Page images

institution building. Mrs. Lincoln sought information from inmate Simpson, whose record has been placed before you, and she and others reported to you on that information that the fire pump was not connected with the water-supply. This report was not correct. The smaller pump was connected with the water-supply as it was intended it should be. The larger pump was not conpected and it was not intended that it should be until the standpipes were ready for use. The standpipes are now in use; the large fire-pump is connected and the work of the Commissioners in this respect is complete. Had Mrs. Lincoln or the Board of Visitors applied to the superintendent or to the Commissioners instead of to the inmate Simpson for their information, they would pot have made this blunder. And this is typical, gentlemen, of the information on which all of these charges rest, -information surreptitiously obtained from questionable sources. Mrs. Lincoln and the visitors, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Ring, Mr. Farmer, and Dr. Putnam, have relied upon Dr. Parker and Mr. McCaffrey, and iomates Coakley, Simpson, Dooley, and Doran for their information, and have accepted the statements of these prejudiced and irresponsible persons without verification or confirmation, when in the great number of instances a brief inquiry into the facts would have disproved their statements entirely. Mrs. Lincoln and Mrs. Evans received almost daily bulletins from Simpson, Coakley, Doran, or Dr. Parker, and Dooley, the cook's helper, was Mr. Ring's intimate and confidential friend.

Mr. RING. No.
The CHAIRMAN. What is that?
Mr. Ring. — I say I never spoke a word to Mr. Dooley.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must not interrupt.
Ald. LEE. - It may be apother Ring, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. REED. - Mr. Farmer, according to his own testimony, went first to Coakley for information, and then issued orders himself to inmates and employees. What wonder is there that the discipline at Long Island was a subject of criticism, while such influences were supporting Dr. Parker in his insubordination, and encouraging McCaffrey, Coakley, Simpson, Doran, and Dooley to assist in undermining the superiotendent?

Mrs. Lincoln comments on lack of fire-escapes, when the fact is there are plenty.

At each end of each ward in the main building a fire-proof wall encloses an iron staircase. What better fireescapes than these? Can it be possible that Mrs. Lincoln did not know of these, and made the statement that there was a lack of fire-escapes because she didn't see iron ladders hung on the outside of the building ?

Whether at the close of Mrs. Lincoln's testimony her counsel was convinced that cross-examination had shown her charges to be improper and unfounded I do not know; but at the next hearing he made a new start, and abandoning the position taken at the first hearing that no attack was to be made upon any officer or individual in official position, an unwarranted attack was begun upon the Commissioners and upon the present superintendent. This attack rests principally upon the statements of Mr. McCaffrey and


It apo

Dr. Parker. Many of the statements made hy counsel in his opening at the third bearing are, however, entirely without support in the evidence. He says, for instance, that on the first day of February, 1894, there were ninety-four inmates in the infirmary. That is far from a correct statement. We shall show you that on that (late there were more than one hundred and ninety-four inmates in the infirinary wards.

Lack of classification is charged. We shall show you that so far as it is possible under present conditions there is classification. The sick are separated from the well, the males from the females ; and with the completion of the new building now in process of erection that separation will be more complete. There

There is no workhouse at Long Island. The workhouse is at Deer Island, where it was removed from South Boston in 1845. No work house is authorized at Long Island. The Commissioners would at any time have gladly informed their critics of these facts had they but known that tbis information was lacking. There seems to be a difference of opinion as to tbe authority of the Commissioners to compel labor by paupers. The Commissioners have sought to learn their authority in this respect under existing laws. pears to have been the opinion of the Law Department of the city that a pauper could not be punished for refusal to work. In 1892, when the Special Committee appointed by the Mayor, together with the Cominissioners, bad this subject under consideration, the chairman of that committee obtained the written opinion of the Corporation Counsel. This opinion was clearly that the Commissioners could not compel labor. I will read it :

CITY OF BOSTON, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL, April 30, 1892. FRANK Morison, Esq., Chairman Investigating Committee of Public

Institutions : Dear Sir: In reply to your communication of the 23d inst., I would say that I know of no law under which a pauper in the Long Island Almshouse can be punished for refusal to work. Under the authority which the Commissioners have to establish rules and regulations for the government of the almshouse, I am of the opinion that it might be made an object for the ablebodied paupers to work, by providing that if they refused so to do, that they should be deprived of certain privileges and their diet be limited.

Second. When a pauper who is sane wishes to leave the institution and refuses to work, saying that he wants to be discharged, I know of no authority to detain him for punishment.

Third I understand that the paupers at the State Almshouse are punished for refusal to work under the authority of rules established by the Trustees and approved by the Givernor. I should doubt very much as to the riglit of a superintendent of a State almshouse to punish a pauper who refuses to work and requests to be discharged; but that is a matter for the State Board of Charities and the superintendent to decide, and not a law officer of the city of Boston.

Very truly,


Corporation Counsel.

Acting upon that opinion the chairman of that special committee, the chairinan of the Commissioners, and the City Solicitor worked together on a draft of a bill for the Legislature of 1892 which would give that authority. The time for introducing new business into the Legislature expired before that draft was complete and nothing was done that year. The Commissioners bave, therefore, been guided ly that opinion of the Corporation Counsel as they were bound to be. That told them that they coulil pot legally compel paupers to labor. Even at the request ol the Board of Visitors the Commissioners would not have been justified in disregarding such an emphatic opinion from the Law Department of the city. On May 22, last, in response to inquires by this board, the same Corporation Counsel writes as follows:


AND EDWARD W. PRESHO : GENTLEMEN: I received Saturday your request for my opinion to the following question: " Have the Commissioners of Public Institutions power to enforce inmate paupers to labor, and if so have they power to punish such paupers wlio refuse to labor?' My many engagements in court must be my apology for not writing an original opinion in answer to your question. In lieu thereof I send you a copy of a communication which I addressed to the Mayor on the fifteenth day of May, which contains my views on the subject. My answer to your question would be yes, subject to the limitations suggested in the communication of which I send you a copy. Perhaps I ought to say, in justice to the Commissioners of Public Institutions, that although I have never been asked for or given any opinion to any one on this subject until the present month, that last year in conversations both with Mr. Morison, who was then one of the Board of Visitors to the Public Institutions, and Dr. Jenks, I agreed with them that it would be well to get from the Legislature an act making clear a patter about which there was doubt.

Yours truly,

Corporation Counsel.

And then he encloses a copy of an opinion given by him to the Mayor in direct opposition to that given by him April 30, 1892, which I have just read.

So far as the Corporation Counsel is concerned this seems to be, as he says in his letter of May 22, 1894, a matter about which there is douht. He bimself bas given written opinions on both sides of the question. Then take Mr. Farmer's opinion, the lawyer of the Board of Visitors. He tells you he doesn't think any one knows a great deal about this thing any way.

And what does Mr. George S. Hale, the oldest and most eminent lawyer of them all, say as to the power of compelling Jabor : “ It seems to me that that ought to be tried under the laws that exist, and that a change should be made in the laws if required.” Then again, according to ex-Commissioner Newell, many paupers are fond of work and there is no necessity for compulsion. Is it wise, under the circumstances, to undertake to enforce labor and to punish paupers who refuse? And if the Corporation Counsel's opinion of April 30, 1892, should prove to be correct, would not the official inflicting the punishment be liable to respond in damages to the inmate punished? And in the face of admitted doubt on all sides, and conflicting opinions from the highest law oflicial of


the city, could it be expected that three lay Commissioners should enforce a doubtful rule?

The witnesses who have testified appear to have an entire misconception of the metlical organization and management of the hospital. We sliall make it plain to you that to treat the class of patients there cared for, the hospital at Long Island is well equipped. At Tewksbury Hospital entirely different conditions prevail. At Blockley entirely different conditions prevail. There

no insane at Long Island. Another institution in Boston receives them. At Tewksbury there is an insane department. Blockley combines within one enclosure what you find at our City Hospital, at our insane asylum, at Rainsford Island, and at Long Island. Gentlemen, such comparisons are absurd. Economy in nurses, economy in surgical instruments, economy in medicines, - these charges are improper and unfounded. We shall show you that the medical organization is proper, that there are sufficient nurses, that the supply of surgical instruments is abundant, and that the very best of medicines are furnished. The charge that a death was clue to the administering of medicine to one who should not bave received it has already been proved false by the witnesses who have testified. Many other statements of the witness McCaffrey have been shown to be untrue. We shall prove to you that many more are absolutely unreliable. While 66

testifying to a higher power,” as he exclaimed upon the witness-stand, he seems to have forgotten that commandment which says, " Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” He testified that he saw Alexander Wallace working about the hospital the evening before he clied. That is not true. The map was confined to his room at least ten days before he died. He testified that Wallace was a middle-aged man, forty-five, maybe fifty, years old. That statement is not correct.

Wallace was seventysix years old. Mr. McCaffrey swore positively and insisteil upon it that Herrick died December 5th. Another mistake. Herrick died December 7th. McCaffrey says that Dr. Parker told him he thought ourse Hall gave Wallace the wrong medicine, and leaves the impression that this medicine killed Wallace. Both the statement and the inference are withiout any fouudation whatever. Dr. Parker depies making any such statement to McCaffrey, and Wallace had no medicine at all that night. Mr. McCaffrey says that he started to put up shelves in the hospital for potted plants and that Dr. Cogswell stopped him. That is not true, but even if it were true it would be perfectly proper. Dr. Cogswell's judgment should control in a matter of that kind. He says that Dr. Cogswell and Dr. Dever were guilty of neglect in the case of the McDonough woman, and tells you that Dr. Cogswell said to him that if Dr. Dever had been called twenty minutes sooner he could have saved her life, and not to say anything about it. We shall show you that there is no truth in this statement. The woman did not die in childbirth, as McCaffrey would have you believe. It was long after the child was born that convulsions began. Both Dr. Dever and Dr. Cogswell were in attendance upon her. Everything known to medical science was done for her and

it so.

done without delay. Her life could not have been saved, and Dr. C'ogswell never said to McCaffrey nor anybody else that it could.

Mr. McCaffrey bas told you that he proposed to divide the institution building vertically, and thus separate the women from the men, and that Dr. Cogswell refused to do it. He never made any such proposition. That plan was suggested and worked out by the City Architect, and was abandoned only when the new building for women, which is now nearly done, was assured. McCaffrey may have heard of the plan and may have talked about it, but that is all.

There was a mistake made in the burial of Frederick Rallion. The body was put in the wrong grave.

For this mistake McCaffrey at first said he would take the blame upon his shoulders. That was right. For this, the only mistake that has been made in the burials at Long Island, McCaffrey was responsible. His neglect of duty made it possible. But he was not content to leave

Later in his testimony he swore positively that as he was on his way to the graveyard to attend to this matter personally, Dr. Cogswell came along and sent him up to the barn. This latter statement is absolutely and unqualifiedly false. Frederick Rallion died on the 8th of October, 1891, and was buried on the 13th of October, 1893, and Dr. Cogswell was not on Long Island on either of these dates. He left Long Island for the much-neeiled vacation to which he was entitled under the ordinances on Oct. 6, 1893, and did not return until Oct. 17, 1893.

This witness McCaffrey has testified under oath on another occasion in relation to some of the matters concerning which he testified here. At this former hearing he swore he saw Smith drunk on Long Island May 21 and December 22. He pow swears positively that he was not on Long Island on Sunday except when Dr. Cogswell was away in October, and that he last saw Smith drunk on Long Island Debember 7. May 21 was Sunday. It remains, therefore, that McCaffrey has sworn falsely either at the former hearing or at this bearing.

A chavge seems to have come over the spirit of McCaffrey's dreams. We shall show you that during the summer wben, according to the story wbich he tells here, things were going so bailly at Long Island, this same McCaffrey was loud in his praise of the superintendent, loud in his praise of tbe kind treatment of the inmates, and loud in his praise of the institution in gener:). The heat of tbis investigation seems to have brought conversion to him also, and according to the testimony of the members of the Committee of Visitors he has been active since his conversion in furnishing them with material for their special report of February 16.

lo fact, the whole report seems to be based on information furnished by Mr. McCaffrey and Dr. Parker, who has been converted also, converted to sow the seed of discontent among the inmates and officials of the institution. Dr. Parker's conversion took place about Christmas time, 1893. According to his own testimony it came about in this way. Dr. Cogswell refused him a vacation the week before Christmas. He immediately made an attack op Dr. Cogswell before the Commissioners. There he was told to put bis complaint


« PreviousContinue »