that this subject and the lack of any labor on the part of the inmates. was a matter of public discussion some time prior to the appointment of the Board of Visitors, the special committee, appointed by Mayor Matthews. A. I have no doubt of it, but I didn't understand that was what led to the appointmeut of the committee. Q. You think that was what caused the appointment of the committee? A. No, I don't think it was particularly on that thing. Q. That among others? A. It may be. I don't recollect it in that connection. That is all. Q. (By Mr. RILEY.) Just a question or two, Mr. Bailey. Didn't the Commissioners consult your office in reference to sending Deer Island convicts to Long Island for the purpose of labor? A. I think they did, but I think that was several years back. I think it was during Colonel Nettleton's time as Corporation Counsel. Q. What? A. I think it was while Colonel Nettleton was Corporation Counsel that they got the first advice on that. Q. Were you consulted in regard to it? A. No, except as the Corporation Counsel, and I usually talk over all law matters, especially if it is anything new or interesting. Q. Did you give the Commissioners any advice in regard to it? Q. Well, that is what I want to get at. Did your office advice the Commissioners that it was lawful to send the convicts, who had been sentenced to Deer Island to serve their terms of imprisonment, to Long Island? 4. My recollection is that they did have that opinion given them. Q. Who gave it? 4. I don't remember. Q. Are you willing to assume the responsibility of such an opinion? A. Yes, sir if I gave it, I mean. Q. Well, what is your impression in regard to it? A. Oh, that I cannot tell you what my opinion is of it? Q. You don't catch my question. What is your impression now as to the legality of such a transaction? 4. Well, that — Q. Oh, it is a simple question. A. It is not a simple question, but I will answer it to the best of my ability. There was some talk at one time of sending some of the prisoners over to Long Island to work. I think Colonel Nettleton talked it over with me. I remember saying that I didn't know what the law was upon the subject, but that if the prisoners went over there and were under the charge of one of the officers of the institution while they were there, I guessed it would be pretty safe to let them go. Q. I say, what is your present impression? A. As to the law ? Q. As to the legality of such a transaction? 4. We often advise a department as to the course they should pursue 4. I say, we often advise a department as to the course which they should pursue without having thoroughly and carefully studied the law. Q. Would you advise sending Deer Island prisoners to the House of Correction for work? A. I don't know, I haven't examined into that subject. 2. Then, you are not prepared to say whether the sending of a prisoner from Deer Island to the House of Correction is legal or not? A. No, sir. Q. In regard to the punishment of prisoners at Deer Island, as, for instance, stringing them up, have the Commissioners of Public Institutions consulted your office? A. I don't know. Q. Have they about that? A. I don't know. I never heard of it. Q. You have never given any advice in that respect? A. No, sir. Q. In regard to the legality of that? A. No; but you understand it is the duty of the Corporation Counsel to do that. They would naturally go to him, and if he was not there, they would naturally come to me. Q. But you would naturally hear of it? A. Oh, no. Our city is a pretty big institution, and there are a great many questions to answer in regard to it. They might come in and ask what is the best to be done, and he might tell them off-hand, and no record would be made of it; and he wouldn't see me perhaps for two or three hours, and wouldn't speak of it. Q. So far as your knowledge serves you, have the Commissioners of Public Institutions consulted your office in regard to the legality of not keeping a locked letter-box in the Ilouse of Correction in our county? A. I never heard of it. Q. You know what the law provides in that respect? A. Well, I don't want to assume that I know what the law is; no. Q. Well, I will assume it for you, and readily. They never consulted you? A. I mean to say, as far as I am concerned personally, I never heard of it. Q. Have you any recollection that they consulted your office in regard to the legality of the deputy warden at the House of Correction carrying a monkey-wrench and assaulting prisoners with it? A. I never heard of it. Mr. RILEY. Well, I suppose you wouldn't. Q. (By Ald. LOMASNEY.) Will you furnish us with a copy of that bill that you sent up to the Legislature? A. I think it is here to-night. I was handed the bill. I asked Mr. Reed if he had the bill, and I think he gave me the bill that the commiitee reported. I think it was substantially the same draft. Q. Did I understand you to say that the committee thought they didn't have authority to import labor now? A. The committee said that in view of the uncertainty of the law and the fact that whether it was law or not it had never been acted upon, they thought this law should be passed. Q. Did I understand you to say that the committee thought they didn't have the authority to enforce labor now? Q. The committee said that, in view of the uncertainty of the law, and the fact that whether it was law or not it had never been acted upon, they thought this law should be passed. You see, supposing an officer had undertaken to enforce a law of that kind and put the paupers to work down there, and some of them had been ugly about it and refused to work, they could immediately have turned around and brought an action against the officer for illegal arrest, claiming that they were put to work and subjected to this injury contrary to the law. Now, under those circumstances, you would not want to make an officer take that responsibility -- I mean, this is what the committee said. They didn't believe the officers ought to be expected to put people to work under those circumstances unless they gave them a sure protection. Q. Do you remember the time that the removal of Commissioner Newell took place? A. I remember that I was in the office at that time. Q. Did you have any conferences with the Mayor on that subject? A. I don't remember about what point? Q. Well, was any of the evidence that was taken at Deer Island or any of the institutions submitted at any meeting at which you were present? 4. No, I don't know anything about that. I think Mr. Babson and the Mayor were in consultation a good part of the time. Q. Were you present — Q. Well, wait until you hear the question. Were you present at any time when that matter was under discussion? A. I don't know. I might have been if you recall any particular incident. Q. Can you recall any time when they were going over that testimony? A. The Mavor and Mr. Babson ? Q. Or the Commissioners ? A. No, sir. Q. Dr. Jenks and the Mayor and yourself were in conference upon that subject? A. I cannot recall it. Q. Have you been in consultation with the Mayor? A. I just took lunch with the Mayor, and he never alluded to this, or anything of the kind. Q. I mean in regard to the evidence? A. No, sir; and I never have read the evidence at all. Q. (By Mr. BRANDEIS.) Was your office consulted in regard to the legality of accepting the rocking-chairs? d. I don't remember. I remember there was more or less talk about it in every department, and the Public Institutions Department being in the same building, I think very likely we might have heard of it in one way or another. Q. I say, was your office consulted in regard to the legality of accepting them? 4. I don't remember of it. Q. Was your office consulted as to the legality of giving the old hospital building for the use of the children's hospital this summer? 4. They may have been to Mr. Babson. I don't remember. As far as I am concerned, I never heard of it. Q. (By Mr. REED.) When you went to the Legislature, Mr. Bailey, this last year, did the Commissioners of Public Institutions go there with you, or did they go before the committee to your knowledge? A. I don't remember whether they did or not. Q. Was not Mr. Pilsbury there at the time you were? he was there with me. Q. Do you recognize that as the Act? (Handing paper to witness.) 4. Oh, don't ask me to do that. I see so many of them from time to time, that I won't say that is it. It reads like what Mrs. Lincoln and I made up, if she will allow me to say so. Q. Then you would not positively indentify that? A. Oh, I think that is the Act, substantially. Mr. PROCTOR. - Probably if Brother Brandeis were shown that he might know what it was The WITNESS. Mrs. Lincoln would know, I think. Mr. REED. — Perhaps the chairman of the committee would know. Ile signed the petition. The WITNESS Well, what you wanted to get from me was whether or not the bill that I presented to the committee was in the words of this bill. There is one expression there that I think was not mine; and that is all. Perhaps that was Mrs. Lincoln's. Q. (By Mr. REED.) It might have been changed by the committee? A. Oh, I have no doubt that they put it in a somewhat different form; but it is substantially the same thing. Q. (By Ald. LOMASNEY.) Well, according to that bill the Commissioners would not have any power to punish the individual, would they? They would have to apply to a magistrate, if I read it correctly. A. I think you didn't read it correctly if you got that inference from it. I think under that bill the idea was that the Commissioners · will you just let me take that bill a minute? I know the idea that we had was that the Commissioners should establish regulations in regard to work being done by those who were able. (Examining bill.) Q. How about that? A. Well, I should want to see the Public Statutes before I could say. I think that section referred to is the one that gives them authority to make regulations, is it not, Brother Brandeis ? (After consulting Public Statutes.) No, under this bill, if the person applied under Section 2 of Chapter 84 of the Public Statutes, and accepted the aid of a city or town under the Overseers of the Poor under that provision of the statutes, then the Overseers of the Poor could require him to perform such labor as the official physician shall certify to be suited to his age, strength, and capacity;" and if he neglect or refuse to do it, if he remain an inmate of such an institution he could be sublected to "such restrictions of liberty and diet as said overseer shall deem proper; "that is, as the Board of Commissioners of Public Institutions, in our case, shall deem proper; and if he still refuse to do such work as the official physician says is suited to his age, strength, and capacily, then he can, according to this Act, complaint for such refusal or neglect to any court or magistrate having jurisdiction, be punished as provided in section 42 of chapter 207 of the Public Statutes." They simply would have to go to the court for punishment. Q. Well, would they have the power to punish him, or would they have to go to the magistrate? 4. They would have the power to restrict his liberty and diet; but he could also be punished as a vagrant by going to the magistrate. Q. Well, the title of that bill is what, Mr. Bailey? A. This says: "An Act relating to vagrants." Q. Do you consider a person who is at the almshouse at Long island a vagrant? A. No, sir. Q. Well, then, don't you think the title of that bill is wrong? A. Well, the idea of this is simply this, that if a person goes there and is a bum," as he is commonly called,—that is, does not do proper work when he is perfectly able to do so,-- then that section treats him as a vagrant. Q. Is that the title of the bill as you drew it? A. No, sir, it is not. That is the expression that I said I did not recognize as mine. drew P up or What was the title of the bill you Q. A. I think it was "An Act relating to the support of paupers "An Act relating to the establishment of regulations in reference to paupers." It may be the same, but I don't think so. Q. Won't yoh kindly read the section of the Public Statutes that authorizes the Overseers of the city or town to make the inmates of the almshouse work? A. It is Section 2 of Chapter 84 that is referred to in this Act. Do you wish me to read it ? Q. If you please; yes, sir--the one you alluded to. A. (Reading :) SECTION 2. The Overseers of the Poor shall have the care and oversight of all such poor and indigent persons so long as they remain at the charge of their respective cities or towns, and shall see that they are suitably relieved, supported and employed, either in the work-house or almshouse, or in such other manner as the city or town directs, or otherwise at the discretion of said overseers. They may remove to the almshouse such children as are suffering destitution from extreme neglect of dissolute or intemperate parents or guardians, except as hereinafter provided. Q. Now, as you understand the law, the Commissioners of Public Institutions have all the power the overseers have in regard to out-door poor? A. I understand so, so far as relates to the institutions under their charge. Q. Now, it speaks there in regard to the employment of persons in the institutions. Don't you think that section is sufficient? A. Well, I said before that it was not a question of how the law was, inasmuch as the law had never been exercised; but that it was a question of whether it was right to ask an officer to take the responsibility of doing it. Q. Well, I want to get your opinion upon that section of the law. A. I don't desire to give my opinion. 2. Why not? A. Simply for the reason that it is not my business, in the position that I occupy, to give it; and as the Corporation Counsel has given his opinion, whether mine is the same or not, I should feel that you ought not to ask me. Q. Well, I don't desire to ask you anything improper. A. Whether it is one way or the other does not make any difference. I think there ought to be legislation passed so as to enable them clearly to do this, anyway. Q. Now, taking that bill and reading its title, cannot you readily understand why a Legislature composed of sensible men should refuse to class as vagrants persons who were at Long Island as poor persons, as paupers? Cannot you understand why they should reject a bill bearing that title? A. No. If you will allow me to consult this other section one moment, I think that will explain the reason of it. Q. Yes, sir. A. (After consulting Public Statutes.) This Act provides that such a person who refuses to do proper work-that is, such work as the physician shall certify to be proper may, on complaint for such refusal or neglect to any court or magistrate having jurisdiction, be punished as provided in Section 42 of Chapter 207 of the Public Statutes." Now, that section is as follows: All idle persons who, not having visible means of support, live without lawful employment," etc., shall be deemed vagrants, and shall be punished by imprisonment not exceeding six months in the House of Correction, or House of Industry or Work-house. Now, then, under that bill, if a person went there as a pauper and did not do such work as the physician said he was perfectly able to do, then the Overseers, if it is a flagrant case, might go before the magistrate and make a complaint that that person came under that section and was a vagrant; that is, that he was an idle person, a person who, while able to work, did not work, and that therefore he should be deemed a vagrant. Now, you asked me whether that is the proper title. I think on further reflection it is the proper title. If you will look at it you will see that it simply provides that if a person goes there who is perfectly able to work and yet will not work, the Commissioners or Overseers |