Ald. LEE. In your argument and your conclusions?

Mr. BRANDEIS. No. I should be very glad to make suggestions if I had the ability, but I have no knowledge in regard to Deer Island and the House of Correction sufficient to enable me to make any suggestions in regard to them to you.

Suggestions

have been made by the Board of Visitors, which I have good reason to believe are sound, but I cannot add anything to them, and I should not undertake to do it, in regard to Deer Island or the House of Correction in any particular. I am here to speak only in regard to the pauper institutions.

Ald. HALL. Now, with reference to the evidence you say we have not heard and which you say would have assisted us very materially, I think there is enough on which we may proceed and the committee in its executive sessions can investigate anything further that you may suggest.

Mr. RILEY.

Oh, no.

Ald. HALL. We have a perfect right to examine any evidence, whether it is presented here or whether we see fit to seek or find it. We are not limited to this hearing, you know. I have the right to see and investigate for myself, and that I do without reference to this hearing, altogether, and I have formed my conclusions to a certain extent, formed them as we have gone along. Mr. BRANDeis. I understand that, Mr. Alderman. I stated at the outset that we were here to meet this committee.

Ald. HALL. If you can suggest any evidence or anything you think we ought to look into or examine and take into consideration, I think I may say that we will consider your suggestions.

Mr. BRANDEIS. As I say, we have felt, with the knowledge we had and with the rather careful investigations which we have made of the facts in the past, that an examination of the witnesses to whom I have referred and who have not yet testified at this hearing could be conducted by us perhaps better than by the members of the committee who are not so familiar with the facts. It is the difference, perhaps, between the judge examining the witness and the witness being examined by the counsel who has spent months in the preparation of the case, and we should, of course feel that the investigation which we made would contribute to the assistance of the committee.

Ald. HALL. We should give you ample time but for the fact that we have only eight working days left, and, as I say, we feel that we must come to some conclusion or else invite criticism.

Mr. BRANDEis. Well, you understand, Alderman, that when I arose it was not to attempt to overturn a decision which you had formed after full deliberation. It was merely to suggest to you, as you have asked me now to suggest, that line of evidence which in my opinion would most conduce to a correct understanding of the case. It seemed to me that the respondents in this case had failed to produce witnesses at least five men who could both instruct and enlighten your committee and the public; that there are only three days left, as I understand it, for evidence, practically three days, and it seemed to me that those five witnesses would naturally, judging by the past, occupy the full three days. It seemed to me,

therefore, that the Commissioners, Dr. Rowe, and Mr. Babson, were the men who could contribute most to your knowledge and a correct understanding of the questions involved.

Mr. RILEY.- Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does Mr. Riley rise?

Mr. RILEY.I rise because you might as well keep cool, Mr. Chairman. They stumble who go fast. I rise for the purpose of answering an assertion of my friend Alderman Hall personal to myself. He said he regretted that I had

CHAIRMAN.

tee?

Mr. RILEY.

Is this in relation to this case before the commit

Yes, and personal to myself.

The CHAIRMAN. Was the Chair in error when he heard Mr. Riley say that he withdrew from this case?

Mr. RILEY. - I think the Chair must have been beside himself and the Chair, too, if he understood anything of the kind. I think at the time referred to the committee had adjourned pretty rapidly without giving me a chance to be heard. Now, what you may have heard, what delusions you, in common with the rest of us, may be subject to, I know not and care not, Now, if you will permit me

The CHAIRMAN.

If it is a fact that you propose to stay in the

case the committee will hear you.

Mr. RILEY.

Of course. I didn't think I had got out of it.

I

The CHAIRMAN. Go on, Mr. Riley. Mr. RILEY. Alderman Hall said he regretted that attack upon the committee. The Alderman is in error, and intensely so. never made any attack upon this committee farfrom it. What I did say was this, that I was sorry to see hearing after hearing proceeding in the absence of at least three-quarters of the Board. Now, the Alderman says that can make no difference, because the testimony is printed and can easily be followed. He is a lawyer, and therefore I would like to ask him these questions and get his answers. First Should a Court or committee pass upon a case and form a judgment without seeing or hearing witnesses? I have always understood from my earliest teaching in the law that cold printed assertions amount to very little, unless, indeed, they be libellous, but they do not point the way in the discovery of truth, and generally they lead to error; and every lawyer who has been in practice long enough to try a case or present a case and examine witnesses in a court, knows that the only way to get at human testimony is to listen to the witness, hear what be says, watching while he is saying it, and watching closely the play of his features, and sometimes even noting the intonation of the voice, because that is the key to the truth or falsehood of what the witness may say. Next: Should not a quorum be present when every decision admitting or excluding evidence is rendered, or is that to be left to one or two members of the committee? How can printed testimony help that or cure any of the evidence when it is made? Next: Should this examination end without getting the personal testimony of the Commissioners of Public Institutions? In a word, should it end by going through the farce played by

the other side of calling half a dozen doctors and one ΟΙ two others who have been on the island by special invitation, one of them, like Dr. Fitz, only thirty minutes, and another of them, like Dr. McCollom, I think, about two hours, and a third not much longer, everything having been prepared, the house in perfect order when they reached there, and they knowing nothing about the condition of affairs except during the rainutes or hours they were there, when we could get at the inside of matters from their side by putting the Commissioners on the stand, hearing their story, and then subjecting them to cross-examination, if cross-examination be necessary? Next: Is it not of more importance to reach a correct decision than it is to reach a hasty one, especially in a case such as the one we are engaged in, involving the dearest and most precious things that human attention can be called to? Now, the Alderman has spoken of an attack upon individuals. I never understood that anybody was engaged in an attack upon any man or any set of men, and for my simple self I may say this and everybody who knows me or anything about me will know it to be the exact and simple truth that I should regard my efforts and my services here, however humble they may have been, as being an absolute failure if all they amounted to would be to displace one man or two men Or three men, or one set of officers for the sake of getting another. Unless this investigation results in a radical change in the management of our institutions and in the care of the dreadful abuses, not to say crimes, that have been allowed, have been perpetrated, and I am sorry to say have not been eradicated yet unless this investigation results in doing that, and nothing less than that, I shall regard my time as lost, and I shall look upon the whole thing as being an absolute failure. It has been said that enough of evidence has been presented to enable the committee to form a judgment and a correct one. I deny that, and I think you will see that I am standing on tenable ground when I make the denial. I understand that this investigation has been for the purpose of covering all the institutions under the direction of the Commissioners of Public Institutions. That includes, of course, among others, the Charlestown Almshouse and Marcella-street Home. Now, first in regard to the Marcella-street Home that is a place for the care of tender children. We have not been allowed, we have not had a chance, to touch that institution yet, and yet this is as important as any. I understand that a very superficial investigation of that institution will show, among other things, that the children have been neglected, that they have not been supplied with underclothing or night-shirts, and, worse than all, that in some cases the toes of living children have been gnawed or eaten off by rats. Have you heard a word of testimony pertaining to that institution yet? Then in regard to the Charlestown Almshouse, an old house situated there, I think, by a swill dump. I understand that in that place, supplied by the city for the care of paupers, testimony has been attempted to be presented here which was excluded because I was told by the committee that the time had not yet come for it testimony which some of the Aldermen have read in another part of

this building and which none of the Aldermen should be ignorant of, testimony going to show, that, instead of taking care of the paupers properly, the institution has been so loosely and so foully conducted that really it has been producing bastard children. I dislike very much to sully my lips with anything of the kind, but the truth forces me to it. I understand, too, that if you get at that institution you will find that no provision at all has been made for one of the things that to us wanderers on the face of the earth should be a most solemn thing no provision for the care of the dead. The dead bodies have been taken out and ruthlessly placed in the entry, with no one to watch them except some of the poor old paupers, taking turns, and at times those bodies have been gnawed by rats. Now, I mention only a few things, and in the face and eyes of these things can you say, gentlemen, can any man say, that the committee has testimony enough upon which to base a correct conclusion? I deny it. What more? This I refer to as showing the utter, absolute, audacious defiance of public sentiment in connection with this investigation. It began nine months ago, and then it was well known, thoroughly ventilated, that in the House of Correction they have been placing in the food ovens, the filthy and vermined clothing that should have been disinfected, placing them side by side with the food, which shocked everybody, and I understand that somebody said it was the fault of the master of the House of Correction, and that if attention had been called to it a steam drum would have been supplied. Within a month we have been over there taking testimony, and the master of the House of Correction, as you know, Mr. Chairman, made the request of the committee to say nothing about that because they wouldn't contradict it, they would admit that that was the fact, and that that thing was going on still. Now, nine months have rolled away and a steam drum has not yet been supplied Is the city of Boston too poor to do that? It was demonstrated at the beginning of this investigation and before, that the statutes of Massachusetts provided that in that institution a locked letter-box should be kept for the especial benefit of the prisoners and the convicts, so that those prisoners might communicate with the governor or with those in authority and have a hearing, without the interference of anybody. A locked letter-box has never been in that institution. At the beginning of this hearing they admitted that they had no such letter-box; during the hearing when the deputy was on the stand, he admitted that they had no such letter-box, and when I asked him why not, he said, "We think our system is better." "What," said I, " you believe yourselves above the solemn law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?" and the reply came again, "We think our system is better." And you remember what he said about the system that a prisoner might ask him, and finally and this gives the key to the whole thing, when I pressed the deputy in regard to that letter-box, "Well," said he, placing his hands in his pockets and straightening up and looking at Said I, the committee, "what good would that do?" Why?" "Why," said he, "suppose a letter-box was there The CHAIRMAN. - This is all a matter of evidence.

66

Mr. RILEY. Yes, sir; but it is to illustrate my meaning

suppose a letter box was there, who would have the key?" He knew the master of the House of Correction would have a key, and his meaning, as shown when he smiled, was that he knew the prisoners then wouldn't be safe because of the key

Ald. LEE.

to answer? Mr. RILEY.

- Is that the question that you want Alderman Hall

Yes, sir; as a lawyer.

Ald. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I am surprised at the attitude of the counsel. I know it is the practice in the criminal courts to require the attendance of witnesses, and that the witnesses be brought into the court, so that the Court may see the witnesses and be brought face to face with them.

Ald. HALL. Not always; no, sir. I have prosecuted and defended in the criminal courts. I have practised in the civil courts, State and federal. In answer to the question the attorney asks me, it is the custom, it is the practice, and it is the common practice, the invariable practice, where a mass of evidence like this is to be passed on by the Court to have commissions appointed to take testimony, to take evidence, and it is the practice in the federal court and is the custom of the judges to review that evidence as it appears after it has been taken. In the federal courts the record, as it is called, sometimes occupies a thousand pages, sometimes 1,500 pages, and sometimes 2,000 pages in patent cases especially. In cases before the Court of Appeals, for instance, the entire record, the entire evidence goes up, and it is the custom to take the evidence and to read it. Now, I do not understand, Mr. Chairman, that we are trying a criminal case here. I don't understand that it is proper, fitting, or necessary for us to adopt the practice of the criminal courts. I do not speak of the

I

criminal courts with disrespect, nor do I allude in that way to those practising in them, but it is not proper to adopt their procedure here. I do not believe the witnesses who have appeared here are perjurers, liars, thieves, or cut-throats. I do not believe they are men who are in the habit of appearing in the criminal court. believe they have come here to give us such evidence as they can, to offer us such opinions as they can, and to assist us in this investigation, and I am sorry to see this investigation degenerate, as it seems to me it has degenerated into personal attacks and attempts to cast slurs. Now, the counsel has said, "Why not go on and investigate the Charlestown Almshouse and the Marcellastreet Home? We have just eight working days left. He does not ask the question in good faith. He does not mean what he says, because if we go on and investigate any more institutions what we have done will fall to the ground and this investigation will amount to nothing. We can make no recommendations, we can do nothing in the way of making a report, we will die at the expiration of our term of office, and this investigation, the whole of it, will amount to nothing; all the expense that the city has gone to will come to naught. I say that he does not ask that question in good faith or else he has not reflected.