« PreviousContinue »
supply could come from more than one cause. I never told her I started what she calls the blue tickets the first of December, because there was so much trouble. They were started more tban six months before that. I told ber I had made an addition on the blue slips to our metbod of keeping the milk account, and she got mixed. At one time when Mrs. Evans wants to prove I did not tell the truth, she says I told her I did not kuow there was any trouble with the milk-supply before the first of December, when she had testified previously that I told her there was trouble about the milk often.
Mrs. Evans says I made some statements which proved to be untrue by my own records, and then going on to try to prove this falsehood, she says:
6. He said the tronble with the milk laid with those who served it in the hospital, and his own requisition showed that trouble lay with those who served it outside of the hospital.” Now, gentlemen, take one of the requisitions and see for yourselves if there can be any possibility of truth in that statement. Neither Mrs. Evans nor any one else can tell from them where the trouble lay. She says, further, I said I started the special blue list which I showed her the first of December because there had been so much trouble about the milk, and said later, the following week, that there had been no trouble, to my knowledge, until the first of December, and I said I didn't know wbat the trouble was, and later said that the trouble lay with the false measure. Mrs. Evans says it could not have laid with the false measure, because that would have made it wrong every day, and that didn't explain the facts. Now, as I stated before, I did not tell Mrs. Evans I started the so blue list" the first of December. How could I with the drawer full of them before her eyes, dating back to May 8, 1893. If you will look at the paper dated December 27 you will see in what it differs from that of any previous order, and it was to that change I referred, and I showed it to Mrs. Evans. I told Mrs. Evans that there has not been any continued shortage of milk in the hospital up to December 1, and there had not, though we had bad trouble, which I think I have explained. I told her I did not know where the trouble lay in December, and I did not. I also told her that some trouble we had had lay with a false measure, but that was previous to the shortage of December. I thought she understood it. If she can neither understand nor express herself in the King's English, it is no reason why I should be called incompetent or a liar. She says I said Dr. Parker didn't think it necessary to order special diets of chicken broth, etc., whereas Dr. Parker said he did. I never mentioned Dr. Parker's name, but said the physicians, as Mrs. Evans testified, and with good reason, for they never asked for them. She says I denied talking with Dr. Parker about it, meaning the ordering of the chicken broth. I don't deny it, and I never did. [s. Evans sals, “ Dr. Cogswell told me that inmates always had a secopil help when tbey wanted it; and in liis answer liere he says
he never intended them to have a second help).” That last is only a halftruth, entirely useless, as you have my full statement. I did tell Mrs. Evans that the ivmates could have a second lielp, and I meant
what I said in my reply that they could have all they wanted of everything except boiled beef and salt fish. These two articles are portioned out, and you can readily understand the reason.
In correcting a misstatement, Mrs. Evans says the nursery matron was engaged or entered on her duties March 19, and that on March 20 I told her the matron had been on duty two weeks, whereas she had been on duty only one day. The nursery woman came to work March 17. I did not see Mrs. Evans on the 20th, but on the 22d I told Mrs. Evans the matron had been hired about two weeks before, and she was; hired and on duty are not synonymous.
In my reply to the special report of the Board of Visitors I said that Mrs. Evans either made a statement which she knew was false or was unfitted to hold a position on such a Board. This was on the question of furnishing flannel for petticoats. I wish to reiterate it and she can take either proposition least calculated to wound her self-vanity. If there was any question in her mind as to the issuing of the flannel why not go to our books herself and find the true facts, or else say nothing. Why not go farther and find out that the women never had Aannel petticoats before this winter, either at Loog or Rainsford Island; that they had the same petticoats they liail always used and wbich are preferred by many. Again, in our conversation on this subject, she could not seem to grasp the fact that flannel might be issued to one part of the institution and not to the other. I don't believe any one is fitted to be on a Board of Visitors wbo will go around telling the subordinates in an institution that she is going to make the superintendent smart for what be has said ; who after being legislated out of office will go and ask officers if they have any reports to make to the committee; who will take the word of a criminal inmate against an institution in a matter susceptible of proof, without looking up the facts, or who will refuse to tell the superintendent of charges made against him at a time when witnesses were handy to refute them, knowing full well that at another time these same witnesses might not be within reach.
There is just ove remark in Dr. Pitman's testimony to which I wish to call attenion, to show how wofully he must have been deceived. It was made to account for the records not being kept up and to show the necessity for an interne : * The visiting physicians were too busy; they have a large amount of work to do, and they could not readily attend to it.” After reading that statement I had a curiosity to see how much time it took to do our work, so I started one morning with the sick-call, made all the visits, hospital, nursery and intirmary - wrote mp the clinical histories, records, and daily prescriptions, and it took me just one hour and forty minutes.
In talking with the Board of Visitors I may have erred in not entering into minute details. They seemed, however, not to be especially lesirous of talking with me, but preferred to get their information elsewhere.
Monday, July 31, 1893, after the boat had arrived, I was sitting under the trees on our lawn, when I noticed a woman picking
flowers from some of our gardens, wandering around in a peculiar manner, and finally pull her clothes part way up to lier knees, put her hands on her knees and squat down. She may have been unbuttoving her shoe as she suggested here, but I have never seen it done just that way. I was a little dazed at first, but I jumped up and ran towards her, and sang out for her to get off the lawn. I asked her what she was doing there, and told her to go over to the institution wliere she belonged. I thought she was some partially deniented inmate who had just come from the city, as I did not suppose any sane person would have acted as she did. She said she was a visitor, so I asked to see her pass, and she showed it to
Then I told her to go up to the hospital, but to keep off the lawn and not pick any more flowers. Thereupon she shook her fist at me, said I was no gentleman, and that she'd get even with me, and I presume sbe thought this was her opportunity. I told her that possibly I might not be a gentleman, but that certainly she had not acted as a lady. She wanted to know what I meant, and I said if she would think it over I guessed she would know; then I turned and walked away, and the last I heard from Mrs. Esther J. Brown until she appeared here was "I'll get even with
The case of Edward Cuddy was brought up to show that we bad made more than one mistake in regard to burials. As to what was told Mrs. Moran on Long Island I have no personal knowledge as I do not remember to have seen her. Our clerk tells me, though, that he told Mrs. Moran Edward Cuddy was buried, and that if she wanted his body she would have to see the superintendent to make arrangements before sending for it. He told ber this because he preferred that I should tell her what our books showed; namely, that the body had been sent to the city for anatomical purposes, and I should have done so if I bad seen her.
Before concluding I should like to read two letters, one to show the value of the observation of the Board of Visitors, the other to show either a faulty memory on the part of Mrs. Lincoln or an evillent desire to mislead this committee.
In several of our dormitories the electric lights hang so low as to almost hit one's head in passing All are very plainly discernible, and yet the following letter was written after the Board had collectively made twelve visits, the writer four, two of which were protracted, until after the electric lights were on :
12 Oris PLACE,
Boston, January 31, 1894. To the Commissioners of Public Institutions :
GENTLEMEN: I am instructed by the Committee of Visitors to inquire of you whether the brick building, as well as the hospital at Long Island, is wirent for electric lighting, and if so what further apparatus would be necessary to introduce electric lighting throughout the whole establishment. The present method of lighting, as I understand, is by gasoline.
P.S. I am also asked to ascertain wliether the lights burn all night, and if so, wlietlier that is done only in the entries or also in the dormitories.
On page 1024 of the printed evidence you will find the following: "Q. Did you talk to her in regard to testifying here?” (Meaniny by her Miss McNamara.) Answer by Mrs. Lincoln : 6. I told her I heard she was going to be called, and she said she did not know whether she was or not. That is all the conversation we had on the subject. I never asked her to testify, if that is what you mean.”
269 BEACON STREET, March 1, 1894. Dear Miss McNAMARA : I understand that you are willing to speak for the poor and unfortunate. Will you meet me at 220 Devonshire street on Friday at ten o'clock in the morning? I shall be very much obliged if you can.
ALICE N. LINCOLN.
The office of Louis D. Brandeis, counsel for Mrs. Lincoln, is at 220 Devonshire street. Mr. RILEY.
Doctor, you feel better now, don't you? Dr. COGSWELL. No, not a bit. Do you?
Do you? (Laughter.) Mr. RILEY. Yes, I think I do.
Adjourned, at 9.59 P.M., to meet on Friday, November 30, at 4 o'clock.
FRIDAY, November 30, 1894. The hearing was resumed at 4 o'clock P.M., Chairman HALLSTRAM presiding
CHARLES H. COGSWELL, M.D. - Continued. Q. (By Mr. REED.) Doctor, I wish you would describe the method of ventilation in the hospital a little more fully, if you please.
A. Well, we have two systems of ventilation one which might be called the “ natural ventilation,” which is by means of the windows or transoms and large ventilating shafts which go from the ceiling of each ward to the roof. Those we use in the summer-time or at any time when there isn't any necessity for heat around the hospital. Then we have an artificial force ventilation which is carried out by means of a Sturterant blower. The way that works is this: the fresh air is taken in and carried over a coil of hot steam-pipes, and the same blower that draws in the fresh air after it passes over the pipes draws it through and forces it into the hospital ward, and when everything is closed up excepting the registers on the floors this air forces the foul air out through the registers, which are connected by means of ducts with the central ventilating flues which are in each ward, and those are only used, as I say, when we have what is called the blower on.
Q. Well, now, with your system that you have described is it possible to blow out the hospital in three quarters of an hour and so prepare it for the arrival of the boat?
Well, I think with that system it could be done. I couldn't give you the exact length of time it would take to get all the foul air out of any single ward, because I have never figured on it and I don't know.
Q. Well, was it your custom or practice, or have you ever prepared the hospital for visitors by starting up this machinery and blowing out the hospital, as one witness has testified here!
A. No, sir; I never did.
Q. Something has been said about syphilitic patients being left to attend the children in the nursery when the nursery women were taken to the administration building to work. Have you ever allowed any such thing as that to be done?
A. No, sir, I never did.
A. No, sir; I don't remember of anything of the kind ever being done since I have been there.
Q. Nothing of the kind has ever been called to your attention ?
Q. And have the nursery women ever refused to work in the administration building because that thing has been done?
Perhaps if you would let me explain how that thing was — you might say, what gave rise to the statement of a witness here, you might get at it a little quicker and a little better. Q. I don't think there is any objection to your doing that.
The nursery women, when they were sent over to the hospital to work, gave as a reason for not wanting to go - one of many, that they didn't want to leave their children behind to be taken care of by the old women in the infirmary wards. So to get over that objection I