be given. And I say again, that that departure from known methods of eliciting information must lead to a misrepresention of facts and to a prolonging unnecessarily of an investigation which was too long already. Now, I will act upon your suggestion, Mr. Alderman, because I desire to co-operate so far as it may be possible in the ending of this investigation.

Ald. LEE. I am not going to have you sworn, but you made the remark there, Mr. Brandeis, that evidence was submitted here by Dr. Cogswell

Mr. BRANDEIS. A statement.

Ald. LEE. Well, I have looked the matter up from a parliamentary standpoint in the last two or three days to see whether there was law for it being introduced in the way it was, and I find that there is. However, what I want to ask you, Mr. Brandeis, is if you believe for a moment that this committee, sitting here and listening to this testimony, are not going to weigh even that carefully and considerately, as to whether it is right to put it before the committee in that form and otherwise, giving it whatever weight that they may think it deserves after due consideration?

Mr. BRANDeis. I should feel confident that any Board of which you are a member would consider with great care and with rare intelligence any statements which were submitted to them; but I believe that the existence of those statements calls from me or from some one to point out to you in that mass of thousands of pages the possibilities of error and the actual errors which I believe exist. If that statement had not gone in we should have had the ordinary examination and cross-examination which Courts have found to be the only method of properly getting at questions, but such an argument, such a paper, full of insinuations, and unfounded insinuations, calls for proving here and there in order that you may see how unreliable it is.

Mr. RILEY. — It was meant for the newspapers, not for this committee. Everybody knows that.

Mr. BRANDEIS. But I pass on.

The Alderman has suggested that I confine my inquiry to those who have testified in the examination in chief here.

Q. And therefore I will ask, Dr. Cogswell, whether you know or have any reason to believe that Mr. Morphy, the nurse, has any grudge or had any grudge against you?

A. I think there was at one time an impression in Mr. Morphy's mind about me that might have lent a color to his statements not that

I think Mr. Morphy would deliberately tell a lie, because I do not. I think Mr. Morphy is ordinarily a man to be relied on, but I should not take his statements, if they were susceptible of proof, without proving them if I could.

Q. Well, what reason, if any, existed why the Board of Visitors should have assumed that Mr. Morphy would tell them an untruth in regard to the condition in the wards over which he was nurse ?

A. I don't know of any that should have arisen in the Board of Visitors' minds.

Q. Well, is there any reason why this committee here, who have heard Mr. Morphy testify, should believe that he testified falsely? Mr. CURTIS. You mean the testimony he gave?

The WITNESS. -If you mean the testimony that Mr. Morphy gave here

Q.

A.

(By Mr. BRANDEIS.) Yes.

I think that, as far as he was able, he told the truth.

Q. And that there is no reason to discredit any statement which he has made I mean no reason for the committee to discredit any statement he has made ?

A. That he made before this committee?

A.

Still, for all that, he didn't tell me the whole truth.

Q. You say that he was mistaken ?

A. I say that in so far as he was able to the best of his knowledge I think he told the truth.

Q. Yes. Well, now you say that Dr. Parker was prejudiced against you. Why was he prejudiced against you?

A. Well, it has been my experience in life that people, where they have done others an injury or have tried to do them an injury that they become prejudiced against such persons.

Q. Yes does that apply in respect to you, to Dr. Parker, or Dr. Parker to you?

A. Dr. Parker to me. You were asking me the question, you know. Q. Now, what injury did Dr. Parker attempt to do you?

A. When Dr. Parker had been there about two weeks months

Q. That is, early in December?

two

A. Early in December, as I say, he wanted to take a week's vacation.

Q. Yes.

A. And I told him that he hadn't been there long enough to take a week's vacation, that I was willing that he should go for two or three days, but that he couldn't go for a week.

Q. Yes. Well, now, is that the reason?

A. The next day but one he went to the Commissioners with some complaints against my administration down there.

Q. What are they?

A. The most prominent was the drunkenness of Mr. Smith.

Q.

A.

Yes. You remember the date when that was?

I do not.

The date, I mean, that he made the complaints?

A. I think it was the 23d day of December. I wouldn't be sure.
It was just before Christmas that he made the complaint?

Q.

Q.

A.

Q.

Yes.

And the complaint was of Smith's drunkenness? A. Yes.

Q. Any other complaint?

A. I don't remember now.

I wouldn't want to say as to exactly

what they were. That was the most prominent in my mind at that

time.

Q. Is there any other complaint he made at that time that you know of besides Smith's drunkenness

I mean on the 23d day of December?

A. No-I wouldn't want to say.

Q. You don't know of any other?

A. Not enough to say what it was. I do know about Smith.

the

Q. Now, is that the injury that you say he did you and which led to

A. That was the beginning.

Q. Well, you said a moment ago that you accounted for Dr. Parker's prejudiced statement by the fact that he had done you an injury, and I asked you what the injury was and you said the injury was the complaint which he made to the Commissioners?

A. No, excuse me, Mr. Brandeis.

Mr. REED. — You interrupted him before he got through.

The WITNESS. That wasn't what I said.

Q. (By Mr. BRANDEIS.) Well, I misunderstood you. Will you kindly state now what the injury was which you say Dr. Parker did you and which led to prejudicing him against you?

A. I didn't say anything of that kind, Mr. Brandeis.

(By request of Mr. Brandeis the stenographer read the testimony commencing Yes. Well, now, you say that Dr. Parker was prejudiced against you. Why was he prejudiced against you?")

Q. (By Mr. BRANDEIS.) Now, I will ask you what was the injury that Dr. Parker did you which you say led to prejudicing him against you?

A. I didn't say "injury" I said injuries," didn't I?

Q. I understood you “ injury.”

(At request of Mr. Brandeis the stenographer repeated: • Well, it has been my experience in life that people, where they have done others an injury, or have tried to do them an injury that they become prejudiced against such persons.")

A. What I meant to say - well, I will let it go at that. Let it go, when they have tried to do a person an injury; but in Dr. Parker's case I didn't mean any one special injury-I meant the whole outfit. But I say there is where it began.

Q. In the injury which he did you?

Q. Well, now, what injury was it that he did you?

A. I don't think he did me any injury. He simply tried to. If he hadn't been trying to do me an injury he would have come to me and told me that he had seen these things instead of going to the Commis

sioners.

Q. I ask you what the injury was what the injury was or the injuries were which Dr. Parker committed against you and to which you ascribe the prejudice which you say existed. Now, what is the injury?

A. Well, that he tried to injure me before the Commissioners.
Q. That is

A. By reporting Smith's drunkenness to them instead of to me.
Q. Now, why did he report Smith's drunkenness to them?

A. I don't know why he reported it to them unless he wanted to injure me.

Q. Well, that was false, too, wasn't it? He made false statements to the Commissioners, didn't he, as well as to these gentlemen here? A. He has made false statements to the Commissioners; yes.

Q. Now, that first statement, talking about the beginning of things. was that statement he made to the Commissioners on the 23d day of December true or was it false ?

A. Well, as far as some statements that he made to them I think they were true.

Q. Well, it wasn't an injury, then, for him to state it, was it?

A. Certainly.

Q. It was an injury?

A. Certainly. He tried to injure me.

He should have come to me

wasn't supposed to go to the Commissioners.

Q. That was the injury, was it?

A. Oh, no; I say he tried.

Q. Having started by telling the truth to the Commissioners you say afterwards he told an untruth, did he?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, people generally tell several untruths as the result of one. Well, that was true, was it?

Q. What he told the Commissioners on that day about Smith?

A.

On the 23d? I don't know what he told them on that day.
Q. That Smith was drunk and was a disgrace to the institution?

A.

He didn't prove it; no.

Q. Well, was it true or not?

A.

Q.

drunk?

I don't think it was true.

You believe now that Smith was not in the habit of getting

A. I haven't seen any evidence yet or heard any testimony that Smith was ever drunk excepting from Mr. McCaffrey.

Q. What kind of testimony do you require to satisfy you of an ordinary fact?

A. Well, I should like to hear at least one person say, "I believe that he was drunk."

Q. Yes, and you haven't heard any one person say that?

A. That I should believe, no, and I have investigated the matter pretty thoroughly, too.

Q. I will ask you whether in that general discredit of men you will also discredit this statement in regard to Smith:

OFFICE OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS,

DEER ISLAND, BOSTON HARBOR, December 21, 1893. DEAR MR. MCCAFFREY: Did you see Mrs. Lincoln, 269 Beacon street? I wish you would and vary soon. All regret your departure from Long Island. Mr. Smith is acting deputy. He has not yet assumed the deputy's place at table. I spoke to Dr. Jenks, and he declared he left all to the superintendent. I told him about Smith's case. He told me that no man of such character would be retained. Still Smith iş retained, and unless something be done with the Mayor by outside parties, and quickly, he will be confirmed. Queer, is it not? Mr. Parmelee affirms your statement about drunkenness. See quickly Mrs. Lincoln. I have no influence whatever. I have given up politicians. I sent an excellent young man to Dr. Jenks and he sent him to Cogswell. He was not taken even for receiving clerk. favor to the infant Saviour, born in poverty, help his poor, whose rights you so well defended.

A. What has that got to do with the case?

Yours, etc.,

As a

A. J. MCAVOY.

Q. Now, I ask you, Dr. Cogswell, whether you believe that Father McAvoy's statement in regard to this drunkenness of Smith at Long Island is untrue?

A. He didn't make any.

Q. I ask you whether you believe that Father McAvoy in pleading with Mr. McCaffrey to do something to rid Long Island of this pest, was prejudiced against your administration?

A. No, but I know of a man there that would have prejudiced him against my administration.

Was Parmelee prejudiced against your administration ?

A. Very much; yes, sir.

Q. Who is Parmelee ?

A. He is the farmer.

Q. Why is he prejudiced against your administration ?

A. That is something that I don't think has anything to do with the

case.

Q. I ask you, Dr. Cogswell, why Mr. Parmelee is prejudiced against your administration ?

A. I shan't tell you. It hasn't anything to do with the case in any way, shape, or manner.

Mr. BRANDEIS. — I ask the witness to answer.

The WITNESS. It has nothing to do with the case.

Mr. BRANDEIS.

You answer the question, Mr. Witness, and we will

see whether it has anything to do with the case or not.

Mr. REED. — He says he won't answer.

Mr. BRANDEIS. I ask that the witness be directed to answer that question.

The CHAIRMAN.

question.

The Chair thinks the witness need not answer the

And, by the way, Mr. Brandeis

The WITNESS. The CHAIRMAN. The witness need not answer that, Mr. Brandeis. Mr. BRANDEIS. —I would like, Mr. Chairman, before you take a recess that this question should not be considered as closed, as to whether this witness is to answer that question or not. If I am not to have the liberty of cross-examining this witness it seems to me it will be impossible to bring out the facts, and to bring out the untruthfulness of his statement, and in particular the untruthfulness of that argument of his which you admitted here. The only way of testing the truth of that witness' argument is by showing his utter unreliability and by following him up. We would not need to follow so far if you had not allowed to be introduced here something that is not evidence in any sense; but now that that has been introduced there is no possible way in which you can follow a witness who has been devoting the last eight months to conning over his testimony except by following him up, and if every time we get him into a tight place he is to say "I will not answer," and the Chair is to sustain him, it is impossible to properly bring the facts out and to test his credit.

Ald. LOMASNEY. We are here for the purpose of getting at the facts in regard to Long Island. Here is a servant of the city of Boston, paid for the purpose of administering the affairs of that institution. He introduced himself, in reply to a question, the statement that he can conceive of a certain person mentioned in the letter having a prejudice against him and he mentions the person who is in the employ of the city, and is then asked to give a reason why that person should be prejudiced and he refuses. Now, certainly

Mr. CURTIS. -It is a private matter.

Ald. LOMASNEY. - Now, I hope the Mayor will keep quiet for a moment. (Laughter.) I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that if he did not want to tell what that person's prejudice was he should not have put that statement in here, because it is manifestly unfair to come in and say that a person mentioned in a letter has reason to be prejudiced, and is prejudiced, and then not give to the committee the statement why he is prejudiced. And I move you, Mr. Chairman, that the superintendent of Long Island be directed to answer that question. Upon that motion I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, the counsel

Ald. LOMASNEY. — I would like to have the motion put and then he can argue it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. REED. — Before the motion is put I would like to say a word. The CHAIRMAN. Courtesy demands that Mr. Reed shall speak. Mr. REED. — Mr. Chairman, the continued misstatements of counsel about what they are pleased to term a written document that has been offered here calls for some notice. No written document has been offered here by the witness that is a misstatement. Dr. Coggswell has appeared here and has made his statement under oath. He has spoken from notes, but everything he has said he has said under the solemnity of his oath, and whether it was written on a piece of paper in front of him, and stated here with the aid of that paper or not, makes no difference. It is testimony, and oral testimony, and Mr. Brandeis has an ample opportunity to cross-examine him on that. I prepared a copy of that testimony especially for Mr. Brandeis, and sent it to his office day before yesterday. He has had two days to study it over. Now, as to the word "prejudice." Dr. Cogswell did not introduce that here. I stated in opening this case that certain of these witnesses were prejudiced, or that the foundation for the visitors' report came from prejudiced sources. Mr. Brandeis has put that word in his questions. Dr. Cogswell has not used the word, and if there is any unfairness by say