Page images

The WITNESS. (Reading :) 'Monday, March 2, 1891. "

Q. Now, do you find anything there in reference to a nurse at Long Island?

Ald. LEE.
The WITNESS. Page 250.

(Reading :)

The appointment of Charles H. Coakley, as night nurse, at a salary of $20 a month, was disapproved.

Is that on page 252 ?

Ald. LEE. Two pages out of the way.

Mr. RILEY. - No, I said 250.

Q. (By Mr. RILEY.) A night-watch at what place, sir?

A. It doesn't say here.

Oliver Bowden?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. (Reading:)

Q. Now, some time in 1891, there is a record pertaining to the appointment of one Bowden as an officer. Can you turn to that, or is the record indexed?

Q. Yes, sir.

4. He is the captain of the steamer. The appointment of him, you want me to find?

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Saturday, April 11, 1891. All the members present. A communication from J. W. Bartlett, captain of the steamer "J. Putnam Bradlee," on leave of absence, tendering his resignation, was placed on file, and the resignation was accepted.

Q. No, I don't ask you to read the records. I want to get at the date of the appointment of Oliver Bowden.

A. April 11.

Q. That was the date of his appointment, was it?



Q. That was April 11, 1891?

A. Yes, sir.

Voted, That Oliver Bowden, mate and acting-captain of the steamer "J. Putnam Bradlee," be appointed to captain, vice Bartlett, resigned.

was appointed?

A. It was.

Q. Now, will you inspect the records of that date and see whether all the Commissioners were present at that session or not?

A. I really cannot remember. The records were not read on that day, and therefore

[ocr errors]

Ald. LEE. They were all present when they were approved? The WITNESS. They were all present some part of the day. The records were not read that day, and therefore it was not an executive session.


We are all somewhere or other some part of the day. The WITNESS. But all the Commissioners were present when that vote was approved.

Mr. RILEY.- No, I haven't got around to that yet. We are on the record of April 11, 1891.

The WITNESS. Yes, sir.

Q. (By Mr. RILEY.)

That was the meeting at which Oliver Bowden

Q. Can you say by looking at your records whether at that time all three Commissioners were present?

4. My impression is I won't be positive, but my impression is, that when that vote was passed Dr. Jenks and Mr. Prescott were the

only ones present. It was brought to me, I think. That is, I was told to make that record as of that date.

Q. Now, you spoke about a rule or custom originating with the Board of Commissioners of putting on the record as being present anybody who came in during the day?

4. Any Commissioner.

Q. Will you turn, if you can, to any record of that rule or custom?


There is no such record.

[blocks in formation]

Q. In regard to special requisitions

excuse me, you say that such a custom or rule was adopted. Now, where and when was it adopted?

A. It was adopted the first time that the Commission met and organized. I was told to do so at the first meeting held by the original Commission.

Q. At the office?


Yes, sir; 14 Beacon street.

Q. And why was not there an entry made of that important order? 4. I cannot tell you the reason why. It was done, I think, agreed upon, by the three gentlemen, perhaps not during the session, but while they were in the room.

Q. Yes, but I mean why didn't you enter that upon the record?

d. I was not ordered to; and I am not sure whether I was told not to enter it or not. I won't be sure of that, but it was an agreement between them.

Q. I understand that.

A. It was no vote.

Q. Nobody doubts that at all, but the chances are that you were told not to make an entry of it?

A. That is very likely

more than likely.

Q. And that would account for its omission from the records. Now, at some time during your examination you spoke about the requisitions being preserved in the office?

A. Yes, sir.

[ocr errors]

Q. They are preserved?

A. Yes, sir, they are.

Q. Do you have in mind at that time the general requisitions — that is those that come twice a month — or did you have in mind all the requisitions?

A. All the requisitions are kept, or should be. That is the rule. 2. Well, I agree that they should be kept; but are they all kept? As far as I know.


Q. All the special requisitions?


So far as I know; yes, sir.

2. You know there are a great many special requisitions?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who files them away?

A. Mr. Prescott, the clerk, who has charge of all that business.

Q. He is under you ?

A. Yes, sir; he is a clerk in the office.

Q. But you have no reason to suspect or believe that they are not

all there. all of them ?

[ocr errors]

A. No, sir. On the contrary, I think that they are.

Q. That they are all there?

A. Yes, sir.

2. Now, when the chairman was absent were requisitions for supplies left with anybody?

A. They were always left on his desk in the Commissioners' room. Q. With whom?

[ocr errors]

A. With the Commissioners. I didn't have anything personally to do with those. Mr. Prescott did.

Q. Well, somebody would have charge of the requisitions that were left?

A. They came in an envelope addressed to the Commission, and were brought to the Commissioners' room and were left there. We don't open the requisitions in our office.

Q. And some of the Commissioners would do that? 4. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, were passes signed in blank and left during the absence of the chairman ?

A. Not that I know of.

for special cases, when they were to be absent.

Q. Left them with what person?

[ocr errors]

Occasionally all of them have left a blank

4. Sometimes with Mr. Prescott- though I don't know what there has been since the present Commission has been formed, or since the expiration of Mr. LaForme's term. I think he, on several occasions, signed passes and left them, expecting somebody to come in for them something like that.

Q. I don't wonder that you misunderstood me, general, for I didn't have the thing clear in my own mind. When I used the word “requisitions,” I didn't mean requisitions sent to the office from the officers of the institutions. I meant this: When the chairman went away, would he leave requisitions for supplies, as, for instance, butter and eggs, flour, and things of that kind, with anybody?

4. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Did he leave such requisitions behind him?

A. No, sir, not to my knowledge.


And had he done so, you would know it?


He never left any with me.

Q. But whether he left it with the other Commissioners or anybody

else in the office you would be apt to know that?


Ile might have left some with the Commissioners or with anybody that he saw fit, without my knowing it; but I never knew of it. Q. Did he ever leave any with Mr. Prescott?

A. I don't know that he did.

Q. There didn't ever any of the superintendents come up there and sign requisitions in blank, did they?

A. I never heard of it.

Q. I think it is understood now, but in order that there may be no mistake I will put this question: The rules you have read were adopted October 20, 1891?


Whatever the date is.

Q. Now, up to that time there were no written rules bearing upon the records? Am I right?

4. I am not sure about that. I have an impression that earlier than that something was said in the Board about rules -I am quite sure

there was.

[ocr errors]

Q. Yes, but were rules adopted previous to that time?

A. There were rules brought in previous to that and read — although they were not adopted, and were taken away.

Q. So that the business of the Commission was carried on up to October 20, 1891, without any rules, so far as your records show?

4. So far as the records show.

Q. Now, something was said earlier in this examination in reference

to the body of Edward Cuddy. Do you remember that?

4. I do.

Q. Now, who would apply to the Board of Health for a permit in order to obtain a body for anatomical purposes?

A. Myself.

Q. Yes. Have you any means of knowing how many permits you obtained from the Board of Health on November 25, 1893, that being the date of the Cuddy permit?

A. This book will show the vote giving permission to some physician or other to take the body from some of the islands for anatomical purposes; but whether the permits were all got on the same day or not, I don't know. There would be a record of Edward Cuddy's body here. Q. That is, November 25, 1893, is it not? I don't know. I will look and sec.



I have the date right, — November 25.

I think that will guide


4. (After examining records.) It does not appear on these records on that date. The permit may not have been got that day.

Q. Would it appear on that record before getting the permit or after?

A. Oh, before.

Q. How long before?

A. Well, it ought not to be a great ways.

Q. Or, to state it in another way, is there anything on your records showing the time when you got permits from the Board of Health?

A. No, sir; not when I got the permits. That might occur a day or two afterwards. It was always later than the vote.

Q. The date of that Cuddy permits was 1893.

4. Oh, I thought you meant 1892. I haven't that book here. I didn't think of that. There is a record of it somewhere, though, where it will appear.

Q. What we desire to get at is this, whether on November 25 you got more than one such permit from the Board of Health, and if you did, how many more, and what names do those permits represent; so that when you come again, if you can bring that information, we will be very much obliged.

A. Certainly. I can recollect that at about that time there were several, but I would not be sure of the names.

Q. I know, but what I want to get at is, whether or not on the day that the Cuddy body came up, other bodies came also?

[ocr errors]

A. Yes, sir. I can give you that information from my records.
Mr. RILEY. — That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Q. (By the CHAIRMAN.) General, you have appeared before this committee and testified to some little testimony before to-day, didn't you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You appeared at that time and the question was asked you: Are the records signed ?" You answered:

No, not here. I never signed them until they were read and approved.

Q. Well, when was that approved?
A. It was some time afterwards.

(Examining the records.) At a meeting held Thursday, April 30, 1891, all the members being present do you wish me to read the whole of that?

[ocr errors]

2. No, just that part of it.

4. They were approved on that date.

2. (By Ald. LEE.) Now, I wish you would turn back. I understand from what you have read that all the members were present?

A. Well, I explained that a while ago.

2. (By the CHAIRMAN.) Will you be kind enough to state it again? You know what you testified to before has been stricken out of the records?

A. That an agreement to that effect was made at the beginning of the term of each Commission.


(By Ald. LEE.) What was that agreement, and when was it made?

A. The first Monday in May in each year.

Mr. RILEY. That agreement, of course, must be a matter of record, and it would be easy to turn to it.

Ald. LEE. — Well, let him go on and explain it. Go ahead, general. The WITNESS. It was agreed at the formation of all these Commissions at the formation of the first Commission on the first Monday of May, 1889, at the formation of that of 1890, and at the formation of that of 1891 that any member of the Commission being present any portion of the business. hours of the day at the office should be considered present.


(By Ald. LEE.) That was an agreement? A. Yes, sir.


Among the three Commissioners?

A. Yes, sir; notwithstanding the statement of the witness.

Q. Now, do you know who were the Commissioners on the first Monday of May, 1891?

A. Well, that was after that rule was made. At the time that that agreement was made, the Commissioners were Dr. Jenks, Charles K. Prescott, and Dr. O. K. Newell, Mr. Devlin came in the first day of May, afterwards.

2. (By Ald. LOMASNEY.) I notice that it says here (pointing) that the records of the meetings from March 30 to April 30 were read and approved?

A. Yes, sir.

2. Do I understand that the custom was to go along the whole month, and then to read the records of the month, and then to have them signed and approved?



No, sir; it was irregular.

How does it come to be on that book, then?

It is there on the book because it was so in that case; but it was not the regular thing. Usually they were read for three or four or five days. Q. Now, on March 31 it says that all the records from March 19 were read and approved?"


And your answer is:

Yes, sir; all the records were read on that date and approved.

Now, that testimony which you gave at that time was correct, I suppose?

A. Yes, sir. I didn't quite understand you reading. You read once that the records from March 30 to April 30 were read and approved, and now what are the last dates?

Q. From March 19 to the 31st of March were read and approved. A. On March 19, this book says, the records of the meetings from February 11 to March 19, inclusive, were read and approved ?

Q. Yes, and from March 19 to March 31 ?

A. On March 30, the records of the meetings from March 19 to 30, inclusive, were read and approved.



4. I thought you said the 31st.

Q. Then if that be the case, the records of each meeting were not read at the successive meeting?

4. The records were not read, except as stated in this book and signed by me; so, when it does not say so, they were not.

Q. The records of the meetings were not read at the successive meeting?

They may have been, but not approved.

Ald. LEE. The WITNESS. When I was called into the Board to what I call an “executive session," the records were read.

Q. You have stated here that there were several records of several meetings from March 19 to March 30, which were read and approved on the 30th of March ?

[ocr errors]

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then the records from the 19th to the 30th

A. Were not read until the 30th.

Q. Were not read until the 30th; and they were not read at the meeting succeeding the meeting of which the record was a part?

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »