspection of the cattle there, they having been 
once inspected and tagged, beyond seeing that there is a record by the tag that it 
has been inspected? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That is all he has to do? 
A. Yes, sir. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Suppose one of them is tainted? 
A. He would condemn it. That is part of his duties. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Does he make a report of that? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did your men ever find any that was rejected as emaciated, or that was not fit 
to can, or anything of that kind? 
A. Rarely. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Suppose in the case in which you made an inspection that the meat, as you 
have said, was taken out and sold. Would that be a violation of the law of the United 
States? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Then your answer -was erroneous in that respect, was it not? 
A. No, sir; they could sell that in the local markets. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, there are no other witnesses who have 
been summoned for to-day. 
The court thereupon, at 4 o'clock p. m., adjourned until Wednesday, April 5, 
1899, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C., 
Wednesday, April 5, 1899. 
The court met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Colonel Huntington, of the Marine Corps. 
TESTIMONY OF COL. R. W. HUNTINGTON. 
Col. R. W. Huntington was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been 
first duly sworn, was examined. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station. 
A. R. W. Huntington, colonel, United States Marine Corps, marine barracks, navy- 
yard, Brooklyn, N. Y. 
Q. You were in command of a detachment of marines, I believe, that took part in 
the operations at Guantanamo last year? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1401 
A. I was. 
Q. Please state to the court in narrative form what the meat components of the 
ration were that were issued to the detachment under your command during its 
operations at Guantanamo. 
A. Refrigerated beef, canned corned beef, salt pork, a little bacon. 
Q. Do you remember about what proportion-that is, of the total quantities-what 
proportion was refrigerated beef and what salt meats of various sorts, giving it by 
the days or by the week? 
A. I can not state accurately. I should say about five-sevenths refrigerated beef, 
more than the usual allowance. 
Q. And no canned roast beef? 
A. No canned roast beef. 
Q. Are you familiar with canned roast beef as an article of the daily ration? 
A. I am not. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Colonel, will you please state the time of your landing or occupancy of that 
position, and how long you were there with your command or how long the command 
was there? 
A. Landed on June 10; embarked August 5, 1898. 
Q. What was the health of the command during the time of the duty as you have 
stated? 
A. Very good. 
Q. About as near as you can recall without referring to any specific data, about 
what was the percentage, or in any way that you care to state it? 
A. The sickness ran from 2 to a little more than 4 per cent. It varied; ran up 
after a rain and went down in dry weather. 
Q. Two to 4 out of about what number? 
A. Two to 4 per cent. 
Q. And the food supply of your command was good, was it not? 
A. Oh, yes; it was good, ample. We had the navy ration without any reduction. 
In fact, it was a slight increase over the usual navy ration. The Secretary of the 
Navy allowed us to increase the navy ration one-third during the time we were on 
shore. 
Q. There was then no deficiency nor any complaint of the ration as to quality or 
quantity; I mean no general complaint in regard to it? 
A. That is so; no complaint; no cause for complaint. 
Q. Your command, for nearly or about two months, at that time was exposed to 
the usual hardships, were they not, of troops in the Tropics under similar conditions 
of service? 
A. Oh, yes; they slept out a good deal. For a considerable time we did not sleep in 
tents. We had tents, but for a time we could not pitch them, and we never did tent 
the command entirely. We had flies up. 
Q. The refrigerated beef was furnished how, and how far would it have to be 
taken, and what were the methods of supplying it so as to give you ample and satis- 
factory supplies without any deterioration of it, if such was the case? 
A. The refrigerated beef was supplied from naval store ships. It was carried on 
shore perhaps half a mile, and from there a few hundred yards only, and it was used 
almost immediately as soon as it was issued, although we had ice furnished to us, 
brought ice ashore, and of course made an ice box in the ground, and what was left 
over after using the first meal off of this beef was kept until it was needed for the 
next day or the next morning. 
Q. So I understand, Colonel, then, that you had ample, adequate facilities for 
handling the beef in that way? 
A. Oh, yes; we had no difficulty in that respect. 1402 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Subsequent to embarkation did your command suffer from malarial fever to any 
extent, to amount to anything? I do not wish to know the details, but was there 
any considerable amount of sickness? 
A. No considerable amount of sickness. Those men who were affected with malaria 
almost invariably had been affected with malaria before. In some few cases it was 
original there, but very few indeed. 
Q. Colonel, will you please state to the court, after having passed the service there 
with your men, under the conditions which existed for nearly two months, to what 
you attribute the escape of your command, if I may so state it, from the sickness said 
to prevail in that section of the country? 
A. Adequate food and distilled water. There was no water on that point at all; no 
water within 3 miles. 
Q. You consider, then, as I understand, Colonel, that adequate food and proper 
water are two important factors affecting the health of the men? 
A. That goes without saying. 
Major Lee. I believe that is all. 
The Recorder. Has the court any questions? 
General Davis. What was the number of th", detachment or battalion of the 
marines serving there, Colonel? 
A. About 650. 
Q. As men were taken sick, if there were any, were they kept on shore or sent 
aboard? 
A. Some few were transferred to the Solace-I think eight. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Were you at Santiago, Colonel? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Are the climatic conditions materially different at Guantanamo from Santiago? 
A. I think there is less rain, but 1 am not certain. 
Q. Less rain? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. On an average, how many days in the week did it rain while you were at 
Guantanamo, if you now recollect? 
A. Yes, sir. I should think not over two days a week. On the opposite side of 
the bay it rained almost every afternoon, but on our side of the bay the showers 
seemed to pass around us. 
Q. Then, in general, your camp was a comparatively dry one? 
A. Oh, yes; it often got dusty; it dried up very quickly. 
Q. Was the refrigerated beef any different from what you had been accustomed to 
at other times? 
A. I noticed no difference. 
Q. Was it always good when delivered at your camp? Did you have to reject any? 
A. I am not certain. I am inclined to think some small quantity may have been 
rejected. I have a vague recollection of it. It was almost invariably good. 
By General Davis: 
Q. What is the name of the contracting firm who furnished the fresh beef? 
A. I could not tell you, sir. 
Q. Were your men much drenched and soaked in the water and mud? 
A. No, sir; all had rubber blankets, which they used on picket. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Have you any knowledge of the history of refrigerated beef furnished the Navy 
or furnished your command? 
A. I have not. I have no knowledge of its history. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1403 
Q. Where it came from or how long it had been there? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. I understand that during this time no canned roast beef was issued to your 
command, as ypu recall. 
A. As I recall, no canned roast beef wras issued. 
Q. Do your men use much of it in the Navy when aboard vessels? Are they in 
the habit of using it, can you state as a matter of information? 
A. Canned roast beef has come in since I went to sea. I don't know anything 
about it. 
Q. You know nothing of the system of inspection? You made no purchase 
yourself? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. As to the care that was exercised in inspecting or testing? 
A. No, sir. 
Major Lee. I believe that is all. 
By General Davis: 
Q. No canned roast beef is issued to the naval forces in barracks on shore? 
A. No, sir. Our ration when we were down in Guantanamo was the navy ration, 
because we were attached to the fleet, but on shore our ration is the army ration. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Prof. Russell H. Chittenden, of Yale College. 
TESTIMONY OF RUSSELL H. CHITTENDEN. 
Russell H. Chittenden was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been 
first duly sworn, was examined. 
The Recorder. The court will remember that Professor Chittenden is one of those 
to whom the chemical examination of the canned roast beef wras intrusted. In 
introducing him I will, with the permission of the court, read the instructions that 
accompanied the samples of beef which were forwarded to him for examination: 
"I forward by express to-day the following cans for examination: 
"Three (3) cans Prime Roast Beef, Prairie City Canning Company, Chicago, 
marked 'A,' 'B,' and 'C.' 
"Three (3) cans Prime Roast Beef, Armour Canning Company, Chicago, marked 
'D,' 'E,' and 'F.' 
"Three (3) cans Extra Choice Roast Beef, Wilson Packing Company, New York, 
marked 'G,' 'H,' and 'I.' 
"Three (3) cans Prime Roast Beef, Armour Canning Company, Chicago, marked 
'J,' 'K,' and 'L.' 
" It is the desire of the court that the beef contained in the tins be analyzed, with 
a view to ascertain its nutritive value as compared with fresh beef of similar quality 
which is furnished by the local markets for general public consumption. If it is 
usual in such examinations to cause a chemical analysis to be made, will you not 
kindly submit the result of such analysis in your report? It has been alleged that 
the use of canned fresh beef in tropical climates caused nausea to those who used it 
as food. If it be possible to do so, will you not inform the court whether the cans 
contain any substance or solution which would be calculated to cause such nausea?" 
In conformity with that request, Professor Chittenden has submitted a report, which 
I will read to the court, the report being a result of the examination. 
The recorder read the report, dated Yale University, Sheffield Scientific School, 
New Haven, Conn., April 3, 1899. 
The report is appended hereto, marked "20." 
The Recorder. This report, may it please the court, is submitted in evidence to 
go with Tables 1, 2, and 3, which are constantly alluded to through the report, and 1404 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
contain the quantitative results of the experiments which were intrusted to Professor 
Chittenden. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I was not aware, and perhaps there was no 
reason why I should have been, that the chemist who has made the examination of 
the cans would be introduced this morning to testify. Not being a chemist myself, and 
knowing comparatively little of it, excepting in a practical way, as to the eating 
and assimilation of food, I am not prepared to take up such examination on the 
report that has been submitted by the professor, which is certainly one of very 
great interest and thorough research, no doubt. I would therefore ask to have a 
copy of the report, if one can be furnished me, and that the professor be held by 
the court subject to recall within a reasonable time. I will endeavor to be as expe- 
ditious as possible. I will, however, with the permission of the court, ask a few 
general questions, but those that are of a technical nature I should prefer to reserve 
until such time as I can have a copy. I can have one made, or if the court will fur- 
nish me with one, to submit to some one who is more competent to go over that 
matter than I am. It will be useless for me to start in to examine on those points, 
many of them, and I do not know that I would care to after going over the matter. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Professor, these cans, as I understand, that you examined, twelve in number, 
represented only four kinds of cans-that is, from four different packing houses-as 
per the list? 
A. So I understand. Of course with regard to the experience they have passed 
through I know nothing. 
Q. The cans were in good order? There was no indication of bulging or anything 
of that kind on those cans? They were all in perfect order? 
A. In perfect order, so far as I could see, and on being opened each one gave 
evidence of vacuum. 
Q. You had no knowledge as to where these cans had been-whether they had 
ever been issued and carried by troops in that expedition or not? You had no infor- 
mation on that subject? 
A. No information aside from the letter stating that they had been exposed to 
climatic influences in the Tropics. 
Q. Did you have any information as to what that exposure had been? 
A. None whatever. 
Major Lee. In asking as to the number of different kinds of cans that were sub- 
mitted to the professor for examination I did so intending to invite the attention of 
the court to the fact, as I recall, that there are something like from eight to a dozen 
different kinds of cans furnished to the Government, according to the list. So this 
represents but four of them. 
Q. Have you ever had, Professor, any experience with canned meat of that sort in 
tropical climates, or canned meats under conditions of exposure? 
A. None whatever; no, sir. 
Q. Would the age of cans similar to those submitted to you for inspection, or of 
canned meats generally, would the age, say from one to ten or fifteen years, have any 
relation to the quality of the meat? Would you expect to find any difference if they 
remained well sealed? 
A. I should not, on general principles, unless it might be a possible action on the 
inside of the cans. That is, allow me to say, that is, if there were acid fluids in such 
materials, naturally the longer the exposure the greater the chance for corrosion on 
the inside of the cans, but that would hardly apply perhaps to sweet meat as much 
as to acid fruits or things of that sort-canned goods in general. 
Q. In the examination of these cans that were submitted to you, did you find any 
evidences, from observation, there of the presence of the inferior parts of an animal, 
of the beef. When I speak of the inferior parts 1 mean that there are many parts FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1405 
of an animal that a man could eat, but that a man would not care to eat when he 
could get the other parts-the gristle, the lining of the bones, etc. 
A. There was no evidence except so far as would be afforded by the presence of 
gelatin. The gelatin, of course represents the conversion of the collagenous, tendi- 
nous or, sinewy material, and when the cans were first opened the rather large pro- 
portion of gelatin made on my mind such an impression as is suggested by your 
question, but the analysis of samples X, Y, and Z indicates that the proportion of 
gelatin in the canned samples was, on the whole, no greater than was obtained in 
other samples of fresh beef. 
Q. That ,had been roasted or boiled? 
A. Two roasted and one boiled. 
Q. But in the cans I believe this was separated from the meat generally, as I 
understand? 
A. There was a little tendency to be more conspicuous on the edges than surface. 
Q. I believe in your report you have stated as to some length of time that you had 
this meat under observation, and that it seemed to be in good order. How would 
you account, if you can account in any way, for the fact, if it be a fact, that a great 
deal of this canned meat in a tropical country in the hands of soldiers, in its use in 
the service, would spoil within from two to five hours after it would be opened and 
the soldiers had taken a meal out of the cans? How would you account for that? 
Would that be an evidence of good, first-class meat? 
A. It would be a little hard for me, I think, to account for it. Of course it might 
be assumed that if such meat had been exposed to rather a high temperature, and 
from the time the can was opened was in a semipasty condition and exposed to an 
atmosphere containing a great many germs, the material in the cans being at a 
temperature ready to allow of the rapid growth of such germs, that putrefaction 
might take place rapidly; but it would be rather contrary to my experience in this 
section of the world to expect putrefaction to take place so rapidly. 
Q. In this country you have no experience of that kind; of putrefaction taking 
place in a good piece of nice roast beef in a few hours after opening it in a can? 
You have had no such experience? 
A. I have had no such experience. At the same time I never have exposed an 
open can to a temperature of say 100° or 105° F. 
Major Lee. With the request that I have made with regard to a further examina- 
tion of the Professor, after getting a copy of the report, I believe I will desist from 
asking him any further questions this morning on the subject and will desire to have 
the Professor recalled, say in the morning, if it is convenient, or at any time within 
two or three days. 
The Recorder. The Professor in the performance of his duties has engagements in 
the way of lecturing which can not well be changed, but he suggests that he can 
return on Tuesday of next week, if that is satisfactory. 
General Davis. That is satisfactory. 
Major Lee. Certainly. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. There is one question I should like to ask. Is there anything within your 
knowledge in the preparation of this canned beef which would make it more liable 
to putrefaction than fresh meat under the same conditions of exposure? 
A. Of course I have no personal knowledge of the method by which this meat has 
been prepared. I can simply draw inferences from the results of my analysis, but 
on general principles I should suppose that meat which has been cooked would be 
more resistant to putrefaction than fresh meat, on general principles. 
Q. You spoke about the gelatin being conspicuous in the cans. As a matter of 
fact, this liquid gelatin is applied in the cans before the meat is put in. Would that 1406 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
fact have any influence upon the presence or appearance of the gelatin as you 
saw it? 
A. I think not. If put in after the solid meat was put in it would naturally be on 
the outside. 
Q. It is put in first. It is found in the can when the meat is put it. 
A. In either case, the meat being solid and the gelatin being probably liquid, the 
meat would naturally go to the bottom and the gelatin would stay around the outer 
edges and congeal in that form. I have no knowledge whatever of the methods used 
in the preparation of the meat when packing it. 
By General Davis: 
Q. I think you say in your report that there appears to be some loss of nutritive 
element in the beef, due, probably, to a preliminary cooking. I understood your 
report so to state. 
A. Simply an indication, in the slightly smaller percentage of mineral matter, that 
there had been some withdrawal, and in trying to explain that in my own mind I 
assumed, possibly, that the meat might have been plunged into water and kept there 
some time and then transferred to cans and heated in the cans, but I have no knowl- 
edge whatever of the method of preparation. 
Q. In this supposable case that the meat was cut from the bones of the animal, the 
quarters divided into pieces weighing not more 3 or 4 pounds and less, being then 
immersed in a tank of boiling or hot water at the boiling point, atmospheric pressure 
only, and kept in that condition of boiling for a period of from fifteen to forty minutes, 
then removed, re-sorted, gristle and all other deleterious parts thrown out, canned, and 
the cans hermetically sealed and then placed in a retort at a temperature of 220 degrees, 
kept there for an hour or more-less than an hour and a half-removed, punctured, 
allowing the gas to escape, instantly resealed restored to the retorts and kept there 
for another hour at a temperature of 240 degrees and then removed, would meat 
treated in that manner, so far as you can judge, resemble the meat that you examined? 
A. It would, perfectly, of course it being understood that meat plunged into 
boiling water would not by any means lose the amount of material which it would if 
put into cold water and gradually heated up, because of the coagulation on the sur- 
face, which would inclose naturally and resist the withdrawal of soluble matter. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I believe you spoke of these cans all being labeled, as far as you observed, as 
roast beef? 
A. Roast beef. A, B, and C were labeled "Prime Roast Beef." D, E, and F 
were labeled "Prime Roast Beef." G, H, and I "Extra Choice." Those are the 
Wilson Packing Company's. Again, J, K, and L, "Prime Roast Beef," Armour & Co. 
Q. As I understand your testimony-correct me if I am in error-you found that as 
a matter of fact it was not roast beef, but it was more in the nature of boiled beef, I 
believe. Did I so understand you? 
A. I expressed it, perhaps, less positively; stated that the indications were that it 
was meat which had been exposed rather to the action of water and heat instead of 
the ordinary roasting of the ordinary roast beef as we use the term ordinarily. 
Q. You did not find on any of these cans any label bearing any indication of boiled 
beef, I believe? 
A. No such suggestion. 
Q. Professor, I will ask you a question or two in regard to one point. It is claimed 
in the preparation of the so-called roast beef that at times there is some extract taken 
out, which is used in the nature of beef extract. I would ask you about the dis- 
tinction, which you would state-as a chemist and scientific man, between nutriment 
and stimulant, and what is the extract of beef? Does it take any part away from the 
meat that would be essential to the assimilation of food or meat from which it has 
been taken? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1407 
A. Ordinary beef extract, in my opinion, contains very little real, nutritive matter 
in the ordinary sense, the nutritive matter of the beef being protein and proteid and 
the fat. The beef extract contains essentially the mineral matter and the so-called 
extractives. As I state in the report, those doubtless do have a certain value, which 
are rather in the line, probably, of stimulants and of perhaps regulating the nutritive 
processes, but these crystalline, nitrogeneous bodies are allied, rather, to refuse matter. 
They are so nearly related to fecal products which are eliminated from the body that 
they are not to be classed, properly speaking, under the head of real food, except so 
far as they occasionally contain, and undoubtedly do, a small amount of albumenous 
matter, small amounts of gelatin, etc. 
Q. Then, as I understand, taken in connection with the protein, as you speak of 
that, the better food, then, for a man would be meat which did not have this extract 
boiled or taken out of it, or beef in its natural state, retaining all of its juices, would 
it not? That is more easily assimilated? 
A. On general principles, yes. It is a little difficult to discriminate between the 
real nutritive value of a substance as measured by calories, for example, or heat 
units, and that more subtle influence, which is perhaps semipsychological, which 
affects the secretions, etc. We all know, for instance, that the palate plays a pretty 
large part in the nutritive process. Sir William Roberts has said it is the dietetic 
conscience, and a food which, so far as chemical composition is concerned, may be of 
the requisite nutritive value, if it does not appeal to our senses and it is disagreeable 
to the eye or the nose, we are nauseated, we reject it. Those factors must of necessity 
have some consideration. 
Q. That is the point rather that I was getting at, and perhaps in order to get at it 
without delaying you too much, I understand you that an article of food may stand 
all the chemical tests. You may find all of this energy and things of that kind, yet 
a great many men may eat it and find that it will do them no good. It is offensive 
to the taste, it is offensive to the smell, and while it may, under chemical analysis, 
perhaps contain the exact elements that may be regarded as suitable for food, yet in 
practical experience with a soldier under his conditions of service it is rejected and 
not used. 
A. I hardly think, however, with the withdrawal of such agents as are referred to 
here-I hardly think the meat would be so affected without leaving its impress upon 
the composition in some degree. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Right in this connection, does the addition of this liquid gelatin in the cans 
supply in any particular those portions which have been removed? 
A. That I can not say, because I don't know what the gelatin added carries with 
it and where it was obtained. So for as my analyses go there is nothing to indicate 
a proportion of gelatin at all different from the samples of prime roast beef roasted 
in the oven and also boiled in the pot, with a saving of everything; so that it would 
depend, I should say, in part upon where this gelatin came from. If this gelatin which 
is added simply represents the gelatin formed from the colagen of the meat itself 
and then added, it is essentially the same thing. 
Major Lee. I believe that is all until I have prepared those questions. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as witness 
Lieutenant-Colonel Maus, of the Medical Department. 
TESTIMONY OF LIEUT. COL. L. M. MAUS. 
Lieut. Col. L. M. Maus was called by the recorder, and, having been first duly 
sworn, is examined. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 1408 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. L. M. Maus; lieutenant-colonel; chief surgeon of volunteers; surgeon, United 
States Army. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Will you please state to the court where you served and in what capacity during 
the late war with Spain, beginning at the beginning, sir? 
A. I served at Tampa, Fla., for a few days in May; Jacksonville, Fla., from the 
last of May until about the 20th of October; Savannah, Ga., until about the middle of 
December, and Habana, Cuba, until about the 17th of February last, as chief surgeon 
of the Seventh Army Corps. 
Q. During your experience that you have just described did the matter of food 
supply, as to the meat supply, come under your observation in any way, as to any 
complaints or any ill effects of any nature at any place or at any time during the 
service? If so, I would ask that you please go on in a narrative form and give all the 
information in your possession on the subject with reference to either canned roast 
beef or refrigerated beef. 
A. As chief medical officer of the Seventh Army Corps I visited the regimental 
kitchens and hospital kitchens from time to time throughout the summer, and 
examined as to the character of the foods and as to the methods of preparation. The 
meat foods issued there consisted of refrigerated beef, and they issued pork, break- 
fast bacon, and, I think, in the early part of the season, canned roast beef. Of that 
I am not sure, however. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. You are speaking of Jacksonville, are you? 
A. Yes, sir; Jacksonville particularly-Jacksonville, as a rule. There was very 
little complaint in the Seventh Army Corps in regard to the meat, the matter being 
looked after very carefully by the chief commissary, Colonel Wood and Major Ruth- 
ers, who are depot commissaries in the town where the meat was kept. The meat 
was issued to these regiments daily, and they hauled it over in their wagon directly 
to the kitchens and cooked it, because, as the weather was very hot during the sum- 
mer season, and very damp, very moist as well, and the regiments having no method 
of preserving this meat-no ice boxes, or anything of that sort-they naturally cooked 
it at once. They had to cook it very quickly, otherwise it would undergo a slight 
decomposition. It would become tainted. I think I remember on one occasion 
that one of the companies of the Second Illinos reported that the meat was very bad, 
the refrigerated beef, and this was after it had been cooked and eaten by the men. 
This particular case I remember because there were fifteen or twenty men that went 
into the hospital on account of fever, and I tried to ascribe the cause of this fever. 
Could not determine it, except it be the use of that particular beef that had been 
cooked. At least that was the impression of the surgeon, company commander, and 
myself. But apart from that one instance I do not know that there was much 
trouble in regard to refrigerated beef used on the Seventh Army Corps. 
As far as canned meat is concerned, I may simply state this: That early in the 
season there were one or two carloads of canned beef sent down there which were 
really unfit for use, and were never used at all. It was found so offensive that it 
could scarcely be handled at the cars. A board of survey was ordered to act upon it, 
and I think it was recommended to be carried out to the crematorium and burned; 
but I think the people afterwards-the Armours (I think it was the Armour Com- 
pany; I am not sure)-they took it away and disposed of it in some sort of a way. I 
will simply state that as a rule there was little complaint in regard to the meat down 
there at Jacksonville, because it was obtained right freshly and kept in the city of 
Jacksonville in a well-conducted warehouse by a very competent commissary, and 
issued, and cooked shortly after being issued; and I heard very little complaint 
about it. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1409 
Q. How did that refrigerated beef come there originally, if it passed under your 
observation in any way? 
A. I did not notice that-inspect it in the cars. 
Q. The one or two carloads of that bad canned beef that you referred to, you say 
from information that you believe Armour's agent took charge of it, and they prob- 
ably made some disposition of it. Is it within your knowledge, or have you any 
information, that they overhauled it and repacked it at that time, throwing out the 
worst of it that was there and taking the balance away? 
A. Yes, sir. There was a sorting process, as I remember it, and I remember there 
was some little joke in regard to the officers who were superintending the inspection 
of this meat, on account of the peculiar offensiveness of that special consignment. I 
do think that some of the cans that were not swollen were taken out. I don't 
remember the particulars. I was not specially interested. It was left to those 
officers. Colonel Guild was the inspection officer. We had mess with him every 
day. We discussed matters, and that question was discussed, I remember, at the 
table. I think Major Harrison, probably. 
Q. The Inspector-General? 
A. Was provost guard, I think, also on that board. They were down to look at it. 
I will say that the city authorities also took it up. I remember they had something 
to do with it, and I know it was recommended to be cremated at the crematorium there. 
They had a very good crematorium in Jacksonville, but I don't think it ever went 
out there. I think the Armour people, or whoever had sold it, took it away. 
Q. Overhauled it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That was the understanding or information-that they took charge of it and 
they would overhaul it and throw out the offensive cans, naturally? 
A. I question very much whether they retained any of it there. I think the whole 
thing was tabooed, as far as I remember. 
Q. I do not mean retained for issue, but from the information you had on the sub- 
ject and the talk on the subject and its condemnation by the Army, not being received 
from its offensive condition, the health officer taking it in hand, the point I want to 
get at is whether the offensive cans-the bursted cans, if any-would be thrown out 
and destroyed or be allowed to be transported over the country. 
A. I don't know what disposition was made of the bad meat. I know that it got 
back into the hands of the owners, and it was disposed of, and the question died 
away. I have never heard anything more of it after a short time. The case of the 
one company of the Second Illinois that had this bad or tainted meat cooked and 
eaten produced a large number of cases of gastro-intestinal irritation, purging, vom- 
iting, etc., and it was a very curious thing that the one company of that regiment 
sent a large proportion of cases of typhoid fever to the division hospital, the only 
company in the regiment at that time, and it became a very interesting matter, of 
course, to medical officers to determine where that particular typhoid fever came 
from, as this company was the one company in the regiment which was attacked; 
and as nearly every member of the company that ate of this meat was affected with 
gastro-intestinal irritation in the way of vomiting, purging, diarrhea, etc., and as a 
large number of these men afterwards, or shortly afterwards, say ten days or two or 
three weeks, were attacked with typhoid fever, we concluded that the meat had left 
an irritation in the intestinal canal and that it made them susceptible, at least, to the 
poison, probably in water or something they had drunk around there. 
Q. There was no complaint, was there, of the meat having been decomposed after 
being cooked? 
A. No; I investigated the matter and found out that the meat was apparently 
tainted, you know; that the cook acknowledged that that issue of the meat was tainted, 
simply a little, probably. I don't know whether it had undergone any special decom- 
S. Doc. 270 89 1410 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
position, but the cook admitted that it was a little tainted when he cooked it, but 
thought that it was on the surface and that they could overcome it by cooking, 
probably. 
Q. Had you any experience with the canned roast beef there other than what you 
have testified to about the one or two carloads? 
A. No. 
Q. No knowledge of it? 
A. No. Very little of it was used. 
Q. Was it ever issued to the troops down there? 
A. No; I think not. I think they used the refrigerated beef. 
Q. Since you have been in Cuba, Colonel, has the matter come to your knowledge 
or information as to the canned roast beef down there? 
A. No; we had no complaint whatever there in regard to the meat. I don't know 
whether they issued canned roast beef there. 
Q. You don't know that any of it is being issued there? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Whether to the Cubans or others? 
A. To the Cubans, yes, sir; at least I was informed down there in Cuba that they 
were issuing it. I know, in fact, that various vessels brought down a good deal of it. 
It was issued to the reconcentrados-the Cubans. 
Q. Since you have been there? 
A. Since I have been there, during the months of January and February. 
Q. It has not been issued to the troops? 
A. I think not. 
Q. Have you had any personal experience with it? 
A. No; I never did. We lived in the mess most of the time-that is, generail • in 
the staff-and we had refrigerated beef ourselves. We did not have canned beef at all 
in our mess, so I never saw it used. 
Q. It was on hand in the commissaries-kept there-was it not? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I believe that is all, Colonel, unless there are some other facts in connection 
with the beef that you have not stated. If so, state anything in connection with 
your service that has not been called out by special questions. 
A. The question of meat really cut very little figure in the Seventh Army Corps 
during that summer, and I presume that as at the very onset this thing occurred about 
the question of tainted meat and canned beef, that it made the division commissary 
peculiarly alive to the necessity of seeing that the beef was first class, and I think 
that question impressed itself on nearly all the officers in the entire organization, so 
much so that those who shipped the meat there no doubt were very careful to ship 
only the best kind, because we did not have any complaints as far as I remember. 
If there was any it was of a minor character. There may have been instances, and I 
think I do remember from time to time some of the companies claimed that the meat 
was bad, and we discussed the matter and we thought probably it was due to the 
lack of facilities for keeping this meat, because, you know, in a hot country with the 
thermometer 100 or 102 or 103 and the humidity almost up to rainfall-it was a very 
rainy season there-and the flies very numerous, it is a difficult matter to keep fresh 
meat any time at all, and these companies not having ice boxes, they would haul it 
right out there 1, 2, 3, and 4 miles and cook it at once, or as soon as they could get 
at it. 
Q. There are local refrigerators in town, I suppose, for keeping meat, or in the cars? 
A. Oh, yes; they kept it-as long as it was retained in the stores it was kept cool; 
but of course the transit over that distance, from 4 to 6 and 7 and 8 miles 
Q. Do you recollect whether they had a local refrigerator there; that is, a good 
cooling room in the city? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1411 
A. Yes, sir; they had. 
Q. Where they were keeping meat? I don't mean particularly this company, but 
whether there were large cooling rooms that the butchers had. 
A. Well, they had a very fine place there for keeping meat in the market, I know, 
but this meat was cared for down at the warehouse near the depot, as I remember, 
by the contractors. 
Q. You did not accompany the first expedition that went to Cuba-General 
Shafter's army? 
A. No, sir; I did not. 
Q. And you know nothing in regard to that matter? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Since you went to Cuba how was the meat supply carried on there? 
A. Being there in the winter, of course conditions were more favorable and the 
meat was issued there to the troops practically the same as it was in Jacksonville. 
They had refrigerator meat, and the corps was reduced from about 30,000 to 12,000, 
and things seemed to go along satisfactorily as far as meat was concerned. I heard 
no complaint about it. 
Q. The troops are located where they can be immediately supplied from the 
refrigerator? 
A. Yes, sir; they were contiguous to a point where they could get the meat very 
handily. 
Q. Your service in Cuba was at Habana, or was it farther out? 
A. It was upon the hills overlooking Habana-Camp Columbia. 
Q. Not at any interior points? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You do not know to what extent beef on the hoof may have been supplied to 
the troops in Cuba? 
A. No, sir; at that particular point it was not, because they had not the cattle 
there on the hoof. I know the local butchers had, for their local use, for the citi- 
zens, not for the Government. 
Q. Cattle for the people that had been brought in or that were being brought in? 
A. Yes, sir; brought in, shipped in and slaughtered. They had an abattoir right 
near, at the head of the bay, a very offensive place, where all the offal and so on 
emptied in the bay, a place known as Dead Man's Hole. 
Q. Under proper arrangements there would have been no difficulty in supplying 
troops around in that country by ships from the Gulf ports bringing cattle? 
A. Oh, no. 
Q. None at all? 
A. None at all. 
Q. And with proper arrangements for slaughtering and putting the meat into cool- 
ing places it could have been made quite as good as in other places? 
A. Oh, yes. 
Major Lee. I believe that is all. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. That would have been refrigerated beef, would it not? 
A. Yes; if it had been kept by a cooling process. 
By General Davis: 
Q. You spoke of this Second Illinois company, one company in the regiment that 
was affected? 
A. One company in the regiment. 
Q. And did you trace back this beef, or any noxious character of this beef, to any 
cause when you were looking this up? 
A. It was the issue beef. It was issued to this company and it appeared that other 1412 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
companies in that regiment did not have the same experience of that kind. Prob- 
ably this company got a piece of beef that was not very good, and it was cooked, 
and probably it should not have been cooked. 
Q. Do you know how long after its arrival it was cooked? 
A. It was not so very long. I remember there was a report made on the thing on 
that particular case. A medical report, I think, went to the Surgeon-General's Office. 
It was so unique that we should have a company of soldiers taken sick with typhoid 
fever as the result of meat that we naturally investigated the matter, and we thought 
probably, while we did not think it was the meat that produced the typhoid fever 
directly, yet we thought that it was the result of the irritation that made these men 
sick, and some of them wTere sick for two or three weeks afterwards, even though 
they did not have the fever, and a great many of these men became anaemic, and I 
remember it necessitated the use of iron, because they were run down, and then 
fifteen or twenty of them were taken with typhoid fever. 
Q. In respect to the two carloads of canned roast beef to which you have referred 
by hearsay, I understand you to say from hearsay you learned that the Armour agent 
overhauled those two carloads of beef and threw out the offensive cans and took the 
rest in the car and sent them off. Is that right? 
A. No; I did not say that. I know that the beef was to be-was ordered to the 
crematorium for burning by Colonel Guild or the city authorities. I rather think 
the city authorities regarded it as a nuisance and demanded that it should be sent 
there. 
Q. That part of it is in evidence, and we have quite full information on that; but 
now about the overhauling? 
A. I don't know about that positively. 
Q. Who told you it was overhauled and the bad cans thrown out? 
A. The fact is, I have no positive information on that point. There was a general 
discussion about that thing going on round about headquarters and the mess, and I 
can't say positively whether it was overhauled or not. 
Q. You can't say positively whether anybody told you it was overhauled or not? 
A. Oh, I think that I heard that they had overhauled it; yes, sir. 
Q. But you can't remember who said so? 
A. I don't remember who said so. 
General Davis. That is all. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. The information you have in regard to this beef that was alleged to have made 
the Second Illinois company sick comes solely from the cook, as I understand it, 
does it? 
A. No; it became a regimental matter. The colonel of the regiment, Colonel 
Moulton, was a very painstaking man, and a good many officers took an interest in 
that thing and looked the matter up pretty thoroughly. It became really a regi- 
mental affair, because it was a very curious thing that occurred-that a whole com- 
pany should have been taken sick after eating meat. 
Q. You say in your investigation you reached the information that this beef was 
tainted? 
A. Yes, sir; it was tainted. 
Q. You got that information from the cook? 
A. The surgeon told me that-the surgeon of the regiment. 
Q. And where did he get his information? 
A. Oh, well, he was the regimental surgeon, and as soon as the men were taken 
sick he at once went to the company and tried to find out the cause of the sickness, 
and investigated the thing very thoroughly. 
Q. We will leave the surgeon, because that is hearsay; but on your own informa- FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1413 
tion you say the meat was tainted, and you got that information from the cook. Is 
that it? 
A. Yes, sir; and from the company commander. I went down there myself and 
made a special investigation of the thing, because it was so unusual. I did not see 
the meat, nor sample it. 
Q. You did not see it? 
A. No, sir; it was after the meat had been eaten and the sickness had occurred 
that the attention of everybody was attracted to it, and then the cook told me that 
the meat had been tainted; that he recognized that before he cooked it. That, I 
think, was the unanimous opinion of everyone interested in the company kitchen. 
Q. Assuming that the meat was tainted, that the cook was right, would you have 
been surprised that the men were sick after eating it? 
A. Meat badly tainted-of course, I am not surprised at men vomiting and purg- 
ing, and so on, after eating tainted meat, especially if it was badly tainted. 
Q. It acts as a poison, does it not? 
A. It acts as an irritant. I think there were some ptomaines of some sort gen- 
erated, undoubtedly, that probably resulted in this severe gastrointestinal irritation. 
By General Davis: 
Q. How universal in the company was this sickness? 
A. There was a very large percentage of the men taken sick with the vomiting 
and purging, a large percentage of those men. 
Q. A hundred men in the company, or so? 
A. Yes, sir; there were close on to a hundred at this time. 
Q. Sixty or seventy men were taken sick? 
A. Yes, sir; I think about that many-about-and a large number of men remained 
sick for quite a long period after that. They were sort of weak, and so on; and then 
there were ten or fifteen or more of them that had typhoid fever. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Dr. Daniel A. Curry, of New Jersey. 
TESTIMONY OF DR. DANIEL A. CURRY 
Dr. Daniel A. Curry was called as a witness by the recorder, and, being first duly 
sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name and residence. 
A. Daniel A. Curry, Englewood, N. J. 
Q. Were you in the military service of the United States during the recent war 
with Spain? 
A. I was. 
Q. To what organization were you attached? 
A. I belonged to the Second New Jersey. 
Q. In what capacity? 
A. As lieutenant-colonel. 
Q. Where did your regiment 'serve? 
A. Served during the month of May at Sea Girt, N. J., where they were mus- 
tered in, and the balance of the service was at Jacksonville, Fla. 
Major Lee. Are there any other witnesses here whom I have asked for? 
The Recorder. This gentleman just reported. 
Major Lee. I was not aware that he was here. Did the Colonel state when he 
entered the service? 
The Recorder. Yes, and that he served in Jacksonville. 1414 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. When did you conclude your service in the regiment of which you were lieu- 
tenant-colonel? When were you mustered out? 
A. November 19. 
Q. And your entire service was at what place? At what place did you serve? 
A. At Sea Girt, N. J., and at Jacksonville. 
Q. Will you please state to the court, Colonel, in your capacity as field officer of 
your regiment, what knowledge, if any, you have of the meat rations, especially the 
beef ration, that was furnished your regiment at Jacksonville; whether there was any 
dissatisfaction or whether any evil results followed. State in a narrative form, fully, 
in answer to the question. 
A. I was detailed on the 16th of June to build a rifle range for the Second Division 
of the Seventh Corps, and had under my command a detail of 108 men, and was with 
those men all day at the sand hills where the rifle range was being constructed. 
Their dinner would be sent out to them from camp. There were nine regiments, and 
I had a detail of so many men from each regiment, making 108 men. Sometimes their 
dinner would come out and they could not eat it. They would eat the bread and 
throw away the meat. Of course, being on very intimate terms with them, they con- 
sulted me on all subjects relative to their health, knowing that I at one time was a 
physician. The meat that came out about the 4th of July or the 3d of July had been 
cooked, boiled with potatoes, tomatoes, and onions. It did not look like beef-looked 
more like salmon. That interested me very much-there being so many organiza- 
tions represented in one place, nine different organizations-nearly all the meat that 
came out, of those that had beef on that day, looked the same. When I went back 
to camp I went to one company of the Second Regiment-the one I was most inter- 
ested in, the one that I formerly commanded-and asked the cook, who, when at 
home, is a butcher-he was the assistant cook-what his experience had been with 
the beef that day. He laughingly replied that he did not have beef, that he had 
salmon, and I asked him if he had any samples of it. He said there was a piece in 
the refrigerator. Nearly all the companies in the Second Regiment built refrigera- 
tors of their own, company refrigerators; dug holes in the ground and put in a double 
lining and filled it with sawdust between, making a very good refrigerator, in which 
this butcher said he could keep meat better than he could at home. One peculiarity 
about this beef was that it kept so well, but it smelt so badly all the time-did not smell 
like beef. This kept on, off and on, not every day alike; a great many days I would 
hear no complaint about the beef. Upon this occasion, after eating the meat, there 
were very few men who showed up for duty on the following day, and 1 found that 
they had been ill with diarrhea and vomiting. Some of the men who did eat the 
meat said they vomited it two or three days afterwards in a very good state of pres- 
ervation. That, of course, I considered was an exaggeration. They probably vomited 
it during the night and some of them during the following afternoon, and there had 
been no digestion of the meat. This cook, who had a piece of the meat that he had 
not cooked, in the ice house, gave it to me. It looked dark where it had been cut 
with the knife. Otherwise you could pull it apart with your fingers, and it looked 
red inside and a pale color outside. Upon cutting it with a knife-with another knife- 
it looked dark. Upon testing this beef for salicylic acid, it showed a decided reaction 
to the test for salicylic acid. Upon one other occasion there was a great deal of sickness 
produced among the men, which they considered due to watermelons and beer; that 
is, their commandant did. Those men, when questioned by me at the range, said 
they had eaten no watermelons, and those who had had no trouble. Those who had 
not were very ill from eating something, I don't know what it was; and this investi- 
gation of mine was simply to find out what was the matter with my men, those that 
were under my immediate care. When I would go back to camp I would hear the 
same thing. The hospital steward's tent was almost in rear of my own, and I saw a FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1415 
great deal, and a great many of them would come to me and talk to me about their 
symptoms. I did not prescribe for any of them. I did not consider it my duty to 
do so. Upon one other occasion I examined the beef; took some over to a chemist 
in the city. We examined it for boracic acid, and it did show a boracic-acid reac- 
tion, but no salicylic acid. Those were the only two occasions that I made any 
investigations. 
Q. Colonel, will you please state what was the test or about when was that test 
when you found salicylic acid. Was that following the work on the rifle range? 
Was that the piece of beef you got from the cook who had been a butcher? 
A. Yes, sir; that beef was issued early in July. 
Q. Where was the test made? Where did you take that piece of beef? 
A. At my tent, and also over at the chemist's also. 
Q. You made two tests, then, at the chemist's? 
A. Yes, sir; each time for salicylic acid and each time for boracic acid. One time 
I found the salicylic acid reaction and the other time the boracic acid. The test for 
boracic acid is a very sensitive test, and I was not sure; but still I have investigated 
it further since, and found that the reactions were the same, with a solution which 
I knew contained boracic acid. 
Q. You made that subsequent test with a view 
A. With a view of substantiating the former test., 
Q. To determine whether that test was correct or not? 
A. Whether there was any foundation for my belief or supposition. 
Q. Who furnished this beef, if you know? Who was the contractor? I do not 
mean that you saw the contract, but as a matter of general information who was 
supposed to be the contractor supplying this beef? 
A. I don't know. I asked our commissary, Lieutenant Bell, and he said he was 
sick when that beef was issued. I asked the commissary sergeant, and one day he 
said it was Swift and the next day he said it was Armour, and subsequently I tried to 
find out from him, and he said he didn't know what it was; didn't know who 
issued it. I don't think he knew. I don't really think that anybody knew who 
furnished the beef. Not thinking at the time that it amounted to anything, I, of 
course, did not charge my mind with it at all. 
Q. Did not charge your mind with it at all? 
A. Did not charge my mind with it at all. I did not care anything about it. 
Q. That examination was made by you in conjunction with the chemist that was 
there at Jacksonville? 
A. Well, I used his apparatus. 
Q. You made the test? 
A. Yes, sir; I used his apparatus. I had nothing except in my tent. There was 
one test that I made there. 
Q. You have been a practitioner of medicine how long, Colonel? 
A. All my life; graduated when I was 23 years of age, and am about <50 years of 
age now, and have practiced medicine ever since. 
Q. Are you still engaged in the practice of your profession? 
A. Still engaged in the practice of medicine. 
Q. If there are any other facts in connection with this matter, or matters of this 
kind, that you have not fully stated, please go on and state them just as fully as 
though you were questioned, respectively, with respect to them. 
A. I have nothing further to say, only the one thing that bothers me most is to 
find out how this ever reached the War Department. I never told anyone, to my 
knowledge. I simply did it to try to help my detail out. There were a lot of good 
men picked out of nine regiments-picked men. I had just the kind of men I 
wanted, and I wanted to keep them well. They understood the sort of work they 
were doing, and it was pretty hard to change. I would say that as to my being 
here, I don't know why I am here or how I came here. 1416 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. That is, I understand you have manifested no eagerness or desire to come here 
in this case? 
A. No; not the slightest. 
Q. The facts remain true, however? 
A. Yes, sir; I did an appendicitis case last evening and then started for Washing- 
ton, and I don't know how my patient is. I was very loath to leave, but I supposed 
a summons of this kind was imperative and must be answered. 
Q. The experience you had with the canned roast beef, the canned boiled beef, or 
whatever it was, if you had any there, or any knowledge in regard to the canned 
roast beef, by information or otherwise, will you please state it fully to the court. 
A. Only to look at it; only to look at one can to see the sort of meat it was, to see 
if there was any substance in it, and if it was fit for my men to eat, and I did not 
consider it fit for them to eat and told them not to eat it. 
Q. Had it been drawn for your men, or was it simply brought out as a sample of 
what they might draw? 
A. The commissary brought over some and he said it was going to be issued on 
the morrow to the men, and he had two or three cans, and opened one, and it smelt 
very badly and looked very badly, and he pulled out a long piece of meat that was 
curled up and packed down in this can, and then there seemed to be a lot of melted 
tallow poured down on it so as to fill up the interstices, to fill up the can. The meat 
was stringy and smelled badly, and seemed to have no substance in it when I 
chewed it. 
Q. What brand was it, if you remember? 
A. No; I don't remember anything about it. 
Q. What was its label? 
A. It was very disgusting. 
Q. What was it labeled? 
A. Roast beef. 
Q. You say this meat was rather in a long string? 
A. It was about so wide [illustrating], and a long strip. It was curled up and 
stuck down into the can. 
Q. From what part of the animal would you describe it as cut? 
A. I should think it probably came from the flank. It looked like a flank stew 
used to look when it was cut up. 
Q. From your personal examination of it, about what per cent of it was meat? 
Was it a pound can, or about 3 or 4 or 6? 
A. I think it was a 6-pound can. 
Q. A 6-pound can? 
A. Yes, sir; and I should judge that about 4 j or 5 pounds of it was substance, and 
the rest was melted tallow. 
Q. None of it appeared edible? 
A. No; it did not. 
Major Lee. I believe I have no further questions to ask the Colonel. 
Cross-examination by the Recorder: 
Q. How large a piece of meat was this that the cook had in his possession, that 
you examined? 
A. Oh, it looked like a nice roast, 7 or 8 pounds; about 7 pounds, I should say. 
Q. Was it from the ribs? 
A. It was a rib roast. 
Q. How large a piece of it did you take for your experiment? 
A. About a quarter of a pound. 
Q. What was the appearance of this beef at the surface? 
A. Pale. It looked pale on the surface. 
Q. And on the interior? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1417 
A. Where it had been cut with a knife it looked dark, as I said before. When it 
touched iron it became dark. Iron darkened it; blackened it. 
Q. Did you infer from that that the acids, if any were used, were in the entire sub- 
stance of the meat? 
A. I thought that it had been soaked in it; dipped in it; soaked in it. 
Q. Well, would a quarter of beef have been soaked, or would it have been cut and 
the pieces soaked? 
A. I should think a quarter. This was on the surface. 
Q. You think it had been applied to the surface? 
A. The effect of this discoloration, you know, would be on the surface. It would 
be carried through the beef with the knife in streaks-the center of the beef. 
Q. Your inference, then, was that it had been applied to the surface and not injected? 
A. My idea was that it had been soaked in the fluid. 
Q. And that in order to turn it dark, some of the salicylic acid was taken from the 
surface and carried with the knife? 
A. It would have to come in contact with iron in order to render it dark. It did 
not become dark until it touched the iron; a rusty knife or something like that. 
Q. How long had it been in the possession of the cook? 
A. Issued that morning. 
Q. When -was it your idea that the salicylic acid had been applied? 
A. I could not tell anything about that. 
Q. Assuming that it had been applied, how long would it remain if subjected to 
heat? 
A. It would remain there indefinitely. It would remain as long as the meat 
remained. 
Q. The acid wTould? 
A. Yes, sir; it is an excellent preservative. 
Q. What evidences of its presence were there at the surface? 
A. Except that the meat looked paler on the surface than it did inside. If you 
raised the surface and looked under, the meat looked better inside. 
Q. What was your experiment for salicylic acid? 
A. The usual test; iron test. I soaked this piece of meat in water and filtered it 
through cotton, and filtered some more of it through litmus paper, and filtered 
some of it through six thicknesses of gauze, and even then it was the same. I tried 
to filter it out-get everything out. 
Q. Tell us what the test is. 
A. With the tincture of iron. 
Q. What sort? 
A. The muriated tincture. 
Q. Muriate of iron? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. A tincture of the muriate of iron? 
A. A tincture of the muriate of iron, or a tincture of the chloride of iron, which 
are the same. 
Q. What was the reaction with it? 
A. The reaction was a purple reaction. 
Q. What was the test for boracic acid? 
A. The boracic-acid test is a more delicate test. I made use of the tumeric paper, 
dipping the tumeric paper into the solution, the suspected solution, and it turned it 
to an orange. Then treating that again with aqua ammonia turned it to a dark 
brown. 
Q. Did you find both acids present? 
A. I found both acids present; yes, sir. 
Q. In the same meat? 1418 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Not in the same meat; no. The boracic acid was found in the second exam- 
ination. We could not find them both in the same meat very well. 
Q. What report did you make of ti .is? 
A. I made no report at all. It was simply my own investigation. I said nothing. 
Q. You said it caused sickness among your command. Why did you not make 
any report? 
A. I said nothing to anyone. I supposed that would be a matter for the Medical 
Department to investigate. I presumed that they would do it. 
Q. How would the Medical Department know it if it was not brought to their 
attention? 
A. They would know it in the same way I did. I think they ought to know it in 
about the same way I did. 
Q. Then as an officer of the rank of lieutenant-colonel you made this discovery 
and made no report whatever of it. Is that the case? 
A. Oh, well, I said nothing about my investigations to anyone. I do not know 
that I mentioned the investigations to anyone. Perhaps I might have done so inad- 
vertently, but I spoke to the surgeons of our regiment and told them I thought this 
meat was being tampered with, and that it would be well to investigate it. 
Q. What action was taken, if you know? 
A. That I can't tell you, sir; I don't know that any was taken. I spoke to the 
surgeon and spoke to his three assistants several times; said that I did not think it 
was all watermelons and lemonade and ice cream; that I thought the meat was being 
tampered with. I did not consider that it was my place. , I had on other occasions 
made suggestions which were very ill received. 
Q. To whom? 
A. To the surgeon; and I did not like to have the same experience repeated, to be 
honest with you. 
Q. Did you make any report to the regimental or brigade commander? 
A. No, sir; except that I did mention the fact to General Arnold, the division 
commander. 
The Recorder. Has the court any questions? 
By General Davis: 
Q. Did you mention this to General Arnold at the time of the occurrence or shortly 
after the occurrence? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How many men did you say you had in this command, fixing up the target 
range? 
A. One hundred men. 
Q. And all the organizations in the division were represented? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Each regiment supplied 12 men? 
A. Each regiment supplied 12 and there were 9 regiments. 
Q. And were they divided among the companies in the same way? 
A. Twelve from each regiment; yes. 
Q. Twelve companies in the regiment? 
A. Twelve companies in the regiment. 
Q. One man from each company? 
A. One man from each company. 
Q. And then the food was sent out to you from the camp of the regiment? 
A. Sent out from each company. Each company sent out-each regiment would 
send out to the 12 men that were there their dinner. 
Q. How far was the working place from the camp? 
A. Two miles. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1419 
Q. So then there were 108 different cooks involved in the preparation of this food, 
or 108 men? 
A. I presume so. There were three cooks to each company. 
Q. Supposing there was only one to a company? 
A. Well, all right. 
Q. One hundred and eight different companies or company kitchens involved in 
the preparation of this food? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And the men were all made sick, or how many of them? 
A. Not all made sick. 
Q. How many? 
A. All the men who had that beef sent to them that day, the beef that looked 
like salmon, • 
Q. How many men were made sick that dav about i ow many? 
A. The following day there were only 24 men eported for duty at the range. 
Q. So there were 84 men made sick by it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And they came from 84 different companies? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And the one case you followed up in camp, and got the cook to show you a 
piece of the meat, that was in your own regiment? 
A. Yes, sir; he was a butcher. 
Q. Eighty-four men were made sick by eating something, which you did not make 
the basis of any official report, as I understand, any formal report? 
A. I did not. I supposed that that was the way the meat was all treated. The 
cook said he had had such meat before, and there were other peculiarities about the 
meat that he explained to me at the time that I paid no attention to. The men 
were healthy and they ate everything they could get hold of, and drank a great deal 
of lemonade and stuff which General Arnold was very much opposed to, and as soon 
as the leases expired the general closed up those stands, so that by the middle of 
August he had the greater majority of them closed up within his division, within 
the points within his jurisdiction. 
Q. How long after this experience on the target range was it that you made your 
second examination for chemicals? 
A. That came about a week or ten days later, nearly the 1st of August. I had 
two companies detailed. After the range was built I lived at the range, stayed there 
and took charge of it, and did the work, and upon two or three occasions I took my 
lunch with Company G, of the Second Regiment, and I ate some roast beef and was 
very sick that night. The beef did not seem to have digested much, and the next 
day I thought I had better investigate the beef again. I found no trace of salicylic 
acid, no evidences of it when cut with a knife, or laid against an iron pan or anything 
of that kind. It showed no reaction, and then I tested it for boracic acid with the 
result that I have named. 
Q. In the work on the target range were you there several days, or only one day? 
A. I was there every day; I was detailed there on duty. 
Q. And did this percentage of 84 men out of 108 sick continue during the whole 
time, or was that only on one occasion? 
A. That was only one day. They all turned up the following day. 
Q. You camped at Jacksonville quite a number of weeks. You were on duty there 
for quite a while, were you not? 
A. I lived in the regiment. 
Q. You were on duty with your regiment there? 
A. Yes, sir. 1420 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. For several weeks? 
A. Yes, sir; I was there from the 1st of June until we came home. 
Q. Did you have any other cases of sickness of that kind in camp from eating the 
beef? 
A. Yes, sir; I heard of others and saw others. 
Q. Was it common, frequent, continuous? 
A. A great many men came to me and told me all about their symptoms; that 
they had been sick, and had thrown up this beef after eating it, the beef they ate 
yesterday or two or three days ago, and everything of that kind. Well, you have to 
make allowances for all those things with the men. 
Q. Did they habitually use fruits and watermelons, and so on? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you suspect that they had any deleterious effect? 
A. Yes, sir; I think they did, but I did not think they caused all the trouble. I 
am sure they did not. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. You state, Colonel, that you made this report of your suspician to the surgeon 
of the regiment? 
A. Yes, sir; and three assistant surgeons. 
Q. Was this after one of your investigations or not? 
A. Yes, sir; it was after the first one. 
Q. In your testimony you say that you told this surgeon that you thought the 
meat had been tampered with? 
A. Yes, sir; that I was quite positive the meat had been tampered with. 
Q. And you did not tell him you had made an examination to satisfy yourself that 
it had been tampered with? 
A. I talked to him in a general way about what I had seen, what the iron would 
do, and that sort of a test. 
Q. But did you not tell him anything about the second test that you had made? 
A. I did. I told him that I could show him-that I would take the liberty of 
showing him on a piece of fresh beef, the commonest, easiest test that we had for 
salicylic acid, right in my quarters. 
Q. Did you tell him that you had made the test-that you had discovered the 
salicylic acid? 
A. Well, my former experience in other matters deterred me from making any 
suggestions, because they were very ill received. They were not received cheerfully. 
Q. Did you or did you not tell him you had discovered salicylic acid? 
A. I may have told him, and that may be where this came from. I may have told 
him. I don't remember telling him, as I didn't intend to tell him. 
Q. What did the surgeon say when you spoke to him? 
A. Well, he thought if the men would behave themselves and eat what food they 
got, they would not be sick; if they would just eat the food that was furnished to 
them, that they would not be sick. 
Q. Now, in regard to this canned roast beef that you opened, you say you opened 
it up and that you tasted it. Am I right? 
A. Yes, sir; took a piece of it and chewed it and spat it out. It did not smell 
good. It did not smell decomposed, it did not smell decayed, but it smelled unpleas- 
antly-very unpleasantly-had a very unpleasant, heavy odor. 
Q. I will ask you one more question. Coming back to this refrigerated beef, what 
was the general appearance of that beef? Was it firm, solid, well-appearing beef? 
A. The beef looked very well, except that it was very pale on the surface. 
Q. Was it hard or soft to the touch? 
A. When it first came into the camp it looked firm. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1421 
By General Davis: 
Q. What previous military service have you had, Colonel? 
A. None, except in the National Guard, sir. 
Q. That is what I mean. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How long? 
A. Ten years. 
Q. And you were in service here for something like six months? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And as commanding officer of a detachment of troops on special duty under 
your order, you found 84 men. out of 108 made sick by eating beef? You examined 
the meat and found a drug in it, and made another examination and found another 
drug, and spoke to the surgeon of the food making your men sick, but did not report 
to him or anybody the presence of those drugs. Is that right? 
A. I may have reported to him the result of the first examination. I told him 
that I felt very certain the meat had been tampered with and that I could show him 
positive evidence if he would step into my quarters; that I would give him a test on 
the first piece of meat that I found. He was not present. He was not at home; had 
gone out of the camp, I think, to spend the Fourth of July, and not seeing him 
about, I think, was the reason I did not go to him at once and tell him. 
Q. Your immediate commanding officer was the colonel of your regiment, after 
you returned? 
A. Colonel Hine. 
Q. He was your immediate commanding officer? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you report all these facts to him? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. All about what drugs you found? 
A. No; I did not. 
Q. Is that your conception of military duty? 
A. I did not tell him I found it at all. I told him it was my supposition that the 
meat had been tampered with, and that it was injected with salicylic acid or boracic 
acid; that those were my honest convictions; and he said it did not bother him any, 
he could eat anything, he could digest salicylic acid or anything else; did not care 
what it was. 
Q. I understood you to say in the early part of your examination that you did 
not mention this to anybody. 
A. Oh, no; I did not say so. I said that I had not mentioned the fact of my 
making an analysis of the beef to anyone. I don't remember that I ever said it to 
anyone. I told them what my suppositions were, that the beef had been tampered 
with, that it had been injected with salicylic acid and boracic acid. A great many 
years ago when Swift's beef was first introduced into the Eastern market, I found 
that the beef had been injected with salicylic acid. That is ten or eleven years ago, 
so that it was fresh in my memory. I had made an analysis. I had such beef sent 
to my house, furnished by a butcher in the city where I live. 
Q. So you regarded it as a practice, that the use of these drugs is common by Swift 
& Co.? 
A. I presumed so. I had read about the beef being warranted to keep so many 
hours. I did not see how any firm could issue beef and warrant it to keep so many 
hours unless they knew how it had been treated. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Where had you read about the beef being warranted to keep so many hours? 
A. I saw it in the papers. 1422 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. At about the time you made these observations? 
A. Yes, sir; a little before that. 
Q. What day was it that you were on duty at the target range? 
A. I started on the target range on the 16th of June and remained there right 
through. 
Q. And before that date you had read of the beef being guaranteed to keep seventy- 
two hours? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You speak now of the beef being injected, and the beef that you examined you 
spoke of as having the chemical applied to the surface. 
A. Well, that is a very mild way of putting it. 
Q. There is a difference between injection and surface application. I want to get 
the matter as it lies in your mind now. Is it or was it your belief at the time that 
those chemicals had been introduced into the meat by injection or by surface appli- 
cation? 
A. That is what I thought-that it had been injected. 
Q. Which? 
A. I thought it had been injected. That was what was in my mind first. 
Q. Injected? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you mean by that arterial injection? 
A. Arterial injection. 
Q. Who was the surgeon of your regiment? 
A. Dr. Adams. 
Q. Does he live in New Jersey? 
A. He lives in New Jersey. 
Q. Who were the assistant surgeons? 
A. Dr. Blundell, of Paterson. Dr. Bryan was the first assistant, Dr. Blundell was 
next, and a young man from Paterson, whose name has slipped my mind, was third- 
junior. 
Q. What is the residence of the surgeon-the major? 
A. Hackensack. 
Q. What are his initials? Do you remember those? 
A. Charles F. Adams. 
Q. Do you remember the initials of the others? 
A. No; I don't remember them and I don't remember the name of the third 
assistant. It is very familiar to me. 
Q. What is the colonel's name? 
A. Colonel Hine. 
Q. Where does he live? 
A. He resides at Orange. 
The Recorder. I have no other questions. 
Redirect examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Doctor, or Colonel, how many of the 84 men belonged to your regiment-the 84 
men whom you understood, from the fact that they had not reported, that they were 
sick? 
A. There would be 12 who belonged to my regiment. 
Q. Twelve of the 84? There were 108 altogether? 
A. One hundred and eight. 
Q. And none on that particular day reported from your own regiment, as you 
remember? 
A. No; there were none reported from the Second Regiment-none at all. 
Q. These men were not changed in detail from day to day, were they; it was a 
continuous detail, was it not? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1423 
A. Continuous. 
Q. Now, I would like to have you indicate to the court the names of, say, 6 men 
from your own regiment, and how the names could be obtained of, say, from 2 of 
each of the other regiments. There were 9. Twice 8 are 16, making in all about 22 
witnesses. Can you furnish those names to the court? Can you furnish to the court 
the names of some of those men who ate the meat and who know whether it madt^ 
them sick or not? 
A. I don't think I can here. I know the 12 men I can pick out from my list. I 
know I had a book of names on it, and called the roll. 
Q. Have you the book with you? 
A. No, sir; I called the roll night and morning. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I would like to have the court direct that the 
12 witnesses from the Colonel's regiment, who were there, who worked with him 
on that detail, be subpoenaed to testify in this case. They are all probably acceptable. 
Q. At the time you spoke of you investigated this matter mainly on your personal 
responsibility, did you not? 
A. Entirely so. 
Q. You had no charge of the feeding of the men in any of the 9 regiments, had 
you, at all, except to keep them well, so as to get the range completed? You were 
working these men on duty under your orders? 
A. Yes, sir; they were working very hard, too, under General Arnold's orders. 
Q. Under General Arnold's orders? 
A. General Arnold's. 
Q. And when this matter came up you were in charge of the men and they reported 
to you every day, as I understand, coming from the camp, or did they remain there? 
A. No; they went back to their regiments every night. 
Q. And you did not feel that your charge of the men, as to their health or sickness- 
as to their health or sickness in camp--your charge of the men did not extend that far? 
A. Not at all. We had at that time no surgeon detailed for the range. Subse- 
quently it became necessary to have a surgeon detailed on duty there all the time. 
Q. You were never called to account, were you, by General Arnold for any failure 
or neglect of your duty as an officer in any way? 
A. Never. 
Q. You spoke to General Arnold, I believe, about this matter? 
A. I did. 
Q. Expressed it in a casual way? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you consider it your duty to make an official report over the heads of the 
medical officers of these various regiments where their men would be listed if sick? 
A. I did not. I felt it a very delicate matter, indeed. 
Q. Did General Arnold give you any instructions when you mentioned the matter, 
that you thought perhaps something was wrong with the beef? Did he put upon you 
any special duty from the fact that you were a lieutenant-colonel building a target 
range, although you had been a doctor, or indicate that he desired to have you 
detailed to look after this health question? 
A. No, sir. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, can not the witness take a little part in this 
examination? 
Major Lee. Yes. 
The Recorder. The questions being asked and answered by the counsel for the 
Major-General Commanding. This is your own witness, and I question as to whether 
you have a right to ask such leading questions. It is not a cross-examination. This 
is your own witness. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I have not objected to any leading questions. 1424 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
With all due deference, I have seen the information practically given to the witness, 
and I have not objected. This witness was called suddenly into court. I was not 
aware of his presence. I had asked for him, but I had not had a moment's chance 
to interview him, and I did not want to delay the time of the court. The witness, 
happening to be a medical officer, a medical practitioner, has been questioned very 
rigidly in regard to what might seem an apparent neglect of duty, and I want to 
show by this witness that he did endeavor in an honest and an earnest way, as an 
officer, to perform his duty. I wanted to show that much by the witness. I wanted 
to see whether he had that conception of duty which would lead him into the medical 
department, take upon himself functions of the medical department. I wanted to see 
whether he had interested himself in the welfare of his men. In other words, I was 
seeking to protect the witness, who was endeavoring to give honest and straight 
testimony. That was my intent. My means, perhaps, may be a little erroneous at 
times. 
The Recorder. I still continue to express the hope that any subsequent questions 
that are put will be put in such a way as to give the witness an opportunity to answer 
of his own knowledge. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I must object to these criticisms on my efforts 
to bring out the truth from the witness. If there is any objection to my examination 
of this witness, I will dismiss him and let him go, but I am trying to get at some of 
the facts. I may not frame the questions according to the strict legal technicality, 
but I will endeavor to proceed with reasonable bounds. If the lines are to be drawn 
with strictness, let them be drawn all around. Let me know something about these 
matters in regard to witnesses. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Colonel, you may please state to the court whether or not you were in com- 
mand of your regiment at the time that you were in command of the construction of 
the target range? 
A. I was detailed by General Arnold on special duty to build this rifle range. 
Q. Please state to the court whether or not men came to you officially or person- 
ally or in what way, to speak to you of their complaints, and why, if you know. 
A. I think they simply came to me, knowing that I was a physician, and I told 
them I could not practice medicine and could not do anything that way. It was well 
enough to talk to them. I gave them all the advice I could without prescribing for 
them; what to eat and what to drink and how to live. 
Q. Please state to what extent your duties, if to any extent, required you to make 
reports to the surgeon in regard to matters occurring in camp, if any, while you were 
away from camp on special duty. Answer it in your own way. 
A. There being no surgeon detailed at the range during the time of its construc- 
tion, these men would fall ill at work and think they had yellow fever, because they 
were working nearby the old yellow fever cemetery. Eight or ten years ago the city 
of Jacksonville lost 4,000 of its inhabitants by this disease and they were all buried 
nearby where this range was being built, and in making our excavation for rifle pits 
we dug dow n as far as we could, about 5 feet. That was as far as we could go. Then 
we came to quicksand and water, and the water smelt very unpleasantly, and they 
considered that that water came from the cemetery, and made them sick, and refused 
to work; and I explained to them, and I had to go to the health authorities in the 
city and get one of the doctors to give me a certificate to the effect that there was no 
possible danger from contagion of yellow fever in that locality at the present time, 
whereupon they went to work and I had no more trouble of that kind. As soon as 
I saw they were ill I would send them home; tell them to go back to their regiments 
and report to their surgeons. 
Q. Direct them to report to their surgeons? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1425 
A. Directed each man to go right back to his regiment and to report to his surgeon. 
Q. State whether or not you would go in each case and make a report to the sur- 
geon or would you simply send the man. 
A. No; I simply told him to return to his regiment and report to his surgeon, giv- 
ing him a note that he was on my detail, and as soon as he was well for him to report 
for duty at once. 
Q. Do you know whether or not meat that is chemically treated by injection or by 
surface treatment, if there be any real distinction between the two, or from obser- 
vation through the service, whether or not any of these materials are claimed to be 
and are in fact harmless? If so, within your experience, state what, if any, the popu- 
lar names of such chemicals are, or what, if any, they are. 
A. Well, they would be termed preservatives. Salicylic acid is one of the best 
preservatives known, to preserve fresh meat, chicken, fowls of all kinds, and it is a 
very easy matter to find out in fowls, if you take the trouble to look. 
Q. How as to boracic acid? Have you any knowledge or opinion on that subject? 
A. Boracic acid is not so good a preservative and it does not produce such violent 
attacks of indigestion. Meat treated with salicylic acid is very difficult to digest, 
unless it is boiled, cooked up with vegetables. Put it in with vegetables, onions, 
carrots, and potatoes, and boil it up and make a stew out of it, that neutralizes to a 
certain extent the hurtfulness of the drug, renders it more digestible, but roasted or 
fried it is very indigestible. Some people can not digest it. 
Q. You referred in your testimony to the fact that a number of years ago you had 
investigated the matter in regard to the treatment of beef, mentioning Swift & Co., 
and the meats purchased in your town. I wish you would please state to the court 
what those investigations were, and whether they have continued, and whether your 
observation has been similar or to the contrary. Answer fully. 
A. Eleven years ago I discovered-I had meat sent to my family that had been 
treated with salicylic acid to preserve it. Refrigerator cars were not very perfect at 
that time, and meats being brought from Chicago to New York and transferred out to 
our city, caused me to suspect, it being in such a handsome, well-preserved condition 
as it appeared to be, that there must be something the matter with it. I then with- 
out any trouble detected salicylic acid in that meat and did not purchase any more. 
I told the butcher that it had been treated with salicylic acid, and that I did not 
think that he should deal in that sort of beef further, that he would hurt his trade 
and hurt his customers' digestion very much. I did not purchase any more meat 
from him. He said he would discontinue it, and I believe that he did discontinue it 
for a while. 
Q. Following it on down from that time 
A. I have made other investigations since that. I made an investigation two 
months ago and found beef with salicylic acid in it. 
Q. Please state where it was. 
A. It was in my own house. 
Q. And where did it come from? 
A. It was in my own house, in my own office, and it was Armour's beef, sent from 
Armour's wagon right into the city. 
Q. What city? 
A. Englewood. 
Q. Please state the examination you made-just what it was. 
A. The examination was the same as that I have already stated. It was a simple 
test of tincture of chloride of iron. That is all. 
Q. You discovered what? 
A. I discovered evidences of salicylic acid. 
Q. On the outside of the meat-you have testified in regard to that. Is there any 
evidence of this surface treatment that would be ordinarily visible to the casual 
S. Doc. 270 90 1426 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
observer, or would it simply change the color of the beef slightly? What would be 
the indications, if any, that would be noticeable? 
A. The meat that I have examined has looked paler-paler on the surface, paler 
throughout than other beef not similarly treated. There is nothing to the smell. 
There is no taste. On the tip of the tongue you can detect a difference. 
Q. What is that treatment? Is it the surface treatment or some other treatment? 
A. My impression is that it is injected-arterial injection. 
Q. Did you ever observe or make any investigation of any meat where it might be 
due to some surface treatment, as of rubbing on, or rubbing down, or a wash, or, in 
fact, any treatment of the surface for the purpose of absorbtion or for the purpose of 
excluding the air or otherwise? 
A. I treated a piece of solid meat, 4 inches square. I first ascertained nothing 
deleterious. I soaked it in a 20 per cent solution of boracic acid for fifteen minutes. 
I took it out and examined the outside. I cut a slice off the outside and examined 
that and soaked it in water. I filtered the water through cotton and examined the 
residuum. That contained salicylic acid. I knew it did. I cut a piece out of the 
surface, out of the center, farther down into the center, and found a very slight 
trace. Exactly in the center there was no trace whatever. I believe if the beef had 
been allowed to lay there over night that it would have been saturated throughout 
with the solution. 
Q. You express an opinion, you say, as to the matter of injection, and as to this 
beef that you had treated or had tested at Jacksonville. Do you wish the court to 
understand that it is your positive opinion that the meat had been injected by arte- 
rial injection or treated in some other way; if so, in what other way? 
A. My impression was that it was so well done that it had been injected. 
Q. That is merely your opinion? 
A. That is merely my opinion. It is merely an opinion also that it was soaked in 
it, or that the whole carcass had been immersed in a vat containing a solution of 
salicylic acid. It is only an assertion. I believe it can be treated both ways. I 
know from my experiments that it can be. 
Q. Have you ever heard anything of the Powell process in connection with this 
beef question? 
A. No, sir. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I believe I have no further questions for the 
witness; but before the witness is dismissed I may want to recall him for, perhaps, a 
question or two this afternoon at 2 o'clock. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. What use did you make of the discovery that you made two months ago of the 
presence of salicylic acid in the meat examined by you in Englewood? 
A. I made no use of it at all. 
Q. Is there any law in the State of New Jersey against the adulteration of food? 
A. Not to my knowledge. You can do most anything in New Jersey. They kill 
horses and eat them over there. 
Q. The question was whether you knew of the existence of any law against the 
adulteration of food in New Jersey? 
A. There is, regarding milk, a very strict law. That is the only one that I am 
aware of. 
By Major Lee. 
Q. They have a system of inspection in the larger towns and cities, do they not, 
of meats? I mean some sort of inspection of a police or local character. That is a 
matter of general information. I am asking you the question. 
A. Yes; they do have; that is, regarding the cleanliness of them, such as the fish 
markets. The board of health has charge of that matter in our city. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1427 
By the Recorder: 
Q. You spoke of the beef that you tested some years ago-nine, ten, or eleven 
years ago, as I remember-as furnished by Swift? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Please state to the court, to the best of your knowledge, from whom that beef 
was received. Who was the packer or maker? 
A. It was purchased in Jersey City from a house labeled "Swift's Chicago Beef." 
That is all I know about it. 
(The witness was directed to return at 2 o'clock.) 
Major Lee. Before the court takes a recess, I would like to ask, as the letter from 
the Major-General Commanding, of yesterday, was made a part of the record with 
reference to the request for witnesses, that the reply to the Major-General Command- 
ing, written by the recorder, and dated April 4, and the further reply of the Major- 
General Commanding to the above letter, be made a part of the record. If there is 
no objection I would like to read them. 
There was no objection and Major Lee read the two letters above referred to, as 
follows: 
y Rooms of the Court of Inquiry, Lemon Building, 
Washington, April 4, 1899. 
Sir: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of the 3d instant, inclosing 
the final list of witnesses. 
I am directed to say that such of the persons named as appear from the statement 
submitted to be in possession of facts not already covered by the testimony of wit- 
nesses will be summoned to appear with the least possible delay, and I remain, 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
George B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Maj. Gen. Nelson A. Miles, 
Commanding United States Army, Washington, D. C. 
Headquarters of the Army, 
Washington, April 4,1899. 
Sir: Your letter of to-day is received. 
Referring to the list of witnesses-131 in number-I would respectfully invite your 
attention to my letter of February 22, in which I stated that I deemed "the matter 
under investigation of such vital import in relation both to the health and to the 
honor of the United States Army that I respectfully request that company commanders 
and the enlisted men of their commands-even to include, if necessary, every soldier 
who served in the field during the war-be called upon to bear witness before your 
court (either by oral testimony or in answer to your interrogatories) as to the results 
of their own personal experiences with the beef ration issued to them." It is my 
belief that at least 25,000 men, and undoubtedly a much greater number, would con- 
firm the testimony that has already been given-that a portion of the food supplied 
the Army was unwholesome and unsuitable for use. I therefore request that the 
small number of witnesses whose names have just been submitted may be called upon 
to give their testimony before your court; and in regard to its being a final list, as I 
stated in my letter yesterday, I do consider it, although such additional names may 
be added as circumstance may develop the necessity therefor. 
Very respectfully, 
Nelson A. Miles, 
Major-General, Commanding. 
The President of the Court of Inquiry, 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C. 
The court then (at 12.50 p. m.) took a recess until 2 o'clock. 1428 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
ABTER RECESS. 
The court reassembled at the expiration of the recess. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to recall Dr. Curry as a 
witness. 
TESTIMONY OF DR. DANIEL A. CURRY-Recalled. 
Dr. Daniel A. Curry was recalled by the recorder as a witness, and, being warned 
that he was still under oath, testified as follows: 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Doctor, I would like to ask you in regard to your discharge from the service and 
your muster out. Did you receive a formal discharge from the service? 
A. I did. 
Q. Have you it with you? 
A. No, sir; I did not bring it with me. I did not know what was required of me 
at all. 
Major Lee. If it please the court, that was hardly required; but still I would like, 
in the absence of the discharge paper that he received as lieutenant-colonel of the 
Second New Jersey, if there be no objection to it, to have him state by whom it was 
signed, to avoid recalling the Doctor, and also have him state what remarks were 
made on it. 
The Recorder. I have no objection. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Will you please state to the court, according to the best of your recollection, 
what your discharge contains as to the record of your service and as to any remarks. 
A. Honorable mention was made by General Arnold as to the services I rendered 
as inspector of small arms. That is all. 
Q. How was this honorable mention made, in a communication? 
A. The General wrote me a letter stating that he had made honorable mention to 
the War Department. 
Q. Do you recall what remarks were put upon the back of your muster out or dis- 
charge, as to character, reputation, or anything of that kind, if there was anything 
noted on it? 
A. No, sir; there was nothing noted on that at all-only a personal letter from 
General Arnold stating what he had done. 
Q. Only the personal letter? 
A. Only the personal letter from General Arnold to me stating what he had done in 
the matter. 
Q. Can you recall from memory what that was a little more fully than a mere 
general remark as to the letter? 
A. In reference to that, the General stated that the War Department had requested 
him to send in detail a statement of the small-arms practice in his division, and 
that in making that statement to the War Department he had made honorable men- 
tion of the excellent service that I had rendered in the service as instructor of small 
arms in the Second Division, Seventh Army Corps. Those are the exact words, as 
near as I can remember. 
Q. Will you please state to the court your official capacity and the extent of your 
service with the National Guard, and with what organization? 
A. I have always served with the Second New Jersey, first as private, from a 
private to a captain, from a captain to a major, from a major to a lieutenant-colonel. 
Q- About how long were you a private, as near as you can remember? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1429 
A. I was not a private very long; about a month. 
Q. Were you then a noncommissioned officer? 
A. Not a noncommissioned officer. I was elected from the ranks. 
Q. As captain of the company? 
A. As captain of the company. 
Q. About how long did you serve as captain? 
A. I served as captain four years. 
Q. Then you became what? 
A. A major-major of the Second Battalion. 
Q. About how long did you serve in that capacity? 
A. I was major four years. 
Q. Then you became what? 
A. Lieutenant-colonel. 
Q. About how long did you serve in that capacity prior to the late war? 
A. I was commissioned lieutenant-colonel in the latter part of 1897. 
Q. Did you continue in that capacity? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. On the organization of the regiment were you then appointed to the same grade 
or another grade? 
A. The same grade. 
Q. I mean the organization for muster into the United States service? 
A. Yes; the same grade. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, 1 would like the witness to submit to the court 
as soon as practicable such names as the court may consider proper, or such number 
of names, of the men of his regiment who were with him on the target work, referring 
more especially to the twelve men who, at a certain time in connection with that 
work, were sick or reported to be sick in consequence of eating beef which the wit- 
ness afterwards examined, or a sample of which he afterwards examined; also the 
name and address of the cook with whom he had conversation in connection with 
this matter. I should like to have him submit the names and addresses of these 
witnesses, if that be the order of the court, so that such number as the court may 
deem proper may be subpoenaed to testify in connection with that matter. 
The Recorder. Will the counsel state for what purpose they would be required. 
What would he expect to establish by them? 
Major Lee. I would expect to establish, after the testimony of this witness, facts 
corroborating what has been testified to hgre by the witness. I say this from the 
fact that I may presume to anticipate that other officers may be called before the 
court to testify as to reports or conversations that he had on the subject; not that I 
specially deem such corroboration necessary, but I wish to more fully elucidate to 
the court, and to more clearly present to the court, the personal experience of these men 
who ate the beef. That evidence, I think, is the best evidence that could be offered 
before the court. 
The Recorder. Is it to establish the fact that they were made sick only? 
Major Lee. If I may go on, I will detail the matter. That they were made sick 
from eating a certain kind of beef; beef that was believed, that is alleged, that has 
been testified to as having been treated by some kind of process, simply to connect 
the personal experiences of the men with the testimony of the witness before the 
court. 
The Recorder. I should be perfectly willing to admit that fact-that the men 
were made sick by the eating of the beef-leaving the cause, which they are hardly 
to be presumed to know, to be determined by the testimony of this witness and 
others. As far as that mere fact goes, that they were made sick by the eating of this 
beef, I am perfectly willing to admit it, to save the time of the court in establishing 
the point. 1430 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Major Lee. I made the request, presuming that it was the intention to call other 
witnesses in connection with this case, and I supposed it would be well to call some 
of these witnesses; perhaps not all, but at least the cook, who had been a butcher, 
who might have some more extensive knowledge in the matter, as well as some of 
these witnesses who might have had some further experience with it. I will leave 
the matter simply for the court to decide. 
The Recorder. The cook would be corroborative, of course. It was my remissness 
that I did not except him, but the others stand on the same footing. 
The President. Perhaps the witness can give the name and address of the cook he 
refers to. [Addressing the witness. ] Can you do so? 
A. John Rush. 
The President. Do you know his address? 
A. He lives in the same place I do, Englewood, N. J. 
Major Lee. I simply submit the matter to the court in connection with this wit- 
ness' testimony. 
The President. The witness said he could not give the names of those witnesses 
at present. He can perhaps send them to the recorder later. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Can you recall the names and addresses of any of those twelve men you refer 
to on that particular occasion? 
A. Yes; John Gray. 
Q. What is his address? 
A. Englewood. 
Q. Name any of the others that you can, Doctor. 
A. William McKinley, of Company E-not the President. John Gray belongs to 
Company F. 
By the President: 
Q. Where do they live? We want their present address-where they live now. 
A. Englewood. That is where I think they live; that is their last residence that I 
know anything about. 
Q. Is Englewood such a place that by merely addressing them there they would 
receive a communication, or is it necessary to have the street number, etc.? 
A. No, sir; I don't know the street number. If it come to Englewood addressed 
to that name, they will get it. I can't recall any other names. The others live at 
Paterson, Hackensack, Orange, Jersey City-they live all over the State. 
Q. The addresses are not necessary without their names. 
A. I have a roster at home that we used to call night and morning. I don't remem- 
ber any others. I came away entirely unprepared. I did not know what was required 
of me. If I had known what was required, I would have brought all this business 
along with me. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. When was your regiment mustered out? 
A. The day after election we were mustered out. That was the 9th. I said the 
19th a while ago, I think; but we were paid off a day after election. 
The Recorder. What month? 
A. The 9th day of November, I think it was. When that question was asked me 
before I think I said the 19th, and if I did, that must be corrected. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Have you, since that time, written any scientific paper to a medical journal 
reciting your experiences or the experiences of the regiment in the war either in 
regard to the food or anything else? 
A. No, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1431 
Q. Have you made a report of any character about it? 
A. No, sir; except to one person that came to see me from New York City. - 
Q. Was he an officer of your regiment? 
A. He was an officer of the United States Army. 
Q. What was his name? 
A. He left his card with me, and that I have omitted to remember. I don't 
remember his name, sir. I have his card at home. 
Q. You made a report to him, did you? 
A. Just as I am talking now to this court? 
Q. A verbal report? 
A. Verbally, just as I am talking to this court. 
Q. When was that made? 
A. That, I think, must have been a month ago. I should think about a month 
ago. I didn't make any note of it. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. One of the questions I asked you was perhaps not fully answered. That was 
as to the beef that you purchased nine or ten years ago. Was it from the Swift 
agency or a butcher? 
A. Swift's agency. No; I didn't purchase it from Swift's agency, but it was pur- 
chased from Swift's agency in Jersey City and sold to me by a butcher. 
Q. In Englewood? 
A. In Englewood. 
Q. Do you remember the name of the party? 
A. Rush. 
Q. This same man? 
A. Not this man, but his brother. 
Major Lee. I would like to ask the witness one more question in regard to the 
talk or the report. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Was that in the nature of a conversation that you had with this officer of the 
Army? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Inasmuch as the matter has been brought up, 1 would like for you to state fully 
to the court exactly what occurred. 
A. He came to see me; and prior to that I had been written to and received a 
letter from an officer on General Miles's staff, informing me that information had 
been received at headquarters that I had made some chemical analysis of the beef 
furnished at Jacksonville, and asking if I would please state in a few words whether 
I had or had not made such an analysis. So long as the information had reached 
headquarters, from what source I am entirely ignorant at the present time, I sat 
down and wrote a short note, stating just what I have stated to this court, about the 
two tests that I had made, one for salicylic acid and one for boracic acid, and signed 
my name to it and put it in a pigeonhole in my desk. It remained there for sev- 
eral days. This officer came out to see me. I was not at home. He returned the 
next day. He made an engagement by telephone, what hour I could meet him, and 
he wanted me to state to him what I had done in the matter, if anything. I took 
this note out of my desk and handed it to him. There is just what I was about to 
state. That is all I can say. He took it and went away. That is all as far as that 
goes. 
Q. Was there any suggestion made to you as to the character of the testimony 
you were to give before the court, other than the plain facts in the case, in the 
interests of truth? 
A. Nothing was said about any court; nothing was said about any testimony of any 1432 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
description, except that this was already written, lying there, and had been for sev- 
eral days, and I had neglected to post it. I hesitated, thinking perhaps it would blow 
over and that it would not be necessary for me to say or do anything about it. So I 
let it lie there and had someone not come to me in person, 1 probably would not 
have sent it until receiving some further request. I did not go to the Army to make 
medical investigations. I went there to fight, and so long as I could not fight, I 
thought the next best thing that came along was to teach others how to fight, and 
how to use the arms that were put into their hands, which they knew nothing about. 
Ninety per cent of the men had never shot a gun off in that division. We opened 
up a new school for the men, and they enjoyed it very much. You can ask any man 
in the Second Division about me. They all know me, but I don't know them. They 
knew me in every way because I was with them all. There is not a man in the 
Second Division who does not know me, and who has not asked me some questions, 
probably. It is a very disagreeable task for me to come here and tell what I have 
told to-day, I can assure you; but so long as I tell it, I must tell it as I saw it. No 
one has ever said a word to me about what my testimony should be, whether it 
should be for or against, or anything about it. I was simply looking after my detail, 
the detail of men that were placed under my special care. These men never left 
camp for a moment without getting a pass from me. They were under my care 
altogether; and I felt it my duty to look after their welfare, but I never prescribed 
any medicine for them other than to look out for their diet. 
Q. I was just coming to that point, whether anything had been said to you as to 
the nature or the character of the statement you should make-I mean by anyone as 
to what you should say. 
A. I never saw anyone until I came here. I didn't know what I was called here 
for. I didn't know what it was for. I hadn't the slightest idea what I was coming 
here to-day for; but I supposed it was to come before this court. I was entirely 
unprepared. If I had had some notice I probably could have come more directly to 
the point. I must thank the court for their tolerance of my backwardness in seeing 
the point of their inquiries. 
Major Lee. I desire to ask the court to take an informal recess for a few minutes 
until I can get some papers. 
There was no objection, and an informal recess was taken. 
The court reassembled at the expiration of the recess. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Rafael, of New York. 
TESTIMONY OF HENRY RAFAEL. 
Henry Rafael was called as a witness by the recorder, and, being duly sworn, 
testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. Henry Rafael; manager for Armour & Co.; 182 Duane street, New York City. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. What was your business last year, 1898? 
A. How do I understand you, sir? 
Q. I say what was your business in the summer of 1898? 
A. Provisions, canned meats, etc. 
Q. In connection with Armour & Co.? 
A. Yes, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1433 
Q. How long had you been connected with Armour & Co.? 
A. For the last seventeen or eighteen years. 
Q. Please state to the court in detail in your own way, Mr. Rafael, what were 
your duties in connection with that firm within the last year or so. I do not care to 
have you go back and detail everything prior to that time. 
A. I simply looked after the manufactured product that was shipped from Chicago, 
selling and disposing of it, shipping, etc. 
Q. Last year did you have charge of a quantity of canned roast beef belonging to 
Armour & Co., or to any of the companies with which they were connected, kindred 
companies; if so, where, and in what quantities, and in what various places was this 
canned roast beef stored? 
A. At the beginning of May, 1898, I had on hand in my store about 140,000 
pounds of roast beef in different sized tins. 
Q. Where was that? 
A. At 182 Duane street. 
Q. Did you have any other quantities on hand or under your control? 
A. Corned or roast do you refer to? 
Q. Roast beef. 
A. At that time nothing, sir. 
Q. During the year, in supplying the Government contracts, had you any under 
your control? 
A. Yes, sir; at different times. 
Q. This quantity you speak of was on hand in your storehouse at your place? 
A. Yes, sir; partly in our store and some on the docks; but that was my stock on 
hand in number of pounds. 
Q. At what time was that? 
A. That was May, 1898. 
Q. Did you have any in any other storehouses during the season? 
A. I had something in transit, I should imagine. I can't exactly remember what. 
Q. To the best of your recollection? 
A. I can't remember that. I have odds and ends coming on all the time-car- 
loads of stuff here and there. I couldn't tell you that. 
Q. Did you have any come from any foreign countries under your control? 
A. I don't think there was in May. 
Q. I mean during the year? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Or prior to and during the war? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Please answer in regard to that. 
A. If you will put the question, I would like to answer it in detail. 
Q. You have stated you had a quantity on hand in your storehouse there, and 
that there were other quantities during this time, the spring and summer of 1896. 
Where did those quantities come from and about what were they? 
A. Some came from Chicago; some came from the other side. 
Q. What do you mean by "the other side?" 
A. The United Kingdom, London, Liverpool, Glasgow. 
Q. Where was that stored? 
A. That arrived on the vessel and was delivered to Colonel Woodruff, from the 
dock. 
Q. You stated some had come from the other side, from the United Kingdom. 
How long had that been abroad, if you know? 
A. Some of it one year and others eighteen to twenty-four months. 
Q. Where, abroad. 
A. In the United Kingdom, London, Liverpool, Glasgow. 1434 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Any in France? 
A. I can't say as to that, sir, 
Q. Upon its return from abroad, where was it stored? 
A. It was not stored, sir. It was removed from the dock on the arrival of the ves- 
sel after inspection. 
Q. After inspection by whom? 
A. By Colonel Woodruff's officer. 
Q. On the dock? 
A. On the dock. Major Willard, I believe, inspected. I was with him in one or 
two instances myself. 
Q. Did you have any quantity of canned roast beef known by that designation 
stored with a firm by the name of Mayo & Campbell? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Where did that come from? 
A. It wras a part of that shipment, sir. 
Q. Fart of that same shipment? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Can you tell about how much of it was stored there? 
A. That I can not remember. 
Q. Can you tell approximately how much; whether 100 or 200 cases? 
A. I think possibly about 400 or 500 cases, if I am not mistaken. 
Q. Four or five hundred cases. 
A. I think so. You are talking about roast beef, are you? 
Q. Yes; I am talking about roast beef. Will you please state for what purpose this 
beef had been sent abroad. Was it under contract or agreement for delivery abroad? 
A. I believe it was to fill a part of a contract, a purchase of Colonel Smith's in 
Chicago. 
Q. I mean the beef when shipped abroad that was recalled and brought back, as 
I understand. 
A. You mean what it was shipped abroad for? 
Q. Yes; I mean was it under a contract or agreement to sell to any government- 
a tender to any government abroad? 
A. When it was shipped abroad? 
Q. Yes. 
A. It was shipped abroad in the general usage of trade for anybody that wanted to 
buy it-grocers, merchants, governments, or anybody else. 
Q. Was there any tender of that beef to any government abroad? 
A. Not to my knowledge. There may have been, but I couldn't say, sir. 
Q. You can not state that? 
A. I can't say positively. 
Q. Had you any information as to any tender or rejection of meat sent abroad? 
A. I know positively there was no rejection, sir. 
Q. You do know it? 
A. Positively, sir. 
Q. How do you know it? 
A. Simply from the statement of our Chicago house. 
Q. In no other way? 
A. Another thing-on the arrival of the beef it was in prime condition, on inspec- 
tion. 
Q. This beef that was shipped abroad, I presume, was consigned to your agent 
abroad? 
A. Yes, sir; to our several agents. 
Q. For what purpose w'as it returned to the United States? 
A. To be delivered to the United States Government, the Navy, or anybody that 
wanted it. We were short of stock. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1435 
Q. When was it returned? 
A. I think it was returned in the fall of 1897, if I am not mistaken. I think that 
was it-it was part of 1897 and part of 1898, if my recollection serves me. I can't 
carry the dates in my head. 
Q. I do not care anything about the particular dates, but I simply want to know 
the purpose for which it was returned from abroad. 
A. It was returned here to fill contracts with the Government. 
Q. Prior to the beginning of the war you were enabled to supply all contracts 
here, were you not? 
A. No, sir; we were not. We were short of stock, and very short of stock. 
Q. Did you dispose of your entire stock that came from abroad, and what you had 
on hand, to the Goverment at that time? 
A. Some went to our trade in general throughout the country; some went to the 
Army; some went to the Navy. 
Q. Did any of this particular lot that came from abroad, that you speak of, go to 
the Navy? 
A. I have a slight recollection of some of it going to the Navy-some of the 2-pound 
tins. That is all. 
Q. Some of the 2-pound cans went to the Navy? 
A. I think so. 
Q. Do you feel at liberty to state at what price, of that which was shipped abroad 
for sale, it was to be sold abroad? 
A. That I can not tell. 
Q. Can you tell approximately? 
A. No, sir; I can not. That does not concern me at all. 
Q. Have you any knowledge on that subject? 
A. None whatever. 
Q. As to what price this beef would bring to the agents abroad? 
A. None whatever. I don't handle that trade at all. 
Q. I would like for you to state, if you can, Mr. Rafael, what quantities you sold 
to the Government last spring. I am referring more particularly to the Army. 
A. I think the total was somewhere between 450,000 and 460,000 pounds altogether, 
if I am not mistaken. I think that is somewhere about the figure. 
Q. Of that quantity you had about how much on hand in your storehouse? 
A. About 140,000 pounds. 
Q. And of that quantity which you sold, about how much of it came from abroad? 
A. I think there was some four hundred and odd thousand pounds came from 
abroad, but we didn't deliver all of it to the Army. Some went to the Navy and 
some went to our trade. 
Q. Of that particular lot? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Can you state approximately how much of that went to the Army? 
A. No; I can not without having closer data. 
Q. Was any during last summer shipped from Chicago for delivery to the Army 
at New York? 
A. If it was, it came in the regular way, but not for any Government deliveries at 
all, sir. 
Q. It was under your direction? All the disposals that were made to the Govern- 
ment, or sales made to the Government, were made under your direction, I presume, 
in New York? 
A. At the New York end only. 
Q. How about the orders from Chicago, if any were made? Was that sale made 
through you? 
A. No, sir; made in Chicago, and I was to deliver the goods 1436 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Do you know about what quantity was so ordered and delivered? 
A. No, sir; not exactly. 
Q. I don't want it exactly, but approximately. 
A. No; I could not say that; I did not pay much attention to anything else except 
my own business. 
(J. I am asking that, supposing it is in the line of your business, in regard to the 
delivery, as you were directed by the house to handle and attend to that. 
A. There was nothing in that for me except the delivery, sir. 
Q. You did deliver the stuff? 
A. I made the deliveries; yes, sir. 
Q. To the Government? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That was in your line of business, was it not? 
A. It was and it was not. It was simply as a favor to Armour & Co., that was all. 
Q. And that was of the stores that came from abroad? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. All stores in New York you handled? 
A. All stores in New York. 
Q. How were those sales to the Government? Were they in the nature of contracts? 
A. Some on open orders, some on contracts. 
Q. Can you distinguish as to the amounts at all? 
A. Not exactly; I don't believe I could give you anywhere near the figures at all. 
Q. Could you approximate anything about it? 
A. No, sir; I could not. 
Q. Refreshing your memory, can you recall any orders given for meat on oral or 
verbal order, rather than formal contract? 
A. There were several of them given, sir, but I could not remember the days or dates. 
Q. I don't want the days or dates, but about what time, and the quantities. 
A. I could not give you the quantities. It was a rush and we had to do the best 
we could. 
Q. How was that sale made to the Government with reference to the method of 
the selection of samples, if any were made? Please describe just how that was done. 
A. How do I understand you, sir? 
Q. Well, in this way: You sold to the Government, in the first place, all the 
stock that you had on hand. Then you w'ere directed by Armour, or under their 
instructions as a matter of favor or otherwise, to deliver and make sales of that that 
was brought from abroad. I want to know what was the method of sale, or rather 
what was the method of inspection with reference to the sale. How was it con- 
ducted with reference to the inspection? 
A. Do you mean the trade all the way through, sir? 
Q. Yes; the beginning. 
A. Samples submitted. 
Q. Who selected the samples? 
A. We sent a sample out of some of the original stock ourselves. After the original 
stock was delivered, it was inspected by somebody from Colonel Woodruff's office. 
Q. How many did you send? 
A. Sometimes one, two, or three, according to the quantity; sometimes as high as 
half a dozen. 
Q. Out of how much stock? 
A. Out of the second or third case, or any case that came along, right out of the 
stock. 
Q. Will you give the largest order that you had for delivery under these rush orders? 
A. Oh, I should say three or four thousand cases at a time. 
Q. Three or four thousand delivered? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1437 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And you would select out the samples to be sent out? 
A. No, sir; no selections; any case that came along. We would take a sample as 
it came along. 
Q. You would take a sample? 
A. First our sample was taken out of the case. 
Q. This would be done under your supervision? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Perhaps by one of your men? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Not necessarily by yourself? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. How did the Government buy of you on that sample, and what was the 
method of inspection? 
A. We gave them the sample. They opened the sample; then we were notified 
of the purchase; that we secured the purchase. If not, we were notified that we 
were thrown out, that is all; but we were never thrown out on our corned beef or 
canned beef, or whatever it was. It was examined by somebody; I think it was 
Major Willard, if I am not mistaken. 
Q. What was the nature of that examination? Were you present? 
A. At times; yes, sir. Not always; at times. 
Q. What was the examination? 
A. Well, taking the cover off a half a dozen cases, according to the quantity. 
If there was a hundred cases, probably there might be five or ten, according to the 
quantity, samples taken, and the samples were cut; the samples were cut; the cans 
examined. 
Q. And compared then with the samples? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In your presence? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Then you received a notice in regard to it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Who made the marks when you got the contract or the purchase was made 
from you-who made the marks on the sample? 
A. On the sample? 
Q. I mean on the purchase-on the cases. 
A. For shipping? 
Q. Yes. 
A. Sometimes we shipped direct to the army building with the usual Government 
stamp-stencil. Sometimes we shipped aboard vessels, some aboard the railroads. 
Sometimes we cut the stencil, but under our advices we had the marks, but before 
the goods were shipped they were inspected. 
Q. In how many instances, if you recall, in all your sales were you present at those 
inspections? You say you sold between 450,000 and 460,000 pounds? 
A. No; I can not recall, sir, but I could safely say a half a dozen or a dozen times, 
and it might be more. 
Q. Can you tell about what proportion of cans would be taken from the purchase? 
You say they took from five or six cans or cases. About what proportion would be 
taken from the purchase for comparison? Do you know? Have you any absolute 
information on that, or do you know? 
A. Well, at times, yes. I w'ill say sometimes, as I said before, there might be 
half a dozen cases out of a hundred cases, or might be a dozen or two dozen. 
Q. Do you recall any instance of two dozen cans? 
A. No, sir; I do not. 1438 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Do you recall any instance of a dozen cans? 
A. Oh, I know the times Colonel Woodruff has requested me to send cans down 
to the army building for inspection out of lots that he had purchased. 
Q. And then you would pick them out? 
A. There was no picking out. 
Q. You would take them out? 
A. Yes, sir. He would send for them at times. He has often sent after them. 
Q. Going back to the question, can you recall any instance where as many as a 
dozen cans were taken out of a dozen cases? 
A. I can't remember instances; no, sir. 
Q. I believe I asked you the question, but to make it more specific I will ask you 
how much of the stores that you sold to the Government, if you did sell them to the 
Government, of the stores that you sold to the Army, were stored in the warehouse of 
Messrs. Mayo & Campbell? 
A. As my recollection serves me, about 500 cases; and the simple reason why 
they were stored was that we were awaiting specific instructions from the Army, 
and the time was up on the dock, and we had to store them or they would go into 
general stores, and as we had only four days on the dock we had to take them off 
the dock. 
Q. Then, as I understand from your testimony, the other was sold on the dock? 
A. It was sold, sir, before it arrived, and delivered from the dock. 
Q. It was sold before it arrived? 
A. On Colonel Smith's order from Chicago. It was purchased before it reached 
New York and delivered on arrival from the dock. 
Q. Do you know about how much was purchased before it arrived in New York? 
A. Not exactly; I am not close enough to that. 
Q. Were any purchases made of the stock on hand that you had prior to inspec- 
tion of it? Did you receive an order to furnish so much before it was inspected, or 
would it be inspected? 
A. I have no recollection of making a sale without inspection. 
Q. But, as I understand you to say this that came from abroad was purchased 
before it arrived from abroad? 
A. Yes, sir; but it was all inspected on the dock, every bit of it. When I say 
every bit of it I mean every lot of it. 
Q. Then, refreshing your memory in regard to that, let me understand again, simply 
in order to get at the facts in regard to it; I understood you to say it was purchased 
before its arrival from abroad? 
A. It was, on Colonel Smith's orders from Chicago. 
Q. Before its arrival? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And that was to be delivered on the dock? 
A. After inspection. It was to be delivered to the Government after it was 
inspected by the Government. 
Q. Then you wish to qualify that; that it was subject to inspection? 
A. Naturally, as all purchases were. 
Q. Can you recall about how much was delivered on the dock in that way to the 
Government? 
A. No; I can not, sir. 
Q. Can you give it approximately? 
A. No; I can not. 
Q. A hundred thousand or 50,000 or somewhere near? 
A. Oh, there might have 200,000 or 300,000 pounds, perhaps; I don't say positively. 
Q. I don't ask you to say positively. I don't ask you to say anything that is not 
within your recollection recently. It may have been 200,000 or 300,000? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1439 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you accompany the inspector on his inspection of that on the dock? 
A. I did in one or two instances; yes, sir. 
Q. The samples were taken from the delivery on the dock? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That was of the same kind that you had in store? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And about the same date of manufacture? 
A. That I could not tell you, sir, about the date of manufacture. 
Q. You said, I think, about 400 or 500 cases were stored in Mayo & Campbell's 
warehouse? 
A. As far as my recollection serves me. 
Q. About how many? 
A. Between four and five hundred cases. 
Q. Cases of canned roast beef. Do you recall whether they were the large cans? 
Have you any means of knowing? 
A. I think one lot of large and one lot of small; I am not sure upon that. We had 
other canned meats stored there, you know. 
Q. What other canned meats? 
A. Corned beef and stuff. 
Q. I am referring to the canned roast beef more particularly. Can you recall the 
different kinds of labels this canned roast beef bore? What were the labels on it? 
A. "Armour's Prime Roast Beef" and " Prize Winner." 
Q. Separate brands, were they? 
A. The same thing exactly, sir, only under another label. 
Q. I mean they are separate and distinct brands. The "Prize Winner" is a 
separate brand? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Anything on it to indicate that it is from Armour & Co.? 
A. None on the "Prize Winner." 
Q. Any other brand? 
A. That is all, sir. 
Q. Did the Wilson Packing Company come in there at all? 
A. It does not belong to us. 
Q. Did you handle their stock? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you handle the stock of any other company allied to Armour & Co.-any 
other brand aside from this? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Anything to indicate the date of manufacture on the top of these at all? 
A. There should be. I don't know whether it was on that lot or not. I could 
not tell you. 
Q. You supply the Navy with some, do you not? 
A. Yes, sir; we do. 
Q. Do you put the date of packing on the labels or on the cases? 
A. Not on the labels. 
Q. On the cases? 
A. The month the goods were contracted for, and also the date of packing, on a 
paster. 
Q. That goes on the case or on the can? 
A. On the can, the top of the can-a little paster. 
Q. Are there any marks of that kind on that which you supplied to the Army? 
A. It was never called for that I know of. 
Q. You may state whether there were any such marks. 1440 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I have no recollection of it, although there may have been. I think there was 
at times. 
Q. What is the rule in regard to the canned roast beef that they send out? Do 
they have the date of packing on the cans or on the labels? 
A. Do you mean for the regular trade? 
Q. Yes; for the trade generally, or for sales for the Army. 
A. No, sir; there is no date of packing on it. 
Q. Does the Navy especially require that of you? 
A. The Navy especially requires it. 
Q. Do you know a gentleman by the name of Campbell, connected with Mayo & 
Campbell? 
A. I met him once, I think. 
Q. Did you have any conversation with him in regard to the meat that was stored 
there? Did he have any talk with you in regard to the meat? 
A. Ue wanted to get our storage; that is all I know. 
Q. Do you know for what reason he wanted to get it out of storage? Did he 
specify any particular reason why he wanted it out of storage. 
A. I said he wanted to get our storage. 
Q. I thought you said he wanted to get it out of storage. 
A. No; I thought you said, " Why did he want to get our storage." 
Q. The meat that was stored in Mayo & Campbell's, that was all disposed of to 
the Army, was it not? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. How much of it was? 
A. I could not say. We had some corned beef in there, too. 
Q. I mean the canned roast beef. 
A. Some of the roast beef went to the Navy, some went to the trade, and some 
went to the Army, sir. 
Q. Can you identify any particular lot of that canned roast beef that went to the 
Navy? 
A. No, sir; I could not. 
Q. You say some of it went to the Navy? 
A. Yes; I know that; but you say, can I identify it. 
Q. Well, I mean by identifying it, can you specify that of that lot any particular 
quantity went to the Navy, or how much was sold to the Navy? 
A. No, sir; I could not do that. 
Q. Did you sell it? 
A. It was sold through me, but indirect-delivered by us. 
Q. Who attended to it? 
A. In what way? 
Q. Who handled it? You say indirect, through you. 
A. I made the sale to another party and the other party delivered it to the 
Government. 
Q. The other party delivered it to the Government? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Who was the other party? 
A. R. C. Williams. We also sold some to the Navy. 
Q. Did you sell that personally? Are you personally cognizant of it? 
A. I made the bid. 
Q. And you made the delivery of that lot? 
A. Part of it. 
Q. And that was of the lot that came back from abroad? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. In Mayo & Campbell's? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1441 
A. The first delivery made was the Mayo & Campbell lot, but this lot you refer 
to 
Q. I am referring to a lot of canned roast beef stored in Mayo & Campbell's 
warehouse, and I want to know if you can give the court the information as to about 
how much of that that was there was delivered to the Army that came from abroad? 
A. I can not give you the figures at all. I can not answer that. 
Q. Did Mr. Campbell make any remark to you or anyone connected with your 
business there, if you know, if you have the information, as to the quality or char- 
acter of that beef? 
A. Not to my knowledge, sir. 
Q. I understand you do not recall any conversation on that subject? 
A. As to quality? No, sir. 
Q. As to the character of it; that there was any of it that was spoiled or in bad 
order? 
A. None whatever. 
Q. Or any cans that were bulged, or any cans that were offensive in any way? 
A. None whatever. 
Q. Nothing whatever? 
A. Not to me; no, sir. I have no recollection of ever hearing anything of that 
kind. 
Q. Can you recall, for the information of the court, the given name of Mr. Camp- 
bell? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. In regard to the meat which came from abroad, did you make any particular 
investigation as to its condition in any way, or its age? 
A. Simply got several cans for my own satisfaction, sir. 
Q. Did you find any that were bad at all? 
A. I did not find a single can out of what I got out of the whole lot. I think there 
were just three cans taken from the entire lot, sir, that were not just right, that were 
bulged; just three cans, that is all from the entire lot. 
Q. That was the extent of it. You had it overhauled, then? 
A. Not all, sir. 
Q. These three cans you speak of being taken from the entire lot, then, do not 
mean from the pverhauling of the entire lot? 
A. No, sir; not the overhauling of the entire lot, but out of what we delivered to 
the Government that was all, three tins. 
Q. I should like you, if you have any knowledge on the subject, whether you can 
point the court to any information on that subject as to the difference, if any, between 
the inspection made by the Navy in the purchases of this canned roast beef you 
speak of. There was some of it that was included that was sold to the Navy? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I should like to know whether you can give any information as to any differ- 
ence, if there was any, between the inspection made by the Navy and the inspection 
made by the Army? 
A. Well, the Navy buy their goods on samples. After the goods are delivered in 
the navy-yard they are inspected. They inspect them privately; nobody present but 
themselves and their men, so I could not tell you anything about that. 
Q. That is as far as you know as to their inspection? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In any of these sales that you made to the Army of this canned roast beef, did 
you have any of it rejected at all-any of the beef? 
A. From the Army? 
Q. Yes; by the Army; in the sales to the Army last summer or spring. 
A. Three tins, just as I said a moment ago. 
S. Doc. 270 91 1442 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Three tins rejected? 
A. That is all, sir. 
Q. What was the occasion of the circumstances under which they were rejected? 
A. They were swollen tins and we replaced them. 
Q. You replaced them? 
A. Yes, sir; that is, I can not say we replaced them, but we gave them credit for 
the amount of that loss of the three tins. 
Q. When -was that determined, as to the three tins, and in what way-in the over- 
hauling? 
A. By the overhauling of Major Willard-his inspection. I think there w'ere 
something like 45 or 50 cases. I waited in the upstairs office until the inspection 
was made. 
Q. Of the sales which you made to the Government there of the 400,000 or 450,000 
or 460,000 pounds, as I recall-if I do not state it correctly you can correct me 
A. Go ahead, sir. 
Q. Do you know of any complaints coming to your knowdedge in regard to the 
canned roast beef after it had reached the Army? 
A. I don't know of a single complaint direct, and knew nothing at all until I saw' 
it in the papers. 
Q. You say directly to you, but did you know' or hear of any complaints? 
A. From wdiat direction, sir? 
Q. I mean from the direction of the Army. 
A. None whatever. 
Q. From the soldiers that used it? 
A. None w'hatever. 
Q. I do not mean individual soldiers; but did it come to you in any way that there 
was canned roast beef that was not satisfactory to the Army? 
A. No more than just what was in the papers. 
Q. You have not heard of anything except that? 
A. I have not heard of anything except that. 
Q. After the replacing of the three tins that you speak of, you never had any occa- 
sion or any cause to replace any that the Army had expressed dissatisfaction with? 
A. That is right, sir, only the three tins. I would like to carry that a little 
further. That three tins covered all our sales to the Army and the Navy both, sir. 
Q. In your tenders to the Navy, did you ever have any rejections when you sent it? 
A. No, sir; never. 
Q. Never had any rejections? 
A. Not an ounce. 
Q. You sell heavily to the Navy? 
A. We occasionally do, sir; have sold them canned beef I suppose to the extent of 
four or five hundred thousand pounds, sir. 
Q. As you state, their inspection being made privately, you would not have full 
know ledge in regard to it? 
A. No, sir; but if there was anything bad it would be returned promptly. They 
are very rigid-the Navy is very rigid. 
Q. Any more so than the army inspection? 
A. No; I guess not. 
Q. You consider, then, that the inspections made by the Army are just as rigid as 
those made by the Navy? 
A. I should think they were. 
Q. The system is the same? 
A. I w'ould not say that the system is the same. I don't know what the navy 
system is, but I can safely say that the army inspection is very rigid indeed, sir, as 
far as we have gone. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1443 
Q. The system of navy inspection you don't know, then? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. So, you could not testify of your own knowledge that it is the same as the 
Army? 
A. No, sir; that is private inspection and I have never been present? 
Q. You are positive, then, in regard to the matter of this canned roast beef that was 
brought back and stored in the warehouse that you speak of, of Mayo & Campbell; 
that there was no conversation as to any bad quality, or reputed bad quality, nor any 
information brought to you on that subject by anyone connected with that ware- 
house? 
A. I have no recollection, sir; not the slightest. It is entirely news to me. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. I understand that you are simply a middleman and sell on commissions? 
A. I am a salaried man. I handle Armour's business on the New York end. 
Q. A salaried man of Armour's? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you know whether any special packing of canned roast beef has been made 
to meet the requirements of the Navy? 
A. Well, we had at times to pack it in special cases 
Q. But were the cans packed with special meat? 
A. Oh, no; the same meat identically as we give to the world-not to the Army or 
Navy specially, but as we give to the world. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I will ask another question. Do you know what the specifications of the Navy 
call for as to meat-what they designate? 
A. I can not just call it to my mind. I have read them over once in a while. They 
have been the same for the last twenty-five years. That is, I will not say twenty-five 
years on beef, but twenty-four or twenty-three years. They call for a certain kind 
of box, such and such measurement ends and sides, a certain quality of beef, I can 
not just recall it. 
Q. A certain quality of beef? 
A. A certain quality of beef. It is all in the navy specifications. 
Q. I just wanted to know if you can recall that certain quality that they call for? 
A. No, sir; I could not. 
Q. Whether there is any designation that would call it to your mind? 
A. No, sir; I could not, sir. I don't believe I have gone over it carefully in six 
months, because we know just what we have got to give them. The specifications 
are always handed in; they call for just the same thing every time. 
Q. I understand you to testify that the canned meat you furnished to the Navy is 
identically the same as the canned meat that Armour & Co. furnished to the Army 
last year. 
A. The same kind of meat that we furnished to the entire world. 
Q. If it is within your knowledge, is there any distinction in grades in the meat 
that goes in, whether it is all the same in one can or another, or whether there is 
any distinction? 
A. Not to my knowledge. I am the oldest canned-meat man in the United States 
to-day, and I do not know of any distinction. 
Q. Then in canning beef the kind of beef that is put in would always be identi- 
cally the same. 
A. The same kind in every can, sir. That is my business. 
Q. One season with another, various seasons, that it would always be the same 
kind of beef? 
A. I don't see how it could vary, sir. 1444 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
Q. It could not vary? 
A. I don't see how it could. 
Q. If there is testimony that there was better canned meat canned for the Army 
last summer than is usually canned in the fall and other seasons, how would you 
reconcile that testimony? 
A. I don't know. Who ever made any such remark as that? 
Q. I just merely asked you how you would reconcile such testimony. 
A. I could not reconcile any such testimony because I don't believe any such 
thing as that, sir, at all. 
Q. You don't believe it? 
A. No, sir; because it is the same roast beef from January to January, Army or 
Navy, or anybody else. 
Q. The same grade of cattle? 
A. Identically. 
Q. There would not be any difference? 
A. I don't think there would; don't see how there could. 
Q. No more cows at one time than at another? 
A. That would be a hard question. The quality of the beef itself, sir; the quality 
of the beef-put it in that way. 
Q. Well, Mr. Rafael, I would like to understand this. I don't know much about 
canned-roast-beef process or about exactly the kind of beef, but I would like to un- 
derstand whether you want the court to understand that it is always identically the 
same; that the same kind of meat would go into the cans from one season to another? 
A. Well, sir, from the quality of the goods, I should say yes, sir. 
Q. At one time it would be no better nor no worse? 
A. We always have about the standard quality. 
Q. There would be as much nutriment in it at one time as another? 
A. I should say so, in every can that I have ever opened, sir. 
Q. Can you recall the names, if they are within your knowledge, of the steamers 
that brought back this beef from abroad-any of them? 
A. I don't remember whether the Umbria or the Etruria. I can't just remember. 
Q. In shipping most of this beef did you turn it over to the Quartermaster's Depart- 
ment for shipment? 
A. Not the Quartermaster's; no, sir. 
Q. When it was bought for the Commissary Department 
A. The Subsistence Department. 
Q. I know, the Subsistence Department buys it. 
A. We, shipped wherever they instructed us, but I don't think it was for the 
Quartermaster. It may have been. 
Q. That was a matter of detail not within your knowledge? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Do you know specially where that meat went? 
A. It was well distributed. 
Q. Where did it go? I don't mean whether it was well distributed, but where did 
it go? 
A. Some went to Porto Rico, some went to Habana, different points, sir. 
Major Lee. I believe that is all. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, in connection with the remarks made this 
morning introducing Professor Chittenden, who made the report of his experiment, 
and in order to complete the record in that respect, I will say that under the direc- 
tions of the courton March 7 three cans of prime roast beef, Praii ie State Packing 
Company, Chicago, which were sent to each of the chemists were obtained from a 
box delivered to the court from one of the companies of the Ninth Infantry, its con- 
tinued possession by that organization being regarded by the court as a sufficient FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1445 
identification. Three of the cans markea " Prime Roast Beef, Armour Canning Com- 
pany, Chicago, ' ' were obtained from a lot shipped by the depot commissary in Habana, 
Cuba, to this city under the orders of the Major-General Commanding the Army. Two 
cans extra choice roast beef, Wilson Packing Company, New York, were in the same 
lot shipped from Habana, Cuba, in obedience to the same order. One can of prime 
roast beef, Libby, McNeil & Libby, was delivered to me personally by the Major- 
General Commanding. Three cans prime roast beef, Armour Canning Company, 
Chicago, were purchased in open market, of freshly canned beef, by order of the 
court. And substantially the same cans which were sent to the other chemists were 
of substantially the same character and precisely the same origin with the exception 
of the one can that was delivered to me by the Major-General Commanding. 
May it please the court, there are no other witnesses that have reported to-day, 
so there are none to testify. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I have a list herp of a few additional witnesses, 
as referred to in the communication of the Major-General Commanding, that there 
might be a few others. There are nine, with a rather full synopsis of the points of 
their testimony. I have not had time to go over it. This is a list of witnesses 
whose testimony relates to refrigerated beef and chemical treatment of same. 
General Davis. Not embraced in previous lists? 
A. I think not. Now and then a little error creeps in which I am unable to check. 
The court has probably found that once in a while a witness has been repeated, but 
that is almost unavoidable. I would like to have Mr. De Caindry called in the 
morning. He is down on the list that has been authorized. 
If it please the court, I would like to ask, referring to the request made yesterday 
in regard to the reception of the official reports of officers, one hundred or more, as 
to whether they will be accepted and received. If the court does not care to pass 
upon that matter now, I will simply refer to it later, perhaps to-morrow. 
I suppose I might have made or should have made a motion in the ordinary course, 
but did not yesterday, and I merely note it now with the expectation of inviting the 
attention of the court to it perhaps to-morrow or the next day. 
The Recorder. There are some matters with reference to witnesses that will be 
presented to the court, and to that end I will ask that it go into executive session. 
The court thereupon (at 3.45 p. m.) went into executive session, after which an 
adjournment was taken until Thursday, April 6,1899. at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C., 
Thursday, April 6, 1899. 
The court met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness Dr. 
Cox, of the District of Columbia. 
TESTIMONY OF DR. SAMUEL CLIFFORD COX. 
Dr. Samuel Clifford Cox was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having 
been first duly sworn, is examined: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. Samuel Clifford Cox; S. Clifford Cox is the way I signit; occupation, physician; 
residence, 2018 I street northwest, Washington. 1446 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Were you in the military service of the United States during the war with 
Spain, last year? 
A. I was; yes. 
Q. If so, in what capacity and to what organization were you attached? 
A. First lieutenant and assistant surgeon in the First District of Columbia Volun- 
teer Infantry. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. About what time did you leave the United States for Cuba? 
A. I think the 1st day of July we left Tampa. 
Q. When did you land and where in Cuba? 
A. We landed on the 10th of July at Siboney. 
Q. Did you have any variety or any different rations-that is, any more than one 
kind-going over? 
A. Going over on the boat? 
Q. Yes; on the boat. If so, what was that? 
A. No; I think we only had the usual travel rations, the canned beef. 
Q. Was it canned corned beef or roast beef, or do you remember? 
A. I don't remember; I think it was roast beef, but I would not like to say pos- 
itively. 
Q. After you landed there you proceeded to what part of the work with reference 
to the campaign? That is, I mean your organization, your regiment. 
A. We landed there on Sunday morning, the 10th of July, and marched to Gua- 
sima; camped there on Sunday night. At 3 o'clock on Monday morning we were 
marched to the firing line at San Juan. 
Q. Do you recall what meat ration was issued to your regiment after landing and 
prior up to the time of the surrender of Santiago? That is, the parts of the ration as 
nearly as you can state. I do not mean anything accurate, but as to the principal 
contents of the meat ration. 
A. Well, the travel ration was issued before we left Tampa, and nothing more was 
issued until three days after we landed in Cuba. The men were supposed to live on 
the travel ration from the time we left Tampa until the ration was issued three days 
after we got there. 
Q. What ration did they use then, after that time until the surrender, as nearly as 
you can recall-what particularly as to meat? 
A. I believe they just used the travel ration. I don't think there was anything 
issued except 
Q. Any bacon? 
A. I think there was bacon issued, yes, sir; bacon, hard-tack, and canned beef. 
Q. After the surrender, when did you begin receiving refrigerated beef, if you did 
receive any-about when? 
A. Some time after the surrender. On the day after the surrender we moved from 
the trenches to San Juan Hill, where we went into camp, and it was after we had 
arrived at San Juan Hill that the refrigerated beef was issued, several days after we 
landed there, after we got there, I don't know just what date. 
Q. The surrender being on the 17th, that would be about what time? 
A. Probably about the 20th of July. 
Q. What had been the health of your command up to the time of the beginning 
of the issue, the general health of the command? 
A. While in Tampa? 
Q. I mean there. 
A. In Cuba? 
Q. Yes. 
A. It was very good; we had practically no sickness at all at first. 
Q. I wish you would state to the court what occurred, if anything, with reference FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1447 
to the issue of the refrigerated beef. State it in narrative form in your own way, as 
affecting the command in any way. 
A. Well, after the refrigerated beef was issued, an epidemic of diarrhea broke out 
in the regiment, and Dr. Pyles-Major Pyles-the regimental surgeon, decided 
that it must be the beef that was causing it, because we had had an experience of 
the same kind in Tampa. Or rather, it was fresh beef. I don't know whether it 
was refrigerated beef we were getting in Tampa or not. I suppose it was; but he 
decided from the experience we had had in Tampa that it must be the fresh beef 
that was causing the diarrhea in Cuba, and he ordered the beef stopped, ordered 
the ration stopped, after it had been issued, I think, four or five days. About that 
time I was taken away from the regiment and detailed to a division hospital and I 
could not tell what effect personally-I don't know what effect the withdrawal of 
the beef ration had on the diarrhea, but I was told by Dr. Pyles afterwards that 
it checked up considerably. 
Q. You say this was an epidemic of diarrhea through the command? Was it one 
of rather unusual severity? 
A. Oh, yes; very severe in regard to numbers, and some of the cases were pretty 
bad, but as a rule it was not a severe type of diarrhea. It was not as weakening as 
lots of other cases that you would see here in the United States, but there were a 
great many. 
Q. Did you say there were some observations on that matter at Tampa? 
A. Yes, sir. We had an epidemic in Tampa; in fact, all the regiments had. In 
our regiment practically everybody had diarrhea; very few escaped it, and we of 
course at first did not know, could not account for the diarrhea. Some thought it 
was the water and some thought it was the change of climate, and different opinions 
were advanced as to the cause of it. Dr. Pyles thought it was the meat. At that 
time I could hardly agree with him, although I did not disagree with him. He was 
my superior officer, and, another thing, he was in charge of that; but when he gave 
that opinion I could hardly agree that it was the meat, because I could not see why 
meat should cause diarrhea. However, the meat was not stopped there in Tampa; 
but when we got to Cuba and the diarrhea broke out again with the issue of this 
beef, I could not help but agree with him that it was the meat. 
Q. The men of the regiment were organized mainly in the District of Columbia, 
were they, or elsewhere? 
A. They were organized right here. 
Q. Within your knowledge had these men been accustomed to eating fresh meat? 
A. Yes, sir; as a rule the men were up to the average in health, in circumstances 
financially, and otherwise. 
Q. Do you know whether, in Cuba or otherwise, any special investigation was made 
with reference to this beef, to determine as far as possible the cause of the epidemic 
of diarrhea coming so suddenly? 
A. In Tampa? 
Q. Well, in either place, I will say, with reference to this meat and with reference 
to the resulting trouble? 
A. Whether there was an investigation? 
Q. Yes; to what extent, if there were any inquiries or if there was any inspection? 
A. None that I know of. The regimental surgeons, as a rule, looked after their 
own regiments. I don't think there was any. 
Q. He caused the suspension of the ration of meat, I understands 
A. He did in Cuba. 
Q. You don't know what meats were substituted in place of it? 
A. None. We did without the meat. Of course, occasionally, we would have an 
issue of bacon, you know, and other things, and they could do very well without the 
meat. 1448 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Any supplies from any sources other than the Government, than the issue of 
rations? Any purchases from relief associations or Red Cross societies or any other 
societies? 
A. No; we got nothing from the Red Cross except a few articles for the sick, but 
nothing for the general issue. 
Q. Did you make any observations with reference to the beef, or know anything 
in regard to it at the time or in connection with the service there? 
A. The canned roast beef? 
Q. Yes; or the canned boiled beef, whatever it might be termed. 
A. I always considered it an unfit article of food. I could not eat it myself, and 
nobody else could eat it if they had anything else. It was very unpalatable and 
unsightly and unnutritious, I would say. 
Q-. You decided it yourself by practical experience? You do not mean that you 
analyzed it? 
A. No; I have eaten it-I have attempted to eat it-but I never could eat but 
very little of it, and then only when I was very hungry and had nothing else. 
Q. How was it with the command, as far as you observed? 
A. I heard a good deal of complaint about it. The men did not like it. They 
would not eat it if they could help it. 
Q. Was there any instance, any complaint, of ill effects from it of any kind? 
A. Well, I never heard of any ill effects from it. That is, I heard men attribute 
their sickness to it. For instance, they would vomit after eating it, or something of 
that kind, but 1 would not say that the meat caused that vomiting, because it might 
have been something else. But I have heard them attribute their sickness to it. 
Q. Did you notice the appearance of this roast beef that you got? 
A. I never noticed it particularly; no, sir. 
Q. Did you make an examination in detail of any of these cans? Did you empty 
them out and see how they were? 
A. Oh, yes; I emptied them out and looked at them. 
Q. What proportion was meat and what proportion was some other substance? 
A. Well, the larger proportion of it seemed to be meat fiber; looked as if it had 
been boiled very thoroughly or cooked in some way so that the substance had been 
boiled out of it, the connective tissue, and left the fiber, and it was stringy and 
would fall to pieces. You could pick it to pieces with your hands, and it was 
covered over with fat or suet, whatever it was, a fatty-looking substance, and there 
would be some little liquid fat, you know. The fat would be melted, forming a 
liquid fat. That is about the only way I could describe it. 
Q. How was the odor, I mean generally or specially, if you know any instance of it? 
A. Well, generally, the odor was all right. It had simply the odor of cooked 
beef; that is, when the meat was not decomposed. I have occasionally seen a can of 
it that would be spoiled and have a bad odor, but as a rule it would keep all right. 
There would be no putrefaction, except in a few cases. 
Q. What was that due to-those cases? 
A. This putrefaction? 
Q. Yes, as far as you know. 
A. That would be due entirely to the can being opened and the air getting in and 
setting up putrefaction. Where the can was hermetically sealed it would be an 
impossibility for it to putrefy. 
Q. When you would open a fresh can do you know about how long it would keep 
in the hands of a soldier, for instance, before it would begin to putrefy? 
A. Well, I never noticed that; I have never seen it demonstrated, because as a 
rule they generally ate what they wanted and then got rid of the rest of the can 
immediately. They would not carry it around and I don't know how long it would 
keep. 
Major Lee. I believe that is all. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1449 
Cross-examination by the Recorder: 
Q. Speaking of the refrigerated beef in Cuba, were any other causes operating at 
the time that would have produced diarrhea? 
A. Well, yes; there were. I think that the beef was probably only a factor, you 
know. The only way I could account for it was that it furnished a medium for pu- 
trefaction. There were several conditions that were necessary to putrefaction, like 
moisture and a certain amount of heat and all that, and of course all those conditions 
were present. 
The Recorder. Has the court any questions? 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Did you bury any of the meat or ever dispose of this fresh beef, and how much 
of it? 
A. Was it buried? 
Q. Yes. 
A. Yes; I don't know how much, but I have known it to be condemned and 
buried. 
Q. Was it replaced in any way? 
A. I could not say as to that. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. De Caindry, the chief clerk in the office of the Commissary-General of Subsistence. 
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM A. DE CAINDRY. 
William A. De Caindry w&s called by the recorder as a witness, and having been 
first duly sworn, is examined. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and official position. 
A. My name is William A. De Caindry; I live at 1816 H street NW., in this city, 
and am the chief clerk in the office of the Commissary-General of Subsistence. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Mr. De Caindry, please state to the court how long you have been in the Com- 
missary-General's Office? 
A. I was appointed chief clerk of the office of the Commissary-General of Sub- 
sistence on July 1, 1879, and have been there continuously since. 
Q. Previous to that time were you connected with the departments or any of them? 
A. For about thirteen years clerk in the Ordnance Office of the War Department. 
Q. Please state to the court in a narrative form, in your own way, what are your 
duties as chief clerk of the Commissary-General's Office. I do not mean to go into 
every possible detail, but in a general sense, what are the duties? 
A. They are in a general sense supervisory of the work of the rest of the clerical 
force of the office. 
Q. What are your duties, if anything, in connection with the preparation of con- 
tracts on the part of the Government by the Commissary-General? 
A. Not specially. 
Q. You have merely a supervisory control over those? 
A. Ordinarily, with the exception of these beef contracts, which are a matter of 
controversy. That I had something to do with by direct orders of the assistant to 
the Commissary-General and the Commissary-General himself. 
Q. That, as I understand, then, was made exceptional, rather. 
A. It was, within my experience, entirely so. 
Q. What, then, if anything, did you do in this capacity in connection with the 
contract entered into between the Government and either Armour & Co., Swift & 1450 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Co., or other persons, firms, or corporations for the supply of refrigerated beef or beef 
on the hoof for the Army during the late war? 
A. The first thing that I had to do in connection with the supply of refrigerated 
beef was the presentation to me in person by the Commissary-General of the form 
of a telegram, quite a long telegram, which he directed to be sent to forty or fifty or 
possibly more dealers in beef all over the country. Some of the persons that the 
telegram was required to be sent to were quite in the far West. That telegram was 
sent out soliciting proposals for refrigerated beef, and also, as I remember it, it con- 
tained an invitation for furnishing beef on the block, I think. The telegram itself 
will show what it call for. It called for two sets of bids, as I remember it. That 
telegram was sent out, and the proposals that were received and the correspondence 
that ensued between the Commissary-General and those interested in the subject of 
meats are or ought to be of record in the office of the Commissary-General. 
Q. Was there anything in this telegram, to your recollection, or in this corre- 
spondence inviting proposals for beef on the hoof about that time? 
A. I should prefer to have that paper speak for itself. 
Major Lee. We have not the paper. May it please the court, I believe that an 
order was issued by the court calling for all data and memoranda, and if that could 
be furnished it would very much facilitate the examination of the witness. I do not 
know whether it has been sent in yet or not. 
The Recorder. What is that? 
Major Lee. A few days ago a request was made for all data and memoranda and 
correspondence in relation to the contracts. 
The Recorder. We have not received them. 
General Davis. I think the form of the advertisement attached to the contract 
was furnished the first or second day. 
Major Lee. Let the witness look at that. 
. (A paper was produced and handed to the witness.) 
The Witness. This appears on a rough view to be a copy of a contract entered into 
with Swift & Co., of date July 1. Prefixed to it is what appears to be, and is under 
the official seal of the office of the Commissary-General, a copy of the telegram to 
which I have just referred. 
Q. Now please refer to that, then, in connection with your answer. 
A. I will read this telegram upon the point upon which you have just questioned 
me. The first paragraph calls for bids for supplying troops at the various seacoast 
points that may be occupied by them in the island of Cuba with refrigerated killed 
or frozen beef in such quantities or at such places as may be required. The second 
paragraph calls for or states that proposals will also be received for supplying beef on 
the block in such quantities and at such places as may be required; that is to say, 
the contractor to furnish the herd, feed, drive, and slaughter and deliver the meat 
to the troops at such interior points in the island as they may occupy. Third, pro- 
posals will also be entertained for the supply of the entire Army at all points occupied 
by it in the island of Cuba with beef on the block, the contractor to furnish trans- 
portation, feed, drive, and slaughter his herd and deliver the beef at such points 
and in such quantities as may be required by the Government. 
Q. Then you have nothing further to add to your answer than what you have 
read in connection with that? 
A. If I have covered all the points that were gone into in your question. 
Q. I don't know that this has been covered exactly, but if it has you can make 
your answer accordingly. Did you, in this connection, have any knowledge con- 
cerning invitations in the form of letters or advertisements for bids for such contracts, 
and information concerning the acceptance of such bids or concerning intermediate 
matters between the advertisement for proposals and the execution of the contract, 
more particularly the consideration of bids and the details of negotiations leading up 
to the execution of such contracts? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1451 
A. I had nothing further to do with it than to receive-I had an opportunity of 
seeing the correspondence which was had between the Department and persons cor- 
responding with the Department on the subject of furnishing beef, but the opening 
of the bids and the intermediate business transactions in connection therewith, as 
between the opening and the final drawing of the contracts, I knew little or nothing 
about. That was kept in the hands of the Commissary-General and his principal 
assistant, Capt. George B. Davis. I was not present at the opening of the bids. 
Q. Have you any information or knowledge as to whether the matter had been 
determined as to what kind of bids would be considered before the opening of the 
bids, as to the beef that was to be furnished? 
A. I know nothing about that. I had no communication with the Commissary- 
General on the question of what sort of beef, what kind of beef, he was going to 
accept for the Army. The invitation for bids, as you will see, as I have just shown, 
calls for beef under three different divisions. Which he was going to accept when 
he got the bids all in I knew nothing about. I was not consulted about that at all. 
Q. I was asking more particularly, if I make myself understood, as to whether 
within your knowledge or information it had been determined that any one class of 
bids or for'any class of bids, as, for instance, refrigerated beef or beef on the block, 
that bids for a certain class would not be entertained. 
A. I knew nothing of any rule of exclusion of that kind. 
Q. Mr. De Caindry, there has been something said in testimony before the court 
relative to a paragraph or paragraphs-if the contract is there it can be seen-in 
which seventy-two hours and twenty-four hours have been mentioned. Will you 
please particularly state all that you remember in reference to that, taking either 
contract or both? 
A. This contract was originally drawn by me at the request of the Commissary- 
General and I was given as my guide this telegram inviting proposals, and I was 
instructed to draw a contract for the purchase of. refrigerated beef-refrigerated, 
chilled, or frozen beef. At the time of the request to draw that contract I was not 
told who the successful bidder was to be. With the mere outline of this telegram in 
the matter of details of execution it was very difficult for me to draw anything that 
was at all satisfactory to myself, and I called the attention of Capt. George B. Davis, 
the assistant to the Commissary-General, to the difficulties under which I was labor- 
ing, and pointed out to him many smaller details which needed to be rounded out 
in the formal document by which the United States on the one side and the con- 
tractor on the other were to be bound. I did the best I could in an original draft, 
submitted it, and in the course of a day or two I received a typewritten memorandum 
of stipulations which it was intended to be included in this contract. That memo- 
randum related more particulary to paragraph 4 of the contract, which stated much 
of the detailed information that I was desirious of obtaining for going into the con- 
tract, and related to the equipment of steamships and the method, the details of 
loading and unloading ships, and the capacity of the transports, etc., all of which 
seemed to have been intended to be a part of this scheme for furnishing beef in Cuba. 
After working over the contract papers, and putting in this detailed information in 
regard to the equipment of vessels, etc., I submitted my draft, supposing it was all 
complete and ready for signature. About that time-that was just previous to the 
1st of July, a few days, two, three, or four days, may be, before the 1st of July- 
persons whom I understood to be the representatives of Swift & Co. made their 
appearance at the Department, and some question arose as to the length of time this 
beef was required to be kept after issue. The papers were brought to me; the draft 
of the contract was brought to me by Capt. George B. Davis, with a suggestion that 
it was necessary to put in a twenty-four-hour clause in the contract. I endeavored 
as far as I was able to get from him some of the details necessary to put in in connec- 
tion with the twenty-four-hour clause, but I was unable to do so in any satisfactory 1452 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
manner. He suggested to me that it was a part of the scheme that temporary refrig- 
erating buildings were intended to be located in the rear of the moving troops, and 
that it was desirable that something in the nature of a limit of time should go 
into the contract as to how long the beef should keep. The thing was not perfectly 
clear to me, and I was surprised myself at the time, because I was perfectly conscious 
of the existence of a seventy-two-hour clause, not only in the telegram soliciting pro- 
posals, but it also had been incorporated in the contract papers as I had drawn them 
up to that time, and General Eagan in the revision of one of the drafts of the contract 
took particular pains to interline with his own hand a clause and paragraph 
relating to the seventy-two hours' limit of time, while at the same time that he 
made that interlineation it was in paragraph 3, and after talking the matter over 
with Colonel Davis I expressed my inability to put it in in an intelligent way, 
but suggested that if it was to go in that it had better go in right after the seventy- 
two-hour clause in paragraph 3. He remarked: "Put it in that way; put it 
in that way." Now, I was perfectly willing to put it in that way, knowing its 
incongruity. At least, that is the way it appeared to me at the time-I was per- 
fectly willing to put it in because the whole matter was being managed by the 
Commissary-General in person. He would have an opportunity to revise it, and if 
there was any additional matter to go in explanatory of that clause he could put it 
in. No question was made of it until just before the submission or possibly after the 
submission of this draft to the people representing Swift & Co., who were at the office 
a day or two, I will say, before the 1st of July. General Eagan spoke of this twenty- 
four-hour clause. I explained it to him as I have explained it to you, that I under- 
stood there was some scheme to have the moving column of troops followed up by 
refrigerating buildings, and that if this meat was to be delivered at the seacoast from 
refrigerators, was to be transported to those refrigerator buildings, that it would 
undergo some exposure to the hot climate and that it would seem as though some 
restriction or some reduction of the limit of seventy-two hours would be appropriate, 
inasmuch as the refrigerator buildings being in the rear of the moving columns there 
would be little difficulty in getting meat out of them to the troops in twenty-four hours. 
General Eagan seemed to be dubious about it. He never explained or said anything 
more about it, and the matter dropped out of discussion. The papers were finally 
referred to me as complete, when I discovered, I remember, that Swift & Co. were not 
a firm, as I was under the impression they were. I found it out that they were a 
corporation, which required a little different recital of their capacity in the heading 
of the contract and in the attestation clause in the end. I immediately had copies 
made with the necessary changes in the heading and attestation clause, and those 
papers were sent by mail to Swift & Co. in Chicago for execution, and were duly 
executed in course of time. I was so worried in my own mind about the stipula- 
tions of the contract in regard to the twenty-four-hour clause and the seventy-two- 
hour clause, which I did not understand, that I kept all my memoranda and had 
them put into the files of the office where the contract papers were, in case any dis- 
cussion should ever arise, so that we would have it all to go back to to elucidate. We 
would have it all to go back to to elucidate. 
Q. Those paper are on the files of the Department now? 
A. They are not in the file boxes. 
Q. Who has custody of those papers, if you know? , 
A. I believe that Capt. George B. Davis has all the papers that were put into the 
file boxes. 
Q. I understand from your answer to the question that in the original draft of the 
contract the seventy-two hour clause was interlined in the handwriting of General 
Eagan? 
A. General Eagan at some point in the evolution of the contract papers interlined, 
in section 2, these words: "Which shall not be more than seventy-two hours from FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1453 
the time of storing same in such refrigerator." If my menory is not failing, and I 
am pretty sure it is not, if the memoranda that I kept is still preserved and could be 
produced, that would be found in General Eagan's own handwriting as an interline- 
ation. Remember now that the seventy-two-hour clause was already in the contract 
as I had drawn it in paragraph 3. 
Q. And in the draft how did it read then, before the change was made, before the 
twenty-four-hour clause was inserted in that paragraph? 
A. The whole sentence would have read in this way without the addendum of 
General Eagan. Now I am testifying according to memory. If the exact facts are 
desired, the papers, the original memoranda, if they are in existence, ought to be 
produced, but this is my understanding of how the sentence reads if that portion 
added by General Eagan were eliminated. This is the sentence: "They shall keep 
not less than two experts with each cargo on shipboard and after landing until the 
beef is delivered to the proper officers of the Government, ' ' and there it would stop. 
Q. Then the seventy-two-hour interlineation comes in after that? 
A. "Which shall not be more than seventy-two hours from the time of storing the 
same in such refrigerators." Now that was an interlineation I will say that I did 
not understand at the time, but General Eagan put it in and in it went. I had no 
authority to strike it out. 
Q. In the other clause then at that time in the original draft, how did that read 
at that time? 
A. "The beef is to be properly clothed by the party of the second part for its pro- 
tection and proper handling, and so preserved by the refrigeration on shipboard and 
within refrigerator buildings referred to in article 2 hereof as that it shall be perfectly 
good and fit for use seventy-two hours after being issued from the ship's refrigerators." 
Q. And stops there? 
A. And stops there. The twenty-four hour clause then was put in-twenty-four 
hours after being issued from the refrigerator building to the proper officers of the 
Government. 
Q. That was put in as you have stated? 
A. That was put in in consultation with Capt. George B. Davis. 
Q. Is there anything further on that head that you can state to the court in expla- 
nation or elucidation of the matter? 
A. Of the twenty-four hour clause? 
Q. Yes; anything in regard to that matter? 
A. No, sir; there is not anything more that occurs to me. 
Q. Who furnished you, who gave you the data upon which you framed or drafted 
the contract? Did you draft more than one? 
A. Well, I made an original draft at the request of Capt. George B. Davis, who 
stated that the Commissary-General desired me to draw the contract in that beef- 
contract case. As I have already explained, I made a draft founded exclusively on 
such information as I could extract from this solicitation for proposals. 
Q. You had no other data at that time? 
A. I had no other data at that time; no, sir. I had not anything to do with this 
beef business of securing the beef for the island of Cuba up to the time that the tele- 
gram was put in my hands to send off, inviting proposals. 
Q. Please state the date of that telegram. It speaks for itself, but I just want it 
to go on record. 
A. The telegram as given here is not dated, but the date of the telegram I am 
pretty sure, was June 7. 
Q. Were those proposals advertised in the papers pretty extensively? 
A. No, sir; not advertised in the papers at all. 
Q. Were they published in the papers in any way so that public information was 
obtained in regard to them? 1454 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I think the matter was given out through the press, but I think there was no 
formal advertisement for proposals. It was thought, I think, that the sending of 
these telegrams to so many people all over the country known to be engaged in 
the beef business would answer the purpose of a public advertisement. 
Q. And they were given out as a matter of news simply, not as a matter of formal 
advertisement? 
A. I remember seeing it in the newspapers now that proposals had been invited 
for furnishing this beef. 
Q. You made how many preliminary drafts of this contract? 
A. That I don' t remember. I did not draft the contract in its entirety every time. 
I only took certain portions. 
Q. I mean in its incompleteness; how many times did you make drafts of the con- 
tract, or parts of it? 
A. I don't think I made more than two complete drafts, but there was a good deal 
of change in little matters of detail between those two complete copies. 
Q. Did any other superior officer of yours have anything to do or say in connec- 
tion with the preparation or drafting of these contracts other than as you have testified? 
A. No, sir; no one but Capt. George B. Davis and the Commissary-General himself. 
Q. Since you have been connected with the office of the Commissary-General have 
you known of similar contracts to the one that you have mentioned as between the 
Government and Swift & Co. being entered into or made by the Commissary-General? 
A. The entering into a contract by the Commissary-General was something entirely 
unusual within my experience. The contracts ordinarily made for the subsistence 
of the army were made by purchasing commissaries and chief commissaries, the 
chief commissaries usually making the contracts for beef to be supplied to the posts 
throughout the country-but by the Commissary-General, not to my knowledge. I 
do not recall a case where the Commissary-General himself formulated the contract 
papers and signed them. 
Q. There was another contract with Swift & Co. That, I believe, was for Porto 
Rico. Did you have anything to do with the drafting of that contract? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Your testimony in regard to this is similar as to the first one? 
A. In what particular? 
Q. I mean in regard to the matter of the bids, and so on. The bid is the same. 
There is no change in the contract except as to date, is there? This is the same kind 
of a contract? 
A. This contract is modeled on the one for Santiago; I mean for the island of 
Cuba. That was taken as a model for this, with such changes as were necessary. 
Q. In what places? 
A. The same number of people were not communicated with in regard to this 
contract as were communicated with in the case of the Cuban contract. You will 
observe by comparing the list that this is a much fewer number of people than were 
telegraphed to on the 7th of June. I believe that was -with the consent of the Sec- 
retary, that only a certain class of people on this Porto Rico contract should be tele- 
graphed to in respect to it. 
Q. I believe you testified that some forty or fifty were telegraphed to in regard to 
the first one. How many in regard to the other one? 
A. There are twelve mentioned here as constituting the list, the names to whom 
invitations to bid hereto attached were sent. A great many of the replies from the 
people who had been telegraphed to in connection with the proposals for the island 
of Cuba indicated that they were not in a situation to bid, or had some doubts as to 
their ability to meet the conditions, and would not, and in sending out invitations 
for the Porto Rico bid the parties who seemed to be in a situation to respond to the 
invitation were selected. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARM£. 
1455 
Q. The second contract, which you say was modeled on the first, was there any 
change made in the draft of that, or was the first taken as a model at once, without 
any special change being made? 
A. As I remember it, there was no change being made after the first draft. I 
don't think there were any changes made after the first draft had been prepared. 
It seemed to be satisfactory and was so executed. I see by reference here there was 
a little controversy about this portion of paragraph 9: "The party of the first part, 
acting for and on behalf of the United States, hereby guarantees the party of the 
second part that this contract shall be and remain in force for all refrigerated, chilled 
or frozen beef needed for the army of the United States in the island of Porto Rico 
for three months from the date hereof, and that if the army of the United States 
shall remain in the island longer than three months, this contract shall be extended 
during the period of their so remaining, not, however beyond the date of December 
31, 1898." I remember now that there was some instructions which the Commissary- 
General gave me in respect to the paragraph that I have just read, in that part rela- 
ting to the extension, whatever it was. I made the proper change from my original 
draft and I think that was the only change that I made of the draft that I had pre- 
pared for this contract. 
Q. Please state w'hat position, if any, during 1898, Captain Davis occupied in the 
office of the Commissary-General. 
A. Captain Davis came into the office before the beginning of the Spanish war. 
I don't remember particularly the date, but after General Eagan's assumption of the 
duties of Commissary-General he was the sole military assistant to the Commissary- 
General on duty in the army, with the exception that Col. John F. Weston was 
on duty in the office in April and May. I think Colonel Weston left the office on 
the 15th of May. 
Q. Captain Davis, then, was the principal assistant that was in the office? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did the relationship seem to be amicable, pleasant, and agreeable all around? 
A. With the Commissary-General? 
Q. Yes. 
A. Yes, sir; he was an especial confidante of the Commissary-General from the 
very closeness of their relations to each other. 
Q. If you know, did Captain Davis have anything to do in the matter of inviting 
proposals or receiving the bids and the opening of the same, and the negotiations 
leading up to the execution of the contracts-the preparations of drafts and so on? 
A. I know that Captain Davis was an especial confidante of the Commissary- 
General, and in the matter of the opening of the proposals and the awards and all 
the business connected therewith, I should assume that he was perfectly conversant 
with everything that was taking place. 
Q. You speak of incomplete data which had been furnished you to draw up this 
contract in the first instance, or to make a draft of it. Did you have any reason to 
believe that any information or data necessary in the preparation of that draft was 
withheld by either General Eagan or Captain Davis? 
A. I had no reason to believe that they were intentionally withholding any data. 
My own impression at that time was, and at this time is, that they had not them- 
selves digested the matter in such a form as to put it into the hands of a drafts- 
man to put it into shape. I felt that I had been called upon to do something the 
details of which had not been communicated to me. 
Q. Did you have any knowledge as to whether the details or data or correspondence, 
or whatever it might have been, were in possession of one or either of them at that 
time? 
A. No; I did not know whether they had it or not. It wTas not communicated to 
me at the beginning. It came out, as I remarked a while ago, at a certain point in 1456 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
the evolution of the contract papers; a typewritten memorandum was handed to me 
as being the substance, as being a draft that was necessary to be incorporated in the 
contract papers. Where that draft came from, who produced it, who got it up, I 
don't know. 
Q. About how long was that after you had made out the original drafts? 
A. Well, I should say it was not over four or five days, or not over a week. 
Q. Will you please state to the court, if you know, whether any fresh or canned 
meats, aside from that contracted for in the contract referred to, was ever purchased 
directly by your department. If so, give details. 
A. Do I understand your question to mean whether the Commissary-General in 
person entered into contracts for the supply 
Major Lee. Just read that question. 
The question was read as follows: 
"Q. Will you please state to the court, if you know, whether any fresh or canned 
meats aside from that contracted for in the contract referred to, wras ever pur- 
chased directly by your department? If so, give details." 
A. I should prefer to have the question subdivided. Yoti are treating of beef and 
canned beef. 
Q. Well, you can just divide your answer. 
A. Then I should say, answering both branches of your inquiry, that it is not 
within my knowledge that the Commissary-General, acting from his headquarters in 
Washington here, made any contracts for beef-for fresh beef or for any canned roast 
beef, or for any canned corned beef. Those purchases, where contracts were involved, 
or where open purchases in the market were concerned, have heretofore, within my 
experience, been made by the purchasing commissaries, whose duty it is to provide 
materials under instructions sent to them usually by the Commissary-General to 
make the purchases. 
Q. Refreshing your memory as well as you can, do you recall whether any pur- 
chases were made on direct orders from the Commissary-General's Office on Chicago, 
were ordered shipped? 
A. At what period? 
Q. During the late war. 
A. Oh, there were orders going from the Commissary-General from time to time 
to purchasing officers to receive or to either purchase or receive, from persons furnish- 
ing the material, certain quantities, to be shipped at once to the points in connection 
with the army. 
Q. You do not recall, then, whether a purchase was directly ordered and ordered 
shipped, directly ordered from the Commissary-General's Office? 
A. That is all a matter of record. What telegrams were sent out by the Commis- 
sary-General, or the written instructions, those are a matter of record, and if you will 
excuse me I should rather not attempt to state in a general way what those instruc- 
tions were. 
Q. Well, I merely wanted to get at the fact, if it were a fact, of entries being made 
then as to quantities and prices and so on. That could be shown, of course, by the 
record, when produced. I merely wished to get at it whether you had any knowl- 
edge or recollection now of purchases-of one or more purchases-having been ordered 
direct from the Commissary-General's and ordered shipped direct to the receiving 
commissaries at such points, in the South or elsewhere, where the stores were to be 
issued. Then, if you recall any such facts, that will be sufficient, and the quantities, 
of course, and prices can be obtained from the record. If you do not recollect, of 
course we will have to leave it there. 
A. I would prefer not to attempt to tell you what the written record shows. The 
written records would express to you much clearer than anything that I could say 
the fact about the matter. The business was done in the first few weeks of the war, FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1457 
and the first few months, in fact, with a great deal of celerity. A vast lot of expedi- 
tion was resorted to, and the telegrams and the instructions that went out in those 
times ought to tell the story better than anybody else can, unless it was from one 
who was personally responsible for what was done. 
Q. Then, as I understand, in answer to that question, you have no personal recol- 
lection on the subject now so that you could give testimony? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you ever hear any conversation in which General Eagan or Captain Davis 
participated relative to a process or processes for the preservation of meats? If so, 
state fully what those conversations were, who was present, and who participated in 
the same. 
A. I do not recall ever having overheard any conversation or participated in any 
conversation with either of them in respect to the matter of processing meat. There 
was correspondence passing through the office in which that sort of material was 
referred to, but I was not consulted in regard to any of it. If I heard the thing 
casually mentioned, it was in a way that did not interest me, a matter in which no 
responsibility rested upon me, and therefore I paid little or no attention to it. Any- 
thing in regard to the matter of processing is a matter of record, and the record 
ought to be produced if information is required in regard to it. 
Q. Where is this correspondence to be found; in the files of the Department? 
A. It ought to be there. 
Q. Do you recall, as a matter of fact, whether a letter was submitted by Armour or 
by his agents in that regard? 
A. In regard to the processing of meat? 
Q. Yes; in regard to any process of preserving meat. 
A. Yes, sir; letters. 
Q. Well, please state in answer to that what you know about it. 
A. I think there was a letter passed through the Department in May. That I 
think passed through the Headquarters of the Army, in which the processing of meat 
was concerned, but I do not remember that Armour & Co. were specially mentioned 
in it. There was subsequently, though, after the bids had been solicited and opened, 
a letter in behalf of Armour & Co. grounding their right to the contract upon the 
fact that some experiments had been made with their process meats in Florida, and 
on the success of those experiments, as they alleged, they claimed that they ought 
to be awarded the contracts, independent of the fact that their price was a little 
higher than that of the other bidders whom they understood to be the successful 
bidders. 
Q. Do you recall what process that was; what it is? Can you recall the name of 
the process, or what it was; how it has been designated? 
A. Well, the process that was mentioned in the letter passing through the Depart- 
ment in May was understood to be the Powell process. I don't remember dis- 
tinctly whether Powell's process was mentioned in terms in the letter that was sent 
after the opening of the bids or not. That letter ought to tell the story itself. 
Major Lee. Can I find that letter here attached to the bids? 
The Recorder. It is under seal there. It is one of those under seal. 
(A letter was produced.) 
Q. In answer to the last question, in regard to the letter on that subject, submitted 
by Armour or his agents, can you state to the court what disposition was made of 
the letter, whether it is on the files, and if not, what became of it? 
A. A portion, I think, of that letter is on the files, but the bulk of it has been 
returned to the writer at his request. 
Q. What portion is still on file? 
A. The portion containing the official indorsement. 
Q. What will it show, substantially? That is, merely give its description so it can 
be identified. 
S. Doc. 270 92 1458 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. The last page of the letter, I believe, was retained because it contained official 
indorsements. 
Q. From what source? 
A. From the Secretary's office and from the Commissary-General's office. 
Q. That is on file, or was? 
A. That portion of it is on file, but an office copy was retained of the letter, I 
believe. 
Q. Of the entire letter? 
A. Of the entire letter. 
Q. I will hand you this paper in connection with the question put to you in regard 
to the process or processes, and you may examine it, and state to the court whether 
that is the process referred to in your answer to the question. 
A. I have read the letter of June 13, from Armour & Co., which has been placed 
in my hands. I will say that I have no remembrance of ever having seen this par- 
ticular letter. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, in connection with the matter before the court, 
I would desire either now or at any time that it may be proper to read in evidence 
or to have read this letter. Shall I read it now? 
The President. Yes. 
Major Lee. It is under the seal of the Department, from the returns office, I 
believe, of the Department of the Interior. There is- a certificate that the paper 
attached is a true and accurate copy of a letter embraced in the contract made by 
Gen. Charles P. Eagan with Swift & Co. The letter itself is dated June 13, and is 
signed Armour & Co., per T. J. Connor, superintendent. 
(The letter referred to was read in full and is hereto appended, marked 21.) 
By Major Lee: 
Q. You have stated that to your knowledge the paper that was handed to you and 
which has just been read had never come under your observation before, as you 
recall? 
A. I don't remember ever having seen that letter before. 
Q. And you recall that there was correspondence with reference to that? 
A. That I understand from a circumstance that it is filed in the returns office in 
connection with the Swift contract; that it was a paper that was submitted with 
their bid-the bid of Armour & Co.-and necessarily had to be filed in the returns 
office under the.law in connection with the contract papers of Swift & Co. 
Q. Would such a letter in the usual course-I say such or a similar letter in the 
usual course of correspondence-pass under your charge or pass under your super- 
vision in the Commissary-General's office? 
A. Well, you must understand that this paper, if I am guessing aright, came with 
their proposals. Now, it was requested in the telegram soliciting proposals that all 
proposals under that telegram be marked on the outside "Proposals." Those pro- 
posals were at once put in the custody of Capt. George B. Davis, and that may 
account for the fact that I have never seen that paper. I am not sure of having 
seen any of the bids that were submitted under that telegram of June 7 inviting bids. 
Q. Are you aware of any further correspondence or of any correspondence between 
your parties and others relative to this so-called Powell process or any other process 
that came under your personal supervision? 
A. None except that letter, which was written subsequent to the one you have just 
read, which was requested by the writer to be returned to them from the files. That 
is the only other paper that I recall touching the subject of the processing of beef 
except the reports made by Colonel Weston from Tampa, to which you have referred. 
I think there is a report-I think there was a report from some of the people that I 
mentioned in that letter of Armour & Co. there; some of the officers to whom the 
meat had been turned over for experiments. There are reports of that kind I know. 
Those are all that I know of. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1459 
Q. Do you know about when these reports were received, whether prior to the 
awarding-the final awarding of the contract? 
A. Oh, yes; I think they were received before the contracts were awarded, or 
rather I don't know the precise point in time, the date when the contract was 
awarded in a formal way. There was a period between the 13th of June, when the 
proposals were opened, and the period when the contract was dated, namely, July 1- 
there was a period of a sort of uncertainty, both as to the party to whom the contract 
was to be awarded, so far as I could judge, and the drawing of the contract papers. 
It seemed to be a general period of uncertainty. 
Q. Have you any information or knowledge as to whether one Alexander B. 
Powell, supposed to be connected with or to be the owner of this Powell process, 
had any attorneys or agents here representing him with reference to these matters? 
Have you any information on the subject? 
A. I have no direct information on the subject. The interests of Armour & Co. 
seemed to be represented by a firm of attorneys in the city here who had correspond- 
ence with the Department between the opening of the bids and the final execution of 
the contract papers. That correspondence I have already described. 
Q. What firm was that? 
A. The firm of Dudley & Michener. 
Q. Were you ever informed in the office, in connection with your work or duties 
there, that they also represented Mr. Alexander B. Powell in this process in any 
way? 
A. I never had any communication with anybody as to the relations of Powell to 
any of the business. All I know is what I have seen of record. 
Q. I wish you would please state to the court when it was first proposed, if you 
know, to use canned roast beef or boiled beef, whatever it may be termed, as a part 
of the regular army ration? I mean by that as a part of the ration for use, not 
constant, but under whatever conditions might have been prescribed, and as to 
whether or not when it was first adopted as a part of the regular army ration it 
was regarded as an experiment? 
A. About the year 1879 there was a movement made, originating, I think, among 
subsistence officers, for the amelioration of the condition of enlisted men who were 
ordered to travel from point to point, by railroad or by stage, or other means, where 
they were under the necessity of carrying their food. Previous to that period it was 
the custom of the service to furnish enlisted men traveling with cooked rations, from 
the company kitchen, I take it, and that was found to be very objectionable on trav- 
eling in railroad cars, and besides it was concluded about that time that the enlisted 
men were entitled to a little better consideration than they had been receiving there- 
tofore in that regard. A proposition was made to utilize some of the canned goods 
which were on the market in those times, and in course of time an order was issued 
directing the use of canned beef for supplying the enlisted men while traveling on 
cars or for short periods when they were detached from cooking facilities. As I 
recall it, it is a matter of record. Possibly if you have a copy of the report of the 
commission for investigating the War Department convenient, it would assist me in 
giving the dates, because the matter is referred to there. 
The document in question is produced, and the witness continues: 
In 1878, August 1, 1878, a general order, No. 59, was issued from the Headquarters 
of the Army prescribing the character of the ration which was to be issued to troops 
traveling upon cars and transports or in the field, when impracticable to cook 
their rations. That order contained the items of canned, fresh, or corned beef. 
There were no very great purchases, no very great quantities of canned roast beef 
purchased at any time. What were purchased in those times were principally used, 
as I recall it, by the recruits who were sent from-general depots to their companies; 
or where troops were at a station provided with canned roast beef and were 1460 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
ordered on short journeys they were required to take the canned roast beef or 
canned corned beef, as either was available. It was a requirement in those times, 
as I recall, that officers conducting recruits from the recruiting station should 
make a report as to the acceptability of the canned roast beef as an article of 
the travel ration. Speaking without special reference to any given case in mind 
of an adverse report, my impression is that such reports as were made were gen- 
erally in opposition to the continuance of the canned roast beef component of the 
travel ration. At all events, in the course of time I think it was found upon 
thorough investigation that the purchase of canned roast beef and brawn, and maybe 
one or two other sorts of preparations, were abandoned. Very few purchases were 
made of them until the very extraordinary order was issued in May, I think April 
or May, at the beginning of this war, for the purchase of canned roast beef. The 
name ' ' Canned Roast Beef ' ' was repeated in an order from the Headquarters of the 
Army on February 8, 1888, which enumerated the articles composing the ration, the 
items being "Twelve ounces of pork or bacon or canned beef (fresh or corned.)" 
I remember having to do with the preparation of that revision, the revision of that 
article, and inasmuch as canned fresh and corned beef were prescribed for use by 
enlisted men while traveling, in any official announcement of the rations furnished 
to the enlisted men of the Army, in any official list announcing the components of 
the ration, canned fresh beef and corned beef should certainly have been given an 
incidental mention, because that character of food was furnished to enlisted men 
traveling, and that was the reason why it appeared in the general order, No. 8, of 1888, 
simply as an incidental parenthetical clause thrown in to include that which the 
existing order authorized to be furnished to a certain class of enlisted men, namely, 
those who were traveling short distances and under the conditions mentioned in 
existing orders. 
Q. As a fact, or in practice, the canned roast beef had not, as I understand from 
your testimony, been used as a regular component of the ration? Prior to the late 
war it had never been bought in any quantities or made a component of the ration 
other than as a travel ration? 
A. Not otherwise than as a travel ration, and let me add that during the Chicago 
riot the necessity for having some concentrated sort of food, some food in a con- 
densed shape that could be easily carried for a reasonable length of time away from 
the base of supplies, was felt, and I think that on that occasion canned meats were 
to some extent used, but I do not think that canned fresh beef cut much of a figure. 
It might have been that they did try the canned roast beef once more on that occa- 
sion, but I doubt it. Out of the exigencies of that species of service rendered in 
connection with the Chicago riots arose largely the idea of the establishment of 
what is called an emergency ration, finding some combination of food materials less 
in quantity and weight than the full garrison ration, which men could carry for a 
short period when detached on special duty. 
Q. Will you please state to the court, if you know, what experiments were made 
with reference to the canned roast beef being supplied to the Army during the late 
war; that is, what experiments, if any, or recommendations, were made on that sub- 
ject, and by whom? 
A. The only recommendation that I know of was that made by Col. John F. 
Weston, who seemed to be very much in favor of a canned meat component for the 
ration of the soldiers, and he was very enthusiastic about it, and I know he wrote 
some enthusiastic letters on the subject. 
Q. Specifically as to this canned roast beef or boiled beef that we have, or as to 
the canned meat? 
A. No; he was specific. It seemed that he had been in communication with the 
canned beef industry, and I think he thought he had found some combination of 
meat and vegetable materials that would answer the purpose of a meat ration. I FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1461 
think that his first correspondence was in regard to furnishing a meat portion of the 
subsistence of men sent to Alaska in connection with the relief of the destitute people 
there-the destitute miners. I am sure that he made some investigations and was 
in correspondence with the meat people, and he was enthusiastically in favor of cer- 
tain kinds of preparations, which he described in his correspondence. 
Q. You referred to it, I believe, as meats mixed with vegetables, generally? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you ever see any of that? Were any specimens submitted to the office? 
A. I don't know. Specimens of various kinds were coming to the office contin- 
ually. What they specifically were I don't know. I have seen them opened and 
seen the officers test them. 
Q. Before these purchases were ordered, did you see any test or any trial made, 
or the eating of it in the Commissary-General's Office by any officers or employees 
connected therewith? Was there any test or cooking of it served there as a mere 
test or example of what might be expected of it or what it might do? 
A. There was a cooking apparatus, a gas apparatus for cooking purposes, that was 
in existence in the office, but what amount of experimentation was carried on I don't 
know, because I had nothing to do with it. 
Q. You did not see any? 
A. I w7as never invited to give any information or to make any tastes or tests what- 
ever, so that what occurred there in the way of actual tests I don't know. 
Q. Do you recall any recommendation being made as to any experiments in behalf 
of troops before the purchases were ordered? Do you recall any paper of that kind 
coming in? 
A. You mean previous to these large purchases? 
Q. I mean an experiment by so many troops for a limited time, as has been the 
custom in such cases usually to determine the fitness of a ration, to try it a while and 
then send in a report about it? Did any such paper come in on that subject? 
A. Nothing in the last half dozen or more years on the subject of canned roast 
beef. 
Q. That is what I refer to. Can you state of your own knowledge or within your 
information whether the purchase of canned roast beef has been discontinued by the 
Commissary-General's Department? 
A. I think it has been discontinued so far as the Commissary-General himself or as 
the person acting in that capacity is concerned. I do not think any orders are going 
from the headquarters of the Subsistence Department directing any further pur- 
chases. The quantity still on hand is quite large. 
Q. Is it still being issued to the Army, or is it being otherwise disposed of? 
A. Well, I don't know precisely what disposition they are making of it other than 
that large quantities of it are being sent to Cuba for distribution under the law to the 
Cubans. 
Q. Mr. De Caindry, will you please state whether within the past year you at any 
time severed your connection or tendered your resignation as chief clerk in the 
office of the Commissary-General? If so, to whom and under what circumstances? 
A. Well, I tendered my resignation on the day following the one on which Gen- 
eral Eagan appeared before the commission for investigating the affairs of the War 
Department. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, I should like to ask what bearing this has 
on the matter referred to this court for investigation? I hope the counsel for the 
major-general will assure the court before the line of inquiry is pursued as to that. 
Major Lee. I have shown the connection of the witness with the Department. He 
has given quite exhaustive testimony on many points. I simply wanted to show 
that he had-whether or not he had severed his connection or attempted to do so 
during the last year, and for what reason, and the circumstances connected with it. 1462 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
It may have a relation to the matter that is under investigation, in his answer. If 
it has none, it can certainly be stricken out from consideration. 
The Recorder. I do not think he has given any assurance that it has any bearing 
upon the investigation. 
Major Lee. I do not exactly understand. 
The Recorder. If it please the court, when testimony is offered in any case in any 
court that does not upon its face appear to be relevant it is proper to ask that its 
relevancy be shown. That is the question that I asked, and I do not think it has 
been answered. 
Major Lee. Are you referring to this particular question? 
The Recorder. This particular question that has been asked, whether he resigned 
or did not resign. What bearing has that upon the matter referred to this court for 
investigation? 
Major Lee. As I stated before, the answer might determine what bearing it had. 
General Eagan was Commissary-General. General Eagan made the contracts for the 
refrigerated beef. General Eagan directed the purchase of the canned roast beef, 
and all these matters are under investigation-the circumstances under which the 
contracts were made. There are some things which may perhaps be simply collat- 
eral or merely incidental thereto. This may be one of them. I will simply submit 
the matter to the court. I do not care to go into any contention in regard to it. If 
the court does not desire the question answered I certainly shall not. 
Colonel Gillespie. I think we had better clear the court. 
Major Lee. Rather than take up time I will let the question be withdrawn. 
General Davis. Do you withdraw the question? 
Major Lee. I do, rather than take up time to-day. I will withdraw the question. 
Mr. DeCaindry is here and may be recalled at any time upon anything which may 
come up here. I believe that is all. 
The Recorder. I have no question. Has the court any? 
There were no further questions. 
The Recorder. May it please* the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Dr. Pyles, of the District of Columbia. 
TESTIMONY OF DR. RICHARD A. PYLES 
Dr. Richard A. Pyles was called as a witness by the recorder, and, being duly 
sworn, is examined. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and profession. 
A. Richard A. Pyles. I am a physician practicing in Anacostia. 
Q. Were you in the military service of the United States during the war with 
Spain in 1898? 
A. I was major and surgeon of the First Regiment of Infantry, District of Colum- 
bia Volunteers. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Did you accompany the regiment to Cuba? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Remained there throughout its service on duty with the regiment? 
A. At all times. 
Q. Who was in command of the regiment at that time, during that time? 
A. Col. George H. Harries. 
Q. Do you recall what meat ration your regiment had, going to Cuba from Tampa? 
I believe that is in evidence. 
A. Yes, sir; we had canned fresh beef and canned corned beef. 
Q. About what proportion? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1463 
A. We had very little canned corned ceef. The major portion of the travel ration 
was canned roast beef. 
Q. After landing in Cuba what ration had you in the nature of a meat ration? 
That is, I mean generally about its division as to components, up to and including 
the surrender? 
A. The travel ration, the canned-beef ration almost entirely. 
Q. What kind of canned-beef ration? 
A. The canned fresh beef, roast beef. 
Q. What they call roast beef. Did you have any bacon? 
A. We had none at that time. 
Q. Did you have none during the entire siege? 
A. Not until after the surrender. 
Q. Did you have any other canned meat of any kind? 
A. None whatever. 
Q. What was the character of that meat there, its condition? 
A. The canned roast beef had the stringy appearance that has been so often referred 
to. It was unpleasant to look at, unpalatable and unpleasant, and very repulsive 
and distasteful. When the can was opened it had the appearance of about four-fifths 
solid and one-fifth floating liquid portion, covered over with a scum, a very suety 
condition. 
Q. Did you have any personal experience with it yourself? 
A. I ate some of it when I was very hungry, and found it very repulsive. No one 
could satisfy an appetite, be he ever so hungry, by eating it. After eating a small 
quantity you became so repulsed that you just could not eat any more of it. 
Q. Did it tend to produce nausea or bad feeling on the part of the men? 
A. It was too satisfying; it satisfied you before you got enough of it. You did not 
want any more. It did not nauseate me at all. A great many of the men complained 
that it did nauseate them, but the appearance of it really was more repulsive than 
the taste. If eaten cold, as we usually ate it, it was even much more repulsive to 
the taste. 
Q. You tried it in various ways? 
A. Yes, sir; before the surrender we were not so situated that we could warm it 
usually; had to eat it cold. 
Q. After the surrender you still continued to use it until you got fresh beef? 
A. Until we got the fresh beef. 
Q. You got that about what date, as nearly as you can recollect? 
A. Between the 20th and 25th of July. 
Q. About what proportion of this canned roast beef ration did the men consume? 
Did they eat it all, or did they only consume a portion? 
A. They only ate a portion of it. They would eat just as little as possible. We 
had not a full supply of rations at that time, and the men were forced to eat it. A 
hungry man will eat anything. He will not ask the question whether it is good or 
not? 
Q. You did not have a full supply of other things to take the place of it? 
A. No, sir; we were on half rations. 
Q. Notwithstanding the fact of half rations, you say the men did not consume all 
the meat? 
A. Did not consume all the beef. 
Q. About what proportion, in your judgment, as an officer, seeing your regiment 
frequently, in regard to this beef, did the men consume? 
A. I could not answer that. 
Q. In the aggregate? Could you approximate it, from the cans thrown away, or 
in any other manner? 
A. I could not give you any idea. The men would frequently throw it away. They 
would not allow it to become known. 1464 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. How did the health of your regiment continue up to, well, say, to the time 
including the surrender? How was the general health of your men? 
A. Very good. We had at no one time as many as twelve sick up to that time. 
Q. You arrived there about what date? 
A. On the 10th, and the surrender was on the 17th. 
Q. And then you began getting fresh beef, you said, about the 20th? 
A. The 20th or 21st. 
Q. What kind of meat was it? 
A. Refrigerated beef. 
Q. How far did you have to haul it from where it was issued? 
A. We were about 3 miles from Santiago, on San Juan Hill. 
Q. What experience, if any, had you with it? And state fully in answer to the 
question whether it produced satisfaction or dissatisfaction or whether the results 
were deleterious or otherwise. 
A. Why, when the beef was first issued to us, of course we, as officers and men, 
were delighted that we were going to have something good to eat. The first issue 
was delivered about 1 o'clock in the afternoon. I remember at sick call next morn- 
ing one of the men reported sick said that he had eaten 2 pounds of it for break- 
fast. Well, as a result he was quite a sick man. A few days after this issue they 
began tp have malarial fever. They had been there long enough. A few days after 
this issue of refrigerated beef I observed that the men were contracting dysentery, 
and after the beef had been issued five days I had between sixty and eighty cases of 
dysentery in the regiment, whereas previous to the issue of beef I had had none; so I 
was looking for the cause of this dysentery, of course, and I reported to my colonel 
that I thought the over use of beef was causing it. The climate was exceedingly hot 
and it was raining almost constantly, and the men had practically no exercise. They 
were simply trying to keep well, to keep in good shape, and that, not having any 
fresh beef before, they were consuming too large a quantity of it. So I recom- 
mended that the issue of it stop, and I remember the commissary of the regiment 
that day requested that it be allowed to come into the regiment the next day, as the 
issue had already been arranged for. I objected to it, said that I did not want 
another pound of it used, and the issue that came the next day was buried, -was not 
issued to the men at all. After the stopping of the issue of beef my dysentery cases 
grew very much better, and I so reported to my colonel, and no further beef was 
issued in the regiment. We lost no man from dysentery while in Cuba. 
Q. And you attribute it to the cutting off of the beef supply? 
A. Unquestionably, without a doubt, very closely. 
Q. Do you know what quantities of beef the men drew in the regiment? 
A. They drew as much as they wanted. 
Q. Well, what allowance? 
A. I don't know' what allowance. There wras the greatest abundance of it. 
Q. The regulation allowance is put down as a pound and a quarter of meat, includ- 
ing bone, per day. You wrere not familiar with that allowance? 
A. I was not. I believe that any quantity asked for was obtained there by orders. 
Q. Who would have the best knowledge there on that subject? 
A. The commissary officer. 
Q. Who is he or wTas he? 
A. His name is Griffiths. He can be found at the National Guard headquarters. 
Q. He is in this city? 
A. Yes, sir; his address is 1410 G street. 
Q. Can you give his initials? 
A. I can not give his initials. 
Q. His name is Griffiths? 
A. Yes, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1465 
Q. Did you have any experience with refrigerated beef at Tampa before the 
regiment left there? 
A. We used it there. We had a quantity of diarrhea there, but I had not been in 
the service long enough to find out the cause. I thought at that time it was the real 
army ration-the hard-tack, beans, and pork. We did not have the dysentery, 
though; we only had the diarrhea. The men were drilling very hard in a hot 
climate, in the deep sand. The men were unaccustomed to field exercise, and the 
exhaustion was sufficient to have caused it, in my opinion. 
Q. After you had quit the use of refrigerated beef, as you have stated, there in 
Cuba, what meat ration did you use in place of it? 
A. Bacon, whenever we could get it, and we got it quite frequently. 
Q. How was the bacon liked by the men? 
A. Not as well as the beef by the men, but it acted very much better. The men 
preferred the beef. 
Q. What preference had the men as between the bacon that was issued down 
there and the canned roast beef? 
A. They preferred the bacon. 
Q. What was the character of it? Was it what is called choice breakfast bacon, 
or was it the ordinary common bacon? 
A. The ordinary common bacon. 
Major Lee. I believe that is all. 
The Recorder. I have no questions. Has the court any? 
There were no further questions. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, all the witnesses, I think, have testified 
who have appeared this morning. 
The President. And this afternoon, I believe, is a legal holiday. 
Thereupon the court, at 12 o'clock noon, adjourned until to-morrow at 10 
o'clock a. m. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, 
Washington, I). C., Friday, April 7, 1899. 
The court met pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. Major Lee and the reporter were also 
present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, none of the witnesses who were summoned 
to appear to-day have appeared, so that there is no business in connection with the 
receiving of testimony for the action of the court to-day. 
Colonel Gillespie. Can we not take a recess and wait? We want to make progress 
as rapidly as we can. 
The President. We might come back at 2 o'clock and see if any witnesses are here 
and have an executive session now. 
Major Lee. It is stated by the recorder that the witnesses who have been subpoe- 
naed are not here. I have ten here on a list that I looked up who should be here to 
testify. The address of one I was unable to get correctly until this morning. I 
mention this to show that I have used, as I think all have used, due diligence to get 
these witnesses here. 
The President. It is no fault of anyone here, of course. 
Major Lee. I am momentarily expecting a letter containing a request for two or 
three additional witnesses who are here in the city. One of them is an officer just 
from Cuba. I would like to submit a request to the court as to whether there is to 
be a decision made, or would like to have a decision, as to the admissibility of the 1466 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
official reports of officers referred to in the request of a few days ago. I should like 
to have a decision, also, as to the renewed request of the Major-General Commanding 
the Army of day before yesterday in regard to the witnesses, an additional list hav- 
ing been submitted. As to the papers and records to be brought pertaining to con- 
tracts, perhaps, as suggested by Colonel Davis, it has been made so general that it will 
take more time. I will look into that matter and try to make it specific, if I can, as 
to some of these papers. 
General Davis. Papers from the Commissary-General? 
Major Lee. Yes. Perhaps more papers are being prepared than are really wanted. 
1 did not have time to make the matter more specific. We are doing what we can 
in that regard. Upon the recall of Captain Davis, of the Commissary Department, 
I desire to ask a few questions, but that is not a matter of pressing importance to-day. 
As to the other matters, I would like, in behalf of the Major-General Commanding 
the Army, to have a decision of the court upon that at such time as the court may 
deem it proper to render a decision. A letter that I expected has not arrived. 
There are two or three witnesses whose examination is desired, and I wanted to sub- 
mit it to the court. I presume the letter is awaiting the signature of General Miles. 
I can have it sent down as soon as possible. 
General Davis. We shall be here again at 2 o'clock. 
Thereupon (at 10.15 a. m.) the court went into executive session. 
After which a recess was taken until 2 o'clock. 
AFTER RECESS. 
2 o'clock p. m. 
The Recorder. The ruling of the court is, upon the motion of the counsel of the 
Major-General Commanding, that the reports of 147 officers submitted by the Major- 
General Commanding be received and read in evidence. 
The reports appended and marked 22 were then read by Major Lee, counsel for 
the Major-General Commanding. 
At 4 p. m., pending the reading of the report, the court adjourned until to-morrow 
morning at 10 o'clock. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C., 
Saturday, April 8, 1899-10 a. m. 
The court met pursuant to adjournment. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. Major Lee and the reporter were 
also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
John Ruch, of Englewood, N. J. 
TESTIMONY OF JOHN RUCH. 
John Ruch was called as a witness by the recorder, and, being first duly sworn, 
is examined. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. My name is John Ruch; I live at Englewood, N. J.; occupation, cook most of 
the time and carpenter at other times. 
Q. Were you in the military service during the war with Spain? 
A. Yes, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1467 
Q. To what organization wTere you attached? 
A. I was in with the Second New Jersey. 
Q. Were you with that regiment at Jacksonville, Fla.? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. On what duty were you engaged? 
A. I w^S engaged first as help and then afterwards detailed to the cook house. 
Q. Of what company? 
A. Of Company F. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. State to the court what months you served at Jacksonville, Fla.-up to what 
time. 
A. We left for Seagirt on the 4th, and about a month later-the 4th of June, I 
think-arrived at Jacksonville. 
Q. And you remained there how long? 
A. Until about September. Then we went to Pablo Beach from there. 
Q. How far is that from there? 
A. That is said to be 15 miles. 
Q. You were in that vicinity, then, until you were mustered out? 
A. No, sir; we came home and were mustered out at Englewood, N. J. 
Q. That is the point I want covered-as to the length of service. Mr. Ruch, while 
you wrere on duty there, did you have anything to do with the handling or the issue 
of the meat that was issued to the companies of your regiment? If you had, just 
state the extent of the work that you had to do and the information that you had on 
that subject-how it was. 
A. I was detailed to the kitchen and stopped there. The meat that I handled, 
we had a butcher to cut it. I was doing the cooking for the company. What do 
you want me to state else about the meat-how it looked or anything like that? 
Q. Well, yes; I will ask you in regard to that. I wanted to know, in the first 
place, whether you had anything to do with drawing the meat from the commissary? 
A. I did, every morning; drew it from the commissary pretty much every morning. 
Q. Every morning you would draw it from the commissary? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And then you had the cooking of it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How long did you have that duty to do? 
A. All the time while I was with the company. 
Q. Do you know who furnished the meat? Have you any knowledge as to what 
contract it was or who was the contractor? 
A. I seen some of the wagons were Armour's, and I think I seen some Swift's 
wagons. 
Q. Now, as to the meat that was furnished to the company; was that cut up by 
the butcher at the commissary's and divided in that way? 
A. At first they came cut up. In the latter part then it came in halves and it was 
cut up there by butchers. 
Q. And then issued daily to the company? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. A piece according to what was wanted? 
A. No, sir; we received first 102 pounds, and then afterwards we received 96, and 
sometimes 92. 
Q. You received it by the quarters or part quarters? 
A. Sometimes it would be in pieces, and the latter part they were in halves, and 
then they cut it up and just made the same weight as others, as we had before. 
Q. As to what you observed in regard to that meat-as to its condition, as to its 1468 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
quality, and what was said about it, and what was done about it-state all you know 
in regard to it, as to the kind of meat; how it appeared. 
A. The meat appeared to me that it was red after it was fried, and it did not look 
as fresh as what it does up North here. It did not look as it does at Sea Girt, even, 
and I was wondering what was the matter with the meat. By and by I heard they 
had to embalm all meat that came down South, because they could not use it unless 
they did; so I thought that was the cause of its being so red. Sometimes it was 
redder than other times. What made it so I could not say. 
Q. You say that you heard that it had been embalmed. When did you hear that? 
A. I heard that after we had been South about a week, I guess. 
Q. About a week? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was it a matter of general talk? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Tell how the matter came up and all about it. 
A. The way it was talked-they refused to eat it at times, some of them, and then, 
after awhile, we heard that it was embalmed, and then they would not eat it at all, 
hardly. That is the way; that is as I understand it. 
Q. Well, about how often did that occur? 
A. It occurred first very frequently, but afterwards, of course, it got different 
again. Then the meat was the same all the time, and they ate it, but they didn't 
eat much of it. That is the way; they ate it, but they had forgotten then the 
embalming of it, I suppose, and ate it right along. 
Q. No particular complaint about it then after, for some time after? 
A. Oh, once in a while they would talk about it; they would tell that it was not 
fit to eat and such things as that. 
Q. Do you recall at any time an officer of your regiment asking you anything in 
relation to the meat, or taking any of it from the cook house? 
A. I remember at one time that the lieutenant-colonel came down, and he asked 
me if I had any of the beef, and that was just at supper time, and I told him I 
thought there was a piece in the ice box, but I did not know whether that piece that 
was in the ice box belonged to the captain or not. Sometimes the captain would get 
a piece of meat, but we kept our meat in that ice box at that time. I seen the lieu- 
tenant-colonel there, and that is all I know about it. 
Q. He spoke to you, had some words with you about it, didn't he? Asked you 
something about it? 
A. What, the colonel? 
Q. Yes, the lieutenant-colonel. 
A. He told me at one time-he said that he didn't think the meat was very good, 
and asked me what I thought about it. I said, "Well, they have been talking 
about it; the boys have been talking about it; I don't know. I have not ate any of 
it, or very little." What I ate I generally took onions with it, and so with the boys, 
too. I generally fed them lots of onions with the meat. In the morning I gave them 
beefsteak. Well, then, in the afternoons we generally boiled onions, or made Ham- 
burg steak, or something like that, always filled with onions, in such a way-that is 
the most was-and then when we had roast beef we used onions generally with that. 
Q. What was the particular complaint of the soldiers in the company about it? 
How did it affect them? 
A. Some of them said, "It is rotten." That is about the way they said it. 
Q. So far as you know, was there at any time anything disagreeable resulting from 
it; any sickness of any kind; any complaint that it disagreed with them? Did any 
of the men make that complaint? 
A. Yes, sir. They had quite some talk about that. They told me first it was the 
water that kept them running so much to the closet, and then they blamed it on the 
meat afterwards. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1469 
Q. What did you say was the color of this beef? 
A. A kind of a reddish color. It did not fry brown at all like meat does up North 
here; it fried reddish. 
Q. How did it appear on the outsde? 
A. Sometimes it looked very good and sometimes it looked reddish. Other times 
it was kind of slimy-like when they fetched it down from the quartermaster's 
department. 
Q. How far were you from the place where the meat was drawn, or from the 
refrigerator or the car, or where they kept it? 
A. We were quite a ways from that, but from the quartermaster's department, 
where we received it, I don't believe that was more than 250 yards; just the length 
of the street. It was right back of the street. 
Q. How far were you camped from Jacksonville-only 2 or 3 miles? 
A. I don't think we were over a mile; not much over a mile. 
Q. It was a matter of information or knowledge, then, within your information, 
that the meat was brought from Jacksonville-came from there? 
A. I don't know where it came from, but I saw the wagons coming from that way. 
Q. You never heard of it coming from any other place, did you, than Jackson- 
ville? 
A. No, sir; I never heard of any place that it came from at all. 
Q. Did you ever have any experience in butchering? Are you a butcher by occu- 
pation in any way? 
Q. Were you in charge of the cook house, or were you simply the assistant during 
the time you were there? 
A. I was in charge of the cook house. 
Q. About how many men were on duty in the company, or were there in your 
company? 
A. In our company? 
Q. Yes. 
A. I think 106 men; that is, after they had the second call. Then we got 106. 
Before, we had 80 men some of the time and 85 some of the time, I think. 
Q. Did you attend to all the cooking yourself? 
A. Yes, sir. I had an assistant. I had two details sent to me every day oesides 
another assistant whom I had all the time. 
Q. Can you state several times you noticed this condition of the meat while you 
were there? 
A. Yes, sir ; sometimes it was redder than others. 
Q. Well, was it always red? Did it always have that appearance? 
A. Oh, sometimes it had a nicer appearance than at other times. I will say that 
it was redder at sometimes than at others, but it did not seem to have the regular 
color that it had North. The fat did not seem to be white-the tallow. 
Q. In what respect did the inside differ from the meat that you had seen in the 
North? 
A. Well, I don't know. I don't think it had the clear red color at all. I think it 
was darkish like when I cut it. 
Q. Did you notice anything in appearance, as to whether it had been treated or 
washed with anything? Was there anything of that kind ? 
A. No, sir ; I could not tell that. 
Q. Could not tell that? 
A. No, sir ; I could not tell nothing at all about that. As far as I could tell-I just 
only seen-I thought it was that with the climate we had down there we had that 
kind of meat. I did not know. 
Q. When there was talk of embalming, how did the talk come in regard to that? 
What was said in regard as to how it might have been embalmed, if anything? 1470 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I don't know they were talking that they used what they embalmed dead 
people with. That is what they said, and therefore most of them refused to eat it. 
Q. Do you remember the name of the lieutenant-colonel? 
A. Dr. Currie, I think. 
Q. Did the lieutenant-colonel tell you anything about what he had found in that 
beef? Did he ever speak to you anything about it? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Said nothing more than to come and get a piece of meat there, and exchange 
a few words? 
A. Yes, sir; he used to come down there once in a while, and he would be inspect- 
ing the different cookshops. 
Q. Had you any experience with canned roast beef down there? 
A. No, sir; we had none, only what we bought ourselves; that is, what the com- 
pany bought themselves. We had no roast beef any way. We had corned beef. 
We did not have any canned roast beef to my knowledge. 
Cross-examination by the Recorder: 
Q. Did you buy the canned corned beef yourself? 
A. I think we did; yes, sir. 
Q. It was not issued? 
A. I think we bought it. I did not see any of the rest have corned beef. What 
we got in cans was only tomatoes. I don't know as we got any other vegetables in 
cans. 
Q. When was the first occasion on which you heard the word "embalmed" 
used? 
A. I was not there long at all before they said that; about a week or so 1 should 
judge. 
Q. Who said it first? 
A. I don't know the fellow who said it first. They all said so. I suppose one 
said it, and they all followed after the rest. 
Q. What led them to say it; what was there about the beef that made them 
say it? 
A. Because the beef looked so, I suppose, and did not taste right. I suppose that 
is the reason they said so. 
Q. How did it taste; in what respect was the taste different from ordinary beef? 
A. Well, to my knowledge, I think it tasted kind of cordy, cords in it, and it was 
not palatable, just like straw, something like that, after it had been fried; and then 
in its color 
Q. Keep on about the taste. 
A. Well, that is about as far as I know. It tasted cordy, and did not smell right. 
Q. What was the smell? 
A. I could not say what kind of a smell it had. Sometimes it had a peculiar smell 
and sometimes it did not have it as strong. Sometimes it had a very peculiar smell. 
I could not tell you how it smelt. Other times the smell was stronger. 
Q. What was the smell like? Can you compare it to anything? 
A. Yes, sir; it smelt-did you ever smell meat that was decayed a little bit? 
Q. Yes. 
A. What they hang up in ice houses? 
Q. Yes. 
A. Well, something like that; just like the outside if you cut the outside piece off. 
Q. Now, about the color, the outside color; how did that differ from ordinary beef, 
as you saw it? 
A. It differed in shades, about two shades, sometimes three shades, a lighter red 
than ordinary. 
Q. And the fat, how did that look? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1471 
A. The fat did not look white; it looked kind of yellowish like; and sometimes, I 
remember that one time they came down there, we had the foreleg; that was our 
part of it; it was very dark, and I told the butcher in the quartermaster's depart- 
ment, I said, "John, what do you think about this; look at this." He said, "Yes, 
it is something terrible, but we will cut it up anyway." 
Q. You say the outside was black? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was that tainted? 
A. I could not say. 
Q. Did it have any smell? 
A. Well, it was slimy. 
Q. Now, tell us about the inside; wherein did the inside differ? 
A. I think that the inside differed in the cutting. If we cut the beef it did not 
seem to have such a red color as what it had before. It had a dark color, like. 
Q. Are you sure of that; sure it was darker? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you know Colonel Currie? 
A. Yes, sir; I know him; I knew him when I saw him pass. 
Q. Are you acquainted with him; have you a speaking acquaintance with him? 
A. Yes, sir; he is my doctor. 
Q. How long since you have seen him? 
A. I seen Dr. Currie the day before yesterday. 
Q. Did you have any conversation with him? 
A. No, sir; only I told him I had been subpoenaed and I did not know what for. 
So he said, "You will have to go." I said I did not think it was right to subpoena 
me at all, that there could be better evidence of it than I was. 
Q. You say that for a time the men refused to eat the beef, and then, after a time, 
they began eating it again. Did not I understand you to say that? 
A. As soon as they had money, as soon as they got paid off, then they would not 
eat much of that beef, and as soon as they had no more money then they had to eat 
it. That was the way it was. I know that the captain had bought a good deal of 
stuff to feed the company with, with money that he had received from them, money 
that the company had before they went out. 
Q. So they began to eat it again as soon as they got out of money? 
A. Surely; there was nothing else there. Of course I don't say that they left it all 
alone. They ate part of it; but instead of me cooking a pan and a half of steak that 
ought to be ate, they would eat only one pan, and some of them would not eat it 
at all. 
Q. Now, after they began eating it again, did they eat a pan and a half? 
A. No, sir; not that I know. I could not tell you about that. I did not keep that 
much in mind, but it ran different during the time that they were there. 
Q. After the money was spent and they had no more money to buy things with did 
they eat as much or less than they did before? 
A. When the money was spent-which money? Their money that they received? 
Q. Yes. 
A. Oh, they always ate more when they had their money than they did when they 
had spent it. These other things they would go out and buy, other stuff. 
Q. Well, do you understand me? I get the idea from you that when they had 
money they did not eat as much of the beef. 
A. No. 
Q. Now, when that money was gone, did the amount of beef that they ate increase 
or remain the same? 
A. Oh, it increased a little, certainly. 
Q. You have testified how this beef looked on the outside and how it looked on 
the inside. Did it change any in appearance at that time? 1472 
FOOD FURNISHEp THE ARMY. 
A. Well, I don't know how to answer that, really. 
Q. Try to recollect it. 
A. Because sometimes when I was there it looked very red. I could not tell one 
week whether this week was like the last week, you know. I could not make any 
statement about that. 
Q. Then you could not say whether the beef, say in the latter part of August, 
looked as it did in the latter part of July? 
A. Oh, I believe, take it on and off, 1 guess it looked about the same all the way, 
on and off, about the same in July and August. 
Q. To the best of your recollection, then, it looked the same? 
A. Yes, sir. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Did you hear this word "embalmed" or "embalming" in conversation with 
men of other regiments? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You say it was general talk? 
A. It was general talk right around our battalion street. 
Q. In other regiments as well as your own? 
A. Regiments, no, sir; companies. 
Q. Other regiments? 
A. I did not hear that. We were always mostly alone-our battalion. We had one 
street, and then two of the companies went off-left-and there were only two, E 
and F, but they talked about it before they went. One company went to the rifle 
range, that was Company L, and the other company, a good many of their men died, 
and they went to Pablo Beach. 
Q. You were in Jacksonville about two or three months? 
A. I was there from May the 2d; we started from Englewood, and we came home; 
I guess it was in October; the 2d, I think, we started from Jacksonville. 
Q. Then you were there about five months? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And the beef was issued all the time during that period? 
A. What do you mean, the beef at Jacksonville? 
Q. At Jacksonville. 
A. Yes, sir; it was always issued there. I used to go up and get it when there 
was some. 
Q. You have complained about sickness caused by it; how much sickness, generally? 
A. I dpn't know that. I didn't say there was any sickness caused by it, because 
I don't know. 
Q. I misunderstood you, then. You don't know whether there was any sickness 
caused by it or not? 
A. I don't; no, sir. I could not say that. I know some of the men got sick; I 
know that of course. We did not lose any in our company, that was lucky for us. 
I always thought that probably was from my putting onions and things like that in 
the meat, that saved the men from being sick. We were quite well for pretty near 
a month, and then some of them started to get sick. 
Q. Did the regimental surgeons ever come around to inspect the kitchen? 
A. Yes, sir; there were three or four inspections there. When they were getting 
sick, so many of them, why then there would be inspections quite often. 
Q. Do you know whether this talk about embalming was ever reported to the 
captain? 
A. I don't know. I guess he heard it in the street, what they were talking about. 
They said it was embalmed. I did not know where they got it from. I helped 
them sing "embalmed," and I don't know whether it was embalmed or not. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1473 
Q. Do you remember any special occasion when any large number of men were 
sick in your regiment, any special occasion of sickness? 
A. Company L and Company G 
Q. That is the latter part of the time? 
A. Just about the middle of it, in August and around there, that they fell off. 
Company L lost a good many. I guess we could not report 24 men. 
Q. What was the sickness generally; what kind of disease? 
A. The way I thought it was they got dysentery like, and then they would lie 
around a day or two, and then they would go to the hospital. 
Q. Typhoid fever? 
A. So they said that it was typhoid fever. 
Q. When these inspectors came around to your company kitchen did they ask 
you any questions about the meat? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you tell them anything about the meat? 
A. No, sir; I left that to the other cook to do. I never spoke to an inspector. 
When they came I left them to the other cook. 
Q. You are the chief cook? 
A. Yes, sir; but they never addressed me. If they addressed me I just referred 
them to the other cook. 
Q. Do you remember that they asked any questions about the meat? 
A. I don't know that they asked any questions about the meat. They inspected 
what they called the sow belly there once, and that was full of maggots. 
Q. Did you volunteer any statements to the inspectors about the meat? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You did not tell them that it had been treated in any way? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You did not tell them the men did not like it? 
A. I did not tell them nothing. It was not my business to tell them, sir; I 
thought that way. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Did the captain or lieutenant come around every day? 
A. Yes, sir; there was a first lieutenant sometimes, and sometimes the captain 
came down. 
Q. Did'nt the captain ever ask you any questions? 
A. I guess the captain brought most of the stuff down from Jacksonville. 
Q. Oh, no; didn't he ever ask you questions about how the men liked the rations? 
A. Oh, yes; he asked me that. He knew that they didn't like them. They came 
up and complained to him. That is what they were doing. 
Q. Did you ever hear any of them tell him that it was embalmed? 
A. I have never heard that; no, sir; but I don't see how he could help but hear 
it when he was in the street. There was that talk at first, but afterwards it dimin- 
ished a little. After we got there about three or four weeks, then it died away 
again, and then probably it would start up again just as soon as they would see a 
piece of meat that they thought was not right. 
Q. Was much of the meat that was issued thrown away? 
A. Beef? 
Q. Yes; fresh beef. 
A. To my recollection I think there were some mornings there would be half a 
pan. They would not eat it after it had been fried. In case I fried a panful to-day 
for breakfast-that is, a steak-probably I would have half a pan full or maybe 
three-quarters, just as it would go. 
Q. And that would be thrown away altogether-would not be used to make hash 
with, or something? 
S. Doc. 270 03 1474 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. No, sir; never made any hash out of that. We made that out of corned beef, 
made it most all that way, out of canned corned beef, most all our hash; but we made 
stews. 
Q. Was much of it thrown away before it was cooked? 
A. No; we took it back to the commissary department. 
Q. And got something else for it? 
A. Sometimes-and sometimes we didn't-that is, if there was any to get. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. You say that there were several there who had more knowledge than you have. 
Can you name one or two whom you think know more about that embalming busi- 
ness down there? 
A. I don't know, sir; no. I don't think they know any more than what I do 
about it, but there were some that had been cutting the meat all the time, like 
Johnny Markham. He has been there and cut it into steaks, and he was a butcher 
by trade. 
Q. What did he say about it? 
A. Oh, he sometimes didn't eat it. 
Q. Did you sometimes hear him speak about it, about the embalming business? 
Did you hear him speak of it, that the meat had been fixed up? 
A. Yes, sir; that is just about the way he said it. 
Q. That it had been fixed? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You were all there in a battalion together, weren't you? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. While you were cooking there did you or not go around much? If so, where 
did you go? 
A. No, sir; very seldom, only over to G's; very seldom left the cook place. 
Q. How' much knowledge, if any, have you about what was going on in other 
regiments and battalions? 
A. Not any of any account that I know of, only that sometimes they would try to 
beat me cooking. I could look across and see them. They would try to beat me in 
the way of putting puddings on, or something like that. 
Q. Was there much sickness among the men of your company or among the men? 
A. In the first part there was not much, but the latter part they got sick pretty 
much. 
Q. I know you are not a doctor, but in a general way did you know about what 
the complaint was among the men? What did they complain of mostly? 
A. The ones I know of being sick they told me they did not feel well, and they 
had the dysentery or something like that, indigestion I suppose; and then they went 
up to the doctor's and got some pills; and when they got the pills then the first 
thing they would lie around for a day or two and then they would go to the hos- 
pital. That is all I know. 
Q. That is all you know. These men complained about dysentery? 
A. Something like dysentery. They said it was dysentery. I suppose they would 
find out different when they got to the hospital. That is as far as I know. I don't 
know'. 
Q. I understand you that from the first there was dissatisfaction from the meat, 
and then after that, as I understand you to testify, off and on at various times. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Well, how would it be at those various times? 
A. In what way do you mean? 
Q. I mean as to being satisfactory? 
A. Just as I said. At the first they would not eat much, and then probably by 
and by they would eat a little of it, something like that. I don't mean to say FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1475 
that they liked it, but you know, if a man was there eating, he would be hungry 
and eat something. 
Q. But in regard to the condition you noticed, you know that that same condition 
existed with the meat afterwards? 
A. Yes, sir; as far as I know; I am pretty positive about that. 
Q. You say the company's captain kept his meat in the ice box. Did he get the 
same kind of meat, so far as you know? 
A. I don't know; I think not. 
Q. This butcher that you speak of, was he a member of your company or 
regiment? 
A. Yes, sir; a member of Company F. He was really the quartermaster. That 
was Russell Reed. He was the cutter; he was a butcher and the cutter when they 
cut steaks, or anything like that. 
Q. For the battalion or for the company? 
A. For the company. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Who put the captain's meat in that box? 
A. He had a cook of his own, you know. Sometimes we put it in and some- 
times he came down. 
Q. If the Captain did not get his meat where you got it, where did he get it? 
A. I don't know. All I know is I used to get up in the morning at 3 o'clock, or 
at half past 3 or 4 o'clock, and then I got my ration for the company. I don't know 
where the captain got his. 
Q. Did any butchers come around to your camp to sell meat? 
A. I don't know of any. 
Q. Was there any butcher's stand near you? 
A. I know a man that brought vegetables sometimes. 
Q. I did not ask about vegetables. Was there any butcher shop near your regi- 
ment? 
A. Only in Jacksonville. 
Q. None nearer than Jacksonville? 
A. No, sir. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Did you ever go to this butcher shop in Jacksonville? 
A. No; I went to market, though. 
Q. The meat that was drawn for the captain was drawn separately from the com- 
pany meat? 
A. I don't know anything at all about that. 
Q. You did not draw his meat? 
A. I did not draw his meat. 
Q. You don't mean to say to the court that the captain used the company's meat? 
A. I don't say nothing about it, because I don't know. 
Major Lee. That is all I wanted to get at. 
Major Lee proceeded with the reading of the reports above referred to, which are 
hereto appended, marked . 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Alexander B. Powell, of New York. 
TESTIMONY OF ALEXANDER B. POWELL. 
Alexander B. Powell was called as a witness by the recorder and, being first duly 
sworn, is examined: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 1476 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Alexander B. Powell; Hotel Endicott; place of business 99 Barclay street, 
New York City. 
Q. And what is your business? In what do you deal? 
A. In meats, prime meats, poultry, and game. 
Q. How long have you been engaged in that business? 
A. Over twenty-five years. 
Q. Are you engaged in the slaughtering of cattle or other animals? 
A. No. 
Q. From whom do you obtain your meats? 
A. Well, from these large slaughtering establishments all over the country. 
Q. Will you please state to the court who are the purchasers of your meat products 
and game and so on-that is, to what class do you sell them? 
A. To the hotels, steamships, restaurants, and so forth. That is the bulk of our 
trade. 
Q. Are you acquainted with any process for the keeping or preservation of fresh 
meat without the aid of ice? 
A. I am; yes, sir. 
Q. Have you ever used such a process? 
A. I have. 
Q. Who is its discoverer? 
A. I discovered it. 
Q. How long have you used it? 
A. Well, perhaps six or eight years. I don't know exactly how long I have used 
it-That is to say, I have been shipping meats into southern climates for twenty 
years and consequently have tried more than one. This has proved to be the best, 
and it is my own discovery. 
Q. Are any of the winter-resort hotels in the South customers of yours? 
A. Now, I would prefer not to say that. 
Q. I do not mean to ask for the names, but simply as to whether they are. 
A. You see that is something, with this embalming business that is going around 
so much, that it has got to be a joke. They want to know whether they buy meat 
of that embalmer, as it has been called. 
Q. I will not insist upon that. 
A. I would rather not refer to any of my trade, or at least not to refer to those 
whom I trade with. 
Q. Do you use the process heavily in your business? 
A. I do; yes, sir-well, what do you mean by heavily? 
Q. Every day, or occasionally? 
A. Occasionally I do; yes, sir. Among our northern customers we have refriger- 
ators and ice processes which are cheaper and easier of application, and we use that 
in the Northern States altogether, in summer as well as in winter. 
Q. Have you ever shipped any of this to tropical or semitropical climates? 
A. Oh, yes. 
Q. What, in your mind, is the advantage of the process over the ordinary method 
of preserving by ice? 
A. Well, it is a purifier, and where you have got to pay high rates of express and 
freight charges, my plan was to simply process this meat and put it into a barrel, 
score the barrel, and give it all the air I could, and let it go right down into the 
tropical or semitropical climate, and it has been successful in making the trips, and 
saved a great deal of freight expenses in that way. 
Q. Is your process a secret? 
A. It is; yes, sir. 
Q. Is it patented? 
A. No, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1477 
Q. Have you ever attempted to have it patented? 
A No, sir; I do not think it is patentable. 
Q. Why don't you think it is patentable? 
A. Well, I think these things are in common use by everybody every day, and I 
do not think it is patentable; that the combination we make up which produces this 
effect is so eminently simple that I never thought it was patentable. 
Q. Will you state under oath whether boracic or salicylic acid-either of them-are 
used in your process? 
A. No, sir; no, sir. 
Q. Have you any objection to stating to the court whether your process involves 
arterial injections? 
A. It does not; no, sir. 
Q. Does the process involve the immersion of the beef in a liquid, or the applica- 
tion of a liquid, or pasty substance? 
A. It does not; no, sir. 
Q. Will you state to the court how it is applied? 
A. Well, it is applied by fumigation. I can fill a car full of beef and by my appa- 
ratus I can process a carload, say 20,000 pounds-I can process it in half an hour. 
Q. A carload in half an hour? 
A. Very well. I can process 10 carloads in half an hour, just as fast as I can get 
from one car to another. If I had my apparatus in, of course I could do it. It is 
really processed in half an hour, the whole train would be. Of course I have to have 
different apparatus for each car. 
Q. As a result of the application of the process, what smell, if any, or odor is left 
upon the beef? 
A. Well, if you were right near where I was processing, or right away after the 
beef came out of the car from having been freshly processed, you would smell sulphur. 
That is one of the ingredients by which we burn the others. 
Q. And would that smell continue? 
A. No; it would blow off, a day like to-day, in half an hour, and you, could not 
smell it at all. 
Q. Will you please tell the court what taste, if any, results from the application of 
the process? 
A. There is no taste that is noticeable. As I say, a half an hour, or perhaps two 
hours after, the sulphuric appearance and taste and everything passes away, and 
there is no taste and no smell that you could detect, and should not be. 
Q. When did you first hear that bids were to be invited for the supplying of beef 
to the army in Cuba? 
A. Well, it was in the spring, and I think in May. Until coming over on the cars 
I have not brought it right down to date. I will not be able to give you dates, but it 
was in May-the last of May-as I remember, as I was in Tampa in the early part of 
June. That is my recollection. It was in the latter part of May. 
Q. There is evidence that some beef that arrived at Tampa had been treated by 
your process. Did you treat any such beef? 
A. I did. 
Q. About that time? 
A. I did. 
Q. Where was it treated? 
A. In one of Armour's cars on the side track, right there near one of his buildings. 
Q. In what city? 
A. Chicago, in the stock yards. It was a car that stood on the track there, one of 
his cars, that they gave me to process it. 
Q. The beef then was obtained from whom? 
A. Mr. Connors furnished the beef-that is, he had written to them, and they sup- 
plied me the beef. 1478 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Where did you have the interview with Mr. Connors? 
A. In New York. I wrote this statement [producing a paper] coming over on the 
cars, and I will read that all over to you and then if there are any other questions 
you want to ask me 
Q. You can use it to refresh your memory, if you please. You had this interview 
with Mr. Connors. Please state to the court what occurred at that interview and 
where it took place. 
A. Well, in the beginning, finding about this contract going to be given by the 
Government and I having this purifier, something that I thought would be very 
valuable to whoever got the contract, I thought to myself, "Now, I.must find out 
where I can apply this." I had no idea of taking the contract away from any of 
these big firms. I wrote to the President, I wrote to General Eagan, and I wrote to 
General Miles, and I thought between the three I would find out where I ought to 
go with my process, and I got these letters in return [producing several letters]. 
There are all the letters and all the particulars about it-one from the President and 
one from General Eagan. I do not think there is any from General Miles. 
Major Lee. May I inquire at this stage whether the letters to which these are 
replies have been produced, or is all the correspondence here? 
The Witness. No; these are the replies. I supposed they would have my letters. 
I did not keep copies of them. I did it as an inquiry. I wanted to find out where 
I ought to go to strike the right party, because I considered my process to be very 
valuable under the seventy-two hour idea. I thought that it had to be kept 
seventy-two hours after it came out of the freezer, and this, I thought, in connection 
with the freezing process, would be invaluable. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. These, then, are the replies that you received to the letters that you addressed 
to the President, General Miles, and General Eagan? 
A. Yes, sir. They are copies in some cases. 
Major Lee. Well, I suppose the originals can be obtained if there is any question, 
and also his letters, to which these are replies, I suppose will come in later. 
Major Lee then read the letters referred to, which are hereto appended, marked 
"23 A." 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Where did you stay in Chicago? 
A. At the Morrison House. 
Q. Who assisted you in conducting this process? 
A. One of the bell boys simply took my paraphernalia there and went out with 
me on the car with the stuff that I used. 
Q. How many carcasses were turned over to you by Armour & Co.? 
A. There were six carcasses in the car that I processed in Chicago. Mr. Connors 
wanted me to leave one carcass there in Chicago, which I did, and the other five 
were shipped through to Tampa, and the car filled with their other meat. 
Q. How long did it take to complete the process in Chicago? How long were you 
engaged in it? 
A. Well, we were really through with it in half an hour or an hour, but of course 
] left the car; did not open the car until the next morning; went through there to see 
if everything was all right. 
Q. So how many investigations did you make of the car? 
A. Two. 
Q. On the same days or bn different days? 
A. On different days. 
Q. To what point was the meat shipped from Chicago after having been subjected 
to this treatment? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1479 
A. To Tampa. I found it in Tampa about a week after. 
Q. Did you go to New York or to Tampa? 
A. I went to Tampa. 
Q. Direct from Chicago? 
A. Direct from Chicago. 
Q. Please state in your own form what occurred at Tampa in connection with the 
examination or exhibit of this beef. 
A. Well, I got to Tampa, and I went to Armour's office and told him what I 
expected to see there, and about two or three days later they called me up on the 
telephone. I was stopping at the hotel, and they called me up on the telephone and 
told me there was five cattle in one of their cars which were said to belong to me- 
processed cattle. I said all right; to leave them right in the car. Their temperature ran 
up pretty high, up to about 60 or 75, but that was all right; and he wanted to know 
if they should ice it, and I said no, let it go. They did not ice it up, but left those five 
cattle right in the cars. I went down and saw their headman, who was going to 
introduce me to the Government representative, Colonel Weston. 
Q. Who was their representative? 
A. A man by the name of Edwards, I think. He is their Jacksonville representa- 
tive, and he was over there and had charge at the time the army was there, and he 
was to introduce me to this Colonel Weston; but he was called to Jacksonville, and 
I made up my mind I had better go and see Colonel Weston myself. So I went right 
up to his office and told him I had waited to be introduced to him. He said: "You 
don't need any introduction to me. What do you want?" I told him what I had 
done and the conversation I had had with Mr. Connors, who was a very intimate friend 
of mine, a man I had done a good deal of business with. 
Q. Mr. Connors is the New York representative of Armour & Co.? 
A. He is the Eastern representative of Armour & Co. . His office is in New York, 
and it was with him that I had all the talks that I ever had with the Armours. 
He is their representative. He has no interest in it at all, only he is their man to do 
business for them; that is to say, he is the man that I guess that whatever he does 
Armour thinks is all right. So my talk was all with him, and we made all the 
arrangements about it before I left. He agreed to pay my fare out to Chicago if I 
would go out and make this exhibit to his people and to the representatives of the 
Government at Tampa. I said, "I will do it," and .started that night, and he had 
written to them, through some officer they had there, to furnish me with this meat, 
etc., and facilities for doing anything I wanted. When I got there I found that 
it was all arranged, and I set to process the meat the next morning. 
Q. Who delivered the beef to you as representing Armour & Co.? 
A. There was a man there; I could not tell his name. He was a man, I suppose, 
in charge of the meat department, and I remembered his name at the time, and I had 
a memorandum of his name, but I remember when I tore that up a month or two 
ago. The memorandum happened to be in a small book, and I tore it out, not 
thinking I should refer to it again. 
Q. Go on where you left off with what occurred at Tampa. 
A. The car was shipped that night, I think, to Tampa with this other meat in it, 
and I. met it in Tampa, and there, as I was saying, I wanted to see Colonel Weston, 
and I told him what I had brought from Chicago and the circumstances surround- 
ing it. " Well," he says, "Mr. Powell, I am very sorry to say that I could not meet 
you officially at all in this matter, because we are not buying any process or doing 
any process business; but if you have got an exhibit here, as a gentleman to a gentle- 
man, and in a friendly way, I will do anything I can consistently for you," and I 
thanked him. He seemed to me to be very much of a gentleman, and then I told 
him just what I wanted to do. I told him I had this, and I was going to leave one 
animal in Tampa and hang it up in a very exposed place, and then I would like 1480 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
to have him take the other four cattle and give them just as much exposure as 
he could give them, down in the engine room, if he wanted to, and if it was con- 
venient for him to make a record of them at the end of seventy-two hours, I wished 
him to do so; that if they did not keep that long to throw them overboard, that 
they were mine, and I did not care who else knew it. I just wanted him to know 
it because he was said to be the man whose word was taken, whose judgment 
was good, and so on, and he said: "I will be pleased to do it." He made a memo- 
randum of it, and he said: "I will try to let you know where we go, because we 
don't know when we are going to sea. We don't know any minute." 
Q. About what date was that? 
A. Well, that was about the first of June, along the first of June. I do not mean 
the first day of June; it was after the 1st of June, as I remember. 
Q. Can you fix the date as relating to the sailing of the expedition? 
A. Well, I should say that it was a week before the sailing of the expedition. 
Q. Go on. 
A. I think it was a week before the sailing of the expedition. This was on 
Wednesday. Perhaps on Thursday he sent word, telephoned through the Armour 
people, I think, to find that gentleman there named Powell who had that beef, as he 
wished me to look after it; that I must get it aboard the transport by 5 o'clock. He 
said that the vessel would be in the stream at 5 o'clock, and he would be there at 
5 o'clock and would take it and put it on exhibition if I desired; and I got an 
express wragon and cut the meat in eighths. It was in quarters before. I cut them 
in two, had the beef sewed up in burlaps, put it on this express wagon, and sent it 
right down, and got it down there in time to get aboard of the ships before they got 
out of the canal in front of the Tampa Inn Hotel. At all events, I knew that he had 
got it. I received news that night that he had received it, ami I expected they had gone 
to sea. Next morning I saw by the paper they had not gone to sea. I did not go down, 
because there was nothing I wanted to bother him about. It had not been aboard 
any length of time. Then the next day came, and finally Sunday came, and they had 
not gone to sea. Sunday about 2 o'clock would be the end of the seventy-two hours 
since I took it out of this car, and in the afternoon about 4, I guess, I went aboard 
the Comal, which was lying there right at the dock in the canal, and there I met 
Colonel Weston again. The meat had hung forward on a boom right forward of the 
pilot house, and it was very hot there in the sun, perhaps 130,1 should say 130, and 
it had been there then seventy-five or eighty hours in his possession, and I asked 
him how that exhibit went on. "Well," he-says, "great. I am taking great inter- 
est in showing it to the people aboard." Four or five officers were sitting at his 
table. His table was out on the quarter-deck of the Comal. He says, "Now wTe 
will go out and take a look at it again," and I went out with them and examined 
it. The fat was running out of the meat, and I put my hand in it, rubbed all around 
through the fat, saying that if there was any smell at all it would be in the fat, as it 
was in that shape there, almost being cooked. They poked their fingers into it and 
one thing and another to test it. They could find no evidences of decay, and I was 
sure there were none. I did not see it; and as I had had experience in handling 
those things I thought it was in perfect condition. He said: "I will make that 
report, if we are not out at sea; I will do it right now." Before that he had said: 
"Mr. Powell, of course I can not say that I will give you a report, because my 
reports all have to go to the head of the Department. You will get it from them. 
They will give it to you." That was all right. He walked back to the quarter-deck 
where his table was and sat down and wrote this report. He did not give me a copy 
of it, but it went to the telegraph office and I found out what it said. It was very 
flattering, just what I imagined it would be, because he could not do any different. 
Q. Did you ever read the report yourself? 
A. Yes, sir; I have seen it. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1481 
Q. Since then? 
A. Yes, sir; and it was a truthful report, that is all, about what he saw; and he 
made the remark then, "What do you do this with?" "Well," said I, "Colonel, 
that is asking me a little too much just now. My idea is to get some money out of 
this in some shape. This could be used in connection with cold-storage business, in 
shipping to these climates, because it purifies the meat, and after the result of the 
cold storage is lost in the beef this will carry it on and keep it from sixty to seventy- 
two hours, which is very important in the transportation in an open country, in the 
Tropics, in Cuba." He said, "Well, I don't know what you do it with, but I am 
satisfied it is a very good thing. It has very good keeping qualities, and I have 
reported what I have seen." I thanked him and left him. My idea was-of course, 
in the meantime I had told Mr. Connors that if he would do these things, let me 
have the cattle and pay my fare to Chicago and interest himself, I was willing that 
he should have the preference at a price for this contract that was coming out-this 
first contract. 
Q. Armour & Co., then, were to have the refusal? 
A. Armour & Co., yes, sir; it was nothing but a verbal arrangement made through 
Mr. Connors. I knew nobody else in the matter but Mr. Connors. 
Q. They had the refusal of the right to use it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was the process in fact used by Armour & Co.? 
A. Never that I knew of. 
Q. Was it used by Sw'ift, or any of the other large producers of refrigerated beef? 
A. Nobody that I knew of; no, sir. 
Q. Has it ever been used by anyone except by yourself, or by anybody else with 
your consent? 
A. Not to my knowledge, and of course I should know if they had. 
Q. Did you ever observe its use at any hotel for any length of time anywhere? 
A. Oh, yes; in hotels for five years. 
Q. What complaints or criticisms, if any, have you heard of? 
A. Not the slightest; only in favor of it, very much in favor of it-very much in 
favor of it. You know I have to be very careful in speaking of my hotel customers, 
because they would say ' ' If you were advertising us, advertising this thing they have 
made so much hurrah about, this embalmed beef, it wTon't do me any good." I 
don't want too much publicity in that direction. Now, there is no embalming done 
about this. It is absolutely pure. 
Q. You have fully stated the process as far as questions have been asked about it; 
that is, with the reservation of not divulging its secret character? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. You are the sole proprietor, are you, of this process known as the Powell 
process? 
A. I am the owner and sole proprietor of it; yes, sir. 
Q. I understand from your testimony, then, that your process in no way bears 
any relation or resemblance to what is known as the embalming of bodies? ■ 
A. Not the slightest. Well, I don't know but what you could embalm a body by 
this. I don't know what you mean. Do you mean an injection? 
Q. Well, embalming is preserving. We will say preserving. 
A. You could preserve a body with this. I have never tried it, but if you could 
preserve a sheep or an ox, of course you can preserve a human being. There is no 
question about that; but I have never used it in that way. 
Q. You are aware that there are various so-called embalming fluids that are used 
as preservatives, which are used fora time to prevent discoloration, and things of that 
kind? 1482 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Very frequently used by undertakers and others? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And then, of course, there is some embalming preparation for injection, but I 
am using the term "embalmed" in a more popular sense, "to embalm" or "to pre- 
serve." 
A. To preserve; yes. 
Q. I understand you suggested your process, then, for the preservation of beef to 
the Government-to General Eagan, and to what other person? 
A. To the President, General Eagan, General Miles. I wrote a letter, but I never 
received a letter from General Miles. I directed it here and I supposed it would 
reach him, but I never knew whether it did or not. I also wrote to others, to Colo- 
nel Weston. I got his name from somebody, and I got letters from most all of 
them. 
Q. You kept no written copies of your letters? 
A. The ones that I sent? 
Q. Yes. 
A. No; I never did. 
Major Lee. I presume that the request that the correspondence be furnished 
includes those letters as well? 
The Recorder. Yes. 
Major Lee. So we will have all those letters and connect all this correspondence. 
Q. You say before you discovered this process you had a number of processes in 
regard to the preservation of beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Are there not a number of processes still in vogue, Mr. Powell? Is yours the 
only process that is used? 
A. No, I think not; no, sir. 
Q. Are there not a number of advertisements of " Preservaline " and various things 
in that line of chemicals? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Boracic acid and salicylic acid? 
A. Well, I don't know about that. In fact, I don't know that I ever saw any of 
those. I never used them, anyway. 
Q. I am not speaking of your using them; I speak of it for anybody. 
A. I never did come across any of those acids-the salicylic acid you speak of. 
Q. But you are aware of the fact, by general information, that there are a great 
many preservatives of meat used? 
A. Yes, sir, 
Q. For all fresh meats? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That can be used, or are claimed to be used? 
A. Yes, sir. I got a letter from a man the other day who had a method that he 
said was adopted by the English army; wanted me to look it up and see what I 
would give him for it. I told him I did not want any more just yet. 
Q. Have you any knowledge or information in connection with the proposals or 
talk that you had about introducing your process among these companies-have 
you any knowledge that they claim to have any process also for preserving meat? 
A. Well, I don't know it if they had, and I don't believe they had, simply because 
from my standpoint there would be no reason why they should. I don't see any 
reason why they should anywhere where they can reach with their cars or refrigera- 
tors, except in this transportation to Cuba where it has got to be exposed. Where 
they can deliver to the Army rations to cities in this country, of course anywhere 
where they can keep the temperature down to 40 in the cars, if they will only supply FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1483 
the ice and take care of the car, there is no necessity of going to tne expense of a 
preservative, if the car is carefully cared for and the ice kept in it. I can take one 
of those cars to Florida in July and I will guarantee to keep the meat fresh. Of 
course they have the cars and it costs them very little more, if any more, to haul a 
car that is full than one that is only partly filled. 
Q. But I understand that for a number of years in the extreme southern portions 
of this country your process is used and has been used. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And I understood you to say satisfactorily. 
A. Yes, sir. Never right in the summer, perhaps. I have shipped to Count Dubear, 
for instance, I have shipped to him meat through this process and a process very 
similar, for the last ten years. He died this year, but for the last ten years he has 
eaten nothing, would not have anything else, because he liked it, and he thought the 
flavor was made better, and it really seemed to make it more tender. 
Q. You use it in connection with the refrigerator process also, do you not? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In connection with the cooling process? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Would not there be the same necessity for these companies to use something? 
If you could use the process so successfully, would it not in your opinion be to the 
advantage of these companies delivering meat to those points in the South, in Florida, 
in large quantities, to use something of that kind also? 
A. No, sir; for this reason: With any of these processes, there is a discoloration; 
of course, mine is as little that way as any that I ever saw, but with this ordinary 
sousing business or putting on powders, you can show me a piece of meat across this 
room and I will show you every time that there has been something done to it. 
Q. Have you seen the experiment made so that you can say that it would be liable 
to produce spots, so that it would appear different in places on the outside of the 
meat, with any of these other processes you speak of? 
A. I don't know that I ever observed that. 
Q. You say that you do not believe there were any processes used by these com- 
panies to your knowledge, according to your understanding? 
A. To my knowledge, I do not know of any of them using it. 
Q. It is not a matter within your knowledge, not a matter that you have investi- 
gated, have you? 
A. No; I have never investigated. It is not anything that I have investigated, but 
I do not think they are using any process in shipping their fresh meat to immediate 
markets. 
Q. I am not referring to the delivery of meat in localities where the meat could 
travel direct along the line of the lakes, or even localities in this country, but I am 
referring to the more southern localities, where a change must be made in the 
intense heat, and things of that kind, which might make it a possible advantage to 
use some preservative in connection with the refrigerators. 
A. They may do so, but I don't know of their using it. You see I have a home 
in Florida, and I have been going down there fifteen years, doing business and stay- 
ing there, and in many cases eating their meat-meat from Armour's, and Swift's, 
and Hammond's. 
Q. In about how many points in the South in the last one or two years has meat 
treated by your process gone-about how many points or places, without designat- 
ing the places? 
A. Well, I will say one; and that means any amount. If I am obliged to tell I 
will tell. 
Q. I don't ask you to tell the particular places; I want to know whether it is one 
or a dozen or a score or more? 1484 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Well, in times gone by I have done it by the scores. We will not say that I 
have done it recently, because we will let that be a thing of the past, but outside of 
five years I have had plenty of trade there. 
Q. As I understand you, you wrote your communication in regard to your process 
to the President of the United States and to the Major-General Commanding the 
Army, and to General Eagan, after you had seen the advertisement for the beef? 
A. No; a friend of mine, who by some means had got hold of the fact that there 
was to be such a contract, told me of it. 
(2. Was that before any bids were sent out? 
A. Yes, sir; before I received this telegram. 
The Recorder. That was the 26th of May. 
A. (Continued.) And I had written to these different parties. I suppose they 
thought I was looking for a contract, which 1 was not. I was simply looking for the 
right to use my process with the contractor. 
Q. What I want to get at is, had you any information as to these matters before 
you received that telegraphic communication that proposals would be received? 
A. I had; yes, sir. I had written these letters and gotten the answers, I think, 
before that. 
Q. Before this was sent out, how did you get your information as to the number of 
hours that beef was to Heep? 
A. I got that from the information that came to me verbally before I saw this. 
Q. And then, growing out of that, you wrote those letters? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I understand you to say that subsequently, in conection with Mr. Edwards, 
the agent for Armour & Co., you experimented with that process in the preservation 
of meat at Tampa, Fla? 
A. No. 
Q. Where was that? 
A. That was in Chicago. 
Q. First. 
A. In the stock yards of Chicago, right near the Armour's plant there, on the 
track within 40 rods of his warehouse. They took their meat and put it in for me. 
It was one of his cars. 
Q. Did you have any further processing of meats at Tampa? Did you process any 
of it there, or in Florida? 
A. Yes, sir; after I got to Tampa I took out one of those cattle to give it a test in 
a shed that I found there, right under the eaves of a shed. It was a very severe test. 
I wanted to see what that would be. Then I could better follow what was taking 
place at sea, with Colonel Weston, and that was taken out, I think, the day before I 
took out Colonel Weston's. 
(2. Did you process any other meat there? 
A. I was going to say I then thought to myself, now' the car is here, and I think 
I will give this another touching up with the process. I had the apparatus there 
with me and I said to myself "I will see if it keeps any better. It will be a sort of 
an experiment to know if two are better than one;" but I found it did not make 
any difference at all; that the meat that I had processed once kept just as long as 
that did that Colonel Weston had. 
Q. Did you process that meat a second time, or did you process some other meat? 
A. No; I processed that same beef the second time. There were four cattle that 
went on board ship. 
Q. Did you process any other beef? 
A. No other beef then. 
Q. Was Mr. Armour's agent there, Mr. Edw'ards, cognizant of what was going on 
with regard to this? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1485 
A. No; I don't think he was. I don't think he knew anything about it. If he 
did know anything about it it was through his letter from Mr. Connors. I did not 
tell him anything about it. I did not allow them to know anything about my busi- 
ness. It was not my business to do it, and I was very busy there, and I took no 
trouble to tell them about my business, for they would know all they had to know 
through Mr. Connors. 
Q. You stated that you learned that Colonel Weston reported that your experi- 
ment was successful? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you see the report? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. The telegram? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Have you a copy of that report? 
A. No. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, would it be admissible to allow the witness to 
testify about the report, not having it with him? 
The Recorder. The report itself, is coming in. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I would like you to state in general terms what the report was. 
A. Well, as I remember it, he telegraphed to General Eagan-it was a long report, 
a telegram as long as that [illustrating] and said that-well, I should not like to try 
to give it word for word, but in substance it was flattering to the extent that he said 
this beef had stayed in that temperature on the forward part of the ship, in a severe 
temperature for eighty hours, and that he was going to allow it to remain there 
until it spoiled, to see to what extent it would preserve the meat. 
Q. That is your recollection of the substance of the report? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. The report will show for itself. I understand from your testimony that you 
rely entirely upon the use of fumes or burning chemicals to preserve the meat? 
A. That is the only thing that is done by that process. 
Q. In a confined space or a closed room? 
A. A closed room. 
Q. In Chicago when you tried the experiment there did you have any communi- 
cation with Armour & Co. as to its success there? 
A. No; I saw nobody. 
Q. Or their agent? 
A. Yes, sir; they had foremen, you know, to each department. I saw the foreman^ 
and perhaps Mr. Connors had telegraphed or written what he should do, but I 
introduced myself and he said, " Mr. Powell, we will fix you right up," and it was 
done immediately. 
Q. Will you please state to the court, if you feel at liberty to do so, what was 
your agreement with Armour & Co. for the use of your process? What was that 
arrangement? Was there anything reduced to writing in any way in regard to that 
agreement? 
A. Well, I don't think there was. 
Q. Did they make it a part of their bid? 
A. He had my word for it that if he got that contract, and this process of mine 
proved to be successful and was found to be a success, and would keep the meat seventy- 
two hours, that he was to have the exclusive right to use it for this one contract. 
That was our verbal understanding. 
Q. And for a consideration, of course? 
A. The consideration of half a dollar a hundred. That would be $200 a carload. 1486 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Do you know whether or not that was incorporated in his bid that he made; 
that his bid was conditioned upon that? Did he have any conversation with you that 
he would hold up his bid until he could find out about that in any way, and find out 
from the reports whether it was successful-find out from Colonel Weston or General 
Eagan, or in any way? 
A. No; the bids were not given out for ten or twelve days after I left Tampa, after 
the experiment was all over. 
Q. And after the report had been given? 
A. The report had been given and he knew of the result of my experiment. 
Q. Who? 
A. Mr. Connors, and he knew all about it before the bids were given out. The 
bid was given out, I think, the middle of June; some time the middle of June. 
Q. About the middle of June? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And the report had been rendered in regard to the success of this previous to 
that date? 
A. Previous to that time. 
Q. I think you have stated something upon that point, but it will make it, per- 
haps, a little more definite if you will state whether this process in regard to taking 
care of beef or preserving it in that way has been abandoned? 
A. Abandoned? What do you mean by that? 
Q. Well, I mean has it been adopted by anyone, or by these companies? Have 
they dropped it, or have they ever used it in any way? 
A. The Armour Company? 
Q. Yes. 
A. They have never used it in any way. They would have no occasion to use it, 
because, as I understand, they never did get a contract for Cuba or Porto Rico. If 
they have, they never have said anything to me about it. 
Q. You use it in connection, we will say, with the South. Would it not be an 
advantage to use it in connection with the extreme Southern points-Key West, and 
down along in Florida and other places? 
A. Well, I don't know. You see it is an expense of $200 a car, and they have 
their cars, and they do not have to pay any more for hauling a full car than they do 
an unloaded car; and while they have the ice to use. there would be no use in their 
paying me $200, because if they will take care of the car properly they would have 
no trouble in delivering meat in Florida from the refrigerator in six, or eight, or ten 
hours, which would be all the time that it should be out of the car before being 
used. But when it comes to shipping to Cuba, they would not have the facilities for 
getting things around so lively, and there might be twenty-four hours' delay in 
delivering it, and that is where this process would be invaluable. 
Q. If there would be any difficulty about the meat down there, it would aid in its 
preservation, would it? Your process would aid in insuring its preservation? 
A. Certainly it would. 
Q. Would make that doubly sure? 
A. Yes, sir; make that doubly sure. It is a purifier, and being a purifier, in a 
temperature of 40 or 45 degrees you can keep it almost indefinitely with one pro- 
cessing of half an hour or an hour, and absolutely pure. I have eaten a great deal of 
it myself and know, of course, what I am doing or I would not do it. 
Q. I understand you to say that there is no coating of any kind, no sort of film, or 
anything like that, made by the action of the fumes upon the surface of the meat in 
any way. 
A. Not the slightest. 
Q. Nobody could detect it? 
A. Do you mean nobody could detect the appearance of the meat? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1487 
Q. Yes. 
A. Oh, yes, they could. There is no process hut what changes the appearance of 
the meat. My meat, after going through the process for an hour, would look just 
like a piece of meat that had been ripened for two weeks in a butcher's ice box. 
The same effect would take place if you should hang it in an ice box for about that 
length of time. It will darken the grain. It rather bleaches fatty parts of the meat, 
and it is just the way it will look if you will let it hang in a refrigerating box two or 
three weeks; what is called ripening. 
Q. Will it penetrate to the interior? Will it make it a darker red? 
A. Not a bit. 
Q. I understood you to say it would darken the meat. 
A. Not the slightest. If you cut from the surface into the meat, you could take 
the thickness of that sheet of paper right off the outside, and there you will strike 
the blood and the water and the meat itself, and it is an advantage over shipping it 
by the freezing process, because the freezing process takes the water out. 
Q. You have experimented with these matters and know a great deal more about 
the subject than anyone else here, at least certainly more than I do. Do you know 
of any process that has been used or experimented with as a preservative that does 
have that tendency inside and gives the meat a different color, darkening it? Is there 
any such process? 
A. I really do not. I have never used anything of that kind. 
Q. I am not speaking of your using it. 
A. Corning it will do it. Corned beef will look that way. It certainly is not a 
very good process that will make such a change in the meat. I don't think it could 
ever be used. 
Q. Can you describe the man, whose name you said you had forgotten, down 
there; that man that was connected with Armour? 
A. Well, now, let me see. 
Q. That was at the time you were at Tampa? 
A. That was in June; no, that is the time I referred to at Chicago. I think it 
was about the 1st of June last. 
Q. I must have misunderstood you. I thought you referred to the man down at 
Tampa. 
The Recorder. He did, but he recollected his name. 
A. Yes, sir; their Tampa agent. I was not acquainted with him at all. I went to 
the hotel telephone and talked to him. I did not get his name. 
Colonel Gillespie. I think he gave the name. 
A. Mr. Edwards. 
Q. Is that the one? 
A. As I remember it, that is his name. 
Major Lee. No other that you recall as having anything to do with the matter? 
A. No, sir; none that I recall. 
The Recorder. Has the court any questions? 
Colonel Gillespie. What is the effect of cold storage upon meats in general, the 
exterior surface and the interior? 
A. Well, if it is properly kept, of course for a short time it does not affect it at all, 
but if the cold storage is kept at a temperature below 32, which is freezing, you can 
keep meat indefinitely. I often have meat on hand for six or eight months. The 
temperature of my box will be 15 or 20, never going above 20, which makes the 
meat just as hard as that wood, and there it is in that condition. Now, to leave it 
around between 40 and 30, it has a tendency to sweat the beef. Now, before going 
down South, the cars start out, probably, with a temperature of 40 or 35. That will 
chill it. Before they get a relay of ice the temperature is often up to about 70. Then 
they change it again, and so it goes, and the meat would have that spotted, slippery 1488 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
appearance that they speak of, and of course it won't keep very long after it gets in 
that shape, fermentation has started. 
Q. What effect would it have on the color of the meat inside? 
A. Do you mean the fleshy part of the meat or the white? 
Q. As you would cut through, is the color changed in any way? 
A. It would, I think, have a tendency to rather darken the grain of the meat, and 
the fat would have a slimy, slippery look. 
Q. Regarding the meat which you said you processed at Tampa, did any Govern- 
ment official pay you for the meat or in any way reimburse you for the expenses 
incurred? 
A. Not in the slightest. 
Q. Did you regard the meat as your own or Mr. Armour's? 
A. It was mine, as it had been given to me by Mr. Connors. Under our arrange- 
ment he was to furnish the meat. Of course I was to pay my proportion of the 
expense, which was probably more than half. I don't know where he got it, but I 
suppose Armour paid it. But that was the understanding, that if it was successful 
he was to have the absolute right to use it for that contract. 
Q. In what way do you ordinarily ship to your customers meat which you treat 
by that process? 
A. If it is going to Florida I put it into an open barrel. The more air it has, the 
more oxygen it has, the better for it. I put it in a scored barrel, put a cloth on the 
top, put on a hoop, and nail it down, letting it have all the air it can get. I ship 
usually by the Clyde Line, which would be five days to Jacksonville, and then it 
would be distributed. 
Q. So as to be sure about a single word, what is that that you do to the barrel; 
what is that word? 
A. Scored. 
Q. Did you ever ship meat to the interior points of the United States with your 
meat hung up on hooks by the carload, as they do? 
A. We never ship in carload lots in our business. Ours is more a jobbing busi- 
ness. We would have an order for twenty rib pieces of prime beef. We do not ship 
it in sides, as Armour and those Western houses do. 
Q. Does your consignment form any part at any time of the carload shipments of 
the beef companies? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. In other words, do you ship in connection with them? 
A. No, sir; never. 
By General Davis: 
Q. When refrigerated beef is taken out of the refrigerator car or out of the lefriger- 
ator in a hot, moist climate, and is kept until it comes to the verge of decay or 
begins to decay, is there a marked change in the appearance of the meat when this 
condition arises? 
A. Oh, yes; certainly. 
Q. And as to the outside and inside, what will those manifestations be? 
A. Well, the inside, the lean part, will get dark looking and the outside fat will 
have a greasy look, a slimy look, and, as I have seen it described, some of them say 
it looked like codfish or something of that sort. Well, it does. It kind of shrinks 
down and looks slimy and slippery. It will be slippery and slimy, and that is the 
very first suggestion of a time when people should not eat it, because, you know, it 
will poison them. 
Q. How soon will this green mold appear on the outside of the beef after it is 
exposed in a hot, moist climate? 
A. That green mold is an indication of no fermentation. Wherever you get a FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1489 
piece of meat that has a green mold upon it, it shows that there is no fermentation 
going on inside, and you can cut that mold off and you have got good meat all right. 
There will be no mold on a piece of meat where there is fermentation going on 
inside. Where there is mold, the meat is all sweet inside. 
Q. In this slimy state which you speak of will any green or purple or blue colors 
make their appearance upon the surface? / 
A. Well, I don't know as I ever noticed any purple or blue. Purple is a sort of 
natural color to the muscles of the meat, and the blue, I think not. It should be 
green. When it turns green, it is sweet. 
Q. In this particular car that went down from Chicago, in which there were six 
carcasses of meat which you had processed, was that car afterwards filled up with 
other meat and shipped, the whole car? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Iced? 
A. Yes, sir; iced right up. 
Q. So that, so far as your meat was concerned, it was refrigerated meat until it 
arrived in Tampa? 
A. Yes, sir; it went by their car to Tampa. 
Q. And after it arrived at Tampa then this exposure took place which you have 
described? 
A. Yes, sir. I guess perhaps the temperature of the car was 70 or 80 after it 
arrived there up to the time that Colonel Weston allowed me to put it on the trans- 
port for the exhibit. 
Q. There were six carcasses only processed when you left Chicago? 
A. Six carcasses only processed in Chicago. 
Q. One at Tampa? 
A. One at Tampa. 
Q. And four put aboard the transport? 
A. Yes, sir; sixteen quarters put aboard the transport. There are four quarters to 
an animal. 
Q. Twenty-four quarters, hind and fore, put aboard the transport? 
A. They were sixteen eighths or eight quarters. 
Q. There were hind and fore quarters? 
A. Hind and fore quarters. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. When did you receive notice, if you remember, that Armour & Co. would not 
get the contract, probably, as there was a bid below Armour & Co.? 
A. I think perhaps right away-the next day-Mr. Connors called me up on the 
telephone and said, "We lost it by seven-eighths of a cent," or something like that. 
I remember it was the fraction of a cent. 
Q. About seven-eighths of a cent? 
A. Whatever it was. I don't know whether it was seven-eighths, but it was a very 
close bid. 
Q. Did you, under the agreement or verbal understanding that you were to have 
your process used with them if they were successful in getting that contract, and on 
the understanding that it only applied to that contract-did you, after that, make 
any efforts or overtures to the successful bidder with reference to using your process? 
Were any such efforts made by you? 
A. No; none. I felt morally bound up with Mr. Connors-only verbally, you know. 
There was no contract about it at all. Of course he was simply going to observe 
what I did, and if it was satisfactory to him, and the Government was satisfied, I 
agreed with him that if Colonel Weston made a good report on it, and if he was going 
to use it, that I would allow the Government to have one of their experts in confi- 
S. Doc. 270 94 1490 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
dence test the material-test the process in every particular-so that he could say that 
there would be no harm from that, and then Armour would bs allowed to use it, and 
he would get the result. 
Q. As a matter of fact, was or was not that test made by anyone in connection 
with the Government ? 
A. There never was any such test to my knowledge. It never was done unless 
they did it without my knowledge. 
Q. They could not have done it without your knowledge? Was any recommenda- 
tion made to subject it to a test? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You were bound to Armour under this Verbal agreement only with reference to 
that particular contract? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And when he failed to get that contract the obligation ceased, did it not, or 
were you still further bound? 
A. Oh, well, I had no idea the war would end in thirty days, and I thought I had 
better stick by Mr. Connors; thought he would get some contract, probably. 
Q. Thought they would get some contract? 
A. I thought they would be likely to. 
Q. But there was no obligation upon you beyond that particular contract, was 
there? 
A. No. 
Q. Was any recommendation of any kind that you know of made in behalf of your 
process to Swift & Co.? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Who made that? 
A. I made it myself. 
Q. When was that? 
A. That was after the surrender of Santiago that I wrote them, and I think I have 
got his reply in my coat pocket. I was not going to speak of it unless you asked me. 
There was nothing in it that w'ould annoy him. I wrote to him and told him of the 
exhibit I had made in Tampa, that it was through Mr. Connors's kindness, etc., and 
that he could find out all particulars by looking at this Colonel Weston's report, and 
he wrote me a short note back saying he would like to see a test of it; sent a rib to 
my place, and I processed it and sent it back, and never heard from it afterwards in 
any particular. 
Q. Did you communicate with Mr. Meeker on the subject? 
A. I never did. 
Q. Did you ever get any communication from him on the subject? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Which Swift was it you communicated with? 
A. I don't know, I am sure. The letter will show. 
Q. I just wanted to know the name. 
A. I could not tell you the initials. They are brothers, are they not-Swift Broth- 
ers-or there are a number of them? They have each a different department. I don't 
know any of them intimately. 
Q. There are two that have testified before the court. I wanted to get the names. 
Is this letter the one you wrote to Swift or a copy of it, or the one from Swift to you? 
A. It is a letter from Swift to me. I will show it to you if you want me to. I 
don't think there is any reason I shouldn't show it. 
Q. You are at liberty to produce the letter if you wish to. 
The Recorder. Do you want it? 
Major Lee. I would like to hear it read. I do not object to its being produced. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1491 
It is a matter of no consequence, I suppose. I simply want to show that other people 
had a knowledge of this. 
(The witness produces a letter.) 
Major Lee then read the letter produced by the witness, as follows: 
Swift & Co., Union Stock Yards, 
Chicago, August 9, 1898. 
Mr. Alexander B. Powell, 99 Barclay Street, New York, N. Y. 
Dear Sir: Your letter of the 1st instant is received, and with regard to process 
you speak of, if agreeable to you we should be glad to have you send us a small 
sample of some, with directions for using. If the experiment proves satisfactory we 
shall be glad to correspond with you further. 
Yours, respectfully, Edward F. Swift. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Prior to that time, Mr. Powell, can you state that Mr. Swift, or the Swift Com- 
pany, or their agents, had received no information as to the desirability of your 
process from or through you or through someone representing you? 
A. Not through me or anybody representing me. If they had heard about it I 
did not know it. 
Q. So at the time of making the first contract there had been nothing whatever 
said by you to the Swift Company on that subject? 
A. No, sir; nothing at all. 
Q. Directly or indirectly? 
A. No, sir; nothing up to about this date. They seemed to be getting all the con- 
tracts, and I called their attention to this thing and nothing came of it. I never did 
any business with them outside of buying their product, as I do right along, and I 
don't know anything of them personally. 
Q. Did you ever hear, in connection with their delivery of beef in Cuba and Porto 
Rico, that there had been some process or processes used with a view to the more 
efficient preservation of the beef than that of refrigerating or cold air? 
A. No; I never heard that. I never heard anything about it. I asked Colonel 
Weston when I got there whether there was not some test made of purifier to meet 
this required seventy-two hour limit. He said, "No; I haven't heard anything of 
the kind." Said I, "Isn't it rather strange; because I should say that it is impos- 
sible to keep meat in that climate seventy-two hours after leaving the refrigerator, 
even if it is frozen as hard as marble." He said, "I haven't time to think over 
things as my superiors do. I simply accept it as they say, and let it go that way." 
He didn't talk any more about it. I was surprised. He told me, "I don't know of 
»any exhibit being made prior to yours. Yours is the first and only." 
Q. You have had a great deal of experience in the matter of meat for the past 
twenty or twenty-five years, I believe. As a gentleman of great experience 
A. Oh, not great experience. 
Q. Experience to that extent, let us say then. I would like to have your opinion, 
in view of the process that you discovered, whether beef can be kept in a tropical 
climate, such as that of Cuba, in an edible condition seventy-two hours after being 
removed from the refrigerator. 
A. I should say yes, sir. 
Q. Without any process? 
A. Without any process, I should say not. 
Q. Then, in your opinion, an agreement to keep beef in such condition, under those 
conditions, in the Tropics, supplying an army, must involve something else than the 
refrigerator process of cold air-that is, to keep it seventy-two hours after you have 
taken it out of the refrigerator? 
A. I should say so, in the summer, in Cuba; yes, sir. 1492 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
By the President: 
Q. Suppose that meat was taken out of one refrigerator and put in another. It 
could still be kept seventy-two hours, could it not? 
A. If you change refrigerators and keep up the temperature, of course you only 
have the loss of the change you make. You could take it out of a temperature of 
twenty-five in one and put it into a temperature of twenty-five in another, and be an 
hour doing it, and still you would be all right. You could go right on and make con- 
nection on it; but to take it out of a temperature of twenty-five and expose it to the 
climate of Cuba in the summer for seventy-two hours, I don't think it can be done. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. How long, in your opinion, would it keep in such climate after being taken out 
in the ordinary conditions you would have-taking it across to camp with a wagon 
or pack mule on a trail or something of that kind? I do not mean having ice boxes 
to carry it in. 
A. I should say if you had it frozen as hard as that table when you started, if when 
you would knock it it would sound like that [illustrating], you could keep it per- 
haps twelve to twenty hours. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to recall as a witness Cap- 
tain Davis, of the Subsistence Department. 
TESTIMONY OF CAPT. GEORGE B. DAVIS. 
Capt. George B. Davis, U. S. A., was recalled as a witness by the recorder, and 
being warned that he was still under oath, testified as follows: 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Captain, will you please state to the court whether, during last summer, to your 
knowledge or to your information, a large quantity of about 40,000 pounds of canned 
roast beef was sent to the commissary officer at Dunn Loring, Camp Alger? 
A. I couldn't say as to the quantity, but there was quite a quantity sent there. 
Q. Will you please state to the court what the occasion was for sending it there, 
if there was anything special with reference to it? 
A. In this case there was nothing special except the constant rumors that the 
troops were to be sent to Cuba, and in consequence they desired to have the beef on 
hand in case of a forward movement. 
Q. Do you know how that beef was sent, whether on application or otherwise? 
A. I think it was sent without application. I might explain that. Most of the 
depots did not make applications, but they rendered weekly reports, and from their 
weekly reports we found out how much they had; and if wTe found there was any 
deficiency in any articles, they were sent. 
Q. Can you recall whether this was sent as a deficiency or to meet a contingency 
that might arise? 
A. I think it was sent to meet a contingency. 
Q. Do you know from what depot it was sent, where it was sent, and by whose 
immediate order? Was it sent by an order from the Commissary-General's Office? 
A. It was sent by an order from our office, but I don't recollect where it was sent 
from. 
Q. Could that information be obtained? 
A. I think it could, sir. 
Q. I would like to have it if it can be. 
A. I think it will probably come over among the papers that the court asked for 
the other day, but I am not sure of that. I wTill make a note of it, so as to see. 
Q. I presume that meat could be traced back to ascertain from whom it was pur- 
chased, could it not? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1493 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In regard to this canned roast beef or boiled beef, whatever it was, that had 
been sent to the commissary officer-by the way, though, first, who was the com- 
missary officer there, if you recall, at that time? 
A. Major Little was depot commissary and Colonel Allison was chief commissary. 
Q. Major Little would probably be the one to whom it would be sent? 
A. Yes; he was in charge of the depot. 
Q. Do you recall whether or not, in the course of conversation with Major Little 
about that, he stated anything concerning that canned roast beef that had been sent 
there? 
A. I don't recall anything about that. A gentleman who represented himself as a 
lawyer for General Miles came up the other day and asked me about that and I asked 
him about the conversation, what it was. He told me it was something about some 
cans being spoiled. I don't recall that at all; but Major Little either came over or 
telephoned almost every day to me. He was new and it was his first station, and 
whenever any case came up he would telephone or come over to see me and ask what 
was to be done. If he asked me about any spoiled cans, I undoubtedly called his 
attention to the paragraph in the subsistence manual in which the depot officers are 
told not to wait for boards of survey, but to make reclamation immediately upon the 
purchasing people in case of trouble with original packages. 
Q. That is what I want to get at. Is that a rule adopted by the Subsistence De- 
partment, that stores sent out to troops to a distance in that way are to be disposed 
of without boards of survey, so that there would be in effect no record in regard to 
that defective material being supplied? Is that a rule of the Subsistence Department 
to-day? 
A. That is a rule-provided it goes, not to the troops, but to the depot commissary 
himself. The troops would have to call a board of survey unless, through the will- 
ingness of the commissary, they would state: "These stores are bad; we would like 
to return them." Then they would return them, and the depot commissary would 
take them up and immediately make reclamation. 
Q. Have them sent other stores? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In other words, under a rule of that kind, if a depot had a number of thousands 
of pounds of this beef and they should find any of it bad, there would be no report 
made by a board of survey at all? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. There would be no information on the subject. They would simply call on the 
contractor and state that so much of that was bad, and get him to send it back? 
A. Yes; or else make a money exchange. 
Q. In view of the fact that boards of survey have been convened at depots to pass 
on large quantities of canned material at various times in the last fifteen or twenty 
years, I would ask you how long since this rule you speak of was adopted to the 
exclusion of boards of survey? 
A. You misunderstood what I said. I said in cases of original packages. In case 
the packages are broken or have been returned by invoice in some way from troops 
to the depot commissary he would in that case, in all probability, call for a board of 
survey, unless he were convinced that it was the fault of the contractor, in which 
case he would take it up directly with the contractor. I don't know the exact date 
of that, but it is found in the subsistence manual, and if you look at the date there 
you will see that it has been in there for some years. 
Q. The point I am getting at is as to where a record would be found in reference 
to packing companies or any companies furnishing material that was objectionable 
to the army and cases of that kind. Would reports come in in regard to that, and 
would that be included in the report? 1494 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Not usually. 
Q. Nothing would be known about it in the office? 
A. No; except in the case of a money transaction. If there was a money reclama- 
tion made, then that money would have to appear on the officer's papers. There is 
one other way in which it could appear, and that is this: Suppose it was toward the 
end of the month, when the officer discovered that there was some trouble with the 
stores; then by carefully examining the invoice and what he takes up he would have 
to account for this difference, and he would put in a note saying that ' ' reclamation 
has been made for so much," but that is only in a case when the monthly papers 
have to come in. 
Q. But otherwise, as in one case occurring in evidence near Jacksonville, Fla., two 
carloads of material condemned or believed to be unfitted could, without any action 
of any board, if the agent was willing to receive it, be sent back and be replaced. 
A. I might explain that whole transaction. I have forgotten the date, but I can 
give the substance of the whole affair. Colonel Wood telegraphed to the office that 
some, I think 42,000 pounds, of canned beef had been condemned by Inspector Gill 
and they were going to take it to the crematory to be destroyed. I immediately 
called the attention of the Commissary-General to the matter. I said: " We don't 
want to have that destroyed, because if we have that destroyed without having the 
agent notified, we may have trouble with the reclamation. We had better tell him 
to make reclamation." So he was directed to make reclamation, and the people 
took back the canned beef and replaced it with other. 
Q. I was mentioning that merely as an illustration, but since you have gone into 
the details of the subject, I will ask whether that was overhauled by Armour's 
agent and the refuse taken out and destroyed there, or have you any information 
about that? 
A. I have no knowledge of that, but I gathered from conversation that the cans 
that had fermented were taken out and destroyed, and the remainder was sent back 
to Kansas City. 
Q. That is just the point I wanted to get at. You do not recall whether Major 
Little made any request then for a board of survey and what your instructions were 
to him on that point? 
A. No, sir; I don't recall anything of that kind. 
Q. In fact then, Captain, I believe you do not recall any conversation with him in 
regard to that at all? 
A. No; I wouldn't say, of course, that I had not said something to him at some 
time, because he came almost daily and asked me questions about various matters, 
and I explained them to him. He may have some time asked me about some beef. 
Q. I will ask you to refresh your memory and state whether you can recall any 
instructions-I mean any verbal or other instructions-to him as to the necessity of 
throwing away, or saying perhaps it would be better to throw away, the parts of 
spoiled cans he had reported on than to have a board of survey. 
A. No; I did not say that. I probably told him to make use of the paragraph in 
the subsistence manual in regard to reclamation. 
Q. Do you know, in regard to that particular lot of meat, whether any report was 
received by you as to its condition? 
A. Do you mean over at Camp Alger? 
Q. Yes, sir; in regard to this beef, whether any report was received by you, verbal 
or otherwise? 
A. No, sir; I don't recollect any report on it. 
Q. Do you know where that was ordered sent and what final disposition was made 
of it? 
A. I think probably it was sent to Camp Meade. Most of the stores they had 
were sent to Camp Meade, and I think probably it was sent there; but I am not at 
all sure. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1495 
Q. Have you any knowledge whether any of it was issued to the troops in conse- 
quence of a shortage in the rations or for any other purpose? 
A. I think not. I never heard of a shortage in the ration at Camp Alger. 
Q. I thought perhaps they wanted to make some march, or something of that 
sort? 
A. I never heard of it. 
Q. Who would have that knowledge-Major Little? 
A. Major Little would have it. 
Q. I want to ask you if you were present in the Commissary-General's Office when 
an experiment-I will call it an experiment; it may be termed something else-was 
made in cooking some of this canned roast beef? If so, I would like for you to state 
the nature of the experiment or the trial of it as an article of food, who were pres- 
ent, and just how it was conducted. 
A. We never tried cooking any of it at all. We tried it cold at various times, but 
we never cooked it at all. 
Q. Was any of it served there on plates or platters and on a table for a test by a 
number of officers in the Department? 
A. No; it was never served on plates at all. We turned it out in platters some- 
times so as to take it apart and see exactly the condition of it, and we ate some of 
it. At various times people came in, civilians or officers, and if we had any cans we 
would open them and let them see what it was, taste it, and so on. 
Q. That was prior to the decision to make the purchase of it for the Army? 
A. Most of it was, and we have done it since that time whenever anyone came in. 
In fact, just the other day we did the same thing. 
Q. I understand there was, prior to that time, no regular set meal or set table for 
the purpose of trying that in the nature of stews or otherwise. 
A. No; that would have been done long before. You see this has been in the 
ration since 1878. 
Q. But those of us who have served in practice have not had evidence sufficient to 
show that it has been used as a ration to any extent in practice. In opening these 
cans that you had up there, have they all been uniformly good? 
A. I never found a can that was not good. 
Q. Do you recall, on opening any of these cans at any time, an occurrence when 
an odor from one of the cans was somewhat offensive? I do not know that it was in 
the Commissary-General's Office, but in some place connected with the building over 
there; when the contents were found rather offensive and objectionable. 
A. Not of the canned beef; you have got another thing in your mind entirely. 
Armour & Co. submitted, I think they called it a complete ration or something of 
that kind-not Armour & Co.; it was the Armour Packing Company. It was com- 
posed of beef, potatoes, and onions, and before we opened the can at all I told them 
I thought it would not do. They said, ' ' Why not? ' ' I said, ' ' The onions are almost 
certain to start a chemical action, and the meat will probably not keep; it will be all 
spoiled." However, as we usually do in cases of samples, I said, "We will send 
one to the Surgeon-General." So we sent one to the Surgeon-General, and Dr. Smart, 
who had charge of such things, came up the next day, and he said, ' ' Have you 
opened one of those cans?" I said, "No; I have not opened a can." He said, "I 
wish you would open one. ' ' So we went into the packing room together and opened 
a can, and the odor was frightful. I then directed them to throw it all away, and 
Dr. Smart said, "That is the same thing. I didn't know but what I had got hold of a 
bad can." He said, "I sent it up to my house last night and thought I would try it 
for my dinner, and it nearly drove us out of the house-the odor." Then he made a 
report on the subject. I think it was a written report, although I am not certain. 
It may have been verbal. Afterwards I called attention to the experience of the 
English army with reference to meat that was packed with onions-the fact that it 
would not keep. That is the only case we have ever had. 1496 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. I am referring more particularly to the canned roast beef. 
A. We never had a case of that kind. 
Q. You never have seen a can of it that was bad, have you? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You never have? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. I believe that is all. 
A. I would like to make one little correction in my former testimony. I stated in 
answer to a question of Major Lee, that General Weston's report on the Powell proc- 
ess came in about the time that the contract was let. I looked it up after I went 
away, and I found his telegram was received on June 11, which would have been 
before the bids were opened. May I make another statement? 
The Recorder. Certainly. 
A. I wish to state in regard to Mr. De Caindry's testimony the other day which, if 
it was correctly reported, states that I was in charge of the records and that they 
were now absent, that I saw this, and I immediately directed that a search be made 
to see if what he said was there-was there or not. I began the search this morning 
and one of them was found. He says there is another paper and I have them look- 
ing for it. One of them was found in the hands of Mr. Kearney, and Mr. Kearney 
has been directed to prepare for the court some information in regard to the con- 
tracts, and to do this he had gotten out the papers with reference to them. 1 have 
one of the papers in my pocket, if the court wishes to see it. It has pencil notations 
on it. Furthermore, I want to say that, so far as any paper in there was concerned, 
I have never taken one from the file. I have never had anything to do with the file. 
My command of the files is purely perfunctory. Anyone who wants a paper goes to 
the files and gets it. He never comes to me. Mr. De Caindry never gave the papers 
to me, nor did I ever see the papers to which he refers. 
The Recorder. What is the paper you have in your pocket? 
A. This was one of the copies of the contract that Mr. De Caindry attempted to 
draw up. The General was not satisfied with the wording, etc., and he made some 
changes and Mr.. De Caindry made some changes and finally it was submitted. 
General Davis. One of the drafts of the contract. 
A. One of the drafts of the contract. 
Major Lee. If it please the court, I should like these papers to all come in together, 
so that we can take the matter up connectedly. When the papers are brought from 
the War Department by whatever officer brings them, I would like to have the orig- 
inals, and particularly this one; but at this stage of the proceedings, unless the 
recorder or the court should prefer otherwise, I do not care to go into that matter. 
All those papers will come in together, I presume. 
The Recorder. I suppose so. (To the witness.) You will leave it for the use of 
the court? 
A. Yes. That is not official at all. It is simply a draft, and it is never carded, and 
nothing is done with it beyond putting it in the files. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, no other witnesses, I believe, have appeared 
who have been summoned for to-day. 
Major Lee. If it please the court, I will state that I have telegraphed to all the 
witnesses on the list that the court has authorized to be called to see if we could not 
get their appearance. I would like to have Major Little called in connection with 
that canned roast beef over at Camp Alger. There has been some testimony on the 
subject, and I would like to know what disposition was made of the beef, and to get 
at the modus operandi of dealing with a matter of that kind. I think he may give 
rather important testimony. His name, I believe, was submitted before, but perhaps 
not considered by the court as necessary. 
I would further ask if the court has given any decision in regard to the matter of FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1497 
the Major-General's last request on the subject of the witnesses, which was a renewal 
of his former request, asking, I believe, practically for a reconsideration by the court 
of its determination to allow only a small portion of them. 
The court then (at 12.45 p. m.) went into executive session, after which a recess 
was taken until 2 o'clock p. m. 
AFTER RECESS. 
The court reassembled at the expiration of the recess. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. Major Lee and the reporter were also 
present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, there are no witnesses who have appeared 
thus far to testify this afternoon, so that the reading of reports can be continued. I 
desire also to make this announcement: 
The court having maturely considered the letter submitted by the Major-General 
Commanding, under date of April 4, 1899, adheres to the decision already communi- 
cated to that officer, that such of the persons named in the lists as appear from the state- 
ment submitted to be in possession of facts not already covered by the testimony of 
witnesses have been summoned to appear and testify before the court. 
Major Lee then proceeded to read the reports of officers, as submitted by the Major- 
General Commanding. 
The court thereupon (at 3.15 p. m.) adjourned until Monday, April 10, 1899, at 10 
o'clock a. m. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. 0., 
Monday, April 10, 1899. 
The court met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. Major Lee and the reporter were 
also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Admiral Walker of the United States Navy. 
TESTIMONY OF REAR-ADMIRAL JOHN G, WALKER. 
Rear-Admiral John G. Walker, U. S. N., was called as a witness by the recorder, 
and, having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your full name and your residence. 
A. John G. Walker; Washington. 
Q. And your rank in the Navy? 
A. Rear-Admiral. 
Q. You are the president of the Nicaragua Canal Commission, I believe? 
A. I am. 
Q. In that capacity did you accompany the commission to the site of the proposed 
Nicaragua Canal? 
A. Yes. We went there in the fall or early winter of 1897. 
Q. And how many seasons of field work were there that the men undertook? 
A. The commission remained in Nicaragua until the following spring. We have 
had engineers and other people there ever since. There are some there still. 
Q. Did you have parties in the field engaged in the work of survey? 
A. We have parties there still engaged in gauging streams and in the noting of 
rainfahs and evaporation-hydraulic work. 1498 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Were those parties in the field provisioned by the United States? 
A. Entirely. 
Q. Please state to the court what the meat components of their supplies were. 
A. We wrere obliged to support them largely from the United States. We sent 
down canned meats-canned roast beef and canned corned beef-and canned goods 
of various kinds. We gave them canned tongue, besides canned roast beef and canned 
corned beef, and also canned baked beans and beans mixed with tomatoes. They 
had a good deal of baked beans. 
Q. Please state to the court what your experience was with canned roast beef as 
an article of food for your field surveying parties. 
A. The canned roast beef we had was boiled beef; it was not roast beef at all. 
While the men did not like it as well as they did other articles provided, soon 
tired of it; there was never any special complaint of it. It was always, so far as I 
know, considered good of its kind. 
Q. Are you able to state about how much of it was used, in proportion to other 
articles of meat used? 
A. I can not say definitely, but the quantity that was used decreased. The men 
did not like it. They preferred other things to the canned roast beef and they used 
other meats whenever they could get them. They preferred the bacon and the 
canned corn beef, but they preferred the fresh beef of the country to anything else 
they could get. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Admiral, will you please state whether you have any information as to the 
brands of this meat that was furnished. 
A. I don't know the brand. We obtained it from Leggett & Co., New York. All 
of our provisions were from there. 
Q. That was subjected, was it not, to the usual inspection that obtained in the 
Navy? 
A. No; we made no inspection of it. 
Q. You made no inspection whatever? 
A. None at all. 
Q. Under what system was it purchased? 
A. Just as any individual would purchase it. 
Q. You say Leggett & Co., of New York 
Colonel Gillespie. That firm has been referred to before. 
General Davis. They are large grocers. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. In what year was that? 
A. That was purchased in 1897 and 1898. I think none has been sent down this 
year; but we purchased it several different times in 1897 and 1898. We established 
a storehouse in Greytown with a man in charge of it, and the field parties made requi- 
sitions for provisions from time to time as they required them. 
Q. I understand there has been no further call for that; that you have supplied 
none lately and are supplying none now. 
A. That is correct. We have a very small force left there now and they are sup- 
plied by what was on hand when the larger parties were down there, and by what 
they could get from the country there. 
Q. You are not sending any there now? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. There has been no call for the canned roast beef ? 
A. No, sir; there has been no call for provisions of any kind. 
Q. And what is the character of the iresh beef there? 
A. It was like tropical beef everywhere. It was good; but of course it had to be FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1499 
eaten soon after being killed, and if it is attempted to eat it in the form of steak, and 
as we eat beef here, it is very tough and poor; but by chopping it up and cutting it up 
into different forms and making hamburger steaks, or making stews or hashes out of 
it, we found it to be good. 
Q. In your information no deleterious results followed from the use of fresh beef? 
A. None at all. 
Q. And it was preferred down there to other meat? 
A. Our people preferred it and always bought it when they could. Our chiefs of 
parties were authorized to buy provisions necessary when they could obtain them. 
Q. Can you state from estimate or information as to about what quantity was sup- 
plied the parties down there in the year-say 1897 or 1898. 
A. I can not tell without referring to books; but we had a force of perhaps 300 
people there during that time, and they were fed largely from New York because we 
could not obtain provisions in the country always. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Admiral, if you were outfitting a force of laborers for service in the tropics, 
many hundreds or even thousands of them, would you or would you not include 
canned roast beef, so called, as an article of food for the workmem? 
A. I think I should send some, but not a great quantity of it. The men prefer 
vegetable material and fruits, and they were very fond of canned baked beans while 
I was there and beans mixed with tomatoes. They were also fond of hominy and 
oatmeal and that kind of material. They liked the corned beef better than the roast 
beef, but they do not care very much for either of them. The natives that we 
employed there were always willing to eat the roast beef and seemed to like it. 
Q. In your service as a naval officer, are you familiar with what is called canned 
roast beef? 
A. I don't know that I am. We have on board ship canned beef that the sailors 
call "beef and bully." It is some kind of boiled beef. It has always been good, so 
far as I know, and I think they like it. I have tasted it. It should be handled by 
a cook to make it palatable. 
Q. How long has it been an article of food in the Navy, so far as you can remember? 
A. I should say it has been in the Navy for twenty years, perhaps. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Admiral, is the refrigerated beef an article of food known in that part of the 
country? 
A. No; not at all. 
Q. Or frozen beef? 
A. No; not at all. One never gets a piece of beet out of ice down there unless he 
gets it from a mail steamer once in two weeks, or something of that kind. 
Q. Is that beef equal to or superior or inferior to the native beef you spoke of? 
A. If you can get a good piece of beef out of the Atlas steamers that come from New 
York it is better than any native beef you can get. The beef that is gotten from the 
steamers comes from their chill room, and is always in good condition. But of 
course that beef has to be cooked and eaten promptly. It will not keep in that 
climate. 
Q. And in the use of this canned roast beef, was there any complaint as to deterio- 
ration of the cans? 
A. No, sir; I never heard any complaint with regard to it at all. All the pro- 
visions that went down from Leggett & Co. were satisfactory as to their quality. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. I presume you had a purchasing agent to buy these goods, had you not? 
A. No; I ordered them myself direct from Leggett. When I was in Nicaragua, if 1500 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
I saw they were getting short of provisions I sent them a line. I intrusted entirely 
to them, and they were entirely satisfactory. 
Q. Was there any trouble with what they called swelled cans or swellers? 
A. I never heard of any. It is possible that there may have been some, but not 
enough to bring a complaint. 
Q. Was there any complaint of nausea or dysentery, resulting from the use of your 
meats down there, at all? 
A. None at all. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Dr. Charles H. Castle, of Cincinnati, Ohio. 
TESTIMONY OF DR. CHARLES H. CASTLE. 
Dr. Charles H. Castle was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having been 
first duly sworn, is examined. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. My residence is Cincinnati, Ohio, and my occupation is that of a physician. 
Q. Were you in the military service of the United States during the recent war 
with Spain? 
A. I was. 
Q. To what organization were you attached and in what capacity? 
A. The First Ohio Volunteer Cavalry; assistant surgeon. 
Q. Where were you stationed during the months of July and August of last year? 
A. The first two weeks of July, until the 15th, we were at Chickamauga. From 
the 15th of July until the 20th of August the regiment was at Lakeland. I remained 
at Lakeland until the 19th of September. 
Q. In what capacity after the departure of the regiment? 
A. I was surgeon in charge of the detention regimental hospital at Lakeland. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Doctor, you state that you are by occupation a physician. I would like for you 
to please state to the court how long you have been a practicing physician and what 
you are engaged in and in what capacity now. 
A. I graduated in 1885; I have been practicing fourteen years. I am now in charge 
of Dr. Holmes's Hospital in Cincinnati. 
Q. Who were the commissary officers of your brigade or regiment during the 
months of July or August, 1898? 
A. Of the brigade? 
Q. Of your brigade or regiment; that is, in the stations where you were? 
A. Lieutenant Gampfer was the regimental commissary of the First Ohio Cavalry 
when we first reached Lakeland. Dixson, I believe, of the First United States Cav- 
alry, was the brigade commissary. He was succeeded by Captain Carmichael, and 
after Captain Carmichael's death Lieutenant Gampfer served as brigade commissary. 
Q. The regiment to which you belonged was stationed at Lakeland about how 
long? 
A. From the 15th of July to the 20th of August. 
Q. Are you acquainted with Lieutenant Gampfer and were you acquainted with 
Captain Carmichael? 
A. With both, sir. 
Q. From whom did your regiment receive its supply of fresh meat during the 
months of July and August, 1898? 
A. I really don't know anything personally about the month of July, but in the 
month of August we received the beef from Armour & Co. 
Q. Armour & Co. at what point? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1501 
A. At Tampa. 
Q. That was about how far from Lakeland? 
A. About 30 miles. 
Q. By rail? 
A. By rail. 
Q. You received the meat by rail? 
A. By rail. 
Q. Please state to the court whether you know if there were any complaints of 
the quality of beef delivered by Armour & Co.; and if so, by whom those com- 
plaints were made. Give them in a narrative form in regard to the history of the 
meat furnished during your incumbency as medical officer, in whatever capacity you 
served. 
A. My personal knowledge of anything of that kind began the 7th of August, at 
which time I became acting brigade surgeon, the brigade surgeon being absent on 
leave. Between the 7th and the 20th of August the brigade commissary, Captain 
Carmichael, sent for me to come to the commissary depot to look at the meat that 
was delivered there in the morning, and I recall two occasions on which I went to 
the troops' kitchens to look at meat which had spoiled after it had passed the 
inspection in the morning. 
Q. Then, these complaints came to you in that way; they were the parties who 
made the complaints-the commissary office called for you 
A. And the troop commanders. 
Q. And the troop commanders called for you? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you ever have a conversation with Armour & Co.'s agent for Tampa and 
vicinity concerning the quality of the meat; and if so, where and when was this con- 
versation and who were present on that occasion? 
A. One morning, I think about the 15th of August, Captain Carmichael requested 
my presence at the commissary depot. I went over there and was introduced to a 
man whose name I have forgotten, but who was introduced as Armour & Co.'s agent 
from Tampa. 
Q. Without interrupting you too much, 1 would like you to describe this man? 
A. He was a man about medium height, light hair, blue eyes, light complexion, 
well dressed, with a good manner. He wore no beard. I think he had a slight, 
light moustache. He was a fair man. Do you want me to describe what occurred 
at the time? 
Q. No; I just asked you if there was such a conversation, where it was, and who 
were present. 
A. This conversation was out in front of the brigade commissary depot, and there 
were present Lieutenant Gampfer, Captain Carmichael, and myself, and the agent. 
Q. State whether or not there was any beef there at that time. 
A. Yes; we were looking at the beef that had arrived there that morning. 
Q. How was the beef usually delivered and how far was it protected, so far as you 
know, within your knowledge, going back a little now. 
A. The beef came by rail from Tampa and then it was hauled from the railroad 
station to the brigade commissary in wagons, by details of enlisted men, and at first, 
during the first few days that I saw it, it came in sacks. Afterwards it came in zinc 
boxes, inclosed in large wooden boxes and surrounded by ice, and there was a paper 
lining in the zinc boxes. 
Q. How was the temperature during the months of July and August, as far as you 
remember? 
A. There was a very warm, even temperature. I do not believe I ever saw a 
thermometer except at night, but 1 remember looking at the thermometer at night 
on several occasions and then it was about 90°. It was a steady heat. 1502 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Going back to this conversation which you have referred to, in which you state 
certain parties were present, namely, Captain Carmichael and Lieutenant Gampfer, 
and the agent or the person you presumed to be the agent of Armour & Co. I wish 
you would state, in your own way, all that was said by a/iy of the parties present in 
that conversation, with the details, as far as you can remember them, refreshing your 
memory by any memoranda, if necessary. 
A. I think at the time of the introduction that Captain Carmichael stated that the 
agent had come to Lakeland for the purpose of discovering if there was any complaint 
concerning the meat, what the complaint was, because the rejections had been quite 
frequent of late. We discussed the meat as it lay before used. We looked at various 
pieces of meat. I called the agent's attention to some discolorations on some of the 
pieces of meat, on the tendonous facia that incloses the muscular structure. I called 
his attention to the fact that there was a greenish discoloration on that part, and 
there was a greenish discoloration around the holes made in the meat where it had 
hung on hooks. He explained this by stating that that discoloration was due to some 
chemical with which the beef had been treated before being put in the refrigerator. 
I asked him at the time if he knew what the formula was. He replied that he did 
not; that it was a secret process and was unknown to him. We then continued our 
discussion as to various pieces of the meat. Some pieces were rejected and some 
pieces were accepted. 
Q. In the course of this conversation with Armour & Co.'s agent, as you have testi- 
fied, what were Lieutenant Gampfer and Captain Carmichael doing, if anything? 
What part did they take in that conversation, if any? 
A. They were close at hand and practically parties to the conversation. It was a 
general conversation, all of us speaking of various pieces of meat that were there. 
Q. Captain Carmichael was the brigade commissary? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And Lieutenant Gampfer was what? 
A. Regimental commissary of the First Ohio Cavalry. 
Q. Do you remember the presence of anyone else there, within hearing, besides 
Armour's agent? 
A. Well, there were some enlisted men, noncommissioned officers, working around 
there; but no officers and no civilians were present at that time. 
Q. Can you state of your knowledge, or from information, about how long that lot 
of beef had been there and about what time in the morning this was? 
A. This train from Tampa arrived about half past 9-I am not exactly sure of the 
hour-and I used to be sent to the brigade commissary about half past 10. 
Q. In your examination of the meat, or prior to your examination, had it been 
covered or protected in any way? 
A. This particular beef? 
Q. Yes. 
A. I presumed that, because I remember the meat was under discussion at the 
time I arrived there. 
Q. Do you recall whether that had come in tin boxes or had it come in sacks? Do 
you remember whether it was a hind quarter or a fore quarter, and how it had come; 
or had it come in small pieces? 
A. It was in comparatively small pieces, chunks about that size [witness indi- 
cating about 12 or 18 inches]. Not whole quarters. 
Q. Do you recall the butcher that was there in Lakeland-a local butcher or meat 
dealer? 
A. There were two butchers 
Q. Do you recall the name of a butcher there? 
A. There were two butchers there; one was F. M. Smith and the other was named 
Hendrix; I think J. D. Hendrix. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1503 
Q. Which of those butchers, if either of them, had any connection with hauling 
beef to the camp, or had anything to do with the meat furnished to the army there? 
A. I don't know. 
Q. On this occasion that you speak of having a conversation, where the agent 
stated that the meat had been chemically treated, that objection made had been 
found to be due to chemical treatment, was this man Hendrix there? 
A. He was not there; I didn't see him. 
Q. When your regiment left Lakeland, Fla., you remained there in what capacity? 
Did you state that? 
A. Surgeon in charge of the detached hospital. 
Q. Had you any communication, or did you have any occasion to make any com- 
munication, regarding the quality of the beef that was delivered to you at the hospital 
there-any communication in writing or otherwise? And if so, please state to whom 
it was made. 
A. Well, I addressed a letter to the chief commissary at Tampa, asking him to 
allow me to buy beef in Lakeland, because we had not had a very happy experience in 
receiving it from Tampa. I did not receive a reply to my letter very promptly, and 
before I received a reply I telegraphed him on the same subject. 
Q. Before proceeding further, I will hand you a letter and ask you what paper this 
is [handing a paper to witness] ? 
A. (After examination.) This is a letter that I wrote. 
Q. Is that your signature? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. There are indorsements on it? 
A. Yes; there are four indorsements on it. 
Q. Is that the original communication? 
A. That is the original communication. 
Q. That is your report of the matter at the time? 
A. (After further examination.) Yes,sir. 
Major Lee. If it please the court, if there is no objection I would like to read this 
letter in evidence. 
(There was no objection. 
Major Lee read the letter referred to, which is appended to the record, marked 
"23.") 
By Major Lee: 
Q. You may go on, Doctor, and state any further facts with reference to the matter 
which has just been referred to in the letter read in evidence. 
A. I think that letter is dated the 23d of August. Not receiving a reply within a 
few days, I sent a telegram on the 27th of August. I have the copies of the telegrams 
I sent and the originals of the telegrams I received in regard to that. 
Q. You may go on and refresh your memory from the telegrams and the copies 
you have. 
A. As stated, not having received an answer to the letter, on the 27th of August I 
telegraphed to the chief commissary, U. S. Army, Tampa. I telegraphed him as fol- 
lows: "I hold ration certificates for 2,000 pounds of beef. Can 1 buy the meat here?" 
The rest of the telegram is concerning the per diem allowance. Shall I omit that? 
Q. It is only necessary to read that part of the telegram which is pertinent to the 
meat question. 
A. And I received from the commissary the following reply: "Call on Hendrix, 
butcher, for such beef as you require from time to time. Send me ration certificates. 
Have wired division commissary in regard to funds," and so forth. I went to Hen- 
drix's shop and investigated. I had heard various sinister reports concerning him. 
After that investigation I telegraphed as follows: "Hendrix's shop not clean and 1504 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
beef not good or fresh." It is said he used to buy the Armour meat condemned by 
the Second Cavalry Brigade commissary. "Can I not buy elsewhere?" To that 
telegram the commissary replied: "Purchase beef, fore and hind quarters, and advise 
me by mail of quantities purchased." 
Q. What commissary is that? 
A. That was Capt. E. R. Hutchins. In forty-eight hours I received the follow- 
ing: "Fresh beef will be furnished you from Jacksonville, beginning to-morrow 
morning. Wire at once daily quantity required." I wired atonce: " Send 50 pounds 
of meat daily for hospital and attendants." The next telegram is concerning savings 
of beef. The next day I received the following: "Armour & Co. will send beef by 
express from Jacksonville. Arrange to take it every morning as soon as the car 
arrives." It arrived in good condition the 1st of September; it arrived in good con- 
dition the 3d of September. On the 4th it was in bad condition. I then sent the 
following telegram: ' ' Meat found decomposing on arrival this morning. Condemned 
and returned to express company. Castle, surgeon in charge." After that I received 
no more beef. 
Q. Please state to the court whether you know of any reason why you should have 
been supplied with the small quantity of beef from Jacksonville. It was how far 
from there? 
A. I think Jacksonville is 200 miles from Lakeland-a night's journey. 
Q. (Continued.) Instead of from Tampa? 
A. I don't know why. 
Q. Was Armour & Co. still supplying the troops that were around Tampa and in 
that vicinity? Was that company still supplying beef there, or don't you know? 
A. I think the Fifth Cavalry was just about leaving Tampa at that time, but the 
West Tampa fever hospital was still in operation. I saw it on the 16th of September, 
at which time I met Armour & Co.'s agent in Tampa. 
Q. I wish you would go back now and state in regard to this agent of Armour & 
Co. with whom you had the conversation in connection with Captain Carmichael 
and Lieutenant Gampfer, how often you had met him, and when you first met him, 
and where, so as to be able to establish his identity. 
A. The first time I met him was at this conversation I have referred to. I think 
that was about the 15th or 16th of August. 
Q. Let me interrupt you there. Can you be positive as to the date, or is that 
merely your recollection of the date? 
A. It is a recollection, I think, in this way: I became acting brigade surgeon on 
the 7th of August. I think that I had been visiting the commissary depot about 
once a week when he came down there. That would make it the 14th. It was just 
about the middle of the month-the 14th, or 15th, or 16th of the month. I met him 
the second time on the 15th of September in the office of Captain Hutchins, chief 
commissary at Tampa. 
Q. At the time you had this conversation, when he spoke in regard to chemicals 
being used on the meat, did you make any inquiry, or was it suggested to your mind 
in any way or impressed upon you in any way as to what may have been the nature 
and character of the chemical treatment? 
A. Not at the time. 
Q. Well, after the time, then? 
A. I have given a guess since then. I think the odor that was on the meat at the 
time was rather suggestive of the gas formaldehyde or the solution formaline. 
Q. As far as you can, please give a description of that odor, so far as an odor is 
susceptible of being described. 
A. It was not the disgusting odor of decomposition, but it was an aromatic, acrid, 
sour smell. It was necessary to get quite close to the meat to detect the smell at 
all. 
Q. Was the attention of this agent specially called to it; and if so, by whom? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1505 
A. Yes, sir; by myself, when I pointed out the discolorations, and 'his reply was 
in explanation, of course, of what I called to his attention. 
Q. And where was Lieutenant Gampfer standing then? Was he near enough to 
hear the conversation? 
A. Yes; we were all grouped in a small circle. 
Q. What impression, if any, did it make on your mind at that time? You asked 
him as to the formula, you say. What wrere your reasons, if any, for going into that 
subject? 
A. The natural curiosity of a medical officer, I suppose, and on hearing of some 
solution or other substance being used. 
Q. Is that preparation that you speak of being used-I presume you have investi- 
gated the matter-susceptible of detection by the eye when it is ordinarily used with 
care? 
A. Not by the eye, I don't believe. It has a quality that is valuable as a preserva- 
tive of anatomical and pathological specimens in not discoloring the tissues very 
much. It makes the red part possibly a trifle darker and the fats a trifle lighter, 
but it has so little effect on a color that it is quite valuable as a museum fluid. 
Q. How is it usually applied? Would it be applied in the nature of fumes or in a 
wash, or would it be rubbed on the surface with a rag, or what would be the usual 
method employed? 
A. It is applied as a disinfectant of rooms where there has been fever in the form 
of a gas. A generator is placed outside the door and the fumes of the gas are intro- 
duced through the keyhole. That is the way it is done in the case of diphtheria or 
other contagious disease. In museum use it is used as a 40 per cent solution. It is 
a solution of the gas in water. 
Q. And the specimen is washed with it? 
A. Yes. 
Q. It is applied in that way? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Could it be in a popular way termed an embalming fluid? I don't mean 
embalming in the sense it is applied in the embalming of the dead, but could it be 
used in that way? 
A. If you mean by an embalming fluid a preservative fluid, yes. 
Q. That is what I mean-to embalm, to preserve? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Will you please state to the court, being a professional gentleman of experience, 
how you account for the discoloration, these particular parts being distinct and 
noticeable from the other parts of the meat, when, as you state, ordinarily it would 
not be detected? 
A. I disagreed with the agent on that point. I believed that those discolorations 
to which I called his attention were the beginning of decomposition, and I rejected 
those pieces of meat. 
Q. Then will you have the court understand the preservative that was intended 
to preserve that meat had failed at these points? 
A. Had failed; yes. 
Q. Doctor, if there is any other matter or thing concerning the visit of Armour's 
agent to Lakeland and the conversation had by yourself and Captain Carmichael and 
Lieutenant Gampfer with him, when you were present, in regard to the matter of the 
beef supply, and more particularly as to the quality of the meat and as to the matter 
of preservatives used on the meat, which occurs to you, pertinent or relevant to 
the subject of inquiry, please state, after reflection, what it is. 
A. I have no recollection of anything else of any moment, sir. 
Q. Was the subject ever referred to again, if you know; I mean the subject in 
regard to this meat? 
A. Between the same people? 
S. Doc. 270 95 1506 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. I mean between you and the agent or between you and the commissary 
officers in any way? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. How long did you continue in the service, Doctor, as medical officer? 
A. Until the 22d of November. 
Q. Then you were mustered out or discharged? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Have you your discharge papers with you? 
A. I have them in my overcoat. 
Redirect examination by the Recorder: 
Q. When the statement to which you have testified was made, what experiments 
or examinations, if any, did you make, with a view to verify their correctness? 
A. I made none, because there was no facility for chemical analysis there. 
Q. Did the statement put you upon your inquiry as to the beef? 
A. I beg your pardon. 
Q. Did the statement that was made serve to put you on your inquiry in regard to 
the beef? 
A. Well, not more so than I had been. We had watched beef very closely and 
had rejected quite a good deal of it during the preceding week or ten days. 
Q. For what cause had these rejections been made? 
A. Apparently the commencement of decomposition. 
Q. Did you make any report of this to any superior authority? 
A. No; made no report; practically for two reasons. In the first place the agent 
spoke so very frankly, so very openly, about it, that I thought that it was a matter 
that was well known, well known to the Medical Department and to the Commissary 
Department, and I thought it must be approved of, although they had to respect the 
secret of the process. And, secondly, I was an exceedingly busy man. I was regi- 
mental surgeon of my own regiment; I was acting as regimental surgeon to that part 
of the Tenth Cavalry that was there; and I had to visit the First United States 
Cavalry every day as brigade surgeon. So it kept me going from early in the morn- 
ing until late at night every day. 
Q. What reason had you to believe that it was known to the Subsistence Depart- 
ment, or to the Medical Department, or to any other superior authority? 
A. Practically the frank open statement of the agent. 
Q. Anything but that? 
A. No, sir; nothing but that. 
Q. Prior to that had you any reason to suspect that there had been any chemical 
treatment of the meat? 
A. I had never thought of it. 
Q. What is aldehyde? 
A. Formaldehyde is a gas prepared by passing the fumes of alcohol 
Q. What kind of alcohol? 
A. Wood alcohol, I think. Over an incandescent platinum wire or coil. 
Q. In its form what is it? 
A. A gas. 
Q. And what is its effect as a preserving agent; how does it accomplish the preser- 
vation of anything to which it is applied? 
A. It is one of the most formidable germicides that we know of. 
Q. And by the killing of germs it accomplishes what purpose in the way of pres- 
ervation? 
A. Of course in that way it sterilizes, you might say, whatever it comes in contact 
with. 
Q. How is it applied ordinarily, within your knowledge? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1507 
A. It is ordinarily used as a gas. It is used for the disinfection of rooms that have 
been contaminated by contagious diseases, such as scarlet fever or diphtheria, and it 
is a remarkably efficient agent in that respect. As I described before, a gas generator 
is placed outside of the door and the fumes come in through the keyhole. 
Q. Yes, you explained that. How and in what other form is it applied? 
A. It is commonly dispensed by the manufacturers in a 40 per cent solution called 
formaline. 
Q. In what does it dissolve? 
A. Water, 40 per cent gas. 
Q. Ever in any other substance, to your knowledge? 
A. I don't think, commonly. I believe experimentally in laboratories it has been 
produced in a solid form, in crystals. 
Q. But in commerce? 
A. I don't believe that appearance exists in commerce. 
Q. No; I mean is it dissolved in any other liquid than water in its commercial use? 
A. I believe not. 
Q. Are you certain of that? 
A. No; but I believe not. 
Q. You speak of its use in anatomical laboratories. How is it used there? 
A. It is usually used there in about a 10 per cent solution, in a jar. 
Q. And how are the specimens preserved? 
A. The 10 per cent solution of formaline is placed in a jar, and subsequently the 
specimens are placed in there and the jar is sealed. 
Q. How enduring would be its effect upon an anatomical specimen if it were simply 
treated at the surface? 
A. I believe only temporary; that when the evaporation of the gas was accomplished 
the preserving quality would be gone. 
Q. In the case of this beef did you make any examination to see how it had been 
applied? 
A. It never occurred to me at the time what preservative it could be. 
Q. Well, with your knowledge of such things, in order to make it an efficient 
preservative, how must it have been applied? 
A. I think in all probability, if it was applied at all, that it would be applied as a 
gas in fumes. 
Q. And how enduring would its effect be as a gas? 
A. Well, it undoubtedly has great penetrating power, and possibly could penetrate 
quite a distance into the substance of the soft tissues of the beef. Then, if that beef 
was introduced into a low temperature in a refrigerator it would probably be several 
days before that would evaporate. 
Q. Would the low temperature affect the evaporation? 
A. Yes, sir; it would retard it. 
Q. In what way? 
A. It is very diffusible gas, and raising the temperature increases its diffusibility. 
Q. But would there be anything in the temperature that would prevent it from 
leaving the beef? 
A. Absolutely? 
Q. Yes. 
A. No; I don't think it would do anything but retard it. 
Q. Now suppose it were exposed to the air at an ordinary temperature? 
A. I believe the evaporation would go on more rapidly. 
Q. About how rapidly? 
A. That would be difficult to say. 
Q. Then for beef to be treated that way there would have to be certain apparatus, 
would there not? 1508 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Certainly; there would have to be a closed chamber and the gas would have to 
be generated. 
Q. How long would it have to be applied, in your opinion? 
A. Possibly two or three hours. 
Q. What is the taste of the gas in its dissolved form, or the taste of the solution 
containing it? 
A. It is quite irritating to all mucous membranes-makes the eyes water and 
irritates the throat. 
Q. So if beef were treated, then, would it be liable to be discovered if it had 
penetrated into the substance of the beef? 
A. Of course that would depend on the amount of evaporation that had taken 
place and the amount of the gas still present. 
Q. To be a preservative some would have to be there, would it not? 
A. You see in this way. It would not have to be there until the last moment. 
You can imagine that the last vestige of the gas had disappeared, say at 10 o'clock 
in the morning. Then, for decomposition to take place, you would have to have 
the germs of decomposition deposited and grow, which would take several hours, 
you see. Anyone could readily imagine that the last vestige of the gas would dis- 
appear at 10 o'clock, say, and even under heat and moisture such as we had in 
Florida, we would not get actual decomposition present for some six or eight hours 
later in the day. 
Q. But suppose, returning to the question, it were used and it penetrated the beef 
to some distance. Would it not be discovered when the meat was eaten, while the 
gas remained there? 
A. I doubt it, because I believe the heat of the cooking would drive that all away. 
Q. Have you ever tried that? 
A. No, sir; I have not tried it. 
Q. Then, can you testify positively that would be the case? 
A. I can not. 
Q. And that this peculiar taste would not be found upon it? 
A. I can not. 
Q. Then, if it were used, there would be a time when there would be considerable 
danger of discovery, would there not? 
A. You mean by taking the fumes? 
Q. Yes; and by the taste, if there be such a taste as you have described, in the 
solution. 
A. Well, as I have said, of course the heat used in cooking would dissipate the last 
vestiges of the gas very quickly. 
Q. Is that so certain; does the mere heat of cooking drive out that taste in that 
way? We will suppose an insoluble or impenetrable surface was caused by the cook- 
ing, and suppose it were fried, for example, are you so certain it would drive out the 
interior contents? 
A. Even if we fried it, of course you would only have an insoluble coating of 
albumen on one side of the meat. The upper side would be uncoagulated albumen 
and the gases could escape there. 
Q. They could, but do you believe that they would? 
A. I believe under such application of heat that they would. I base my conclu- 
sion on the odor of rooms that have been fumigated by formaldehyde. After the 
use of the gas, after the room has been closed for about twenty-four hours, then all 
the windows are thrown open and the air is allowed to freely circulate. If you close 
a door, say, for twelve hours during the day, even with the cool temperature of 
to-day-and I am speaking of a room I saw treated in this manner last week-by 
night the odor is practically gone; it is very difficult to detect. 
Q. That is, the odor from surfaces, is it not? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1509 
A. Yes, sir; from the room, from painted walls. 
Q. Is that a case parallel to the case of beef so treated? 
A. Yes 
Q. Do you say there is a parallel? 
A. No; I am basing what I say about the meat upon what I know of the other 
conditions. 
Q. Have you ever made an experiment to see what the effect would be upon meat, 
and as to the taste? 
A. I have not. 
By General Davis: 
Q. You say at the time you did not have any impression that this gas had been 
used on this meat at Lakeland? 
A. No, sir; I had not. 
Q. But subsequently you did have this impression? When did that thought come 
in your mind? 
A. The thought came in my mind when I returned to Cincinnati and began some 
laboratory work again and used a solution of formalin. 
Q. How long ago was that? 
A. It must have been in December. I came back on the 22d of November. 
Q. Were those pieces of beef that were the subject of this conversation between 
yourself and the Armour & Co. agent taken from quarters wrapped in burlaps or 
from out of these boxes lined with zinc? 
A. I think these were out of the boxes lined with zinc. When they came in the 
boxes lined with zinc they were nicely put up. The zinc boxes were lined with 
paper and the meat placed in there and ice packed around, and there was a large 
wooden box surrounding all of that. 
Q. You speak of a solution of formalin for application to anatomical specimens. 
What per cent did you say that solution was? 
A. Ten per cent. The usual commercial formalin is 40 per cent, and then a solu- 
tion of one-fourth of that is made, making a 10 per cent, and that is used for speci- 
mens in jars. 
Q. How is this solution prepared? 
A. By a diffusion of the gas through water, I imagine, by the manufacturing 
chemists. 
Q. So that 40 per cent of the weight consists of formaldehyde? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You spoke of the generator. You referred to the fumes of wood alcohol over 
an incandescent platinum coil? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And then that is collected in a receiver and conducted through the tube into 
the room that is to be disinfected? 
A. Yes. They have various forms of generators on the market now for that 
purpose. 
Q. Would this fluid be a suitable medium to inject into beef by a process of injec- 
tion such as is used in embalming dead bodies? 
A. Yes; I think that would make an excellent embalming fluid. 
Q. By arterial channels? 
A. Yes. 
Q. But your impression was that the meat you saw was treated by exposure to 
vapor or gases? 
A. I would not like to express an opinion on that. I really could not say. 
Q. You think that would be a good method of application? 
A. Yes; I think that would be an excellent method of application. 1510 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMS' 
Q. When you were conducting this hospital at Lakeland, how many troops were 
encamped at Lakeland after the regiment had left? 
A. After the regiment had left there was nothing but the sick in hospital-70 
at first-and the hospital corps and attendants, the latter numbering, I think, 18 
men. That would be 88, all told. 
Q. So the shipments of beef were for the supply of a force of 88 persons? 
A. Yes. 
Q. There were no others there at that time? 
A. No others there at that time; no, sir.' The First Cavalry had gone to Montauk 
Point, and the Tenth Cavalry had gone to Montauk Point, and the First Ohio Cavalry 
had gone to Huntsville. 
Q. Is formaldehyde an expensive or cheap substance, commercially, in the markets? 
A. I think, as we buy it for our laboratory, that a quart bottle of the 40 per cent 
solution costs a dollar. 
Q. Is the fumigation of an ordinary sized chamber, where diphtheria has been 
treated, an expensive operation, or otherwise? What is the expense of fumigating a 
room, if you know, dividing the expense between service and material, if you can? 
A. You do not mean a room as large as this? 
Q. No; an ordinary chamber. 
A. I suppose that the room that I was speaking of, having seen it disinfected last 
week, would require about a half a dollar's worth of formaldehyde. That is only an 
estimate, of course. That room was about 12 feet wide and about 18 feet long, a 
peculiarly shaped room, with one window in it, so it was comparatively easy to seal. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. At what time did you say that this conversation took place with the agent of 
the Armour company? 
A. I fixed it as about the middle of August-about the 14th, or 15th, or 16th. 
Q. Did you have occasion at any subsequent time to examine any beef which was 
reported to you as tainted or unfit for use? 
A. The regiment left on the 20th. There was no fresh beef delivered on the 20th. 
I have no distinct recollection, but I suppose I inspected the meat again on the 18th 
and 19th of the month. 
Q. You were called for an inspection? 
A. Captain Carmichael used to send to me in the morning, asking my presence. 
Q. Did the meat at these subsequent inspections have a similar appearance to that 
which was before you at the time of the consultation with the agent? 
A. Yes; the meat would vary from day to day; sometimes it would look very 
good, or parts of it would look very good, and sometimes parts of it would look a 
little discolored and have but little color. 
Q. But was it similar in appearance to that which you saw at the time of the 
interview with the agent? 
A. Yes; if I gather what you mean. The meat would vary from day to day. The 
bad pieces would be rejected. 
Q. Did you notice any of the meat that was similar to that which you saw at the 
time of the interview with the agent? 
A. That occurred every day. 
Q. Did you see any meat at any of these subsequent inspections which recalled the 
meat you saw at the time of the conversation with the agent? 
A. I can not remember. The meat that I was referring to in conversation with 
the agent was the meat I rejected. I can not remember at the present time whether 
I rejected any on the two or three days following, or whether it was all accepted. 
Q. The question is if at any time subsequent to the conversation with the agent 
you rejected beef for the same cause that you rejected it at the time you had the 
interview with the agent? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1511 
A. I can not remember, sir. 
Q. You can not remember? . 
A. No. 
Q. Then you have no reason to suppose that any beef was treated similar to that 
which you saw at the time of the interview with the agent? 
A. Well, now, I beg your pardon; I think you misunderstand me a little. I did 
not reject that meat because I thought it had been chemically treated on the day I 
had the conversation with the agent. I rejected it because I thought decomposition 
had set in; and I may have rejected some meat on subsequent days, but if I did it 
was because I thought decomposition had set in. 
Q. At these subsequent examinations did you see any meat that recalled the meat 
that you saw at the time of the interview with the agent? 
A. I do not exactly remember; I would not like to swear to that. 
Q. In order that this meat might be treated in the way you supposed it to be 
treated, would the operation be required to be daily? 
A. The same piece of meat? No, sir. 
Q. No. Must the meat be required to be treated daily to give the effect you saw at 
the time of the interview with the agent? 
A. I did not see the effect of any chemical on any meat but meat treated in the 
way I believe that was treated, if it was put in a refrigerator, would not have to be 
treated daily. 
Q. How often would it have to be treated? 
A. I don't believe it would have to be treated as long as it stood in the 
refrigerator. 
Q. How long would that be? 
A. I don't know how long they can keep refrigerated beef, but I understand they 
can keep it a very long time-for weeks and weeks. 
Q. Had you any previous familiarity with refrigerated beef? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You never had seen it before? 
A. Well; I suppose I have. I have eaten Chicago beef in Denver and other places 
in the West-beef advertised as Chicago beef-and I suppose that is all refrigerated 
beef; but only as an ordinary householder would buy his meat. 
Q. When did you write this letter to Captain Hutchins about the defective meat? 
A. The date is the 23d of August. 
Q. You say in that letter that the .meat was tainted? 
A. I used this expression: ' ' That when this brigade was having the Chicago beef 
shipped to it from Tampa under favorable circumstances the beef had so frequently 
been condemned and spoiled in transit and unfit to issue" 
Q. Did you have in mind that it had been chemically treated? 
A. Not at all. I thought this boiling was due to the heat and moisture of the 
climate. 
Q. How long subsequent was this time when you were informed that it had been 
chemically treated? 
A. It must have been about a week later-that some of it had been chemically 
treated. 
Q. Do you think this would have been a good time to notify your superior officer 
that the meat was undergoing chemical treatment? 
A. It never entered my mind that it was necessary to inform my superior officer. 
The agent said that so openly and freely that I thought it was a fact known by all. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. On the occasion of the conversation when this Armour's agent mentioned, in 
explanation of your objections to the meat, that it had been treated chemically, in 1512 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
the examination of that meat, did you accept or reject any portion of it? Were there 
any parts of the delivery that morning rejected? 
A. There was some rejected, I remember, because this particular piece I called his 
attention to was rejected. I don't believe that that green color ^as due to the chemi- 
cal treatment. I believe it was due to the commencing of decomposition. 
Q. In your rejections and inspections of meat the matter of the chemical treat- 
ment of beef, then; as I understand your testimony, did not enter into consideration? 
A. They had no weight with me. 
Q. Refresh your memory, if you can, and state whether at that time or about the 
time you had heard that there had been a process that had been advertised or spoken 
of down about Tampa called the Powell process for preserving meat? 
A. No; I never heard of it. I didn't have time to read the newspapers at all. 
Q. You had no information in regard to the fact that bids had been put in months 
or more before subject to the chemical process? 
A. No, sir; knew nothing of that. 
Q. (Continued.) By Armour & Co.? 
A. No, sir; I never heard of it. 
Q. Speaking of this formalin, or this solution that could be used, I would like you 
to state whether or not that could be used and put in tanks, and used in large quan- 
tities of water, and used in washing or rubbing down beef, without any particular 
danger of detection in doing it? For instance, could it be used with hot water in 
large tanks, in large packing establishments; would that or not be a process that might 
be used successfully, as far as you know? 
A. Yes; I suppose it could. You mean filling tanks with water and impregnating 
the tanks with gas, and then dipping the meat in? 
Q. Yes; and applying the solution with pipes and by means of a hose, and wash- 
ing off the meat. Could the solution be used in that way? 
A. It could; yes. There are a thousand different ways, you might say, in which 
it could be done. 
Q. I understand then, it would not be necessary in all cases to use it as fumes, but 
it could be used otherwise-this solution? 
A. In weak solution; yes, sir. I doubt if it could be used in as strong a solution as 
10 per cent under those circumstances. 
Q. Well, the solution could be reduced, could it not? 
A. Yes; of course you could make it any percentage you wanted to. 
Q. Did the beef you received from time to time, when you inspected it as the beef, 
have a similar appearance, or did you notice any particular difference? 
A. Do you mean accepted? 
Q. Yes; of the accepted beef. 
A. The accepted beef was very nice looking to me. The color was good, the smell 
of it -was good, and I believe it gave general satisfaction except on the two occasions 
that I mentioned, when I was called over to the troops' kitchen later in the day to 
look at meat which had passed inspection in the morning. 
Q. What was the cause found there? 
A. I remember twice having to condemn as unfit for food meat in the company 
kitchens about 12 o'clock, I suppose-the troops' kitchen; once in H troop, for Cap- 
tain Hermann, and once in D troop, for Captain Monserret. 
Q. Did you have any experience or information in regard to the use or attempted 
use of canned roast beef by any part of your command there? 
A. Our regiment never used it all. 
Q. Did you use it in the hospitals in any way? 
A. No, sir. , 
Q. Had you any information brought to you on the subject of canned roast beef in 
connection with the movement of troops there? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1513 
A. Well, Lieutenant Gampfer told me that he did not take it because he had heard 
complaints about it. 
Q. From whom? 
A. From men of the Third United States Cavalry. 
Q. If there are any other facts in connection with this matter that you have not 
stated, I wish that you would please state them fully to the court. 
A. I can not think of anything else of any moment. 
Redirect examination by the Recorder: 
Q. Suppose the aldehyde in a solution of water, hot or cold, were applied to beef 
in large quantities, to a large number of animals in a large packing house, would 
there be a smell of aldehyde? Would the »'ell-known smell be apparent? 
A. I think there would be. 
Q. It has a characteristic smell, has it not? 
A. I think it -would be noticeable. It has a characteristic smell. 
Q. And those -who entered the packing house or worked there would smell it, 
would they not? 
A. Of course, within reasonable limits of this place where this was done. 
Q. It would be done in quite a wholesale way, if that were used on beef cattle? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Would the quantities be small in a large packing establishment? 
A. No; of course it would depend on the way in which it was done, whether by 
solution 
Q. I am speaking of a solution. 
A. Would the quantities be small that were used? 
Q. Yes; if two or three hundred cattle were treated a day. 
A. You could generate gas, of course. 
Q. I am speaking of the application of it to the exterior surface of the selected 
steers. 
A. In solution instead of by gas? 
Q. Yes; would the smell be apparent under those circumstances? 
A. I think it wrnuld. 
Q. Would it be apparent to visitors who might come there and to the employees 
in the packing house? 
A. Yes; within reasonable limits of this building in which it was done. 
Q. And it would be noticeable throughout the building and in the room in which 
it was done, would it not? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Recross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Do you mean the odor would be apparent in the room where the solution would 
be applied with'the hose or by buckets? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. It would depend on the strength of the solution how apparent it was? Would 
it or would it not be apparent if it was a weak solution? 
A. I think even a w'eak solution could be detected. There is a peculiar aromatic 
odor about it, and wherever it would be used in large quantities it certainly could be 
detected in the room where it was used, even if it was a very small percentage. 
Q. As a medical man, working in the laboratory on matters of that kind, I will 
ask you which, in your opinion, would be the most economical and effective way of 
applying that to beef that was going to a tropical or warm climate-by means of the 
solution or by the fumes? 
A. I should think a fumigation would be the best and the cheapest method. 
Q. Could or could not that be done in the cars after the beef was put in there, 
keeping the cars closed where the beef was hung up? 
A. Yes; if the car was a good tight car it could be done in that car. 1514 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Sidney Reid. 
TESTIMONY OF SIDNEY REID. 
Sidney Reid was called as a witness by the Recorder, and, having been first duly 
sworn, is examined. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. Sidney Reid; my residence is 88 Powell street, Brooklyn, N. Y.; reporter con- 
nected with the Associated Press. 
Q. Were you engaged upon that work in the month of January last? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. During the month of January did you have any interviews with Major-General 
Miles? 
A. Major-General Miles, on the 31st of January. 
Q. Have you the notes of the interview? 
A. I have a copy of what I wrote that morning. 
Q. Have you it with you? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Major Lee. I would like to inquire, in regard to the state of the case just now, 
whether the proposed introduction of that interview 
Colonel Gillespie. Perhaps we had better clear the court. 
The President. It is moved to clear the court. 
Major Lee. This is a matter that I would like to make a matter of record. If you 
clear the court, I will have to leave. 
The President. No, you can stay here. The court will be cleared. 
The court was cleared, all persons except the members and the recorder and Major 
Lee withdrawing. 
The court being opened, the direct examination of the witness, Sidney Reid, was 
resumed by the recorder. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Where did the interview take place? 
A. At the Waldorf-Astoria. 
Q. Upon what occasion? What public function was going on there? 
A. I don't know that there was any public function going on at that time. 
Q. No public dinner or anything of that sort? 
A. There might have been for aught I know. I know it was on the 31st of January. 
Q. Refreshing your memory, if you please, from notes that were cotemporary 
with the transaction, will you please state to the court what the interview was? 
A. I have a perfect copy of what I wrote on that occasion here. 
Q. When was it made; at the time? 
A. Yes, sir; it was made immediately after I returned to the office. Shall I read 
it? 
Q. Yes, if you please. 
A. This is what I wrote when I came back to the Associated Press office: 
"General Nelson A. Miles, who was seen at the Waldorf-Astoria last evening 
(Tuesday), at first declined to talk about the interviews attributed to him in after- 
noon newspapers further than to deny that he had given any interview to anybody. 
"When portions of a very specific alleged interview were called to his attention 
and he was asked about them he said: 'It is true that I declined to discuss General 
Eagan. I never said the other matter which is put in my mouth. I have been 
most freely quoted without authority from me or without any utterance on my part. 
It has been a source of great annoyance to me. ' FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1515 
"Later General Miles made this statement: 'On the 20th of last September I 
issued an order to regimental commanders ordering them to report to me concerning 
the beef which had been issued to their men. At the time that I went before the 
War Board Investigating Committee I had only received reports from fourteen of 
the commanders; now I have thirty reports. They all tell the same story. The 
evidence proving the truth of the statements which I made is abundant and over- 
whelming. In addition to the reports of the regimental commanders I have a great 
mass of evidence consisting of communications, affidavits, etc., from officers, soldiers, 
and civilians. Every part of the country has contributed to the mass of correspond- 
ence which I have received in reference to the beef served to our soldiers, and the 
evidence is all corroborative of what I have said. The great publicity which the 
press has given the matter has brought all the correspondence of which I speak 
upon me. 
" 'I have overwhelming evidence that the embalmed beef was treated with chemi- 
cals in order to preserve it. I have affidavits from men who saw the beef undergo- 
ing the treatment or embalming process. 
"'Now as to the canned roast beef, that was different from the embalmed beef. 
The canned roast beef was the beef after the extract had been boiled out of it. You. 
have seen the advertisements: "Beef extract. One pound contains the substance of 
from four to five pounds of prime beef?" Well, this is the beef after the extract has 
been taken from it. They put this beef pulpu in cans and label it "Canned roast beef. ' ' 
The soldiers report that the canned beef was nauseating. If swallowed it could 
not be kept on the stomach.' 
" ' General,' said the reporter, ' you are quoted as having said that if the men who 
supplied the beef would deposit a thousand dollars in such a way that it could be 
made to pay the cost of the proceedings you would furnish absolute proof of your 
assertions. What tribunal had you in mind? To whom would you furnish this 
proof?' 
" ' I made that statement in response to the offer of the beef men to pay $1,000 for 
evidence of the truth of my allegations against their product. I looked on their 
offer as a bluff, and took that way of answering it. I have no particular tribunal in 
mind. I have the greatest abundance of evidence to support the charges I made, 
and do not think that any part of the $1,000 need be spent in more investigation.' 
" ' Having made this fight for the soldier, General, do you intend to go farther in 
the same direction and attack abuses in the hospital service, transportation, ord- 
nance, etc.?' 
" ' I must positively decline to make any statement in regard to that matter.' " 
Q. Was that the entire interview? 
A. That is every line that I wrote on the subject. 
Q. And what disposition did you make of it? 
A. Turned it over to the city editor of the Associated Press, who undoubtedly 
manifolded it and sent it out to various other papers. 
Q. Did you see it subsequently in any of the papers that have the Associated Press 
service? 
A. I saw portions of it in various newspapers. 
Q. Did you examine the Herald? 
A. Yes, sir; I looked over the Herald. 
Q. Did you see the interview, or any portions of it, there? 
A. I saw some portions of that interview in the Herald, combined with other 
matter which I certainly did not write. 
Q. Have you examined the Herald since then? 
A. I examined it again to-day, yes. I looked at it the next morning after this 
thing, looked at it on February 1, the morning after I had gotten the Miles inter- 
view, and then we talked it over a little bit in the office, and then I examined it 
again to-day. 1516 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Is it given, in full in the Herald? 
A. No, I don't think so; it is not. 
Q. Could you tell from an examination of it what portions did and what portions 
did not appear? 
A. Yes, sir; I think I could if I compared the two. 
Q. To see what the Herald had taken from that and what it had left out? 
A. I will have to put the two together. I think they took this: 
"Later General Miles made this statement: 'On the 20th of last September I 
issued an order to regimental commanders. ' ' ' That seems to be in the Herald. And 
then this other paragraph: " Now, as to the canned roast beef, that was different from 
the embalmed beef." That seems to be in the Herald. 
"I made this statement in response to the offer of the beef men to pay $1,000 for 
evidence." That paragraph appears to be in the Herald. This about putting beef 
pulp in cans and labeling it canned roast beef, that seems to be in the Herald, just 
exactly as I wrote it, apparently. 
Q. Was anyone present with you when the interview took place? 
A. About two-thirds of the interview, the latter two-thirds of the interview, were 
listened to by a Mr. Berry, of the New York Times. 
Q. He lives in New York? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. At. the time that you state this interview occurred with General Miles had you 
read General Miles's testimony, alleged to have been given before a commission that 
was in session here? Had you read his testimony? 
A. I may have done so. 
Q. Had you that testimony in mind when you say you had that interview with 
General Miles? 
A. No. 
Q. Where was it that you interviewed him? 
A. At the Waldorf-Astoria. 
Q. I know, but where in the Waldorf-Astoria? 
A. It was right in front of the office, to the left-hand side of the front, about 10 
or 15 feet away, maybe, from the place where the cards go upstairs to the rooms of 
the guests. 
Q. Were you standing or sitting? 
A. I was standing. 
Q. Was General Miles walking when you accosted him? 
A. General Miles was walking; yes, sir. 
Q. Did you place yourself in front of him, and did he endeavor to pass by you, 
and make some declination as to not desiring to talk on the subject? At that time, 
was there anything of that kind occurred? 
A. Oh, yes; he said half a dozen times that he did not want to talk. I went up 
to him-I had just sent my card up stairs to the General's room, and the card came 
down with the notice that the General was not in. I had inquired at the office first, 
and the bell boy at the place where the cards are sent up stairs, the little page boys 
there, they knew whom I wanted, and one of the little fellows said, " There is Gen- 
eral Miles now," and he was just passing by the office, and I said, " Give him my 
card," and he gave him the card that I had sent up stairs, and the General turned 
and spoke to me courteously, but said that he could not be interviewed at all. I had 
in my hand a two-thirds of a column alleged interview from the Evening World, and 
that I presented to him and said that the whole country was anxious to hear from 
him in regard to this matter, and I talked a little bit and endeavored to obtain an 
interview, and the General absolutely declined to talk to me at that time, and he FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1517 
passed on. Well, I was pretty disappointed. I waited around a little while, and 
when he came back again I approached him and said, " General, we would like very 
much to know if these statements in this evening's paper are true or not. You have 
been quite widely quoted," and I said, "If you will not talk now, my time is entirely 
at your disposal. I will wait here at any time that you set for an interview this even- 
ing, if you haven't any time now." He had said that he hadn't any time to talk, 
and he declined quite forcibly to speak, at the same time very courteously, but he 
said, " What have you got there?" I said, " It is a copy of the Evening World, a 
slip from the Evening World." He said, " What do you want?" Well, I said, " I 
would like to know generally whether or not these things in the Evening World are 
true." "What is it?" he said. I said, "They state here that you have some new 
evidence as to embalming of beef," and one word led to another, and the first thing 
we knew, the first thing I knew, the General was talking, and he talked quite freely 
when he once got started, talked about ten minutes. 
Q. You were standing all this time? 
A. Yes, sir; standing in front of the office. 
Q. Did you take notes of it at the time? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you take out your notebook and note it down? 
A. No; I had some loose paper in my pocket, folded, and took a pencil out of my 
pocket, and as soon as he began to talk freely I began to take notes. 
Q. Did you submit that to him? 
A. No; I did not have any opportunity. He went right away. I think I told him 
at the time that I would be very willing to submit proofs to him. I usually do that 
with an important interview. 
Q. I understand that he had declined several times. 
A. Oh, he declined several times. 
Q. A number of times, and you still sought him for an interview? 
A. Still persisted. 
Q. Do you remember asking him if he still adhered to the statements that he had 
made, whatever statements he had made in regard to the matter, for instance, his 
testimony that he had given in regard to these matters? Can you recall that you 
asked him such questions as that when he endeavored to pass you and to avoid the 
interview? 
A. I do not think so. • 
Q. Do you say that you did not? Can you swear that you did not? 
A. No; I would not swear, but it is my impression that I did not. 
Q. Can you swear that you did not say in substance to him, ask him in substance 
if he adhered to the statements that he had heretofore made, his evidence before the 
commission, and so on? 
A. I would not swear that I did not ask that. 
Q. You don't know whether he answered that whatever he had said he would 
stand by, or words to that effect? Do you remember such a conversation as that? 
A. Well, now, that sounds a little familiar, but I am not positive. 
Q. Did you in standing there take your notebook out and in the presence of Gen- 
eral Miles take down those statements? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In what-in shorthand? 
A. No, in longhand notes. 
Q. You took down what you considered the points in the conversation? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And the conversation went right along? 
A. And the conversation went right along. There were a great many questions 
which I asked, which I have not given in there, you know. 1518 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. And then afterwards you took those, and from your memory of what was said 
in between you wrote up this interview? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And published it? 
A. On the cars going down, thinking that the matter was of great importance, I 
went with Mr. Berry-I don't know whether I am volunteering something you do 
not want 
Q. Tell all you want to. There is nothing-the door is wide open, you know. 
A. That explains a point in regard to your question about notes. On the cars, 
thinking the matter w'as of very great importance, and there might be some question 
as to whether or not the interview did take place-seeing that there was a question as 
to whether or not this World interview took place-Mr. Berry and 1 went down on 
the car together and we compared notes. I read over to Mr. Berry-at least, it was 
to that extent, of my reading to Mr. Berry my notes. I had them very much more 
fully than he had, and I asked him if he had anything additional to what I had, 
but he had not. I read my notes over to him on the cars. Now, Mr. Berry wrote 
the Times article which appeared the next morning, and you will find there is no 
dissimilarity in substance between the Times article and the Associated Press article. 
I compared them the next day. 
Q. To what particular paper, then, did you first furnish this? Did you furnish it 
to the Associated Press or to any particular paper? 
A. That passed from my hands into the hands of the night editor of the Associ- 
ated Press, and I suppose he served the entire Associated Press service with it? 
Q. Was there any particular paper in his mind that it was to go to and be pub- 
lished in full? 
A. No. Sometimes one paper publishes fuller than another, and sometimes another 
paper. We can not tell what they are going to do with the matter that we give to 
them. Sometimes they do not publish a line of what we send. Sometimes they 
twist it a little bit one way or the other. 
Q. I would like to ask you, Mr. Reid, in regard to this matter. Do you maintain 
that under the circumstances and the conditions, standing as you wTere there with 
General Miles, as you state that he was, after his declination to be interviewed, do 
you mean to say that you could take the hasty notes that would be made at the time 
necessarily in a running conversation, and claim to write up accurately what General 
Miles said? Do you claim that that is accurately what he said? 
A. I do not claim that the verbiage is absolutely correct. 
Q. That is just what I want to get at. You have introduced this interview as what 
General Miles has said, and it is put here in quotation marks, and I want to know if 
you can state that this is a verbatim report of what he said? 
A. No, sir; it is not. 
Q. Under those circumstances are you not liable, as well as others, to make some 
errors or mistakes in regard to it? 
A. Oh, the verbiage is very likely to be different. 
Q. Where is Mr. Berry? Is he connected with your work in any way? 
A. No; nothing whatever. I had never met him before. He has been on the 
Times for twenty years. 
Q. How long since you furnished the information that you tbok this interview, and 
to whom, in connection with the investigation? 
A. Some weeks ago I was informed by my city editor-I think within two weeks 
after I wrote that thing, I was asked to write a letter to the Associated Press people. 
I never had any dealings other than w'ith the Associated Press people concerning 
that until I came here this morning; never met any of the army officers; but my city 
'editor has talked to me about it a couple of times. Recently Mr. Mack, of the Asso- 
ciated Press, talked to me, told me that I might possibly be subpoenaed in the matter. 
Q. Who is Mr. Mack? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1519 
A. Mr. Mack is the superintendent of our eastern division. 
Q. I see in reading this that it states that "When portions of a very specific alleged 
interview were called to his attention, and he was asked about them, he said: 'It is 
true that I declined to discuss General Eagan. I never said the other matter which 
is put in my mouth. I have been most freely quoted without any authority from 
me, or without any utterance on my part. It has been a source of great annoyance 
to me.' Then it goes on: 'Later General Miles made this statement,' and then it 
quotes: 'On the 20th of last September I issued an order to regimental commanders,' 
and so on, in regard to the evidence and the communications that had come from 
officers. Then it goes on and makes another quotation, and it is all in quotation 
marks up to the canned roast beef being the beef after the extract had been boiled 
out of it, and so on. Then it concludes: 'Having made this fight for the soldier'- 
this is the question-' Having made this fight for the soldier, General, do you intend 
to go further in the same direction, and attack abuses in the hospital service, trans- 
portation, ordinance, etc.?' and concludes, 'I must positively decline to make any 
statement in regard to that matter. ' ' ' Does this contain all that was said by General 
Miles? 
A. Oh, no; that contains about two-thirds of what he said, I suppose. 
Q. Then the rest that is put here in quotation marks, you do not claim that that is 
an absolutely correct quotation of what he said? 
A. I do not claim that the verbiage is absolutely correct. I do claim that there is 
nothing there that the General did not say in substance. 
Q. In substance, as you have worded it? 
A. In different verbiage. 
Q. As you have worded it? 
A. No, not as I have worded it; but my words might be a little different. 
Q. I would like to know whether you claim that it is true that in a conversation 
with myself, for instance, in my humble capacity here, that you could go out and in 
the course of an hour, in a running conversation, that you could quote me accurately 
as to what I have said on any one given subject, on a matter running for ten or 
fifteen minutes, and that it could go out to the people as being what I said? Would 
you go on the stand and swear that is just what I said and just what I meant? 
A. I claim that if you were to talk on an interesting subject, and I were to take 
notes of your conversation, I can reproduce what was said so that there is none of the 
substance lost. 
Q. And would you claim that all that would be true as against my own testimony 
as to what was in my mind and what I meant? 
A. Oh, no; I would not attempt to say what was in your mind. 
Q. Or what I meant? 
A. Only to describe what you said. 
Q. Your impressions or your recollections? 
A. No; I would describe the fact, of what you actually did say. 
Q. In an important matter of that kind, which has been developed into a very 
important matter here, resolving itself into a court of inquiry-I say, as it is a matter 
of very great importance, why was not that submitted to General Miles, if you were 
going to send it broadcast over the country? You do submit interviews, do you not? 
A. Oh, frequently we do. 
Q. Why? 
A. For the express purpose of getting it satisfactory to the person interviewed. 
Q. Very well-and this was not submitted? 
A. I believe the fault of that did not lie with me, but with the General. 
Q. Would you claim it to be a fault, after a talk with an officer or with any person, 
that the fault would be with them because they did not have the paper? 
A. Did not have the time to look it over. I believe that when I approached the 1520 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
General I told him that I would write up this thing and submit it to him; submit a 
proof to him if necessary. 
Q. What did he say? 
A. I forget the cause of it, but he said he was in a terrible hurry. 
Q. Did you make any note of what he said about that? 
A. I did not make any note. 
Q. You don't remember on that part of the business? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Then the reason why you submit these interviews after they are written out is 
in order that the correctness of them may be established; or such changes may be 
made by the party interviewed as will do him justice, and that he may feel that 
justice is done him? 
A. I believe that is true, but if a man declines to look over his matter 
Q. He is responsible for the mistakes? 
A. Oh, no; I would not say that, but he is responsible for having declined. The 
General saw me take the notes. There was not any concealment about that at all. 
He knew perfectly well that I was an Associated Press man. I told him that two or 
three times. 
Q. Do you know whether that interview was printed in the New York Tribune? 
A. I hear-I have not seen it in the Tribune, but I heard that it was. 
Q. This interview, you say, was on the 31st of January? You have a record of that 
time? 
A. Yes, sir; on the assignment book. 
Q. Have you the original notes? 
A. No; I tore them up long ago. 
Q. When was this? 
A. They were taken in pencil on rough paper, and I destroyed them that same 
night. 
Q. I presume this is copied from what you prepared? 
The Recorder. He testified what it was. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Is this a copy made by you or not? I want to get some information. Is this 
copy made by you? 
A. That is a copy of the original typewritten stuff which I reproduced from my 
notes that night. When I got to the office I sat down to a typewriter and ran this 
thing off from my notes on the typewriter. Now, when I went to get a copy of 
this matter that I wrote that night I found there was only one copy in the office, in 
the hands of the city editor, so I made that copy from our original in the possession 
of the office. 
Q. In the possession of the office? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. This was made by you and brought here to the court? 
A. Made by me personally. 
Q. Made from the copy that you made? 
A. From the copy that I made at that time. 
Q. Of your original notes? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. So this is a copy of a copy? 
A. A copy of a copy. 
Q. And that copy that this was made from is in possession of the office? 
A. Is in possession of the city editor. 
Major Lee. I would submit to the court whether or not that is not the better 
evidence than this, as being somewhere nearer the original paper. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
1521 
Q. The interview was on the 31st of January, I believe? 
A. So the assignment book seems to show. 
Q. And the publication appeared in the paper, you believe, on the 1st of February? 
A. Yes, sir; on the 1st of February. 
Major Lee. I believe that is all. I would ask that this gentleman be held subject 
to recall for further cross-examination. 
The Recorder. For how long? 
Major Lee. Oh, for an hour and a half, if it is agreeable. If not, why, let him 
go. It makes no difference to me. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, there are no more witnesses present who 
have been summoned for to-day. 
The President. Will there be any more? 
The Recorder. None have appeared here and reported. 
General Davis. General Shafter is here. 
The Recorder. He reported this morning, and I told him that he could come 
to-morrow morning. It seemed likely that the examination of the last witness 
would consume more time than it has, and he has some other matters to attend to, 
I believe. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, if there is nothing further to-day I would like 
this witness to be held until to-morrow, if the court will indulge to that extent. I 
would like to go over the testimony that has been given, and go over the matter. 
Thereupon the court, at 12.15 p. m., went into executive session, after which it 
adjourned until Tuesday, April 11, 1899, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C., 
Tuesday, April 11, 1899-10 o'clock a. m. 
The court met pursuant to adjournment. 
Present, all the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
TESTIMONY OF SIDNEY REID-Recalled. 
Sidney Reid, being called for further cross-examination, is examined. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Mr. Reid, I wish to ask you the question whether, in connection with your 
reporting, an alleged interview with General Miles, in regard to which you have tes- 
tified, whether you had read or had seen the report of the statements that he had 
made before a certain commission that convened here in Washington? 
A. I am not positive in regard to that. It is quite probable that I had, but they 
do not make any impression on me now. I can not be sure. 
Q. Will you state to the court what was the question that you asked General Miles, 
as I believe you have testified to in part if not entirely, holding in your hand a report 
of some alleged interview, some extracts, clipping, or something from some paper? 
A. What was the question I asked him? 
Q. Yes; what question did you ask him with reference to that paper which you had? 
A. Well, I asked him a number of questions. 
Q. Well, with that paper-what was the paper? 
A. It was a clipping from the Evening World of that same date, January 31, about 
two-thirds of a column in length, which contained a number of very specific state- 
ments which were quoted as coming from General Miles. 
S. Doc. 270 96 1522 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Have you that clipping? 
A. No; I have not. You will find it on the file, undoubtedly. 
Q. It can be found on file where? 
A. In the World office. 
Q. That you had in your hand? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Can you recall what question you asked General Miles with reference, if any- 
thing, to the statements that he made before the commission when called here, or in 
reference to this paper that you had? You made some remark in regard to it, and 
he said, "What is that," or "What have you there?" 
A. He said several times there, "What is that," or "What do you want?" I 
explained to him that I was a reporter from the Associated Press, and desired to get 
a confirmation or denial of this. I said, "This is an extremely important matter, and 
the people of the country are naturally very much interested in getting it. Now," I 
said, "We will take particular pains if you will grant us an interview in this matter 
and explain concerning the allegations that are set forth here. Here is one allegation 
to the effect that you have an abundance or a great amount of evidence on this sub- 
ject, and that if the beef men will put up a thousand dollars you will take that evi- 
dence into court and demonstrate the truth. And here is another statement to the 
effect that a man named Pope," I believe, "of Boston, stands ready to give this 
thousand dollars which you said was necessary. Now, will you carry out your 
promise to give this demonstration, and before whom will you give this demonstra- 
tion?" Well, then, his reply to that question is contained in my interview there. 
Q. That is, you mean the substance of it as you remember it? 
A. The substance of it. 
Q. As you remembered it? 
A. As I remembered it immediately after the interview. 
Q. You said "this." You spoke of "this." What did you mean by "this?" 
What was in the paper which you held in your hand? 
A. This what? 
Q. This statement in regard to this matter. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You were referring to that paper? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I want to ask you if you did not, in effect or in substance, ask General Miles, 
refreshing your memory, if you did not ask him in substance in regard to this mat- 
ter while talking to him, if he stood by the statements that he had heretofore made 
before the commission? 
A. That does not sound like anything that I said. 
Q. Substantially that? 
A. No; I don't think I asked him that. 
Q. Didn't you refer to any previous statement? 
A. No; I went much farther and was much more specific. That was too general 
a question for the things that I wanted. I don't think I asked him that question, 
because I was going right into specific details. 
Q. Who was with you at this interview? 
A. At the very first of the interview there was no one, but this Mr. Berry was 
standing a little distance off. He himself had tried to get an interview from the 
General and had failed, just the same as I had. Quite a number of other newspaper 
men had been attempting to get the General in an interview. There had been sev- 
eral of them and they had all failed, and this time when he came back the last time 
Mr. Berry was waiting at a distance and saw that I at last got the General to talking. 
Q. You stopped him in the passageway-in the corridor? 
A, In the corridor. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1523 
Q. Standing? 
A. Standing. 
Q. He excused himself, didn't he? 
A. Oh, several times. ' 
Q. Said that he was in a hurry? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. He had excused himself? 
A. Yes, sir; that he was in a hurry, and, besides, he hadn't anything to say about 
that matter. 
Q. And Mr. Berry was there during two-thirds of your interview? 
A. When we got into conversation he listened to the latter third of the conver- 
sation. 
Q. The latter third, or two-thirds? 
A. The last two-thirds, I should judge. 
Q. The last two-thirds of the conversation? 
A. The last two-thirds of the conversation in regard to it; yes, sir. 
Q. This report of the interview that you made, the copy that is kept of it, for what 
purpose is that kept? 
A. Oh, I can not be sure, but I judge that is done in every case. We keep an 
original of every article we send out. It was taken from a file. I went to the city 
editor when the manager came to me and told me I might be subpoenaed, and I asked 
him if he had a copy of what I had written. 
Q. You told him you might be subpoenaed? 
A. I told him the manager informed me. 
Q. You furnished the information that you had made this kind of an interview, 
which you had claimed, with General Miles, after he had repeatedly declined to be 
interviewed, and did you describe the interview, how it was? I say, did you furnish 
that information that you had succeeded in making a kind of interview, such as you 
described, with General Miles? 
A. Furnish it to whom? 
Q. With reference to the subpoena to testify. 
A. On orders from my city editor, about two weeks after the writing of this inter- 
view, I wrote a note to him, directed to him, describing the circumstances surrounding 
the interview. 
Major Lee. I believe that is all. 
The Recorder. Has the court any questions? 
(There were no further questions.) 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Captain Plummer, United States Army. 
TESTIMONY OF CAPT. EDWARD H. PLUMMER. 
Capt. Edward H. Plummer was called as a witness by the recorder and, being 
first duly sworn, is examined. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. Edward II. Plummer; captain, Tenth Infantry, aide-de-camp to General Shafter; 
stationed at San Francisco. 
Q. Did you take part in the operations in Cuba last year during the war with 
Spain? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Upon what duty were you during the concentration at Tampa? 
A. I was battalion adjutant when we arrived at Tampa, and a few days afterwards 
I was detailed as brigade quartermaster. I was quartermaster to three different 1524 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
brigades in the changing and organizing, and performed that duty until the 3d of 
July. 
Q. And after that upon what duty were you engaged? 
A. I was quartermaster then at General Shafter's headquarters near Santiago. 
Q. What duties were assigned to you in connection with the loading of the expe- 
dition ; its embarkation? 
A. Well, I practically had nothing to do with it. I had organized the brigade 
wagon train, hospital train, and that sort of thing, but when we came to embark that 
transportation was taken charge by the corps quartermaster, and I acted as aide-de- 
camp to the brigade commander from the time we commenced to embark. 
Q. What brigade commander? 
A. Colonel Pierson. 
Q. Is it within your knowledge as to the quantity of transportation that was taken 
in the way of animals and wagons? 
A. I can not give it accurately, sir. I know, from the number of wagons that were 
ordered to report to the corps quartermaster and from the number of wagons that I 
had under my charge afterwards, that there were something over a hundred wagons 
taken over. 
Q. And, to the best of your recollection, how many mules? 
A. About a thousand, I think, sir. 
Q. How many of these were used in pack trains? 
A. About 500,1 believe. 
Q. About 500? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How were the rest employed? 
A. In wagons and ambulances. 
Q. Can you make a division as between ambulances and 6 and 4 mule teams? 
A. Well, I didn't know anything about it at the time-that is, I didn't know how 
many ambulances were in Cuba, although I saw them continually, but never had any 
occasion to count them-to verify them. I have learned since from the statement of 
the quartermaster who shipped the transportation that there were 3 ambulances 
taken over at first, and on the 26th of June 7 more arrived at Siboney. 
Q. Can you recall how many 6 or 4 mule teams were taken over and used for trans- 
portation-for loads? 
A. As I understand, there were something over a hundred wagons altogether. I 
never knew exactly how many were fours and how many sixes. 
Q. Upon what duty were you engaged after the landing had been effected at 
Siboney? 
A. I was brigade quartermaster until the 3d of July, and I was engaged in getting 
up supplies for the brigade as they moved along toward the front. 
Q. Please state to the court, in narrative form, the manner in which that duty was 
performed of getting supplies up to the front. 
A. The unloading was started at Daiquiri; some supplies were put off there; and 
then after Siboney was taken we commenced to unload there, and those supplies were 
forwarded by pack trains at first as they were gotten ready; then afterwards by wagons 
as fast as the wagons could be put ashore and mules were put ashore; the wagons 
were set up and the hauling commenced right away. 
Q. Under whose direction was this transportation handled? 
A. General Humphreys was the quartermaster of the expedition. Major Jacobs 
was the quartermaster of the corps, and Major Jacobs superintended the work at 
Siboney, I believe, and General Humphreys at Siboney, and had general supervision 
of the transports and the landing from the transports. 
Q. Were the wagons organized into trains? * 
A. No, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1525 
Q. Was there a general organization of the wagons with a view to the hauling of 
supplies to the front? 
A. Well, I should say that there never was any specific organization. As I say, 
the wagons were put ashore and set up as rapidly as possible and put right to work, 
and wagon masters were put in charge of wagons as rapidly as they could gather. 
Sometimes we would have 3 and sometimes 20 in a train, and the wagons had to be 
detached from a train to move supplies farther to the front, or anything of that sort, 
so it was impossible to keep a train intact. 
Q. Please state to the court what the condition of the roads was between Sibbney 
and the front, between the time of landing and the time of surrender. 
A. Well, in some places they were good and hard and in other places they were 
good in dry weather, but when it rained they were almost impassable. At times 
we could not haul more than 1,000 to 1,500 pounds on a 6-mule wagon that ordi- 
narily would haul from 3,000 to 4,000 pounds. On the pack mules, partly on account 
of the heat and partly on account of the roads, we could haul only from 150 to 200 
pounds, where ordinarily we would haul from 200 to 300 pounds. 
Q. What time was consumed by the wagons and the pack trains in making the 
round trip from Siboney to the front? 
A. The wagons generally went down one day and loaded the next morning and 
came back that day. The difficulty was not in getting over the road or in making 
the trip, but in loading the wagon and in passing on the road. There was only one 
road, and that was very narrow, and in places there was no way of trains passing each 
other, so that we had to arrange to have wagons go down during certain hours and 
come back during certain hours, so that the traffic could only go one way at certain 
hours, and even then men had to be sent along ahead to watch out for passing 
places in case some extra team got in. Occasionally wagons would go down to 
Siboney from General Shafter's headquarters and come back the same day, but that 
was very rare because of the delays in loading. 
Q. How much time was consumed in making the round trip of the pack trains? 
A. Well, at the time I took charge the pack trains were not used between General 
Shafter's headquarters and Siboney. We used those to distribute the rations from 
General Shafter's headquarters along the line. There were places where we could 
not use wagons at all, and we used pack trains for that part of the work. When 
I took charge my orders were-the only order General Shafter gave me-to allow 
no wagon to go beyond his headquarters. That was a specific order from him. The 
pack trains were to be used for that part of it entirely. 
Q. When was the depot established at General Shafter's headquarters? 
A. I believe that was on the 2d of July. I took charge on the 3d. I had been 
down there when the order was given to establish the depot. I believe it was since 
then. 
Q. How far was that depot from Siboney? 
A. I think about 7 miles. 
Q. And how far from the troops that were in the front lines? 
A. It was from a mile and a half to 2 miles from the center of the line, but at 
times I believe General Lawton's headquarters were from 7 to 11 miles away-around 
to the right of the city-around the bay. 
Q. How were the supplies delivered to General Lawton's command? 
A. By pack trains almost altogether. Toward the last we used wagons when it 
was possible. 
Q. Please state to the court how this accumulation of supplies was made at the 
depot at General Shafter's headquarters. 
A. Well, we very seldom had anything left after making the issues for the follow- 
ing day. The supplies were brought up and unloaded, piled up, and then Major 
Gallagher would make the issues and distribution, and by the time he got through 1526 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
the pile was generally pretty close to the ground. There was never any large supply 
on hand. It was impossible. 
Q. Who had charge of the unloading of the ship and of the establishment of the 
depot on'shore at Siboney? 
A. I believe General Weston had charge of that, both at Daiquiri and Siboney. 
Q. If it is within your knowledge, who determined what particular articles of sup- 
plies were to be landed at Siboney and sent up to the depot at General Shafter's 
headquarters? 
A. Well, I presume it was determined by General Weston, but it depended on 
circumstances. Major Gallagher, who was at the depot, would frequently send down 
that he needed such and such supplies, and they would be pushed forward in prefer- 
ence to others. They unloaded everything as rapidly as they could. Some of the 
ships were loaded in such a wTay that they could only unload one article of rations 
at a time, but they accumulated a supply as rapidly as they could of complete 
rations. 
Q. To what extent could the brigade commissary determine the component of the 
ration that should be issued to his brigade? 
A. Well, he would apply to Major Gallagher, for instance, if he preferred salt 
meat to the roast beef, or something of that kind; he would ask if he could have it, 
and how much he could have. There was very little choice in the other part of the 
ration. 
Q. And what amount of salt meat was brought up to the headquarters depot each 
day-that is, regarding it from the point of view of a full supply of salt meat to the 
command? 
A. Well, I really am not able to state that, because I simply superintended the 
loading and did not know about the issues, what proportion they issued, but I should 
imagine it was about half, from what I remember, and during the latter part we 
used bacon altogether as much as we could. 
Q. Why did you do that? 
A. Well, the troops had gotten so that they preferred the bacon to the roast beef. 
Q. Please state to the court, if you can, what special efforts, if any, were made 
with a view to getting bacon to the front as a meat component of the ration. 
A. No special effort. I remember several times hearing commissaries say that 
they would prefer to take bacon if they could get it, either part or all bacon, as the 
men had grown tired of the beef. 
Q. What complaints, if any, came to your knowledge as to any of the meat com- 
ponents of the ration? 
A. I never heard any, sir; that is, at that time. 
Q. At that time? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Had you occasion to know at that time that one article of the meat ration wras 
preferred to another? 
A. Only, as I say, that I heard commissaries, toward the latter part of the time, 
say that their men preferred bacon if they could get it. 
Q. Is it within your knowledge as to whether their requests were complied with? 
A. As far as possible. If we had the bacon, if the bacon was at the pile, they 
would get it. 
Q. What particular difficulty was there in getting bacon to the front? 
A. I don't know why that was-whether it was not on shore or whether the chief 
commissary or quartermaster who loaded at Siboney divided the meat. 
Q. You have no knowledge about that? 
A. No, sir; I have no knowledge in regard to that. Sometimes a commissary 
would take field rations rather than wait for a train to come in. Sometimes a train 
would come in late and it would take him until late in the night before he would FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1527 
get his supplies, and he might prefer to take the supplies that were on hand rather 
than wait on the risk of getting bacon, because we never knew what was coming on 
the wagons or what time any particular kind of rations would get in, any particular 
component of the ration. 
Q. Assuming the full field ration as a standard, is it within your knowledge, can 
you inform the court, how nearly that ration was supplied to the troops during the 
period between the embarkation and the end of the siege? 
A. That is, omitting the potatoes and romatoes? 
Q. Leaving those out and taking simply the field ration as it is set forth in the 
articles. 
A. I understood at the time, from the conversations I had with Major Gallagher 
and from what I heard from the commissaries, that there were two days that part of 
the command did not have entire rations-two days, I believe, that they were short 
of sugar and coffee. Some days they would be short a little and the next day it 
would be made up, but I believe there were two days that part of the command 
were short of sugar and coffee. 
Q. What complaints, jf any, reached you at the headquarters depot in respect to 
shortness of rations, up to the time of the surrender? 
A. I don't remember hearing of any. As I say, sometimes they would not be able 
to get all that was required one day, but it would be made up the next day. 
Q. Please state to the court, if it is within your knowledge, any information that 
you may have as to the adequacy of the transportation provided for the work which 
it was required to do. 
A. Well, the transportation that we had was certainly not adequate; but whether 
more transportation could have been used, under the circumstances, I can hardly say. 
We might have used more pack mules if we had had them, but on account of the 
condition of the road-and having only the one road-and it being so narrow, it was 
about all we could do to get the wagons back and forth that we used over it. 
Q. Was any of the transportation assigned to brigades, or was it held and worked 
under a single commander? 
A. There were pack trains assigned to divisions. General Wheeler's division, 
General Lawton's division, and General Kent's division each had a pack train, that 
the division commissaries or quartermasters had control of. 
Q. Do you remember what the number of mules was in each pack train? 
A. It was about 50-somewhere along there; that is, from 45 to 50 animals 
for packs. That did not include the mules ridden by the packers-the bell ani- 
mals. It varied from time to time, because the mules gave out and were killed. 
General Wheeler's division was small, and he could get along with a much smaller 
train than others. General Kent's division was large, and his pack train was not 
sufficient to supply his division, so he used wagons and other pack trains to help 
him out. 
Q. After the city of Santiago had been occupied how was the transportation used 
for supply purposes? Was there any assignment of it? 
A. There was, after some time; not immediately. At first the wagons were used 
for drawing the supplies out to a depot just outside of the city, really on San Juan 
Hill, and the distribution was made from there. 
Q. How made? 
A. By wagons and pack trains; principally by wagons. By wagons altogether at 
first, because the pack trains were broken up, and the men were sick, and the ani- 
mals in bad shape. For a time we could not work them at all on account of the 
sickness of the packers, and at that time the roads were so that we could use wagons. 
Q. What duties, if any, were assigned to you with reference to the transportation 
of the refrigerated beef to the different commands composing the Fifth Corps? 
A. Well, the beef was brought out to this commissary depot by wagons that were 1528 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
under my direction. It was distributed from there. I am not sure whether it was 
all distributed from there. It was for a day or two, and then arrangements were 
made so that brigade commissaries would get the meat and take it immediately to 
their troops. 
Q. From where? 
A. From the wharf where it was put ashore. 
Q. To your knowledge, were any orders issued regulating the issue of refrigerated 
beef and its transportation to the command? 
A. Well, instructions were issued that did not come through me. I did not have 
anything to do with them. All I had to do was to supply the wagons so that the 
meat could be gotten out directly and distributed from where it was issued. 
Q. What did you do in the execution of that order; what distribution did you 
make? 
A. I gave them wagons-divided the wagons between the brigades. The commis- 
saries would come to me and state what transportation they wanted and I would give 
it to them, but the wagons for the meat and bread were always supplied in preference 
to anything else. We managed to haul the rations at different times during the day, 
but the meat and bread had to be taken care of the first thing in the morning. 
Q. Was that in consequence of orders from the brigade headquarters? 
A. 1 presume it was. I understood that from Major Gallagher, but the commis- 
saries had something to do with it themselves. I know some of them were very 
energetic, would come to my tent before daylight to get wagons so as to be sure to 
get in. As I understood, it was partly through instructions and partly through the 
energy of the commissaries. You asked me whether I had heard any complaints 
about the condition of the meat. 
Q. Yes. 
A. I said, not at that time. 
Q. Yes. 
A. There was a time afterwards when we got this refrigerated beef that, I believe, 
the Eighth Ohio, which were some distance from us, reported that they could never 
get the beef in good condition. It would come to our camp, and sometimes it would 
be there all day before it would go to them, and it would be the next day before they 
could get hold of it, and it wras raining on it, and they reported that they could not 
use the fresh meat on that account. That is the only complaint that I ever heard 
about it. 
Q. What action was taken upon that? 
A. They used some of the meat and finally they gave it up. 
Q. How far distant were they from the source of supply? 
A. From 3 to 8 miles. They were camped in the hills, part of them, so that it was 
difficult to get to them. The regiment wTas divided up into battalions, encamped in 
different places, and they w ere careless about making their arrangements to come 
after the meat. That was the amount of it. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Did you hear any complaint from the Ninth Infantry, after they had been 
moved out from the city, that their meat did not get there in good condition? 
A.- No, sir; that would not have come to me at that time. Major Gallagher had 
gone into the city, and the complaints would have gone to him direct. 
Q. Did you hear any complaints from Colonel Roosevelt's regiment-First United 
States Volunteers-in regard to either shortage of food or bad meat? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you hear any complaints in regard to the beef there, that a board of sur- 
vey was convened at one time, and that General Lawton took the matter in hand in 
regard to the refrigerated beef? 
A. No, sir; at that time the depot commissary had moved into the city and I did FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1529 
not come in contact with him at all. At this time, from the 3d of July up until the 
troops moved into the city, I messed with Major Gallagher and was there with him 
at the depot, but after he moved into the city I had charge of the wagon trains and 
pack trains outside of the city, and his supply depot was in the city, so that anything 
of that kind did not come under my notice. 
Q. It would not be within your province? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. So it would not be a matter upon which you could testify independently? 
A. No, sir; not at all. I don't know anything about it. 
Q. Was it brought to your knowledge or information that there were complaints 
made from brigade commissaries or quartermasters in regard to a lack of wagons for 
transportation? 
A. Not in regard to the bread and meat, because those things were ordered the first 
thing in the morning, and the rest of the ration would be hauled out during the day. 
Q. Were any wagons assigned to regiments at all? Do you recall any assignments 
which were made to regiments? 
A. No. Some regiments got hold of wagons and kept them and used them, but 
when that was discovered they were ordered to be turned in. 
Q. Captain, there seems to be some question as to what is the field ration. I would 
like to know in regard to what you consider the field ration that should be supplied 
to troops under the conditions of campaigning; what do you term the field ration? 
There has been a good deal of discussion as to the field ration. 
A. I had never seen potatoes and tomatoes issued in the field until we went down 
there. That has been my experience. We got them down there. 
Q. Then you consider that the field ration for troops in a campaign or in the field 
should consist of salt meat, bread, coffee, and sugar? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Anything else? 
A. Hard bread, salt, and baking powder. They do not draw the baking powder 
when they draw the hard bread, of course. 
Q. And vinegar? 
A. Vinegar. 
Q. Are not potatoes and onions regular constituents of the ration? 
A. Now. 
Q. And would be as much a part of the field ration when troops were out, and to 
be procured as much as any other part? 
A. Certainly that is the way we understood it. 
Q. And tomatoes? 
A. Now. But from our experience previously we had not hoped to get them there, 
that is all. 
Q. Canned tomatoes, are they not regularly a part of the ration, to be used at all 
times? 
A. I understand so. 
Q. In regard to these supplies going forward on the road, and the difficulties on 
the road, were any efforts made, to your knowledge, by having any portions of the 
engineers or others to repair, rebuild, or get the roads so that trains could pass, as is 
frequently done in supplying troops from a base? 
A. Yes; that was done before I took charge, I believe. I know that efforts were 
made'to have passing places, and then the troops in traveling over the country, and 
the mules in running down through it, gradually broke down the jungle in some 
places, so that the road was widened. 
Q. Were there any trails back to the base? 
A. Not that I know of, except wThere the roads divided at Guasimas there was a 
trail went down to Siboney, but that was not practicable for wagons. 1530 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. How far was it from General Shafter's headquarters to the base where the sup- 
plies came up-7 or 8 miles? 
A. From General Shafter's headquarters to Siboney? 
Q. Yes. That I understand was the principal base of supplies; that was the depot? 
A. Yes; it was about 7 miles. 
Q. The unloading, as I understand, or the taking of the stores off of the ships 
there, was attended with more or less difficulty? 
A. A great deal of difficulty; yes, sir; and the supplies would be brought off, of 
course, as they could be. 
Q. They could not be brought off in any regular system? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Now, in regard to the brigade commissaries sending back, under the conditions 
of service there, was it to be expected, under those conditions, that they would be 
able to get what they wanted, or what had been landed and what could be gotten? 
That is, would it be expected that a requisition or a memorandum sent back, or word 
sent back that they wanted thus and so, was it expected that those requests could 
be filled? Was it practicable? 
A. So far as the ration was concerned, except the potatoes and onions. They did 
not get those until afterwards. Preparations were made to keep a supply of the 
main components of the ration on hand on shore all the time, and the brigade com- 
missaries did not go back to that depot. Up to the 3d of July they came to this 
depot at General Shafter's headquarters. 
Q. And they got what had been brought up there? 
A. What had been brought up. We had a telephone to Siboney and Major Gal- 
lagher would endeavor to have the whole ration on hand every day. 
Q. As far as possible? 
A. As far as possible. 
Q. Yon were not charged with the matter of receiving complaints or hearing com- 
plaints, were you, in regard to the ration? In fact the troops at the time, under 
fire and under those conditions, were not given much to sending back complaints 
about matters? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. And you were not in a position to have any complaints pass through you in 
regard to that? 
A. No, sir; the only way they would come to me was by association with these 
brigade cojnmissaries, and with the chief commissary of the corps. 
Q. Then, if it be a fact, you were not aware of the fact that at that time or even 
on the way there, and also in the trenches when the men were at work, that a great 
deal of the travel ration of canned roast beef was not comsumed? That fact has not 
been brought to your attention, and it could not have been? It was not a matter that 
you had any concern with, was it? 
A. It came to my attention in this way, coming over, that some of the officers of 
my regiment messed with the men, and they stated that they preferred the fare that 
they got from the men's table to what they got on the ship. It came to my atten- 
tion in that way. 
Q. What regiment was that? 
A. A battalion of the Tenth Infantry. 
Q. Were some of the Ninth Infantry on the boat, do you recall? Was the regi- 
ment all on one boat? 
A. It was part of the battalion of engineers, two troops of the Tenth Cavalry, and 
four companies of the Tenth Infantry. 
Q. On that particular boat? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. The balance of the Tenth Infantry were with what regiment? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1531 
A. The Ninth, I believe. 
Q. Yon do not recall any effort on the part of the Tenth Infantry to trade canned 
roast beef to the Ninth Infantry for canned corned beef? 
A. That was not on my ship. 
Q. Did you ever hear, or were you in a position to hear or know in any way of 
the approximate quantity of that refrigerated beef that was sent out that had to be 
cut off and thrown away? Did you ever hear any complaints about that, or any infor- 
mation on that subject, about what proportion of it the troops did not consume after 
it was issued, say beginning the 20th? Was it a matter that would come to your 
attention? 
A. I saw a statement made by Major Gallagher-that is the only information I 
have. I saw that statement and I believe, as well as I remember the figures, the 
loss was about one one-hundredth of 1 per cent. 
Q. Of what? 
A. Of the beef that he had issued. 
Q. Of the refrigerated beef? 
A. That is the way I understood it. I am not sure whether it referred to refrig- 
erated beef or all kinds. 
Q. All kinds of the beef? 
A. All kinds of the beef ration, but I understood it was the refrigerated beef. 
Q. You had no personal knowledge in regard to that? 
A. No, sir; none at all. 
Q. You do not know what portions of it had to be pared off and thrown away? 
A. That did not come under my observation. 
Major Lee. I believe that is all. 
Redirect examination by the Recorder: 
Q. What were the main components of the ration supplied to the troops during 
the interval between the landing and the surrender? 
A. We had bacon and canned roast beef. 
Q. Under the regulations had you the right to draw either, if both were available? 
A. Well, that is regulated by the commanding officer, I believe, in garrisons gen- 
erally-the proportions of salt meat and fresh meat-and down there under the con- 
ditions of getting supplies up, and that sort of thing, the men took whatever they 
could get. If we had an entire ration of salt meat on hand they would take that. 
As I say, toward the end they preferred it. 
The Recorder. Has the court any questions? 
Q. Did you hear any preference expressed at any time? I mean in the earlier part 
of the siege operations-I mean, for canned roast beef. 
A. Well, I don't know that I heard any preference, but it was generally under- 
stood amongst us that canned roast beef was going to be a great thing; that it would 
be much better for us than corned beef. That was the impression; and, as I say, we 
got that partly from this experience on the ship-these officers who were living with 
the company, and eating this stew that was made from this roast beef, who said they 
preferred it to what was furnished on the ship's table. 
Q. Did you have charge of the loading of one or more of the transports that took 
your brigade over? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Do you know what number of days' travel ration each command was ordered 
to take? 
A. My recollection is that it was ten days-from eight to ten days-something in 
that neighborhood. 
Q. That is, from the day they first embarked? 
A. The idea was to have that amount on hand when we got on board the ship. 
They were ordered to take rations from time to time so as to keep this amount ahead. 1532 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. How long did the voyage last, on the vessel that you took passage in, from the 
date of actual embarkation to the disembarkation-how many days? 
A. It was twelve or thirteen days that we lay aboard ship. We were aboard ship 
in the harbor for some time. 
Q. Then if you only took ten days' rations you would certainly be short? 
A. I think we drew some while we were at Tampa, but I was quartermaster, not 
commissary, ami that did not come under my observation. 
Q. Did you hear the company commanders speak of it? 
A. I would hear the company commanders speak of it. I would understand that 
that was the intention-to start with eight or ten days' rations. I don't recall the 
exact number of days. 
Q. Under whose direction were the reserve stores put on board the transport at 
Tampa? 
A. General Humphreys had general charge of the loading there. General Weston 
had charge of the subsistence stores. 
Q. When this transport on which you took passage arrived, and you were ordered 
to disembark, was any order given as to the number of days' rations the troops should 
take with them in disembarking? 
A. Yes; there was an order that three days' rations were to be taken. 
Q. Was there any choice possible or practicable on the part of the command as to 
the components of that ration they should take as respects meat? 
A. I can't say whether there was or not. It was understood they were to take 
three days' field rations. Whether it was to be all salt meat or part roast beef I 
don't know. 
Q. Were those three days' rations that they were ordered to take part of the 
original outfit or travel ration supplied, or were they taken from the reserve stores 
in the ship? 
A. They were taken from the stores on the ship. As I understand, thny had had 
their travel ration, and that was to take them to the time of this embarkation. That 
came particularly to my notice because Captain Jones, in command of the troops of 
Tenth Cavalry, told me that in being put aboard our ship he had been separated 
from the part of the command that had the rations, so that they had nothing beyond 
a limited amount of travel rations, so that they were practically out of rations two 
days before they got to the landing, but they managed to get along by what they 
had sa'1" d, and by being helped out by other troops. But I understand there were 
two da,y« that they were practically beyond the time. When they came to go ashore 
they had to draw on the reserve stores in the ship. 
Q. Was somebody there to issue them to them? 
A. There was a brigade commissary on the ship I was on, and I don't know now 
it was on other ships. 
Q. They took this supply, then, from the reserve stores? . 
A. That was my understanding. I did not have anything to do with it. 
Q. Do you know whether, in these reserve stores on board the vessel, there was 
bacon and canned roast beef both-whether both commodities were there? 
A. I don't know, sir. 
Q. In the hauling of the fresh beef out from the wharf at Santiago to the troops or 
to the commissary depot at General Shafter's headquarters, and afterwards to the 
troops, how were the wagons equipped for hauling that fresh beef? 
A. There was no especial preparation. The meat was covered with a cotton cloth, 
or something of that kind. It was within a covering of cloth. 
Q. The meat was covered? 
A. The meat was covered. 
Q. That is to say, it was inclosed in a canvas cover? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. But as far as the wagon was concerned no special preparation was made? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1533 
A. As far as the wagon was concerned no special preparation was made. 
Q. Did the wagons all have covers? 
A. By that time the bows and everything of that kind had been a good deal broken. 
The wagons had been upset a great deal. 
Q. Was the wagon sheet used to cover the meat? 
A. Well, I have seen it used, but I can not say that it was used on all wagons or 
at all times. 
Q. Did the same wagons that went after fresh beef also get the bread orders? 
A. No, sir; other wagons. The bread generally required two wagons to a brigade. 
Q. The bread was obtained in a different place in the city? 
A. Yes, sir; obtained from the bakers. 
Q. Was as much care used in covering and protecting that meat from the sun and 
rain and dirt as was practicable? 
A. Well, I should say not. More care could have been taken, I suppose, but at 
the camp where I was we never had any trouble with it at all; and, as I say, this volun- 
teer regiment that had the trouble made the complaint that they could not use it, and 
I thought it was a great deal through their own carelessness, and that if they had 
taken proper care of it and been energetic about getting in there in time to get it, we 
would have had no trouble in getting it out there to their camp in good condition. 
Q. Did you hear any complaints, as to delay in the city, about wagons going to 
other places in the city to get something for somebody-do errands-the meat 
wagons? 
A. I never heard of any trouble with the meat wagons. We had a good deal of 
trouble with other wagons. The officers would pick them up on the street and insist 
on the drivers going with them. At times we had quite a good deal of trouble in 
that way, until very strict orders were issued about it. 
Q. This Eighth Ohio Regiment 
A. I believe that was the regiment. 
Q. They gave up trying to get the meat at all? 
A. Yes, sir; they said they preferred to do without it. If they attempted to get 
the meat there, they frequently were without part of their rations, because the meat 
would be spoiled when it got to them, and they did not want to take any risks. 
Q. Was the road that reached the various subdivisions of that regiment in good 
condition? 
A. No; it was in bad condition. At times the creek would be up and they could 
not get across for hours. The depot was then nearer Santiago, and this regiment was 
back on the ridge toward Siboney. 
Q. In hauling the supplies from Siboney during the siege operations, did you have 
any trouble with excessive rain as an impediment to rapid transit? 
A. Yes, sir; at times the roads were so muddy that the wagons would go down 
clear to the axles, and at times the little San Juan River would be up so that they 
could not cross. 
Q. That is what I wanted to ask you about, whether the stream was ever impassable? 
A. Yes, sir; it was at times. 
Q. These packs and wagons that hauled supplies, were they used also for ammu- 
nition, ordnance, and medical supplies? 
A. There was one pack train that was kept specially for hauling ammunition, kept 
always on hand in order to supply ammunition at any place where it might be 
needed. Wagons were used in addition at times. 
Q. Were they also used for hauling camp equipage and hospital equipment? 
A. There was very little hauling of camp equipage. 
Q. Well, of hospital equipment? 
A. We used the wagons for hauling the wounded back to Siboney from the 
hospitals. 1534 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Were they also used for hauling supplies for the Cubans, prisoners, and 
destitutes? 
A. We used wagons occasionally for them when they could be worked in, but 
after struggling for a day or two we got the Cubans that we were issuing rations to 
to come and camp near us and establish a depot commissary, so that they could 
handle their own supplies. 
Q. That is, near Siboney? 
A. Near General Shafter's headquarters; near this depot. 
Q. They would be brought there in wagons? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. So that really the supplies were hauled in wagons for the Cubans up from the 
depot? 
A. At times; yes, sir. 
The Recorder. I believe that is all. 
By Major Lee; 
Q. I should like to ask the question in regard to the Eighth Ohio. Did they draw 
their meat regimentally, or was it drawn from the brigade commissary? 
A. It was drawn regimentally. I think they were not assigned to a brigade at 
that time. 
Q. Where would they draw it regimentally-from where? 
A. From this depot where I was. There were some commands that drew there- 
hospitals and detachments that drew from there. 
Q. Then I understand meat would be brought out from Santiago, brought there to 
this place, and they would have to send there and get the meat? 
A. Yes, sir; but they had a regimental commissary and quartermaster to take 
charge of it and get it. 
Q. Did the regiment supply the transportation and attend to its other duties also? 
A. I furnished the transportation; always had it ready to take their meat. We 
used a wagon that came out from town with meat to take their meat to them. They 
did not always have men there, and possibly once or twice the meat was lost, or the 
teamsters would get stuck in the mud and would not get into camp with it. I told 
them if they would have an officer or a noncommissioned officer there to meet the 
wagon, they would not have any trouble in getting the meat there in time. 
Q. Did you ever hear any complaint in regard to any other regiment on the beef 
question? 
A. No, sir. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Scribner Ochsenschlager, of Jacksonville, Fla. 
TESTIMONY OF MR. SCRIBNER OCHSENSCHLAGER. 
Scribner Ochsenschlager was called as a witness by the recorder, and, being 
first duly sworn, is examined: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. Scribner Ochsenschlager; Jacksonville, Fla.; receiver and shipper of fresh beef 
at Jacksonville, Fla., for Armour & Co. 
Q. How long have you been in the employ of Armour & Co.? 
A. Two years this month. 
Q. When were you assigned to duty at Jacksonville? 
A. In October, 1897. 
Q. Upon what duty were you engaged in the employ of Armour & Co. after the 
troops began to arrive at Jacksonville in 1898? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1535 
A. Well, I made shipments to the troops there; delivered the fresh beef. 
Q. When did Armour & Co. begin to deliver beef to the troops there? 
A. The 20th of June. 
Q. Do you know who had delivered it prior to that date? 
A. The Cudahy Packing Company. 
Q. How long did your company continue to deliver it-Armour & Co.? 
A. Up to the 1st of January, when the contract expired. 
Q. Did the contract terminate then? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What were your duties in connection with the delivery of fresh beef to the 
troops? Please state to the court fully in narrative form. 
A. Well, I practically received all the beef and shipped it to the camp. 
Q. How did you receive it? 
A. The cars arrived and we took it out of the cars and put it into the house at 
Jacksonville. 
Q. How was it transported to the troops? . 
A. From the 20th of June we cut the meat and transported it in wagons up to the 
1st of August, and from then we made two deliveries, the 1st and 2d of August, to 
the troops in wagons, with quarters, and from that date we delivered it in cars. 
Q. To whom did you make the issue from the refrigerating warehouse? 
A. To whom did I make the issue? 
Q. Yes. 
A. To the commissaries. 
Q. To all the commissaries? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you give them the weight that they required? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Under whose direction was it transported then to the camp? 
A. Under the drivers'. 
Q. Were they employed by the United States, or by Armour & Co.? 
A. They were employed by Armour & Co. until we commenced to deliver from 
the cars, and then the drivers used to drive to the cars and get it themselves. 
Q. Armour's drivers? 
A. No, sir; the Government wagons. 
Q. When did you begin doing that? 
A. The 3d of August. 
Q. Did you come into contact with the troops who received and used this beef? 
A. I did. • 
Q. Were you in and out among them? 
A. I was out to the cars every morning and delivered the beef. 
Q. Every morning? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What complaints, if any, were received by you in connection with the beef, or 
came to your knowledge in any way? 
A. I heard very few of them. 
Q. And what were those few? 
A. I heard one that I remember of, that the beef for the Second Illinois was drawn 
about 3 o'clock in the morning and when I was coming back from camp, about 9 
o'clock, they said the beef was spoiled. 1 examined the beef, and a few of the flies 
had blown it. 
Q. What was the result of the examination? What was its condition? 
A. The beef was in good condition, only there was a few flies had blown it, of 
course, being out in the hot sun, and it had not had proper care. 
Q. What was done with it? 1536 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I could not say. 
Q. What other complaints came to your knowledge? 
A. None that I remember of. 
Q. Did you hear any expressions of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the beef 
from those who used it? 
A. I did not; no sir. 
Q. To your knowledge, was it subjected to any process of any sort, or were chem- 
icals of any sort applied to it with a view to its preservation? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Had such application been made, would it have been made there? 
A. Well, I don't know, I am sure. 
Q. Was any such treatment applied there? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Are you familiar with refrigerated beef? 
A. I am. 
Q. How did the appearance of that furnished to the troops compare with that 
ordinarily used in commerce? Please state that-answer that fully. 
A. Exactly the same beef as I have used in other places-Aurora, Ill., and Chicago. 
Q. Had it any peculiar odor or smell? 
A. None whatever. 
Q. Did you eat it yourself? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Please state if it had any peculiar taste or flavor. 
A. It had no peculiar taste, that I remember of, whatever. 
Q. Where were you employed before you were employed by Armour & Co.? 
A. Well, I was employed by my brother at Aurora, Ill. 
Q. At Aurora, Ill.? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And you have been at Jacksonville all this time since you have been in the 
employ of Armour & Co.? 
A. No, sir; I was employed by Armour & Co. at Aurora, and I was employed on 
car routes between Chicago and Dixon, 
Q. When was that? 
A. That was about two years ago this July. 
Q. In what capacity were you employed for Armour & Co. before you were 
employed at Jacksonville, Fla.? 
A. As beef salesman at Aurora. 
Q. Handling beef? 
A. Handling beef. 
Q. You received it in cars? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Sold it from the cars or from the refrigerators? 
A. Sold it from a refrigerator at Aurora and from the cars at Dixon. 
Q. When was it you went to Jacksonville? 
A. In October, 1897. 
Q. And you received beef there right along in 1897? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you issue all the beef that was issued to the troops at Jacksonville yourself, 
personally? 
A. It all went through my hands; yes, sir. 
Q. I do not ask you that. I want to ask you, did you have any other employees 
under you. Did you have anybody else in connection with the work at all? 
A. Yes, sir; there was a lot of colored men there. 
Q. Do you mean to say that you handled or shipped all of the beef that went to 
the troops from the Armours, at Jacksonville, during the late war with Spain? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1537 
A. Oh, no. 
Q. Well, how much of it was there that you did not handle? 
A. I could not state that. 
Q. You know a great deal about this business, and I would like to have you testify 
right down, as you seem to be so knowing on this subject. I want you to give the 
full facts. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You were there and you were engaged in that business and you know what 
men you had to help you. You know whether you put men in your place at times. 
I ask you again whether you issued all this beef down there during the time of the 
occupation of the troops, yourself, or whether at times some one else would do it. If 
so, I want to know about how much of it you did not handle. 
A. I handled about two-thirds of it. 
Q. Who handled the other third? 
A. Mr. Katz. 
Q. Who is he? 
A. A gentleman from Chicago. 
Q. Is he here? 
A. He is not here. 
Q. When did you arrive here? 
A. I arrived here last Sunday night. 
Q. What was Mr. Katz? Was he there as your superior, supervising the work, or 
over you in any way, or working with you? 
A. He was working under me. 
Q. At a lower salary than yourself? 
A. Yes, sir; I think he did. 
Q. And he issued about one-third of this meat during the time? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Where were you at that time? 
A. Well, I was at different places. I could not be always only in one place-I 
could only be in one place at a time. 
Q. Where were you, I would like to know, when Mr. Katz was attending to it? 
A. Why, that was from the 1st of July up to about the 20th of July. He was at 
one car and I was at another. 
Q. From the 1st to the 20th he was at one car and you were at another? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That is, part of the time? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Any other time? 
A. No, sir; not as I remember. 
Q. You did not issue that part of the beef, then. Who received that beef? 
A. Who received which beef ? 
Q. The beef that he issued out. 
A. Why, the several regiments. 
Q. I mean who attended to receiving it from Armour. 
A. I did. 
Q. All of it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What was the nature of its reception? What did you do about receiving it? 
A. What did we do? 
Q. Yes; what did you do about it? 
A. Received it from the cars and put it into the ice box, and some of it we did not 
touch at all; just let it go right out to the camp. 
Q. In receiving the beef in the car, the car would come sealed? 
S. Doc. 270 97 1538 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You would break the seal and issue the beef as it was called for? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You say you issued it to the commissaries. What commissaries; brigade, regi- 
mental, or division? 
A. Regimental. 
Q. Regimental commissaries? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In each case, and they hauled it in their own wagons? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Always? 
A. No; we hauled it out to them up to 3d of August, or the 1st of August, I would say. 
Q. Did you examine each one of these cars when it came? 
A. I did. 
Q. What was the nature of the examination which you made? What was the pur- 
pose of it? 
A. Why, I always had to open the cars themselves. 
Q. All right; I just want you to tell what the examination was. I don't know 
anything about it, you know; I want you to tell. You opened the cars, and what else 
did you do? 
A. Looked in; sometimes took out the beef and sometimes left it in, and let it go 
right out to the camp. Of course, when we cut it up at the house there and sent it 
out we would always unload it and put it into the refrigerator. 
Q. Did you issue much of it that way to the troops? 
A. From the 20th of June to the 1st of August, that was when we cut it up. 
Q. You would keep the car closed and ice it, would you-ice the car? 
A. When do you mean; when we went out to the camp? 
Q. I mean when the car came down there, and you had a carload of beef there, 
would you put any ice in the car to refrigerate it and keep the temperature down? 
A. It would not be necessary. We would take it out of the cars and put it in the 
ice box. 
Q. That is, you would take all the beef out of a car and put it in a series of ice 
boxes? 
A. In one ice box. 
Q. In one ice box? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And then you would issue it from there to the troops in camp? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Were you visited there by any of the agents or managers or any one that was 
your superior in connection with Armour & Co.? 
A. Was I visited? 
Q. Yes; did they come there? I do not mean did they come there on a social 
visit, but I mean did they come there to see you about the business in any way? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Who was it? 
A. Why, there was the manager there. 
Q. What manager there? Did a manager live there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Who was the manager that lived there? 
A. Mr. Conroy. 
Q. Did anyone come over there from Chicago or New York or Washington? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. To whom did you make your report of issues and receipts? 
A. Mr. Conroy. 
Q. Who collected the money? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1539 
A. The cashier. 
Q. Who was the cashier? 
A. Mr. Harley. 
Q. For the sales of beef to the public and the issue to the troops? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did he sell much to the officers? 
A. Did not sell any to the officers. 
Q. Did he sell any to the troops? 
A.. To the troops? 
Q. Yes. 
A. I think we did one or two times. 
Q. You do not mean by that issues to the troops, but you mean sales to the 
troops? 
A. I mean sales; yes, sir. 
Q. What regiment, do you know? 
A. The Fourth Immunes. 
Q. The Fourth Immunes; you sold beef to them? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you ever have any conversation with the manager down there-this gentle- 
man-what was his name? 
A. Conroy. 
Q. Did you ever have any conversation with Mr. Conroy in regard to this beef? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You say that there were only one or two instances; very few instances where 
there were any complaints made? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What were those complaints exactly? Do you know who made them? 
A. Why, I could not say exactly who made them. 
Q. Where did they come from? Did they come from the regiment? Did they 
emanate from officers or soldiers? How did they come? You were issuing beef - 
that was your business. 
A. Well, they came from the commissary officers. 
Q. Can you think what commissary officer? 
A. The Second Illinois. I could not name him. 
Q. The Second Illinois. What was the complaint? 
A. When we were returning from camp they claimed that the beef was spoiled. 
That was 9 o'clock in the morning, and they had drawn the beef about 3 o'clock, 
and we examined the beef and found the beef was 
Q. All right? 
A. All right. 
Q. Did you ever see any of your beef that was not all right down there that you 
issued? 
A. That we issued? 
Q. Yes. 
A. No, sir. 
Q. There never was anything wrong with it? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Then, in regard to these complaints, you regarded them as unfounded? 
A. Well, this one was; yes, sir. 
Q. Do you know of any other complaints? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you hear of any other complaints? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you ever hear of anything called the Powell process, or some process of 
treating the meat with smoke, or something of that kind, to keep the flies off it, and 1540 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
so that it would not be disturbed in any way? Did you ever hear anything about 
that? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you ever hear from anybody that Armour had made a bid to the Govern- 
ment that he was going to use or could use a process of that kind? Did you ever 
hear that talked of? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Never heard it mentioned at all? 
A. Not till after I read it in the papers. 
Q. Do you know Colonel Currie? Do you remember meeting him there; down 
there with the Second New Jersey? 
A. Colonel Currie? 
Q. Yes. 
A. No, sir. 
Q. So you are sure that there were no complaints made there about your beef? On 
more than one occasion were you not called upon to replace beef that had been issued 
that proved unsuitable for the troops out there? Were you not asked to issue some 
other beef? 
A. Not to my knowledge; no, sir. 
Q. Did you hear your partner or the man that was working with you say anything 
about that? 
A. No, sir. 
Redirect-examination by the Recorder. 
Q. When you were among the troops did you hear any conversation with reference 
to the beef being chemically treated? 
A. No, sir; none whatever. 
Q. When did you first hear that it had been, or that it was alleged that it had 
been? > 
A. Well, not until I read it in the papers. 
Q. How long ago? 
A. That must have been about two or three weeks ago. 
The Recorder. Has the court any questions? 
By General Davis: 
Q. Were you employed by Armour & Co. or by the Armour Packing Company? 
A. Armour & Co. 
Major Lee. Is that at Kansas City or Chicago? 
The Recorder. Chicago. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. You spoke about your assistant handling some of the cars. Is the court to 
understand that you saw every car and opened every car as it arrived at Jacksonville, 
and that he simply assisted you in unloading? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Or what do you mean by that? 
A. I always saw all the beef that came to Jacksonville. 
Q. You opened every car? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And whatever this assistant did was done under your direction? 
A. Under my direction. 
By General Davis: 
Q. And that the issues that he made, if I understand you rightly, were simply that 
he took account of weights for some of the issues and you took account of others? 
A, Yes, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1541 
Q. And he was a subordinate of yours? 
A. Yes, sir. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Was the meat covered? 
A. Covered? 
Q. Yes. 
A. I don't understand what you mean. 
Q. Why, I mean was it covered? You have been in business for Armour & Co. 
for two or three years. Did you ever know of their putting sacking, or anything of 
that kind, around their meat? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That is what I mean by the meat being covered. Was that meat covered in 
any way? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. During all the time that the troops were there did you at any time go away on 
a little trip of a few days? 
A. I went away in September. 
Q. For how long? 
A. I stayed two weeks. 
Q. Who issued the beef during that time? 
A. Mr. Katz. 
Q. But you conveyed the impression to this court that all the beef that was received 
there and issued to the troops passed through your hands. How could the beef pass 
through your hands during the two weeks you were absent? 
A. Well, I could not do it very well. 
Q. All right; just reconcile that, then. Getting down to facts, you were away, you 
say, for two weeks. Did you not go away for a few days at other times? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Can you swear that every day during the time, from the time you started, you 
were there, and personally superintended the issue of every quarter of beef that came 
out of the cars yourself, and saw each and every quarter? 
A. Except the time, as I said before, when Mr. Katz was making deliveries with 
myself, and the time I was away. 
Q. And the time you were away? 
, A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And that was two weeks? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And he attended to that then? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Is there a board of health in Jacksonville? 
A. Yes, sir; I believe there is. 
Q. Do you know the name of the city chemist? 
A. No, sir; I do not. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Major-General Shafter. 
TESTIMONY OF MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM SHAFTER. 
Maj. Gen. William R. Shafter, being first duly sworn, is examined. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. William R. Shafter; major general of volunteers, commander of the Depart- 
ment of California and Columbia; stationed in San Francisco. 
Q. What was your station at the outbreak of the war with Spain in 1898? 1542 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Commanding the Department of California at San Francisco. 
Q. Will you please state as briefly as may be, in narrative form, what your move- 
ments were after leaving your station, and what commands were exercised? 
A. I think on the 20th of April-this is a matter of memory, of course, as to date- 
I was ordered to proceed to New Orleans and assume command of the troops there. 
I left on the 21st and, I think, arrived there on the 23d. The same day I received 
orders to proceed at once to Washington. I left that night, and upon arrival here 
was directed to proceed to Tampa to take command of troops at that place, and 
organize an expedition for service in Cuba. The expedition was to leave almost 
immediately. It was to be a reconnoissance force and was stopped by the appearance 
of the Spanish fleet in Cuban waters. 
Q. Was that the expedition which finally went to Santiago? 
A. No; I do not regard it as such. That was to be an expedition of only six or eight 
thousand men, perhaps less than that. I was to take such men as I saw fit, four or 
five regiments, a regiment of cavalry and such artillery as was necessary, to go for a 
specific purpose to the southern part of Cuba. Later I was proceeding to organize 
an expedition for another part of Cuba, when news came that the fleet of Admiral 
Cervera was in Santiago Harbor, and I was ordered to proceed at once to that place 
and assist in driving the fleet out and capturing the city and the troops. 
Q. What was your command at that time-what organization? 
A. In Tampa I was in command of the Fifth Army Corps and the Seventh. A 
few days of the time I was relieved by a senior officer-by General Wade, who was 
my senior. 
Q. And then you again resumed your command? 
A. I again resumed my command upon his going to another command. 
Q. Did you have charge of the preparation of the expedition in the main? 
A. I had charge 
Q. I mean of its outfitting and equipping? 
A. I had nothing whatever to do with its equipment or its outfitting any more 
than any officer would have. The supplies were furnished by other departments 
and I took what I found there. I did have charge of designating the troops and of 
seeing them loaded and of going in command of them. 
Q. Who determined the amount of supplies to be taken? 
A. The capacity of the vessels determined it. I was told to put on not less than 
two months' supplies, and afterwards to put on six, if possible; but the'haste was so 
great that when two months' supplies were aboard for 20,000 men we had to stop 
and proceed with those supplies. The arranging of it on the ship was generally 
subject to my orders, but of course the work was superintended by the chief commis- 
sary, who was there, and by the chief quartermaster, whose business it was. 
Q. What conferences or consultations were there, if any, with reference to the 
components of the ration which should be used on the expedition? 
A. I don't think there were any. 
Q. Was there any such conference between the chief commissary and yourself? 
A. Nothing that I would regard as a conference on the subject. We talked about 
it, of course, somewhat, but what we had to take was before us and it was only a 
question of loading it on the ship in complete rations, so that if any ships became 
separated it should have its complete ration for all the people on board of it; but 
what that ration was to consist of was not left to my charge. 
Q. When did you become aware that canned fresh beef was to be used a as part of 
the stores furnished for the use of the troops? 
A. Well, I should say that it was while I was in Washington that General Eagan 
told me-we were talking about the meats somewhat, and he told me that he was 
going to send a large quantity of canned roast beef, and that it was a very good arti- 
cle of food. I had never seen it, and of course I paid no further attention to it. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1543 
Q. Were you aware of the extent to which it was proposed to be used as a part of 
the ration for the troops in Cuba? 
A. Well, the extent to which it was to be used in Cuba or to which it was to be 
issued rested somewhat with me. 
Q. Yes. 
A. There were ample rations of bacon, and the rest of the meat which we had to 
use in the campaign before the ships could land there with fresh beef had to be 
cured meats of some kind, because it was utterly impracticable to talk about taking 
beef on the hoof there. 
Q. Was that subject discussed to your recollection-the taking of beef on the hoof? 
A. Well, I should not say it was discussed. Itw'as too absurd to be talked about, 
and I do not think that it was ever discussed w'ith me. 
Q. Having in mind the actual conditions that existed, looking back from this time, 
would it have been practicable, in your opinion, to have taken fresh beef on the hoof? 
A. I do not think so, sir. I think it would have been very unwise and very hazard- 
ous to have attempted it. Had we been near our base, where, if any accident occurred 
to our fresh beef, we could readily have obtained new supplies, it would have done 
very well, but we were several thousands of miles away, and had we met with an 
enemy who was active, that would have attempted to harass us at all on the march, 
we were liable to have lost the beef herd, and with the loss of our beef herd we would 
have been simply without food, or else we should have had to carry just as much salt 
meat as we did, so that in case we lost our beef herd we would have something to 
fall back upon, and that was impracticable, because we did not have the ships to 
carry it. Had it been at home, where within thirty-six, or forty-eight, or seventy- 
two hours at the outside we could have received unlimited supplies, it would have 
been much the best thing to have done. 
Q. Do you recall what your orders were at the time of embarkation as to what 
rations were to be taken by the troops? 
A. It is all in black and white somewhere [referring to a printed document]. Well, 
it was for ten days' field rations and ten days' travel rations. Thirty days' field rations 
had been issued to the troops, but on account of unexpected delays they had consumed 
sixteen days, and there were about fourteen left when we made our final start. The 
ten days' travel rations were about half used up before we started. There was again 
an unexpected delay of three or four days, so that the travel rations were entirely 
exhausted when wTe reached Cuba. 
Q. After the landing had been accomplished in Cuba, had the troops on the trans- 
ports any rations remaining on hand that would have been landed with them for 
operations? 
A. Why, they had the greater part of this fourteen days, probably all of them, but 
they were not landed, and there was no attempt made to land them, because it would 
only have been fragmentary. They had nothing to carry them in. They carried 
three days' rations on their persons, and by the time those rations were exhausted I 
expected to have from the general stock of supplies rations on shore ready for use. 
The fourteen days' field rations that had been issued to them did not cut any figure 
at all. They were on the ship and the troops never had possession of them, and it 
was better to issue them from the stock in the hands of the commissary of the sub- 
sistence department than to attempt to have left each regiment to get at its own little 
supply of fourteen days. 
Q. What were the meat components of the three days' rations that were taken 
with them when they landed? 
A. Oh, I can't tell you. They were simply ordered to have three days' rations. 
There was bacon and roast beef, and they could take their choice. 
Q. You don't remember? 
A. I don't. There were no orders given about it. The orders are in there some- 1544 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
where. They were to have three days' rations. 1 think possibly it was specified. I 
am sure they took nothing but sugar, coffee, bread, and-rwell, here it is: 
"All troops shall carry on their persons blanket roll with shelter tent and poncho, 
three days' field rations with coffee (ground), canteens, and 100 rounds of ammu- 
nition per man." 
That was all there was of it. Each commanding officer took whatever it was most 
convenient for the men to carry. They could have had all bacon or all beef. I 
don't know what they did. 
Q. When those rations were used up, what transportation facilities had you for 
continuing the supply and for supplying troops from day to day? 
A. By the time the three days' rations were exhausted, after the last of the troops 
were landed, we had a number of wagons on shore and some pack trains. Those 
troops that landed on the 22d had exhausted their rations before transportation was 
ready, but they were then in the immediate vicinity of Siboney, within a couple of 
miles, and Siboney was 8 miles nearer to Santiago-8 miles farther west than Dai- 
quiri, where the animals and wagons were unloaded. Rations were being unloaded 
there at Siboney, and some of the troops, I think Lawton's, sent detachments in and 
drew their three days' rations and carried them out to the men on their shoulders. 
Q. How soon did the wagons and pack trains get into the work of supplying the 
troops in advance of Siboney? 
A. It was ten days before all the wagons were off. As soon as half a dozen wagons 
or a scow load of wagons were on shore, they were set up. Of course, you understand 
the wagons were all knocked down in pieces, and they were immediately set up and 
mules hooked to them, and rations loaded in, and the order was that complete rations 
should be in every wagon; there should not be a wagon of hard tack and a wagon of 
sugar and a wagon of meat, but that each wagon should have the ration in equal 
parts or proportions, and they were started for the front. The pack trains-I should 
say it could not have been more than two days. I think we had the pack mules off 
on the 24th, all of them, and I should say the 25th they went to the front. 
Q. When was the depot established at your headquarters at the front? 
A. About the 27th or 28th of June, I think. 
Q. By whom was this transportation managed between the front and Siboney? 
A. It was managed for a few days, two or three days, by the division commander 
at the front. General Wheeler being the senior officer, I required the rations and 
the ammunition that was sent up to be unloaded near his headquarters, and where 
his quartermaster would have charge of the distribution of it. Later we made two 
or three depots on the way up, temporary ones, simply driving to the side of the 
road and unloading it. That was all the depot amounted to. The last depot was 
established near Santiago, and I think it must have been about the 27th or 28th. 
Q. Of June? 
A. Of June; because it was in full working order the 29th or 30th. That depot was 
not very extensive. Rations unloaded in the morning were issued before night. 
Q. Under your general direction, what officer had charge of handling the trans- 
portation between the front and rear? 
A. Captain Plummer-not at first. Major Jacobs was the chief quartermaster of 
the corps, but he was not well and he was an elderly man and he remained at 
Daiquiri, but it was his duty to see that everything was put together as promptly as 
possible and loaded and sent to the front; but he did not leave there at all, and later, 
becoming sick, I put a young man named Rudier, quartermaster of the First Infan- 
try, at work on it and in charge of the quartermaster's headquarters at Siboney. 
Later Captain Plummer remained in charge all the time after that. I can not tell 
the day that he took command. 
Q. What complaint, if any, did you hear of the canned roast beef after the land- 
ing and prior to the surrender? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1545 
A. I did not hear any. 
Q. Did any communication reach you with respect to it of any sort? 
A. I am very positive that there did not. If there are any they are in print or in 
black and white and can be shown, but to my recollection there were none. I 
never heard any complaint about the canned roast beef as being unfit for food until 
after I returned from Cuba. It went without saying that in that climate and in that 
time and under those circumstances it was not very appetizing, but that it was unfit 
for food never came to my knowledge, and I ate it every day myself. 
Q. Did its use on the voyage from Tampa to Cuba come to your attention in any way? 
A. It did not. The ordinary travel ration is corned beef instead of roast beef, and 
whether they had corned beef or roast beef I do not know. Roast beef was a new 
thing. I had never seen it before nor heard of it. The travel ration consists of 
corned beef, and I doubt if-I would not undertake to say anything about it, for I 
don't know whether it was corned beef or roast beef. 
Q. How near to a full supply of rations was furnished to the troops, as far as your 
recollection goes, from the landing up until the surrender of the city? 
A. They were furnished at all times with full rations of bread, meat, sugar, and coffee, 
and latterly, when we succeeded in getting a small surplus on shore beyond the daily 
wants, they were furnished with some tomatoes and some onions and some potatoes, 
but not in the amount that is worth speaking of; but they had some and they were 
distributed pro rata to the regiments. But the ration that we expected to get to 
them and did get to them was meat, bread, sugar, and coffee. There were one or 
two times that they did not get the full ration either of sugar or of coffee, but it was 
made up to them the next day, so my commissary officers tell me. 
Q. Were you in touch with your quartermaster and commissary officers during 
that period so as to know what the state of the case was? 
A. They think so and I do too. I was right there looking after it all the time. 
It was the only important problem there was, and the most difficult, the supplying of 
those troops. The rest of it was very easy. 
Q. Was any query made from Washington to you in reference to complaints? 
A. Not that I recall. I am sure that there was not. 
Q. Do you remember any dispatch based upon the communication of Mr. Davis? 
A. Oh, yes; I do. I recall that. I do remember that. That entirely escaped my 
mind. My answer to that is down somewhere. 
Q. Do you recall what it was? 
A. Well, I don't, except that I know what the facts were. I can say now, as well 
as then, that there was no suffering on the part of the troops for lack of food, except 
it might have been in individual cases. Sbme careless men might have thrown their 
haversacks away. In fact, on the first day, as men always do when going into battle 
and especially in hot weather-and it was exceedingly hot-they get off just as much 
as possible. The regular regiments piled their things up and left a man to guard 
them. The volunteer regiments did not. Perhaps some of the regulars did not, but 
the majority of them did, because I saw the men with them. Of course, they were 
separated all that day-the 1st of July-from their rations, but before 12 o'clock at 
night pack trains were distributing bread, sugar, and coffee on the lines, and some men 
may have gone hungry that day or the next. I think very likely they did-careless 
fellows who did not look out for themselves, or who had lost their haversacks. Ther 
was great complaint that the Cuban troops and refugees came along and gathered in 
everything they could carry, and things that were not guarded were carried away 
undoubtedly. A great number of the men lost the rations that they had in their 
haversacks. 
Q. Prior to the surrender what was the health of the command? 
A. Well, it was fair, but it was perfectly evident that they were growing vc^xer 
and worse every day. Up to about the 8th or 10th of July there was very little 1546 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
sickness, I think. The first case of yellow fever was reported on the morning of the 
6th of July, and on the next morning there were two or three cases, and the next 
there were more, until, I should say, about the 10th or 12th of July there were 100. 
It is a mere matter of memory now as reported to me verbally by the doctor. There 
was very little fever. I think one colonel of a regiment told me that on the 1st or 2d 
of July he had every man for duty, did not have a sick man, and at the time of the 
surrender there were very few sick. I doubt if the sick report of the 16th will show 
more than 1,000 men sick, if it will show that. That is a matter very easily ascer- 
tained. 
Q. When did you begin to receive refrigerated beef? 
A. We entered the harbor on the 17th, and I should say by the 19th or 20th. 
Q. Do you recall that instructions were given with reference to the distribution of 
the fresh beef, having in view any special precautions that would need to be taken? 
A. If there were any orders issued, and I think it is more than likely that there 
were, written instructions, they could be shown better than I can tell, but my recol- 
lection is that I directed that the beef should be taken from the refrigerator ships or 
from the ship on which it was kept, between 2 o'clock and daylight, and brought to 
the wharf and there distributed to the regiments as they came in for it, and the 
regimental and division commanders were directed to see that their men came in as 
early as possible, so as to insure getting the meat out in as good shape as it could be. 
Q. Were there any complaints received as to the character of the refrigerated beef 
at any time? 
A. I can only recall one. Some commissary complained that the beef was spoiled 
before it reached camp, and he wanted an issue of bacon, to receive nothing but 
bacon, and I told him that they could not have it, that if it was possible to get fresh 
meat they must take their proper proportion of fresh meat. The meat in question 
was examined. Whether it is a matter of record or not I do not know, but I 
ordered it inspected, sent an officer to look at it, and if it was poor it was to be 
thrown away. Of course there was no necessity for men eating poor food, but that 
an officer must come in very early in the morning and get it out. I think that par- 
ticular lot of beef to which he referred was in Lawton's division, either in the Seventh 
or Ninth Infantry; I do not recall which now, because it did not make any impres- 
sion on me. There was no question about the food at that time. I directed this 
officer to convene a board under the regulations and proceed properly, and I think 
that meat was thrown away, and my recollection is it had spoiled. It was not 
unloaded from the ship until late in the morning. I know I had to speak to the 
quartermaster about it, that the meat must be gotten off earlier, and I think the 
excuse made was that it was Sunday and that they could not get those stevedores to 
work on Sunday that were hired, and that they had been very late in getting the 
beef off, and that the regiment was late in getting in for it. It had rained on it, and 
in that hot sun, they got it out to the camp late in the afternoon, and of course it 
was spoiled, or the greater portion of it. That is the only complaint that I ever 
heard of of any of the meat that I can recall now. 
Q. Were you kept informed by your commissary officer or quartermaster as to the 
manner of issuing the refrigerated beef, as to how it was going on from day to day? 
A. I took the greatest interest in it, because it was the first time that I had ever 
seen beef issued or known of its being issued in that way, and in going in to my 
office in town I drove by the dock almost every morning to see about it and to ask 
about it, and it was entirely satisfactory all the time. 
Q. Had you occasion to believe or to suspect at the time that it had been chemic- 
ally treated with a view to its preservation? 
A. I had not. It was never thought of by any person, I think. I know I did not. 
Q. During the period prior to the issue of the refrigerated beef do you recall 
whether any suggestion was made at any time as to the desirability of increasing or 
diminishing the issue of canned roast beef or of issuing more or less bacon? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1547 
A. I do not recall it. I doubt if there would have been any objection. There 
were large quanties of both, and I think if a regiment had wanted all bacon they 
could have had it. I do not think there was ever any order issued as to the propor- 
tion that should be issued. If it was, it was made by the commissary officer and 
that would be regulated by the amount of the supply of various kinds that he had 
on hand. 
Q. What was the condition of your command in point of health at the time of its 
return to Montauk? 
A. Well, the majority of the men were ill, either suffering with malarial fever or 
recovering from it. I suppose nine-tenths of the men had been on sick report. 
Q. To what causes did you attribute the sickness? 
A. I attributed it entirely to the exposure, the exertions of an active campaign, 
and to the climate. 
Q. Did you attribute any portion of it to insufficiency of food? 
A. I did not. I believe from, say, the 20th of July on until the last ot the troops 
left, which was about the 25th of August, there was an abundance of food, the com- 
plete ration. 
Q. Before the sailing of the expedition, did you have any conferences with the 
Major-General Commanding in respect to the general object of the expedition? 
A. I had my orders and it was unnecessary to be. It was talked about, of course, 
but not as a conference, discussing what was best to be done. 
Q. Do you remember whether the question of the food supply for a tropical cli- 
mate was made the subject of any of those conferences? 
A. I do not think so. I do not recall it and still it might have been. 
Q. You don't recall? 
A. I don't recall it. 
Q. After your return to Montauk do you recall the issuing of a circular calling for 
reports with reference to supplies and so on? 
Q. Who issued it? 
A. It was issued from the headquarters of the corps, I believe. 
A. Let me see; I don't remember. 
Q. I haven't it here. There are reports that were issued in obedience to some 
such order. Do you recall that order? 
A. I do not. 
Q. Do you recall whether the War Department called upon you for such report 
early in September after your return to Montauk? 
A. I do not. 
Q. Was there anything to your recollection in the service 
A. If that was the case and I could refresh my memory, I could probably tell all 
about it, but up to that time there had been no question about the food and it did 
not impress me. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. General, with reference to rations supplied by the Subsistence Department, will 
you please state whether or not your army, on the voyage to Cuba and up to and 
including the return North from Santiago, was fully supplied with a meat ration of 
what you considered or now consider a wholesome and nourishing quality? 
A. It was, except in individual cases, as I said, where men lost their rations; but 
as a whole, yes. 
Q. Will you please state, General, whether during that time; that is, during the 
campaign or going to Cuba or later at Montauk, you received or were made aware of 
any complaints, I will say, of a general character from officers or men of youi com- 
mand as regards the meat supply, especially as to quality? 
A. I do not; although there may have been, but it has not made any impression 1548 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
upon my mind so that I can recall it now. If there was it was a matter of record 
and very easy to show. 
Q. Speaking with respect to the high discipline and efficiency of your army in 
Cuba, which is well known, please state whether there were any complaints there 
either from Regulars or Volunteers on account of the hardships and exposures due to 
active service there. Whether there was any complaint of that kind. 
A. No, sir; never a complaint. Now, let me go back a moment. Something has 
come to me just now in reference to the food that I had not thought of. About the 
5th or 6th or 7th day of July an officer came to me and said that it had just been 
reported, he had just heard it reported, that some men, I think, in the First Illinois 
or the First District of Columbia, I will not be certain which, were without food, and 
had been paying a dollar apiece for hardtack. I ordered Lieutenant Myler to go 
just as soon as possible to that camp and ascertain the facts-get on his horse and start 
at once. He did so, and came back in about an hour and told me that it was not so. 
That is the only complaint that I recall, and in my first examination I had forgotten 
to speak of it. 
Q. I was going to ask you if you will please state whether you can recall any com- 
plaint as to the quantity or quality of food supplied from the First Volunteer Cav- 
alry, known as the Rough Riders, or from its commander, Colonel Roosevelt? 
A. Not to me. 
Q. Can you recall whether any reports from Colonel Roosevelt regarding the 
rations was brought to your knowledge or information? 
A. I know that in a report that was forwarded some complaints were made by 
him, but I did not attach very much importance to them. The emergency had 
passed and nothing could be done to rectify it, and nothing was done. Just what 
that report was it is impossible for me to say, because I only looked at it once and 
have never seen it since. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I have here copies that can be distributed of 
the printed report of the general reports-division, brigade, regimental, and company 
commanders-one headed Rough Riders in Cuba. May it please the court, with 
the permission of the General, I would read an extract from that and ask the Gen- 
eral whether he recalls receiving the report and having it pass through him. This 
is a report from the trenches outside of Santiago, July 4, 1898, addressed to Col. 
Leonard Wood, commanding the Second Cavalry Brigade, and signed by Lieut. Col. 
Theodore Roosevelt, of the First Volunteer Cavalry. It is a report in regard to the 
action Of the two days preceding. This is the first mention that I find in regard to 
rations. I merely refer to this incidentally as leading up to the other. He says in 
the report: 
"At that time" 
Speaking of the fighting that had been going on 
"we had nothing to eat except what we captured from the Spaniards, but their 
dinners fortunately had been cooked, and we ate them with relish, having been 
fighting all day." 
And so on. 
The Witness: Please let me go back and say that if they did not have rations it 
was their own fault. That undoubtedly refers to the officers who were not suffi- 
ciently wise to have carried their three days' rations with them. Probably they were 
without food, but they were not without rations for any other reason except their 
own carelessness. 
Q. I will pass on to another report. This is dated Camp Hamilton, near Santiago 
de Cuba, July 20, 1898, and directed to Brig. Gen. Leonard Wood, commanding 
Second Brigade Cavalry Division. This is likewise signed by Theodore Roosevelt, 
colonel First United States Volunteer Cavalry. In that report, General, occurs the 
following paragraph: FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1549 
" For the next seven days, until the 10th, we lay in our lines while the truce con- 
tinued. We had continually to work at additional bombproofs and at the trenches, 
and as we had no proper supply of food and utterly inadequate medical facilities, the 
men suffered a good deal. The officers chipped together to purchase beans, 
tomatoes, and sugar for the men, so that they might have some relief from the bacon 
and hardtack. With a great deal of difficulty we got them coffee. As for the sick 
and wounded, they suffered so in the hospitals when sent to the rear, from lack of 
attention and food, that we found it best to keep them at the front and give them 
such care as our own doctors could." 
I am speaking more in regard to the rations. That report is dated July 20. 
Can you recall ever having seen or known of that report passing through your 
hands? 
A. That report was not addressed to me. It was addressed to General Wood. 
Q. It is addressed to Brigadier-General Wood, and I suppose it would be for- 
warded? 
A. I doubt if I ever saw that report. Perhaps I have; I have no recollection of it; 
but from his own statement there, if they were not satisfied with the rations pro- 
vided by law and wanted to buy other things, I am not responsible for the ration 
that the Congress of the United States provides. If it was not enough for them they 
could buy if they wished. There was no objection to that. 
Q. I am only referring to this matter of his report being made at the time, as to 
how those reports emanated. 
A. He complained that he did not have enough delicacies. He said they did not 
like the beans or the hard bread, or something. They were the rations supplied by 
the Government. Very likely they were tired of them. I was tired of them, but I 
could not help it. 
Q. He says: "And as we had no proper supply of food, and utterly inadequate 
medical facilities, the men suffered a good deal." 
A. That is a matter of opinion, whether they had proper food, or whether they 
had inadequate medical facilities or not. 
Q. This is the material point: "The officers chipped together to purchase beans, 
tomatoes and sugar for the men, so that they might have some relief from the bacon 
and hardtack. With a great deal of difficulty we got them coffee." 
A. The ration returns are there in the office of the Commissary-General, and they 
will show that the Rough Riders did receive the full ration that I tell you. If the 
ration of sugar provided by law was not sufficient, there was no objection to their 
buying if they could. 
Q. Let me ask you, please, whether there were any formal returns made there- 
that is, ration returns as such? It has been in evidence here that regiments had to 
be supplied that did not have any pens, paper, or ink. 
A. The commissary had orders to supply every man that came there, every respon- 
sible person who came and said that he was without food, and to every organization 
through its commander, that he was to issue and not require any papers; but he kept 
an account of the issues, and those are the reports that I refer to that are on file, 
showing just what was issued to the men of the various regiments. It was entirely 
out of the question to go through the usual forms of presenting ration returns. 
They did not have their ration returns, and had no means of making them out if 
they had. It would only have been dilatory. 
Q. That was understood, I believe, as being absolutely necessary to supplying the 
troops? 
A. It was absolutely necessary. 
Q. Then there is another report to which I desire to invite your attention, as to 
whether such report had reached you in any way by information or otherwise. 
This is dated Camp Wikoff, September 10, 1898, and addressed to the Secretary of 1550 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
War. He says: "In answer to the circular issued by command of Major-General 
Shafter of September 8, 1898, containing a request for information by the Adjutant- 
General of September 7, I have the honor to report as follows: 
' ' I am a little in doubt whether the fact that on certain occasions my regiment suf- 
fered for food, etc., should be put down to an actual shortage of supplies or to 
general defects in the system of administration. Thus, when the regiment arrived 
in Tampa, and after a four days' journey by cars from its camp at San Antonio, it 
received no food whatever for twenty-four hours, and, as the travel rations had been 
completely exhausted, food for several of the troops was purchased by their officers, 
who, of course, have not been reimbursed by the Government. In the same way 
we were short one or two meals at the time of embarking at Port Tampa on the 
transport, but this I think was due not to a failure in the quantity of supplies, but 
to the lack of system in embarkation." 
Then he goes on in his report referring to other matters which in no way relate to 
this subject, and then he says: 
"We were two weeks on the troop ship Yucatan, and as we were given twelve 
days' travel rations, we of course fell short toward the end of the trip, but eked 
things out with some of our field ration and troop stuff. The quality of the travel 
rations given to us was good, except in the important item of meat. The canned 
roast beef is worse than a failure as part of the rations, for in effect it amounts to 
reducing the rations by just so much, as a great majority of the men find it 
uneatable." 
The Witness. Will you let me interrupt you right there? 
Major Lee. Yes. 
A. He was not on the transport en route to Cuba two weeks. His ship was tied 
to the dock at Tampa at least four days. They were seven days out from Tampa 
when they landed in Cuba. And if he had used up a good portion of that, he knew 
how long it took to go to Cuba, and if he had used up a good portion of the ten or 
twelve days' ration, ten days, I think it was, that he was ordered to take, it was his 
duty to have drawn more. The commissary was simply across the street, and he 
could have drawn the full ration, the ten days' ration, while they were tied to the 
wharf, because his men were on shore all the time. 
Q. Finishing his report, in regard to the canned roast beef, speaking of that he says: 
"It was stringy, tasteless, and very disagreeable in appearance, and so unpalatable 
that the effort to eat it made some of the men sick. Most of the men preferred to 
go hungry rather than eat it. If cooked in a stew with plenty of onions and pota- 
toes, i. e., if only one ingredient in a dish with other and more savory ingredients, it 
could be eaten, especially if well salted and peppered, but as usual (what I regard as 
a great mistake), no salt was issued with the travel rations, and of course, no pota- 
toes and onions. There were no cooking facilities on the transport. When the men 
obtained any it was by bribing the cook. Toward the last, when they began to draw 
on the field rations, they had to eat the bacon raw. 
"On the return trip the same difficulty obtained, i. e., the rations were short, 
because the men could not eat the canned roast beef, and had no salt. We pur- 
chased of the ship's supplies some flour and pork and a little rice for the men, so as 
to relieve the shortage as much as possible, and individual sick men were helped 
from private sources by officers, who themselves ate what they had purchased in 
Santiago. As nine-tenths of the men were more or less sick, the unattractiveness of 
the travel rations was doubly unfortunate. It would have been an excellent thing 
for their health if we could have had onions and potatoes and means for cooking 
them. Moreover the water was very bad, and sometimes a cask was struck that was 
positively undrinkable. The lack of ice for the weak and sickly men was very 
much felt. Fortunately there was no epidemic, for there was not a place on the ship 
where patients could have been isolated." FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1551 
A. Yes; there is a great deal of truth in all of that. Salt is not a part of it, and 
the ration of roast beef in a temperature of 100 to 120 is not inviting, and it is not 
palatable. There would not anything have been palatable. 
Q. He goes on: 
" During the month following the landing of the army in Cuba, the food supplies 
issued were generally short in quantity, and in quality were never such as were best 
suited to men undergoing severe hardships and great exposure in an unhealthy 
tropical climate. The rations were, I understand, the same as those used in the 
Klondike. In this connection I call special attention to the report of Captain 
Brown, made by my orders when I was brigade commander, and herewith appended. 
I also call attention to the report of my own quartermaster. Usually we received 
full rations of bacon and hard-tack. The hard-tack, however, was often moldy, so 
that parts of case and even whole cases could not be used. The bacon was usually 
good. But bacon and hard-tack make poor food for men toiling and fighting in 
trenches under the midsummer sun of the tropics. The ration of coffee was often 
short, and that of sugar generally so; wre rarely got any vegetables. Under these 
circumstances the men lost strength steadily, and, as the fever speedily attacked 
them, they suffered from being reduced to a bacon and hard-tack diet." 
General, I will ask you to tell us -whether you have had any information of this 
report. Was it ever brought to your attention? 
A. It was, yes, sir; but it was reporting matters that had occurred in July in 
Cuba, and it w'as then September 10, and it was too late to do anything about it. 
These reports are quite lengthy. 
Q. These reports are quite lengthy. I simply read the extract relating to the ration 
business, and did not go into the other matters. General, will you please state in 
view of the actual condition of the service incident to that campaign in Cuba, in a 
tropical climate, whether or not you consider w'hat you term canned roast beef, in 
cans varying as shown by the evidence, in size from two to six pounds, is suitable 
component, as a material component, of the meat ration for issue to troops under the 
necessary vicissitudes of a campaign of that character? 
A. Well, sir; in a campaign of the character in which we were engaged and which 
we went through, I do not know of any substitute. Perhaps some one else does. 
Canned corned beef is better, I think, but if anyone will make a suggestion as to 
something else to use in the way of meat-I think it is possible it is not as good as the 
bacon. It depends on the individual tastes of the men. Some men do not like bacon 
at all. I do not know of any other preparation of meat. We are not accustomed to 
campaigning in the Tropics. We have never experimented in that direction at all. 
It is only a matter of opinion. I think myself that less meat and, perhaps, a large 
ration of baked beans in cans would be better; or more rice; but that was an experi- 
mental move for the troops, and there was no time to correct any errors that'were 
made. There is no use in talking about that. 
Q. General, let me ask you whether you have ever had submitted to you in any 
way, in connection with any of the commands which you have exercised, a ration of 
rather choice bacon put up in little ration cans-I think in connection with an experi- 
ment on the emergency ration? 
A. I have seen that bacon. It is delicious bacon, and as for me, I would rather 
have it than roast beef or canned beef, but there are other people who do not like it. 
Our ration was not well adapted to the service there. There is no use in talking 
about it. Every one who will exercise his judgment or his reason knows that, but 
that was all we had, and I was not disposed to make any talk about it. 
Q. That is just the point I want to get at, as to the adaptability of the ration? 
A. That is something that I had nothing to do with. 
Q. I know\ I am simply asking you in your capacity as commander in chief of 
the forces there. The information is quite valuable. 1552 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. The Congress of the United States provides the ration and clothing for its 
soldiers. They are the men to talk to. 
Q. I understood from your answer to a question by the recorder of the court that 
prior to this time you never had had any experience or any knowledge of the canned 
roast beef as a part of the army ration? 
A. I think I had never seen it and had never heard of it, although I understand 
it is an article that has been in common use, they tell me now, for a long time. 
Whether that is so or not, I do not know. All the beef that was in cans that we ever 
used, say, ever since about 1870, is corned beef, canned corned beef, and that is very 
highly regarded, but I do not know how that would have been in Cuba. It is pretty 
greasy, and if well melted up and warmed up, it is quite likely that would not have 
been palatable, but where it can be used right out of the store house, or out of a good 
cool place, it is excellent food. 
Q. It appears in evidence, that is, it appears as a listed part of the army ration, 
that canned meat, and I think canned fresh beef is put down as such; but within 
your experience in your commands or department you do not recall it ever being 
called for or issued? 
A. I do not think it ever has been issued. I am very positive that it has not 
throughout the Army. It may have been at some special post where they wanted 
to try it. That I do not know about, but as a part of the travel ration it is not put 
down as such, unless it has been done very recently. 
Q. I understood, General-if I am in error you will please correct me-that you 
stated that you had some conversation with the Commissary-General in which rations 
may have been referred to. 
A. General Eagan was my commissary in California, and I went in to congratulate 
him on his appointment. I think, in the few minutes' conversation that I had with 
him, this subject of supplies came up and he told me, "lam getting you a lot of roast 
beef;" and I think I asked him about it-what it was, whether it was roast beef, 
how it was put up-and he told me it was put up in cans like other beef, and I sup- 
posed it was genuine roast beef, put in cans. On the frontier, you know, we get 
roast turkeys whole in cans, and I supposed it was big chunks-big cuts of roast 
beef-but there was no discussion about it. He just told me that as a matter of 
information. 
Q. As a matter of fact, in your experience, will you state whether you found it to 
be roast beef or boiled beef? 
A. I should think that it was boiled beef. I ate it, and I know that it usually was 
brought to me in the original cans, and I used to cut it out-dig it out-and I thought 
it was perhaps boiled. Really, this is all aftertalk, and I do not think I thought 
about it; I don't believe I did. 
Q.- In your testimony, General, you speak of using it. When you used it yourself 
under what conditions of service did you use it? Did you use it cold out of the can 
or cooked? 
A. I used it cold. 
Q. With condiments? 
A. No-salt and pepper. I think sometimes we had it in stews also, but I am not 
positive about it. 
Q. Under the conditions of the service that the men were under at that time, would 
or would it not have been practicable for men to have used it in stews on the firing 
line? 
A. Entirely out of the question for them to do. It was w'ith the greatest difficulty 
that those bare necessities of food were gotten up. There was no chance at first to 
bring up onions or potatoes. They are very bulky, and there was no transportation 
to spare to bring up canned tomatoes, which are by far the best thing-the best 
article of canned food that is furnished, unless it may be baked beans. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1553 
Q. General, I wish to ask you this question: In view of the fact which I think is 
shown in evidence and by official reports, that from 75 to 80 per cent of the line 
officers who have testified or reported, that is, who were in immediate contact 
with their men serving in Cuba, condemn the roast beef as unpalatable, as unsuitable, 
unwholesome, or nauseating, will you please state to the court, in view of such fact, 
whether you would deem such a ration worthy of further trial or experiment under 
the same or similar conditions of service? 
A. Asi said, I don't know where you can improve upon it. I don't know any 
other form in which meat is put up except as canned corn beef that I think is better, 
unless you are going to issue all bacon. My own preference would be for bacon- 
for clear bacon-but that is just a matter of individual preference. I do not believe 
that that canned beef was unfit for food. That it was unpalatable, that it had not 
very much taste, and that it was uninviting in appearance is absolutely true. There 
is no doubt about it. When you take up a can so hot that you have to tip it up to 
let the grease run off, it is unpalatable; but if anyone can suggest something better 
I have no doubt the Army would be very glad to see it. I would, too. As to con- 
demning it absolutely, I would not do it. I think in cold climates, or where it could 
be carefully kept, it would be very good indeed. Of course, more or less of it fer- 
ments, and the heads of the cans bulge just as all canned material does, and that is 
always thrown away. There is nothing to do but to pitch it out and let it go. 
Q. Had you any personal knowledge under your observation as to its keeping 
qualities after the can would be opened? 
A. I had not; no, not at all. 
Q. From the time of the embarkation of your army at Tampa, about June 7 
or 8 
A. June 14, to be accurate. 
Q. About how long was it until the commissary department supplied your army 
with fresh beef? What was the interval? 
A. I should say that it was the 20th of July. It was either the 20th or the 21st, 
because we occupied Santiago on the 17th. Ships came in the next day but one, and 
I am positive it was not later than the 20th. It is an easy matter to show that, 
however. 
Q. From the time they went aboard the transport it was impracticable, was it not, 
to issue any fresh beef to them, aboard the transports, from the 7th or 8th of June? 
A. Certainly, because there were no facilities for cooking it. It was for that reason 
that the travel ration was used. 
Q. So that would take the interval from about that time until the 20th of July, 
before the fresh beef was issued? 
Q. Yes. 
Q. Prior to the late war will you please state from your experience, General, com- 
mencing with the civil war and in your expeditions and campaigns since, what was 
the usual method of supplying troops with fresh beef in all regions in the country 
where they were so supplied? 
A. Well, in the Indian campaigns in which I have taken part, and I have been six 
or eight months upon them, we usually had side bacon in large quantities, and usually 
drove a herd of beef cattle. In the field during the civil war we killed beef wherever 
we could find it, and I think in the Army of the Potomac we had a beef herd driven 
all the time; but my recollection is that we had mainly bacon. 
Q. I believe that is generally the experience, but when we got fresh beef, did we 
generally get it in that way? 
A. Yes, of course. There are many things besides fresh beef. There are pigs and 
chickens. 
Q. During the campaign-your campaign in Cuba-from the time of starting until 
after the surrender, which, in your opinion, would have been the more practicable 
S. Doc. 270 98 1554 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
method for the commissary department to have furnished your army with fresh beef 
as needed, from beef on the hoof driven along and slaughtered as required or from 
refrigerated beef? 
A. It was out of the question to supply refrigerated beef while the attack upon 
Santiago was going on. From the day we landed, the 24th of June, until the 2d of 
July, when the fighting was practically over, and from that time on until the 17th, 
when we occupied Santiago, it was impracticable, situated as we were, to bring up 
fresh beef, because it meant bringing it from Siboney, which would have been about 
12 miles and over a very bad road, and the beef would undoubtedly have 
spoiled before it could have been distributed to the troops, so that there is no use 
in talking about having refrigerated beef follow an army that is so far away from the 
ship containing it as the army at Santiago or in Cuba was. In a colder climate it 
might have been done. I think it was equally impracticable to think of supplying 
it with beef on the hoof. There were no cattle in Cuba that were within our reach. 
We had no cavalry to get them in, had there been any, and it was a very difficult 
country to have herded them in. We did not have ships to carry them in. Every 
ship available was carrying men and munitions of war, so that it was out of the ques- 
tion to think of having a herd of cattle taken down and unloaded. Had there been 
ships and the cattle taken down, they would have had to be thrown into the sea, 
as the horses and mules were, and allowed to swim ashore. They would 
have been heated and not fit to kill for some days, and I think it would have been 
a very dangerous experiment, a very hazardous thing indeed, unless we had carried 
along just as many complete rations of salt meat or canned meat as we did, because, 
had we met, as we had a right to expect, an active enemy and lost our beef herd, as 
we did so many times during the civil war, we would simply have been on the verge 
of starvation, because it would have taken three weeks to have gotten other beef 
there from the States, and there was none in the country. At home here, if the 
enemy ran off our beef herd, as they frequently did, or not infrequently, we could 
supply it in a few hours. All we had to do was to telegraph back to Louisville or 
Nashville or Washington and a train load of beef cattle were sent down at once. As 
it was in Cuba, I regarded it as absolutely out of the question to have attempted to 
carry fresh beef. 
Q. In regard to refrigerated beef during a campaign in Cuba, do you or not regard 
that as entirely out of the question, in regard to supplying an army moving from 
place to place, and situated under the conditions of actual service? 
A. Why, if it had to be transported for any length of time, say twelve or fourteen 
hours, in the hot sun, I do regard it as entirely impracticable, because the meat 
would spoil in a few hours, certainly in fifteen or sixteen hours. 
Q. Permit me to come back to the matter of beef on the hoof. Supposing the 
Commissary Department had provided the proper agencies with a cattle ship, of 
which, perhaps, there had been many engaged in transporting cattle from the ports 
of this country abroad, to have accompanied or followed the expedition, and to have 
made a landing, and to have got these cattle there within a week or such matter after 
the expedition had landed. Would not that have been within the range of possibil- 
ities, to have supplied your command in that way by driving the cattle in the rear of 
the army-that is, to have given the command an occasional issue? 
A. Many things are possible that are impracticable. It is within the range of pos- 
sibility that that might have been done, but it was not practicable to do it in this 
case. It was utterly out of the question. We did not have the cattle ships, and we 
had to go. 
Q. If you had the ships-and probably there would have been no serious difficulty 
in your opinion in getting a cattle ship. 
A. They could have been carried down just as horses were, of course. 
Q. I believe, in your extended experience in the Southwest and where you have FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1555 
served, in a part of the country where there were great cattle drives and shipments, 
you never observed any difficulty in swimming cattle across rivers? 
A. Oh, no; there is no trouble about that; but at the same time when we were 
very far separated from our depots of supplies we carried full supplies of salt meat, so 
that if the Indians did stampede our herd we would still have plenty of food. 
Major Lee. I believe that is all. I am very much obliged to you, General. 
The Recorder. Has the court any questions? 
By the President: 
Q. General, in regard to this talk about beef on the hoof, as I understand, in the 
trenches the men were cooking individually? 
A. I do not hear you. 
Q. While the men were in the trenches the cooking was individual, was it not? 
A. Oh, yes; mainly so. 
Q. And they did not have the opportunity to make stews out of the canned beef? 
A. They did not have anything out of which to make stews. 
Q. What could they have done with fresh beef if it was issued on the hoof, then? 
A. Why, they would have to fry it in their little meat-ration cans, or broil it on 
the coals. They could not have meat stew, for they did not have any facilities for 
making stews. 
Q. They had no facilities for cooking? 
A. I think it was just as it was at such times in the civil war. Every man cooked for 
himself. Perhaps some of them did undertake to cook for the company, but I doubt 
it, for they did not have their company cooking outfit with them at all until practi- 
cally the end of the campaign, and on board ship we had no means of carrying these 
things, and it was expected every man would cook in his meat-ration can. He had 
all the facilities necessary to take care of the food that was issued to him and prop- 
erly prepare it, as he did. 
By General Davis: 
Q. The troops in landing, I think, General, took three days' rations ashore with 
them, or were ordered to? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Can you recall whether those rations were a part of the travel ration, or a part 
of the rations that the organizations had taken with them as organizations, or whether 
it came from the reserve stores on the ship? 
A. No, sir; they were a part of the fourteen days' rations that each company had, 
or should have had-did have when we left Tampa. That had been ordered some 
time before, so that every company was supplied with thirty days, but sixteen 
days of it was eaten up, and when they went on board they had about fourteen days' 
field rations. I wanted those field rations to use when we got to Cuba, or supposed 
I would want them, and each company carried its own rations on board its own ship, 
and from that supply they took their three-days' ration. After that there was no 
effort made to get the residue of those rations off until a long time afterwards, but 
they were taken from the general stores. 
Q. Those fourteen days or thirty days originally issued were issued to each regi- 
ment? 
A. Yes. 
Q. And they were field rations? 
A. They were field rations. 
Q. Do you know whether canned roast beef was any part of that issue? 
A. No, General; I do not; but I believe it was. Still I will not be positive about 
it. I simply believe it was, because I know it was furnished. 
Q. You know that bacon was? 
A. I know that bacon was a part of it, because I know practically how much bacon 
was issued in the month of July, for instance. 1556 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. When these organizations went ashore, do you know whether or not they had 
a means of making a selection for themselves, as between canned roast beef and bacon, 
as to which they would take ashore with them? 
A. They had. I answer that without having made personal inspections, but I 
know that they had the fourteen days, and I knew that the fourteen days must 
have exhausted the bacon and canned meat, and they would take their own. 
Q. And if they took one to the exclusion of the other it was because they pre- 
ferred to? 
A. Well, now I will tell you, General, they had not had any experience with it, 
and they did not 
Q. They had been coming over on the transport with it 
A. Well, yes; that is true. It was their own. Whether they took all bacon or 
all beef, it was because they preferred it. Now, just what each man took, a com- 
pany commander could tell better than I, of course, because he would have the 
direction of it. I simply gave the general orders that they should take three days' 
field rations. 
Q. You heard no remarks made by any officer at Tampa as to the absence of beef 
cattle on transports as a part of the rations? Nobody made any remark in your 
presence about it? 
A. Never, never. At least, I don't think they did. I don't think it occurred to 
anyone that these cattle might be taken, for every man there knew as well as I that 
there was not sufficient transportation for the things that we had to have, for the 
men themselves. Many things were left that were very essential, left for lack of the 
room to carry them, to load them. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Did any of your division commanders-General Kent, General Lawton, or Gen- 
eral Wheeler-make complaints to you, officially or unofficially, that any part of the 
ration was unfit for issue to the troops? 
A. Never, and had there been, I will go a little further and say I don't believe 
they would have said anything about it. They were very sensible men and they knew 
we could not correct it, and it was simply useless to talk about it; but as a matter of 
fact they did not make any complaints. 
Q. The object of the question was to find out whether any complaint had reached 
them and been communicated by them to you upon that subject? 
A. Never, not one word. I never heard a word as to the quality of the rations 
until some time after I returned to the United States. 
Q. Did the Inspector-General of the Army accompany your expedition to Cuba? 
A. No, sir; the Inspector-General of the Army did not. Major-General Breckin- 
ridge did, but he was not the Inspector-General of the Army. He was a major- 
general of Volunteers 
Q. In fact, he is the Inspector-General of the Army? 
A. He is now. 
Q. And was at that time? 
A. No; I don't think he was. He was not there in his official capacity as 
Inspector-General. He was there as a major-general of Volunteers. 
Q. Did he at any time call your attention to the fact that food was being issued to 
the troops that was unfit for them? 
A. Never. 
Q. Did any subordinates of the Inspector-General's Department on duty in the 
field make any report to you or to your subordinates which came to you in regard to 
this insufficient or unwholesome food? 
A. I am positive that they never did, though it is within the bounds of possibility, 
and that I may have forgotten it, because, as I tell you, the question of food was not FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1557 
then before us except to have sufficient quantities of that which we had ready; but 
it probably was not discussed or spoken of. 
Q. Do you believe that at any time there was any suffering on the part of any 
large body of men for the want of sufficient food? 
A. I am positive there was not. Men like, for instance, some of the Rough 
Riders-I think there were 40 per cent members of the Knickerbocker Club, or about 
that-perhaps 18 per cent-and I do not think they wrould enjoy the food that was 
set before them, but I did not hear a complaint from them. 
Q. Did the Major-General Commanding ever speak to you on the subject of com- 
missary supplies? 
A. Major-General Miles? 
Q. Yes. 
A. I don't think so. I should say, never officially. In some of our conversations 
the matter may have come up, but I don't believe it-you mean at that time-during 
that time? 
Q. During that time. 
A. Never. 
Q. He was with you during a certain number of days? 
A. Yes, sir; he was there two days with me at my headquarters, and two or three 
days on shipboard near there. 
Q. And you do not remember any conversation or any conference with regard to 
the subsistence department? 
A. I do not remember-I am pretty sure there was not; I am very sure there 
was none. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I would like to ask the General whether he can recall or has any recollection 
of hearing of a report made, I think, by Inspector Reed, of General Kent's division, 
on the subject of his duties in regard to food supply, and things of that kind for the 
command. Not at all in the nature of a criticism of the management down there, 
but with reference to the kind of supplies that had been furnished by the commis- 
sary department. It was Maj. Philip Reed, I think. 
A. Yes; he was the inspector of Kent's division. I do not recall anything of the 
kind. It is possible he may have indulged in some generalities, but there was noth- 
ing in which I -was interested at that time. 
Q. I understand, General, under the circumstances, as you testified, there was 
nothing to be done in this matter but to take what was there and use it, and make 
the best of it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Then I understand from your testimony that the regulars and volunteers took 
that and did the best they could with it, as good men. 
A. Yes, sir; and did not complain; that is right. 
Q. In the face of the enemy? 
A. That is right, also. 
Q. It is hardly necessary to ask you whether you consider that one of the highest 
evidences of the soldierly qualities of an army. 
A. I don't think there is any question about the soldierly qualities of the Amer- 
ican Army. 
Q. So, whatever fault there might have been found with that food, it was not a 
matter that could be remedied there? 
A. It was for that reason that if any of them did feel that the ration could be bet- 
ter, nothing was said about it. It was too late to talk. Nothing could be done. 
There was no use in complaining of something that could not be remedied. 
Q. I will ask one more question with the permission of the court and yourself. 1558 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
In view of the facte as shown in evidence (and I think it is shown in evidence), that 
refrigerated beef shipped from remote points in the North to your troops in the Trop- 
ics was in many instances spoiled to the extent of from 10 to 50 per cent upon reach- 
ing the camps of the troops, do you, in your opinion, consider the supply of such 
beef, under such conditions, a method that should be encouraged and recommended 
in preference to beef on the block or on the hoof? 
A. Well, I would not subscribe to a large portion of that question. I do not think 
there was from 10 to 50 per cent of it spoiled. I have no information that any 
appreciable amount of it was spoiled when it reached there. I understand that 
there has been a large amount of beef condemned or destroyed recently, within the 
last three or four months; but I have already said that there was never a word of 
complaint made to me during that campaign of any of that beef being spoiled, and 
forming my opinion from what I saw then and there I do think that the furnishing 
of canned meats and bacon would be much better than to attempt to send beef on 
the hoof there. That is simply my opinion. 
Q. Of course, General, I tried to qualify that question by the expression "in many 
instances. ' ' I said, in view of the fact, if it were such, as shown in evidence before 
this court, that in many instances (not in all) from 10 to 50 per cent of that meat was 
spoiled-not that from 10 to 50 per cent was spoiled in all cases, but that in many 
instances, as shown in evidence before the court, from 10 to 50 per cent of the refriger- 
ated beef, upon reaching the camps of the troops down there, was spoiled-do you, I 
ask, in your opinion, consider the supplying of such beef, under such conditions, from 
remote places in the North, a method that should be encouraged and recommended 
in preference to providing a fresh-beef supply by other methods? 
A. Well, sir, I think that the refrigerated beef which I saw-I am only talking 
about that which I saw myself, that which was furnished to me in the harbor of 
Santiago-was as fine beef as 1 ever saw in my life, and there was not 2 per cent of it 
spoiled. I will venture to say there was not 2 per cent; I wTill venture to say there 
was not 1 per cent. The records of the Department will show just how much beef 
was thrown away. I will tell you, and I am positive about it, that but one complaint 
was made to me, and that on one occasion, of the refrigerated beef spoiling. In that 
case the beef was unloaded late in the morning, taken out late in the day, and reached 
the camp at night, having been exposed to rain and the hot sun for, I should say, 
twelve or fourteen hours, and it was ruined, just as beef would have been had it 
been killed that morning, and it was thrown away. 
Q. And generally, in connection with that question, no further or other complaints 
were brought to your attention? 
A. No. 
Q. If there had been-if the troops, as, for instance, the Ninth Infantry and other 
regiments out there, buried a very considerable portion of their meat owing to the 
fact that some of it was tainted, and used the balance-that fact was never brought to 
your knowledge or reported to you? 
A. Never, except on that one occasion; and allow me to say that I doubt very much 
that any regiment threw its meat ration away for any length of time without making 
complaint of it, because if they did they would have gone without food, and it goes 
without saying that the colonels of those regiments or the commanding officers of 
those regiments or the commanding officers of those companies would have made a 
complaint had their men been deprived of the meat ration. For that reason I do not 
credit it. I do not think it is possible that such a condition of affairs should exist, 
for those men knew their duty and usually attended to it, and they did not let their 
men bury any great portion of their meat for any great length of time. 
Q. Was it brought to your knowledge or attention that large quantities of that 
canned roast beef were abandoned by the men in camps? 
A. At Montauk Point; yes. I was riding there one day just as the camp was break- FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1559 
ing up, I should say along about the 1st of October, and I saw a great pile-a very large 
pile-twice as large as this room-of canned stores, piled up. I asked the young 
officer who was standing by it what those stores were. He said it was all kinds of 
meat and canned supplies of various kinds that had been issued to the troops; that 
they did not eat it, and would not eat it; and upon going away the general who had 
charge of the policing of the grounds, General Williston, or-who is the colonel of 
the Tenth Infantry, General? The one who came from the Klondike last year? 
General Davis. Randall? 
The Witness. Randall. He had ordered it all gathered up and put in this pile. 
There were all kinds of canned things. That is the first and only time that I knew 
anything about its being abandoned and not used; and the reason given to me then 
was that they were so bountifully supplied by the good people of that country, that 
they did not find it necessary to eat their ration. They had much better food sup- 
plied them; and I know, personally, that it was brought in there in profusion. 
Q. You have no similar information on that subject in regard to Cuba, about the 
troops, upon leaving there, abandoning rations in that way? 
A. Not at all, sir. I am sure they took what they had, or they would not have 
had anything. There was no chance of supplementing the regular ration down 
there. 
Thereupon, at 12.45 p. m., a recess was taken until 2 o'clock p. m. 
AFTER RECESS. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Kirk, of Pennsylvania. 
TESTIMONY OF ALBERT A. KIRK. 
Albert A. Kirk was called by the recorder as a witness and, having been first 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. Albert A. Kirk; residence, Philadelphia, Pa.; occupation, brakeman. 
Q. Were you in the military service of the United States during the war with 
Spain? 
A. Yes, sir; I was second assistant cook in the First Philadelphia City Troop. I 
was transferred to the Sixth Pennsylvania on the 23d of July, by special request. 
Q. When did you join the city troop? 
A. On the 23d of July, at Camp Alger. 
Q. And how long did you remain with it? 
A. I remained until mustered out, on the 21st of November. 
Q. Did you accompany it to Porto Rico? 
A. Yes, sir. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. On what vessel did you sail? 
A. On the transport Massachusetts. 
Q. Did you return on that vessel? 
A. No, sir; I returned on the Panama. 
Q. We will confine the questions, then, to the Massachusetts. What kind of meat 
rations did you receive on the Massachusetts, going over? 
A. On board the boat, going over, the troop had bought most of their rations, that 
were on board, at Newport News. They had not drawn any rations, except hard 
bread and roast beef; and we didn't use none of the beef going over on the boat at all. 
They had canned goods and stuff that they had bought and brought on board the 
ship going over; most of their stuff. 1560 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
'Q. You say " roast beef." What do you mean by that; canned roast beef? 
A. The canned beef; yes, sir. 
Q. They did not use any of it going over? 
A. They didn't use any of it going over; no, sir. 
Q. Where did you land in Cuba? 
A. At Porto Rico, we landed in Ponce. 
Q. Where did you serve in Porto Rico; at what points? 
A. We were at Ponce and Guayama. 
Q. On the trip over, on the Massachusetts, did you have any experience at all with 
the canned roast beef? 
A. None with the canned roast beef. I had with the cook, on board the Massachu- 
setts, in regard to the refrigerated beef. 
Q. You may state now, in a narrative way, in your own way, to the Court, just 
what occurred going over, with reference to the refrigerated beef. 
A. On the third day out at sea, when I was getting soup made for dinner, at about 
11 o'clock, the cook says to me, "Here," he .says, "Cook, I want to show you some 
meat that we brought up from down below." He says, "This is some of the soldier 
meat they are giving us. If I knew we were going to have this, I would never have 
come on this boat." Isays, "What makes it look so white?" "Why," he says, 
"it has turned; " and then he cut it open with a knife, and all inside was dark green. 
It had turned dark green on the inside, and on the outside it had turned white and 
slimy. He says, "That ain't fit for any human person to use;" and he says, "I won't 
touch it." He says, "I can't use it at all;" and it was thrown overboard; and they 
sent down, and brought up meat afterwards that seemed to look all right. That was 
on board the Massachusetts. 
Q. Was there much of that meat on board? Did you see about how much was 
there? 
A. I had no idea, sir. There was quite a large amount-several tons-stored there; 
but I had no idea it was for the use of the troops. 
Q. Did you know, in the way of general information, whether it was for the army 
or not? 
A. It was intended for the use of the troops in the Porto Rico campaign. 
Q. Did you see any of it after you landed in Porto Rico. 
A. After we landed at Guayama? 
Q. Yes; wherever you did land. 
A. We came back on the 13th; we were ordered back and went into camp at 
Guayama on the 13th. The next day we received a hind quarter of beef off the Mas- 
sachusetts; and the head cook, Mr. Gleason, he looked at it, and he called my atten- 
tion to it. He says, "What's the matter with this beef?" He says, "It's dark 
green." It was to be sliced, cooked in slices. He says, "Look at it! You are a 
kind of a judge." I says, "It don't look very fresh; and besides there is this 
coating on the outside. ' ' 
Well, that wasn't so bad, that hind quarter. We used it. But some of the men 
spoke about it to the commissary corporal of the company, and asked what was the 
matter with the beef, but no complaint was made to me. 
But two days afterwards we received a fore quarter. That was at the time that it 
was brought there in the wagon from Arroyo, about 5 miles distant. They brought 
it there, and it was early in the morning, and it was totally spoiled. We had to dig 
a hole there and bury it. We offered it to the natives and they wouldn't take it. 
It was all white and slimy and had about an inch of substance on the outside of it, 
and, when cut, inside it was a dark green. The meat had turned a dark green and 
had an offensive smell; and the natives even wouldn't handle it; and we dug a hole 
and buried it. That stopped them receiving any more of that meat. They bought 
fresh meat on the hoof, the troops did. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1561 
Q. Who bought the meat? 
A. Mr. Biddle was the man that was commissary corporal of the troop. 
Q. Do you know whether the Government bought it or they bought it? 
A. They bought it, individually, themselves. 
Q. The native beef? 
A. Yes, sir; they bought the native beef. 
Q. What was the matter with this beef which you had to throw away and bury; 
was it tainted or decomposed? 
A. It was putrid. It had an offensive smell. In fact, Mr. Biddle says: "Putthat 
outside as quick as possible. Don't let any of the men see it. Bury it." And also 
the canned beef that we used there 
Q. We will take up the canned beef presently. 
A. All right. 
Q. Now, we will follow up the matter of the refrigerated beef. Did you receive 
any more of it, or not? 
A. They didn't receive no more; no, sir. They bought fresh meat up in town, up 
in Guayama. 
Q. What was that; the native beef? 
A. The native meat; yes, sir. 
Q. Howr was that? 
A. We got that and it wouldn't keep well. We got the meat in the evening, and 
I cut off slices of the beef, cooked steaks, and put it on ice and covered canvas over 
it. We had ice there that they brought from Ponce. The next morning, when we 
wTent to use that meat, it had slightly turned, only slightly, but still it couldn't be 
used, either. WTe had to throw it away; had to bury it. That was the fresh meat. 
Q. Did you use any more of the native beef? 
A. We used it once more; yes, sir; before I went to the hospital. 
Q. How did you find it? 
A. The native beef? It was all right, but it was tough-it was very tough. 
Q. Now, I want you to state to the court what experience you had with canned 
roast beef. I wish you would just go on and state, in your own way, what knowledge 
you had of it. Just state that in a narrative form. Do not wait for any questions 
about the matter. 
A. We had several cans of the canned roast beef opened there, and Mr. Gleason 
mostly opened it, and I took it out and put it in the pans. He opened, on an 
average, 25 cans at a time; and one day, specially, out of the 25, there was 11 that 
we had to throw in the hole. (We had a sink there.) It had fermented and 
turned, and as we opened the cans it gushed up and ran over the sides. It had fer- 
mented. Then we took the good part of it, and had potatoes, and made a hash out 
of it. The other part, that which was good, made a very- 
Q. How many cans did you bury? 
A. Out of this one lot that Mr. Gleason counted there was 11 that we had to 
throw in the sink out of 24. 
Q. When was that? 
A. That was about the 15th of August-on or about the 15th. 
Q. W hat was the matter with it? Yon say it had fermented? 
A. Well, it had all turned a kind of slimy nature, running. You could tell before 
you opened the cans which were the bad ones. They were bulged out; the bad cans 
were; the good cans were in the natural condition. 
On or about the 24th of the month I went to Guayama hospital, and while there, 
after becoming convalescent, about the 28th I was out at the cook house. He had 
made a general complaint about the canned beef, and he says: "There is 93 cans 
lying in that hole," he says, " that we throwed there this morning that wrere unfit 
for use and condemned by the doctor and he ordered us to throw it away and not to 1562 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
use it under any consideration-it wasn't fit for a dog to eat." I went to the sink 
and seen the 93 cans; and while he was opening some more there I took a can 
opener and helped him. He opened 41 cans; and, out of the 41, there was 19 that 
I counted myself that he took and threw in the box, and the natives there took and 
emptied it in the sink-in this hole dug on purpose. 
I also seen two whole sides of beef that were condemned by the doctor lying in 
another hole that had been dug there, and the dirt partly thrown over it. It had 
been condemned by the doctor. It had been brought off the Massachusetts. That is 
what the cook told me. 
Q. It had been brought off the Massachusetts? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What was the matter with it? 
A. He said it was rotten at the time they got it. He said it came in a bull cart and 
they slugged it in there. 
Q. How far was that? 
A. They call it 5 miles and three-quarters from Guayama to Ponce. 
Q. Did you have any more experience with the canned or fresh meat down there? 
A. Not there at Guayama. 
Q. Now, then, after that, when you left the hospital, where did you go? 
A. I think it was on the evening of the 2d or 3d of September that I went on 
board the hospital ship Panama. We left Arroyo that evening and got into Ponce 
the next morning. It was on a Sunday morning; I think it was. And while lying 
there we loaded on about 2,500 hundredweight of beef, as I heard. As they were 
taking it up the sides, the quartermaster of the Panama said, he said: ''Cook, look at 
this meat drawing up." I said: "Why, it's dead." "Dead!" he said, "Yes, it's 
dead meat," he said, "that's no good; it's rotten." When they pulled up the 
meat-the first piece-Major Daly and Major Boyd were there, and Major Daly made 
the remark then to Major Boyd that he didn't like the looks of the meat. The meat 
was taken on, and all the men was there, laughing and making remarks about it, 
and one piece, especially, they had to put back right away. It was offensive. They 
dropped it right overboard, right by the side of the Panama. Then they put the 
rest of it in the ice chest, and that night the men that were sleeping in the forward 
part of the boat had to come up on deck on account of the smell from the meat. 
We went on to the western part of the island, reaching there the next morning, 
and loaded on 10 tons of ice at that point. I do not remember the name of the 
place. We put that ice on this meat; the men put plenty of ice on it, and packed it 
in all around it-the ship's crew did-and the second day after sailing from there, 
the men who were forward there, went to Major Boyd in a body and told him that 
it was impossible to sleep below on account of the smell from the meat. The next 
day afterwards they had an investigation of the meat, and the cook of the Panama 
said to me-I was around the galley a good deal-"That meat is rotten," and he took 
out a slice-a steak from the hind quarter-and laid it down, and said, "Look at 
that." He says, "They are sending it back from the mess-from the officers' mess- 
the stewards are." He says, "It isn't fit for any person to use." 
So the next day the meat was drawn out of the ice house-all of it that was in 
there-and thrown overboard. It was in a slimy condition and smelling badly. 
Q. Do you know where that meat came from? 
A. It was loaded at Ponce, on Sunday morning, I think it was. 
Q. Do you know off of what vessel? 
A. It came off of a lighter. 
Q. It came off of a lighter? 
A. Alongside; yes, sir. 
Q. Do you know from what vessel the lighter got it? 
A. No, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1563 
Q. You have no information on that subject? 
A. No, sir; I have no idea. 
Q. Did it look like the refrigerated beef-what they called the refrigerated beef 
that you had seen before? 
A. The beef that they had used before this was the same; it was all turning white, 
about an inch deep; and when they cut it open it was dark-green on the inside. 
But this meat that was being loaded was actually rotten; there was no mistake 
about it. 
Q. As to size, was it about the size of the refrigerated beef that you had on board 
the Massachusetts going down-about the same size? 
A. The hind quarters, especially, didn't seem to be the same class of cattle that 
we had had on the Massachusetts. It was smaller; it was not as good a quality of 
beef as we had had off the Massachusetts. It was smaller- beef. It looked to be 
more like cows, the carcasses of cows, more than it did beef-this that was loaded 
on the Panama. 
Q. Did you have any experience with the canned roast beef on the return trip? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Now, state to the court, in your own way, just what that experience was. 
A. The cook and I were there; I was around there for a little extra food, and I 
was helping him, and we were opening the cans; and on three different occasions he 
throwed over cans. One day, along in the middle of the day-about 11 o'clock in 
the morning, rather-I was helping open them; and out of, I think, somewhere 
about 50 or 60 cans, I myself threw over, I think, about 21 or 22 cans. He 
ordered me to throw them over as bad. The meat had fermented; it had 
spoiled. He was quite a judge, and he could tell whether it was spoiled or not. 
Several of the cans he did not open at all; they were bulged out, and he deliberately 
threw them overboard himself. He did not open them at all. I opened them, for 
the benefit of the fish, I said; but several cans the cook on board the Panama did 
not open at all. He just deliberately threw them overboard. He could tell; and he 
said: " All of them that are bulged out are already spoiled." 
Q. In what condition did you find those that were not bulged out, which you 
opened? 
A. Well, it was just the same as regular boiled beef; it was not roast beef. It 
■was regular boiled beef that wras put in there; there was no mistake about that. 
They mixed it up with some potatoes that they had, and seasoned it up and gave it 
out; and then the first thing, it was all condemned; the canned beef w'as also con- 
demned, and it was thrown overboard. Major Daly wouldn't allow nobody to use it; 
it was making so many of the men sick. 
Q. Do you know, of your personal knowledge, that it made men sick? 
A. Well, he laid it to that. He laid it to that in my case, because I ate it on board 
there; and I got chronic diarrhea, and I ain't got over it yet. The doctors gave me 
up. I laid at Fortress Monroe over three weeks. 
Q. Had you had any experience so before that time? 
A. Never before that time. At Fortress Monroe Major De Witt gave me up for 
dead, him and Dr. Bell, twice, because they had such trouble with me. Then I 
came home, to the university, and Dr. Jump, of the University of Pennsylvania, 
attributed it to my eating too much of the canned beef. He attributed it to that. 
Q. It was a species of dysentery, or stomach trouble, was it? 
A. It was regular chronic diarrhea. I would eat it one day, in mess at dinner 
time, and I passed it, undigested, before 4 o'clock, it would have such an effect. 
Q. Would you digest it, or would you pass it? 
A. It would go through without digesting. The doctor on there said, " You had 
better stop eating that canned beef, if you want to live," and I stopped it then. 
Q. How long had you been eating that? 1564 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Well, I got convalescent on board the Panama, and what was good of it, I ate 
the regular ration of it, of course, every day, morning and evening. 
Q. How did you use it? 
A. Well, they dished it right out, the men, most of them; a good many of them 
ate it right cold; but I took mine in the galley, and got potatoes from the cook, and 
cooked with it, and made a hash. 
Q. Now, you claim in your evidence to have seen this canned roast beef opened 
down there, in Cuba, or in Porto Rico, and on the boat. I wish you would give the 
court a description of the canned roast beef, as you opened it, as to the brand, and 
all about how it appeared, the meat and the other matter-whether it was mixed 
together or separated, or just what there was about it. 
A. The beef that was not good-you could easily tell the good part of it. What 
there was good of it looked wholesome and healthy looking, and it was red; but 
what was spoiled had fermented, and had turned all white and greenish colored. It 
had fermented, and as you would take the lid off it would work out of the can. The 
good meat would not do that; you could open the cans, and there would be no trouble 
at all rising from it as you opened the cans. But as you opened a can of bad meat it 
would boil up, kind of, and ferment, and run over the sides, and it had turned white 
or greenish color, kind of a greenish color. 
Q. Did you ever open a can and pour the contents out on anything to see what it 
was composed of throughout? Did you ever try that? 
A. Oh, yes. In Porto Rico I took it out individually-I first boiled potatoes, and 
took it out and made a hash out of it, and pulled it altogether apart with forks. I 
had a fork on purpose, and I held one fork on it, and I shredded it out with a fork 
in that way. It didn't have no appearance of ever being roasted. It was boiled 
beef, the same as you would boil a piece of beef and then shred it apart in that way. 
It had never been roasted. 
Q. What wrere the components of the can? Was there grease or anything sepa- 
rated from it? Was there anything else that you found in the cans besides the 
meat? 
A. There was grease along with it, in the cans. Some cans had more grease than 
others, quite a quantity, more so than others; and some of it that you opened there 
was hardly any grease at all; it would be pure meat. 
Q. Did you notice what brands of those which you opened were the better? 
you had different brands, I understand. 
A. There was a couple of different brands. I didn't pay any attention to the 
brands at all. I didn't think, at the time, anything about the company, or anything 
like that. I didn't pay any attention to that. 
Q. Now, was there any complaint in regard to this meat made by the men in your 
company and troops and around the hospital? 
A. Oh, no; the men in the troop never made any complaint to me whatever. 
They didn't say nothing whatever to me. They never had any conversation with 
the cooks at all, whatever. But in the hospital-I was in the Fourth Pennsylvania 
hospital, and they brought it in there one night for supper, and the convalescents 
were going to mob the nurse for fetching it in. Then the major doctor of the 
Fourth Pennsylvania, he came along there-I can't think of his name, but he 
happened to come along just as the nurse was bringing in this canned beef; and he 
said, "If I catch you fetching that in to any of these people again, I'll give you ten 
days," he says, "or have you court-martialed," he said. "It is against my orders to 
fetch that stuff in this ward," he said. 
Q. When you were cook, and was cooking this beef, and opening the cans, and 
rejecting some of them, did you separate the good from the bad? Did you try that? 
A. Oh, yes. 
Q. How was that done? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1565 
A. If the can was the least little bit tainted, Mr. Gleason, Harry Gleason, the 
head cook, got so that he could tell right away when it was bad; when the cans were 
bulged out, we would throw it away, and wouldn't use it all. Mr. Biddle didn't 
allow us to use anything that was not fit; he said, "Throw it away." 
Q. In your cooking down there, as near as you can remember-I do not suppose 
you kept any accurate record of it-about what proportion of this canned roast beef 
did you find that was bad? Was it a tenth, or a third, or a half, or a quarter, or 
about what amount? 
A. The head cook told me that what the troop had they had bought, individually, 
at Newport News; and it was the Armour brand, I know, in round cans. Wherever 
they got it, anyway, there was easy one-third of it-sometimes we opened it, and 
one-third would be bad, and we would throw it in the sinks. Some of them are 
not opened to this day, lying in the sinks. A hole would be dug and covered up 
afterwards; they never were opened. 
Q. Would you give that as your estimate of the proportion that was bad, about 
one-third? 
A. On an average, it would run about one-third. 
Q. Did you ever get anything issued in place of it at all? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. How did they supply the shortage that would be caused? 
A. In the case of the Philadelphia troop, a majority of the men bought the most 
of their own rations. They bought extras, all out of their own pockets. They had 
a commissary of their own, a fund which they contributed to, and they bought all 
the luxuries the island could afford, everything-ice; they had ice brought 48 miles, 
from Ponce, on purpose, and they had milk and everything. 
Q. You are still under medical treatment, are you? 
A. Yes, sir; at the University of Pennsylvania, under Dr. Jump. I have got a 
good physician, and I am still under treatment there. 
Q. Was there much sickness in the troop when you returned? Did the troop 
return with you, or were you sent back alone? 
A. I went to the hospital on or about the 24th of August, and I think the troop left 
there about the 2d or 3d of September. They went to Ponce. When I left the troop 
they had a regular hospital tent put up. The troop had it, individually, and had their 
own doctor; and the day before I wTent to the hospital I was over by the tent, and 
there were seven lying in the hospital then, very sick. The quartermaster-sergeant, 
Dr. Lott, was there also. 
Q. Now, from the time you were taken sick on, and continuously, what has been 
regarded by your physician, and by you, from your own knowledge with regard to 
the matter, as the cause of your sickness? 
A. Well, over in the hospital the major doctor of the Fourth Pennsylvania-I went 
in his ward-he told me right away, when I went in, he said: "You have been eat- 
ing too much of that canned beef." I am a great meat eater as it is, and what there 
was of the good part I ate more of than I did the bacon, or anything; we mixed 
it up with potatoes, and salt and pepper, and onions, and it made a very good dish; 
the good part of it made a good dish, and I ate quite a lot of that. 
Q. Go on and finish the answer to the question. You have been sick long since 
then? 
A. Well, in the hospital the doctor there, Dr. Glonninger, of the Fourth Pennsyl- 
vania, was there first; then he went away and the doctor of the Third Illinois (I 
don't know his name), he told several of us, he said, "You fellows have been 
eating too much of that canned beef," and he said, "You want to stop it." And 
also when I came on the Panama the contract doctor aboard the Panama he attrib- 
uted my diarrhea to eating too much of that canned meat. Then when I came 1566 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
to Fortress Monroe, Dr. Bell says to me, "It's a wonder you hadn't died, eating that 
stuff that you have been putting in you." 
Q. What stuff did he refer to? 
A. I expect the canned 
Q. You "expect"; now, do you know? 
A. I judge from what he said. He said: "All you Porto Rico boys have been 
eating that canned beef over there-too much of it." 
Q. And since then, how has it been? 
A. Well, I was taken the best of care of by the doctor in the university, but they 
don't have any hopes of getting me fixed up right. 
Q. Are you able to make a living? 
A. Yes, sir; I am a night watchman now. I just got a position last week. 
Q. Are you still troubled with your disorder? 
A. That is the reason I took the job, the position of night watchman, on account 
of working at night, because the diarrhea troubled me so much during the daytime, 
and I was advised by the doctor to get a night position, and take medicine, and see 
if that would do me any good. 
Q. Now, if there are any other facts in connection with this refrigerated beef or 
this canned roast beef, either affecting you or affecting the men of your company or 
troop, under your observation, that you have not stated, I want you to state such 
facts to the court, just as fully as if I had asked you about everything; because you 
are here to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and I want 
you to go on and state anything of the kind, if there is anything else. I do not know 
all the details. 
A. I was in the Fourth Pennsylvania tent, and they were all strangers to me- 
Colonel Case is the gentleman's name-and a fellow from Allentown named Sausman 
says to me: "Two-thirds of our boys that is in this ward to-day have got sick from 
eating that beef coming over in the ship-eating the canned beef." Then I got more 
acquainted with them, and they all laid it to that, because they were suffering with 
bowel complaint, the majority of them, and they all laid it to eating the canned beef 
on board the ship. They said they threw cans of it overboard. It wasn't fit to eat; 
and for three days, he said, they went without anything. Then when they came into 
camp they had thrown all this canned meat away at Havana, and for five days they 
had nothing but bread and coffee and a ration of hard-tack. They had no fresh 
meat at all whatever or any canned meat, because they threw all the canned meat 
away. I think the Fourth Pennsylvania went on the Roumania, one of the trans- 
ports. They all got thin, and all stuck to it, even since they came home. The day 
before the jubilee I was up to the First Regiment's, and they were all talking about 
the canned beef, just talking about it, and they said two-thirds of the men of the 
regiment that got sick there laid it to this canned meat-the men of the Fourth 
Pennsylvania. 
Q. When was the jubilee? 
A. The 27th of October. This was the 26th 
Cross-examination by the Recorder: 
Q. Who was this Mr. Gleason? 
A. He was head cook-Harry Gleason. He is how in the Twelfth Pennsylvania, 
I believe, in the Philippines. Him and I was both cooks in Company 6, of Pennsyl- 
vania, and Lieutenant Brandon came over there on the 23d of July, and Mr. Gleason 
put in an application to the troops for the position of cook, and I didn't know any- 
thing about mine and I was transferred against my will. 
Q. Gleason is his name? 
A. Harry Gleason; yes, sir. 
Q. He is in the Philippines now? 
A. I believe he is, now. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1567 
Q. Who is Mr. Biddle? 
A. Mercer M. Biddle-he is commissary corporal for the troops. 
Q. What is his name? 
A. Mercer M. Biddle. 
By General Davis: 
Q. What time in the day did the fresh beef come alongside the Panama? 
A. We waited there on purpose, sir, until between the hours of 3 and 4 in the after- 
noon for it to come. 
Q. And at 3 or 4 in the afternoon it came alongside? 
A. This Sunday afternoon; yes, sir. 
Q. On a lighter? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And when you hoisted it aboard, it was very offensive? 
A. Even then, some of it. The third quarter that was drawn up, I was standing 
right alongside, and the quartermaster on board says to me, he says: "That is a 
shame;" and Major Boyd was standing there-Major Daly had walked away-and 
Major Boyd looked at it and he said: "You might as well have that dropped over- 
board; don't take that aboard here," and they dropped it right over the side of the 
boat. 
Q. Who was standing there? 
A. There were at least thirty-five or forty convalescents. 
Q. And Doctor Borden, did you say? 
A. No; Major Boyd. 
Q. Do you know an officer by the name of Captain Ervine? 
A. Yes, sir; he was of the Eleventh Infantry. 
Q. Was he there then? 
A. No, sir; he was in the aft part of the ship at the time. 
Q. And the smell of the meat then was offensive? 
A. Yes, sir; when it was being loaded; and the men that was sleeping there went 
to Major Daly that night and complained. The orders were that nobody was allowed 
upon deck to sleep, and they asked special permission of Major Daly to go up on 
deck on account of the smell coming from the meat; and about thirty of them 
came up. 
Q. Was that meat wrapped up in cheese cloth, or some kind of sacks, sewed up 
in bags? 
A. Some of it, and some of it was torn off. It had a white covering around it. 
Q. White muslin? 
A. Yes, sir; and some of it was torn off. There were several pieces that the 
covering had got torn off of, but some of it had a white covering around it. 
Q. But you are sure that it was a well-known fact that some of it smelled very 
badly then? 
A. Yes, sir; right at the time, because they dropped this fore quarter deliberately 
overboard. I was right alongside, and we watched two sharks-they turned belly 
up-and we watched the sharks go for the quarter of beef and grab it, right in Ponce 
Harbor. 
Q. You were taken sick, you say? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. At what time were you taken sick? 
A. I was taken sick-I was in quarters three days-on or about the 21st of August. 
Q. On the 21st of August you were taken sick? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And on the 1st of September, or about that time, you came on board the 
Panama. 
A. Yes, sir; about the 1st or 2d of September. 1568 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. And where were you when you were taken sick? 
A. We were at Guayama, in camp then, because the head cook, Mr. Gleason, 
deserted. He gave it up. He said he wasn't there-he took and left me there by 
myself, and when Mr. Gleason went away, on leave of absence, they hired a civilian 
cook and had him engaged. 
Q. Had you, personally, been eating much of this canned roast beef? 
A. Yes, sir; considerable-that is, the good part of it, because we made it into a 
hash and cooked the hash, the same as you would in an army camp. 
Q. And I think you said you were fond of it in that form? 
A. The men of the company, the troop, liked it. They relished it very much. 
Q. I think you have mentioned four doctors who said you ate too much of it? 
A. Yes, sir; they said I had ate too much of the canned meat. 
Q. Too much of the canned roast beef? 
A. The canned roast beef; yes sir. 
Q. And what was the character of the sickness which you first had; what was it? 
A. It was the regular kind of dysentery, like a diarrhea. 
Q. It began that way, with diarrhea? 
A. Yes, sir. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. You spoke of this fresh meat at Guayama? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was it all native beef, killed there? 
A. No, sir; not all native beef. As I say, they taken this iirst hind quarter that 
came off the Massachusetts and they roasted it and it was in good condition, but then 
they got two other fore quarters that were condemned right away. 
Q. You spoke about some of the native meat that was killed there spoiling over 
night? 
A. We cut off steaks of this native meat and put it in a hole. We dug a hole and 
put canvas around it and put ice on it, and then got it out the next morning, and 
some of the men wouldn't eat it because they thought it had got a little tainted. It 
wasn't as fresh as it should be, in my own estimation, and we were going to make 
soup for dinner, and Mr. Biddle ordered me to have it buried. 
Q. Was that your experience with other fresh meat-native meat-that was killed? 
A. That was my experience with that; yes, sir. Then we got native meat two days 
after that; they said it was native beef, but it looked to me just the same way as 
though it was the refrigerated beef, or a forequarter of it. They said they had 
it in an ice house at Ponce. 
Redirect examination by Major Lee: 
Q. How often did you get the refrigerated beef, altogether? 
A. There were three different occasions that we got it. 
Q. And on how many occasions was it good, and on how many occasions was 
it bad? • 
A. The first occasion it was good, and we roasted it; but on the other two it was 
condemned, and we buried it. 
Q. How often did you have the native beef, if you know? 
A. We had the native beef twice, and then one time we had veal. We bought 
veal up in the city and brought it down. 
Q. That is, native meat? 
A. Native veal; yes, sir. 
Q. How was that? 
A. Tliat was strictly fresh-in first-class condition. 
Q. First-class? 
A. Yes, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1569 
Q. You enjoyed it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. At one time this native beef did not seem to turn out very well? 
A. The native beef, the last time they had it before I went to the hospital, it didn't 
turn out as good as the other time. It was tough. We buried the whole quarter of 
it on account of the toughness of it. We couldn't touch it. 
Q. Who bought that-the company, or the Government? 
A. The company. 
Q. The company bought that-right in the market? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Were many of the men in the hospital taken sick from eating the canned roast 
beef? 
A. That, sir, is soitiething I couldn't say about. 
Q. Well, if you know? A man would come in and say he was taken sick from 
eating something, would he not? 
A. You mean in the troop hospital, or the division hospital? 
Q. I mean in the hospital where you were? 
A. It was the general opinion, at Guayama, in all the hospitals, the Third Illinois, 
the Fourth Pennsylvania, the Fourth Ohio, and all-Captain Francis, I think, of the 
company lost a man while there; and he came over there, and Captain French, it 
was, of the Fourth Ohio-he told me himself that he had lost two of his men, and 
he said: "It is nothing but this damnable canned roast beef what has killed them." 
Captain French, of the Fourth Ohio, told me that personally. After that second 
man died he came over and said: "There is another of my boys that I have lost, just 
through eating too much of that canned meat." It had caused diarrhea so. 
Q. In speaking about eating too much of it, had you eaten more than a man would 
usually eat? 
A. I ate the regular ration. 
Q. The regular ration? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You did not eat more than about what the regular ration was said to be? 
A. Yes, sir; well, I ate a little more than what a man would really get. 
Q. I want to ask you a little further in regard to opening that beef. You say you 
opened a good deal of it. About how much of that was good beef and about how 
much of it was grease and stuff that you could not eat? 
A. As I said, sir, from my experience with the troops the cans that Gleason and I 
opened averaged one-third; and then what I seen up in the hospital, laying there, 
there was 93 cans condemned-that had been condemned and set aside-and two 
native boys there was carrying it out and putting it in the hole that was dug there, in 
the sink; and the next day I opened a lot of more cans, and there was 30 condemned 
out of the lot. 
Q. About how many did you open altogether? 
A. Well, I helped this cook open between 60 and 70, to the best of my information. 
Q. In regard to that which seemed to be fairly good, which you would use, if you 
would pick it out, about how much of it was good meat and how much of it was 
other stuff that you could not eat, if there was any? 
A. If you took what was good, it was good all the way through; but if there was 
the least little taint in it at all the whole can seemed to be tainted; and you could tell 
the good cans right away, because they hadn't bulged any. You could tell right 
away; for as sure as you would open a can that was bulged up it was fermented-it 
was bad. 
Q. Y ou do not get my idea. What I want to get at is, was there any grease or 
striffing, as you would call it-sinew, or anything of that kind, in this beef-in any 
of these cans that you opened? 
S. Doc. 270 99 1570 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. There was a good deal. Some cans had a good deal of sinew and gristle in 
them. They were largely composed-the majority of them had sinew and gristle in 
them. That was noticeable in it also. Then when we made this hash, when we 
opened the good cans, we picked out this sinew and gristle and separated it. 
Q. That is just what I wanted to get at. 
A. We separated the sinew and gristle from the good meat. 
Q. Now, what sized cans were they-2-pound cans? 
A. Well, about as big around as my hat. 
Q. That was about what sized can; w'ould you call them 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 pound, 
or what? 
A. Well, I should think about 4 or 5 pounds. 
Q. That is just a guess at it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In these cans which you used 
A. We would separate the gristle and the sinew part from the good meat. 
Q. In the good cans, how much would there be of that that you would separate? 
I mean about; I do not want you to tell exactly. 
A. Well, some cans, the majority of them-some of the cans, they would be one- 
third composed of fat, the substance of it. We would have to separate that from 
the meat part. 
Q. What did you do with that; eat it or throw it away? 
A. We threw it away. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Springer, of Pennsylvania. 
TESTIMONY OF JOHN W. SPRINGER. 
John W. Springer was called by the recorder as a witness, and, having beendnly 
sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. My name is John W. Springer; residence, New Cumberland, Pa.; occupation, 
molder. 
Q. Were you in the military service of the United States during the war with 
Spain? 
A. I was with the Governor's Troop, Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry. 
Q. Where did that troop serve? 
A. It served in F Division, in Porto Rico. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. What part of the United States did you leave? 
A. Newport News. 
Q. On what steamer? 
A. The Manitoba. 
Q. In what capacity were you serving at that time? 
A. I was acting as commissary sergeant of the troop to relieve our quartermaster. 
Q. Where did you arrive in Porto Rico? 
A. We landed at Ponce, Porto Rico. 
Q. About what time? 
A. I got ashore on the 13th of August. 
Q. What kind of meat ration did you have on the way over? 
A. Canned roast beef and corned beef. 
Q. Both kinds? 
A. Yes, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1571 
Q. Which was preferred by the men? 
A. The corned beef, always. 
Q. Now, you may state why; what complaints, if any, did you hear made, and 
what satisfaction or dissatisfaction expressed with regard to the canned roast beef, on 
going over? 
A. The first day, the boys said that it seemed pretty fair, and that they could get 
along with it if there wasn't so much gristle and fat in it. But the next few days 
they got so tired of it that they wanted a change. We could not warm it; we could 
not cook it; we did not have any other beef, and we simply had to eat it. There 
were complaints to our officers and they 
Q. Excuse me a minute. I want you now to go on in regard to the trip over, and 
tell the court, in a narrative way, all there was about it, without any more questions. 
Give it in your own way. I do not know the details. 
A. The men were complaining about it all the time. They complained to me 
about it, and I told them 1 couldn't help it; it was all I had to give them, all that was 
issued to me, and that when we got ashore we could cook it, boil it, which we did 
when we got to Ponce. We made soup of it. Our potatoes all spoiled and we had 
to cook it with canned tomatoes. We would open a can and sort it out. We had 
to do it in a hurry, because it wouldn't last in the sun. It would spoil; it would get 
dark, dry. It would sort of dry up, and get dark and hard, and it would spoil in half 
an hour after opening. We would sort it out and get this fatty stuff and gristle out 
of it, and cook it with tomatoes, or something of that sort, or by itself, and serve it to 
the men in that way. We had bacon, too, and men often came down there and 
wouldn't take the roast beef. We had more of that than we had of the corned beef, 
and we couldn't give them corned beef more than once a day, and they began to get 
tired of that. But the roast beef was fully one-half of it gristle and fat; and, to use 
the expression of some of them, it looked like dog vomit when we made it into a 
stew; and they would turn away from it, and wouldn't take it. It was disgusting 
to me and to half the troop-to all of them, in fact. Then we had no refrigerator or 
fresh beef of any kind but twice, or possibly three times, when the men bought it 
themselves, fresh native beef; and it was killed and roasted at once. We always 
roasted and boiled it up as soon as we got it, so it didn't spoil. That was good. We 
found that all right. 
Q. Did you have any knowledge or information, in going over, in regard to the 
refrigerated beef that was on the Manitoba? Did you know anything about it? 
A. Well, yes. I did not have anything personally to do with it, more than what 
I heard of it. 
Q. What did you hear? What was it that was said about it? 
A. The men complained to the officers on board the boat about it, and asked 
whether we could not get some other kind of rations, or whether we could not have 
it cooked. They wanted to see about having some way to cook it, to boil it. 
Q. To boil what? 
A. This canned beef. 
Q. Yes; go ahead. 
A. And the officers came down and tasted it. They said: "Well, it doesn't taste 
so bad. You are living high compared to us. There is beef brought on the table up 
there that is full of worms, and Jack wouldn't eat it." That was the bulldog that 
we had with us. Of course, we were just as well satisfied that we didn't get any of 
that. 
Q. What beef are you referring to now? 
A. It was fresh beef that the officers complained about having on board the ooat, 
but we didn't see any of it; we didn't see any of that. There was none issued to us 
on the Manitoba. 
Q. After your landing in Ponce, as you state, what occurred with reference to the 
meat there? Were any complaints of any kind made in regard to the meat? 1572 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Yes; as I stated, the men would complain about it having no taste. It tasted 
more like sawdust than meat, and all the nutriment had been boiled out of it. It 
was not roasted. The fat of it was, as our cook stated, like fat with the grease out 
of it. It was a yellow substance and fully half of it we threw away; that is, when 
we opened the cans we sorted out the gristle and the fat, and there were lots of other 
cans that we had to throw away the whole of. I could not form an estimate of how 
much there was in a case or a box that we found spoiled as we opened the cases, but 
from 5 to 10 boxes to the case. 
Q. You would draw it where-from the commissary? 
A. We had it issued to us at Newport News; fourteen days of travel ration and 
twenty-two days of field ration, composed of potatoes and bacon and other stuff. As 
I stated, our potatoes spoiled on the boat. We got nothing in return for that and 
we had to use our canned beef; and if it had been good so the men could have eaten it 
we would not have been short of rations. As it was, the men would buy a meal 
whenever they could. They would go into Ponce and buy stuff to eat, or we would 
be short of rations. 
Q. Did you open the cases yourself? 
A. Well, not always. 
Q. Were they opened in your presence by others? 
A. Yes, sir; the kitchen people opened them. 
Q. Tell us what you would find when you would open them. 
A. We would find sometimes 10, sometimes not so many, boxes that were bulged out. 
Q. Do you mean boxes, or what do you mean? 
A. I mean boxes of beef; cans of beef. 
Q. Well? 
A. And we would throw that away. And there were some of them that would 
explode or burst in the case. 
Q. When would that be? 
A. Most any time-even at night sometimes, or uurmg the daytime, around there, 
you could hear it; and then that stuff would be all over 
Q. Would it make any report? 
A. Yes, sir; you could hear it. 
Q. Did you report it? 
A. Yes, sir; I reported it to the captain; and he said, "throw it out." Then the 
juice and stuff out of it would run all over the paper that was around these cans and 
all the cans would smell of it outside, and we would wash the cans off and open them, 
and if we found the beef fit to eat that was in them we would sort it out and get the 
lean part of the meat out of it and make it into a soup. 
Q. Did you notice any of the brands on that meat? 
A. We had Armour's. It was Armour's Canned Roast Beef. That was the mark 
that was on the boxes. It came in 2 boxes nailed together, forming a case, I suppose. 
There were 24 cans in a box and 2 boxes together, making 48 cans in a case, or in 2 
boxes. That is the way we got it-just as it was. 
Q. While you were there (without interrupting you too much) was any more of it 
issued to you by the commissary? 
A. No, sir; we didn't have an issue of anything. We had our issue of field 
ration and travel ration at Newport News-twenty-two days' field ration, and four- 
teen days' travel ration. 
Q. And then you used that all the time you were there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You did not draw any other? 
A. No, sir; we would have drawn on the 6th of September, and we left Ponce on 
the 5th. 
Q. You left there on the 5th of September? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1573 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Then, taking an estimate (as you were commissary-sergeant, or acting in that 
capacity), about what proportion of that canned roast beef would you say, under 
oath, was spoiled, on a fair estimate-what proportion of that which was furnished 
to your troop? 
A. Fully half. 
Q. Fully half? 
A. Yes, sir. Not to say spoiled; I don't mean that. I mean that we did not use 
fully half that was gristle and fat, and at least ten cans to the box were spoiled when 
we opened it. 
Q. On an average? 
A. Yes, sir; from five to ten cans to a box. 
Q. And the boxes did not hold more than about twenty-four cans? 
A. They held 24 cans, all of them? 
Q. Now, are you reasonably positive as to that estimate? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. On what do you base it? 
A. On my own personal experience with it. I was there and superintended it all 
the time. The captain requested me to be there, as there was complaint about it. 
He said, "stay there and do the best you can. Make the meals up as best you can. 
Get up anything you can for them to satisfy them." We even went out and bought 
plantains and had them fried. 
Q. I was going to ask you what you substituted for this beef. 
A. Well, we substituted plantains and fruits. We bought bananas and we bought 
those plantains and had them fried; and we fried hard-tack, and such things as that. 
Q. How was this food bought? Was it bought by the Government or by the men? 
A. It was bought by the men. 
Q. Individually? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was there any fund furnished from the State or from the organization for that 
purpose? 
A. No, sir; there was no company fund. The men would just simply go around 
and take up a collection. Some fellows would give a dime and some a nickel-what- 
ever they wanted to-and buy this stuff. 
Q. I do not know whether I have asked you or not on the subject of whether you 
used any native beef-fresh beef-down there? 
A. Yes, sir; twice that I am positive of, and possibly three times; but that we 
found all right. It was killed in the afternoon and we got it about,4 o'clock, and 
we would roast it or boil it. 
Q. Did you get any refrigerated beef? 
A. No, sir; not in Cuba-not on the island. 
Q. Is that all there is about that canned roast beef down there, while you were in 
Cuba, and on the way over? Is there anything further on that subject that you 
know? 
A. Well, no. 
Q. Did anybody suffer any inconvenience from it at all? Did anybody complain 
about it? 
A. Not more than they complained of having diarrhea and blamed it on the beef. 
I had a diarrhea. I had it for a week after I came home or two weeks after I 
came home; but I don't know whether the canned beef did it or whether the refrig- 
erated beef did it that I got on board the Mississippi. 
Q. Are you satisfied, in your own mind, as to one or the other, or both? 
A. Something did it-some part of the ration; and all the stuff that we had was 
canned-that is, our travel ration. 1574 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. When you returned, on what ship did you go? 
A. The Mississippi. 
Q. How was that? What was on that boat in the way of meats? 
A. Refrigerator beef; and we also had canned roast beef, canned corned beef, 
canned salmon, and this refrigerator beef. 
Q. Did you have any soup, or anything of that kind, on the way over? I want 
you to go on and narrate to the court, in your own way, just what occurred with 
reference to that. You have the information in your possession, and I want you to 
state it. 
A. We left Ponce on Sunday morning, and the first issue of refrigerator beef that 
our troop got was on Monday morning. I was sick, and a corporal was appointed 
to draw it. I may as well state that I got sick because of being down in the hull or 
in the hold of the vessel, superintending the loading of the camp equipment. When 
I was down there it was cold or cool down there, and I had been very warm. I was 
down there about an hour, possibly three-quarters of an hour or an hour; and I got 
dizzy, and felt mean; and I went up out of there, and there was an awful smell down 
there. 1 didn't know what did it, I couldn't see anything; but it smelled awful; I 
could not describe the smell. 
Q. From what was it? 
A. Well, I didn't know' then, but I found out later it was from the refrigerator 
beef. I came out of there and the sun looked dim. It darkened before my eyes, and 
produced vomiting, and I was sick for three or four days. After I got around the 
vessel again, I found that this refrigerator beef that had been hoisted out of the ves- 
sel had exactly the same smell as the smell that made me sick in the hold. I 
didn't know* at the time, when I was dowm in the hold, that that made me sick. 
But on Monday we got our first issue of refrigerator beef, and each organization- 
there was five of them on the boat-paid $8 toward having it roasted. The cook 
roasted it at night, and we got it the next morning or the next day. On Monday 
morning I sent around there to see whether this meat was done, and they said, 
"We W'ill not issue it until 11 o'clock for dinner; you can have it for dinner; but," 
they said, "there is a barrel of beef broth that you can have. Tell your men to 
come up and get all they w'ant of it. It is in a clean barrel and it is all right." 
Q. Beef broth from what beef? 
A. From this roast beef-refrigerator beef. I got up, it was not far from where I 
was, and I walked over there with my tin cup, and got some of this beef broth, and 
seasoned it well with salt and pepper and crackers and made a soup of it and ate 
it. It had a peculiar taste, but it w'as something new, and I ate it. About 11 
o'clock I thought I would go around for some more, about the time wre were to 
get our refrigerator beef; and I dipped dowm in the barrel with the dipper, and 
came up and poured it in my tin cup, and fully half an inch of worms were in 
the bottom of the dipper. Of course I threw that away. There were at least 10 of 
our men in the troop that I told about that, and they w'ent up there and saw it 
themselves, and none of them ate any of that any more. Then when we got our 
beef everybody pulled it apart; when it was issued to us for dinner, we would pull 
it apart to look for worms, but they couldn't find any. The outside had been trimmed 
off by the cooks, but the beef tasted awful. I couldn't eat any of it. When it was 
cut, there was a sort of a greenish tint to the bone; it was tinted to the bone, and 
the men complained about it and said they couldn't eat that stuff. I said I couldn't, 
either; and the captain got to hear it. Him and the surgeon (Dr. Arnold, of the 
Hospital Corps that was attached to our squadron) came around and inspected this 
beef, the quarters where it was at, the kitchen, where this cook was trimming it 
that evening; and he told the cook to trim it off closer. He said, "Trim it closer." 
Well, the cook trimmed it off closer, fully 2 or 3 inches-that I saw-and it was 
thrown overboard; and the balance of that beef was then roasted, and we got it the FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1575 
next day. But we couldn't eat it, and we threw it overboard. It was tainted; and 
of course the captain never got to hear any more complaints, because we didn't draw 
it and didn't eat it, and he never heard any more complaint about the beef. There 
was a private of our troop on guard over the hatch- by the name of Swayback who 
had to be relieved and taken away from the post by a corporal of our troop, whose 
relief he was on. He said the smell of the beef was too strong for him; that he 
couldn't stand it. He was sick the balance of the time home, and he was sick for- 
well, he had typhoid fever after he got back. We hadn't much sickness on the 
island; but there were lots of the men got sick on the boat, and were feeling bad; 
and after we got home we had-I can't tell exactly, but there were 14 cases, to my 
knowledge, of typhoid fever; and there was lots of others who were complaining of 
diarrheas and other complaints. There was a member of the troop from my own 
town, Mr. Feight by name. He is a lawyer, practicing at Carlisle, Cumberland 
County. He had diarrhea for a month. He said that there was nothing that gave 
it to him but the beef-the refrigerator beef that we got on board the vessel. I don't 
know whether that gave it to me, but he thought it gave it to him. I had it for a 
while, but not quite so long. 
Q. How many times did you use refrigerated beef in coming north? 
A. We only used it once, on Monday, and the next time it was tainted. We got 
it oh Tuesday, and it was tainted and smelt bad, and made the whole kitchen smell 
of it. Everything around there smelled of that beef, and we threw it overboard. 
Q. Did you ever go down and see the refrigerator? 
A. No, sir; I wasn't down in the refrigerator. I was simply down in the hold, 
next to it, I guess. 
Q. You say they charged you $8 a company for the roast? 
A. The cook did that. 
Q. Do you mean for that one roast? 
A. No; for the trip, the entire trip north. He charged $40. 
Q. Who made that charge? 
A. The cook on the boat. He hadn't time to cook it in the daytime; he had to do 
it at night. 
Q. Was there a quartermaster in charge of the ship? 
A. Well, I don't know. It was the cook that did it, and they paid him for it. 
Q. How did you get along with regard to having the deficiency in this matter sup- 
plied? Did you have anything to replace this meat or help out in any way? 
A. We had a box of fried plantains, which we brought along, and we had over 
2,000 limes-2,200 I think it was-that I bought out of the-collection that was taken 
up among the boys, over $6. 
Q. They were limes, something like lemons? 
A. Yes, sir; small limes that we brought along. 
Q. Did anybody recommend them as beneficial, or did they say they might be 
injurious? 
A. Yes, sir; Surgeon Arnold said he thought that would be a benefit to the men if 
they had that to put in the water on the boat. We had some ice, but we didn't have 
ice water every day. 
Q. If there are any other facts in connection with this matter, on the trip going 
down, about the beef, while there at Ponce, or on the return home, that you have 
not stated, I want you to go on and state them as fully as though you were asked 
special questions about them. You know the details. I do not. 
A. Well, I don't know of anything else that would. That was about the amount 
of my experience with the beef. We found the canned roast beef generally bad, 
and the refrigerated beef was all bad, at least that which was issued to us. 
Q. Will you please restate the date when you returned? 
A. We left Ponce on the 5th of September and arrived at Jersey City on the 12th. 
It was the 13th of August when I got ashore at Ponce. 1576 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. When you returned, where did you go? 
A. To Jersey City. 
Q. Were you mustered out there? 
A. No, sir; we went home on a furlough of sixty days. 
Q. And then were mustered out? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Cross-examination by the Recorder: 
Q. Do I understand you to say that you only drew 10 days' rations of canned roast 
beef altogether? 
A. No, sir; we had 14 days' of travel ration. 
Q. Fourteen? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was half of that canned roast beef and half corned beef? 
A. No, sir; it was principally canned roast beef. 
Q. What proportion of it was canned corned beef? 
A. Well, not more than one-fourth of it. The corned beef came in smaller boxes. 
I don't know how many boxes. There were 24 cans of corned beef in a box, and 
there were that many of roast beef, but I don't remember the proportion any more. 
I don't remember how much we got of each kind. 
Q. Did you draw any in Porto Rico? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. That was all you had? 
A. Yes, sir; and 22 days' of field rations which we drew. 
Q. What was the meat component of the field ration? 
A. Bacon. 
Q. And how many men were there in the troop? 
A. One hundred. 
Q. Do you remember how many cases of canned roast beef you had altogether? 
A. I don't remember how many we had. We had 10 cases at least. 
Q. Ten cases? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That would be 240 cans? 
A. No, sir: it would be 480 cans. There was a case composed of two boxes-48 
cans. 
Q. You said half of it was rejected because it was gristle? 
A. Yes, sir; fully half. 
Q. And there were from 5 to 10 cans out of each case that were spoiled? Is that 
correct? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That would be about 400 altogether. And did all these consequences ensue 
upon eating the other 100-all these consequences to which you have testified? 
A. How is that, sir? 
Q. That would leave about 100 cans which were consumed in the company. Did 
the consequences to which you have testified come from eating those 100 cans? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And did you eat of the refrigerated beef but once on the steamer? 
A. That is all. 
By General Davis: 
Q. What was the name of your captain? 
A. Frederick M. Ott. 
Q. Was Captain Groome aboard the Manitoba coming home? 
A. It was the Mississippi that we came home on. 
Q. The Mississippi, I mean. 
A. Yes, sir; he was on board. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1577 
Redirect examination by Major Lee: 
Q. You drew, you say, twenty-four days of field rations? 
A. Twenty-two days of field ration and fourteen days of travel ration. 
Q. That makes thirty-six days? 
A. Thirty-six days in all. 
Q. And the fourteen days of travel ration 
A. We drew that at Camp Alger, and it went along in the car and stayed in the 
car at Newport News, and we drew what we wanted out of it-out of the field ration- 
at Newport News; we drew it out of the car daily because we were expecting to move 
from there daily, and we drew it out of the car as we needed it. 
Q. Do you know what commissary you drew that canned roast beef from at Camp 
Alger? Do you know who it was that turned it over to you? 
A. I think it was Captain Little; I am not positive. 
Q. Captain Little? 
A. Lieutenant Fleet, of the Sheridan Troop, drew it from the Commissary Depart- 
ment, and I drew it from him. That would be two troops, the Sheridan Troop and 
the Governor's Troop. The Sheridan Troop, from Tyrone, and the Governor's Troop 
were together on the entire trip. The city troop left us at Newport News. They 
left five or six days ahead of us. They went on the Massachusetts. 
Q. And you went on the Manitoba ? 
A. Yes, sir; later. 
Q. I want to come back a little there. Did you know anything about that refrig- 
erated beef on the Manitoba? Did you ever see it or hear anything about it? 
A. I didn't see of it; I heard of it. 
Q. Did you hear anything about it? 
A. Yes; the officers said it was wormy; that the dog would not eat it. That was 
what they said when our men complained about the canned roast beef being bad. 
Q. Were you on a reef down there anywhere, and did you stay there three or four 
days? 
A. We were on two days at Ponce. 
Q. You were on two days, and then you were taken off? 
A. Yes, sir; I was on two days, and the ship was on two days-the Manitoba. The 
captain ordered me to stay on board the boat. We got there about 11 o'clock, and 
stuck on the bar, and that evening-it was dark and I don't know exactly the time- 
but there was about eighty of the men who left the boat. He kept a detail of twenty 
men on board the boat to feed the horses, and he told me to stay there, too, saying 
that he was going to stay there. I was also acting as guard, and he said, "You stay 
on board the boat;" so I stayed there for two days. We got there on Thursday at 
dinner time, and it was Saturday, at 11 o'clock or so-along there-in the forenoon, 
when I went ashore. 
Q. When you went ashore? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Now, you say, going back again, you got twenty-two days of field rations? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And fourteen days of travel rations? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was the twenty-two days of field ration all bacon? 
A. All bacon; all the meat was bacon. 
Q. All the meat was bacon? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How was the bacon? Was there much complaint about it? 
A. We didn't hear any complaint about the bacon. We cut it and boiled it to get 
most of the fat or grease out of it; then we would fry it; and the men all preferred 
that to the canned roast beef. 1578 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Then you had fourteen days of the canned roast beef and about 100 men? 
You say there were 100 men in the troop, and you got fourteen days of the travel 
ration? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That would be 1,400 travel rations of meat? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Then you say that, according to your recollection, about a fourth of that was 
canned corn beef. Is that right? 
A. Yes, sir; if I recollect aright, a fourth of that was canned corned beef. 
Q. That would leave 1,050 rations of the other? 
A. Yes, sir; it was proportioned 
Q. That is a mathematical calculation; according to that there must have been 
1,050 rations of canned roast beef. You say about what per cent of that was gristle? 
A. Fully half. 
Q. Fully half-all right. That would leave 525, then, if half of it was gristle, which 
you could not use? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And then you think from five to ten cans, say seven, were bad, thrown away? 
A. Yes, sir; fully that many. 
Q. What would that leave you, then, of that which was good that you used? 
Figure that out yourself. You are an expert on it, I guess. I want to get at how 
much you ate of it, you know, out of the 1,050 rations that you had of it? 
A. If you will give me a pencil I can figure it out for you. 
Q. I think there is no occasion for following it down in that way; but there were 
1,050 rations, and half of that was gristle, you say, which you had to discard; that 
left 525; and then out of that you threw away from five to ten cans, say seven cans- 
and how many cans were there in a case, twenty-four? 
A. Yes; twenty-four. 
Q. That would be, say, one-fourth of that. That will give you about 390 cans. 
Then, according to the computation, you consumed in the neighborhood of between 
three and four hundred cans of that meat. Is that right? 
A. Yes, sir; as near as I can get at it, or the way you got at it. 
By General Davis: 
Q. You say there were 1,400 rations of canned roast beef? 
A. Fourteen days. 
Q. Fourteen days, and there were 100 men; that made 1,400 rations? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Three-quarters of a pound makes a ration, according to the Army regulation? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That leaves, then, 1,050 pounds of canned roast beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That was the number of pounds, and there would be half that number of cans 
if it was in 2-pound cans-that is, 525 cans? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And half of that was thrown away on account of the gristle, and so forth; and 
that leaves 275 cans remaining, if this arithmetic is straight. Follow me. I want 
you to tell me if that is right. 
Major Lee. Allow me to suggest that you let the witness have a pencil. I can not 
follow that myself. 
The Witness. It is a little too complicated for me. 
(The witness was furnished a pencil and paper and spent some time in making a 
calculation.) 
The President. It is not worth while to wait for this. The whole thing is based 
on a guess. Are there any other questions? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
1579 
Major Lee. I have no other questions. 
The Recorder. It is purely a mathematical calculation. 
The President. It is a mathematical calculation based on guesswork. The wit- 
ness states that about so much was bad, and that would leave so much good, accord- 
ing to his statement. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness Mr. 
Feight, of Pennsylvania. 
TESTIMONY OF ALFRED D. FEIGHT. 
Alfred D. Feight was called by the recorder as a witness, and, having been duly 
sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. Alfred D. Feight, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pa. 
Q. Were you in the military service during the recent war with Spain? 
A. I was. 
Q. To what organization were you attached? 
A. I was a member of the Governor's Troop, Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry. 
Q. Where did it serve? 
A. We served in the Porto Rican expedition. 
Q. How long were you in Porto Rico? 
A. We were in Porto Rico from the 11th of August until the 6th of September, 
approximately about that time. 
Q. That is a month? 
A. I think that is about the time. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. What is your occupation? 
A. Attorney at law. 
Q. Where are you practicing law? 
A. In Carlisle, Cumberland County. 
Q. You sailed from this country on what steamer? 
A. We sailed on the Manitoba from Newport News. 
Q. When did it leave? 
A. On the 5th of August, I think-on or about that time. 
Q. Have you any knowledge or information in regard to the meat that was carried 
by that vessel, say the refrigerated meat? Give any information that you have on 
the subject of that refrigerated beef from the time that you arrived there, the loading 
of the same or otherwise, the trip over, and the arrival there, as far as you have any 
knowledge or information on the subject? 
A. At the time we arrived at Newport News and the Manitoba was being loaded, I 
was detailed for mounted orderly duty to Captain Castleman, of the First Kentucky, 
I think, if I am not mistaken, who was in command of the Manitoba. I was at the wharf 
at the time they were loading this meat. There was some objection made to putting 
the meat upon the vessel. Some of the officers in the Army objected. What their rank 
was, or what authority they had for objecting, I don't know, but they claimed that 
the meat was not fit to put upon there; that it was undersize, and that it was not in 
condition to stand a voyage of that kind. But I think the objections were overcome 
by the fact that the Manitoba had good refrigerating facilities, and they claimed that the 
meat would not spoil any more than what it had already been spoiled by being exposed 
to the sun, and it was loaded. That would be about my knowledge of the refrigerated 
beef. 
Q. You speak of the beef being undersized. How was your attention called to 
that? 1580 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. My attention was called to that by a sergeant from a New York regiment, who 
was acting as a quartermaster-sergeant. I don't just recall his name or what regi- 
ment he was with, but he was detailed witn Colonel Castleman. He called my 
attention to that, and compared it with some other meat that I think went down on 
the Hudson, if I am not mistaken, with the Kentucky men, who sailed, I think, a 
day or two before we did. 
Q. Do you know anything about the refrigerator, or any alleged difficulties in con- 
nection with it, before your starting? Did you hear anything about that? 
A. I heard something, but just what it was I can't recall to mind now accurately; 
but there was some trouble, I believe, at that time, in connection with the loading 
of the beef. 
Q. On the way over did you have anything to do with the refrigerated beef? 
Were any facts brought to your knowledge in connection with it on the way to 
Ponce? 
A. No. I don't think that beef was issued after it was put in the refrigerator. I 
don't think it was issued to the men at all-at least, not to my knowledge. 
Q. What meats had you on the way over? 
A. On the way over we had corned beef and the roast beef, so called-canned roast 
beef. 
Q. Can you state to the court what experience you had, if any, in regard to the 
canned roast beef? Go on, in a narrative form, and state all there is about it that you 
know in regard to your own personal experience, or what came under your observa- 
tion as a matter of general information, stating the circumstances. 
A. My personal experience would not differ at all from the experience of Sergeant 
Springer, as we were closely connected all during the campaign. I found the canned 
roast beef exactly as he described it. A large majority of it had to be destroyed. 
There was no nutriment in it at all. The men could not eat it. It was repulsive to 
the sight, it was obnoxious to the smell and taste, and it was totally devoid of any 
nutrition as far as I could find. I don't think there was any nutriment in it at all, 
and it was a cause of sickness, I believe, among the men in the troop. Of course, 
going down on the Manitoba we were not confined as closely to the eating of this ration 
as we were later on, coming back on the Mississippi. In Ponce, or while in Porto 
Rico, my experience with the beef was very limited. I ate very little of it. I saw 
quite a number of the cans, and saw the decomposed condition of a part of it; and I 
think that Sergeant Springer's estimate of one-third being spoiled and of one-half 
being probably unfit for use, is a very conservative estimate; but I ate very little of 
it there, and I don't think a great deal of it was eaten by the men of our command 
at all. We were in a position where we could procure rations for ourselves, the 
majority of the men being in a position where they could buy whatever they needed 
to eat. 
Q. They had means of their own? 
A. Certainly; they had means of their own. We purchased a great deal of food 
for ourselves, and of course did not miss the roast beef so much. We did not mind 
the fact that the roast beef was not fit to eat, but in coming back on the Mississippi 
we were unable to bring aboard anything, and we had to depend entirely on the 
issue of the army ration. When we were aboard the Mississippi there were none of 
our men on the sick list. They all reported for duty, and I think were all in good 
physical condition. We subsisted chiefly, as far as meat was concerned, on canned 
roast beef and an issue for one or two days of this refrigerated beef, which was 
absolutely rotten and became so obnoxious that it had to be thrown overboard the 
second day out, I think. That had been made into a soup, and I had had the same 
experience with that that Sergeant Springer had in finding the bottom of the barrel 
covered with ■worms, after we had consumed a portion of the soup. The men then, 
of course, had to subsist on the army rations on the Mississippi, as they could not FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1581 
get anything else. When we landed in New York and went to Harrisburg, 19 men 
went down with typhoid fever. I don't know of a man in the command-and I had 
occasion to correspond with a large number of them shortly after we were given a 
sixty days' furlough-that was not troubled with a chronic diarrhea. Some of the 
men have not recovered fully from it yet. I myself had it for a period of about six 
weeks, and am still subject to it now unless I take exceptional care of myself in the 
manner of eating, and I attribute it to nothing else but the conditions of the rations 
at the time on board the Mississippi-the condition of the meat. 
Q. The condition of what ration? 
A. The condition of the meat ration. 
Q. What meat ration? 
A. The canned roast beef. I don't think the refrigerated beef hurt anyone, 
because I don't think anyone could eat very much of it. I didn't see any of it 
eaten but what was cut down. It came up from the hold with a green slime, or 
rather a white mold, on it. It was covered, of course, with canvas, and it was cut- 
trimmed down 2 or 3 inches to take off the absolutely rotten part. We would 
cut down to a solid meat. That was cut and roasted, and then was sliced up and 
was distributed among the men. It was put in a large tin pan, and the men would 
help themselves. They would pick around in it, and if they could find a piece they 
could eat, they tried to eat it by covering it with salt and pepper; but I saw very 
little of it eaten. It was not in condition to eat; and the hands and arms of the 
cooks, in handling this meat and trimming it, were scratched and cut, and became 
so swollen through the virus in this meat that they became unable to perform any 
duties. 
Q. Where was that; on the Mississippi? 
A. On the Mississippi, coming home, in trimming this refrigerated beef when we 
went aboard the ship. The reason I can testify to that is this: I gave the cook, an 
Englishman, a $5 gold piece, the last one I had, to supply us with rations until we 
got to New York. He was put to the task of trimming down this meat, and his 
arms became so swollen that he could not be about the kitchen at all, and conse- 
quently we were out our rations. 
Q. Did you have any other components of the meat ration or any substitute for it 
on the way over or on the way back? 
A. We had nothing. That was the unfortunate part about it. We had nothing 
to substitute. 
Q. Did you have anything going down or back in the nature of fish or salmon? 
A. We had canned salmon. I do not know whether I can enumerate the ration 
properly or not. I think it consisted of salmon, beans, coffee, canned roast beef, 
some corned roast beef, and fresh beef. 
Q. And what? 
A. And the refrigerated beef, beans, coffee, hardtack and salmon. Of those I did 
not hear any complaint, nor had I any reason to make any complaint at all, except 
as to the limited amount that was issued. 
Q. That seemed to be satisfactory? 
A. Yes; I think that was very satisfactory. I don't think the men had any com- 
plaint to make of that at all, other than that the issue was too small. Probably the 
issue would have been enough if the meat had been satisfactory. 
Q. State whether or not the men, in returning, in consequence of this condition, 
were hungry in any way, or suffered in any way for food? 
A. Yes; the men did. I know of one man that went down, who had the typhoid 
fever after the return. It took us six or seven days-I am not sure now how long it 
took us-to come back; but for three days we subsisted on absolutely nothing but 
hardtack and coffee. That is Mr. Crossman, a member of our troop. He is secre- 
tary and treasurer of the Erie Bell Telephone Company, I think. 1582 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Did you try making soups or stews of the canned roast beef, in any way? 
A. We could not do that on board the vessel. We hadn't the facilities. They 
had to do their cooking by steamer, if I mistake not, and they only had a certain 
length of time to cook the coffee, and they could not make anything like soups or 
anything. 
Q. Did you try using it in that way when you were in Ponce? 
A. Yes; it was used that way when we were in Ponce. 
Q. With what results? 
A. With indifferent results. The men didn't like it, and they soon tired of it. 
They could eat the soup for one or two issues; but it was like anything else that 
doesn't have any nutriment in it. Your stomach soon revolts from taking it, and it 
isn't of any benefit to your stomach, and you soon become very tired of it, of 
course. 
Q. Did you make any inquiry, or have any information in regard to this meat that 
was on the Mississippi? 
A. I did. I asked the cook there, and he told me it had been loaded aboard the 
Mississippi, taken to Santiago, and there they had run out of ice, and it had been 
brought over to Porto Rico, from there to be issued to the troops going home, as 
fresh beef; but I heard that contradicted from a better authority not so very long 
ago, who said it was the same roast beef issued on the Mississippi that they took 
down in the Manitoba 
The Recorder: May it please the court, can this witness be restricted to the facts 
that he has observed of his own knowledge. He is actually now weighing opinions 
and statements made to him nearly a year ago. 
Major Lee. Of course it is in the nature of information that has been obtained by 
the witness, who served there, and who made inquiries. It was a matter of general 
information, perhaps, and he made these inquiries, and should be allowed, it seems 
to me, to state them for what they are worth. The matter of information that has 
come in the shape of opinions has been, I might say, absolutely unrestricted. I 
wanted to know whether he had any knowledge or information as to what was said 
in regard to this beef, where it came from, and so forth. He has stated that it was 
on the Mississippi. I want to ask him the question in regard to the general infor- 
mation. He said he had secured information from the cook, and that subsequently 
that was contradicted. Let that go for what it is worth. I do not care to branch 
out into the first, second, and third classes of hearsay. I do not insist upon the 
matter. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. If there are any other facts within your knowledge, or within your informa- 
tion, with regard to the canned roast beef or refrigerated beef, so-called, or canned 
roast beef, so-called, I wish you would state to the court all you know about it, as 
though you were specially questioned with reference thereto? 
A. I think I have given the court all the information I can give on the question of 
the beef. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. You speak about putting this refrigerated beef on the steamer at Newport 
News and its exposure to the sun. What was that exposure? 
A. I don't know how long the exposure to the sun had continued prior to my 
being detailed there, but it was there at the time I went there in the morning and 
was exposed there until I left in the evening. 
Q. What do you mean by exposure? Do you mean left out in the open for the 
sun to beat on it? 
A. It was in halves and sewed up in canvas. It was lying on the wharf. Whether 
the sun struck it directly or not, I don't know; but it was not in cold storage, by any 
means. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1583 
Q. Do you mean that it was taken out of the car and laid upon the wharf, and 
that it laid there all day? 
A. I don't know how it came there, at all. I know it was there when I went 
there. They were loading it all that day, or had started in about dinner time. 
Q. Let me understand exactly what you saw. Where was this meat taken? Was 
it taken from the wharf and put into the steamer? 
A. It was taken from the wharf and put into the steamer. 
Q. Did you stand there and see the operation? 
A. I saw some of it; yes, sir. 
Q. What portion of the operations did you see? 
A. I saw a great deal of it loaded. Of course I was not there all the time. I was 
detailed as mounted orderly, and was sent back to camp several times with orders to 
the different captains of the different organizations that were to go aboard the Mani- 
toba. I was sent up to General Grant's headquarters several times, but with the 
exception of probably being away for two or three hours in the whole day, I believe 
that I was there the most of the time. 
Q. How close to the steamer did the cars go? 
A. That is a covered warehouse down there, and they ran the cars up very close. 
Q. How far from the car was the point where you saw this meat stored? 
A. I don't think it was stored there at all. 
Q. I mean laid on the wharf. 
A. From the cars? 
Q. Yes. 
A. You know there is a series of car tracks there; and from the first track, I should 
imagine, was not more than probably twice the length of this room from the first 
car track; but there were a number of car tracks running parallel one with the other 
through the building. 
Q. How long did this loading take? 
A. They were loading that beef, I guess, the better part of the afternoon. I was 
detailed down there about 10 o'clock. 
Q. Was the whole of the meat loaded during the day? 
A. That I am not able to answer. I don't know. 
By General Davis: 
Q. How early in the morning did you see any of that meat lying on the wharf?, 
A. I don't think I got there before 10 o'clock. 
Q. It was lying there then? 
A. Yes; it was there then. 
Q. How late in the day did you see it lying there? 
A. I stayed there until about half past 4. Of course they were loading it in the 
meantime. 
Q. Were they taking meat out of cars at the same time they were putting it in the 
ship? 
A. I can't answer that. I don't know whether they were or not. They were not 
taking out any meat right in that vicinity, I don't think. 
Q. You did not see any come out of the cars, but you saw the meat go on the 
ship? 
A. I saw the meat go in the ship, yes; and I saw it piled on the wharf. 
Q. How large a quantity was there lying on the wharf when you first saw it? 
A. I couldn't say; I am no judge of the quantity of meat. 
Q. A carload, or ten carloads, or half a carload? 
A. I don't know. There was quite a pile of it there. 
Q. You certainly can form some impression as to the bulk. 
A. I should judge that there was probably a carload of it there, or two carloads 
of it. 1584 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. You saw them taking from the pile, but you did not see the pile added to? 
A. Yes; that was where they piled it. That was where the meat was piled, and 
it was loaded; but how that pile was replenished or whether they were bringing it 
directly from the car or not I don't know. 
Q. Did you see any of the beef from which this offensive soup was made come up 
from the hold of the vessel? 
A. Yes; it was brought up from the hold right in front of all the men. 
Q. You saw it when it came up? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was it still covered with canvas or muslin or something? 
A. Yes; it was covered with canvas. 
Q. You saw the canvas taken off? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Was the meat cold, as if it had come out of cold storage? 
A. I don't know; I didn't handle any of the meat. I didn't touch it. 1 couldn't 
judge by seeing it whether it was cold. I didn't touch it at all. I hadn't any occa- 
sion to. 
Q. This previous witness testifies that in one tin cup full of soup that he dipped 
up, in the bottom there was half an inch deep of worms. 
A. I shouldn't doubt that at all. 
Q. That agrees with your experience, does it, or your observation? 
A. With my observation; yes. Such a thing would be perfectly possible. 
Q. Was the barrel nearly empty or nearly full? 
A. The barrel was probably that much [indicating] when some of the men went 
there; and after they found there was worms in it they went there and stirred it. 
Q. Suppose there was half an inch of worms in the bottom of the tin cup. I sup- 
pose that would be a hundred or two worms? 
A. I haven't any idea of anything like that. I don't know whether there would 
be or not. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I would like to ask you in regard to this meat you saw on the wharf. You 
saw quite a large pile of meat there about 10 o'clock?. 
A. Yes. 
,Q. Your attention was not called to it particularly, was it? 
A. No; my attention was not called to it any more than I know there was some 
discussion going on between Colonel Castleman and some other officer as to the load- 
ing of this meat. There was some dispute. What it was I don't know. I hadn't 
any opportunity of finding out. 
Q. Then off and on during the day you were back there? 
A. Backwards and forwards all day. 
Q. You still observed this meat? You would observe casually as you would go by 
that there was a pile of meat there? 
A. Yes; the way I observed it was the manner of loading it. I never saw them 
load meat that way before, and it was interesting to watch the different details of 
loading the ship. 
Q. When was it you left there? 
A. I left there, I guess, about half past 4. 
Q. Was there any meat on the wharf there then or not? 
A. My impression is there was meat there, although I am not positive about that. 
I wouldn't be positive about it. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Who told you the refrigerating apparatus was out of order? 
A. That was just a remark that was used in the discussion. Of course I was right 
there. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1585 
Q. Who used it? 
A. That I can't say. I can't say whether it was said by Colonel Castleman. 
I can't recall whether it was said by the parties to whom he was talking. I was not 
particularly interested in the discussion in any way. 
Q. How long did it remain out of order, if you know? 
A. I don't know that it was out of order. 
Q. Do you know anything about it at all? 
A. I didn't say I did. I said I had heard the remark that it was out of order and 
that there was a discussion about taking this meat aboard. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Frank. 
Alexander Frank was called as a witness by the recorder and, being duly sworn, 
testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. State your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. Alexander Frank; Cincinnati, Ohio; occupation, traveling salesman. 
Q. Were you in the military service of the United States during die war last 
summer? 
A. Yes, sir; I was. 
Q. To what organization were you attached? 
A. To the First Ohio Infantry. 
Q. In what capacity? 
A. As first lieutenant and acting commissary of subsistence. 
Q. Of the regiment? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Where did that organization serve? 
A. It never left the United States. It went to Tampa. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. When did you go to Tampa, and from where? 
A. We arrived at Tampa on the 3d of July. We left Chickamauga Park on the 
1st of June, 1898, and went to Tampa. 
Q. You left Tampa when? 
A. We left Chickamauga Park and arrived at Tampa, Fla., on the 3d of June. 
Q. Where were you encamped at Tampa? What were your stations in that vicinity? 
A. We were encamped at Port Tampa City. 
Q. How long did you remain there with the regiment? 
A. We remained there from the 3d of June until the 29th of July. 
Q. I wish you would please state to the court, as commissary of your regiment, all 
information that you have in regard to the meat supply, notably of refrigerated or 
other fresh meat that was supplied you, and by whom. Please state how you got 
your meat supply. 
A. I drew my meat supply from the depot commissaries in several places. 
Q. I mean at Tampa? 
A. At Tampa I drew my meat supply from Armour & Co. 
Q. Direct? 
A. Direct; yes, sir. 
Q. Do you know the agent of the company? 
A. The agent's name was Edwards, I think, but I never came in contact with him. 
Q. Did you ever come in contact with another agent? 
A. Yes, sir; with a clerk, I think they called him. 
Q. What was his name? 
TESTIMONY OF ALEXANDER FRANK. 
S. Doc. 270 100 1586 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
A. His name was Moorhouse. 
Q. Did he seem tn be in charge, to a certain extent, of the delivery of meat? 
A. Yes; whenever I would make a complaint in regard to meat, he would be the 
one to come down and settle it up-fix it up. 
Q. I wish you would go on and state to the court in narrative form your experi- 
ence with the meat down there, in regard to its quality, and any other facts that are 
pertinent to the matter under investigation-in regard to the refrigerated beef or 
fresh beef that you received from that company or any other source? 
A. At Chickamauga Park we were given an issue of canned beef, both roast and 
corned. The roast beef was issued in 2-pound cans and the corned beef in 
1-pound cans. There were 12 cans of roast beef to a box and 24 1-pound cans 
of corned beef. The men used the roast beef as a travel ration from Chicka- 
mauga to Tampa. There was a three-days' travel ration issued, but there was 
only half of it left when we reached Tampa. After arriving at Tampa, I think it 
was the second or third day, we had not received any issue of beef. We had 
received a seven-days' field ration in connection with this travel ration at Chicka- 
mauga. We arrived at Tampa, and the men had received no fresh beef; and, in one 
instance, two or three days after the regiment arrived there and had pitched camp, 
one of the companies fixed up some of this canned beef for supper one evening and 
were making a hash of it, I think, and it was shortly after that the first sick call-I 
can remember it as if it was yesterday-the first sick call was blown, and I made a 
remark about it in the company. The hospital call was kept busy there for fifteen 
or twenty minutes. They took 15 men, I think, from that company in all to 
the hospital, and of those it was said they had suffered from poison from eating that 
canned beef. 
Q. What canned beef? 
A. Canned beef. I don't know which it was, hut it was made up in a hash. It 
was canned beef that had been issued to them as a travel ration from Chickamauga 
to Tampa, which they had left over. 
Q. Do you know whether it was canned roast or canned corned beef ? 
A. I couldn't say. I am inclined to think it was the corned beef. 
Q. You are not positive of that? 
A. I am not positive of that, because they had both kinds, you know. I couldn't 
tell whether they ate the roast beef or not on the way down. The reason I bring 
that in is because of that sick call. I can remember making the remark at the time 
that it was the first sick call I had heard for a good while. This company was Com- 
pany A of the First Ohio Infantry. I met one of the men not long ago and he said 
he had never got over the effects of it. 
Q. Do you recall his name and address? 
A. Yes, sir; I know his name, but his local address I do not recall. I don't know 
where he lives. His name is Frank James. I remember he acted as barber for the 
regiment, and we had been after him several times but found he was in the hospital. 
He was a member of Company A, First Ohio Infantry. 
Q. You drew your fresh beef then from Armour's agent there. What kind of 
beef was it? Was it refrigerated beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How did you draw it? Was it sent down to you in quarters or boxes, or in 
w'hat way? 
A. The first time we drew it, we drew it from a man named Warner, who acted 
as agent at Port Tampa City for Armour. I think it was on the 1st of June, ten days 
after we arrived there, that we drew our first issue of fresh beef; and from the 13th 
of June, I think it was, until the 1st of July, we drew our beef from Warner as 
Armour's agent. We had very little or no trouble with that; but shortly before the 
1st of July there was an order issued by the commander of our brigade, I think Gen- FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1587 
eral Hall, that the contracts had been made and that the commissaries would draw 
it from the agents direct. 
Q. What Hall was that; an officer of the regular arm? 
A. General Hall. He was ex-colonel of the Fourth Infantry. The Government 
had notified us previous to that that we would be allowed to contract for fresh beef 
on our own hook for several regiments, and from the 13th of June until the 1st of 
July we paid 13 cents a pound to this agent for beef. 
Q. Thirteen cents? 
A. Yes, sir; but after the 1st of July, the contract had been given to Armour to 
furnish us at Tampa; and several other firms, to furnish beef thereabouts; but at any 
rate we drew our beef from Armour; and after we had some dispute with the agent 
at Port Tampa City, they seemed to send the beef overland from Tampa for Tampa 
City, which is about 9 miles. 
Q. They sent it overland? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How did they send it? 
A. In wagons. 
Q. Instead of by rail? 
A. Yes, sir. They would leave Tampa early in the morning, or at any rate would 
arrive at our place at about half past 7 in the morning. From the first time we 
received that beef until the time we left Port Tampa for Fernandina, we had to trim 
that beef all the way from 50 to 150 pounds each day. It would be tainted. 
Q. For the regiment? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. A loss of that much? 
A. A loss of that much every day; from 50 to 150 pounds. I think once it ran to 
250 pounds. 
Q. What was done about it; what action was taken; what representations did 
you make? 
A. I sent that beef back several times, and at last this person came down to see 
me and wanted to know why it was that I trimmed the beef every day. He wanted 
to know whether I wanted all good beef or beef without bones, and remarks to that 
effect. 
Q. What clerk was that? 
A. It was Mr. Moorhouse. He started to getting pretty warm, and I told him I 
wanted good meat. I said I didn't expect to get meat without bones, or anything 
to that effect, but I said the Government, had paid for good beef and I expected to 
get it-every pound that was paid for I expected to get good beef, not tainted beef; 
and I kept on in the same way. The beef didn't get any better. Once in a while I 
would keep all the beef; it would be good just after a kick, or something of that 
sort, but in several days it would drop again. He came down once and told me that 
I had quite a bad reputation among them, and that I was the only man among all 
the regiments in Tampa, of which there were twenty-five or thirty, that had made a 
kick against their beef. He said: "You can't expect to have beef kept in a climate 
like that as you would up at your home, at a time like this." I told him I didn't 
care how the beef was kept, or anything to that effect; that all I wanted was good 
beef; that as long as they gave me good beef there would be no trouble, but I 
wouldn't feed that beef to the regiment. One or two days I rejected all the beef 
that was sent me and let the regiment go without it, for the simple reason that it 
was bad and I wouldn't feed it to them. I had with me a man of twelve years' 
experience in the butcher business to cut my meat, and if he said it was bad, and if 
the surgeon of the regiment said it was bad, I sent it back. I wouldn't feed it to 
them. 
Q. Did you notice anything about the meat in these inspections or investigations, 
or as a matter of general information, particularly? 1588 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. No, sir; I did not. I didn't notice anything about the beef, only that when it 
did get tainted in a slight way it would have a peculiar smell, a sour, peculiar odor 
about it. It wasn't like decayed meat exactly. I have often smelled decayed meat, 
but at the time I didn't recognize that it was decayed in any way, shape, or form. 
It only seemed slightly tainted, but at the same time it had a peculiar odor to it. 
Q. Did Mr. Moorhouse have any conversation with you or speak to you in connec- 
tion with this as though it had to be taken care of in some particular way-this l>eef? 
A. No; the only remark that I can remember is that he said that ice wouldn't 
keep meat in the tropics like it would up where we lived 
Q. That ice would not? 
A. Yes. 
Q. How did he say it would keep? 
A. He didn't say. 
Q. Was that after a contention with him in regard to the beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you ask him anything about ice being sent with the beef down there? 
Had they sent any ice with the beef? 
A. No, sir; they did not. They put the beef right on the wagon-covered wagons 
at that-in burlap, and shipped it down overland; and by the time they got there 
the sun was pretty warm, at half past 7 in the morning. Sometimes it would not 
come there until 9 or 10 o'clock. That was very seldom, though. 
Q. Did you suggest to him that it would be well to send it in ice boxes or anything 
of that kind? Did you have any conversations as to how it could be brought there 
in better condition? 
A. I saw him several times, and I told him he ought to have a lump or two of ice 
on the beef to keep it better. He said the ice wouldn't last. 
Q. From Tampa where did you go ? 
A. To Fernandina, Fla. 
Q. Did you have any experience with the beef there ? 
A. I had very little trouble there, because they took it right out of the cars before 
daylight in the morning and cut it up, and we had it cooked pretty near before day- 
light. At half past 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning we would cut the beef. 
Q. Were any travel rations issued to you at Tampa City; if so, what? 
A. There were thirty or thirty-five days' travel ration issued to me. I can tell you 
in a second. 
Q. Look at your papers or memorandum, if you have any. 
A. No; it was fifteen days' travel rations. 
Q. What record is that you have? 
A. This is a copy of all boards of survey that I had in my department during my 
term. 
Q. You may refresh your memory, if you wish, and submit the record to the 
inspection of the court, if it so desires, in regard to the travel rations, and tell all 
you know in regard to them. 
A. These were fifteen days' travel rations that were issued to me shortly after our 
arrival at Tampa. We received fifteen days' travel rations and thirty days' field 
rations, expecting to go across to Cuba. 
Q. How much of that, if any, was canned beef or canned roast beef? 
A. There were in the neighborhood of 12,000 pounds. I could not give you the 
exact figures here, but I have just what was condemned. 
Q. What kind of meat was that? 
A. It was canned beef. 
Q. What kind of canned beef? 
A. Both roast and corned. 
Q. Do you know in about what proportion? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1589 
A. The roast beef was issued in two-pound cans, and the corned beef was issued in 
one-pound cans. 
Q. Do you mean about the proportion of two to one? 
A. It was one-third. 
Q. Two-thirds of roast beef and one-third of corned beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Will you state what disposition was made of it and why, and what was done 
and by whose order? Have you any record there of it? 
A. Yes, I have a record here of the board of survey-the meeting of the board of 
survey, the several exhibits shown to them and their final statement or final report 
of condemnation. The following is a list of the remainder of fifteen days' travel 
rations issued to the First Ohio Infantry, United States Volunteers, during June and 
July, 1898: 10,956 pounds of canned beef, 12,410 pounds of hard bread, 1,810 cans 
of baked beans, 500 cans of baked beans No. 3, 600 cans of baked beans No. 1, 4,445 
cans of tomatoes No. 3, 2,636 cans of tomatoes No. 2. 
Q. Refresh your memory from the decision of the board, and state where the 
canned roast beef or canned beef came from. 
A. I couldn't say. The beef was somewhat mixed. There were several firms 
that furnished that beef. I think Armour furnished, some, Swift furnished some, 
and Cudahy, if I am not mistaken, furnished some. There may have been others. 
Q. You have no positive recollection as to the brands? 
A. No, sir; I remember the roast beef was furnished by Armour-Armour's roast 
beef. I noticed that on there. 
Q. What was the matter with this canned roast beef-state from that if you can 
refresh your memory-as long as you were responsible for it, and it was turned over 
to you? 
A. A good many of the cans had bursted and spread maggots all over the box. It 
had a bad odor to it, and in a general way was bad. 
Q. Who invoiced that meat to you? 
A. Mr. Bright, I think his name was, depot commissary at Tampa. 
Q. About what proportion of the quantity received was so condemned of the 
canned meat? You say you drew fifteen days' travel rations. What proportion of 
that was condemned, if you know; a half, a third, two-thirds, or all of it? 
A. Out of 12,000 or 13,000 pounds there was pretty near 11,000 pounds condemned. 
Q. Nearly 11,000 pounds? 
A. Yes, sir; 10,956 pounds, I think it is. 
Q. Who approved the findings of that board? 
A. General Hall. 
Q. Have you got the proceedings copied in full there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Have you got an extra copy of the proceedings in your papers? 
A. Yes, sir; everything is copied. 
Q. 1 say have you an extra copy aside from that? 
A. No, sir; I have not. 
Major Lee. Does the court desire to inspect the record? 
The Witness. "This is to certify that the travel rations condemned by the board 
of survey"-Colonel Hunt approved it; I will take that statement back about Gen- 
eral Hall-"were ordered buried by me, under direction of the brigade commander." 
Q. Who was the brigade commander? 
A. General Hall. "C. B. Hunt, colonel First Ohio Infantry, commanding regi- 
ment." 
Major Lee: I submit that to the court, if the court desires to see it. 
By Major Lee. 
Q. That was before you proceeded to Fernandina? 1590 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That travel ration, you say. was furnished with a view-to your going out of 
the country? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was it replaced? 
A. No, sir; we never left the country. 
Q. Was this ration replaced, to your knowledge? Does your report show on 
whom the responsibility was fixed? 
A. It relieves me of all responsibility. It did not fix any responsibility, I think. 
Q. It simply found it bad? 
A. It simply found it bad and recommended that it be buried-put out of the 
way. 
Q. On whose order was it buried? 
A. It was buried by order of the commanding officer of our regiment, Colonel 
Hunt. 
Q. And approved by whom? 
A. General Hall. 
Q. You had no information as to where that beef had been shipped from, had 
you? There were no marks or indication on the boxes showing where it came from, 
were there? 
A. That I don't remember. 
Q. Do the proceedings show it? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Mr. Frank, if there are any other facts in connection with the refrigerated beef 
or canned beef that you have not testified to, I wish you would state them just as 
fully as though you had been questioned with regard to it. All during your service, 
when you started from home, what kind of rations had you, (tanned roast beef or 
something else? 
A. We had canned beef; but the majority of that canned beef, as I found out later, 
was not eaten. The men mostly threw it to the darkies coming out. They supplied 
themselves with most of their edibles except coffee, which was furnished to them; 
but otherwise they ate little or none of the canned beef. 
Q. Was that canned roast beef ? 
A. Canned roast beef; yes. 
Q. If there are any other facts within your knowledge that you have not stated, I 
wish you would state them fully. 
A. At one time after we left Fernandina we were transferred to the Seventh Army 
Corps, at Jacksonville, and I had trouble there with the beef at one time and threat- 
ened the agents of Armour & Co. that I would protest to the War Department against 
the payment of so much beef if it was not fixed up. 
Q. What was that trouble? Detail it. 
A. I generally went to the cars myself to draw that beef, and I took my weights 
with me-my scale-and I would often find a shrinkage of the beef, which they 
would not allow me if I was not there to see that it was weighed. They had tags on 
the beef issued at Chicago. 
Q. They wanted to issue that according to the tags? 
A. Yes, sir; it was issued at Chicago, and there was from 5 to 8 per cent shrinkage; 
and I would often be from 150 to 200 pounds short of beef a day out of 900 or 1,000 
pounds. I would take a scale to the car. On this morning I was not fit for service. 
I was sick. I sent my butcher with several men as a detail with the scale to weigh 
that beef. They wouldn't allow them to weigh it. I found that morning there was 
between 75 and 100 pounds shrinkage or shortage on the beef, and besides there was 
a quarter of beef that weighed over 200 pounds that was unfit for use. It was no 
good. It was black when it got to camp, and had an awful smell to it. I immedi- FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1591 
ately issued the beef that was good and wT rote a slip of the shortage and of the bad 
beef, and sent the bad beef back to Jacksonville. He refused to accept it, saying 
that the beef was good when it came out of the car and I would have to take it that 
way. The beef had not been out of the car half an hour when I started to issue it, 
and I thought the beef was tainted very quickly at that. So it went back to Jack- 
sonville, and the agent told the man that he would not exchange it after it was taken 
out of the car, and he would not allow any shrinkage. The man brought the beef 
all the way back to camp. I wrote the agent a letter and sent it down specially 
with a man, and told him that unless that beef was fixed up, the shrinkage and the 
bad beef, I would protest against the payment of that issue of the beef. It was after- 
wards fixed up, but he came up to camp that day 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. What do you mean by "fixed up?" 
A. The shortage was given me and the bad beef was exchanged, but he came up 
to camp that day and asked me what I meant by that letter. I told him I meant 
just what I said; that I protested against the payment for the beef and he said he 
had received a letter from the agent at Tampa in regard to me being a hard man to 
please; that they would have lots of trouble with me down there. I simply told 
him that all I wanted was what was good and right and they would have no trouble 
with me, but as long as they gave me bad stuff I would get good stuff for it or know 
the reason why. 
Q. Who was this agent? 
A. A man named Herndon. 
Q. At Jacksonville? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What time was that? 
A. That was in the early part of September. We didn't get into Jacksonville 
until the 1st of September. 
Q. Was there any other agent there that you remember? Did you see a young- 
looking man there? 
A. A stout man? 
Q. No; 1 think not. 
A. I couldn't tell you his name, but I would recall it if I heard it. 
Q. Any man there named Getts, or Gants, or some such name? 
A. I don't remember that name. Mr. Herndon was the one I refer to. 
Q. What position had he? Was he the issuing agent? 
A. I think he was general agent at Jacksonville. 
Q. Did you have any further complications or bother with the beef contractors? 
A. No, sir. From that time on I managed to get down to the cars and see that I 
had good beef. I always took a knife with me to the cars and ran the knife away 
into the joints of the beef to smell it before I took it out of the car. 
Q. Were any other efforts made to issue beef according to marked weights? 
A. Yes, sir; there were plenty of them. I remember one Sunday morning I was 
down there, just before wre left Jacksonville, when a member of a. division hospital 
corps drew his beef. He took it according to the tag. I made the remark about it 
to a butcher who was with me; not that alone, but he trimmed it in the car. They 
trimmed it off for him. He asked them to trim off some dark places for him, and 
he put it in his wagon and hauled it off according to the tag-besides the trimmings. 
Q. Are there any other facts in connection with this matter that you have not 
stated? 
A. No; only in one case I drew from the depot commissary at Fernandina ten 
days' rations of bacon, I believe it was, and of that there were 2,419 and some odd 
pounds condemned as being full of worms and maggots. 
Q. Was that replaced? 1592 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I am referring more particularly now to canned beef and refrigerated beef. 
A. Refrigerated beef; yes. 
Q. I refer to fresh beef more particularly. The other matters are hardly within 
the scope of the inquiry of the court. I believe that is all. 
Cross-examination by the Recorder: 
Q. Were you present when the board of survey made an examination of those 
travel rations? 
A. Yes, sir. . 
Q. In what did the examination consist? 
A. In the first place, we had five men detailed to open up every box that was 
there. The board and myself were there to look into every box and see the swelled 
cans, and where they found a can that was not swelled, occasionally they would 
open it and find it bad. 
Q. That was not swelled? 
A. Yes, sir; they would just occasionally pick up a box and open it, and see what 
was in it-see how it looked. 
Q. The swelled ones were b^d? 
A. The swelled ones were bad. 
Q. And they opened those which were not swelled, and they were bad? 
A. We would pick up some casually, you know, and they would be bad. 
Q. How many cans were submitted to the board? 
A. Every box in the whole lot was opened-every box. 
Q. How many altogether? Were any good cans found in the lot? 
A. Very few. 
Q. How many, should you say? 
A. I couldn't exactly state; but the board, on recommendation-not alone on 
examination, but on recommendation of the depot commissary at Fernandina, who 
would not accept them-ordered me to return them to him and he would not accept 
them; he had special orders to the division commissary to that effect, Major Gar- 
nett, I think was his name, not to accept any travel rations that had been carried 
from Tampa. That referred to my special case, and he had recommended that the 
whole lot be destroyed, because he had been present at the most of that examination. 
Q. What other canned things were examined by the board? 
A. Tomatoes. 
Q. That list that you read? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. All those were condemned? 
A. All those were condemned. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, there are no other witnesses to-day. 
The court then (at 4.25 p. m.) adjourned until Wednesday, April 12, 1899, at 10 
o'clock a. m. 
George B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, 
Washington, D. C., Wednesday, April 12, 1899. 
The court met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Present also: Major Lee and the reporter. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
General Arnold, of the United States Volunteers. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1593 
TESTIMONY OF BRIG. GEN. AARON K. ARNOLD, U. S. V. 
Brig. G.en. Aaron K. Arnold, U. S. V., was called by the recorder as a witness, 
and, having been duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name and rank in the military service. 
A. Aaron K. Arnold; brigadier-general United States Volunteers; colonel First 
Cavalry. 
Q. What command did you exercise under your commission in July and August of 
last year? 
A. Division commander, commanding the Second Division of the Seventh Army 
Corps. 
Q. Where was your command stationed? 
A. At Jacksonville, Fla. 
Q. How long did you command that division? 
A. I commanded that division from its formation, on May 27, or 28, I think, 1898, 
and remained with it until the latter part of October, when we came to Savannah. 
Q. And where was it stationed during that time? 
A. In the vicinity of Jacksonville, Fla. 
Q. Please state to the court, in narrative form, what observations you made, as 
division commander, in respect to the quality and quantity of the food supply that 
was furnished your division, with a view to secure wholesome food and its proper 
preparation for the troops. 
A. At the commencement of the formation of the division, when the troops were 
coming in, they were supplied fairly well with everything constituting the ration. 
There were times when the potatoes were not good, the onions were not good, and 
the bacon-that is my own personal observation with regard to those things. And, 
during the summer, at times, the beef which we got was not good; that is, complaint 
would be made from a company that the men had received their beef and it was 
tainted. 
Q. What action was taken about it? 
A. First, boards of survey were called; and it took so long to get the action through 
that they concluded to exchange the beef for good beef at once. 
Q. Did you make it a practice to visit the kitchen, to pass through the camps? 
A. I did, very often. 
Q. Please state to the court what your observations were in reference to the food 
supply. 
A. Generally speaking, the rations being cooked were good; and once in a great 
while we would perhaps come across complaints about the beef being tainted. 
Q. How often was the quality of the beef represented to you? 
A. Well, sometimes it would run a week or more without any complaints; then 
again it would be two or three days. Here and there one company would complain, 
or another. 
Q. Were the complaints extensive? 
A. No, not extensive at all. 
Q. Had you an inspector on your staff? 
A. I had an inspector, yes, sir. 
Q. And a medical officer? 
A. A medical officer and an inspector. 
Q. What special instructions, if any, were given to those officers, in reference to 
an examination of the food supply and cooking? 
A. The inspector, going his rounds daily, was to look into the kitchen and see that 
everything was in proper shape, note any deterioration in the rations, or anything of 1594 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
that kind, and report it. My division commissary had orders to be always present 
in drawing rations, and particularly to look after the beef. 
Q. And the chief medical officer? 
A. It was the medical officer's general duty to look after the beef, to look after the 
rations, the cleanliness of the camp, etc. 
Q. Did either or any of these officers report to you or make reports of their obser- 
vations? 
A. Oh, yes; the inspector and the commissary both. In fact, all the officers did. 
The medical officers also made their reports. 
Q. Do you remember what the character of those reports was? Do you remember 
the details of any of them? 
A. They were generally very favorable with regard to the rations. Sometimes they 
would report that the troops of such and such a company complained that their beef 
was not good. At other times they complained that the potatoes were not good, or 
the bacon; that is, the first part of the summer. 
Q. What was the health of your command during its period of service in Jackson- 
ville? 
A. At first, for the first three months, I suppose there was not 5 per cent sick. 
After that the typhoid fever broke out, and it ran up to 10 per cent or a little more, 
probably. 
Q. To what cause was the increase of disease attributed? 
A. That was a question. It would be hard to tell what the cause was. 1 think 
myself, and always have thought, that it was on account of the manner of getting 
away with the rejecta or excrement. They used an open tub. The scavengers came 
around daily, and this stuff was thrown in the tubs, or the tubs were used by the 
men, and then these people picked them up and went around the camp picking 
them up here and there, and it would spill over the barrel, and so on. 1 think that 
had more to do with the sickness than anything else. 
Q. Would you assign any other cause operating with that, or independently of it? 
A. Well, I don't know of any, except the flies carrying the germs, or something 
of that kind. 
Q. Was any investigation as to the cause of disease set on foot by yourself or any 
superior authority? 
A. There was not by myself, except to instruct my surgeon to see whether he 
could find out anything that would be the probable cause; and this was one of the 
causes given. Then there was a board ordered by the War Department, of which, I 
think, Major Reed was the head, which came down there and investigated the whole 
thing thoroughly. 
Q. Was the Second New Jersey in your command? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Were you acquainted with the officers of that regiment? 
A. I was acquainted with a good many of them. 
Q. Do you recall the lieutenant-colonel? 
A. Lieutenant-Colonel Curry. 
Q. Upon what special duty was he engaged? 
A. I detailed him to construct a rifle range for the division. 
Q. How long was he engaged upon that duty? 
A. He was probably longer than a month. 
Q. Why was he selected? 
A. He was selected on account of his fitness, he being, as I understood, a volun- 
teer officer of the State militia, and had taken great interest in rifle practice; and he 
seemed to understand his business very well in the way of building this trench. 
Q. Was there considerable work to be done in connection with this rifle range? 
A. A good deal of w'ork; yes, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1595 
Q. How far was it established from the camps of the division? 
A. Probably, at one time, the nearest camp was about three-fourths of a mile 
away. Later, when the camp was changed, several regiments were nearer than 
that. 
Q. How large a fatigue party was necessary for that? 
A. Sometimes we would have 300 or 400 men on that fatigue party. 
Q. Was it a permanent party or was it changed from day to day? 
A. I could not say now whether it was permanent or not. 
Q. Did the party encamp at the range or did the men 
A. No; the men were detailed to go out. When we were building the range the 
men were detailed to report daily. 
Q. That is, the same men, or a certain number? 
A. I do not recollect whether it was the same men or not. After the range was 
established and we commenced firing, then we detailed companies to go out there 
and take charge. 
Q. How long did Colonel Curry continue his duty in connection with the rifle 
range? 
A. It must have been more than a month, over a month. 
Q. Did you have conferences with him then from time to time? 
A. Yes, sir, with regard to getting lumber and material for the range, and things 
of that kind. 
Q. Had you any conference with him in respect to the food supply or the ration? 
A. I may have, but I do not recollect any particular time. 
Q, Do you recall any reports or suggestions that he made to you, in respect to the 
food supply? 
A. I do not. 
Q. Had you occasion to believe or to suspect at that time that the fresh beef sup- 
plied to your command had been chemically treated with a view to its preservation? 
A. Not at all. 
Q. Do you recall receiving, from Colonel Curry, any report in respect to the pres- 
ervation of beef? 
A. I do not. 
Q. Have you any data or memoranda, or is there anything with which you could 
refresh your memory, so as to recall such a conversation or such a report, if it took 
place? 
A. None whatever. Colonel Curry may have spoken to me; at times we had this 
report about the beef, or part of it. 
Q. Will you state to the court how satisfactorily he performed his duty? State it 
in narrative form, if you will-what impression he made upon you as to the manner 
in which he executed the work that was intrusted to his charge in connection with 
the rifle range. 
A. Very satisfactorily. There was nothing to complain of. His work was well 
done. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. General, will you please state to the court how the fresh beef was furnished 
your division, what kind of beef it was that was furnished, and the manner under 
which it was furnished. 
A. It was drawn from the car by the commissary and hauled up to camp. 
Q. In the issue of the fresh beef, if it is within your knowledge or information, 
will you please state whether this meat was sent out or issued to the brigade, or by 
the division commissary, or to the regiment direct? 
A. Originally, the brigade commissary drew the beef, and then it was turned over 
to the regimental commissary. 
Q. With reference to the details that Colonel Curry would have had for the con- 1596 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
struction of the range, would it not have been more probable that in building up 
the range the men would not have been changed from day to day, but that selected 
men would be taken from a company to continue on that work, so as to have intelligent 
continuance of the work by men familiar with it? 
A. My impression is, really, that both methods were used; finding one not satis- 
factory, some of the men who were good artificers were left on. 
Q. Those men would necessarily have been retained for the work? 
A. Retained. 
Q. And Colonel Curry's work continued, in the construction of the range, for a 
month or more, I believe? 
A. A month or more. 
Q. And then, after that, who had supervision of the practice of the company? 
Did the colonel still continue to supervise the target practice? 
A. He did, until he went off on leave of absence. 
Q. Will you please state to the court who was the inspector of your division during 
that time? 
A. Maj. Harry Cheever, then of the United States Volunteers, now of the Sixth 
Cavalry. 
Q. A regular officer? 
A. A regular officer. 
Q. Colonel Curry, in the construction of this range, was not called upon to make 
any reports, except in regard to the duties that devolved upon him? 
A. That is so. 
Q. Those reports he would make, I presume, with the frequency which would be 
necessary, as you required him? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. If any reports were made, or anything said, about rations, it would have been 
in the nature of a verbal report, would it not? 
A. I think so. 
Q. You may have had such conversations, or he may have mentioned some facts in 
regard to the matter? 
A. He may have done so. 
Q. Do you recall, if it was brought to your attention by him in any way, any occa- 
sion where he had spoken, on one or more days, in regard to the great majority of 
the detail not reporting, as being sick? Do you recollect anything of that kind? 
A. I recollect something of that kind. I know we had a little delay in getting 
the men out, that they did not report. 
Q. Did you have any experience with the canned roast beef there for your com- 
mand in any way? 
A. None whatever. 
Q. Colonel Curry, as I understand, General, continued to perform his duties in a 
manner that was quite satisfactory, in regard to this work. 
A. Oh, yes. 
Q. He was regarded as an efficient and reliable officer? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Were you aware that he was a practicing physician, that he was a doctor, in 
civil life? Was that brought to your attention in any way? 
A. Well, I do not recollect; but when I saw some evidence in the paper that 
Doctor Curry was testifying here, it was the first idea I had of it. 
Q. Can you recall, in connection with the failure of the men to report on any occa- 
sion, that Colonel made some remarks in regard to the men being sick from some 
part of the ration that they had eaten, some eating or overeating of some kind? 
A. I do not recall any conversation of that kind. 
Q. He may have made some such remark? 
A. He may have made it, but I do not recall it. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1597 
Q. I will ask you how, in the operation of armies within your extended experience 
in the civil war, and since then, on expeditions and campaigns of magnitude since, 
fresh beef has been supplied to troops? That is, when it was supplied, in what way 
has it been supplied, as a rule-the invariable or usual rule? 
A. In this war? 
Q. I mean prior to this. 
A. As I recollect, our beef, in the late rebellion, was supplied from the hoof. 
Q. And how was it in the Indian expeditions of magnitude? I do not refer to 
scouts, and things of that kind. 
A. It was supplied by killing on the spot. 
Q. That, then, was the method which was pursued to insure a supply of fresh beef, 
when it was practicable to issue it? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Your service during the late war was confined within the United States? Ii 
did not extend to Cuba or Porto Rico? 
A. I have been to Cuba; yes, sir. 
Q. Please state at what time? 
A. I have just returned from there; I went to Cuba in the first part of January. 
Major Lee. I do not know whether any investigations or questions on that lint 
would be directly pertinent to the matter being investigated by the court. I believe, 
therefore, that is all I care to ask. 
By General Davis: 
Q. General, if any officer of rank, at Jacksonville, had told you that ho suspected 
or believed or knew that the fresh beef, or some fresh beef, had been treated by 
chemicals, or he thought so, would such a report as that, if made to you, have made 
any impression upon your mind, so that you would remember it now? 
A. I think it would, but I never thought of it myself; but since the question has 
been agitated, I think it would. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I will ask you, General, from your knowledge of Colonel Curry, whether, in 
your opinion, your recollection of an incidental remark made by the Colonel, which 
he would testify as remembering, would be as positive as his recollection on that 
subject, that he had incidentally made a remark in regard to the beef, on any par- 
ticular occasion? 
The Recorder. That is rather a large question, is it not? He can answer for him- 
self, but can he answer for Colonel Curry? 
Major Lee. I may not have framed the question, perhaps, just as it should have 
been framed. The point I am getting at is this: It appearing by Colonel Curry's 
testimony, which it does, that he had made a remark in regard to the beef, on a cer- 
tain occasion, to the General commanding the division (not that there was any official 
report), I wish to ask the General, in view of that evidence, whether his recollection 
of the remark would, in his opinion, be as clear as that of the officer who had the 
matter under observation? 
The Witness. If Colonel Curry said anything to me about that, it was simply as 
other complaints were made from other officers. That is all I can recollect. He 
may have said it, or may have brought me word in. At times, as I say, the. report 
would come in that a certain part of the beef supplied to certain companies was not 
good. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. He was not, in his position, under the system of details, responsible for the sub- 
sistence of these men? 
A. No; not at all. 1598 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
General Chaffee, of the volunteers. 
TESTIMONY OF MAJ. GEN. ADNA R. CHAFFEE, U. S. V 
Maj. Gen. Adna R. Chaffee, U. S. V., was called by the recorder as a witness, 
and, having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. Adna R. Chaffee; major-general, United States Volunteers; Habana, Cuba. 
Q. What was the first command exercised by you, General, under your condition 
as brigadier-general of volunteers, which was conferred upon you in 1898? 
A. A brigade of the infantry, composed of the Second and the Seventh Infantries, 
Chickamauga. 
Q. And where did you assume command of that brigade? 
A. At Chickamauga. 
Q. Did you accompany it to Tampa? 
A. I did. 
Q. Do you remember about the time that you reached Tampa? 
A. The 14th day of May, 1898. 
Q. What fresh beef was issued to your brigade while at Tampa prior to the sailing 
of the expedition? 
A. I could not say. We had fresh beef, but I could not say how it was issued. 
Q. Do you recall whether there were any complaints of it? 
A. None at all. 
Q. Upon what transport did you, yourself, proceed to Cuba? 
A. The Iroquois. 
Q. Were any troops on board that transport? 
A. Yes, sir; between 600 and 700 troops of the Seventh and Seventeenth Infan- 
tries. 
Q. Do you recall what constituted the meat component of the travel ration of 
those commands? 
A. I would be certain that it was one sort of meat only; but we had the canned 
meat, and I think we had both corned beef and what was called roast beef. 
Q. Did you observe its issue and use by the enlisted men on board the trans- 
port? 
A. I saw it; yes, sir. I went down every day through the messes of the men. 
Q. Please state to the court, in narrative form, what your observation was during 
the voyage to Cuba. 
A. In respect to the ration? 
Q. In respect to these meat components of the travel ration. 
A. No complaint was made that I know of, or of which I ever heard. I required 
my captains and officers of the company to be down in every mess, and no complaint 
was made to me that there was anything wrong with the meat. 
Q. After the landing in Cuba, and up to the close of the siege operations which 
terminated with the surrender, what meat was furnished your brigade as part of its 
ration? 
A. When we landed, we took from the boat three days of bacon; and I do not 
recall that we had anything but bacon up to about the 26th or 27th of June, when 
canned meat was issued to us-both corned beef and this so-called roast beef. 
Q. Did both those kinds of meat continue to be issued to your command during this 
siege? 
A. No, sir; my command got, principally, bacon; but on off days we would get 
some of this canned meat, also. We got the bacon principally, however. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1599 
Q. Please state to the court, in narrative form, if you will, your experience with 
the canned roast beef during the period closing with the surrender. 
A. Personally, I ate of the canned roast beef but once while I was in Cuba. My 
men used it as it was issued to them. I can not say how many days during this 
time it was issued to us; but, as I say, I think the meat ration issued to my brigade 
was mostly bacon; but on off days we got this canned meat. I did not hear a soli- 
tary complaint all the time that I commanded my brigade of this meat being bad or 
unfit for eating. My own personal opinion of the meat, of the can that I did eat, 
was that it was unpalatable and fresh; but the meat was sound. 
Q. How satisfactory did it appear to be to the men who used it under your obser- 
vation? 
A. I heard no complaint at all. So far as I know, it was satisfactory. 
Q. Did you see them eating it and using it? 
A. Oh, yes; plenty of it. 
Q. Did you, in going about the division, see any of it thrown away or rejected? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. When did you begin to receive the refrigerated beef? 
A. I am not positive as to the exact date, but I should say about the 20th or 21st 
day of July. 
Q. Will you please state to the court what your experience was as to the issue and 
use of the refrigerated beef in your command? 
A. The refrigerator beef was rejected almost wholly by the men and officers of 
my brigade as being spoiled. It is my belief that they based this opinion simply 
upon the appearance of the beef. My commissary officer was at the boat at 6 o'clock 
in the morning, with his wagon, and drew the meat for the brigade. My brigade 
was a little better than a mile from the landing, over a fairly good road, for that 
country. The meat seldom arrived in the camp later than 8 o'clock. Two of my 
regiments lay in front of me, and one in the rear of my own headquarters. The meat 
for the Twelfth and Seventeenth Infantry was delivered before the roast (which my 
commissary always brought to my own mess) was delivered to me. The wagon then 
proceeded to the Seventh Infantry, which was half a mile in my rear, and delivered 
the meat there. It was not an infrequent occurrence that this meat delivered to the 
Seventeenth and Twelfth Infantry was in the ground before the wagon got to my 
own tent. 
The roast that was brought to me was thrown into a little pit dug into the side of 
the hill, and was kept there throughout the day. At 4 o'clock in the afternoon, or 
about that time, it was roasted for my mess, and was perfectly sweet and good. Not 
an ounce of it was ever thrown away; I never lost any of it. For that reason, I con- 
tended with my regimental commanders that they were throwing away good, sound 
meat, beef of excellent quality. I therefore remonstrated with them and told them 
that they were doing their men a great injury, as I believed the men were in such 
condition at that time that they needed a change of food, having lived upon this salt 
meat for so long. 
They said the meat was spoiled. It had a disagreeable appearance, I will admit; 
it was greasy looking, but in order to remove that my cook would make a salt brine 
and wash it with his hand, which removed it; or, if that did not thoroughly remove 
it, he took his knife and just skinned this little coating off, leaving the meat of a nice 
appearance. 
This went on for several days; and in order to supply my men with meat, of course, 
we had to have a board of survey. I insisted that there should be a board of survey 
for this meat. The board of survey would not get to my headquarters until the next 
day, and I would then send the commissary officer back to the commissary to get 
the meat; and he sometimes brought canned meat, and sometimes bacon, just as he 
suggested. There was no complaint made on that score at that time. 1600 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Things went on in this way until I pressed the matter upon the colonel of my 
regiment, so much that General Combie refused, one day, to approve the proceed- 
ings of the board of survey condemning this meat. He went out and examined 
himself-looked at it and smelled it-and said that he would not approve the pro- 
ceedings, and that they must use it; that the meat was good. They allowed it to lie 
there, however, and I believe that was thrown away, too. 
General Combie, at that time commanding the Twelfth Infantry, called a man with a 
knife, and he cut out of this quarter of beef a nice roast, took it to his own tent, and 
had it roasted. Later in the day he came to my tent, and told me that it was the 
most delicious roast that he ever ate in his life; that it was perfectly sweet and sound 
meat. But his own men and officers would not touch it. 
I do not know how much of that meat was buried, but there was a good deal of 
it. So far as concerned the facilities for getting meat off from the boat, and getting 
it to my camp, I was about as favorably situated as almost any part of the command. 
Q. What was the condition of your command at this time, in point of health? 
A. They were very sick; and it is my judgment that that was the cause of the 
trouble that was found with this meat. The men were sick; their stomachs were 
out of order; they were all stricken with fever; and I might best liken them to men 
who were seasick, when no sort of food is palatable. 
Q. Had you occasion to believe or to suspect, at that time, that the meat had been 
chemically treated with a view to its preservation? 
A. Never, then or since. 
Q. On the voyage back to Montauk Point, what was issued to the command that 
accompanied you, as the meat component of the travel ration? 
A. Canned meat? 
Q. And what satisfaction did it give, or how was it received by the troops? 
A. I think, although I will not be certain, that it was the Thirty-first and the 
Thirty-fourth Michigan that returned with me from Santiago on the Harvard. There 
was no one of my staff on board but myself. I took no particular interest in that 
command, as it did not belong to me, any more than I was down through the ship, 
and, on several occasions, cautioned the commanding officer that his men were care- 
less and dirty on the ship, ahd asked him to look after them. But I heard no com- 
plaint of the meat being used on that occasion. 
Q. Since your assignment to your present duty in Cuba, to what use has the canned 
roast beef been put, that which was transported to Habana? 
A. It has been issued to the destitute of Cuba. 
Q. Can you inform the court as to the quantities that have been used, and with 
the reception with which it has met at the hands of those who used it? 
A. Well, I presume, since the 1st day of January I have given orders distributing, 
I will say, 3,000,000 rations, 8 ounces to the ration, which would be a million and 
a half pounds. 
Q. And how has it been received by those to whom it was issued as an article of 
food? 
A. It is the history, I think, of all canned goods-meats and vegetables and 
others-that a certain amount of deterioration or fermentation takes place. In 
regard to this meat I had a conversation with Colonel Smith, the chief commissary 
of the division. We knew that the meat was being gathered up from various parts 
of the country. Two shiploads of it came in from Porto Rico, and it was naturally 
supposed that there would be some bad meat among it. Colonel Smith gave orders 
to all the commissary officers, so far as he could, who were to receive and distribute 
this meat, that if any of it was found bad they were simply to destroy it-that is, if 
any of the cans were punctured or were found otherwise to be bad. It was impossi- 
ble, under the circumstances, to open all the cases which were distributed. Any 
case that was in any way suspicious, by smell, was set aside and was not permitted FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1601 
to go out. Every such case was set aside and was opened there, and the bad meat 
was destroyed. The rest of it was then issued. 
I kept a pretty close watch of the thing, for report; but there was never a report 
came to me that any of this meat was bad which was sent out into the province of 
Matanzas, Cienfuegos, or into the province of Pinar del Rio. It is probable that 
some bad cans got there, but I think they were thrown away and nothing was said 
about them. 
In the province of Habana, outside of the department of Habana, the distribution 
was made from the regular wharf to the various civilian committees-something like 
twenty-five or thirty in a province. Dr. Finny had general charge. He would 
simply indicate, from reports that he would receive, where these rations should be 
sent, and then they would be sent out. There was an officer there, a second lieu- 
tenant of volunteers, who had the distribution in charge-Lieutenant Lang. 
I asked Dr. Finny not very long ago if he had received any complaints, from the 
various committees that he had in charge, of bad meat. He told me that he had not. 
One afternoon, six weeks or more ago, perhaps, a newspaper reporter came and sat 
down by my desk and asked me if I knew of a wholesale condemnation of the meat 
in Habana that day-if I had heard of it. I told him I had not. He said such was 
the case, and, if I do not mistake, he told me that some 10,000 cans had been thrown 
in the sea that day. I asked him if the cases had been thrown in, and he said, yes, 
he believed they had. That aroused my suspicion at once, that no proper inspection 
of that meat had been made. I had done a good deal of inspection myself, and I 
know that w'e would often find one bad can in a case and 23 good cans-cans con- 
taining any kind of meat or vegetables. 
I immediately went to General Brooke and told him of the fact that I had heard, 
and asked that he detail General Ernst and anyone else-I specially referred to 
General Ernst-to go over to the regular wharf and there make a careful inspection 
of about eight or nine hundred thousand rations of this meat that I still had on hand, 
part of which was the meat that had been reported to have been thrown into the 
sea. Both what I had on hand and what was destroyed in Habana came from Porto 
Rico in the same ship. General Brooke directed me to send General Ernst to make 
this inspection. General Ernst went and took with him, I believe, Major Rolfe, 
the inspector-general, and his aid, Lieutenant Lawrence, of the First Engineers. 
Colonel Smith, the chief commissary of the division, was also present, and, I think, 
one or two other officers. 
General Ernst and I had a little conversation as to what would be a fair inspection 
of this great quantity of meat. It was piled in tiers on the regular wharf. After 
some talk, we concluded that it would be a perfectly fair inspection for the general 
to go along and mark every tenth box in each tier, have that taken out and opened 
and examined. He followed that process, and made an inspection, and an official 
report on the subject. I believe his summing up was that he found one and eighty- 
five one-hundredths per cent of the meat bad; and that included, as I think, a cer- 
tain lot which Colonel Smith had set aside as particularly suspicious. 
There is now, on the regular wharf, a considerable quantity of this meat-that is, I 
presume it is there; it was when I left Habana-that had not been distributed, under 
an order that I had given for the distribution of a good quantity of it. And there 
is considerable of that meat which is damaged; and it comprises largely this quantity 
of suspicious meat that had been set aside, case by case, you understand. 
There is also on the regular wharf, and I heard just before I left that there was 
considerable damaged among it, a large quantity of tomatoes that had been sent to 
Cuba for issue to the destitute, which the Cubans did not like, and it was 
retained there upon the wharf, and there is considerable spoiled among it. I men- 
tion this simply to show that in other things than meat there is spoiling. There is 
also other canned fruit and vegetables there among which there is considerable that 
is spoiled. 
S. Doc. 270 101 1602 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Are these stores in the warehouse, General? 
A. They are in what we call the regular wharf. It is on the opposite side of the 
bay to Habana. 
Q. And are they under shelter? 
A- They are under shelter. 
Q. Prior to this inspection by General Ernst, were any other quantities of the 
canned fresh beef inspected by any other officer, to your knowledge? 
A. None officially. There was no direction. The inspection was made, as I say, 
by the officer issuing this meat. We understood, of course, that this meat was 
issued out can by can, rather than by cases, to the destitute of Cuba, so that in case 
a bulged can is met with it does riot get into the hands of the people. It has to be 
thrown away. And I do not doubt, in my own mind, that what bulged cans have 
gone into the country-under the instructions that have been given, it was intended 
to eliminate all such as that from issue. 
As soon as this report was made to me I was particularly earnest about it, because 
I did not think it would do to have it go out to the world that the United States was 
issuing rotten meat to destitute people. I was therefore very earnest about it, and 
immediately sent General Ernst to attend to it-to ascertain whether it was not an 
easy matter to eliminate the unsound meat and what proportion of it there was. 
Q. Did you take any steps to ascertain whether the representations that had been 
made to you in respect to throwing 10,000 cans into the sea were correct? 
A. I believe General Brooke called for the proceedings of the board of survey, 
which was furnished us, and which did not specify in detail. The board of survey 
simply went around to various issuing points in the city and found there some bad 
meat, and they simply recommended that the meat be inspected; that was all. 
Afterwards the inspection was ordered, and I heard (I do not know anything about 
it further than what I heard) that a large quantity was gathered up and conveyed to 
the sea and inspected by the side of the seashore, and thrown in. I did not see it; 
there was simply a report to that effect made to me. But I spoke to Captain Greble, 
I think it was, who was on General Ludlow's staff, about it, and he said that there 
had been considerable destruction, but he did not know the quantity. And I have 
never ascertained officially the quantity that was inspected. 
Q. By whom was the inspection ordered? 
A. General Ludlow, I presume. 
Q. Is it within your knowledge as to who the inspector was who made that exami- 
nation? 
A. Not positively, but I think I know very well. I think it was Major Reed. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. General, you spoke of a kind of coating that was on the refrigerated beef which 
was brought out. Will you please describe what that coating was, as far as you 
observed it? What was the nature of it and the cause, so far as you are able to 
give it? 
A. It was, to my eye, rather a greenish film that was spread over the meat, which 
I presumed at that time was the natural result from cold storage. 
Q. In trimming that off, if it had to be trimmed off, to get to what was considered 
good meat, what was the usual depth of the trimming; about how much? 
A. Just a film over the meat. 
Q. Do you know, or have you information, that in other cases the trimming had 
to be done to a greater depth, to find good meat? 
A. I do not. Oh, I have seen it trimmed there in my camp when it might be a 
quarter of an inch thick, perhaps, varying just as a man carelessly or deftly handled 
his knife. 
Q. Did you ever, to your knowledge, know or see any of the refrigerated meat that FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1603 
was in any degree, on the surface or otherwise, tainted, or found to be not present- 
able or issuable, from appearance? 
A. Of all the meat that was delivered to my brigade at Santiago, I have reason to 
believe that there was one quarter that was unsound; and that quarter I did not see, 
but my adjutant-general told me that he had been present in the Seventeenth 
Infantry that morning when a quarter of beef was examined by a board of survey; 
and he told me that the meat was surely bad; because it was questioned whether I 
would approve the report of the board of survey, which was then on my table, or 
not. 
Q. These boards of survey were convened by the' regimental commanders, as a 
rule, when the meat arrived there? 
A. Always. 
Q. It had been received and accepted by the commissaries previously? 
A. Yes. 
Q. These regiments had surgeons or doctors with them, to be present? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. The boards were constituted of officers with experience? 
A. I think, without exception, the doctors were on hand when it was possible for 
them to be there. 
Q. And it was generally recommended as not being fit for issue in these regiments? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. During the operations, after landing in Cuba, will you please state what pro- 
portion of rations were furnished; as to full rations or otherwise, whether your com- 
mand or your brigade was furnished with the full field ration from the time of 
landing until after the surrender, when the boats got around to the wharf in the 
harbor? 
A. I will say that one day, only, two regiments of my brigade did not receive, on 
paper, a full day's ration; but I do not think they were even deficient that portion 
of the ration at that time, owing to ■what they had in their haversacks. 
Q. During this campaign and the very active service no complaints of any kind 
were made, were there, in regard to the hardships, or exposure, or anything of that 
kind-I mean in the way of complaints, growling, or grumbling? 
A. No complaints were received from my men as to their food-that is, as to the 
soundness of the food-I want you to understand. The men got very tired of the 
bacon and crackers; and it was on the 10th of July, I think, that we got a change to 
vegetables. 
Q. Your command was regularly supplied, or habitually supplied, during that 
time with bacon. Was that in preference to other meat, or was it because they hap- 
pened to get that instead of other meat? 
A. I think it was simply because they happened to get it. I do not know; there 
were probably days when they had the canned meat instead of bacon, and I might 
not have noticed it. 
Q. There was, under the circumstances and the necessary hardships of service and 
the method of getting rations there, no fixed system by which a command could 
send down at all times or at any time and get its preference as to rations? That was 
not expected, was it, under the circumstances; or would it have been practicable? 
A. No, I do not think so. The rations -were sent forward to us and delivered by 
pack trains. When a pack train came in to my brigade for my men, I received what 
that pack train was loaded with. 
Q. Officers were not sent back, or expected to be sent back, to pick out what 
rations they wanted to get up; but the rations, I understand, were delivered as they 
were landed, such as they could get up? 
A. That is what I understand, and I think that was the fact. The division com- 
missary was the officer who supplied my brigade. My brigade commissary remained 
in the camp with me. 1604 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. With reference to this canned roast beef, do you recall-I have not the paper 
to refresh your memory or I should be glad to do it-do you recall an officer on your 
staff, or connected with the service where you were, by the name of Capt. R. W. 
Thompson, jr., a son of the ex-Secretary of the Navy, commissary officer-I do not 
know what part of Cuba he was in; I think 
A. Captain Thompson did not serve on my staff, nor do I think that he served on 
the division staff. 
Q. Do you recall meeting him, or having acquaintance with him? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Or any conversation with him with reference to canned roast beef? 
A. No. There is a Captain Thompson that is in command-is he a quartermaster? 
Q. I think he was a commissary; I possibly may be mistaken. He was a volun- 
teer staff officer. He was either a commissary or quartermaster; 1 am not positive 
now. 
A. The Captain Thompson, of the Quartermaster's Department, whom I know, is, 
or was up to a quite recent date, quartermaster of the United States transport Terry, 
in Habana Harbor. He has been there for some time. 
Q. Is he still on duty there? 
A. I think he was relieved just a few days ago. 
Q. Do you recall any conversation with that officer on the subject, if he should be 
the same one? 
A. No, sir; I do not. 
Q. On the subject of canned roast beef? 
A. No, sir; I do not. 
Q. Will you please state to the court whether or not canned roast beef is still being 
issued to the army-to the troops in Havana? 
A. I do not know. , 
Q. Had it been specially, by order, set aside for the purpose of issuing to the 
destitute? 
A. I think not. Yes; it had been specially by order in this way: That the Cuban 
ration is constituted of 8 ounces of bacon, or 8 ounces of tinned meat, if this was the 
meat that was referred to as tinned meat 
Q. Yes, sir. 
A. That was specially set aside as a component of the Cuban ration, in almost 
those words. 
Q. By whose direction was that done? 
A. By the direction of the War Department-General Orders, No. 55, I think. 
Q. And does this term "tinned meat" include corned beef, or is it more particu- 
larly applied to the canned roast beef? 
A. Under the general term of "tinned meat," both meats would be included. 
Q. As a matter of fact, which is being issued, within your knowledge? 
A. The roast meat, I think, largely. 
Q. Within your knowledge, do you know of any of the canned roast beef now 
being issued to the troops in Habana, or in that vicinity, or the troops of your com- 
mand? 
A. No, sir; I do not. It is not issued as a part of the ration, because fresh meat 
is issued there-fresh meat and three-tenths bacon. 
Q. As issued, then, was it understood to be in lieu of the fresh-meat component 
of the ration? Was it supposed to be? Was that understood? 
A. When it was issued? 
Q. Yes. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You speak of it as "so-called" canned roast beef? 
A. Yes, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1605 
Q. Will you please tell us why you give it that designation? I believe you spoke 
of it as "what is called canned roast beef." 
A. I do not think it is roast meat at all; I think it is steamed meat. That is my 
judgment of it. 
Q. I believe you testified, General, that you only ate of it once? 
A. Once. 
Q. Did you ever make any 
A. That is, at the time I was at Santiago. 
Q. At Santiago? 
A. At Santiago. 
Q. I understand that that was not during the campaign prior to the surrender? 
A. That was prior to the surrender. I think it was on the 26th day of June, the 
day that I marked in my memory as the day when my brigade was supplied almost 
entirely w'ith this canned roast meat. 
Q. The supply of the canned roast beef to your brigade was simply the issue which 
was made? It was not made as a matter of choice, or anything of that kind, but it 
was issued the same as any other ration? 
A. Precisely. 
Q. And I believe you said that your brigade consisted of the Seventh and Seven- 
teenth Infantry? 
A. The Seventh, Twelfth, and Seventeenth. 
Q. If there were any complaints or dissatisfaction on the part of the officers or 
men of these regiments during that time with the canned roast beef they were not 
brought to your attention? 
A. N ot brought to my attention. 
Q. Were any complaints in regard to the rations of any kind brought to your 
attention in the way of fault-finding, or growling, or anything of that kind? 
A. Oh, yes. The men felt that they were living too long on hard-tack and bacon. 
It distressed them. It had got to be an old story and they were tired of it. For that 
reason I thought it was a good thing to get this canned meat, and I believed at that 
time that the men liked the change, although I would not say that they did. The 
meat, to me, was unpalatable because of its freshness. There was no seasoning to it. 
Q. Did you ever hear, among the men or officers of your command (the company 
or other officers), any commendation of that canned boiled beef, or steamed beef, 
or whatever it was? 
A. No. 
Q. General, have you ever made any personal inspection or examination of the 
various kinds of canned meats that have been gathered up over the country and 
sent to the troops? Have you ever made any personal examination of them? Were 
any of the cans opened in your presence? 
A. Well, I made this inspection for my personal satisfaction in Habana. When 
the meat came over to Habana, Colonel Smith and I were in conversation on the 
subject one day, and he told me he had a lot of it. At that time there was, of 
course, a good deal of talk about this meat in the country, and I asked Colonel Smith 
to send me over three cans of each of the brands which he had in stock. He did 
so; and during this conversation Colonel Smith told me that the meat was being 
bought by officers and men in the Seventh Army Corps; that they had ascertained 
that by throwing it into a refrigerator the condition of the meat in the cans was 
seemingly changed. Instead of having this slimy appearance, which you have heard 
described, I presume the liquid returned through the meat; and it was not, when 
opened, of the disgusting appearance which has been talked of. 
I asked Colonel Smith to send me over some of each of the brands. He sent me 
nine cans. I will not be positive as to the packers, but I made a memorandum at 
the time. My recollection now is that three of them were packed by Armour, three 1606 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
by Libby, McNeill & Libby, and, I think, three by Swift. I am not sure as to that, 
but some were packed by Libby, McNeill & Libby and by Armour, at any rate. 
I gave them to the hotel keeper and asked him to put them into the refrigerator, 
and the next day open and cook and put on my table a can of this meat, which he 
did. But they did not know how to handle the meat, to make it nice appearing or 
anything of that kind; so they just opened the can and set it on my table. 
I ate it. The meat was sound. I did not like it particularly. I sent it around to 
quite a number of officers in the hotel and there was not one of them who touched 
it. Nobody touched it except myself. They had heard enough of it and they would 
not eat it. I am not sure, though, but that Colonel Richard, either on that day or 
a subsequent day, tasted it; but it was generally rejected. The meat of course was 
in the cans. If it had been taken out of the cans, as I intended it should be, and 
nicely dressed on a platter, in my opinion most of them would have tried it, because 
they would not have known it was canned meat. 
I had three of those cans examined, one from each packing house, and they all 
resulted in about the same thing. I do not know what became of the others. 
Q. These cans that were sent to you were in good condition? 
A. In good condition, sound. 
Q. Everything was all right about them; there was no appearance of swelling or 
anything of that kind? 
A. No appearance of swelling or anything of that kind. Of course Colonel Smith 
would not have sent me a bulged can. 
Q. Have you any knowledge as to the keeping qualities of a can of roast beef in 
the hands, say, of men in Cuba there, during operations-how long a can would keep 
after a man opened it and took out enough to eat for his one meal? 
A. Oh, no. I would not expect it to keep very long. 
Q. In your long experience in the service, have you ever known the canned roast 
beef to be issued, as a component part of the ration, to soldiers in the field, during 
campaigns? 
A. My first knowledge of canned roast beef was in the campaign in Cuba. It may 
have been on the shelves in the Commissary Department for ten years; but my first 
personal knowledge of it was then. 
Q. In your duties, as of course recalled by every officer in the service, in the 
Inspector's Department, was the matter of canned roast beef or that kind of meat 
ever brought to your attention with a view to making any recommendations or sug- 
gestions with reference to it? 
A. I do not think so. I do not believe I ever saw a can of it. 
Q. Have you any knowledge or information as to how it came about that it was 
adopted as a material component of the ration for the troops in the tropics, or in this 
late war? 
A. I have no knowledge, but I have a very strong suspicion how it came about. 
Q. If you will do so, please tell what that is. 
A. I presume every other officer has thought the same thing. My belief on the 
subject is this: Our Army, heretofore, has been forced to rely on hard bread and 
bacon, which has always been complained of as a ration of which the men tired. And, 
as we are a beef-eating people, I believe that it has been substituted with a view to 
bettering the ration that the soldiers should have in the field, instead of compelling 
them to live on the bacon. That is my belief as to why it was substituted, in the 
same way that we have substituted and used for years and years the canned corned 
beef. Men used to have to travel with bacon; the object of this change was to give 
them something else than the bacon. 
Q. Was canned salmon made a part of the ration for your command, or for the 
troops in Cuba, within your knowledge, during the service? Did you have any of 
that as a substitute for the bacon. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1607 
A. I can not say with positiveness, but I will answer yes; that I think it was. 
Q. Has it been brought to your knowledge in anyway, at the time or since, that the 
preference of the troops was largely for bacon, instead of the canned roast beef as 
issued to them? 
A. Well, if my men were like myself, they would prefer the bacon to the canned 
meat in the field, as I did. The point of it is that the meat is not susceptible of 
being handled by the soldiers satisfactorily without a mess kit. 
Q. Will you please give an opinion as to its nutritive qualities, in view of the fact 
that it is boiled or steamed meat instead of roast meat? You speak of it as being 
unpalatable. Now, in regard to the nutritive qualities of the meat, I want to know 
whether you have any knowledge or information on that subject as to how it com- 
pares in nutrition with other meats of the ration? 
A. I should immediately compare it to canned corned meat. If there is any dif- 
ference I do not know it, and if canned corn meat is nutritive the canned roast beef 
is. Both of them, I think, are not very nutritive. 
Q. Referring to the necessity for a change in the ration from salt meats to an occa- 
sional issue of fresh meats, I will ask you to please state how, in the large expeditions 
of considerable magnitude, fresh meats have heretofore been supplied to the troops 
with whom you have served or whom you have commanded, where fresh meat has 
been supplied. In what way? 
A. Of course, with large bodies of men it has been driven on the hoof. 
Q. Either by the Commissary Department or contractors? 
A. My only knowledge is of cases where it was done by the Commissary Depart- 
ment, and the only case where that was done on a large scale was in the war of 
1861-1865. Other expeditions, I presume, have been supplied by contract occa- 
sionally. 
Q. In the larger Indian expeditions, within your knowledge, the men have been 
supplied with beef on the block or beef on the hoof, either sent out from posts or 
driven along. 
A. Well, I do not recall any expedition that I have ever been on where we have 
driven cattle. We would get it in the country, or get wild meat. 
Q. I will ask you whether or not, in your opinion, it would have been practicable 
to have landed beef cattle during the campaign, in a manner similar to the landing 
of horses and mules, and to have kept them in the rear of the army in bunches or in 
a small herd, and to have made occasional issues, driving the cattle near the troops, 
keeping them in close proximity. Would that have been practicable, in your opin- 
ion, if arrangements had been made to that end, to have been supplied from cattle 
ships or otherwise, either by contractors or by the Commissary Department? 
A. Well, of course a thing of that kind is practicable, but I do not think it would 
have been justifiable under the circumstances. Knowing the country, as we after- 
wards found it down there, I do not think it would have been done, for the simple 
reason that it would have been an extremely difficult thing to have handled the 
cattle in the first place. I believe we would have lost more than 50 per cent of them; 
and the time hardly justified a thing of that kind. 
Q. Speaking of that, how long was your command without any fresh beef? I am 
speaking now of fresh beef as such, not canned roast beef. 
A. You except the canned roast beef? 
Q. Yes; I mean the fresh meat. 
A. Yes, sir-from the 6th day of June until, I think, the 20th day of July, which 
(if I am correct in the latter date) was the date when we received the fresh meat 
from the transport. The 5th day of June was the day when I went on board the 
transport in Tampa Bay. 
Q. General, are you aware, as a matter of fact or general information, that the 
Spanish forces that were in Cuba, whatever their strength may have been (I believe 1608 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
it was said by some to be 200,000, by some less, and by some more), and also the 
Cuban insurgents, as they were termed there, had for years (as far as meat was con- 
cerned) subsisted largely on cattle kept with their commands, and slaughtered as 
occasion arose? 
A. Well, I do not doubt that they did. I am not aware of anything about it, but 
I think they killed whatever they got hold of. They stripped the country abso- 
lutely of cattle. But if you mean by that that they herded them about the country 
in large herds, sufficient to supply an army of sixteen to twenty thousand men, I 
have no information on that subject; and I do not think that such a state of affairs 
existed at all. 
Q. I understand that they would gather the cattle as they moved or as they found 
them? 
A. They would drive in a bullock and kill it, or two or three head, running them 
along, of course. The insurgents themselves of course killed them by the wayside 
as they went. 
Q. Do you know whether the allies of our troops there-that is, the Cubans-used 
any fresh meat or had any fresh meat during the operations there-whether they 
got it in that way or whether there were any cattle there at all which they so used? 
A. I saw them kill the only live animal that I saw down there-that is, until the 
city was taken possession of, when we found a few cows in the city. 
Q. You speak of the loss of the cattle probably reaching 50 per cent in the case of 
cattle being driven on the hoof or kept by contractors or the Commissary Depart- 
ment. To what would you attribute that loss? 
A. Simply the brushy country. 
Q. There w'as an abundance of feed there, was there not-an abundance of grass? 
A. Oh, yes. 
Q. And water? 
A. Yes. The cattle would have strayed in the country and been lost in any stam- 
pede, and it would have been very difficult to herd them. The only ground that 
was available for herding had to be used by the troops. 
Q. Would there have been any serious impediment to getting them ashore from 
the cattle ships that ply from all the ports of the United States to the Indies and 
abroad? 
A. No more serious impediment than there was in the W'ay of unloading our stock, 
I presume. 
The court thereupon, at 11.45 o'clock a. m., took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m. 
AFTER RECESS. 
The court reassembled at the expiration of the recess. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Colonel Huidekoper, of Philadelphia. 
TESTIMONY OF RUSH S. HUIDEKOPER. 
Rush S. Huidekoper was called as a witness by the recorder, and, being duly 
sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and profession. 
A. My name is Rush S. Huidekoper; residence, Philadelphia; I am a physician 
by profession; also a graduate of veterinary medicine. 
Q. Were you in the military service during the recent war with Spain? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1609 
A. Yes, sir; I was appointed early in May last lieutenant-colonel and chief surgeon, 
assigned to the First Army Corps. I served with the First Army Corps at Chicka- 
mauga until the 23d of July. I then went to Newport News and sailed for the east- 
ern province of Guayama, Porto Rico, and remained there until the 3d of September; 
then went to Rio Piegros, just outside of San Juan, after which, until the end of 
October, I was the chief surgeon of the island of Porto Rico. 
Q. In that capacity were you at any time engaged upon inspection duty? 
A. Yes, sir; constantly. 
Q. Will you please state to the court what inspection you made as the chief 
medical officer, and state in narrative form what the results of your observations 
were in respect to the food that was used by the troops on the island? 
A. At Camp George H. Thomas, from the time of my assignment until the end of 
the first week in June, I had visited every company cook tent of the First Corps. 
During the remainder of June and July, while I remained there, I repeated the 
inspection, a regiment or two a day; so that I probably went through the entire set 
of kitchens about twice in the remaining time. Of course, I made daily inspections 
on horseback, riding to see the general cleanliness of the line of cook tents; but I 
certainly went through three times, visiting each kitchen, on horseback or walking, 
inspecting in regard to the general cleanliness of the cook tents and sink closets. I 
also saw the rations furnished constantly in more detail at the hospital, which drew 
the same rations that the men did. In Porto Rico during August the troops were the 
Third Illinois, the Fourth Ohio, the Fourth Pennsylvania, four companies of the 
Signal Corps, four batteries of artillery under Major Rodney, and two troops of cav- 
alry. Those I visited in the same way; and at that time our rations at the hospitals, 
which I saw daily, were those issued to the men, because General Order No. 116 did 
not reach us until late in September, when the hospitals obtained their food in other 
ways. Then, in the middle of September I left Rio Piegros and visited all the camps 
in Porto Rico, with the exception of two companies of engineers at Guanica. That 
is to say, I visited at Coamo the Sixteenth Pennsylvania, the Second Wisconsin, and 
six companies of volunteer engineers; at Ponce, the Ninth Infantry, the remainder 
of the battalion of engineers, and several batteries of artillery. I visited at Utuada 
Colonel Rice's regiment, the Sixth Pennsylvania; at Las Marias, four companies of 
the Eleventh Infantry and a troop of the Second Cavalry; at smaller stations-at 
Larez and Aguadio and San Sebastiano-single companies of the Eleventh Infantry; 
at Mayaguez, the remaining seven companies of the Eleventh Infantry, Major Lan- 
caster's two batteries, and I think there were two other batteries there. That covered 
all the troops, with the exception of two companies at Guanica. I visited the com- 
pany kitchens of all those troops during that time. 
Q. How close an examination of the food and the methods of preparing it did you 
make officially in your inspections? 
A. In the inspections in Porto Rico and in Camp George H. Thomas, and in spe- 
cial inspections at Camp George H. Thomas, I visited each cook tent, talked to the 
cook and such men as were standing there, and usually I was accompanied by an 
officer of the regiment, or sent for the commissary-sergeant of the regiment, and 
asked for information as to their food. I saw the food and saw the cooking of it. 
Q. Will you please state to the court in narrative form the result of your observa- 
tions as to the fresh meat; that is, the refrigerated beef, when it came under your 
observation, the native beef, and the canned roast beef, in Porto Rico? 
A. During August in the district of Guayama we had a few issues of fresh beef; that 
is, quarter beef, taken from the vessel. We only occasionally had a vessel sent up, 
usually for the purpose of bringing other stores, quartermaster's stores, and other 
commissary department stores, and hospital supplies. We almost immediately in 
Guayama used native beef and some canned beef. The fresh beef that we had 
from the vessels, taken off at Arroyo, quarter beef, I remember we had no com- 1610 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
plaint about whatever. It was good beef, with the exception of a few times. I 
recollect one or two individual cases in which personal complaint was made that 
there had been delay in the hauling of it, that it had been kept too long a time in 
the wagon. At that time I know that in my own hospital, which consisted of 200 
hospital corps men and an average of about 200 to 225 patients-that is, about 400 
to feed-we had to be very particular, in sending for the meat, to see that the one 
wagon and mule team went for it alone, and another to the commissary department 
for other stores, as once or twice it was spoiled by the wagon being delayed. The 
native beef was satisfactory. It was good tasting beef, a little tough, and it had to 
be used very soon after killing, except with a great deal of care. We used com- 
paratively little canned meat in that part of Porto Rico. We used native beef 
almost entirely. Later, on going to the western part of the island, the inland towns 
were in too far to use the fresh refrigerated beef. None of it was used in Ponce or 
Mayaguez, but in Mayaguez they were using native beef. In inspecting canned 
goods, which I did in the company kitchens, I saw' tomatoes and other canned 
goods, and there was occasionally complaint of some of the goods being spoiled; 
but not official complaint. There were individual complaints of cans being spoiled, 
but no official complaint. The meat itself, the canned beef as I saw it, was of a 
second quality of cuts, many of them showing tendons and fibrous tissue. How- 
ever, that was variable. Some of the cans were good beef and others were of a very 
inferior cut, showing that the meat had been cut off the lower part of the thigh of the 
fore leg, tendonous matter, or had come from the neck, fibrous matter. The major- 
ity were of a poor quality. Of the native beef there was a good deal of question of 
handling. I remember distinctly at Mayaguez that one company cook in the bar- 
racks there complained of the beef as having been killed early in the morning, and 
complained of it because it had to be cooked at once; whereas the company cook of 
the next company-there were two cook tents side by side-showed me meat of the 
day before that they were cooking, and that morning's meat had been salted and 
wrapped up and hung, and he told me he always used his meat twenty-four hours 
old and had no trouble. The two companies were getting exactly the same issue. 
It was simply a matter of the company cooks cooking the meat. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Did you say twenty-four days? 
A. Tw'enty-four hours. That is, one cook kept it over day by day by salting it 
and covering it, and the other used it at once. The majority of the troops used it at 
once, and there was some complaint of having to use it fresh. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. What can you say as to the amount of canned roast beef that was used in the 
company kitchen? Did you come upon it frequently or infrequently? 
A. In my September inspections of the western part, I should say frequently-at 
Coamo, Utuardo; and at Ponce scarcely any of it; but at Las Marias, Aguadores, 
Larez, and San Sebastiano they were using all native meat. 
Q. How were they preparing it for use-the canned beef? 
A. They were using it in a stew, like an Irish stew, with more or less water, and 
more or less vegetables added to it. 
Q. What complaints did you hear of it? 
A. I had no official complaints, but on inspection a number of cans, like those of 
tomatoes, were spoiled on opening. 
. Q. Did you get any data as to the percentage of cans that were spoiled on opening? 
A. No; I have not that data. 
Q. In conversation with those about the cook tents that you inspected, with the 
enlisted men of the commands, could you obtain their opinion as to the canned roast 
beef as an article of food? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1611 
A. There was very little complaint as to the meat. Of the lack of vegetables, 
there was considerable I made notes daily of the inspection, which I reported to 
General Brooke daily. I recently went over the originals, and I could find nothing 
of importance regarding the meat. I find numerous complaints as to the lack of 
potatoes and onions and of the spoiling of the cans, but I find no direct complaints, 
nor do I remember any; and they certainly would have been noted if I had found 
them. 
Q. Did you examine any of the cans of roast beef? 
A. Yes, sir; frequently. 
Q. Please state to the court what the result of your examination was as to the 
character and contents of the cans. 
A. In some cases the cans appeared exactly as one sees boiled meat frequently in 
a small household, in a stone jar, where the meat has been put away to serve for 
future use-a body of meat showing and a surface of lard over it. Often that lard 
would be softened, yellowish, and sometimes gelatinous. This would be especially 
so in the poorer qualities of beef-that is, where the meat had been cut from a solid 
piece of beef such as would be used for a roast. The lard would usually be firmed. 
Where the meat showed fibrous tissues, coming from the thigh or the foreleg or the 
neck-in those cases it was frequently gelatinous and oily. However, the question 
of the hard lard or oily appearance would depend to a certain degree certainly on 
the exposure which it had to heat or the sun. 
Q. Did you come upon any cans which seemed to have been unchanged; that is, 
that were in the same condition in which they left the packing establishment? 
A. In good condition? 
Q. That had not been acted upon by heat? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What was their appearance? 
A. Their appearance would be exactly the same as that which one would see in a 
crock of meat put away for future use-meat embedded in a mass of hardening lard. 
Q. Do you use the term ' ' lard " in a technical sense? 
A. No; in the sense of melted fat. 
Q. What has been your training and experience in regard to meat products? Have 
you given it special attention? 
A. Yes; I have given it a great deal of attention. I took over a year's lectures 
and passed an examination in Paris, in the Government of France, as a meat inspector, 
passing practical examinations. I afterwards lectured for three years on meat prod- 
ucts in the University of Pennsylvania, and I had a great deal of consultation with 
members of the Bureau of Animal Industry on meat inspections. 
Q. Did you examine the refrigerated beef in Porto Rico? 
A. Only in a general way. I have seen it on the ship and I have seen it as it has 
been delivered and hauled in the wagons. 
Q. What was its appearance when it was delivered for the use of the troops either 
at hospitals or at camps where you observed it? 
A. At times, in the majority of cases, it was good quarter beef. At other times it 
had been more or less decomposed by exposure; that is, the facia on the outer side 
had turned somewhat green, and in some cases where it was condemned the decom- 
position had extended to the meat. 
Q. Did you at any time or in any place observe any evidences of its having been 
treated with chemicals with a view to its preservation? 
A. The question of that never occurred to me, and would not, for I have known for, 
years-fifteen years, at least-that chemicals are used in the covering of the exterior 
surface of beef. 
Q. Did you see any evidences of that? 
A. No, sir. 1612 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Where have you seen it used-any such preparation-on the exterior; in this 
country or in Europe or both? 
A. Both. 
Q. What have you seen used for that purpose? 
A. I have known of boracic acid being used, and the salts-saltpeter. The Germans 
use other liquid preparations, but what they are I don't remember. They are in the 
nature of oils, thymol, and oils of that sort, and disinfectants. I have noticed in the 
last few months in the German medical journals new preparations reported. I don't 
remember what they were, but I know it is recognized by the foreign Governments. 
Q. Had the fresh beef been subjected to such treatment, what can you state as to 
the likelihood of its attracting your attention? 
A. I should think very slight, unless the meat had been put under such circum- 
stances as to cause me to consider it had been kept too long; for any of the washes, 
the ordinary disinfectant washes, have very little odor-an odor that disappears at 
once, and they are colorless; that is to say, anything of a caustic nature or of a severe 
nature would alter the appearance of the tissue. 
Q. What would be an example of a preparation of a caustic nature? 
A. At present I think of none except the poisonous preparations which are used 
in the dissecting room, such as chloride of mercury and carbolic acid. Carbolic acid 
would lose its odor after a certain period. It would temporarily coagulate the exterior 
and act as a poison to any insects or germs that produce decomposition. 
Q. In the climate of Porto Rico, has your observation been such as to enable you 
to answer this question: How long would refrigerated beef keep in that climate when 
taken out of the refrigerator? 
A. Not more than a few hours. It would be a question of from two to eight hours, 
according to what the meat had been in other circumstances. Meat that has been 
bruised just before killing or on killing would offer a surface that would be decom- 
posed in an hour or two in such a climate. It would be the same as midsummer in 
this region. The meat that has been thoroughly bled and well hung and chilled, 
without being moved, would probably resist for some hours. 
Q. Were you familiar with the circumstances attending the assignment of the 
Panama as a hospital transport ship? 
A. Yes, sir; she reported to me when first ready for a hospital ship. 
Q. What examination did you make of her with a view to ascertaining her fitness 
for that service? 
A. I went on board and saw the commanding officer. I was shown the changes 
which had taken place since she was a transport. I knew her as a transport. The 
changes consisted in having thoroughly cleaned out the first and second decks; that 
is, under the top deck, the first two sets of holes; whitewashing, the hanging of hooks 
for the men's hammocks, and the putting into her of a refrigerator and food box 
She had very little preparation for cooking food. It was reported to me in writing 
that she was only to carry convalescents, that she had no nurses, and was only to 
carry men who were capable of taking care of themselves; that is, of going and getting 
their own rations-not being looked after. 
Q. What arrangements were there on board for the care and preservation of fresh 
meat? 
A. She had a refrigerator. She had a large wooden box, I should think a room 
the size of a section of this room, for the hanging of meat. 
Q. With an ice box or compartment in connection with it? 
A. A place for ice. She had no.ice when I saw her. 
Q. Was the ice put in a compartment and the beef hung in dry storage? Was 
that the arrangement, or was the meat packed in the ice? 
A. I can't state. I don't remember. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1613 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Doctor, will you please state to the court on whose staff you were serving in 
Porto Rico? 
A. Major-General Brooke's. 
Q. You stated you made frequent inspections of the company kitchens and the 
messes. As to the nature of the inspections, did you call for the company officers or 
for the medical officer? Were you accompanied always by some representative of 
the officers of the regiment with the knowledge of the commanding officer of the 
regiment? 
A. In official inspections I always reported to the headquarters of the regiment, 
and asked for the medical officer or for such officer as the colonel would ask to go 
with me. At other times, of course, I frequently stopped at the rear of the regi- 
ment, which I did not consider a regular inspection. It was done simply as I had 
time. 
Q. That was the point I was trying to get at, whether, when you made an inspec- 
tion, what you call a regular inspection 
A. Yes; in my inspections at Porto Rico I always visited the commanding officer 
and reported to him that I had come for that purpose, and asked for an officer to 
accompany me. 
Q. They had knowledge that you were coming to make inspections; that you were 
there with that object? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. So if there were any things to be corrected they would be brought to the atten- 
tion of the officer? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Other examinations would be made in a cursory way-simply riding around? 
A. Yes, sir. In my inspections at Porto Rico, at the end of each day or at each 
camp, I wrote a report which I forwarded to be mailed to General Brooke, and I 
wrote a report of w'hatever matters I considered necessary, which I gave to the com- 
manding officer by General Brooke's authority before leaving. I included in that 
the question of barracks and flooring of tentage, and I also furnished General Brooke 
a copy of the communication which I gave to Colonel Carusi or Captain Travers, 
whoever it happened to be. 
Q. There was included in this inspection, or under the command there, regulars 
and volunteers? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Infantry, cavalry, engineers, artillery, and the various branches of the service? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You speak of the rations in the hospital there as being issued the same as to 
the men. Do you wish the court to understand that the hospitals drew in the same 
proportion of rations as the men, or did they draw the rations in such proportions as 
they liked, and that the rations of the men were rather fixed by orders? 
A. Up to September the food that wre obtained for the hospitals was drawn simply 
as the rations were by any command, our commissary, of course, using his judgment 
in taking commutation of what he did not want, and using that for milk and ice 
money. 
Q. That was the point I was getting at. 
A. Yes; up to that time we did not receive General Orders, No. 116, and we drew 
exactly the same rations for our hospitals as the men. At Camp George H. Thomas 
it was an excessively complicated matter, for up until July the commissary of a hos- 
pital had to send in a ration return, which, for a hospital, would be half a dozen 
sheets of paper of that size [indicating] with the name of every man who would 
come in from a regiment. Afterwards that was changed. 1614 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. I understand the system in regard to that drawing, but what I was getting at 
was whether as a medical officer you could state whether in these hospitals they 
would be required to draw their rations according to the stated proportions of issues 
that would be made? 
A. We drew exactly as they did in the commands. 
Q. Was that fixed by orders? 
A. When we received a detachment of sick men from a regiment, they dropped 
them from the ration return of the regiment and we took them up. We had the 
advantage in quarters of beef in getting the hind quarter, which was given us on 
account of the hospital, to make soup of. The hospital always had a choice as to 
the section of the animal. 
Q. You were allowed, as I understand, to draw things for the sick, which other- 
wise would have been issued to troops in health? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. There was that distinction? 
A. Yes, sir; we drew those. 
Q. That is the point I was making. There would be that distinction in issuing to 
the hospitals. While the rations would be the same in amount, the hospital would 
be permitted to leave what the companies perhaps could not leave? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Prior to your appointment, you were engaged in the practice of your profes- 
sion, I believe? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Had you served in connection with troops prior to the late war as a medical 
officer of the United States? 
A. No, sir; not in the United States Army. I had been chief surgeon of Penn- 
sylvania. I was chief surgeon at the time we encamped 7,500 men for six weeks at 
the Homestead riots, and also at the Johnstown flood. I had charge of the Pennsyl- 
vania troops as well as the people of the valley. 
Q. You speak of wagons supplying fresh beef to the troops, and of the refrigerated 
beef being delayed in delivery, and you state in that connection, or I wish to bring 
it in in that connection, that after this refrigerated beef was removed it would only 
keep from two to eight hours. I believe I am correct in that. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How far inland, then, under the conditions of service existing down there at 
the time, could the troops be reasonably and properly, and I will say regularly, sup- 
plied with fresh beef in that way? I mean taking the average conditions. As a 
matter of fact, how far inland were they supplied satisfactorily? 
A. I considered they were supplied satisfactorily at Coamo, which was 5 miles 
from the coast, up to the engineer camp, and the farthest battalion; that is, the 
Second Battalion of the Nineteenth Infantry, at Ponce, and directly around Maya- 
guez. There was some complaint of the meat at Coamo, which is some 3C-odd 
kilometers, and also at Las Marias, which was, again, a matter of a whole day's haul 
over the mountains. 
Q. Will you please state whether you would consider that refrigerated beef would 
be a safe means of supplying troops with fresh beef, at the distance, we will say, of 
a good day's march, 18 or 20 miles, in that country? 
A. No; I consider it is impossible to do it. 
Q. About what would you put as the limit? I mean under the conditions of serv- 
ice there. I do not mean in perfect conditions, where a man could go and get his 
beef at the instant he wanted it and could always leave when he wanted to, but 
under the conditions of an army serving in a campaign? 
A. Fresh beef can be supplied simply at the ports where the vessels could touch 
and the troops were within a few miles; that is, within a morning's haul. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1615 
Q. In these inspections you made, you were not called upon or required to make 
any report as to the quantities of meat rations that were on hand in companies, or 
what they had drawn? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. That was not a matter that passed under your observation, nor were you required 
to make a report in regard to that? 
A. No, sir; except so far as I would consider it affected the health of the troops. 
It would then be immediately a matter for me to report. 
Q. Did you make any investigation especially as to the meat? Was there any 
special investigation that you were called upon to make as to the meat, any more 
than ordinary observation? 
A. I would see that its quality was proper for the men to use, and had there been 
official complaint, I wmuld pay attention to it. 
Q. These cooks were all enlisted men, of course, privates, as a rule; sometimes a 
noncommissioned officer being in charge of the kitchen, and those were the men you 
would question? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Were the company officers usually present in these inspections? 
A. Usually; because in visiting a company, the officer who went with me would 
send for the company officer of that company, and sometimes they were present. 
At other times I would merely see the sergeant. In the majority of cases I saw the 
officer, however. 
Q. You had no idea of the portion of the canned roast beef that was issued to the 
troops there, with reference to the other parts of the ration. You would not be 
able to give the proportion from any data you have? 
A. No; I can not, although I can remember talking it over frequently with the 
chief commissary, Colonel Sharpe, as to the proportion of sevenths and tenths. But 
as it was the regular ration and was properly assorted between bacon one day and 
fresh meat the other, it was not matter that I considered especially. I have here, 
which I just picked up at random, all the bills of fare of the hospital at Guayama 
for the last ten days of August. The surgeon in charge of the hospital furnished 
me each morning the bill of fare for both hospital corps men and the troops, and 
each morning I received from another officer the report of his inspection of the 
cooking; so that those bills of fare, running over the last ten days of August, would 
give just the ration as it was cooked. It is the regular ration of bacon and other 
meat, and the vegetables which they used. 
Q. Did you use any considerable quantity of canned roast beef in the hospitals, or 
what is called canned roast beef? Did you use any considerable quantities of that? 
Do those reports show? 
A. No; I don't think they will show the amount of canned beef, for in stating in 
reference to beef stew or beef soup it refers simply to the beef without giving where 
it came from. 
Q. Without stating whether it was fresh beef or canned beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Had you any knowledge or personal experience as to the use of this canned 
roast beef as a field ration-that is, I mean for troops moving, marching, and so on? 
Did that come under your observation in any way? 
A. That it was used I know, because I have seen the cans in the men's hands at 
outposts; but further than that I know nothing about it. I have seen them eat- 
ing it. 
Q. Have you any information as to the proportion of canned roast beef or meats 
of that character, so called, that was condemned-I mean that was thrown away as 
being bad? Have you any knowledge or information on that subject at all? 
A. No. 1616 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Is there any record of that? 
A. No; I have no record. 
Q. I mean in the commissary or in the company? 
A. No; I have no record. 
Q. Do you know what the system was with the commissary in regard to swelled 
cans or cans that were bad? 
A. They were replaced by others. 
Q. You have no information as to whether thecontractor replaced those, have you? 
A. No; that I know nothing about. I know in regard to the replacing, because in 
the Tenth Pennsylvania and the Second Wisconsin at Coamo, and in our troops at 
Guayama, I recall particularly times when we went over the cans to see the swelling, 
and I found they had been in the habit of throwing away cans, and I called the 
officers' attention to the carelessness of doing it, instead of putting them on the wagon 
and sending them back to the commissary and demanding other rations in return, in 
order not to lose. 
Q. So those issues in that way would be due probably to the issues being made in 
the cases without opening them, would they not? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What do you call that meat? Is it what is labeled and advertised to the public, 
spread out on the label, canned roast beef, or is it canned boiled beef? 
A. It is beef that has been very much boiled. 
Q. So the name is a misnomer? 
A. Yes, sir; I never saw any except that which was boiled in the cans, and very 
much boiled, with a very large portion taken out of it. 
Q. I wish you would state, Doctor, please, to the court in regard to the nutriment. 
I do not know whether you made any alalysis. If you did, I would like to have you 
state it; but you say very much boiled and a good portion taken out of it. I would 
like for you to state to the court in regard to the nutriment of that canned roast beef. 
We are on that now. 
A. My opinion was and is that a large portion of the nutriment had been taken 
out. I made the statement at my own mess. I was messing with Colonel Sharpe, 
the commissary, and he used canned beef on the table. I complained of it there as 
not being a meat that ought to have been used, or being meat that had had a por- 
tion of it boiled out, as I believed, to make extracts of beef from before being put in 
the cans. That statement I made before Colonel Sharpe and before General Sheii- 
dan. I remember the conversation at the time, and the answer given that such 
firms as were supplying the meat would not risk their reputations by taking nutri- 
ment out of the meat before furnishing it; but that was my opinion of it. 
Q. Will you please state, as a matter of general information, what firms were 
furnishing it. I believe you did state that. 
A. No; the only name that I can remember being used was that of Armour. I 
remember the answer of General Sheridan, that Armour & Co. would not risk their 
reputation. 
Q. You recall, do you not, that Armour & Co. furnished very extensively a beef 
extract? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And to all appearances that beef had the appearance of having a great deal of 
the nutriment taken out of it? 
A. Of having been well boiled and the nutriment taken away before being put into- 
he cans, with the melted fat, in which it became embedded. 
Q. I will ask you, as you have made a study of meats, whether in boiling this 
meat if it was cut up in small pieces, shaved off and put in in a sort of general mess 
in these small pieces, more of the nutriment would disappear in that way than if you 
were to cut out a big piece of meat and put it in and boil it? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1617 
A. Yes; more would disappear; and the meat in the cans which I described as 
being some of good meat and some of poor quality, second or third cuts of meat, 
answered that exactly, but in those cans w'hich I have seen which had good solid 
chunks of meat that nearly filled the can, one piece, it would be less stringy, less 
shreddy, and was better meat than where there were pieces that had evidently been 
taken from the muscles of the thigh, the flank muscles, the muscles of the fore leg, 
and which contained a great deal of fibrous tissue, in which case the meat was always 
paler in color and stringier than the more solid pieces. 
Q. Did any portions of the neck appear to be in there? 
A. Yes, sir; what the butchers call second and third cuts of meat. 
Q. The lower grades? 
A. The lower grades as to cuts. 
Q. I understood from your testimony-and if I am in error please correct me-that 
the majority of the canned beef that you found was of-did you say of the superior 
or inferior grade? 
A. Inferior. 
Q. So there were different grades, were there? 
A. There were different grades. 
Q. In view of those facts, I would ask you, from your experience with the troops 
of Pennsylvania and from your experience in the late war, whether you would 
recommend that as a material component of the meat ration for the soldiers of the 
United States Army; I mean under the conditions of active service? 
A. I should consider good canned meat a useful adjunct to the ration. 
Q. I speak of the kind you saw dowm there, taking it hit and miss. I do not 
know that it is necessary to ask you that question, in view of your testimony, how- 
ever, but take it as you found it. 
A. I think it ought to have been of a great deal better quality. 
Q. Did you, in connection with your investigations or inquiries, learn as to why 
or when it was adopted as an army component of the ration for the soldier? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Or whether there had been any previous general use of it in the Army? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Doctor, we have heard your interesting testimony on all points, and particu- 
larly on this point in regard to what is called chemicalized beef. You say you made 
no particular inquiry, from the fact that you have'known for a number of years that 
preparations have been used to preserve meats? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I am not a chemist, and know nothing about it, but there is a preparation 
called preservaline. I presume you have heard of it. 
A. Only by the newspapers. 
Q. Have you any information or knowledge on that subject as to its qualities for 
keeping meat? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Could formaldehyde be used at all in the preservation of meats? 
A. As a wash for the exterior I have used that a great deal in the dissecting room. 
It keeps meat in very fresh condition and good appearance, and it will keep a long 
time. It simply browns the meat a little on the surface, but the meat underneath 
remains absolutely fresh in appearance, and it requires a very small quantity to use. 
Q. It is not expensive? 
A. No. 
Q. It could be used on an extensive scale without any deleterious effects, appar- 
ently? 
A. Yes. 
S. Doc. 270 102 1618 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. And would act as a preservative with meat? 
A. It preserves meat a long time. 
Q. In what particular case would it be best to use it; in shipping meats to a warm 
climate or in our climate along the lakes? Where would it generally be used? 
A. I don't know whether it has ever been used. I know in the dissecting room we 
use it to preserve large dissected pieces from day to day or to keep them from decom- 
posing. We simply brush it over the exterior as far as the. dissecting has gone, as 
far as the muscles have been removed. We brush the exterior and then it is 
perfectly fresh the next day. 
Q. Have you any information or knowledge in regard to the use of any sort of 
preservatives to kill germs or to preserve meats in the nature of fumes, started from 
a closed car, or in a closed room, or anything of that sort? 
A. No; I never heard of that. 
Q. I will ask you this question: If a contract should have been made for Cuba or 
Porto Rico to keep meat seventy-two hours after it left the ship's refrigerator, or 
twenty-four hours after it had left the refrigerator or cooling place that was on the 
shore, to be taken to troops at any distance, would refrigerated beef in its natural 
state keep that long? 
A. No, sir; it would not. 
Q. What would be necessary in order to have it for that? Would it require the 
use of preservatives, in your opinion, or not? 
A. I should doubt if they would keep it that length of time. 
Redirect examination by the Recordek: 
Q. I would like to ask one question, Colonel: Suppose fresh beef to be boiled in 
water, or to be cooked in water, the temperature of which is above the point at 
which albumen coagulates, for thirty minutes; then to be put in a can, hermetically 
sealed, and subjected to a temperature of from 225 to 250 degrees. What would be 
the effect of the entire operation in the way of loss of nutriment? 
A. The loss of nutriment would simply be the amount of matter which has been 
extracted in the preliminary boiling. 
Q. Under those circumstances, the temperature being above the point at which 
albumen coagulates, how much nutriment would be extracted; that is, not in per cent, 
but much or little? 
A. You say thirty minutes' boiling? 
Q. Thirty minutes. 
A. I should think a fair percentage would be extracted. 
Q. Of the proteids? 
A. Of the proteids and fatty matter. 
By General Davis: 
Q. What does the doctor mean by a fair percentage? Will you specify numerically? 
A. I would be unable to say numerically. It would be that amount which comes 
out-it is simply that matter which is almost thick enough or rich enough to serve 
for a soup. It is about the period we boil ordinary boiled beef for the table. 
Q. A quarter or a half? 
A. I should think less than a quarter. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Do I understand you, Doctor, to say that ordinary boiled beef as served on our 
own tables in our own families, has one-fourth of the nutriment extracted out of it by 
boiling it? 
A. Not one-fourth of the nutriment; one-fourth of the proteid matter. However, 
that usually goes into a soup. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1619 
Q. When you speak of the loss being used in the preparation of beef extract, do 
you mean to say that beef extract contains a large quantity of nutriment? 
A. No; beef extract is rather a stimulant than a nutriment. 
Recross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. I will ask the doctor again in regard to the nutriment; I mean the sustaining 
qualities. 1 will not endeavor to use any technical terms. I mean the sustaining 
qualities, the feeling to a soldier eating it that it had rejuvenated him, given him 
strength. Would not that depend on the sized pieces that were boiled in that way? 
A. Yes, sir; to a great extent. 
Q. And if it happened to be soaked in water for five or six hours before that, 
would or would not that tend to still further reduce the nutriment? 
A. It would tend to further reduce it. 
Q. In your personal experience, in regard to that which you had eaten, what 
would you estimate, in a rough way, of those sustaining qualities of the meat that 
one would expect to get, had been taken out? 
A. When I first used it, I complained more of its fibrous character and its 
tastelessness. 
Q. I mean generally as to your observation of it and of what you used under the 
conditions dowrn there. I am not speaking of the best grade, but I am speaking of 
the majority, which was of the inferior grade, as you term it? 
A. 'It was perfectly eatable meat. 
Q. It could be eaten? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That is, when in good condition? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Of course, there could be no trial on eating any that was not in apparently good 
condition. Do you know anything as to the keeping qualities of that meat with men 
who would open it down in that country by a soldier having a ration or say two or 
three days' rations issued to him in a can, and going out on a march-how long it 
would keep in that climate? 
A. Not beyond the day it was opened 
By General Davis: 
Q. Doctor, you speak of a good kind or good quality of this canned beef being a 
valuable adjunct to the ration, I think you said, did you not, if it was properly made. 
Is that right? 
A. Yes, sir; I mean to say that under certain circumstances it would furnish meat 
which could not otherwise be procured. 
Q. Will you suggest or name the process by which you would have it prepared? 
A. I can not imagine any other way it could be prepared, except to sterilize it by 
the boiling of steam and then hermetically sealing it. I can not imagine any other 
process which would preserve it. 
Q. Canned de novo and boiled or any other operation? 
A. I have had no practical experience to say whether it could be canned without 
having been heated first. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Have you heard of Dold's fresh meat, canned and furnished in cans of 6, 
8, and 10 pounds, fixed up to be prepared as Hamburger steak? Did you have any 
experience with that? 
A. I don't know it personally. 
Q. There was none of that issued down at Porto Rico to your knowledge? 
A. None to my knowledge. 1620 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Do you remember meeting Captain Pomeroy down there? 
A. No, sir. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Captain Williams, of the Quartermaster's Department. 
TESTIMONY OF CAPT. WILLIAM P. WILLIAMS, U. S. A. 
Capt. William P. Williams, U. S. A., was called as a witness by the recorder, and, 
being duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. My name is William P. Williams. I am a captain and quartermaster, United 
States Army. 
Q. What is your station as an officer? 
A. I have had command of the Chester, but I am just going to leave. I have been 
mustered out. I had command of the Panama from the 12th of June until the 7th 
of July, in Porto Rico and Santiago. 
Q. Were you engaged upon that duty at the time the Panama was outfitted with a 
view to its use as a hospital transport ? 
A. Yes, sir; I had command at the time Major Daly was assigned to the ship in 
charge of convalescents. 
Q. Had it been used prior to that time for hospital purposes ? 
A. No, sir; we had a contracting expedition on board of some 250 stevedores and 
members of the ship's crew-engineers, dock builders, railroad builders, and steve- 
dores-and we had been at anchor in the harbor of Ponce from the 28th of July until 
the 29th of August, when we started to alter the ship over into a hospital ship for the 
movement of hospital patients, convalescents, those who were able to walk along 
without nurses and attendants. 
Q. Please state to the court what facilities there were on board for the proper pres- 
ervation of fresh meat, and what repairs or modifications "were made with that view? 
A. We had an ice box on the port bow on the lower deck, which was about 15 by 
12 feet, which would conveniently hold about 10 or 12 tons of ice up at a height of 
about 6 feet. We had hooks around the sides of the ice house, and when that meat 
was brought in, we would either hang the quarters up on hooks or else place the 
meat flat on the ice. When the Panama was assigned as a convalescent ship, we 
made no change in the ice box at all. We had no time to do so. 
Q. Was it in a serviceable condition? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was it dry cold storage? 
A. No; it was the cold storage from the ice. We had no partitions. The meat 
was in contact with the i«e 
Q. Please state to the court to the best of your recollection all the lots of fresh beef 
that were put on board for any use prior to the sailing of the Panama with its load 
of patients. 
A. When I arrived at Ponce on the 28th of July, we found that the fresh meat was 
nearly out, and at that time there were no transports that I was able to get meat 
from; so I got permission from the commanding general to have some beef killed. 
I went up into Ponce, and found the leading meat man or butcher of the place 
Q. What was his name? 
A. I don't remember his name now, sir. I have it on my vouchers. 
Q. Was it Mayaral? 
A. I think it was. He has a house on the plaza there. The contract was that the 
meat should be delivered at the wharf at Port Ponce an hour previous to sunrise. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1621 
The first lot I ordered, I think, was 2,000 pounds, and the meat was to be well drained. 
Two days from that, when the beef was to be delivered, I had my steward on shore 
at the time specified, and the meat did not arrive until about 7 o'clock, nearly an hour 
and a half after sunrise. I went on shore with the steward, and the meat was brought 
down in a covered ox cart. We unloaded it from the cart, and started to load it on 
the boat, and we noticed it was very black in appearance. I asked the natives how 
it had been killed. My Spanish was interpreted by another person. He informed 
me that the beef had been struck in the head and then bled afterwards. We took 
only one-half of it on board. We got it on board about 9 o'clock, and we cooked it 
for dinner. We threw it out because it had spoiled. 
Q. Threw all of it out? 
A. Yes, sir; the portion that we had cooked. The men were not able to eat that, 
so I threw the whole lot back on the contractor, and he wrote 
Q. Let me interrupt you. To whom was it served and for whose use was it? 
A. It was served to the crew forward, and I think we served some in the cabin 
also. We had clerks and employees of our Department who ate in the cabin, proba- 
bly eighteen or twenty men. We went on shore and made a new contract with this 
butcher on this condition, that the neck should be cut while the beef was alive and 
allowed to drain thoroughly. I accepted one lot which was satisfactory. 
Q. About what weight? 
A. It was about 800 or 900 pounds. They are very light there. It was brought 
down in the dark, previous to sunrise, and taken right aboard the ship. That we ate, 
but it was very tough. We put it right on the ice. While I was there, during the 
month of August, we made two more purchases on shore. Meanwhile the Manitoba 
and the Massachusetts had come in with the refrigerated beef. I made three purchases 
from the Manitoba, but in each case we would have the boats from our ship promptly 
on hand at the Manitoba in the early morning and take the meat right from the ship 
and bring it over and put it into our ice box. There was one lot that was wrongly 
sent on shore with a lighter load, with some commissary stores. It remained in the 
sun until after 2 o'clock in the afternoon before it was landed alongside of the Panama, 
and that lot we threw out. We condemned that. We could not eat it. I attributed 
that to the humidity of the atmosphere, which I thought at the time had that effect 
on the meat. 
Q. When did you equip the Panama for its trip north with the convalescents? 
A. We started to equip the Panama on the 28th of August, and on the 1st of Sep- 
tember we sailed for Arroyo, to the eastward some 35 miles, to take on board the 
first convalescents. At that time we only had a small amount of meat on board, 
native beef, which was simply enough to last us from day to day, as we had no ice. 
The total capacity of the ice houses at Ponce was only about 3 tons a day. Pre- 
vious to the Commanding General leaving he had given orders that the Panama 
should be thoroughly chilled and equipped with ice for the convalescents, and we 
left an order for 10 tons; but after the Commanding General had left, the general 
in command at Ponce took all of the ice and gave us none, and sent us from Arroyo 
back to Ponce with convalescents. We took on board the meat at Ponce and then 
went around to Mayaguez, one day away, where we got 8 tons of ice. 
Q. What kind of meat was that? 
A. We got about 2,000 pounds of native beef at Ponce, which I paid for. We got 
about 4,000 pounds of beef from the commissary which I understood came from the 
Manitoba, and all of that meat-I say we got no ice at Ponce. On the 2d of Sep- 
tember we got a ton and a half, but the meat was loaded in a warm ice house. 
Q. The ice house on the Panama? 
A. The ice house on the Panama. It was comparatively -warm. One ton and a 
half would not cool that large space for the warm beef that came into it. The next 
day 1622 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Right there, what kind of meat had you in going from Ponce to Mayaguez? 
A. Two thousand pounds of Porto Rican beef, which we were using first, and about 
4,000 pounds of commissary meat, which I suppose was from the Manitoba. 
Q. That is what you had on hand? 
A. Yes, sir. We used the native beef first. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. For whom? 
A. For the convalescents, for a sort of broth. We had an extra allowance for the 
convalescents, made up of jellies. We gave them claret punch and ice cream and 
everything that was possible to build them up. I think it was one day away from 
Mayaguez we called the board of survey. We noticed there was a very bad smell, 
and we thought it was from the ice box; but we found it was not only from the ice 
box, but from the rations, the canned beef, which was on the deck below. The board 
of survey was called by Major Daly, consisting of Captain Irving, Lieutenant Preston, 
I think, and myself. 
Q. And yourself? 
A. I think I was on it. I don't remember. I know I saw the meat and I had my 
clerk make a record of the amounts and weights that were thrown overboard. 
Q. What meat was it that was submitted to the board of survey? 
A. It was the meat from the Manitoba. 
Q. How many days out? 
A. It was about one day out from Mayaguez, which was two days from the day it 
was loaded at Ponce. 
Q. How much ice did you get altogether in the box before you started on the 
voyage? 
A. We got 8 tons at the ice house in Mayaguez. Probably from the time we 
got it on board, on account of breakage and everything, there was not more than 
6 tons. 
Q. Was the native beef entirely consumed? 
A. Not all consumed; no, sir. I think there were 200 or 300 pounds of it that went 
overboard. 
Q. Was all the fresh beef thrown over? 
A. Yes; all that was left. 
Q. What quantities of canned roast beef had you on board? 
A. We had, I think, 1,000 pounds. 
Q. Did you examine it? 
A. Yes; we examined it there, but we thought we would wait until we got to 
Fortress Monroe, and there have another board of survey. It was unloaded and 
sent ashore at Fortress Monroe. I didn't see it there. 
Q. Did you examine it as to its condition at any time? 
A. Not that lot; no, sir. I had other matters to attend to. That was not my prop- 
erty. It was Captain Irving's business. He had taken it up on his papers. I had 
other matters at Fortress Monroe. Previously, I had served canned beef during 
August, when we were short of native beef or beef from the ships, and it was very 
unsatisfactory. I have eaten alligator steak, and it was stringy, like that. 
Q. Where did you get it? 
A. I got 300 cans on a requisition approved by Major Black. 
Q. Where? At Ponce? 
A. At Ponce. 
Q. Was it all used up? 
A. No, sir; it was thrown overboard. I don't think we used more than 50 cans 
of it. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
1623 
Q. How many cans were found to be spoiled or tainted, swelled; or if you can 
answer, what proportion? 
A. I should think two-thirds of it was bad. The steward kept the record of it and 
asked me to come forward. I went forward and it was in very bad condition. He 
threw it overboard. 
Q. Would your returns show the transaction? 
A. Yes, sir. I think it is about two-thirds. 
Q. Are those returns on file? 
A. No, sir; those are included in the Van Aiken property accounts. That is a 
civilian contract. The last papers were mailed from Savannah yesterday. These 
requisitions were approved by Major Black and then were sent out to the ships in 
the harbor to be filled. This one came through either the Manitoba or the Massa- 
chusetts, I think. We were unloading all of those ships that month, and we made 
frequent visits-or our boats did-to each one of the ships. The records will show 
which ship furnished it. 
Q. Do I understand you have any papers on file in the Quartermaster-General's 
Office that would show what disposition was made of all the canned roast beef that 
came aboard; that is, have you accounted for it? 
A. Yes, sir; the amount of canned roast beef that was sent on shore at Fortress 
Monroe. In the Van Aiken civilian account they were not obliged to keep an accu- 
rate account, as we were in the service, because we were allowed so much to expend 
per man per day. The meat was served out to them, and if it was spoiled they threw 
it overboard, and simply had it replaced. 
Q. By whom was it replaced? 
A. It was replaced by the commissary. 
Q. By whom were the accounts kept, then? . 
A. The accounts were kept by my clerk. When my accounts are in, the civilian 
accounts for that quarter, then it will be shown on those papers. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Captain, how long were you in Porto Rico on duty? 
A. I was at anchor in the harbor of Ponce from the 28th of July until the 2d day 
of September unloading the different transports, and acting as a sort of depot quar- 
termaster until the arrival of Colonel Pullman. 
Q. Who were the commissary officers there during that time? 
A. Captain Pomroy, Colonel Sharp, Colonel Smith, and Major Black. 
Q. Did you ever make any inspection or examination, or have any opportunity to 
do so, of the beef on the Manitoba? Did that come under your observation? 
A. No, sir; I unloaded the Manitoba and I used to go forward nearly every day to 
inspect the beef and supplies served out to my ship's crew? I used to taste it myself. 
With that exception I did not make any inspection. 
Q. That was after its arrival there, after it was unloaded? 
A. After it was all cooked and brought to the mast. I used to have them bring it 
to the mast to see if it was fit for the crew to eat. 
Q. I understand you were in charge as quartermaster on the Panama on its return 
when Dr. Daly had the convalescents aboard? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Y ou speak of the fact that the commanding general had ordered the ship to be 
fitted up properly for the convalescents. Who was that? 
• A. General Miles. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Who was the other general to whom you referred? 
A. I think the commanding general of the province was General Wilson. He was 
fitting out the Concha. 1624 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. You speak of the proceedings of a board of survey. Have you a copy of the 
proceedings, or can you indicate to the court where a copy of the proceedings can be 
obtained? 
A. Yes, sir; Capt. R. J. C. Irving, of the Eleventh Infantry, was the acting com- 
missary officer, and he has a copy. 
Q. Who was accountable for this beef that was thrown overboard? 
A. The commissary officer, Captain Irving. He took it up in his papers. 
Q. He was responsible for it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In regard to the canned roast beef you speak of on board that vessel, was it on 
that trip that it was condemned? 
A. Yes, sir; the rations he drew not only included the native beef and the refrig- 
erated beef, but corned beef, or rather this canned beef. 
Q. Was it canned corned beef or canned roast beef? 
A. It was canned roast beef. 
Q. In your examination of the cans when they were opened and shown to you by 
the steward, did you see them before they were opened or after they were opened? 
A. I saw them at both times. 
Q. In the process of opening? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Will you please state whether you made an examination of the cans to ascer- 
tain about what was the matter with the meat? 
A. No, sir; I simply looked at the-meat and got the odor. I smelt of the top 
surface, and that convinced me they had spoiled. 
Q. In opening these cans, did some of them appear to be in pretty fair condition 
before opening, or were they all swollen, as far as you remember? 
A. I think as a usual thing the tops were rather bulged out. 
Q. Did you notice what brands or makes they were? 
A. I don't remember that, sir. 
Q. That meat had been drawn from the commissary at Ponce? 
A. Yes; that had been drawn on approval of Major Black, and the requisitions 
were taken out to the ship to be filled. 
Q. Do you know what commissary issued it there? 
A. Captain Pomroy. 
Q. Had you any experience with the canned roast beef at Ponce other than what 
you have testified to on this ship? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. There were about how many cans that you threw overboard of this? 
A. I should think about a thousand. 
Q. You inspected all of it; that is, you made an inspection to satisfy yourself? 
A. Yes, sir. There were about a thousand cans on the trip of the convalescents 
and about a thousand cans that I had for the ship's crew previous to the conva- 
lescents' trip. 
Q. That would make about 300? 
A. Yes, sir; and I think two-thirds of the 300 cans were bad. 
Q. That would make 200 of those that were bad? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Then about the thousand cans. Did they pass under your observation? 
A. I don't know as to the number that was thrown overboard. They were con- 
demned and taken on shore at Fort Monroe. 
Q. You do not know as to the disposition that was made of them? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Do you know what officer received the thousand cans at Fort Monroe? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1625 
A. No, sir; I do not remember who it was. I was engaged on other work at the 
time. 
Q. Was any effort made to issue any of this canned roast beef to the men, the con- 
valescents on board the ship? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. With what results? 
A. They wouldn't take it; they refused it. 
Q. For what reason? 
A. On account of it being too heavy for them. The odor, in the first place, they 
couldn't stand. 
Q. Did you eat it yourself? 
A. I have eaten it a good many days on the ship; yes, sir. 
Q. Did you find a difference in the grades of it? Did you find some that was good, 
some fair, and some bad? 
A. Yes, sir; I found that some was palatable, and had a certain amount of sub- 
stance and juice with it, while the other was very dry and shreddy. 
Q. Without nutriment? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was it unsatisfactory, unwholesome as a food? Did you find any of it so? Of 
course I do not mean that you undertook to eat any of it that you thought was 
spoiled; but what you did eat, did you find any of it unwholesome? 
A. Yes, sir; I simply smelled it at the mast before the crew. If it was very bad, 
I ordered it condemned. If it was palatable, I allowed it to go in the mess. 
Q. Did you know of any nausea or sickness or bad effects following its use? 
A. Only from hearsay, sir. 
Q. On the boat was it a general remark? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You may state what that was, if it was a matter of general notoriety. 
A. The reputation of the canned beef was such that when we were out of the 
native beef, which the men craved for, and also the refrigerated beef, when they had 
to eat corned beef, they objected; and I thought sometimes, when the beef had a 
bad taste, the cooks did not choose the spices and the necessary precautions in 
cooking it, in order that it would be bad, so that we would go on shore and make more 
contracts for native beef; but we had so much work to do, in unloading the different 
transports that it was very difficult to spend a few hours and go to Ponce and make 
contracts for native beef and arrange for our boats to go and get it. They were 
occupied otherwise. 
Q. You speak of corned beef. Do you mean that or canned roast beef? 
A. I mean canned roast beef. 
Q. Did you superintend the loading of the beef on the vessel, the Panama, or did 
you have a commissary-sergeant or some one to attend to that work for you? 
A. No, sir; I found the ship already loaded when I joined her in New York. I 
joined her on the 13th and she sailed on the 14th. 
Q. I mean coming back from Ponce. Were there convalescents loading the 
beef on? 
A. No, sir; I had my steward and men load the beef. 
Q. They attended to all of that? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you know of a commissary-sergeant under your orders in any way or sent 
by Captain Pomroy? Do you know who he was or what he had to do with it? 
A. No, sir; the commissary-sergeant's name I don't remember. He was detailed 
under Captain Pomroy, and there was another commissary-sergeant under Captain 
Irving, acting commissary of the ship, who received the beef. 
Q. After your return and since, have you had any more experience with the canned 
roast beef ration? 1626 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. No, sir; 1 have transported about 13,000 troops on the Chester, and we have had 
no serious trouble with the canned beef. I attributed it more particularly to the 
warm climate and the very high temperature of the ship's hold down there. 
Q. Did you see any of the canned roast beef in the commissary department? Did 
you ever notice it and observe it there, how it was received among the troops and 
what was done with it? 
A. No, sir; I simply unloaded it. 
By General Davis: 
Q. You paid for this fresh beef, did you, Captain, as purchaser-the beef that you 
bought from the natives in Porto Rico? 
A. Yes, I did; except one amount of nearly 800 pounds of fresh beef. The beef 
was 10 cents a pound, and the stewards paid for it, but on the way up Major Daly 
found that instead of being 10 cents a pound United States money, it should have 
been 10 cents a pound Porto Rican money, and he ordered the payment of the checks 
stopped until I could investigate on my next trip and see if the steward got that 
difference. I investigated it on my next trip, and found it was all right.' 
Q. Was that beef for the use of the crew or for convalescents? 
A. Both, sir. 
Q. It was accounted for subsequently, as I understand, by Captain Irving? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Then you made a transfer to him? 
A. No, sir; Captain Irving bought the beef from the Manitoba, that is, for the 
convalescents' trip, and I bought the native beef. The native beef was for the use 
of my ship's crew, which is entirely independent of the convalescents. 
Q. So the beef for the convalescents, or rather the beef that Captain Irving pro- 
cured, he accounted for? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And the native beef you procured you accounted for? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And it was used indiscriminately by both? 
A. Yes; as long as we did not exceed the meat component of the ration. 
Q. The board of survey, you think, was held the first or second day out from 
Mayaguez? 
A. I think it was the first day out of Mayaguez. 
Q. The first day out? 
A. I am not sure whether it was the first or second. My private log will show it. 
Q. To what cause did you attribute the spoiling of this beef; to what cause did you 
assign it-this beef that was thrown over as spoiled? 
A. The long time in loading it from the Manitoba to the commissary on shore, and 
then on the Panama again, the humidity of the atmosphere, and the lack of ice- 
principally the lack of ice. 
Q. Did you hear anything said about a quarter of beef found to be bad when it 
came on board, and being thrown overboard at the gangway. 
A. At Ponce? 
Q. Yes. 
A. No, sir; I did not. 
Q. Or at Arroyo or anywhere? 
A. No, sir; I don't remember that. It might have occurred, because I was not in 
charge of that loading. I was settling up the Van Aiken contracting expedition on 
shore. 
Q. The quantity condemned and thrown overboard by the board of survey, if I 
understand you correctly, was 4,000 pounds of the Manitoba beef and about 350 
pounds of the native beef. Is that right? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1627 
A. We had 2,000 pounds of the native beef to start with, and 4,000 pounds of 
Manitoba beef, and we had about two days' rations for 300 convalescents and 100 
men of the ship's crew. That would be 400. We probably used 800 pounds out of 
the beef in the 6 days. 
Q. So there would be about 5,200 pounds thrown overboard? 
A. I should think about that. The records will show. 
Q. What purports to be the report of this board has been printed in a public docu- 
ment, and the quantity stated there as thrown overboard is 963 pounds. Could you 
throw any light on the difference of figures, supposing, of course, that this report 
that has been printed is true. 
A. I can not account for that, sir, until I see the records. I thought that Captain 
Irving drew about 4,000 pounds. 
Q. This paper purports to have been approved by Major Daly? 
A. I suppose that we had drawn rations for about 400 men for ten days, and that, 
you see, would be over 4,000 pounds. Then I had my ship's crew of 100 men for 
ten days. 
Q. The returns that you filed show the disposition of the provisions that were pur- 
chased for the use of the ship's crew? 
A. Yes, sir; that is all. 
Q. And of canned roast beef that you handled of that kind obtained from Captain 
Pomeroy there were-what was it, 300 cans? 
A. Three hundred; yes, sir. 
Q. And the roast beef that Captain Irving was accountable for was taken back to 
Fort Monroe? 
A. Yes, sir. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Did you see any of this meat landed on board the Panama? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You did not see any of it? 
A. No, sir; I saw it when it was thrown overboard. 
Q. When you were receiving it at Ponce, did you see it? 
A. No, sir; it was not my business. 
Q. But were you on deck, and did you notice it? 
A. No, sir; I was on shore probably most of that time. I was on shore most of 
the last two or three days settling up the contracting expedition. I saw it when it 
was thrown overboard, though. 
Q. You speak of the report being made that the ice box was offensive, or that 
there was an odor from it. You made the examination at that time? 
A. Yes, sir; I went right forward and had my steward open it up. At first we 
traced the smell down below. We found it came from the canned beef. We opened 
the ice box, and there we got a very bad odor. 
Q. In what capacity was Major Daly acting on the steamer? 
A. He was in charge of the convalescents. 
Q. Did he have charge of the ship? 
A. No, sir; he was put in command of the ship erroneously. I was placed there 
by the Secretary of War, and General Luddington stated that the orders could not 
be changed. He was in charge of the convalescents. 
Q. Were you under his orders? 
A. I was under his orders, he being the ranking officer; yes, sir. 
Q. Did you observe any experiments that he made there with reference to this 
beef, or do you know of any experiments that he made? 
A. Not on the way up, sir. I know he examined the beef very carefully and made 
records of it. We slept in the same cabin. I gave him my bed and I took a cot bed. 
Q. Did he make any observations? 1628 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Yes, sir; I know he made a number of observations and also notes; and had 
my clerk make typewritten notes. 
Q. Did he make any statement to you as to what those observations were? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you know the nature of the observations? 
A. Not at all. 
Q. Did he say anything about his suspicion that the meat was chemically treated? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Was that question ever referred to on board ship? 
A. I never heard of it, sir, until I read it in the papers. 
Q. Did you ever hear Major Daly say anything as to the character of the beef, 
whether he thought it was good, bad, or indifferent? 
A. He thought it was very bad, and he spoke about the color of the outside of the 
meat, that is, the discolorations, and the growth of mold, and the queer color, and 
the slimy appearance of the outside of the cotton sacks surrounding the meat. He 
spoke of that. 
Q. Did he think it unfit for issue? 
A. Yes, sir; we all thought so. 
Q. And still he issued it? 
A. No, sir; it was thrown overboard then. 
Q. That is the time it was thrown overboard? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did he say anything about the meat before this board of survey was formed? 
A. I think not, because the meat up to that time had been fairly good. 
Q. And you had been issuing it regularly? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did that meat have the mold on it when it was delivered, do you know? 
A. I don't know, sir. I didn't see it. 
Q. Did Major Daly say anything about the meat after it had been condemned and 
thrown overboard? 
A. Not that I remember. The only time I heard the major speak of the meat 
was when we went forward and had these pieces hauled up out of the ice box. 
When it lay there on the deck he spoke of the slimy appearance and the mold and 
the growth of the mold, the discoloration and the very peculiar odor. That 1 
noticed myself. 
Q. Was there any peculiar odor about it? 
A. There was a very peculiar odor; yes, sir. 
Q. Other than that of decomposed meat? 
A. My experience with decomposed meat had been very limited at the time and 
it was a new odor to me. 
Q. Had you any familiarity before that time with the refrigerated meat? 
A. Yes, sir; I had used it on the Panama all during the month of August, from 
the Manitoba and from the Massachusetts. 
Q. Did this meat appear different from any meat that you had previously used? 
A. It did, because it had spoiled. 
Q. But was there any other difference than that of spoiling? 
A. No, sir; the other meat that I got from the Manitoba, where it lay in the lighter 
any length of time-one special requisition which was spoiled between the time we 
took it out from the Manitoba in the morning, and the time of delivering it alongside 
of the ship in the afternoon, about 4 o'clock. That meat had spoiled when it came 
over the side. The steward called my attention to it and I had it condemned. 
Q. You had received meat previously from the Manitoba, had you not? 
A. Yes; I made three payments to Captain Aspinwall. 
Q. What had been the character of that meat? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1629 
A. It was very good meat, where we unloaded it rapidly from the ship and put it 
right into our icebox, but where there was twelve hours in the transition stage it 
seemed to spoil. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Was any Manitoba meat of the last lot cooked on board the Panama? 
A. Yes, sir; I think there was. 
Q. Then the whole of it could not have been thrown overboard? 
A. Not the whole of it. I think the first day out from Ponce we used it and we 
cut off the outside and got down to the good meat, and kept that up until the further 
down we got we found the whole meat was bad, and then we held the board of 
survey. We ate it as long as we could. 
Q. Then you had two kinds on board? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. The native beef and the Manitoba beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How much of the Manitoba beef was consumed, do you think, of the last lot 
received? 
A. There were three days there, and I should think 150 pounds a day. You see 
the soldiers were not eating. The convalescents were not eating meat. We were 
feeding them on jellies and game soups and beef tea and different things to build 
them up; so our ship's crew and cabin were living on the beef more particularly. 
Q. This 5,200 pounds thrown overboard would have to be reduced by whatever 
quantity of the Manitoba lot of beef was consumed? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You spoke of conveying a large number of troops on the Chester since then, and 
I understood you to say they had used canned roast beef on board the Chester. 
A. They used canned beef, yes, sir-the regular ration, canned beef. 
Q. Was it canned roast beef? 
A. I don't know as to that, sir. 
Q. You do not know whether it was canned roast beef or canned corned beef? 
A. No, sir; it was canned roast beef, though, I think. 
Q. Did it meet with objection? 
A. No, sir; I have never held any board of survey on the Chester for the throwing 
away of canned beef since last September. 
Q. Was that bringing troops home from the tropics that you refer to, or taking 
them out? 
A. Yes, sir; I made two trips to Cienfuegos, transporting the Fifteenth Infantry, 
the Thirty-first Michigan-I didn't go down on the last trip; I had fifteen days' 
leave. The Fifteenth Infantry was taken to Neuvitas, the Second Artillery to 
Havana, the Fourth Virginia to Havana. The Sixth Immunes were brought home 
from Porto Rico; also the Sixth Ohio and the Forty-seventh New York were trans- 
ported; also Colonel Ray's regiment. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. This refrigerator, so-called, on the Panama is not a refrigerator after all, is it? 
A. No, sir; it is simply an ice box. 
Q. Coming back to that meat again-where did that meat come from that came 
from the Manitoba? Did it come direct by lighters or from the commissary in the 
city? 
A. I understood it came from the commissary in the city. It was drawn from 
Captain Pomroy. 
Q. You do not know about that yourself? 
A. No, sir. 1630 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
By the President: 
Q. How were these troops fed on the Chester, Captain? 
A. Up to the 15th of January they were fed by the commissaries of the regiments. 
They brought on their travel rations and brought on their own meat. From the 15th 
of January up to the present time the quartermaster and acting commissary of the 
ship rationed them. It is the regular ration. 
Q. I mean are the rations cooked? 
A. Yes, sir; they are cooked. 
Q. Have they been all the time? 
A. Since about the 15th of January. We have large meat boilers now. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Is that canned beef used in cooking? 
A. No, sir; they eat that right out of the can. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. What is the shape of this can? Do you know whether it is canned roast beef 
or canned corned beef that they use as a travel ration? 
A. They use canned corned beef as a travel ration. 
Q. Prior to January I believe you had nothing to do with supplying these troops? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. They attended to that themselves? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. So that complaints would not come to you. They would go to their own 
officers? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. They would not be referred to you in any way ? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. The fact is you would have nothing to do with that? 
A. I usually know if they had a board of survey. 
Q. I say, unless something of that kind came up? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Who ordered the board of survey on the Panama"! 
A. It was ordered by Major Daly. 
Q. In regard to this canned roast beef with which you had some experience. You 
say you noticed there were different grades. How many grades did you notice, and 
what was the difference between the grades? 
A. I couldn't say as to that, sir. 
Q. I thought you had stated that. I misunderstood you? 
A. Yes, there is a difference. 
Q. I wish you would describe it as far as you can remember in your own way- 
whether one seemed to have more meat in it than the other? 
A. Yes, one kind of canned roast beef had more liquid in it, was more palatable. 
The other was very dry and very shreddy. 
Q. More gristle in it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you notice any gristle or tendons, or substance of that kind ? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Captain, from your experience in connection with the service-I am not speak- 
ing of the conditions in Washington city or New York, but under the conditions of 
service in Cuba or in Porto Rico-how long will refrigerated beef keep after you take 
it out of the refrigerator ship? 
A. Where there is a large amount of dampness or humidity in the atmosphere, I 
should say not more than twelve hours. 
Q. Not over twelve hours? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1631 
A. No, sir; I should say that from my experience there. 
Q. You say that you have noticed in regard to this beef that the odor was peculiar, 
and that Dr. Daly remarked the peculiarity of the odor? 
A. Yes, sir; we all spoke of it. 
Q. An odor is pretty hard to describe. Could you tell us about what it was, how 
it struck you at the time? I suppose you have occasionally in life encountered 
decomposition of matter. State whether it was exactly similar or whether there was 
something that struck you as peculiarly different from that. 
A. I think it was more like some of the bodies that my grandfather had been 
operating on. He was a doctor, and I used to accompany him in post-mortem 
examinations. It was very much like the odor of a dead body. It was a very foul 
odor, I know. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, there are no more witnesses to present 
this afternoon. 
Major Lee. If it please the court, without any question in regard to witnesses, I 
simply give notice now that I wish to submit to the court at its convenience, and as 
soon as I can be prepared for it, the names of witnesses which are deemed impor- 
tant: Colonel Reed, Captain Thompson, Major Little, Colonel Gilmore, Colonel 
Burke, and Colonel Harries, and also the reports of about two hundred officers of 
the Regular Army which have not yet been read to the court. I wish to bring that 
matter up to-morrow as soon as I can be prepared to submit it more in detail, with 
the reasons for the request. 
The court then (at 3.45 p. m.) adjourned until Thursday, April 13, 1899, at 10 
o'clock a. m. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
lieutenant Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C., 
Thursday, April 13, 1899. 
The court met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. Major Lee and the reporter were 
also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Spicer, of Pennsylvania. 
TESTIMONY OF RUDOLPH KELKER SPICER. 
Rudolph Kelker Spicer was called as a witness by the recorder, and, having 
been duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. Rudolph Kelker Spicer; 111 South Second street, Harrisburg, Pa.; funeral 
director and embalmer. 
Q. Were you in the military service of the United States during the war with 
Spain? 
A. I was. 
Q. To what organization were you attached? 
A. Company I of the Fourth Pennsylvania. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. When did you leave the United States, if you did leave, from what point, and 
where did you go? 
A. I was. 1632 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. In the first part of August, from Newport News, on the transport City of Wash- 
ington. We landed at the town of Arroyo, in Porto Rico. 
Q. How long after leaving the United States; how many days? 
A. Seven days, I think. 
Q. What kind of meat ration was issued to you after you landed in Porto Rico? 
A. The canned corned beef. The canned roast beef was all that was issued when 
we first arrived there. 
Q. How was that issued to you, in about equal parts, or differently? 
A. It was issued to the companies, and then we hadn't any messes. It was issued 
to the companies. We had cooks, and it was all served out to the men as they fell 
in line. 
Q. What I am trying to get at is in the drawing of the rations. You say you had 
canned corned beef and canned roast beef. Did you have any bacon issued to you? 
A. We bought bacon. It was not issued to us. We bought it and paid for it. 
Q. Who bought it; who do you mean? 
A. The company bought it. 
Q. Out of its own money? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. About what division was there in the issues of the canned roast beef and the 
canned corned beef? Was it half and half? 
A. That I couldn't say. I was not connected with the military department of the 
company at all. 
Q. You know what the company got, pretty much; do you not? 
A. No; I couldn't say that. 
Q. How long did you serve there, in Porto Rico? 
A. About four weeks. 
Q. Where did you go then? 
A. We came to New York, and then home. 
Q. Did you receive any fresh beef while you were in Porto Rico? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Describe what issues of fresh meat you had. 
A. Our first issue of fresh meat was the native beef, killed right at our camp and 
issued to us. A few days afterwards we were issued beef that was brought-I couldn't 
say from what transport, but it was brought to the wharf on the Gussie, a small 
steamship. It was brought from one of the transports that was lying out in the 
harbor. 
Q. Can you tell about what time that was; about how'long after you had landed 
there? 
A. About a week or ten days. 
Q. Did you know, by common report or general information, what vessel it was, 
if any, that had refrigerated beef on board, lying out in the harbor? 
A. If you take hearsay, our vessel, the City of Washington, we supposed, had 
refrigerated beef on, and also the City of Massachusetts. 
Q. Did you see that vessel in the harbor at that time; do you know? 
A. No; I can't say. 
Q. This beef, you say, was sent ashore and you received it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How much was issued to your company? 
A. Generally a quarter of it. 
Q. How many issues do you recall of that kind of beef, the refrigerated beef, was 
made? 
A. Only two that I recall. There may have been more, but I only recall two 
being made. 
Q. During the four weeks you were there? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1633 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Two issues of refrigerated beef? 
A. Yes; that is, to my knowledge. 
Q. That is all that I am asking you to testify to. Now, as to the native beef. 
You had how many issues of that? 
A. I believe two issues of that. 
Q. About two issues? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. So you had four issues, as near as you can remember, of fresh meat while you 
were there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. As to the issues of refrigerated beef. Did you have your attention called, or 
were you present, and did you notice the issue of that beef? If so, state all about it. 
A. I noticed the beef. The company not being stationed in the town at General 
Brooke's headquarters, and the whole company not being in service and not having 
a great deal to do, I was inclined to be around the kitchen a great deal. I noticed 
when the butcher started to cut up the refrigerated beef he would cut from 2 to 3 
inches and probably more than that of green surface off of decomposed meat and 
throw it away or burn it. In noticing this I noticed also crystalline scales on the 
meat. 
Q. How near were you to the meat when you noticed that? Describe more fully 
in regard to that matter. How did you observe it? Could you see it from a distance 
or were you close to it? 
A. I was close to it. I was as near as I am to this table now. 
Q. Looking at it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How did your attention happen to be directed to it, or why did it impress itseif 
upon your mind in any way? 
A. More so by the butcher calling attention to the green stuff-the decomposed 
beef-calling the attention of the men who were standing around there to the beef, 
and saying that he would have to cut it off and throw it away. 
Q. How long have you been in the embalming business; that is, in preparing bod- 
ies for burial, etc.? How long have you been connected with that work? 
A. I graduated from school six years ago, but before that I had done lots of embalm- 
ing. I graduated and received my diploma for embalming from the New York Col- 
lege of Embalming. 
Q. Six years ago? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Have you been pursuing that business since? 
A. Yes, sir; more or less. Sometimes for a few months I would be off, doing 
something else, but that is my business, and I have been doing it all my life. 
Q. In this work that you had to do, did you make any comparison with reference 
to this beef that you saw; if so, what was it? 
A. No; I made no comparison outside of using the embalming fluids that are made 
for us. We used lots of substitutes ourselves. This beef had this crystalline sub- 
stance on it, and it put me in mind if it might not have soda and boracic acid, or 
something to that effect, on it. We use that a great deal on bodies, especially bodies 
that are broken open, or anything like that, for drying up the broken parts of the 
body. That forms a crystalline. That came to my mind just as soon as I saw this 
on the beef. 
Q. Was that on the surface, or inside? 
A. In the tissues, in the crevices of the beef. I noticed it more in the crevices, in 
the joints, when he would turn it over or go to cut it. 
Q. In other respects, was it noticeable on the beef, or only in these points? 
S. Doc. 270 103 1634 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Only in these points. 
Q. In the consumption of the meat, did yon eat any of the fresh beef that was 
issued; I mean the refrigerated beef? 
A. Yes, sir; I did. 
Q. Tell all about it. 
A. I ate it once and it had a peculiar taste and made me sick. I don't care about 
tasting it any more, and I never ate any more of the fresh beef afterwards until I 
got home. 
Q. What kind of fresh beef was that; refrigerated beef? 
A. Yes. We didn't eat very much of the native beef, because it was too tough 
to eat. 
Q. Was there any peculiar taste in regard to the native beef? 
A. No, sir; only toughness. 
, Q. It had a natural taste of beef, had it? 
A. For old beef-what old beef would taste like-oxen. 
Q. How was this native beef furnished there; by the commissary department? 
A. es, sir. 
Q. It was issued by the commissary department? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That was not bought by the company? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. In regard to the canned roast beef; did you see any of that used there by the 
command? 
A. Yes, sir; some. 
Q. Tell all about that; what you saw about it. 
A. I saw some of it used, and all I saw opened-a great deal of the contents I saw 
opened were thrown away or given away. 
Q. Why? 
A. Because it was not fit to eat. We couldn't eat it. It was slimy, and stringy, 
and watery. Some of the cans contained a great deal of slimy matter. There seemed 
to be no lean meat in it at all. 
Q. How was it composed; of scraps or otherwise? 
A. Both. 
Q. Was it solid? 
A. There was very little of it solid. I never saw any of it solid. 
Q. Did you notice particularly in regard to the brands of this canned beef? 
A. No, sir; I did not. 
Q. The company used it off and on then while it was there? 
A. Yes, sir; that is, they had it off and on; had it issued off and on. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you notice any swelled cans among it? 
A. Yes, sir; I did. 
Q. Was there any general complaint about it; any general talk in the company 
about this canned roast beef, or whatever it was. 
A. One day in particular the cooks made soup and used the beef, and had to 
throw it away. It wasn't good to eat. The men wouldn't eat it. It was served to 
them and they threw it away. They wouldn't eat it. 
Q. Why? 
A. It was disagreeable-the taste of it; not only the taste, but the smell was not 
good. 
Q. How was this canned roast beef drawn for the company? Was it drawn in 
cans out of the cases or generally brought down in cases? 
A. In cases generally. Sometimes there were a few odd ones over, when a case 
wTas broken. 
Q. Who overhauled the cans for the company? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1635 
A. Generally the cook. 
Q. Did you have a commissary sergeant? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did he have anything to do with it? 
A. Very little. He generally left it to the cook. 
Q. Were any cans thrown away without opening? 
A. That I couldn't say. I couldn't say that there was any cans thrown away 
without opening. 
Q. Were all the cans as far as you know sent to the company kitchen, and there 
the matter of what could be used or attempted to be used settled? You say you 
were about the company kitchen considerably? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How was that done? Would they sort them out before they came to the 
company kitchen? 
A. No; it was given to the cooks in the boxes and the cooks would sort them out. 
If they didn't think it was good they would throw it away or give it away. 
Q. Who would they give it to? 
A. The natives generally scouted around the camps and they would give it to them 
if they wanted it. 
Q. What use would they make of it? 
A. I couldn't say. 
Q. How was it given to them-in cans or buckets? 
A. Some in cans and some in buckets. Sometimes a whole bucketful would be 
taken out from one meal and given to them. 
Q. What sized cans were used? 
A. I suppose you would call them 2 and 6 pound cans-about that size, I would 
imagine. 
Q. Did you notice any difference in the quality between the 2 and the 6 pound 
cans? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What was it? 
A. The 6-pound cans were much better. The larger cans were much better beef 
than the smaller cans. 
Q. In what respect? 
A. There was more substance in it. It was more compact. 
Q. What proportion of the cans of that canned roast beef was thrown away or 
destroyed or not used by the company, if you know? 
A. I couldn't say. 
Q. Did they use much or little of it? 
A. They used as little of it as they could. 
Q. Did they get anything in place of it? Did they go back when the cans were 
spoiled and draw anything in place of it, or simply throw it away? 
A. They wToilld just throw it all away. 
Q. And let it stand there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. When you returned to the United States, what was the ration on the return 
trip, if you know? Did you have the canned roast beef, or canned corn beef, or 
bacon, or what had you? 
A. I didn't eat but one meal on the road home, the same as going down. I ate 
one meal, but that was tomato soup. That was all I ate coming home. 
Q. So you did not have any personal knowedge of what they ate? 
A. They had the canned roast beef and salmon and hard tack, tomatoes and beans. 
Q. Did they have any corned beef? 
A. That I couldn't say. 1636 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Do you know the difference between roast beef and corned beef? Do you know 
how it is put up? 
A. Yes, sir; the corned beef is generally put up in square cans and the roast beef 
is put up in round cans. 
Cross-examination by the Recorder: 
Q. Was the surface of the refrigerated beef which you saw moist or dry? 
A. The green substance on the top of it would naturally make it dry. 
Q. Was the outer tissue, the outer surface, absolutely dried up, or was there moist- 
ure present? 
A. After the green was taken off 
Q. I mean when you saw it. 
A. I don't know whether I took particular notice of that at all. 
Q. You noticed crystals. Did you not notice whether the surface was wet or dry? 
A. No; I didn't notice. 
Q. Did you touch it? 
A. Yes; I touched the beef. 
Q. Was it cold? 
A. No, sir; it was not. 
Q. Did you feel any moisture on it? 
A. That I couldn't say, whether there was moisture on it or not. Of course, the 
meat would naturally have moisture on it, and it would be damp, I think. 
Q. To the best of your recollection, was it damp? 
A. I never touched any of it until the butcher had cut it up. I never touched any 
of it before he cut it up. 
Q. You have testified to seeing certain conditions with respect to it. Can you 
swear it was not moist? 
A. No, sir; I couldn't swear to that. 
Q. Was this substance which you saw distributed through the tissue? 
A. No; as I said, in the crevices of the meat, in the joints and places like that- 
more so. 
Q. Not inside? 
A. No, sir; I didn't take notice of that. 
Q. The meat was decomposed on the surface? 
A. Yes, sir. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, the next witness it is proposed to intro- 
duce is the chemist, Dr. Bigelow. He is completing his report and, with the permis- 
sion of the court, I can anticipate his arrival by reading such of the report as is 
completed, and, of course, he can identify it after appearing. That will save time. 
The recorder then read the report above mentioned, so far as completed, and the 
same is appended hereto, marked 24. 
The Recorder. The rest of the report will be presented by Dr. Bigelow when he 
appears. 
(At this point an informal recess was taken by the court.) 
The Recorder: May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Dr. Bigelow, of the Agricultural Department. 
TESTIMONY OF DR. W. D. BIGELOW. 
Dr. W. D. Bigelow, being first duly sworn, is examined. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name and official position in the Department of Agriculture? 
A. W. D. Bigelow, second assistant chemist. 
Q. How long have you been connected with that Department? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1637 
A. Seven years. 
Q. Do you identify this paper as the report submitted to the court in obedience 
to its order? 
A. That is the report. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, 1 will complete the reading of this. 
The recorder then resumed and completed the reading of the report, which is 
hereto appended, marked 
The Recorder. With this report as exhibits are the labels of the cans which were 
the subject of examination in connection with the report. 
Q. Were you called on in connection with the investigation of the war commission 
to make any examination of the beef, either fresh or canned? 
A. Both fresh and canned, the canned including both the corned and roast beef. 
Q. (Showing witness a letter-press copy-book.) Is this a press-copy of your report? 
A. That is a summary of the report to the Secretary of Agriculture on all the exam- 
inations made. 
Q. It is a summary of the investigations and examinations that you made at that 
time? 
A. Yes, sir; that is the final report made, including all of the others. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, I submit this informally in evidence. 
The formal copy will follow in the usual manner as soon as it can be written. 
The recorder thereupon read the report as contained in the letter-press copy-book. 
Major Lee. May I inquire at this stage, is that evidence that was given before the 
commission? 
The Recorder. The experiments and investigations were made by Dr. Bigelow, 
of which the notes were preserved, and he retained a copy of the report. The origi- 
nal of the report was submitted, as I understand, to the war commission, but this 
one is submitted on the same notes. 
Major Lee. This is to be submitted in evidence-the evidence that went before 
the commission is to be submitted by the same party in evidence before this court. 
The Recorder. It is not submitted as evidence that went before the war commis- 
sion, but he identifies his original report and submits it to this court. 
Major Lee. I do not understand in regard to it, and I will make a further inquiry 
right now, so as to settle that. It seems, as far as I could gather from the reading of 
that report, that this all relates to meat that was supplied under contracts of this year, 
and I do not see its particular relevancy to the matter of the contracts of last year 
about which this court perhaps is more particularly inquiring, from May or June, or 
when the contracts w'ere made last year up to the close of the year. Of course if the 
court is going on into the contracts of this year and matters of that kind, it is all 
right, I presume, but we will ask to introduce some evidence on that line. 
The Recorder. I had never seen the report until it wTas placed in my hands this 
morning with a view to its being submitted in evidence. I am free to say that had I 
known that these samples were taken at a time so widely separated from the deliv- 
eries under the contracts that were entered into of June and July of last year, I 
should not have submitted it in evidence and I am quite willing, with the permission 
of the court, to withdraw it. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I am not going to insist upon any objection. 
I just want to understand just exactly where we stand in regard to this. This wit- 
ness has made certain reports, and he made them to that commission that was con- 
vened, and that of course has now all gotten before the court. He made a great 
many experiments with meat taken down there since January. That was all gotten 
before the court; this whole matter, and I say as long as it has now gone that far 
into the matter it is just as well perhaps to let it stand. I do not insist upon any 
objection, but I wanted to know if the investigation was going to reach within that 
scope, so that if it is, we will, may it please the court, prepare to follow that line. 1638 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
The President. I don't know exactly what you mean. 
Major Lee I mean we will carry matters down to this year also. 
The President. The matter before the court now is on the reception of this evi- 
dence and the court will be closed and the matter discussed. 
(Thereupon, the court went into executive session. When the court was again 
opened, 
The Recorder said: 
The ruling of the court is that the report tendered by the recorder be not admitted 
in evidence. 
Q. In the performance of your duties in the Department of Agriculture, what 
experience do you have with the use of preservatives in the treatment of various 
substances? 
A. The chemical division of the Department has published nine bulletins, or rather 
nine parts of one bulletin, though each forms a bulletin itself, dealing with various 
kinds of food materials, and in each one of those the preservatives used for that class 
of food are considered. Aside from that we have considerable work that comes in 
from day to day in connection with other food laboratories occasionally. 
Q. Have you had to do with those examinations and experiments? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Is boric acid used for the purposes of a preserving material? 
A. Yes, sir; it is. 
Q. And upon what substances is it used, as determined by your observation? 
A. Boric acid is used with milk considerably. It is used with some meat products, 
in the form of boric acid with sausage and in the form of borax with hams and other 
material of that nature. In wines boric acid is often used as a preservative. Those 
are the leading classes. 
Q. What is its preservative effect? How does it accomplish the preservation of the 
meat or anything with which it is used? 
A. By either killing or at least for the time paralyzing the germs which would pro- 
duce decomposition, the germs which in the case of meat produce the foul decompo- 
sition. 
Q. Is it an organic or inorganic compound? 
A. Inorganic. 
Q. What is its odor? 
A. Boric acid has no odor. 
Q. And its color? 
A. White. 
Q. What is its form as it is used in commerce, as it is bought and sold? 
A. It is a white crystalline substance, the crystals usually being very small, so that 
it would appear to be a powder. 
Q. How is it affected by heat; that is, what effect upon it has heat that is used in 
cooking? 
A. That would have-well, now, in the dry state? 
Q. In the dry state. 
A. In the dry state that would have no effect. 
Q. If it were applied to a product, would it be volatilized or driven off? 
A. Well, as long as there was considerable moisture present a portion of it would 
be volatilized, but not all of it; that is, it is somewhat volatile with watery vapor. 
Q. What is the ordinary test for determining the presence of it? 
A. There are two. The most delicate one is with the use of turmeric paper or 
turmeric tincture. The other is the flame test. 
Q. Please describe the test with turmeric paper? 
A. The substance to be examined is first, if a solid, macerated and extracted with 
water, the water filtered, or else it is made alkaline and burned; and the ash FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1639 
extracted with water and filtered. In either case the filtrate is made slightly acid 
with hydrochloric acid. The turmeric paper is dipped in and dried. The immersion 
of the turmeric paper while in a wet state makes no change of color. On drying, 
however, in the presence of boric acid a color varying from pink to a bright cherry 
red, according to the amount of acid present, is produced. I might say that if the 
hydrochloric acid be a little too strong, a color will be produced which might be con- 
fused with this, but a drop of ammonia or caustic soda touched to the red spot will 
turn it, when boric acid is present, to a greenish purple, changing rapidly to a very 
dark green, and in the case of much boric acid almost black, while if the reddish 
color was caused by strong hydrochloric acid instead of boric acid the change of color 
would be to a dark brown, which is the normal color of turmeric paper treated with 
an alkali. 
Q. What is the ordinary solution of salicylic acid as it is used for laboratory 
purposes? 
A. I do not quite understand. 
Q. About what is the strength of the ordinary solution? 
A. For laboratory purposes, salicylic acid is not used in solution often, as it is very 
slightly soluble. 
Q. I misled you. I should have said boric acid.- 
A. Oh, boric acid. 
Q. What is the ordinary solution of it? 
A. Well, when it is used in solution, a saturated solution is usually made, which 
is about approximately 5 per cent at ordinary room temperature. 
Q. Suppose this test to be applied: "I made use of the turmeric paper, the test 
being applied with a view to ascertaining the presence of boracic acid. I made use 
of the turmeric paper, dipping the turmeric paper into the solution, and it turned to 
an orange. Then I treated that again with aqua-ammonia, and turned it dark 
brown." What would that test, the complete test, indicate in respect to the presence 
of boracic acid? 
A. It would indicate that it was absent. 
Q. What is salicylic acid-the salicylic acid of commerce. Is it organic or inor- 
ganic? 
A. Organic. 
Q. What is the effect of heat upon it-that is, of heat at the cooking temperature, 
the boiling point? 
A. In the dry state heat would have very little effect. It is quite volatile, how- 
ever, when moisture is present. It volatilizes quite readily with steam. 
Q. As a preservative of food products, to what kind of food products in your expe- 
rience have you found it to be applied? 
A. Only with liquid articles, especially with wine and cider and semiliquid articles 
of the nature of tomato catsup. Wine, cider, and tomato catsup are the chief articles. 
Q. Has it any advantage when used with liquids as a preservative? 
A. Yes, sir; it has the advantage of being a preservative of great power. Its action 
is especially upon the acid-producing germs, so that it would be used especially with 
substances which are decomposed by germs of that nature. 
Q. What is its color? 
A. White; a crystalline substance. 
Q. And its odor? 
A. It has no odor. 
Q. What is its taste? 
A. If it is placed on the tongue in a dry state, a sort of a burning sensation is pro- 
duced. If it is moistened, however, no taste can be detected, I think. When it is 
taken as a medicine, for some time it produces a sort of unpleasant sensation, which I 
think can scarcely be called a taste. 1640 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
Q. What is its action upon iron and steel; suppose, for example, a knife to be 
dipped into it? 
A. It would have no action whatever on clean steel. 
Q. Would it form any salt of iron on the surface-of iron or steel? 
A. No; no possible action. 
Q. Take a compound or a combination of boric and salicylic acid, taking it in the 
farm' of a powder, what would be the color of the mixture? 
A. White; crystalline. 
Q. And what would be the taste of the mixture? 
A. Very bitter. 
Q. And would there be an odor? 
A. No odor; no, sir. 
Q. In the test that you have made of preservatives, have you ever found boric and 
salicylic acid in connection with the same samples? 
A. I have never found them together; never heard of them together. 
Q. How is boric acid ordinarily applied? 
A. Where it is used in milk. 
Q. To solids? 
A. To solids? 
Q. Yes. 
A. It is used sometimes by dusting over the meat. It is used sometimes by local 
butchers for that purpose. 
Q. Dusting in the form of a powder? 
A. In the form of a powder. 
Q. Is it ever applied in solution? 
A. I have never heard of its being applied in solution. With sausages it is mixed 
with the sausage. 
Q. Mixed with the meat? 
A. With the sausage meat. 
Q. In the case of salicylic acid, taking the standard solution and applying it to a 
piece of meat, what would be the result in the appearance of the meat? 
A. The first result is to turn it white. That is, by "white" I mean a very light 
color, like an exceedingly light pink. 
Q. Have you any sample of the application of it? 
A. On Tuesday evening I applied salicylic acid and also a mixture of salicylic and 
boric acid to several pieces of meat in several ways [producing several specimens]. 
This is a piece of the meat untreated. They have been in the refrigerator since 
that time. 
This is a piece of meat to which was added in the solid state one grain of salicyilic 
acid, from this point to that [indicating]. It was turned white within a few min- 
utes and remained white over night, but it gradually regained the color of the other 
end. When I say "white" I mean a little lighter than the lightest part there. 
Q. The end near the edge was not treated? 
A. The end near the edge was not treated. This piece was dipped ten minutes in 
a saturated solution of salicylic acid; that is, a little over two-tenths per cent., down 
to this point [indicating], and it was entirely white. All that was dipped was 
entirely white. When I came in the next morning I found that it had regained its 
normal color. I dipped it again for thirty-five minutes in the same solution, and it 
is almost regaining its original color. This piece was dipped to this point in a 3 per 
cent solution, in a mixture of salicylic and boric acid mixed in about equal pro- 
portions, and with the same experience. It had regained its normal color the next 
morning. I dipped it again for thirty-five minutes. It became white, and has not 
yet regained its normal color, though it is approaching its normal color. 
Q. Have you, then, repeated the experiment of applying salicylic acid, either FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1641 
alone or in combination with boric acid, to meat? Have you repeated it several 
times? 
A. I have repeated it three times. 
Q. And what is the first effect? 
A. The first effect is to turn it a very light yellowish-pink color, a little lighter 
than the lightest shade there. 
Q. How permanent is that effect? 
A. If it is immersed in a 3 per cent solution-the one I used-of the mixture, or a 
saturated solution of salicylic acid, it disappears in twelve hours, and I do not know 
how much sooner. When applied for thirty-five minutes, it almost disappears within 
a couple of days. When I applied the powder to the beef in about the same propor- 
tion, the color disappeared in about four days. 
Q. It regained its normal appearance? 
A. After four days. 
Q. So as a result of those experiments what conclusion do you reach as to the per- 
manency of the change of color brought about by the use of salicylic acid? 
A. The change of color would not last more than three or four days even with the 
maximum amount that would be applied. 
Q. Have you ever seen boric and salicylic acid in any sort of combination used as 
a preservative for the same article of food? 
A. I have never seen them used. 
Q. What in your opinion would be the objection to such use? 
A. The taste is almost as bitter as quinine. It could not be disguised by any means. 
Q. Suppose a piece of beef treated with salicylic acid was taken into the stomach, 
what would be the effect on the digestive processes? 
A. It would interfere with the digestion, and if enough were present would prac- 
tically stop it for the time being. 
Q. Would the meat pass through undigested? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In the examinations that you have made of canned roast beef at any time, 
what preservatives, if any, have you found in the cans? 
A. I found none except, perhaps, a small amount of salt-common salt. 
Q. In canned corned beef what preservatives have you found? 
A. The same is true. The percentage of salt is considerably greater. 
Q. Have you made any examinations of refrigerated beef? 
A. I have. 
Q. And what has been the result in respect to the use of preservatives there? 
A. I found no preservative. 
Q. What is formaldehyde? How is it obtained? 
A. It is the aldehyde corresponding to methyl alcohol, and is obtained by the 
incomplete combustion of methyl alcohol. 
Q. What is its normal form? 
A. The compound is a gas. 
Q. And in what shape is it used in the arts, commercially? 
A. The commercial form of the article is a 40 per cent aqueous solution. 
Q. In your examinations and investigations have you found formaldehyde used as 
a preservative? 
A. I have seen it used with milk. 
Q. In milk? 
A. Yes. 
Q. And in any other food products? 
A. I have not seen it used any place else. 
Q. Have you ever seen it used in the preparation or preservation of meat products? 
A. I have not. 1642 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Suppose it to be applied to meat-has it a taste? 
A. It has a taste, or at least the pungent odor when it is put in the mouth is com- 
municated. When a dilute solution is put into the mouth a pungent sensation is 
produced. 
Q. How volatile is it? 
A. It is fairly volatile. It is driven off very rapidly from a boiling aqueous solu- 
tion and even at ordinary temperatures it volatilizes to a very large extent. 
Q. At how low a temperature would it volatalize or pass away from the meat? 
A. Well, I cannot say at how low a temperature it would. Even in the chill room 
the tendency would be to volatalize to some extent, though, of course, very slowly. 
Q. Does its application to the surface of meat form a stable chemical compound? 
A. I do not know that it does. 
Q. And does it possess in the manner in which it is ordinarily used the volatile 
character of the wood alcohol from which it is made? 
A. I should say it is scarcely as volatile, though it is quite volatile. 
Q. Have you ever found that it has been used in the preservation of meat? 
A. I have not. 
Q. What would be its taste if it were used as a preservative? 
A. As used in milk, in liquids it has no taste. So little of it is used that no taste 
is communicated. 
Q. And how does it operate to preserve food? 
A. It is a very powerful germicide; I think, probably as powerful as any; at least 
among the most powerful. 
Q. In what strength is it used in the preservation of milk? How strong a solution? 
A. I do not remember the strength of the solution. It is sometimes applied in as 
dilute a form as one part in ten thousand. I do not know in what strength it is 
used in the preservation of milk that is sold in market. 
Q. Would that be in some solution in water? 
A. Well, when I say one part in ten thousand I mean that enough of the solution 
is applied so that there is one part of the formaldehyde present to ten thousand of 
the milk. I have used it in the laboratory in solutions of one part to five hundred 
to preserve samples and had them preserved very well. 
Q. How efficient is it as a preservative when so used? 
A. Very efficient. 
Q. What kind of samples have you preserved? 
A. Milk. 
Q. Have you any knowledge of its application in a gaseous form? 
A. I have never seen it so applied except that it is used in fumigating-fumigating 
houses. 
Q. Fumigating houses? 
j A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you know of any other purpose for which it is used beside the preservation 
of milk. 
A. I know of no other purpose except fumigation. 
Q. Speaking of its volatility, if it were applied to the surface of meat and passed 
off in volatile form, would its preservative action remain or continue? 
A. After it had volatilized? 
Q. Yes. 
A. No, it would not. 
Q. And while it remained on the meat, what can you say in respect to taste and 
odor? 
A. I can not give the strength that would indicate a taste or odor, but the odor is 
very noticeable in solutions containing one part to a thousand. It can be readily 
detected in solutions containing one part to a thousand. It can be readily detected 
in solutions containing one part to two thousand, I know. I have used these solutions. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1643 
Q. Have you any experience with it in preserving specimens of meat, so that you 
could give an estimate of the strength of the solutions necessary to preserve meat? 
A. I have had no practical experience with meat. 
The Recorder. Major Lee, you may cross-examine. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, it is a quarter to 1, and the cross-examination 
will occupy some considerable time. If it is the pleasure of the court to take a recess, 
I have one or two engagements. 
Thereupon, at 12.45 p. m., the court took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m. 
AFTER RECESS. 
Cross-examination of Dr. Bigelow by Major Lee: 
Q. Doctor, will you please state to the court whether within the past six months 
you have had referred to you by your chief, Dr. Wiley, a letter written by Prof. 
John Lloyd, a chemist of Cincinnati, as to an experiment or discovery that he made 
with reference to the effect of combining salicylic and boracic acid? My phrase- 
ology is not technical, but, notwithstanding that, if you understand the question, 
please be kind enough to state what you did, if anything, with reference to that 
letter. 
A. The letter was referred to me. The letter stated, as near as I remember, in 
substance, that in preparation of certain drugs-he did not mention the drugs-or 
rather in the preparation of preservatives for those drugs, he had tried a mixture of 
salicylic and boric acid, but had found it to be of such a bitter taste that it could not 
be used. On looking the matter up he found that this was nothing new, but that 
A. Jahns had published an article in the Archaie der Pharmacie in 1878 noting this 
peculiar taste, giving the composition of the compound that was formed, and refer- 
ring to several other writers who had noticed the taste at an earlier date. I made 
this mixture and confirmed the taste. 
Q. You made the mixture with a view of determining whether his statement was 
correct or not? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. With that result? 
A. With that result. It was very bitter. 
Q. Have you a copy of Professor Lloyd's letter? Could you produce it? 
A. The letter, I think, can be found, although it is not in the file that it should 
be in. I am very sure that the letter contains no information except what I gave 
you. 
Q. I would ask that after the adjournment of the court you examine the letter, 
and if there is anything further in connection with it, that it be brought before the 
court. 
A. I will try to find the letter. 
Q. Does salicylic acid have anything of a sweetish taste? 
A. None whatever. 
Q. Is borax saline or subalkaline in taste? 
A. Borax in taste is rather subalkaline. 
Q. You stated that salicylic acid has no taste whatever? 
A. I can not detect any taste in it. 
Q. Is the taste of the other, in any sense, bitter? 
A. Borax? 
Q. Yes. 
A. It is not. 
Q. Then, so far as the taste is concerned, the compound of salicylic and boric acid 
has the taste that you have described as being bitter? 
A. The compound formed when the two are united is bitter. 
Q. What, in your opinion, would be the effect of using a compound composed of 1644 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
salicylic acid and boracic acid upon beef for its preservation; that is to say, what 
would be apt to be the taste of the beef that would be impregnated with such com- 
pound? 
A. The beef would be bitter. 
Q. How would it be if a mixture of boracic and salicylic acid be dissolved in 
water? What would be the taste of the solution? 
A. Very bitter. 
Q. On evaporation? 
A. On evaporation you have the solid merely, the compound formed by the union 
of the two, which still is bitter. 
Q. Here is a question which, perhaps, is more familiar to you than to me: How 
would it relate to colocynth in persistence, and what is meant by the term colocynth? 
A. Colocynth is one of the familiar pharmaceutical preparations from a plant. 
The taste is rather persistent, quite persistent. It has been compared to colocynth, 
though it does not seem to me that I would identify the persistence of the taste as 
being like that of colocynth, any more nearly than like that of other vegetable 
alkaloids. 
Q. These scientific facts, I presume, are described in standard medical works. If 
so, to what can you refer? 
A. Yes, sir. Well, in one of the German periodicals-the Archaie der Pharmacie 
for the year 1878. I do not know the page. It would be under the name I gave- 
Jahns. It is also mentioned in the United States Dispensatory. I do not know under 
what heading, either salicylic or boric acid. I have noticed it recently. 
Q. Is there anything else in connection with this subject that your attention has 
not been specifically called to that would better serve to elucidate what we have 
been discussing? Is there anything else you can recall? 
A. I do not think there is. 
Q. I believe you have stated in your report something with reference to the beef 
extracts. Will you please describe to the court the difference between nutriment 
and stimulant, in relation to beef extracts? 
A. Well, by nutriment is usually meant the property for which we value proteid 
matter-that is, the muscle-forming ingredient of the food-while a stimulant is a 
substance that is given to a person whose strength is either temporarily or perma- 
nently exhausted, to build up the system temporarily. 
Q. You are familiar with the commercial beef extract? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Does that contain nutrition? 
A. Very little. . 
Q. What would you term it? 
A. I would term it a stimulant. I would not want to say that there was no nutri- 
tion there, because it contains some peptones which belong to the proteids, probably, 
and contains a small amount of gelatin, which, in the presence of other proteids is 
very much like that, and has nutritious properties. 
Q. Are you not aware that it is advertised by both Armour and Swift as contain- 
ing the nutriment of the beef? 
A. Well, in regard to the advertisements of the firms, I do not remember exactly 
what they say about it. 
Q. The difference then as you state to the court between the nutrition and the 
stimulation is that the beef extract contains a small proportion of nutriment. 
A. But is especially valuable on account of its stimulating properties. 
Q. In the experiments which you have made I believe it is stated in your report 
that it takes a given number of pounds of beef to make-for instance, to make a 
pound, or whatever it is, of the beef extract, popularly so called. 
A. The commercial beef extract? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1645 
Q. Yes. 
A. Well, according to my figures they are probably a little high as I did not 
filter off the solids that were coagulated, that were there in the soup liquors; it 
would take 100 pounds of beef to make 1.9 ounces of beef extract, commercial beef 
extract. 
By General Davis: 
Q. You mean 100 pounds of solid meat? 
A. Of fresh meat. 
Q. What about the soup liquor you are talking about? 
A. Well, with the amount of soup liquor which they ordinarily used. 
Q. I do not quite understand which you mean. Do you mean that it takes a hun- 
dred pounds of meat to make an ounce and a half of meat extract, or whether it takes 
the liquor in which a hundred pounds of meat were boiled? 
A. I mean, of course, that that amount of meat extract could be prepared on boil- 
ing a hundred pounds of meat. 
Q. I wanted to get that clear. 
A. I do not mean that only an ounce and a half of beef extract could be prepared 
from that amount of beef. They could make a great deal more than that if the 
meat was used only in the preparation of beef extract. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Take that condition, in making that preparation of beef extract from the meat 
under the conditions under which it is prepared, which I do not know anything 
about and have not investigated, and what would be the effect on the residue of the 
beef that was left. Would you consider that a good, palatable, nutritious food? 
A. It is certainly nutritious. The nutrition of meat if not considered to be due to 
any stimulating substance that is there, but to the proteid matter, the strength- 
giving, muscle-forming matter, and the meat bases which are removed in this soup 
liquor, and which form an important ingredient in the beef extract, are not entirely 
removed, but only a small portion of them. As far as being palatable is concerned, 
that has to be decided by the individual. 
Q. Well, that would rather be an element, would it not? 
A. Being palatable? 
Q. Yes, as to whether it would be suitable, nourishing food? 
A. Not necessarily. The ideal food, of course, should be palatable. 
Q. Then, do you wish the court to understand that if you take all this beef and 
put it through a process and take out all the beef extract you can get out, that it 
would be just as good as a food for soldiers as without doing it? 
A. Certainly not; but I have stated that only a small portion of the beef extract 
that could be extracted is extracted in parboiling-only a very small portion of it. 
At the same time, if it were all extracted I would not say that the muscle-forming 
portion was lessened. 
Q. How long have you been connected with the Agricultural Department as a 
chemist? 
A. Seven years. 
Q. Had you any prior experience in that respect? 
A. As chemist; yes, sir. 
Q. Had you any special experience or investigation in regard to food products prior 
to your connection with the Agricultural Bureau? 
A. Very little. 
Q. Have you had any very extensive experience on that line since your connection 
with the Bureau, except as specially called upon? 
A. My work has been almost entirely upon that subject. 1646 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Has been almost entirely? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In regard to the investigation of the canning process, have you prior to the last 
year, or prior to the investigations that have been going on within the past few 
months, have you had any special experience or made any special investigation with 
regard to the canning process of these meats? 
A. Yes, sir; I have looked into it carefully on several occasions. 
Q. Have you visited the packing houses? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How often have you visited them heretofore-say within the last year? How 
often did you visit the packing houses during the canning process for the filling of 
the requisitions by the Subsistence Department to supply the Army? Did you visit 
them during that time? 
A. I did not. 
Q. You have no personal knowledge as to the kind or character of meat that went 
into this canned beef for the Army? 
A. I have not; no, sir; that is, from observation in the packing houses. I have 
only seen samples that have been canned. 
Q. In connection with your investigations recently and that you have just made, 
I would ask you to please describe to the court in connection with whom you made 
those investigations in the packing houses ? 
A. Now just what do you mean by "in connection with whom?" 
Q. Well, who was with you, who were your assistants in connection with this? 
I want to get at the method of operation. You were instructed, I believe, by the 
court, to proceed to the various packing houses and to witness, if I mistake not, the 
preparation of canned meats there? 
A. Yes, sir. Well, in the first experiment that was conducted the members of the 
court were all present until the meat was canned and in the process tanks. In the 
second one, which was at the packing house of Armour & Co., at Chicago, Dr. 
Paxon, one of the assistant inspectors at the Bureau of Animal Industry, was with 
me throughout the operation and watched every stage of it, and noted the character 
of meat that was canned, noted that it was regular canning meat, the kind that was 
ordinarily canned by the company. 
Q. That was his statement to you? 
A. That was his statement to me. 
Q. You saw the kind of meat that was canned? 
A. I saw it myself. I preferred 
Q. I beg pardon, I think I interrupted you? 
A. I thought it was well also to have a scientific man who was on the ground and 
was accustomed to seeing the processes. At the third place, Nelson Morris & Co., 
Dr. Siggins, also an assistant inspector of the Bureau of Animal Industry, assisted 
me throughout the operation. At the fourth place, Cudahy & Co., of Omaha, 
Dr. Ayers, the inspector of the Bureau of Animal Industry, was there during the first 
part of the operation. At Kansas City, at the Armour Packing Company, Dr. Ben- 
nett, the inspector w'ho has charge of the packing houses in that city, the inspector 
of the Bureau of Animal Industry, was with me throughout. The same was true at 
Hammond, Ind. The chief inspector who has charge of that, Dr. H. Baker, was 
with me. 
Q. I just wanted to get briefly at the history of the matter. All this beef that you 
saw canned there, so far as you know, under the various inspectors, was meat of 
good quality, was it not? 
A. It was. 
Q. Selected by whom? 
A. Selected by the canner. It was meat which they had in the portion of the 
chill-room in which they kept their canners. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1647 
Q. They were advised, I presume, in advance of your coming, that you were com- 
ing for that purpose-to make an investigation? 
A. No, I believe not. 
Q. Or were they unadvised? 
A. At Libby, McNeil & Libby's we were in the canning room, where it was first 
suggested by one of the members of the court, who spoke of it. That was the first I 
heard of the suggestion, and the meat was taken there in the presence of the court. 
Now, at Armour's, I don't remember whether they knew of it before or not. At 
Nelson Morris & Co.'s they did not know of it until the meat was taken. The same 
was true at Cudahy's. At Kansas City, Kans., I do not think they knew anything 
about it. 1 went directly from the train to the packing house. 
Q. In connection with your investigations of the canning process, did you ever 
inspect the kind of cattle in the yards that were cut out or classed or put in as can- 
ners? 
A. I did not go to the yards. 
Q. You never have been to the yards? 
A. Well, I have been to the yards. 
Q. I mean with that in view? 
A. No; not with that view. 
Q. Do you know, or have you any information, as to the class of cattle that are 
used for canning purposes, with reference to their prices in the market, whether they 
are best, medium, or of the lowest price grade? What is your information on the 
subject? 
A. Well, my information on that is that they use cattle that bring a rather low 
price for canning. That is, they use lean meat which comes from cattle that do not 
bring as high a price as others. 
Q. As to cows being used, do you know that cows are habitually used in that 
process? 
A. Cows are very commonly used. 
Q. Doctor, will you please state whether the length of time that this roast beef, 
as it is called, is canned would have any relation to its quality? 
A. Now, you mean the length of time after it is canned before it is used? 
Q. Yes; I mean whether canned one year, two years, or ten years, whether that 
would make any difference with the quality of the meat, in your opinion, from your 
investigations of this subject within the last six or seven years? I understand you 
have been investigating this subject in the last seven years. 
A. I never have examined any meat which I knew had been canned several years 
before. I do not think that anything has ever been done which would indicate that 
the length of time, that being kept a length of time, would cause the canned meat to 
deteriorate in food value. 
Q. You do not think that age would have anything to do with it? 
A. I do not think that there is any proof that it would. 1 doubt if it would. It 
certainly would not cause it to spoil, to decompose. 
Q. When did you first begin your investigation of this canned meat product 
specially? 
A. Do you mean by that when did I begin work in the laboratory? 
Q. I mean when did you take the matter under investigation in regard to it, taking 
up the subject of canned roast beef. 
A. The first time I took an active interest in it, I believe the first time I was ever 
in a canning house, was in the summer of 1890, when I looked into the process of 
canning very carefully at the packing house of the Armour Packing Company, in 
Kansas City, and I have been in that house a number of times since, and in others. 
Q. In speaking of it as canned roast beef, I believe you examined some samples 
called "prime canned roast meat." Does that designation describe the meat which 
you have investigated or analyzed? 1648 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Well, in my report I have given the process of the preparation of the meat' 
I am not a practical cook. W hether that would be called roast or not 
Q. Is it what you would term prime canned roast meat or is it boiled meat; what 
would you term it? 
A. I have given the process of preparing quite exactly, that it is first parboiled 
and then heated in the can to a temperature of between 216 and 250 F. 
Q. You found some difference in the length of time that this beef was parboiled, 1 
believe, as you have stated in your report, have you not? 
A. Yes, sir; there were some differences in the time. 
Q. Did you find any instances where the meat had been soaked in water a number 
of hours before being put in the can and subjected to the high degree of heat that 
you speak of? 
A. There was no case where it was soaked in water; no, sir. In one case it was 
soaked in a dilute salty solution. 
Q. How long? 
A. Over night. 
Q. What effect did that have on the meat as to its taking out of it any of its 
nutriment? 
A. Under the experiment conducted at the Nelson Morris & Co. establishment I 
have given exactly the amount that was taken out in that way. I don't remember. 
It was very slight, however, exceedingly slight. 
Q. Have you ever had any experience or knowledge or information as to the issue 
or use of such rations to the soldiers of the American Army? 
A. I have not with any rations. I know nothing about their rations. 
Q. Well, on this particular ration that I am speaking of? 
A. I know nothing of their rations at all. 
Q. You are cognizant of the fact, I presume, that it has been complained of; that 
is, I say cognizant in the usual way? 
A. Well, my information on that subject has largely been received through the 
papers. 
Q. In your experience with meat, as between, say, salt meat, bacon, or canned 
roast beef, which would contain the greater proportion of nutritious matter for the 
soldier or the marching man or working and fighting man in the Army? 
A. The canned roast beef. 
Q. The canned roast beef would contain more nutriment, and you would con- 
sider that it contains more strength-giving qualities to the soldier than the bacon or 
the other meat? 
A. It would; yes. 
Q. Then if it be a fact in testimony that soldiers, as a matter of preference, left the 
canned roast beef and used the bacon, how would you reconcile your theory with 
that fact in the practical experience of men in active service? 
A. Well, 1 do not see that there is any connection between the two. 
Q. Well, in the case of the man doing service, doing hard work under exposure, 
discarding the one which he found unsuitable for himself, although it may have been 
theoretically without any reason, and taking up the other and being satisfied with 
it-is there no connection between the two? 
A. A man does not always choose the food that is really the best for him. 
Q. The man himself? 
A. No man does. A man's appetite is not necessarily-at least a man's partiality 
for a given food is not necessarily a safe guide. 
Q. As between what agreed with him and what disagreed with him, who should 
choose in that case? You see it is a matter of long experience that bacon and salt 
meats have been used in the Army for the soldiers, have long been adopted, and you 
say they are not as nutritious as the canned roast beef. The one gave satisfaction to FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1649 
the soldier and the other gave dissatisfaction to the soldier. As between those two 
I would like to reconcile your theories with the practical experience of men who 
serve the country. 
A. Well, I don't know. I have not heard the testimony in the case, and I don t 
know exactly what it has been in regard to the amount of each that was used. 
Q. I believe that you have stated that you never had any experience with this 
canned roast beef in tropical climate under conditions of exposure and hardship. 
A. I so stated. 
Q. You never have seen it tried, have you? 
A. I never have. 
Q. Would that be a proper test of it, or would you take the analysis of it as being 
a finally conclusive test? 
A. Well, I have stated in my report that I consider a food substance to be investi- 
gated from two standpoints; one from the theoretical standpoint-that is, consider- 
ing what its value would be theoretically; the other would be from a practical stand- 
point. Both should be taken into consideration from the standpoint of experience 
also. 
Q. You think, then, from that view, that the practical experience of the man wno 
was there, and who used the food, that that should be considered as well as the 
theory that has been advanced as to what is good for him? 
A. Oh, yes; it should be considered. 
Q. That he should have, perhaps, equal voice in the matter, in the decision? 
A. Well, I think that both should be considered. 
Q. I believe that you have stated in your report that m some instances you found 
something in the nature of tendons or some scraps in the cans? Am I correct in 
that? 
A. Not in my report to this commission. 
Q. Well, in your investigations, in making your comparisons, did you find this 
meat of uniformly the same quality-I do not mean as to actual percentages, but as a 
wholesome and good food? 
A. Well, of course the cans would not be uniform. That is, two carcasses would 
not be uniform. That could not be expected. The only way to have it uniform 
would be to pass everything through a hashing machine. The pieces of meat would 
some of them be entirely lean; others would, of course, have a little fat, perhaps, 
on one side; others might have quite a little fat on them. 
Q. You found no gristle in any of these cans anywhere? 
A. No gristle in any of these cans. 
Q. Would you consider that as a proper food preparation for men serving under 
conditions of hard and active service? 
A. I never have seen a case where men ate gristle. 
Q. If it should be found in these cans, could it be utilized as a food product in any 
way? Does it possess any food properties that would be suitable for the men under 
such conditions of service, in your opinion? 
A. Well, I think the main difficulty would be in eating it. Of course it would be 
impossible to put up a large number of cans without having perhaps an occasional 
one with gristle in it, I should think-some gristle-but still, in all that I have exam- 
ined here for this commission I have not found any. 
Q. All the cans you examined were in good condition? 
A. Were in good condition. 
Q. Nothing wrong with them whatever? You found no evidences of decay; no 
odor that was in any way offensive in the slightest degree? 
A. None whatever. 
Q. Do you know anything as to the keeping qualities of such meat after being 
opened? 
S. Doc. 270 104 1650 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. After being opened? 
Q. Yes, from the cans. 
A. Well, it will keep longer than fresh meat would under the same circumstances. 
' Q. How long, in your opinion, would this canned roast beef which you have 
examined keep in a warm climate? 
A. I have never lived in a warm climate. 
Q. Well, I am asking your opinion as a chemist now in regard to that. You have 
watched the deterioration or decomposition or whatever effects have followed, and I 
want just your opinion. 
A. Well, I can only say that it would keep considerably longer than fresh beef. 
Q. How long do you think fresh beef would keep? 
A. I don't know. 
Q. Then you don't know how long this would keep? 
A. I have never been in a hot climate. 
Q. Under such conditions of heat? 
A. I have never been in a hot climate. 
Q. You did not try it under such conditions? 
A. There would be no need of that, because it would be impossible to reproduce 
one climate-almost impossible to reproduce one climate in a different section of the 
country. 
Q. So your examination, of course, was under entirely different conditions from 
the conditions under which it was used? 
A. I made no examination at all as to the time of keeping. 
Q. Doctor, will you please state whether or not it is a fact that the practical nutri- 
tive value of food depends in a large measure upon its texture, more or less dense 
and hard, hard or porous, coarsely or finely fibrous, of the organized material? 
A. I think the weight of evidence would show that it does not; that the coarse 
meat is of first-class nutritive value, and probably almost equal if not quite equal to 
that of finer texture. 
Q. Then I understand your chemical analyses would indicate no difference in this 
respect practically? 
A. Practically no difference. 
Q. Whether it was compact or whether it was not? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. I would ask you to please state to the court whether or not prolonged boiling 
of meat in water or soaking in water, whether it does not condense and harden the 
fiber so as to noticeably diminish its nutritive value. 
A. What do you mean by long boiling? 
Q. Just what I have expressed; I mean boiling of various lengths. Does it not 
reduce, harden the fiber, does not the boiling of meat in water harden the fiber, so as 
to diminish its nutritive value? 
A. Well, for what length of time, for instance? 
Q. I said prolonged boiling. Suppose it is boiled for three-quarters of an hour? 
A. No. 
Q. In small pieces? Would the size of the pieces have anything to do with it? 
A. Well, if boiled for three-quarters of an hour, or for ten or fifteen minutes, long 
enough to cook it to the center, it would diminish the size of the meat. It would 
diminish the size just the same as if roasted in the oven. 
Q. Well, I want to come right back to the question. I want to know whether 
boiling meat for any considerable length of time, I don't care where it is boiled or 
how it is boiled, but taking that question as to boiled meat, whether or not it does 
not condense or harden the fibers so as to diminish its nutritive value? That is, 
whether meat boiled for a prolonged time has the same nutritive value as meat that 
was not boiled? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1651 
A. Meat boiled for the time you mention, I should say that the fibers would not 
be hardened, and I should say that its nutritive value would not be diminished. 
Q. Well, suppose that it was boiled long enough to harden the fiber, how would 
that affect it? Would that diminish its nutritive value? Has the hardness of the 
fiber anything to do with it, when the meat is taken into a man's stomach, as to 
being digested? 
A. I don't know about how long it would take. I have never seen meat boiled 
for the purpose of hardening the fiber. 
Q. I am not speaking so much in regard to that now, but I say in the event that 
the fibers should be hardened, that it should be stringy, in such a way that it would 
be noticeable to the men who consumed it, would the hardening of the fiber of the 
meat, as the result of prolonged boiling, whatever the time would be, diminish its 
nutritive value? 
A. I do not think that the prolonged boiling would necessarily harden the fiber. 
It might make it more tender. 
Q. It might make it more tender? 
A. It very often does. 
Q. Would it increase or diminish its nutritive value? 
A. If the meat is thus made more tender, the digestive fluids might attack it more 
readily, or else it would be more completely masticated. 
Q. Would any indication of such injury from overcooking, if there can be such 
injury, be made to appear by a determination of the percentage of nitrogen ? 
A. From overcooking and boiling, yes, sir, it would, to some extent. That is, the 
meat would be somewhat disintegrated. 
Q. From your analyses that you made of these meats, is it possible to determine 
whether the meats analyzed came from the carcasses of animals that were healthy or 
animals that were not healthy ? Can you determine that ? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Would such analyses distinguish between beef and the flesh of other animals, 
horseflesh and others? Would the analyses made distinguish? 
A. No; I am not sure whether from the analyses I have made the distinction of 
beef from horseflesh could be determined. The carbohydrates were not deter- 
mined. I am not sure whether the portion that I have marked " undetermined " the 
difference between the sum and 100 per cent-would be sufficient to show that or not. 
I have not looked at the analyses from that standpoint. 
Q. I understood you to say, I believe-if I am not correct you can correct me- 
that you made no analysis or examination of any meat-of canned meat called roast 
beef or whatever it may be termed-during the late war with Spain; that is, during 
the time from the commencement of active operations up until, we will say, the end 
of last year ? 
A. Up to the end of the year, no; not last year, as far as I remember. I don't 
remember that I did. 
Q. Would the analyses that have been made by yourself in this case suffice to 
prove the absence from the canned meat of grubs, maggots, or disease-producing 
bacteria? 
A The absence of maggots would be noted by the eye-do you mean dead or alive? 
Q. Well, I suppose they would be dead, after exposure to a temperature of 235 or 
240 degrees, unless they had generated in there in some way, otherwise. 
A. If bacteria were there dead their presence would not be noticed, if their dead 
bodies were there. 
Q. Coming to the question, would the analyses you have made suffice, would 
they be sufficient, to prove the absence from the canned beef of any grubs, maggots, 
or disease-producing bacteria? 
A. My analyses would not be sufficient to prove the absence of any microscopic 
organisms. 1652 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. I wish you would please state whether or not it would be possible to prepare a 
mixture, say, of horseflesh, tallow, carpenter's glue, and a little common salt, which, 
on analysis by the methods employed, would yield results quite similar to and chem- 
ically indistinguishable from those that have been reported? 
A. Horseflesh, carpenter's glue, and what else? 
Q. A little common salt and perhaps some tallow-a mixture of horseflesh, tallow, 
carpenter's glue, and, say, a little common salt-would an analysis by the methods 
employed yield results quite similar and chemically indistinguishable from those 
stated? 
A. I have never made any examination of horseflesh, and I am not certain of its 
exact composition. 
Q. Then, I understand that you do not feel that you could answer that question? 
A. I would not be sure that I could answer it. 
Q. I only ask it within reasonable bounds as a scientific gentlemen. 
A. Of course, the presence of any large amount of carpenter's glue would be 
detected. Very little gelatin is added. In some cases none is added in the prepara- 
tion of canned beef. 
Q. It is not stated in percentage-the components; but it simply takes a general 
mixture made from horseflesh, constituting the greater proportion, some tallow, 
some glue, and a little salt, whether it would not yield about the same practical 
result on analysis? 
A. My impression is that the determinations I have made would show the pres- 
ence of horseflesh, if present; but I have not looked at it from that standpoint. 
Q. You have never made an analysis of horseflesh in cans? 
A. I have not. 
Q. You have had some such complaints, have you not, in your experience in the 
Agricultural Bureau, in regard to horseflesh being canned, or having been, or reputed 
to be? 
A. I do not know of any official complaints having been made. 
Q. Well, I do not mean complaints coming in officially, but information has been 
received there, has it not, to that effect, from some packing places in the United 
States, that such a thing has been done; not that it is being done now? 
A. There have been newspaper rumors that that is true. 
Q. You have received none at the Agricultural Bureau and never have made any 
investigations to that end'to detect it? 
A. I have tried several times to look up packing houses that were said to can horse- 
flesh, and have not located them. 
Q. I will ask you, Doctor, whether or not, in your opinion, it is possible from the 
analytical results, for any chemist to affirm positively that the canned meat so examined 
was nourishing and wholesome and fit food for use for soldiers in the field? 
A. I would not want to make that affirmation myself. I would not want to affirm 
that myself. As I stated in my report, I think that experience should be taken into 
consideration. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I believe that is all I wish to ask. The Doctor 
is right here in the city, and if the court will grant me the indulgence, and if the 
recorder will kindly let me have that report, if it can be spared this evening, to have 
it looked over, there may be some questions that I may desire to ask after making 
that examination. Not being a scientific man and having only a limited knowledge 
of chemistry, and that only of a practical nature, I would like to defer any further 
examination, and I do not know that there will be any more. I presume the Doctor 
is within easy call. 
The Recorder. Has the court any questions? 
Colonel Gillespie. There is only one question I want to ask. You were asked 
the question whether you had made any examination of these cans during the late 
war. I think your reply was no. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1653 
A. T examined none while the war was in progress last year; no, sir. 
Q. Did you mean to include that you had made no examination of cans that had 
been received as having been purchased for use in the war? 
A. No; I did not mean to make that statement. I reported on such cans here, and 
also reported to the commission appointed to investigate the war with Spain. 
Q. You mean that you made no personal inspections of the canning establish- 
ments during the war? 
A. During that time did not investigate the subject while the war was in progress- 
that is all. 
By General Davis: 
Q. In the canning operations you saw and in the examinations of canned meats 
that have come to you since, furnished by the board, did you see added to the can or 
do you think the cans contained any fat in addition to the fat that the meat itself 
furnished as canned? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. I mean fat or tallow, either one, or both? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. As to the kind of meat, so far as you know, that is used in producing what is 
called canned corned beef, how does that compare with the meat that is placed in 
the cans and labeled canned roast beef ? 
A. My understanding is that the fresh meat that is used for the two purposes is 
very much the same. 
Q. How does the process differ, so far as you know? 
A. The process differs in the fact that the corned beef is immersed in a solution, a 
brine, a solution of salt containing a small percentage of saltpeter, for something like 
three weeks, after which it is put through practically the same process as roast beef. 
Q. And the only difference is that one is salted or corned for three weeks? 
A. That is the only difference. 
Q. The boiling process is the same? 
A. The boiling process is the same. Usually corned beef is boiled rather longer 
than roast beef. 
Q. How much salt does the corned beef take up, rated by percentages? 
A. In the neighborhood of 5 per cent on an average, from 3 to 6 or 7 per cent, 
sometimes more. 
Q. And what was the percentage of salt which you found in this one specimen, the 
Morris canned roast beef, if you recall? 
A. That was about a per cent and a half. It is in my report. I think it was 
something like that. 
Q. You had canned and cooked, I think, some absolutely fresh meat? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That had not been boiled? 
A. That had not been boiled. 
Q. And you have reported the result? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Would that meat be palatable, in your opinion? 
A. Decidedly the reverse, in appearance and odor. The taste was all right when 
removed from the can and exposed to the air for a short time. 
Q. Discriminating as between canned roast beef and canned corned beef under 
the head of palatability, if the canned roast beef is declared unpalatable, and the 
canned corned beef the opposite, to what is that due, in your judgment? 
A. The salt, the seasoning. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. If one should prove nauseating and the other not, to what would that be due, 
in your opinion? 1654 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. From the chemical analysis I could find nothing in either product which I 
would suppose would produce a nauseating effect. 
Q. But I am asking in the event that one should, as a matter of fact, as shown in 
the testimony, prove nauseating to a man, and the other not, to what, in your opin- 
ion, would the difference be due, if you feel at liberty to give an opinion? 
A. Since the only difference in the product is due to the corning, I can ascribe no 
other reason. 
Major Lee. That is all. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Professor Mallet, of the University of Virginia. 
TESTIMONY OF J. W. MALLET. 
J. W. Mallet was called by the recorder as a witness, and, having been first duly 
sworn, was examined. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and profession. 
A. My name, sir, is John W. Mallet. I am professor of chemistry at the Univer- 
sity of Virginia. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Professor, will you please state to the court the experience you have had in 
chemistry, as a professor or teacher of chemistry, and, in a narrative way, inform 
the court as to your work in that field, its general tenor and character? 
A. I have been a teacher of chemistry since 1855, with the exception of the four 
years of the civil war. I taught continuously during that time. I have, of course, 
conducted laboratory investigations of various kinds, practical as well as theoretical. 
As far as the particular question before the court is concerned, my experience has 
been partly in connection with some investigations of the past two or three years 
for the Agricultural Department of the United States Government. I had given 
some attention to food matters before that. Of course, as a teacher, I acquainted 
myself generally with the facts ascertained by others; and I had done some practical 
work myself, chiefly at the time of the exposition at Philadelphia in 1876. I was one 
of the judges of the chemical department there, and we were occasionally called upon 
for advice and information by the judges in the food department. 
Q. Let me ask you the extent of your experience as a soldier? I believe you say 
you have been teaching chemistry continuously with the exception of three or four 
years. You served as a soldier during the -r- 
A. I served in the Confederate army, sir, from 1861 to 1865. 
Q. So you are, in that respect, familiar with the fare and usages of military 
service? 
A. Well, with what fare we had. It was not always exactly in accordance with 
strict army regulations. 
Q. Referring to some work you have done in connection with the Agricultural 
Department of the Government, I have here a pamphlet which contains a publica- 
tion by that Department. I do not know that I shall introduce it in evidence. I 
will ask you whether you recognize that as one of the articles or essays, or whatever 
it may be termed, submitted by you to the Department on the subject of food? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Major Lee. This pamphlet is entitled as follows: " Bulletin No. 54, U. S. Depart- 
ment of Agriculture, Division of Chemistry. Report on an Investigation of Analyti- 
cal Methods for Distinguishing between the Nitrogen of Proteids and that of the 
Simpler Amids or Amido-acids. By J. W. Mallet, professor of chemistry, University 
of Virginia. With a chapter on the Separation of Flesh Bases from Proteid Matters FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1655 
by Means of Bromine, by H. W. Wiley, chief of division of chemistry. Wash- 
ington, Government Printing Office, 1898." 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Will you please state what considerations have to be taken into account in 
estimating the value of food material? I refer more especially to food material for 
troops or soldiers in the field, or men undergoing exposure, or conditions of service 
of that kind. 
A. The two heads under which they must be considered, I think, are availability 
for the purposes for which food is taken (that is, the kind of food material) and 
amount. 
Q. Please state what are the purposes to be served by food taken into the human 
body. 
A. They are generally recognized, sir, as essentially two in number. In the first 
place, building up the tissues of the body itself, furnishing the material of which the 
the body is composed, the muscular and nervous system, etc.; and, secondly, 
supplying the material to undergo a chemical change in the body, with a view to 
producing muscular power and heat. 
Q. What classes of food material are recognized from a chemical point of view? 
A. The usual classification of food, sir, is organic food (which consists of the pro- 
teids, as they are called), nitrogenous food, the fats, and the carbohydrates (which 
include sugars and starches). There are a few substances occasionally used outside 
of those-the acids of fruits, for instance, which would practically fall under the last 
head; and then saline matters, mineral matters, and water. That really covers the 
question as to food proper. It might be proper to add nervous stimulants, such as 
tea and coffee and alcohol and condiments. 
Q. How are these severally related to their utility in the human body? I believe 
you partially answered that. If you have not answered fully, please do so. 
A. The important distinction, sir, I think, is that the proteids alone can serve 
for building up the tissues of the body; at least, the greater portion of the tissues 
consist of proteid matter, and can only be formed from proteid matter. Animals 
have no power of forming proteids for themselves; so that all the material going to 
build up the body itself has to be taken in from without, as already existing proteid 
matter. 
For the other purpose, the production of energy, heat, and muscular force, the 
proteids can serve, and the other two classes also; but for the purpose of building up 
tissues the proteids can not be substituted by the others. 
Q. I will ask you to state what limits there are, if any, to the availability of any 
particular article of food as regards, first, digestibility? 
A. The first step in rendering food available in the body is its being digested or 
dissolved, and if it fails to undergo such digestion it simply passes through the body, 
is discharged by the intestines, and is, of course, of no use for either of the purposes 
named. It must be digestible, and only in such measure as it is digestible is it prac- 
tically available as food. 
Q. Then comes the matter of capability of being absorbed, unless you have already 
covered that. 
A. No; I have not. There, again, food may be digested and yet may be incapable 
in greater or less degree of passing through the walls of the intestines and getting 
into the blood; in other words, incapable of being absorbed. If it fails of absorba- 
bility, the loss to the body is the same as if it fails of digestibility. 
Q. Now, as to the capability of undergoing chemical changes-oxidizability? 
A. There, again, if, being digested and being absorbed, the food fails to undergo 
the course of chemical change necessary in the body it is useless, as a matter of 
course, and substances may be actually taken into the blood and may yet be dis- 1656 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
charged, as, for instance, by way of the urine, without having undergone a chemical 
change. If so, it is to that extent useless as food. 
Q. What would you say as to palatability; I mean under the ordinary conditions 
of men in service of which we have been speaking? 
A. Although an agreeable taste is, of course, a secondary consideration, it has some 
practical importance. The common phrase that pleasant food causes the mouth to 
water is, to a certain extent, the expression of a scientific fact. That is, it causes a 
flow of the saliva, which is the first of the digestive fluids; and unquestionably food 
which is agreeable to the taste is, other things being equal, more valuable than that 
which is not. 
Q. I do not know whether you have covered this point-you can tell me better, 
perhaps, than I can suggest-as to capability of being obtained in adequate quantity, 
under this same head? 
A. That, I suppose, principally bears upon the question of an army ration. It is 
manifest that there is no use in including any material which could not be procured 
on the scale which is necessary for army supply. There is no use in including game, 
or rare and costly material, which could not be had in sufficient quantity. 
Q. How is it as to cost? 
A. The same consideration governs, I suppose-common sense dictates that it must 
be reasonably economical, that an adequate quantity may be had at a reasonable 
price. 
Q. And as to freedom from injurious effects upon the body? 
A. That, clearly, is a very important consideration. Even though food should 
consist of nutritive material, if it produces disease-if it is in such a condition as to 
give rise to disease of any kind-it manifestly does harm, whether it may do good at 
the same time or not. I have in view one case, which was very marked, during the 
period in which, alone, I had an opportunity of seeing troops fed in the field. In 
this case the amount of injury that was inflicted upon the troops was very marked. 
On the occasion of the advance of General Lee'S army into Pennsylvania, in 1863, 
large quantities of unripe corn were eaten from the stalk, in the absence of other 
food, and its bad effects, as I have stated, were very marked. Regiments suffered 
severely from diarrhea as a result of the irritation caused by the unfit food. 
The same remark, of course, applies to the presence of bacteria in meat under- 
going decay. A large part of decaying meat may be still nutritive matter; but the 
injury inflicted by the presence of disease-producing bacteria may far more than 
counterbalance any advantage derived from the use of such food and may practically 
convert food into poison. 
Q. Do you recall any instance illustrating or bearing upon this matter, in regaid 
to the use of, I will say, the residue, or what was left after taking out the beef extract? 
Do you recall any instance that came to your knowledge, or was brought to your 
notice in the course of your investigation of this subject, in connection with Liebig's 
experiments? 
A. As to the effect? 
Q. As to the residue being regarded as possessing nutritive qualities and as to the 
success or failure of it in its use or attempted use? 
A. There is a case on record, sir, of which, of course, I have no personal knowledge. 
Q. I know; but 
A. But it is a matter of general scientific information. When the manufacture of 
the extract of meat was first undertaken, at Liebig's suggestion, a large establishment 
was put up in the Argentine Republic at Fray Bentos, for the manufacture of Liebig's 
extract of meat; and my impression is that it is still in existence. But in the early 
days of its establishment, when the manufacture of a meat extract was a novelty, 
the attempt was made to economize, by feeding the fibrous residue of the meat, from 
which the soluble matter had been extracted by water, to hogs, and with the result FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1657 
that the hogs practically starved, and it became necessary to give tnem grain in addi- 
tion. Although there was muscular fiber there in its condensed form as the result 
of the boiling, it was practically indigestible, and it passed through the bodies of the 
animals and was discharged. 
Q. It was not taken up, then? 
A. I do not mean to say that none at all was digested; but it was discharged in 
large amounts undigested, and the hogs practically suffered for want of food. 
Q. Going back, then, to our classification, or following it out, what can you say as 
to the capability of food being kept, under given conditions, in a state fit for issue; 
that is, the limits of availability under that head of any particular article of food as 
regards its keeping qualities? 
A. It practically falls under the head mentioned just now, that if food be incap- 
able of preservation until it reaches the troops themselves, it manifestly will produce 
illness, or will be unfitted for use. It will be rejected. The consideration of what it 
may have been is unimportant. The question, of course, is, what is its state when 
it actually reaches the men who have to consume it? 
Q. Will you please state, in your opinion, from your experience and knowledge of 
these matters, practical and theoretical, in what proportion the different classes of 
food material should be represented in a fixed ration or dietary? 
A. There has been a great deal of discussion on that subject, sir; and the only 
basis we have for answering the question is actual experience. The statements to be 
found in the books are based upon dietaries which have been found to actually, as a 
matter of fact, support men in health, some doing little labor, some heavier labor, 
and some very arduous labor; and then analyzing those dietaries, analyzing the 
materials of which the ration was composed, and classifying them under the heads 
which have been mentioned, and determining the proportions. 
The general conclusion of European authorities would look to a very much larger 
amount of proteids than of fat, and a still larger amount of carbohydrates. The 
American dietaries, so far as I know, have been confined altogether to civil life, and 
mainly to experiments with mechanics, where labor entered in as an element; and 
they have given, as a rule, a very considerably larger amount of fat in proportion to 
protein than the European authorities have felt was necessary or desirable. A por- 
tion of the European conclusions has been based upon actual army rations, the use 
of food by troops partly in time of peace, in barracks, and partly in time of war, in 
the field. As far as I know there are no corresponding statistics available, with 
regard to American troops. 
Q. Referring to the matter of proper proportions of food, how, in your opinion, 
should they be modified by climate, the amount of muscular effort, etc.? 
A. The general principle seems to be universally recognized, sir, that the fats are 
capable of yielding a larger amount of energy, either muscular energy or heat, than 
either of the other two classes; but they undergo chemical change, oxidization, more 
slowly, and that therefore they are actually fitted for cold climates where the 
demand for heat is continuous-where the body is continuously losing heat to a sur- 
rounding atmosphere of lower temperature and requires an effort to supply it from 
within. 
It also seems to be admitted that, on the other hand, although muscular energy 
(•an be developed at the expense of any one of the three classes of food mentioned, 
it involves the machinery for expenditure, which consists of muscles, protein, and 
which muscles are themselves necessarily to a greater or a less extent wTasted away; 
and that therefore, although the view at one time entertained that muscular energy 
is obtained solely from proteids, is certainly not true; nevertheless, for the develop- 
ment, and especially the rapid development of muscular energy, the proteids hold 
the highest place. In a hot climate the natural indication would be to diminish the 
quantity of fats, and in a cold climate to increase it. Where the amount demanded 1658 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
for muscular energy is most urgent, and while alternations of rest and motion are 
involved, then the proteids should be increased. 
Q. Professor, what are the chief effects, whether beneficial or injurious, of cooking, 
upon the wholesomeness and value of food? 
A. Well, sir, they are of two classes, I think, the one chemical and the other 
mechanical. 
The most important chemical change which takes place in the cooking of our 
ordinary food is the change undergone by the starch of the vegetable food; it is 
rendered soluble, whereas, in the raw state, it is insoluble in water; the conversion 
of collagen, as it is called, connective tissue, and the like, and the animal matter of 
bone, into gelatine, which becomes soluble in warm water. 
The mechanical effects are, primarily, the disintegration of the food, so as to make 
it more easily separated in chewing and expose larger surfaces to the digestive fluids, 
which is, of course, advantageous; followed, however (if the cooking be too much 
prolonged), by a condensation of tissue, which renders it difficult of digestion. In 
other words, cooking up to a certain point is advantageous; cooking beyond a certain 
point may be considered as detrimental. 
Q. Then overcooking would be, in some degree, injurious? 
A. I think so, distinctly, sir. 
Q. Is it possible, in your opinion as a scientific gentleman, by chemical analysis 
alone, to determine the value of a given food material? 
A. If you say chemical analysis alone I should certainly say not. 
Q. Yes, sir; that is the question. 
A. I do not believe that anyone can, on the basis of a chemical analysis alone, 
determine whether a given food material is wholesome or unwholesome. I would 
like to add, in qualification of that, that to a certain extent the chemical analysis 
gives a limit of possible availability. Determinations are very constantly made, for 
instance, of the amount of heat which can be produced by burning a given amount 
of a given kind of food. That, of course, shows how much heat, or its equivalent in 
chemical energy, could, by possibility, be obtained from that amount of food. You 
could certainly get no more. But it does not necessarily establish that that amount 
would actually be obtained by that food being swallowed. On the contrary, as far as 
it escapes digestion or absorption, or oxidization in the blood, to that extent it does 
not yield a corresponding amount of energy. The determination, chemically, of how 
much energy it is possible to produce from it, is a different question from the deter- 
mination of how much is actually producible in the human machine. 
Q. That comes to the very meat of the issue. Can the value of a given food mate- 
rial be determined by measurement of the number of heat units produced by burn- 
ing a given quantity of it? 
A. No; for the reason I have just stated. 
Q. I believe that you had submitted to you, in connection with the matter under 
investigation, a report which was made by Professor Chittenden. I believe you read 
the report, did you not? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Will you please state to the court, with reference to that report, what does the 
absence of phosphoric acid in six of the samples indicate? 
A. If the analyses are to be trusted (and I presume they certainly are, and of 
course, if not, no conclusions can be drawn) I do not see how it is possible to escape 
the belief that the meat had had a large amount of soluble matter removed by the 
action of water. Four-fifths of all the mineral matter of beef, in round numbers, 
consists of the alkaline phosphates, which are freely soluble in water; and if you 
find no phosphoric acid at all (that is, no phosphates, represented by phosphorift 
acid) remaining in the meat, I do not see how it is possible to escape the belief that 
that meat has been leached by water. I can think of no explanation which would 
account for the absence of phosphorus. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY.' 
1659 
Q. You have had some experience, by investigation or otherwise, with reference 
to refrigerated beef, or the refrigeration of beef? 
A. Only in a domestic way-that is, I have seen and tasted refrigerated beef. 
Q. I will ask you this question: Whether, in your opinion, slaughtered beef, pre- 
served by refrigeration, could have been counted upon as fairly safe to reach the 
troops in Cuba and Porto Rico in a wholesome condition for use? 
A. I should say not, sir. 
Q. I mean, in time of active operations of an army, we will say. 
A. Of course I speak now, as regards the facts of the Spanish war, only from gen- 
eral newspaper information. But in a case in which a landing was to be made upon 
a hostile coast, the expeditions of troops being speedily engaged, and, it might be, 
at a distance from the coast, I do not see how refrigerated beef could have been 
counted upon as safe to reach them in an undecomposed condition. It very soon 
spoils after removal from refrigerators. And although it seems to have been con- 
templated that refrigerating apparatus could have been put up on shore, that cer- 
tainly could not have been counted upon as feasible at all points, possibly in the 
interior, to which the troops would have to be carried. 
Q. Please state whether or not it is a fact that the practical nutrition and value of 
the food depends in large measure upon the texture, more or less dense and compact 
or coarsely or finely fibrous, of the organized material. I would like you to state 
your opinion in regard to the matter, as a scientific gentleman. 
A. That is involved, in part, in the question which I answered before, with regard 
to the fibrous portion of meat from which the soluble matter had been extracted by 
prolonged boiling. But there are other cases proving, I think, that there is a con- 
nection between the texture of the material and its chemical composition necessary 
in order to make it digestible. There is considerable reason to believe that we digest 
woody fiber, in small amounts, when it is sufficiently delicately organized; but saw- 
dust or other shavings of compact woody fiber are practically useless to the human 
system. That is merely a parallel case. 
Q. Does chemical analysis indicate any difference in this respect? 
A. Not in the cases I have just spoken of. The difference between the original 
beef-to refer to the case of the beef-and the meat fiber which would be left if it 
had been leached out with water, would, of course, be perceptible in the fact of one 
containing soluble matter and tho other having had that soluble matter removed. 
But the analysis-the determination, for instance, of nitrogen, as indicating the 
amount of proteids-would not draw the distinction between its being a soluble 
proteid or a condensed or a finely organized proteid.' 
Q. Does or does not the prolonged boiling of meat in water condense and harden 
the fiber so as to affect its nutritive value; if so, in what way? 
A. That, again, is practically the same question. Overcooking does tend to con- 
dense and harden the fiber, and, to that extent, diminish its digestibility. It is a 
matter of common observation that in dealing with patients whose digestive system 
is weakened doctors, as a rule, prefer under cooked or rare meat, rare beefsteak, rare 
mutton chops, not-too-much-cooked chicken, or whatever the meat may be. 
Q. Would any indication of such injury from overcooking be afforded by a deter- 
mination of the percentage of nitrogen? 
A. No, sir; not if you simply compare the proteid in a soluble and an insoluble 
form. 
Q. Referring to the report, is it possible, from such chemical analysis as the report 
gives, to determine whether the meat analyzed came from the carcasses of healthy 
or diseased animals? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Why is that? Will you explain that, please? 
A. Because there doubtless are chemical changes which take place in the body of 1660 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
a diseased animal, but they are of such a complex and delicate kind that no analysis 
made by the ordinary modes applied to food analyses-such methods as were involved 
in the reports of Professor Chittenden-could possibly detect them. 
Q. Could such analyses or not determine as to the inferior or superior quality of 
the meat? How would it be with reference to that? 
A. I would say, again, that they could not, save in extreme cases. I suppose it 
might be pointed out, for instance, that if an analysis revealed no fat at all, it would 
be an indication that the animal from which the meat was taken was in poor condi- 
tion. 
Q. Would such analyses distinguish between beef and other kinds of flesh, say 
horseflesh, or the flesh of other animals? 
A. I am not prepared to say, sir, that analytical methods might not be devised by 
which the difference might be detected; but the analysis reported on by Professor 
Chittenden-which I suppose is what you refer to 
Q. That is what I refer to-the report which you have seen. 
A. An analysis made by the ordinary method would not. 
Q. Would such analysis be sufficient to prove the absence from the canned meat 
of grubs, maggots, or disease-producing bacteria? 
A. Not certainly, if the quantity of such material did not form a very large pro- 
portion of the whole contents of the can. 
Q. Please state whether or not it would be possible to prepare a mixture of, say, 
horseflesh, tallow, carpenters' glue and a little common salt, which, on analysis by 
the methods employed as the basis of the report to which I have referred, would 
yield results quite similar to and chemically indistinguishable from those of the 
reports. 
A. I believe such a mixture could certainly be made which would give results 
quite within the range of this report. 
Q. I will ask you to please state, in conclusion, whether or not it is possible, from 
the analytical results reported, for any chemist to affirm positively that the canned 
meat examined was good, nourishing, and wholesome food, fit for issue to soldiers 
in the field. 
A. I should say not, sir. 
(Neither the recorder nor the members of the court had any questions to ask of 
this witness.) 
Major Lee. I would like, may it please the court, to have Professor Mallet remain 
as a witness subject to recall until I can go over the reports that have been submitted. 
I have not had time to examine the certified copies that have come from the 
War Department of the correspondence which was requested to.be furnished; but 
I have gone over a very few of them, and I simply submit to the court a request 
from the Major-General Commanding for the production of some six or seven wit- 
nesses ; and I would also ask the court for its decision in regard to the reports which 
have been culled out from all other reports, being the reports of officers, in connec- 
tion with the other reports that were rendered. I believe there is a letter which I 
submitted to the president on that subject. I would ask that that matter, if it 
meets with the pleasure of the court, be taken up and passed on. I have segregated 
all of the letters-possibly one or two may have crept in which have heretofore been 
taken, but I have gone over them carefully-and they run continuously in con- 
nection with the same matter that was before the court. They are the reports of 
many officers who were in command there and who, at the time of some of the 
other reports, were not in command. It is simply in continuation of the same 
line 
The President. The letter explains all that. 
Major Lee. I just wanted to make that request of the court; I do not care to make 
any extended remarks on the subject. I am sorry that I am not ready to proceed. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1661 
The President. Are there any further witnesses? 
The Recorder. No, sir; no more to-day. 
The court thereupon went into executive session, after which an adjournment 
was taken until to-morrow, Friday, April 14, 1899, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C. 
Friday, April 14, 1899. 
The court met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
The Recorder. The following is the ruling on the application on behalf of the 
Major-General Commanding: 
It is ordered by the court that the reports submitted by the Major-General Com- 
manding on April 13 be received and read in evidence, except the following: 
I. Those submitted by officers who have already testified. 
II. Those rendered by officers who have submitted reports which have been read 
in evidence, unless such reports contain matter not covered by their testimony or by 
previous reports. 
III. Those relating to operations in Cuba or Porto Rico which were submitted by 
officers who did not personally participate in the Santiago or Porto Rican campaigns. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Dr. Adams, of New Jersey. 
TESTIMONY OF DR. CHARLES F. ADAMS 
Dr. Charles F. Adams was called by the recorder as a witness, and having been 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and profession. 
A. Charles Francis Adams; Hackensack, N. J.; physician. 
Q. Were you in the military service of the United States during the war with 
Spain, in 1898? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. To what organization were you attached, and in what capacity? 
A. The Second New Jersey Volunteer Infantry. I was the major and regimental, 
surgeon. 
Q. Where did that regiment serve? 
A. During the month of May at Sea Girt, N. J., and thereafter at Jacksonville 
Fla., until the time of muster out, which was late in September. 
Q. In your capacity as surgeon what examinations of the food supply, from day 
to day, were made by you? 
A. I made daily examinations of the rations, at times at the commissary tent, 
where they were received, at other times in the company storehouses, and later, 
after their preparation for the men, in the cook houses. 
Q. Please state to the court, in narrative form, the results of those observations in 
respect to the fresh meat that was furnished to the command. 
A. On two occasions I condemned fresh meat furnished to the regiment-on one 
occasion fresh beef, and on another fresh mutton. At other times I found the beef 
and mutton cooked generally very satisfactorily. 1662 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. What kind of fresh beef was furnished to the regiment? That is, was it native 
beef, killed locally, or was it brought from a distance? 
A. It was brought from a distance-refrigerator beef. 
Q. Refrigerated beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you make any special examinations of it other than those to which you 
have testified? 
A. None other than observing the general condition of the meat, its color, solidity, 
odor, general appearance, and its appearance on sectioning into the meat. 
Q. What complaints, if any, did you receive as to its character? 
A. None at all, except on the two days to which I have alluded. 
Q. And what were those? 
A. That the meat was of unpleasant odor and appearance, and evidently unfit for 
food-spoiled. 
Q. What action was taken with respect to those quantities of meat? 
A. The meat was condemned on both days. 
Q. Was it consumed by the men? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Had you any occasion to believe, at any time, that the fresh beef furnished for 
the use of the command had been treated chemically, with a view to its preservation? 
A. No, sir; not at all. The question presented itself to my mind, because I knew 
that meats were so prepared, especially on the other side of the water; and that sub- 
ject was frequently in my mind when I examined the meat. But no question of 
that sort was ever brought to me by any other person, and I never found any evi- 
dence about any of the meat to suggest any such treatment. 
Q. Had there been such evidences, do you think that they would have escaped you? 
A. I do not think that they could have done so. 
Q. What was the condition of the command, in respect to health, during its stay 
in Jacksonville? 
A. It varied. When we reached Jacksonville the health of the command was 
exceptionally good. The sick rate increased progressively up until about the 20th 
of August. If I may illustrate 
Q. Yes. 
A. On the 10th of June, for instance, the men on sick report in our regiment were 
three-tenths of one per cent only; on the 10th of July, 3 per cent; on the 10th of 
August, 10 per cent; on the 26th or 28th of August, 26 per cent. 
Q. What were the principal diseases from which the men were suffering? 
A. Intestinal indigestion and typhoid fever-especially the latter. 
Q. Do you remember in about what proportions those diseases appeared in the 
sick lists? 
A. It is difficult to answer that very definitely. Typhoid fever was very far in 
the lead. 
Q. To what cause did you attribute the typhoid? 
A. The fact of its having been imported by some of the Western regiments, and to 
the miserable sanitary conditions of the camp; the location of the sinks with regard 
to the cook tents, the sloppy methods of scavengering, and general lack of hygienic 
cleanliness. 
Q. What reports or representations did you make to any superior authority with 
respect to the sanitary or hygienic conditions of the camp? 
A. I made regular written reports to the chief surgeon of the Seventh Army Corps, 
calling attention to these conditions. 
Q. To what cause did you attribute the intestinal trouble? 
A. Largely to errors of diet; partly to the intense heat. 
Q. Had you occasion to believe that they were attributable to the food supply, 
the quality or wholesomeness of the food? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1663 
A. No, sir. 
Q. What was the location of the camp, from a sanitary point of view? 
A. Very poor. The camp was very much crowded. The sinks, in which the tub 
system was used, were some of them located as near as 20 feet from the cook sheds. 
The drains were open, and some of them were practically open sewers. They were 
the most important conditions. 
Q. By whom was the camp located? Have you any knowledge as to that? 
A. No, sir; I don't know as to that. Our camp ground was assigned to us when 
we reached Jacksonville. 
Q. During the time that you were in service at Jacksonville did you have any 
occasion, in connection with your duties, to undertake any chemical experiments of 
any sort? 
A. No, sir. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. You state that the beef was, on two occasions, condemned, Doctor. How was 
it condemned; by a board of survey, or in what way? 
A. By my personal recommendation. 
Q. By your personal recommendation? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you make a report on it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. A written report? 
A. I think not a written report on both occasions; on one occasion, I think, to 
the commanding officer. 
Q. Was the meat replaced by other meat? 
A. I am not sure as to that, sir. May I correct you there, Major? You said 
"beef." I condemned the beef on one day, and the mutton on another day. 
Q. I mean the meats that were condemned, the beef on one day and the mutton 
on the other. What quantities were condemned and from whom was it received- 
that is, from the regular contractor who furnished it? 
A. I believe so, sir. 
Q. Was the mutton furnished by the contractor? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Or was it bought? 
A. It was furnished by the contractor. 
Q. I understood you to say that this meat was spoiled, or decomposed. _ so 
understood. Am I right in that? What was the matter with it? 
A. It presented evidences of decomposition, in color and odor. 
Q. Was any other officer associated with you on the board or in the condemnation 
of it? 
A. No, sir; I think not. 
Q. Did the commissary officer call your attention to it? Who called your attention 
to this meat? 
A. On the first occasion, when I condemned the beef, I noticed it myself. I was 
at the commissary tent when the beef was received. On the second occasion, my 
attention was called to the mutton before I had reached the commissary tent on my 
morning tour of inspection. 
Q. You inspected the company cook houses of your regiment daily. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Every day? 
A. Not always every day. 
Q. Did you have any assistants or were you the principal surgeon of the regiment. 
A. I was the regimental surgeon. 
Q. How many assistants had you? 1664 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. At first three, later two; still later, only one. 
Q. Did these officers perform any duties, under your direction, in the nature of 
inspections? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How were these inspections made? Were they made by you in company with 
the company officers or by yourself individually, or how would you do that? 
A. My inspections, as a rule, were made in company with the officers of the day. 
Q. You speak about the beef. Did you make any tests of any kind in regard to 
that beef, as to an examination of any refrigerated beef which was issued down there? 
Did you ever examine it specially, with a view of determining whether it had been 
chemically treated or not? 
A. Did I examine it chemically, do you mean? 
Q. Yes; did you make any sort of an examination, with a view of detecting the 
presence or absence of any chemicals? , 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Was your attention invited to it in any way? 
A. Not in any such way as that; no, sir. 
Q. I understood you as saying that it was your understanding that meat was fre- 
quently treated with some chemicals abroad or across the water. Am I correct in 
that? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Processed in some way? 
A. I have read statements of that sort. 
Q. And you say that with this beef you had in mind down there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What kind of chemicals or preservalines, or preservatives, are used on meats, 
if you know? 
A. Boracic acid is used on the other side; a preparation of salicylic acid is used, 
and processes during which the meats are exposed to the fumes of sulphur, and to 
those of formalin. 
Q. Have you ever seen any of those processes used yourself? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Have you ever examined, yourself, any meat that has been so chemicalized or 
treated? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. That is, as far as you know? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Do you know what its appearance would be, then? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You have no knowledge on that subject? 
A. Not personally. 
Q. How did it happen, then, that you had this in mind, when you were getting 
this beef, down in that warm climate? 
A. It seemed to me remarkable that the meat was usually furnished in so good a 
condition, simply by refrigeration. 
Q. Do you recall any time there when a considerable number of men were sick, 
who were on duty in the preparation of a target range? Do you recall any such 
instance as that? 
A. No, sir. I have recently reviewed my register of sick and wounded with 
regard to ascertaining if any such condition existed. I find no record of it. The 
original records are still in my possession. 
Q. You find no record of what? 
A. Of any special outbreak of sickness at that time. 
Q. I was not referring to the command; I mean in regard to your own regiment. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
1665 
You said that at one time you had as high as 26 per cent of your men sick. That 
extended through the entire command, did it not? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. All the companies? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. No companies would be exempt? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Do you recall, in any way, having any conversation with the lieutenant-colonel 
of your regiment, or do you recall Lieutenant-Colonel Currie addressing you in 
regard to any matter connected with the health or sickness of the regiment-not 
exactly within his province, perhaps, but any remark that he made about it? 
A. On one occasion he referred to the fact that the knife which had been used in 
cutting the beef was discolored. That was the only definite reference of any sort 
bearing upon that point. 
Q. Do you know him as a practicing physician? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Of good standing? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Reputable? 
A. Perfectly. 
Q. And reliable? 
A. I think so. 
Q. Has it been brought to your knowledge in any way, or was it at that time, that 
he had made some sort of analysis or some sort of test in regard to some of the beef 
there on one occasion? Was that brought either to your knowledge or to that of the 
other medical officers of your regiment? 
A. The first knowledge that I had of any such thing, sir, was when I saw a state- 
ment of his testimony before the court in the newspapers. 
Q. That he had spoken to a medical officer of the regiment? 
A. 1 did not see that statement in the paper. 
Q. You do not recall anything further than about the knife, I believe. Who 
brought that to your attention; Colonel Currie? 
A. Colonel Currie; yes, sir. 
Q. Was it investigated in any way or any inquiry made in reference to it? 
A. Yes, sir; the meat was inspected even more rigidly, more carefully than 
before. 
Q. Do you know, in regard to any of these processes of which you speak, as to 
salicylic acid being used on meat, and boracic acid and formalin, what effect it has 
on the health of the men? Have you ever tried that, or investigated that subject in 
any way? Is it regarded, from the information which you have on the subject, as 
harmless, when used as a preservative of meat? 
A. The statements which I read, which were from the report of a foreign board of 
health, differed somewhat; but they were generally to the effect that these proc- 
esses, as described, were not injurious. Both of these drugs are used as internal 
remedies, of course, in the medical profession. 
Q. You speak of the camp being crowded. How was your regiment encamped? 
I mean, what area of ground did it occupy; what was the distance between the com- 
pany streets, and the distance between battalions? Was it laid out according to the 
regulation camp, with sufficient distance for formations, and so on? I wish you 
would define to the court what you mean by the camp being crowded. 
A. The tents in the adjoining company streets were right back to back. 
Q. How near together? 
A. Practically touching. 
Q. Was there room enough to police between them? 
S. Doc. 270 105 1666 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. With difficulty. I am not sure of whether the company streets were of regula- 
tion width. The battalion streets were wide and roomy. The tents longitudinally 
were also so close together as to be practically touching. 
(2. You mean that the tents were touching each other? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What kind of tents were they? 
A. Most of them were the half-wall tents. 
Q. Or the common wall tents. Now, if these tents were the common wall tents 
and were put touching each other, would you say 
A. I do not mean that the wall tents were touching. The A-tents would come 
together like that [indicating]. The wall tents were so located that there was just 
room for the guy ropes to reach the tent pins, but the guy ropes crossed. 
Q. Did you have the wedge tent, that came to the ground without any wall, or did 
you have what is called the common wall tent? I do not mean the officers' wall 
tent, but the common wall tent; it is an A-tent or a wedge tent with a wall to it. 
A. Yes, sir; we knew them as half-wall tents, I think. The majority of our tents, 
I think, were of that character, if I remember correctly. 
Q. I just wanted to get at the point of the camp being crowded. You had abun- 
dance of ground there, had you not? 
A. I think there was ground enough assigned to us; yes, sir. 
Q. You do not know the width of the streets? 
A. I can not recall that. 
Q. Was the policing done daily? 
A. Yes, sir; every morning. 
Q. How about police carts or wagons? Did you have any wagons in your regi- 
ment? 
A. Yes, sir; but those did not go through the camp, as I remember. 
Q. 'Did they go along the front of the camp? How was this refuse removed? Was 
it hauled off ? 
A. It was taken down to the garbage dumps, at the ends of the company's streets, 
and afterwards gathered by the carts. 
Q. And hauled away? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. How far away from the camp was it dumped? 
A. Well, the crematory, where most of the garbage was taken was, I think, some 
miles away from the camp. 
Q. None of it was deposited, then, in the immediate vicinity of the camp? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. The tubs which were used by the men were removed daily, were they not? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. That was a matter which you reported upon? 
A. Yes, sir. They were cleansed daily, but that was not often enough, and I 
repeatedly recommended that they be removed and cleansed twice daily. 
Q. You stated that, in your opinion, the food which the men had had no relation 
whatever to the disease? 
A. The food regularly furnished. 
Q. You mean the Government ration? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. When did you come to that conclusion? 
A. I never had any doubt in regard to it. 
Q. Have you ever had any experience in the military service prior to the late war? 
A. I have been in the National Guard, simply. 
Q. I mean, have you had any active campaign service? 
A. No, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1667 
Q. Is it not a fact, within your information, that in the case of all new troops put 
into the field the change in the diet or the food from what they had at home 
to what was furnished by the Government always produces more or less dysentery 
or diarrhoea, or whatever it is called, among the men? Is or is not that a fact 
within your knowledge or observation? 
A. No, sir; that is not a fact within my knowledge. 
Q. You consider that the conditions of food or rations furnished to a thousand 
men, gathered together, would have no effect on their health? 
A. Generally, I think that is true if they limited themselves to the Government 
ration. 
Q. You mean that or such supplies as are furnished by the Commissary Depart- 
ment? 
A. Generally that; yes, sir. 
Q. What was the ration issued to the troops of your regiment there generally? 
What was the Government ration? 
A. I do not think I can give that in detail, now. 
Q. I mean the principal parts? I would like to know in regard to the meats, and 
also the vegetables. 
A. Fresh beef, fresh mutton, bacon, bread, potatoes, canned tomatoes, rice, coffee- 
those were the principal articles. 
Q. Did you have any canned roast beef issued to you? 
A. Not regularly; we used it as a travel ration. 
Q. You used it as a travel ration? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you regard that an as acceptable travel ration? You consider it a good 
travel ration, do you? 
A. As far as our experience with it went. 
Q. As far as your experience went? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you have canned corned beef as a travel ration? 
A. I think we had canned corned beef on our return from Jacksonville. 
Q. Which did you find preferable? 
A. I think the canned corned beef was more palatable, generally better. 
By General Davis: 
Q. When Colonel Currie spoke to you of the discoloration of the steel blade of a 
knife by contact with the meat, did you follow up that experiment in any way, or 
try it yourself, or ascertain whether there was any recurrence of it? 
A. I tried it myself, and questioned the cooks in regard to it, but I found no cor- 
roboration of his statement. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness Dr. 
Blundell, of New Jersey. 
TESTIMONY OF DR. CHARLES R. BLUNDELL. 
Dr. Charles R. Blundell was called by the recorder as a witness, and, having 
been duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and profession. 
A. Charles R. Blundell; Paterson, N. J.; physician. 
Q. Were you in the military service during the war with Spain last year? 
A. I was. 
Q. To what organization were you attached, and in what capacity? 
A. To the Second New Jersey Regiment Volunteer Infantry. 1668 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. In what capacity? 
A. In the capacity of assistant surgeon. 
Q. Were you present with the regiment at its camp in Jacksonville? 
A. I was, sir. 
Q. During the entire period? 
A. During the entire period, with the exception of two weeks, beginning June 23 
and ending about July 6. 
Q. Were you assigned to a battalion? 
A. I was at first, sir. 
Q. And after that, in what capacity did you render service? 
A. As an assistant to the entire regiment. 
Q. In your capacity as assistant surgeon what investigation or examination did 
you make of the food supply, its preparation, for the enlisted men? 
A. My examination of the food supply was limited to my daily observation of the 
food as it was there, lying in the company cookshed, or during the act of its prepara- 
tion for the meal. 
Q. Please state to the court what your practice was as to performing your duty in 
that regard. How did you do it each day? 
A. As battalion assistant surgeon the duty devolved upon me of the daily inspec- 
tion of my own battalion, or, by adjustment between assistant surgeons, of the entire 
regiment. That duty I performed for the period of time when I was one of three 
assistant surgeons. When, by reason of a general order, two of the assistant surgeons 
were removed from regimental to hospital duties, it then devolved upon me to make 
such camp investigation, and at such times as the major surgeon deemed necessary. 
Those duties I did fulfill until the time of our return home. 
Q. Please state to the court, in narrative form, what the result was of your obser- 
vations of the food supply and its preparation, having special reference to the meat 
supply. 
A. After reaching Jacksonville we were daily supplied with a full ration of fresh 
or salted meat. There were no complaints made to me at any time during the 
early part of our residence in Jacksonville because of the poor quality or short 
quantity of the fresh meat. The men ate it without complaint. In my judgment 
as to its quality-I confess, in the absence of such complaints, at first I did not 
investigate the meat; the proof being negative in that case that it was of good 
quality. 
During the latter part of the summer months, by reason of the increase in temper- 
ature and increase in the number of troops, there were complaints made-complaints 
both as to the quality and quantity. The several complaints to which I listened, 
officially, in regard to the quality, are dow called to my mind as having occurred in 
August; and at such times the company cooks, or the commissary from the company, 
made verbal complaint. In response to that complaint I examined the meat, using 
only what I considered to be my fair judgment as to its condition, by its odor, its 
appearance, and those things, which any one of us could use in reaching such a con- 
clusion. 
Once or twice the meat submitted for my observation was regarded by me as 
undergoing a decomposition. On one or more occasions, besides, I refused to 
indorse the complaints made by those men, believing that the meat was all right. 
No protest w'as later made against my judgment. When I referred to this meat as 
having undergone a decomposition it was at that time due, in my opinion, to the 
necessary exposure from which any fresh meat suffers in being taken from refriger- 
ating cars and carried some little distance to the regimental camp. 
Q. What was the temperature during July and August? 
A. I suppose you mean relative to the meat? 
Q. Yes. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1669 
A. During that part of the day when the meat was being unpacked and taken to 
the camp it would range anywhere from 90 to 95 degrees. 
Q. What was the condition of the atmosphere from day to day, as a rule, in respect 
to humidity? 
A. It was almost at the point of saturation. 
Q. How was the meat cared for by the companies, so far as your observations went, 
after it was received by them, and before it was cooked? 
A. There were constructed, at the foot of each company street, improvised sheds. 
Some of the companies had some ice boxes, into which the meat was put. Others 
did not have ice boxes, but they covered the meat as well as they could, and pro- 
tected it as well as possible from the intense heat. My opinion is that they used 
a good deal of care in the keeping of that meat. 
Q. What kind was furnished? 
A. The roast beef 
Q. No; I mean what kind of fresh meat, from day to day, was furnished as your 
food supply? Was it refrigerated or was it locally killed? 
A. Refrigerated. 
Q. Do you know by whom it was furnished? 
A. I do not, sir. 
Q. Had you occasion to believe or to suspect at any time that the fresh meat fur- 
nished for the use of your command had been chemically treated with a view to its 
preservation? 
A. I had no suspicion of that. 
Q. Was any such suggestion or representation made to you by anyone at Jackson- 
ville during your stay there? 
A. There was not. 
Q. What was the condition of the regiment in point of health? 
A. Our regiment was in excellent health upon its arrival at Jacksonville. The 
sickness increased, as has been stated, progressively until we returned home, the 
maximum amount of sickness being at the time of our leaving Jacksonville. 
Q. To what causes did you at the time attribute the sickness of the command? 
A. I made a sort of mental classification, which might be accepted in a general 
way, of the sickness. There was at first the malarial type of sickness, with consti- 
pation. The second was of that same remittent type, with a diarrhea. The third 
was typical typhoid; and in my classification I think I could divide it according to 
the months of July, August, and September-perhaps advancing a little; perhaps 
the 15th of June, the 15th of July, and so forth. 
Q. In your opinion, to what extent did the food enter as a cause of disease? 
A. To no extent, as a cause. 
Q. Did it affect the disease, in your opinion, at all? 
A. It did. 
Q. In what way? 
A. No typhoid patients, no patients who had intestinal symptoms or dysentery or 
diarrhea, should be on solid food. Unfortunately, the men were on solid food; and 
it was not within the range of possibility for us to pick out the individual cases and 
restrain them from taking solid food. Food at such times, good, bad, or indifferent, 
would have been injurious to them. 
Q. Was any attempt made to regulate the diet of those who were sick, in quarters, 
or under treatment, but not in the hospital? 
A. There was such an attempt. 
Q. And what results followed? 
A. Favorable results. 
Q. How was the garbage disposed of? 
A. My understanding was that the garbage was removed by special contract with 
the local board of health' 1670 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Where was it located in respect to the camp? 
A. I could not say, sir. 
Q. Did you ever have occasion to visit it? 
A. I never did. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Did you have any hospital duties in your regiment? 
A. We did, until we received brigade orders to dispose of our hospital. 
Q. You have testified in regard to the nature of your inspection, about inspecting 
the food. Did you inspect supplies as issued, or as received? Was that any part of 
your duty, to inspect the beef after it was received by your commissary? 
A. It was not. 
Q. Did you inspect it? 
A. I did not. 
Q. Where did you inspect the beef? 
A. I invariably inspected the beef at the company kitchens. 
Q. Did you go and have the ice boxes opened? Did you make an inspection of 
the beef, running down the companies in that way, whether it was cooked or 
uncooked? 
A. I did, sir. 
Q. Did you inspect other rations? 
A. I did, sir. 
Q. Rations when drawn from the commissary? 
A. Rations as delivered to the companies. 
Q. As delivered? Did you inspect them as issued from the commissary? 
A. I did not. 
Q. Who was your commissary? 
A. Lieutenant Bell was the commissary during the early portion of our stay. 
Q. Did you inspect any of this meat? * 
A. I did. 
Q. In conjunction with whom? 
A. Well, it was an arbitrary ruling. The beef was submitted to me on one or tw'o 
occasions and, according to my judgment, the meat was sent back. 
Q. Who submitted it-the company commander, the sergeant, or the cook? 
A. The company commander or the first sergeant. 
Q. And you were constituted a board, yourself, were you, to inspect that meat and 
send it back? Was it sent back and replaced, if you know? 
A. It was, in one or two cases, replaced; and as my 
Q. Did you inspect that which came in place of it? 
A. I did not. 
Q. What knowledge have you that it was replaced? 
A. The statements which were given to me and the absence of further complaint. 
Q. You have no personal knowledge of it? 
A. No personal knowledge; no, sir. 
Q. In regard to the camps, was your camp in pretty good order? 
A. At first it was, sir. 
Q. Well policed? 
A. Thoroughly policed. 
Q. Ditched? 
A. Ditched. 
Q. Did it have wide company streets? 
A. Regulation streets. 
Q. I mean, a reasonable regulation width? 
A. I believe they were regulation width. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1671 
Q. What recommendations or suggestions did you make in regard to the sanitary 
precautions in that camp of your battalion? What recommendations did you make, 
and did you make them in writing or verbally? 
A. Both. 
Q. What recommendations did you make with regard to the sanitary regulations 
of your battery? 
A. Suggestions as to the daily and thorough policing of the streets, the removal of 
the battalion sink to a more remote point. That is referable, now, to the battalion, sir. 
As to the regimental regulations, it was my duty to recommend, and I did recommend 
on several occasions, the shifting of the regimental site, the raising of the floors, or 
the raising of the tents. 
Q. What do you mean by the raising of the tents-rolling them up? 
A. I mean jacking them up and putting floors under them. 
Q. Did you have floors in your tents? 
A. We did. 
Q. Did you recommend that those floors be taken out and cleaned from under- 
neath? 
A. I did, and they were. 
Q. How often Ayas that done? 
A. It was done by special order of the captains of the companies-not by a gen- 
eral order. 
Q. No general recommendation was made? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you make these recommendations to the captains? 
A. I did not, sir. 
Q. You made them to the battalion commander? 
A. I made them to the battalion commander and to the commander of the regi- 
ment. 
Q. Were these tents framed? Did you have lumber to frame them? 
A. Yes; they were framed. 
Q. They were framed? 
A. They were framed. 
Q. But the guys were not stretched, were they? 
A. I do not know that I can describe the method of building the tent up. 
Q. I suppose it was just a frame to put the tent over and hold it in place? 
A. No; you misunderstand me there. The tent floor was constructed of boards, 
laid upon a framework and elevated to a height, perhaps, of 18 inches. 
Q. Yes. 
A. The tent was then pegged down to the ground, the same as before, with the 
result that the sides of the tent did hang lower than the floor. That was done, not 
for hygienic purposes, but because of the suspected malarial miasm. 
Q. I just wanted to get at what the system was and what conveniences and com- 
forts you had there, as compared with other troops in service. You spoke of the 
sickness as increasing until it reached the maximum in August, I believe. Do you 
know what percentage of sickness you had present? 
A. During May we had no sickness; in June we had a fraction of a per cent; in 
July we had about 10 per cent; in August, about 25 or 26 per cent, and it remained 
constant until the 23d of September. 
Q. Was that 25 or 26 per cent of the present men? 
A. That was based on the full quota. 
Q. Where you speak of men being sick-you say 25 per cent of the men were sick- 
do you mean by that 25 per cent of the aggregate strength of the command or of 'the 
strength present? 
A. The aggregate strength. 1672 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Present and absent? 
A. Present and absent. 
Q. Did you ever hear of chemicals being used in the preservation of meats? 
A. Not until my return home. 
Q. In connection with your profession, in the study of your profession, in any 
way, did you ever hear that such a thing had been done-that meats, game, and so 
on are sometimes preserved by the use of chemicals? 
A. I have read of it. 
Q. You know Colonel Currie, the lieutenant-colonel of your regiment? 
A. I do. 
Q. Do you know him to be a practicing physician? 
A. I do. 
Q. A reputable gentleman of good standing? 
A. I do; yes, sir. 
Q. Did you ever hear his reputation for truth and veracity questioned? 
A. I never did, sir. 
Q. Were you on duty there during the time of the construction of the target range 
under his direction? Do you remember anything about it? Had you anything to do 
with it in any way? 
A. I was absent from camp when the lieutenant-colonel was appointed, and when 
the detail was assigned to him. I returned some time before his work was accom- 
plished. 
Q. Did you ever hear of any sickness being caused to such a degree that the entire 
detail, on one day or more, wras unable to report? 
A. That never was so. That was not so. 
Q. I wish you would state, then, in contradiction of Colonel Currie, who had the 
detail at work, howT you know that that detail reported on a given day? 
A. I do not know that that detail reported, sir. In reply to your question as to 
the increase in sickness in that detail, I can only say that that detail was still num- 
bered with our regiment; that for their sick call they still reported to the surgeon of 
our regiment and to me at my hours of duty; that at such time there was no such 
increase in sickness either in the regiment as a w'hole or in this detail as a part of 
the regiment. 
Q. You had how many companies under you to attend to? 
A. Twelve. 
Q. You had twelve companies? 
A. I did. 
Q. Your sickness increased from a fraction of 1 per cent, in May or June, I believe, 
until it was 25 per cent in August? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Have you any way of distinguishing which will enable you to determine that 
a detail, under his orders, of one man from each company was not sick, or did not 
report for duty on that account? Have you any means by which you could check, 
against that, that that could not have been the case? 
A. No, sir; not name for name-not in my mind now. 
Q. There could have been an increase in sickness of five or six, or seven or eight, 
without any reference to whether they were on this duty or that duty, whether they 
were on guard duty, fatigue duty, or what not? 
A. That is true. 
Q. That would not be a matter with which you would be conversant? 
A. Not at all. 
Q. So you qualify your answer to that extent? 
A. I would like to qualify it by a further statement. 
Q. Make any statement that you wish, Doctor, in this matter. 
A, All right, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1673 
Q. We do not propose to curtail you in anything you may want to say. 
A. The qualification would be that, in my answer to your question, I had in mind 
the statement made in the testimony given by Doctor Currie, that the sickness was 
due to acute gastritis, or vomiting. I had that in mind in answering your question. 
I do not presume to know whether Jones, Brown, or anyone else was taken sick on 
a particular day. It was more the thought of the character of the complaint than 
anything else. 
Q. He had charge of the detail. Do you know what the system of the detail was? 
Do you know anything about that? 
A. They went out daily, and returned at night, and reported to me at sick call. 
Q. But I say, do you know what the nature of the detail he had was? Do you 
know how these men rotated in that detail, whether men were detailed from com- 
panies each day? Did you have any knowledge as to how those details ran? What 
I mean is, would the details rotate from day to day, or would he likely have expert 
men, a man from each company, an artificer, as a rule, or some man who was a 
skilled man and keep him on the work. Have you any knowledge on that subject? 
A. I know that the men were selected from the companies-from the 12 compa- 
nies. 
Q. And if that entire detail should have been absent, it would have been the bus- 
iness of the officer who was in command, more than your own to investigate it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And he would have looked into it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You said that, in your opinion, food was not in any way the cause of sickness 
among the men. Did you have any experience with canned roast beef? 
A. I did not. 
Q. Do you think that beef which might be a little bit tainted, without the fact 
being found out at the time, or with which there might be a little something the 
matter, might give men dysentery? Is that a fact? Would it, or did it, down there? 
Did beef cause dysentery, or diarrhea, or whatever it is termed, in any case, or 
any bowel trouble at all among the men? 
A. No; not to my knowledge. 
Q. You do not think there was a single case of it in the regiment-not a single 
case where the use of fresh beef, issued to those men, caused dysentery or diarrhea 
or stomach trouble among the men? 
A. No. 
Q. Or any other article of food? 
A. I do not. 
Q. Anything that the men bought? 
A. I am referring now to the Government ration-the ration issued by the Gov- 
ernment. 
Q. Did you have beans? 
A. We did. 
Q. Did you ever know of the beans giving men, sometimes, stomach trouble for a 
day or two? 
A. Possibly a little flatulent colic. 
Q. That is what I am referring to. Did you ever have any experience in the 
military service prior to this? 
A. None. 
Q. In camps with the National Guard? 
A. None. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Doctor, could these men have been sick on the range without their sickness 
being called to your attention? 1674 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. They could, but they never were. All of those cases were reported to me-the 
cases of the men who were on that range, as well as one company which was later 
detailed for range duty. It was my custom, not daily, but every other day, to ride 
out to that range, after one of the companies had been assigned for work there. I 
treated those men in their own company at a distance of about 2 miles from our 
regimental headquarters. 
Q. If there had been any sickness it would probably have been called to your 
attention? 
A. It was called to my attention. 
Q. Do you know whether any of these men were temporarily sick, as a reason of 
the free or improper use of fruits? 
A. I think they were, sir, when we first went down there. I think a great deal 
of the diarrhea was due to the indigestion of fruits. The men were, therefore, cau- 
tioned against the indiscriminate use of the same. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I want to ask you one question in connection with that. You said that you 
attended these men on the range there when they were sick. Do you mean during 
the construction and when men were detailed from every regiment? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. What do you mean, then, by saying that you rode out there frequently and 
gave attention to these men? Was that when a company of your regiment was 
there? 
A. It was. 
Q. Y ou did not attend other regiments? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You had nothing to do with it 
A. It was at the time when a company detailed from our regiment made its head- 
quarters there, and remained for the entire period of our stay in Jacksonville. 
Q. That was during target practice, was it not? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And not during the construction -of the range? 
A. It was not during the construction of the range. 
Q. You have no knowledge in regard to the matter during the construction of the 
range? 
A. Those men reported to the regimental headquarters. 
Q. They came from all the regiments? 
A. Yes; those of our regiment came to me. 
Q. I say your proportion? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. They would be on a fair proportion-if there was a man from each company 
there would be twelve, if you had twelve companies? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And other regiments in the same way? With those on the range you had 
nothing to do, had you? 
A. No, sir. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Did those men who were at work on the target range come to the same sick 
call as the other men? 
A. They did. 
Q. Were there any means by which you could, hi your mind, separate that class 
from the sick men of the regiments generally? 
A. There is not, for the reason that there was so much sickness that it was impos- 
sible for me to attend to the individual examination of each man as to his particular FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1675 
environment. The sickness increased until two sick calls a day were necessary. 
That is how the men from the range reported. , 
Q. Did I understand you to say that your leave of absence expired on the 6th of 
July. 
A. My leave of absence expired on the 6th of July, at which time I returned, 
with the troops, from Sea Girt. 
The Recorder. With the permission of the court, I would like to recall Dr. 
Adams for a moment, to fix a date. 
TESTIMONY OF DR. CHARLES F. ADAMS-Recalled. 
Dr. Charles F. Adams was recalled by the recorder, and, having been warned that 
he was still under oath, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Can you recall whether you were present or absent during the early part of 
July? 
A. I was present with the command. 
Q. Can you testify that from the 1st on, say, to the 10th or 12th you were present 
every day? 
A. I would say every day until the 8th. 
Q. And were you absent on that day? 
A. About that day I had leave of absence for forty-eight hours. lean not fix the 
date now, but during the first eight or ten days, at least, of July, I was in camp every 
day. 
Q. During the absence of Dr. Blundell? 
A. Yes, sir; particularly. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a 'witness 
Mr. Hine, of New Jersey. 
TESTIMONY OF EDWIN W. HINE 
Edwin W. Hine was called by the recorder as a witness, and, being duly sworn, 
testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence and occupation. 
A. Edwin W. Hine, of Orange, New Jersey; manufacturer. 
Q. Were you in the military service during the war with Spain? 
A. I was, sir. 
Q. To what organization were you attached? 
A. I commanded the Second New Jersey Volunteer Infantry. 
Q. Were you in command of it during its service in Jacksonville, Fla.? 
A. Its entire service; yes, sir. 
Q. As the regimental commander, what investigations or examinations did you 
make as to the character of the food supplied to your regiment and the method of 
its preparation? 
A. Through the medical department daily. 
Q. Did you inspect the kitchens yourself, inspect the food? 
A. Habitually. 
Q. About how frequently? Please state to the court, in narrative form, what your 
practice was in that regard. 
A. At least two or three times a week, sometimes oftener-sometimes every day, 
at some time during the day-I wmuld inspect the entire camp, the kitchens, the 
commissary department, the sinks, the bath houses, the slop sinks, with the con- 1676 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
stant view of seeing that the garbage was removed as it should be by the contractors. 
The camp was somewhat crowded, and it seemed especially essential that care should 
be taken in the policing of the camp, which we tried to have done. 
Q. What was furnished the regiment in the way of fresh meat during its stay in 
Jacksonville? 
A. Beef, which was refrigerated. 
Q. What observations did you make of that? 
A. I made' very frequent observations. I saw it in the cars before it was delivered, 
frequently. I do not mean to say that I went to the cars every day, or every two or 
three days, but at least half a dozen times I visited the cars and saw the beef before 
it was delivered. It was delivered to the commissary department very early in the 
morning, and it was not convenient or necessary for me to be there and see that it 
was delivered at that time, but I used to inspect it in the commissary department of 
the regiment. I never heard any complaint of the character of the fresh beef that 
was delivered our mess, with one exception, which was of sufficient importance to 
warrant an official examination or investigation. 
Q. Please state that instance? 
A. I do not know that I can recall the time now. It was in July. One morning, 
after the guard mount (which was at 9 o'clock), the officer of day reported to me 
that the beef ration which had been issued to our regiment that morning, was still 
in the commissary department, uncovered and unreceived-refused by the company 
commanding officer. I went over personally-I think my regimental sergeant went 
with me, Major Adams-and the company cooks were, most of them, there; a 
number of the company cooks were there. 
I did not want to assume the responsibility of refusing or accepting the meat, 
because it was not business with which I was at all familiar; but I failed to see any- 
thing seriously the matter with the beef, with the exception of one or two little pieces. 
And, with a view of seeing that no injustice might be done anybody in the premises, 
I sent an order over to brigade headquarters, for Captain Baldridge, who was our 
brigade commissary. Captain Baldridge inspected the meat personally. There were 
perhaps half a dozen pieces in that issue that morning, which had been exposed to 
the sun a little too long. The meat, I understood, was taken from the car, somewhere 
between 3 and half past 3 in the morning; and this was somewhere between half past 
9 and 10 o'clock, when we investigated it. Our guard mount was at 9 o'clock, and 
it was after that. That would require at least fifteen minutes. 
Captain Baldridge was very careful in his examination of that issue of beef; and he 
then stated, very firmly but pleasantly, that the beef was not of such a character as 
to warrant his condemning the issue; that he could not condemn a part of it without 
condemning it all, and he would not be justified in condemning it all. There were 
one or two small pieces which he thought had been affected by the sun. There was 
one very nice looking leg of beef that had a slight discoloration down at the bone, 
the shin. It was of either a bluish or greenish nature, a little; but I do not suppose 
the entire discoloration would be more than three or four inches in length, and per- 
haps half to three quarters of an inch wide. I took a butcher's knife and pared off 
that unsightly portion of the beef. 
With the exception of the four or five pieces, as I say, the balance of the issue of 
that beef was perfectly sweet. I handled, I think, every piece of it myself; I had my 
nose in it, and Captain Baldridge had his. The company officers were not-all of 
them-willing to accept the beef, from the very fact that some two, or three, or half 
a dozen pieces, as I say, were spoiled. There was nothing for them to do but to take 
it or leave it; and about half of the companies, I think, left it. Five or six, or per- 
haps seven, of the companies took their issue; and all of them reported to me after- 
wards that the beef was entirely satisfactory. The others went without their fresh 
beef issue that day. They made it up, I presume, of some other things which they 
probably had in the storehouse. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1677 
The only other instance when my attention was directed to the character of the 
fresh meat that was issued to the men, was the morning following this occurrence, 
and about the same time of day. The next morning the issue of beef was corned 
beef; and that morning the corned beef was refused 
Q. Let me interrupt you. Was it corned beef in cans or corned beef in bulk? 
A. No, sir; corned beef in bulk, corned beef from the barrel, pickled beef. The 
rumor came to me that that issue had also been refused on account of its character, 
and I investigated that in the same way. Before I went down to the commissary 
department I sent an orderly to brigade headquarters for the brigade commissary, 
Captain Baldridge, and he reported and examined that issue of beef. I think my 
regimental surgeon examined it also. 
There were a few pieces of that beef-I say a few, not exceeding five; the beef 
was cut up into small chunks weighing, I suppose, 5, 6, or 7 pounds; not more than 
five or six of them were at all objectionable. In the case of those pieces there were 
evidences of a little odor about them; that was all. The balance of the meat was 
used; the most of it was used. The seven or eight companies took that issue of 
corned beef, after our investigation approving it, with the exception of these three, 
or four, or five pieces of which I speak; and I had it reported to me afterwards that 
the beef was entirely satisfactory. Captain Baldridge, to satisfy himself that his 
own conclusion in accepting the beef was correct, took a piece of it with him to their 
brigade headquarters and had it served at their brigade mess. General Burke, the 
brigade commander, told me, the next day, that the beef was entirely satisfactory 
and perfectly sweet. 
Q. Had you occasion to believe or to suspect at any time that the fresh beef issued 
to your regiment had been chemically treated, with a view to its preservation? 
A. I never heard of it, sir. 
Q. Was it reported to you by anyone, at any time, that that was the case, to 
your recollection? 
A. Not once. I speak emphatically on that subject, for this reason-and I must 
necessarily expose my ignorance by doing so-but, as a matter of fact I never knew, 
and if I had ever read I had forgotten, that it was possible to preserve, by chem- 
icals, fresh beef, until after I returned from my tour of duty this summer. If it had 
ever been called to my attention, of course, I should have remembered it. 
Q. Was there considerable sickness in the regiment at any time? 
A. Yes, sir; there was a great deal of sickness in the regiment after the middle of 
July. 
Q. To what causes did you attribute it? 
A. The epidemic of typhoid fever predominated to a very large extent. We had 
the usual camp complaints, you know, prior to the infection of typhoid fever; and 
when typhoid fever struck the camp, it struck it hard. 
Q. To what extent, to your knowledge and observation, did the food supply enter 
as a cause of disease? 
A. I never heard it suggested in the camp that the food supply was affecting the 
health of the men in any respect. 
Q. Did you ever have occasion to suspect, or was it reported to you, that the fresh 
beef might have acted to produce disease? 
A. No, sir. In the discussion of the subject of sickness with my officers around 
the camp at various times, I recall with some positiveness a general opinion that the 
bacon was, perhaps, primarily a cause of considerable of the disease. I know it was 
pretty severely condemned by the men and by a good many of the company officers 
as not being a proper food for that tropical climate, and I rather concurred in that 
view; and I had several conversations with my officers on that subject, but I never 
had any suspicion that the character of the fresh meat which the men were receiv- 
ing was, in any way, causing any illness. 1678 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Did you use it yourself? 
A. Our mess was provided from the stores in Jacksonville. We did not draw on 
the Government for our officers' mess. I frequently tasted the meat which the men 
were receiving, for my own information and knowledge; I went around among the 
company cooks and have frequently tasted stews from the pans in which they were 
being made. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Were either of the doctors who have testified here to-day present at that inter- 
view which you had, Colonel, when the officers were present? 
A. To which interview do you refer? 
Q. The one to which you refer where there seemed to be a general consensus of 
opinion that the bacon was injurious to the health of the men, in which you con- 
curred, I believe? Were the medical officers, either of them, present on that 
occasion? 
A. I do not want to state that I can recall any especial conversation on that sub- 
ject. It was of a general character, and perhaps occurred weekly, or possibly daily. 
I think it is more than likely that the surgeons were present; I am quite sure of it. 
Q. You are quite sure that this fact was within their knowledge, or was at least 
brought to their knowledge in probably the same way that it was brought to your 
knowledge? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In the course of conversation? 
A. Yes, sir; I think Major Adams and myself, and I think possibly Lieutenant 
Blundell and myself, concluded that the salt bacon was injurious, so much of it. 
Q. Referring to the sanitary arrangements of the camp, will you please state to the 
court as to its location, and the closeness of tents to each other, the kind and char- 
acter of the tents, etc. I understand you to say that you had bath houses and such 
facilities? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I wish you would give, as briefly as you can, a description of the camp, by bat- 
talions, or whether two companies were thrown together, or whether there was 
sufficient room? * 
A. Our camp was crowded. We had not sufficient room to lay the camp out 
according to practice, with so large a regiment. 
(The witness here drew a diagram, representing the shape of the ground on which 
his camp was located, as follows:) 
The Witness. That (referring to above-mentioned diagram) is the shape of the 
ground that was assigned to us. When we reached Jacksonville, the evening that 
we reached there, the brigade quartermaster, Lieutenant Durrant, I think, of the 
Second Illinois Regiment, escorted me around to the territory that had been assigned 
to my regiment. That is the shape of it. These [indicating] were city lots; the 
streets were opened up through this part here, and the trolley line was running along 
here [indicating]. We were assigned this lot, this lot here [indicating], and this 
square here. My impression is that those squares are 400 feet square. I think that 
they are 400 feet each way-possibly 350; but my impression is that they were 400. 
We were to locate our camp on these two squares [indicating], reserving this [indicat- 
ing] for a parade ground. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1679 
I said to the Lieutenant that that was not ground enough to lay our camp out, 
with so large a regiment, and that we wanted more. He said that was all he had; 
that was all we could have. And consequently, we put our camp in there [indicat- 
ing], We had our headquarters here; we had our battalions here; we had our 
officers' row here, our sheds here for the horses, and our commissary department 
here [indicating]. We had our sinks here, three of them, and our bath house 
there [indicating]. 
When we first want down to Jacksonville we had a thousand men with us. 
When the recruits were sent down, in the middle of July, our regiment numbered 
thirteen hundred and some odd, and we had to crowd in here [indicating], between 
this space and the tents, the additional number of tents to accommodate the three 
hundred and odd troops; so that it threw this cook line very close, and too close, to 
the sink. That matter was reported to me officially by the regimental surgeon on at 
least two occasions-once in writing that I recall, specifically-and we had several 
conversations on the subject, I tried, in every possible way that I knew how, to 
get more territory, in which we could spread our camp out; but the impression at 
that time was that the camp was not to remain there a great length of time; that we 
would probably be sent away somewhere else, be removed; and for that reason, 
nothing was ever done in the matter until we found that there was no immediate 
likelihood of our being moved to new quarters. Then we shut up this space here 
[indicating], cleaned it up, and closed it up entirely, burned it up, and disinfected 
the premises. We removed this one [indicating], removed this one, moved this one 
over on this corner of our lot, and located this one [indicating] back here, the other 
side of the horse shed. That removed the difficulty, as far as that end of the camp 
was concerned, relative to the location of the sink, but it was not a desirable place to 
have it back here, so near the officers' line. 
Now, we had sufficient width for our camp to have laid the tents out tactically. 
We could even have spread it out more; we could have widened the company streets, 
and we could have widened the battalion streets, although we had good, wide bat- 
talion streets, 120 feet between each of our battalions; and our company streets were 
sufficiently wide. But the tents were very close together, too close together for the 
comfort and health of the men. There is no question about that. 
Q. About how many men had you to a tent, and what kind of a tent? 
A. We had both kinds. We came from Sea Girt with our own equipage. Our 
regiment was both uniformed and equipped, and we went with our own equipage. 
I think we had 283 or 285 common "A" tents when we went to Jacksonville, and 
the balance were what you call the half-wall tents. 
Q. The " A " wall tent is about the same size as the other? 
A. Yes, sir; only it has the side walls. 
Q. And then you put about how many men to a tent? 
A. Four. 
Q. Four men to a tent? 
A. Yes; sir. 
Q. In regard to the water supply, was that obtained from the city? 
A. Yes, sir; we had water right in our camp. 
Q. From hydrants? 
A. Yes, sir. There is an artesian well in Jacksonville, an ever-flowing well, 
which is very highly impregnated with sulphur. 
Q. Do you recall, Colonel, any duties on which your lieutenant-colonel was, in 
connection with the target work down there-the building of a target range? 
A. He was assigned, under orders to General Arnold, as inspector of small arms, 
and constructed the rifle range about 2 miles out. 
Q. About what time did he begin his work? About when was that? 1 think it 
is in his testimony, but I have forgotten. 1680 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. It was prior to the 1st of July, I think; probably some time between the 15th 
and the 25th of June. I can not recall the date, from memory. 
Q. And did he return to duty with the regiment, or continue on that work, while 
there? 
A. He continued on the work, but he came back to quarters in his regiment every 
night. 
Q. He was practically detached from the regiment-that is, so far as his duty was 
concerned? 
A. Yes, sir; he had no regimental duties to perform. 
Q. Do you recall as to the nature of the details that were made in the construction 
of the target range-how they were made? 
A. Yes, sir; they were made under general orders from the corps, I think. I 
think the orders were corps orders, promulgated down through the divisions. Pos- 
sibly they were division orders. 
Q. Do you recall how many men from a company were at work on this work 
under him? 
A. I think one from each company. 
Q. One man from each company? 
A. One from each company in nine regiments. I think that was the order. 
Q. And can you recall whether these men were changed from day to day; or were 
they, rather, selected men, who went ahead with the work progressively? 
A. They were selected with a view to their fitness for that character of work. 
We had a good many artisans in our regiment, and these men were selected with a 
view to their competency. 
Q. They would not be changed unless there was some special reason? 
A. Oh, no; they were assigned under orders. 
Q. Do you recall-simply as a matter of recollection-Colonel Currie's mentioning 
to you on some occasion something about the condition of the beef, or some exam- 
ination that he had made of beef, or whether he thought the beef had affected this 
detail or affected the men in any way? 
A. I have no recollection of it, sir. 
Q. I do not refer to any official report, but perhaps a mere remark in the course 
of conversation, or his merely speaking about it-whether that would be liable to 
be recalled by you or not. Perhaps it might not. 
A. I do not recall it, sir. 
Q. You have known Colonel Currie, I presume, for some time? 
A. Ever since our association in the National Guard regiment of our State-yes, 
sir; covering some years. 
Q. You have known him for some years? He is an officer of proved efficiency? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In his work? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And of reliability? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. In regard to the performance of his duties there at Jacksonville in connection 
with this work and other duty, did he, so far as you know, perform them to the 
satisfaction of his superiors? 
A. Yes, sir; he was taken sick some time in July-I think the latter part of July. 
His duty ceased then. He returned on a leave of absence, and did not come back. 
Q. Do you recall, at any time, Colonel Currie reporting to your adjutant, or 
reporting to the regiment, or speaking in regard to the entire detail from the regi- 
ment, on one day, being absent on account of the men being sick, "I do not know 
that they were on sick report." 
A. I have no recollection of it, sir. 
Q. It might have occurred? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1681 
A. Oh, yes; it certainly was not reported officially, and I have no recollection of 
it having been reported in any other way. 
Q. I say, it might have been remarked, and you have forgotten it, as a number of 
men were sick. Your sick report was increasing along in July and August, I think. 
A. It could not have been remarked to me without impressing me. I am sure that 
the matter was never brought to my attention, either officially or unofficially, for if 
it had been it would have impressed me, and I should have remembered it. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Professor Wiley, of the Department of Agriculture. 
TESTIMONY OF PROF. HARVEY W. WILEY. 
Prof. Harvey W. Wiley was called by the recorder as a witness, and, being duly 
sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state you name, residence, and occupation. 
A. Harvey W. Wiley; residence, Washington; chief chemist of the Department of 
Agriculture. 
Q. Please state to the court what special training you have had in your profession, 
and what special training for the work in which you are engaged. 
A. I graduated from Harvard University, where I took special courses in chemistry. 
After that I studied in the University of Berlin, and took the special course in food 
chemistry in the imperial health office of Germany, under the late professor, Dr. 
Eugene Zell. 
Q. How long have you been connected with the Department of Agriculture? 
A. Fifteen years. 
Q. And how long has it been since you began your work in connection with the 
examination of food products? 
A. I began the work in the Department of Agriculture, in the study of the com- 
position and nutritive value of food, in 1885, fourteen years ago. 
Q. How long have you given special attention to the subject of preservatives as 
used in meats? 
A. From the very beginning of the investigations which have been made in the 
laboratory under my direction. 
Q. Please state to the court what relation you have had with the present investigation. 
A. I was directed by the Secretary of Agriculture to make a study of such samples 
of meats as would be furnished by the War Department and such as could be obtained 
in the open market. The Secretary gave me only one instruction-that was, to find 
out the truth. That is all he said to me in connection with this investigation; and 
I have had the direction of the work in the investigations that have been made in 
the Department of Agriculture, which were under the immediate supervision of 
Doctor Bigelow, who testified yesterday. 
Q. Please state to the court what personal investigation of the canned meat you 
have made in connection with this investigation; and state, also, along what lines 
the experiments and investigations have been made. 
A. We were first requested to examine meat for preservatives; and I directed that 
these examinations be made along the lines which are acknowledged as authoritative 
by food chemists throughout the world, and which we had practiced ourselves in the 
Department. Personally, I inspected practically all the samples-perhaps not all; 
there may have been one or two, or maybe half a dozen, that I did not see myself; 
but I personally inspected practically all of the samples, although I did not do the 
analytical work myself. It was simply done under my direction and according to 
methods established by myself as the chief of the division. 
S. Doc. 270 106 1682 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Please state to the court, as a result of your observations, in what elements the 
canned, fresh, and corned beef are deficient, if any. 
A. The fresh meats and the canned meats are not a complete human food. They 
are deficient especially in carbohydrates, which constitute one of the great forms of 
human food. 
Q. Please state, if you will, the role of the mineral salts in animal nutrition, as 
distinguished from the part played by those salts in plant nutrition. ' 
A. The work of chemical physiology has shown that plants live exclusively on 
mineral food and that animals live exclusively upon organic food. The plant organ- 
ism can not assimilate an organic substance; but the food of the plant must be in a 
mineral state. The animal organism can not assimilate a mineral food, but the food 
must be in an organic state. Mineral salts play only a subrole in animal nutrition, 
viz, the role of condiments, and of substances aiding in the metabolism of other 
foods. It is doubtful if any mineral food, as such, enters into any animal organism. 
Q. Suppose the mineral salts which are soluble in water to be partially or entirely 
extracted or removed wholly, what effect on the nutritive value of food in which 
they enter would that have? 
A. It would have no effect upon the nutritive value of the food, but it would 
diminish its palatability, as these mineral salts play the role of condiments. 
Q. In the analytical work, as conducted under your direction, .on canned meats, 
state to the court whether it is possible for a mixture of horseflesh, carpenters' glue, 
and salt to be mistaken for canned roast beef. 
A. I do not think it would be possible to make the mistake. All the samples of 
carpenters' glue which I have ever seen, when diluted with water, have a bad odor 
which is at once distinguishable; and a chemist of mine who would make an exam- 
ination of a food product without determining its odor and its taste I would not 
consider capable of fulfilling the duties of his position. That is always one of the 
first things examined in a food product-its taste, its odor, and its general appear- 
ance. I do not think it would be possible, in our laboratory, to mistake a mixture 
of carpenters' glue, horseflesh, and salt, for canned roast beef. 
Q. You were speaking a moment ago of the fact that no canned meats were com- 
plete foods. Will you state to the court what you understand by a balanced ration? 
A. We understand by a balanced ration, for an animal, that mingling of the great 
elements of food which, in the proportion experience, as shown to be the most nutri- 
tious, so that each element may exercise its maximum function of nutrition. Experi- 
ence has shown that the nitrogenous foods, for the human animal for instance, should 
be about one-sixth or one-seventh as much in weight as the carbohydrate foods, plus 
the fat foods, multiplied by two and one-half; and we call the nutritive ratio the 
ration of dividing the sum of the carbohydrates and the fat foods, multiplied by two 
and one-half (or two and two-tenths by some physiologists, but usually two and one- 
half) divided by the sum of the nitrogenous foods. A well-balanced ration would 
show this ratio to be about one to six or seven. We call that a narrow nutritive 
ratio. If the fats and carbohydrates are in excess we have what we call a wide 
nutritive ratio, which may run up as high as ten or twelve to one. That is what we 
mean by a balanced ration, viz, the mingling of these food properties in such a way 
that each one may exercise its maximum force and none be wasted. 
Q. Judging by the color, odor, taste, and the animal composition of the samples 
of canned, fresh, or corned beef that have been investigated under your direction, 
will you state to the court whether they have been palatable and nutritious? 
A. All the samples which came under my personal inspection had a proper color, 
had a good odor, and, although I did not taste all of them, those which I tasted had 
a pleasant taste. I would say that they were all palatable, when properly served, 
and nutritious. 
Q. In your opinion, how should canned roast or corned beef be served, in order 
to extract its maximum nutritive value? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1683 
A. It should be issued in balanced rations, and it should not be more than one- 
seventh or one-eighth in weight of the total ration issued, and the materials best 
suited for mingling with it would be potatoes or rice, or some substance rich in carbo- 
hydrates. I should say potatoes or rice would be an ideal mixture with the canned 
meats to produce a balanced nutritive ration. 
Q. Will you please state to the court your opinion as to its recurrence daily, as a 
component of the ration? 
A. The human stomach does not tolerate the recurrence of the same article of 
food daily very well, and its continued ingestion as a ration might produce a feeling 
of nausea or distaste in the person eating it, just as a person can not eat a quail every 
day for thirty days in succession, although for one day, with a bottle of wine, it is 
a very palatable ration. 
Q. Recurring to the method of examination of the canned roast and corned beef 
which has been carried on under your direction, state to the court, if you please, 
whether it would be possible for maggots, worms, or bacteria to escape observation 
in the canned roast or corned beef? 
A. As the examinations were made in my laboratory it would be impossible for 
maggots, or worms, or bacteria to escape observation. Maggots or worms would be 
evidenced at once by their appearance. Bacteria would be shown by the operations 
which they would produce upon the meat. Preserved meats can not exist in the 
presence of active bacteria at work, and therefore in opening a can of beef in which 
bacteria were present the evidences of bacterial action would be at once perceptible. 
Usually the can would be swelled owing to the evolution of gas, or the meats would 
be corroded or destroyed in such a way that it would be impossible for a careful 
chemist to avoid detecting the presence of bacteria in canned meat, if they were 
there. 
Q. Have you seen any indications of those bodies, or have any such indications 
been reported to you, in the samples which have been under your observation and 
examination? 
A. None of the samples, as far as my observation extended, or as far as the observa- 
tions of others who reported to me as chief of the division extended, have shown 
any indication of the presence of maggots, worms, or bacteria. 
Q. I would like to ask a question or two with reference to the method of preserv- 
ing food by the canning process. Will you please state to the court the principles 
on which the preservation of canned meats rest? 
A. Formerly it was supposed that the decay of bodies was due to oxidation, and 
that if the air could be excluded from the bodies they would not decay. Later 
researches have shown that the decay of all bodies is due to germ action; that oxida- 
tion alone, at low temperatures, will not produce decay; hence, the principle of pre- 
serving by sterilization is based upon the fact that the germs producing decay are 
destroyed by being exposed to high temperature for a sufficient length of time, and 
if, thereafter, other germs be excluded, decay will not take place. It is not neces- 
sary to seal a can hermetically to prevent the decay. A can of food stoppered 
loosely with cotton, thoroughly sterilized, will be preserved as well as if it were 
hermetically sealed; showing that the entrance of the air free of germs does not 
have a decomposing effect. The principle of sterilization, therefore, consists in the 
fact that the body to be preserved, vegetable or animal, must be subjected for a suffi- 
cient length of time to a high temperature, to kill all fermentative or decomposing 
germs; and thereafter that this body must be preserved from contact with air con- 
taining living germs. 
Q. In the ordinary canned product how is that purpose accomplished-the pur- 
pose of preserving the product? 
A. I have frequently observed the canning of vegetables, but have never person- 
ally observed the canning of meat. The principle, however, is exactly the same. 
The materials are placed in the can, and are then subjected to the sterilizing tern- 1684 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
perature for a sufficient length of time for the heat to penetrate all parts of the con- 
tents of the can. As soon as this is accomplished, the sterilization is complete. If 
then the can be sealed, without the entrance of any fresh germs, its contents will be 
preserved indefinitely. If the sterilization be incomplete, the germs will become 
active on cooling, and the contents of the can will decompose and decay. 
Q. Do I understand, then, that the hermetical sealing of the cans accomplishes 
that purpose by excluding the air, and the germs that it may contain, from the 
canned product? 
A. That is the purpose of hermetically sealing the cans, to exclude the germs. 
Q. How long will meat preserved in cans keep? What is your experience or obser- 
vation on that subject? 
A. I never have had any experience in testing the time that meatswill keep when 
hermetically sealed. Theoretically, they will keep indefinitely, just as, theoretically, 
meat will ke.ep on cold storage indefinitely. But in point of fact, all meats when 
kept several years, and all vegetables when kept several years, undergo changes which 
are not due to fermentation or to germ action, but which impair their palatability. 
For instance, experiments have been made in keeping meat on ice, frozen, for a 
number of years-for instance, turkeys. And it is found that after the fowls have 
been frozen for about ten years they begin to lose their flavor, although they may 
still contain, perhaps, a maximum of nutritive value; but their flavor is impaired. 
So I should say that canned meat can be kept indefinitely, but that after perhaps 
eight or ten years the flavor of the meat might be impaired. 
Q. Upon what scientific principle does the preservation of meat by refrigeration 
rest? 
A. The preservation of meat by refrigeration depends upon practically the same 
principle as sterilization, except that in refrigeration the germ is not killed, but para- 
lyzed. The keeping of bodies by cold depends upon the paralyzation of the germ. 
The activity of the germ is suspened at a certain temperature and below; but if the 
temperature be raised the vitality of the germ is restored. The germ is not killed in 
refrigeration. All food of all kinds, all that we eat are covered and permeated with 
germs of every description; and therefore refrigeration simply suspends the action 
of those germs. Germs of themselves are not unwholesome. Human life depends 
upon germ activity. If we could sterilize the whole world of germs, the human race 
would soon starve. 
Q. Returning to the canning process, what effect has parboiling upon the nutritive 
value of meat? 
A. In the experiments which were made in my laboratory, and reported to me, 
with parboiled meats, it was found and demonstrated beyond peradventure, that par- 
boiling takes out chiefly water, together with some of the mineral salts soluble in 
water (which, I have just stated, have no nutritive function), a very small trace of 
protein and a considerable quantity of flesh bases. The extraction of these bodies 
from the meat diminishes to a very infinitesimal extent its nutritive properties. 
Q. Suppose beef should be heated for three-quarters of an hour, in a sealed vessel, 
and heated to a sterilizing temperature, to what extent would the nutritive value of 
the meat be impaired by that process? 
A. In my opinion, the nutritive value would not be impaired at all; but the heat- 
ing would, rather, increase its digestibility. 
Q. Would lean meat of any kind, either cooked by boiling or fresh, be a suitable 
food for hogs? 
A. Hogs would starve on any kind of lean meat, fresh or preserved in any way, 
and so would any other animal. The human animal would soon die of inanition if 
fed nothing but lean meat, if it were perfectly fresh; and that is true especially of 
hogs, as they are not flesh-eating animals to any extent, but, rather, herbiferous. 
Any kind of meat, especially lean meat, when fed to hogs alone, would produce FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1685 
inanition. The hogs would suffer from inanition, and probably die. The preserving 
of meat or the boiling of it would make no difference whatever. Fresh meat would 
act in exactly the same way. 
Q. Perhaps you have answered this question, but I will ask it again, in order that 
your answer may be complete. What is the effect of keeping on the quality of beef 
and game, as respects digestibility and palatability? 
A. The universal experience of the best teachers and the best cooks has shown 
that all kinds of meats intended for human consumption, should be kept for a greater 
or less length of time after slaughter. This is especially true of beef and of game; so 
that the practice, among the best cooks of all countries, is to preserve meat at a 
proper temperature, for from three to five weeks before it is served upon the table. 
This preservation of the meat improves its digestibility, makes it more tender and 
improves its palatability. To such an extent has this become a practice, that one of 
the best butchers of this city told me, only a few days ago, that he had been com- 
pelled to give up the sale of fresh meat entirely, even from animals killed in this 
vicinity; that the people would not buy it. And therefore, he has put in a large cold 
storage plant in which he can keep his meat from three to five weeks after slaughter. 
Game should be kept even a longer time. Game is most palatable and most digest- 
ible when it has reached the point where incipient decomposition is ready to begin. 
For that reason the best cooks hang their game in the winter-expose it hung up- 
until it is extremely tender, and in this condition it is best relished and is most 
nutritious. So that the keeping of meat in this proper way improves its digestibility. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Last year did you examine any of the beef that was supplied to the army in 
Cuba-I mean any of the beef that was furnished under the contracts? 
A. We had cans sent to us which came from Cuba. 
Q. Which were so reported? 
A. They are under the seals of the commissaries. 
Q. Did you make any examinations of any fresh meat? Were samples of that 
sent to Cuba last year? Did you have any of that, in any way? 
A. I do not recall any sample which had ever been in Cuba. 
Q. Was any examination made at the Agricultural Department here, in any way, 
in connection with Dr. Daly? 
A. No, sir; none whatever. 
Q. In your examination of this beef which you spoke of here, in these cans, did 
you find any that was defective at all in canning? Did you find any defective cans? 
A. We did not. 
Q. Were they all perfectly sealed? 
A. There was not called to my attention, nor did I see in my observations in 
passing through the laboratory each day when this work was going on, a single can 
of spoiled meat-not one. 
Q. Was there any difference in the quality of the meat? Your description about 
this meat has been very interesting. It is something new to us soldiers in the army. 
Was there any difference in the quality of the meat in the different cans? Was 
that determined by this analysis, or not? 
A. The quality of the meat, its nutritive value, the amount of the nutrient which 
it contained, was determined by the analysis. 
Q. What I am trying to get at is whether there was any distinction in the kinds 
of meats which went into the cans; whether your analysis would determine that; 
whether it was from inferior or superior grades of meat? Would your analysis 
distinguish, in a practical way, as between old cows and good steers, young cattle, 
and so on? 
A. I do not think that chemical analysis would distinguish the age of the meat. 1686 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. It would tell nothing as to whether it was old, refuse, or not? 
A. I think not, sir. 
Q. That is what I wanted to get at. This canned meat that you examined was in 
a solid state, was it; that is, it was all compact in the cans, was it not? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Not in the condition in which it was alleged to have been in Cuba; that is, in 
a melted state? 
A. I never saw melted meat. 
Q. I mean the tallow. Of course, Doctor, I am not a chemist, and you must be a 
little indulgent in your answers to me on that account, if you please. Is it not a 
fact that the practical, nutritive value of food depends, in large measure, upon the 
texture, more or less dense or hard, compact or porous, coarsely or finely fibrous, of 
the organized material? 
A. I do not think the nutritive value of the food depends upon its texture. Foods 
are prepared for the table in different forms, and some of the hardest and most firm 
foods are our most nutritious foods, like the grain of wheat; and also some of our 
soft foods, like the fruits, are nutritious. I do not think the texture of the original 
food has anything to do with its nutrition. 
Q. I mean as eaten by the average man in his work, as to its being taken up and 
digested and assimilated. 
A. Yes, sir; that is, that the object of cooking is to bring all food into a proper 
state for digestion. That is the function of the cook. That is true, sir. 
Q. Then chemical analysis indicates no difference in this respect, you say, does it? 
A. In regard to the nutrition, none whatever? 
Q. None whatever? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Will you please state to the court whether prolonged boiling of meat in water 
condenses and hardens the fiber, so as to diminish its nutritive value, or not? 
A. Boiling for the time required for sterilization, and at the temperature required 
for sterilization does not so harden it. 
Q. Suppose it is overboiled, would it affect its nutritive value in any way? Sup- 
pose it to be what we call overdone? 
A. I do not think it would. I think it would be just as nutritive, but it might 
take a little longer to digest. But there would be just as much nutritive matter in it. 
Q. How do you reconcile that theory with the fact that soldiers in service are not 
particularly fond of meat boiled in that way, but prefer the other as a rule and do 
better work under it, with it? 
A. I should say that from my point of view, I could not reconcile that statement. 
Q. Would any indication of any injury from overcooking be afforded by a deter- 
mination of the percentage of nitrogen? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Would these analyses made of this canned roast meat determine anything as to 
whether it came, as I said before, from inferior or from, I will say, the carcasses of 
healthy or of diseased animals? 
A. If the diseased animal had gone far enough to affect the flesh, in any way 
decomposing it, it would be discovered in the analysis. 
Q. Suppose the animal was diseased, but had not gone quite that far? 
A. I do not think the analysis would distinguish it. 
Q. I believe you answered the question, but I am not certain, and I will ask it 
here. Would such analysis distinguish between beef and horseflesh? 
A. No, sir. There are methods of distinguishing between beef and horseflesh, but 
they have not been described in these analytical tests, nor have we ever applied them 
in our laboratory. Horseflesh contains a certain amount of carbohydrates, which beef 
does not contain, and this would enable the analyst to distinguish it. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1687 
Q. I believe you have stated that in all the examinations of these cans which you 
made there, there were no evidences found or reported of any grubs, maggots, or 
disease-producing bacteria? 
A. None whatever. 
Q. In all the examinations that were made? 
A. None whatever-absolutely negative. 
Q. No cans were submitted that were in a condition of decomposition or tainted 
so as to be regarded as, perhaps, unfit for food? 
A. No, sir; not one. 
Q. Is it possible, from the analytical results reported, for any chemist to affirm pos- 
itively that the canned meat examined was good, nourishing, and wholesome food, 
fit for the use of soldiers in the field? 
A. I should answer that decidedly yes, as far as our examinations are concerned, 
without hesitation. 
Q. I believe you have stated that the age from eight to ten years would, in your 
opinion, make no difference in regard to these canned meats. I believe I under- 
stood-if I am mistaken I would like you to correct the statement. 
A. If you will allow me. 
Q. Certainly. 
A. I will say that I have had no experience with canned meats, but I illustrated 
the case of keeping a bird on ice for ten years, and I assume from that, that as the 
conditions were similar, that could be kept as long, but with an impairment of its 
palatability at the end of a certain time. 
Q. You have had no practical experience, then, with the use of canned meats with 
large bodies of men, such as soldiers on the march, in the field, and in tropical cli- 
mates? 
A. None whatever, sir. 
Q. In giving your testimony as an expert on this subject, which of course was 
very interesting, you spoke in regard to the fact that the same diet of course would 
pall upon a man from day to day. Under your theory of this canned roast beef 
being better, containing more nutriment, more, I believe, of the nutritive qualities of 
meat than some others, will you please reconcile that theory with the fact that the 
soldiers almost without exception, from testimony which has been adduced, preferred 
bacon to this canned roast beef as a regular diet. 
A. I can only say that a great many people getting meat here in Washington 
prefer bacon to fresh meat. It is a question of taste. 
Q. This is a matter of the service of these men undergoing hardships and accus- 
tomed to eating whatever is furnished them by the Government, without complaint 
as a rule, and the condition of the meat, and the condition of their stomachs after 
eating it, being nauseated by it, and then going to the bacon and getting better by 
eating it; how would you reconcile the chemical theory about that being suitable 
food for those men with what was the practical result which I have stated, which 
has been shown in the testimony? 
A. I would say, in face of a fact of that kind, that bacon was better for them. 
Major Lee. That is all now, may it please the court. I wish to reserve the right 
to recall 
General Davis. I would like to ask a question. 
Major Lee. Oh, I beg your pardon. 
By General Davis: 
Q. I would like you to tell us, if you please, Professor, something about the history 
of this canning of fruit and meat, if you can; when it began, and how much it has 
been used, and what it has grown up from, and if it was an invention. I would like 
to know something about that. 1688 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Hermetic sealing of materials is an old process, dating to antiquity, and the 
preservation of fruits by heating and hermetically sealing was practiced before the 
days of Pasteur. Pasteur was the first scientist to discover the real cause of the 
efficiency of heating and hermetic sealing. It is to Pasteur that we owe the theory 
of the germ system of fermentation, and beginning with his investigations on the 
subject, which took place along beginning with 1855, and extending along from that 
time until his death, the theory of the preservation of food by sterilization was 
placed upon a scientific basis, and as soon as the real cause was discovered, the whole 
process assumed very much greater magnitude. 
Q. How long has it been the practice of packers to put up canned goods with the 
sterilization function attached? 
A. Well, in my boyhood, which was the time of the civil war, each housewife did 
her own preserving. As far as 1 know, in those days, in the part of the country 
where I was brought up, in Indiana, they had no commercial canning establish- 
ments whatever, but soon after that it was found it could be more efficiently done, 
and more cheaply done, in large establishments, and hence the process of domestic 
sterilization has practically fallen into disuse, and the practice of commercial steriliza- 
tion on a large scale has grown. I suppose you may say that the business is a quarter 
of a century old, as a commercial business, at least. 
Q. Was there an inventor by the name Appert, who brought out any process 
for preservation? 
A. I do not recall that name in connection with it. In fact, I am not familiar with 
the history, except in a general way. I have never looked it up from the inventive 
point of view. 
Q. How long ago, so far as you know, did they commence to can fresh meat? 
A. I think that is within recent years, but I am not familiar with the dates. 
Q. Now, as to the effect of boiling upon flesh, meat, taking two chickens, one 
young and tender and another equally wholesome, but old and tough, each boiled 
for the same length of time, one will be easily masticated and the other will not be. 
The other, if boiled, however, for a longer length of time, will also become tender. 
Will that lose anything in its nutritive value by that additional cooking, compared 
with the other? 
A. No, sir, I think not; nothing whatever. 
General Davis. I believe that is all. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. You were asked about the presence of maggots and worms in cans submitted 
to you for examination. Supposing you had found them, what would you have 
concluded? 
A. Well, had I been profanely inclined, I think I should have said something about 
the people who put it up. I should think an imperfect meat had been used, if I 
found no other evidences of bacteria. If I found the sterilization complete and 
found the cans to contain maggots, I should think decomposed meat had been put up. 
Q. Under the supervision and inspections now made by the Agricultural Depart- 
ment in the slaughtering houses, is it probable that meat of that kind would have 
passed unobserved? 
A. It is not probable, but it is possible, yes, sir; just as you will take a hundred 
cairs of fruit, and you will find a certain percentage of them bad-bad fruit to begin 
with, worms in the fruit. So a bad piece of meat might escape detection. Inspec- 
tion is not infallible. 
Q. Now, in regard to the disease, if the meat had reached a stage of decomposition 
which by itself would have been harmful to the human system, if introduced or 
injected, would your analysis have discovered it? 
A. I think the appearance of such meat would at once disclose it. Canned meat FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1689 
should have the color of fresh meat, and the pleasant aromatic odor of good meat, 
and I believe that diseased meat, which had gone far enough to affect the quality of 
the meat itself, would disclose itself by our preliminary examination, by the senses, 
which we always do first; but incipient disease in an animal might doubtless escape 
detection. 
Q. Would that incipient disease be an origin of disease in itself, taken as an article 
of food? 
A. Germs of disease in the meat itself would be thoroughly sterilized by the ster- 
ilizing process and would be harmless as germs. Pathogenic germs are destroyed 
by this process, as well as ordinary fermentive germs. 
By General Davis: 
Q. At what temperature is sterilization effected in meat? 
A. Sterilization will be effected at a temperature below that of boiling water, if 
you keep the heat up long enough. It is better, however, to raise the temperature 
above that of boiling water and heat for a shorter time. The sterilization of vege- 
tables and of meat in the packing houses, I believe, is accomplished at a temperature 
anywhere from 217° to 250° Fahrenheit. The higher the temperature the less 
time required; the larger the can the longer the time required, and the higher the 
temperature required to permeate the center, because all parts of the meat must be 
heated to this temperature. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Well, I would ask this question, in view of one answer brought out by the 
court. If there was some decomposition, or the meat was in a spoiled condition, I 
understood you to say it would be very easily detected by the sense of smell? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. On opening it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Anyone could do that readily? 
A. Yes, sir; I think so. 
Q. A soldier could do that on opening it in the field-could tell? 
A. Yes, sir; I think so. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. George D. Taylor, of Illinois. 
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE D. TAYLOR. 
George D. Taylor was called as a witness by the recorder, and, being first duly 
sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. George D. Taylor; in charge of Armour & Co.'s ice houses and icing stations, 
and the reicing of these shipments in transit. 
Q. How long have you been employed by Armour & Co.? 
A. Sixteen years, sir. 
Q. How long have you occupied your present position? 
A. Four years. 
Q. When does the responsibility for the cars in the matter of icing come upon 
you or the people under your charge? 
A. Immediately after they are loaded and sealed. 
Q. What arrangements are you in control of that effect this reicing of cars en 
route? 
A. Of those pertaining to the reicing in transit? 1690 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Yes. 
A. At the various icing stations? 
Q. Yes; through what agencies do you accomplish this reicing? 
A. We order the cars reiced, and on some lines we operate our own houses. On 
roads where we do not control or operate such houses we depend upon outsiders to 
perform that service, after giving them directions in each specific case to do so. 
Q. What temperature do you maintain the interior of the cars at in transit through 
the country? 
A. At 40° or lower. 
Q. And how often is reicing required? 
A. That depends altogether upon weather conditions. 
Q. Take summer weather. 
A. In warm weather, in the warm season, such as from now until the end of 
October, I would say reicing from every twenty-four to thirty-six hours would be 
necessary. In the colder weather, from November 1 to about the end of March, 
once in forty-eight hours would be sufficient to maintain the temperature I referred 
to in the cars. 
Q. What is used besides ice in this reicing process? 
A. Rock salt. 
Q. And what quantity of each is necessary for reicing a car? 
A. That, too, depends upon weather conditions. In the warm season we use about 
10 per cent and in cooler weather it varies as low as 5 per cent. 
General Davis. Of salt? 
A. Yes, sir; 5 to 10 pounds of salt to each 100 pounds of ice. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. On the route from Chicago to Florida how often are the cars reiced in the warm 
season? 
t A. Shipments to Jacksonville are reiced three times, and those going to Tampa are 
reiced four times. 
Q. What reports or.statements are made to you or by you in reference to this 
reicing? 
A. I might explain, in answering that question, that it is our custom to notify the 
icing agents at the various stations direct on every shipment that is made, so that 
they will have some advance notice of what shipments to expect; and in order that 
we may know that the cars have been properly charged with ice and salt we insist 
upon receiving a return report from those stations, showing the quantity of ice and 
salt added in each car, together with the condition of the weather and the outside 
temperature. By this means one familiar with that kind of work is readily enabled 
to determine whether the cars have received the proper attention. 
Q. By whom are these reports made? 
A. By our own men where we have them stationed and by the agents of other 
parties where we have occasion to use them. 
Q. Have you any of those reports with you? 
A. Well, no; I can not say that I have the reports in detail, but I have here a 
tabulated statement which is compiled from Armour & Co.'s record, and shows the 
car numbers, date of shipment, time of departure from Chicago, and the various 
intermediate icing stations, together with the amount of salt and ice supplied on 
certain shipments. 
Q. So that that is made a matter of record, is it, and is preserved? 
A. Yes, sir; this is made a matter of record and is preserved. 
Q. Could any icing or charging with salt go on without your knowledge and 
supervision? That is, is all of it reported to you? 
A. Yes, sir; and if it should by chance happen that we do not receive a report FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1691 
we make it a point, or it is a rule of our house, rather, to get that report. That 
serves a twofold purpose. As I said before, it enables us to know the treatment the 
cars are receiving along the line, and in as much as Armour & Co. assume the cost 
of this reicing, it serves as a check against the bills which are rendered against us. 
Therefore you can see it is necessary we should keep a record. 
Q. Suppose a car to go wrong-that is, suppose anything happens to it or to its 
contents from defective reicing-what report is made of that? What is done about 
that? 
A. In that case the first we would know about its condition would be upon the 
receipt of a telegram from the point of destination. Our orders to our consignees are 
that they shall notify us by wire if the condition of the meat indicates that it has not 
been properly reiced in transit, or if accident should overtake the ear and damage 
the contents we would also want to know that. 
Q. What action would be taken by you habitually in the performance of your duty, 
upon the receipt of such report, if there had been a failure in respect reicing? 
A. The first steps taken would be to get out the icing record against that individual 
car, showing the time it was loaded and the time it made in transit and the quantity 
of ice and salt, as indicated by the return report that we might have in our posses- 
sion. By that means we could readily ascertain whether the car had been neglected 
in that particular. 
Q. Did any such reports reach you in respect to the beef that was shipped to 
Florida last year for the use of the United States troops there? 
A. No, sir; I did not receive a single report. 
Q. Can you recall about how much beef was shipped to Florida from Chicago for 
the use of the troops altogether during the operations? 
A. No, sir; I can not tell that. 
Q. Could you give us approximately. 
A. Oh, this statement here covers the cars which contained the beef that was ship- 
ped to the Army. 
Q. Does it contain any aggregate of the amount shipped? 
A. No, sir; simply the record of the icing and salting in transit and the moving of 
the cars. 
Q. So you could not give the aggregate from the number of cars? 
A. Unless I footed this up. 
Q. That is hardly necessary. 
A. This would show by cars. 
Q. No complaints were received, then, as I understand you? 
A. None whatever by me; no, sir. 
Q. When and where is a car of refrigerated beef sealed? 
A. The cars are sealed by us before they leave our loading platform, and after 
delivery has been made to the road which transports them they are again sealed by 
the railroad company, so that each car bears two seals on either side of it. 
Q. Under your rules and regulations and those of the railroad companies, by whom 
can these seals be broken, by whom can a car be opened, short of its destination? 
A. Only by those persons to whom the car is consigned. 
Q. Suppose a car to be consigned from Chicago to Jacksonville, what persons on 
the way, at what points between Chicago and Jacksonville, would have authority to 
break the seals and enter the car? 
A. No one whatever. 
Q. Would any of your employees have such authority? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Are there any circumstances-if they suspected that the beef was damaged 
would they have authority to enter and see what the trouble was? 
A. No, sir; they would not. 1692 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. In reicing the car is the car reopened? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. How is the reicing accomplished? 
A. I might explain to the court, in answer to that question, that these refrigerator 
cars are constructed with galvanized-iron ice tanks at either end. Their capacity is 
in the aggregate about 6,000 pounds, and they are reiced by reopening the hatch 
plugs on the roof of the car and filling them up from overhead, icing them simply 
by removing the plugs and hatches and adding a sufficient quantity of ice and salt to 
fill the tanks in every instance. 
Q. Suppose chemical treatment were to be applied to the contents of the car en 
route, what connection with it or what knowledge of it would you have from your 
position in the company? Could it be done without your knowledge? 
A. I do not believe it would be possible. 
Q. Have you observed the beef that has been shipped from Chicago in recent 
years? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Have you observed its killing and preparation for shipment-the refrigerated 
beef? 
A. Yes, sir; I have done so. 
Q. Have you ever seen any indications of chemical treatment in Chicago or else- 
where on the cars or at stations, or at its destination? Have you ever seen any indi- 
cations of its having been chemically treated? 
A. I have not. 
Q. Have you any knowledge that any chemicals are used by the company at any 
place or under any circumstances with a view to its preservation? 
A. I have not any such knowledge. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Did you ever hear that any meat was ever chemically treated? Did you ever 
hear of such a thing? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Fresh beef? 
A. Since this board of inquiry has been investigating it. 
Q. Never heard of it before? 
A. I never did. 
Q. Never heard of the Powell process before this court began sitting here? 
A. I never heard of Mr. Powell or his process. 
Q. In connection with Armour & Co. 
A. Or with any other packer. 
Q. Did you ever hear of boracic acid being used in meats of any kind? 
A. No, sir; I can not say that I have. 
Q. Did you ever hear of salicylic acid being used? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Any such thing as formaldehyde, or what is called formalin-anything of that 
kind, or any preservaline? Did you ever hear of anything of that kind? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you ever see any advertisements of that kind for preserving meat? 
A. Not that I can recollect, to connect them with their use on meats of any kind. 
Q. On meat of any kind? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. In your house you do not use any chemicals on meat? 
A. I did not say that. 
Q. I ask you the question now. In your house do you or not use chemicals on 
meat? 
A. I don't know, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1693 
Q. Don't know? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. And you have been connected with it how long? 
A. I have been connected with this present work for the last four years. 
Q. 1 thought you had been in the work for Armour & Co.-for how long? How 
long have you been working for Armour & Co.? 
A. For the last sixteen years. 
Q. In Chicago? 
A. In Chicago. 
Q. All the time? 
A. Constantly. 
Q. Is your office in Chicago? Is your work there now? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you travel around where these ice places are? Did you go down to Tampa? 
A. I do travel around quite frequently. I did not go to Tampa. 
Q. You do not know what occurred there, do you, in regard to the meat supply, 
as to the difficulties or disadvantages or advantages in connection with handling it, 
except by report? 
A. That is all, sir. 
Q. You have no personal knowledge in regard to the matter of icing on the way 
around the country; never attend to it yourself personally? It is done through your 
agents or employees, icemen, station agents, or others, is it not? 
A. Well, I have iced cars, done the manual labor myself; but it would be impos- 
sible for me to oversee the handling of some four or five hundred cars per week. 
Q. I am asking a reasonable question, and all I want is a reasonable answer. You 
can make it in your own way. I do not ask you anything about three or four hun- 
dred cars at any one time. All I am asking you is if you, as a part of your business, 
go over the road at any time and look after this? 
A. I do, sir. 
Q. You do? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. This report you have there, when was that made, and for what purpose? When 
was that tabulated report made? 
A. This report was made up recently. 
Q. When? 
A. In the last thirty days. 
Q. Are those reports similar to that made every thirty days by the house? 
A. No, sir; I can not say that they are. 
Q. Where are the original reports? 
(The witness made a motion as though to hand the report to Major Lee.) 
Q. I do not want to see it. 
A. The original reports? 
Q. Where are the original reports from which this tabulated statement is made? 
It is made from reports made by your agents, I understood you to say. 
A. I said this was compiled from reports from Armour & Co.'s records, which I 
made from reports by the icing agents to Armour & Co. 
Q. Then this is third hand? The first reports are made by the icing men. They 
do the work and report it, and then that goes onto the record, and this is copied 
from the record? 
A. Yes, sir; it is an extract from the record. 
Q. I do not know but what I asked you this before, but if I did I will ask it again. 
Have you any knowledge whether in the packing houses where you have worked, 
or any information in regard to packing houses, that they buy and use large quanti- 
ties of chemicals? Have you any knowledge? 
A. No definite knowledge. 1694 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. No definite knowledge? 
A. No definite knowledge; no, sir. 
(J. You are certain you have never seen any there? You feel reasonably sure you 
never have observed any specially? 
A. Yes, sir. If I had I would not be able to distinguish it. 
Q. Did you ever know of any experiments being made in Chicago by anybody last 
year, or hearing of any effort being made, to preserve meat by a sort of process, by 
fumes, or things of that kind? Did you ever hear that talked of or discussed? 
A. Only from what I have read from time to time in the newspapers. I have 
never heard it talked, never heard it discussed. 
Q. How long ago was it when you first read it, saw it talked of in the newspapers? 
A. Since this board of inquiry. 
Q. Since this court convened? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You never heard of it before? 
A. Never in my life. 
Q. You say these cars are doubly sealed, two seals put on? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you mean two seals on each side? 
A. On either side; yes, sir. 
Q. Making, then, four seals altogether? 
A. Yes, sir; two on either door. 
Q. How many seals would that make altogether? 
A. Four seals. 
Q. Now, when you load a car there at your platform, then you close it and put a 
seal upon it. Do I understand you correctly in that? 
A. No, sir. I do not close it. 
Q. I mean your company. I do not mean that you individually attend to the 
work. I want you to answer the question in a reasonable way, if you please. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I am speaking of the matter when you pack a car'and it is ready to ship. 
What is done with it then? 
A. It is forwarded by the railroad company, and it then comes under my charge. 
Q. Under your charge? 
A. Under my charge, so far as icing and salting and movements are concerned. 
Q. Let me get at one thing first. A refrigerator car is put there on the track, and 
then it is loaded with the beef. The car, I presume, is iced, and who closes the car 
there; an employee of the firm? 
A. Our own men. 
Q. Your own men? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Close the car? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Have control of it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. It stays there how long; maybe a day, half a day, or how many hours? 
A. Usually fifteen minutes would be the limit. 
Q. Would it stay there longer than fifteen minutes in no case? 
A. I can not say in no case. I will make an explanation here by saying that we 
switch in 10 or 12 cars to be loaded at one time. As soon as those cars are loaded 
they are sealed-the doors are closed, and they are sealed. One car might be loaded 
five or ten minutes behind another, but the difference would not be more than fifteen 
minutes. 
Q. What I am getting at is this: We will say that the 15 cars are run in there at FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1695 
one time. You do not load the 15 cars simultaneously, do you? You probably take 
several cars and load them. 
A. Yes, sir; several cars. 
Q. And the cars, I suppose, would not be pulled right out, but the whole 15 would 
be pulled out together? 
A. Pulled out in one bunch-pulled out together. 
Q. So that the first would be loaded and wait until the last had been loaded? 
A. Usually. 
Q. Then you have it sealed, and it passes from you and it goes to the railroad com- 
pany, and there it is sealed by the company, as I understand? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And then you have entire charge of it-that is, your company-from that time 
on; of the icing, and so on? 
A. We have charge of the icing. 
Q. And of the car? 
A. The car is subject to our orders, in other words. 
Q. It is subject to your orders and control? 
A. Yes, sir; subject to our orders and control; in transit, subject to our orders. 
Redirect examination by the Recorder: 
Q. If any instructions were given by the company with reference to the contents 
of the cars, as to their treatment, what connection would you have with that? 
What knowledge would you have of that? 
A. Will you kindly repeat that question? 
Q. If any instructions were given by the company with reference to the treatment 
of the contents of the car en route, what knowledge would you have of it? 
A. I would have the whole knowledge of it, I think. 
Q. In other words, would it occur without your knowledge in the position wmch 
you occupy in the company? 
A. No, sir; it could not. 
Q. And have any such instructions, in point of fact, with reference to the chem- 
ical treatment of beef, gone through you? Have such instructions been given by the 
company or anybody connected with it, to your knowledge? 
A. No, sir; they have not; and I will go a step farther by saying there was not a 
spot on the road between Chicago and Jacksonville or Tampa where shipments of 
fresh beef made by Armour & Co. to the Army last summer were under any process 
of chemicalization, but they were solely under the protection, the full protection, of 
ice and salt, and ice and salt alone. 
The Recorder. Has the court any questions? 
Major Lee. I have one more. 
Q. You say all the meat that was shipped last summer from Chicago was solely 
and absolutely under the refrigerating process, or cold air-all the meat that was 
shipped down there for the troops? 
A. While it was in transit; yes, sir. 
Q. Could any beef in Chicago, in connection with your duties, have been experi- 
mented upon or chemicalized, and so shipped, without your knowledge? 
A. Yes, sir; it could. 
Major Lee. That is all. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. L. F. Edwards, of Jacksonville, Fla. 1696 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Leslie F. Edwards was called as a witness by the recorder, and, being first duly 
sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. Leslie F. Edwards; residence, Jacksonville, Fla.; general manager for Armour 
& Co., of the State of Florida; was so in 1898 and for eight years previous to that 
time. 
Q. To what extent does the business of Armour & Co. in Florida come under 
your supervision? 
A. Their entire business interests in Florida are under my control and supervision. 
Q. During the summer of 1898 what were your especial duties there in connec. 
tion with the delivery of meat? 
A. My special duties were supplying our product to the Army in Florida. 
Q. At what point was it delivered to the military authorities? 
A. First in Tampa-I refer now to fresh meat-first in Tampa, after that at Port 
Tampa, then Lakeland, Jacksonville, Miami, and Fernandina. 
Q. To whom were these deliveries of the refrigerated beef made; to the camps? 
A. The deliveries were made by men acting under my orders and instructions and 
supervision. My directions to them were to give the army beef their best attention 
so far as deliveries were concerned, and to make special effort to try to satisfy the 
Army in every way, and report any differences to me. 
Q. Were any differences reported to you in obedience to those instructions at any 
time? 
A. Some minor complaints were reported to me, but they were adjusted by sub- 
stituting or replacing beef at the request of the Army, but without the intervention 
of the chief or depot commissaries, and I do not recall one instance of a chief or 
depot commissary making a complaint that came to my knowledge. 
Q. What control have you, in virtue of your position there, over supplies or mate- 
rials that are used by Armour & Co. in the State of Florida in connection with their 
business? 
A. All supplies of every kind that are used by Armour & Co. in the State of Florida 
are either purchased, shipped, or received under my supervision. When they come 
in on requisition the requisitions bear my written approval. Where purchases are 
made without requisition the vouchers would have my written approval, and all bills 
for supplies so purchased are approved by me for payment. 
Q. Could any supplies or materials come into the State of Florida for the use of 
Armour & Co. without your knowledge? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. How much beef did you supply to the troops during the summer of 1898, 
approximately? 
A. During the time that the Army was in Florida we supplied nearly 3,000,000 
pounds of beef, and at the following points: At Tampa, 710,000; Port Tampa, bet ween 
160,000 and 170,000; at Lakeland, between 70,000 and 80,000; at Jacksonville, 600,000, 
and at Fernandina, nearly 300,000. 
Q. Did you at the same time supply beef in a commercial way to purchasers in 
Florida? 
A. We took beef out of the same cars out of which it wTas taken to be supplied to 
the Army and furnished it to our butchers in various parts of the State, and did so 
without any complaint. 
Q. That is, was the beef furnished to the Army the same as that furnished to other 
customers in Florida? 
TESTIMONY OF LESLIE F. EDWARDS. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1697 
A. The beef furnished to the Army in Florida was exactly the same as the beef 
that we have supplied to our trade for twelve years there, the same that we supplied 
to our butchers at the time the Army was in Florida, and the same we are supplying 
to our trade in Florida at the present time, and I have seen this same beef opened 
up in Europe in perfect condition. 
Q. Were the complaints of the beef from the troops frequent or infrequent? Please 
state to the court, in narrative form, what complaints you received and what action 
was taken upon them. 
A. The complaints reported to me were of a minor nature, and I do not recall ever 
receiving a report from a chief commissary or depot commissary, as would have been 
the case had those reports not been of a minor nature. I recollect one instance in 
Tampa that was reported to me, where we supplied sixteen or seventeen regiments on 
the same day with beef, and one regiment returned it. The beef was replaced by 
other beef. 
Q. Was the beef in all cases delivered to the troops from the refrigerator cars or 
refrigerating warehouse? 
A. In some cases the beef was delivered from the cooler, in some cases from the 
car, and in some cases from the wagons. 
Q. For instance, how was it delivered at Lakeland? 
A. The beef was delivered at Lakeland, in the first instance, out of a car. After- 
wards it was delivered by express from Tampa. 
Q. And in what forms; what ways? 
A. The beef in Lakeland, delivered out of the refrigerator car, was just naked beef. 
When we shipped it by express in quarters it was covered with burlap. Then later, 
when we shipped it in refrigerator boxes, it was cut in pieces and put in there. 
Q. Were there any other points at which beef was delivered in that way in 
Florida? 
A. I don't think we delivered any beef to the Army in refrigerator boxes, but at 
the same time that we were shipping beef to Lakeland in refrigerator boxes, 30 
miles from Tampa, we were shipping from Jacksonville by express to Key West, 
over thirty hours' run, and the beef got there in perfect condition. I have fol- 
lowed shipments from Jacksonville to Key West, and when opened up out of the 
refrigerator boxes it was in perfect condition. I have seen that. 
Q. Could any chemical treatment be given to beef in Florida without you being 
aware of it-by Armour & Co., or by anyone acting in their behalf? 
A. No chemicals were ever used by Armour & Co. 
Q. Would you be aware of it if it were attempted or done? 
A. Yes, sir; I would. 
Q. Was there any such chemical treatment of any beef belonging to Armour & 
Co. in the State of Florida at any time during the last year? 
A. No chemicals were ever used by Armour & Co. during the time I have been in 
charge of their business. No agency was used by us except cold air to preserve the 
meat. No chemicals or chemical processes were ever purchased or shipped into the 
State, or used by Armour & Co. Nothing could be brought there without either my 
orders or knowledge. 
Q. Do you remember the beef that was processed by Mr. Powell? 
A. Yes, sir; I remember it. 
Q. Please state, in narrative form, what your connection was with that test or 
experiment. 
A. Five carcasses of beef came from Chicago in one of our cars which contained 
other beef. All of the other beef was removed from one of those cars, and the five 
carcasses turned over to Mr. Alexander Powell, at Tampa, where my connection with 
the incident practically ceased. 
S. Doc. 270 107 1698 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Did you have any opportunity to observe the meat after it had been exposed, 
after delivery to Mr. Powell? 
A. I think the only beef of Mr. Powell's that I saw was on one of the transports 
at Port Tampa some days afterwards. 
Q. Where do you reside in Florida? 
A. Jacksonville is my home, sir; but I am covering the State, and particularly 
during the time the army was there I was moving about from place to place; kept 
going almost constantly, giving almost my entire attention to the army business. 
Q. State, if you recall, the circumstances, or state to the court what connection you 
had with the handling of two cars of canned roast beef belonging to the Armour 
Packing Company last year at Jacksonville. State what connection you had with 
the two cars of canned beef. 
A. I was in Tampa at the time. 
Q. About what time did it occur, as nearly as you can recollect? 
A. It must have been about the end of July or the beginning of August, I think, 
speaking from memory, but the Armour Packing Company wired me at Jacksonville, 
believing I was there, that some cars of canned roast beef had been rejected. The 
telegram, I thipk, was forwarded by the office to me in Tampa, and I instructed our 
people to hold the matter over until I could get in to Jacksonville. When I got in 
there I found that the matter had practically been adjusted with the Commissary 
Department by arranging to substitute good beef for the beef that had been rejected, 
which was done. 
Q. Was any examination of the beef made by your employees or by the representa- 
tives of the Armour Packing Company? 
A. I made an examination of the beef myself, sir. 
Q. Were any cans destroyed in consequence of such examination? 
A. Yes, sir; any cans that we found to be in bad condition. 
Q. Please state to the court fully how the examination was made, what the details 
of it were, how many cans of it were destroyed, how many were found in such con- 
dition that they had to be destroyed. 
A. I think that the total quantity of beef contained in those cars was somewhere 
about 40,000 to 45,000 pounds. They were lying on the railroad track outside the 
city limits, and I took one of my own men out of the house, with some colored men, 
and opened each individual case of roast beef all the way through, separated the 
good cans from the bad cans, destroyed any that were bad, and returned the good 
ones to the Armour Packing Company at Kansas City. 
Q. How many were destroyed? 
A. It would be impossible for me to give you the number. 
Q. To the best of your recollection. 
A. The total quantity, sir? 
Q. Yes; out of the two carloads. 
A. I should say probably one-half of 1 per cent-about that. There might have 
been more, but I have not made any calculations. I should imagine that the per- 
centage was very small. 
Q. How were they destroyed? 
A. They were burned in the crematory. 
Q. Was there a wagonload or two wagonloads, or how would you estimate it in 
that way? 
A. It took, probably, four or five days to overhaul that beef, sir, and the orders I 
gave were that as soon as they had a few of those (tans out, simply to take them and 
burn them. I was not present during the entire overhauling of the beef. 
Q. Had there been an inspection of it prior to your coming in contact with it? 
A. I believe that part of it had been examined by the Commissary Department, 
but I have no knowledge that such was the case. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1699 
Q. Do you know whether any had been destroyed by them or by order of any 
military officer? 
A. I don't think so, sir. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Who is your agent who attended to the business for you at Tampa and had 
charge of the Lakeland work also? Do you recall his name? 
A. I had several men working for me, sir. They were all under my orders. 
Q. In your business, as I understand, Mr. Edwards, you had general supervision? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Over the whole place? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You had someone whom you held responsible as the head, did you not, there 
at Tampa, as a rule? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Who was that? 
A. Mr. Smith was in charge at Tampa in the first instance, I think along until the 
latter part of July, as far as my memory goes. 
Q. Then who followed him, if you remember? 
A. After July, I am not quite sure who w'as there in the interim; but I think 
there was a man there who worked under Mr. Smith for a while, and then later on 
that Mr. Moorhouse took charge. 
Q. He was the principal one, then, in charge during the time that he was there? 
He was not subject to anyone, excepting your orders? 
A. He was subject to Mr. Smith's orders when Mr. Smith was there. 
Q. But afterwards, when he took charge, he was the one in control there? 
A. He was not placed in charge of the Tampa business until the latter part of 
August. 
Q. That is the point I was getting at. In regard to these complaints that were 
made, do you recall any complaint coming from Lakeland, or would that be brought 
to your knowledge? 
A. I remember a complaint from Lakeland being reported to me; yes, sir. 
Q. More than one? 
A. I think there were two complaints. 
Q. Two complaints? 
A. Yes, sir; I think so. 
Q. Do you recollect that they finally bought beef there from a local butcher in con- 
sequence of the dissatisfaction or alleged dissatisfaction with the meat sent there? 
A. It was reported to me that they had done so. 
Q. Can you recall that there were more than two cases of complaints in regard to 
this meat, and that Mr. Moorhouse went up and made some investigations, and did 
he make a report about it to you? 
A. The first complaint, I think, was on beef sent from Jacksonville somewhere in 
June. The second complaint I spoke of as one complaint, because I think there were 
two rejections on the two following days, and Mr. Moorhouse was sent up there to 
attend to the matter. 
Q. Do you recall any complaint or any rejections being made at what was called 
Port Tampa, from some troops stationed down there, any complaints about the meat 
that might have been brought to your attention in regard to that? 
A. There was one complaint, I remember, called to my attention. I don't remem- 
ber from what regiment it was. It was a case of two rounds, I think, that were 
returned from one of the regiments there, and I asked the beef man why they had 
been returned, and he said that the beef was bad. "Well," I said, "what did you 
do with the balance of the quarters?" He said, "Kept it." I said it was a pretty 1700 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
nice thing if he was going to cut off the loins and have the rounds sent to us; that it 
would be a good idea to keep it all, but it was a matter of small moment, and passed 
over. 
Q. Do you recall any instance where a regiment moved from dowm there and went 
across, and a letter was written by your agent over there, stating that there was one 
man, a lieutenant, that was very particular or squeamish or something of that kind in 
regard to the meat? I think it was your company that was supplying the meat. I 
think it was moved to Fernandina. I merely asked the question to show whether 
such information was communicated to you across there? 
A. No, sir. I hope he would not write such a letter. 
Q. It has appeared in testimony, but I am not sure which company. I simply 
asked the question to see whether you recall it. 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Would all of these complaints and reports necessarily be made to you? Would 
your agents make those reports to you in every instance? 
A. Not in every instance; no, sir. 
Q. So that there might have been complaints of which you have no knowledge, at 
one place, while you were at another? 
A. Possibly so, sir; but I never received any either from the chief or depot com- 
missaries at any of these points. 
Q. In delivering this beef did you deliver to the chief or depot commissary, or did 
you deliver to the commissaries in connection with the troops? The depot commis- 
sary, as such, does not receive the beef. You do not issue it to him at all. 
A. No, sir; but the contract is made with him. I deliver under the terms of that 
contract to the troops. 
Q. It goes to the troops; and is there not a stipulation in the contract that if it is 
found unsatisfactory that the commissary who is receiving it may at the time reject 
it or call for a board at once? I am asking as to the method-if that would not be 
about the method pursued? 
A. I think that is about it, sir. 
Q. Some of these contracts would be made with the chief commissary, but he would 
be at one place and half a dozen other commissaries might be at other points where 
the beef would be delivered. Now, Mr. Edwards, you are speaking in regard to the 
meat never being processed. Have you ever heard of processing fresh beef in any 
way? Have you ever heard of it being attempted or tried? 
A. Never until I saw the Powell test or exhibit at Tampa, sir, which was not 
adopted or used by Armour & Co. 
Q. Are you not aware of the fact that the Powell process accompanied Armour's 
bid for supplying fresh beef in Cuba? 
A. That is not in my department, sir. 
Q. Then you are not aware of that, if it be true? In regard to this meat at Jack- 
sonville, that was inspected and rejected, it had been already received, I presume, 
by the Government, had it not? It was then under Government control and cus- 
tody, and had been paid for, I presume? 
A. What meat do you refer to? 
Q. The tw'O carloads of canned beef. 
A. I have no knowledge of the method that was pursued in the delivery of that 
meat, sir. It simply was called to my attention by the Armour Packing Company, 
of Kansas City. 
Q. I assumed that perhaps as that meat had been shipped to the commissary across 
there, that it had already been accepted by the Government prior to that, and being 
found in that condition it was replaced. You don't know whether that was the first 
delivery of it or not? 
A. I do not. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1701 
Q. At any rate, you say you had it overhauled, and that there was a portion 
of it destroyed. When you put it back, did you take any record of the number of 
cans you put back? Did you take any account of just what there was there, the 
weight? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Only what the bills showed? 
A. No, sir; but the information, I believe, was forwarded to Kansas City, and 
from the difference that was made up I formed the opinion that about a half of 1 
per cent there was what was destroyed. I may be in error on that. 
Q. That was destroyed down there? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You opened every one of the cases? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What was the nature of the spoiled cans? 
A. In some cases there were nail holes in them; in other cases they were what we 
call blown cans; others were swelled, and wherever we detected a can of that kind 
we simply set it to one side and it was destroyed. 
Q. When you got through with the rejected cans of the three kinds you mention- 
those which had nail holes in them, those which were swelled, and the other of the 
third kind which you mentioned, which I have forgotten-however, it is down in 
the record-were the balance thrown into the car loosely or were they packed in 
cases? 
A. They were packed in cases as far as we had cases for them, but I think that 
some loose cans may have been sent back. 
Q. And they were supposed all to be in this condition? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And should have remained so? 
A. I should think so. 
Q. That is, under ordinary care in handling them until opened? 
A. I should think so. 
Q. But you were not there during the handling of all these cans. Can you give 
even approximately the number of cans that were destroyed there at Jacksonville? 
A. Not truthfully, I could not; no, sir. 
Q. I only want that, of course. I would not ask you a question with reference to 
anything else than what you could give with reasonable certainty in your own mind. 
Do you say you could not do that? 
A. I could not do that; no, sir. 
Q. Who there would be likely to know more about it? Who was with you there 
in the overhauling? Was there any officer of the Government or agent of the Gov- 
ernment? 
A. No, sir; no officer present. 
Q. There was no commissary sergeant or anyone? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You say the bad cans were taken to the crematory and destroyed. Would the 
man in charge there be likely to know? 
A. I don't believe so, sir. 
Q. Don't believe that he would? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. This work went on for how many days, two or three? 
A. Oh, I should say for four or five days. It was quite a large quantity of stuff, 
and as fast as a sufficient quantity of spoiled cans would be accumulated they would 
be at once taken, and not allowed to remain. 
Q. You kept no account of them at the time, did you? 
A. I did not keep an account of them, sir; no, sir. 1702 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. So that is a matter unknown to you, as to how many were sent to the crema- 
tory? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Major Lee. I believe that is all. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Are you familiar with Jacksonville? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Is the crematory managed by a board of health? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Under their control? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Who was the agent of the board of health, a chemist, a city chemist, or some 
official of that sort? 
A. There is no city chemist at Jacksonville, sir, that I know of. I never heard of 
one. 
Q. Is there a chemist there? 
A. No chemist at Jacksonville at all that I ever heard of. 
Q. Are you familiar with the contracts under which the beef was delivered to the 
troops at different points in Florida last year? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did any of them contain a requirement as to the number of hours which it 
should keep? 
A. They all contain that requirement, sir. 
Q. As to the number of hours that the beef was to keep? 
A. I have a contract in my hand here. Understanding that it has been testified 
in this court that Armour & Co. were under contract to deliver to some camp in 
Florida beef to keep sixty hours, I wish to say Armour & Co. never either verbally 
or in any other form, made with the Government any such contract. The contract 
specifically states that the beef is to be delivered in condition fit for immediate use. 
Q. No time limit is specified? 
A. "Fit for immediate use" are the words of the contract. 
Q. Did the contract contain a clause with reference to the temperature at which it 
is to be delivered? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Is that usual in that department? 
A. Yes, sir. 
The Recorder. Has the court any questions? 
General Davis. You say there were about 40,000 or 45,000 pounds of this beef in 
these two cars? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And you think about half of 1 per cent was destroyed? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Were they 2-pound cans, or what sized cans were they? 
A. There were some twos and some sixes. I don't think there were any ones. 
Twos and sixes, I think, were the sizes. 
Q. Are you the agent of the Armour Packing Company? 
A. I act for them when requested so to do. 
Q. I just wanted to get the connection. If all those cans were 2-pound cans, I 
see by a computation that one-half of 1 per cent would be 110 or 120 cans, on the 
supposition that they were all 2-pound cans. 
A. The quantity was larger than that, I think, sir. 
Q. Did you make any report to the Armour Packing Company of the result of this 
overhauling? 
A. Yes, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1703 
Q. Did you state the number of cans thrown out? 
A. The report was not made by me personally. It was made by the men in Jack- 
sonville, at the office there. 
Q. The office of the Armour Packing Company? 
A. Of Armour & Co. 
Q. Of Armour & Co.? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Then someone representing you supervised this overhauling? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What was his name? 
A. Marsden. 
Q. And he would know exactly how many cans were thrown out? 
A. He would have to get the records in order to ascertain. 
Q. The records from where? 
A. From Jacksonville, sir; either Jacksonville or Kansas City. I think that he 
could get them probably in Jacksonville. 
Q. He must have made a definite report as to the number of cans thrown out, you 
think? 
A. Yes, sir. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Was there a report made also as to the number of cans that they shipped back 
or the number of cases? Did he make that kind of a report? 
A. Well, yes, the number of cases that went back, sir. 
Q. And the number of cans? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you know, as a matter of fact, that after that consignment got back to 
Kansas City it was overhauled, and what condition they found it in after they got 
back there? 
A. I do not, sir. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, there are one or two more witnesses to 
testify this afternoon, but if the court desires to take a recess, the usual hour has 
arrived. 
Colonel Gillespie. Major Lee wanted to make some request about a further exam- 
ination of Professor Wiley. 
Major Lee. As he is here, after I get hold of his testimony I would probably like 
to have him recalled, that is all. 
Thereupon the court, at 1 o'clock p. m., took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m. 
after recess. 
The court reassembled at the expiration of the recess. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter w'ere also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness Mr. 
John J. Murphy, of Chicago. 
John J. Murphy was called as a witness by the recorder, and, being duly sworn, 
testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. John J. Murphy, Chicago, Ill.; superintendent of the ice department and refrig- 
erator cars for Swift & Co. 
TESTIMONY OF JOHN J. MURPHY. 1704 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. How long have you been employed by Swift & Co.? 
A. About fifteen years. 
Q. How long have you been performing the duties upon which you are now engaged? 
A. About fifteen years. 
Q. Please state to the court what connection you had with a shipment of beef from 
Chicago to Newport News that wras intended for the cargo of the Manitoba last year. 
A. I received that shipment of beef at Newport News and provided for the reicing 
of it on arrival, and also the transfer to the ship Manitoba. 
Q. Go on and state in narrative form all of the details of the transfer and of its 
arrival. 
A. It arrived in Newport News about twenty-four hours ahead of the transport, 
and on the day following the cars were reiced at Newport New'S. There were four- 
teen in all, and the following day we began transferring on to the Manitoba, I think, 
seven carloads. We commenced about 10 o'clock in the morning, and we got 
through somewhere between 5 and 6 o'clock, with about an hour or an hour and a 
half intermission for dinner. 
Q. Just state in detail how the transfer was made from the cars to the ship. 
A. We had a gang of about 16 men on the wharf. They would bring out eight 
quarters of beef and lay them on a sling on the docks, and they would immediately 
be hoisted up and put into the steamship. In the meantime the car doors would be 
closed and ■would not be opened again until we were ready for another sling of meat. 
That would occupy the fraction of a minute. That was the method in which the 
entire seven cars were handled, from start to finish. 
Q. How long did it take to complete the transfer? 
A. Of seven cars? 
Q. Yes; of the entire cargo of the Manitoba. 
A. We were perhaps five or six hours on the first seven cars on August 3, and 
then the other seven cars the day following, about the same length of time. 
Q. Was any of it piled on the dock at any time? 
A. Not a single quarter, only while it was being placed in the slings-placed on a 
canvas sling and another canvas put over it. 
Q. Was there any other refrigerated beef anywhere about the docks-anywhere 
within your knowledge or observation? 
A. I saw a great many cases or packages of bacon and canned goods on the pier. 
I didn't pay any particular attention to whose they were. 
Q. Did you see any fresh beef or refrigerated beef? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Except that which you were handling? 
A. None; only what I was handling. 
Q. Do you know-is it within your knowledge, where the. fresh beef came from 
that was used for the cabin and crew of the Manitoba? 
A. No, I do not. I think they had some put aboard at New York, though, for 
their use, and I think we shifted it in the box when we started to put ours in there, 
so that it would be available for them on the way down to Porto Rico. I don't know 
just how much there was of it. 
Q. Are you certain it was transferred to your refrigerator? 
A. It was in our refrigerator coming down, as I understood it. Of course we gave 
them notice that we had to have the boxes for our beef, and they took theirs out and 
put them in some smaller boxes that were on the boat. 
Q. But was there any other beef belonging to Swift & Co. that was put into the 
refrigerator? 
A. None whatever-not at Newport News. 
Q. What was the condition of the beef when it arrived at Newport News and was 
put into the steamer? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1705 
A. It was in excellent condition. 
Q. How extensive are your duties in connection with the icing of beef on 
transports? 
A. I have entire charge of the preparation of the cars from the time they are to be 
loaded until the cargo is discharged, both domestic, and export. 
Q. By wThom are they iced prior to the shipment being made? 
A. By Swift & Co. 
Q. Under your charge? 
A. Under my direction; yes, sir. 
Q. To what temperature is the car brought before the beef is loaded in it? 
A. We have it anywhere from 37° to 40°. 
Q. How often are they reiced on the journey? 
A. From twenty to thirty hours. 
Q. Is there a difference in the seasons of the year? 
A. In winter time we will run dressed beef from Chicago to New York City for 
local use about once in transit. 
Q. After the car is loaded at Chicago, what is the arrangement in respect to sealing? 
A. The cars, after they are loaded, are sealed by a representative of Swift & Co., 
and also by a representative of the railroad company. 
Q. Where are the seals broken, in an ordinary transaction? 
A. They are broken by the consignee. 
Q. In what circumstances and under whose authority could they be broken en 
route? 
A. Only by the railroad company, in case they had to get into the cars to make 
repairs that might possibly be necessary, in which case they would be responsible 
for any loss or damage. 
Q. Would they notify Swift & Co. if they had such a thing to do? 
A. Our consignee would notify us if the original seal had been tampered with. 
Q. How extensive are those icing operations? What is the annual cost of it, if 
that is within your knowledge? 
A. We spend annually for preparing our cars for shipment and icing in transit, 
about $650,000. 
Q. What agent do you rely upon for the preservation of the beef? 
A. Crushed ice and rock salt only, after it is loaded in the cars. 
Q. Have any chemicals been used about the premises of Swift & Co. or the beef 
belonging to them, at any time within your knowledge? 
A. None whatever, within my knowledge. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Were you present all the time during the unloading and loading of this meat 
on the Manitoba? 
A. I saw every quarter of it handled. 
Q. You saw every quarter of it handled? 
A. Fourteen carloads, I think. 
Q. Can you swear positively that none of the quarters of that beef were laid on the 
dock? 
A. Only while they were being prepared for the sling to be hoisted into the boat. 
Q. Then some may have been laid on the dock, you say, for that purpose? 
A. For that purpose only, which would occupy the fraction of a minute only. 
Q. Did you have any assistants to aid you in supervising this work of loading and 
putting it down there? 
A. I was on the pier all the time, and I had four expert beef men handling it 
down in the box that I got from our branch house at Norfolk. 
Q. Do you remember seeing Mr. Mulloney, ex-attorney-general of the State of 
Illinois, there at that time? 1706 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Do you recall anything as to the refrigerating engineer, or the man who had 
charge of that work quitting work or making any complaints in regard to the 
refrigerating apparatus? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Who had charge of the refrigerating apparatus there? 
A. The refrigerator engineer on the Manitoba. 
Q. Do you remember whether he expressed any dissatisfaction or any objections 
in regard to the refrigerating apparatus for any reason, on account of salary or work 
or because it would not work, or because they could not keep the temperature right? 
A. He appeared to think he ought to have another man with him who he was bet- 
ter acquainted with than some of the ship engineers, in order to stand watch while 
he would be off. 
Q. There was then some complaint on his part about it, or some representation of 
that kind? 
A. Yes; his conscience troubled him a little, as he did not feel he wanted to have a 
stranger standing watch opposite to himself. 
Q. In regard to chemicals. You have been connected with the company for a 
good while. Are any chemicals used in Swift & Co.'s packing houses? 
A. Not in connection with dressed beef. 
Q. I say generally. Are any chemicals used there in large quantities 
A. I have nothing to do whatever with the curing 
Q. Please answer the question, ■whether any chemicals are used there in large 
quantities to your knowledge? 
A. Not to my knowledge. 
Q. Not to your knowledge? 
A. Not to my knowledge. 
Q. Do you have any recollection of ever having seen any there? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Are any used in connection with other kinds of meat than that you know of 
by information or otherwise? 
A. Not that I know' of. 
Q. So far as you know, then, no chemicals are used in Sw'ift's warehouse? 
A. None that I know of. 
Q. None that you know of? 
A. None that I know of. 
Q. What agent of the company had charge of the beef after being loaded on the 
Manitoba? Was it delivered to the Government there or not? 
A. There was no agent of Swift & Co. went with that cargo. Our agent went with 
the previous consignment, on the Massachusetts-a Mr. Welsh. 
Q. A previous consignment? 
A. Yes, sir; about a w'eek previous, I should say. 
Q. Was it delivered to the Government at this point, Newport News, or Fortress 
Monroe? Did you get a receipt there? 
A. I got a receipt from Captain Aspinwall, I think it was, for the delivery of the 
beef on the boat. My responsibility there ceased. 
Q. For the delivery of the quantity? 
A. The quantity; yes, sir. 
Q. According to w'hat weights? 
A. According to the bill of lading. 
Q. Was the meat marked in separate W'eights? 
A. Yes, sir; each and every quarter was marked. The weight w'as stenciled on it. 
Q. Was the receipt given to you according to the weights? 
A. Just the total number of quarters. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1707 
Q. No weight was specified? 
A. No, sir; I understand he had a checker there to check each and every quarter. 
Q. It was taken as marked on the quarter? 
A. Taken as marked on the quarter. 
Q. It was not weighed? 
A. It was not weighed going from the cars to the steamer. 
Q. What contract was that beef delivered on? 
A. That I don't know. 
Q. You do not know what the contract was? 
A. No, sir; I do not. 
Q. Did you meet any of the officers of the troops that "were going aboard the 
vessel there at that time-Captain Bean and others? 
A. I can't recall a conversation with any army officer during the time I was 
handling that cargo. 
Q. You handled it from early in the morning until 5 in the afternoon and unloaded 
about how many cars? 
A. From about 10 in the morning until about 5 or a little after in the afternoon; 7 
cars each day. 
Q. How long was that meat exposed to the sun? 
A. A fraction of a minute; just while 16 men would be walking about 100 feet, 
from the car to the ship's side, laying it on a sling, and having it hoisted into the 
boat. 
Q. As a matter of fact, did they not lay some of it on the dock ? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Are you positive that no quarters were laid on the dock ? 
A. Not a quarter. It was laid on the sling whenever it was required. 
Q. And hoisted into the vessel and loaded into the refrigerator? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you examine the refrigerator? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was it in good working order? 
A. First class. 
Q. What was the temperature? 
A. The boxes were somewhere around about from 34 to 37 degrees. 
Q. Did you notice particularly? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What was the temperature you were expected to keep it at during the voyage 
over. 
A. Anywhere from 30 to 35. 
Q. To whom was that beef consigned after leaving; to Captain Aspinwall, the 
officer of the boat? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. He received it? 
A. He received it from me. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Did you have anything to do with the loading of the beef at Tampa? 
A. I loaded the first transport that was loaded there with dressed beef. 
Q. What was the name of the transport? 
A. The Mississippi. 
Q. What date was that? 
A. That was around about the 14th or 15th of July. I wouldn't be positive 
about it. 
Q. Did you load the Port Victor? 1708 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. No, sir. I loaded before the arrival of the Port Victor. 
Q. Where was she loaded? 
A. Her first cargo was received at Port Tampa also. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Did you accompany the meat of the Manitoba from Newport News? 
A. No, sir. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Were you present down at Tampa when all that meat was loaded on the 
Mississippi? 
A. Yes, sir. I personally saw that handled from start to finish. 
Q. All the way through? 
A. All the way through. 
Q. Where was that going? 
A. I understood that that was going to Santiago. 
Q. Did you turn it over to the Government there, or was it to be delivered at 
Santiago? Were you responsible for it there, or your company? 
A. I don't know, sir. We had an agent there, a Mr. Ketcham, who handled the 
details with the army officers. 
Q. Where? 
A. At Port Tampa. 
Q. He attended to that part? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And so you know nothing about it? 
A. It was only expected that I would be there temporarily, so I didn't have any- 
thing to do with it. 
Q. Do you recall anything about the method of loading that was used. Was any 
of it put on the dock at all, or was that all taken out of the car and put on slings? 
A. That was handled equally as well as the Newport News meat was handled-in 
the very same manner. 
Q. How near was the vessel up to the car. Could it be taken out in the same way? 
A. It was even closer. The car was within 14 or 16 feet of the ship's side. 
Q. Was any of it laid down at all while it was getting out-while it was being 
taken out of the car? 
A. We wouldn't take a quarter out of the car until they were ready in the boat 
for it. 
Q. Do you recall the use there, at any time, from knowledge or information, of 
barrels of liquid, and throwing it over this meat that was covered with canvas, in 
any way. 
A. None whatever. 
Q. Not at all? 
A. No, sir. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. To whom did you turn this meat over from the Mississippi; what was the name 
of the captain? 
A. I couldn't say as to that. As I said before, Mr. Ketcham looked after the 
details of the consignment that was at Port Tampa. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Captain Bean, of Pennsylvania. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1709 
TESTIMONY OF FRANCIS M. BEAN. 
Francis M. Bean was called as a witness by the recorder, and, being duly, sworn, 
testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. . 
A. Francis M. Bean; Phoenixville, Pa.; occupation, merchant. 
Q. Were you in the military service during the recent war with Spain? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. To what organization were you attached? 
A. From the 6th of May to the 19th of August I was first lieutenant of Battery B, 
Pennsylvania Artillery. From the 19th of August up to the date of muster out I 
was captain. 
Q. Where did that battery serve? 
A. That battery, from the 11th of May until the 5th of August, served at Newport 
News, at the shipyards, and from the 5th of August to the 8th of September in 
Porto Rico. 
Q. How many days were consumed on the voyage to Porto Rico? 
A. We left Newport News on the 5th of August and arrived at Port Ponce, just 
outside of the harbor, about 10 o'clock on the morning of the 10th. 
Q. When did you start back home from there? 
A. At 6 p. m. on the 8th of September. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Were you present and did you notice the loading of refrigerated beef, or fresh 
beef, on the Manitoba at Newport News? 
A. I noticed them loading meat there. I didn't pay particular attention to it. I 
had other duties. 
Q. Were you about on the dock or wharf? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Could you recall, or have you any recollection, as to the method of loading, as 
to where the beef was or where it came from? 
A. I saw men carrying beef out of refrigator cars across the dock to the vessel's 
side. I saw it laid down and put in the slings. 
Q. Did you see it laid down on the dock, any of i 
A. I saw it laid there on slings. I couldn't say how long it laid there, though. 
Q. You could not say how long it laid on the slings? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You observed that casually, in connection with your duties there? 
A. Just as I was passing; yes,'sir. I didn't pay any particular attention to it. 
Q. Did you have any knowledge on the way over in regard to that beef, or was 
there any general information or general notoriety as to the beef on the way over- 
any comment or talk about it? 
A. No, sir; not until after we got there. 
Q. Until after you got where? 
A. Until after we had landed at Port Ponce. 
Q. What occurred then? 
A. I heard some comments on it-that the refrigerator had been choked up; that 
the vessel ran aground, and in trying to back off her propeller had thrown sand 
into the holes, I suppose, where they pumped the water in, and choked them up. 
I only heard that in general talk. 
Q. I merely want to know the sources of the information or what the general talk 
was. How long did you remain on the vessel until your command was taken off; or 
how long until your command was taken off the vessel? 1710 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. We ran aground on the 10th about 10 o'clock in the morning, and we were 
taken off at 8 p. m. on the 11th and transferred to gunboats. 
Q. Was the vessel still aground when you were taken off? 
A. Yes, sir; she was aground for four or five days after that. 
Q. She was aground for some days? 
A. Yes, sir; four days and a half, I think. We had to unload all our horses in 
lighters in order to lighten the vessel. 
Q. Do you recall what rations were issued to the command going over-I mean 
approximately? You were not in command of the battery at that time? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Can you recall from general information as to what meat rations the men in 
your battery had in going over? 
A. I think there were 31 days' rations drawn, consisting of canned roast, canned 
boiled beef, canned corned beef, baked beans, and tomatoes, sides of bacon, canned 
salmon, some potatoes, and beef. It consisted principally of canned goods. 
Q. Did you have any fresh beef on the way over? Did you use any? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Do you know of your own knowledge whether any of your men used any of 
the canned roast beef on the way over? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you hear any complaints or any information as to satisfaction or dissatis- 
faction with it? 
A. There were a good many complaints about it. 
Q. What were they? 
A. They complained that the beef gave them disordered stomachs and diarrhea. 
There was no complaint of anything except the canned beef-no complaint about 
any other part of the ration. 
Q. While in Porto Rico, during your stay there, which I understand was about 
from the 10th of August until the 8th of September, am 1 right? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What meats were issued to the command while there? What constituted the 
meat ration? I mean what did you have as a meat ration? I understand you were 
issued thirty-one days' rations? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. But what meat rations did you have to consume, or what were issued or on 
hand for consumption there? 
A. We had the balance of this which we had drawn at Newport News, and out- 
side of that we drew three quarters of dressed beef, taken from the cargo of the 
Manitoba, I believe. 
Q. Taken from that cargo? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Issued to you by the commissary? 
A. Colonel Smith. We didn't draw any of that until about the 1st of September. 
Q. What was the condition of that beef? 
A. The first quarter was spoiled. 
Q. Was it used in any way? 
A. No, sir. It was bad. We couldn't use it. 
Q. Was it replaced? 
A. I went to Colonel Smith the next day and told him that the quarter was 
spoiled. I asked for something else. He told me that that quarter had been taken 
off of the vessel and had remained in the warehouse all night; that the next quarter 
he would issue would be better-would be all right. I sent the team after it, and 
they brought it to the camp-probably two hours' drive. It was covered with 
mold and a kind of growth of hair of a green tint. I had spoken to him about the FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1711 
other quarter being covered with hair, and he told me that if we would cut that off 
to the meat underneath it would be all right. We did that. I suppose we cut 
nearly one-half of it away and attempted to eat it, but we couldn't eat it. 
Q. What was the matter with it? 
A. I don't know what was the matter with it. I couldn't say it was spoiled. It 
had a sickening odor. 
Q. How was it cooked? 
A. It was cooked, and still it had a bad taste. 
Q. I say, how was it cooked? Was it boiled? 
A. No; it was fried. 
Q. Was it rejected or was it used by the men? 
A. It was rejected. The men couldn't eat it. 
Q. Did you receive any more issues from the Manitoba? 
A. Yes, sir. I went to Colonel Smith the next day, and he told me that if that 
beef was not satisfactory he would issue the native beef; but he advised me to use 
the Manitoba beef on account of the native beef being so tough. He said the officers 
of the Nineteenth Infantry complained of the native beef as being tough. I told 
him I would try another quarter of it, and if it was not any better than the other I 
would take the native beef; that we could get over the tough part of it all right. 
But the third quarter was in the same condition as the one we had previously got. 
Q. Describe that condition in detail-whether it was spoiled, what you had to 
trim off of it, if anything. State just what you did with it. 
A. I suppose there was one-half of it trimmed off, as near as I can judge. After 
it was cooked it had a bad taste, and the men wouldn't eat it. I tried it myself. 
Q. What effect did it have on the men who did eat it, or who tried to eat it? 
A. They complained of cramps, diarrhea, and sour stomachs. 
Q. Did you eat any of it? 
A. I did. 
Q. What effect had it upon you? 
A. It affected me the same way. 
Q. Did it make you sick? 
A. Yes, sir; it compelled me to vomit. 
Q. Did you attribute that as entirely due to the meat, or was there anything else 
you might have eaten that would have done that? 
A. I attributed that not so much to the dressed beef as to the canned beef, be- 
cause after we ceased to eat the canned meat 
Q. I am speaking now of the refrigerated beef, Captain. 
A. I did not eat enough of that to give it a good trial. One mouthful of it would 
do me. 
Q. Was anything issued in place of it? 
A. No, sir; we were ordered home then, and didn't draw any more. I had orders 
to draw five days' rations, provided we could get ice to keep it on the transport, but 
we didn't get the ice, so we didn't get the meat. 
Q. What transport did you return on? 
A. The Alamo. 
Q. Did you try any of the native beef when you complained about the other beef? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you get any of it? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. In regard to the canned roast beef. I wish you w'ould state to the court fully, 
in a narrative way, all your knowledge of the canned roast beef that you were 
brought in contact with or had anything to do with, or that came under your obser- 
vation from the time of leaving until your return, on the way over, while there, and 
on the way back. 1712 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I think within two or three days from the time of the first issue the men 
began to complain of it, saying that it was not good. I contended and represented 
to them that the meat was good. I thought probably that it was nothing but a com- 
mon kick, and I told them to go ahead and eat it and give it a fair trial. They did 
that, but still there were complaints, until they absolutely refused to eat it. They 
said they would do without before they would eat it. That meat was put up by 
Libby, McNeill & Libby and the Wilson Packing Company that we drew at Fort 
Monroe. The cans of beef were scattered through the whole thirty-one days, and 
we used it nearly every day. We would find cans that were swollen or had burst 
open, with the meat spoiled in them. 
Q. About how many men had you in your battery? 
A. There was about 171 at that time. 
Q. And every day you would find this condition when they would use this meat? 
A. Yes, sir; when they ceased to use it their condition improved. 
Q. Did you eat of it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What effect had it on you? 
A. Diarrhea, cramps in the stomach, sour stomach. 
Q. What effect had it on your men? 
A. It affected them the same way. When they ceased to eat it their condition 
improved, and they traced it to that as the cause. 
Q. When you ceased to eat it, how was your condition? 
A. My condition improved. 
Q. Did you have many sick when you started to come back? 
A. Only from the diarrhea and dysentery, and things like that. There was no 
serious sickness of any account. There wTas some developed after we reached home. 
The majority of the men were men who had worked in rolling mills, and were used 
to hard knocks. 
Q. Among those men, and that class of men, what were the complaints, if any, in 
regard to the meat? 
A. They were the majority of the men of the company. It affected them the 
same way. 
Q. Did they complain of it in the same way? 
A. Yes, sir; they absolutely refused to eat it. They said they would do without. 
Q. Did you try it in various ways; and if so, how? 
A. On the transports they would eat it out of the cans. They had no way to 
cook it. Down in Porto Rico they had it made into hash, and cooked it in a stew. 
Q. I wish you would describe the condition of the cans generally, whether there 
were nail holes in them or whether they were bulged, or what was the apparent 
cause of the spoiling, and, as near as you can, state about what proportion of the 
cans that your battery got, as near as you recall, were absolutely spoiled. 
A. I didn't take any notice of nail holes. Some of the cans were burst open. A 
great many of them were swollen up, and as soon as they were opened the gas 
rushed out of them. 
Q. The what? 
A. The gas, the stench. I couldn't say how many of them were spoiled. I have 
no idea. 
Q. Was it a very small percentage, like any goods in the commercial trade, or was 
it a large percentage? 
A. There appeared to be a large percentage of it. 
Q. Was that replaced to the battery in any way? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. How was that issued; in cases? 
A. In cases; yes, sir. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1713 
Q. Did you observe any canned roast beef on your way back? Did you have to 
use it, or did you attempt to use it on your way back? 
A. After we couldn't get the fresh beef, I drew some canned roast beef-some 
canned boiled beef. I drew twelve days' rations of canned salmon, canned corned 
beef, canned roast beef, and canned boiled beef, besides some others. I drew' the 
proportion of three days' rations to each. I had not intended to draw any of the 
beef at all, because we had expected to get the fresh beef, but were obliged to take 
something, and we took it. As it was another brand, I thought we would try it. 
Q. What other brand was that? Do you recall what brand that was? 
A. Armour's. 
Q. You speak of canned roast beef and canned boiled beef. Do you remember 
any brands that had on them canned boiled beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was there any difference between the canned boiled beef and the canned roast 
beef, as a matter of fact? 
A. No; one was as bad as the other. 
Q. What experience had you with that on the way. back? Did you use it? 
A. The men wouldn't eat it. They would open the cans and look at it, and prob- 
ably some of them would taste it, and we would be compelled to throw it over- 
board. There was a board of survey convened and there were some forty odd cases 
condemned and thrown overboard, which belonged to the Second Wisconsin-cans 
that had burst open. The stench was unbearable. That is the way they came to 
find it out. 
Q. About how many cases did you say were thrown overboard? 
A. Some forty odd cases. 
Q. Was this a whole regiment? 
A. No, sir; it was only three companies of the Second Wisconsin, under the com- 
mand of Major Gratzmocker. 
Q. Please state to the court under what circumstances that was thrown overboard 
and what you noticed in regard to it; how you happened to have your attention 
called to it. 
A. My attention was first called to it by my first lieutenant, stating to me that he 
had been appointed on this board of survey. I heard some of the men complaining 
about the terrible stench that was coming up through the vessel, and this board of 
survey made a search and found it. They condemned it and threw it overboard. 
Q. Did they bring it up on deck? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you see any of it taken out? 
A. I simply saw them dump it overboard. I didn't take particular notice, 
though, as I was not on the board. 
Q. Do you know how many members were on the board; two or three? 
A. Captain Looker, of Company H, First District of Columbia, was on it.' 
Q. What is his name? 
A. Captain Looker. 
Q. Of the First District of Columbia? 
A. Yes, sir; Company H. 
Q. Do you know where he lives? 
A. In Washington, I believe. 
Q. Did you say Company A? 
A. I think it is Company FL 
Q. Do you know his address? 
A. No, sir; I think his name is on the order here. [After examining paper] 
Company H, First District of Columbia Volunteer Infantry. 
Q. Have you a copy of the proceedings of that board? 
S. Doc. 270 108 1714 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Have you any knowledge or information as to how much of their whole supply 
they did throw overboard and condemn? 
A. No, sir. 
Q, Whether they had any more than that? 
A. I couldn't say. 
Q. Whether they threw it all overboard or only a part? 
A. I couldn't say about that. I don't know how much they had. 
Q. Captain, I wish you would please state to the court in regard to this canned 
roast beef that you drew, what proportion-not that you counted the cans or the 
quantity-but about what percentage of it, so far as you know, or by information, 
was actually consumed by the men of your battery? What per cent of it was actually 
eaten or consumed? 
A. I don't suppose one-half of it was eaten. If it was eaten the balance was 
thrown away. They absolutely refused to eat it. 
Q. In regard to other parts of the ration, were there complaints or was it confined 
to the meats? 
A. Simply to the beef. There w'as no complaint about the bacon. The bacon 
and the hard bread was the principal part of the ration we had. 
Q. When leaving off the eating of this canned roast beef or boiled beef or what- 
ever it was, what meat did they use? 
A. Bacon. 
Q. They went to the bacon? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. There were no complaints about that? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. The condition of the men continued the same, did it, or was it better or worse? 
A. As soon as they stopped eating the beef, their condition improved, but when 
they began to eat so much of this bacon they broke out in sores. They were eating 
it three times a day until we applied for the fresh meat, and, of course, they couldn't 
use it either. 
Q. So actually you were not furnished with any fresh meat down there that could 
be eaten. 
A. No, sir. 
Q. And of the canned roast beef only about half was consumed. That you made 
into hash and stews? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. If there are any other facts in connection with this matter, in connection with the 
meat ration on your way down, while there, or on the way back, that you have not 
stated, I wish you would go on and state it just as fully as though I had asked you 
particularly in regard to each matter. I am not familiar with all the details. 
A. I don't know as there is anything else. There was no complaint about the 
ration in this country at all. The rations were issued to us at Newport News and 
there was no complaint from them. It was only after we got on the transport and 
began to use this canned beef that the complaints began. 
Q. What other troops were on the Manitoba with you; I mean what regiments or 
organizations? 
A. Battery A, Pennsylvania Artillery; Governor's Troop of Pennsylvania; the 
Sheridan Troop of Pennsylvania, together with the headquarters of the First Ken- 
tucky Infantry. 
Q. Were they furnished, as far as you know, with substantially the same rations 
that you had? 
A. Battery A was, I know. 
Q. Were the complaints confined to your battery? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1715 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Did you hear complaints among other portions of the command? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What were they? 
A. About the same as from our own command. 
Q. What was the appearance of that canned roast beef you speak of, when you 
opened it down there, if you saw it opened, or after it was opened? 
A. It was coarse and stringy and a great amount of it looked like a pulp. It was a 
hard matter to tell what it was. It had a greenish color, like tallow, or something. 
I don't know what it was. 
Q. How as to its nutritive qualities when a man would eat of it? Did it seem to 
satisfy him? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. In cooking it in a hash, did the men reject it and refuse to eat the hash, or did 
they eat it? 
A. They rejected it. 
Q. What other commands were you with there at the time-that is, adjacent to 
you-that you mingled with, perhaps, or knew of? 
A. There was only this other battery, A. 
Q. Was the matter of canned roast beef or boiled beef discussed or talked of gener- 
ally among the officers at that time? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What was the general comment or remark in regard to it? I mean then, not 
now. 
A. That it was unfit for a ration. 
Q. To your knowledge, did it produce any sickness, vomiting, nausea, among any 
of your men? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. To what extent? 
A. They were nearly all affected by it, those who had eaten it. 
Cross-examination by the Recorder: 
Q. Speaking of the refrigerated beef, I believe you testified you cut away the outside? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was that tainted? 
A. It appeared to be tainted. It was covered with a greenish growth, like hair 
or slime. 
Q. Do you know whether it was tainted or not? 
A. The first quarter that we got was tainted. It was spoiled. 
Q. And the next? 
A. The next after that, after we cut the outside of it off, was not decomposed, but 
it had a peculiar odor. 
Q. But the outside was tainted? 
A. The outside appeared to be'tainted; yes, sir. 
Q. What was the peculiar odor? 
A. I don't know what to compare it to. 
Q. Describe it to the court. 
A. It was a disagreeable odor. That is all I can say. 
Q. What did it resemble? 
A. It was something like a dead body, as near as I can get at i*. 
Q. A dead body is decomposing meat, is it not? Did it smell different from 
decomposing meat? 
A. I don't know about that. 
Q. You do not know? 1716 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I couldn't say exactly. I didn't pay that much attention to it. 
Q. In what respect did it differ from decomposing meat? 
A. It didn't smell exactly like it. 
Q. How did it differ? 
A. It was a disagreeable odor. 
Q. Decomposing meat is disagreeable. 
A. The meat was not decomposing after we cut this outside off. 
Q. If it smelt like a dead body, a dead body is apt to be decomposed, is it not? 
Otherwise it does not smell. 
A. That may be. 
Q. What did it smell like? Tell the court. 
A. I don't know as I can describe it. I don't know what to compare it to. 
Q. What was it like? 
A. It was more of a musty odor to me. 
Q. Musty? 
A. Yes; something on that odor. 
Q. What did it taste like? 
A? It tasted musty, too. I guess that is about the word, as near as I can come 
to it. 
Q. Tasted musty? 
A. Yes, sir. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. You say you used the canned roast beef on your way down? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And there was refrigerated beef in the refrigerator? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did your captain make any endeavor to get any of that refrigerated beef? 
A. Not as I know of. I didn't know him to make any move towards getting any. 
Q. You were supplied with beef, according to your statement, which your men 
could not eat? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Yet you had knowledge that there was fresh beef on board? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And you have no knowledge that any effort was made to get that fresh beef. 
Is that your testimony? 
A. Yes, sir; I understood there was no way to cook it on the transport if we had 
got it. 
Q. Who told you that? 
A. I believe the first sergeant of the company, in speaking to me one day, said 
there w'as no way to cook anything on the transport. 
Q. Were your men seasick going down? 
A. Not going down-well, there was, perhaps, a few of them. We had a very nice 
voyage. 
Q. What was the state of your command as regards health after you reached 
Ponce? 
A. After we reached there? 
Q. Yes. 
A. Their health was fair, with the exception of this diarrhea and cramps that 
they complained of. 
Q. Did you speak to the doctor about the diarrhea? 
A. We had no doctor attached to our command. There was a doctor with battery 
A, who was assigned really to the two batteries. His attention was called to it. 
Q. Did you have sick call for your command? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1717 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was his attention drawn to this fact? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What did he say in regard to the sickness of the men? Did he attribute it to 
the meat? 
A. He forbade them to eat the meat. 
Q. Because it was a source of 
A. A source of trouble. 
Q. Did he say it was the trouble? 
A. Yes, sir; as I understood it, the men complained to him that it was the meat; 
so then he told them not to eat it. 
Redirect examination by Major Lee: 
Q. In the description of an odor you speak of it as being disagreeable. All odors 
that are offensive, of course, are disagreeable. That is simply another term. In your 
experience with meat had you prior to that time or have you since seen or used 
meat which had that odor which you describe as being peculiar? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. When you trimmed off about one-half of it you say you got down to what was 
good meat, apparently-regarded it as such? 
A. Yes; it was supposed to be good. 
Q. And was cooked? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And you noticed this peculiar odor about it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You say that it struck your sense of smell, or taste, as different from any other 
meat that you had had any experience with, and different from decomposition-that 
is, the rotting of meat? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was anything said, or ever spoken of, at that time, or on your return, or shortly 
thereafter, in regard to processing meat in some way so as to keep it? 
A. I didn't hear of anything. 
Q. Did you hear when you were down there how long they expected that meat to 
keep? 
A. No, sir; I heard nothing about that. 
Q. You said it was about a two-hours' drive to your camp. How far away were 
you from where they issued this meat? 
A. I suppose 8 or 9 miles. 
Q. And you had three issues? 
A. Three issues; yes, sir. 
Q. And not one was satisfactory? 
A. No, sir. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to recall Dr. Mallet. 
TESTIMONY OF PROF. JOHN W. MALLET. 
Prof. John W. Mallet was recalled by the recorder, and being warned that he 
was still under oath, testified as follows: 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Professor, I will ask you some additional questions with reference to the mat- 
ter under investigation. I would ask you to state to the court as to the propriety or 
impropriety of counting gelatin in as a part of protein. 
A. The present state of our knowledge is pretty much this: That gelatin is not 
capable of replacing protein in the production of tissue. It can not be used as a 1718 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
substitute for proteids proper in building up the tissue of the body-muscles, for 
example-but it can replace proteids in some measure as a material for the production 
of energy, and for that latter purpose its value is approximately one-half that of an 
equal weight of protein. 
Q. Please state to the court as to the utility or inutility of meat bases (nitrogenous 
extractives), even as stimulants. 
A. They have generally had the reputation, sir, of being stimulant in effect. I 
myself, last summer, made an investigation w'hich included that point, and, as far 
as that has gone, it is shown that they are almost without any action. Almost the 
only perceptible effect that I could obtain in my own case, taking doses up to as 
much as half an ounce of the tw7o principal flesh bases, was a moderate slowing of 
the pulse. There was no general stimulation of the nervous system perceptible. 
That fact is stated in a report to the Agricultural Department, which is in their 
hands for publication. It has not yet been published. 
Q. Please state to the court w7hat you regard as the only grounds for declaring 
theoretically that such materials are nutritious or wholesome. 
A. The only basis upon which nutritiousness or wholesomeness can be predicated 
is, clearly, in the first place, the actual test in use. When we find in the text-books 
the statement that a particular article of food is valuable as food, is nutritious and 
w7holesome, that statement must be based upon recorded experience in its actual use. 
It is absolutely impossible for any chemist to predict in advance, on all experience, 
whether a given article of food will prove nutritious or not. By analogy, if w7e find 
a new article of food to contain such substances as we have found in the past to be 
wholesome, we infer it to be, and no doubt justly, provided its materials are digested 
and assimilated. If they are not the analogy fails. 
Q. Will you please go on and state what would be the only use of chemical analy- 
ses as to indicating a limit of value? 
A. In this way, sir: I do not mean to say that chemical analyses of food products 
are not of use, but they are of use within certain limits. If, for example, in the case 
before the court, canned beef, or what professes to be canned beef, was examined 
and found to consist of material which it is known already from experience can not 
possibly either build up the tissues of the body or undergo oxidation and produce 
heat and muscular force, we would be perfectly justified, on the basis of such an 
analysis, in declaring that that was not good food. But, on the other hand, when a 
chemical analysis shows that such materials are capable of serving those purposes, 
provided they are digested and assimilated, that does not justify us in declaring they 
are nutritious or wholesome until it has been decided by actual experience. What is 
good food for one man may fail to be good food for another man, if he does not digest 
it. Tallow7 candles may be good food for an Eskimo, and in fact are. A man 
can digest such food in the cold climate of the arctic regions. They are not good 
for food a white man in Cuba. 
Q. I believe, in connection with this investigation, or since you were on the stand 
yesterday, you have had presented to you for review, or examination, the report 
submitted by Dr. Bigelow? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Will you refresh your memory from any memoranda you may have on that 
subject, and state whether you noted anything as to the variation in the added jelly 
in the composition of some of the samples, notably referring to page 6 of the report? 
A. It seemed to be remarkable that in one case the jelly added to the cans con- 
tained of total solids 4.82 per cent, and in another case 21.50 per cent; in other 
words, that there was four times as much solid matter in it in one case than in the 
other. 
Q. It appears in the report, I believe, that in one case seen by Dr. Bigelow7, as 
reported by him, the beef was left to soak over night in w7ater, with 4 per cent FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
1719 
of common salt. What effect would that have on the meat as to the extraction of 
proteid? 
A. As was noted by Dr. Bigelow himself, if I mistake not, the ordinary practice 
suggested a great many years ago by Levy, in cooking meat so as to make it as 
nutritious as possible, is to plunge it at once into hot water, the object being to 
coagulate-that is, to render insoluble-the soluble proteids on the surface; to seal up 
the juice of the meat and retain it. If it be plunged into cold water and kept in 
cold water, the soluble proteids are to a greater or less extent dissolved out. When the 
meat is cut up small and a large surface exposed, a very large amount is extracted. In 
this particular case, of course, I am unable to say how much might be expected to be 
extracted, because I do not know what the size and the shape of the pieces of the meat 
for canning put into the cold water were; but it seems to me remarkable that the state- 
ments given on one page, that about 2.3 per cent of the proteids themselves-not of 
the whole meat substance, but of the proteids themselves-were in Table 3 shown 
to be leeched out in the case of this meat, which was treated at one of the packing 
houses with cold water and left to stand in the cold water over night. I should have 
expected a good deal more to be dissolved out, but that would depend largely upon 
the size and shape of the pieces, as I have said-that is, the size and shape of the 
pieces exposed to the water. The statement struck me as interesting to the matter 
before the court, as establishing the fact that in the practice of at least one of the 
packing houses it was the habit to use cold water, and for a number of hours, and 
the meat was not in all cases, as appeared to be in some, plunged directly in the 
water near the boiling temperature. 
Q. Did you note in the review of the report anything as to the contrast in the con- 
centration-that is, the proportion of total solids of the soup liquor and the added 
jelly, taking into account the proportion of jelly in canned meat? 
A. Yes, sir; I made the calculation from Dr. Bigelow's figures in two or three 
cases. It shows very clearly -what proportion of the solid material existing in the 
soup liquor might be considered as returned in the shape of the jelly added to the 
cans, assuming that nothing else was added. I believe Dr. Bigelow stated that in 
some instances gelatin not derived from the meat itself was added; but assuming 
that all the solid matter in this jelly was derived from the soup liquor in the first 
experiment of the canning conducted under his observation in the establishment of 
Libby, McNiel & Libby, the solid matter in the jelly represented the solid matter in 
409 pounds out of 967 pounds of the soup liquor; in other words, something less than 
half of the solid matter removed by the treatment with water, the so-called soup 
liquor, might be considered as restored to the meat in the cans in the shape of jelly. 
In the order in which they were stated, the fourth experiment, that of the Cudda- 
hay Packing Company, showed that the solid matter returned represented 320 
pounds of soup liquor out of 963; in other words, about a third of it returned. In 
one case, that of G. H. Hammond & Co., the material introduced into the cans was 
a part of the soup liquor itself, not a jelly. It represented the solid matter of only 
15 pounds out of 1,500 pounds of soup liquor; in other words, it was only 1 per cent 
of what the soup liquor had removed. 
Q. What did you note from the weights ascertained, as given in the experiment, 
as to the shortage, if I may use the term, of weights? Take the sample No. 18000. 
A. I know nothing, of course, of the terms of the contract with the packing com- 
panies, as to how the weight was to be counted; but if a 2-pound can, which is 
frequently referred to, was expected to contain 2 pounds of meat, then in the case 
you have mentioned, sample No. 18000, there was a shortage, by Professor Bigelow's 
weighing, of 9.4 per cent. In sample No. 18011 there was a shortage of 10.9 per 
cent, and in one sample, No. 18013, there was a shortage of 21.2 per cent. That was 
not a 2-pound can; that was a 1-pound can, the contents of which weighed less than 
a pound by more than 20 per cent. 1720 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Referring to page 26 of the report, the last sentence on the page reads: 
4 4 The determination of nitrogen is satisfactory, but accurate methods for the esti- 
mation of the percentage of the nitrogenous compound are still to be desired." 
I wish you would please state to the court what you would infer from that, as an 
expert chemist. 
A. I think it a perfectly correct statement on the part of Dr. Bigelow as to the 
present condition of our knowledge in our analyses of these food materials. While 
we can determine the amount of nitrogen, which is an element, wTith entire accuracy- 
that is, with as close accuracy as we can determine anything-we can only by more 
or less arbitrary assumptions calculate the amount of the different classes of nitrogenous 
compounds present. We have no really accurate method by which we can distin- 
guish between the proteids and gelatin more particularly. I notice in Dr. Bige- 
low's report he has spoken of coagulated proteids. There the fact that they are 
insoluble, presumably from his report, in hot water, while gelatin is soluble, would 
enable a distinction to be made; but, on the other hand, there are classed with the 
gelatin, under that assumption, materials not identical with gelatin. In other 
words, we can not give, in the present state of our knowledge, an accurate statement 
of the form, in the shape of approximate compounds containing nitrogen, in which 
nitrogen occurs in food materials. We can make rough approximations to them 
largely on the basis of arbitrary assumptions which have been agreed to, in the 
absence of any better knowledge. 
Q. Can you give any illustration of that matter? I have here a report submitted 
by you and published by the Department of Agriculture. If that is pertinent, I 
would like you to look at it, in regard to multiplying the result by 6.25, and calling 
the product so obtained protein, in which it is stated that this is but a crude and 
clumsy way of approximately representing the material under examination as respects 
its nitrogenous constituents. If that is pertinent to this matter, I would like to have 
you go on and state in reference to it. 
A. I think that is a statement simply in other words of what I have just said. 
The usual convention or arbitrary agreement among chemists has been, in examin- 
ing food products, to determine the nitrogen, which, as I have said, can be done 
with quite satisfactory accuracy, and then multiply that by 6.25, which represents 
about the ratio between nitrogen and most of the compounds of nitrogen present in 
food, and to assume the product as protein. That is admittedly not correct. The 
factor should be less than 6.25, if we knew we were dealing with gelatin; still less, 
if we knew we were dealing with a meat basis. If we multiply by 6.25 the amount 
of nitrogen present, we obtain a rough approach to protein, counting in these other 
nitrogenous compounds with it; and therefore, calculations of nutritive value based 
upon such determinations of protein are, I believe, entirely unsatisfactory. 
Q. I see on page 25 of your report that there are two multipliers used, one 6.25, 
as used, you say, at present, and another of 3.05. If that is pertinent to this matter, 
I will just hand you the report and you can see whether any explanation can be 
made in elucidation of the matter. 
A. Yes, sir; if you know that the flesh bases are present, and simpler amids of 
animal origin, then multiplication of nitrogen by 3.05 would give you acinose approach 
to the truth. If things like asparagin and asparagus and amido-acids of vegetable 
origin were multiplied by 5.15 you would get an approach to the truth; and with 
such other mixed constituents 9.45 would be a proper factor. But the point is to 
know how much of each of these acids is actually present in a given case. If we 
knew we only had one we should know how to calculate the amount for the nitrogen, 
but as a rule we have more than one to deal with, and we certainly have more than 
one to deal with in the case of meat. 
Q. It is observed that on pages 27 and 28 of Dr. Bigelow's report, the average 
results on Tables 8 and 9 of his report indicate perceptibly lower value in respect to FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1721 
the value of proteids in the cans received from the court, than in the cans examined 
by Dr. Bigelow, the figures being for coagulated proteids: 17.57 for cans received 
from the court, and 21.56 for Dr. Bigelow's samples; total proteids for cans 
received from the court, 21.77, and for Dr. Bigelow's samples, 24.55. Can you give 
any information to the court in regard to that, or any explanation of it? 
A. No, sir; I have done nothing beyond taking the arithmetic mean of Professor 
Bigelow's figures. He gives two tables, one of which includes the analysis made of 
the canned beef which was canned under his own supervision, the other of samples 
of canned beef received from the court, which I understand to represent samples 
returned from Cuba and Porto Rico. If you take the average of his figures, the 
question presents itself, first: Are you to take the coagulated proteids or the total 
proteids? The coagulated proteid is less than the true amount of proteid. The total 
amount of proteids is more because it includes the gelatin. If you take either the 
one or the other, the same conclusion is reached, that there is a perceptible differ- 
ence-you can judge of what the amount is-between the average of the samples 
received from the court and the average of the samples canned under his supervision. 
The latter were roughly, about 20 per cent higher in proteids. I believe it would be 
about the same whether you took the one column or the other, the coagulated or 
the total. The actual figures are those you read. The average percentage of coagu- 
lated proteids is 17.57 of the sample furnished by the court, and 21.56 for the sample 
canned under Dr. Bigelow's eye. The figures for the total proteids are 21.77 and 
24.55, respectively. 
Q. What notation or explanation can you offer in regard to Table 15, page 32, of 
the report, in reference to a deficiency of 18.32 per cent for sample No. 18004, and 
of 18.68 per cent for sample No. 18009? Can you refresh your memory as to that? 
A. Yes, sir; Table 15 represents the composition of the canned meat taken in the 
dry condition, and free from fat; that is, after subtracting the water and the fat, 
and also counting the ash, irrespective of common salt-deducting the common salt; 
so that apparently the only thing unaccounted for, the only thing remaining to 
make up one hundred parts per cent, is common salt. One of two samples is noted 
by Dr. Bigelow himself as containing this amount of common salt, and I presume 
the same explanation is due to the other one. There are two samples in which, if 
you take this lack of ingredients enough to add up 100 per cent as common salt, 
there was in one 18.32 per cent of salt on the weight of proteids, and in the other 
case 18.68 per cent. It seems to me that it is a very great excess of salt, and that 
those specimens are objectionable on the ground of being too strongly salted. The 
meats, as I understand, were not in a condition like bacon, to be washed free of salt 
by the man who cooks it. I suppose it would have been practically necessary to 
cook the whole contents of the can together; and if so, it seems to me that 18, or 
between 18 and 19 per cent of common salt on proteids is quite too large an 
amount. It is not that percentage on the total contents of the can, observe, since 
water and fat have been deducted, but even on the proteids it seems altogether 
extravagant. If we take the ordinary assumptions as to how much proteid matter 
in a dry state a man requires on the average per day-taking a very moderate figure, 
which is generally given as that for men on light labor; it would therefore be 
exceeded by soldiers in the field-about 4J ounces of dry proteid a day-if you take 
this 18 or 19 per cent on that it would represent something like an ounce of common 
salt. The meat itself furnishes very little common salt, very little chloride of sodium; 
it furnishes some chloride of potassium, which would somewhat increase the saline 
taste; but the addition from without of that amount of common salt seems to me to 
make the ration altogether too salty to be desirable. It would probably lead to 
great thirst, a good deal of suffering on the march, and in all probability to a certain 
amount of irritation. 
Q. Noticing a statement on page 39 and recalling that it seems to have gone in 1722 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
evidence in some way or other, through some errors, I think, that 1.94 ounces of 
commercial meat extract could be made from the soup liquor for each 100 pounds 
of meat canned, I wish you to state to the court whether you noted anything with 
reference to that and what is the true amount of extract, approximately. 
A. The figure which you have quoted is given as the average amount, by Dr. 
Bigelow, and is in pounds, not ounces. It is 1 pound and 94/100 of meat canned. 
Q. What is your knowledge as to the value of this extract compared with meat; 
I mean commercially speaking, generally? 
A. Not in nutritive value, but in price? 
Q. I am speaking of its commercial value. 
A. I understand that the different brands vary somewhat in price, but at retail, 
Armour's beef extract is sold for $2.25 a pound. I believe at wholesale it would be 
sold at a much less figure. I have heard, but not from any first hand, that it would 
be about 75 cents a pound wholesale. 
Q. But in the ordinary purchase of it, in the market? 
A. In the market I understand it is quoted at $2.25 a pound. If sold in smaller 
packages, it is at a higher price. Two ounce cans are sold at 45 cents and four ounce 
cans at 80 cents. 
Q. I do not know but what you have been asked with reference to the matter of 
this meat extract and what reference that has to the nutriment of the meat taken out, 
we will say, of 1.94 pounds. If that much extract was taken out of canned meat and 
the residue of it canned, what relation would that have to the nutriment of the 
meat, if anything? If you have not answered that question, I would like to have you 
do so. 
A. I think that is covered by the answer to the question with reference to the 
effect of the meat bases. There is very little proteid matter extracted-Doctor Big- 
elow so states, and I have no doubt he is entirely correct-very little proteid matter 
extracted and retained in the beef extract, which has been generally counted upon 
as having some value on account of its stimulant effects. As I have said, my own 
experiments lead me to believe that it has very little value, if any, in that way. It 
is palatable. It gives to a certain extent the taste of the meat. It is very often added 
to soup for invalids, but as prepared from meat which has been boiled, which is, of 
course, the case here, it has very little nutritive value. There are some meat extracts 
on the market which are prepared entirely with water and kept below the tempera- 
ture at which albumen coagulates. They have real nutritive value. The meat has 
been leached with cold water, and not boiled or heated sufficiently to coagulate the 
albumen; but the meat extracts of the class which could be produced in this way 
have but very little value. 
Q. On page 45, in the last sentence of the report submitted by Dr. Bigelow, this 
statement is made: 
' ' Undoubtedly the food value of canned meat is equal to that of the amount of 
fresh beef containing the same weight of proteids and fat." 
Did you make any notation or can you give the court any information, as an expert, 
in regard to a statement of that kind, as to how far it should be taken as absolutely 
correct? 
A. I think that statement is correct only on the assumption which has been 
referred to repeatedly before, that the meat in the canned condition and the 
fresh meat are equally digestible. If they are equally digestible and equally capable 
of being assimilated and serving the functions of food, then, of course, the conclusion 
and statement there is correct; but if that be not true, the statement necessarily loses 
all logical force. That question of whether the meat is equally digestible and equally 
capable of assimilation can only be settled by actual practical experiment upon living 
men; and it seems to me the experiment has been tried upon a very large scale in 
the case of the American troops in Cuba and Porto Rico. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1723 
Q. You have no knowledge, have you, of its ever having been tried before-of that 
trial ever having been made before? Have you any knowledge of an extended trial 
under the conditions of actual service? 
A. I don't know, sir. I am not prepared to say it has not been. I think it is very 
possible that it has been tried by European troops. 
Q. I mean with reference to our own men, in this country. 
A. I have no knowledge of its having been tried. The nearest approach to any 
knowledge that I have bearing upon that goes back to the time of the Philadelphia 
exposition of 1876. I got at that time, and have still, a can which I obtained from 
the French commission, of what was then an emergency ration of the French troops. 
It is a can of peculiar construction. The lid of it is not soldered directly to the can, 
but the two are connected by a strip of tin, so that on inserting a nail, or any con- 
venient thing, such as the end of a key, into a loop at the end of the strip, you could 
pull this off from the can anil the lid, there being double soldering. The can was 
then understood to become a cooking utensil for its contents, so that it could be 
stood in the embers of the camp fire and used to cook in. The lid was intended as 
a sort of plate in which the food could be eaten, and the contents were given as of 
three kinds. There was a concentrated soup extract, out of which soup could be 
made by the addition of water. There was a portion of viande France, which was 
labeled-it did not state what meat, but presumably beef-and a portion of desic- 
cated vegetable. The advantage claimed for it at that time was that, in the first 
place, it was very easy to issue; that each can contained the necessary full amount 
for a man's food for a day; that if a detachment of troops were sent upon a forced 
march, it was only necessary to count off the number of men and multiply by the 
number of days they were expected to be supplied, and serve out that number of 
cans; the facility of cooking in various ways; that either the whole of the contents 
of the can could be made into a sort of stew, putting meat and vegetables and the 
soup material together, or, as the French troops are very fond of soup, they could 
make their soup separately, and then cook their meat and vegetables, and eat them 
separately; or they could make two or three combinations. Whether that was in 
actual use, I am not prepared to say. It was given to me by the French commis- 
sion as a thing of a good deal of interest, at that time, as an emergency ration for the 
French army. 
Q. Then as a concluding question on that subject would you or not consider that 
the matter of the canned roast meats or boiled meats, or whatever they are, as a proper 
article of food could only be definitely and absolutely determined by the actual use 
under the conditions of service? 
A. Yes, sir; I repeat what I said a little while ago, that chemical analyses can 
determine how much material of possibly nutritive value is present. Beyond that 
it is, of course, possible that the contents of the cans could have any value at all; but 
how much of that was clearly available, as nutritive matter, could only be determined 
by ascertaining how far it was actually digested and assimilated, and that could only 
be ascertained by actual trial upon living men. If the men themselves can not eat 
it or can not digest it, having eaten it, or if it makes them sick in doing so, all the 
chemical analyses in the world could not upset that fact. 
Cross-examination by the Recorder: 
Q. Suppose the canned roast beef had been used in the Navy for twenty years. 
Would you regard that as a practical test? 
A. Certainly, sir. 
Q. Suppose it had been used by the French Government, for example, to an 
amount exceeding nineteen millions of pounds and issued to its troops in Madagas- 
car and in N orthern Africa? 
A. As entirely satisfactory evidence, provided the identity of the canned food sup- 
plied were established. 1724 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Precisely the same material. Suppose it had been used by the British Govern- 
ment and the German Government, to a large extent by the former to its troops in 
India-the same canned beef. Would you regard that as a practical test? 
A. I say again, if you are sure it is the same canned material and in the same con- 
dition, certainly I should. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. In making this practical test, Professor, would it be satisfactory if you made it 
upon men debilitated by disease, or would it be necessary to have a man in 
thoroughly excellent health-a representative type of man in good health? 
A. I should, of course, simply draw the distinction. Troops, to be of any use, are 
presumed to be in good health. Of course if you ask me as to a ration for troops, it 
would be understood generally that they were men in sound condition; but there 
might be the further question whether if the food .were suitable for men in good 
health, it would be suitable for invalids. Notoriously in hospitals there is a ration 
frequently issued to patients and convalescents such as would not be issued to men 
in health. 
Q. Would the fact that a man who was debilitated could not retain the food bean 
argument against the nutrition of the food? 
A. It would be an argument against its suitability for a man in that condition. 
Q. In speaking about the making of this extract, in reality what process is meat 
subjected to ordinarily in making extract on a large scale? 
A. There are quite a number of different processes, sir. In some cases, as I say, 
the meat is subjected to the action of cold water, leached out with cold water, and 
the solution obtained evaporated to the proper consistence at a temperature not 
exceeding that at which albumen coagulates. At least, that is the claim made by 
some of the companies. I have not seen that with my own eyes, but that is the 
claim made by some of the companies, and I think it is justified by the fact that we 
find in some of the meat extracts uncoagulated albumen. In other cases the cold 
water is used in the first instance, but the temperature is afterwards raised to the 
boiling point. 
Q. That is the use of an extraneous article; but what use is the meat put to itself? 
Is it triturated; is it cut into small pieces; or is it operated upon as a whole? 
A. It is presumably in all cases more or less chopped up, in order to expose more 
surface. 
Q. Is it probable that any company that would make this extract on a large scale 
could use the refuse for making ordinary canned meat in these cans for sale? 
A. You mean when the prime object was the making of the meat extract? 
Q. When the prime object was making extract. Would it be possible to use the 
refuse of that meat for the purpose of canning, as a commercial article? 
A. It would be possible, but it would produce a very poor article. 
Q. Could it be distinguished the moment the can was opened? Could that article 
be immediately distinguished from the ordinary canned beef that you see? 
A. If the removal of the soluble matter had been carried as far as would be con- 
sistent in making the meat extract, I should say you could. The fibers would be so 
far disintegrated that I think on opening the can, not by analysis but by inspection, 
you would see that the meat had been extensively leeched out. 
Redirect examination by Major Lee. 
Q. Take the case that was presented to you of men in ordinary good fighting con- 
dition, doing duty as soldiers, and eating of this canned roast meat or boiled beef, or 
trying to eat it, it being unpalatable to them, rejecting it and refusing it even when 
hungry, and nauseating many of the men, or it being claimed, at least that it did 
nauseate them, in some cases vomiting; these men returning then to the ordinary 
army bacon and their condition seeming to improve, and they getting along and FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1725 
feeling much better. What would be your opinion as a scientific gentleman in regard 
to the quality of the canned meat, or its suitability as a food under such circumstances 
and conditions-this occurring not in one instance but in many cases? 
A. If the facts were as stated, I should consider that it established the unsuit- 
ability of the canned food for use by men under the existing conditions. As far as 
I have had an opportunity to observe soldiers they are very much disposed to grum- 
ble, but at the same time a really hungry man who positively refuses food, and who 
appears by a number of instances to be made sick by it, has real, solid ground for his 
complaint. I have never seen a soldier in the field in active service who would go 
hungry rather than touch an article of food on a mere question of whim. 
Q. Have you investigated the subject, Professor, and are you not aware that in 
this canned roast meat there are different grades, and that in the Navy and other 
services there are different systems of inspection, and that many standards may be 
set, high standards; or that by inspection there is a rejection resulting of many 
classes of meat? Are you aware of those facts and that there are these different 
grades? 
A. I only know it from general reading, but I am aware, of course, that there are 
inspections made of products furnished the Government, either the Army or Navy, 
I suppose. It is admitted on all hands that there are some cans ordinarily prepared 
spoiled. They are imperfect cans. How far the inspection is rigid enough to secure 
the rejection of those, I don't know. As a matter of course, if the inspection is nov 
rigid enough, then confessedly the material furnished is in part not good food. 
Q. I am going to put a case of this kind: Two carloads, we will say 40,000 odd 
pounds, inspected and found from swellers or from bursted cans to be very offensive, 
and the entire quantity rejected, without any critical examination, we will say, of 
each and every can. That is overhauled and a considerable quantity-I would not 
say what per centage, but several hundred cans-are thrown out as spoiled, bursted, 
swelled, offensive, and they are destroyed. The balance is repacked and is shipped 
in a separate climate and is again overhauled and there are found to be from 200 to 
300 more cans of the same lot of meat spoiled. What, in your opinion, would be 
the character and condition of such meat under the conditions I have stated? 
A. I can only say it would seem to be very suspicious. Of course it would not 
preclude the possibility that there were some sound cans remaining, but it would 
make it so suspicious that I would not like to have anything to do with its use. 
Recross-examination by the Recorder: 
Q. What is your experience, Doctor, with cases of that sort? Are you familiar 
with the canning process? 
A. Only by ordinary observation of such canned provisions 
Q. Have you ever seen it going on? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. The canning of these meats? 
A. No, sir; I have never seen it. 
Q. You do not know, then, what proportion of the cans are lost in manufacture 
every day? 
A. No. 
By General Davis: 
Q. You noticed, probably, in Dr. Bigelow's report, that there were two cans 
mentioned as examined by him marked "Navy X," and "Navy Y." Did you 
observe those? 
A. I think I did, sir. 
Q. In your study and comparison and review of which you have been speaking, 
did you notice any difference between the results as reported by Dr. Bigelow in 
those two cans and the results reported by him in the case of cans furnished to him 
by the board, that had come from Santiago and Porto Rico? 1726 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I did not look into that point. I could easily look into it in a moment, if you 
care to have me do so. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, there are no further witnesses for to-day. 
The court then, at 3.45 p. m., adjourned until Saturday, April 15,1889, at 10 o'clock 
a. in. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C., 
Friday, April 14, 1899-8 o' clock p. m. 
The court met, pursuant to adjournment. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Present also: Major Lee, representing Major-General Miles. 
The reports submitted by the Major-General Commanding were then read by 
Major Lee. 
Pending such reading, the court, at 10.55 o'clock p. m., adjourned to meet at 10 
o'clock a. m., on Saturday, April 15, 1899. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C., 
Saturday, April 15, 1899. 
The court met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Present also: Major Lee and the reporter. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
General Gilmore. 
TESTIMONY OF BRIG. GEN. JOHN C. GILMORE, U. S. V. 
Brig. Gen. John C. Gilmore, U. S. V., was called by the recorder as a witness 
and, being duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank and station in the military service. 
A. John C. Gilmore; brigadier-general, Volunteers; on duty at the Headquarters 
of the Army. 
Q. Did you accompany the army headquarters to the field during the operations 
in the West Indies, last year? 
A. I did. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. To what places did you proceed with the headquarters? 
A. We went first to Siboney, then to Daiquiri, then to Guantanamo Bay, from there 
to Guanica, Porto Rico, and then to Ponce. 
Q. About what time was it when you proceeded to the points of the southern coast 
of Cuba that you have stated. About how long did you remain there-that is, in 
the vicinity? 
A. We reached there the 21st of July, and remained until the 22d. 
Q. You are familiar with the various points of landing which you have mentioned 
there; Guantanamo, for instance? What kind of a place is Guantanamo, as to being 
a harbor or a safe place for landing? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1727 
A. It is a very good place, a very good harbor. 
Q. And the other places? 
A. Well, they are what the seamen call roadsteads, I suppose-open harbors. 
Q. Will you please state to the court, from your knowledge and experience as an 
officer in the service, whether or not it would have been practicable to have landed 
beef cattle at these points-any or all of them? 
A. I should say at all of them. Of course it would have to be quiet water at 
Siboney and Daiquiri. It would not necessarily have to be that at Guantanamo. 
That is an inland bay, and there wTas a pontoon bridge put up there by Colonel 
Black, of the engineers; and he took his stock right off of the bridge, and let them 
rest a while ashore, and then put them back on again. 
Q. Then you wish the court to understand that cattle could have been landed with 
the same ease that horses and mules could, ordinarily? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And could have been cared for on shore? Is there grass and water there? 
A. There was certainly enough of water and grass when I was there-plenty of it. 
Q. Leaving that part of the inquiry, will you please state when you reached Porto 
Rico? 
A. We landed at Guanica on the 25th of July. 
Q. Do you recall, while in Porto Rico, a vessel known as the Manitoba arriving 
there with supplies? 
A. I remember there was such a vessel there; yes, sir. 
Q. Do you remember about the date of its arrival, approximately? 
A. Our records show the date to be the 10th of August. 
Q. Will you please state to the court whether you recall meeting an officer, or hav- 
ing any conversation with an officer, by the name of Captain Aspinwall, a quarter- 
master of volunteers, while at Ponce, about the time of or soon after the arrival of 
this vessel? 
A. I do not recall that I ever met him, and I do not recall that I ever had any 
conversation with him. I have got an indorsement which I wrote on a statement of 
his, "which I w'rote a little over a month after I came here. 
Q. Is that the indorsement you made, or an exact copy of it? 
A. This is an exact copy of it. (Producing paper.) 
Q. I wish you would, if you so desire, read that in connection with your testimony, 
n answer to the question that is asked, before I proceed with further questions. 
A. Captain Aspinwall made some report to the Commissary-General relative to 
what he reported to me, and the paper was referred to me for remark; and this is 
what I wrote on the 29th of October, 1898: "Respectfully returned. A careful search 
of the records of the Headquarters of the Army covering the period within mentioned 
has failed to show' anything concerning this matter." 
I might state that what started this-matter was the indorsement on the report of 
Captain Aspinwall on refrigerated beef. 
"Nothing was found on file from Captain Aspinwall, nor do the records disclose 
any communication or orders to him upon this subject. I have no recollection what- 
ever concerning the conversation referred to by Captain Aspinwall, nor do I recol- 
lect any time that I have ever met him or conversed on any subject. I certainly do 
not know' him, and would never have given an order for destruction of public 
property w'ithout the proper action under the regulations and by command of the 
proper authorities. J. C. Gilmore, brigadier-general." 
Q. Captain Aspinw'all, in his testimony before this court, has made the following 
statements (page 1804): 
•'Q. When did you arrive at Ponce? 
"A. At noon of August 10. 
"Q. And to whom did you report? 1728 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
"A. I reported to Adjutant-General Gilmore, and my orders were to report to the 
depot quartermaster. 1 think Lieutenant Foster was acting in that capacity at that 
time. 
"Q. What report did you make to General Gilmore? 
"A. I made a report to him of the stores I had on board the ship-a verbal 
report. 
"Q. Please state the substance of the interview in which the report was made. 
"A. I told him that we were on a reef outside, and there was a heavysea running; 
that we had a large amount of quartermaster and commissary stores on board and a 
large consignment of refrigerated beef; that the chief engineer had expressed some 
concern to me with reference to the safety of those stores; that he was fearful that 
being on a reef the pipes would become clogged with sand, so that we would be 
unable to operate the refrigerating machinery successfully. I reported this fact to 
General Gilmore, and he looked up, and smiling to me, he said that I had better 
throw the meat overboard; that we had not any use for it there. He said, •' We can 
get all the beef we want here.' I replied, being a young officer and unused to Gov- 
ernment service, that that was the very best beef, and I did not care to take any 
such course as that unless I was ordered to. He replied, ' If necessary, I will give 
you an order to that effect.' That was the substance of my interview with General 
Gilmore." 
You have heard that testimony read. I would like to have you make any state- 
ment to the court which you desire with reference to the statement that has just 
been read, which is the testimony given by Captain Aspinwall, as recorded. 
A. I do not recall a single word of it; and I am positive that I would not tell him 
that we did not want the beef there, because I never made any remarks of that kind. 
Q. As to his alleged statement that you said that "If necessary, I will give you 
an order to that effect "-that is, to throw it overboard-did you or not make any 
such remark? 
A. I do not recall it. I do not recall having any conversation whatever with him. 
Q. In the event that such a matter had been contemplated or thought of in con- 
nection with the vessel, what would have been your usual mode of procedure if 
there was anything of that kind in mind? 
A. We would have given him a written order. That thing was contemplated 
about the Massachusetts when she came very near being wrecked there. Of course 
we talked of that. That was about the 1st of August. It turned out so that she got 
off all right. She was injured, but we did not have to throw" anything overboard. 
Q. Is there anything further, General, which you wish to add in that connection 
with regard to that matter? 
A. I do not know of anything. 
Cross-examination by the Recorder: 
Q. Was the fact reported at the time of the arrival of the Manitoba that a steamer 
had arrived with refrigerated beef? 
A. I have no recollection of it. I have looked in the office, and there is nothing- 
in the office to indicate it. 
Q. To your recollection, was it a matter of knowledge at headquarters there? 
A. No, sir; it was not. 
Q. It was not known there? 
A. Not at my desk. The depot commissary may have known, you know. Cap- 
tain Pomroy was depot commissary there, and I do not know what he or others 
there may have knowm. I have no recollection that there was any report made that 
there was refrigerated beef on the steamer. 
Q. Or that the fact was known at headquarters? 
A. As far as I am concerned, it was not. I am only speaking of myself. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1729 
By General Davis: 
Q. Was the fact known that the Manitoba had arrived? 
A. It must have been, you know; because we kept a record of the ships when 
they came in, in a book, and we would take more notice of those that were on shore 
than we would otherwise. Of course that must have been known. 
Q. Was any inquiry made to ascertain what supplies or stores this vessel had 
brought? 
A. Not to my knowledge. The custom was, there, for the captain of the ship to. 
bring a copy of his bill of lading. And since I read in the newspapers that Captain 
Aspinwall made that statement about me I looked over all of my papers; I had 
them locked up in the field desk which I had, and I took them and looked over 
them, and there is not the slightest record or report or anything from Aspinwall 
there. 
Q. Was any information communicated to the commanding general by the quar- 
termaster or the depot commissary as to the cargo of this vessel? 
A. To my knowledge, I do not know. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. You arrived in Cuba on July 11? 
A. Yes, sir; at Siboney-the morning of the 11th. 
Q. When did you leave Siboney to go to Guantanamo? 
A. I think we left there about the 16th or 17th. I am not positive as to the date- 
about the 16th or 17th. 
Q. For Guantanamo? 
A. We went, first, over to Daiquiri, and then to Guantanamo; yes, sir. 
Q. I want to establish this date; that is all. At what time did you reach Guan- 
tanamo? 
A. It was the 16th or 17th. I can look in the records. I have got it in the rec- 
ords. I did not look that up especially. 
Q. Do you remember how long you remained at Guantanamo? 
A. My recollection now is that we left there the 22d, as I testified. It was either 
the 21st or 22d, but I think it was the 22d. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I would like to ask if there was a camp of marines at Guantanamo at that time? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you visit the camp? 
A. No; I did not go up into their camp proper. I passed through the camp where 
some of the officers were; down near the beach. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Colonel Bird, of the Quartermaster's Department. 
TESTIMONY OF COL. CHARLES BIRD, U. S. V 
Col. Charles Bird, U. S. V., was called by the recorder as a witness, and, being 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. Charles Bird, colonel and quartermaster, United States Volunteers, in charge of 
rail and water transportation, Quartermaster-General's Office, Washington, D. C. 
Q. Upon what duty were you engaged in the Quartermaster-General's Office from 
April, 1898, on? 
A. I was in charge of rail and water transportation. 
Q. The same duty? 
S. Doc. 270 109 1730 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. The same duty. 
Q. What connection had you with the securing of transports for the expedition to 
Santiago? 
A. I chartered all of the transports which were chartered on the expedition to 
Santiago, and was interested in the purchase of all that we purchased. 
Q. Were any purchased prior to the departure of the expedition? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Please state to the court if there were any difficulties in the way of securing an 
adequate number of transports for the movement of the expedition. 
A. Yes. The difficulty that we first met was that the Navy had a mortgage on 
everything that there was. We took what they could spare, and had to ask them 
to give up some which they did not know whether they wanted or not. Then we 
did not have enough, and went to Congress and asked them to give American register 
to such vessels as we could lay our hands upon. They did it in one or two cases, 
but declined 
Q. What classes of steamers did you secure for that purpose-that is, in what trade 
had they been engaged prior to being chartered by the United States? 
A. The coastwise trade-our freight ships, running up and down the coast. 
Q. About what proportion of them had been engaged in that trade? 
A. All of them had been engaged in that trade except one or two-the Unionist 
and the Specialist-two old ships that we got down at Mobile; we got them entered 
into the American register; and one, the Catania, a ship which was wrecked and 
rebuilt. They allowed her to come in, because the law permitted it, besides one of 
the New York and Porto Rican line ships, the Arcadia. Those were the four that 
we got on this coast, which were of American register. They did not belong to the 
coastwise trade. Otherwise, everything belonged to the coastwise trade. 
Q. Please state to the court what the substance of the charter party was, in each 
case; that is, what were the terms of the undertaking, as between the United States 
and the owners of the vessels? 
A. The charter party included the chartering of these ships, the Government to 
provide the coal and water and assuming the war risk; and the owners were to sup- 
ply the crews and all other running expenses of the ship and to assume the marine 
risk. There were only one or two cases where we assumed the marine risk. 
Q. Did the captains and officers and crews of the ships become employees of the 
United States? 
A. To a certain extent. They were under the control of whoever was in charge 
of the ship. The commanding officer of the troops on the ship was the commanding 
officer of all. 
Q. What authority had the captain of the ship under the charter party? 
A. He had no authority except to keep his ship clean and to navigate her. 
Q. And what authority had the senior officer of the troops on board? 
A. He had the authority to direct where he wanted to go and when he wanted to 
sail and where he wanted to sail. 
Q. What authority had he as to the use of appliances and fittings of the ship? 
A. He had their use; they all belonged to the Government. 
Q. Can you state to the court what was the condition and capacity of the galley 
arrangements on the steamers? 
A. We made no alterations in them. They were supposed to cook the coffee for 
the men, to warm the coffee which was a part of the travel ration. The men used 
the travel ration. 
Q. Were the galleys, as a rule, adequate to do any more cooking than the cooking 
of the coffee for the detachments of troops that were put on board? 
A. I do not know. I think there were cases where they did, if the command was 
not too large. I know I got reports from every one of those captains, and they said FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1731 
hey put everything at the disposal of the troops; that they had access to them, when 
they were not needed for the cooking for passengers-that is, the officers and for the 
crews. 
Q. In the usual trade in which those ships were engaged, did they need much 
passenger-carrying capacity? 
X. Very little. 
Q. Did they carry any steerage passengers? 
A. None-only a few. 
Q. And were there any facilities for cooking for large numbers of passengers? 
A. Very few. We depended entirely upon the travel rations for the men. 
I would like to say that the ships on the Pacific coast which went to Manila were 
all of them fitted up with large galley space. Those were chartered ships, the same 
as these, and some of them were larger ships; but we went to a great expense to fit 
up those galleys, so that everything was cooked for the men. Their whole rations 
were put on and cooked, and we did the same with our purchased ships. 
Q. In the expeditions to Santiago and Porto Rico, then, you relied upon the travel 
rations? 
A. Yes. 
Q. As a preparation of food which did not require cooking? 
A. That is what we did; and I would like to say that when that fleet was char- 
tered nobody ever thought of going to Santiago. The ships were chartered with a 
view of running over to Mariel, or Matanzas, or somewhere near Habana. Nobody 
ever dreamed of going to Santiago, and the ships were not fitted up to go 1,000 miles. 
They were fitted up to go a two days' journey-to run a ferry between Key West 
and Port Tampa and some point near Habana. 
Q. About what time was it made known to the Quartermaster's Department that 
the destination had been changed? 
A. After the fleet went in there. 
Q. About how long, if you can recollect, before the departure of the expedition? 
A. Not very long. The fleet was all assembled at Tampa. We had no facilities 
to make any change. 
Q. And you can not recollect, then, about how long before the departure it was? 
A. I suppose there were; I do not know how many days there were after they 
went in there before it was decided to go. In fact, the troops were ready, you know, 
and did not go because they thought there were Spanish men-of-war around. 
Q. Was any request received from the commanding general of the expedition in 
respect to the increase of the galley facilities? 
A. No, sir. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Will you please state whether your Department, during the war with Spain, 
purchased any vessels which had been engaged in the transportation of cattle to 
foreign countries, and had been accordingly equipped? 
A. Yes; we bought virtually all of the American Transportation Company's 
ships-seven of them. 
Q. Among the number, the Mohawk and the Massachusetts? 
A. The Mohawk and the Massachusetts among them. 
Q. The Minnewaska and the Michigan? 
A. Yes, and the Mobile. 
Q. And the Manitoba and the Mississippi? 
A. Seven of them-yes, sir; the Mississippi and the Michigan. 
Q. How were they fitted up for this carrying trade; in what way? 
A. They had large refrigerating plants, and the whole arrangement was for carry- 
ing cattle, live and dressed beef. 1732 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Live and dressed beef? 
A. Live and dressed beef. 
Q. Your Department did not put in any refrigerators, then, on these vessels? 
A. No; they were already in. We bought them because they were there. They 
were cattle ships. General Miles said he wanted bilge-keeled ships, and we looked 
around for bilge-keeled ships; that is, ships which are steady and which will ca^ry 
stock. They were bought, really, with a view of carrying cattle, and our means of 
transportation, ships that did not roll. 
Q. Referring to the matter of the Major-General's wishes, I read to you what pur- 
ports to be an extract from a telegram dated Tampa, Fla., June 10, 1898, and ask 
you whether you have any knowledge of it; whether it was referred to you in any 
way: 
"Secretary of War, 
11 Washington, D. C.: 
' ' The transports furnished do not afford accommodation for the number of troops 
expected. They are not suited for the shipment of large bodies of troops or animals. 
Believe it would be advisable to obtain larger steamers for the accommodation of 
both, and if the line of double or bilge-keel cattle steamers, built especially for that 
purpose, could be obtained they would be of great value in shipping animals for 
officers, cavalry, artillery, and transportation. 
"Miles, Major-General, Commanding." 
Is that the telegram to which you refer? 
A. Yes, sir; and I think he sent others. It was at the request of General Miles, 
his having called our attention to those ships, that we bought them. 
Q. And then another, under date of June 12, from the same place, Tampa, Fla., 
addressed to the Secretary of War: 
"I understand that American Line steamers for transporting horses, mules, and 
cattle can be chartered, and recommend that it be done, as that class of ships would 
be invaluable in this service. Colonel Kimball, at New York, can secure them. 
Larger steamers would be most advantageous, both for the health of command and 
safety of animals. 
"Miles, Major-General, Commanding." 
A. I do not recall that, but he was mistaken. They could not be chartered, 
because they were under a foreign flag. They had to be admitted to the American 
registry or bought. 
Q. Then those others were bought outright by the Government? 
A. They were bought outright; we own them now. 
Q. Then another, under the same date: 
"Tampa, Fla., June 12, 1898. 
"Secretary of War, 
" Washington, D. C.: 
"These transports are built chiefly for freight and are not suited or properly venti- 
lated for troopships. I urge that suitable ships be chartered or obtained; hencerenew 
my recommendation that the Atlantic liners be obtained, at least for a short time. 
"Miles, Major-General, Commanding." 
Do you recall that as one of the telegrams to which you refer? 
A. I do not remember it, but I remember in a general way that there were several 
telegrams. We felt the need just as much as General Miles did, but we got the best 
we could. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1733 
Q. I am just reading these telegrams in connection with the testimony that you«are 
giving to see whether it corroborates as to efforts being made in that direction. 
" Tampa, Fla., June 14, 1898. 
" General Ludington, 
" Quartermaster-General, Washington, D. C.: 
' 'I am more concerned about the manner in which these steamers are being fitted up 
to transport troops. If they have smooth sea, they will go all right, but should they 
encounter storms and be compelled to close up the ports and hatches, I am fearful that 
there will be serious results. Every transport should be provided with water con- 
densers and with arrangements for forcing fresh air to the lower decks, and with 
ample life-preservers and hammocks, instead of wooden berths. Humphrey had to 
go with Shafter. 
"Miles, Major-General, Commanding." 
That is addressed to the Quartermaster-General. I presume that was brought to 
your attention? 
A. I remember that very well. 
"Tampa, Fla., June 14, 1898. 
"General Ludington, 
"Guartermaster-General, Washington, D. C.: 
"Am very anxious to have large steamers for troops, and cattle ships (American 
Line) for transporting animals. Shall be glad to have the steamers as fast as they 
are chartered and fitted up sent to Port Tampa, including those at Fernandina, as 
can commence loading munitions of war and stores as soon as they arrive. Those 
from Fernandina can be fitted up here. How soon do you think it will be possible 
for you to furnish required transportation? 
"Miles, Major-General, Commanding.'' 
Q. Do you recall that telegram? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. There is still another one, as follows: 
"Tampa, Fla., June 14, 1898. 
"Secretary of War, 
"Washington, D. C.: 
"I am informed that the Atlantic liners w'hen loaded draw from 26 to 30 feet, when 
light, 10 to 12. These would be most useful as they can be loaded by means of light- 
ers at many ports, and can go to ports having sufficient water to unload or with barges 
unload at others. They would be invaluable when we move the cavalry and trains, 
and I hope they will be secured as rapidly as possible. Understand prize steamers 
will be sold in New York and Key West on 27th, and hope they may be secured. 
Our greatest expense and difficulty will be with water transportation. Should the 
expedition that has gone encounter storms and be obliged to close ports and hatch- 
ways I fear result may be serious. Everything should be done to best accommodate 
the troops. 
"Miles, Major-General, Commanding." 
Do you recall that telegram being sent? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Now, with reference to these vessels that were fitted up for carrying the cattle 
and refrigerated beef, after they were purchased by your Department, could or could 
not cattle on the hoof have been transported from this country to Cuba or Porto 
Rico, if needed there? 
A. Just as well as horses and mules. We carried horses and mules by the thousand. 
Q. There is no reason, then, of which you know, why cattle could not have been 1734 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
loaded? There was plenty of cattle in the vicinity, at Galveston, and New Orleans, 
etc. 
A. We could not have gotten into Galveston with any of those ships, but the cat- 
tle could have been lightered out. We could have lightered them out, and loaded 
them in that way. We are sending one steamer in there right now-the Logan. 
She is being fitted up to go after the Tenth Cavalry now. 
Q. I wish you would state to the court whether or not you had a conversation, or 
conversations, with the Commissary-General with regard to the supply of beef to 
the Army, in Cuba or Porto Rico, one or both? If so, when were those conversa- 
tions had, as near as you can recall, and where? Please state fully what was said in 
the conversation on the subject, if you can. I refer, of course, to the matter of 
transportation. 
A. I can not recall positively anything about that, at that time, but I have said 
that it was a very annoying thing for me to carry this refrigerated beef. I have been 
held responsible for it all, and I have told him that my plan would be to build cold- 
storage or refrigerator plants on the island, and have cattlec arried over on the hoof, 
and killed and stored in the refrigerating plants, and then use as they wanted them. 
I have said that, but I do not know when it was. It was at various times, but not at 
this time, I mean during the war-right at that time. 
Q. Keeping the cattle there, herding them, or grazing them there, feeding them, 
and, as occasion might demand, slaughtering them, as I understand? 
A. That is right. You see, it is pretty hard for us to get our ships there at the 
exact time they want the beef. Right now they want beef in Habana; and we have 
got a ship tied up in quarantine, and we are trying to get her out of there to load 
with beef the first of the week, to take to Habana. It is pretty hard to do it, and I 
think if they had live cattle there they would not suffer. 
Q. Did you offer any suggestions to General Eagan in this respect? 
A. Oh, no; it was merely an informal conversation. 
Q. Can you recall what the views of the Commissary-General were on the sub- 
ject, when you brought these matters up to him? 
A. I would like to say that I am not sure that I spoke so much to Eagan as I did 
to Davis about it. 
Q. Davis was his assistant at the office, I believe? 
A. Davis was his assistant; yes, sir. They would be bothering me about getting 
beef over there, you know, but I would say: "Why don't you take some beef over 
on the hoof?" or something of that kind. It was brought about in that way. 
There was nothing serious on my part. It was merely a suggestion as to what I 
thought would be the best way to do it. 
Q. What do you regard as the best and safest method of supplying troops with 
beef, under the conditions of service? 
A. I have not thought of it. I believe the cheapest plan would be to have cattle 
taken over there on the hoof and killed and put into the refrigerating plant and used. 
Q. That is your opinion now? 
A. I think that would be the cheapest plan. 
Q. Was it your opinion during the war, as an officer of the Quartermaster's Depart- 
ment-that is, when beef could be sent? 
A. I did not give very much thought to it right then. We had these ships, and 
they had made their contracts. But I think the cheapest plan would be to have beef 
brought over in that way. 
Q. Now, as to the cost of fitting up refrigerating plants on the ships, so as to allow 
refrigerated beef to be carried in them. What would be the approximate cost of the 
refrigerators on each of these vessels, if you have any knowledge on that subject? It 
seems that seven of these vessels have been fitted up with refrigerators. 
A. But they were not always used, you know. There were only certain times FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1735 
when they were loaded with beef. When they were loaded with beef, of course, the 
engines had to run all the time when the ship had beef in it; the temperature must 
be kept down. The Port Victor and the Michigan, I think it was, or the Mississippi, 
1 have forgotten now which one of the two-there were two of them that went to 
Santiago, and I think they laid there nearly a month; and it cost almost as much for 
them to lie there in port, keeping those refrigerators cool, keeping the temperature 
down, as if they had been running out at sea. It is a difficult thing to run those 
refrigerators. It means the consumption of coal all the time. 
Q. All that expense is borne by the Quartermaster's Department-by the Gov- 
ernment? 
A. Precisely. They have got to make water, and making water at sea and keeping 
up those refrigerators all costs. 
Q. Is it within your knowledge as to the number of refrigerators that have been 
put into vessels at the expense of the contractors, Swift and Armour, or Swift & Co., 
or any other companies? 
A. I do not think they put in any. I do not know what the contract was, but I 
understood that they were to put the refrigerators on any ships that we might have 
that did not have them, but all of our ships had them. We had eight of them. We 
had the Port Victor in addition to these other seven, and they all had refrigerators 
on them when we bought them. 
Q. And they were used by these contractors? 
A. Yes; they used them. 
Q. Take the case of the Michigan and the Mississippi. I see they are reported to have 
cost $350,000. Here are some figures in a letter, which you can look at to refresh 
your memory, if you wish to do so. 
A. I know just what they cost. 
Q. What I would like to get at is what would be, approximately, the cost of the 
refrigerating plant being put in there? 
A. I do not know what these cost. They put three refrigerating plants on the 
Terry, the Ingalls, and the Bumside, and at a cost of about $8,000 apiece. Those were 
only 15-ton refrigerators. They were put on these ships to take the meat from local 
points; for instance, from central points like Habana, Santiago, and San Juan, and 
to distribute them around the island at the points where the troops were. 
Q. They are small refrigerators, carrying only about how many tons? 
A. Fifteen tons. 
Q. What is the size of the refrigerators of these other vessels, and how much will 
they carry, if you know? 
A. I do not know what they cost. 
Q. What will they carry? 
A. I suppose they will carry 2,000 sides of beef, or perhaps more. 
Q. In the neighborhood of 2,000 sides-do you mean by that, quarters or halves? 
A. Halves. 
Q. Then, if they weighed 900 or 1,000 pounds each, that would be 100,000 pounds; 
some of them may be larger, or some smaller. 
A. The Michigan and Mississippi are smallest. They are smaller than the other 
five. Their capacity is only two-thirds that of the others, so far as their refrigerators 
are concerned. 
Q. Take the case that you mention of a small vessel, where the cost of putting in 
a refrigerator for 15 tons would be $8,000, as I understand. 
A. $8,000 to $9,000. 
Q. Now, comparing that, say, with a vessel that the Government has bought, with 
a refrigerator that may have been used by contractors, that will carry, we will say, 
100 tons; about what relation would you estimate to exist, approximately, between 
the cost of the refrigerators-one of 15 tons, at $8,000, and the other of 100 tons? 1736 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. I have no idea what they cost. They were built with the ship under that 
contract. I suppose those refrigerators did not cost less than $50,000. 
Q. $50,000? 
A. I should think so. I do not see how they could cost any less. 
Q. $50,000 each? 
A. Yes, sir; that is my impression. 
Q. I am asking simply for an approximate estimate. Then can you give any 
estimate to the court as to the cost of a vessel lying for one month there, the steam 
having to be kept up, everything kept running, while it was there in the harbor? 
About what would be the expense of a vessel, I say-the added expense? 
A. I suppose about 10 tons of coal a day-something like that. 
Q. Would that cover about all the expense there would be-the vessel having to 
remain there, you know, until all this meat was issued and taken off, we will say 
for one month? 
A. The expense would be the expense of the crew lying there idle, you know, 
and the consumption of coal, and the provisions. All those things would have to be 
figured in. It would probably cost 30 tons to run the ship at sea, and the expense 
would be just the same, excepting that they would not burn quite 30 tons of coal. 
They would reduce the coal down to about 10 tons. 
Q. Can you give, approximately, then, as to any one of these refrigerating vessels 
that were used, the expense of running that vessel at sea per diem? 
A. No; I would have to look up the roll and see what the roll is. 
Q. I would not expect it to be anywhere near accuracy; I mean just in a lump, a 
rough estimate. 
A. I suppose about $250 a day, in the case of the largest ones. 
Redirect examination by the Recorder: 
Q. Speaking of the delays in Cuban harbors, when did they occur, in the case of 
the Port Victor and the others? 
A. Right after they entered. There was no place to put the meat, you know. 
Q. Have any such delays occurred since the refrigerators on shore were built? 
A. No; only the delay in unloading. It always detained our ship. The meat has 
got to be unloaded at night, and if we get in in the morning we have got to wait 
until night to take the beef off, but no serious delay has occurred. 
Q. You are familiar with range cattle, are you not? 
A. Pretty well. 
Q. And refrigerated beef? 
A. Only from what I have eaten myself. 
Q. For your own use which do you prefer? 
A. I hardly know. The way we used to get beef up in Delaware, where I came 
from, we used to get it from good, fat beef off the range, and I preferred that to any 
refrigerated beef that I ever got. 
Q. In Delaware? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Range cattle? I mean to have you make a comparison between range cattle and 
Texas cattle and refrigerated beef. Of those which do you prefer? 
A. Well, I do not know. 
Q. Which do you use? 
A. We use whatever the market provides here now. I do not know whether it 
is range cattle or refrigerated beef. I suppose it is range cattle that are killed and 
become refrigerated beef. 
Q. Do you know whether you have eaten any range cattle of late? 
A. Not since they came off the plains-I do not believe we have. 
By General Davis: 
Q. What is the present method of supplying beef to the troops in the Tropics? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1737 
A. We send it down on our refrigerator ships; we keep the line running from New 
York, every Wednesday, to Porto Rico and Santiago. We have two refrigerator 
ships. We run three ships; one of them as a passenger ship, and the other two are 
refrigerator ships; so that every two weeks there is a load of beef sent down. It is 
unloaded at Santiago in the refrigerator there on shore, and also San Juan and Ponce. 
Q. How about the Philippines? 
A. That beef is supplied from Australia. We pay demurrage at Manila on ships 
that bring in beef and mutton from Australia; that is, we pay the demurrage, which 
is the storehouse charge. They have got no refrigerator plant; they are just about 
to arrange to build a very large one there. 
Q. Do these ships of which you speak as refrigerator ships carry any other mil- 
itary supplies, or passengers? 
A. You mean 
Q. On this side, on the Atlantic? 
A. Oh, yes; they carry their freight, besides, and passengers. 
Q. Take the Port Victor, for example, which went to Santiago; did she carry any- 
thing besides refrigerated beef? 
A. Oh, yes; she carried lots of stores. She did not carry any troops, I think. She 
went down there to carry supplies, and beef, commissary stores, as soon as we bought 
her. She was the first that we bought. 
Q. Do you remember whether she carried a refrigerating apparatus to be put up 
on shore? 
A. She did. 
Q. Was it expeditiously landed? 
A. No, sir. I understand they loaded it in the bottom of the ship. Everything 
else had to come out first. 
Q. When you say "they" loaded it in the bottom of the ship, whom do you 
meap? 
• A. Wherever it was loaded. I don't know who loaded it. The Swift people 
had it. 
Q. Then she was detained there a certain length of time, in the harbor of Santiago? 
A. I think she was there five weeks-something like that. 
Q. Did any detention occur because of the presence on board of her of refrigerated 
beef exclusively? 
A. I think so. They had no other place to put it. They wanted it for the men. 
Q. Would any time have been consumed in discharging the vessel of other things 
than refrigerated beef? 
A. Oh, no. 
Q. No time would have been taken for that? 
A. Oh, no. If they had taken that refrigerator plant off and put it up, which they 
should have done in a couple of weeks, then the beef could have been taken off and 
put in it; and that was the intention. 
Q. No; but you say she carried a large amount of other supplies. 
A. Yes; they could have been taken off very readily. I do not know whether 
they unloaded them or not; I think probably they did. There must have been 
clothing and subsistence stores that they needed there. 
Q. Did the refrigerated beef on board impede the unloading of the refrigerating 
apparatus? 
A. I understand so, because they had no place to put it. 
Q. They had no place to put what? 
A. The refrigerated beef. 
Q. No; but did the presence of the refrigerated beef on the ship impede the 
unloading of the refrigerator apparatus? 
A. Well, I understand that it was in the botttom-I have only heard that-and 1738 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
there is no reason why they should not have unloaded the other freight and taken 
that plant out; or they could have moved it and got the plant out and put it up. 
Q. I want to establish what connection there was, in the delay of this vessel, 
between the presence on board of her of refrigerated beef and her discharge inde- 
pendent of the refrigerated beef. 
A. There is no reason why there should have been any delay, so far as I can see. 
Their first duty would have been, and it was the intention, to have them unload 
that refrigerator plant and put it up on shore, so the beef could be put in it, and 
the vessel released, so as to go after more. 
Q. And the delay in unloading the refrigerating apparatus was because it was cov- 
ered up with something else? Is that right? 
A. That is what I understood; that they had loaded that in the bottom of the ship. 
Q. Then that other "something else " was not taken out? 
A. I understand so. There was another vessel which went in there-I have for- 
gotten now whether it was the Michigan or the Mississippi. She followed right after 
the Port Victor, and she was delayed in the same way, because she had no place to 
put her beef. Not putting up the plant delayed her just the same. 
Q. Whom do you understand to be responsible for the delay in unloading the 
refrigerating apparatus from the Port Victor? 
A. I should think the Swift people. We carried it down there; we transported 
it for them; we did our part of it. It was their business to get it out of that ship and 
put it up. That is the way I felt about it. 
General Davis. There has been considerable testimony about that, of which, of 
course, you would not have any knowledge. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Considering the original acquisition of these transports, assuming that it was a 
desirable thing to have fresh cattle follow the Army in its operations against Cuba to 
furnish fresh beef to the troops, state whether there were vessels available for char- 
ter or purchase which could have been used for the transportation of cattle without 
prejudice to the transportation of munitions of war and other supplies. 
A. I suppose there were any quantity of those stock men that would have made a 
contract to deliver live cattle anywhere the army was. 
Q. I asked if you had any knowledge on that subject? 
A. No; only from my general information, that I know that they were carrying 
cattle, before we went into Cuba, over to Cuba from the United States, and we were 
not using the vessels that they used to do that. They were not a class of vessel that 
we wanted. 
Q. Would persons agreeing to deliver cattle-fresh beef in that way-have 
demanded a naval convoy or not? 
A. Well, I expect they would, at the beginning of the war. 
Q. Do you suppose that we would have had naval ships available to detach con- 
stantly for that purpose? 
A. No; I do not expect we could. We did not get them for ourselves. 
Q. Would it have been practicable, then, to have made a contract to furnish live 
cattle for troops in the field? 
A. Well, at the beginning, I do not suppose it would; that is, unless they would 
run their cattle from Tampa, where our transports were running from, and they 
could have gone down with the transports. 
Q. Would it have been practicable to have landed cattle at that particular time 
from Tampa, congested as the place was with all the munitions of war and supplies? 
A. They could have taken them from Mobile, if they had wanted to do so. There 
was not any congestion at Mobile. There was not any congestion at Pensacola. 
There is a railroad running right into Pensacola. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1739 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Within your knowledge, as quartermaster in charge of transportation, have these 
companies been put to any expense, under their contracts, to fit up refrigerators on 
board these ships, or run them? 
A. Their contract required them to put two engineers on the ship. The beef, as I 
understand the contract-I have never seen it-did not belong to the Government 
until it wras delivered. They were to build a refrigerator plant on the ship, and they 
were to put in engineers of their own to watch the temperature, to see that the beef 
was in good condition when it arrived there; and we have transported, and are to-day 
transporting, on every refrigerator ship, one or two engineers belonging to the Swift 
company to watch the plant. 
Q. But in no instance, in the matter of transportation, to your knowdedge, has 
either of these companies, or the Swift company, ever had the expense of putting up 
a refrigerator in one of those ships? 
A. I think not. 
Q. The Government has furnished the refrigerators from the start? 
A. Yes; we keep them in repair. 
Q. You keep them in repair at Government expense? 
A. Yes. 
Q. So that the entire expense, with the exception that you have noted, is borne 
by the Government? 
A. I think so. 
Q. With the single exception that these companies put up refrigerators on shore, 
under the contract? 
A. I think I am right about that. 
Q. From your experience in connection with the service, and matters of transpor- 
tation, and things of that kind, in regard to the concentration of troops all over the 
country or on the Southern borders, would or would it not have been practicable to 
have placed there, near every camp or every large camp, as good cattle as the country 
could have afforded, on the hoof, corn-fed or otherwise? 
A. I think we could have done it, if we had been called upon to do so. 
Q. There would have been no difficulty, would there? Do you know7 of any difficulty 
that stood in the way of having these cattle in the vicinity of troops, so that when 
they move the army would not be tied to a refrigerating plant? 
A. I do not see why it could not have been done. It has been done before. 
Q. As a matter of fact, you are aware that there was no fresh beef furnished the 
army that left Tampa on June 7 or 8, or embarked there, until after the surrender, 
about the 20th of July? That is a matter of general information, is it not, in con- 
nection with your transportation of the beef down there? You got the beef there 
about the 20th of July, did you not? 
A. I do not know what time the Port Victor got there. She was the first one that 
went in there-the Port Victor and the Michigan. 
Q. Now7, in that time, from your general information, your knowledge of cattle- 
men and of the shipment of cattle, would or would it not have been practicable, 
from points on the coast, for contractors to have taken any kind of cattle that would 
have been required for the troops there, and kept them and held them for the use of 
the Army? 
A. I think it could have been done. 
Q. What has been your experience, prior to this late war, in regard to that matter 
of supplying armies with fresh beef? I mean large expeditions; I do not mean 
scouting parties. What is your knowledge on that subject? 
A. We have generally depended upon the beef we could purchase; killed it our- 
selves. 
Q. You would either drive it yourselves, or have it driven by contract? 1740 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Is there any way by which you could get at-not now, but later-the «cost of 
these refrigerators that have been used for carrying this fresh beef-the cost to the 
Government, the cost of running them, and the cost of detention, in the one case, 
for the month that this ship was there ? Could that be easily gotten at, or approx- 
imately ? 
A. Oh, I think we could get at it pretty closely. 
Major Lee. I would like then, may it please the court, that this memorandum be 
simply returned to the colonel, and that that information be furnished, when it can 
be, in regard to the matter, in answer to the question. 
The Witness. Will you give me a little statement of just what you want? 
Major Lee. Yes; I will give you that. 
By the President: 
Q. In that connection I would like to ask one question. Were those seven ships 
purchased because they had refrigerators, or for some other reason? 
A. No; they were purchased to carry cavalry and means of transportation. 
Q. The fact of their having refrigerators or not cut no figure, did it? 
A. Not then. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Colonel, do you recall whether any herds of beef cattle belonging to the armies 
■were captured by the enemy, or stampeded, during the war? 
A. Yes; I had to watch one myself, once. 
Q. Let me ask you a question somewhat hypothetical in character. Suppose the 
case of an army landing on the enemy's coast and controlling no ground except 
under the fire of its guns; the troops are provided with no cooking facilities whatever 
except for personal cooking-would that be a favorable case, in your opinion, for the 
use of beef cattle on the hoof? 
A. We did it during the war. 
Q. Did you hold your cattle where the only ground that was possessed by the 
armies was that controlled by their fire? 
A. Oh, no; we had more room than that. 
Q. Take the case as I put it, where the only grazing ground which the army held 
would be that which it controlled by its fire, within the range of its guns; would 
that be a favorable case for the use of beef on the hoof? 
A. No; if that was the situation that was known before. But during the war we 
were in positions of that kind. We had our beef cattle with us; they were always 
driven with us. 
Q. Was it within the range of the guns, or were they herded to the rear? 
A. They were to the rear. 
Q. Suppose there was no rear. That is the case I am quoting. 
A. I do not say it was practicable to take beef cattle down on the hoof at the time 
the army went to Santiago. I do not think that would have been practicable at all. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I will ask you whether afterwards, with the army distant from some 10 to 15 
miles from its base, it would have been practicable to put them there and land the 
issues, or let them go without beef for a month and a half? 
A. I expect if they had the ground where they were not under the enemy's fire 
the cattle would be perfectly safe. 
Major Lee. I am supposing now that the fire of the enemy did not reach from 
Santiago back 15 miles to the rear, over mountains, or in that vicinity, over the 
ridges that intervened. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1741 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Are you familiar, by report, with the history of the operations at Santiago? 
A. Only by report. 
Q. Do you recall whether it was possible, prior to the close of the siege, to detach 
any portions of the forces for the purpose of guarding the herds? 
A. No. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I will ask you a further question-you have had a good deal of experience in 
the matter. About how many head of cattle would it have been necessary to have 
taken there to have given that army an occasional issue of fresh beef, as we used to 
get it during the war, say sometimes once a week and sometimes twice a week- 
say an army of 15,000 men? 
A. That is a matter of computation. 
Q. Give it in the rough-150 head, 200? 
A. That depends upon what they weigh. 
Q. Well, good-sized cattle, weighing 1,000 pounds. 
A. I would have to figure that out. Any of us can figure that out. 
Major Lee. That is the only point-that it would not take a very large herd of 
cattle for that purpose, and under the supposition that boats could still come in 
occasionally with other cattle. 
The Recorder: May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness, 
Brigadier-General Breckinridge. 
TESTIMONY OF BRIG. GEN. JOSEPH C. BRECKINRIDGE, U. S. A. 
Brig. Gen. Joseph C. Breckinridge, U. S. A., was called by the recorder as a 
witness, and, being duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. Joseph C. Breckinridge; brigadier-general and Inspector-General United States 
Army; stationed at Washington, D. C. 
Q. You were present at Tampa during the preparation of the Santiago expedition, 
were you not, General? 
A. Just at the close. 
Q. And you accompanied it to Cuba? 
A. I did. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I will ask you to please state to the court, in a narrative way, the method pur- 
sued in regard to landing at the point of debarkation in Cuba, and also with reference 
to the practicability, at the time, of landing animals, such as horses and mules, 
there? 
A. We arrived at the point of assembly, a little out of view of land, and formed 
in columns, approaching the shore, under the orders of General Shafter, command- 
ing, the Navy having charge of the landing, as far as their small boatsand parapher- 
nalia were concerned, and the quartermaster, by order, having that of the transports. 
The landing was, of course, expected to be in the face of the enemy, and was organ- 
ized accordingly; and when a certain number of the soldiers were ashore the process 
of landing the animals began, and they were thrown overboard, and swam ashore. I 
suppose that the easiest of all the landing was the landing of the animals, because 
they landed themselves. Of course there was some loss in landing them in that 
fashion, swimming out at sea. 1742 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Was the loss very material or only a small percentage, so far as you recall? 
A. It was less than I anticipated-less than a hundred animals, according to my 
recollection. 
Q. Then, after the lodgment had been made and the Army practically established 
on the shore, what further landings were continued, as to bringing in stores? Where 
were they brought from-Siboney, or Daiquiri, or what points? 
A. We landed at Daiquiri, and then General Lawton, who was in charge of the 
advance, reported Siboney free, and the landing was continued there. 
Q. And it went on successively and from day to day-the landing of supplies from 
the vessels? 
A. Yes; that was the great problem of the campaign-the handling of supplies 
between the transports and the shore. 
Q. Now, from your observation and experience and information on the subject, I 
will ask you to please state to the court whether or not it was practicable for the 
Army or for contractors to have landed from vessels a limited number of beef 
cattle from time to time, after the Army had become established on shore, for the 
purpose of giving an occasional issue of fresh beef to the men of the Army during 
the active operations? 
A. Of course that is a question of judgment. 
Q. Yes, sir; I am asking you, as being in the nature of an expert in these matters. 
A. According to my judgment (although I do not regard it as of great weight, as 
compared with the gentlemen who were there) I should have thought the landing 
of cattle was about the easiest thing w'e could have landed; and I may say that in 
going down there was a man on board of considerable experience there, and he told 
me of how much money there was in landing cattle, howr much money was to be 
made by landing them; that the country was denuded of cattle; and he explained 
to me the system by which it was done. He stated that he had been in the business 
before, and hoped to make a great deal of money out of it in the future. The dif- 
ficulties did not seem to be recognized. 
Q. Without going into details specifically as to (lie topography of all of that sec- 
tion of country, what w'ere the facilities, we will say, in the rear of the Army, 
after it took up its line of march toward Santiago, back toward jthe base, or in that 
vicinity, for contractors or a small number of men to have held, we will say, a small 
herd of cattle, to be reenforced from time to time, as necessity might arise? What 
were the facilities for doing it, as to grass and water and sufficient space, in your 
judgment? I will say back as far as Guantanamo. 
A. I do not understand how it takes any more space for an animal alive than dead. 
If he can bring himself up he is that much more easily brought up than if another 
animal has to bring him up. There was plenty of grass, great, high Guinea grass; 
and there was a most abundant supply of water-too much, in fact. If th e^ question 
of dry feed came in, there might be some problem; but in the way in which cattle 
are ordinarily driven, it seemed to be a particularly easy place to supply them. 
Q. Within your observation was there or not much difficulty in getting ample 
supplies forward to the troops of the ration there? Was that a problem that was 
beset with much or little difficulty? 
A. I got the impression that that was the one problem which weighed upon the 
general commanding-that it was of the greatest difficulty. 
Q. Could or could not these cattle have been driven up to, say, just outside the 
range of the enemy's guns and slaughtered and issues made to the men, as has been 
the case in wars and expeditions heretofore, if that be the fact? 
A. You see, this is merely a question of judgment. 
Q. That is what we want. 
A. I do not see any more trouble in driving cattle there than in driving the pack 
trains, and, as far as I can see, it is easier to carry themselves than it is for the mules 
to carry them, or for a man to have to carry the meat, either. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1743 
Q. Within your knowledge and experience as an officer of the Army, as 
Inspector-General, you may state, under the exigencies of meal service, what are the 
usual methods adopted by soldiers or others with regard to cooking their beef, when, 
for instance, they have not all of the necessary utensils that might be used in the 
household. 
A. You give a man something good to eat, and he will find a way of cooking it. 
Of course we have all done it, both as soldiers and as hunters. 
Q. Would it or not, in your opinion, have required any special cooking facilities 
for men to have cooked an occasional issue of fresh beef? 
A. No more in this war than it did in the civil war. 
Q. I believe, General, that you stated that you remained at Santiago until the sur- 
render took place? 
A. Yes, sir; I returned at once-on the 17th. 
Q. Did you accompany any portion of the Army elsewhere at that time-to Porto 
Rico or to any other point? 
A. No, sir; I came back to the United States. 
Q. I wish you would please state to the court what knowledge or information has 
come to you, in your official capacity, in connection with your inspections, with ref- 
erence to what is called canned roast beef, which was furnished for the use of the 
army in the field, and since that time, with reference to w'hat knowledge you have 
on that subject, either by giving directions or instructions or in a personal way. 
A. Most of the knowledge 1 have is hearsay. The troops which I commanded did 
not have it, and when I was in Cuba, in the Santiago campaign, I was not in command 
of troops. I tried to eat some of it myself; I had personal knowledge of it there, 
and I heard of it occasionally, but not very positively, as part of the travel ration; 
and I met it down at Habana when I was on this last tour. I came more absolutely 
in contact with it then than at the time that I ate it myself in Santiago. 
Q. Please state what was your personal experience with it in Santiago. 
A. Well, it was a novelty, generally, and of course I was very anxious to have it 
a success. If we could make a success of it, it would solve a good many troublesome 
problems; and I had no cause to suspect it of being anything but the best. But I 
found it unpalatable by itself. I endeavored, then, as opportunity offered, to try 
it with such other things as I could get, such as canned tomatoes, for instance, when 
I had a chance to cook-which was a very limited opportunity with me. As far as 
my experience went, it was a mere pretense of food. It had the power of changing 
the ration if you had something to live on so that your palate was tickled, if you 
could get good things mixed with it. But that was about all I could make of it. I 
tried giving it away to others in whom I was interested, and I never found anyone 
who was satisfied with it alone. I got a suspicion (I do not know that it was well 
founded) that it was a thing well to avoid-why, I did not know-so I lived the most 
of the time, and my staff lived mostly, on the bacon, which was particularly fine, 
both there and elsewhere that I have served. 
Q. That you preferred to the other, as I understand? 
A. Oh, very decidedly; though of course I would have liked to have had some 
fresh meat occasionally, because the water was dangerous, and I did not want to eat 
so much salt meat as to provoke thirst. 
Q. During the time of active operations there how was it as to the matter of com- 
plaints; were they or were they not made? Was that a matter taken up at the time 
during the active operations, during the fighting, the siege? 
A. Well, we had the feeling that the Army was not very well supplied, but I do 
not know how far that feeling went. I think it existed to some extent, however- 
that we were there somewhat as a forlorn hope anyhow, and that we had no com- 
plaints at all about any ordinary discomforts. We were going the thing with a rush, 
and everybody stood it like a man. 1744 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. As far as you know, the army under your observations there at that time 
endured the hardships as became soldiers? 
A. I thought so. I thought it was as magnificent a lot of soldiers as I had ever 
served with. 
Q. And they accepted the conditions as they were and made the best of them? 
A. Admirably; and I never saw a finer illustration of capable men performing the 
most arduous, almost menial duties without complaint-plowing through the mud 
day and night, trying to get the men supplied. 
Q. Following the matter of the canned roast beef, I will ask you, General, whether 
the canned roast beef that came under your observation in Habana, or with which 
you may have had to do in your inspections, was of the same or similar character or 
kind. Did you observe that? 
A. It had been very badly handled if it was the same. But I understood it had 
come over from Porto Pico, so it is quite likely that it was not the same. 
Q. What I referred to, General, to make my question a little more clear, was 
whether it was of the same lot, I will say, or of the same kind or kinds as were sent 
to supply the Army during the late war? Was it of that same character; was it 
canned roast beef of the same grades, we may say, the same character? 
A. Well, it may have been; but the impression I had was that what we had at 
Santiago was of a more desirable quality than what I met in Habana. 
Q. You may please proceed and state to the court what your experience was with 
the canned roast beef. 
A. I was inspecting the command on one occasion, and saw a collection of people 
just outside of one of its flanks; and when through the review, looking toward the 
subsistence department, I went over to where this crowd was, and heard that there 
was going on an issue of rations to the Cuban indigents. I asked if they were the 
army rations, and was told that they were. So I rode into the house, through a 
doorway in the back, and out; and the condition of this meat was such that its odor 
was offensive. I asked what it was, and they told me that it was some of this canned 
roast beef. The inspector-general of the department accompanied me, and I asked 
him if he could not take the necessary remedial action in the matter; that we wanted, 
oi course, the rations of the Army to be beyond question, and if this beef was from 
the army ration we wanted to know that it was kept right, and I did not think it 
was just right to issue, to these people anyhow, decayed meat. He said he would 
see his commanding officer, and told them he would be back there at 2 o'clock in the 
afternoon. 1 went on then to the cavalry barracks, so called (not then occupied by 
cavalry), and happened to see the same thing there, the same crowd, and the same 
experience of decayed meat; and this was added to the other. In both cases I saw 
the meat myself to a limited extent, and found that there was no doubt of its being 
decayed, some of it; and the inspector-general there informed me afterwards that 
he had condemned about 10,000 cans, that he had a board of survey upon it, which 
reported to him, and that it was condemned. 
Q. Who was the inspector general who carried out this? 
A. Lieut. Col. Philip Reed. 
Q. Where is he now stationed? 
A. At Habana. 
Q. Had you any further or subsequent experience with it? 
A. No; I do not think I have ever met it since. The commissary officer came to 
see me just before I left there, but I doubt whether his conversation referred much 
more to the canned beef than it did to all the beef generally-about the stores. 
Q. Was any complaint made or brought to your knowledge in regard to that meat 
by this officer? 
A. By the commissary officer? 
Q. By the commissary officer? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1745 
A. No, he was, rather, telling me how he was, as I understood, guarding against 
there being any proper complaint; that he was separating the objectionable from the 
good in his storehouse. My recollection is that he said he had culled out some 10 
per cent from it already, and that, of course, his desire was that there should be 
nothing but good issued. Of course that was all the desire I had-that the public 
stores should be perfect. 
Q. Do you recall the name of the commissary officer? 
A. Lieutenant-Colonel Smith. 
Q. What action was generally taken in regard to the condemned stores? Were 
they destroyed, as far as you know? 
A. Well, Colonel Reed told me that they had been carried out to sea and thrown 
overboard. z 
Q. Did you see the proceedings of the board, as to where they fixed the responsi- 
bility, whether as due to natural causes or the fault of the contractor? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. I will ask you whether, in your experience as Inspector-General, in the 
Inspector-General's Department, at any time you have ever been called upon or 
consulted wdth or asked, or your department consulted with, with reference to this 
canned roast beef for the Army? Do you recall anything of that kind? Do you 
recall being asked for any recommendation or for any report, or to have it tried, in 
any way? Has there been anything of that kind, that you recall, of a pronounced 
character or of sufficient importance for you to remember it, that has passed 
through your department? 
A. I do not recall. There has been so much about beef there that what recom- 
mendations were made or action taken in that direction I do not recall. 
Q. I mean prior to the late war, of course. 
A. Yes; well, I do not remember that. 
Q. I mean before the purchase of this beef in such large quantities. 
A. I got the impression, but I think it was in conversation with Colonel Weston, 
that there was a promise in this beef for good, of being a decided' advantage to 
soldiers traveling, and that he wanted to experiment with it. And, as I said before, 
in connection with my own experiments with it I had the same feeling-that there 
were so many cases in which a soldier had to live worse than I would like to see him 
that if this thing was as good as it looked like it might be made it would be a solu- 
tion of a quite troublesome problem-as, for instance, in traveling in railroad trains, 
in great numbers. But I do not believe it was officially referred to us; I do not 
recall it just now; but my sympathy was with some experiment in that direction, as 
I would have been glad if we could get a good thing of that sort; and I did not see 
why it should not be as good fresh as what we call corned. But I had never exper- 
imented with it myself until I experimented with it there, in the face of the enemy. 
Q. As the result of your observation, and of your personal experience, do you 
consider it, as found by you, under your observation, and from the official reports 
which you received from your inspection officers, a fit and wholesome ration for the 
soldiers of the American Army? 
A. I think that the kind which was furnished to us was extremely inferior, and 
not such as soldiers ought to have issued to them. 
Cross-examination by the Recorder: 
Q. Are you familiar, General, with the standard product of the packers, in the 
matter of canned fresh beef? 
A. I have had no experience with it, excepting in this war. 
Q. So are you able, then, to make a comparison between that furnished and the 
standard product habitually made and sold by them prior to the war? 
A. No, sir; I know nothing about it. 
S. Doc. 270 110 1746 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. You say that your experience with the canned roast beef in the Santiago cam- 
paign was unfavorable? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And with bacon, did I understand you to say that it was favorable? 
A. Yes, sir; that which I had was good. 
' Q. Suppose, then, that the canned roast beef was not acceptable to the troops and 
the bacon was, and that sufficient quantities of both were afloat, both equally easy 
to transport ; was it or was it not someone's duty to see that bacon was brought up, 
instead of the beef? 
A. Well, I fancy that we did not know that then. We learned it there. We took 
it for granted that whatever came was equally good. 
Q. Was there a chief commissary of the army? 
A. Surely there must have been. 
Q. Would you presume that he knew what stores he had? 
A. I don't suppose he knew much more about canned beef than I did. 
Q. No; but I mean as to the presence of sufficient quantities of canned beef and 
bacon? 
A. Oh, certainly; he would know as to the quantity. I thought you were asking 
as to the quality-why they did not get the other kind if it was an unsatisfactory 
kind. 
Q. If the beef was not satisfactory and the bacon was, and there were sufficient 
quantities of both afloat, was it or was it not neglect on somebody's part that the 
bacon was not brought up instead of the beef? 
A. Well, I did not look on it as neglect. I thought that they were trying their 
best to get forward what was satisfactory, and that as far as we knew, until we actu- 
ally ate it, they were both good of their kind, and it was only after we tried it that 
the people made their choice. Then, of course, they were already at the front when 
we found out that one was better than the other. 
Q. About what time did you find that out? 
A. For mysfelf, I found it out about the 26th of June. 
Q. And so, if the canned roast beef was unsatisfactory, and if there were plenty of 
both afloat-both under the same circumstances of transportation-what can you 
say as to the duty of somebody to cause the more satisfactory food to be brought to 
the front? 
A. Well, I fancy that the more satisfactory was to the front. I never had any 
trouble in getting it, except to send for it. 
Q. Bacon? 
A. Yes, sir. As far as I know, the amount of bacon that was on hand was about 
as much as the men wanted to carry. The limitation of food was rather the limita- 
tion of the men, wanting ammunition rather than food. 
Q. Were you marching many of these days between the 20th of June and the 
surrender? 
A. No; there was not very much marching, but there was always an expectation 
of a fight right on hand. 
Q. Is the bacon easier or more difficult to carry than the beef? 
A. Well, you can carry a greater number of days' supplies with the same amount 
of weight. 
Q. Of bacon or of beef? 
A. Bacon. Bacon sustains life longer, for the same number of pounds-three- 
quarters of a pound to a ration. 
Q. Then, from your knowledge of the circumstances and the conditions of the 
time, can you say why it was that bacon was not supplied, instead of beef, if the 
troops preferred it? 
A. I do not know that it was not. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1747 
By General Davis: 
Q. General, you observed the unsatisfactory character of the roast beef, you say, 
about the 26th of June? 
A. I think about that time. 
Q. Were you aware that the troops were being supplied with the same food at the 
same time? 
A. I thought it was there for supply to them. Usually they allow the company 
commanders a certain latitude of choice as to which kind of meat they will take. I 
suppose it was so there. 
Q. Were you or not aware that the troops coming over from Tampa had been 
using the canned roast beef on the transports? 
A. Yes; I heard so. 
Q. If their experience had been the same as yours, they would have discovered 
the unsatisfactory character of the food before you did? 
A. I should have thought so. 
Q. And the canned roast beef that you ate, I think you denominated or charac- 
terized it as a pretense of food. Was that the word? 
A. It did not taste to me like satisfactory food. 
Q. Did you report to any superior authority that the troops were being supplied 
w'ith something that you denominated as a pretense of food? 
A. No; I did not make any report. 
Q. Would that have been the proper step, to bring the attention of the superior 
authorities? 
A. The superior authorities all knew as much as I did. It was a mere question of 
opinion, as I say, about this matter. 
Q. Did the Commanding General of the Army in Washington know it? 
A. I supposed so. He was there when we started. 
Q. But he was not at Santiago when you were there? 
A. Oh, no; but the equipment of that command was determined before I joined 
it, you know. 
Q. When you were loading at Tampa, or just as you joined, was the presence or 
absence of fresh beef as a component of the meat ration-I mean fresh beef on the 
hoof, as a component of the meat ration-thought of by you? Did the thought 
come into your mind that the fresh beef on the hoof should go with the troops, or 
should be there for the troops? 
A. That is a question of dates, that, not knowing that it was to be of any impor- 
tance, I am not sure of now. I remember discussing the question of supplies, and 
getting the impression that I have already expressed here, that the campaign was to 
be an exceedingly sharp, arduous campaign, and that general and all other officers 
must expect to have only such supplies as they could carry on their persons. You 
see, that immediately obliterates a lot of other questions. I remember suggesting 
the idea of beef on the hoof, and I suggested it in this connection, somewhat from 
my experience in the civil war: That if the commissary wished to have the army 
just as well supplied as his purchases would permit, as his heart could desire, he had 
to get as near the mouth of the soldier as possible, and driving the fresh beef up to 
him was generally the most direct connection he could get with the soldier. 
Q. Were you at Tampa in the character of an inspector-an inspecting officer? 
A. I was major-general at that time and had been directed to report to General 
Miles. I was there as his staff officer. 
Q. Did you consider yourself in the light of an inspector? 
A. I was not inspecting that command, but I was still Inspector-General of the 
Army. 
Q. Did you consider that you had any functions to perform, such as are committed 
by regulations to inspectors-general? 1748 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. Not in the line of inspection. My notion was that if there was anything that 
I supposed I could do that I thought would improve the status of that army by tell- 
ing it to General Miles, I would do so; and the difficulty of getting food up to the 
front, I did at some time telegraph to him. 
Redirect examination by General Lee: 
Q. General, you have described to the court something as to the nature of the 
landing of the supplies, the getting of rations ashore, the difficulties of getting rations 
to the front, the activities that ensued upon the troops landing; and I would ask you 
to state to the court whether the matter of choice of company commanders or of regi- 
mental commanders or of battalion commanders, with their men marching or expect- 
ing a fight every minute, and having it, would have been a matter that would have been 
considered, or whether rations were not sent for there under the conditions under 
which they were landed on the beach. I would like to know what those conditions 
were, whether the rations were landed in such a way that a system of that kind 
under the operations there could have been made operative. I do not know that I 
have made my question very clear. 
A. No; I do not think I get it exactly. 
Q. I mean the conditions of service, the difficulty of getting supplies and the diffi- 
culty of landing these rations ashore, and whether the matter of choice of rations 
was one that commanders of organizations at the front could take under any definite 
consideration or whether under the conditions they would have to take what was 
sent up as best they could. 
A. Unless they had a very decided notion of the inferiority of some particular 
line, I think a company commander would have been very glad to get what he 
could; and I think, further, that the officers and men, particularly the citizens with 
those pack trains, are deserving of the utmost commendation for what they actually 
did in the way of bringing up those supplies. They had to hang to it with perfectly 
unending tenacity. 
Q. Were you present when supplies were issued by the command a day or two, 
or the day, before they went into the fight, on the 1st of July? 
A. No, sir; I had no command. 
Q. I say did you observe the conditions and the circumstances of the movements 
of that kind and the issuing of the rations in the night? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Or before daylight? 
A. No; the last thing I knew about the rations was seeing the pack trains trying 
to get them through, and seeing the men eating them. 
Q. Have you any knowledge, or was any information given you, as to the propor- 
tion of supplies being sent with that army to provide it, so that it could have in the 
alternative either one or the other as to bacon and canned roast beef or canned corn 
beef? 
A. No; I did not. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to recall as a witness Col. 
A. L. Smith, of the Subsistence Department. 
TESTIMONY OF COL. A. L. SMITH, U. S. A. 
Col. A. L. Smith, U. S. A., was recalled as a witness by the recorder, and, being 
warned that he was still under oath, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. You have testified you were on duty at Tampa before the departure of the 
expedition to Santiago. 
A. On the 1st day of June. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1749 
Q. What duty, if any, had you in connection with the loading of the transports 
for the Subsistence Department? 
A. I took charge of the depot commissary and had the duty of finding these stores 
and turning them over to the expedition. 
Q. Please state to the court in narrative form the manner in which that duty was 
performed-that is, the selection and loading of stores on the transports-as fully as 
you can recall it. 
A. The stores were, with the exception of about 150,000 rations that I remember, 
in the cars, and there were supposed to be something like 5,000,000 rations, in that 
vicinity. The chief commissary of the expedition, I think, called on me for certain 
supplies to be put aboard certain vessels, and he himself visited these vessels. I vis- 
ited them with him. Some of them were already in the vessels. My recollection is 
that the attempt was made to supply certain proportions of canned beef-corned and 
fresh-and such proportions of bacon, and to put on board these vessels a certain 
number of complete rations. It was found impracticable, owing to the rations being 
on the cars and in different places, to find the kinds we wanted and to load in any 
reasonable time whatever. Consequently we got right down to putting on a certain 
number of rations; and a tabulated statement was made showing what rations were 
on what boat; that is, what stores went on what boat, and the total number of 
rations on hand. This tabulated statement was furnished to a man by the name of 
Wilson, who was major and commissary, and who receipted for the stores on that 
tabulated statement; and also to the chief commissary. The vessels were loaded as 
rapidly as they could be from these cars. 
Q. How nearly complete rations were loaded on the transports? 
A. My recollection is that there were about 1,400,000 pounds of sugar, and in every- 
thing else there were nearly 2,000,000 rations. 
Q. The idea in loading is to put complete rations on each boat? 
A. On each boat; yes. 
Q. How near did you come to that in loading the stores for the Santiago expedition? 
A. I think each boat had a certain number of complete rations on it, but they had 
an excess in some articles. I think each boat had a number of complete rations; and, 
besides, the troops who went on board had a certain number of travel rations and 
field rations that they took with them on the boat. 
Q. What loading lists or invoices of the cargo of each steamer were prepared? 
A. That was prepared by the Quartermaster's Department-a manifest. They had 
checkers, and checked in each vessel what went into it and furnished that to the 
quartermaster. Besides that, as I say, a tabulated statement of what went on each 
vessel was furnished to the chief commissary and to Major Wilson, who was acting 
as a sort of depot commissary, going along with the expedition, under the direction 
of the chief commissary. 
Q. Do you recall what the orders were as to the rations that the troops themselves 
should carry? 
A. No; I do not. There were a certain number of days' field rations and a certain 
number of days' travel rations. 
Q. Where were these rations stowed on board the ship-the rations that belonged 
to the troops? 
A. The troops had them themselves and took them on board the ships. I don't 
know where they were stowed. I had nothing to do with that. 
Q. Did it come to your knowledge that company property, equipage, and that sort 
of thing was loaded on the steamers? Did you observe it being loaded? 
A. I visited the steamers from time to time while they were being loaded, but I 
paid no attention to that. I paid no attention to anything except finding the rations 
as near as I could-the articles that were desired by each corps. 
Q. Can you inform the court as to what portion of each transport contained rations; 1750 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
that is, where were the rations loaded on each transport as a rule-at the bottom or 
toward the top? 
A. I think they were located in the hold of the vessel, those that were loaded by 
the chief commissary or the depot commissary. 
Q. How accessible would they be, then, when the time came for unloading? 
A. That would depend on how they arranged the other stores that were in the boat. 
Q. When did you arrive at Ponce? 
A. I arrived at Ponce on the 26th, I think, of August. 
Q. One moment, before going into that. You remained at Tampa after the Shafter 
expedition sailed, did you not? 
A. Yes; until the 16th of August. 
Q. Did you make any shipments of subsistence stores to Santiago or to the troops 
in Cuba? 
A. I did, from time to time. 
Q. What was the character of the shipments-complete rations? 
A. Complete rations. 
Q. And stores for sales? 
A. And stores for sales, except one boat that was loaded there. I think that had 
practically all sales stores on it. 
Q. Were any fresh vegetables shipped over? 
A. Yes; that same boat, as I remember, that took the sales stores, took about 
500,000 pounds of fresh vegetables. 
Q. In what condition were they when they were shipped? 
A. In good condition when they were shipped. They were new potatoes, and in 
first-class condition. 
Q. Did you ever hear in what condition they were when they arrived? 
A. Yes; I heard that they arrived in poor condition, many of them. 
Q. Poor condition? 
A. Yes; that is, many of them. They were put up between decks and loaded in 
such a way that it was supposed they would have the best facilities for being kept 
on the voyage. 
Q. You arrived at Ponce, yoii say, on the 10th of August? 
A. On the 26th of August. 
Q. Who was the depot commissary at Ponce when you arrived ? 
A. I found there a man by the name of Black, who was chief commissary on General 
Miles's staff, and who seemed to have general charge not only of unloading stores but 
of the depot commissary, and a man by the name of Captain Pomeroy, captain commis- 
sary, who had charge of the warehouse and transacted business in Major Black's 
name, I think. They had no record of the stores or price lists or invoice receipts, 
but were sending out stores. 
Q. Was the Manitoba in the harbor when you arrived ? 
A. It was not. It was in some other harbor about the island. 
Q. Did it return? 
A. It returned there about the 1st of September. 
Q. At the time of your arrival in Ponce, had you a copy of the contract with Swift 
& Co. for the delivery of the refrigerated beef ? 
A. I did not. 
Q. When did you first receive a copy of it, to the best of your recollection? 
A. Not while I was in Porto Rico. 
Q. What knowledge had you of its contents? 
A. When the first lot of beef went through Tampa, some time, I think, in July, 
the man that represented the contractor had a copy of the contract. I read it over, 
but was instructed that I had nothing to do with the beef except to facilitate its get- 
ting on board thig vessel and to aid the contractor in every way in getting forward 
with his beef; but I had no responsibility connected with it. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
1751 
Q. How familiar, then, were you with the conditions of the contract when you 
went to Ponce? 
A. I was not perfectly familiar with it, except by reading it over in this way, at a 
time when I was very much interested in other things connected with the commis- 
sary. 
Q. Do you recall any conversations with Captain Pomroy at Ponce on the subject 
of the contract conditions ' 
A. I do not, in reference to that fresh beef. I have read in the newspapers of a 
statement that Pomeroy made before this court as to the fact that I had stated in a 
conversation that the meat was, I think, chemically preserved, or preserved to keep 
seventy-two hours. While I do not pretend to remember every conversation that I 
had with Captain Pomroy, I am perfectly confident and positive that I did not 
know, believe, or suspect that that meat had been preserved to keep seventy-two 
hours out of a refrigerator, and that I could not possibly have told him or anybody 
else any such fact. I do remember of this Dold's prepared fresh beef coming there, 
which I have testified to, about this time. This Manitoba beef was only used for 
about six days, as I remember, while the boat was in the harbor, and after that it 
went away and there was no more refrigerated beef on the island issued while I 
wras there. 
Q. By whose order was the Manitoba finally ordered away from Porto Rican 
waters? 
A. I can't say, but undoubtedly by the officer in command, who had charge of 
shipping the troops out. 
Q. Who was that? 
A. When I first arrived there, General Miles, and then, after he left, General 
Wilson. 
Q. General Miles was not there, then, when the Manitoba left Porto Rico? 
A. I think not. 
Q. General Wilson was in command? 
A. General Wilson was in command. 
Q. Therefore the responsibility of the order would have rested upon him, as the 
commanding officer, would it not? 
A. That is something I couldn't say. 
Q. Had you any conferences with him? 
A. I had only one conference with General Wilson himself. That was not about 
the refrigerated meat; but I did have a conference with one or more of his staff offi- 
cers, when this boat came in, about issuing the refrigerated beef. 
Q. Please state to the court the substance of those conferences or conversations. 
A. My recollection is that Major Black told me the boat would come back at a 
certain time, when I inquired why this meat had not been issued. I had known of 
its being on the Manitoba, and as soon as I heard of its coming in I went to one of 
the staff officers and arranged with them to send a circular, or something of that 
kind, to different commanding officers of troops within a certain radius; and I made 
no effort to ship that beef farther than, I think, about 6 miles. 
Q. You made no effort? 
A. I made no effort to ship it farther than that. I did not consider that the beef 
would continue to keep longer than twenty-four hours after it left the refrigerator, 
and there was no refrigerator on the ship to keep it in. Consequently, I made no 
attempt and had no expectation of issuing it longer than twenty-four hours. I 
remember of giving instructions to Captain Pomroy, the depot commissary, at the 
end of each day to destroy all meat that was left over and to make no issues of meat 
that had been on hand in the commissary twenty-four hours. The meat was destroyed 
daily. 
Q. Was there such destruction? 
A. There was. 1752 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Upon whom did the loss fall? 
A. The loss fell on the Government. 
Q. On the Government? 
A. On the Government-that was my understanding at the time, and I think I 
notified him at the time to quote in his report that that was destroyed by my orders, 
as it was spoiling-not fit for issue. 
Q. Had it been on shore more than twenty-four hours? 
A. It had been. As I say, I had this beef taken out in the morning, and within 
twenty-four hours had it destroyed, and a new lot brought out every day. 
Q. According to the terms of the contract, upon whom should that loss have fallen? 
A. At the end of twenty-four hours, it was my understanding at the time, and had 
been in Cuba and other places, that it should have fallen the Government. That is 
simply my understanding, without any instructions or conferences whatever with the 
Commissary-General; and the loss of any meat that has been destroyed after twenty- 
four hours has fallen on the Government, so far as I know. 
Q. After twenty-four hours? 
A. After twenty-four hours. 
Q. But how was it within twenty-four hours? 
A. Within twenty-four hours it would have fallen on the contractor. 
Q. Take the case of the beef, then, that was destroyed at Porto Rico within twenty- 
four hours? 
A. If it was destroyed within twenty-four hours it was only because the boats-I 
think there was some destroyed within twenty-four hours, but it had to be taken out 
to sea, and it was hard to get hold of a lighter to take it out. It was kept right there 
in the commissary department, where the other stores were issued, and if it was 
destroyed inside of twenty-four hours it was only to use the lighter that went out 
after more beef, to take it out to sea. Every bit that I saw that was kept twenty- 
four hours began to spoil and was not fit to issue. It was considered the Govern- 
ment's fault if they could not get the meat used up in twenty-four hours. I made 
no effort to send it to the troops that would not use it within twenty-fours hours. 
Q. Was not the undertaking of the contractors that it would keep twenty-four 
hours? 
A. It was. That, I understood, was a general term of the contract at the time. I 
understood the contractor was responsible for it up to twenty-four hours, but this 
that was destroyed would have had to be kept longer than twenty-four hours to be 
used. 
Q. How much beef, to the best of your recollection, had the Manitoba on board 
when she sailed for the United States? 
A. I never went into the hold of the vessel or into the refrigerator, but my under- 
standing was that it had something like 300,000 pounds. 
Q. Were there any other troops in Porto Rico near the coast to whom that could 
have been issued, to your knowledge, at that time? 
A. There were some near the coast in many places, but there was no refrigerator 
on shore, as I stated, and, as I understood, none on the Manitoba, and I would not 
ask for any more than could be used in twenty-four hours at any one time. 
Q. Were any of these troops sufficiently near the landing place to have enabled 
the meat to be used within twenty-four hours? 
A. There was. As I stated, within 6 miles of Playa del Ponce there wrere a great 
many troops. 
Q. Were there any elsewhere on the seacoast? 
A. There were some at Mayaguez and some at Guayama, I think. 
Q. Could the beef on the Manitoba have been issued to them under the terms of the 
contract? 
A. It could have been issued to the troops at Ponce right from the vessel, but I FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1753 
don't think the vessel could have gone from one port to the other and issued at all 
three ports. 
Q. Were any representations made by you prior to the sailing of the Manitoba for 
the United States as to the desirability of issuing of the beef before she sailed? 
A. As to the desirability of holding the vessel? 
Q. Yes; to issue the beef. 
A. As to the desirability of holding the vessel, I think not. I took it for granted, 
and I know the commanding officers, or else their staff officers, knew of the existence 
of the beef on the Manitoba. I had expressed myself forcibly in the presence of 
Major Black and other officers around there in regard to the fact. They were com- 
plaining of the native beef when they had the refrigerated beef in those waters. 
Q. I understand that the Manitoba sailed during the period of General Wilson's 
command? 
A. I think it did, after General Miles left. 
Q. Were any representations made by you to General Wilson or any officer of his 
staff with a view to the steamer being retained until she had issued the fresh meat 
that was provided for the troops? 
A. As I stated, there was no reference that 1 remember made by myself to hold- 
ing the vessel. I considered that they knew of the existence of the meat on board, 
and knew of the necessity of the taking of the troops back and of the sickness on 
shore, etc., and that they would exercise their own judgment. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Colonel, will you please state in regard to your recollection of that contract? 
You say that your recollection was that the meat was only required to keep twenty- 
four hours after leaving the refrigerator? 
A. After leaving the refrigerator, my understanding was the meat was to only keep 
twenty-four hours. 
Q. I do not know whether the contract is here or not. I presume it is. Do you 
recall reading in that contract a clause-I will try to quote it accurately 
The Recorder. Here is the contract. 
The Witness. I have seen the contract several times since, so I am more familiar 
with it now than I was then. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I will just refer to that and quote that clause of the contract under article 3: 
' ' The beef is to be properly clothed by the party of the second part for the pro- 
tection and proper handling, and so preserved by the refrigeration on shipboard and 
the refrigerator buildings referred to in Article II as that it shall be perfectly good 
and fit for use seventy-two (72) hours after being issued from ships' refrigerators, 
or twenty four (24) hours after being issued from the refrigerator buildings to the 
proper officers of the Government." 
I understand, Colonel, that you state that in either case the twenty-four hours 
applied, whether the beef was issued from the ship or issued from shore? 
A. I stated that that had been my interpretation. 
Q. Yes; I want to get that clear in my own mind. Still you had in mind down 
there a recollection that there was something in the contract as to seventy-two 
hours-that there was a seventy-two-hour clause in the contract? 
A. I don't know whether I had a recollection of that or not. I had read that con- 
tract over. 
Q. You had read it over? 
A. I had read it over. 
Q. The copy in the hands of the agent? 
A. Yes; but my understanding of the contract every time I have had anything to 
do with it was that that seventy-two hours applied to the meat transferred from 1754 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
the ship's refrigerator to the refrigerator on shore. It was so interpreted by me in 
Cuba and every place else. 
Q. Have you read the contract at any time, here or elsewhere, in connection with 
the proposals or advertisements for the proposals, as to how long that beef should 
keep? 
A. I have not. I don't think I have seen anything of the advertisements and 
proposals. 
Q. Of course, you had various conversations with Captain Pomroy. I do not 
expect you to remember every conversation that was had; but may you or not at 
that time have spoken of seventy-two hours in a conversation with him? May you 
not, in connection with the twenty-four hours, have mentioned the seventy-two 
hours so as to have made some impression on his mind as to the seventy-two hours? 
A. I think not. The only thing that could have given rise to anything of the 
kind, as I stated, was this canned fresh beef of Hold's that came there. I have an 
indistinct recollection of his asking me about the length of time it was guaranteed 
that beef should keep. I told him that beef was prepared to keep, I think, almost 
indefinitely, but not guaranteed to keep over a certain length of time; and I don't 
know what time I told him. I think I told him it was sent to Santiago first, with a 
view to its going up to the men on the fighting line, where this refrigerated beef 
could not go. I told him of that being chemically treated. I also told the doctor 
and I told the men that used the first can of the meat-Lemly-of his battery. 
Q. That meat was received there with great satisfaction, was it not? 
A. That is, that fresh beef? 
Q. Yes, that Dold beef. 
A. Yes; Hold's prepared fresh beef. It was in camp. The doctor, Hr. Birming- 
ham, who was in charge, asked something about the chemicals used, and I described 
them as near as I could. 
Q. Can you recall the principal chemicals that were used? 
A. I can not. » 
Q. Any of them? 
A. I never was told exactly, but I rather suspected from what I was told that it 
was borax and saltpeter. 
Q. Was there much of that supplied to the Army, within your knowledge, there? 
A. No; there was that one lot of about 5,000 pounds. 
Q. While at Tampa or prior to your going to Porto Rico, had you brought to your 
knowledge or information in any way a process known as the Powell process, or any 
claim by any contractor with reference to that, or any bid made with that view, or 
any information on the subject? 
A. I had not. I had no information about the bids that were made or proposed 
to be entered into; and the Powell process that was experimented with down there 
at Tampa I had no knowledge of at all until it was over. 
Q. Were the results ever discussed? 
A. Not before me. 
Q. You state in regard to the amount of beef on the Manitoba that you think it was 
in the neighborhood of 300,000 pounds, or about that, and that it would have been 
practicable for the Manitoba to have supplied beef at the various points there, but 
only at one point at the same time, Ponce. 
A. I think that would have been about all it could have done, although I don't 
know. 
Q. There were no refrigerators or no suitable appliances on shore to take care of 
any quantity of beef? 
A. No; not where I was, at Ponce. 
Q. Hid the companies or the parties having charge of the beef-the representatives 
of the contractor, or whoever was in charge-make any effort or give any indication 
of putting up any refrigerator there for that purpose at that time? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1755 
A. Not at that time. I don't recollect coming in contact with any representative 
of the contractor there. 
Q. Had you at that time, when this beef was there, any knowledge as to the price 
of the beef, or, from your recollection of the contract, did you remember the price at 
which it could be sold or issued to officers? 
A. I think I did. 
Q. Do you recall whether that contract was ior Santiago or for Porto Rico? 
A. My understanding was that it was for Cuba. I don't know whether there was 
another contract made for Porto Rico or not. 
Q. In regard to the 300,000 pounds and the quantities that might have been issued 
to the troops, as you state, and the desirability of issuing it--you say you could not 
undertake to issue it at a greater distance than 6 miles from the town or the land- 
ing, or wherever the storehouse was? • • 
A. My recollection is that I took in troops about that distance. 
Q. About how many troops were within that radius or within that distance at that 
time? 
• A. The only way I could tell would be from the amount of beef that was first 
taken out. My recollection is that the first lot of beef that was first taken out was 
about 4,000 pounds the first day. 
Q. That would be about one day's issue? 
A. One day's issue; and we counted it about a pound to a man, I think. I under- 
estimated, so as to have none of it left over at the end of twenty-four hours. My 
object was to have as little loss as possible at the end of twenty-four hours. 
Q. Was it issued on the ration returns, in the regular way, or did you issue it 
simply on the customs that obtained in Cuba up to that time, on a mere memo- 
randum? 
A. After I arrived there, the troops were getting native beef and we had to notify 
them a little beforehand so the regimental commissaries would not order native 
beef. It was issued by a commissary sergeant under my charge with orders to let 
every person that came down there, who represented an organization, have that 
beef, and to notify the regimental commissary that he was to deduct that from 
his beef allowance or order that he made. From the time I had arrived I had 
invoices and receipts and other blanks with me and I gave them a price-list of stores 
that I had in Tampa, so that the depot commissary could be run in the usual way; 
but it was run by this Captain Pomroy. 
Q. So that 4,000 pounds at the rate of about a pound a day would represent the 
maximum of 4,000 troops? 
A. That is my recollection. About 4,000 pounds was the first taken off, although 
I don't recollect definitely. There was a great deal of confusion. The troops were 
coming and going and it was hard to find the exact data; but there was complaint of 
the native beef and complaints of the canned beef, and it wras my desire to get the 
refrigerated beef off so they could try it, with the belief that it would give them 
better satisfaction than any other. 
Q. About what number of troops were on the island or at these several points 
along the coast you speak of near there at that time? 
A. I couldn't tell as to that time. The best evidence of that is the records. 
Q. As a matter of general information, the army consisted of somewhere about 
15,000 troops or 11,000 troops-along there somewhere. 
A. My understanding was that there were something like 12,000 troops scattered 
around on the island. I don't know exactly whether there were 12,000 or 15,000. 
Q. Speaking in regard to the refrigerated beef, will you please state whether you 
recall a conversation with Mr. G. W. Simpson? I think he is a contractor, a man 
who is furnishing meat down there. 
A. Yes; I had several conversations and controversies with him, both. 
Q. I want to ask you whether in the course of a conversation with him you recall 1756 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
stating to him as to the advisability or nonadvisability of shipping refrigerated beef 
to that country, and expressing the opinion that you thought it was the best way, in 
your opinion, to slaughter the cattle on the island and cool the beef in a refrigerator 
there before delivering it to the troops. Do you recall such a conversation? 
A. I remember a conversation with him, but I don't remember expressing any 
opinion of that kind. On the contrary, I have expressed the opinion ever since I 
have been on the island of Cuba that it would be best to have refrigerated beef sent 
from the United States, but sent regularly, and that the only objection to the refrig- 
erated beef was the irregularity with which it came and the length of time it took to 
get there. That was expressed forcibly to Mr. Simpson, I think, because he had a 
contract for supplying the other kind of beef, and I think I decided against him in 
supplying it there. 
Q. Do you recall whether the matter was discussed? Have you discussed that mat- 
ter-as to the practicability or advisability, even where cattle are shipped in there on 
the hoof from the United States-of having refrigerators there and slaughtering the 
cattle and cooling the meat in the refrigerators? 
A. After it was decided that he was to supply some of the troops there, I expressed 
my opinion that it would be desirable to have it go to the refrigerators before being 
supplied to the troops; and he complied with that. He paid something extra. I told 
him his meat would not give satisfaction unless refrigerated. 
Q. Do you recall whether there was any expression that would indicate beyond 
any reasonable question that that method of shipping good cattle down there and 
killing and using them for troops that had to operate and be around Cuba was a 
preferable one to the difficulties that would be encountered in supplying refrigerated 
beef and shipping it across from the United States? I mean, substantially; I do not 
mean in those exact words. 
A. I do not, unless it was with reference, as I say, to the delay in getting the meat. 
We have had there considerable trouble in getting the meat regularly. Some days 
we would have the refrigerated meat and then for days and days we would not. 
The refrigerated meat that came has been delayed en route; and I might have 
expressed to him the fact that I wished they would decide on one course or the other 
and adhere to it, and if they could not get this meat to come regularly at stated 
intervals, they would have the other meat killed on the island, the very best of beef 
and have it refrigerated. I think I have expressed the same thing to the Secretary 
of War and the Commissary-General. I have expressed nothing to Mr. Simpson that 
I would not express everywhere else. 
Q. Colonel, as an officer of experience in these matters, do you consider that it 
would be preferable to supply troops in the interior of the island there with refrig- 
erated beef as supplied from the United States, I will say, during active operations, 
or in an unsettled state of affairs? Do you consider that it would be preferable to 
supply the troops under those conditions-15 or 20 miles in the interior-with refrig- 
erated beef? 
A. My experience related entirely to a more settled condition in the island of 
Cuba. I think I could supply the whole island with refrigerated beef more satisfac- 
torily than I can with any native beef that I could get there, if they will send it over 
direct from the packing house at stated intervals, when called for, without letting it 
delay ten days en route or handling it in any other way. Of course I would use 
refrigerator cars. There are some refrigerator cars now used in Cuba. I have sent 
the meat from Habana to Matanzas, after it was delayed at Habana for ten days, 
taken back to Habana and put in a refrigerator, and afterwards sent down in a refrig- 
erator car to Matanzas, and used it; and I have understood from the people that it 
was more satisfactory than the native beef freshly slaughtered down there. 
Q. Do you refer to the native beef raised there or the beef that is shipped in? 
A. I mean beef that is shipped in. There is very little raised there. A great FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1757 
many cattle out of any cargo have to be sorted out and sold to the poorer trade, and 
the United States can not possibly get rid of their beef in that way. 
Q. Speaking of this settled condition of affairs, and the use of refrigerated beef, 
would it or not be essential that the troops should be along the coast and not in the 
interior? 
A. Where they can be reached with refrigerator cars through the interior, it can 
be issued more satisfactorily than any other in Cuba. 
Q. In the event of any movements that might seem to be necessary at any time 
down there, would not the plan of the refrigerated beef rather be a problematical 
one, under those conditions? You could not have your refrigerators and ice houses 
and things of that kind always within proximity to your army. I say would not 
that involve the matter under those conditions, so that refrigerated beef would have 
to be abandoned? 
A. Refrigerated beef would not have to be abandoned at any time for troops that 
are along any railroad route, and it can be kept in the refrigerators on the shore and 
at main points of the island. 
Q. Take the case of troops having been ordered to go to points 20 or 25 miles 
away from the railroad? 
A. The troops would have to have bacon if they stay there in any great numbers, 
and some of the canned beef. 
Q. Will you please state to the court whether issues of the canned roast beef are 
being made to the United States troops now? 
A. There has never, to my knowledge, been issued canned roast beef to troops at 
Tampa, Porto Rico, or Cuba, when I could get fresh beef. The records, I think, 
show that. At Tampa there was some canned roast beef issued in June, and some 
1,500 or 1,600 cans sold, but all of that that was issued was for either the choice of 
the men, or by preference, or for a travel ration; for the native beef was available 
all the time. I mean the refrigerated beef at Tampa. In Cuba the native or refrig- 
erated beef has been available all the time; and, consequently, not a can of this beef 
has been issued there or in Porto Rico, except by choice. In Porto Rico one of the 
first things I did after landing was to make arrangements with the butcher, so that 
native beef could be bought and delivered to troops on call of the regimental com- 
missaries; and not a can of meat was issued down in Porto Rico during the time I 
was there unless the troops wanted it, or unless they preferred it to the native beef. 
The fact that they came over there with a lot of canned beef cut no figure. Every- 
where I could, I authorized them to turn it in and commence drawing the other beef, 
and I think they did so. It was the same way at Tampa. They came over there 
with a lot of bacon and canned beef, but they were not deprived of the fresh beef 
then. When I first went to Cuba I found that there were a number of cattle that 
had come in there, and that many others would come, and that we could buy fresh 
beef by not being too particular as to the weights of the carcasses, etc.; and I have 
furnished fresh beef, I think, continuously there to the troops everywhere, except a 
few days from time to time where it failed, or a day or two when it failed. 
Q. The point I am trying to get at is whether the issue of it has not practically 
stopped-the canned roast beef. 
A. It hasn't changed in the slightest for me. As I say, at Tampa, Porto Rico, and 
other places 1 never issued a can of it when I could get the native beef, and I have 
made, of course, extra efforts to get fresh beef always wherever the division has 
been. 
Redirect examination by the Recorder: 
Q. Under actual conditions in Cuba, what form of meat is preferred by the troops 
at the present time? 
A. Without a doubt, refrigerated meat. I have had the question, as chief com- 1758 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
missary of the division, put to me by the commanding general of the division, and I 
think it came from higher authority, and I have stated on all occasions, and thought 
of it in every possible way, that we could not handle beef on the hoof as economic- 
ally or as satisfactorily as we can the refrigerated beef, if they will send the refriger- 
ated beef there promptly and properly when it is called for. It is perfectly feasible 
to make a contract with the transportation companies so that the beef shall come 
there in week or ten-day lots, and it can be shipped up from Havana in these refrig- 
erator cars every place where the railroad goes. There are some five or six refriger- 
ators on the island, and when I first went there I asked that a boat should be put on 
to carry that to those different points and make the trips regularly, leaving a certain 
quantity at each point. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Did you have anything to do with the loading of the cargo of the Port Victor 
at Tampa? 
A. I did. 
Q. Was it loaded while you were there? 
A. Yes, while I was there. Some of the stores that were put on it were put on by 
employees under my direction. I visited it from time to time. 
Q. Do you remember, as among the cargo apparatus belonging to Swift & Co., for 
refrigerating purposes, to be erected on shore? 
A. I remember that there was such an apparatus on the first cargo of beef that 
went forward. I remember a representative of Swift & Co. stated that he had the 
apparatus and the skilled men to put it up. 
Q. Who had general charge of the loading of the Port Victor; I mean who was 
responsible for it-what quartermaster? 
A. The depot quartermaster was in charge. He had his assistants down there, but 
I think he authorized me personally to load the stores on it-commissary stores that 
had to go on, that was designated specially for that boat. 
Q. Do you know where, with respect to the other cargo, or in what hold, or in 
what part of the ship the refrigerating apparatus was stowed? 
A. I do not. The refrigerating apparatus, I think, was put on that boat some- 
where up North. When the boat came there it had the refrigerating apparatus on 
board, as I recollect; but the representative of the contractor was there and super- 
intended the loading of the beef, and seemed to be satisfied with the arrangements, 
whatever they were. 
The Recorder. Does he understand you, General? 
General Davis. Yes; I think he understood me. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Did the ship come down from New York in ballast or loaded? 
A. It came down from New York partially loaded. It had a good many stores 
on it. 
Q. Commissary stores? 
A. No; I think they were Red Cross stores. I don't know but what it had some 
commissary stores on it. It had a good many more stores on it than we expected to 
find on it. There wasn't room on it for one-half the stores that were on it. 
Q. Did the contractors, Swift & Co., have the right to designate the place or the 
power to place this apparatus in any particular place in the ship that they wished? 
A. As to that I couldn't say, except my instructions were to facilitate matters and 
aid him in loading and getting off with his cargo; and I had no complaint from him 
as to the part of the boat it was on. I made no point of it with the quartermaster. 
Had he not been satisfied with it I should not have done so. 
Q. In testimony before the court we have heard about green coffee having been 
issued to the troops in the trenches at Santiago. How did it happen that the green 
coffee was included as part of the field rations of the troops? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1759 
A. The field ration has always consisted of green coffee, I think. It was the main 
issue until the war, but when they went forward my recollection is that they took a 
certain amount of green and a certain amount of roasted coffee for the reason that 
the roasted coffee would deteriorate. I don't know what that proportion was. The 
records can show best as to that amount. 
Q. Yes; we have those in full. 
A. The roasted coffee was bound to deteriorate, and if injured by wet weather or 
anything else they would necessarily have to have a certain amount of green coffee 
along. 
Q. Do you know whether or not that green coffee was loaded at Tampa? 
A. I think it was. I saw that one or two vessels were in there with a lot of stores 
on them, but the bulk of the stuff was loaded from these commissary rations that 
were in the cars around there. 
Q. Do you know whether any of the commissary stores for the Santiago expedition 
were loaded at Mobile? 
A. I think they were. Some of them left with the troops that went from Mobile. 
The vessels that went from there did not load at Tampa. What those vessels were 
I did not know'. 
Q. In regard to this Dold beef, you have testified before that there were 5,000 
pounds of it purchased. 
A. I stated that 5,000 pounds came there to Port Tampa and afterwards were found 
by me at Porto Rico. 
Q. Was the whole of the lot that was sent to Port Tampa sent to Porto Rico finally? 
A. The whole of the lot went to Porto Rico finally. 
Q. Do you know whether any of it went to Santiago? 
A. I do not. 
Q. Or any other lot? 
A. It w'as put on the Mississippi, I think, for Santiago, but it went under the 
charge of Major Mercer, and Major Mercer himself turned it over to me in Porto 
Rico about a month later. 
Q. The whole quantity you saw at Tampa? 
A. The whole quantity. I don't know' whether any more was purchased and 
sent to Porto Rico or not. 
Q. In what kind of packages was it put up? 
A. It was in either 5 or 10 pound cans, I have forgotten now which. It was in a 
large-sized can. 
Q. I read something somewhere about tins of beef of 30 or 40 or 50 pounds; did 
you ever see any such? 
A. No. 
Q. Shaped like a pail or bucket? 
A. These, as I recollect, w'ere square cans, and I don't really know what size they 
were. They were large-sized cans; I should say about 12-pound cans. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. I do not know that I understood your testimony about that statement of Captain 
Pomroy about the processing of the beef. You will find Captain Pomroy's testimony 
on page 2907 of the proceedings of this court. His answer to a question by Major 
Lee asking as to the keeping qualities of refrigerated beef which w'ason the Manitoba 
is as follow's: 
"The depot there was hot (in Ponce). Pretty nearly everything was hot in Porto 
Rico at that time, and the beef did not keep as well as I thought or as well as he 
thought it would, and we had some conversation on that subject. In the course of 
that conversation he told me the beef was guaranteed to keep seventy-two hours, 
and I asked him how they could keep it seventy-two hours in that climate, and he 
said they had some process by which it was guaranteed to keep seventy-two hours. 1760 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
He did not know what the process was, and neither did I, and I did not go into ike 
subject very particularly." 
Do you remember any such conversation as that? 
A. I do not, and, as I stated, on the contrary, there was not the slightest idea in 
my mind that beef was processed in any way, and I could not possibly have made 
any such statement, except with reference to the Dold prepared meat. 1 have an 
indistinct recollection of the conversation that I testified to about that. 
Q. You conversed with Captain Pomroy on the subject of the Dold beef? 
A. I did about that same time; but, as I stated, in addition, I remember of direct- 
ing him to destroy all that meat that had been kept twenty-four hours. So it could 
not have been possible, if I had thought the meat was processed to keep seventy-two 
hours, that I would have destroyed it in twenty-four, because I understood the Gov- 
ernment had to lose what I destroyed. 
Recross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. I was going to ask a question with regard to one thing in theconditionsexisting 
there now, everything being in a settled condition in Cuba. I understand you have 
stated in answer to a question that refrigerated beef, if it could be supplied regularly 
and there would be no delay, is much preferred by the troops there. I understand 
that to be your answer. 
A. That is my opinion; yes. 
Q. Do I understand you to give that opinion as applying to the conditions that 
existed there last year during the active hostilities, or to the conditions which exist 
now? Would you apply that in any way to an unsettled condition of affairs when 
there were movements of troops and a state of war or an active campaign going on- 
as to refrigerated beef being brought in? 
A. As chief commissary of the division, if they will let the refrigerated beef come 
when it is called for by myself, and regularly, without stopping en route, I would 
rather take my chances of supplying the Army with refrigerated beef than beef on 
the hoof. I would have less trouble and less controversy, and give better satisfaction. 
Q. That is, under the conditions I speak of-a condition of campaign? 
A. That is, under all the conditions which I can conceive of down there. 
Q. Are you or not familiar, by information or otherwise, that under the condi- 
tions that did obtain, not the perfect conditions, but the conditions that did obtain, 
of the Government furnishing the ships and furnishing the refrigerators, there was 
a large percentage of the beef, even in the vicinity of Santiago and other places, 
that the troops could not use and did not use, owing to the fact that a small exposure 
of a few hours would render it unfit for use, or render much of it unfit for use? 
A. I have heard of those cases, but, of course, I know them only by report. I 
had nothing to do with the beef at Santiago and nothing to do with its going over 
there, except that it was transferred from the cars to the boat. 
Q. I was getting your expert opinion on the subject of that general information 
which is in evidence before the court on a very extensive scale and from the official 
reports of officers who were there. That is all. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Col. Charles Smart, of the Medical Department. 
TESTIMONY OF LIEUT. COL. CHARLES SMART, U. S. A. 
Lieut. Col. Charles Smart, U. S. A., was called as a witness by the recorder, and, 
being duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. My name is Charles Smart. 1 am lieutenant-colonel and deputy surgeon- FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1761 
general of the Army; stationed in Washington, in the Surgeon-General's Office, in 
charge of the sanitary reports, medical reports, certain of the disbursements, and a 
number of other minor detail work of the office. 
Q. Within the last six months have you made any chemical examinations of 
canned roast beef? 
A. I superintended the investigation of two cans labeled "Roast beef" some time 
about two months ago. That is the only examination of canned roast beef I have 
been connected with. 
Q. Please state to the court the results of that examination. 
A. I do not recall the exact figures. In both instances there was about 51 to 53 
per cent of water. In one case there was 17 and in the other 18 and a fraction per 
cent of proteids. The fat varied considerably. It was probably from 8 to 18 per 
cent. I forget the figures exactly. The most striking difference between the two 
samples was that in one there was but very little salt and in the other a very great 
deal. In one there was about 1 per cent of salt, and in the other between 6 and 7 
per cent of salt-6 and a fraction. I had in my office the exact figures, but it has 
been some time since I looked at them, and my remembrance, I think, is pretty 
close to the fact. 
Q. How would those percentages that you have given as to the components of the 
beef compare with ordinary fresh beef, such as is found in the markets? 
A. Compared with what is usually considered to be the average results of the 
analysis of fresh meat, the proteids of the canned meats would be somewhat higher; 
but it is a very difficult thing to compare the results of the analysis of any sample 
of meat with that of the average meat, because it is so difficult to determine what is 
the average meat. The analysis of meat from one animal, in its percentages and 
approximate elements, might give totally different results from the analysis of meat 
from another animal. The analysis of meat from one part of an animal might give 
totally different results from an analysis of meat from another part of the animal. 
So it is the most difficult thing in the world to decide what is the average analysis 
of a meat sample. The fat will vary from 1 or 2 per cent to 15 per cent, and so on. 
Q. As you recall the examination, was there a great discrepancy between that 
examined by you and ordinary fresh beef? 
A. Very little. The proteids were in excess a few per cent. The fat was probably 
somewhat under the average. The salt in the one instance, the 1 per cent, was 
about the average, and in the other case, where it was 6 or 7 per cent, it was in 
excess. 
Q. What was the physical appearance of the meat wffien the can was opened? 
A. In each case the meat appeared like masses of muscular fibers-that is, flesh, 
embedded in a solid matrix of gelatinous and fatty looking substance. The muscular 
fibers in the one case, the one that had the normal amount of salt, were pale in 
color, and in the other case they were a very dark red, like corned beef. I can not 
describe the odor of the meat; it was not unpleasant. The taste in the one instance 
was insipid, from the want of salt, and in the other case it was that of corned beef, 
from the excess of salt. There was no bulging of the cans, nor anything in the odor 
of the meat to indicate that it was in any wise tainted or in bad condition; and that 
was still more satisfactorily proved by the determination bacteriologically of the 
absence of any bacterial putrefaction in the cans. 
Q. Suppose a can of tinned beef to be opened in a hot, moist, tropical climate; 
how quickly, in your opinion, could ptomaines form? 
A. With canned beef supposed to be in good condition at the time it was opened, 
it would take several hours. It would take until the time when an examination 
would be able to determine that decomposition was going on, the result of bacterial 
putrefaction upon the meat. 
S. Doc. 270 111 1762 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Colonel, these cans were in perfect condition, were they not-the cans you had? 
A. They were in perfect condition. 
Q. You made no discovery of any objectionable matter of any kind in the analysis 
of the cans. There was nothing there that was objectionable? 
A. The amount of salt in one of the cans was certainly objectionable. 
Q. Do you remember the cans that you examined; whether they were cans of roast 
beef, or was it boiled beef? 
A. Boiled or steamed. The meat had been subjected to the action of strong heat 
in the presence ot water or moisture. 
Q. So, distinguishing between the terms "roast beefT' and "boiled beef," what 
would you term it? 
A. It would be boiled beef; certainly not roast. 
Q. Did you notice or had you any record of what brands these were you exam- 
ined; that is, who the manufacturer or canner was? 
A. The one with the excess of salt was the Wilson Packing Company. The other, 
which did not have any excess of salt, was Armour & Co., or the Armour Packing 
Company. 
Q. Do you remember the size of the cans? 
A. Two-pound cans. The contents did not weigh 2 pounds though. 
Q. I was going to ask you that question, if you recall what they did weigh? 
A. I do not recall the exact figures, but one of them was 1.6 and the other 1.8 
pounds. 
Q. One and six-tenths and 1.8? 
A. Yes, sir; .2 short. 
Q. One was .2 short and the other .4? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. I will ask you this question, Colonel; a suppositional question. It is a matter 
that is in evidence, however, before the court. Suppose that cans of what is called 
roast beef should be opened by men in the Tropics under the conditions of service as 
in Cuba, say during the Santiago campaign, and that within one or two hours, or 
three hours after opening the cans would become putrid and offensive, so that the 
men could not eat a second meal out of it or touch it again. What wrould you say, 
as a scientific gentleman, in regard to that kind of meat? 
A. I should say that if the cans were to become putrid-if the organic matter in 
the cans, the meat, with its proteids, its fat, and its salts, were to become putrid in 
that time in the can, fresh meat exposed under similar conditions would do the same. 
Q. Will you please repeat the answer? 
A. I don't believe the meat in the cans would become decomposed in any shorter 
time under exposure to heat, moisture, and such other conditions as affected the sub- 
sistence stores of the army in Cuba than fresh meat. 
Q. That is, when the can is opened? 
A. After the can is opened. 
Q. When the soldier opens it to take out one meal? 
A. Yes. 
Q. And it becomes spoiled inside of one, two, or three hours? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Would you consider such meat as that, put up in that condition, the condition 
obtaining in many cases, as any evidence that the meat was not good and proper 
food in the can as put up? 
A. No; I would think simply that it was put up in too large cans. Under such 
conditions the cans should contain only enough to be disposed of at one time, if one 
soldier is going to eat the meat. If they are going to mess in squads there is no 
objection to 2-pound cans, because it would all be eaten at the time of opening. FOOL FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1763 
Q. Except as to the matter of carrying it-the transportation in a man's haversack 
of three days' rations? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Would the fact of the chemical-analysis meat, showing that there was so much 
of the proteid there, determine absolutely its digestibility for the soldier in the Tropics 
under the conditions of service? 
A. No; it would simply show, from the amount of proteids present, whether or 
not there was an average quantity of digestible nitrogenous food in the cans. 
Q. And, then, the practical experience of the soldier when he came to eat it under 
the conditions of his service would determine the balance, whether it was suitable 
for him in his work? 
A. We know, from the average proportion of proteids in the cans, that if the sol- 
dier is going to trust to that as a ration without anything else, in order to get the nec- 
essary amount of food, he would have to eat a good deal of nitrogenous substances, 
or what is called proteids. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, no other witnesses have been summoned 
for this morning. Other witnesses will appear at 2 o'clock. 
The court then, at 12.45 p. m., took a recess until 2 o'clock. 
The court reassembled at the expiration of the recess. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce Professor 
Atwater, of Middletown, Conn. 
Prof. W. O. Atwater was called as a witness by the recorder, and, being duly 
sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and profession. 
A. W. O. Atwater; Middletown, Conn.; professor of chemistry in Wesleyan 
University. I am director of the stores, (Conn.) Experiment Station, and am a 
special agent of the Department of Agriculture in charge of nutrition investigations. 
Q. You have submitted this report in response to the request of the court, Pro- 
fessor? 
A. Yes, sir. 
The Recorder. If it please the court, I now introduce the report in evidence, and 
in order to save time and facilitate the progress of the inquiry, it is suggested that 
the presentation of it be made orally by Professor Atwater, referring to such portions 
of the report as are necessary, and that the mere reading be deferred until a later 
session of the court. (See Appendix 25.) 
By the Recorder: 
Q. So, if you will present the results of your investigations orally, with such 
references as you please to the report, it will assist the court. 
A. It might be proper to state at the outset that the inquiries here reported have 
been carried out in the chemical laboratory of Wesleyan University under the aus- 
pices not only of that institution, but of the experiment station of which I am director. 
I will, if the court will permit, summarize some of the principal features of the report, 
omitting the reading of certain parts which perhaps are less essential; as,for instance, 
such definitions of scientific terms which have been inserted for clearness of under- 
standing, but need not be repeated here. 
"The report herewith is an account of an examination of a number of specimens 
of canned beef received from Lieut. Col. Geo. B. Davis, deputy judge-advocate-gen- 
TESTIMONY OF PROF. W. O. ATWATER. 1764 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
eral and recorder of the court of inquiry now in session in Washington, D. C. The 
purpose of the investigation here reported, was stated as follows in a letter from 
Lieutenant-Colonel Davis, dated Washington, D. C., March 7, 1899. 
" It is the desire of the court that the beef contained in the tins be analyzed with 
a view to ascertain its nutritive value as compared with fresh beef of similar quality 
which is furnished by the local markets for general public consumption. It is usual 
in such examinations to cause a chemical analysis to be made; will you not kindly 
submit the result of such analysis in your report. It has been alleged that the use 
of canned fresh beef in tropical climates caused nausea to those who use it as food. 
If it be possible to do so, will you not inform the court whether the cans contain any 
substance or solution which would be calculated to cause such nausea." 
As no special suggestions were made regarding the exact scope of the investiga- 
tion or the methods to be pursued, it seemed to me desirable to lay the chief stress 
upon the actual nutritive values of the specimens, understanding by nutritive values 
the kinds and amounts of nutritive materials and their digestibility. 
The investigation actually made has included (1) chemical analyses of the speci- 
mens with reference to the amounts of nutritive materials in each; (2) experiments 
with healthy men in which the specimens made a considerable part of the daily diet, 
the purpose being to test the digestibility of the meats. Incidentally these digestion 
experiments gave valuable indications of the palatability and wholesomeness of the 
specimens. It would have been interesting to test the food values of the specimens 
more thoroughly by experiments with men in the respiration calorimeter, in which 
the actual nutritive effects could be determined with great exactness. The time at 
my disposal, however, did not suffice for experiments of this character. 
The same lack of time has prevented such chemical examination of the specimens 
as would answer with more or less certainty the question as to the presence in them 
of normal constituents of meat extract. Such investigations, to be conclusive, would 
be quite laborious and time consuming. It is to be observed, however, that while 
these compounds add to the palatability of the meat and at times have a more or less 
invigorating effect, and may perhaps have other uses in nutrition, it is pretty clearly 
demonstrated by experiment that they neither build tissue nor yield energy, and 
hence can not be classed among the most Important nutriments of food. Inciden- 
tally, however, the investigation actually mac.e throws some indirect light upon this 
question, as will be seen in the discussion of the details of the analysis. An impor- 
tant collateral subject is the presence or absence of preservatives, including common 
salt, saltpeter, and boracic and salicylic acids. As this part of the inquiry was not 
especially assigned to me and ample examinations of the specimens for this purpose 
have, as I understand, been made by most competent chemists, I did not deem it 
advisable to devote a great deal of labor to the subject. A few tests were, however, 
made for boracic and salicylic acids with specimens of each brand. The results were 
negative. No indications were found of the presence of either of these substances. 
It was not deemed essential to make tests for chlorine and nitric acid as indications 
of the presence of salt and saltpeter, although in two of the specimens, both of the 
same brand, the quantities of mineral matters and the taste were such as to imply 
the presence of considerable quantities of salt, and the color of the same specimens 
led us to surmise that saltpeter had been used." 
I omit now certain statements, definitions of the nutritive value of food materials, 
the fuel value of food, the values of the different classes of nutrients, etc. 
There are also some statements regarding the general ways of the cooking of meat, 
and the effects of cooking, which it is, perhaps, not necessary that I should read. 
I might say, however, that a roast loin or broiled steak-I refer here to certain 
chemical changes which are brought about by the heating and cooking, especially 
in roasting, and broiling, and otherwise heating in the air-is thus made a very 
attractive dish. If the same meat is boiled in water the highly prized flavors are FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1765 
developed in much less degree, and more or less of the material of the meat is 
extracted or dissolved out by the water. If the meat has been cut in small pieces 
and is first soaked for a time in lukewarm water, a considerable amount of material 
will thus be extracted. In this way broth and meat extracts are prepared. If, on the 
other hand, the meat is in large pieces and is put at once into boiling water the 
proteids at the surface are coagulated, so that less material is extracted from the 
interior. 
The materials which are thus dissolved out of the meat and make the essential 
constituents of broth and meat extract are of two general classes, organic and min- 
eral. The organic compounds include especially the so-called meat bases, of which 
creatin and creatinin are representatives; but more or less of proteids, fats, and 
other organic compounds are also removed in the extraction. The quantities of 
these latter are, however, very small. For that matter the amounts of so-called 
meat bases extracted in the ordinary process of boiling are slight, as must be the 
case in view of the fact that the total amount of the meat bases makes a very small 
proportion of the whole weight of the meat, and only a part of this is removed in 
ordinary boiling. The mineral compounds include more or less of phosphorus with 
potassium and other metallic elements. 
While it has been shown by various experimental tests that neither the meat bases 
nor the mineral compounds render any considerable service to the body in yielding 
energy, it is nevertheless probable that they have important functions not only in 
aiding digestion, but also in furthering certain metabolic and other processes in the 
organism. If an animal has meat diet exclusively the removal of these substances 
may be injurious and even disastrous. That they are not necessary to life or even 
to abundant and satisfactory nutrition is clearly shown by the fact that not only 
animals but men are nourished by diets containing no meat whatever. It is to be 
observed, furthermore, that these substances are contained in the lean meat (nitrog- 
enous tissues) and not in the fat. The meat bases do not occur in vegetable foods, 
as cereals, potatoes, green vegetables, and the like. 
The meat extract has, accordingly, certain uses for which, though they are not yet 
fully explained, it is highly and justly prized. Their stimulating and vigorating 
effects are attested by abundant experiences. For invalids and for people in health, 
but suffering from fatigue, they are often invaluable. 
Something is said here about the loss of weight of meat in cooking and also about 
preserving meat, which I think I need not repeat here. 
11 Digestibility of food.-The following brief statement from page 15 of Farmers' 
Bulletin No. 23, of the Office of Experiment Stations, United States Department of 
Agriculture, on Foods: Nutritive Value and Cost, bears upon this subject." 
May I be allowed, sir, to informally state, either for record or as otherwise seems 
best, that I have here printed matter, publications, which I referred to in this report, 
and I submit them, if that is proper 
The Recorder. That is quite proper. 
A. (Continuing.) With the report, the places from which the citations are made 
being indicated here for reference; and if the court will permit, I will mention here 
certain of these things. 
There is here a little pamphlet on Foods: Nutritive Value and Cost, in which some 
of the principal facts with regard to the nutriment in different food materials is put 
together in a form intended for popular reading, published by the Department of 
Agriculture. There is here another of these bulletins on Meat: The Composition 
and Cooking, in which similar statements are made with reference to ordinary meats, 
fresh and preserved, beef and other kinds. I may say that this is not of my own 
writing. It was written by Professor Woods, who was for many years my student 
and assistant and associate, and at the time when he was my assistant, written in my 
own laboratory. Also here is a publication in which a large number of results of 1766 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
digesting experiments are recapitulated-digesting experiments of the kind which I 
shall proceed to describe, namely, those which were made as a part of this inquiry. 
I read, then, from this little pamphlet the following statement: 
"We live not upon what we eat, but upon what we digest. In other words, the 
value of food for nutriment depends not only on how much of nutrimentsit contains, 
but also upon how much of these the body digests and uses for its support. 
' 'By digestibility of food several different things are, or may be, meant. Some of 
these, as the ease with which a given food material is digested, the time required for the 
process, the influence of different substances and conditions on digestion, and the 
effects upon health and comfort, are so dependent upon the peculiarities of differ- 
ent individuals and are so difficult of measurement as to make the laying down of 
hard-and-fast rules impossible. For our present purpose the most important factor is 
the amount digested. This, fortunately, is more easy to determine. Understanding 
by the digestibility of a food the proportions of each of the nutrients which can 
be actually digested by healthy persons, the question can be answered more or less 
accurately by experiment. 
"Briefly expressed, the method consists in weighing and analyzing both the food 
consumed and the excrement. Since the latter represents the amount of food undi- 
gested and unassimilated, the difference is taken as the amount digested. A large 
number of such tests of the digestion of feeding stuffs by domestic animals have been 
made in European, and of late American, experiment stations. The number of 
experiments upon the digestibility of food of man is small. Scarcely more than a 
hundred reliable series have been reported. The very large majority of them have 
been in Germany, most of them with healthy men." 
I might add that of late a considerable number have been made in the United 
States and-I do not know whether this should necessarily be a part of the report- 
perhaps I should explain that there has been for several years past in operation 
in different parts of the country an inquiry into the composition and nutritive 
values of foods and the'general economy of food. That began a good many years 
ago, but became more active with the establishment of some of the experiment sta- 
tions, and finally was placed on a somewhat permanent basis and was greatly extended 
by an act of Congress making a special appropriation for the purpose, so that those 
experiments are now being carried on under the authority of the Secretary of Agri- 
culture, in a very considerable number of experiment stations and universities, and 
by organizations of various kinds in different parts of the country, literally front 
Maine to California. Certain State legislatures have aided in this work. Our own 
State, for instance, makes an especial appropriation. There is a cooperative effort; 
and this, being in my own especial charge, I have had to look after these investiga- 
tions not only in my own laboratory but in different parts of the country, and as a 
part of that general system of inquiry, a considerable number of such digesting exper- 
iments have been made, including some with meats, and especially beef. 
The subjects of the composition and digestibility of meats will be referred to in 
connection with the analyses and experiments described beyond. More detailed 
explanations may be found in the bulletin on "Foods: Nutritive values and cost," 
just referred to; in Farmers' Bulletin, No. 34, of the United States Department of 
Agriculture on "Meats: Composition and cooking," and in Bulletin No. 21, of the 
Office of Experiment Stations, United States Department of Agriculture, on "Methods 
and results of investigations on the chemistry and economy of food." 
I come to the specific description of the experiments. 
On March 9, 1899, 12 cans of beef were received from the court of inquiry. In let- 
ter from the recorder of the court, dated Washington, D. C., March 7, they were 
designated as follows: 
LISTS OF SAMPLES RECEIVED. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1767 
"Three (3) cans Prime Roast Beef, Prairie State Packing Company, Chicago, 
marked 'M,' 'N,' and '0.' 
"Three (3) cans Prime Roast Beef, Armour Canning Company, Chicago, marked 
' P,' ' Q,' and ' R.' 
"Two (2) cans Extra Choice Roast Beef, Wilson Packing Company, New York, 
marked 'S' and 'T.' 
"One (1) can Prime Roast Beef, Libby, McNeil & Libby, Chicago, marked 'U.' 
"Three (3) cans Prime Roast Beef, Armour Canning Company, Chicago, marked 
'V,' 'W,' and 'X.'" 
On March 18 a second shipment was received, consisting mostly of duplicates of 
the brands in the first shipment. They were sent in response to a request for more 
material for examination. I was informed, however, that they had been forwarded 
in the absence from Washington of the members of the court of inquiry by the per- 
son in charge of the rooms in which the court is held. As it was at the time imprac- 
ticable to communicate satisfactorily with the court, I deemed it inadvisable to use 
the contents of these cans for the general purposes of the investigation. The con- 
tents of a few of them were, however, tested for boracic and salicylic acids. 
On April 3 three cans of beef were received bearing, respectively, the marks 
"Navy A" and "Navy B" and "NavyC." The accompanying letter from the 
recorder of the court stated: " I send you by express to-day three (3) cans of roast 
beef recently furnished to the Navy. * * * Will you not kindly examine them 
as to their nutritive value, so that a comparison can be made between the cans fur- 
nished to the Navy and those sent you marked 'M,' 'N,' and '0,' which con- 
tained meat and which have been exposed to the climatic influences of the Tropics." 
On arrival the packages were opened and the cans were placed in a private desk, 
where they remained undisturbed and at ordinary room temperature until they wrere 
opened for examination. 
The cans contained generally somewhat less than 2 pounds of meat each. 
Twelve of them were low and broad, being about 3 inches high and 5? inches in 
diameter. The remaining three cans ("U," "NavyB," and "NavyC") were about 
4^ inches in height and 4 inches in diameter. All of the cans "M" to "X" were 
arranged to be opened with a key; the three "Navy" cans were not. 
None of the cans presented any abnormal appearance. In all cases the ends were 
concave and there was pressure inward, as shown by the sound of inrushing of air 
when the tin was punctured. In a few cases where this was especially marked the 
fact has been noted in the detailed description which follows. 
All of the cans used for the examination were opened by myself or by assistants 
in my presence, and the contents of all were examined immediately thereafter, not 
only by myself, but also by two or more assistants, wrho shared in the investigation. 
I presume the detailed description of the cans is not necessary. 
The Recorder. Not at all. 
A. The only thing I need to call especial attention to in these detailed descriptions 
is that I observed that there was on one can a label, especially pasted on, a special 
slip of paper: "From Capt. P. S. Pomeroy, Special Commissary of Subsistence, 
Ponce, P. R." 
There are in these special descriptions references to the peculiarities, in so far as 
they were observable, of the meats in the different cans. I do not think that it is 
necessary I should say anything more than that in general the meat had the appear- 
ance of ordinary canned meat-the ordinary canned boiled beef which is called 
canned roast beef; and there was more or less of a dull, pale, disintegrated appear- 
ance, more marked in some and less in others, as described here in detail. The odor 
of every can except "Navy B" was entirely sweet and agreeable. There was actu- 
ally nothing disagreeable in the taste of any of the meats except those which appeared 
to be corned; they were rather insipid and lacked the flavor of fresh or dried meat, 
as is generally the case with meats which have been boiled. 1768 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
In cases where there was considerable fat or gelatin in the cans it was usually found 
to be gathered mostly at one end or side. In only one case was the fat at all fluid 
when the can was opened. 
This settling of fat to the bottom of the can might not be unexpected even in 
meats not subjected to tropical temperatures. Such a separation of the fat from the 
can of beef may occur without the melting of the fat. This is illustrated by an inci- 
dent in my own laboratory. 
Some years ago wre had occasion to analyze a considerable number of specimens of 
beef. In preparing the specimens for analysis they were finely ground, partially 
dried, and after portions had been used for analysis the remainder of each sample 
was inclosed in a high, narrow specimen bottle. These bottles were set aside on a 
shelf in the laboratory, where they remained undisturbed for a number of months. 
The temperature was as usually obtains in well-warmed buildings. The buildings 
were large and the walls were of stone and very thick, so that the temperature in 
warm days in summer did not rise as high as in ordinary houses. At no time did it 
approach the melting point of ordinary beef fat. Nevertheless the fat gradually set- 
tled until the large part had accumulated at the bottom of the bottles, leaving the 
lean above; and it was interesting to observe that this "frying out" of the fat at 
room temperature seemed to go on even during the colder months of the year. 
I now come to "Analyses of specimens of canned beef received from court of 
inquiry. ' ' May I ask you to observe that I speak of the specimens of the roast beef from 
the court of inquiry, because I shall have occasion later to make a very consider- 
able number of comparisons. Indeed, I present here, as you will observe, the results of 
a number of notes of analyses of different kinds of beef, somewhat over 400 of fresh 
beef, and somewhat over 100, I believe, of other kinds of beef-beef as cooked by the 
ordinary household and served on the table, taken in the course of studies of dietaries 
of ordinary people, and then beef preserved in various ways-smoked and corned- 
and finally different kinds of canned beef. I should say that the specimens which 
are here cited for comparison with the beef received from the court of inquiry were 
collected from different parts of the country, but a very large number were gathered at 
Chicago, at the time of the World's Fair, in 1893. The jury of awards had for one of 
its subcommittees a committee on food products, of which I happened to be the 
chairman; and in the course of our examination of the food products there exhibited 
we collected, at the instance of the Columbian commission, a very considerable 
number of specimens for analysis, in order to learn somewhat of their nutritive value. 
At the same time we went into the large packing houses where the beef was 
slaughtered and put up which was on exhibition there, and had the fullest facilities 
for gathering samples. 
Aside from those samples there were quite a number of whole sides of beef of dif- 
ferent qualities and of different degrees of fatness collected there in the years at Chi- 
cago, and besides these, analyses of full sides of beef have been made in Tennessee 
and New Mexico and in Maine in connection with the investigations of which I 
speak. Those, with the specimens as ordinarily sold in the markets in different 
places and found in the houses on the table in places where study has especially been 
made, gives to us, as it seems, a pretty fair idea of the chemical composition of the 
beef as we have it in the United States. I cite, then, in considerable detail, the com- 
parison of the examinations with these, and in some cases the digestibility of these 
samples, as found by actual tests, with corresponding analyses and tests of digesti- 
bility of the specimens from the court of inquiry. I have here, first of all, a table 
giving the results of the analyses of fifteen samples of canned beef received from the 
court of inquiry, and here I have the results of a considerable number of analyses of 
canned beef-canned corned beef, canned roast beef, canned boiled beef, canned 
luncheon beef-making, all told, 21, which were collected mainly from exhibits at 
the World's Fair in Chicago, and hence which might be assumed to be of good 
quality, and including also others which were collected in other places. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1769 
" By reference to Table 2 it will be noticed that the proportion of protein in the 
different kinds and specimens of canned beef ranges from 21 to 35 per cent and averages 
about 26 per cent. The average is practically the same for the so-called ' corned, ' 'roast, ' 
and ' boiled ' beef. The proportions of fat are more variable, ranging from 12 to 31 per 
cent, and averaging 19 per cent in the canned corned beef; and from 9 to 24 percent, 
with an average of 15 per cent, in the canned ' roast ' beef. This variation in the 
proportion of fat is doubtless due both to the differences in the animal and to differ- 
ences in the portion of the carcass used for canning of the different specimens." 
One point of especial interest in this table is found in the percentages of ash in the 
different kinds of canned meat. In the canned "corned" beef the proportion of 
ash varies from 2 to 7.3 and averages 4 per cent. The sample of canned "luncheon " 
beef also contains a large proportion of ash. The samples of canned ' ' roast ' ' and 
"boiled " beef contain a very much smaller percentage of ash, the amounts being in 
fact nearly identical with those found in samples of fresh beef as ordinarily roasted, 
broiled, or boiled in the household. (See Table 3, beyond.) The large amount of 
ash or mineral matter in the corned beef is doubtless due to the use of salt and salt- 
peter in the corning. 
It should be added in this connection that the specimens of canned beef from the 
World's Fair, of which analyses are given in Table 2, were from exhibits of manu- 
facturers and may naturally be assumed to represent the best products of the several 
products. They were selected by members of one of the committee of the jury 
of awards, namely, the committee on food products, of which the writer was 
chairman. 
I have, as you see, spoken of canned corned beef, and I may say there was no special 
difference between those from the court of inquiry and those which I have compared 
in the tables. I now come to ordinary beef, as people buy it, and cook it, and use 
it on their tables. 
"composition of specimens of cooked fresh beef. 
"A comparison of the composition of canned beef with that of ordinary fresh beef, 
as bought in the market and cooked by common household methods, will be facili- 
tated by reference to Table 3. The analyses reported in this table were made in con- 
nection with dietary studies in Maine, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. The dieta- 
ries studied in Maine were those of a boarding club of students at the Maine State 
College. They were conducted by Prof. W. H. Jordan and are published in detail 
in Bulletin 37 of the Office of Experiment Stations, United States Department of 
Agriculture. The diataries in Massachusetts and Connecticut wrere those of college 
athletes. The studies were conducted by the writer and associates. The detailed 
results still await publication. 
"The samples analyzed represent boiled beef, roast beef, and broiled steak, as 
prepared in the ordinary kitchen." 
I may say that these w'ere the diets of students. They lived as in private houses. 
It was the ordinary form of cooking. 
"The samples taken in connection with the dietaries of athletes include high-grade 
roasts and steaks; the other samples of roasts include mainly rib pieces." 
Here are, in Table 3, the results of this analysis: 
"The proportions of protein in these specimens range from 18 to 29, and average 
24 per cent. These figures are slightly smaller than those for the protein in the 
canned meats. The percentages of fat vary widely even in samples of meat of the 
same cut. Thus, one sample of loin (porterhouse steak) contains 36, and another 
sample of loin (tenderloin steak) only 12 per cent of fat. The three samples of 
roasted loin were trimmed very closely, so that there was a comparatively small 
amount of free fat adhering to the lean meat. The four samples of steak were cooked 
as received from the market. It is worthy of note that in the actual dietary studies 1770 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
a large proportion of he fat from the porterhouse steak was rejected at the tables, so 
that the meat actually eaten was very little fatter than the sample of tenderloin." 
COMPOSITION OF ORDINARY FRESH BEEF AS FOUND IN THE MARKETS. 
Then there is summarized the results of analyses of over 400 specimens, which are 
given in Table 4: 
" The results of these analyses of beef, as well as those of other American food 
materials, have been compiled by the writer and associates, and from this compila- 
tion the figures for the composition of some of the more important cuts and sides of 
beef are epitomized in Table 4. The table likewise summarizes the results of analy- 
ses selected from those of 49 samples of house-cooked fresh beef, 46 samples of canned 
beef, and 29 samples of various kinds of preserved beef from the compilation referred 
to. The analyses of cooked beef are those of Table 3, those of canned beef of Table 
2. The analyses of preserved beef (corned, pickled, and smoked) are added for 
comparison with fresh beef. 
"The figures for minimum and maximum represent the largest and smallest per- 
centages in each ingredient found in the analyses. For instance, in the fresh loin, of 
which 66 samples were analyzed, the largest proportion of water found in any 
sample was 74.7 per cent; the smallest 46.8 per cent. The largest proportion of 
protein was 27.4; the smallest 10.6 per cent. The fat ranged in like manner from 
1.1 to 33.8 per cent. It does not follow, however, that the particular sample which 
had the largest proportion of water had the smallest proportion of either protein 
or fat. 
"It is a well-known fact that the fatter the meat is the smaller is the proportion of 
water. The explanation of this is two-fold. On the one hand fat contains very little 
water while lean, muscular tissue is three-fourths water. On the other hand the fat 
and water in the muscular tissues tend to replace one another. For both these rea- 
sons the flesh of a very fat animal will have a smaller proportion of water than that 
of a lean animal. This is shown in the samples of porterhouse steak and of tender- 
loin in Table 3. It is brought out still more clearly in the analyses of sides of beef 
in Table 4. 
"Special attention is called to the fact that the analyses in this table refer to the 
edible portion, that is, the material freed from bone, the purpose being to compare 
the composition of the fresh material with that of the canned meats, which contain 
only edible material. 
"It is rather important in this matter of analyses, when you are comparing, of 
course, the proportions of nutrients in different specimens; to observe whether the 
analysis tells the amount which would be in 10 pounds of meat containing bones, or 
in 10 pounds of flesh after the bone is taken away. In these cases they refer to the 
flesh itself. 
"Table 4 includes the analyses of 18 sides of beef, which were divided into different 
cuts in the usual way. A still greater number of analyses of individual cuts, as ordinar- 
ily bought and retailed in the market for family use, are included in the table. The 
sides of beef are classified according to the amount of fat which they contain. Of the 
2 very lean sides 1 was New Mexican range beef of unusual leanness and the other 
Texan range beef. Of the animals included in the lean sides, two were from Texan 
ranges, 1 from Illinois or vicinity, and 1 from Tennessee. Of the 11 sides of medium 
fatness, 4 were New England grown, the rest from the central West or Colorado. 
The very fat side of beef was from an animal grown in or near Illinois. 
"Comparison of the canned beef from the court of inquiry with ordinary canned, 
home-cooked fresh and corned beef. 
"In Table 5 the average results of the analyses of canned beef received from the 
court of inquiry are compared with averages of other analyses of canned, cooked. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1771 
fresh and corned beef. This table gives not only the composition of the edible 
material freed from bone, etc., but also that of the water-free substance. 
"With the exception of Nos. 'S' and 'T' the amounts of water in samples 'M' to 
' X ' received from the court of inquiry were very nearly alike and were about the 
same as they found in the average of four analyses of canned 'roast beef' made pre- 
vious to this investigation. The meat of Nos. 'S' and 'T' contained about 10 per 
cent more water than that in the other cans. There was quite a large variation in the 
water content of the different samples of ' navy ' beef and a corresponding variation 
in the percentages of fat, the fat being largest where the water was smallest in amount. 
The proportion of water in cooked beef depends upon two factors, first, the method 
of cooking, and, second, the amount of fat in the meat. Thus, in samples of ordinary 
fresh beef cooked by household methods, the water varied from 38 to 62 per cent. 
The sample containing 38 per cent was boiled beef. This small amount of water is 
due both to the method of cooking and to the unusual fatness. The large amount of 
water in the roast loin accords with the fact that it was ' rare done, ' and had lost com- 
paratively little water in cooking, and was also quite lean. It will be seen that the 
proportion of water in the canned, as compared with the other kinds of beef, gives 
no very certain conclusion concerning the character of the canned beef received from 
the court of inquiry." 
The Witness. I am getting a little hoarse. Might I ask you, Colonel, to read the 
report for me? 
The Recorder. Certainly. 
The recorder then proceeded with the reading of the report, and the same is 
appended thereto, marked . 
The Recorder. Has the court any questions to ask the witness at this time? 
General Davis. The professor will be here on Monday? 
The Recorder. Monday at 2 o'clock. 
General Davis. We will have some questions to ask him then. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Is that summary a part of this report? 
A. That summary is something for my own individual use. I did not intend to 
introduce it officially now, but if, on personal consultation, you wish anything of the 
sort, I shall be glad to introduce it. It is not a part of the report. 
The court then (at 3.45 p. m.) adjourned until Monday, April 17,1899, at 10 o'clock. 
Washington Barracks, D. C., 
Monday, April 17, 1899-11 o'clock a. m. 
The court met at Washington Barracks, D. C. 
Present: All the members. 
Absent: The Recorder, and Major Lee, counsel for Major-General Miles. 
The court proceeded to examine the cases furnished to it from those on hand at 
Habana, Cuba, and Watervliet Arsenal, N. Y. Six hundred and sixty cases in all 
were secured, of which 27 were selected for opening and scrutiny. Of these, 14 
cans were opened. Of the 14, 7, or .106 per cent of the total number, were found 
to be tainted and unfit for use. 
The court then adjourned, to meet at 2 o'clock p. m., at the Lemon Building, 
Washington, D. C. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C., 
Monday, April 17, 1899. 
The court met, pursuant to adjournment, at 2 o'clock p. m. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 1772 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to recall as a witness Pro- 
fessor Atwater, of Middletown. 
TESTIMONY OF PROF. W 
O. ATWATER-Recalled. 
Prof. W. O. Atwater was then recalled as a witness by the recorder, and 
further testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Will you please state to the court, in narrative form, the functions of the 
several materials that are extracted in the preparation of the meat for canning? 
A. Referring, of course, to those which are most important, and omitting sub- 
stances the quantities of which extracted would be too minute to be of any con- 
siderable import, in nutrition or otherwise, there are two general classes-indeed, 
three, perhaps: 
The first, the so-called proteid compounds, like the soluble albumen of meat and 
the like, of which certain portions, rather small, are extracted. Those are coagulated 
in the boiling, and are not ordinarily found in the meat extract, as such-as, for 
instance, in the broth which you ordinarily make in household cooking, or in meat 
extract as ordinarily sold. 
Closely related to these are substances sometimes called ghuinoids, or gelatinoids, 
like gelatine-the connective tissue of the meat, which has gone into solution in the 
boiling water. The quantities of that, also, are quite small. 
Setting aside, then, those substances, we have the so-called meat bases and the 
mineral salts, which are the most essential materials contained in the extracts which 
we remove from the meat, as we boil it, in the preparation of broth or soup, or which 
are removed in the preparation of the so-called canned roast beef, which is canned 
boiled beef-that is to say, removed in the parboiling, in the process, as you are well 
aware. 
Q. What effect does this extraction have upon the nutritive value of the meat? 
A. I think, to answer that question, we should have to consider separately the 
so-called meat bases and the mineral salts, and to consider, likewise, the quantities 
of each and their nutritive functions. 
The so-called meat bases occur in quite small quantities in ordinary muscular 
tissue-that is to say, in the lean of meat-in ordinary lean beef. The exact quan- 
tities I can not give you, because they are variable and because the exact deter- 
mination is not easy and the data at hand are not such as to warrant such specific 
figures as we can give in some other instances. But they amount generally to, I 
should say, according to the best investigations, less than 1 per cent of the total 
weight of the ordinary meat. In 100 pounds of ordinary meat, then, generally 
speaking, according to the best data at hand, there would be not less than a pound, 
perhaps less. 
Now, as to the function of the meat bases-what they do: 
There has been a general idea that they act, in a certain sense, as stimulants. 
That is a very common impression of chemists and physiologists-that when you 
take meat extract, for instance, and experience its refreshing, stimulating effect- 
which is so highly prized not only by invalids but by people in health, especially 
when they are weary-this effect is due to the meat bases. But some late experi- 
ments imply that that is hardly the case. I refer especially to some experiments 
which were made by Professor Mallet-and I am not at all sure that he has not made 
some reference to them; I understand he has been called before you here. They 
have not yet been in print, but, as it happens, they were made as a part of an 
investigation of which I have general charge; and the suggestions that they be 
made were from myself and the results were reported to myself, so I have had the 
opportunity to read them before they were printed. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1773 
Those experiments imply that the effect of the meat bases upon (if I may use the 
expression) the nerves, the nervous effect, the stimulating effect, is not such as has 
been commonly supposed. I think, however, that Professor Mallet would say-I 
hope it is not indelicate that I refer to him in this connection-that before making a 
sweeping allegation regarding their function, he would feel it desirable to enlarge 
those investigations, as one naturally would; but they seem to me to be very forceful. 
Now, then, otherwise the meat bases have, according to the best evidence, no 
especial use in nutrition-that is known. They do not perform either of the great 
functions of food; they do not build tissue; they do not yield energy to the body; and 
those are the two great functions of food; that is to say, according to the best evidence 
at hand. 
As regards the mineral salts, sir, the body can not get on without the mineral 
salts. We must have them for life, for growth, and for the maintenance of life; and 
the body must be able to get them from somewhere. It doubtless does get them 
from meat, because animals can live on meat alone. Carnivorous animals do, dogs 
do, bears do. It is able to get them from vegetable foods. That is proven by the 
fact that animals live on vegetable foods and have the mineral salts. They are 
needed, however, only in very small quantities; and it is generally supposed that our 
ordinary food materials contain them in considerable excess of the demand. The 
reason for this is simple, apparently simple, I might say (though these are all things 
about which the last word has not yet been spoken, as the result of final scientific 
experimental inquiry)-the mineral salts are not consumed in the body, as is done 
with the proteids, with the fat, sugar, and starch. The body does not take any of 
these minerals and use them up before they are rejected. It does certainly reject 
great portions of them, in forms very similar to the forms in which they are ingested. 
There is abundant proof of that. That is the implication, therefore. 
Q. Is there a corresponding extraction of materials from vegetable foods in 
boiling? 
A. Yes, sir; a corresponding one, without any doubt. I have here, for instance, 
a little document which gives the results of some late experiments as to the effects 
of boiling of potatoes, and other vegetables, upon the amounts of mineral salts. 
When potatoes are boiled, as people ordinarily boil them, first removing their 
jackets, so called, a considerable part of the mineral salts would be removed. The 
portions, in these experiments, would be a little less than half of 1 per cent, on the 
average. So I suppose it is the case in general, that when you boil vegetables you 
remove the mineral salts just as surely as you do in the boiling of beef or any other 
meat. And while one can not give the exact proportions, and those proportions will 
be variable, probably one would not be very far out of the way in saying that the 
minerals removed from the potatoes in ordinary boiling, removed from the beef in 
ordinary boiling, as it is done in the household, or removed from the beef as it is 
ordinarily done in the preparation for canning and parboiling-that in those proc- 
esses the quantities of the mineral salts would be approximately similar. 
Q. Would there be any resemblance in the case of grain that is ground? 
A. A certain resemblance; yes, sir. When the miller takes the wheat and grinds 
it and prepares the flour which we ordinarily eat, he rejects the outer portion of the 
grain-some other parts, but also the outer portion. That outer portion, which we 
call the bran, contains considerable of the mineral salts. Some people prefer to eat 
that-in the Graham flour or in the whole-wheat flour-but according to the best 
experimental evidence, the body does not need those mineral salts and could not 
utilize them to any extent if it had them. 
Q. Will you state to the court what the effect of this boiling or parboiling is upon 
the texture of the food? 
A. So far as I have observed, sir, it is very similar to that of the ordinary boiling 
of beef by the process common in the household. You know, of course, that the 1774 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
color is changed; it no longer has the bright color, and on the outside, where it is 
very much boiled, the beef becomes quite light in color. You know, furthermore, 
that the beef becomes somewhat stringy, fibrous-a circumstance that is very easily 
explained by the fact that the fibers of the muscles are held together by certain 
tissues which we call connective tissue. That connective tissue is easily acted upon 
by hot water; it is disintegrated, it is softened, so that it no longer holds those mus- 
cular fibers together. The meat is thus made more tender, and a very tough fowl or 
turkey may, by long cooking, long parboiling, long heating, be made so tender as to 
almost fall to pieces, as you know. So there is a stringiness which, however, is not 
disadvantageous, but rather, so far as the nutritive value is concerned, advantageous, 
because it is more easily chewed and more readily attacked by the digestive juices. 
At least, such is the ordinary belief. 
Q. What effect has this parboiling and changing of texture upon the digestive 
process? 
A. Indirectly, sir, it seems fair to suppose that it might facilitate the digestion in 
that it would facilitate the fine division of the material; you can chew it more 
readily and cut it into finer particles. But, perhaps, I ought to qualify that a little. 
It does not necessarily follow that this heating makes the material softer. I am 
reminded of an experience which I have lately had in that respect in conducting 
some experiments somewhat analogous to those which I have reported to the court, 
only much more elaborate-experiments in which the nutritive values were tested 
with much greater exactness. 
We had some meat especially prepared for the purpose, in ways somewhat similar 
to those used in the canning of meat; but, by the method of preparation, the meat 
was rather hard and tough. It was cooked so that the man who was the subject of 
the experiment, when he first tasted of it, said: "It is hard; it tastes like sawdust." 
But he concluded he liked it; and when we came to make the tests we found the 
proportions digested to be practically identical with those made from the meat as we 
had ordinarily chopped it, chopped it finely, without any such preparation, and they 
were practically identical with the results which were obtained from the samples of 
meat received from the court of inquiry. 
To answer your question, sir, categorically, I suppose that, except in so far as the 
texture and the flavor, at the same time, might stimulate or fail to stimulate the action 
of the digestive juices, there would be very little difference, very little effect upon the 
digestive organs. 
Q. When a can of this meat is opened, how rapidly, in a hot climate, where con- 
siderable moisture is present, would ptomaines form? 
A. I am unable to answer that question, sir. It is one which, as it seems to me, 
could only be decided by actual experiment, and a rather difficult experiment; one in 
which I have had no experience. 
Q. In the subjects, the young men upon whom these experiments were made, you 
spoke of a feeling of lassitude in one or two cases ? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Will you explain to the court, if you can, how you account for that? 
A. I am unable to affirm, definitely and specifically, an explanation. I certainly 
do not know enough about the subject, and I do not know that anybody else does; but 
I may say this: I can imagine that the meat might have been put up in'such way that 
it did not, so to speak, keep well; that some disintegration took place, with the for- 
mation of compounds which do occur when meat is kept-compounds that may 
or may not be unpleasant or sometimes positively poisonous. Ptomaines, as we 
call them, could hardly have been present in the forms in which they are ordinarily 
spoken of as injurious or poisonous, because there were none of the phenomena 
which we ordinarily note-the sickness and the great pain. But it would be only a 
suspicion that there might have been formed there some products of decomposition; FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1775 
there is no proof of it at all. On the other hand, the experience which I believe I 
mentioned in the report, of the fact that a gentleman with whom I had made experi- 
ments with only fresh beef, and the nicest which we could buy in the city of 
Munich, and the most appetizing, put up in the most appetizing way-the fact that 
that caused unpleasant sensations would preclude the idea that such sensations were 
necessarily attributable to ptomaines. 
Q. Had the young men upon whom the experiments were tried become aware of 
the discussion with reference to the canned roast beef by reading newspapers? 
A. Certainly, sir; they knew very well about it; and there was naturally some 
talk among them, though it was among themselves only, because we felt, under the 
circumstances, that we must not make this test in any way public. It was made as 
private as possible, but there could hardly be such an experiment going on for sev- 
eral days with half a dozen gentlemen around, all interested in it, and at times three 
of them engaged in eating the meat (indeed, more than that number), without this 
talk. One might say, "Well, now, I wonder if this which I am eating came from 
Cuba?" Or, "I wonder if this is some of that real army beef that made the sol- 
diers sick? ' ' and that sort of thing. And I have no doubt that that feeling there had 
something to do with the sensations they experienced. I presume it did. It is only 
natural; but I could not affirm that it did. 
Q. Will you please state to the court how the navy samples compared with those 
furnished you from other sources-the other cans? 
A. Would you permit me, sir, to refer to the specific statements in the report, if 
you will pardon the delay? 
Q. Certainly. 
(The witness referred to the report.) 
A. There was, so far as I now recall, in the opening of the fifteen cans which were 
sent, only one case in which any material was to me disagreeable in its odor. That 
one was the can marked "Navy B." The description says: 
"Much more gelatin than usual was found at the top of the can, and it was quite 
transparent. In the interior notably larger amounts of gelatinous material were 
found. There were some lumps of fat, but on the whole the quantity of visible fat 
was not large. The color of the meat was rather red and more like that of corned 
beef than is usual with canned rost beef. The odor was quite disagreeable; one of 
the gentlemen who examined it pronounced it very much so; others were less unfa- 
vorably impressed." 
I did not, sir, in this formal statement quote the exact language which was used, col- 
loquially, by the gentlemen; but one of them used the word "rank" and repeated it. 
Q. Was there any indication of perforation in the can in that case-any leak or 
any evidence of bad soldering? 
A. No, sir; none at all; and from the fact that in this description here no special 
reference is made to any difference of appearance between that and the other cans, 
the inference that that can, like the others, was concave at the ends. The descrip- 
tion here accords entirely with my own recollection. 
Q. You have explained very fully, Professor, the physical characteristics and the 
results obtained as the result of your experiments. Will you please state to the 
court what can and what can not be ascertained in respect to canned meats by such 
experiments as those which you conducted? 
A. I fear, sir, that you have proposed a question which would require rather a 
long disquisition for a correct answer. I will attempt to briefly summarize it as 
well as I can. 
You can tell with great exactness the kinds and quantities of the chemical ele- 
ments and the chemical compounds by chemical analysis. Chemical analysis does 
not, however, always reveal-often, if only the methods in common use are 
employed, it does not reveal at all-the presence or absence of materials which 
might be objectionable, either sesthetically or physiologically. 1776 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
For instance, it would be possible to take a specimen of beef and treat it as is 
done in the canning. It would be possible to take a specimen of veal and treat it 
in the same way, and if (as is usually the case) there were less fat in the veal than 
in the beef, to add a little beef fat, and, I should say, to make a substance which, 
by the ordinary process of chemical analysis, would not be distinguished at all from 
the beef, more especially after the material had been thoroughly ground and mixed, 
so that nothing in its external appearance-its appearance under the microscope- 
would reveal its characteristics. It might be possible, indeed, to take meat of other 
animals; you might put in mutton, or lean pork, or dogflesh, or horseflesh; and 
when you have them thoroughly mixed (especially if you take the pains to cook 
them a little in such way as to obscure botn the texture and the flavor by adding 
flavoring matters) you might get a substance which the eye and the taste, as well 
as the chemical analysis, would fail to distinguish. If it were not for taking the time 
of the court I could relate some personal experiences of my own in the matter; but 
perhaps that would not be advisable. 
But, on the other hand, if those materials which you used were peculiar in odor 
or in flavor, they naturally would be detected in the process of examination pre- 
liminary to the experimenting, preliminary to the analysis; and if the microscope 
were used, you might thereby be able to distinguish between the different kinds of 
fiber of meats. 
Does that answer your question, sir. 
Q. It does. How full was the physical examination, in each case, prior to the 
chemical one? 
A. The things observed, sir, in general, were, roughly speaking, the relative 
amounts of fat and gelatin, as well as lean; the size of the portions; the way they 
were arranged, whether the fat was settled at the bottom or not; then the color of 
the meat, the odor, the smell, and the taste, by taking little pieces from different 
parts and putting them in the mouth and chewing them a little, to see whether they 
tasted as if they had been salted, to see whether they were tough or tender, and that 
sort of thing. And, in some cases-in only two cases, indeed-we took pains to put 
portions under the microscope. There was one case, in particular, in which the 
meat seemed to be considerably disintegrated, as by boiling; and, as stated, I think, 
in the prescription, we took pains to put portions under the microscope to see 
whether there appeared to be the normal striation of muscular fiber, which we found 
to be more or less lacking, but, nevertheless, present in some of the cases. 
I ought, however, to say this: That it seems to me that even though the chemical 
analysis would not reveal the presence of pork or of flesh of other animals, still I 
should say that, so far as the nutritive value was concerned, that would have com- 
paratively little importance; and I ought to add that it did not occur to us that it 
was a part of the task put upon us to try to find out. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Professor, as the food, or the so-called food, known as canned roast beef, or 
boiled beef, is something new to the soldiers of the Army of a great many years' experi- 
ence, or to most ot us, I will ask you a few questions in regard to this report and 
these analyses; and I will ask you if you will please bear in mind, in connection with 
it, that I am not a chemist, but have very little knowledge of chemistry, excepting 
in a practical way, only knowing what agrees with me and what does not; and on 
that line I will pursue some of these questions. Other questions here have been 
prepared by a chemist who has had some work in connection with the Agricultural 
Department, of which you are a distinguished member. 
I will ask, in the first place, whether, on page 26 of your report, the protein quoted 
in that analysis is not determined by multiplying the nitrogen by 6.25? 
A. Yes. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1777 
Q. And I will ask you, in this mode of determining protein, are not the true pro- 
teids present added to by whatever gelatin and meat bases may accompany them? 
A. In general, yes. If you want specific statements about that, I can refer you to 
several pages of statements on the subject in one of the pamphlets which was placed 
at your disposal, where that special thing is discussed at considerable length. 
Q. Perhaps we might go into that; but, for the purposes of my examination, I will 
leave it for the court until we get through. 
Referring to page 4, I will ask you, Has not gelatin, though thus counted in with 
the proteids, notably lower nutritive value? I will add to that, and then you can 
answer it, Can it, for example, serve to replace the true proteids in forming muscular 
tissues, even as protecting the proteids of the tissues themselves from oxidization? 
A. A part of that question sir, I can answer categorically. According to the best 
chemical and physiological evidence (meaning by the chemical evidence the informa- 
tion obtainable from chemical experiment as to the constitution and chemical compo- 
sition of the material, the gelatin as distinguished from the other proteids, and, on 
the other hand, understanding by the physiological evidence that which comes from 
direct experiment, in which the material has been fed to animals) the gelatin, or 
the compounds contained in gelatin, which, if you please, we will here call the 
gelatinoid substances, can not take the place of the albumens and the globulins, the 
albumenoid substances, if you choose to call them such, in the nutrition of animals 
or man; and for probably a simple reason-that the gelatinoids lack certain chemical 
constituents which the albumen-like substances have. They can not build tissue. 
On the other hand there is, I think, no doubt that they can perform the other 
of the two chief functions of food. They can yield energy in the body; when 
they are consumed in the body their energy is liberated, as is the case with other 
materials. 
I now come to the part of your question which can not be answered so categori- 
cally. I understand that to be this: 
"To what extent do the gelatinoid substances protect the albumens and globulins, 
the true albumen-like substances, from consumption in the body?" 
I do not think that it is possible to answer that question categorically. The experi- 
mental data now at hand do not seem to me sufficient. There is a general belief, so 
far as I am aware, among the physiologists who have devoted the most attention to 
that subject that in some way the gelatinoids have a more or less specific action in 
the protection of the other proteids from consumption. But whether that be in pro- 
portion to their potential energy, or whether there is some further protective action, 
I do not think can be answered now. 
Q. Finishing the question, perhaps, if it has not already been answered, is not 
its value-that is, its nutritive value-notably less than that of an equal weight of 
true proteids? 
A. For the building of tissue, most assuredly. For the protection of proteid tis- 
sues from consumption my own opinion would be, probably it is a good deal less. 
But I do not feel authorized to say, absolutely, what is the difference, for it does not 
seem to me the experimental data is sufficient. 
Q. Have not the meat bases also much lower nutritive value, if any, than the true 
proteids? 
A. Most certainly. According to the best evidence, they perform neither of the 
two chief functions of the proteids. They neither build tissues nor yield energy. 
They pass through the body unconsumed, to a great extent. 
Q. Referring to page 4 of your report, I will ask this question: Cellulose is men- 
tioned among the nutritive carbohydrates. Does not its nutritive value as such 
depend very largely upon whether the fiber is finely divided or densely aggregated? 
A. Most certainly, I should say. Animals live on vegetable foods containing cel- 
lulose-the moose and the deer, for instance; and we know very well-every sports- 
S. Doc. 270 112 1778 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
man knows-that those animals in winter live largely by browsing. They do not 
eat the logs; they eat the tissues-the twigs, and the leaves. We know very well 
that cows can digest more or less of cellulose; they can digest some sawdust, but it 
wants to be very finely divided; and, furthermore, it is probably the case that the 
larger the amount of what we call woody fiber there is present the harder it is for the 
material to digest. And man, of course, can not digest cellulose to any very great 
extent, except in the very small quantities which occur in ordinary foods, like flour. 
Q. Is it not your statement, on page 7-I have not your report here-that there is 
materially less agreeable flavor in cooking beef by boiling than by roasting? 
A. Most certainly there is to me, sir, and I suppose there is to other people. 
Q. Is not the canned beef, or much of it, submitted by the court called on the 
labels ' ' Roast Beef? ' ' 
A. Yes, sir. By reference to the statement you will find exactly what 
Q. Is it not a fact, developed by your examination, that, notwithstanding this, the 
meat was actually cooked before canning, by being boiled, and not roasted? 
A. I must bear in mind, sir, that I am under oath; and I can not state, under oath, 
that that meat was so cooked. But I can say that it had every appearance of meat 
so cooked, and 1 thoroughly believe it was so cooked, and should be greatly sur- 
prised to find 
Q. You will excuse me; but in your latitude as an expert, you have been permit- 
ted to give your opinions in regard to these matters quite extensively, and they have 
certainly been very interesting. And I will ask you, in that same line, to afford me 
the same liberty that has been afforded in the other examination. 
A. Yes, sir. With that understanding, most certainly-in fact, I intended to say 
somewhere in the report (perhaps I neglected to do so) that this so-called canned 
roast beef is canned boiled beef. And if you wish me to go on further, sir, I have 
more to say on that point. 
Q. I should like to hear you fully on that subject. It is an open door, you know, 
on any question that may be asked. 
A. Then shall I give you, sir, the general impression which I have received from 
this investigation, as well as others, regarding this matter of the boiled beef? 
Q. I will ask you to answer just in your own way. I will not undertake to put 
anything at all in your mouth or to suggest anything other than what you wish to 
say. 
A. The whole impression that I have got, sir, from all the examinations, from the 
looks of the material, from the color, from the texture, from looking at it under the 
microscope, and then from the chemical analyses, and from what I have learned 
of the way in which the canned beef is made-I have said again and again, and fre- 
quently said to my assistants during this examination, particularly toward the end, 
"Why, we are simply dealing with boiled beef." Does that answer your question, 
sir? 
Q. Yes, sir; thank you very much. 
A. But excuse me. There were some cases in which the meat looked more like 
corned beef, and we said, "Why, this tastes like corned beef and has the color of 
corned beef." We found considerable salt in it; and then there were some others 
in which we were a little puzzled. Neither our taste nor our analysis showed just 
what it was. 
Q. 1 understand, then, that this meat which was submitted to you, which was 
supposed to be all of one class or grade, really turned out to be of different grades 
and qualities in that respect, as to salts, and so on? 
A. Why, yes, sir. I am not now speaking, of course, of the commercial grading. 
I am speaking of the way it looked and tasted to us and wThat our analyses showed. 
Q. It has been in evidence, I believe, as I recollect, before this court-if not, I 
can be corrected by anyone having the knowdedge-that some of the cans that were FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1779 
furnished the Army were really labeled "Boiled beef." Were any such cans sub- 
mitted to you for analysis? 
A. I think not, sir; but I would a little rather look over the list here before 
answering, because I have the exact copy. 
Q. Yes, sir. 
A. But that is my impression. I have, however, had material for analysis labeled 
"Boiled beef," but it was from another source, sir. 
Q. I refer, of course, to the source from whence this was received. I believe it is 
stated on page 22 (if I am in error, you can correct me) that the meat you examined 
was, in general, insipid, lacking in agreeable flavor? 
A. The statement, as I find it sir, is this: 
"There was actually nothing disagreeable in the taste of any of the meats, but, 
excepting those which appeared to be corned, they were rather insipid, and lacked 
the flavor of fresh or dried meat, as is generally the case with meats which have been 
boiled." 
I think, sir, that is a fair statement. 
Q. Very well, sir; I will take it just as it is in your report. 
I believe it is your statement bn page 10 (and if not, you can correct me) that we 
live not upon what we eat, but upon what we digest. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. "In others words, the value of food for nutriment depends not only on how 
much of nutrients it contains, but also upon how much of these the body digests and 
uses for its support." Am I correct in that? 
A. That is the statement, sir. 
Q. I think it is also stated on page 46 of your report (and I will ask you, of course, 
to verify me or correct me if wrong) that "the value of food for nutriment depends 
not only upon how much of the nutrients it contains, but also upon how much of 
these the body digests and uses for its support, and upon the fitness of the materials 
for bodily nourishment." 
A. I conceive that to be as fair a statement as I can frame in so short a space. 
Q. Referring to page 14, I will ask you whether or not some of the labels of the 
canned beef submitted to you by the court read "Guaranteed to keep in any 
climate? ' ' 
A. Yes, sir; cans M, N, and O. 
Q. If, Professor, in point of fact, in a given climate the meat did not keep, but 
underwent putrefactive decay, would not that constitute a serious objection to it as 
an article of food? 
A. Most certainly, sir. 
Q. I will ask you again: Is not the digestibility of meat capable of being dimin- 
ished by overboiling in water, condensing, and hardening the fiber? 
A. I could not answer that question, sir, without experiment. I can give you 
what I know about it from actual test. 
The word "digestibility" there maybe used in either of two senses. The one 
would refer to the ease and rapidity of digestion, the other to the amount which a 
healthy man, for instance, could digest out of that food-could actually utilize for 
nourishment. 
We know very well that invalids, people with enfeebled, digestion, may relish and 
use very rare, tender beef; and our physician tells us that it would be unwise to 
give them beef that was overdone. Now, I do not suppose it makes much difference 
whether that overcooking is roasting or boiling, or what it is. But if the alimentary 
organs are in normal condition, if a man has good digestion, as we say, and you were 
to cook the meat and cook it until quite hard, he nevertheless does digest it well. 
What I have been interested to observe in my own experiments is this: That what- 
ever may have been the texture of the meats which from time we have given to the 1780 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
same man, or to different men, the quantities which the man has digested from 
them and the nutritive effects (in so far as those can be determined, not only by 
these digestion experiments, but by experiments with the respiration calorimeter, 
which are more extended and accurate) are very little dependent upon the cooking, 
if it be ordinary cooking, so as not to disintegrate the meat. What I mean by disin- 
tegration is this: If I take a piece of beef and broil it or roast it, and burn it, that 
partially carbonized material can not, in my judgment, have the nutritive value that 
the ordinary beef would have. But by even such a process of boiling as that which 
gave us the specimen which I mentioned a short time ago, when it was so hard that 
the man compared it, I believe, to sawdust, or, at any rate, something hard, the diges- 
tion was apparently the same as with the other kinds of meat which had been cooked 
very little. 
Q. What I am arriving at, in a practical sort of way, in regard to service in the 
Army for a good many years and the experience of soldiers under the many and 
varied conditions of service, is this: That after meat has been boiled for a great length 
of time, we will say, and kept on boiling, soldiers do not march as well on it, do 
not work as well on it, do not like it as well, and do not seem to endure the same 
amount of work under it that they do under meat that is not so cooked and hardened 
in fiber. That has been the personal experience, I think, of a great many soldiers; 
and I will ask you, having 
The Recorder. The question is still hypothetical, I suppose. That is certainly 
not in evidence. 
Major Lee. What is that? 
The Recorder. The case which you are putting. 
Major Lee. No; I do not know that it is absolutely in evidence. I do not know 
that. 
(At the request of Major Lee, the reporter thereupon read the pending question as 
far as it had gone.) 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I simply stated that as what I supposed to be 
a fact within the knowledge of everyone who has been in the military service any 
length of time. If it is contradicted 
The Recorder. No; it is not contradicted. The only point is, it should either be 
put as a hypothetical question, or in some such way that the witness will base his 
answer upon the conditions which you state. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Under such conditions, if they be true-let it be a hypothetical question-how 
would that affect your theory in regard to the matter that the boiling would not 
interfere with the digestibility of the meat? 
Now, I have not put that in a technical way, probably, but I presume you under- 
stand what I am trying to get at. 
A. Will you allow me to answer in the way that first occurs to me? 
Q. Answer in your own way, sir. 
A. I should say that the maker of the experiment, if the experiment be accurately 
made, is the one best capable of interpreting the result. I have never made those 
experiments. 
Q. That is a very satisfactory answer, sir-very. 
I will ask if it is not stated, on page 14 of your report-and I wish to quote cor- 
rectly-in reference to one of the samples of canned beef, that it had been apparently 
boiled so much that the characteristic structure of the muscular tissue had been 
practically destroyed? I have not the report. 
A. There was something to that effect, sir, and it is this. Shall I read? 
Q. Certainly. I want the question to be just in accordance with the meaning of 
what is in the report. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1781 
A. (Reading.) "At the top of the can there was a membranous layer or 'skin,' 
which was very light-colored and stringy in appearance, which under the microscope 
appeared to consist of a thin layer of subdermal muscle with the superficial fascia 
attached, the whole having apparently been boiled so much that the characteristic 
structure and striations had been practically destroyed." 
That was on the surface of a piece, or what you would call a ' ' chunk, ' ' of meat. 
Q. Is it not stated (and if not, correct me) on page 18, of another sample, that it 
looked overboiled, was more than usually disintegrated, and the lean lighter in color? 
It is page 18, I think, from which I have quoted, or endeavored to quote. 
A. Yes, sir. (After inspecting report.) "It looked overboiled, was more than 
usually disintegrated, and the lean lighter in color." 
Q. Then again, if you please, on page 22, is it not stated, in regard to the meat from 
a number of the cans submitted, that ' ' it resembled ordinary boiled beef, except that 
it was generally lighter in color and more disintegrated than the boiled beef such as 
the gentlemen who examined it are accustomed to see on the table in ordinary 
households; " and, on the same page, "We judged that it had been heated in water 
in smaller pieces and for longer times or at higher temperatures than are usual in 
household cooking?" 
A. That is correctly quoted, sir. 
Q. Is or is not the inference drawn on pages 44 and 45 from the amounts of mineral 
matter found, along with the observations of color, flavor, and especially texture, 
made at the time of opening of the specimens of meat from the court of inquiry, that 
"the meat had been boiled considerably," and that " a considerable portion of the 
mineral salts were removed in the boiling?" 
A. Yes, sir; but pardon me for adding that the adjectives and adverbs are some- 
what indefinite. They do not express, exactly and quantitatively, the time of boiling 
or the amount of material extracted. And perhaps I ought to add (since I infer that 
the descriptions which I have given here in this report may not have conveyed to 
yourself, as reader, exactly the impression which they were intended to convey) that 
we found, not only in the different cans, but in the different parts of the same can, 
differences in the color and structure and apparent disintegration of the meat. 
Those were very similar to the differences which you would see if you were to take 
such a piece of boiled beef as I was accustomed to see on the table when a boy at 
home, and we used to have boiled beef to eat-that is, between the outer and the 
inner part. Those differences in the different cans were quite similar. Some cans 
looked more like the outside, which would be very much disintegrated; some like 
the inside, which would be less disintegrated. 
Q. I will ask you, just at this point, and will then proceed in connection with that 
same question, the following question, which occurs to me now, in regard to the 
weights of meat in these different cans-whether you made any record of the actual 
weights as compared with what they were reported to weigh; whether there was any 
marked deficiency, or anything that amounted to anything, as much as from 2 to 10 
or 20 per cent? 
A. The exact figures, sir, for each can are given in one of the tables. If you will 
wait a moment I will get them; but 1 can give you, from memory, sir, some of them. 
Where there would be presumably 2 pounds, assuming that they were called 2- 
pound cans 
Q. Yes. 
A. I have no right to say that they were sold for 2-pound cans; but taking, if 
you will, as a standard, 2 pounds of canned contents, there was generally a little 
less than 2 pounds. In some cases it was, as I now recall it, one and ninety-nine, 
ninety-six, or ninety-four hundredths. I recall a case of one and eighty-hundredths, 
or something of that sort. I do not remember all these figures, sir, but may I refer 
you to the table where they are exactly given? 1782 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. I just wanted a few instances of it, Professor; I do not care anything for the 
minute details. In regard to the 2-pound cans, you had no other size submitted 
to you than what you believed to be the 2-pound cans, did you, larger than those? 
Did you have 3-pound and 4-pound cans? 
A. No, sir; they were all of the size which I am accustomed to call a 2-pound 
can. But I do not remember, sir, any guarantees of weight, or that sort of thing. 
Q. No; I just wanted to get at what you found as to the contents, when weighed, 
in one or two instances. In one instance you found 1.80 pounds, I believe, and in 
another 1.90 something? 
A. Would you permit me to refer to the exact figures? Because that is an impor- 
tant point. 
Q. Certainly. The importance of the question, if you will please bear in mind, 
is with reference to the amount of food that the can would contain, for the use of 
the soldier, in furnishing him a can alleged to contain 2 pounds of meat, and which 
really contained If pounds, and soon, and also in the matter of purchase. 
A. May I ask your attention, sir, to Table 1, in which are given the weights of 
the contents of the cans, each can in grams, as they were weighed; then the weights 
translated from grams into pounds and ounces? 
Q. If you please. 
A. M, N, and O, 1.96, 1.96, 1.96-average, 1.96; in grams, 889, 888, 890; but each 
one was so near 1.96 that it is fair to call it that. 
Q. That is 1.96 pounds. 
A. Yes; 1.96 pounds. In the case of P, Q, and R-shall I give the brands, sir, of 
these? 
General Davis. Yes, sir; if you please. 
The Witness. The first three cans, then, M, N, and O,are "Prairie State Packing 
Company. " " Prime roast beef. ' ' 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Cans M, N, and O are from the Prairie State Packing Company? 
General Davis. Just give us the pounds and ounces. 
The Witness. Pounds and decimal pounds, understanding that there is a little 
disparity in the reckoning as to grams. You will appreciate the matter of decimals; 
I believe you do not care for the grams. P, Q, and R, "Armour Canning Co.;" 
"Prime roast beef;" 1.77 to 1.90, averaging 1.82. 
The Recorder. Who is the packer? 
The Witness. Armour-Armour Canning Co. 
S and T, "Wilson Packing Co.; " "Extra choice roast beef;" 1.97 and 2.10; aver- 
age, 2.04. 
U, "Libby, McNeil & Libby;" " Prime roast beef;" 2.01. There was only one can 
of that brand, you understand. 
V, W, X, "Armour Canning Co.; " " Prime roast beef;" 1.92 to 1.96; average, 1.94. 
Now, do you want the others, the "Navy" samples? 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Yes; take those. 
A. " Navy A," " Fr. J. Dessoir, contractor; " "Roast beef;" 1.80. 
"NavyB," "Eastman Canning Co.;" "Choice roast beef;" 2.05. 
"NavyC," "Samuel Heyman, contractor;" " Roast beef; " 2.01. 
Q. Now, going back to our other matter, I will ask: Considering the difference 
found in the amount of mineral matter in ordinary canned beef and in the specimens 
of canned beef received from the court of inquiry, excluding those to which salt had 
apparently been added, is not the inference declared to be not unnatural that "these 
specimens of beef from the court of inquiry had been boiled more than the other 
specimens of canned beef?" FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1783 
A. What is the page of that, if you please? 
Q. There is no reference to any page. I presume it is following the same line. 
The quotation is, "These specimens of beef from the court of inquiry had been 
boiled more than the other specimens of canned beef." 
A. Well, but that, sir, I think, is not quite 
Q. That is a part of the quotation in connection with the question? 
A. Yes, sir; but you will remember the words of Solomon, "My son, if sinners 
entice thee, consent thou not." 
Q. I am not putting anything in your mouth, Professor, and I do not care to have 
anything of that sort implied. That is something I have never done with any wit- 
ness before this court. 
A. Oh, I beg pardon, sir. It is evident, sir, that that was another case in which 
I was not fortunate in making my meaning clear, sir. Would you allow me to put 
it in clearer form? 
Q. 1 wish you would put it so that it can be thoroughly understood. If I am able 
to understand it, perhaps the humblest individual in this city might understand it. 
We were following, at that time, page 22. 
A. The phraseology, sir, was this, if I understand the sentence correctly 
Q. If you will allow me a moment, I will read what preceded; and then perhaps 
I have omitted a page. Is not the inference drawn on pages 44 and 45 from the 
amounts of mineral matter found, along with the observations of color, flavor, and 
especially texture, made at the time of opening the specimens of meat from the 
court of inquiry, that "the meat had been boiled considerably;" and that "a con- 
siderable portion of the mineral salts were removed in the boiling?" That is the 
quotation, I think, from pages 44 and 45. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Now, going on, perhaps right in that connection, is the question, which does 
not assume to be a quotation, but a question 
"And, considering the difference found in the amount of mineral matter in ordi- 
nary canned beef and in the specimens of canned beef received from the court of 
inquiry, excluding those to which salt had apparently been added, is not the infer- 
ence declared to be, not unnaturally, that 1 these specimens of beef from the court of 
inquiry had been boiled more than the other specimens of canned beef?' " 
There is a quotation there beginning with " these specimens," and so forth. 
A. The phrase, sir, is this: "A not unnatural inference might be." May I ask 
you to observe the difference between "might be" and "is?" 
Q. Yes. 
A. (Reading:) "A not unnatural inference might be that these specimens of beef 
from the court of inquiry had been boiled more than the other specimens of canned 
beef. This again is a conclusion which the facts at hand seem to me to suggest but 
not to prove." 
Q. Then, going on, do you not give it as your "own judgment" (page 45) that 
"the removal of a considerable portion of both the mineral salts and meat bases is 
very probable," though you "do not regard the figures as sufficiently complete to 
permit any definite statement as to the proportions thus extracted?' ' if I have quoted 
you correctly. 
A. That is a correct quotation; yes, sir. 
Q. On page 42, in connection with this question, you say, in your report (this is 
not given as a quotation; I do not know whether it should have been or not), that 
the only doubt which you can see that these examinations suggest regarding the 
nutrition of the canned beef has to do with the removal of the extractive matters 
including meat bases and soluble mineral salts. 
A. Yes, sir; that quotation is exact, save that there are the words "nutritive value" 
instead of "nutrition." 1784 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. You do not seem to have made any analysis, in detail, of the mineral matter 
present. 
A. I did not, sir. 
Q. Is not the nature of mineral matter present important, as well as its amount? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do not alkaline phosphates form the greater part of the mineral matter of beef? 
A. Yes, sir; most certainly, according to all the data with which I am familiar, 
both of the meat as it occurs in the natural state, of the material which is extracted 
from the meat by treatment with water, as in the case of boiling, or making a broth 
or meat extract. 
Q. Are they not of physiological importance in connection with the assimilation, 
I will term it-"metabolism," I presume, is the technical term-going on in the 
human body? 
A. Probably they are, and of very considerable importance. 
Q. Then, if they were largely removed by the treatment of meat with water, 
would common salt added form an adequate substitute for such material removed? 
A. I should think not at all, sir. I say, I should think not. I can not see quite 
how it could, sir. 
Q. Do you not say in your report, on pages 46 and 47, if I have it right, that "the 
proportions of nutrients which may be digested from different food materials are 
best learned by actual experiments in which they form part of the diet?" 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And is it not further stated there-and if I am in error I would like to be 
corrected-that "another important factor of the digestibility of food is found in the 
ease with which a common food material is digested, the time required for the process, 
and the effects of the food upon health and comfort?" 
A. "Given," if you please, instead of "common"-"a given food material." 
Yes, sir; with the change of "common" to "given," that is correct. 
Q. Do you not also say in the report: " Whether the food materials contain unac- 
ceptable or injurious compounds may sometimes be told by chemical analysis; atother 
times the detection of such compounds by chemical methods is difficult and uncer- 
tain? " 
A. Yes, sir; and I took some pains to use that phraseology, in order to express 
the indefiniteness of our chemical and physiological knowledge upon the whole sub- 
ject. 
Q. Finishing that-and I am thankful to you for the answer at that point-going 
on and quoting as I believe-if not, 1 would like to be corrected on it: "The most 
decisive way to learn whether a food material is or is not disagreeable is by actual 
tests. Here again the most satisfactory experiments are those in which the food is 
actually eaten and the effects are carefully observed." 
A. I think that is a very important principle, sir. 
Q. That, I believe, is from your report on that page. I tried to quote it right 
from that. 
A. That is it, sir. 
Q. I believe you also say, Professor, "Our ordinary food materials undergo changes 
when they are kept for some time. In these changes injurious compounds called 
ptomanies are sometimes produced. This is especially the case with animal foods, 
as meats, fish, and milk." Have I quoted you correctly on that? 
A. Yes, sir; that is quite correct. Possibly there might be an inference that vege- 
table foods were not subject to similar change. That inference would be incorrect; 
but it is especially true, sir, of the animal foods, without doubt. 
Q. Does not your statement that, in some cases at least, chemical methods furnish 
imperfect means of detecting disagreeable substances, also apply to these injurious 
compounds? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1785 
A. Yes, sir; but, at the same time, that is one of those cases in which a general 
and indefinite statement, such as one feels compelled to make, is capable of misin- 
terpretation; and may I be allowed to state here, to the court, that in all of the prep- 
aration of this report, and in what I am saying here in the presence of others than 
the court, I have felt under a particular embarrassment, because I have seen so many 
times, not only in connection with testimony given here, but in many other places, 
where a particular statement, made as carefully and guardedly as the maker of the 
statement could well make it, is taken out of its connection, is misunderstood, and is 
quoted and sent out abroad and interpreted in ways that are entirely wrong. I do 
not know-are these proper things for me to say? 
The Recorder. Certainly. 
The Witness. May I be allowed, sir, to cite an instance to illustrate what 1 mean? 
In my home we take certain papers. One of them is one of our best family semi- 
religious papers. I dislike to mention the name here. If I did you would know it 
as one of our best, solid, substantial papers. I saw in that paper an editorial upon 
the results of the testimony taken before this court, and examinations made, and an 
inference drawn which was entirely wrong. It was said that in the cooking of meat a 
third or more of the goodness was taken out of it, when really what was evidently 
meant was that in the cooking of the meat it lost water. But the people do not 
understand it, you see. 
I speak of that as illustrating the ways in which things are misunderstood. Now, 
sir, I hope you will kindly bear with me if I say that on that account I feel somewhat 
embarrassed in taking these individual sentences by themselves, without explaining 
their larger bearing, lest they might give a wrong impression. 
Q. In answer to that, Professor, of course I have nothing more to say than this: 
That I believe the court-if I may be permitted to say so; I am not speaking for the 
court-allows you all possible latitude. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And your report has been read and commented upon by yourself before the 
court? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And these questions which are asked you are with reference to the report, and 
in no sense intended to garble, or mislead, or create any wrong inferences in any way; 
and if we have picked out some of these questions on the important points in the 
report it is simply that they seemed to be more salient, and it seems to be evident 
that they could be made more clear-at least to our understanding. And it is with 
that object and not with any object of creating any false impression 
A. May I be allowed to go further and say that I am very much obliged to you for 
the opportunity to say this, to bring out this especial thing, because I have seen, in 
so many ways, the great fairness of the court, and only wish that there could be that 
same fairness in the interpretation by the public; and it was because of the impression 
outside that was made by garbled statements that I, perhaps inappropriately, said 
what I did here. 
Q. With regard to the seven digestion experiments made by you with the canned 
meat submitted by the court, is it not a fact that the young men who were the sub- 
jects of experiment were neither, in their habits of life at the time, nor in respect of 
the surrounding conditions of climate and exposure, fairly comparable with the sol- 
diers of the American army in Cuba and Porto Rico during the recent Spanish war? 
A. Of course the conditions which you mention were very different. In how far 
the difference of conditions would make a difference in the experience the men 
would have in eating the meat, in the agreeing or disagreeing of the meat with the 
persons, I am unable to say. 
Q. Was not the diet furnished to these young men distinctly more varied than the 
food with which, at any rate at times, the soldiers in question were supplied, within 1786 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
your knowledge or information; and did not the food materials furnished the young 
men experimented upon, in addition to the canned beef, include a number of sub- 
stances, easily digestible and palatable, which could not be procured by the mass of 
the soldiers in the field, such as butter, milk, sugar, eggs, etc.? I am asking in regard 
to general information on the subject-not in regard to your personal knowledge of 
what the soldiers went through. 
A. Your question implies just exactly what I should gather from my general infor- 
mation ; that is to say, from such reading as I have done I have inferred that the sol- 
diers did not have even as varied a diet as what we call the quite simple diet these 
young men had. By any means, they did not have such a diet. 
Q. Was not the mode of cooking adopted for the experiments, as a matter of 
information, different from that which the soldiers in the field were frequently 
obliged to adopt? 
A. Certainly, sir. 
Q. I will ask you this, from page 52 of your report: Was there not complaint from 
the young men experimented upon, in three out of seven of the experiments, that 
eating the meat was attended by decline of appetite, feeling of lassitude, and a diffi- 
culty of compelling themselves to eat the required amount of meat, and that even 
in other cases the meat was spoken of by them as tasteless and unappetizing? 
A. May I ask you to kindly repeat that? 
(The question was repeated.) 
A. In two cases there was a feeling of lassitude, slight in one and considerable in 
the other. These gentlemen, however, did not experience any such difficulty in 
swallowing the meat as did the subject of the third experiment, who did not com- 
plain so much of lack of appetite as he did of difficulty in swallowing so much of the 
meat; though I ought to add that even he did not have any such difficulty in swal- 
lowing the meat as did the gentleman of whom I also spoke, the young German 
physician, student of medicine, with whom I made a similar experiment, and who 
had for his diet the best flavored fresh meat that we could get, cooked in the most 
appetizing way we could cook it, and served with the most appetizing materials we 
could find for him. That is to say, we have there a case in which a diet containing 
nothing but meat-as good meat as we could get, and the flavoring material, was 
almost impossible to swallow; and there was a special reason for citing that, and 
that was to indicate that the fact that in a given case a man with an unusual appe- 
tite may find a part of that diet somewhat repulsive, does not necessarily prove that 
that particular part of the diet is intrinsically bad. Do I make myself clear, sir. 
Q. Certainly; that is as clear as noonday to me. Then I will put the hypothetical 
case: Suppose there were large numbers of men living upon this diet, or trying to 
live upon it-soldiers undergoing hardships and hunger, eating of this diet, and com- 
plaining of unusual vomiting and diarrhea, trying it again with the same result, and 
going then to bacon, even greasy bacon, and getting better; what would be your 
scientific opinion in regard to a matter of that kind as to the suitability of the food 
that had produced or was alleged to have produced the trouble? 
A. My personal belief would be that under the circumstances as you narrate there 
must have been something in that beef that made those men sick. 
Q. Thank you. 
A. But will you kindly observe that I say my personal belief would be that. One 
must be careful in such things not to say up and down, "I know positively that it 
was that thing that did it," until one knows all the circumstances. I can only give 
you an impression, sir, a belief. 
Q. That is all we can go by in this world. When a soldier with my experience- 
pardon the remark-believes he has eaten something that disagrees with him, and 
does it three or four times, and when he quits it he gets better, he concludes that that 
does not satisfy him. However, 1 will ask this question: Did not these complaints FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1787 
referred to come from the cans of beef used by all three of the young men experi- 
mented upon? 
A. If you choose to call them complaints-yes, sir. 
Q. Perhaps that is a stronger term than I should use. They were not, perhaps, 
in the nature of complaints. We may say objections, if you call them such, or faults, 
or criticisms. 
A. Or disagreeable experience. 
Q. Yes. 
A. Yes, sir; each one of those young men had some of more or less disagreeable 
physical sensations in the eating of some of the meats. In one case very little, in 
another case more, and in the third case, in an experience of a different sort, the 
difficulty in swallowing. 
Q. I will ask you if it is not observable-of course you are more familiar with the 
tables than I am-in Tables 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12, 13, and 14, that the percentage of mate- 
rial digested is found lowest for protein, of which the canned beef mainly consisted, 
and is not the difference in the proportion of protein digested, as compared with,the 
other classes of food material, more marked in the experiments made with canned 
beef submitted by the court than in the experiments with other material which are 
given in Table 14 for the purpose of comparison? 
A. Will you permit me to find what I have said upon that particular point? 
Q. Certainly. 
A. The statement is exactly this: 
"A comparison of the figures in Table 14 shows that in the experiments with the 
canned beef received from the court of inquiry the digestibility of the total organic 
matter was about the same, that of protein slightly smaller, and that of fats and carbo- 
hydrates slightly larger than in the other experiments. The differences, however, 
are small and by no means sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the different 
kinds of meat differed materially in digestibility." 
Q. I will ask you, Professor, if you please, would not digestive experiments made 
upon a large scale-that is, with a larger number of individuals-and made under 
conditions more closely parallel with those surrounding soldiers in the field, had 
time permitted such to be made, have been more valuable than those reported on 
by you? 
A. Most certainly, sir. 
Q. Attaching now due weight to the results of the seven digestion experiments 
reported on by you, what clegree of weight should be attached to a fair consideration 
of results observed in the case of hundreds, or possibly thousands, of men actually 
serving in the field, in summer, in a tropical climate, and under conditions involving 
often much exposure and violent exertion? I am asking you for your scientific opin- 
ion on this matter. 
A. Would you kindly read that question again? Because I see it is an important 
one. 
(The question was repeated.) 
A. The greatest possible weight would, in my judgment, be attached to the expe- 
rience. Permit me to say, sir, that in each case the experiment is a matter of 
experience, the difference being, as I understand it, that in these particular digestion 
experiments which I have reported the number of cases was very small. The obser- 
vations were, however, more painstaking and exact in the individual case. In your 
larger experience, of course, you had thousands of subjects, but in none of those 
cases was there the scientific accuracy, if you please, that was necessarily observed 
in experiments for a scientific purpose. Have I met the question? 
Q. Certainly. Right there, the tests of practical experience were certainly much 
more extended. 
A. Why, of course. 1788 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. And must be given weight accordingly. 
A. Of course. I think there is this other consideration, at least according to my 
own experience, which is very limited indeed, in observing how people enjoy their 
food and whether their food agrees with them or not. It is often the case that the 
disagreement of the food with the person is a matter due to the person rather than 
to the food. There are two different classes of conditions which may bring about 
that disagreement. The one is the individual, and the other the food; and food 
which would be perfectly agreeable and acceptable in one case would be disagreeable 
and possibly injurious in another. The food which is perfectly healthful for one per- 
son may be really poisonous, I suppose literally poisonous, to another. I think that 
such considerations as that should be borne in mind in attempting to answer your 
questions, which I am trying to answer as well as I know how. 
Q. I am simply coming down to matters that I think have been pretty well shown. 
Suppose that 80 or 90, and I will say even 95, per cent of the men in an army will go 
hungry and discard an article of food rather than eat it, what would be your scien- 
tifi® opinion in regard to that character of food, with such general dissatisfaction? 
A. Why, I should try to get some other food. 
Q. In considering the results of actual experience of the soldiers in the field with 
the canned beef under discussion-this is perhaps almost a reiteration of the other 
question, but it is here-would you not consider that hundreds of eases reported, of 
illness, fairly attributed to the use of beef and positive refusal in many cases by the 
men to eat the beef at all, even when they could procure no substitute and were 
hungry, could not be accounted for by mere whim, and furnished various ground 
for impugning the wholesomeness and fitness of the material in question as food for 
men under the then existing conditions? I believe I have asked you practically that 
same question, but it is here, and I had rather anticipated it. 
A. I should say it furnished ground for impugning that particular material for 
those particular men under those particular circumstances. But will you permit me 
to add, because justice requires that I should do so, that the same material, very 
likely-I do not say necessarily-hut very likely the same material under other cir- 
cumstances might not have been physiologically or aesthetically objectionable. The 
case you refer to, the soldiers in Cuba, is one thing. The case in the household is 
another thing; and, whether properly or not, may I state to the court-I have a 
reason which seems to me to justify me in adding this and laying stress upon this. 
If I am wrong, I can only beg your pardon, sir. I am taking this thing in two 
aspects. The one has to do with the very admirable purpose, if you will pardon 
that expression, sir, which I see manifested here. The other has to do with another 
thing which, as the director of an agricultural experiment station, as a student of 
food economy, as a person brought into connection with great interests of the house- 
hold and of the farm, seems to me to be important, and certainly is greatly affected; 
and it is because I see these things quoted around, and see them misunderstood and 
misapplied, and see an impression with regard to the value of meats and with regard 
to the value of canned meats going out (not only from what is said outside, but from 
what is said inside, with every possible attempt to be accurate and truthful)-because 
I see that impression, that perhaps I have been overzealous in emphasizing the two 
sides of the question, calling attention to the other side of the shield; and it is on 
that account that I wish for an opportunity to say one thing more. Pardon me, sir; 
if this is inappropriate I will stop here. Shall I go on? 
The President. Go on. 
A. I have here a statement which some time I shall be glad to make. In fact, I 
took the pains to write it down. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, as the witness is under examination, I should 
be very glad to have any statements that he wishes to read in regard to the interests 
that he has spoken of, and in regard to this whole matter. I do not want to curtail FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1789 
him in regard to time. So far as I am concerned, I would like to have him read the 
statements referred to, if the court pleases. 
The Witness. These statements are, in general, a summary which I wrote pri- 
marily for my own satisfaction of the results of the observations which I had made 
in connection with these experiments. 
Major Lee. It is a matter which is submitted to the court. I have stated that I 
had no objection to any statement the witness desires to make. 
The Witness. Is it proper to read this, sir? 
The Recorder. Certainly. 
A. I have referred here to the general fact. 
"The specimens of canned beef received from the court of inquiry have been sub- 
jected to experiments which permit comparing these with other kinds of beef in 
respect to chemical composition and digestibility. From these experiments and 
comparisons inferences are drawn regarding the nutritive value. The specimens 
were of so-called 'canned roast beef. ' Both the general examination and the chemical 
analysis implied that, with the exception of some which were apparently corned, 
they were actually boiled rather than roasted beef. In appearance, flavor, odor, 
composition, and digestibility they were very similar to ordinary boiled beef. 
" The principal nutritive ingredients of meats are protein compounds and fats. 
The quantities of these in the specimens examined were such as have been ordina- 
rily found by analysis in canned beef. The amounts are greater than occur in ordi- 
nary fresh beef. The reasons for this are that the bone, which makes a considerable 
portion of the weight of ordinary beef, is removed in preparing the beef for canning, 
and that in the process of preparation the meat is cooked in such a way as to expel 
a small proportion of the water. The bones and the water have no special nutritive 
value, and the canned beef is, therefore, a concentrated product. 
"The results of the analyses of fifteen specimens of canned meat from the court of 
inquiry have been compared with those of somewhat over four hundred specimens 
of ordinary fresh beef and over one hundred specimens of cooked, preserved, and 
canned beef, as ordinarily cooked and eaten in the household. Each of the speci- 
mens of canned beef received from the court of inquiry contained, pound for pound, 
greater amounts of actual nutriment than any of the kinds of fresh beef in the form 
in which they are ordinarily sold in the market, including both flesh and bone. 
"The explanation of this difference is that already stated, namely, that the canned 
beef had been freed from the bone and part of the water contained in fresh beef. 
"The chief nutritive ingredients of beef, as of other meats, are the protein com- 
pounds ahd fats. These build and repair the tissues of the body and yield the energy 
needed for warmth and work. 
' 'Aside from the protein compounds and fats, beef, like other meats, contains cer- 
tain other valuable ingredients, but these latter occur in very small proportions. 
The chief are glycogen, so-called meat bases, and mineral salts. The total amount 
of glycogen in the fresh beef is generally a fraction of 1 per cent of the total weight. 
The portion of so-called meat bases is not well known, but probably does not exceed 
1 per cent, and is ordinarily stated at a much lower figure. The amount of mineral 
salts is also about 1 per cent or less. 
"The glycogen of the meat, though valuable, is not essential for nourishment. 
The meat bases serve neither for the building of tissue nor for the yielding of energy. 
They are, however, commonly supposed to be valuable for their flavor and for their 
stimulating effect, though late experiments have thrown doubt upon their efficiency 
as stimulants. They may also have other important physiological uses. That they 
are not necessary for nutrition is shown by the fact that they do not occur in such 
animal foods as milk or eggs, or in any vegetable food materials, such as flour and 
school education; four years and three months in civil war (private and lieutenant), 
potatoes, which make up the whole of the diet of great numbers of well-nourished 1790 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
people. The mineral salts are essential for nourishment. If meat were the sole diet 
and the mineral salts were removed from it, it would not long sustain life; but if 
the meat makes a part of an ample and diversified diet the removal of a part of the 
mineral salts from the meat would probably not be felt under ordinary circumstances. 
"Meat bases and mineral salts are extracted from meat by water in the preparation 
of ordinary meat broths and meat extracts, and are the most important constituents 
of these justly and highly prized products. Meat from which none of these materials 
have been extracted is, in general, preferable to that from which any portions of 
them have been removed. For this reason ordinary boiled beef is slightly less desir- 
able than roasted, broiled, fried, stewed, corned or dried beef. 
"The analyses here made imply that a considerable portion of the mineral salts 
and meat bases of the specimens of canned meat from the court of inquiry had been 
removed, but they do not show with any degree of exactness what proportion had 
thus been extracted. In so far as they do go, they imply that the proportions 
removed are not greatly different from those extracted from beef by boiling as ordi- 
narily practiced in the household. 
"The inference is that these specimens of canned meat resemble in nutritive value 
the boiled beef as ordinarily cooked and used. 
"As regards canned meats in general, I may say that if it were a question of the 
canned boiled beef as a sole article of diet, I should say that the fresh beef certainly, 
and perhaps the corned or dried beef, would be often, if not always, preferable, not 
only because of the flavor, but also because of the normal content of extractive mat- 
ters. But I am unable to see anything in the results of either of these analyses or 
the digestion experiments which seems to me particularly disparaging to canned beef 
in general, or to the canned boiled beef in particular, as a constituent of a mixed diet 
with the ordinary proportions of meat. For my own part, I may say that as I have 
been accustomed in the past to use canned meat on my own table, and to make it an 
important part of the food supply which I am accustomed to take in camping and 
other expeditions, the examination here made would not in the least dissuade me 
from following the same practice in the future. So long as the material is wholesome 
and the flavor is agreeable, the nutritive value will, in my judgment, be practically 
proportioned to the quantities of the principal nutrients, protein and the fats, where 
the meat makes the usual proportion of a mixed diet. 
"W. O. Atwater." 
By General Davis: 
Q. In these digestion experiments the men were fed with a certain quantity of 
this canned beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Prepared in a certain way? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Besides condiments, which were used in making it palatable and more digest- 
ive, perhaps? 
A. Yes. 
Q. What food besides did they have? 
A. May I give it to you exactly from my report? 
Q. I know it is in the report, but I want to bring it out more clearly. I want it 
more fully. 
A. They had bread 
Q. How much? 
A. May I give you the exact figures? 
Q. Yes. 
A. They had 300 grams of meat, 28 grams making an ounce; something over 10 
ounces, say 12 ounces, if I figure right. 
Q. How many ounces of all the rest? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1791 
A. They had enough of the rest to make up what was for them a satisfactory diet, 
what our experience has shown would make a diet sufficient to supply the needs of 
the men under those circumstances. We made a great many experiments. 
Q. Was it 10 ounces more, or 20 ounces more, or 30 ounces more? 
A. More than that, sir. May I not give you the exact figures? 
Q. Certainly. 
A. One does not like to give inaccurate figures under these circumstances, sir. 
[After referring to report.] For three days, 900 grams of meat, 300 a day, in one 
experiment; 625 of bread; 150 of rice; 90 of a commercial breakfast food which is 
really parched corn; 180 of butter; 653 of milk; 240 of sugar; 51j of the contents of 
eggs; 8| ounces of lime juice. Shall I give you others? 
Q. No; that is enough. 
A. Some were smaller than that. 
Q. The meat, however, was the only article of the ration that those men had that 
they had any difficulty in swallowing or consuming? 
A. Yes. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. I do not know that it is necessary to ask this, but it refers to the conclusion of 
your very interesting summary. You say: "So long as the material is wholesome 
and the flavor is agreeable, the nutritive value will, in my judgment, be practically 
proportionate to the quantities of the principal nutrients, protein and the fats, 
where the meat makes the usual proportion of a meat diet. ' ' 
A. Yes. 
Q. In case the material is not wholesome and the flavor is not agreeable, that 
statement will be qualified accordingly, of course? 
• A. Certainly. 
Q. Is it possible, from the usual chemical analysis, to determine whether the meat 
analyzed came from the carcasses of healthy animals or animals that might have 
been in some degree diseased? 
A. The chemical analysis would not in general, certainly not always, give any 
indication of disease of the animal. Of course that is a general question that would 
require qualification in special cases. If, for instance, it were pork, and there were 
trichina in it, you might grind up the trichina with the pork and analyze it, and 
the analysis would not show the trichina. If you put it under a microscope, it would 
show the trichina. So a cow might have died of tuberculosis and the analysis would 
not show it. 
Q. I understood you to state in your report, or perhaps you stated in answer to 
some question on that point, that a chemical analysis, as such, would not distinguish 
between the flesh of beef and other flesh in all cases? 
A. Not in all cases. Such chemical analyses would not in all cases; meaning by 
that the particular kind of analysis which we made in this individual case. 
Q. Would such analyses, of themselves, suffice to prove the absence from the 
canned meat, we will say, of such deleterious matters as grubs and perhaps maggots, 
or even disease-producing bacteria? 
A. If the material which contained the grubs or the maggots was prepared as we 
ordinarily prepare it for analysis, namely, by grinding the material all together in a 
sausage cutter or something of the kind, so that the individual portions would be 
scarcely distinguished from one another by the naked eye, and then the substance 
thus prepared were subjected to the ordinary processes for the determination of 
the quantities of nitrogen, fats, etc., the analysis would make no distinction between 
the proteins and fat of the grubs and the protein and fat of the cow. Does that 
answer your question? 
A. Yes, sir; that answers the question. 1792 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. But, on the other hand, it would be a very strange affair if the rather close 
examination with the eye sometimes needed under the microscope failed to reveal 
the presence of animals as large as grubs and maggots, though it would entirely fail 
to reveal the presence of such minute organisms as bacteria. 
Q. Would they not be dissolved by heat, or might they not be dissolved by heat? 
A. Hardly dissolved, sir. 
Q. I do not know whether you call it dissolved. I will say disintegrated. 
A. The material would be coagulated, perhaps you might say, in such way that 
the mass would be all mixed up and you would not know it; but will you permit me 
to emphasize the distinction between the chemical analysis of a thing after it has 
been prepared for that process and the examination which takes place before it 
undergoes that preparation? 
Q. Certainly. 
A. That is what I want to emphasize, sir. 
Q. I was speaking, of course, in regard to the usual analysis that was made. We 
hear of analyses being made showing that this food is all right and that it contains 
certain elements of food and that it is such food as the system will take, and so 
on. I would like to know whether a chemical analysis, as such, would detect the 
presence of any of these things that might yield practically the same results. 
A. That depends on whether you include in the word "analysis" the whole opera- 
tion to which the material is subjected, or only the latter part of it. If you include 
the whole, they would be detected; if you include only the latter, they would not. 
Q. Then, in the case of this canned meat being subjected to a very considerable 
heat and a coagulation such as you speak of, in the ordinary examination or in such 
an analysis and examination as was made of the fifteen cans submitted by the court, 
would the detection be made in those cases, or would it be liable to be? 
A. I should be much surprised, sir, if the grubs and maggots, in case they were 
present, were not detected. I should be greatly surprised if the bacteria were 
detected, one being microscopic and the other being visible to naked eye. 
Q. I will ask you a question of this nature, Professor. I do not know that I read 
it exactly right, but you will probably understand my intent: Would it not be pos- 
sible for a chemist to prepare a mixture of horseflesh, tallow, carpenter's glue, and 
a little common salt, which, on a bare chemical analysis, would yield results quite 
similar-I am not speaking of identical-to those shown in the tabulated results oi 
the canned roast beef? Would it not be possible for a chemist to make a preparation 
of that kind that would show results quite similar? 
A. I think a chemist might make a preparation in which he would use horse- 
flesh, beef tallow, a certain amount of glue and salt, put them together in proper 
ways, ways fitting for such a purpose, if that is in any way a fitting purpose, and 
then grind them and analyze them and bring out the same proportions of carbon, 
oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and other elements, the same proportion of proteins, 
fats, and other things as are found in one of these analyses. And I will go further. 
Unless there were something especially distasteful or disagreeable or pronounced in 
the odor of that carpenter's glue; if, instead of that carpenter's glue you would use 
ordinary gelatin, such as we use in cooking, I think you might take some horse- 
flesh, tallow, and the gelatin and the salt, and such condiments as we use in making 
what we call meat loaf, and make a meat loaf which would be as attractive as the 
ordinary meat loaf as it appears on the table, and as nutritious and valuable for food; 
but, sir, will you allow me to add that I do not believe that the fact that it would 
be possible to make such a concoction has any special bearing upon the canned 
meats as they are ordinarily prepared and sold in the markets. I do not believe in 
the great slaughtering houses they would be taking their glue and mixing it in 
their canned meats, nor do I believe they would be driving in their old horses and 
slaughtering them in the presence of hundreds of men. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1793 
Q. In the question I was asking, I was not implying that a packer would do any- 
thing wrong. My question related purely to the matter whether such a thing could 
be done or not. You have heard, have you not, in your connection with the Agri- 
cultural Department, or by common report at least, from some of the agents of the 
Department, that horseflesh was canned in one of the Western cities-of course, not 
in the Eastern cities-as an article of sale. I will ask if that report was made and 
investigated at any time during the preceding administration of the Agricultural 
Department, I believe under Secretary Morton, or along about that time. 
A. I am hardly competent to answer that question, because I am not in the Agri- 
cultural Department. I live in Connecticut, sir. 
Q. I thought you were connected with it. I beg your pardon. 
A. I am only incidentally connected with the Agricultural Department and am not 
familiar with its details. 
Q. 1 did not know but you had some information on the subject. 
A. It may be a revelation of great ignorance, but I don't happen to have heard of 
that. I have heard of a good many instances in which horseflesh was used, and I 
suppose I have eaten it myself. In fact, I happen to know of a particular case in 
which I afterwards learned that I had. 
Q. My question may travel a little outside of the line of investigation, but the 
soldiers may have eaten all kinds of food. 
A. What I meant to imply in what I added was that it did not occur to us that we 
were expected to examine that food with reference to the occurrence of horseflesh 
and glue. 
Q. It was merely a question in regard to the chemical examination; whether if 
the food was ground up and examined in that way, such a thing could be done or 
not. 
A. But, sir, kindly bear in mind the important distinction between the narrower 
chemical examination, namely, the process that takes place after the material has been 
prepared for analysis, and the preliminary examination which the chemist naturally 
makes of the substance before he subjects it to that examination. 
Q. I was taking the case where the meat has been subjected, for instance, to great 
heat, or the maggots or grubs had been subjected to great heat. You said it would be 
coagulated or disintegrated, or whatever it was; and I am asking whether the ordi- 
nary chemial analysis would discover it. That was the only point in that. However, 
I will pass to the concluding question, I believe. Is it possible, from the analytical 
results reported, for any chemist to affirm positively that the canned meat examined 
was good, nourishing, and wholesome food, fit for issue to soldiers in the field? 
A. Will you kindly repeat that question? 
(The question wras repeated.) 
A. That, sir, is one of the questions for which a categorical answer, to be just, must 
be divided into two parts, one being yes and the other no; and to make it thoroughly 
just, qualifications should be added to each. What I mean is this: When you sim- 
ply take the figures that are published giving the results of determination of nitrogen, 
nitrogen multiplied by 6.25, giving protein, and the fats, meaning the material 
extracted by either, and mineral matter, meaning the material left after it has been 
incinerated, burned, and the water, after it has been driven off by heat, etc., those 
figures do not and can not intrinsically show whether the food is wholesome or not, 
because such compounds as, indeed, the ptomaines, many of which are capable of 
detecticn by other methods of chemical analysis, would not by this method be 
detected; because, furthermore, other things than ptomaines may be present which 
may effectually affect the flavor, and hence, the acceptability of the material, if not 
the wholesomeness. If, then, sir, your question applies to simply those processes of 
chemical analysis, of which the final results are tabulatea in the tables which you 
have seen in this report, I must say that the analysis would not decide whether the 
S. Doc. 270 113 1794 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
meat w'as or wras not wholesome. If, on the other hand, you take into account the 
collateral examinations that are made, and if especially you bear in mind the old 
saying that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and you make the actual test 
under such circumstances that the answer to the question is specific, as it must be in 
the kind of digestion experiments we have made, with conditions all definitely 
known and stated here, then it seems to be that the wholesomeness or unwholesome- 
ness would be indicated much more clearly. 
Redirect examination by the Recorder: 
Q. What would be the effect in the way of sterilization upon bacteria of exposure 
to heat of, say, from 225° to 250° F. for several hours? 
A. Let me preface the answer to that question by Paying that I am not a bacteri- 
ologist, and can not, simply from memory, give you the exact temperatures at which 
different kinds of bacteria are killed by heating for given times, and that I do not 
now recall w'hat are the average results of experience regarding the times of heatings, 
indeed, to kill not only the bacteria themselve, but the spores, of which some will 
sustain a very high temperature; but in general, the heating to the temperatures 
which you mention, which are-215°, did you say? 
Q. 225° to 250°. 
A. 225° to 250° would be expected, if continued for some time, to certainly kill the 
bacteria. I regret that I do not recollect exactly the different temperatures at which 
different spores are killed; but by repeatedly heating, or by heating a long while, you 
may kill the spores. When wre w'ish to sterilize our meats that we prepare for 
experiment, when we prepare them for experiment, wre heat them to the proper 
temperature, w ith the idea that we shall kill the bacteria, but may not kill the spores. 
We set that material aside, and the next day we heat it again, so that the spores 
which have been developed of bacteria may be killed, and we repeat that process 
until we think w'e have not only killed the bacteria, but killed the spores. Have I 
answered your question, sir? 
Q. Yes; fully. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to recall Captain Pomroy. 
TESTIMONY OF CAPT. FREDERIK H. POMROY, U. S. A.-Recalled. 
Capt. Frederik H. Pomroy, U. S. A., was recalled by the recorder, and, being 
warned that he was still under oath, testified as follows: 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Captain, when you were before the court testifying in answer to a question in 
regard to conversations with Colonel Smith, the commissary, as I recall, you stated 
in evidence, in speaking of the refrigerated beef at Ponce, as to its keeping qualities, 
that Colonel Smith stated that it had been processed, as you recalled in your testi- 
mony. Colonel Smith has appeared before the court, and if I can find the record, I 
will repeat his language. He stated, as a fact, that he had not made any remark of 
that kind to you with reference to the refrigerated beef; that he did have some con- 
versation with you at various times, and may have or perhaps did have some 
conversation wuth regard to Dold's processed beef. In view of the testimony that 
you presented to the court, and in view' of the statements of Colonel Smith, also before 
the court, have you any explanation, or anything to say in that regard, for the 
information of the court? 
A. I saw in the Tribune that Colonel Smith had denied that he said to me that a 
chemical process had been applied to the refrigerated beef that wras sent to Ponce; 
and within a few' minutes after seeing that article in the paper, I met Colonel Smith 
in the Ebbitt House and we had a talk on the subject. In the course of it I told him 
I did not testify that he did say that the refrigerated beef had been subjected to any FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1795 
chemical process; that at that time I had never heard of the chemical process; that 
I did testify that he said the beef was guaranteed to keep seventy-two hours; and I 
asked him how they could do that, and he said they had some process by which 
they could guarantee it. He said he recollected the conversation, but that it was 
about the Dold prepared beef from Kansas City, which Captain Mercer brought 
down in the Mississippi about the same time the Manitoba came, and not to the 
refrigerated beef that came on the Manitoba. I told him I testified according to my 
recollection of it, and that was as I recollected it; but that I did not claim to be 
infallible, nor do I. It appeared from that article in the paper that there was an 
issue of veracity between Colonel Smith and myself, and there is not. Colonel Smith 
and I are on very friendly terms. I simply desired to say that I testified, when I 
testified, as I then understood and remembered the conversation; but that his under- 
standing of it was that it was about a different kind of beef. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to recall Colonel Weston of 
the Subsistence Department. 
TESTIMONY OF COL. J. F. WESTON, U. S. A.-Recalled 
Col. J. F. Weston, U. S. A., was recalled by the recorder, and, being warned that 
he was still under oath, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. In the matter of the adoption or the choice of the canned roast beef for use in 
the operations in Cuba, will you please state or restate to the court what experi- 
ments and recommendations were had prior to the adoption of that article? 
A. You mean what we took away with us-the proportions we took? 
Q. No; what experiments took place, to your knowledge, and what discussions, 
before it was decided to choose that for the expedition to Cuba? 
A. I want to get it right. Two things occurred to me. One was what originally 
occurred to select it as a part of the ration, or to put it as a part of the ration. 
Q. I mean last year; not away back. It was already a part of the ration. 
A. Oh, last year. 
Q. What experiments were made and what discussions were there which, to your 
knowledge, determined the Department to choose it as a portion of the stores for 
that expedition? 
A. I made several experiments in New York, but all of them with potatoes, onions, 
bacon, flour, salt, pepper, and everything. 
Q. When were those made? 
A. Colonel Brainard, who is now with General Otis in the Philippine Islands, 
had his apprenticeship under me, and when he went to Alaska on that expedition 
he made inquiry as to what was best to take. He thought perhaps I could answer 
him; and about that time I was directed to purchase a lot of pemmican in New York 
by telegraph at a certain price. Upon inquiry I found that the pemmican was pem- 
mican that was sold in the Brooklyn Navy Yard on the return of Greely from the 
North Pole expedition. Upon examination, I found it pretty tough; and I said if 
it was left to me I would not take it. Then I went into the canned beef business, 
and I got some beef from the Franco-American Company. I regarded that as a 
by-product-what was left after they got their soups. It was a great soup place, the 
best in the country, I guess, and I made a statement that I thought this canned beef 
would be better than the pemmican in the Brainard case. Now, I will come to the 
other shortly. Along about March I had an idea that we would have war, and I 
went at the business very carefully. By mixing the canned beef with those ingre- 
dients, all a part of the ration, I found that a most excellent stew could be made out 
of it, and I so reported it. Not alone on that did I make report. I also made report 1796 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
about our bread; that the bread and meat were the two difficult problems that were 
before us, if we had war. I suggested that the Secretary call upon Mr. Amer, a big 
cracker manufacturer of New York, and have him go to Washington and talk on 
lines that would induce Amer to go with us to Cuba. He did offer to me to take 
down a sufficient part of his machinery to establish a bake shop anywhere we 
wanted that would turn out 100,000 loaves a day. That was the bread part, 
and hence I suggested that he would be called to consult with the Secretary. As 
to the sterilized beef, I suggested that a Mr. Hastings, I think a representative of 
Armour & Co., of Kansas City-it was the Kansas City beef I had worked on-that 
he, too, be asked to go to Washington and the matter of sterilized beef and bread be 
settled there. On the 6th of April I wrote a letter, rather a testy one, because of the 
answer that I had received to that letter that was written in March-about the end 
of March-stating that I thought our Department was a bit lazy in the matter; that 
if they were as apprehensive of war as I was they would not put off the inquiry. To 
that I received a reply from Osgood-you see there were half a dozen commissary- 
generals in there; and the present one not at all-that I was mistaken; the Depart- 
ment was making inquiry, and there the matter stopped. My experiments showed, 
and I believe them now, that canned roast beef, potatoes, and onions, and those 
ingredients, would make first-rate food. Now, with reference to what we did in that 
matter; we did everything on those lines to see that the food would be made good, 
because I threw overboard 150,000 pounds of vegetables, or thereabouts, that I might 
save the other stores, because they were all porous and would take up the odor. I 
landed, or had landed, at Daiquiri 100,000 pounds that I did push to the front. Had 
I got in both, the proportion of canned meat that was landed and issued to the troops 
would have been well supplied with the vegetables that I had experimented with, 
and would have made, in my opinion then and now, first-rate food. My whole 
experiment was with vegetables, and my whole insistence was in that line. 
Q. To your knowledge, do you consider any weight attached to that point of view, 
that it might not be possible to get the vegetables and meat together? 
A. Oh, I also suggested, lest that would be a failure, that we put a potato and an 
onion in the can. 
Q. Have you seen that preparation put up in canned form? 
A. I have. 
Q. What is your knowledge as to its lasting power? 
A. I believe it was considered that the onion would not keep, the way it was put 
up, although the lot that was sent to me at Tampa and tried by Ripley, or the Third 
Cavalry, was reported on favorably by Ripley; but that was only on the immediate 
result of the experiment in camp. 
Q. You have already testified to his experiment? 
A. Yes. 
Q. The canned roast beef, as furnished to the troops of the expedition, was in the 
form of a travel ration, was it not? 
A. Not after we landed. 
Q. No; but on the voyage across? 
A. On the voyage across it was never thought that the expedition wmuld be as sizy 
as it was. A certain amount of canned roast beef was at Tampa, but not enough, I 
think, for any expedition that was contemplated. Things were changed all in a 
hurry. 1 think General Wade started to load, and had on board the Alleghany 
250,000 rations, and on another ship, say, 100,000. They were not exactly complete, 
but they were complete barring a little soap and tomatoes on the Alleghany. That 
was the first preparation, I think, for a small expedition. When the expedition was 
enlarged, every possible effort was made to get more canned beef. Whether we got 
any from Jacksonville or not, I really do not know, nor do I know the amount of 
either that was supplied to the troops. That was not in my line. There was a FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1797 
depot commissary there; although I was not lacking in interest in it, yet I could 
not tell the exact amount. 
Q. To your knowledge, was anything done to familiarize the troops with the use 
of the canned roast beef prior to the sailing of the expedition? 
A. Not that I know of. 
Q. Was it an article that was familiar to them-one that they had been in the 
habit of using as part of the ration? 
A. My close intimacy with troops ended after the Geronimo campaign, and it was 
not on the ration at that time. Since then I had been a depoist until I got in the 
Santiago campaign; oh, I was at Fort Sam Houston, and I don't think there was 
any use of it there. You see, there was no necessity for it. If troops went on a 
practice march, they took their bacon with them, and if they wanted beef the officer 
with them had authority to buy it, and we never contemplated giving it where we 
had beef. 
Q. Was any inquiry made, to your knowledge, as to whether the troops were sup- 
plied with vegetables that would be necessary to use with the canned roast beef on 
the voyage? 
A. There would be no use in supplying them. They had no way of cooking them. 
Q. There were no arrangements for cooking? 
A. There were potatoes and onions enough there for the whole outfit, if they 
wanted them. 
Q. Can you recall approximately the amount in rations or pounds of potatoes and 
onions and tomatoes that went with the expedition that was actually loaded on the 
steamer? 
A. That went with the expedition?-well, no. I could tell approximately by tell- 
ing you what we issued in the month after we landed. I can tell you what bacon 
and beef went with the expedition, because I kept it. 
Q. I refer to the vegetables. 
A. Of the vegetables that went with the expedition, 150,000 pounds were thrown 
overboard, and 100,000 pounds came subsequently in the Louisiana and were landed 
at Daiquiri, and we did shove them up. There was provision for about 250,000 
pounds-quite enough, anyway, for the length of time we had been out. 
Q. Were you familiar with the details of loading the subsistence stores on the 
transports at all? 
A. As familiar as a man could well be, don't you know, that is around all the 
time, day and night. 
Q. How widely distributed were the bacon and the canned fresh beef in loading? 
A. On the ships? 
Q. On the ships. 
A. When General Shafter sent for me to prepare for, say, 18,000 men, or whatever 
we took with us, it was first suggested to take rations for four months. He wanted 
that, and he suggested that, because of the organic kind of stuff that we were han- 
dling; we had better have it; and I said two. We started to load on two months' 
rations. Then he sent for me again and said six. Then General Miles came, and I 
made an argument with reference to the nature of the stores, and we compromised 
upon three. When we first started the idea was that we would put the stores on as 
few ships as possible, and that the troops would take fourteen or fifteen days' field 
rations with them besides their travel rations. General Miles wanted stores on 
every ship. That could not be just then, because we had on one ship, say, 400,000, 
rations, you see, and we would have had to take them off that ship and put them on 
others in order that all should have them. So then the number of ships I was to 
divide as well as I could, and I think probably 14 ships had rations on them, from 
50,000 to 200,000, along there. 
Q. Passing on to the time of landing, will you please state to the court in narrative 1798 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
form, what special efforts were made and what facilities there were for getting the 
stores from the ships to the depot on the shore? 
A. I might say offhand there was none. There was one open-deck lighter, the 
Laura. Another one had been provided, but she did not come. General Shafter put 
the whole work of landing on me. He said he would hold me responsible, although, 
as you know, it was not my work at all to get stores off the ship. However, he gave 
me stevedores and the lighter, and with the lighter at Daiquiri I could run into a 
little pier and unload from the bow of the lighter; but I only made one unloading 
there. That wras on the 22d, although on the 21st I had worked all day and all 
night about 28 miles west of Santiago feeding Garcia's army, getting off stores, and 
getting them up. Then we ran back and commenced again. We got off about 
40,000 at Daiquiri, and then I was sent for again to go aboard ship. The General had 
concluded that we had landed too far from where we intended to fight, and he told 
me he would want me to put off 200,000 rations at Siboney. That was, of course, 
closer to Santiago; but there was absolutely nothing there. It was just a slight curve 
in the shore. I knew what wras on each ship, and I would call what ship I w'anted, 
but I did not know exactly what part of the ship it was on. The stores were put in 
under the Quartermaster's Department. It was their work to load them, and the 
unloading was simply a terrible job. I would run up alongside of the port and go 
in. My orders were to be sure to have bread, meat, sugar, and coffee. Of course, I 
did not understand those orders in a restrictive sense-that I could not get anything 
else but those. Sometimes it would be impossible to get what you wanted in the 
line of meat, as you would be crowded up with everything-things that were not 
among those four articles, plus the camp and garrison outfit, because they were run 
ashore with their three days' rations, and a great many things were left behind. 
We would rummage and work around, and we would get out our bread and meat and 
sugar and coffee. I can tell you exactly what was issued in June and July, and the 
proportions, as I have a little memorandum of it. 
Q. Will you please do so? 
A. I will also say that we did not go there with canned meat particularly in excess. 
Out of, say, 1,800,000 rations there were at the rate of 11 to 7-11 of bacon. [After 
examining paper.] We landed on the 22d of June. From then to the end of June 
we issued 72,414 pounds of canned roast beef, 92,534 pounds of bacon, 174,889 pounds 
of tomatoes. Those tomatoes with the canned roast beef were very good in the 
absence of potatoes. " Civil employees, all bacon. Cuban forces, all bacon." Why 
is that? Twenty-eight thousand one hundred and eighteen pounds of bacon and not 
a pound of beef did they take. That was in June. 
Q. Why was it? 
A. I don't know. I was astonished myself in looking over the returns to find that 
the case, because it was there for anybody. I refused nobody. Of course our ov n 
troops had the preference. There wras no question about that. It was no easy thing 
to carry, Colonel. I will divert just a little. In taking it from the ships to put on 
the lighter we would shove out a box of bacon, and a box of bacon weighed about 
240 pounds, 4 pieces, we will say. We would not get that ashore, because we had to 
carry the stuff through the surf, and 240 pounds we could not carry. We would 
break the box on the deck of the lighter and throw the pieces to one side, and throw 
those pieces in a small boat-a 10-ton boat that Captain Goodrich, of the Navy, loaned 
me. Small as the boat was, and insignificant as it was, we would have had to fall back 
if it had not been for the little boat he loaned us. We had made no preparation our- 
selves. We would take this bacon up to the railroad station. There was a station 
between Siboney, the mineral town, and El Cruz, in the harbor of Santiago, and 
there were any amount of railroad ties, and I built a platform and started a sort of 
flooring for a warehouse. The bacon would be put there, and I have often walked 
up to the ankle in the grease running from it. It was not a very presentable looking 
thing. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1799 
Q. Was it fat bacon? 
A. It was fair bacon. 
Q. Was it side bacon? 
A It was good side bacon. There was no fault with the bacon. If you took a 
box running 240 pounds, you would get about 50 pounds of bacon out of it. That 
is a fair bacon, you know. The pack train would come in, and they would see the 
tidy package with the canned goods and they would see the bacon, with the grease 
running from it, and they took what they wanted. There was no restriction, and 
I do not know of any other reason than that the bacon was uninviting and hard to 
pack. 
Q. How did the amount which was landed, which you may say was constantly on 
hand on shore from day to day, compare with capacity of the transportation to take 
it to the front? 
A. Indeed it was there. One time the surf barred landing. I have seen some- 
where that General Shafter was very anxious because he had heard of the surf. The 
surf started in about the 3d of July, and we couldn't land a pound of anything, but 
I had then between 80,000 and 100,000 rations ahead that they could not take up. 
The surf kept up three days, and I went out. It was easy enough to go out and load 
on the outside, and I ran into Daiquiri and put off 40,000, so that in case I could not 
land any more at Siboney they would simply have to haul it 8 miles farther. But 
that 8 miles was a burden, and they couldn't do it. If we had to haul that 8 miles, 
the army would have had to fall back. We couldn't do it. 
Q. Was that the case from the beginning to the end that the amount of bacon on 
shore was larger, compared with that that was hauled up from day to day? 
A. No, sir. At one time at Siboney I ran down to a thousand rations, but not of 
sugar and coffee. At that time I had perhaps 140,000 rations of sugar and perhaps 
80,000 of coffee. The meat ration of every kind had run down; but at that same 
time I had run into Daiquiri and had 40,000 or 50,000. Taking both depots, I always 
had it. 
Q. Did you receive requests from the front for particular kinds of meat; that is, 
for either bacon or beef? Do you remember that? 
A. No; I did not. 
Q. By whom, to the best of your knowledge, was it determined as to what form 
of meat should go to the front-what should be hauled up? Who decided that? 
A. The trains simply came in there and-"Here is bacon and here is everything 
we have." 
Q. Who came in charge of them? 
A. Usually a wagon master or a pack-train master; sometimes an officer. 
Q. Did they as a rule bring a requisition or a request or a list? I do not mean a 
formal one, but any sort of request as to the kind of meat they wanted. 
A. No; they left that with Gallagher. When I first landed at Daiquiri, I made a 
depot right there and put Wilson at it. Gallagher landed with me on the 23d at 
Siboney, but on the 1st of July the general thought we ought to have a depot closer 
to the troops, and I thought so, too. Gallagher went up probably 6 or 8 miles, and 
we shoved on to Gallagher. I think perhaps Plummer, who was here before you, 
controlled the trains. You see, all the transportation was not running for the sub- 
sistence department. There were animals there to feed. 
Q. After the depot was established at the front and the wagons began to transport 
the stores from the Siboney depot to the one at the front 
A. Very few wagons ever came there. 
Q. Very few? 
A. Very few. The wagons would be sent down to Daiquiri. It was mostly pack 
trains. 
Q. Did they get rations there? 
A. There was forage, you know, and a whole lot of things. Yes; and there were 1800 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
rations there. They hauled no rations from there if they could avoid it. Of course 
they hauled all the potatoes from there. 
Q. What was the practice, then, after the depot was established at the front as to 
the transportation of rations from the Siboney depot to the front? 
A. We sent out just as they came in for it. Whatever they wanted-" Here is 
the stuff and there is your train, take it along." 
Q. Did the transportation ever reduce your depot to zero at Siboney? 
A. Oh, no. It was down, as I say, to about a thousand rations of one thing, but 
of others it was way up. 
Q. Will you please state to the court what peculiar difficulties there were, if any, 
in getting at any desired quantities of either beef or bacon? Did you find any 
trouble with the loading, or anything of that kind, that would have prevented you 
getting beef or bacon as you desired? 
A. Do you mean getting it ashore off the ships? 
Q. Off the ships. 
A. Sometimes I would meet the obstructions I told you about. At the port I 
might find flour. 
Q. Do you recall that either form of meat became difficult to get on account of 
other stores being piled on top or in front of it? 
A. No; I do not, and had I heard any complaint there could have been no diffi- 
culty aboard the ship that I would not have surmounted; but I have never heard a 
complaint until I went into Montauk. 
Q. Please state to the court, as far as you can recollect it, everything in the way of 
complaint or criticism or suggestion that came from the front in regard to any article 
of food that was being sent up. 
A. On my word of honor, I heard none. I heard none during the campaign, nor 
until I was down at Montauk Point. You see, I was on my way to Porto Rico and 
was taken sick, and I was ordered from here. The treaty was about to be signed, 
and Iwas sent to Montauk. I should not have gone; I was too sick; but when I 
went down there, and when the troops came in they complained of the fresh-meat 
ration and some of them wanted to turn it in. Some of them piled it up in their 
camp, which we afterwards took in. It was fresh meat, and you couldn't make any 
saving of it, you know. That was the first complaint I heard of the meat. That 
had no relation whatever to the campaign. It had relation to the ration returning 
aboard ship. I was not there when the troops returned. I started away from there 
after we got in the harbor. I ran in on the 19th, and they issued fresh beef about 
the 21st, and on the 28th or 29th I went aboard a ship to goto Porto Rico. So really 
I was not there when the troops started to return, and know nothing, really, what- 
ever about their travel ration; but I know this, that the travel rations that were 
there were to provide for the return of Spanish prisoners at that particular time. 
There was about 250,000 rations piled up for them. 
Q. Did you receive suggestions or requests from the front asking that a particular 
kind of meat should be sent out? 
A. No, sir; 1 did not, 
Q. Had you any reason to believe, in your situation at the base, that a particular 
kind was desired at the front in preference to another? 
A. I did not, Colonel; but you will please understand this: That I was in a position 
where I would not have heard quite so much as others. It was this way: My work 
was in pulling the things in and getting them unloaded. 1 did not sleep ashore 
every night. Some nights I would be asleep on the deck of the lighter. If I got 
the captain out, I would lie down in his bunk, and some nights in my own; but a 
man might have a complaint to make and he might not find me to make it to, 
because of my duties. The first seventy-two hours that we were there I think I 
worked all the time, barring four or five hours, without any intermission. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
1801 
Q. Had such requests or suggestions come from the front, what would have been 
the chance of their reaching you? 
A. I would have'been told about it in one way or another, but perhaps not by the 
party. Oh, yes; I would have heard of it in one way or another. 
Q. As a question of experience at the time, did you find it difficult to get at either 
bacon or beef, as the ships were loaded? 
A. It was difficult to get at anything you had to rummage for; but that did not 
govern me. The records showr that there was more bacon issued than beef. 
Q. And which of the two meats would be easier to find, upon an average, through 
the transports, under the circumstances under which you unloaded them? 
A. I think they were about alike. I took beef ashore on one occasion to get it out 
of my way. That is, it was easier to throw it on the lighter and to get it ashore than it 
was to push it back in the ship to get the bacon, and I cleared my way by pushing 
it ashore. 
Q. Was any green coffee issued? 
A. I am very glad you asked that. Not an ounce was ever intended for our troops. 
On the 21st of June, when issuing to Garcia and the Cubans, they wanted green 
coffee; and mighty sensible fellows they are; and when I found what they wanted, 
I sent out to Gallagher and had it landed from the Alleghany. She really had noth- 
ing but green coffee on her. I didn't load her, but I sent out, I think, probably forty 
or fifty thousand rations, ten or fifteen days' rations for the allies, the Cubans; but 
not an ounce was ever intended for our troops. If they got any of it, I don't know; 
but it was never meant for them. The Cubans preferred it, and T aimed even to give 
the Cubans what they wanted. 
Q. Does your paper show what issues were made of bacon and beef in July? You 
have read what issues were made in June. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Please go on and give the amount for July. 
A. About the 22d of July the first of the refrigerated beef came there. "Fresh 
beef to troops, 229,062 pounds; bacon, 140,421; canned roast beef, 175,211." More 
canned roast beef and bacon, and plenty of fresh beef. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Let me interrupt you there. What is that first item of what you call fresh 
beef? 
A. That is refrigerated beef on the block. 
Q. You had refrigerated beef at that time? 
A. Yes, sir. 
General Davis. Its issue began on the 22d of July. 
The Witness. "To troops, 325,416 pounds of potatoes; to troops, 111,488 pounds 
of onions; to troops, 187,188 pounds of tomatoes." (See Appendix 24 A.) 
By the Recorder: 
Q. In July? 
A. In July. 
Q. Did you read off the vegetables for June? 
A. The amount of vegetables for June was: Tomatoes, 174,889 pounds. There 
were no potatoes. You see, what we landed at Daiquiri comes into the June account. 
The bulk of these, you know, was thrown into the harbor of Santiago. 
Q. When did your transport fleet enter the harbor of Santiago? 
A. About the 19th or 20th. 
Q. How quickly was a depot established for general stores? 
A. I had within five days about 800,000 rations piled up. I had as fine lot of stores 
for sales as I ever saw, and finer in the commissary department. No store in New 
York had a finer lot of stuff piled up in one of the warehouses than I had there by 1802 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
the 26th of the month. The potatoes came in in abundance, and 750,000 pounds 
more bacon came in on the Iroquois. 
Q. Did fresh vegetables come in after the 19th? 
A. Oh, plenty. 
Q. Ami are they included in the figures you have given? 
A. These are what were issued to them. It don't show what were on hand at all. 
Q. What determined the location of the ship containing the refrigerated beef-her 
draft? 
A. We wouldn't take her into the harbor. No ship could get in. I was very 
much disappointed in that. I thought my work would ease up when we went into 
Santiago, but no ship drawing over 14 feet could get up. We had to lighter every- 
thing. I had the same work as before, only there was no surf. We had about 2 
inches of tide, and that was a very small thing compared with the other. 
Q. Did you have any increase in the number of lighters before you came away? 
A. No; we captured a lot in the harbor, and I used those-made free with them. 
Q. Who made the first arrangements for the issue of the refrigerated beef? 
A. It was sent in there by the Commissary-General. 
Q. But I mean in the harbor, as to its issue to the troops? 
A. Oh, who issued it. Let me see. When I got into the harbor, there was nothing 
but sickness in Siboney. My first assistant was sick with yellow fever, and my head 
stevedore wouldn't stay any longer. He was afraid of the fever. The nigger steve- 
dores were all afraid of it, and wanted to get back to Florida; and the white men 
were no better. So when I got into Santiago I really had only one commissary- 
sergeant to do the work-that is, to direct it. We picked up a lot of good soldiers 
there, and they helped us. In five or six days my clerks came out; and with my 
commissary-sergeants I had my depot at Siboney broken up and ran the stores up 
on the railroad. The engineers had finished the span of a bridge that the Spaniards 
had destroyed, and had the railroad working. Our engineers fixed up in two days 
what had taken the Spaniards about six weeks to destroy, and a train was running 
with our own men-men of the Engineer Corps. 
Q. To your recollection, was there any conference between the commanding gen- 
eral and yourself with respect to the arrangements and orders that were necessary as 
to the issue of refrigerated beef, in the way of hours and transportation? 
A. Our aim was to get it to the troops as early as possible. That was the idea. 
The general appeared to have full confidence in me as a commissary and an all- 
round man, and he left things pretty well with me. 
Q. Did you give any instructions? 
A. Oh, yes; the beef came in about 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, and the regiments 
were notified that they had to come in early for the beef. 
Q. You did not remain long after the beef came in? 
A. Only about five days. 
Q. During the time you remained was the transportation to take it to the com- 
mands adequate or otherwise? 
A. I would infer from the lateness with which some of the wagons came in that 
it was not adequate, because if it was adequate there was no reason why they should 
be so late about coming in for the beef. 
Q. To your recollection, were specific instructions issued as to the hours when it 
should be received? 
A. Not except that they should be early. 
Q. To whom were they given? 
A. To the commissaries, the fellows that had the work to do. 
Q. What class of commissaries drew the beef-brigade or regimental commissaries? 
A. Brigade commissaries, as a rule. 
Q. And they made issues elsewhere? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1803 
A. Yes, sir; it was impossible to keep up the organization we were trained to. 
It was impossible to do it under the conditions. 
Q. The first steamer to come in was the Port Victor? 
A. I think so. 
Q. Was that the one that contained Swift's land refrigerating plant. 
A. I think so. 
Q. While you remained there will you please state to the court what reasons there 
were why it could not be unloaded? 
A. Why couldn't we unload the whole ship at once? 
Q. No; unload so as to get out the refrigerating plant for shore. 
A. I really don't know why the refrigerating plant was not put ashore. The man 
didn't speak to me about anything of the kind, nor did I know there was a plant to 
be put ashore, until he did ask me if he could get certain ground that I wouldn't let 
him have except it was very necessary to have it, as we were using it to put our 
stores in the warehouse after we unloaded them from the ships. There was a good 
deal of work around there. Furthermore, I had about 100 stevedores that were 
encamped there, and he wanted this particular place because it was close to where 
the beef boat would run in in the morning. I gave it to him. He didn't have it sent 
up, I think, before I left. He was putting it up. I remember it looked like a circus 
tent or something like that. 
Q. Did I understand you to say he made application to you for assistance in 
unloading? 
A. For unloading. 
Q. In unloading his refrigerating plant? 
A. No; he did not, except that he wanted space. That is all. I put at once Ram- 
say, of the Nineteenth Infantry, in charge of the particular work, and the two kept 
an account of what went out and the money value that was issued to the different 
outfits as they came in. So I pulled myself away from it. 
Q. I understand no efforts were made while you remained to get at that refriger- 
ating plant for the shore? 
A. As far as I know. I didn't know there was a plant until the man asked me for 
ground. 
Q. Speaking from your experience as a commissary in the purchase of canned 
goods, what attention or regard was paid by the Subsistence Department to the abso- 
lute weight of contents? 
A. It differs in canned goods. In tomatoes we call for 2-pound cans, but we issue 
them for a pound and a half; a 2J-pound can we issue for two pounds; a 3-pound 
can for two and a half, and a gallon can I think for six and three-quarters. They 
have trade weights that would not come up to the avoirdupois, but that being an 
article of issue, we give the full amount. In canned beef we advertise for a thousand 
2-pound cans of beef. We don't advertise for the pounds. We advertise for a 
thousand 2-pound cans. We examine them with great care, however other people 
may think to the contrary. At the depot at New York, if I buy a thousand boxes, 
I would take out a box here and a box there, and take out some of the cans and open 
them and look at them, and weigh a box. I couldn't weigh every can. In canned 
beef you would find some plus and others minus, you know; but we would weigh 
a box. 
Q. A case? 
A. A case, I mean; and I never saw them run behind. 
Q. In purchasing canned meats, is the undertaking on the part of the United 
States to get so many pounds or so many cans? 
A. They are after the poundsand cans, too; but it might be as I tell you. One can 
would weigh more and another a little less. They are after the total amount. 
Q. How is it issued-by the pound or by the can? 1804 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. We look at it that it is about an average, and we issue it by the can.- One can 
would be a little short and another would be a little long. It is about the same. 
Q. Is it issued by weight? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. An enlisted man is entitled to a certain weight, then? 
A. A certain weight; yes. 
Q. Speaking of your report of March 24, do you recognize that as a copy of it? 
A. I have got both reports right here, and also the answer that I received. Do 
you wish to receive that? I think they all go together-they are all hand in glove. 
That [indicating] must go back to the office. 
Q. Could a full report be furnished of your letter and the indorsements under seal? 
A. Yes, sir. 
General Davis. Could you not read them? 
A. Yes; I will read both of them. 
The witness then read the report of March 24, 1898, above referred to, addressed 
to Gen. Samuel T. Cushing; also a letter to the Commissary-General, dated April 6, 
1898, and the replies thereto, which are appended hereto, marked . 
The Recorder. May it please the court, the reporters have about all that can be 
conveniently taken down and transcribed to-day, and I suggest that the further 
examination of the witness be deferred until to-morrow. 
The court then (at 5.10 p. m.) adjourned until Tuesday, April 18, 1899, at 10 
o'clock a. m. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C., 
Tuesday, April 18, 1899. 
The court met pursuant to adjournment at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
The court then went into executive session, after which a recess was taken until 
2 o'clock p. m. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C., 
Tuesday, April 18, 1899. 
The court reassembled at the expiration of the recess. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Captain Irvine, of the Eleventh Infantry. 
TESTIMONY OF CAPT. ROBERT J. C. IRVINE. 
Capt. Robert J. C. Irvine was called by the recorder as a witness and, having 
been first duly sworn, is examined. 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service. 
A. Robert J. C. Irvine; captain, Eleventh Infantry. 
Q. Upon what duty were you engaged during the latter part of August and the 
early part of September, 1898? 
A. I was detailed as executive officer, commissary, and adjutant of the United 
States transport Panama, bringing convalescents back to the United States from 
Porto Rico. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1805 
Q. When was she assigned to the duty of bringing convalescents back, about what 
date? 
A. I think about the 30th of August, the last days of August. 
Q. What were your duties on the Panama? 
A. I was, as I state, adjutant, executive officer, and commissary. That was the 
way the order read, the order from army headquarters. 
Q. Please state to the court in narrative form what duty you performed at that 
time in connection with taking on a supply of fresh beef. 
A. The plan of the vessel was to go from Ponce to Arroyo, at the east end of the 
island, to return to Ponce and then to Mayaguez, taking on convalescents. We took 
on, I think, 125 at Ponce. On the 30th or 31st of August I drew from the commis- 
sary, I think, about 500 pounds of fresh meat. 
Q. Of what kind? 
A. That was native beef. 
Q. Where? 
A. At Ponce. 
Q. When? 
A. Either the 30th or 31st of August. We then went down to Arroyo to get some 
convalescents from General Brooke's command down there, and we returned to Ponce 
on the 2d, I think. We were gone about three days. I then drew about 1,200 
pounds of refrigerated beef in two lots, and also other stores from the commissary 
department, including canned beef and tomatoes and things of that sort. Possibly 
I got those before I went down. I am not sure about that. 
Q. Did you take on any more fresh beef? 
A. Yes, sir; I just stated that I took on 1,200 pounds. 
Q. Any after that? 
A. No, sir; I took 500 pounds of native beef first, and then on my return to Ponce 
I took on 500 and some odd pounds of refrigerated beef, and on the same morning, 
about an hour or two afterwards, I got 700 pounds more. 
Q. Please state fully the circumstances in connection with the loading of the 1,200 
pounds in two lots; when they were received, and from whom? 
A. I received the first lot myself. I went over from the vessel probably about 8 
o'clock in the morning, and I received the 500 pounds myself from Captain Pomroy, 
the commissary down there. This meat I received at the commissary storehouse in 
Ponce, and I took that meat out myself on a lighter to the Panama, one of those 
water boats, and we got a little ice, I don't remember how much, but perhaps 1,000 
pounds, and carried this meat out. It was rather a slow' process of getting it out. 
The balance of the meat, I am not sure how that was brought out. I don't remem- 
ber whether I got that or not. I went back and got it, but I did not take it out. 
Q. About what time of the day did you get this first lot of beef? 
A. Early in the morning, between 8 and 9 o'clock. 
Q. About w'hat time did it get to the ship, into the refrigerator? 
A. It must have been two hours or two hours and a half afterwards, I think. 
Q. Was any beef in the refrigerator when the refrigerated beef was put there? 
A. That I can not say, sir, because the quartermaster of the vessel had ship's 
stores belonging to the ship and he may have had some in there. I am not sure 
about that. 
Q. By w'hom would the beef be obtained for the use of the ship's company? 
A. The beef for the ship's company? 
Q. Yes. 
A. You mean for the crew of the vessel? 
Q. Yes. 
A. That would be issued out on the quartermaster's orders. They were his 
employees. 1806 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
Q. And who would draw it? 
A. His employees; I don't know, sir, who. 
Q. Who would draw it for the ship and put it on board? Who would get it for 
the use of the ship? 
A. Captain Williams, who was the quartermaster of the vessel. 
Q. Did you examine the refrigerator on the day upon which the two installments 
of refrigerated beef were received? Did you go into it? 
A. Well, I did not examine it. I was not in it, you know. I looked into the door, 
but did not make any critical examination of it. It was a large place built on the 
port side of the vessel, the left side of the vessel, and the door was probably 6 or 8 
inches thick; I presume built like an ordinary ice box. 
Q. How much ice was in there when you looked in? 
A. There was not very much at first, but we got some afterwards. 
Q. How was the ice arranged with respect to the beef? Was it in a compartment? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. How was it arranged? 
A. Just laid on the floor. 
Q. How was the beef arranged? 
A. The beef was laid on top. That is, there was some beef laid on top and some 
underneath with a piece of ice over it. That was before we got other ice at Mayaguez. 
The day afterwards we telegraphed over there to have, I think it was, 8 or 10 tons. 
There was trouble about getting ice. 
Q. And how was that ice put in? Was any more beef added by anybody after 
these two lots of 1,200 pounds? 
A. That I don't know. 
Q. Did Captain Williams put in any beef of any sort after this 1,200 pounds was 
put in? 
A. I don't know, sir. 
Q. Can you say that he did not? 
A. No, sir; I can not say. 
Q. You can not say whether he did or not? 
A. No, sir; I could not say. 
Q. When you looked in did you see anything but the refrigerated beef in there? 
Was there any other beef than the refrigerated beef? 
A. My recollection is that we used up the native beef going down from Ponce to 
Arroyo. I do not know of any other native beef on board. 
Q. About how many pounds would you consume per day for the use of the sick or 
the convalescent? 
A. Well, the full ration would be a little over a pound a day, and we had 250 odd 
men. 
Q. How much, according to your recollection, would be required each day? 
A. I do not think half of it, possibly not more than half. 
Q. Under ordinary circumstances, then, how long would 400 or 500 pounds of 
native beef last that you put in there on the 31st of August? 
A. That would last two or three days, I should think. 
Q. Could the crew get at this beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And were they using from it? 
A. I think it was quite likely that Captain Williams used some of it and replaced 
it. I know he said something about my letting him have some, and he would 
replace it. 
Q. So, then, would the 500 pounds of yours remain intact save as you issued it to 
your sick? 
A. It was only used by the men that I had charge of, and if he took any of it of FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1807 
course that much would also be consumed. I did not keep a very close account of 
it. I did not personally supervise that. 
Q. How positive are you of the statement that the 500 pounds of the native beef 
was all consumed before the two lots of 1,200 pounds of refrigerated beef were putin 
there? 
A. It is simply my certain impression, that is all. I could not swear that it was, 
but I believe that it was. 
Q. Did you examine those tw'o lots of beef when you received them? 
A. I examined the first lot that I got myself. 
Q. What was its condition? 
A. The meat was on the floor in the storehouse piled up, probably 5 or 6 feet 
high. There was quite a large amount of it there. How long it had been there I 
did not know. It had a slight discoloration on the outside and I spoke to the com- 
missary-sergeant about that, but he said that was simply the result of being in the 
refrigerator, that all meats there had that color, and he took his knife and cut into 
it and showed me underneath that it was red and apparently good. 
Q. Was there any odor? 
A. It had not the odor of anything decomposed. There was an odor-a sort of 
close kind of smell about it-as though it had been closed up in a box, as I presume 
it had. 
Q. But no smell of decomposition? 
A. No, sir; I did not notice any at all. I simply noticed the discoloration. 
Q. Was the refrigerated beef naked? That is, was it covered in any way? 
A. I think it was; yes, sir. I think almost every piece was covered with some kind 
of covering. 
Q. Was that which you drew covered? 
A. I could not be positive about that. Whatever covering there was over it was 
torn, and that is the way I happened to notice this piece sticking out, where he cut. 
Q. Do you remember in taking it on board the Panama, whether the covering or 
any portion of it remained on any of the quarters? 
A. I am not positive about that. 
Q. Did you look into the refrigerating room after the ship got under way; after 
she left? 
A. Yes, sir; I looked into it, but did not make any close examination of it. 
Q. And what was the appearance of the beef then? 
A. It was just the same. It had not undergone any change. 
Q. What about the odor? 
A. The odor wras just about the same. I did not notice any change in that. It 
was, I think, the third day afterwards when the putrid odor became noticeable. 
Q. It became noticeable the third day? 
A. I think it was the third day, and then there was a board of survey. 
Q. Please state to the court how much of it was used, approximately, of course, 
after the ship got under way, and before any steps were taken with a view to its 
condemnation. 
A. I could not state the amount, sir, the number of pounds, but it was used for 
meals on either two or three days. 
Q. What was your method of issuing it? Who applied to you for it? 
A. Well, I detailed a commissary-sergeant, a man belonging to one of the Michi- 
gan regiments, the Thirty-fourth Michigan, I don't remember now his name, who 
seemed to be a bright sort of a man. I detailed him as a commissary-sergeant, and 
I took him and several men down there every morning before 8 o'clock to issue out 
the rations for the day, coffee and flour and sugar and everything of that sort, and 
he had access to the beef. I did not attend to that detail myself, but allowed him to 
get just what he thought was necessary. 1808 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Who determined what amount was necessary? 
A. The commissary-sergeant and cook would decide. I made out the bills of fare 
for each day. 
Q. You did? 
A. Yes, sir; I made them out myself, and the bill of fare wras posted up and a copy 
of this the sergeant had, and the exact amount would be determined by the commis- 
sary sergeant and the cook. 
Q. Would you specify the amount of beef that w'as necessary or simply put beef 
down on the list? 
A. Just put beef down on the list with the other things. Some days we did not 
have beef. I mean there was not beef at every meal. The men were not very eager 
for beef anyhow. They were all convalescing from typhoid fever and other troubles. 
Q. How was it cooked for the convalescents? 
A. It was generally boiled. 
Q. Did you use it? 
A. I did; yes, sir. I think what we had was used. Our mess was supplied with 
some from this, of which Captain Williams kept an account and rendered a bill to 
Major Daly and myself, for our own use. 
Q. Are you certain that the beef that was supplied to your mess came from the 
refrigerated beef or was it native beef? 
A. My recollection is that all the native beef was used on the ship between Ponce 
and Arroyo before we got back. 
Q. Are you sure that Captain Williams's beef was used? 
A. No, sir; I don't know anything about Captain Williams's beef at all. 
Q. If Captain Williams had any beef, it would be in that refrigerator? 
A. Yes, sir; I suppose it would, because it was the only place to keep it. 
Q. Was there any division as between you? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. That is, if you gave an order for beef was it certain to be taken from your beef 
only? And if he gave an order for beef for the crew was it certain to be taken only 
from his beef? Or did you draw indiscriminately from the beef in the refrigerator 
and keep an account of it? 
A. No; we did not. We did not keep any account of it, and I do not know any- 
thing about his beef at all. In fact, I do not know that he had any. He only had 
beef, or whatever provisions he had, for the crew, wThich, I do not suppose, num- 
bered more than 25 or 30 on board. I could not tell you on that point. 
Q. Could you say that none of the refrigerated beef went to the crew? 
A. No; I would not say that. 
Q. Could you say that none of the native beef went to the convalescents, or to the 
officers' mess? 
A. I know that we had some in our mess-some native beef-at least the man 
who brought it up said so. The day we left Ponce he brought up some beef there, 
which we all understood was native beef, and we ate it, and afterwards, after we 
started north, we had some of the other on one or two days. 
Q. Some of the refrigerated beef? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And which kind, to the best of your recollection, was used on the officers' table- 
on your table? 
A. Well, we used some, as I say, going down to Arroyo, and then we used some of 
the other coming back. 
Q. Coming back, after you started for the United States, after you had the refrig- 
erated beef on board? 
A. We did not have the native beef on board then. 
Q. Can you say positively that there was none in that refrigerator? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1809 
A. No, sir; I could not say that. 
Q. Could not? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Then may there not have been native beef on board? 
A. There might have been some; I don't know, sir. 
Q. But you say, to the best of your recollection now, the officers' mess used noth- 
ing but refrigerated beef 
A. You mean after we left? 
Q. After you left for the United States; after you got the refrigerated beef on board? 
A. To the best of my recollection, there was nothing but refrigerated beef, and we 
only had that, I think, two days. 
Q. And what satisfaction did it give in your mess? 
A. Well, the first day it was fairly good, I think. I did not eat much of it because 
I was not very well. Major Daly complained of it. In our mess there were only 
three, Major Daly and Captain Williams and myself. I do not know what the other 
officers had, but they probably used the ship's stores and paid for them as needed. 
Q. And what was that complaint of the refrigerated beef? 
A. The complaint of the refrigerated beef which necessitated my asking for a board 
of survey was this: On our morning Inspection every part of the vessel was inspected, 
all the officers went around, and there was one of the wards of the convalescents 
which was right near this refrigerator, and there was a marked odor coming from it, 
as we passed through; and the door was opened, and then, of course, it was much 
stronger, more noticeable, and I immediately asked for a board of survey. The 
board of survey was composed of Dr. Boyd, Captain Williams, I think, and Dr. 
Brewer. There were two doctors on the board and Captain Williams. That is my 
recollection. I have a copy of the proceedings, however, among my papers. I was 
not present. They did not ask for my presence at the sitting of the board at all. I 
stated to them, however, before they went down to examine the beef, where I had 
been and all that we had to say about it, and a short time afterwards they wrote up 
the proceedings, and they came to the conclusion that over 900 pounds of this meat 
was putrid and unfit for use, and it was thrown overboard. 
Q. By whom was it thrown overboard ? 
A. By Major Daly. 
Q. He was the commanding officer on board the ship ? 
A. He was. 
Q. By whom were those proceedings approved? 
A. By him. 
Q. Now, to recur a moment, what complaint was there of the beef in the officers' 
mess? What was its taste and odor, as you recollect? 
A. I have just stated that the other officers had their mess down below. 
Q. Your mess, I mean. 
A. About the third day out, I think, there was some soup or meat brought to our 
table and it was offensive. 
Q. Tainted? 
A. Yes, sir; and sent away. 
Q. How near to the time of the meeting of the board of survey was this? 
A. I think that must have been the same day. 
Q. What was done on the report of the board of survey? What did you do with 
the beef? 
A. It was thrown overboard. 
Q. Did you see that done? 
A. No, sir; I did not see it. 
Q. After this, on the voyage to New York or Fort Monroe, or wherever you went, 
what was used in the way of meat? 
S. Doc. 270 114 1810 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. We did not use any. We had some of the canned roast beef, which was used 
to a small extent. 
Q. In what form? 
A. It was principally in the morning, making hash, with hard-tack and tomatoes, 
making a kind of a stew. 
Q. By whom was that used? 
A. That was for the convalescents. 
Q. Did you see that? 
A. Oh, yes; I inspected the meals myself. 
Q. And what complaints were there of the canned roast beef used in that way? 
A. The men did not seem to like it very much; I do not think they ate it very 
much; but as they were recovering from fever, their appetites were not particularly 
for meat. They wanted other things, and, fortunately, I had a lot of material on 
board, rice and breakfast food, and things of that sort, jam and jelly, and tea and 
coffee. 
Q. What conversation did you have with Dr. Daly when the quality of the meat 
was discovered, with respect to it, if any? 
A. I simply went to him and asked for this board of survey; told him that this 
meat ought to be thrown overboard, and that I needed a proceeding of that sort to 
cover the loss, and he immediately ordered it. 
Q. Issued the order? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was there any fuller conversation? 
A. No, sir; I don't think there was any fuller conversation. Dr. Daly had not been 
in the service, you know, very long, and was not familiar with the usages of boards 
of survey and things of that sort. 
Q. What peculiarity about the taste did you notice the last times that you ate it, 
or at any time, as compared with other refrigerated beef? 
A. I ate it so sparingly that I can hardly answer that question. The first day I 
probably ate a small portion of it. The next day I do not think 1 took any, and then 
the third day this soup was brought on, which was bad. 
Q. Did you taste it? 
A. This soup, do you mean? 
Q. Yes. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you recollect the taste? 
A. Oh, it was offensive to the taste. 
Q. Offensive? 
A. Oh, yes. 
Q. Was there any conversation between Dr. Daly and yourself in respect to a sug- 
gestion that it had been treated with a view to its preservation at that time? 
A. No, sir. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. You are reasonably certain that the 500 pounds of native beef that had been 
aboard the vessel had been practically all consumed before you left for the United 
States? 
A. That was my firm impression, sir. 
Q. Do you know what beef Captain Williams had and what men he had been 
having on the vessel that would necessitate his having any meat supply for a crew of 
25 men? 
A. Before the order was issued assigning the Panama to this duty of bringing con- 
valescents back to the United States she was in the harbor for probably two or three 
weeks-I don't remember how long-and she had on board quite a number of FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1811 
mechanics that were sent down from New York, and I presume they were fed on 
board. Captain Williams had charge of them. How many of them there were I 
don't know. 
Q. Have you any knowledge or information as to where he obtained his meat for 
these men, these mechanics-where that came from? 
A. No, sir; I could not tell you that. He had authority to buy these things for 
cash. I know he told me he bought ship's stores and things of that sort, but I knew 
nothing about that. 
Q. He would purchase them, then, without having them turned over regularly 
from one commissary officer to another? He would simply purchase them for the 
vessel? 
A. Oh, yes; he had authority to buy wherever he pleased. 
Q. And he could buy refrigerated beef or any beef that he thought proper; what- 
ever he wanted to get? 
A. Yes, sir; I think he told me he had authority to buy from the commissary. 
Q. Then the refrigerated beef which you had consisted in two lots, one of 500 
pounds, that you got first, which you put aboard the vessel? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Which you got at 8 o'clock in the morning, and in two hours or two hours and 
a half you had that aboard the vessel? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And then the 700 pounds; when was that gotten? 
A. Well, I don't recollect when that was put aboard. 
Q. The same day? 
A. Oh, yes; the same day. After I drew this first lot of 500 pounds I met Major 
Daly near the custom-house, and he asked me if I had gotten my stores, etc., and I 
told him yes, that I had drawn so much, and he said, "I think you had better get 
some more of that beef; " so I went back there and got 700 pounds more. 
Q. And you did not conduct that aboard yourself? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. You had that done by your men? 
A. But it came from the same place, I am satisfied. 
Q. Came from the same storehouse? 
A. The same storehouse; yes, sir. 
Q. Do you know what the custom was in regard to putting that beef in the store- 
house-when it would be put in, whether in the morning or the evening, or what 
time? Have you any knowledge? 
A. I could not state positively; but they told me the beef was brought on shore in 
the morning early from the vessel, and I got it between 8 and 9 o'clock. 
Q. Did you have any experience with the canned roast beef other than you have 
testified to on the return voyage? 
A. I was directed when we landed at Fort Monroe to turn over all the balance of 
my stores to Lieutenant Allen. I had drawn originally 6,000 rations-rations for 
300 men for twenty days-so as to be on the safe side. Of course that was more than 
double what would be necessary. When I reached Fort Monroe I was directed to turn 
over the balance of the stores to the commissary at Fort Monroe, Lieutenant Allen, 
of the Fifth Artillery. I turned those stores over to him. The Panama went up to 
Newport News and unloaded there. I then went out to Michigan under orders to 
muster out those troops. I waited several days to get receipts from Lieutenant Allen, 
and, not getting them, I wrote a letter, and, receiving no reply, I telegraphed to the 
Commissary-General, stating that I had left a large amount of supplies at Fort Mon- 
roe and had no receipt for them, and Lieutenant Allen was directed to send receipts, 
and he wrote me a letter stating that the stores were in such condition that he could 
not receive them, and had asked for a board of survey down there. This board of 1812 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
survey met, and they condemned a great deal of it-I don't know how much. They 
condemned all of the beef, I know, and all the balance of the tomatoes, and, I think, 
all of the hard bread. The other things, the coffee and the sugar, he receipted to 
me for. 
Q. What was the matter with the beef, if you know or have knowledge from the 
proceedings of the board, which you say you received? 
A. Well, he wrote me a letter and said-no; I think it is in the proceedings of the 
board that they examined quite a number of the cans of this roast beef, and they 
were so bad that they decided to condemn the whole lot. I can't tell how many 
they examined. 
Q. About how much was condemned, approximately? 
A. 1 should think between 400 and 500 pounds. There were over 200 cans, and 
and they were 2-pound cans. 
Q. Over 200 cans? That would be over 400 pounds. 
A. Over 400 pounds. 
Q. Did you have any further experience with the canned roast beef in your service 
down there? 
A. No, sir; I had no further. It was a new thing to me. 
Q. You have had considerable experience as commissary in the service, I believe, 
have you not? 
A. I have been commissary at several different posts in the last fifteen, eighteen, 
or twenty years. 
Q. You say it is a new thing to you. Have you ever known of this canned roast 
beef being considered any part of the ration of the Army? 
A. No, sir; I never heard of it. Canned corned beef has been in use. 
Q. I am speaking of the canned roast beef. Have you seen canned roast beef? 
A. It was new to me in my experience. 
Major Lee. I believe that is all. 
The Recorder. Has the court anv Questions? 
By General Davis: 
Q. I understand you to say that there were three lots of fresh beef came aboard 
the Panama while you were with her. 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. One before you went to Arroya? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And one after you got back to Ponce, of 500 pounds? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And another the same day of 750 pounds? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You were not present at the drawing of the 750 pounds? Is that right? I am 
not quite sure whether you said that or not. 
A. I think I was present at the drawing, but I was not present when it came on 
board the ship. I did not see it put in the ice box. 
Q. Was it invoiced to you? 
A. Yes, sir; I receipted for it. 
Q. The whole 1,250 pounds? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. So you were the accounting officer? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Would you know whether there was any other beef obtained at Ponce by 
Captain Williams? 
A. No; I don't know anything about that, General. 
Q. When the board of survey sat upon it there was 900 pounds-nine hundred odd 
pounds-condemned and thrown overboard? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
1813 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was that the quantity as stated by the papers, or was there a larger amount 
than that actually thrown overboard-a surplus? 
A. I could not say. That is what they furnished me in their proceedings, 
approved by Major Daly. I do not know whether they actually weighed it or just 
judged by the quarters. 
Q. Did you hear anyone say anything about a quarter of beef being rejected and 
thrown overboard at the time that some of this beef came off to the ship at that 
time? 
A. No, sir; I never heard of it. 
Q. You say you drew 6,000 rations? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What was the entire amount of the canned roast beef you handled on that 
voyage-that you received? 
A. Of the canned roast beef? 
Q. Of the canned roast beef, so called. 
A. I could not tell that without referring to the papers. 
Q. You have stated that there were 200 cans, more or less-I believe you said 
more-condemned at Newport News? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Was that a considerable number of all there was? 
A. It was, I should think, more than a quarter of it. 
Q. More than a quarter of it? 
A. I think so; yes, sir. I don't remember the exact amount, but the invoices 
would show it. 
Q. And the difference between the residue and what you drew in the first place 
was issued? Is that right? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you eat any of it yourself? 
A. I tasted it. I did not make a meal of it. I inspected all the meals and I tasted 
some of this. I remember distinctly eating some one morning, and that was fixed 
with tomatoes and bread crumbs. 
Q. Did you see any of the cans opened when they were issued out aboard ship? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Were there many that were unsound? 
A. No; there were not many unsound. I remember distinctly one can that I saw 
there was exceedingly bad, and I examined the can and found a hole in it where a 
nail had evidently been driven through the wooden box that contained it, which I 
suppose would account for the condition of it. 
Q. Did the use of it by the men cause much complaint? 
A. I don't think the complaint was very marked. As I stated, the men did not 
care much about meat of any kind. What little meat they asked for, I think, was 
principally bacon. 
Q. The day the board of survey was held, was any considerable quantity of the 
fresh meat cooked and prepared for use that day? 
A. The day the board of survey met? ' 
Q. Yes; I mean prepared for the convalescents. 
A. Well, I am not sure. It is possible there was. I could not state, though, about 
that. I think it was the third day out from Mayaguez that the board met. 
Q. Do you know anything about an entire cauldron or kettle or copper full of 
beef or cooked meat being thrown overboard or rejected? 
A. No; I don't recall anything of that sort. 
General Davis. I believe that is all. 1814 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. You spoke of the men wanting bacon. Had they expressed a preference for 
bacon? 
A. Yes, sir; some of the men. The sergeants told me some of the men would 
rather have bacon to eat. That was probably the old soldiers he meant, some of the 
men who had had previous service 
t). Were they among the convalescents? 
A. Yes, sir; some of the men who had had service in the Regular Army. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to recall as a witness Gen- 
eral Weston, of the Subsistence Department. 
Gen. J. F. Weston was recalled as a witness by the recorder, and, being reminded 
that he was still under oath, was examined: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Will you please state to the court in narrative form what conversations, if any, 
were had between yourself and the general commanding the Santiago expedition, or 
the General Commanding the Army, with respect to the rations that it was proposed 
to take to Cuba? 
A. As distinguished from the loading? 
Q. Yes; as to their character, having in view the nature of the country in which 
the operations were to take place. 
A. Well, I had no more conversation with the General Commanding the Army 
after he came, except as to loading; none as to the character of the rations. He 
inquired as to the number of rations, and I told him in round numbers every time, 
every day. I do not think General Shafter and myself talked much about it, except 
that he told me to put on so many rations for the troops. I do not think he desig- 
nated what it would be or what it would not be, although I informed him every even- 
ing of the exact number that was put on during that day and their kinds. I was 
particular to talk about this. I know that our men do not want roasted and ground 
coffee if they can avoid it, nor do they want hard bread if they can avoid it, and I 
thought the time would come, of course, some time during the campaign when we 
would be able to make our own bread and grind our own coffee, and with that end 
in view I sort of divided it. I took a whole lot of ground coffee along and a whole 
lot of flour, which was very fortunate, because we were able to make light bread as 
soon as we got into Santiago. Now, as to the meat part; the only talk we had about 
that was suggested in this way, that the environment, the heat that there was in 
Florida, the external heat there, was very suggestive of less bodily heat being 
required, less fatty acid, and I thought that the troops would not want as much of 
the fatty acid, as much of the bacon, as they would in the North. I was sure they 
would not, and so far as the hospitals were concerned they did not, because they 
used the other, and we talked the matter over just in that general way. I took 11 
of one to 7 of the other; that was close to the amount. 
Q. Eleven of what? 
A. Eleven of bacon to 7 of canned beef, and the issue practically lasted-they 
took three days' field rations ashore on the 22d-24, 25, 26; that leaves four more days 
in June, and on the 19th we were in the harbor. That would be 19 and 4, would 
be twenty-three days' rations all told, in which they ever were permitted, unless 
they urged it, to take anything like canned beef, because then we had fresh beef 
and bacon, so that there were twenty-three days in which that really came up, and 
part of that they need not have taken, it appeared to me. 
Q. Was there any discussion before the departure of the expedition as to the 
matter of taking beef cattle, or was the question of the beef supply discussed? 
TESTIMONY OF GEN. J. F. WESTON. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1815 
A. Oh, there were no vessels there to take beeves. We hardly had transportation 
enough to take the men comfortably. Men were standing on deck like that [illustrat- 
ing]. I am not a sailor, and in walking from one part of the ship to the other I 
just hopped, and our ship was relatively nice to what some of the others were. 
Q. Were there troops on board the ship that you embarked in? 
A. Oh, yes. 
Q. And what meat constituted their meat rations? 
A. Oh, canned beef. I think perhaps they had it mixed. 
Q. Mixed? 
A. Yes, sir; I think they had both. 
Q. Did you observe the use of it by them? 
A. Oh, no, sir; I did not, and heard no complaint in any way. Capron was 
along 
Q. Capron's Battery was on board? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Any other troops? 
A. Yes, sir; some of the Seventh Infantry aboard. Fitzpatrick was aboard. There 
were no complaints heard on the ship-that is, that I heard. 
Q. Did you hear any discussion about it from officers or men on the voyage over? 
A. No; I did not-I did not. 
Q. Will you please state to the court what caused the seventy-two-hour clause to 
be inserted in the advertisement for beef? Had you any information 
A. Oh, no, General; I know nothing about it at all. I know nothing about it, 
Colonel. I was there at Santiago, and the ships simply came in there, and I had no 
copy of the contract-no information. 
Q. But the advertisement of it took place abo it the time you left? 
A. I never sawr it. 
Q. Were you consulted in regard to it? 
A. No, sir; I was not. 
Q. Did you have any knowledge as to the reason ? 
A. No knowledge whatever. 
Q. And as to the reason for adopting the seventy-two hour clause? 
A. I had not. 
Q. In the advertisement ? 
A. No, sir; I got the price of the beef by cabling for it and I got the information 
as to the time the beef would keep from the man who had it in charge, and I simply 
accepted that for the time being. I was there but six days, and knowing that it was 
but a little time would elapse when the full information would be imparted. 
Q. Did you hear the subject of transporting refrigerated beef to Cuba discussed 
before the departure of the expedition, or did you give the subject any thought 
yourself ? 
A. No, sir. I was in the office-I was on my way to join General Wade, to go to 
Tampa, and Nash was the Commissary-General, and the poor fellow was simply 
played out, you know, and he begged me to stay in the office and run it for the few 
days that they would permit him to remain, and I did that. That was from two 
days in April until about the 4th of May or 3d of May, when, I think, he was retired. 
Then General Eagan came on and I got away to General Wade about, perhaps, the 
10th or 11th of the month. I was in the office probably a week. 
Q. What purchases of canned roast beef were made while you were in charge of 
the office? 
A. An order came to supply at Tampa, to provide for 70,000 men for three 
months. That order came from the Adjutant-General. General Miles referred to 
it in his report, and we were all to send in rations for 70,000 men for three months, 
and under General Eagan's direction I did the work, and I presume that I figured 1816 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
up all the orders that went out of the office for everything including canned roast 
beef, but that of course was under him. 
Q. Were any purchases of canned roast beef made prior to his taking charge of 
the office as Commissary-General? 
A. You mean for the Army? 
Q. Yes. 
A. There was no occasion for that. I really don't know that. I was not in the 
office. 
Q. Were you the principal assistant or in charge until General Eagan reported? 
A. No, sir; he was there himself. 
Q. Himself? 
A. Knowing that he was going to be appointed, I asked to have him ordered to 
the office and he came there. He was there before Nash went out. That is my 
recollection of it. I did not have the office at any time. There was no interim, not 
a day, although I was practically running it for Nash, you know, but still he was 
the Commissary-General. 
Q. And no purchases of canned roast beef were made while you were there? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. They were made after you left the office? 
A. Oh, they were made while I was there under Eagan. You see I was there 
with Eagan about a week, and it was during that time-I think it was on the 9th of 
May-that this order came that we provide for the 70,000 men. On the 23d of May, 
as a looker-on at Tampa, I thought that there were no 70,000 men going to be con- 
centrated there, and I wired to stop 2,000,000 of rations ordered by Major A. L. 
Smith, who was before you here, that he was purchasing at Kansas City. I wired to 
Eagan that unless he had information to the contrary, which he was liable to have, 
being in the War Department, and I being simply a looker-on, that unless he had 
information to the contrary to stop them, but they were not stopped. Probably it 
was too late; I don't know. 
Q. In making out a list of rations for this army of 70,000 men, what proportion of 
canned roast beef was to be provided? 
A. The proportion of beef is 7 to 10 with the fresh beef, but it was not thrown in 
.in that proportion. I don't recall now, but the way I took it out at Florida was 11 
to 7, or something like that. There was more bacon than beef. 
Q. Are you certain about the thirty days' rations for 70,000 men. 
A. Ninety days' rations. 
Q. Upon that and other orders for rations, will you please state to the court, to the 
best of your recollection, how many rations were concentrated at Tampa? 
A. Ramsey, of the Ninth Infantry, was acting chief commissary for General Wade, 
and he was providing for the troops as they were coming in, and the Regulars were 
coming in there pretty lively, and he was buying what they call dry salt meat there 
in the market, and there were a good many rations shoved in; but I do recall this, 
that in providing the ninety days' rations for the 70,000 men, I took into considera- 
tion an order that had gone out of the office to New York and Chicago to supply 
General Wade's command, and cut that off of the big order, you see, so I say that 
was about what it was. They went in rapidly and were never unloaded. The cars 
were piled up there. There were probably 600 or 700 cars there, and as far as I 
could discover there was no particular effort made. When I went there, Lieutenant 
Johnson, of the Seventeenth, had the depot, and we had 14 to 20 small warehouses, 
none of them much larger than this, and if you wanted anything in particular you 
would have to go out and break the seal on the car and see what was in it. There 
was nobody to give you the slightest information: Some 300 or 400 of the cars were 
at Port Tampa, and the other 300 or 400 were up at Tampa. Now, I undertook at 
once to unload them, and did get off about 700,000 rations in a few days, very FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1817 
shortly, but the unloading at Tampa was of very questionable propriety, because if 
we were going to Habana, as we all thought and hoped we would, they were not 
wanted there; they were wanted at Port Tampa, and the expense of freight was 
something immense, besides the labor of loading. So it was played with for a few 
days until some orders came, but no orders did come until the order came to throw 
them in. It was only contemplated that 4,000 or 5,000 men were going to Cuba at 
all. Then everything was in a hurry, and General Miles came there, and he rushed 
matters for all they were worth. 
Q. Ninety days' rations for 70,000 men would be over 6,000,000 rations? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Now, how near to 6,000,000 rations did you come at Tampa and at Port Tampa? 
A. Did we have there?* 
Q. Did you have 6,000,000 rations at any time? 
A. I suppose close to it. 
Q. Close to it? 
A. I suppose so, and you see other troops came. Gen. Fitzhugh Lee's corps came 
there, and although they went up to Jacksonville subsequently, they were supplied 
from Tampa, but my time was not taken up in that, and I don't know very much 
about it. 
Q. From observing the way in which orders went in, and what the orders w'ere, I 
thought perhaps you could answer as to how near they came to tilling the ninety 
days' rations for 70,000 men? 
A. I presume it was filled. 
Q. It was filled? 
A. Yes, sir; I presume it was filled. There was not a word to counteract that 
order, and no occasion that I know of, except what occurred to me; not seeing them 
coming it occurred to me on the 23d that I would send a telegram to the Commis- 
sary-General and ask him, unless he knew better, to stop the 2,000,000 of rations, at 
least, that were being purchased by Smith. I don't know whether he answered it 
or not, but I know the stuff came. 
Q. It came? 
A. Oh, yes. 
Q. It was not stopped? 
A. It was not stopped, and I could not have acted at any time before that, because 
while I got there on the 12th, on the morning of the 13th Captain Almy, aid to the 
General, called me in the morning about 6 o'clock. It was a very unusual thing. 
I got up and joined the General and went over to Miami, and that took up to about 
the 18th, so you see I was away from there during that time. I probably would 
have designed it before if I had been there. 
Cross-examination by Major Lee. 
Q. General, do you recall, or can you recall, about when the first purchases of the 
canned roast beef were made-that is, prior to the late war, immediately prior to it, 
about when those purchases were begun? 
A. I will just think a little, where I was and my opportunities for knowing any- 
thing about it. I was in Arizona when the order was issued, and subsequently in 
California, as you know, when you were there. I went from there to New Orleans 
in 1890. New Orleans was not a place where anything like that would have been 
purchased. I Went from there to the War Department and remained until 1893. 
From the War Department I went to Texas and remained until 1896, so that my 
opportunities were quite limited as to purchasing anything of that kind. There 
was none of it purchased at any place where I had been from the publication of the 
order until 1896, when I "went to New York. There I presume I was purchasing, 
perhaps for your own post, or some post along there. 1818 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Those purchases that were made of the canned roast beef m 1896-were they on 
a limited or extensive scale? 
A. Do you mean the limited list? 
Q. No; I mean were your purchases small in amount-limited? 
A. Oh, small. There were very small amounts of any kind of canned beef being 
purchased. 
Q. The travel ration, of course, had existed for years, and still exists-the travel 
ration of canned corned beef? 
A. Both-canned beef. 
Q. Has the canned roast beef been issued, to your knowledge, as a part of the travel 
ration to troops traveling generally? 
A. Canned fresh beef? 
Q. Yes. 
A. Well, speaking from my knowledge, no, because I don't know. 
Q. In referring to the purchases of this canned roast beef, as it is a matter of gen- 
eral knowledge that the use of it was very limited, many of us, in fact, knowing 
nothing about it, I was referring more particularly to the purchases that were made 
for the late war, purchases of canned roast beef. When were they begun, if you can 
recall? 
A. For the war? 
Q. Yes. 
A. I think the first order that went out, if I recall, because I was not in the War 
Department, was about the 9th of May. 
Q. Those orders about the 9th of May went out from the War Department? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. General Eagan was then Commissary-General? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And of course they were ordered by him? 
A. Oh, yes. 
Q. Coming down now to the matter of the Captain Ripley experiment, which, I 
believe, was carried on in regard to some canned meat; that was carried on under 
your suggestion or supervision, I believe? 
A. It was sent to me by direction of the Commissary-General, and I turned it over 
to Ripley, knowing him, as I did, to be a careful man. 
Q. Was that the kind of canned beef that you spoke of that you had been investi- 
gating, concerning vegetables that he had been experimenting with? 
A. That is it. 
Q. I wanted to get that matter clear. It has been a matter of doubt, in my mind 
at least, as to just what that was. 
A. There were potatoes and onions in it. 
Q. Potatoes and onions and meat mixed? 
A. Yes. I think, if you will read Ripley's report, it will show that, if I am not 
mistaken. 
Q. The question was suggested by your remark in answer to a question by the 
recorder, I think on yesterday, and I had been misled from reading some report into 
thinking that it was the other canned roast beef. In regard to the canned beef that 
was purchased, of which you spoke, for Colonel Brainard, or that he had purchased 
for that expedition 
A. That was an inquiry, really. There was none purchased just because of the 
difference of the conditions existing between our surroundings there and my imagina- 
tion of the surroundings with Ripley. He preferred it in the cold North, but I should 
think they would get very tired of it. 
Q. So, as far as you remember, there was none purchased for that expedition? 
A. No: I purchased none. If there was any, he purchased it himself. Brainard 
wanted the information. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1819 
Q. Coming down now to the matter of the rations issued or furnished the troops 
after the landing until after the surrender, until the boats got into the harbor of 
Santiago, I believe your report there shows that for the month of June there were 
72,000 pounds of canned roast beef and 92,500 pounds of bacon. 
A. I believe that is right, sir. 
Q. Is there any method of determining, up to the time that the troops got in and 
got established at Santiago with the vessels where the supplies could get in, what 
proportions were issued to the troops from the 1st of July up to, say, the 19th of 
J uly? 
A. I tried my best, by examination, to bring a paper here that would show right 
up to the time, but it is impossible to figure that out from the paper; but if I figured 
it out, there would be the worst showing for the month of July, so far as the troops 
are concerned, because the month of July shows that the Cubans drew at the rate of 
2 to 1-bacon, 2; beef, 1-and that the Spanish prisoners over at San Luis, those down 
at Guantanamo, and those who surrendered at Santiago drew at the rate of 3 to 1. 
Q. That is 3 of bacon and 1 of the other? 
A. Yes; whereas our troops drew more of canned beef than they did of bacon. 
Q. General, I will ask you whether in the-I will not term it confusion, but I will 
term it the necessary turmoil of a campaign, and in a country like that, and under 
the method or manner under which the supplies had to go forward, not on ration 
returns, or not by systematic loading, or anything of that kind-was it not more 
than likely that some of the commands, without the fault of anybody, might get 
all bacon and another command might get all canned beef? 
A. It is quite possible; and in the testimony of Captain Jackson, of the Seventh 
Infantry, I remember-if I read it right; I was over in New York at the time-he 
said he did not see canned beef only two or three times; that they only got two or 
three days of it. That was the way it was in the papers. It may not have been 
correct, but it w'as a direct answer, "Yes." 
Q. It is in testimony, I believe-and if I err, it can be corrected from the record- 
that one brigade, I think, during the campaign, drew nothing practically, or had 
nothing, but bacon? 
A. I presume that might be so; but that was not because we discriminated in favor 
of that brigade. 
Q. General, I will come right to that particular point. These officers came back 
and drew rations, as I understood you to testify, by whoever came for them, and 
they were turned over? 
A. Oh, yes. 
Q. There was no regimental issue there? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. It could not be? 
A. It could not be. I had an order issued by w'hich nobody could make a return 
except one commissary, myself, or somebody under me; but everything was disre- 
garded because of the circumstances. It could not be done. 
Q. I will ask this question: What was the method, simply reporting the number 
of men for the command? 
A. That is it. 
Q. Whoever came for it? 
A. Whoever tame. We couldn't refuse anybody. 
Q. Was there any system, or could there be any system under the issues night and 
day, by which things could be done in any detail? 
A. Most of the things were in packages. For instance, the coffee and sugar was 
issued by the sack, and the hard bread. That was all right. When we came to the 
bacon we did have a platform scales, and we weighed that, and if they thought it 
was a piece or two short, we threw it in. 1820 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Then as a matter of general information, when these stores would be carried 
away by the packs or wagons, if you happened to have one, and carried up to the 
front, and went to the troops, how, as a matter of general information-which you 
know perhaps better than anyone else-would they have to be distributed to the 
regiments? 
A. Gallagher had charge of the distribution, but still it would depend then on the 
taste of the fellow that came, because he would, just like myself, give it to them- 
just what they wanted. 
Q. If he had it? 
A. Yes; if he had it. 
Q. During this active campaign, you said there were no complaints in regard to 
anything. Did that army, during its hardships, burden the base or the others with 
complaints and growls and things of that kind? 
A. Oh, no. 
Q. In regard to a meat ration in a climate of that kind, are you familiar with the 
fact that jerked beef is largely used in some of those warm countries, notably in 
Mexico and other places? 
A. I served down there, and I do not believe those people eat much meat at all. 
I think our beef ration is just twice as big as it ought to be. I have now arranged, 
what we could never do before, namely, that' they can make a saving on fresh beef, 
so that they can save three-quarters of a pound of fresh beef, and take oatmeal or rice 
or something else. I think the meat ration is too big. 
Q. In view of the fact that company commanders at most of the posts have to buy 
meat in addition to the meat ration, would you recommend its reduction? 
A. I would, in the Tropics. I would, indeed. 
Q. Coming to the matter of jerked beef, to your knowledge or within your infor- 
mation, is it not used quite extensively in these climates-in Mexico, for instance? 
A. Not that I know of. 
Q. Along the Rio Grande, among the class of people there, do they not jerk the 
beef a good deal, similar to the way the Indians do it? 
A. They do that, but I would not regard it as a matter of preference. When they 
kill beef down there it has to do a whole lot of families, and they simply jerk it to 
keep it and store it. 
Q. I believe it has been used, has it not, within your experience or information, at 
times on some of the Indian expeditions of General Crook and others-sometimes in 
the North, where it was captured from the Indians? 
A. Not that I know of. 
Q. On the expedition to what is called the Slim Buttes? 
A. I should think they could eat it, if they could get it, the way they were fixed. 
Q. Yes; they ate their horses, I believe? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What I was leading up to was whether you recall the large quantity of jerked 
beef, said to be very good, that was captured just at the beginning of the war-some1 
thing over a million pounds-and whether there was some report made in regard to 
it with reference to having it saved or bought or procured for the Army-whether 
you have any information on that. 
A. I have not. 
Q. I think there was one large vessel, with something over a million pounds, wThich 
was reported to have put in at Key West, I think, which brought about some corre- 
spondence on the subject, with a view of having it saved for the Army, instead of 
sold outside. 
A. I don't recall that. 
Q. Then I will not dwell on that, of course. Can you state W'hether any consider- 
able quantities of canned roast beef were furnished to the army going on the Manila 
expedition? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1821 
A. I think they were furnished at about the same rate. 
Q. Have you known or received any reports or information as to its satisfaction 
to the troops en route or since the arrival there? 
A. Except in a general way. I think there is information in the office that every- 
thing was satisfactory, and I know Merritt made no complaint. 
Q. In going over did you ever hear any complaint that on one vessel they could 
not use much of it, and that as to another portion, each by an entire company, it 
produced sickness in the company? 
A. I didn't hear it. I don't know about that. 
Q. You were speaking of the canned roast beef and the time that it was used, 
covering a period, as I figured it up, of twenty-three days? 
A. Somewhere about that. 
Q. That does not include, does it, the period from the time of embarkation to the 
landing, which occupied somewhere in the neighborhood of fourteen days. I believe 
the troops embarked at Tampa on the 7th or 8th, and landed some fourteen days 
after that. 
A. No; it does not. I simply take up the work that I reported here yesterday, 
from the day we commenced to go ashore. Some of the troops did not live upon 
their travel rations aboard those ships, because I found one day when I was in a 
hurry that Bucky O'Neil, a fellow I knew in Arizona-he was a captain of Wood's 
regiment-had just comedown from town with a lot of potatoes for the Rough Rider 
regiment. I said, "Look here, Captain, where have you been?" He says, "I have 
been up drawing vegetables from the depot." I didn't interfere with him. I was 
very glad he got them. I didn't care what he drew, and they might have drawn 
anything they wanted. They didn't live upon their travel rations while they lay 
there. 
Q. Have you any information or can you give any approximate estimate of about 
what the proportion of the travel ration known as canned corned beef was furnished 
the army there? Did you have much of that on hand? 
A. I know there was considerable ; surely enough for the expedition that was con- 
templated. I know there was a good deal of it without knowing how much, and 
we aimed to get whatever else was at Jacksonville. We got some of it, because I 
know that in looking over the papers to find the information I gave you yesterday 
1 find that 4,000 pounds of it was issued by Major Gallagher during the month of 
June or the early part of July, so that we had a lot of it mixed up. It was very 
difficult, in the hurry of loading, to distinguish one thing from another. 
Q. I simply wanted to get at whether there was an approximate proportion to be 
stated in regard to the canned corned beef that would be taken along and the canned 
roast beef. 
A. I think there were some regiments there that did not have any roast beef. I 
think some of them had the other. 
Q. General, you have described, I believe, or referred to the method of purchas- 
ing or inspecting canned goods, particularly canned roast beef? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Would the fact of the reputation or wealth of a firm release any officer, in your 
opinion, from making the same rigid and careful inspection that he would in any 
other case? 
A. Speaking for myself alone? 
Q No; I am speaking of your expert opinion as Commissary-General and an officer 
in the Commissary Department. 
A. I will tell you what I do. I say, "No, sir." I would look at some of it. I 
would like to say something in connection with that. 
Q. Yes. 
A. I have had a good deal to do with Cudahy and with the Armours; not so much 1822 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
with the Chicago house as the Kansas City house, and while I never let their goods 
go through without looking at them, I never knew them yet to deliver anything-not 
a single thing-but what was fully as good as what they sold me. 
Q. You determined that, though, by inspection in every case? 
A. Oh, yes; even when I was not purchasing I would open it. 
Q. Can you recall, or have you the information to give it approximately even, as 
to the total quantity of the canned roast beef that was purchased for the late war 
with Spain? 
A. No, sir; I have not. 
Major Lee. Is that in the report? 
The Recorder. It is in evidence. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. What is the system in making these purchases as to marking the packages or 
cases for proper identification? 
A. They are always marked by the purchasing commissaries. Their initials are 
always put upon them and the date; at least they should be. 
Q. That should be done by him? 
A. Oh, yes. 
Q. I mean under his supervision. 
A. Oh, yes. 
Q. By one of his trusted employees? 
A. Yes, sir. As a rule, when you make an award the companies put on "United 
States Subsistence Department." They can do that, but when it comes in the date 
is put on in the warehouse. 
Q. And the initials of the purchasing officer? 
A. Yes. 
Q. It appears in evidence that in one case an inspecting officer, Colonel Gill, I 
think his name was, found two carloads, forty-odd thousand pounds, of canned roast 
beef that had been shipped to Jacksonville upon which he could find no identifying 
marks whatever. I would ask under what methods, if any, such beef as that could 
have been procured and invoiced and shipped through the Department. 
A. I don't know what depot it was sent from or where it came from. I will just 
answer in a general way. That is all I can do. The merchant he bought from may 
have wired after the award to Chicago, Omaha, or Kansas City for the stuff. He 
might have been in a hurry to get it down to Jacksonville. He goes down and looks 
at the cars, and probably makes an inspection in several cases. He sees he has not 
time to take it up and have it marked. He may wire, giving the information to the 
party it is going to as to what he has done, and simply let her go without any expla- 
nation. If he is in a hurry, he certainly would not be justified in unloading and 
keeping the train. 
Q. But to comply with the regulations and to identify it afterwards 
A. He would have to mark it. 
Q. Is it within your knowledge or information, General, that the entire quantities 
of canned roast beef in this country were absorbed, and also canned roast beef that 
had been shipped abroad was brought back to fill the orders? 
A. That is not within my knowledge. I just heard it. 
Q. I mean within your information. 
A. I just heard that it was brought back to fill the orders, but I don't know that. 
Q. Would you consider that the age of this canned roast beef would have any 
relation to its quality? 
A. I think it would improve it. 
Q. You think the older it would be, the better? 
A. No; I wouldn't go that far. There would be a limit to the age, but I think FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1823 
that perhaps some of the fault that was found with the canned roast beef on the 
campaign was due to the hurried way of canning; that it had not settled, and the 
time allowed was not sufficient for the work. I know that of the canned roast beef 
that I examined in New York I could take a knife and cut it, and did do it, and 
then cut up what I had cut off and made a hash out of it, and it was pretty good 
stuff. I think that a little age would have improved the beef. I am not saying 
that anybody did other than the best in the matter. I think they all did. 
Q. Then you wish the court to understand, General, that in your opinion to have 
kept it on hand would have tested the defects of the meat? 
A. That was the trouble. You see, we didn't have time. Beef would come to 
that army and the defects in canning would not be apparent in a few days; whereas 
if they had remained in the warehouse at the cannery the defects would have devel- 
oped and they would not have shipped, perhaps, a great many cans that they did 
ship. One bad can would drive everybody here out of the room. There was a 
complaint made at Tampa by Hubert, of the Eighth Infantry. He died at Porto 
Rico. He rejected five carloads during the night-wouldn't touch it. I went down 
in the morning, of course. It was a very serious thing, five carloads, and I wired 
Smith about it before I would touch them, so as to caution him. The cars were put 
off on the side track and the smell was awful. We took them out, and I could tell 
the box that had the defective can in it, because when the gas commenced to escape 
the porous nature of the pine takes it up and discolors it; and if you watch it closely 
you would know when you were opening a box and not finding one. We went 
through the five carloads and, as I recall now, the number of cans we found was less 
than twenty that caused all that disturbance. But I wouldn't take any of the beef, 
at least I left orders not to put any of the beef aboard-because the boxes had 
been somewhat saturated with the gas from those twenty cans; and our stores being 
susceptible of taking it up, I wouldn't have it put into the hold of the ship with 
them. None of that beef went with us. 
Q. I believe you spoke of your testimony yesterday, General, in regard to some 
recommendations or reports-I think it was perhaps in your report-as to a good 
quality of canned roast beef, as to what it should be and what parts of the animals 
would make it a real good, suitable ration. Please state from memory, if you can 
recall, what you would consider under favorable conditions, we will say, a good 
prime quality of roast beef. 
A. The neck, the chuck, the prime of rib, the porterhouse, the sirloin, the hock, 
the round, the flank, and the ribs of the plate. The chuck was 6 cents a pound, the 
plate 4 cents a pound; the prime of rib was 14 cents; the porterhouse was 20. Those 
are the excessive ones. My idea was that if we got the beef as it is furnished to the 
troops-if that beef was thrown into a vat and the bones taken away from them and 
the whole thing canned, that would be an average of beef, the same as it is given in 
the garrison; and that if it was treated in the same way-that is, sterilized-we would 
have such beef as I wanted. Let me say that it was impossible for the present 
Commissary-General to do anything of the kind. He did not get there until May, 
and the work that came afterwards was too sudden to bring it about. I think, how- 
ever, that had the letters that I read to you yesterday been observed an arrange- 
ment of that kind might have been made. I am not sure of that, you know. I think 
the only way to get the average beef, was to get the whole beef, less the neck, the 
hock, etc. 
Q. Of course, in your opinion that would have furnished a far more satisfactory 
class of food for the Army? 
A. It is certainly my impression that that would have furnished better beef. 
Q. Do you recall what was the average price of this canned roast beef that was 
furnished to the Army; or is that a matter before the court in reports? 
The Recorder. I do not know. 1824 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. It would be one thing in the month of January and another thing in the month 
of March. I don't know. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. In canning the whole beef, would that have any effect on the price per pound? 
A. Oh, yes; it must have. It would increase the price. 
Q. Much or little? 
A. A few cents. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. General, it is a matter, I presume, that is within your knowledge or information 
as to what is the difference in cost between what are called ' ' chucks, ' ' about a garrison, 
for these consolidated messes, for making stews, and the other parts of the beef. I 
do not mean in detail, but the chucks as compared with the average price of the beef. 
About what is the per cent of price? 
A. I was told by a man in whom I have the most implicit confidence that the best 
beef that was ever canned was canned during this war. He said the reason was that 
we were not particularly obligated to the packers, but that the work was done hurriedly 
and that they used better beef than ever they used before. He said that never had 
they canned such beef as they canned for us, and he said they came very near doing, 
and about did, what we wanted. He was aware of my efforts to get the whole 
beef. The chuck is 6 cents a pound; the prime of beef is 14 cents; the rib plate is 4 
cents; the porterhouse is 20 cents-mind you, there is only a small piece of that, 
about 92 pounds; the sirloin, only 74 pounds, 12J cents; the round, 124 pounds, 8 
cents. I suppose the canning was done from the chuck, plate, and the round. 
Q. I was merely trying to get at what has been laid down as a general rule in 
regard to canning beef and what are called canners; the relative price, we will say, 
between the chucks of the beef and the other parts of the beef. What would you 
estimate it, as a rule-about one-third of the price or one-half of the price of the 
other portion of the beef? 
A. It is better than a half. They don't get 12 cents a pound. If they can get 10 
cents a pound they have done mighty well. That would be $60. They don't get 
that. If they get 9 cents a pound, $54 for the steer, besides the by-products-the 
horns and the hoofs and the hide and everything-they don't get that. If they 
average 8 j cents they think they have done pretty well. 
Q. It is not very material. I was simply trying to get some ratio between the two, 
if it could be shown. Coming to the matter of beef on the hoof, I will ask you, Gen- 
eral, whether or not, in your opinion, it would have been practicable, we will say 
after the army landed, or at the time of its landing, for beef on the hoof to have been 
kept at some point; I mean a limited quantity, not perhaps to make issues seven 
days in ten, but for the supply of the army, either through the agency of the 
Commissary Department or that of contractors. 
A. I will state for myself. I could not at any time from the 23d of June, when I 
first ran into Siboney during the night, until I left it have landed a steer there. 
Other men might have done it, but I could not. If I had a steer to land there-you 
couldn't get a steer through the port. You had to swing them. I don't think any- 
body could have got a steer ashore there except by means of riding him and poking 
him along. I want to call your attention to this as something that held my atten- 
tion for some time. I didn't see an animal that was put out that didn't aim to go to 
sea. Every one of them wanted to go away. None of them wanted to go ashore 
until we got near enough to shore, so that they could see that they had some com- 
panions ashore. Then they would go to them; but at first the only way to get them 
ashore was to tie a lariat around the neck of a steer, throw it to a soldier in a boat, 
pushing the steer into the water gently enough, and pulling the boat in. Every one 
of them that got loose, as far as I could observe, went over in the rocks and perished. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1825 
Q. General, let me ask you if a contractor, with the cattle boats that carry cattle 
from the ports of the United States, and have been doing so for years, to various 
sections of the country could not have landed cattle on that coast. I do not mean 
at that particular point; take Guantanamo, or in that vicinity-whether they could 
not have landed cattle with as little loss, comparatively, as was experienced with 
horses and mules. 
A. At Guantanamo; but it was reported, and circumstances that subsequently came 
up justified the report, that the Spaniards that fought the marines at Guantanamo 
were between us and Guantanamo; and there was nothing to prevent them at any 
time, except nerve, from coming up to where we were and capturing the depot. 
When the Michigan men went to Aguadores I didn't have anybody but stevedores, 
and I don't think anybody had a gun. If they had landed at Guantanamo and 
attempted to come up, I think they would have been intercepted. I don't think 
they would ever have got to us. 
Q. None of your supplies were intercepted, were they? 
A. We didn't land any there. They didn't come over that route. We landed at 
Siboney, and there were soldiers there all the time. 
Q. How far is Guantanamo from Siboney? 
A. I suppose about 30 miles, Colonel. 
Q. As a matter of fact, none of the enemy appeared on that line between you and 
Guantanamo, did they? 
A. On the 6th of July I was attempting to get things ashore, if only for my own 
protection. I had the boat loaded with about 40,000 rations for a day or two wait- 
ing to run into Siboney, and I couldn't do so. Then I made up my mind I would 
run in where I had Ramsay, at Daiquiri, and as I was trying to get in to Daiquiri one 
of our ships of war was firing between Siboney and Daiquiri. They had observed 
some boats that were supposed to be the Guantanamo outfit there, but I didn't see 
any. They were shooting at a great rate. 
Q. At any rate, the experiment was not tried in any way, and the troops had no 
fresh meat from the time of embarking until the 22d day of July-a month and a 
half? 
A. No; they did not; and if I had had it with me I could not have landed it, so 
far as I w'as concerned. I certainly could not. 
Q. Within your experience, was not this the first expedition or campaign of an army 
of any size that was left unprovided with fresh beef? I mean for any considerable 
length of time; I do not mean a scout or a forced march. 
A. Oh, no, Colonel. I had experiences different from that in going with the 
Seventh Cavalry. 
Q. I am speaking of a large organized force. 
A. Oh, no. When you are going along in your own country you have got the cattle 
and you can drive them. We always had them in the Army of the Cumberland. 
Q. In your experience during the war you got them in the country or drove them 
along, even when the enemy, and a most vigilant enemy, such as Morgan and 
Stuart, were around about you? 
A. Yes. 
Q. That is all. 
A. I would like permission to make a few remarks in connection with the windup 
of that army at Santiago. I related yesterday up to the time of its going into Mon- 
tauk. My effort with the Army was to do the very best I could with what I had. 
When I came here I was intent on joining General Miles, and I was taken sick, for 
the first time. When I came over here I had to go to the hospital, where I remained 
four or five days, and when I got through the President expressed a desire to see me. 
I think it was brought about by Colonel Bingham of the engineers telling him that 
the chief commissary of the Army had returned here. I went to see the President 
S. Doc. 270 115 1826 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
and talked to him about it. He asked me where I was going. I hadn't recovered 
from my sickness, or perhaps I w'ould have told him that I was going back to my 
hospital; but I said I wras going to Porto Rico, and the President remarked that it 
was no use. It was the day before the treaty was signed, and he said he wished me, 
to go to Montauk, and that he wanted no expense spared to take care of the troops 
that w'ere returning. Under his instructions I went to Montauk. General Wheeler 
stated that he had the same interview in substance, and we wired to Woodruff in 
New York for what I thought we ought to have for the troops. The Secretary of 
War came there, and he wras insistent on other things being added. The following 
was furnished to that army, and I don't think there is on record any such stuff in 
the same quantities for any army: 
"At Montauk: 1,085,200 pounds ice, 128,705 pounds butter, 20,512 pounds sugar- 
cured ham, 16,300 pounds evaporated peaches, 21,088 dozen eggs, 20,000 pounds lima, 
beans, 6,020 3-pound cans apples, 21,550 pounds evaporated apples, 14,500 pounds 
evaporated apricots, 78,689 cans green corn, 1,080 pounds cocoa, 9,950 pounds soda 
crackers, 31,985 J-barrels oatmeal, 648 2-pound cartons oatmeal, 14,973 3-pound cans 
peaches, 10,025 pounds evaporated peaches, 1,774 1-gallon cans apples, 58,069 2-pound 
cans pears, 59,328 cans peas, 9,925 pounds prunes, 19,235 quart-cans soups, 7,100 bar- 
rels pickles, 6 boxes lemons, 103 cases oranges, 10 pounds macaroni, 12 bottles olives, 
27 pounds dressed chicken, 20 pounds farina, 132 quart bottles lime juice, 48 cans 
pineapples, 1,625 bottles ginger ale." 
In connection with the issue of 169,000 quarts fluid milk by Col. John F. Weston, 
in August and September, the returns bear the following note: 
"Issues to divisions of Generals Wheeler and Chaffee, regiments not brigaded, 
companies, batteries, detachments, general hospital, detention hospital, detention 
camp, incoming ships, outgoing ships that had aboard our troops, men arriving and 
departing on trains, indeed, to every one it carried happiness." 
Redirect examination by the Recorder: 
Q. Referring to Captain Ripley's testimony, 1 find he says, in answer to a question: 
"A. At the same time he (Colonel Weston) sent me a case of canned roast beef. 
That was subjected to like experiment and was served as a stew, and also in the; 
form of a hash. It was mixed with potatoes and onions, of which we had plenty at 
that time, and made a very palatable dish. I was messing with my own troop at the 
time and used it myself, the same as the men did. I think I reported favorably 
under such circumstances on that roast beef. After the experiment was completed 
I made a report. 
"Q. In the prosecution of the experiment, did you cause any of it to be eaten just 
as it came from the cans, cold, or did you eat any of it? 
"A. Oh, yes. 
"Q. Was it palatable? 
"A. Not as a full meal. I didn't eat it. I tasted of it, and the cooks tasted it. It 
was not unpalatable. It was a little tasteless. It needed salt, or something of that 
sort with it." 
Q. Would that indicate that he had canned roast beef? 
A. Oh, yes; I couldn't remember all the details. 
Q. There is one other question. Does the law require an inspection as a necessary 
condition prior to the purchase of subsistence? 
A. I won't go into the law part, but I will go into the custom. 
Q. But let us follow the law'. Does the law require it? 
A. I don't know much about the law. 
Q. Do the regulations require it? 
A. It strikes me that they do. 
Q. Do you remember whether the words "if practicable" are used in the regula- 
tions? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1827 
A. I do not. I don't, indeed, Colonel. It is a matter easy to ascertain. I know 
the custom is-at least my own custom is-to select from samples that which I think 
will give the troops satisfaction. 
Recross-examination by Major Lee: 
Q. I just want to ask one more question with reference to that. Within your long 
experience as purchasing for the Army and distributing to the Army, and also, I think 
it is within my recollection, purchasing and sending supplies for Indians, and every- 
thing of that kind 
A. Oh, yes; everything. 
Q. To what account have you and all officers under you been held in regard to 
inspecting and seeing that contractors come up to the requirements of contract or 
agreements? 
A. I have always been held to a strict accountability. Indeed, I always felt that 
I had, and did my work accordingly. 
Q. Has there been any information within recent years that officers can purchase 
by samples and then trust to the honor of the house without making any further 
examination? 
A. I wouldn't do it myself. That is all. Every man has his own way of doing. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Mr. Taylor, of New York. 
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE L. TAYLOR. 
George L. Taylor was called by the recorder as a witness and, being duly sworn, 
testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 
A. George L. Taylor; I live in Philadelphia, and am at present a sanitary engineer 
and chemist. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Will you please state whether you had any service during the late war with 
Spain? 
A. I was lieutenant of First Volunteer Engineers? 
Q. Go on and state briefly the nature of your service-that is, where organized, 
if you left the country, and at what point, and where you went. 
A. I enlisted as a private at Camp Townsend, near Peekskill, N. Y. (I have for- 
gotten the exact date), and went to Porto Rico about the 10th of July. I received 
my commission as lieutenant in Porto Rico. 
Q. On what vessel did you sail? 
A. I sailed on the transport Chester. 
Q. What were your duties, if any, en route to Porto Rico? What duties had you 
on the vessel? 
A. I was sergeant in charge of the men of the first battalion. I received the travel 
ration, and issued it to the cooks, and saw that it was properly distributed to the 
men, and also received the fresh beef ration. 
Q. The travel ration, as such, consisted of what kind of meat? Was it canned 
roast beef, or was it canned corned beef? 
A. Canned corned beef, canned tomatoes, and canned beans. 
Q. What other meats had you on the vessel besides the canned corned beef? 
A. The ship carried down a large amount of fresh beef, which was intended for 
the use of our regiment after we had arrived in Porto Rico. But we were several 
days longer on the ship than was anticipated, and it was feared that this beef would 1828 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
spoil; and as we were rather short of rations, it was issued to us after the third day 
that we were on board the ship-I think it was the third day. 
Q. Have you any knowledge or information as to the origin of the beef? I under- 
stand you to state that it was furnished for the use of your regiment, as you under- 
stood, after you arrived? 
A. As I understood, after we arrived. I understood the beef was furnished by 
the Swift Packing Company. 
Q. How was it taken care of on the vessel? 
A. Ice was placed on the floor of the refrigerating chamber and the beef placed 
on top of that. 
Q. There was no refrigerating apparatus, as such, working there? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. What professional experience, if any, have you had as a chemist? I believe 
you stated that you are a sanitary engineer and chemist. 
A. Yes, sir; I have been employed as a chemist on the preparation of food pre- 
servatives, and germicides and disinfectants in New York City and Philadelphia. 
Q. About how long have you been engaged in that occupation? 
A. For five years previous to entering the service. 
Q. Have you contributed any article to any scientific journal on the subject of 
formaldehyde? 
A. I have contributed to a number of scientific journals. The American Journal 
of Pharmacy is one. I contributed to that an article on the manufacture and use 
of formaldehyde gas. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, I simply refer to this article, which I wish to 
submit, as identifying the reputation of the witness, for the inspection of the court. 
This magazine is The American Journal of Pharmacy for April, 1898, and con- 
tains an article on formaldehyde by the witness, George L. Taylor. [To the 
witness:] That is your article in this publication? 
The Witness. Yes, sir. 
Major Lee. It is here, if the court cares to inspect it, simply to identify the 
character and reputation of the witness. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Please state to the court your knowledge of that chemical-what action it has, 
if any, on the system. 
A. On the human system? 
Q. Yes, sir. 
A. When taken internally, even in small doses, it stops all digestive operations, 
and would produce gastritis and acute indigestion. 
Q. What attention did you give to the refrigerated beef? And state whether you 
noticed anything with reference thereto, and all the circumstances connected with 
it-about when it was, and what it was, and where it was. 
A. When the beef was first received on board the ship it was of a very good 
quality. It was good in appearance, and the quality was apparently very good. 
But later on, when I went into the refrigerating chamber, I thought that I detected 
a slight odor of formaldehyde; and it occurred tome that formaldehyde gas had been 
used in its preparation. 
Q. Is it harmful or harmless, in case of meat treated with it? 
A. It is not necessarily harmful. It does not penetrate deep into the tissues of 
the meat; and if the beef is properly trimmed or scrubbed it would not necessarily 
be harmful. 
Q. If the meat were given what you term proper treatment with it, about how far 
does it extend into the meat? 
A. Not over an eighth of an inch. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1829 
Q. Is this formaldehyde used for any other purpose? 
A. It is the base of nearly all of embalming fluids and preservative compounds 
which are on the market at present; and it is also used as a germicide by boards of 
health after the presence of contagious diseases. It is a very active germicide. 
Q. What connection, if any, have you had with it in that connection ? 
A. I designed the apparatus used by the New York board of health for household 
disinfection, and by Dr. Doty, the health officer of the port of New York, and by the 
boards of health in Montreal and Boston and a number of other large cities. 
Q. Is it readily or easily detected by chemical analysis, or can it be? 
A. When the gas is used as a preservative for organic substances, it can not be 
detected by any chemical analysis. It forms a third body with certain organic sub- 
stances from which it can not be separated. 
Q. Have you personal experience or personal knowledge of its use on meats ? 
A. I have used it myself as a preservative, purely for experimental purposes, in 
order to test its efficiency as a preservative; and I also know (it is a matter of record) 
that it has been experimented with by the commissary department of the German 
army, and by a number of other foreign armies-by the French army, I think, 
also. 
Q. What can you say as to the economy of its use ; and in what form would you 
say it could be most advantageously or economically used? 
A. Formaldehyde, in its commercial state, comes in the form of a solution, 40 
per cent of the gas to 60 per cent of water ; and when used as a disinfectant or as 
a preservative-that is, for preserving beef-the proper way to use it would be by 
disengaging the gas from that solution. It is the cheapest of all known preserva- 
tives, and the most effective. About 10 cents' worth of the gas would easily treat a 
carload of beef. The apparatus for using it for disintegrating this gas is very* simple 
and very small-could be carried around by hand-and a carload could be treated in 
a very few minutes. 
Q. Are there any other chemicals used in this form and have any the advantages 
possessed by this, of the nature of which you speak ? 
A. The only two chemicals with which I am familiar that could be used in the 
form of a gas are sulphur dioxide, formed by burning common sulphur, and chlorine 
gas. Neither of those would be suitable, because they would change the appearance 
of the beef, they are easily detected by a chemical analysis, and they are a great deal 
more expensive than the formaldehyde. 
Q. Please state, fully and in detail, the circumstances which led you to believe as 
you have testified with regard to the treatment of the beef-all circumstances con- 
nected with it. If you ate it, or others ate it, what effect did it have? 
A. I ate the beef myself, and I suffered with acute indigestion shortly after we had 
reached the island, which was said by the surgeon of our battalion to be caused by 
eating the beef. He did not suggest that it had been treated in any way, but said it 
was caused by eating the beef. And this form of acute indigestion was very preva- 
lent among the men. That same form of indigestion can be caused by formaldehyde. 
Another thing was the slight odor of formaldehyde which I detected in the 
refrigerating rooms; and the general appearance of the beef. It was slightly hardened 
and toughened. 
Q. What is its action, if you have not stated fully, as a preservative, on fresh 
meat, such as beet? If you have not answered fully, go on and state that to the 
court. 
A. It would have two actions on fresh beef, when used as a preservative. In 
the first place, it would destroy all germs that might be on the surface of the beef; 
and in the second place, by coagulating the albumen, it would form a protective skin, 
a hardened skin, on the outside of the beef, which would, in a measure, protect it 
from further bacterial assaults, you might say, on the outside. Unless that skin was 1830 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
abraded in some way, it would be impossible for any bacteria of putrefaction or 
decomposition to find a lodgment there. 
Q. Could it be detected on meat by the eye-by observation? 
A. No, sir; it does not change the appearance of the beef in the least, except to 
heighten the red color-make it a little darker. It does that by attacking the iron 
in the blood; it slightly darkens it. 
Q. How often did you use or eat of the meat in question? 
A. I only used it on the trip to Porto Rico-probably five or six times. 
Q. After your arrival in Porto Rico what fresh meat, if any, did you use there, and 
how did it compare with this meat? 
A. To the best of my knowledge, we had nothing but native beef after we arrived 
in Porto Rico. The beef was of very fair quality, indeed, and I know of no case of 
sickness which resulted from its use. In fact, there were very few cases of indigestion 
or gastritis after we arrived on the island-after the first week we arrived on the 
island. 
Q. About how long did you remain there? 
A. We arrived in New York on the 24th or 25th of November. 
Q. Then you were there from about what date? 
A. We were there from the 15th of July to about the 20th of November. 
Q. Something over four months. Did you see or know of a vessel having refriger- 
ated meat aboard called the Manitoba? 
A. Yes, sir; the Manitoba was in the harbor of Ponce when we arrived there. I 
heard a great many complaints from the officers and men who had come down on 
that ship as to the quality of the beef which was served, but I heard no specific 
charges, except that it was of bad quality, in bad condition. 
Q. Did you, during your service, use any canned roast beef, or what is called canned 
roast beef? If so, when and where? and state the circumstances under which you 
used it. 
A. There was no canned roast beef issued to our regiment directly. I purchased 
one can of it from bne of the little native stores there for the sake of a change, and I 
ate a small part of it and threw the rest away. It was of very bad quality, and 
Q. Was it of American manufacture, or was it such as had been 
A. It was of the Armour manufacture. I bought it from one of the little native 
stores there, which had a large amount of it, which they bought from the men of 
the Sixteenth Pennsylvania-exchanged with the men of the Sixteenth Pennsyl- 
vania, I think. 
Q. You state that no canned roast beef was issued to your command while there? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Why not? 
A. I understood that it was offered to our commissary, but refused by him. 
Q. Have you any information, from personal knowledge or otherwise, of the satis- 
faction or dissatisfaction with the canned roast beef issued to the troops generally 
while there? You were there some four months. 
A. Yes, sir; I heard a considerable number of complaints from men of other 
commands where the beef was issued, and I judged it must be unsatisfactory form 
the large amount of it that was on sale in the native stores. There was enough canned 
roast beef in the native stores there to last the inhabitants of the island for the next 
year, I should think. The men exchanged it for vegetables and other products of 
the island. 
Q. If there are any other facts within your knowledge, or of which you have 
knowledge, by information or otherwise, which you have not stated, I wish you 
would go on and state them, with reference to the meat supply. 
A. I know of nothing else of particular interest. 
Q. On your return trip what meats were supplied? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1831 
A. I was in charge of the mess for the entire regiment on the return home. We 
used then the native beef. It was cooked in the form of stews, and was very satis- 
factory. We made stews with onions and potatoes and some condensed soups, which 
we had, and used the native beef, and it gave very good satisfaction. There was no 
trouble and no illness on the return voyage. 
Q. What was the health of your regiment while in Porto Rico and at the time of 
its return, generally? 
A. At the time of its return the health of the regiment was very good. A part of 
the time there we suffered considerably from a form of malarial typhoid fever; and 
on the trip down and for the first few weeks we had a great deal of stomach trouble, 
indigestion, and diarrhea, and that sort of thing. 
Q. Did you make any report of your belief as to the matter of the treatment of the 
beef, as you suspected, when you saw it? 
A. No, sir; I made no report of it. I supposed, as a matter of course, that it was 
known that the beef had been treated in some way. It was the only beef we had 
for issue at the time, and I took it and issued it to the men. We trimmed it as care- 
fully as possible, under the circumstances, and it was made in the form of stews. 
Q. Was the discovery, to your mind, as you have testified, as to the treatment of 
the beef with formaldehyde prior to the ill effects or bad effects experienced from 
the use of it? 
A. I noticed the odor of formaldehyde, or thought that I noticed the odor of 
formaldehyde, which is a very characteristic one, as soon as I went into the refriger- 
ating chamber. 
Q. When was that? About when? How long after you had been out? 
A. It was the third or fourth day after we went on board the ship. We were on 
board the ship ten days. 
Q. Was that the first time you had been in the refrigerator, or had you been there 
before? 
A. That was the first time I had been in the refrigerator. 
Q. About how often did you go in the refrigerator afterwards on the trip down? 
A. Every time that the beef was issued-four or five times, possibly. 
Q. Did you notice any difference or distinction in this odor? Did it always appear 
to be present or noticeable? _ 
A. I can not remember on that point. Probably it would not be so noticeable 
later on, because the refrigerator had been opened and the beef had been handled 
and moved about on the ice, and part of the gas might have been washed off or 
changed. 
Q. Was any of the beef hung up, as you recall? 
A. I believe not; no, sir. It was all placed on top of the ice. 
Cross-examination by the Recorder: 
Q. In the work that you did for five years before going into the service were you 
working for a firm? 
A. For the Sanitary Construction Company, of New York; yes, sir. 
Q. Did they sell these preservatives? 
A. They did not sell them as preservatives. They sold them for purposes of dis- 
infection, and for use as a germicide. 
Q. Did they manufacture formaldehyde? 
A. No, sir; it is not manufactured in this country. 
Q. Are you sure of that? 
A. Not commercially. It is not manufactured commercially in this country-on a 
commercial scale. 
Q. Is it imported for commercial uses? 
A. Yes, sir; it is imported from France and Germany. There are two firms which 1832 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
manufacture it; as far as I know, only two. Those firms are the only ones from 
which it is imported. 
Q. Did this sanitary company sell it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And to whom did they sell it? 
A. Largely to boards of health, and physicians, and hospitals. 
Q. Did they sell any of it to beef packers? 
A. No, sir; not to my knowledge. 
Q. And what is the ordinary solution, as you come upon it commercially? 
A. Forty per cent of the gas in water. I have a small sample here on the table. 
Q. Did you have occasion before the war to know that it was used in the preser- 
vation of meat by packers-that is, dealers in refrigerated meat? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Are you familiar with the way in which that business is carried on? 
A. The beef business? 
Q. Yes. 
A. No, sir; I am not particularly familiar with it. 
Q. Do you know what agent is relied upon to preserve the beef as it is ordinarily 
carried on? 
A. Not among the packing companies-no, sir. 
Q. Have you ever heard that cold-air refrigeration was used? 
A. Oh, yes; cold air. I understood you to refer to a chemical process. 
Q. And is that an efficient agent for the preservation of beef as they appear to 
handle it? 
A. Not when it is moved from a car to a ship, for instance. 
Q. How long would that take? 
A. Moving it from a car to a ship? 
Q. Yes. 
A. Even if it only took a few minutes, or half an hour, there would be danger of 
contamination. 
Q. What kind of contamination? 
A. Bacterial contamination. 
Q. If it is put in a refrigerator would the development take place? 
A. Certain forms of bacteria would develop even at the refrigerator temperature. 
Q. Have you ever made experiments in the way of transferring refrigerated beef 
from cars to ships, so that you speak from experience on that point? 
A. No, sir; I have not. 
Q. How was it packed on the steamer? Was it hung up and cold air applied? 
A. No, sir; it was placed on the ice. 
Q. Did you make any scientific examination of it to see whether formaldehyde 
had been used? 
A. Not there; no, sir. I have examined beef under other conditions. 
Q. Not there? 
A. Not there; no, sir. 
Q. What would be the test? 
A. There are a number of tests that might be made. The only way in which it 
can be detected, that I know of, is by its property of fading certain fugitive aniline 
colors; and this article on the table there contains a number of forms of analysis 
which I do not remember exactly. 
Q. You made no tests there? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. And you judged from what of its presence? What led you to judge or to 
suspect its presence? 
A. Its odor and the general appearance of the beef. 
Q. Had you seen it on beef in large quantities before? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1833 
A. Not in large quantities. I tried it on small quantities only. 
Q. Could that color and hardness have been produced by natural causes, from your 
knowledge? 
A. I think not. 
Q. What is the effect of keeping beef? Does it not get hard and dark? 
A. If it is kept in a dry place, it would possibly get hard and dark; but not under 
the conditions in which the beef was kept on our refrigerators. 
Q. On the ice? 
A. On the ice. 
Q. What report did you make of this suspicion? 
A. I made no report of it, sir. 
Q. Had you any duties in connection with the supplies? 
A. I was authorized to prepare the food, or supervise the preparation of the food, 
and to issue it to the men. 
Q. Were you authorized or required? 
A. I was detailed for that purpose by the major of the battalion. 
Q. Then you were obeying an order, were you not? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Then you had a responsibility in connection with it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You had a responsibility in connection with it? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And did you report your suspicion to the regimental commander? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. To the surgeon? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. To the commissary? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Why not? 
A. I did not consider that the use of the gas was necessarily unwholesome in the 
■way in which we were preparing the meat. 
Q. Was it quite fair to them not to let them know it, considering the consequences 
that might follow? 
A. As I say, I did not consider that it was necessarily unwholesome. I did not 
consider that it necessarily injured the meat. 
Q. What was its effect upon you? 
A. Afterwards it seemed to have this effect, of producing the acute indigestion. 
Q. Well, did you report it then at any time? 
A. That was some time after the beef had been issued to us. 
Q. Did you report it then? 
A. No, sir. 
Q. Why not? 
A. Well, it did not seem to me to be of any moment at that time. We were not 
then receiving fresh beef, refrigerated beef, and the time had passed. 
Q. And you made no other experiment than what you have stated? 
A. No, sir; nothing more than my knowledge of the action of formaldehyde on 
beef. 
Q. Is it volatile? 
A. In a free state it is; yes, sir. 
Q. And when it is applied as a preservative what is its volatility? 
A. It is not volatile at low temperatures. It is volatile above 20° C. 
Q. What is its taste? 
A. It has a slightly acrid taste in large quantities. 
Q. Would it be noticed in eating meat? 
A. Not in the small percentage that would be used. 1834 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Q. Are you certain about the percentage that wan used? Did you make any 
examination? 
A. No, sir; it would be impossible to make an examination to determine the 
percentage. 
Q. Then are you prepared to say, first, that it was used, or that any particular 
quantity was used? 
A. No, sir; I have not said that it was used or that any particular quantity was 
used. 
By General Davis: 
Q. Do you think a good many of these men were made sick by the fresh beef they 
ate on the Chester? Did I understand you to say that? 
A. The surgeon told me that he considered the cause of my illness was eating the 
fresh beef. 
Q. And did you make some remark about others being sick? 
A. We had a number of cases of acute indigestion. 
Q. How many men were aboard the Chester going down? 
A. Of the regiment? 
Q. Yes. 
A. About 1,100 men. 
Q. And how many cases of that indigestion did you think there were, or did you 
hear there were? 
A. I did not hear the number. I know of a number of cases in my own 
company. 
Q. And were you under the impression then, or were you under the impression 
subsequently, that the beef had anything to do with the cause of sickness among 
the men? 
A. No, sir; it did not occur to me that that was caused by the beef. 
Q. You ate it five times, did you say? 
A. About five times; yes, sir. 
Q. And it was not until you had ceased using it that you had the indigestion? 
A. No, sir. 
By Colonel Gillespie: 
Q. Do you know whether that beef kept intact during the entire voyage? 
A. No, sir; it spoiled during the last few days of the voyage. A board of survey 
was appointed, and considerable Of it was thrown away. 
Redirect examination by Major Lee: 
Q. Would formaldehyde be sold to jobbers? How would it get out, for instance, 
to be used on meats? 
A. It is handled by large jobbers-chemical jobbers, importing houses-in New 
York City. 
Q. What quantity would be necessary, and what kind of an apparatus would be 
adapted to going into a car filled with quarters or halves of beef, hung up-car- 
casses? You are familiar with this formaldehyde? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. You know all about it, apparently, from your testimony. What kind of an 
apparatus would be adapted to that work? 
A. The formaldehyde solution is heate*1 to a high temperature, considerably above 
the boiling point, and gas is accumulated, and is then allowed to pass off into the 
room or car to be treated. The apparatus is portable, and would be used outside 
the room or car. It can be carried in the hand. 
Q. Do you say it could be or would be? 
A. It would be used outside of the car. 
Q. Could it be used inside of the car? FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1835 
A. It would be difficult, then, to withdraw the apparatus. 
Q. What kind of an apparatus are you describing now? 
A. I am describing an apparatus for boiling the commercial solution, for liberating 
the gas. 
Q. Can it be carried in the hand? 
A. It can be carried in the hand; yes, sir. 
Q. How large would it be for the purpose? 
A. The apparatus which the New York board of health are using weighs about 5 
or 6 pounds, and generates gas sufficient to thoroughly disinfect a large room. 
Q. The apparatus of which you speak could be used on, say, how many cars of 
meat? How far would it go? 
A. The apparatus can be filled after disinfecting each car. This apparatus of 
which I speak would disinfect 5 or 6 cars, if necessary, and it can be refilled and 
its use continued. 
Q. In regard to making tests, was it practical or did you deem it incumbent upon 
you in any way to make the test as to the formaldehyde which you believed to be on 
the beef at that time? 
A. No, sir; it was not incumbent on me, and it would have been impossible to 
have made a complete test. 
Q. I understood you to state that it was very difficult to be detected by chemical 
analysis. What chemical analysis would enable you to detect it? 
A. You will find that in this article, if I may be allowed to read from that. 
Q. You may refresh your memory from anything that is offered in evidence. 
A. (Reading from magazine article.) "Analysis of formaldehyde-to detect its 
presence. Trillat's method. An aqueous solution of aniline is obtained by dissolv- 
ings grams of fuchsin or magenta in 1 liter of distilled water; mix in a teat tube 
20 cubic centimeters of this solution with 20 cubic centimeters of the liquid to be 
assayed. In the presence of formic aldehyde, a very light cloud forms after several 
hours. This reaction is very delicate; by it formaldehyde can be detected in a solu- 
tion of one to twenty thousand. In solutions of this attenuation, however, the 
reaction does not appear until after the lapse of several days. 
1 'The search for formaldehyde in alimentary substances is always futile, because it 
forms, with certain organic substances, combinations from which it can not be 
separated." 
Q. The detection which you then made of it was not a matter which you considered 
of any moment at the time, I believe you have stated in your testimony? 
A. Yes, sir; because I did not consider then, and do not consider now, that the use 
of formaldehyde necessarily renders beef unwholesome. 
Q. How would an indiscriminate use, or an unskilled use, affect it? 
A. That would be harmful, if it was used in excess, owing to its property of 
neutralizing the gastric juices. 
Q. You were impressed at the time with the belief and the conviction that it was 
so used on that meat? 
A. It occurred to me that it was used. I had no proof of the fact. 
Q. I do not mean by that that you would know about it being put on if it had 
been, but that was your conviction at the time? 
A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Is it still your conviction? 
A. I think it was; yes, sir. 
Q. I say, is that still your conviction? 
A. Yes, sir. 
The Recorder. I have no other witnesses, may it please the court, this afternoon; 
there are a number of reports to be read. 
(Thereupon, at 4.10 o'clock p. m., a recess was taken until 8 o'clock p. m.) 1836 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C., 
Tuesday, April 18, 1899-8 o'clock p. m. 
The court met pursuant to adjournment. 
Present: Maj. Gen. J. F. Wade, Col. G. L. Gillespie, the recorder, and Major Lee, 
counsel for the Major-General Commanding. 
Absent: Brig. Gen. George W. Davis, United States Volunteers. 
Copies of correspondence furnished by Lieut. Col. O. M. Smith, Subsistence 
Department, submitted, but not read, at the session of the court in Chicago, Ill., 
were read by the recorder. (See Appendix 18.) 
The reading of the reports submitted on April 14 by the Major-General Com- 
manding was completed by Major Lee. (Reports appended, marked "27.") 
The recorder then read in evidence a number of official reports rendered by offi- 
cers of the Army in obedience to instructions of the War Department dated Sep- 
tember 9, 1898. (Appended, marked "28.") 
The court then, at 10.50 p. m., adjourned to meet on Wednesday, April 19, 1899, 
at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C., 
Wednesday, April 19, 1899-10 o'clock a. m. 
i The court met pursuant to adjournment. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
The court proceeded to the consideration of the evidence already submitted; pend- 
ing which, at 5 p. m., it adjourned to meet at 10 o'clock a. m., Thursday, April 20, 
1899. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
lAeutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C., 
Thursday, April 20, 1899-10 o'clock a. m. 
The court met pursuant to adjournment. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
The court resumed the consideration of the evidence already submitted; pending 
which, at 5 o'clock p. m., it adjourned to meet at 10 o'clock a. m., Friday, April 21, 
1899. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C., 
Friday, April 21, 1899-10 o'clock a. m. 
The court met pursuant to adjournment. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
The court resumed the consideration of the evidence already submitted, pending 
which, at 5 o'clock p. m., the court took a recess until 8.15 p. m. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
TAeutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1837 
AFTER RECESS. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C., 
Friday, April 21, 1899-8.15 p. m. 
The court resumed its session at 8.15 p. m. 
Present: Maj. Gen. J. P. Wade, United States Volunteers; Col. George L. Gil- 
lespie, Corps of Engineers, and the recorder. 
Major Lee, counsel for the Major-General Commanding, was also present. 
Absent: Brig. Gen. George W. Davis, United States Volunteers. 
The deposition of J. S. Armstrong was read and submitted in evidence by Major 
Lee. 
General Davis resumed his seat at 8.30 p. m. 
Copies of correspondence between the Commissary-General of Subsistence and 
officers of his Department in respect to experiments with beef were read by the 
recorder. (Appended, marked 30.) 
Copies of the correspondence between the Commissary-General of Subsistence and 
officers of his Department in relation to proposals for supplying fresh beef were read 
by the recorder. (Appended, marked 31.) 
A copy of a letter from Dudley & Michener, attorneys for Armour & Co., with- 
drawing letter of June 15 to the Commissary-General of Subsistence was read by the 
recorder. (Appended, marked 32.) 
The following papers, copies of letters, and reports on file in the office of the 
Commissary-General of Subsistence, authenticated by the seal of the War Depart- 
ment, were read and submitted in evidence by the recorder: 
Letters from officers of the Subsistence Department. (Appended, marked 33.) 
Proceedings of boards of survey at Santiago, Cuba, and correspondence in con- 
nection therewith. (Appended, marked 34.) 
Inspection report of Lieut. Col. Curtis W. Guild. (Appended, marked 35.) 
Instructions orally communicated to the court by the President on Friday, April 
20, 1899, with letter transmitting the same. (Appended, marked Aa.) 
Copies of correspondence between the Secretary of War and the generals command- 
ing in Cuba and Porto Rico. (Appended, marked 37.) 
The court (at 10.17 p. m.) adjourned to meet on Saturday, April 22, 1899, at 10 
o'clock a. m. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C., 
Saturday, April 22, 1899-10 o'clock a. m. 
The court met pursuant to adjournment. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
The court resumed the consideration of the evidence already submitted; pending 
which, at 1 o'clock p. m., the court took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m. 
The court reassembled at the expiration of the recess. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
The depositions of Alexander Powell and of Earl D. Berry (appended, marked 38) 
were read by the recorder and submitted in evidence. 
Copies of inspection reports by Maj. Gen. J. C. Breckinridge and Maj. Phillip Beede 
were read by the recorder and submitted in evidence. (Appended, marked 39.) 1838 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, it is proposed to introduce as a witness 
Colonel Lancaster of the artillery. 
TESTIMONY OF MAJ. JAMES M. LANCASTER, U. S. A. 
Maj. James M. Lancaster, U. S. A., was called as a witness by the recorder and, 
being duly sworn, testified as follows: 
By the Recorder: 
Q. Please state your name, rank, and station in the military service? 
A. James M. Lancaster; major*Fourth Artillery; stationed at Washington Bar- 
racks. 
By Major Lee: 
Q. Major, will you please state to the court where your service was, and in what 
capacity, during the late war with Spain? 
A. First at Chickamauga, in command of the Artillery Brigade; and from there 
to Tampa. I was there two months in command of the Battalion of Artillery. From 
there to Daiquiri, in Cuba; and from there to Porto Rico, in various parts of Porto 
Rico. 
Q. Please state to the court about what time you arrived at Daiquiri, in Cuba? 
A. I think it was on the 7th of July. 
Q. What command did you accompany there at that time? 
A. The Artillery Brigade. 
Q. What animals had you, if any, at that time, with the brigade, and what was 
done with them upon arrival at Daiquiri? Please state to the court, in a narrative 
form, the progress of events there in regard to these animals, so far as it came under 
your observation or direction. 
A. We arrived there with between 700 and 750 horses-I don't remember the 
exact number-and we immediately disembarked them. After I had two batteries 
ready and sent them up to General Shafter I received orders personally from Gen- 
eral Miles to embark them again; that he was going to take the balance of us all over 
to Porto Rico; and they were all placed back on board the steamers that we had. 
Q. Then you were there about how many days? 
A. I was there about a week. 
Q. How were the horses landed or gotten ashore? What arrangements or what 
difficulties, if any, were in the way of making a successful landing? What losses did 
you have? 
A. All that we had on board the Comanche were shoved out on the ports and we 
let them swim ashore. We had a man there ready to receive them and tie them up. 
On the other two vessels, the Specialist and the Unionist, I think they were, we let 
them down by slings into lighters and carried the lighters ashore and took the horses 
right off from them. We had no accident at all. In all the 700 we did not lose one. 
Q. Then you reembarked at the end of seven days about how many? 
A. I think a little over 500. 
Q. Did you have any difficulty in reembarking the horses? 
A. None at all. 
Q. I wish you would please describe to the court the nature of the ground and the 
country about there as to its facility for grazing and taking care of horses or cattle, 
or anything of that kind, or feeding them or caring for them. 
A. You might say it is the slope of a mountain toward the harbor. There seemed 
to be plenty of grass and plenty of water. 
Q. Were the conditions favorable or unfavorable to taking care of stock there? I 
mean a limited number; say a few hundred. 
A. Beyond the heat they could be very readily taken care of there. Our horses, 
of course, suffered a great deal from the heat. 
Q. From your experience in such matters of handling horses and swimming them FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1839 
ashore and reembarking them, will you please state to the court whether or not, in 
your opinion, it would have been practicable to have landed about that time a herd 
of cattle sufficient to give an occasional issue of fresh beef to an army of 10,000 men 
or 15,000 men? 
A. Yes; I think I could have landed 400 or 500 cattle there in twenty-four hours 
without any trouble, with the same facilities, if the weather was the same as when 
I was there. 
Q. Were the boats you came on adapted in any way to carrying cattle? Could 
they have carried cattle as well as horses? 
A. Oh, yes; we could have given every one of them a stall. 
Q. I will ask you, Major, to please state to the court, after leaving Cuba and going 
to Porto Rico, what length of time you remained there; about where and what was 
the extent of your duty in Porto Rico? 
A. We landed at Guanica and I was there, I think, two days. Then we marched 
from there to Ponce in four or five days. Then I was with General Wilson's division 
up in Coamo and along on the military road as far as Cayay. 
Q. In your duties there were you in the interior to any extent-in your work 
there. 
A. This town of Cayay is on the military road, you know, and about 38 or 40 miles 
from Ponce. 
Q. During the time you were in Porto Rico did you have any opportunities to 
observe, and did you observe, as to the cattle supply of the islnnd-the character of 
the cattle? 
A. Oh, yes. 
Q. And as to their fitness for food or their unfitness? 
A. I saw a great many cattle there that one of our Western farmers would have 
been proud of. 
Q. Did you or did your command-I refer to that more particularly-have occa- 
sion to use the native beef there, this beef that you described. 
A. Yes; my command lived almost entirely on the native beef. It was killed for 
us. When I first started, they furnished me every day two or three head of cattle, 
and we killed them in the evening and used them that night and the next morning. 
Q. Was there any difficulty or were there any serious results from the use of the 
native cattle by your command? 
A. None that I ever heard of. 
Q. That food seemed in all respects satisfactory? 
A. Yes; there were no complaints on the part of the men, any more than there 
would be from eating any other new-killed cattle, and eating it before it could be 
thoroughly cooled. 
Q. About what length of time did you remain in Porto Rico, Major, if you will 
will please state? 
A. I was there from about the 24th or 25th of July until the end of October-three 
months. 
Q. In your opinion, then, from the extent of your observation, please state to the 
court whether or not you regarded the native beef, of the same kind and character 
that you have described, as a fit and suitable meat ration for the army, killed with 
the precautions that could usually be taken in time of war, or campaign, or of such 
service. 
A. Oh, yes; very good. I was stationed at Tortugas four years, and had to eat 
that little Florida beef cattle there. We lived there and kept healthy on it; and I 
think the Porto Rico cattle was very much superior to the Florida cattle. 
Neither the court nor the recorder had any questions to ask this witness. 
An inspection report by Maj. J. H. McLeary, inspector-general, was read and 
submitted in evidence by Major Lee. (Appended, marked .) 1840 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
Upon the request of the recorder, the court permitted the following agreed state- 
ment of facts to be admitted in evidence: 
That certain canned roast beef was stored at the warehouse of the Baltimore and 
Ohio Railroad at Locust Point, Maryland, (Wilson Packing Company, on account of 
Fairbanks Canning Company), as follows: December 14, 1894, 800 cases; June 9, 
1896, 1,150 cases; June 13, 1896, 2,000 cases; July 27, 1896, 4,000 cases; making a 
total of 7,950 cases. 
Of this quantity there were forwarded out on account of Nelson, Morris & Co. of 
the above canned roast beef the following lots: 
First lot: July 1, 1898, 2,778 cases to Maj. A. L. Smith, C. S., care of D. Q. M., 
Port Tampa. 
Second lot: July 2, 1898, 5,139 cases, to D. C., care of D. Q. M., Port Tampa. 
This showing the shipment of the quantity stored, except 33 cases; and the records 
show that the above-mentioned canned roast beef was stored at Locust Point ' ' from 
eighteen months to four years." 
There is nothing to show by whom the above stores, which were shipped to Port 
Tampa, were inspected on behalf of the Government. 
The court then (at 3.25 p. m.) went into executive session, after which an adjourn- 
ment was taken until Monday, April 24, 1899, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocale-General, Recorder. 
Lemon Building, Washington, D. C., 
Monday, April 24, 1899. 
The court met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10.25 a. m. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
The Recorder. May it please the court, I had intended to read a few extracts from 
inspection reports, and then to be followed by Major Lee, whose statement, I under- 
stood, was to be read this morning. It has not been compared or submitted to the 
Major-General Commanding, and he asks until 2 o'clock for certain comparison and 
reference. 
The President. If there is no objection that may be done. 
The Recorder. Then I suggest that the court go into closed session for the present. 
The court then (at 10.27 a. m.) went into executive session, after which a recess 
was taken until 2 o'clock p. m. 
The court reassembled at the expiration of the recess. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
Major Lee and the reporter were also present. 
The report of an inspection conducted by Lieut. Col. E. A. Garlington having been 
tendered by Major Lee, the following order was adopted by the court, and the 
recorder was directed to communicate it to Major Lee. 
The report of the investigation conducted by Lieutenant-Colonel Garlington, 
inspector-general, under the orders of the Major-General Commanding, contains the 
result of an inquiry carried on, for the most part, at the same time and in the same 
places as that intrusted to this court by the President. During progress of his inves- 
tigation, Colonel Garlington has submitted names of witnesses, and, from time to 
time, has subjected subjects of inquiry, all of which have been fully considered by 
the court. The reports which were furnished him by officers of the Army have 
already been read and submitted in evidence. In view of these facts, and as it does 
not appear that Colonel Garlington had any other or better means of information 
than were accessible to the court at every stage of its inquiry, it is ordered that his 
report be not received in evidence. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1841 
The Recorder. If it please the court, it is proposed to read and submit in evidence 
copies of inspection reports relating to the operations of the year 1898. 
The above-mentioned reports were read by the recorder, and are appended hereto, 
marked . 
The Recorder. If it please the court, some depositions are outstanding, submitted 
by the counsel for the Major-General Commanding, which have not been completed 
and returned to the court. If such are received prior to the completion of its report, 
it is suggested that any objection arising out of the time of tender be waived and 
that they be received and considered as part of the testimony in the case. 
Major Lee. May it please the court, so far as we are concerned we waive any 
objection on account of the time of receipt, as suggested by the recorder. However, 
upon their receipt, as I shall remain here for a few days, I will ask the court to send 
notice, so that I can be present. Shall I proceed? 
The President. Yes. 
ARGUMENT OF MAJOR JESSE M. LEE ON BEHALF OF MAJOR- 
GENERAL MILES. 
May it please the court: 
In the brief time at my disposal since the conclusion of the testimony I find it 
impossible to attempt a review of the evidence which has been presented during" the 
prolonged sittings of the court. I must, therefore, content myself with a brief state- 
ment of the salient points as they can be recalled. In whatever remarks I may make 
I wish at the outset to disclaim any intention to reflect in any personal sense upon 
anyone, however high or low, who has been referred to in connection with the subject- 
matter of this inquiry. 
I may be permitted to remark that I have not appeared, nor do I appear, in any 
technical sense as the counsel of the Major-General Commanding the Army. If, as 
has been, and let us hope erroneously, maintained by some that the inquiry under 
the order convening this court was as much for the purpose of investigating implied 
accusation or imputation against the Major-General Commanding for entertaining the 
complaints and representations of his officers and soldiers as to improper food, as to 
investigate their merits, then the role of counsel might be appropriate. But the 
correspondence between the court and the Major-General Commanding shows quite 
clearly the extent to which he has been represented before this court-the purpose 
being to present and to elicit evidence pertinent to the inquiry. His allegations are 
nothing more, nothing less, than the complaints brought to his official knowledge 
by the officers and men of the Army who participated in active service during the 
recent war. These allegations, based on a full belief of said representations, are found, 
in substance, in his statements before the war commission, and relate specifically to 
certain meat supplies which are believed to have been unsuitable for issue and dele- 
terious to the health of the soldiers. 
It is not deemed necessary to go into details of certain newspaper interviews, as 
they, even wherever substantially correct, add nothing to the facts to be inquired 
into, and where incorrect have a tendency to raise an issue which can hardly be 
deemed worthy of serious consideration. 
I might say, however, with reference to the alleged interviews as testified to before 
your court by'Messrs. Reid and Berry, reporters, that from their own testimony it 
appears that General Miles persistently declined to talk on the subject or give an 
interview to anybody, and said he "was (quoting from Mr. Reid's testimony) most 
freely quoted without authority from me or "without any utterance on my part. It 
has been a source of great annoyance to me." And, quoting further from Mr. Reid's 
testimony, "I (General Miles) most positively decline to make any statement in 
regard to that matter." What they may have made up from a running conversa- 
S. Doc. 270 116 1842 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
tion had in the corridor of the "hotel while General Miles was on his way to keep 
an engagement is not deemed worthy of any further notice. 
With reference to the Herald interview, which I believe is before your court, it is» 
only necessary to quote extracts from a letter received by General Miles from a Mr. 
Meeker, who admits being the chief author of that composite report as follows: 
"New York, February 3, 1899. 
"Dear General: 
' ' In view of the situation, you should have an explanation from me. * * * On 
reaching the office that night after seeing you I found that an Associated Press 
report in typewriting had been sent to all the papers. * * * They had sent a man 
to see you. I said there was no use in bothering you, that I knew all about the situ- 
ation. Then they said: 'Dress it up a little;' and I did. * * * 
"I can swear that you gave no interview; that you refused to be interviewed; 
that you said you had no statement to make. 
"Sincerely, M. (Mr. Meeker, N. Y. Herald.)" 
This, with the testimony of the other two journalists, clearly shows that General 
Miles repeatedly and positively declined to be interviewed. 
I would not risk offending the intelligence of this court by attempting to dilate on 
the paramount duty of the Major-General Commanding the Army to cause a careful, 
thorough, and painstaking investigation of the complaints which had been brought to his 
attention by those who knew the facts, by those who had suffered from the evils of a 
new departure, an untried experiment with the meat ration for troops in campaign. 
For anyone to assume or maintain that it was not the bounden duty of the Major- 
General Commanding the Army to institute a searching inquiry into these matters 
would be as absurd as to claim that a captain should not command his company, 
a colonel his regiment, or a general his army. 
Let us recall a few matters of history with respect to that superb little army which 
embarked from Tampa for the invasion of Cuba last June and won imperishable 
renown for their individual and collective fighting qualities. They endured and suf- 
fered all things without complaint or murmur. In less than nine weeks that army, 
or the remaining part of it, was returned to the United States, to the so-called haven 
of Montauk, a pitiable wreck in body and mind; and it is believed the statement 
can not to-day be successfully controverted that not less than one-half of those gallant 
men are either dead or permanently disabled, and this, too, among seasoned regulars 
and volunteers who were in that campaign from start to finish. 
Now, the question arises, What cause contributed to this painful result? a result 
which seems to have aroused the indignation and sympathy of the entire nation. 
No one claims that any one article of food was the sole cause of this sad condition, 
but we think it can not be denied from the overwhelming evidence-the evidence of 
men who were on the fighting line, and who knew whereof they spoke-that if 
improper, unsuitable, or insufficient food was furnished, then, under the conditions 
existing, increased sickness would naturally be caused and its severity intensified. 
The overwhelming evidence of, we believe, not less than 90 per cent of the officers, 
and fully 95 per cent of the men, if not more, shows beyond reasonable doubt that 
the so-called canned roast beef as a meat ration was all that it should not have been 
and nothing that it should have been for the American soldier who was for human- 
ity's sake perilling his life in a torrid clime in the interest of an oppressed people. 
We neither allege nor charge that there was any intent or design on the part of any 
officer of the Army to furnish a bad or unfit ration; but the evidence, the unimpeach- 
able evidence, of regimental and company commanders, representing practically 
every soldier there, shows that an irreparable mistake had been made, that some 
one had blundered, and that the soldier became the sufferer. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1843 
Now, as to the so-called canned roast beef. It has been iterated and reiterated 
that it is a part of the army ration. Theoretically and parenthetically that may be 
true; but in practice it was never used to any appreciable extent as a part of the 
meat ration prior to the late war, and not one line officer in fifty, of from twenty to 
thirty years' service, has any knowledge of it as such. We fail to find any com- 
mendation of it outside of the Subsistence Department, and among the soldiers who 
have had experience with it, it is condemned almost without exception. It is not 
fit for a travel ration and never was; it is worse for troops in the field or in campaign; 
and in the tropics its attempted use became practically an abomination. Nausea, 
vomiting, and stomach and intestinal disorders resulting from its use only became 
relieved when recourse could be had to other food. The circumstances of its adop- 
tion were as brief as the results were unfortunate. One single case, apparently in 
good order, was sent to one company for trial with potatoes, onions, condiments, and, 
no doubt, all the cooking accessories of a complete mess outfit at Tampa. This 
experiment, be it said, was at the instance of a distinguished officer of the Subsist- 
ence Department. The error was an honest one of judgment, caused, perhaps, in some 
measure by the pressure of his duties; but the adoption of this canned roast beef 
as a material component of the meat ration in place of fresh beef was a responsi- 
bility belonging to higher authority. Be this as it may, the Subsistence Depart- 
ment, without adequate test in the hands of troops, without, it seems, any proper 
reference to or consultation with commanding generals, purchased this objection- 
able ration by the millions of pounds. Probably nearly a million pounds were sent 
with that army to Cuba to be issued, and it was issued as a travel ration and as a field 
ration; and it is pretty clearly shown in evidence that after the first attempted meal 
not a case of it would have been taken by regiments if the men on the firing line 
had been in a position to have insured their ready choice of something else; bacon or 
fresh beef. We venture the assertion that there are enough abandoned cans around 
Santiago, left there by the heroes who charged San Juan Hill and El Caney, to erect 
a monument sacred to the memory of every packing house in Chicago, Omaha, and 
Kansas City; and in years to come the line of march and of battle can easily be 
traced by the discarded " Helmet Brand," which did not protect, and by the "Prize 
Winner," which won nothing in the fight for humanity, and Armour's "Prime 
.roast beef," which was in fact a "roast" on the soldier who tried to eat it. 
How, then, did the soldier find it? What does he swear to? And he of all men 
on earth must know: "Some swelled were thrown away without opening; others 
offensive to taste and smell, when he tried to swallow it because of sheer hunger, 
and even an apparently good can became rotten refuse between meals." Has any 
one here in Washington tried eating a can of this beef under similar conditions? 
Has any one in Chicago, Kansas City, or New York tried making a palatable stew 
or hash with appetizing condiments of a can of this so-called " prime roast beef " 
that was a little suspicious? Of the thousands of cans abandoned as worthless around 
the heights of Santiago, have the packing companies made good one dollar to the 
Government, to the taxpayer, to the soldier? Let them answer. Of the many cases 
and cans thrown overboard at sea, and condemned by boards of survey, and con- 
signed to the garbage teams, and thrown into the surf at Montauk, has the Subsis- 
tence Department mulcted the packers for the loss to the United States or to the 
soldier? Let the records answer. Are there any records, full and complete, of 
spoiled or defective cans, or are they so adjusted between commissaries and pack- 
ing companies that there is no certain or enduring reports of such delinquencies? 
What of inspections? Why, it appears in evidence before this court that some of 
these inspections, so called, were so perfunctory that canned meats were accepted 
' ' on the reputation of the packing firms. ' ' Since when have gigantic corporations 
and trusts doing a business of from forty to one hundred millions a year become 
exempt from that close scrutiny that would be applied to a dealer of moderate 1844 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
means? The day has not yet come in this land, we hope, when great establishments 
shall be exempt from the rules, regulations, and laws requiring careful inspection of 
their products when purchased for the American soldier. If, like the king, they can 
do no wrong, then let the Agricultural Department withdraw its hundreds of inspect- 
ors from the packing houses and give them free scope for reputation's sake, and save 
the people the expense of looking after those whose infallible honesty would be as 
well assured without it. 
According to the testimony of one prominent representative of a large packing com- 
pany, not a can of so-called "canned roast beef" was rejected by a purchasing offi- 
cer of the Army of the United States during the late war, and as far as can now be 
recalled, not a specific rejection of more than a few cans was ever made at the time 
of purchase. It was after the purchase that the complaints developed. It was only 
after the millions of pounds had passed into the hands of the receiving officers in the 
field, after the issue to the troops, that the material defects, the unfitness for food, 
was discovered. No swellers nor nail holes seem to have been observed in the pack- 
ing houses at the time of purchase. The inspection and condemnation of over 
40,000 pounds at Jacksonville by Lieutenant-Colonel Guild failed to reveal who was 
the purchasing officer that received it as good. On repacking there by Armour's 
agent hundreds of cans were, as a sanitary measure, burned up in a crematory, and 
at Kansas City nearly 200 additional cans had become so offensive that they had to 
be rejected. This is but one illustration of what was found elsewhere-at Tampa, 
Santiago, Porto Rico, Montauk, and on the voyages to and from the West Indies. 
The testimony shows that every can that could be gathered from far and near was 
unloaded on the Army, that thousands of cases from Europe were recalled, and the 
old stock at Staten Island and Locust Point, Baltimore, the latter having been in 
storage from two to four years, was received and rushed forward to meet the demands. 
Manufacturers ran their establishments almost night and day to fill the orders, and, 
in many instances, this was rushed forward without the usual inspection. 
In illustration of the kind of cattle (canners) in the stock market last year, we 
quote from the Chicago Tribune, under the caption "In the live stock market," 
viz: ' ' May 2, 1898, cows and heifers closed 10 to 25 cents higher, with canners about 
the highest of the season; canning cows, $2.40 to $3.50." "May 6, 1898, 'canners' 
sold steadily with some activity from $2.50 to $3." "May 9, 1898, butchers' stock 
sold at $2.50 to $4.50 for poor canners to choice heifers." " May 18, 1898, there has 
been a considerable boom in cow prices since the big contracts were let by the Gov- 
ernment. Some cows sold to the canners at $3.50 to $3.75, the highest in many 
years." " May 23, 1898, native cows and heifers sold at the highest prices in many 
years, most of the canning cows selling from $3.40 to $3.80." "May 30, 1898, can- 
ning cows declined 25 to 40 cents from the recent high times." "June 10, 1898, can- 
ning cows were steady, while good butchers' cows and bulls sold 10 cents lower." 
"February 28,1898, and March 2,1899, common to best canning cows, $1.75 to $2.75." 
The above quotations show that this grade of cattle (canners) is the cheapest in 
the market, and by common report sells anywhere from 25 to 50 per cent less than 
other grades. Again and again has it been shown by disinterested witnesses and 
those who should have been disinterested that canners are of an inferior grade of 
cattle, and that, as a rule, the inferior parts of those are canned and labelled "prime 
roast beef," the better parts of this inferior grade being sold to the poor class of 
people in the trade and the inferior part canned, sold, and issued to the American 
soldier as a substitute for fresh beef. Any one familiar with the wording of fresh- 
beef contracts knows that cows are, in express terms, excluded from delivery to the 
troops; but it seems that under the so-called purifying process of boiling out the 
juices of the inferior meat the residue of cheap old cows, when put in cans, becomes 
good enough for the soldier while exposed to the hardships of war service. No won- 
der it made him sick when he tried to eat it. No wonder he turned from it with dis- FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1845 
gust at the sight of it. No wonder he "went hungry rather than eat it, and we believe 
that on a liberal estimate not more than 40 per cent of that issued was consumed by 
the soldier; and, in many instances, it was finally rejected in toto, and from current 
reports and evidence the principal use now made of it is to issue it to starving 
Cubans after its practical rejection by the Army. 
From June 7 to July 20-one month and a half-it seems that not a pound of 
fresh beef was supplied by the Subsistence Department to the soldiers in Cuba. If 
ever men needed fresh meat it was when the campaign was on, but it was not until 
the Army was in a state of collapse from disease, it was not until the conflict was 
practically ended, that the contractors' agents appeared in the harbor with the 
refrigerated fresh beef which had been guaranteed to keep in that climate seventy- 
two hours after leaving the refrigerator on board the ship, or for twenty-four hours 
after leaving the refrigerator on shore, of which there was none, the fact being that, 
in many instances, the beef did not keep long enough to reach the camps of troops 
from 3 to 5 miles distant without serious loss of from 10 to 50 per cent. We believe 
that the testimony will show the aggregate loss that fell upon the soldier, without 
restitution of any kind, was from 25 to 30 per cent of the entire quantity issued, it 
not appearing in the testimony that the contractor suffered any material loss on 
account of such defective or spoiled issues. 
Recurring again to the so-called roast beef, its unfitness as a food, its unpalatable, 
nauseating, and injurious character are conclusively shown by the official reports, 
now before the court, of not less than 90 per cent of about 340 regimental and com- 
pany officers who were at the front, whose evidence, disinterested and uninfluenced, 
is positive and direct from personal knowledge, and who are corroborated by other 
officers, who have testified in person in the strongest terms as to the unfitness and 
unwholesomeness of this ration. These officers represent 95 per cent of the men of 
the Regular Army who were in Cuba and Porto Rico, and though comparatively few 
enlisted Regulars were called before the court, their testimony, with perhaps one 
exception, was equally strong and conclusive. Similarly ex-volunteer officers and 
soldiers who had actual experience and personal knowledge testified with almost 
practical unanimity to substantially the same effect. With due deference to all be 
it said that the chemical analysis, admittedly indeterminate and inconclusive and 
under surroundings the reverse of service conditions, can scarcely have any material 
weight against the overwhelming and unimpeachable testimony of officers and 
soldiers who can have no motive nor interest for stating aught else than the facts, 
the multitude of facts, which they alone know and to which they alone can testify. 
If such evidence does not conclusively establish its unfitness, unwholesomeness, 
and unhealthfulness as an article of food, from the time of canning the inferior parts 
of inferior animals to the time of consumption and rejection by our soldiers, then 
there is no similar fact that can be successfully established by the officers and men 
of our Army. 
It has been presented in evidence that canned roast beef has been purchased and 
used in the Navy for a number of years with satisfactory results. In this connection 
we invite attention to the facts, which are also shown in evidence: 
First. That the character and quality of such canned roast beef upon purchase are 
specified with the utmost particularity. 
Second. That the inspections of same on purchase are so rigid as to insure the 
rejection of all which may be found to be of inferior quality and not fully up to the 
specified standard; and, in fact, many rejections have resulted. 
Third. That the canned roast beef so accepted by the Navy is used under condi- 
tions as to cooking facilities, use of vegetables and condiments, and other advantages 
on shipboard as to exclude any just comparison with its attempted use by the 
soldiers of the Army as a travel ration, in the field or in campaign; and in this con- 
nection we invite attention to the fact that the marines at Guantanamo made no use 
of canned roast beef during their service there. 1846 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
REFRIGERATED BEEF. 
Here, again, as in the case of the so-called canned roast beef, was undertaken 
another experiment, new and novel in the extreme, of attempting to supply an army 
in the field in a campaign with refrigerated beef. The methods which had in all 
previous wars been fully tested and of approved efficiency were discarded for this 
hitherto untried experiment. Various proposals were asked for, and among them 
one stipulating that the refrigerated beef should keep seventy-two hours after issue 
or delivery to the Army. As represented by correspondence and testified to by wit- 
nesses, this stipulation involved what was regarded by many experienced men as 
impossible of satisfactory fulfillment. A preservative process in addition to the ordi- 
nary refrigeration seemed a sine qua non, and in discussing the subject with General 
Eagan, the Commissary-General of Subsistence, four witnesses-Sypher, Giddings, 
Simpson, and Armstrong-all testified in effect that the Commissary-General stated 
that the refrigerating people had a special process for preserving meat, and that one 
process was being tested at Tampa, Fla., and in "the next day or two," as Arm- 
strong testified, the Commissary-General informed him "that of the four quarters 
that were tested three stood the test, remaining sound at the end of seventy-two 
hours, the remaining one being damaged on account of not being covered, and was 
exposed to the air, etc." 
In answer to an interrogatory read in evidence, Armstrong stated: "General 
Eagan mentioned that Swift & Co. had two representatives who explained to him 
fully that they possessed a new preservative that would keep the meat fresh and 
sound seventy-two hours after being taken out of the refrigerator, and, in answer to 
my (Armstrong's) statement that I did not think this could be done except some 
process be used unknown to the trade generally, he (the Commissary-General) 
stated that Swift & Co. was a reliable and responsible firm, and that they would be 
required to carry out any agreement they might make. He (General Eagan) stated 
further that Armour & Co. also proposed to furnish meat that would be treated 
with a process that would insure its keeping the length of time required under the 
contract. ' ' 
All this transpired before the opening of the bids on June 13, and shows clearly 
that a preservative process was then under favorable consideration. Armour & 
Co.'s bid, as shown by their attorney's letter of June 15 (withdrawn from the files 
about June 23) involved the ownership and use of the Powell process above described, 
and on that process or test they based their claim or appeal for the award of the 
contract, though not the lowest bidder. In an indorsement on that letter by the 
Commissary-General to the honorable Secretary of War, justifying the bid to the 
lowest bidder (Swift & Co.), the Commissary-General stated "the tests made by 
Armour & Co. are not the only tests that have been made, etc."-this apparently 
with direct reference to Swift & Co.'s bid, as shown by the context and subsequent 
award to Swift & Co. 
After various changes and modifications, the addition of a seventy-two-hour clause 
in one article and a reduction to twenty-four hours in another, the contract was 
awarded to Swift & Co. on July 1, 1898, for Cuba. From the changes made in 
the contract, as shown in the testimony, the contract seems to have been subject to 
diverse interpretation as to the time limit in hours, one clause stating that the beef 
should keep seventy-two hours after issue from the ship's refrigerator or twenty- 
four hours after issue from the refrigerator on shore--one commissary officer inter- 
preting it, in practice, to mean only twenty-four hours in either case. It may be 
here remarked that the issue of refrigerated beef in Porto Rico resulted in spoiling 
in many instances, similar to that issued in Santiago, when necessary to reach the 
troops not in the immediate vicinity of the wharf, and, as far as can be recalled, with- 
out restitution to the soldier, and without loss to the contractor; and that the pre- FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1847 
servative process failed is evident from the history of many issues, both in Cuba and 
Porto Rico. That it was the expectation and the intention that some special preserva- 
tive process could and would be used by the refrigerating people, Armour & Co. or 
Swift & Co., seems to be established beyond all question. There are known or reputed 
to be several processes and compounds for the preservation of meats-boric acid, 
salicylic acid, formaldehyde, preservaline, and probably nine hundred and ninety- 
nine others, one or more of which could be used as occasion might demand. Of 
course neither the process nor its nature would be incorporated in any contract. 
(See Armour & Co.'s letter from their attorneys on that subject.) 
Thus far it seems evident that, amid the perils and activities of war, but compara- 
tively few outside of the Commissary-General's Office thought or knew much about 
the experiment of processed or refrigerated beef, which in neither case ever supplied 
the wants of the soldiers until the war was practically over. The secret of the preserv- 
ing process was with those refrigerating people who proposed to use it; beyond that 
its discovery might be a mere matter of accident. If the beef was satisfactory no one 
might have reason to suspect or complain, and the matter of detection or suspicion 
of processed beef with secret preservatives could ordinarily arise only in the way as 
testified to before this court. What are the facts? Witnesses unimpeached and unim- 
peachable, uninfluenced and disinterested, without a motive for stating anything 
but the truth, have come forward and testified as to facts within their knowledge; 
and all the statements of interested parties, all the evidence of those who neither 
tested nor investigated, can not avail against those who give clear, direct, and uncon- 
tradicted testimony as to facts. So we say that on no principle of justice can the indi- 
rect allegations-the shadowy statements of those who did not know, those who did 
not suspect, those who made no inquiry-be of material weight against the credible, 
the direct, and positive testimony of those who have not been and can not be suc- 
cessfully contradicted as to material facts within their personal knowledge. 
Among these witnesses is Dr. W. H. Daly, who, we claim, has not been success- 
fully contradicted by any reputable witness. He testifies in substance (pp. 3270- 
3327) that "on the Panama he observed that the beef had an odor similar to a dead 
body injected with preservatives. He later made a chemical analysis of the soup 
from this beef with due care and precaution and, in conjunction with a well-known 
chemist, found boric and salicylic acids." Dr. Daly's inspections and reports, read 
in evidence before this court and sworn to by him, appear to fully corroborate his 
evidence in the first instance as to chemicalized beef. There has been conclusive 
evidence that the beef examined by Dr. Daly wTas refrigerated beef which came from 
the Manitoba. 
Captain Williams (p. 3969), who was with Dr. Daly on the Panama, corroborates 
him in stating that ' ' the disagreeable odor from this meat did not appear to be due 
to decomposition; that the odor was something new and was like the odor of bodies 
he had operated on." 
Dr. Rush S. Huidekoper (pp. 3933-3943), who was on duty in Porto Rico, testified 
that he had known for fifteen years that chemicals have been used in covering the 
exterior surface of beef, as well as boric acid, the salts, etc. 
In confirmation of this testimony, many witnesses have testified as to the necessity 
of cutting away or scraping off the outside of the beef when issued in order to use 
the edible portion. 
Dr. Edwin A. Nicodemus (pp. 3339-3349) testifies that "the beef had been cured 
or embalmed; that the odor while cooking was especially suggestive of a dissecting 
room." 
Dr. Daniel A. Currie (pp. 3434, etc.), late lieutenant-colonel Second New Jersey, 
a physician of good repute and an officer of efficiency and integrity, details the cir- 
cumstances of sickness of men of his detail at Jacksonville, Fla.; his suspicion that 
the beef had been processed, and the taste in connection with the cooking, which 1848 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
convinced him that preservative chemicals had been used-in his belief, boric and 
salicylic acids; suspected on examination and confirmed by subsequent analysis. 
Professor Bigelow, chemist of the Agricultural Department, was called and gave as 
his opinion that the tests of Dr. Currie showed the absence of these acids. Dr. Cur- 
rie had returned home, and was not here in court to meet those who sought to dis- 
credit his testimony. Dr. Currie is a gentleman of eminent respectability (he was 
not on trial); and that there was something wrong with the beef, other than decom- 
position, seems evident, not only from his testimony as to the general sickness of his 
detail, but from other circumstances as well. 
John Ruch (p. 3568), the head cook from whom Dr. Currie obtained the beef for 
analysis, testifies that he "heard that the beef was embalmed, which caused it to 
look so red after it was cooked. It was the general talk that the beef was embalmed. ' ' 
Randolph K. Spicer (pp. 3992-4002) testifies that in Porto Rico he "observed that 
beef brought from transport had green, scaly crystals on it; noticed this because he 
has observed like results in the use of embalming fluids when engaged as an 
embalmer." 
Captain Galbraith (pp. 2360-2368) noticed at Santiago that "some of the beef 
smelled suspiciously, and he thought he detected the odor of drugs when helping to 
load and unload it while going to camp." 
On board the Chester, en route from his regiment to Porto Rico, Mr. George L. 
Taylor, sanitary engineer and chemist (pp. 4489-4507), "detected slight odor of 
formaldehyde on the fresh beef. After eating the beef he, himself, and others 
suffered from acute indigestion, and this could be caused by the chemical named." 
All the beef referred to by the foregoing witnesses appears to have been furnished by 
Swift & Co. Incidentally it may be stated that last year-1898-Dr. E. P. Murdock 
(pp. 2500-2516) made a laboratory examination in Chicago of canned and fresh beef, 
and found that "it was preserved with boracic acid, nitrate of potash, and coloring 
matter added." 
CHEMICALIZED BEEF AT TAMPA AND LAKELAND, FLA. 
Under Armour & Co.'s contract at the above places last year, there was developed 
the fact by the clear and conclusive testimony of reputable witnesses that chemical- 
ized beef was furnished the troops-notably those stationed at Lakeland, Fla.-this 
notwithstanding the testimony of a crowd of the contractors' witnesses, from Mana- 
ger Meeker down, that they had never known or heard of any chemical preserva- 
tive being used. The remarkable testimony of the contractors' witnesses in face of 
the prior bid of Armour & Co., based on the use of the Powell process, is beyond 
comprehension. 
Moorehouse (pp. 2813-2845, 3040-3046), Armour & Co.'s agent, swore unreservedly, 
if not repeatedly, that he had no knowledge or information whatever that any chem- 
ical process was used. Three witnesses, without an iota of interest in suppressing 
the truth, state as follows: 
1. Sergt. Edward Mason (p. 2433), that upon objecting to or refusing certain beef 
in a car at Lakeland, Armour's agent stated, in express terms, "that the beef had 
been chemically treated." 
2. A. J. Gampher (pp. 2971, etc.), then lieutenant and commissary, testified that 
at Lakeland, Fla., in August, Moorehouse, Armour's agent, informed him that there 
was ' ' nothing the matter with the beef, that the spots on it were due to chemicals 
used in the preservation of the meat; that this had been done to prevent deteriora- 
tion." 
3. Dr. Charles H. Castle (pp. 3655, etc.), then assistant surgeon, was present at 
Lakeland with Captain Carmichael and Lieutenant Gampher and Armour's agent 
(described as Moorehouse), and testifies with circumstantial detail that said agent 
said "that the beef was chemically treated by a secret process, which was unknown FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1849 
to him, the agent." Dr. Castle further testifies that "the beef had an aromatic, 
acrid, sour smell, suggestive of gas formaldehyde or the solution formalin." 
Such testimony as the above being incontrovertible, it must be clear that as a secret 
chemical process was used with meat delivered to troops at that point, similar use 
would, no doubt, be made of such process at other points, or for all shipments where 
it might be deemed necessary as a preservative of the refrigerated beef. It is only 
deemed necessary to invite the court's attention to the fact that the testimony of the 
bell boy Fleishman (p. 2504), as to seeing the meat chemically treated in Armour's 
yard in a car marked "Tampa, Fla.," is fully corroborated by Powell's testimony (p. 
3591, etc.). 
That the refrigerated beef was far from satisfactory, that in a great many instances 
it was more or less spoiled, or unfit for consumption, when delivered to troops, are 
facts testified to by a multitude of witnesses who have appeared before the court, or 
whose reports have been received in evidence; that the greater part, if not all, such 
losses shall fall upon the soldier or the Government is also in evidence; that the use 
of such beef caused sickness, diarrhea, and dysentery is also shown in testimony. 
In one instance stomach troubles resulted in almost an entire regiment, the First 
District of Columbia Volunteers, and improvement followed upon disuse of the beef. 
In another case almost an entire company in one of the Southern camps in the United 
States was made sick from the use of the fresh beef. 
From the foregoing it is evident that whatever preservative processes may have 
been used, as testified to by Dr. Daly and others, they failed of effect, and, as stated 
by these witnesses, corroborated by circumstances, the results of their use were dele- 
terious upon the health of the men. 
In this connection the attention of the honorable court is respectfully invited to 
the thorough and impartial report of Lieutenant-Colonel Garlington, inspector- 
general. The report is the result of months of the most searching and painstaking 
labor, and we believe it to be of great importance on the subject of the meat supply 
of canned and refrigerated beef. 
DATA OF NUMBER OF WITNESSES REQUESTED, AND NUMBER TESTIFYING IN PERSON. 
With the liability to slight errors in compilation, we find the Major-General Com- 
manding the Army submitted the names of 441 witnesses whose appearance and tes- 
timony he deemed relevant and important. Of these, 104 were called before the 
court and gave their testimony. The number called and examined by the court of 
its own motion was 163. Of this number, 20 belonged to the Subsistence Depart- 
ment, 13 belonged to the Agricultural Department, 51 interested in the meat industry, 
and 79 miscellaneous-officers and soldiers of the line, medical officers, ex-officers 
and soldiers of volunteers, and others. 
It is also proper to note in this connection that approximately about 340 official 
reports of officers, submitted by the Major-General Commanding, have been received 
and read in evidence. 
From the array of testimony of about 267 witnesses who have appeared in person 
before the court, it is for the court to determine just what weight, just what credi- 
bility, should be given to such testimony, just how far their evidence may be 
influenced by bias, prejudice, and motives of self-interest. Many witnesses, however 
honest, are more or less subject to these influences which are common to humanity 
in any and all departments of life. 
If the Subsistence Department has, through error or other cause, furnished 
unsuitable food as fresh and canned meats to the soldiers, then it is for the court to 
weigh the evidence as between that Department and the evidence of the soldiers 
who had to endure and suffer the result. 
If the efficiency of the Agricultural Department's meat inspectors is in any way 1850 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
questioned (an issue which we have not raised), then the testimony of the 13 wit- 
nesses will, no doubt, be weighed accordingly. 
We remark, however, in passing, that we fail to clearly comprehend the direct 
relation of that Department to this inquiry, inasmuch as their inspections or super- 
vision do not extend to the canning departments to determine just what parts of a 
cow or steer go into the cans; neither do their inspections extend to the process of 
curing or preserving meats by chemical agencies or otherwise. 
We have, however, an extract from a report of Prof. H. W. Wiley, chemist of the 
Department of Agriculture, published in circular 5 of January 18, 1899, and, although 
a digression here, I will read it. On the subject of "Chemical examination of 
canned meats" he says: " In concluding this preliminary report, I again desire to 
emphasize the fact that preserved goods, especially meats, are not to be preferred to 
the fresh articles except in those cases where it is not possible for the article in a 
fresh state to be supplied. In the second place (this deserves emphasis), it is highly 
important that some competent supervising agent be always present to inspect the packages 
when they are opened, in order to detect any failure to complete sterilization in their prepara- 
tion, or any evidences of incipient or advanced decay in their contents. Where these precau- 
tions are observed there is no reason to believe that the ingestion of preserved meats 
as an article of food, in proper quantities and in properly balanced rations, will in 
any way interfere with the health or comfort of the person consuming them." This 
wise and interesting exposition involves the presence of a chemist, or an expert on 
canned meats, with every company and detachment using such an article to protect 
the men against poison and disease. Sad to say, such experts were not provided 
along with the "canned roast beef " issued our soldiers in the late war. We should, 
however, thank Professor Wiley for his valuable warning, even at this late day. 
Returning for a moment to the subject of credibility of witnesses, we deem it 
proper to say-but in no offensive sense-that of all witnesses where self-interest 
stands out conspicuously the 51 interested in the meat industry are preeminent. 
Their readiness, zeal, and volubility when on the stand their eargerness to palliate, 
excuse, and deny any and every criticism or fault found with their meats, must 
account for much of the most remarkable testimony ever given before a court. The 
officers and soldiers of our Army may go wrong, the people may err, other interests 
may be full of defects and irregularities, but if there is anything strictly honest, 
without reproach, almost perfect, all these virtues will be found in overwhelming 
abundance in the packing houses of our country. Pardon me for saying it, but much, 
if not all, of such testimony is like much of the roast beef complained of-some- 
what overcooked. We certainly believe that when found contradictory, the court 
will throw it out; when self-laudatory, it will receive scant consideration, and where 
self-interest permeates and surrounds it, that it will be sifted again and again for 
whatever grain of credibility it may contain. We have neither time nor inclination 
to dwell upon it in detail. We would, however, ask this: Can such testimony from 
such a source avail against the testimony of hundreds of officers and of suffering 
soldiers in Cuba and Porto Rico who carried our flag in signal triumph in a God' 
given cause of right? 
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS. 
There is but little that need be said on this subject. The learned gentlemen have 
testified at great length and submitted their voluminous reports, with an array of 
figures and tables that we confess complex the average mind. We will state this, 
however, and we believe the reports, the oral testimony of Professors Chittendon, 
Bigelow, Atwater, Wiley, and Mallet, justify the statement that the nutrients, protein, 
and what not found in the laboratory furnish no suitable guide as to the suitableness, 
the wholesomeness, or the healthfulness of the material analyzed, when taken into 
the stomach of the soldier under the conditions of active service, or under any con- FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1851 
ditions, as to that matter. All agree, we believe, that the true and final test of such 
food (so called) is in the eating thereof; and on that point we have a mountain of 
testimony of practical experience against any theory to the contrary. We think 
Professor Wiley's views on canned meats, which we read, set at rest any doubts on 
that subject. 
To make a practical application to the soldier in Cuba and Porto Rico that a pound 
of canned roast beef of the kind furnished the soldiers in the campaign contained 
more nutrient for him, and therefore better for him to eat, than a pound of choice, 
juicy roast fresh beef, fresh from the oven, would require the most rigorous discipline 
to make him swallow the former and adopt the theory for future use. From the 
evidence before this court he detests the one and enjoys the other, no matter what 
chemical analysis may show. 
In summarizing what we have sought to present to the court, what appears in evi- 
dence, or is, as we believe, a matter of general knowledge, we invite attention to the 
following: 
1. The life-giving properties in the food of armies up to the time of the Spanish- 
American war have been chiefly obtained from the flocks and herds of the country. 
The great armies of the civil war and many important Indian expeditions since 
were fed upon the herds of cattle which accompanied them. 
It was perfectly practicable to have had at all times herds of fat cattle at every 
camp in the United States to meet any and all exigencies of service as they might 
arise. 
2. At no time during the war was there any emergency calling for food supplies 
by other than the safe methods of proved experience. The war was anticipated for 
months before it occurred. Congress, by unanimous vote, had appropriated $50,000,000 
for national defense; and it was perfectly well known to every military man that as 
the troops were called into service they would require food, raiment, and equipment; 
and it was equally well known that their services would be required in the Tropics, 
and not in other regions. 
3. It was also well known that the beef cattle could be shipped by train or trans- 
port wherever troops, mules, and horses were moved. The records of the Quarter- 
master's Department show that 2,295 horses and mules were landed with the invading 
army at Daiquiri and Siboney without serious loss, and certainly beef cattle could 
have been landed with equal if not greater facility. 
4. The travel ration which has been used for years, composed of corned beef, beans, 
bread, coffee, etc., had been thoroughly tested and found satisfactory and is in 
general use to-day. 
5. The fact had been known for years that in Cuba a million and a half of people 
and a quarter of a million of Spanish troops (in their military operations during the 
past three years) had been principally fed upon the cattle of Cuba and those that 
had been shipped from the United States and South American countries; also that 
the Cuban army had subsisted in the same way, and that 10,000 troops under Gen- 
eral Garcia had marched and maneuvered against the Spanish forces in eastern Cuba, 
sustained principally by cattle that accompanied them. 
It was also well known that nearly a million people and 17,000 troops in Porto 
Rico had lived upon the herds with which that island is abundantly stocked; and 
in addition to this, that cattle were exported from that island the same as tobacco, 
coffee, and sugar.. Upon the invasion and occupation of Porto Rico by the army 
under the Major-General Commanding, he repeatedly wired superior authority that 
there was an abundance of good native cattle, and that no other fresh beef was 
needed. 
6. Instead of supplying the troops during this war as other armies have been sup- 
plied, with wholesome food (of which there was an inexhaustible supply in the 
country), there was gathered up all of the canned food possible, much of which had 1852 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
been stored for years in the warehouses of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, in other 
places, and in foreign storehouses, and falsely labeled "Prime roast beef," when 
there was not an ounce of roast beef and, we believe, not an ounce of prime l>eef 
contained in the cans. As shown in evidence, and of general notoriety, it was meat 
of the most inferior grade, or the boiled pulp from which beef extract had been 
made, and the cans were found filled with grease or tallow, making a substance 
unpalatable, nauseating, offensive, and unfit for human food; so nauseating, in fact, 
that after a few efforts to eat it the troops often went hungry rather than try to live 
upon it. In many cases it caused sickness, and in innumerable cases the troops were 
made weak by thus being supplied in lieu of having suitable and wholesome food. 
It is true that a small amount of canned roast beef was purchased for experiment 
with small detachments of the Army prior to 1896, but owing to unfavorable reports 
it had been practically abandoned and was not purchased for four years prior to the 
war; and although the many reports that have been received by those who have 
tried it during the war and almost universally condemned it, it has been, in effect, 
abandoned as a part of the ration, and the principal use now made of it appears to 
be to issue it to the starving Cubans. 
The evidence that has been presented which condemned this food can be con- 
firmed by the testimony of thousands of soldiers, if any additional evidence were 
needed. 
7. The sending of troops chained to refrigerators and cold storage and ice houses 
into a campaign against a hostile enemy is so unprecedented and unmilitary that it 
would be a waste of words to discuss it; yet this was done, and there was full 
knowledge that the Commissary Department required from the contractors furnishing 
refrigerated beef that it must keep for seventy-two hours outside of the refrigerators. 
(See the Commissary-General's letter inviting proposals and other correspondence, 
as well as his sworn testimony on three occasions, and his indorsement of June 17 
on Armour & Company's letter, per their attorneys, of June 15, 1898.) 
To fulfill these contracts, the evidence shows the contractors would be compelled 
to resort to artificial preservatives. That they possessed and intended to use chemical 
appliances is evidenced beyond question. Written documents and other evidence 
prove this. That such appliances were used is, we believe, a fact established by 
unimpeachable testimony. 
8. The serious and injurious effect upon the troops that were compelled to receive 
and use these two classes of food, or to suffer in consequence of not having whole- 
some food, is as apparent as any well-established fact, but the extent of such injury 
upon the health and lives of the troops can not well be measured. 
9. While our troops were thus deprived of wholesome food, many parties were 
ready to supply them at all times and in all camps in this country and on foreign 
stations with any number of cattle. It is also a fact that during these very months 
in which our troops were serving in Cuba, there were shipped from the Atlantic and 
Gulf ports upwards of 87,000 of the best beef cattle produced in the United States 
and sent across the Atlantic to foreign markets-enough beef to have supplied the 
troops sent from Tampa to Santiago for thirteen years. 
10. We believe these facts have been established beyond question, and we believe 
that a great fraud has been perpetrated upon the Government and a great crime 
committed upon its soldiers ; and as to the party or parties who have committed this 
offense, and whether the evidence should be referred to the judicial officers of the 
Government in order that justice shall be done, are matters that we leave to the 
consideration of your honorable court. 
Respectfully submitted. 
J. M. Lee, 
Major Ninth Infantry, representing Major-General Nelson A. Miles. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1853 
I wish to thank the court for its attention and for its indulgence and forbearance 
throughout the prolonged sessions, where I have been permitted to attend. 
The Recorder : May it please the court, I submit the case without remark. 
The court then, at 3.05 p. m., went into executive session, after which an adjourn- 
ment was taken until Tuesday, April 25th, 1899, at 10 o'clock a.m. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
War Department, 
Washington, April 29, 1899. 
Sir: I have the honor to hand you herewith the report and findings of the court 
of inquiry convened to report upon the meat supplied to the Army during the war 
with Spain. 
Very respectfully, G. D. Meiklejohn, 
Acting Secretary of War. 
The President. 
Rooms ok the Court of Inquiry, 
Lemon Building, 
Washington, D. C., April 29, 1899. 
The Secretary of War. 
Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith the proceedings of the court of inquiry, 
convened in pursuance of Special Orders, No. 2, current series, from the War Depart- 
ment, dated February 9, 1899. 
Very respectfully, 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Tuesday, April 25, 1899-10 a. m. 
The court met pursuant to adjournment. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
The court began the preparation of its report, pending which, at 5 p. in., it adjourned 
to meet at 10 a. m. to-morrow, April 26. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Wednesday, April 26, 1899-10 a. m. 
The court met pursuant to adjournment. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
The court continued the preparation of its report, pending which, at 5 p. m., it 
adjourned to meet at 10 a. m. to-morrow, April 27. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Thursday, April 27, 1899-10 a. m. 
The court met pursuant to adjournment. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
The court continued the preparation of its report, pending which, at 5 p. m., the 
court took a recess until 8 p. m. 1854 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
The court met at 8 p. m. and continued the preparation of its report, pending 
which, at 11 p. m., it adjourned to meet at 10 a. m. Friday, April 28. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judye-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Friday, April 28, 1899-10 a. m. 
The court met pursuant to adjournment. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
The court continued the preparation of its report, pending which, at 5 p. m., it 
adjourned to meet at 10 a. m. to-morrow, April 29. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judye-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Saturday, April 29, 1899-10 a. m. 
The court met pursuant to adjournment. 
Present: All the members and the recorder. 
The following papers, received from the War Department, were admitted in evi- 
dence and appended to the record: 
1. Report of beef cattle and canned fresh beef purchased, appended, marked "43." 
2. Bid of Armour & Co., June 11, 1899, appended, marked "44." 
3. Bid of Swift & Co., June 11, 1899, appended, marked "45." 
4. Bid of Swift & Co., July 25, 1899, appended, marked "45A." 
5. Contract with Swift & Co. (Cuba), appended, marked "46." 
6. Contract with Swift & Co. (Porto Rico), appended, marked "47." 
7. Letter from the Major-General Commanding, of April 29, with reply of the court, 
appended, marked "48." 
The following report, prepared in conformity to Special Orders, No. 2, current 
series, War Department, of February 9, 1899, and the supplementary instructions of 
the President was then adopted: R E V O E T . 
The Court of Inquiry convened by Special Orders, No. 2, current series, from the 
War Department, under date of February 9, 1899, begs leave to submit the following 
report. 
Immediately upon the completion of its organization the court waited upon the 
president and received his instructions in respect to the nature and scope of the 
inquiry. (See Appendix Aa.) At its first meeting the court, through its recorder, 
requested to be furnished with the specific allegations of the Major-General Com- 
manding, which were referred to it for investigation. These were furnished by the 
War Department, and are appended, marked "A," " B," and "C," respectively. 
THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE MAJOR-GENERAL COMMANDING. 
The subjects of inquiry that were referred to this court for investigation are set out 
in the orders received from the War Department, and these have already been 
quoted in full. Omitting all parts of the orders save the specification of the subjects 
required to be investigated, the following define the scope of the inquiry. 
" To investigate certain allegations of the Major-General Commanding the Army 
in respect to the unfitness for issue of certain articles of food furnished by the Sub- 
sistence Department to the troops in the field during the recent operations in Cuba 
and Porto Rico. 
"To determine if the beef furnished the army was wholesome and of good quality 
and sufficient in quantity, and to inquire with care into the allegation that it was 
treated with acids or chemicals by the contractors or others, or in any way made 
deleterious to the health of the consumers." 
It is evident that the court could not enter upon and discharge its duties intelli- 
gently unless the specific "allegations" which are the subject of its inquiry were 
made known to it. These were asked for by the court in a letter to the Adjutant- 
General, dated February 17,1899. On the 20th of February the court received from 
the Adjutant-General a reply to its request for information. This communication 
supplied the data asked, as appears from the following quotation: "The President 
holds that the specific allegations referred to the court for investigation are indicated 
by marginal lines in the statement submitted by the Major-General Commanding to 
the commission appointed by the President to investigate the conduct of the War 
Department in the war with Spain, and in the matters purporting to have been fur- 
nished the public press by that officer, all of which is transmitted herewith, marked 
A, B, and C, respectively." 
The papers, marked as indicated, and which were received under cover of the 
letter from which quotation is made, are the following: 
A.-Pamphlet print of the statement of Major-General Miles made verbally to the 
commission referred to, on the 21st of December, 1898. The pages indicated by mar- 
ginal lines are a part of page 16, all of pages 17,18,19, 20, and a part of page 21. 
B.-A clipping from the New York Journal of the issue of Friday, December 23, 
which purports to be a report of an interview with General Miles in Cincinnati, 
Ohio, on the previous day, the said clipping being a part of the issue of the date 
1855 1856 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
given and which was printed with the heading, " Miles makes grave charges against 
the Administration." 
C.-A clipping from the New York Herald of the issue of February 1, 1899, which 
purports to be the report of an interview with General Miles in New York City, on 
the night of the day previous, the said clipping being a part of the issue of date 
given, and which was printed with the heading, "Miles says beef was poisoned." 
Referring to General Miles's "statement" before the War Investigation Commis- 
sion, wherein the unfitness for issue of certain articles of food is specifically alleged, 
an examination of that paper shows that the following language was used: 
On page 16, commencing with the Second paragraph: "You asked about food. In 
my judgment that was one of the serious causes of so much sickness and distress on 
the part of the troops;" and, near the bottom of the same page: "In my judgment 
there is some serious defect in that refrigerator beef, and also the canned beef that 
was furnished. There was sent to Porto Rico 337 tons of what is known as or 
called refrigerated beef, which you might call embalmed beef." 
On page 17, near the bottom: "They could get some bacon, but that is not con- 
sidered suitable food for the Tropics." 
Near the top of page 18, in answer to a question asking how canned fresh beef 
became a part of the army ration, is the reply: "You had better ask the Secretary 
of War or the Commissary-General; I think they can tell you. I know it was sent 
to the army as food; and the pretense is that it was sent as an experiment." In 
the middle of the same page was found the words "If you want to ascertain the 
cost to the Government of this so-called refrigerated beef-embalmed beef-take the 
original cost," etc. Also, a little further on, same page, will be found the phrase, 
"There were sent 337 tons of this so-called refrigerated beef." 
Near the middle of page 20, answering a question, the general says: "I do not 
think that beef such as was sent to Cuba or Porto Rico would be good in any coun- 
try in the stomach of any man." And in answer to the next question, which con- 
tained a statement of the questioner's understanding of the general's preference for 
"beef on the hoof rather than refrigerated beef," General Miles replied: "If I was 
furnished for any expedition in this country, or any other, with such stuff, I would 
prohibit the men from taking it." 
Near the top of page 21 the refrigerated beef is again characterized by General 
Miles as "stuff." 
The above quotations contain the most definite expressions found in the statement 
before the War Commission, in which General Miles alleges the unfitness of food 
furnished to the troops in Cuba and Porto Rico. 
General Miles appeared as a witness before the Court of Inquiry on February 20, 
1899, and having been shown the pamphlet print of his statement before the War 
Investigating Commission, which is cited above as inclosure A, he was asked by the 
recorder if the paper handed to him appeared to be, in general, a fair copy of the 
testimony which was given. General Miles replied, "I think so." 
As respects "the matter purporting to have been furnished to the public press" 
by General Miles (papers B and C above), they were each handed to the general 
while he was on the stand as a witness, and he was asked respecting the Journal 
interview if such an interview took places if it represented what he said com- 
pletely or not; and if not, in what respects it does not set forth what was said upon 
that occasion. The general's answer was not specific, save in calling attention to 
a statement contained in the report of the interview to the effect that he declined 
to give names of officers or his authority for his remarks before the commission. 
He also said: "I do not recall anything in that, interview or any allegation in that 
interview that had not been given in my testimony before the commission." 
The question was repeated in another form, and he was asked, "Can * * * you 
say whether any of the statements were not made. I would like to have you 
refresh your memory with it and see if there were any that were not made in sub- FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1857 
stance." The General's answer seemed to be irrelevant, when he was interrupted 
by the recorder, who asked: "In any respects does it incorrectly set forth what 
was said?" The answer was again irrelevant, and the question was repeated the 
second time: "Can you now answer the question as to whether there seems to be 
any portions of it which do not correctly represent what you said at that time; or is 
it in the main correct?" The answer is, "I do not think it is in the main correct, 
because it would have to betaken in connection with the whole subject." The 
General continued, drawing the attention of the court to what he said the report 
contained, consisting of his answers to the reporter to the effect that he declined to 
answer, wished not to be interviewed, and referred his questioner to his official 
reports. 
As General Miles failed to point out specific statements containing inaccuracies, 
and as the strongest term he used in discrediting the report was an expression of 
opinion only that it was not ' ' in the main correct, ' ' the court is unable to identify 
any inaccuracies, and therefore treats all the allegations in the report as uncontra- 
dicted, and therefore a part of the allegations under investigation. 
An examination of the statements attributed to General Miles by the Journal 
reporter shows them to be largely a repetition of his statements before the War Com- 
mission. Only such are here specially referred to as contain a stronger expression 
of the original allegations, or such as present new charges. In the former category 
is an answer w'hich is reported to have been made to a question asking for further 
elucidation of the phrase ' ' that the food was sent to his large army under pretense 
of an experiment." The reply is: "I think that sentence is sufficiently plain. 
' Pretense ' is the precise term to be used, ' ' this followed by the declaration: " It is 
absurd to say that these enormous quantities of beef were in reality sent to an entire 
army as an experiment. ' ' In the latter category are allegations that the beef used 
in Cuba "was just as bad;" also, "It was the same thing at Tampa and the same 
thing at Jacksonville." 
As respects the New York Herald interview (Exhibit C), for purposes of identifica- 
tion and verification it was handed to General Miles with the request that he "look 
at that and see if it fully reports what was said upon that occasion, or in what 
respects it is incorrect, if any." The reply was * * * " I do not regard these state- 
ments as mine. There are some statements that were certainly not mine," and then 
one was cited by him, wherein he said, " For instance, I have overwhelming evidence 
that the embalmed beef was treated with chemicals in order to preserve it. The 
evidence of that is in the testimony of officers and communications, but the state- 
ment that I have evidence from the men who saw the embalming process going on 
to this particular beef is incorrect." * * * The General also said he had received 
a letter from the gentleman who he thought wrote the interview saying that person 
was ready to swear that General Miles declined to be interviewed. The General was 
asked if there were other statements he could identify that were incorrect, to which 
he replied irrelevantly, except by repeating that he told the reporters he declined 
to be interviewed. Later, in answer to the question, "Would you like that to be 
taken as the answer, that it did not take place, or that it differed in material respects 
from this?" General Miles replied, " It differed materially." 
On the 11th of April Mr. Sidney Reid appeared as a witness before the court and 
testified that, as a representative of the Associated Press, he reported an interview 
with General Miles at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New Yotk City on the night of 
January 31, 1899. Mr. Reid submitted and identified under oath a copy of a verbatim 
statement that he wrote on the night in question from notes made while the interview 
was in progress, and that he turned in the same night to the manager of the Asso- 
ciated Press, by whom it was supplied to subscribers, and these included the New 
York Herald. Mr. Reid testified that the statement handed to the court was a 
correct report of the interview, save as respects the verbiage wherever there was a 
S. Doc. 270 117 1858 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY 
variation from the actual words used. He declared that the true sense and meaning 
was accurately preserved in all respects. 
It appears that Mr. Earl D. Berry, a reporter for the New York Times, was also 
present at the interview between General Miles and Mr. Reid, and heard all the 
conversation that passed. Mr. Berry, by deposition (see Inclosure 38), swore that 
he also took notes of the conversation and that both reporters compared their 
respective memoranda and notes of the interview. He declares that there was entire 
concurrence in what was said. 
The statement written by Mr. Reid at the time, and of which he furnished a copy 
to the court, in comparison with the Herald report of the Miles interview, shows 
considerable variance in substance. This variation consists of the insertion in the 
newspaper report of considerable matter that Mr. Reid does not claim to have heard. 
For the purpose of easy identification of the genuine part of the interview, as 
reported by Mr. Reid, the letter press of the Herald clipping is marked by numerals 
on the margin, the numbers running from 1 to 16. The paragraphs containing 
matter attributed to General Miles by the Herald which he did not furnish to the 
reporter are paragraphs 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 16. The court has therefore 
given no consideration to any allegations that are attributed to General Miles which 
are contained in the paragraphs numbered as described. 
As noted above, the General specifically disclaimed responsibility for one state- 
ment which was attributed to him, wherein he is reported to have said that he had 
"overwhelming evidence that the embalmed beef was treated with chemicals in order 
to preserve it," but this statement quoted by General Miles is found in Mr. Reid's 
report of the interview. The testimony of both Mr. Reid and Mr. Berry agree in the 
verity of the interview as reported by the former, and this is found in the Herald 
clipping. The court does not therefore ignore this paragraph, but treats it as a part 
of the allegations which are under investigation. 
A review of paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 13, 14, and 15 will show that a large part of the 
allegations are of the same general tenor as those embraced in the statement of Gen- 
eral Miles before the War Commission. There are a few, however, which are more 
specific or cover a wider range of facts than were embraced in that statement. The 
following are noted: 
Paragraph 5 contains the assertion, "I have overwhelming evidence that the 
embalmed beef was treated with chemicals in order to preserve it. I have affidavits 
from men who saw the beef undergoing the treatment or embalming process. ' ' 
Paragraph 6: * * * " The canned roast beef was the beef after the extract had 
been boiled out of it." * * * "Well, this is the beef after the extract had been 
taken from it. They put this beef pulp up in cans and labeled it 'Canned Roast 
Beef.'" 
SUMMARY OF THE ALLEGATIONS BY GENERAL MILES AS TO UNFITNESS OF FOOD, BASED 
ON FOREGOING CITATIONS. 
1. That the refrigerated beef furnished to the troops in Cuba, Porto Rico, Tampa, 
Chickamauga, and Jacksonville was embalmed, or treated with chemicals to preserve 
it, of which overwhelming proof existed. 
2. That refrigerated beef was a serious cause of sickness and distress among the 
troops in the places above named. 
3. That the canned roast beef was furnished to the Army under pretense of experi- 
ment. 
4. That the canned roast beef was also a cause of sickness and distress among the 
troops and is unfit for issue as food in any country. 
5. That what is called canned roast beef is really beef pulp from which the beef 
extract of commerce had been boiled out. 
6. That the bacon issued to the troops in Porto Rico was not suitable food for use 
in the Tropics. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1859 
THE SANTIAGO EXPEDITION. 
On April 25, 1898, by a formal resolution of Congress, a state of public war was 
declared to exist between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain. 
By a previous enactment the President had been empowered "to use the entire land 
and naval forces of the United States, and to call into the service of the United States 
the militia of the several States " with a view to compel "the Government of Spain 
at once to relinquish its authority and government in the island of Cuba and with- 
draw its land and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters." Under the authority 
conferred by this statute and others of similar character the Regular Army was placed 
on a war footing, and the President, by public proclamations, called into the military 
service a force of over 200,000 volunteers, to serve for a period of two years and to be 
discharged from the service of the United States at the conclusion of hostilities, 
or when the purposes for which they were called into service should have been 
accomplished. 
The Subsistence Department, in common with the other supply departments of the 
staff, had regulated its operations in accordance with the annual acts of appropriation 
which had provided for the current needs of the Army in the way of subsistence 
stores, but had made no provision for an accumulation of supplies to meet the emer- 
gency of war; indeed, the rigid limitations imposed by Congress in its annual appro- 
priations for the support of the Army would have prevented such an accumulation 
had its formation by the Department been deemed either necessary or desirable. 
With a view to the concentration of the available military forces of the United 
States in the vicinity of the proposed theaters of operation, ' ' the regular infantry was 
ordered, April 15,1898, to New Orleans, Mobile, and Tampa, preparatory to an imme- 
diate movement to Cuba should war be declared. This order, however, was partially 
suspended, and a part of the regular infantry, with the artillery and cavalry, ordered 
to camp at Chickamauga Park. On May 10 the regular artillery and cavalry were 
ordered from Chickamauga to Tampa, preparatory to a movement to Cuba. Later 
70,000 men were ordered to move on Cuba, and commissary stores for ninety days 
for the men and thirty days' stores for the animals were ordered to be concentrated 
at Tampa. None of these movements on Cuba, however, materialized. The want 
of proper equipment and ammunition rendered the movements impracticable."1 
Other expeditions, less formidable in point of numbers, were ordered to be organized 
at Tampa, the effect of which was to cause the accumulation at that point of an 
enormous quantity of subsistence stores, amounting in all to between 6,000,000 and 
7,000,000 rations. The effects of such an accumulation of supplies-many of them 
of a perishable character-and their prolonged storage at a point without adequate 
terminal facilities will be discussed elsewhere. 
While the destination of the troops constituting these expeditions was well known, 
in so far as the climatic conditions of the proposed theaters of operation were con- 
cerned, the evidence fails to show that the character of the ration was made the 
subject of serious study or extensive consideration or that the question of modify- 
ing its components, in view of such climatic conditions, was made the subject of 
conference by the Major-General Commanding or by the general commanding the 
troops designated for service in Cuba with the officers of the Department charged by 
law with the duty of furnishing food to the expeditionary forces. Nor does it appear 
that the Surgeon-General of the Army was consulted or that his opinion was obtained 
at any time prior to the sailing of the expeditions in reference to the proper food 
supply of the troops whom it was proposed to employ in a tropical climate during 
the most unhealthy season of the year. It does appear, however, that Colonel 
Weston, the chief commissary, caused certain experiments to be made with the 
canned fresh beef at Tampa, while the troops were concentrated there, by Capt. H. 
1 Annual Report of the Major-General Commanding the Army, p. 9. 1860 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
L. Ripley, commanding Troop E, Third Cavalry. The result of these experiments 
may be stated as follows: 
A quantity of canned fresh beef was furnished to Captain Ripley, who caused it to 
be mixed with potatoes and onions and served to his troop in tiie form of hashes 
and stews. Captain Ripley's testimony is that, as thus prepared, it made a very 
palatable dish, of which he partook, as he was messing with his troop at the time. 
Under the conditions attending the trial, which involved the use of the beef in con- 
nection with fresh vegetables, the report submitted by Captain Ripley was favorable 
to the canned fresh beef as an article of the ration. In a report submitted by that 
officer, under date of February 6, 1899, however, in which he related his experience 
with the canned fresh beef during the operations before Santiago, he speaks of it as 
unsatisfactory and not a good component of the permanent ration, and declares that 
"it seemed to have lost its nutriment and good taste. Chopped up with potatoes 
and onions it made a very palatable hash, but taken straight it quickly palled upon 
the appetite and would not be eaten." 
In this connection a report submitted by Colonel Weston on March 24, 1898, dis- 
cussed at some length the question of supplying troops operating in the West Indies 
with bread and canned fresh beef. This report, with indorsements indicating the 
action of the Commissary-General of Subsistence, will be found in the appendix 
(marked 26). It does not appear in evidence, however, that the inquiry suggested 
by Colonel Weston was undertaken, or, if undertaken, that it was carried forward to 
completion. 
In addition to this an experiment with frozen beef was officially conducted at 
Tampa and made the subject of an unfavorable report. At about the same time a 
similar experiment with refrigerated beef, treated at Chicago by a process invented 
by Mr. Alexander Powell, of New' York, was completed at Port Tampa. This test, 
though not undertaken at the request of nor recognized by the War Department, 
was observed unofficially and reported upon by Colonel Weston. The outcome of 
these experiments will be discussed elsew'here. 
The result of the tests instituted by Colonel Weston in respect to the canned fresh 
beef, which were made the subject of official report by that officer, may be briefly 
summarized as follows: That canned fresh beef, prepared with vegetables and con- 
diments, could be used for four or five days in the absence of ordinary fresh beef. 
It does not appear, however, that the question of a more extensive use of the canned 
beef than that above described was considered or suggested or that its continued use 
without condiments or vegetables was contemplated at any time. 
When the orders were issued directing the accumulation of subsistence stores at 
Tampa, it is stated by the Commissary-General of Subsistence that twenty days' rations 
of canned fresh beef were ordered purchased. This would have required the delivery 
of 1,050,000 pounds, or about 50 carloads, of this article alone. As the forces em- 
ployed on foreign service in Cuba and Porto Rico prior to the suspension of hostili- 
ties did not exceed 35,000 in number, the supply thus accumulated was sufficient for 
their use, to the exclusion of all other meat components of the rations, for forty-five 
days-a period somewhat longer than was consumed in the operations actually under- 
taken in both fields of military activity. 
With a view to an understanding of the innovation attempted to be made in the 
food supply of the Army at the outbreak of the war with Spain, it is proper to 
observe at this point that one element in the question of supplying food to our own 
Army seems not to have received the attention which it deserved, and that is the 
well-known conservatism of the American soldier in the matter of the articles consti- 
tuting the ration supplied him in active field service. The articles habitually used 
by the armies of the United States in the field are now what they have been for the 
past hundred years-hard bread or flour, bacon, pork, salt or fresh beef, and coffee 
and sugar. These, with vinegar and the seasoning components (salt and pepper), FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1861 
have constituted the food supply of our armies in every campaign undertaken by 
them since the war of the Revolution. Although changes in the several meats con- 
stituting the field ration have been suggested from time to time, no important 
modification in character or amount has been actually made, and the ration as now 
established consists* of the articles above enumerated, with the addition of such 
quantities of vegetables as it is possible to supply to troops engaged in active opera- 
tions in the field. 
When the determination was finally reached, on May 30, 1898, to send the Fifth 
Army Corps to cooperate with the Navy in the capture of Admiral Cervera's fleet 
and the reduction of the city and defenses of Santiago, Colonel Weston was directed 
to place on board six months' supplies for 20,000 men, but, upon his representations 
as to the loss that was likely to be incurred in the perishable articles of the ration, 
this quantity was reduced to ninety days' supplies for the same force-20,000 men. 
Apart from this there seems to have been no consultation between the Major-General 
Commanding and General Shafter, or between either of these officers and the Com- 
missary-General of Subsistence, or Colonel Weston, as to the quantity or character 
of the food supply of the expedition, as to its adaptability to the climatic conditions 
of the proposed theater of operations, or as to the extent to which it was proposed 
to make use of canned fresh beef as a meat component of the ration. Save for the 
experiment conducted by Captain Ripley, which has already been described, the 
evidence fails to show that any attempt was made to familiarize the troops with the 
method of preparing the canned fresh beef as an article of food. 
The travel ration, as established in 1878 and as described in paragraph 1256 of the 
Army Regulations, consists of the following articles, the quantities being expressed in 
pounds upon a basis of 100 rations: 112J pounds of soft bread or 100 pounds of hard 
bread, 75 pounds of canned beef, 33 1-pound cans or 15 3-pound cans of baked beans, 
8 pounds of roasted coffee, and 15 pounds of sugar. It is intended to be used "when 
troops travel otherwise than by marching, or when for short periods they are sepa- 
rated from cooking facilities and do not carry cooked rations." The Regulations also 
provide that "After troops have been subsisted upon the travel ration for four con- 
secutive days they may be allowed canned tomatoes in addition to the travel ration, 
at the rate of 1 pound of tomatoes per man per day. When they arrive at their des- 
tination or rejoin their station, subsistence upon the ordinary ration will be resumed 
immediately, and any unconsumed articles in good condition which they may have 
on hand will not be sold as savings, but will be turned over to the commissary." 
As it is intended to be used only for short periods of time, when troops are sepa- 
rated from cooking facilities, neither salt, pepper, nor vinegar is provided as a part of 
this ration. It has already been observed that during the twenty years that have 
elapsed since the adoption of the travel ration the canned corned beef has been 
found to be the more acceptable to the troops, and for that reason the more gener- 
ally used of the meat components of this ration. From this it follows that the offi- 
cers and enlisted men of the Regular Army had ceased to be familiar with the canned 
fresh beef; indeed, it appears from the testimony that few of them had ever used it 
or knew it to be used. With the canned corned beef, on the other hand, they were 
perfectly familiar. To the volunteer troops who formed part of the expeditions to 
Cuba and Porto Rico this ration was entirely unknown. 
When the troops were ordered to embark on June 7 they were directed to supply 
themselves with ten days' travel rations in addition to the fourteen days' field rations 
which were on hand May 31. Although an alternative of canned corned beef or 
canned fresh beef is provided for in the travel ration, the amount of canned corned 
beef on hand in the depot at Tampa was so small as to restrict the freedom of choice, 
in a majority of cases, to the canned fresh beef, and thus to make it necessary for 
many, if not most, of the organizations composing the expeditionary force to receive 
and use the latter article from June 8 to June 24, when the landing at Daiquiri was 1862 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
completed. It has already been remarked that the travel ration, as established in 
paragraph 1256 of the Army Regulations, contains neither vinegar, salt, nor pepper. 
It is proper to observe at this point that no facilities were provided on the transports 
for general cooking except for the making of coffee; it also appears that there was 
no general issue of fresh vegetables to the troops, prior to embarkation, for use during 
the voyage; as a consequence, the enlisted men were compelled to eat the beef direct 
from the can, without seasoning, without other cooking than it had received during the 
process of manufacture and without other vegetables than the beans and tomatoes 
which formed a part bf the travel ration. The testimony in respect to the canned 
fresh beef on board the transports is uniform and unvarying. Used under such 
unfavorable conditions, the men soon tired of it, it became unpalatable, and they 
subsisted, in many instances, upon the hard bread and vegetables, which, with the 
coffee and sugar, constituted the remaining portions of the travel ration, supplemented 
at times by articles obtained from the company savings. 
The embarkation was completed on June 8, but there was some delay in sailing, 
occasioned by the report that a Spanish war vessel had been sighted in the Nicholas 
Channel. The expedition finally sailed on June 14 and reached the vicinity of Guan- 
tanamo Bay on June 20; the debarkation was begun on the 22d, and completed on 
the 24th of the same month. 
Prior to the landing of the troops at Daiquiri the canned fresh beef had been used 
as a part of the travel ration, within the authority conferred by paragraph 1256 of the 
Army Regulations. From this time forward to the end of the siege operations it was 
used, under the stress of circumstances, as a part of the field ration-a use not con- 
templated nor authorized in the Army Regulations. 
It does not appear in the testimony that the new use to which the canned fresh 
beef was to be applied was made the subject of special consideration, or, indeed, that 
it was considered at all save in connection with the experiments conducted at Tampa 
prior to the departure of the expedition. In point of fact, this question is one of 
very great importance, inasmuch as the experience thus far gained had been far from 
satisfactory, and active military operations against the enemy were about to be under- 
taken in which the troops were to be subsisted, wholly or in part, upon an article of 
food which had been found by actual use on the voyage from Tampa to be not only 
unpalatable but actually distasteful, and which was to be issued in a form least well 
suited to the conditions as they actually existed. 
In the consideration of this period of the campaign other questions than those 
having to do with the subsistence of the Army must be considered, notably the nature 
of the operations in which the troops were engaged, their physical condition, the 
climate, the condition of the roads, the scarcity of fuel, and the means of transporta- 
tion which were relied upon to furnish the troops at the front with food, forage, ammu- 
nition, and other necessary supplies. The transportation which accompanied the 
expedition was far below a minimum in point of strength, having in view the needs 
of the troops and animals, the care of the sick and wounded, and the demands made 
by the several staff departments for transportation services. This condition of affairs 
was aggravated by the weather, the inadequate landing facilities, the state of the roads, 
and the physical characteristics of the region which constituted the theater of mili- 
tary operations. This is shown by the fact that while such transportation as was 
available was apparently utilized to the best advantage, it was never possible to accu- 
mulate a reserve of stores at the front or to supply the Army with rations for more 
than one day in advance. 
It appears in evidence that when the disembarkation was ordered the troops were 
required to be provided with three days' rations. It also appears that there still 
remained in possession of the organizations at least two days' field rations which had 
been drawn previous to embarkation. It is further established that the men had 
found the canned fresh meat unpalatable and nauseating. There seems to be no FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1863 
doubt that each organization had not only the right but the power to exercise an 
option as to the kind of meat to be taken in the provision of a supply of food for 
three days. Condiments were also available in these unused field rations. In view 
of this experience on the transports and considering the availability of both kinds 
of meat, and of condiments, it is inconceivable that the commands should have 
taken one in preference to the other, or have left condiments behind, unless they 
were permitted to do so by superiors or preferred to do so individually. 
As to the extent to which the canned fresh beef was actually used during the period 
between the landing at Daiquiri and the surrender of the city, as well as to the effects 
of its use on both officers and men, the testimony is somewhat conflicting. In Law- 
ton's division, for example, bacon seems to have been almost exclusively issued; in 
some commands the issues of bacon exceeded those of any other meats; in others 
fresh beef and bacon were about evenly divided. The testimony relative *to this 
period of the campaign shows that in a majority of cases the bacon was preferred 
by the troops to the canned fresh beef. It also appears that Colonel Weston, with a 
view to facilitate issues, directed that no formal requisitions would be required for 
issues to troops at the depot at Siboney. Those who came for rations were only 
required to give the number of men drawn for, and to select from the stock on hand 
the particular articles which they desired. 
It appears from the annual report of the Commissary-General of Subsistence for 
the year 1898 that there were afloat at Siboney, at the beginning of the siege opera- 
tions, 1,230,317 rations of bacon, 9,333 rations of canned corned beef, and 772,118 
rations of canned fresh beef. Neglecting the canned corned beef, of which the quan- 
tity on hand was very small-amounting, in fact, to less than one day's ration for 
the entire Army-the bacon alone would have supplied 16,000 men for seventy-six 
days; the canned fresh beef, if used to the exclusion of other meats, would have con- 
stituted a forty-eight days' supply for the same number of men. The testimony fails 
to show why it was that, with such an abundance of these articles on hand, and with 
entire freedom of choice in selection, any command that expressed a preference for 
either should not have been able to obtain the particular kind of meat it desired. 
The experience with the canned fresh beef on the voyage from Tampa was repeated 
during the land operations in front of Santiago. The conditions under which it was 
used, however, had undergone material changes, and the changes were, in every case, 
unfavorable to its continued use as an article of the ration. To use the beef to advan- 
tage, fresh vegetables were absolutely necessary; but these were lacking and there 
were no facilities for cooking them had the vegetable supply been abundant. The 
hardships of the campaign and the climatic influences peculiar to the rainy season 
were beginning to tell upon the health of the troops, which from July 8 until the 
withdrawal of the command, in August, declined in a steadily increasing ratio. As 
the sick rate was substantially the same throughout the entire Army, and was as 
great in the brigades which subsisted chiefly upon bacon as in those in which the 
canned beef was used, this change must be ascribed to other causes than the food 
supply. The testimony is conclusive that the command was insufficiently subsisted 
from the landing to the date of surrender and the occupation of the city and harbor- 
a state of affairs directly traceable to the deficiency in transportation which has 
already been described. 
The references to the canned fresh beef in the reports most nearly contempora- 
neous with its use are far less pronounced than in those subsequently rendered, and 
the objections to it during the progress of the siege do not seem to have been suffi- 
ciently strong to reach the corps and division commanders and their commissaries 
or to cause any determined or concerted efforts to be made on the part of regimental 
or higher commanders with a view to obtain bacon in its stead. 
The extent to which the deficiency in the food supply at this period appeared as a 1864 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
contributory cause of disease is testified to by the chief surgeon, Colonel Pope, who 
says: 
"In regard to the effect of the rations upon the health of the command, I will 
say that I was unable to trace any special diseases directly to the ration, either the 
canned beef or the refrigerated beef or any other part of the ration. Intestinal 
troubles which usually follow the use of decomposed or bad beef were not common 
until-well, it must have been the latter part of July. They formed a part of the 
cause of debility, but it was not a prominent one. Later, in August, I understand, 
there was a great deal of diarrhea and dysentery. Up to about the 8th or 10th of 
July the health of the command was fine. I think we disembarked in Cuba with 
perhaps 150 sick men we had gathered on the Olivette, and I think that that com- 
posed the large proportion of those who were not able to march at once to the front. 
" In Tampa our sick list was very low, averaging less than 2j per cent, and it kept 
low, as I say, until about the 8th of July. Then, when the fevers commenced, the 
sickness came with a rush. As the command became broken down from malarial 
poisoning, the demand of medical officers was for diets for the sick, and particularly 
for vegetables, no special complaints being made about the beef that I can recollect. 
After the command was broken down that way, of course the travel ration became 
almost unendurable and could hardly be eaten by the sick men. The whole Fifth 
Army Corps was sick at the time I left, along about the 1st of August. 
' ' Q. What representations, if any, were made to or reached you, as the principal 
medical officer, in respect to the excessive amount of canned roast beef that was 
used? 
"A. Nothing whatever. Medical officers did not mention it particularly in any of 
their reports, and I received, I think, after the 10th of July, almost daily reports 
from the medical officers. They were consolidated reports, consolidated from regi- 
ments into brigade reports and from brigade reports into a report of the chief sur- 
geon of the division, and aside from the demand for fresh vegetables there was no 
special mention made of the ration in their requests." 
The same officer, in speaking of the diarrheal troubles in his annual report, says: 
" During the latter part of July and August the tendency to diarrhea and dysen- 
tery became pronounced, although the diet of the troops had much improved, and 
the water supply was certainly no worse than it had been from the first. The 
majority of medical officers regarded it as of malarial origin and treated it as such, 
and frequently with large rectal injections of quinine. Attempts were made to check 
its spread by recommending the use of boiled water for drinking purposes, without 
favorable results, probably because the men preferred the disease to the remedy. 
At divisional hospital No. 1, where boiled and filtered water was freely supplied, 
and about all that was to be had, the incurrence of diarrhea and dysentery was 
almost unknown. Among the regiments the excuse for not furnishing boiled water 
was valid; the commands were, until very late, without the necessary kettles and 
caldrons to heat the water. When the soldier had only his tin cup and ration can 
and a little fire of green twigs with which to cook his food, boiled water was 
omitted." 
The testimony of Surgeon Pope in respect to the causes of the diseases which 
became prevalent in July and August is substantially corroborated by that of the 
other medical officers who accompanied the expedition. 
The complaints in respect to the beef during the progress of the siege were not 
numerous. This was due, in part, to the engrossing character of the military opera- 
tions, to the soldierly spirit and high sense of duty which seems to have actuated 
the officers and men of the command, and to the disposition evinced by all-from 
highest to lowest-to bear cheerfully and without complaint the hardships incident 
to the undertaking upon which they were engaged. Their valor in battle was only 
surpassed by their resolute determination to endure privations and undergo trial FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1865 
and exposure for which, save in the quality of their fortitude, they were utterly 
unprepared. 
On July 21 a few days after the surrender of the place, the steamer Mississippi 
arrived in the harbor of Santiago with a load of refrigerated beef; and from that date 
until the end of August, when the transfer of the Fifth Army Corps to Montauk 
Point wras completed, the refrigerated beef was regularly issued to the troops as the 
principal fresh-meat component of the field ration. At the same time the transports 
were transferred to the harbor, and depots were established in the city of Santiago, 
from which all subsequent issues and sales of subsistence stores were made. 
The testimony shows that the refrigerated beef was received at first with great 
satisfaction. The arrangements for issuing the beef and transporting it to the camps 
do not seem to have been either adequate or efficient. The evidence points clearly 
to this conclusion, even when due allowance has been made for the inadequacy of 
wagon transportation, the condition of the roads in the vicinity of the city, and the 
ignorance and want of care shown in the handling and preservation of the meat. 
The beef was landed from the refrigerating steamers by lighters soon after daybreak, 
and the orders seem to have contemplated its issue and transportation to the camps 
in the early part of the day. If there w'ere specific orders in respect to the cleanli- 
ness of the wagons, the use of wagon covers, the order in which the meat was to be 
issued to the several commissaries, the protection of it from the sun and rain, and 
its prompt transportation to the camps, the testimony fails to show that such orders 
were rigidly enforced or observed. As a consequence a considerable portion of the 
beef became tainted before it reached the regimental camps, and was either rejected 
altogether or trimmed down before being cooked; the amount so rejected constitut- 
ing a considerable percentage of the entire issue; a part of this loss was doubtless due 
to a want of familiarity with refrigerated beef on the part of those whose duty it was 
to receive it and prepare it for issue to the troops. In this connection the testimony 
afforded by the proceedings of the board of survey held on October 1,1898, of which 
Generals Lawton and Wood and Colonel Osgood were members, is of importance, as 
showing the average amount of trimming w'hich the beef was required to undergo at 
that date in the course of its issue and transportation to the camps. The recommen- 
dation of this board was that a uniform allowance of 25 per cent for trimming off 
spoiled portions should be allowed. 
The spoiled or tainted meat was in some instances examined by boards of survey, 
in others it was burned or buried by order of the proper commanding officers. In 
some cases it was replaced by other meat, either fresh or salt, in others not; in many 
cases such replacing does not seem to have been requested. It does not appear, how- 
ever, that the troops were insufficiently fed, as a consequence of such rejections; this 
for the reason that during the month of August the entire army was so reduced by 
sickness and debilitation, due to climatic influences, that full rations of regulation 
food were neither demanded nor desired. 
The urgent need at this stage of the undertaking was for a diet better adapted to 
the existing physical condition of the troops than the heavy meat food constituting 
the ration established by law and supplied to the armies of the United States in the 
field. The efforts of the Subsistence Department to meet this want are sufficiently 
indicated in the annual report of the Commissary General of Subsistence for the year 
1898, from which it appears that 1,946,186 rations of potatoes, onions, and canned 
tomatoes were transported to Cuba with the expeditionary forces; and that 1,977,967 
rations of fresh vegetables were consigned to the depot commissary at Santiago during 
the month of July, making a total of 3,924,153 vegetable rations which were provided 
for the use of the troops in Cuba during the months of June and July, 1898. The 
loss by spoiling in this class of supplies, due to heat and injury in transportation, are 
known to have been enormous. Assuming it to have been 75 per cent of the total 
quantity shipped from the United States, there remained nearly 1,000,000 rations 1866 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
of vegetable food which should have found its way to the troops-a quantity sufficient 
for the issue of the full vegetable component of the ration to 16,000 men for a period 
of sixty-two days. In this connection, it is proper to. observe that the depot com- 
missary at Santiago reports that, on August 1, 1898, 800,000 rations of canned 
tomatoes were on hand for issue in the depot under his control. 
The withdrawal of the Fifth Army Corps from Cuba was ordered by the War 
Department on August 4; the movement began on August 7, and was completed 
about September 1, on which date the troops comprising the Santiago expedition 
had been established in camp at Montauk Point. The commands thus transported 
to the United States were supplied, wholly or in part, with canned fresh beef as 
the meat component of their travel ration. The evidence shows that but little of 
the meat was consumed during the voyage, the troops relying for subsistence upon 
other food, better suited to their debilitated condition, and supplied in part by the 
Subsistence Department, and, in part, from other sources, and that large quantities 
of the canned beef were turned in to the subsistence department at Montauk Point, 
or collected in the camps upon the departure of the troops to the stations to which 
they were assigned when the camps at that point were abandoned. 
The expedition to Porto Rico was composed of three separate parts or detachments. 
The first, numbering about 3,600 men, under the immediate direction of the Major- 
General Commanding, sailed from Charleston, S. C., on July 9, 1898, and reached 
the neighborhood of Siboney on July 11. This expedition, which was originally 
intended as a reenforcement to the troops operating against Santiago, was diverted 
from that purpose after the surrender of the Spanish troops in that vicinity had been 
substantially agreed upon. It sailed from Guantanamo on July 21, and affected a 
landing at Guanica, Porto Rico, on July 25, and at Ponce on July 27. A second 
detachment, under Maj. Gen. James H. Wilson, embarked at Charleston on July 20; 
it reached Guanica on the 26th, and Ponce on the 28th, of the same month. A 
third detachment, under the command of Maj. Gen. John R. Brooke, United States 
Army, sailed from Newport News, Va., on July 28, and reached Arroyo, Porto 
Rico, on July 31, where a landing was effected. Operations against the enemy at 
several points in Porto Rico were set on foot, and were well under way when, on 
August 13, 1898, orders were received directing a cessation of hostilities. 
As no extreme emergency of time existed at the date of sailing of the several expe- 
ditions to Porto Rico, there would seem to have been no occasion for haste in con- 
nection with their embarkation, as was the case with the movement to Santiago in 
June. The transports were larger, and, to that extent, better adapted to the move- 
ment of troops and animals. As the voyages contemplated were short, and as it was 
not expected that the troops would be kept on board for long periods of time, the 
same arrangements were made for their subsistence as in the expedition to Cuba; no 
special facilities were provided for the cooking of food, and the troops were required 
to subsist on the travel ration. 
The experience of the three detachments of the Porto Rican expedition was not 
quite the same. The first detachment, under the command of Major-General Miles, 
embarked on July 9 and reached Siboney on July 11, but remained on board until 
it landed at Guanica and Ponce on July 25 and 27. It was thus confined on ship- 
board for about the same length of time as the first expedition to Santiago; and its 
experience with the canned fresh beef, as an article of the travel ration, was in many 
respects the same as that of the troops composing the Fifth Army Corps. As the 
voyage consumed considerably more time than was contemplated when the com- 
mands embarked, there was also some complaint of short rations toward the end 
of the voyage, especially during the few days immediately preceding the landing at 
Guanica. 
The detachments under Generals Wilson and Brooke reached Porto Rico and 
THE PORTO RICAN EXPEDITION. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1867 
effected landings on that island, the former in seven days and the latter in five days 
from the date of embarkation. Short as their journeys were, however, there were 
complaints of the want of cooking facilities on the transports, as is evidenced by a 
reference to the voyage in General Brooke's report of operations, in which he says: 
* * * "j regard the transports as improperly fitted and unsuited to the work 
required of them. Particularly was this manifest in the means of cooking the food 
of the soldier." (Report of the Major-General Commanding the Army, 1898, p. 189.) 
The testimony as to the use of the canned fresh beef in Porto Rico is not uniform, 
and, to some extent, conflicting. It was used by the several expeditions as a travel 
ration, and, after the occupation of the island, as one of the fresh-meat components 
of the field ration. Lieut. Col. A. L. Smith, the principal officer of the Subsistence 
Department at Ponce, testifies that his instructions in respect to the canned fresh 
beef were that it was not to be used if other fresh beef-either native or refriger- 
ated-was available for issue. A small quantity of refrigerated beef was issued to 
the troops at Ponce and other seacoast points, and considerable quantities of native 
beef were issued to troops serving in the interior. The circumstances attending the 
use of the canned beef were decidedly more favorable than in Cuba, as all the troops 
serving in Porto Rico were furnished with proper cooking facilities and there were 
frequent issues of potatoes and onions; these, with canned tomatoes, rice, and beans, 
constituting the vegetable components of the ration. 
Complaint was made in some commands that the canned fresh. beef was tasteless, 
unpalatable, in some instances repulsive to the sight, and, at times, nauseating. All 
of it had been acted upon by the intense heat of summer, and, as it had been exposed 
to the climatic influences of the Tropics for a considerably longer time than that used 
at Santiago, an increased number of spoiled and swelled cans was reported. In other 
commands, composed of both regular and volunteer troops, there were no specific 
complaints, although the continued use of the canned beef was nowhere regarded 
with favor. Substantially this state of affairs was found to exist in a large number 
of camps and outlying stations by Colonel Huidekoper, the chief medical officer, who 
inspected the sanitary condition of the troops in August and September, and in per- 
forming that duty examined the kitchens closely and observed with great care the 
kinds of food issued and the methods of their preparation. 
Upon being asked to state the results of his observations in respect to the food that 
was used by the troops on that island, Colonel Huidekoper replies: "In the inspec- 
tions in Porto Rico * * * I visited each cook tent, talked to the cook and such men 
as were standing there, and usually I was accompanied by an officer of the regiment, 
or sent for the commissary-sergeant of the regiment, and asked for information as to 
their food. I saw the food and saw the cooking of it." 
" Q. Will you please state to the court, in narrative form, the result of your obser- 
vations as to the fresh meat * * * -the canned roast beef-in Porto Rico? 
"A. During August, in the district of Guayama, we had a few issues of fresh beef; 
that is, quarter beef taken from the vessel. * * * We used comparatively little 
canned meat in that part of Porto Rico. We used native beef almost entirely. 
Later, on going to the western part of the island, the inland towns were in too far 
to use the fresh refrigerated beef. None of it was used in Ponce or Mayaguez, but in 
Mayaguez they were using native beef. In inspecting canned goods, which I did in 
the company kitchens, I saw tomatoes and other canned goods, and there was occa- 
sionally complaint of some of the goods being spoiled, but not official complaint. 
There were individual complaints of cans being spoiled, but no official complaint. 
The meat itself-the canned beef-as I saw it, was of a second quality of cuts, many 
of them showing tendons and fibrous tissues. However, that was variable. Some of 
the cans were good beef and others were of a very inferior cut, showing that the meat 
had been cut off the lower part of the thigh or the foreleg, tendonous matter, or had 
come from the neck, fibrous matter. The majority were of a poor quality. * * * 1868 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
"Q. What can you say as to the amount of canned roast beef that was used in the 
company kitchens? Did you come upon it frequently or infrequently? 
' 'A. In my September inspections of the western part I should say frequently-at 
Coamo, Utado, and at Ponce scarcely any of it; but at Las Marias, Aguadores, Larez, 
and San Sebastiano they were using all native beef. 
"Q. How wTere they preparing it for use-the canned beef? 
"A. They were using it in a stew, like an Irish stew, with more or less water and 
more or less vegetables added to it? 
"Q. What complaints did you hear of it? 
"A. I had no official complaints, but on inspection a number of cans, like those 
of tomatoes, were spoiled on opening. 
' ' Q. Did you get any data as to the percentage of cans that were found spoiled on 
opening? 
"A. No; I have not that data. 
" Q. In conversation with those about the cook tents that you inspected, with the 
enlisted men of the commands, could you obtain their opinion as to the canned 
roast beef as an article of food? 
"A. There was very little complaint as to the meat. Of the lack of vegetables 
there was considerable. I made notes daily of the inspection, which I reported to 
General Brooke daily. I recently went over the originals, and I could find nothing 
of importance regarding the meat. I find numerous complaints as to the lack of 
potatoes and onions and of the spoiling of the cans, but I find no direct complaints, 
nor do I remember any; and they certainly would have been noted if I had found 
them. 
"Q. Did you examine any of the cans of roast beef? 
"A. Yes, sir; frequently. 
"Q. Please state to the court what the result of your examination was as tc the 
character and contents of the cans. 
"A. In some cases the cans appeared exactly the same as one sees boiled meat 
frequently in a small household in a stone jar, where the meat has been put away to 
serve for future use-a body of meat showing and a surface of lard over it. Often 
that lard would be softened, yellowish, and sometimes gelatinous. This would be 
especially so in the poorer qualities of beef-that is, where the meat had been cut 
from a solid piece of beef such as would be used for a roast. The lard would 
usually be firm. WThere the meat showed fibrous tissues, coming from the thigh or 
the foreleg or the neck, in those cases it was frequently gelatinous or oily. How- 
ever, the question of the hard lard or oily appearance would depend, to a certain 
degree, certainly, on the exposure which it had had to heat or the sun. 
"Q. Did you come upon any cans which seemed to have been unchanged-that is, 
that were in the same condition in which they left the packing establishment? 
"A. In good condition? 
' ' Q. That had not been acted upon by heat. 
"A. Yes, sir. 
"Q. What was their appearance? 
"A. Their appearance would be exactly the same as that which one would see in 
a crock of meat put away for future use-meat embedded in a mass of hardening 
lard. 
" Q. Do you use the term ' lard ' in a technical sense? 
"A. No; in the sense of melted fat." 
The amount of refrigerated beef issued to troops in Porto Rico was not large. It 
appears in evidence that the steamer Massachusetts arrived at Ponce on August 3 
with a cargo of subsistence stores. The ship grounded at the entrance to the harbor, 
sustaining some injury to the pipes communicating with the refrigerator. The 
damage was repaired, however, prior to her arrival at Arroyo on August 8. At Arroyo FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1869 
some 54,000 pounds of refrigerated beef were issued to the troops serving in that 
vicinity. The Massachusetts then proceeded to Santiago, when the remainder of her 
cargo was discharged, including about 146,000 pounds of refrigerated beef. 
On August 5 the steamer Manitoba, which had been partially loaded in New York, 
completed her lading at Newport News, receiving on board, among other stores, 
1,755 quarters (300,000 pounds) of refrigerated beef. She sailed from Newport News 
on August 5, and reached Ponce during the afternoon of August 10. The steamer 
grounded at the entrance of the harbor, where she remained until the troops and 
animals and a portion of her cargo had been taken off by lighters. Three days later 
she entered the harbor and anchored in a berth assigned her about 2 miles from the 
landing place. Her arrival, and the fact that the cargo consisted in great part of 
refrigerated beef, was immediately reported to the commanding officer on shore. 
Although there was a considerable force of troops stationed at Ponce, the average 
strength from August 10 to 25 being 4,157, no issues of refrigerated beef were made. 
On August 26 the steamer was ordered to Mayaguez with supplies for the troops at 
that place. She remained there until August 31, and a few issues of beef were made, 
amounting in all to 5,494 pounds, to commands having an average ration strength of 
9,405 men. On September 1 she returned to Ponce, and remained until September 
7, during which time 12,199 pounds of beef were issued to a command of 9,848 men. 
On September 7, with the greater part of her beef still on board, the Manitoba was 
ordered to New York, carrying the Sixth Illinois Volunteer Infantry and an Illinois 
battery to that point for muster out of service. The testimony shows that the beef 
was in good condition on September 7, the date of sailing to New York. Some days 
before reaching her destination, however, the beef began to spoil, and on reaching 
New York was examined and found to be so far advanced in decomposition as to be 
unfit for use. The steamer was ordered to Montauk Point, where a board of survey 
was appointed to examine it. As there was some doubt as to the authority of the 
board to act, arising out of the question of ownership, no conclusion was reached, 
and the beef was finally transferred to the custody of Swift & Co., in New York 
Harbor. It is proper to observe at this point that the beef shipped on the Manitoba 
was, in strictness, an open-market purchase, the contractors agreeing to deliver it at 
Ponce and elsewhere in Porto Rico at the price named in the Santiago contract. It 
also appears that the original sailing orders contemplated the ultimate delivery of 
the beef at Santiago. The evidence fails to show that these instructions were 
brought to the attention of the military authorities in Porto Rico, by whom the 
destination of the vessel was finally changed to New York. 
On July 26 General Miles telegraphed the Secretary of War from Ponce that there 
were plenty of beef cattle on the island, but this telegram does not appear to have 
reached the War Department or the office of the Commissary-General of Subsistence. 
On August 2 he requested that no more fresh beef be sent, as it could not be used 
more than a day from the coast. As this telegram was received on August 3, after the 
beef had been delivered at Newport News, it was deemed best to permit the Manitoba 
to sail, although a clause was inserted in her sailing orders changing her final desti- 
nation to Santiago, at which place the residue of the refrigerated beef was to be 
delivered, after the balance of her cargo and stores had been unloaded at Ponce. As 
a consequence of General Miles's request of August 2, no more refrigerated beef was 
sent to Porto Rico until some time in December, when deliveries began to be made 
under a contract with Swift & Co. 
THE CANNED FRESH BEEF. 
Canned fresh beef, although known to the trade for many years, as is evidenced 
by its use in the United States Navy since the period of the civil war, has come into 
general commercial use only within the past twenty-five years. It was adopted as 1870 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
an article of the travel ration in 1878, the fact of its adoption being published in the 
Army in General Orders, No. 59, Adjutant-General's Office, of 1878. It was then 
made and sold, and is still known to the trade as "canned roast beef," but as the 
methods of its preparation, which will presently be described, were fully known to 
the Department at the time of its selection, it was designated in the order as " canned 
fresh beef. ' ' The cans purchased by the Subsistence Department for issue to troops 
during the year 1898 were therefore labeled "Canned roast beef" or "Prime 
roast beef," though it has never been contended or represented that such cans 
contained beef prepared by any form of roasting process, or that they were prepared 
by any other method than that in use in 1878, when the article was added to the 
travel ration. The experience obtained as a result of the use of canned fresh beef 
as a part of that ration has been discussed elsewhere. 
In the manufacture of canned fresh beef the Appert process is substantially fol- 
lowed, sterilization by heat and hermetical sealing being relied upon to secure its 
preservation as an article of food. It is sold under a general guarantee of sound- 
ness, the undertaking of the packer being to replace a spoiled can whenever pre- 
sented, without limit of time, without reservation as to the place in which it may 
have been used, and without restrictions as to climatic influences to which it may 
have been subjected. 
The processes of manufacture in the several canning establishments which were 
visited by the court are so nearly the same that a single description will answer for 
all. The details of the manufacture, however, are fully set forth in the report of 
Dr. W. D. Bigelow, the chemist who accompanied the court in its inspections. A 
copy of this report will be found in the appendix. (See Appendix 24.) 
The meat for canning, either as corned or fresh beef, is taken, as a rule, from the 
fore quarter of the animal, the other parts of the bullock being appropriated to other 
uses. At times, however, when the demand is sufficient to warrant that course, the 
entire carcass is used for that purpose. Under the act of March 3, 1891, as subse- 
quently amended by the acts of May 29, 1894, and March 2, 1895, creating a system 
of inspection of meat products intended to be used in interstate or foreign commerce, 
the animals purchased for canning are twice examined by inspectors representing the 
Bureau of Animal Industry. One of these inspections takes place at the scales in 
the stock yards when the animal is purchased; the other-a rigid post-mortem exam- 
ination-is made after the animal is killed. Cattle rejected at the first examination 
are killed and disposed of under the direction of a committee representing the local 
Live Stock Association, and a return of the proceeds is made to the consignor. Car- 
casses rejected at the post-mortem examination are placed in a tank under the observa- 
tion and direction of the inspector representing the Bureau of Animal Industry, who 
is required to witness their destruction and to certify to that fact in his daily report 
of operations. The result of the tanking process is to destroy the meat and offal to 
which it is applied, converting the contents of the tank into lubricating grease and 
fertilizer. The testimony shows that rejections are numerous, that the inspection is 
carried out in good faith, and that the purpose contemplated by the law, to determine 
whether such products are "wholesome, sound, and fit for human food," is sub- 
stantially secured. 
The animals, after being slaughtered and dressed, are conveyed to the chill room, 
where they are separated and classified, some going into trade as refrigerated beef, 
and others being used for canning, drying, or corning. The meat selected for can- 
ning is cut into small pieces, placed in hot water, and boiled from fifteen to twenty 
minutes, the time of cooking being determined by the size of the pieces. 
The water in which the meat is parboiled prior to its being packed in the cans 
constitutes the by-product of the canning process, and is used in the preparation of 
soups and meat extracts. The loss in nutritive quality in consequence of the boiling FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1871 
is fully described in the reports of the chemist who accompanied the court in its 
inspections.1 
"Parboiling," therefore, or "shrinkage," as it is technically called, is practiced 
because to produce a marketable article it is necessary that beef be cooked before it 
is canned. As has been previously shown, it detracts nothing from the muscle- 
forming element of the meat. The only substances removed are water, fat, soluble 
ash, and meat bases. Of these, fat is useful in supplying fuel for body heat, and the 
meat bases have some value as a tonic. ' '2 
After the meat has been boiled it is examined with a view to remove the gristle 
and tendons, after which it is weighed into cans and hermetically sealed. Prior to 
sealing a small quantity of gelatin is added, and in some packing establishments 
a small quantity of salt also. The cans are then exposed to steam heat for from two 
to three hours at a temperature of from 215° to 225° F., the time of exposure depend- 
ing upon the size of the can. When the processes of cooking and sterilization have 
been completed, the cans are punctured, the air is allowed to escape, and the vent is 
soldered in the usual manner. The cans which do not collapse after being punctured 
are rejected, the success of the process being determined by the collapse of the top 
and bottom of each can, due to the creation of a partial vacuum in the interior. The 
cans are then cooled by the application of water, and kept at a low temperature for 
several days to permit the hardening or settling of the contents; they are then 
packed for shipment in wooden cases. To each of these a certificate of inspection is 
attached, verifying the fact that the statutes regulating the inspection have been com- 
plied with. 
It is proper to observe at this point that neither the statutes nor regulations which 
control the inspectors in the performance of their duties require them to follow the 
beef to the canning rooms after it has been inspected on the killing floor. Each car- 
cass inspected is tagged or stamped by the inspector, but his duty, as prescribed by 
law and regulations, does not require him to ascertain by personal observation that 
the meat used for canning is selected from that which has passed the Government 
inspection. The entire process of canning the meat and packing it for the market is 
closely supervised and the product is inspected at every stage of its manufacture. In 
spite of such supervision, however, a considerable percentage of cans is found to be 
defective when the work of packing is completed. Such cans are rejected, the aver- 
age percentage of rejections amounting to about one-half of 1 per cent of the com- 
pleted product. 
On April 25, 1898, at the outbreak of the war with Spain, there was but little, if 
any, canned fresh beef on hand at the several subsistence depots. The question of 
its selection as an article of food to be supplied to troops that it was proposed to 
employ in Cuba had not been made the subject of serious or extensive consideration 
by any person or department charged by law, regulation, or custom of service with 
the responsibility of providing subsistence for the armies in the field. Such steps as 
had been taken to ascertain its suitability for use in tropical climates are set forth in 
Colonel Weston's letter of March 24,1898, to the Commissary-General of Subsistence, 
in his report submitted at Tampa, and in a report submitted by Captain Ripley of an 
experiment conducted by him at that place under Colonel Weston's direction. 
The packers and dealers in canned meats had received no orders or intimations 
that the canned fresh beef had been or was about to be determined upon as an arti- 
cle of subsistence for the troops in campaign. Their stocks on hand were not larger 
than usual for that time of the year. They were not prepared to make heavy 
deliveries, nor had they any reason to believe that any extensive purchases were 
likely to be made by any branch of the Government. 
1 See Dr. W. D. Bigelow's report, p. 28, Appendix 24. 
2 Report of Dr. W. D. Bigelow, Appendix 24. 1872 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
On May 9 the depot commissary at Chicago was asked how much canned roast 
beef he could procure within the next five days. On the 10th he replied that he 
could obtain 3,000,000 pounds within the time specified, at a cost of llj cents per 
pound. The purchase was effected on May 11. On the same day the additional 
purchase of 2,100,000 pounds was ordered. Of this quantity, 720,000 pounds were 
ordered to San Francisco for the equipment of the Manila expedition and 1,000,000 
pounds to Tampa for the expedition to Cuba. Other purchases were made in New 
York and Chicago, until 6,847,174 pounds had been acquired by the Subsistence 
Department, including 350,000 pounds delivered by Armour & Co. from a stock 
of their manufacture on hand in Liverpool and other points in the United Kingdom. 
No purchases were made after June 30, though considerable quantities ordered in 
May and June were delivered and paid for after that date. The purchases above 
described were made in open market, the prices paid varying, with the demand, 
between 8J and 15 cents per pound. The greater part of the beef was purchased by 
depot commissaries under orders from the Commissary-General of Subsistence; in 
one case a purchase was made by the Commissary-General direct. General Eagan 
explains this by saying that the department, by causing purchases to be made at 
several points, was bidding against itself. 
Although the purchases were made in open market, the inspections required by 
the regulations of the Subsistence Department were in most cases insisted upon. 
Those made in Chicago by Lieut. Col. O. M. Smith, amounting in all to 2,759,272 
pounds, do not seem to have received the usual inspection, as is indicated by the 
following statement: 
"Q. Explain to the court what inspection they were subjected to. 
"A. They were not subjected to any. * * * 
' ' Q. Why not? 
"A. Because we didn't have time. There was not time. Then these goods were 
inspected by the United States inspectors, and we purchased them in the way that 
the goods are usually purchased by merchants." 
The quality of the canned fresh beef as issued and used by the troops is fully set 
forth in the testimony of the witness. With a view to ascertaining the effect of can- 
ning upon the nutritive value of the meat, as far as such a fact can be ascertained by 
scientific experiment, it was determined by the court to submit cans of the fresh 
beef that had been returned from the tropics to chemists of national reputation, 
with a view to cause analyses of their contents to be made and a comparison insti- 
tuted between the cans so submitted and the ordinary fresh beef which is sold in the 
public markets. To that end Prof. R. H. Chittenden, of Yale College, and Prof. 
W. O. Atwater, of the Wesleyan University, at Middletown, Conn., were called to 
the assistance of the court in conducting the investigation. 
The cans selected for examination and analysis formed part of a large quantity of 
canned fresh beef which had been forwarded to Porto Rico, whence it was trans- 
ported to Habana, Matanzas, and elsewhere in Cuba for issue to the destitute citizens 
of that island. Of the stock thus collected in Habana some 700 cans were selected, in 
accordance with instructions issued by the Major-General Commanding, and shipped 
to Washington. From this lot the cans intended for chemical examination were 
selected at random. Other cans were taken from a package identified by a com- 
pany of the Ninth Regiment of Infantry as having been issued to it in Santiago, 
and one can was furnished by General Miles from several in his possession which 
had been received from commands serving in Porto Rico. To enable the cans thus 
selected to be compared with the current product of the packing establishments, 
six cans were secured in open market and forwarded for examination with the 
others. It is proper to say, also, in this connection, that neither of the chemists 
knew which of the cans referred to him for examination had been received from 
Cuba and Porto Rico. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1873 
The results of these examinations are embodied in the reports of Prof. R. H. Chit- 
tenden (appended, marked "20"), and Prof. W. O. Atwater (appended, marked 
" 25 "). The experiments conducted by Professor Atwater were more comprehensive 
than were contemplated in the instructions of the court, and included a set of diges- 
tion experiments, which are described at length in his valuable and interesting report. 
Dr. Bigelow accompanied the court in its investigation into the methods pursued in 
the canning of meats in the packing houses visited in Chicago, Omaha, Hammond, 
and Kansas City. His report will be found to contain a resume of the methods 
actually in use, together with a record of temperatures, the amount and composition 
of extractives, analyses of brines and gelatins, and an account of the quality and 
disposition of the by-products. It will thus be seen that the scientific test prepared 
by the court was made to rest upon cans of fresh beef which had been exposed to the 
climatic influences of the tropics for ajaeriod of time considerably longer than that 
included in the term of service of any organization or command in either Cuba or 
Porto Rico; and a comparison was made between beef so conditioned and the fresh 
beef supplied to the public in open market. 
The contents of all the cases, which consisted of boiled rather than roasted beef, 
were found to be perfectly sweet, with an odor of cooked meat. The beef in nearly 
all the cans appeared to have been softened by exposure to heat, but apparently 
without injurious effect as to its quality; apart from this the meat contents were 
found to be in a good state of preservation in every case. No traces of preservative 
acids were found in any of the cans. 
"In appearance, flavor, odor, composition, and digestibility they were very sim- 
ilar to ordinary boiled beef. The principal nutritive ingredients of meats are protein 
compounds and fats. The quantities of these in the specimens examined were such 
as have been ordinarily found by analysis in canned beef. The amounts are greater 
than occur in ordinary fresh beef. The reasons for this are that the bone, which 
makes a considerable portion of the weight of ordinary fresh beef, is removed in pre- 
paring the beef for canning, and that in the process of preparation the meat is cooked 
in such a way as to expel a small proportion of the water. The bones and the 
water have no special nutritive value, and the canned beef is, therefore, a concen- 
trated product. 
"Each of the specimens of canned beef received from the court of inquiry con- 
tained, pound for pound, greater amounts of actual nutriment than any of the kinds 
of fresh beef in the form in which they are ordinarily sold in the market, including 
both flesh and bone. The explanation of this difference is that already stated, 
namely, that the canned beef had been freed from the bone and part of the water 
contained in fresh beef. 
"The chief nutritive ingredients of beef, as of other meats, are the protein com- 
pounds and fats. These build and repair the tissues of the body and yield the energy 
needed for warmth and work. Aside from the protein compounds and fats, beef, like 
other meats, contains certain other valuable ingredients, but these latter occur in 
very small proportions. The chief are glycogen, so-called meat bases, and mineral 
salts. The total amount of glycogen in the fresh beef is generally a fraction of 1 
per cent of the total weight. The portion of so-called meat bases is not well known, 
but probably does not exceed 1 per cent, and is ordinarily stated at a much lower 
figure. The amount of mineral salts is also about 1 per cent or less. 
"The glycogen of the meat, though valuable, is not essential for nourishment. 
The meat bases serve neither for the building of tissue nor for the yielding of 
energy. They are, however, commonly supposed to be valuable for their flavor and 
for their stimulating effect, though late experiments have thrown doubt upon their 
efficiency as a stimulant. They may also have other important physiological uses. 
That they are not necessary for nutrition is shown by the fact that they do not occur 
in such animal foods as milk or eggs, or in any vegetable materials, such as flour and 
S. Doc. 270 118 1874 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
potatoes, which make up the whole of the diet of great numbers of well-nourished 
people. The mineral salts are essential for nourishment. If meat were the sole diet 
and the mineral salts were removed from it, it would not long sustain life, but if the 
meat makes a part of an ample and diversified diet the removal of a part of the 
mineral salts from the meat would probably not be felt under ordinary circumstances. 
"The digestibility of the specimens from the court of inquiry was tested in experi- 
ments in which they were used as a part of the diet of young men in vigorous health. 
The results accorded with the chemical analyses in implying that these specimens 
did not differ materially from ordinary beef in respect to the digestibility of the 
important nutrients, protein, and fats, and their value for supplying the body with 
nourishment. 
"Each of the subjects at some time found the meat to pall somewhat on the appe- 
tite, and, in one case, this loss of appetite was quite marked and accompanied by a 
feeling of lassitude which the subject was inclined to attribute to the meat."1 
The testimony shows that the canned fresh beef was generally found to be unsatis- 
factory to the troops. The canned corned beef, on the other hand, was always accept- 
able to both officers and enlisted men. It is proper to remark in this connection 
that while the output of the latter far exceeds that of the former, both kinds of meat 
are made from beef of the same quality, at the same time, and from the same animals. 
Any objections, therefore, to the canned fresh beef on the ground of the quality of 
the meat must apply with precisely equal force to the canned corned beef, the only 
difference between them being in the amount of salt used in their preparation. 
It appears in evidence, and the fact is verified by the reports of the chemists, that 
some brands of the canned fresh beef contained a small amount of salt; and that in 
some cases salt appeared in such quantities as to give to the product the character of 
corned rather than fresh beef. It is also in evidence that the cans thus seasoned 
were, as a rule, preferred to those whose contents were entirely fresh. Apart from 
this, however, there seemed to be no general consensus of opinion as to the kind or 
brand of meat which was found to be more or less generally acceptable than any other. 
The court has endeavored to make its inquiry into the keeping qualities of the 
canned fresh beef as thorough and extensive as was possible under the peculiar cir- 
cumstances of the case. The witnesses who used the beef in Cuba concur in the 
statement that there were but few spoiled or tainted cans among those opened by 
them during the operations before Santiago. Some of the witnesses, whose testimony 
related to the use of the meat in Porto Rico at a later period, speak of an increase in 
the number of swelled cans which were issued to them in August and September. 
There is no testimony from any quarter that the contents of an unswelled or unin- 
jured can were found to be tainted at any time. The court has derived considerable 
assistance, in this phase of the inquiry, from the testimony of those who have exam- 
ined large quantities of the canned fresh beef upon several occasions subsequent to its 
original delivery and acceptance, and have reported the results of their examinations. 
Some of these examinations have been made by inspectors and other officers specially 
appointed for that purpose; others have been made by the packers, or their repre- 
sentatives, whose testimony'has been corroborated by that of disinterested persons, 
or by documentary evidence in the shape of daily reports made in the regular course 
of business and at a time when no investigation was contemplated. Under this head 
fall the examination of several carloads at Port Tampa in May, 1898, under the 
direction of Colonel Weston; the overhauling of two cars at Jacksonville, first by 
Lieutenant-Colonel Guild and afterwards by the agent of Armour & Co. at that place, 
and, finally, the repacking of two lots of two carloads each at Kansas City by the 
Armour Packing Company, one having been returned from Mobile and the other from 
Jacksonville, Fla. In addition to this, official inspections have been made by Lieu- 
JReport of Prof. W. 0. Atwater, of Wesleyan University. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1875 
tenant-Colonel McLeary at Santiago, and by Colonel Guild and General Ernst in 
Habana. In the latter case nearly 1,000,000 pounds of the canned beef were critic- 
ally examined, and a report of the inspection submitted to the War Department. 
The court itself has caused a number of cans to be opened in its presence and exam- 
ined by witnesses who were undergoing examination; it has personally inspected a 
lot of nearly 700 cans, which had been selected from the stock on hand at Habana 
in January, 1899, under the instructions of the Major-General Commanding. The 
cans so inspected or examined had all of them been exposed to the climatic influ- 
ences of the Tropics for considerable periods of time, but in no case did the number 
of swelled or tainted cans discovered greatly exceed in amount 1 per cent of the 
entire number examined. 
It has already been stated, but the fact may be restated here, that there is no tes- 
timony to the effect that any of the canned fresh beef supplied to the Subsistence 
Department since April 25, 1898, has been chemically treated or subjected to the 
action of preservatives of any kind, save as small quantities of common salt have 
been added as seasoning to the product of certain packers. This subject is fully 
discussed in the report of Dr. Bigelow, who has made the subject of packing meats 
a matter of extensive inquiry. 
In respect to the quantity of canned fresh beef purchased the court finds it diffi- 
cult to escape the conclusion that it was excessive, unnecessary, and not demanded 
by the emergencies of the existing situation. Assuming the necessity of providing 
twenty days' supplies for the 70,000 men comprising the original Cuban expedition, 
and that it was also necessary to provide as much as sixty days' supplies for the 20,000 
troops assigned to the expedition to Manila, the total purchase of 2,000,000 pounds 
would have been amply sufficient. In point of fact, nearly 7,000,000 pounds were 
actually purchased and delivered-a quantity far in excess of the actual or prospec- 
tive needs of the military service, and to the detriment rather than the advantage 
of the public interests. 
THE REFRIGERATED BEEF. 
Although the methods of slaughtering cattle and converting their carcasses into 
refrigerated beef are simple and quite generally known, a brief account of the process 
now pursued may not ■ be out of place at this point. The animals purchased for 
slaughter are driven over the scales at the stock yards, where they are weighed and 
subjected to a preliminary examination by an inspector detailed for that purpose by 
the Bureau of Animal Industry. The examination made by the Government inspec- 
tor has to do exclusively with animals which are to become the subjects of interstate 
or foreign commerce, or are to be converted into meat products with a view to their 
transportation to points without the territory of the State in which they are sold or 
slaughtered. State and city inspectors are also stationeds at the stock yards, whose 
duty it is to make a similar examination of cattle intended for consumption within 
the limits of the State or city in which they are slaughtered. An animal rejected at 
the ante-mortem inspection is killed under the supervision of a committee of the local 
stock yards exchange, by whom the carcass is effectually destroyed, the by-products 
disposed of, and an account of the proceeds rendered to the owner or consignor. 
The title to animals thus condemned and killed remains in the shipper and never 
passes to the packer unless a post-mortem examination is demanded and the result of 
such examination establishes the fact that the flesh of the animal is wholesome and 
fit for human food. 
After the antemortem examination is completed, the animals purchased for slaugh- 
ter are driven to pens controlled by the purchaser, by whom they are killed, usually 
within twenty-four hours subsequent to their purchase. The carcasses are suspended 
from hooks attached to a trolley on the killing floor, where the hides are taken off, 
the entrails removed, the fat trimmed off, and the exposed surfaces washed with hot 1876 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
water. During this operation, every portion of which is performed by men working 
in successive gangs, the animal is subjected to a rigid post-mortem examination by a 
veterinary surgeon acting under the direction of the Bureau of Animal Industry. 
Diseased animals are rejected and suspicious carcasses reserved for more careful 
examination. In both cases yellow tags are attached, as evidence of the fact of con- 
demnation. If the result of the inspection is unfavorable, the carcass is thrown into 
a tank, heated by steam to a temperature considerably above boiling, in which the 
offal obtained from the animals killed during the day has already been deposited. 
At the close of the day's work, or when the tank has been filled, it is closed; live 
steam is then turned on with a view to a thorough conversion of the contents of the 
tank. After exposure for from nine to fifteen hours, the contents of the tank are 
removed in the shape of lubricating grease and fertilizer. 
'The carcasses, after being dressed and cleaned, are cooled until the animal heat 
has passed out of the body; they are then carried by the trolley to the chill room, 
where they are weighed and tagged. If the animal is intended for export trade, 
tags are attached by the inspector to each quarter; if intended for interstate trade, 
the inspector marks each quarter with a rubber stamp, as evidence that the carcass 
has passed the inspection required by law. The quarters selected for export are pro- 
vided with covers of coarse cotton cloth, with a view to protect them from injury in 
handling while on shipboard. The carcasses remain in the chill room, at a temper- 
ature of about 35° F., until they are loaded into refrigerator cars for shipment to 
market. The cars are recharged with ice and salt at icing stations at least once 
while in transit, the frequency of icing depending upon the length of the haul, 
the season of the year, and the destination of the shipment. When the car reaches 
its destination, its contents are transferred to a cooling house, where the meat is kept 
in cold storage until sold or otherwise disposed of. 
With a view to provide a supply of fresh beef for the troops then being prepared 
for service in Cuba and Porto Rico, the Subsistence Department, on June 7, 1898, 
issued an advertisement calling for bids for refrigerated beef, beef on the block, and 
beef cattle, to be delivered at such points in the island of Cuba as nright thereafter be 
occupied by the military forces of the United States. 
During the interval between the issue of the advertisement and the opening of the 
bids the question as to what kind of beef was best suited to the conditions that were 
likely to exist in Cuba was made the subject of inquiry in the office of the Commis- 
sary-General of Subsistence. An experiment with imperfectly frozen beef was under- 
taken at Tampa with an unfavorable result, and a test of beef treated by a process 
invented by Mr. Alexander Powell, of New York, was made under his direction at 
Port Tampa, just as the expedition to Santiago was about to sail; the results of this 
experiment were reported to the Department by Colonel Weston. Inquiry was also 
made of the producers of refrigerated beef, with a view to ascertain how long such 
beef could be expected to keep in a tropical climate after being removed from the 
refrigerator. 
When the bids were opened, the proposal of Swift & Co., of Chicago, for refrigerated 
beef, being the lowest, was accepted. All other bids received for refrigerated beef, 
or for fresh beef on the hoof or block, were rejected, and, on July 1, 1898, a contract 
was entered into with Swift & Co. for the delivery of refrigerated beef, to troops 
serving on the seacoast of Cuba, at 9 47-100 cents per pound. This contract con- 
templated the erection of refrigerators, at the expense of the contractor, at such 
points in Cuba as might be designated by the proper officer of the Subsistence Depart- 
ment. The beef was to be delivered on board refrigerated steamers at such seaports 
in the United States as might be agreed upon by the contracting parties, and trans- 
ported to Cuba, where it was to be unloaded into such refrigerating houses as might 
be constructed on shore by Swift & Co.; from these shore refrigerators it was to be 
issued to the troops as required. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1877 
By one clause of the contract the beef was required to be "so preserved by the 
refrigeration on shipboard, and at the refrigerator buildings above referred to, that 
it shall be perfectly good and fit for use seventy-two hours after being issued from 
the ship's refrigerators, and twenty-four hours after being issued from the refrigera- 
tor buildings on shore." The requirements of the contract above cited constitute, 
in fact, a rule of accounting, the application of which, in the case of a quantity of 
beef alleged to be unfit for use, would determine whether the loss should fall upon 
the United States or upon the contractor. If there were no refrigerating houses on 
shore, then the terms of the contract would require the beef to be ' ' perfectly good 
and fit for issue" for twenty-four hours after being issued from the ship's refrigera- 
tor. Under the terms of Clause II of the contract, the responsibility of the con- 
tractor continues, after landing, for seventy-two hours after the beef shall have been 
stored in the shore refrigerators. 
By a subsequent contract, dated August 8, 1898, made after due advertisement, 
Swift & Co. agreed to deliver refrigerated beef at points on the seacoast of Porto 
Rico; the contract price in this case being 9T%% cents per pound. The requirements 
of this contract are substantially the same as those of the contract of July 1 for 
similar deliveries in Cuba. Under the first contract somewhat more than 2,000,000 
pounds of refrigerated beef were delivered by Swift & Co. to troops serving in the 
vicinity of Santiago, Cuba, and 75,343 pounds were delivered in Porto Rico in 
August and September. It has been seen that on the recommendation of the 
Major-General Commanding, dated August 2, 1898, shipments to Porto Rico were 
discontinued and were not resumed during the remainder of the year. This seems 
to have been the first intimation received by the War Department that the Major- 
General Commanding preferred native to refrigerated beef as an article of supply for 
the troops serving in Porto Rico; a previous dispatch under date of July 26, convey- 
ing the information that beef cattle were procurable in Porto Rico, not having been 
received. Although this recommendation gave rise to some embarrassment to the 
War Department, since two dispatches sent by the Major-General Commanding, on 
July 13 and 18, respectively, had urged the continuance of the Atlantic liners in 
service, upon the ground of their great carrying capacity for troops, animals, and 
supplies, special mention being made of refrigerated beef in both dispatches. Not- 
withstanding the apparent conflict in the recommendations of the Major-General 
Commanding, his request was adopted, and shipments of refrigerated beef to Porto 
Rico were discontinued after the sailing of the Manitoba, on August 5. 
Before discussing the testimony in respect to the use of chemical preservatives, it 
may be well to say a word in respect to the nature and operation of the several 
chemical agents said to have been used in the preservation of the beef. These are, 
as shown in the testimony, boric and salicylic acids, either alone or in combination, 
certain fluorides, and formaldehyde. All of these are germicides, their preservative 
action tending to prevent fermentation, or to arrest decomposition in the product 
to which they are applied. It is in evidence that boric acid is very generally used 
in the preservation of meats-its use is fully admitted by the packers in the preserva- 
tion of certain pork products and meat sausages-such use being restricted to meat 
products which are not preserved by refrigeration. Salicylic acid, the fluorides, and 
formaldehyde are rarely, if ever, used in connection with solid foods, their chief 
application being in the preservation of liquids. Formaldehyde is a powerful germi- 
cide which is generally applied by Some process of fumigation, and as it has a pro- 
nounced taste and odor its use is restricted to highly seasoned foods in which its 
presence is not likely to be detected. 
In respect to the allegation that the*refrigerated beef had been treated with preserva- 
tives, but little testimony has been submitted by the Major-General Commanding in 
support of his contention. There is substantial unanimity in the testimony of offi- 
cers who used the beef in Cuba and Porto Rico, as wel I as in the camps of instruction in 1878 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
the United States, that, at the time of such use, they had no reason to believe, or 
cause to suspect, that it had been chemically treated with a view to its preservation. 
There is absolutely no testimony to the effect that the refrigerated beef was so 
treated while in process of manufacture; on the other hand, the testimony is unvary- 
ing that cold air, alone, is relied upon as a preservative agent. This absence of tes- 
timony is significant when it is remembered that 12,000 animals are killed daily in 
the registered packing houses in Chicago, Omaha, St. Joseph, and Kansas City, and 
that 20,000 men are employed in preparing the product for market, exclusive of those 
having to do with its transportation in refrigerator cars and steamers, and with its 
final distribution at the selling agencies in the principal cities and towns in the 
United States. 
If it be a fact that chemicals are habitually used in the preparation of the beef for 
market, apparatus for such application must be provided, space must be set apart for 
the installation and operation of the chemicalizing plant, chemicals and other mate- 
rials must be purchased and distributed, and employees must be trained and assigned 
to duties in connection with the preserving process. Of the existence of such a 
plant there is no evidence whatever in any of the registered packing houses which 
were visited by the court in the course of its investigation; nor has a single person 
appeared, or offered to appear, to testify as to the use or application of chemicals or 
other preservatives in connection with the preparation of the beef for market. There 
is similar testimony from those charged with the transportation of the meat by rail 
and its distribution throughout the United States. To enable such chemicalization 
to be made in transit by rail, the collusion of the railroad employees would be neces- 
sary since the refrigerator cars are sealed, when loaded, by the agents of the railroad, 
in addition to the sealing of the packing companies. If such a practice existed, knowl- 
edge of its existence would soon become common among the large numbers of per- 
sons employed in various capacities by the several packing houses and transportation 
companies, and so become known to the world at large. The inference drawn by 
the court from the absence of such testimony can onjy be adverse to the existence of 
the practice alleged to prevail by the Major General Commanding. 
The testimony submitted by the Major-General Commanding, in respect to the 
chemicalization of beef, has to do in every case with the meat at the time of its issue 
to the troops-none of it, as has been seen, relating to the use of preservative agents 
in the course of its slaughter or preparation for market. 
It is proper to remark at this point, in qualification of what has just been said, 
that one lot of fresh beef prepared by a process invented by Dold & Co., of Kansas 
City, Mo., was issued to the troops in Porto Rico with very satisfactory results. 
Another small quantity of beef was subjected to treatment by Mr. Powell at Chicago, 
Ill., and afterwards transported to Port Tampa, where it was exposed to the weather, 
as has already been described. 
An examination of the evidence of those who testify to their belief that preserva- 
tives had been employed shows considerable difference of view as to the substances 
used and the mode of their application. In one case boric acid is suspected; in 
another, salicylic acid; one witness testified that he found boric acid at one time and 
salicylic acid at another; another testified that these acids were used in combination; 
still another suspected that formaldehyde had been employed. As to the method of 
application, there is a similar divergence of opinion. One witness suggests that the 
meat was washed or coated with a preservative preparation; another that it had been 
dipped or soaked; two witness testify that chemicals had been arterially injected. 
As to salicylic acid, one witness testifies that the meat issued to his command about 
July 4 had a light color, resembling salmon, and that this peculiaritiy had been 
observed by others, notably by the cook of one of the companies of his regiment who 
was a practical butcher. He also testified that the meat looked dark where it had 
been cut by a knife, and to verify this test the experiment was repeated with FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1879 
another knife, with the same result. He then tested the meat for salicylic acid, the 
tincture-of-iron test being used, and alleges that traces of that acid were found as a 
result of the experiment. Subsequently the same witness stated that he tested the 
meat for boric acid at a chemical laboratory in Jacksonville, Fla., and explained to 
the court the details of the experiment, which are as follows: 
' ' Q. What was the test for boracic acid? 
"A. The boracic acid test is a more delicate test. I made use of the turmeric 
paper, dipping the turmeric paper into the solution, the suspected solution, and it 
turned it to an orange. Then treating that again with aqua ammonia turned it to 
a dark brown." 
If the experiment was conducted as described by the witness, the result was to 
prove not the presence but the absence of boric acid. He is also in error as to the 
effect of salicylic acid upon iron or steel, and two witnesses agree in saying that there 
is no chemist and no chemical laboratory in Jacksonville. As to the light color 
attributed to the meat as a consequence of the alleged use of salicylic acid, it is estab- 
lished, as a result of careful experiment, that, while the immediate effect of apply- 
ing salicylic acid to meat is to lighten its color, the effect soon disappears and the 
meat resumes its normal color in from nine to twenty hours. In view of the fact that 
nearly the entire evidence of this witness is rebutted by the testimony of other wit- 
nesses of equal credibility, and as the conclusions reached by him are not supported 
by the laws of organic chemistry, the court believes it to be its duty to reject this 
testimony from consideration. 
The testimony of Dr. W. H. Daly, which has been carefully considered by the 
court, is substantially as follows: 
On June 14, 1898, just as the Santiago expedition was about to sail, his attention 
was drawn to one of several quarters of beef which had been treated by a process 
discovered by a Mr. Powell, of New York, and exposed to atmospheric action on one 
of the transports with a view to test the efficiency of the process. From the quarter 
so exposed he cut a small piece, for further examination, in the belief that the meat 
constituted a part of the food supply of the expedition. The next day he cooked 
and ate the meat thus obtained. Soon after eating it he experienced certain symp- 
toms-a burning sensation in the stomach, followed by nausea and vomiting-which 
recalled an experience on the frontier in which, upon at least two occasions, pre- 
cisely the same symptoms had followed the eating of game, the decay of which it had 
been attempted to arrest by the use of a preservative preparation composed of boric 
and salicylic acids. Although the results of using the beef, in his own case, had 
been so marked, the fact was not reported to superior authority, with a view to such 
further investigation or action as the necessities of the case might seem to require. 
In his subsequent examination of the refrigerated beef, including that made on the 
"Panama," he testifies to his belief in the use of the same preservative acids. He 
is less positive as to the method of their application, but uses the term "injected" 
as descriptive of the process which he believes to have been used in treating the beef. 
On the hospital transport ' ' Panama, ' ' of which he was the surgeon in charge, and 
which left Ponce about September 1, 1898, he testifies that he suspected that the 
same chemicals had been used in preserving the beef, and that some broth, taken by 
him from a cauldron in the ship's galley, was made from beef which he suspected 
had been thus chemically treated. There were two medical officers on board and 
several other commissioned officers, including the quartermaster and the commissary 
of the vessel, but to none of these were his suspicions communicated. No analysis 
was made or attempted, with the means at hand, in the hospital dispensary. A few 
days out from Ponce, the meat having become a source of danger, by reason of its 
tainted condition, a board of survey was called and the beef was submitted to it for 
examination. The question of suspected chemical treatment was not referred to the 
board, which examined the meat and found it to be in an advanced stage of decom- 1880 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
position, and for that reason unfit for use, and its immediate destruction was recom- 
mended on that ground only. The report of the board was approved by Dr. Daly, 
and the beef thrown overboard in obedience to his orders. No special steps were 
taken to verify the fact that the broth was made from the refrigerated beef-for the 
testimony shows that there was native beef in the refrigerator, and that it was being 
drawn upon for use-and no precautions were taken to secure the identification of 
the samples. After his return to the United States, he testifies that the solid contents 
of the broth were isolated, and the residuum was examined by him, in Pittsburg, and 
found to contain traces of boric and salicylic acids. 
On the other hand, the testimony shows that the beef treated by the Powell proc- 
ess, which was declared by Dr. Daly to contain boric and salicylic acid was, in fact, 
treated by fumigation, and the materials employed contained neither boric nor sal- 
icylic acid. The beef from which the broth was made on the Panama has not been 
positively identified as refrigerated beef, and the connection between the residuum of 
the sample taken from the ship's caldron and that analyzed by Dr. Clark has not 
been established to the satisfaction of the court. In respect to the written report 
submitted by Dr. Daly to the Major-General Commanding, which included the results 
of his observations in respect to the chemical treatment of the beef, the testimony 
fails to show why the facts therein alleged were not brought to the attention of 
superior authority with a view to an investigation of the suspicious circumstances 
and the application of a prompt and adequate remedy to any wrong which may have 
been developed as the result of such investigation. Nor does it appear why the 
Major-General Commanding, when such knowledge came into his possession, should 
have delayed so long in bringing it to the attention of the President and the Secretary 
of War. 
THE FOOD SUPPLY AS A CAUSE OF DISEASE. 
In this branch of its inquiry it has been the endeavor of the court to obtain the 
testimony of surgeons, inspectors, and others, who accompanied the troops during 
the campaign in Cuba, whose duties were of such a nature as to bring them into close 
touch with both officers and enlisted men, and whose experience qualifies them to 
speak with authority upon this subject. The court has also obtained the testimony 
of the surgeons in charge of the general hospitals in the United States, in which the 
sick who returned from Cuba and Porto Rico were received and cared for. The 
testimony thus elicited will be discussed under the following heads: 
1. What were the diseases which prevailed in the Fifth Army Corps at the time 
of its withdrawal to the United States? 
2. To what extent did such diseases prevail? 
3. What causes operated to produce them? 
4. To what extent did the food supply, either in point of quality or sufficiency, 
enter as a determining cause of disease? 
The surgeons serving with the troops before Santiago and those in charge of the 
general hospitals in the United States, including those at Montauk Point, agree in 
describing the diseases prevalent in the Army as typhoid and malarial fevers; dysen- 
tery, diarrhea, and intestinal disorders of similar character are declared by them to 
have constituted but a small part of the cases which passed under their observation, 
amounting to from 15 to 20 per cent of the entire number treated. As to the extent 
to which the above-described diseases prevailed during the stay of the command in 
Cuba the testimony is only too clear. Prior to the outbreak of the war the regi- 
ments constituting the regular military establishment were stationed at posts in the 
North and West, most of which had been selected with especial regard to their 
salubrity and freedom from unsanitary conditions. Although the troops arrived at 
Tampa in fine physical condition, there was some enervation as a result of their stay 
at that place, which was increased, to some extent, by their long detention on 
transports, during which, as adequate cooking facilities were not available for their FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1881 
use, they were compelled to subsist for about seventeen days on an unfamiliar and 
unpalatable travel ration. This was followed by the landing at Daiquiri and the 
difficult and toilsome advance upon Siboney and Santiago, through an almost impass- 
able jungle, culminating in the severe engagements of July 1 and 2, and the exhaust- 
ing labors incident to siege operations conducted in a tropical climate at the most 
unfavorable season of the year. The clothing of the troops was inappropriate to 
the duty upon which they were engaged, and their food supply, by reason of inade- 
quate transportation facilities, was not only insufficient, but irregular. There were 
no reserves, and the length of the position occupied made it necessary to maintain 
the entire command on the firing line or to employ it in the construction of trenches. 
This resulted in an undue nervous strain upon both officers and men, which tended 
to their further debilitation, and unfitted them to resist the malarial influences to 
which they were exposed from the moment of their arrival at Daiquiri. Major 
Reade, inspector-general of Kent's division, in describing this period of the campaign, 
says: "They dug their own trenches; slept in them'; endured the blazing, torrid, noon- 
day sun, the unvarying rainstorms each afternoon, and the chill night damps with- 
out shelter, save such as a dog tent afforded. Some had blankets, but no ponchos; 
some had the reverse; some had given up both to shroud the dead or to litter the 
wounded and sick, and all this time the quantity and quality of their nutriment was 
decreasing or deteriorating. Their reserve strength was exhausted, fortunately not 
so entirely as the Spanish; but no earthly men could fail to show marked evidence 
of privation and hardship. ' ' 
Lieutenant-Colonel Miner, commanding the Sixteenth United States Infantry, under 
date of July 23, says: "Since the landing of the regiment at Siboney, June 23, it has 
cheerfully endured almost every hardship known to military life. Sickness has made 
inroads upon the strength and efficiency of the command. This is due to causes 
entirely beyond the control of the regimental commander. In the first place, the 
rations here have been of the most meager description. For weeks the command 
has subsisted upon bacon, hard-tack, sugar, and coffee. Canned meat was several 
times furnished, but without salt or vegetables. It had no savor, scant nutriment, 
and w'as but little liked. Once three or four potatoes to a man were issued, and once 
an onion was given to about every two men. On several occasions soldiers were 
without anything to eat. It was impracticable always to boil water. In the 
trenches fires could not be lighted, and not only was the water unboiled, but the 
ration of bacon was eaten uncooked. They fought by day and dug trenches by 
night. The climate is hot. The men wrere necessarily confined closely to their posts 
and to camp. Bathing facilities were lacking during most of the time. Facilities 
were lacking for change of underclothing. Under the fervid heat of a tropical 
sun, also in torrents of rain, they have marched, toiled, and fought on unsuitable 
rations. The close confinement in freshly dug trenches, the unavoidable drinking 
of impure water, the lack of protection from rain, sun, and dew, the sleeping in 
wet clothing on the ground in mud, swamp, and trenches, the enforced personal 
uncleanliness, have all contributed to render the men weak and unable to resist the 
fever and other diseases peculiar to hot climates. Every rule of hygiene has been 
unavoidably broken. That any should have survived only shows the excellent con- 
dition of the command at the beginning of the campaign. That many are now sick 
should cause no surprise. The stomach turns on a diet without vegetables, and the 
exposures the men have undergone have produced a fever from which few have 
escaped. All are weak and in no condition either for marching or fighting. The 
crying needs are for proper shelter from sun and rains and proper food." 
Lieutenant-Colonel Pope, the chief surgeon of the Fifth Army Corps, in discuss- 
ing this subject in his report, says: "During the latter part of July and August the 
tendency to diarrhea and dysentery became pronounced, although the diet of the 
troops had much improved, and the water supply was certainly no worse than it had 
been from the first. The majority of medical officers regarded it as of malarial origin 1882 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
and treated it as such, and frequently with large rectal injections of quinine. 
Attempts were made to check its spread by recommending the use of boiled water 
for drinking purposes without favorable results, probably because the men preferred 
the disease to the remedy. At divisional hospital No. 1, where boiled and filtered 
water were freely supplied, and about all that was to be had, the incurrence of 
diarrhea and dysentery were almost unknown. Among the regiments the excuse for 
not furnishing boiled water was valid; the commands were, until very late, without 
tht necessary kettles and caldrons to heat the water. When the soldier had only 
his tin cup and ration can and a little fire of green twigs with which to cook his food 
boiled water was omitted. ' ' 
The rapidity of increase in the sick list is indicated by the reports of effective 
strength of Kent's division, which, on July 10, out of a total of 4,442, had 214 sick; on 
July 15 the sick list had fallen to 200; on the 20th, however, it had increased to 817, 
on the 25th to 1,142, and on the 31st to 1,148, over 35 per cent of the command. 
On August 1 the increase in the sick list of the Fifth Corps had become alarming, 
amounting on that day to a total of 4,239, of which 3,179 were fever cases. On 
August 3, General Shafter having obtained the opinions of his division and brigade 
commanders and principal medical officers, reported to the Secretary of War that 
the proposed removal of the command to higher land at the end of the railroad was 
practically impossible. He also gave it as his opinion that " there is but one course 
to take, and that is to immediately transport the Fifth Corps and the detached regi- 
ments that came with it to the United States. If it is not done, I believe the death 
rate will be appalling. I am sustained in this view by every medical officer present. 
I called together to-day the general officers and the senior medical officers and tele- 
graph you their views. There is more or less yellow fever in almost every regiment 
throughout the command. As soon as it develops they are sent to the hospital, but 
new cases arise, not very many, it is true, and it is of a mild type, but nevertheless 
it is here. All men taken with it will, of course, have to be left and have to take 
their chances. Some will undoubtedly be taken sick on the ships and die, but the 
loss will be much less than if an attempt is made to move this army to the interior, 
which is now really an army of convalescents; at least 75 per cent of the men having 
had malarial fever, and all so much weakened by the exposure and hardships which 
they have undergone that they are capable now of very little exertion. They should 
be put at once on all the transports in the harbor and not crowded at all, and this 
movement should begin to-morrow and be completed before the 15th. All here 
believe the loss of life by doing this will be much less than if more time is taken. If 
the plan is adopted of waiting until the fever is stamped out, there will be no troops 
moved from here until the fever season is past, and I believe there will be then very 
few to move. There are other diseases which are prevailing-typhoid fever, dysen- 
tery, etc., and severe types of malarial fever which are quite as fatal as yellow fever. 
The matter of moving this army has been placed before you, and you have the opin- 
ions of all the commanding officers and chief surgeons, who fully agree with me as 
to the only course left open for the preservation of this army." 
The causes of disease have already been sufficiently indicated. The principal of 
these were exposure to extreme alternations of daily temperature, to incessant down- 
pours of rain, and to the malarial influences peculiar to the most dangerous portion 
of the island of Cuba at the unhealthiest season of the year. Lack of shelter from 
sun and rain, irregular, inadequate, and insufficient supplies of food, fuel and cloth- 
ing, due to want of transportation, also entered as contributory causes of the sudden 
and alarming increase of the sick report, which all accounts agree as having taken 
place between July 8 and 10 after the command had been subjected for some days to 
the fatigue and exposure incident to the digging and manning of trenches, the main- 
tenance of an outpost service, and the conduct of siege operations. 
That the sickness was due to particular articles of the ration, rather than to -the 
character and components of the ration itself, and its general unsuitability to exist- FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1883 
ing conditions is not clear. This is shown by the fact that, although there was a 
very marked difference in the meat components of the ration issued to, and used by, 
the different commands in the army, the sick rate was very much the same in all. 
Lawton's division, for example, which subsisted largely upon bacon, and used no 
canned'beef and but little refrigerated beef, suffered as seriously from sickness as 
Kent's division, which used the canned fresh meat and received also considerable 
quantities of refrigerated beef. Having regard, therefore, to the testimony adduced 
as to the causes which are admitted to have operated to produce intestinal disorders, 
such as the eating of tropical fruits, the use of unboiled and unfiltered water, 
malarial poisoning, the exposure to daily rains, and the considerable diurnal varia- 
tions of temperature and the like, the court finds it impossible to conclude that 
either the canned fresh beef or refrigerated beef appeared, to an appreciable extent, 
as causes of intestinal disease. 
As to the effects of the food supply, having regard to both sufficiency and quality, 
it seems to be clearly established that th e army ration as supplied, without modifi- 
cation, to the troops serving in the West Indies was by no means well adapted to 
use in a tropical climate. If this be true, the unfitness of the ration should have 
manifested itself by its failure to keep the troops, who subsisted upon it, in the best 
possible condition for service in hot climates. This, in the opinion of the court, is 
fully established in evidence. The insufficiency of the food supply in Cuba and the 
irregularity attending its distribution, due, primarily, to a marked deficiency in 
transportation facilities, and the condition of the weather and the roads, has already 
been remarked upon. It is only necessary to say that both of these appeared, to 
some extent, as causes of disease among the troops who were thus insufficiently and 
irregularly subsisted. 
In concluding this portion of the subject it is proper to observe that the history of 
two centuries teaches the lesson that troops accustomed to serve in temperate cli- 
mates can be employed in the tropics only at great risk of loss from diseases incident 
to the locality and latitude in which military operations are carried on; if sent in 
the sickly season, the risk is augmented and the death rate soon becomes alarming. 
The experienced gained and the losses incurred by the English expeditions in the 
West Indies in the last century, and those undertaken in India, China, and 'Africa 
have been repeated in those sent by France to Santo Domingo, Mexico, Chochin 
China, and Madagascar. In General Scott's campaign in Mexico the losses from 
disease alone exceeded 33 per cent of the effective strength of the forces under his 
command. In a single regiment of Indiana volunteers, which entered the service 
1,000 strong, and which was not engaged in battle, but 400 returned to the State for 
muster out. During a certain period subsequent to the capture of the City of Mexico, 
American soldiers, dying of disease, were buried at the rate of 1,000 per month; 
3,000 were buried at the Castle of Perote, and the total loss by disease alone has been 
estimated as 10,000. In July, 1741, an English force of 5,600 men under Admiral 
Vernon landed at Guantanamo and attempted to advance in the direction of Santiago, 
with a view to its capture. The resistance encountered was stubborn, but might 
eventually have been overcome; not so, however, the fatigue, exhaustion, and disease 
to which the troops were exposed from the moment of their landing, in consequence 
of which the expedition was finally abandoned, leaving over 2,000 English dead in 
the vicinity of Guantanamo. The experience of the United States troops in the 
same theater of operations, and under the same adverse climatic conditions, forms no 
exception to the inevitable rule that armies sent into the tropics must pay the price 
of the invasion in human life. If it was the popular will that the wrongs suffered 
by a neighboring people were so grievous as to make it necessary to employ a por- 
tion of the military forces of the United States in obtaining their redress, the experi- 
ence of this campaign will be sure to illustrate at what expense of life and health the 
wrong has been remedied. 1884 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
On Monday, February 20, 1899, prior to their first meeting, the members of the 
court paid their respects to the President. He then stated his general ideas as to 
the character, scope, and importance of the inquiry. 
The substance of the President's remarks were communicated to the court in writ- 
ing on April 20, 1899. (See Appendix No. .) 
In the following pages the interrogatories and remarks of the President are taken 
up seriatim and discussed. 
1. The character and quality of the meat, refrigerated and canned, furnished to 
the army; how purchased; how shipped to the soldiers; if good when shipped; what 
the cause of its deterioration, if there was any? 
THE PRESIDENT'S MEMORANDUM OF INQUIRY. 
The character of this food and the process of manufacture are fully described in 
the report of the court. It has been very extensively used for a quarter of a century 
at least, its consumption by the mercantile marine being very large, but its use is 
generally limited to circumstances and conditions that do not permit of the supply 
of beef freshly slaughtered. It may be briefly described as fresh beef which has 
been sterilized by heat and hermetically sealed in tin cans. When the cans are 
opened the contents have the characteristic smell of roast beef; besides, the sterilizing 
is done at a temperature considerably above that possible in ordinary boiling-a 
degree of heat probably approaching that existing in the bake or roast oven. These 
two circumstances may perhaps account for the practice of the packers in labeling 
the commodity Roast Beef. A small quantity of similar beef, described as boiled, was 
purchased by the Subsistence Department and issued to troops. Three of the pack- 
ers add to the beef before cooking from 1 to 1 j per cent of salt, while another 
packer is in the habit of adding a larger per cent of this seasoning. 
As to the signification of the word fresh, as used descriptively on some of the labels, 
this word, in this connection, may have two meanings. In one sense it would dis- 
tinguish the article from salt meat, and in the other sense the word fresh would 
distinguish it from old or stale beef. In most cases the meat cans contain so little 
salt that the word fresh would aptly and truthfully describe its contents, but in a 
case where there had been added three or more per cent of salt, the word would not 
be applicable. 
If the idea intended to be conveyed by this word was that the cans contained beef 
of the same degree and character of freshness as that just received from the butchers, 
then the -word would not truly and accurately describe the article. In the Army Reg- 
ulations, where the travel ration is described (par. 1256), there is no discrimination 
between canned fresh and canned salt meat. There is but one article of beef men- 
tioned in this paragraph, simply canned beef, and under this term the so-called roast 
beef would be included. 
There is no testimony that any of the canned fresh beef delivered to the Govern- 
ment was of old date; there is no evidence of any of earlier date than 1894, although 
a number of cans supplied to the Army in 1892 have been examined by the court 
and found to be in perfect condition. It also appears in testimony that dates of pack- 
ing are not placed on canned goods, unless that course is expressly required by pur- 
chasing officers; such dates of manufacture were required to be put on the cans fur- 
nished by the Armour Packing Company in Kansas City, Mo., in July, 1898. The 
quality of the canned beef is fully set forth in the report of the court and reference 
is made thereto in answer to this question. The refrigerated beef, in respect to its 
character and quality is also fully described in the report. 
THE CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF THE CANNED FRESH BEEF. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1885 
2. If the meat was doctored, did the Commissary-General or any of his officers 
have any knowledge of it or means of knowledge. 
The board has recorded its opinion that the refrigerated beef, furnished under con- 
tracts for the use of the armies, was not "doctored " or treated with any other agent 
than cold air. If such treatment had been applied, it is the opinion of the court that 
a knowledge of it could not have been concealed from the Commissary-General and 
his officers. 
3. Was it the meat of commerce? 
Both kinds-refrigerated and canned-were such as are well known in both hem- 
ispheres as commercial articles, of which there is and has been a very large consump- 
tion not only by the trade generally, but by the United States Navy and by the 
armies and navies of Europe. 
4. Was it inspected by the Goverement inspectors, as provided by law? 
The only provision of law found by the court relating to the inspection of such 
subsistence supplies for the Army is section 3715 of the Revised Statutes. This 
section applied to purchases under contract after due advertisement for proposals 
and an inspection was required to be made at places of delivery. This section dates 
from 1809. It has been twice amended, the last time in 1861, but the act of July 5, 
1884, covers the whole subject of purchases for the Quartermaster's and Subsistence 
Departments, both of the regular supplies, and as well those needed to meet emer- 
gencies. This act contains no allusions to inspections. If inspections of purchases 
made in conformity with this law are required by statute, the authority for it must 
be contained in section 3715, above cited. As this section relates only to formal 
contracts, after public notice, and the later statute applies not only to such pur- 
chases, but to emergency or open-market purchases as well, it may be a question 
whether section 3715 should be held to apply at all; but at all events emergency 
purchases are certainly not covered in express terms by the section requiring inspec- 
tions of purchases under formal contract. 
The court has no knowledge of any provision in the Army Regulations or any 
requirement for any inspection of supplies for Army use, at the time of purchase or 
delivery. 
In the Subsistence Manual, published by authority of the Secretary of War, but 
not announced to the Army as regulations, there is a provision that requires that all 
subsistence stores shall be inspected at time of purchase, when practicable, but that 
comes very far short of being a requirement of law. In this connection it is 
remarked that the court has been unable to find among the naval laws any require- 
ment that inspections of provisions shall be made. 
By the act of March 15, 1898, it was provided that when any open-market pur- 
chases of army supplies exceeded in amount $200, the same should be reported to 
the Secretary of War; but by the act of June 7, 1898, authority was given the Sec- 
retary to suspend this provision during the war with Spain, the result being to con- 
fer upon purchasing officers the discretion to make open-market purchases of any 
amount. As a matter of fact a very large part of the purchase of canned meat for 
army consumption was made in open market, and, in the opinion of the court, 
there was no requirement of law for any inspections of supplies so purchased. Dur- 
ing the war with Spain it was the general practice of purchasers of subsistence stores 
to inspect all supplies purchased for the Army. As no records appear to have been 
kept by the commissaries of the goods examined and rejected or accepted, the facts 
relating to this detail are derived from the testimony of commissary officers and 
contractors. 
In the practice at the New York depot, when any large purchases were made of 
canned beef, it is in evidence that the inspectors were sufficiently thorough to assure 
the fact that the goods bought corresponded with the samples. In Chicago the pur- 1886 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
chasing officer required samples to be supplied of the canned roast beef, but there 
does not appear to have been any other inspection than to examine the samples of 
the goods submitted by the bidder. If the samples were satisfactory the goods were 
received. The canned roast beef that was supplied for army use was all prepared 
by well-known packers of established reputation, and the court has not been able to 
learn from the evidence that any particular pack or brand was better or worse than 
any other. 
The answer to this question is, so far as respects the canned roast beef, that the 
meat was more or less carefully inspected. It is in evidence that several thousand 
cans had been exported for sale abroad, but as it continued in the ownership of the 
packers it was brought back to the United States and sold to the Government. Two 
other lots of beef had been three, four, or five years in store, but it does not appear 
that this beef was any more carefully inspected than that freshly canned, nor does 
it appear from the evidence that the quality of this beef is in any way dependent 
upon its age, nor that there was any deterioration in the quality of these lots. 
As respects the refrigerated beef, the contracts with Swift & Co. (a firm that sup- 
plied all the beef shipped to Cuba and Porto Rico) and other contracts through which 
fresh beef was supplied in other places, contained provision for acceptance by com- 
missary officers at the point of delivery. It appears that these officers did inspect 
the beef as required by the contracts, an inspection that appears to fulfill the require- 
ments of section 3715, Revised Statutes, if that statute be still in force. 
Several cans of fresh beef that had been purchased under naval inspection for the use 
Navy, were furnished to the court, and were examined by the well-known chemists 
Atwater and Bigelow. A critical examination of their contents revealed no differ- 
ences between the naval beef and that which had been supplied to the Army, 
shipped to the Tropics and returned to this city. 
Although the subject of readjustment of accounts between the United States and 
the contractors was not referred to the court, it appears from the testimony that 
whenever any cans have been found to be defective, subsequent to their original 
delivery to the Subsistence Department, such cans have been replaced in every 
instance. In two cases lots of about 40,000 pounds each were replaced by new cans, 
although a subsequent examination proved that but a small percentage of the cans 
were spoiled. If the number of cans condemned or found to be spoiled after their 
issue to troops can be ascertained from the records of the Subsistence Department, 
the packing companies, under their guaranty, can be required to replace the cans so 
disposed of. 
As respects inspections by officers of the Bureau of Animal Industry of beef sup- 
plied to the Army, the court finds that all cattle slaughtered and the carcasses of all 
slaughtered cattle, comprising all the refrigerated and canned beef, was inspected as 
required by law. The operation of canning, however, is not required to be super- 
vised by the officers of that Bureau. 
5. Was it an authorized ration in the Army? 
Fresh beef (refrigerated) is an article of the authorized ration. Canned roast beef 
is also authorized for the travel ration, but has never been prescribed as a component 
of the field ration. It was first used as such ration during the war with Spain, as 
before stated. 
6. If good when purchased, what made it bad? 
There is no testimony to the effect that the quality of the meat used for canning in 
May, June, and July, 1898, or the methods of its preparations differed from those 
ordinarily pursued in its manufacture. On account of the haste required in its deliv- 
ery and shipment to Tampa, the meat was not given the time to settle and harden 
which is usually allowed for that purpose; this course was insisted upon by the Sub- 
sistence Department in order to secure prompt deliveries. Some injury was doubt- FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1887 
less caused by rough, handling in transportation, or was due to exposure to the 
climatic influences of the Tropics; causing oxidation of cans, starting of seams, etc. 
The court finds it impossible, however, to locate any great quantity of defective cans 
and the careful inspection to which 1,000,000 pounds of the beef were subjected in 
Havana in January last, indicates no unusual loss due to deterioration in quality or 
defective packing. 
7. Was it anybody's neglect or fault; and if so, whose? 
Subject to the qualification contained in the answer to question No. 4, in respect to 
the methods of inspecting the beef on its delivery to the Subsistence Department, the 
court answers this question in the negative. 
8. When unfit for use, if you should so find, was the fact made known to the War 
Department; wThen and by whom? 
A. The court has not been able to learn that any report of unfitness was ever made 
known to the Department respecting canned roast beef until December 21,1898, when 
General Miles so stated before the commission appointed to investigate the war with 
Spain. This officer also stated in substance, at the same time and place, that the 
refrigerated beef was unfit for issue. It appears, however, that on the 26th of October, 
1898, there was filed in the War Department a report of the results of an inspection 
at Chickamauga Park of the Sixth United States Volunteers. The board of inspec- 
tion was appointed September 15, 1898, by General Miles, consisting of 3 officers of 
his staff: Lieutenant-Colonel Maus, inspector-general; Major Daly, chief surgeon, and 
Captain Morton, assistant adjutant-general. Major Daly reported to Colonel Maus 
on October 1 that, on September 28, he inspected fresh beef at Chickamauga that 
had been supplied by the commissary for the regiment named. He says this beef 
had been chemically preserved, "which gave the meat an unnatural, mawkish, sick- 
ening odor, like the odor of a human cadaver after the undertaker had injected the 
body with preservatives." He declared that the process rendered the beef hurtful to 
health and unfit for food. The court has not learned of any other report having been 
made asserting, or hinting at the use of chemical preservatives, until General Miles 
made his statement before the commission. 
In the reference, by indorsement, of the report of inspection of the Sixth Immunes, 
General Miles simply calls attention to the report of the inspector, Lieutenant-Colonel 
Maus, who made notes of 28 defects and submitted 10 recommendations, the latter 
involving action by superior authority; but neither in the list of defects nor among 
the " recommendations " is there any allusion to the bad quality ascribed to the fresh 
beef by Major Daly. Colonel Maus disposes of the report by simply saying it is 
"hereto attached," yet it contained a positive declaration that the refrigerated beef 
then being consumed by the regiment had been treated with preservatives, giving it 
the odor of decomposed boric acid and the odor of a human body injected with pres- 
ervatives. That Colonel Maus was possessed of some information or suspicion respect- 
ing the use of chemicals on fresh beef appears from the testimony of Major Arrasmith, 
depot commissary at Chickamauga, who testified before this court and also before 
the war commissjon. Therefore the silence of Colonel Maus on so important a 
matter as the chemicalized beef reported by Major Daly, and personally known to 
himself, is most remarkable. 
This report of Colonel Maus, by reference of General Miles, was received at the 
War Department on October 26, but to say that it was ever " made known " to the 
War Department except in a technical sense is hardly the fact. The office marks on 
the report in question do not indicate that it was referred to the several staff depart- 
ments which were affected by the recommendations. The inspector's recommenda- 
tions that General Miles invited attention to were certainly of minor importance to 
the allegation respecting the chemical treatment of the beef. His failure to draw 1888 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
special attention to it is not explained, yet one, if not two, of his staff officers knew 
of the beef which Major Daly said was positively " hurtful to health." On the other 
hand, the testimony of those who received and used the refrigerated beef at Chicka- 
mauga is to the effect that it was satisfactory, and of excellent quality; nor does any 
suspicion seem to have existed that it had been subjected to the action of chemical 
preservatives of any kind. Had so powerful an agent as combined boric and salicylic 
acids been used, it is not easy to see how the bitter taste could have escaped general 
observation, especially in view of the fact that over one million pounds of refrigerated 
beef had been consumed at Chickamauga. 
Major Daly arrived in Washington from Ponce about September 10, after his 
experience with the beef on the Panama in respect to which he has testified that 
his suspicions were aroused. On the 15th of the same month Major Daly was 
detailed by General Miles on a board to inspect certain regiments in the Southern 
States. On September 28 he examined beef supplied by the commissary at Chicka- 
mauga, which he alleged had the odor of decomposed boric acid and was "positively 
hurtful to health." The report of this inspection was in the possession of the 
inspector-general on the staff of the Major-General Commanding on or about October 
1. The report of Major Daly, of uncertain date, but probably written about 
October 14, which was addressed to the Major-General Commanding, should have 
been in his possession immediately thereafter, but it does not appear that any action 
was had on this report until December 23, when it was submitted by General Miles 
to the war commission. 
General Miles testifies that, when he learned at Ponce in August that the beef was 
to keep seventy-two hours, he suspected that there had been some processing, as 
otherwise it would have spoiled. Whatever the date upon which he formed a 
belief or a reasonable suspicion that the health of the troops was being impaired by 
the use of deleterious food, it 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, if any should be found. It would have been 
practicable to obtain samples of the beef then being supplied to the Army by con- 
tractors and to have submitted these samples to chemical examination, which would 
have resulted in the detection of the presence or absence of boric and salicylic acids, 
or any other chemical agent that may have been used as a preservative agent. At 
that time more than 150,000 American soldiers were being supplied with refrigerated 
beef, and surely it was of the utmost importance to determine if their efficiency or 
health was being impaired; yet no such precaution as that suggested was taken by 
the Major-General Commanding at that time or at any subsequent time, so far as has 
been learned by the court. 
The other witnesses who have testified in respect to the chemicalization of the 
beef speak of peculiarities in its odor, taste, and physical appearance; such odor, 
taste, and appearance, in nearly every case, being accompanied by putrefactive 
changes. None of them, however, are able to swear positively to a sufficiently close 
examination of the beef to satisfy them that particular preservatives had been used, 
and none of them, at the time the circumstance was brought to their attention, 
deemed it of sufficient importance to be made the subject of a report to superior 
authority, with a view to such action being taken in the way of examination or 
inquiry as would establish the truth or falsity of the proposition that chemical 
preservatives had been used. 
It also appears in testimony that, upon two occasions, an employee of Armour & 
Co. stated in the presence of witnesses, at Lakeland, Fla., that certain quantities of 
beef tendered by him at that place had been treated with preservatives. This state- 
ment he denies, but it is in evidence that it was made at least twice, and his testi- 
mony is to that extent discredited by the court. The authority of this employee 
was limited, and extended only to the sale of meat and its delivery to the United FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1889 
States troops in the vicinity of Tampa, and it is specifically denied by credible wit- 
nesses that chemicals were used, as alleged, or that the statements of the agent to 
that effect were true, or were authorized by his immediate superiors. Nor is it 
shown, by a preponderance of testimony, that the beef delivered at Lakeland, upon 
the occasion in question, showed any indications of chemical treatment. 
9. If, after leaving the depot commissary, it was not cared for and properly pre- 
served, whose fault? 
A. As respects the canned beef, the court does not find there was neglect. As 
respects the time consumed in the transportation of refrigerated beef from cold 
storage to the troops, and as respects the arrangements for its delivery and its care 
after delivery, the court finds that there was neglect in Cuba and to a less degree in 
Porto Rico. The wagons assigned to carry the beef were sometimes not clean, and 
often there was no protection from sun and rain; but the most serious mistake seems 
to have been due to a failure to arrange systematically for rapid conveyance and 
prompt delivery, so that the wagons could receive their brigade issues and return 
direct to camp, and so insure its speedy delivery for consumption. The number of 
organizations drawing beef separately could not have exceeded ten or twelve, and 
the distribution, it would seem, could more quickly have been made from the 
wragons to regimental and battery camps direct than to have unloaded at the places 
of brigade issues, there apportioned to regiments, etc., reloaded and hauled to the 
organizations. It is in evidence that? the beef rarely reached the camps of the con- 
sumers before 8 a. m., and it was often after 12 or even 3 o'clock before the troops 
received their daily allowance. 
The court does not wish to state the case more strongly than to say that the finding 
appears to be warranted that too much time was consumed in distributing this per- 
ishable article-refrigerated beef. The fault, if any there was, rested with the 
brigade and higher commanding officers and their commissaries and quartermasters, 
but the testimony is not so definite or specific as to warrant the naming by the court 
of any particular officers. 
The contract with Swift & Co. required the contractors to erect cold-storage facili- 
ties on shore. An apparatus was provided for Santiago, and it arrived in the harbor 
on July 27, but the evidence shows that it was not unloaded by the quartermaster 
until long after its arrival. An appeal by the contractor's agent to General Shafter 
for an order on the quartermaster to expedite the delivery from the transport of the 
refrigerating plant did not effect any result. After the unloading w as effected the 
refrigerator was ready to receive the beef in eight days, but this was not accom- 
plished until the 21st of September. The delay in this matter was the cause of 
serious loss, for, previous to its installation, the beef had to be lightered ashore in 
the sun and rain, and its exposure to the elements during such lighterage and hand- 
ling resulted in considerable damage and loss. 
10. Was it a suitable ration for the campaigns in Cuba and Porto Rico? 
A. The court is of the opinion that the canned roast beef was not suitable as a 
travel ration on transports, considering the absence of cooking facilities, and the 
absence from that ration of fresh vegetables and condiments. For use on shore as a 
field ration, where the companies have their camp cooking equipment, and vege- 
tables are 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 meat ration, and until after the surrender the troops had no 
means for other cooking than was practicable with the individual kit carried. For 
such extensive use, or any use exceeding one day in five, the court finds this beef 
unsuitable. The refrigerated beef is, in the opinion of the court, a suitable ration 
for troops when it can be issued to them in good condition. This subject is fully 
discussed in another place. 
S. Doc. 270 119 1890 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
11. Was there anything better that was practicable? 
A. The ration is fixed by law, but the authority is vested in the President to vary 
its components. Acting under this authority certain articles of food may be substi. 
tuted for others. For example, fresh bread or hard bread or corn meal may be sub- 
stituted for flour; fish and bacon may be substituted for pork and fresh beef, while 
rice, pease, and hominy may be substituted for beans. So, too, organizations may leave 
with the commissary portions of the authorized ration that are not required and 
receive in lieu thereof the value in money at cost price of the stores left, and with 
this money purchase from the commissary any article of sales stores he may have, 
or they may purchase from private dealers or producers any article of food that may 
be available. On board transports, however, and under conditions such as existed 
on land at Santiago before the surrender, it was not practicable to make these 
exchanges, savings, and purchases. The troops were compelled to subsist upon the 
food provided by the Government. It was the duty of the Subsistence Department, 
the commanding generals, and their commissaries to provide for the subsistence of 
the troops, but they had no power to include other comestibles and their equivalents 
than those authorized by Congress. 
The sea voyage, including detentions, covered a period of from fourteen to seven- 
teen days, whereas, before embarkation the expectation was that the time on ship- 
board would not exceed seven days. Travel rations for ten days were, however, issued, 
and for the remainder of the time of transit the reliance was necessarily on the field 
ration. As planned by the Commissary-General and his principal assistants with the 
the troops, the meat components of the travel ration, and of the field ration until 
fresh beef should be issued, consisted solely of bacon and canned roast beef. As 
before stated, the use of this beef has never been authorized save as a travel ration. 
It does not appear that at any time during the war, or shortly before, any proposition 
was submitted to the President for any change in the meat components of the ration 
for troops on land. 
Coming back to the question as to the availability of any better food for the troops 
than was actually supplied, the court replies, that for the sea voyages the choice of 
the meat components lay between canned corned beef, canned roast beef, salt pork, 
bacon, and salt or pickled beef. While it is true that large bodies of troops were 
conveyed on transports that were deficient in suitable or adequate'booking appoint- 
ments from New York, Philadelphia, and Hampton Roads to poiflts in the Gulf of 
Mexico during the civil war, voyages of from six to ten days' duration, and that the 
troops had no other meat than the three articles last named, yet the court is of the 
opinion that the reliance for the Santiago and Porto Rican voyages on canned fresh 
and corned beef was wise, and that there were no other meat components available 
that were better-cooking facilities being unavailable; but the c<Thrt believes that 
canned roast beef (without condiments), w'ith which the troops were unfamiliar, was 
far less desirable than the canned corned beef, which was well known and liked by 
most of the men. 
When the troops landed in Cuba, as a rule they took from the transports only 
their field kits-even camp kettles were generally left behind-and this, the court 
feels, was not justified. Were this experience to be repeated, it is certain, in the 
opinion of the court, that three or four camp kettles would certainly be taken along 
by each company, even if the two men who carried them had been obliged to leave 
behind their arms and ammunition, the weight of which would have equaled or 
exceeded that of the vessels named. 
While bacon is not regarded as a suitable constant food in campaign for troops 
serving in the Tropics, the court believes that, 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. FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1891 
The use of refrigerated beef on shore, after the troops had secured convenient 
harbors and landing facilities, was wise and desirable. The court believes that 
there was no better food available or practicable. Fresh beef from ship's refriger- 
ators was available and issued at Santiago from and after July 21, and at some Porto 
Rican ports it was available early in August. 
It need not be said that beef derived from good cattle, freshly slaughtered, would 
be most acceptable, but when the Porto Rican expedition was being organized noth- 
ing was known, or could be known, as to whether or not the landing would be unop- 
posed. Certainly the expectation that the troops would be permitted to occupy 
more extensive areas than were up to that time controlled in Cuba was not justified. 
The court is of the opinion that it was not only wise but most desirable that pro- 
vision should be made to have at command and under control a supply of refrigerated 
beef for use while the troops should be employed securing good bases, or operating 
near the coast. Until considerable areas had been occupied, and the availability of 
native beef had been established, there was no better food than refrigerated beef that 
was practicable. 
After the troops landed and penetrated inland the men subsisted largely upon 
native beef, and while the complaints respecting its poor quality and toughness were 
not infrequent, and while it was well-nigh impossible in that hot climate and season 
to divest it of animal heat, yet it served a useful purpose, and for interior points was 
probably the best fresh-meat component of the ration that was practicable. For 
such points fresh refrigerated beef was not available or practicable at all, and a com- 
parison of it with the native beef can not therefore be made. 
12. Would it have been prudent for our troops to have made the expeditions to 
Santiago and Porto Rico without the preserved meats, either refrigerated or canned, 
with which they were supplied? 
A. The answer as respects the canned roast beef is, yes; but as respects refrigerated 
beef, no. 
It has been contended that beef cattle should have been sent to Cuba from the 
States, landed through the surf, as were the horses and mules, herded near the 
troops, slaughtered as required, and the troops supplied from this source instead 
of from cold storage. The court does not subscribe to this view in so far as relates 
to the period of fl Id operations before the surrender. The commanding general of 
the expedition cha acterizes as " absurd" such a proposition, and many of his com- 
manding officers, whose opinion is given in the testimony, coincided with him in 
the impracticability or inexpediency of such a project. The court concurs in the 
opinion of these men, whose experience in active military service dated from 1861. 
It is well known that it was with the greatest difficulty that sufficient transports 
were secured to cp Ty the army to Santiago and to return it to the States, to say 
nothing of the delay to the Porto Rican expedition on account of nonavailability of 
transports. The landing of beef cattle and their herding on shore within the limited 
area controlled and available, in a country full of ravines, jungle, and forests, would 
have been attended with very great difficulty and losses; besides, there was practi- 
cally no cavalry -with the expedition to herd and guard the droves. 
Until several days after landing the flesh of such animals would have been unfit for 
human food. All was excitement, and there was necessarily much confusion; and 
under such circumstances beef herds, in the opinion of the court, would have been an 
incumbrance rather than a benefit. After a base had been secured at Santiago Har- 
bor, no doubt cattle could have been landed; indeed, some were landed in October 
and November, but the weight of testimony is that, save under those circumstances, 
which were altogether favorable to the animals, the refrigerated beef was often pre- 
ferred to the beef from cattle freshly slaughtered. 
13. Could the army, with any certainty, rely upon the cattle on the hoof on these 
islands? 1892 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
A. In Cuba there were no beef cattle available, and this fact was known before the 
expedition sailed to Santiago. It was generally understood that there were many cat- 
tle in Porto Rico, but it seems to the court that the general commanding the troops to 
be employed in this invasion might reasonably have expected that his antagonist 
would take the very simple precaution to drive back or destroy all means of sub- 
sistence in the country that his enemy could utilize, just as did the Spanish com- 
mander in 1741 in the region proposed to be traversed by the English expedition that, 
at the date named, landed at Guantanamo Bay and thence attempted to move on and 
capture Santiago. History records that this attempt was attended with complete dis- 
aster, and resulted in the loss, principally by disease, of two-fifths of the English land 
force. The answer to this question is, therefore, that no reliance should have been 
placed on the cattle of those islands as a certain means of subsistence. This subject 
has been adverted to in the answer to question 11. 
14. Did the commanding officers in Santiago or Porto Rico, or the Major-General 
Commanding, report during the war that either the refrigerated beef or the canned 
beef was an unfit ration ? 
A. No reports of unfitness or unsuitability were forwarded to the War Department 
by any general officer serving in Cuba or Porto Rico while the field operations were 
in progress, nor were any such reports received until more than one month after 
hostilities ceased. 
15. When were these reports first made and by whom ? 
A. See answer to questions 8 and 14. 
16. If the allegations of the Major-General Commanding are established, I want 
the court to find the cause and fix the responsibility for the fact, that the guilty may 
be properly punished. 
A. The court has stated that the canned roast beef, under the conditions existing, 
was not a suitable ration for extensive issues. The court finds that the allegations of 
the Major-General Commanding, to the effect that the refrigerated beef supplied to 
the troops was treated with chemical preservatives, have not been established. The 
court also finds that so much of the allegations of the Major-General Commanding 
in respect to the canned fresh beef as relates to its unsuitability for food as actually 
used on the 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 commissary-general of subsistence, recommended the adoption of 
the canned roast beef as a component of the field ration, and to this extent he is 
responsible. While this article had been upon the travel ration list for many years, 
it was but little used. The entire purchases of this beef for the whole Army in the 
twenty years following its appearance among the ration components aggregate but 
50,816 pounds, or slightly more than 2,500 pounds per annum. The records of the 
Commissary-General's Office show' that a small quantity was issued as a travel ration, 
but more was sold to officers and company messes. None has been bought since 
1895. The loss of this beef by spoiling, as shown by the records, was 476 pounds, 
or slightly more than nine-tenths of 1 per cent. 
This shows the extent to which this beef had been used in the Army, when, on 
May 11, 1898, the purchase of 1,000,000 pounds was ordered, and the next day, 
2,100,000 pounds. Other purchases followed until the aggregate reached nearly 
7,000,000 pounds. 
Considering the little use that had been made of this beef in the Regular Army, 
the probability that the volunteers were entirely ignorant of it, that its use as a 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 Commissary-General of Subsistence as 
unwarranted and reckless-in that he ordered the purchase of such enormous quan- FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
1893 
tities of food that was practically untried and unknown, and the court so finds. The 
court also finds that there is no ground for any imputation of any other actuating 
motive on the part of the Commissary-General than the earnest desire to procure 
the best possible food for the troops. The court pronounces this act of the Commis- 
sary-General a colossal error for which there is no palliation. 
17. Did the cattle in Porto Rico make a wholesome beef ration? 
A. The evidence is conflicting, but the court finds that no other fresh beef than 
that derived from the native cattle was available or possible for hostile operations 
extending beyond a few miles from the seacoast. But for troops encamped near the 
points of practicable landing of fresh beef, the court finds that the refrigerated beef 
was preferable. 
18. If the packers of the country are guilty, it must be known. 
A. The court finds that at the outbreak of hostilities in April, 1898, the packers 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 
in the preparation of the meat as an article of commerce, and the court does not find 
that they underwent any change during the progress of the war. The large purchases 
for the use of the military forces during the months of May and June, 1898, were 
made-not at the solicitation of the packers or in consequence of efforts put forth by 
them for that purpose-but by the order and upon the initiative of the Commissary- 
General of Subsistence, such purchases being made in every case by officers of, his 
department in the usual manner. 
19. If officers of the Commissary Department are guilty it must be known. 
A. For a reply to this question see the answers to questions 4 and 16. 
20. If any officer of the Army is guilty it must be known. 
A. Beyond the fault adverted to or suggested in the answers given to questions 8 
and 16, the court finds that against none of the officers commanding corps, divisions, 
brigades, or regiments, and their staff officers should a charge of guilt be brought. 
The court also finds that the Major-General Commanding the Army had no suffi- 
cient justification for alleging that the refrigerated beef was embalmed or was unfit 
for issue to troops. It also finds that he committed an error in that having belief or 
knowledge, as claimed, that the food was unfit, that it caused sickness and distress, 
that some of it was supplied under the pretence of experiment, that other beef was 
embalmed, he did not immediately report such knowledge or belief to the Secretary 
of War to the end that a proper remedy might be promptly applied. 
CONCLUSION. 
The court, with a deep sense of the responsibilities devolving upon it, has labored 
zealously to bring out the truth, and believes that it has fully covered all the matters 
referred to it for investigation. The calling of more witnesses from the large number 
suggested by the Major-General Commanding, including all those who had taken 
part in the operations of the war, would only have resulted in additional testimony 
on the same lines as those pursued, without throwing further light upon the questions 
involved. Several witnesses who were duly subpoenaed to appear before the Court 
did not obey the summons. Some of these were called at the instance of the Major- 
General Commanding, others at the instance of the court. Having knowledge of the 
fact that the statutes do not make it possible to punish witnesses who refuse to testify 
before a court-martial or court of inquiry, the court took no steps to compel their 
attendance. 
It has been developed in the course of the inquiry, as recited in this report, that 
in some instances certain individuals failed to perform the full measure of duty or to 
observe the proprieties which dignify high military command, but the court is of the 1894 
FOOD FURNISHED THE ARMY. 
opinion that the mere statement in the official report of the facts developed meets 
the ends of discipline, and that the interests of the service will be best subserved if 
further proceedings be not taken. 
J. F. Wade, 
Major-General, United States Volunteers, President. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
There being no further business before it, the court, at 1.50 p. m. on Saturday, 
April 29, 1899, adjourned without day. 
J. F. Wade, 
Major-General, United States Volunteers, President. 
Geo. B. Davis, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, Deputy Judge-Advocate-General, Recorder. 
Executive Mansion, 
Washington, D. C., May 6, 1899. 
The findings of the court of inquiry are approved. 
William McKinley.