attempted to draw an Act which should enable Mr. John Galvin to make the paupers work down at Long Island. That Act I remember well. It was done at the request of Mr. Frank Morison and Dr. Jenks. The bill was not made a law, because it was too late in the year, and the bill which was drawn this year was killed in the Legislature for some reason or other. So the Commissioners have no certain authority, and if I were asked to advise I would not advise the Commissioners of Public Institutions that they had the right to make paupers work. They have not. It is a doubtful question, and, as Mr. Bailey well said, until that question is settled by legislation no man can properly advise the Commissioners to attempt it, and no superintendent would be safe in attempting it. He would be subject to suits innumerable. So I say that, in view of that state of the law, all this speculation as to making paupers work falls to the ground. When the law is passed, if the Commissioners and the superintendent do not make them work they are liable. Then punish them, but not now, when the law is not certain.

"But," they say, "they work up at Tewksbury. How does that happen?" Why, the statutes of the Commonwealth provide that the trustees of Tewksbury may make rules with penalties so that people who are in that institution may be obliged to work and may be punished if they will not, and when those rules are approved by the Governor and Council, they have the force of law. But there has not been any suggestion made here that these Commissioners or any one of these superintendents could make any rules which would have the force of law. When that is done, call us to account for it. But do not call us to account now, on the speculations of Mr. Hale and others. Mr. Hale, on his life, would not advise Dr. Cogswell to punish those people for not working, and be willing to respond in damages if his advice were wrong. That would test that question with Mr. Hale, the same as it would with any other lawyer.

Now, that is out of the way. The question of work is not certain. We now come to classification as to previous condition, previous history, or social condition. Is that an easy question? Is not every pauper alike under the law? Shall one be treated better than another? Are not these Commissioners organized and constituted to enforce the law? Are they not bound to treat every pauper like every other pauper, so far as privileges go, while the law stands as it is to-day? Have our philanthropic friends who nave come here and testified day after day as given us one suggestion of classification? They say the bad should be separated from the good. But how? You push them into the question of details and you find that they have tied a string to their propositions and draw them back. Talk was made the other night about a partition in the buildings which might be used to keep the nice old men from the bad young ones, so that when they went to sleep they would sleep separately from the bad young men. But, as I understand it, about the only time when a bad young man is harmless is when he is asleep, and there is the least need of classification by a simple partition at that time, if at all. It is when he is awake and active that the bad young man must be looked after, and did we get one suggestion from anybody as to how that should be done? No. Mrs. Evans, bright woman as she is, expert on this question, having spent years in the study of it, having been trustee of I don't know how many institutions, and having come forward glibly enough with the claim that there should be classification, backed out and said that the only way she knew to classify these people was to get another superintendent. She reiterated that time and again and told me in cross-examination that the only thing she could say as the upshot, result, and essence of her study and experience, was embodied in the word "classify," and how to do it she did not know. She made me think very much of the Vassar girl who was talking about making bread, and

was asked how she made it. "Well," she said, "you take the sponge and you put it on the moulding board, and if it sticks to your fingers you put a little flour on and you roll it, and you nicely butter a tin and put the bread into it and put it into the oven, and when it is baked nice and brown you take it out and it is done." And the questioner said, "Well, how do you make the sponge?" Oh, well," she

said, "we have nothing to do with that. The cook makes the sponge.' I wish to call the attention of this committee now to the witnesses who have appeared here with respect to Long Island: Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Brandeis in his opening, Mr. McCaffrey, Brown, Dr. Parker, Chief Egan, Mr. Morphy, Mr. George S. Hale, Mr. Brownell, Mr. Warren P. Dudley, Mrs. Evans. Dr. Putnam, Mr. Thomas F. Ring, Mrs. Esther J. Brown, Mr. L. G. Farmer, Mary Moran, Charles E. Davis, and Mr. Higgins. Those are all the witnesses who have testified about Long Island. Each of them has made some fugitive statements with respect to the management of Long Island and the treatment of the people there; but Dr. Parker and Mr. McCaffrey are the people on whom this case is builted, and if they drop out of the case. as I think they will, there is exceedingly little left so far as Long Island is concerned.

Now, Mr. George II. McCaffrey is a police officer of the city of Boston God save the mark!- and he is employed at Station 16 down in the Back Bay as a night officer. An honorable calling, but for a man who had the elevated ideas that he had it is rather an ignominious ending to a career which opened so very brilliantly. Mr. McCaffrey went to Long Island as a deputy, as he said the other night, thinking that Mr. Galvin was soon to be discharged, and that then Mr. McCaffrey would blossom into a full-blown superintendent. But, somehow or other, he failed, and that, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, is where Mr. McCaffrey's feeling begins. He started, you will remember. Wednesday night, by saying that the reason why he testified was the letter of Mr. John Galvin telling him that he might give the Board of Visitors points. Mr. McCaffrey didn't say that was the reason last spring, but, with a great deal of dramatic force for which I greatly admire my Brother Brandeis, a letter from Father McAvoy was put into this case at an early stage of it, and that letter, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, which was put into the case with an evident purpose, refers solely to the appointment of Mr. Smith as deputy, and to no other person.

Therefore, when Mr. McCaffrey came forward to say that the reason why he opened the flood gates of his wrath, his misinformation, his exaggeration, and his falsehood into this case was because of this letter, even Mr. McCaffrey could see that there wasn't the slightest justification for his course in this letter, because all the letter speaks of is the appointment of Mr. Smith as a deputy, and Mr. Smith is out of this case. So that Father McAvoy's letter was no excuse for him, and Father McAvoy did not inveigh against these institutions or their management in general, but only against the appointment of one man; and even Mr. McCaffrey could see that that left him, McCaffrey, with no special excuse for doing as he has done.

He now attempts to recover himself by saying that it was Mr. Galvin's letter. But if it was Mr. Galvin's letter the other night it was Mr. Galvin's letter last spring when he testified, and he either is telling you what is not true, or he is mistaken one time or the other, or his judgment as to what actuated him is of no consequence at all.

But Mr. McCaffrey's misstatements as to Long Island have outweighed the other things. Let me read to you the things wherein Mr. McCaffrey is wrong. Ile has testified that he saw Alexander Wallace working about the hospital the evening before he died. This is not true. The man was confined to his room for at least ten days before he died. He testified that Wallace was a middle-aged man- forty-five, maybe fifty, years old. Wallace was

seventy-six years old. Mr. McCaffrey swore positively and insisted upon it that Herrick died December 5-Herrick died December 7. McCaffrey says Dr. Parker told him he thought Nurse Hall gave Wallace the wrong medicine, and leaves the impression that this medicine killed Wallace. Both the statement and the inference are without any foundation whatever. Dr. Parker denies making any such statement to McCaffrey, and Wallace had no medicine at all that night. McCaffrey said that he started to put up shelves in the hospital for potted plants and that Dr. Cogswell stopped him. That is not true, although it might be perfectly proper that Dr. Cogswell should stop him. He says that Dr. Cogswell and Dr. Dever were guilty of neglect in the case of the McDonough woman, and tells you that Dr. Cogswell said to him that if Dr. Dever had been called twenty minutes sooner he could have saved her life, and not to say anything about it. We have shown you that there is no truth in this statement. The woman did not die in childbirth, as McCaffrey would have you believe. It was long after the child was born that convulsions began. Both Dr. Dever and Dr. Cogswell were in attendance on her. Everything known to medical science was done for her, and done without delay. Her life could not have been saved, and Dr. Cogswell never said to McCaffrey nor anybody else that it could.

Mr. McCaffrey said that he proposed to divide the institution building vertically, and thus separate the men from the women, and that Dr. Cogswell refused to do it. McCaffrey never made any such proposition. The plan was suggested and worked out by the City Architect, and was abandoned only when the new building for women, which is now nearly done. was assured. McCaffrey may have heard of the plan and may have talked about it, but that is all.

There was a mistake made in the burial of Frederick Rallion. The body was put in the wrong grave. McCaffrey at first said he would take the blame for that on his own shoulders. That was right, and the only mistake as to a burial at Long Island, so far as putting the wrong body in a grave is concerned, was committed by Mr. McCaffrey, who at first said he would take the blame for it. His neglect of duty made it possible. But he was not content to leave it so. He went on afterwards and said the reason why he did not personally inspect that burial was because Dr. Cogswell came along and ordered him to do something else, when, as a matter of fact, Dr. Cogswell was not on the island at

all.

Now, Mr. McCaffrey testified here that he was not on Long Island on Sunday excepting when Dr. Cogswell was away in October, and that he last saw Smith drunk on Long Island on December 7. At the hearing before the Commissioners of Public Institutions, conducted by Mr. Pilsbury and Mr. Devlin, as testified to here, McCaffrey swore that he saw Smith drunk on Long Island May 21st and December 22d. Those statements are not true now or they were false when they were stated to Mr. Pilsbury, and Mr. McCaffrey and his advocates may take their choice.

But, singularly enough, Mr. McCaffrey has been shown up by another witness, Mr. Roberts. Mr. Roberts, whom I take it you will hear from before the close of the day, ran some sort of an institution - I daresay a very good one uptown. You all know him or know of him. He was put on to show that McCaffrey, although his statements to you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen were that things were going very badly at Long Island he was put on to testify, and did testify that McCaffrey told him, when McCaffrey showed Mr. Roberts about the institution during the summer previous to this investigation, that it was a very well managed institution; that it was a fine place; that it was a heaven on earth for some of these poor people; and I think you will believe Mr. Roberts, especially in view of the fact that McCaffrey came on the stand the other night

and admitted everything about the conversation except the things that show him to be a liar.

But we do not stop there. Mr. McCaffrey, who desires to be everything to all men, to see all occurrences, to hear all things, and to do all things, went out of his way to make a gratuitous, wanton, and uncalled for attack upon one of the ablest city officials in my acquaintance Dr. Heath. When this committee had decided not hear it, when Brothers Brandeis and Riley did not insist upon it, McCaffrey put into this case a claim that the treatment of infants at the Marcella-street Home was scandalous in the extreme, and he cited a number of cases and swore that they were true. They were, as I remember them, as follows that a rat (and the impression which he desired to create was that rats were so prevalent and abundant in the Marcella-street Home that human life was no longer safe) had bitten a child's toes so severely that one toe hung only by a slender thread. He went farther and said that a child named MeCauley was said by Dr. Heath to have died from scarlet fever, when in reality it had a large and fatal abscess on its neck, and that Dr. Heath deliberately falsified in making the death certificate required by law. He further said that a child named Murphy, of ten or eleven years of age, was so neglected that it had the opportunity to run to a third story window and fall out and received fatal injuries from which it died the next morning. He said that Miss Clancey, one of the nurses there, alone and unattended, had charge of thirty-six infants in the cottage; and he said with respect to vegetables and Mr. McCaffrey has insisted upon putting vegetables into this case, the result of which he little thought perhaps would recoil on his own head that vegetables were constantly sent to Dr. Heath at his request, but that he himself never got any except once or twice.

Now, this committee went to the Marcella-street Home yesterday, and Dr. Heath was heard, Miss Clancey was heard, and the nurse in the hospital, by the name of Morrill, was heard; and, singularly enough, the things which McCaffrey wantonly and without excuse interpolated into this case at its close, showed conclusively to everybody— what was sufficiently apparent before that he is a colossal, monumental, alabaster juggler with facts; because Dr. Heath came forward and said that he saw the child whose toes were bitten; that there was no certainty that the toes were bitten at all; that nobody saw them bitten, and nobody saw the rat. Dr. Heath said that there was a slight cut on one of the child's toes; that the nurse took it to the hospital at his direction; that it was done up and healed, and that the statement of McCaffrey that the next day Dr. Heath told the mother of this child when she came for it that the child had gone to the country, was unqualifiedly false. Miss Clancey was called to the same point. She said - what might very well happen that as she remembered it there was a slight cut on the big toe and a slight cut on the little one, but as for any of the toes hanging by a shred, they only hung so in the imagination of Mr. MeCaffrey; that she saw no rat; that it was an exceedingly slight injury; that the toe was done up with salve, and the child got well; and that that was the only case where anybody ever suspected that rats did any injury there to the human frame, and that that was only a suspicion of Dr. Heath's.

But we go farther. Dr. Heath testified that the child Murphy never fell out of a window. Miss Morrill, the nurse, testified that the child never fell out of a window that a certain portion of McCaffrey's statement had some semblance of truth in it, because he said that the child was missed. Miss Morrill had occasion to leave the hospital for a moment, and the child was missed. That, so far, was correct, but Miss Morrill said that she came out looking for the child, and the child walked up over the stairs, while McCaffrey said it was lying a misshapen mass outside of the building on the earth, and that it died the next morning.

and I that he

Dr. Heath said it might well have been that the child said think something was stated to the effect that the child said had jumped out of the window, and that was all the basis for McCaffrey's story. But the child came walking up the stairs.

Now, as to the statement about the child who had this abscess in the throat, and who was said to have died of scarlet fever. Dr. Heath said that the child had what is exceedingly common an abscess form in

his throat as one of the results of scarlet fever; that the child died from scarlet fever, and that it was his duty to make the certificate as of a death from scarlet fever; that it did not die from an abscess foreign to scarlet fever.

McCaffrey said that Miss Clancey was in the cottage with thirty-six babes. She says there was never anything of the kind. Dr. Heath says the most he ever had in the cottage at a time were ten, and that whenever she had as many as that she had assistance. To that she agreed.

And then we come to the little episode of the vegetables. Now, Dr. Heath says that he got vegetables once; that he asked the man who drove the Marcella-street Home express down to the boat as to Mr. McCaffrey's getting the vegetables, and that that man said that he carried vegetables to Mr. McCaffrey's house a great many times. And so the story which McCaffrey told you that he had a two-bushel box made for Dr. Heath is utterly without foundation, and if he did have a two-bushel box made for the carrying of vegetables their destination was the house of George H. McCaffrey, and not the house of Dr. Heath.

That, it seems to me, nails Mr. McCaffrey. Like most men who talk too much it was impossible for him to keep to the truth a very large part of the time. In a word, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, Mr. McCaffrey was a very tall man and he felt called upon to tell an exceedingly tall story.

We now come to Dr. Parker, a young man who was assistant physician down at Long Island and who assumed an exceedingly prominent position in this case at an early stage. Singularly enough, Dr. Parker started his direct examination with an equivocation to say the least. Let me read to you a few words, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, on p. 329:

Q.

Were you present at any of the other hearings? 4. No, sir.

Q. Why not?

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I think that matter was explained before, why Dr. Parker was not here.

By request, the stenographer repeated the question, "Why not?"

A. Dr. Cogswell instructed me not to.

Giving the impression, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that Dr. Cogswell was trying to keep back material evidence which might serve to aid your committee.

At p. 385 Dr. Parker was asked in cross-examination as to this same thing:

Q. Have you given all the conversation that took place between you and Dr. Cogswell in reference to your attending these hearings after the first summons were served on you?

4.

Q.

A

No, sir; I don't believe I did.

Will you please give the rest of it?

I don't remember it at all. I told Dr. Cogswell that I was summoned, and I showed him the summons - that was in the evening of the day that I was summoned, and he said that I could go up in the morning. Oh, he said later that I could go up with him and we would go up to Mr. Curtis' office, and he didn't think I would have to attend the hearing, but that Mr.