« PreviousContinue »
Q. If it was so prepared?
Q. You spoke of the cases there being chronic. What do you mean strictly by a chronic case?
A. Well, a person in cousumption is a chronic case.
Q. That is chronic and incurable both.
A. Well, I don't know exactly what is incurable in that respect, because consumption gets well. I have autopsied a good many people who have recovered from it, who have got well, and who have then been killed by railway accidents. I don't know how many doctors cure, but cases do get well.
.. Then there are chronic cases that do get well?
A. Yes, sir. The syphilitic cases there do remarkably - they get well.
Q. Then they are not in any sense hopeless cases the cases that are down there ?
A. Oh, you mean as a whole ?
A. Of course I cannot characterize all the patients in one class. There are people there that are dying of that which is classified as a disease and isn't a disease that is, old age. Well, they can't cure that. And there are other cases there of syphilis and other things that get well, at all events either in or out of the institution.
Q. Well, you were present at the hearing yesterday when Mr. Tudor testified, were you?
A. No, sir, I was not.
Q. You didn't hear his testimony, then. You heard none of his testimony in regard to the absence of ventilation down in the building? A. No, sir.
Absence of system, wasn't it, Mr. Brandeis?
Mr. BRANDEIS. No; he said there was no ventilation there at all, didn't he?
Mr. REED. What he called ventilation
Mr. BRANDEIS. And he said this room was not a fit place for the mothers and children.
Mr. REED. I don't remember his saying that.
Mr. BRANDEIS. Don't you?
Mr. REED. He may have said it, but I don't remember it.
Mr. BRANDEIS. We can recall that, if you like.
... Doctor, in making your statement about the ventilation did you mean to have the committee understand that you considered the ventilation good in the maternity ward of the hospital ?
A. In the new hospital in the place where the women are confined it seems to me that the method of ventilation of that room could be very much improved.
Q. In what respect?
A. At present they have only the transom into the hall, or the ventilation by opening the windows. Now, I think a better and more suitable system of ventilation could be adopted for that particular room, and I presume by a very simple device, such as you may have here for ventilating this room possibly. I am not an expert on that matter and 1 don't know. But I do not mean to be understood as conveying the idea of referring to the room where the mothers and children are in the institution.
Q. (By Mr. REED.) The room I had reference to, doctor, was in the institution building.
A. Yes, and I think Mr. Brandeis did not understand that, and I
wanted to be quite clear that I was not contradicting or going against Mr. Tudor, in that matter.
Q. I was questioning you in regard to that nursery ward in the institution building.
Q. And I did not misunderstand you as referring to that other ward, did I?
A. Oh, no, no. I meant to say that. But I thought Mr. Brandeis thought that I meant that the maternity ward in the new hospital was splendidly ventilated when Mr. Tudor had said it wasn't, and I wanted -to make that clear.
Mr. BRANDEIS. Mr. Tudor gave his testimony in regard to the absence of any system of ventilation in the institution building, and I wanted to turn to his testimony, but the stenographer who took it yesterday is not here.
Q. (By Mr. REED.) I did not ask you, doctor, as to the system of ventilation throughout the institution building. I understood Mr. Tudor to testify that there was no comprehensive system-in fact, no system for the entire building, the main building in the institution, but that he had devised a plan which he had submitted to the City Architect which had been approved by the City Architect, which awaited the funds or its execution. But I wished to call your attention to the wards in the upper part of the building, and to ask if you observed the ventilators through the ceiling?
A. That matter I have already testified to. I think the ventilation throughout the building could be very much improved, of course, by modern methods; but at the same time there was very strong ventilation in those upper rooms at the time I was there.
Q. (By Mr. BRANDEIS.) If, Doctor Harris, we should be correct in our recollection that Mr. Tudor testified specifically that those upper rooms were without any proper system of ventilation and that it was an unfit place for women and children, wouldn't that affect somewhat your opinion on that score?
4. Oh, not at all. Because a man who is a very fine expert insists on a very fine machine, and perhaps an ordinary common man cannot get that, but I think there was a mighty sight better ventilation in the upper rooms than in the average building in this city.
Q. Well, wouldn't you, perhaps, find this difference, doctor, in your testimony and Mr. Tudor's—that Mr. Tudor was there off and on for the purpose of examining the building with this very purpose of providing a system of ventilation, and that he saw it at all times, whereas you were there at a time when you were expected and when the place was ventilated for your benefit?
4. I really don't think I was expected, Mr. Brandeis, and I think when there is breeze enough in a room to fly a kite, there is quite ventilation enough for mothers and children.
Q. His testimony was that you couldn't open the windows because these people couldn't stand the open windows, that that was the very thing they couldn't stand?
A. But this wasn't a question of open windows. I was much misunderstood if you took it that way. I said there were three large ventilators, which I think possibly two of three people lashed together could drop through, coming from the roof down into this place.
Q. Wasn't his testimony that they have got to have a supply of air in order to get along well, and that there is no method of supplying air at all, no comprehensive system, and that is the reason why he has been employed by the City Architect to provide a method of ventilating the whole building, one part as well as another?
A. Oh, I have no doubt the system of ventilating the whole building could be very much improved, but in regard to these two rooms, I am very sure, from what I saw that day, that if they didn't close those ventilators the children could go coasting that forenoon. It was a snowy day.
Q. Well, that is hardly a method of ventilation that you would recommend at Long Island?
A. It shows that the air gets into it.
Q. So it would if they didn't have any roof - there would be plenty of air and tolerable ventilation.
A. Certainly, but these are simply holes in the roof and do not interfere with the room being warm.
Q. (By Mr. REED.) I did not mean to ask your opinion as an expert on ventilation, doctor. I was merely inquiring as to the presence of those holes in the ceiling?
A. Yes, they are what are commonly called " ventilators," whether they are or not.
Q. Is there any doubt in your mind that those holes in the ceiling were there?
A. I think you are jollying me. Of course they are there. Why, nobody could have been in that institution two days and not have seen those three big holes up there.
Q. An officer who has served in the institution many months testified that those ventilators were not there, and I simply wished to ascertain the fact, to get your opinion as to whether the ventilation was proper or was a scientific system of ventilation. You have assured me that you saw those ventilators there?
A. Of course we all know that Mr. Bunyan wrote about the man so engaged in terrestrial pursuits that he didn't see the crown of glory overhead.
Q. (By Mr. BRANDEIS.) Whether the air would come in or not would depend on whether they were open?
Q. It might be that they were open for your benefit or anybody's else ?
A. I don't know. They were closed for the benefit of the inmates. That I do know.
Q. (By the CHAIR.) You hadn't been served with a banquet, doctor, before you saw those openings?
A. No banquet and besides there were three holes. (Laughter.) Mr. Reed said that Dr. Hibbard, a witness whom he expected, was not present.
(Adjourned at 9.45 P.M., to Tuesday, December 18, at 4 o'clock P.M.)
TUESDAY, December 18, 1894.
The hearing was resumed at 4 o'clock P.M., Chairman HALLSTRAM presiding.
Q. (By Mr. REED.) Mr. Tudor, you were foreman of the Grand Jury, were you not, that visited Long Island?
A. Yes; some time last summer, I think.
Q. Since that time, I understand that you have written to all the members of that jury in regard to the institution at Long Island and have received replies. Is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. — Was this communication an official communication from him, from the foreman of the Grand Jury to the Grand Jury? Mr. REED. I was trying to find the communication, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BRANDeis. Do you propose to offer any communication, Mr. Reed ?
Mr. REED. — I have not proposed anything of the kind yet, sir.
Q. Is that a copy of the letter which you wrote to the different gentlemen who served upon the Grand Jury?
A. It is.
Mr. REED. Now, I propose to ask Mr. Tudor to read the letter which he wrote.
I object. Mr. Tudor, you may wait.
State your objections.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. BRANDEIS. I understand that Mr. Tudor has been having some communication with the Grand Jurors. It would be very proper for him to have that communication, but it certainly cannot be proper to introduce such communication to the Grand Jurors before us here in evidence. The Grand Jurors are able to testify on this, and we should be glad to have them here and to cross-examine them; but it certainly cannot be proper for Mr. Tudor to write to different people whom he thinks know, whom he has good reason to believe know, something about this institution, and ask for their opinions, and then introduce communications of that kind here. It really is not proper evidence at all. I think the chairman's question, whether this is an official communication, was a very pertinent question and ought to have been answered.
Mr. REED. What is that?
Mr. BRANDEIS. - I say it seemed to me that the chairman's question, whether this is an official communication, was a very pertinent question and ought to have been answered by counsel.
Mr. REED. Well, it will be if you don't object too much, Brother Brandeis.
Mr. BRANDEIS. — I object to the introduction of any such evidence as it is proposed to introduce by putting in these communications.
Mr. PROCTOR. Well, Mr. Chairman, a letter was put in from Mr. Blackstone, the superintendent of the State Almshouse, to James R. Cutter. It was offered in evidence and put into this case, and that having been held by the committee to be competent I am unable to see why these letters are not as competent. If this committee is looking for
light, and if my Brother Brandeis is looking for light, as he professedly is, here is the light, and let us have it.
Mr. BRANDEIS. No; I don't think it is light at all. I know nothing about the letter from Mr. Blackstone to Mr. Cutter. I have not heard of that and don't know what you refer to.
Mr. REED. The committee know all about it.
Mr. BRANDEIS. I understand that the committee have many peculiar advantages over me in this respect, and may know all about it, but I have never heard of it, and I certainly don't know to what you refer. But I cannot conceive how any Grand Jury communications made by the witness to several other people can be evidence here. I suppose the witnesses can be introduced.
Mr. REED. — Well, Brother Brandeis should not begin at this late day, Mr. Chairman, to lay down any rule of procedure for this committee. We appear here for the defence. The prosecution, as it has been called here, has endeavored to make out a case. They have followed certain lines laid down by the committec. We are not undertaking to deviate from those lines at all. We claim the right to put in our defence as the other side of the case was put in, and the letters to which attention is called now are certainly as competent as the letters which were put in by the other side.
Mr. BRANDEIS. What letters do you refer to that I put in, Mr. Reed?
Mr. REED. — I did not refer to you at all, Mr. Brandeis.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to ask Mr. Reed what he proposes to show?
Mr. REED. — I propose to show that the letters have been written by Mr. Tudor, who was foreman of the jury, and that certain letters were received by him in reply to those letters.
The CHAIRMAN. When were those letters written and the answers received?
Mr. REED. The letters will show for themselves.
Mr. BRANDeis. Cannot you state it?
Mr. REED. — I cannot without going farther.
Mr. BRANDEIS. The question for the committee to decide is whether or not the witnesses themselves could not be produced.
Mr. REED. That same question has been raised before in reference to other letters. There wasn't any question raised whether Father McAvoy could be produced before the committee.
That letter was offered for a very different pur
Mr. REED. - I have simply asked Mr. Tudor to read the letter which he has written to the various members of the Grand Jury and objection is made to it. I don't understand why.
Mr. BRANDEIS. - You do understand why perfectly.
Mr. REED. — Oh, no, I don't under the procedure we are following here. I don't care to know from you, sir.
Mr. BRANDeis. You don't care to know?
Mr. REED. Not from you, sir.
But I think the chairman
Mr. BRANDEIS. Then I won't tell you. and the gentlemen of the Board know perfectly well why no such procedure should be permitted.
The CHAIRMAN. It seems to the Chair as though the committee is here for the purpose of getting all the facts that it can, and that the witness is here to tell the facts he knows and not what some one else knows. He could not give difference of opinions of other parties, but substantially the knowledge that he himself has.
Mr. REED. I had supposed, Mr. Chairman, that we would be granted the same opportunities that have been granted the other side. Certainly a letter from the superintendent of some other institution in regard to a man who has been an inmate of that institution could not be any more