Page images

i. Well, it was washed always, outside in tubs.
Q. Out-doors ?
A. Yes, sir or down in the basement, rather.
Q. In the kitchen ?
Ă. Down below the kitchen, where we keep the refrigerator.
Q. (By Ald. LEE.) In the storehouse?
A. Miglit call it a storehouse, such as it is.


Q. (By Mr. BRANDEIS.) Mr. Galvin, when did you first see that report of the Fire Commissioners?

A. I saw it immediately after it came out.
Q. Where did you get it?
A. It was sent down to Rainsford Island.
Q. By whom?
A. I can't tell you.
Q. The Board of Visitors sent it to you, didn't they?
A. I don't know I could not tell who sent it.

Q. Well, now soon after it was sent down to you were tbe improvements made at Rainsford ?

A. It was done immediately.

Q. Yes. Don't you remember that that was sent to you by MIls. Evans?

A. It may be, but I don't recollect it. That may be the

case, sir.


Q. Although that report had been sent to the Mayor and by the Mayor to the Commissioners two montlis before it hadn't reached you?

A. I don't know anything about that, sir.
Q. The first you heard of it was from Mrs. Evans?
A. I don't know who it came from.
Q. You don't have any recollection of that point?
A. I don't; not in the least.
Q. Not able to recall any conversation in regard to it?
A. I could not, sir, I could not

Q. (By Ald. LEE.) Well, you wouldn't have taken any orders from any one of the Board of Visitors verbally, or by any written communication, would you?

i. No; it is not likely.

Mr. BRANDEIS. It is a question of where lie got the information - if the Commissioners didn't send it, if it came to him from the Board of Visitors.

The WITNESS, — I don't know where it came from sir; could not tell you.

Q. (By Mr. RILEY.) Mr. Galvin, I am not going to examine yoll.

d. You are very welcome, Mr. Riley.

Q. I don't desire to examine you, but I would like to have you answer one question, because I think it will aid the committee somewhat, in view of your great experience. 4. I thank you, sir,

I thank you.

Q. Your great experience in dealing with paupers and your success in handling them and in managing them.

In view of your knowledge of the present superiotendent of Long Island, what do you say? Is he a fit and proper person for the place ?

The CHAIRMAN. The question is ruled out.
The WITNESS. — I can't answer that question, sir.

Mr. RILEY. — I knew when I got up — anticipated what your action would be

and yet it goes to the very heart of the thing. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Curtis asks the question.

Mr. RILEY. No, I beg pardon. It is very easy to take a hammer and bring it down. I have seen that done before. Now, I would like to know what is ruled out?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is not here to give reasons. The Chair has ruled out that question.

Mr. RILEY. Sometimes there are none to give.

Mr. REED. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am going to make this suggestion, that if Mr. Brandeis undertakes the cross-examination of a witness he should complete the cross-examination. We may as well settle that thing now.

Mr. RILEY. Well, I think the best way for you to settle it is to read up on cross-examination.

Mr. PROCTOR. We cannot in your large library.

The CHAIRMAN. Does Mr. Reed ask for a ruling on the question ?

Mr. REED. — That is what I asked, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. - It has been ruled out — what more do you ask?

Mr. REED. -I now say that if Mr. Brandeis cross-exawined a witness I object to Mr. Riley cross-examining him over again.

Mr. RILEY. Well, I don't wonder that you object to my question.

Mr. REED. — I didn't object to your question.
Mr. PROCTOR. Nobody objectel, it wasn't necessary.

Mr. RILEY. The answer to that question would give the key to the whole situation.

The CHAIRMAN. It seems to the Chair that greater progress can be made in this matter if one of the counsel should give all the cross-examination. Apy of the questions which any of the other of the counsel desire to have asked, they can ask through the counsel during the cross-examination.

Mr. BRANDEIS.— I think before that is made a ruling of the Chair
-I suppose this is a mere espression of opinion
Mr. REED.- It is rather late now, The Chair has ruled.

Mr. BRANDEIS.--I understand it to be an expression of opinion. I wish to call the attention of the Chair to the fact that this case has in the main been conducted in distinct parts. I lave not at. tended a hearing in regard to any of the institutions except Long Island, and I deem myself utterly incompetent to examine witnesses on other institutions.

Ald. LEE — Long and Rainsford.

Rainsford very little.
Mr. REED.— This witness has testified in regard to Rainsford.

Mr. BRANDEIS.- Now, I think if the Chair is going to make a inling in the matter he should modify it to allow cross-examinalion of a particular witness who may know things about two institutions to be separate,

Ald. LEE.— As I understand the ruling of the Chair the two attorneys here

Mr Proctor and Mr. Reed - couldn't go to work and examine the same witness that is, if Mr. Reed was conJucting the cross-examination Mr. Reed would have to put the questions through him.

Mr. BRANDEIS.“ Tbat is the ordinary, conduct of the court, in the ordinary transaction of the business.

Ald. LEE.- We are coming down to court rules now, you know.

Mr. BRANDEIS.-- But I take it that we have, in order to properly conduct this examination, to recognize facts, and the fact is that I have had nothing whatever to do with the investigation so far as it relates to institutions other than the pauper institutions. Conseyuently, not knowing the testimony in the rest of the investigalioil, not knowing the witnesses, not having seen any except in that investigation, I could not properly conduct a cross-examivation of witnesses who had testified in regard to institutions which I personally had conducted no examination in regard to. If a witness should know in regard to several institutions and I slioult undertake to cross-examine him in reference to Long Island, I should not feel like then going on and exainining him in regard tu matters I knew nothing about, prejudicing Mr. Riley's case.

Ald. LEE. As I understand the Chair's ruling, if there is a witness with reference to the South Boston House of Correction, Deer Island, or the Charlestown Almshouse, I have no doubt tbat probably Mr. Riley, who has conducteil the examination there, would be the proper one to examine the witness.

Mr. BRANDEIS. Yes, but one witness might know about two things. For instance, we could conceive the possibility of the Cominissioners themselves going upon the stand.

[r. RILET. — They are lost if they go. Mr. BRANDEIS. I might feel inclined to put a few questions to them in regard to Long Island, and Mr. Riley would want to ask questions of them in regard to Deer Island.

Ald. LOMASNEY. - If I understand aright, Mr. Riley put on several witnesses entirely on Long Island, and when he got through presenting his witnesses on Long Island they opened up on Deer Island. Now, it seems to ine a man having put on several witnesses in regard to an institution, should be allowed to crossexamine.

Ald. LEE. - Well, that doesn't debar him from examining those witnesses, but if Mr. Riley should cross-examine a witness, if Mr. Brandeis has any questions to put he should ask them through Mr. Riley.

Tbe CHAIRMAN. The opinion of the Chair is, that counsel laving once started in to examine a witness, he should continue the CIOSS-examination of that witness until he is done. This does nct

. deprive the other counsel from taking any other witness at any other time. But, if we are to permit every counsel who may appear, or may be in this case, to examine a witness, it seems to the Chair that we shall make but very little headway. It seenis, also, to the Chair, that there will be but few questions which the examining counsel cannot put to the witness, and those questions, it seems to tbe Chair, can be asked through the counsel examining the witness, or cross-examining the witness.

Mr. BRANDEIS. I should like to put a case. We are not passing now upon any particular precedent, because I understand the question Mr. Riley has put is ruled out. It is a question of procedure hereafter, and it seems to me we ought to go into that with some fulness. Now, conceive the case of one of the Conimissioners going upon the stand, and I naturally should wait to examine that witness to a greater or less extent in regard to the pauper institutions. Now, there has been a great deal of testimony far more than in regard to the pauper institutions put in in this case in regard to the penal institutions. The last theory in regard to the pauper institutions which I attended, as I recollect, was the fourteenth or fifteenth hearing. There liad been more than forty. The remaining twenty-five relate to hearings which had no bearing whatever except indirectly; at least very little bearivg upon the question of Long Island. Now, I shoulil consider it certainly a great wrong to those whom I represent if I were not permitted to cross-examine any of the Commissioners or any of tbe officials in regard to Long Island. On the other han.. I should consider myself utterly incapable of examining those Commissioners in regard to the rest of the case. I know nothing about it. I have not attended the hearings, have not seen the witnesses. I have not even up to the present time read the testimony; to familiarize myself with that case is an impossibility, something that I would not assume; and I think it would be a great wrong and would prevent a proper presentation of this case to compel either Mr. Riley or myself at our peril to determine whether one of us or the other should examine a witness though

It seems to me that the proper rule, if the rule of the Court is to be followed in any way the proper rule that should be laid down is this: so far as relates to Long Island, so far as relates to matters which were put in by me, I should be permitted to examine the witness; if the witness bas any testimony to give with regaril to the other institutions, he should. Now, if the committee would remember, that undoubtedly have been the result if that method of dealing with this wliole case had been adopted when it was first intimated at the opeving. It was said at that time that we should hear all of Long Island first and dispose of Long Island. That is, not by decision, but to lispose of all the evidence and argument in regard to Long Island, anıl then that the other institutions should be taken up. If that method of proceeding had been followed there would have been no question but that some witnesses might have been examined at different times at different stages of the proceedings, assuming, each case, each institution, to be separate. That was not adopted, for certain reasons which seem wise to the committee, and we must as far as possible assimilate the conditions which would bave


esisted if that method had been adopted. I have considered, therefore, that the case of Long Island was entirely distinct from the other cases. That was the case in wliich we happened to have a special interest and happened to have special knowledge, and therefore it was presented by us, and I feel confident that the Chair will realize the impossibility of a proper cross-examination by one who is ignorant of facts. If he assumes that it is possible for anybody by taking simply the words from somebody else to concluct an examination properly, he is mistaken. It requires skill, it requires knowledge; it cannot be done in any such way as that, by acting merely as the mouth-piece of anbody else. There cannot be a cross-examination at all unless it is done by a man who knows about it, wlio lias triecl and familiarized himself with the case. I certainly, so far as Deer Island and other institutions are concerned, cannot and will not undertake to familiarize myself with them sufficiently to cross-examine witnesses. On the other hand, I should consider it the greatest hardship if I were not allowed to cross-examine a witness relative to Long Island.

Mr. RILEY. -- One other word before you proceed, and then you will proceed more understandingly. It seems to me that this a werely a tempest in a teapot. The objection of Mr. Reed is infantile, and if this committee undertakes to sustain it such a inling would be even more infantile. We are here for the discovery of facts. Now, po man understands and appreciates the skill of Brother Brandeis more than I. And Do inau will more readily acknowledge that when he gets through the cross-examination there is very little left for anybody else to develop. But the best of us cannot keep all things in mind wliile examining any. body. Something may escape is and I desire to state this to the committee, that no matter what yote it passes, no matter what ruling it makes or attempts to make, while I am here, and you know I am here for a purpose when I think that any act, or question of mine will have a tendency to develop the truth and uncover abuses I shall do that act and put tliat question, or else I shull leave here. Now, Mr. Chairman, you have said rapidly to be sure, rather than thoughtfully - that if the suggestion of Mr. Reed were not adopted we would snake little headway. Let me tell you in a very few words that if the suggestion were adopted you wouldn't make iny headway at all, but you would make foot



I want to say in the beginning, that whatever ruling the committee miglit make we shall submit to.

If the comwittee rules against us we shall not leave the room. We shall stay liere and submit to the ruling of the committee.

We are very sorry that Mr. Brandeis has not favored us with his presence. We are always glad to see him here. But we are not responsible for his absence, and the fact that he has been absent should not be considered by this committee at all in deciding this question. If it is his duty to be here he should have done his duty. If he has not done his duty, that is a question for himself, not for the committee, not for us to consider. Now, Mr. Chairman, it would be just as reasonable for these gentlemen to get up here and say

« PreviousContinue »