Mr. RILEY.

May I interrupt you a moment?

Ald. HALL. No, sir. I wanted to interrupt you a number of times, but I knew it would be disagreeable, and I know that your interruption will be disagreeable to me. Now, in regard to the investigation of these other institutions, I simply desire to say that time has been consumed by putting in cumulative testimony. I have read myself testimony that has been piled up upon the same point, the same issue, the same question, until my eyes have ached in reading this record. As to meeting living witnesses, and insisting on my sitting here and looking every witness in the face, I don't think that is necessary, and I think it is think it is impertinent to ask me such a question. The credibility of the witnesses is not in question here. They are not sworn, they are not under oath. It is not like an investigation in court well, I understand that they have been sworn. I did not remember about that point, but it is not necessary to swear them in our committee hearings, it is not customary to swear them, and it is not important. It is simply a matter of opinion as to whether it be done or not. Now, a great deal of the material that has been put in here, great deal of the evidence that has been introduced, is entirely irrelevant and incompetent. We all know, we members of the bar know, that. Now, what I complain of, what I find fault with, is this language of the counsel :

Not many members of the committee have been present during the many hearings we have had, and I must say that it has always been a puzzle to my simple mind, because even with my little experience at City Hall I have noticed that whenever a financial problem'was here for elucidation, whether a railroad or a bank or anything of that kind, there was always a full meeting of the Board.

And banks never come before the legislative branch of the City Government.

Mr. RILEY. - Fortunate for the banks.

Ald. HALL. I did not hear that remark of counsel.

Mr. RILEY. - I say fortunate for the banks.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has said he did not mean any reflection on the committee. I simply desire to say that the innuendo and slur is characteristic of him. It is his nature and he cannot help it. It is accepted from the source whence it comes. I want to say this, as a member of the bar, that his standing as a lawyer and his attitude in the courts is entirely in keeping with what his attitude is here.

Mr. RILEY. I don't mind taking that from you.

Ald. HALL. Then he goes on to say: "There seems to be something in this bank-note world of ours that attracts a full meeting whenever money is at stake," etc. I will not weary the committee with reading any more of that passage in his remarks. I regret, Mr. Chairman, that I should be called upon to restate in any way my position or to make any further criticisms or comments. I was led into it. The attack came from the counsel, and I disclaim any personality. I do not care two straws about the matter. It makes no difference to me what the counsel says. am here for the purpose of investigating the institutions. My

I

thing in Mr. Riley's While I submit that

term of office has not expired, and I hope to make some recommendations here. Whatever part I take in the investigation will be taken fearlessly and according to the light I have received and the judgment I can form, and my conclusions will be sincere. J hope that the material I may have had upon which to base a decision will be sufficient to base a fairly correct one upon; but I do resent, and resent emphatically and earnestly, any imputations such as the counsel has seen fit to make. I submit now, Mr. Chairman, that this part of the case has gone on far enough and I do not desire to say anything more upon it. Ald. LEE. - Mr. Chairman, there is one remarks that has not been referred to. he may be well posted probably in the criminal laws of the Commonwealth and also the civil laws of the Commonwealth, as well as in the code of laws of the United States, I want to say, Mr. Chairman, in this committee, that his judgment upon parliamentary law is the poorest and flimsiest I have ever heard uttered by an intelligent man who has been before deliberative bodies. The idea, Mr. Chairman, of the learned gentleman getting up here before the committee and criticising it because a quorum is not present. Why, Mr. Chairman, it would be well for him to ask of the clerk, or of you, if the committee have not in their province or their power, the right, when a quorum is present, to instruct the chairman that one or two members, or even the chairman himself, may constitute a quorum of this committee and go on with the business which has been done. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that to allow that to go into the records without being refuted, would mislead those who may read it hereafter. I don't believe there is any gentleman who has had the privilege of being in a deliberative body and appointed upon a committee but what knows they have the right to designate how many members of that committee will constitute a quorum? Far different though it may be when we sit here in this Board as members of the Board of Aldermen or come in with our report as County Commissioners. The charter of the municipality then states that a quorum must be present for the transaction of business, and it states just exactly what the quorum shall be, but that, if a quorum is not present, the presiding officer may have the right to adjourn from day to day. Now, I don't think Mr. Riley intended to say that we did not have the power, did not have the right.

Q. (By Mr. REED.) You have been sworn, General, haven't you?

A. I have.

Q. You are the Clerk of the Board of Commissioners of Public Institutions?

A. I am.

Q. And how long have you served in that capacity?
A. Since the 1st of July, 1887.

Q. Is your title Clerk, or Secretary of the Board?
A. Secretary, now sir.

Q. You keep the records and are charged with their custody?
A. I am.

Q. Is the book which you have there the book of records of proceedings of the Board?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Does it cover the month of June, 1891?

A. It does.

Q. Will you tell me if you can find there a record of the appointment of Dr. Newell and Commissioner Devlin as a committee to draft rules for the guidance of the Board?

A. What date, please?

Q. June 3, '91?

A. There is a record here: "Voted, That Messrs. Newell and Devlin be appointed a committee to prepare rules and regulations for the government of the Commission and report at a subsequent meeting."

Q. On the 5th of July, 1891, do you find that the question of Mr. Brown's salary was referred to Dr. Newell?

A. The date, please?

Q. June 5, '91?

A. No, sir. According to this, July 5, '91, would be on Sunday. The 4th of July was on Saturday, according to this book. Q. Well, do you find that such action was taken there at all at any time?

A. There is a vote here in relation to George H. Brown, clerk of the House of Correction.

Q. That is the matter that I refer to.

A. July 11, '91.

Q. Probably I was mistaken in the date here?

A. There are two references on Saturday, July 11, '91, to George H. Brown. "The application of Frank E. Ryerson and George H. Brown for the position of clerk at office were placed on file.

Voted, That George H. Brown, clerk at the House of Correction, be transferred to the position of registry clerk in this office, vice Fuller resigned, the salary to be $1,300 per annum.

Q. Do you find on the 14th of July any reference to Commissioner Newell, any matter referred to Commissioner Newell?

A. No, sir.

Q. July 17?

A. Application of John B. McGarigle, gateman at the House of Correction, for increase of salary, was referred to Dr. Newell." Q. What is the date?

A. Friday, July 17. '91.

Q. July 18, the following day, do you find any matter referred to him there?

Q. Do you find anything more in July referred to him?

A. No, sir.

Q. Will you turn to the 18th day of August?

A. Yes, sir; I have got the date.

Q. At the meeting on that day was any subject referred to Dr. Newell?

A. "A communication from Mrs. Alice N. Lincoln, recommending the appointment of a trained nurse (Miss Hogan) at Rainsford Island was referred to Dr. Newell."

Q. Any record of any report on that communication?

A. I don't know, sir.

Q. Do you find on the 21st day of August a reference to Dr. Newell of any matter before the Board?

A. Friday, August 21, '91 a request of the superintendent of the Home for Paupers for an additional horse was referred to Dr. Newell."

Q. Was there any action taken in the meeting on that day in regard to trained nurses?

A. August 21?

2. Yes, sir?

A. No, sir.

Q. Return to August 24 — is there any reference there to the matter of trained nurses?

d. "A communication from Mrs. Alice N. Lincoln relating to trained nurses for Rainsford Island was referred to Dr. Newell." Q. Have you any record of a report?

A. There may be, sir; I have no recollection of it — I couldn't remember that.

Q. On the 14th day of September?

A. “Voted, That the question of employing additional nurses and watchmen at Home for Paupers was referred to Dr. Newell for investigation and report."

Q. Can you point me to the place in the book where the report was made?

A. I cannot.

Q. Do you have any recollection of the filing of any report on that subject.

A. I have no recollection of it; no, sir. It is hardly probable that I would remember everything in that book.

Q. That was the 14th of September?

A. Yes; sir.

Q. Will you turn to the 17th of October?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you find any matters referred to Commissioners Newell on that day?

A. No, sir.

Q. What date have you?

A. October 17th.

Q. Any day either immediately preceding or following?

A. Monday, October 19, '91, it was “Voted, That the subject of discharge and reinstatement of Officer James White be referred to Messrs. Newell and Devlin."

Q. That is the 19th of October?

A. The 19th of October; yes, sir

Monday.

Q. On the 27th of October was there any reference made to Dr. Newell?

A. On what date, please?

Q. The 27th of October?
A. No, sir.

Q. Do you find anything immediately preceding or following that date? Do you find the matter of Mr. Morrill's discharge? A. On November 10, '91, I find Voted, That the superintendent of Deer Island be instructed to reprimand Officer Morrill (printer), and restore him to duty."

Q. Do you find any communications previous to that in your record upon which that action was based?

A. (Referring to book.)

Q. Will you read that?

A. October 28, I find "A communication from the superintendent of Deer Island reporting the suspension of A. C. Morrill, printer, for the good of the service, was referred to the chairman and Dr. Newell."

Q: Do you find on the 11th day of November any communication which was referred to Dr. Newell?

A. November 11, '91, "A communication from the superintendent of Home for Paupers for detail of carpenters from House of Industry to work on the hospital, was referred to Dr. Newell. A communication from the superintendent of Deer Island reporting the intoxication of Receiving Officer Spalding was referred to the chairman and Dr. Newell," the same date.

Q. Both on the 11th?

A. November 11th.

Q. Now, turn to the 13th?

A. I have got it.

Q. Do you find any reference there to Dr. Newell?

A. I think not.

Q. Turn to the 14th?

A. Nothing there in relation to Dr. Newell, sir nothing referred to him.

Q. Do you find on the 16th any communication referred to or any report made by Dr. Newell?

A. 66 Voted, That Dr. Newell be appointed a committee to propose a suitable person to be employed as messenger at this office."

Q. What is the date of that?

A. November 16.

Q. Don't you find anything referred to Dr. Newell there excepting that, on that date?