« PreviousContinue »
that every time a witness is put on the witness-stand by their side or by our side they should first one conduct the direct-examination and then the other conduct the direct-examination, or wlien the witness is put on by our side first one shall conduct the directexamination and then the other. Now, if any progress could be made in that way I am sure I don't see how it would he. It seems to me that the chairman has made a perfectly proper ruling and a ruling which exactly accords with the proceedings from the beginning of this investigation dowu to the present time. Every witness who has been put on that stand has been examined on the direct hy one counsel ; every witness who has been crossesamined has been cross-examined by one counsel, and it seems to me that rule should be carried on to the end.
Ald. LOMASNEY. Will the gentleman allow me to ask liim a question just now?
Mr. Reed. I don't know as I can answer it, because I am better at asking questions than answering them.
Ald. LOMASNEY. Do you think Mr. Riley should be denied the privilege of cross-examining people on evidence he has put in on anything relating to the facts he has put in?
Mr. REED. — I don't think Mr. Riley should be denied anything he is entitled to, but I think when Mr. Riley, Mr. Brandeis, or anybody else gets up bere and demands a thing that is mania festly unfair and improper, that the committee should deny it to him without hesitation. I think this is unfair, I think it is improper, and I tbink the committee should consider this thing but a very short time before deciding upon it.
Mr. BRANDEIS. What is unfair about it?
Mr. REED. - I am not here to be interrogated by you, Mr. Brandeis.
Mr. PROCTOR. — I will answer the question.
Mr. PROCTOR. Well, there is only one of us talks at a time, which is more than you and Brother Brandeis have done.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Reed, please go on.
Mr. REED. I will finish, Mr. Chairman, and then sit down. I think the rule which has been adopted and followed out is the only proper rule. I think the gentlemen on the other side kuow that as well as we do. We have made good progress, and all I ask is that we follow the same rule out. This objection that they cannot cross-examine a witness, is certainly more infantile than anything that has been suggested here yet.
Mr. BRANDEIS. One question to Mr. Reed will perhaps solve the whole difficulty. There has been no difficulty hitherto in regard to this matter of cross-examination, for what I concede is an obvious reason. The Chair has been very particular and has ruled, I think very correctly, that the investigations of the different institutions should be kept practically distinct. When Long Island was beiog investigated every question in regard to Deer Island was escluded. When Deer Island was investigated every question with regard to Long Island was excluded. And so they passed from one instituion to another, which undoubtedly con
tributed to the orderly conduct of the proceedings. Now, if in the defence that same course is to be pursued, that the testimony is to be taken up for each institution, first one and then another, and that the witnesses are not to cover more than one institution at a time, of course subject to being recalled whenever it is deemed necessary to recall them, then I concede that the rule that has been suggested by the Chair would not work an appreciable bardship.
Mr. REED. That is the end of the question ?
Mr. BRANDEIS. That is the question. After the apswer I will see if there is any other to ask.
Mr. REET). — Well, I will say that if the committee will give us hearings enough we will put on our evidence and offer our witnesses in the way suggested by Brother Brandeis, one witness at a time, and one witness on one institution at a time.
Ald. LEE. — I would like to know what Brother Brandeis has got to do with that?
Mr. REED. – I don't know that he has anything.
Ald. LEE. – I didn't know but what they were making an arrangement without consulting the committee whatever.
Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman.
Ald. LEE. — I don't suppose Brother Riley will object to my saying the word.
Mr. RILEY. Well, not if you are impartial.
Ald. LEE. -- I shall be impartial, and I shall always sustain the chairman when I think he is rigit in making a ruling, not probably from the standpoint of a ruling that might be given in court, but from it parliamentary standpoint, which is recognized in hearing charges and witnesses before committees where counsel also appear. Now, I certainly think the chairman is right as far as be has gone.
Mr. Brandeis is here examining witnesses who may be called for either Long or Raiusford Island. I believe, as Brother Riley has stated, that when he gets through there is very little left for anybody to ask. But if there was a question to be asked why wouldn't it be well for Mr. Riley to ask it througlı Brother Brandeis, as has been done here repeatedly in these other examinations putting that one question ? But I do say, that when it comes to the question of the Commissioners possibly being put upon the stand, and Mr. Brandeis wanting to examine them as to Long and Rainsford islands, and then the question arising as to something which may be asked in relation to the House of Correction or Deer Island, I don't think there is a man on the committee, or anybody else here, who would not, to expedite business, allow Brother Riley to cross-examine him at the same time. The only dilliculty with that is that it is going to make a muddle for the members of this committee, whom, as I have said, with the exception of one or two have not the judicial mind to wade through the evidence, come to conclusions, and return an inpartial verdict on the evidence as we get it. That is where we might probably be led astray a little.
Mr. RILEY. No, the judicial mind is the common sense mind, and that is what many judges haven't got.
Ald. LEE. Well, I trust that in speaking here before my judge I am not to be held in contempt. I certainly shall vote to sustain the ruling of the Chair, but when the question arises I think it would be fair, if one of the Commissioners may be put upon the stand, that Mr. Brandeis might examine him, as I said a moment ago, in regard to Long and Rainsford islands, and in order to expedite business Brother Riley inight then take him in hand and God knows when we will get through if he does.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair in giving his opinion gave it in the present case before him, Mr. Galvin being on the stand, and Mr. Brandeis having cross-examined him. Mr. Riley set out to cross-examine him again. That was the rulivg of the Chair, that was the ruling idea of the chairman in giving the opinion which he did. The Chair, without giving any opinion except his own unofficial, quite agrees with Alderman Lee in saying that he has no doubt that if the Commissioners should be put upon the stand the committe would be willing that Mr. Brandeis should examine them on all those points touching Long and Rainsford islands, and that Mr. Riley would be privileged to cross-examine them on such other institutions as he has put in evidence. The counsel, I understand, say that they have no objections to that arrangement. Mr. BRANDEIS.
None at all. The CHAIRMAN. Has any other member of the committee any questions to ask of Mr. Galvin ? (No response.) That is ali, Mr. Galvin.
R. (By Mr. REED.) Your name is John T. Priest, and you are the Assistant City Clerk ?
A. Yes, sir. Q. You have the custody of the records of the City Council ? 4. Of the records of the Board of Aldermen.
Q. Have you the record of the appointment of the special committee of visitors in 1892 ?
A. It is in the office, sir I wasn't asked to bring it up.
A. I think it is in these minutes here. I haven't looked it up. I wasn't called upon for that. I think you have reference to a committee appointed by the Mayor, haven't you?
Q. Yes, sir that special committee.
A. I have a record of a message from the Mayor of February 23, 1892, in which he states that be has ordered an investigation.
2. Well, have you reports made by that committee?
2. The preliminary report as made was submitted by the Mayor to the Board of Aldermen, April 19, 1892.
Q. And what was done with that report by the City Council ?
A. No, sir.
A. Dated June 29, 1892, signed by the Mayor, transmitting this final ort to the Common Council - referred by them to the Committee on Public Institutions.
Q. Have you any record of any further action by the City Government on that report?
1. I have not.
Q. You have no record of any report by either of those committees on either of those reports?
11. Both reports were referred to the same committee.
Q. (By Mr. BRANDEIS.) Mr. Priest, you say that those reports, both the special and final reports, were not acted upon by the Council?
il. Simply referred to the Committee on Public Institutions Department.
Q. Both ordered printed ?
Q. Yes - were treated precisely as all other public documents are treated for distribution?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And there was nothing to prevent the Commissioners or the Ollicers of the institutions from getting these documents ?
A. I don't know that there was.
Mr. REED. — I simply asked you, Mr. Priest - I want it distinctly understood about the official distribution of these documents.
Mr. BRANDEIS. Well, I think we heard something in “ Pinafore” about things being oflicial.
Mr. REED. Well, he doesn't have anything to do with (listributing documents; that is the duty of the City Messenger's Department.
Mr. BRANDEIS. – I understand, but we don't want to call the whole City Government up here.
Mr. PROCTOR. How long since ?
Mr. BRANDEIS. Mr. Priest knows that these documents have been issued, and that any person connected with the City Government, or in fact any citizen, can procure a copy of the document if he is interested in it.
Q. Isn't that so?
4. I presume so, as long as they last, there is only a limited edition printed.
Q. Yes; a man who has suflicient eagerness to come early can get them, and the fact that these documents are submitted to the Council and that they are ordered to be printed, is noted in the public press, isn't it?
A. Not excepting, perhaps, in the “ Transcript,” which makes the official report.
Q. Now, makes the official report of proceedings; that is, the official report of the proceedings is published in the public press?
A. In one paper ; yes, sir.
Q. (By Ald. LEE.) You wderstand, I suppose, that it was printed under Rule 8 of the joint rules, whereby either branch can commit to a committee, and either branch can order a docilment printed?
A. I don't recall the exact rule, but there is a rule to that effect, and under tliat rule that was done.
Q. And if that is reported on it must be accompanied by a resolution or order of some kind as to what action is taken cannot be received unless it is?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And they have never been returned from the committee with some resolution or order still in the hands of the committee?
A. Still in the hands of the committee, as far as I know.
Q. That is, received in one branch, and in order to be acted upon requires concurrent action. It must be reported upon by the committee to the branch where it was originally received, unless the committee vote otherwise — to the report to the branch where it did not originated ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And if concurrent action was taken to make it an oflicial document, it being acted upon by both branches and signed by the presiding officers of both branches, it would go to your office and then be transmitted to the Mayor for signature?
A. If there was any order connected with it.
A. If there was anything that required action would be sent from our oflice.
Q. (By Mr. REED.) Then if I understand you, if the committee to which this matter was referred had reported back to the City Government the City Government had taken action on that document, and that action had been approved by the Mayor, it would then have been the duty of your department to have transmitted a copy to the Commissioners of Public Institutions ?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. BRANDEIS. — It hasn't been done oflicially, but unofficially they got a document.