Now, you see how little that testimony amounts to. You see that it has no value at all, because there was a man who had been there but a month, who had unfortunately twenty-three months before him, and of course if he had uttered a single complaint against the officers of the institution life for him would become unbearable. He knew better. And this man had not been there long enough to know anything about it. That shows you how hard pressed people may be sometimes for witnesses, for testimony.

As time is slipping away, I will spend no more time upon the House of Correction. If you are not now of the opinion that a radical change should be made in the management of that institution, that the old building should be razed to the ground and a new one put up, no matter what it may.cost, then it will be useless to appeal to you or your successors hereafter. The public will have to go elsewhere. When public opinion is once put in motion it is, as O'Connell said, " As strong, indeed stronger than the forces of Niagara." I hope, gentlemen, you

will not wait for that.

As to Deer Island, something has been said about the discipline, but all the world knows that the discipline in that institution was all right until Colonel Whiton left there; that from that time until up to the time Dr. Newell was removed, the discipline ceased to be good; that it was bad. It certainly was very bad from the middle of 1891. Now, they say that the institution is all right, that the discipline is good to-day and has been good since Dr. Newell left; and yet they make that statement, gentlemen, in the face and eyes of the fact that months and months after Dr. Newell left a serious riot broke out and the Boston police had to be called down there.

I wonder what credit they give you for intelligence. If the discipline has been good since Dr. Newell left, and he was the cause of trouble, will somebody explain the riots that have taken place since then? And you know how serious a riot must be when the prison officers cannot suppress i, and when the police force is called in, because it is only as a last resort that the police are called upon.

Of course, gentlemen, there is nothing in that.

I now come to the immorality, because we have made serious charges against this institution. The immorality charged — is it true? Was not Brother Proctor present in the executive session when Mr. Upton, a former deputy, was examined and when the testimony that he had to give in that respect was unfit for public ears, and the model which he produced was unfit for public eyes? Was not that in reference to the conduct of an officer in that institution, and his bearing towards one of the matrons? Can you conceive of grosser indecency, a worse exhibition of immorality than that graphically described by Mr. Upton in executive session, when he placed the model on the table? And do you remember the legend that that vile officer put upon the model Use this "? Why, if that occurred anywhere else you would say that the whole thing should be cleaned out, if you will pardon me for using that expression. Well, do you remember what Mr. Upton said about another officer you will find the officer's name in the printed testimony. The chapÏain," said he, " complained to me about this officer." The chaplain is there yet undoubtedly a truthful man. Do you think a chaplain, who is trusted and who keeps that position, would have made a complaint to Mr. Upton about another oflicer quite as high as Mr. Upton, to put it mildly, if there was no truth in it? And do you think that if that testimony of Mr. Upton's was untrue the chaplain would not have been called here and put upon the stand?

Gentlemen, are they dealing with children or are they dealing with intelligent men?

Before I pass from the charge of indecency let me call your attention to a little more testimony. On page 1682 I find this :

Q. Did you at any time report an officer to the superintendent, charging that he had been guilty of indecent conduct?

A. I did, sir.

Q. Do you know why he was kept after the charge was made — I call it a charge?

A. I couldn't tell you, sir.

Q.

A

Well, what did the superintendent say?

He didn't say anything after I reported, and I never heard anything about it afterwards.

Again, on page 1715, you will remember this testimony: "I wish also to call attention to another fact here, that Officer Quinn with his knife " -I will not read it, now that I see what it is. I simply call your attention to it in order to corroborate the testimony given by Mr. Upton in executive session. I should commit a very serious offence if I sullied my lips or offended the ears of this audience with this testimony. I simply ask you to look at it, and then you will see that it in every way corroborates the testimony given in executive session.

Still again, on page 1145:

A. Well, I found that in one particular instance there had been a rather scandalous state of affairs in relation to one of the officers in the institution, that complaint of that had been made to the superintendent by the deputy superintendent, and that practically no action whatever was taken in the

matter.

Q. What was the complaint?

A.

That this officer had been in improper relations with two of the matrons in the institution, and that they had ascertained the duplicity of the thing and made a great trouble and row about it and caused a lot of scandal and talk in the institution among the officers.

Q. These two matrons complained of this man?

A. Yes, sir; quarrelled over the affair and made what he expressed as a certain kind of row.

Q. One of the matrons, I suppose, started it when she ascertained that the other was a rival, is that it?

And on page 1627 I find — undoubtedly the witness is referring to the same thing, and one of the Aldermen drew it out very adroitly — the following:

Q. (By Ald LOMASNEY.) Well, what was it? What did you hear about it ?

A. Well, it was in regard to some business in connection with them and an officer.

Q. Jealousy between two female prisoners over an officer ?

Well, what did you hear?

I didn't hear.

He was more familiar with one of them than he was with the other?

Well, perhaps one of them thought so.

And she broke the other one's nose is that right?

Well, that is what they claimed the fight was over, I believe.

And by and by we will come to the incident where this same Averill deliberately fired his revolver twice at a crowd of ten or twelve boys in the House of Reformation, but fortunately did not kill any of them, the bullets striking the casement.

and

Now, in regard to brutality. Do you remember the incident this brings me to Dr. Cogswell, for Dr. Cogswell was then at Deer Island of the woman who was handcuffed all night, and the graphic description given of the matter by some of the witnesses? It seems that this woman was addicted to the morphine habit, was almost crazy from its use, and was brought for treatment to the hospital. The doctor was not in attendance, and she was kept there waiting for three hours in that dreadful state before any doctor came. When the doctor came she was wild and attempted to make some assault upon him, and so he had her handcuffed - that is, one hand was handcuffed to one foot and the other hand to the other foot. That, of course, bent the woman's body double, and in that way, like a bundle of inanimate matter, she was hurled into a cell and left there over night. It was only her dreadful groans and sufferings that attracted the attention, I think, of Mr. Upton in the morning and he took her out. You remember the testimony that her wrists and her ankles were so swollen that it was hard to get the irons off. I forget whether he said the place was somewhat torn in the attempt to get them off. Then the doctor ordered her into solitary confinement, and she was placed in solitary for three days and three nights. If there be anything worse or more brutal than that I have yet to hear of it. Well, it doesn't stop there. Dr. Cogswell has been on the stand, and you have heard not so much what he said as what he read, and from beginning to end never a word, as I remember it, has been uttered by him in contradiction or denial of this dreadful incident at Deer Island. I take it to be true, because if it were false the doctor would be only too glad to deny it; and if it be true, why the best thing you can say about him is that he has sense enough to keep silent.

Then in regard to another woman treated by another doctor down there — and I dislike to mention names, and should not have mentioned Dr. Cogswell's name were it not for the fact that he went upon the stand and spoke about the other institution under his control and said nothing about this, as I remember it. Here is the case of another woman put in solitary by another doctor. The doctor is down there yet, still holds his place, and they say he is a competent physician and fills it well. I am not prepared to deny it, because I have not been down there and do not desire to do anybody any wrong. So careful have I been in this respect that I am probably the only one of the counsel who did not make an opening argument. I know, too, that there is a danger in it, that the lawyer who makes an opening may very easily assert more than he can prove, and may in that way do some people an injury. A closing argument is always more or less critical, but an opening argument may be fatal — as, for instance, witness the incident of Mr. Reed and Mrs. Lincoln, the way in which poor Mrs. Lincoln was treated, unjustly and falsely, but intentionally so, by Mr. Reed, in regard to the two women on the boat. There is always very much danger in making an opening, and so I did

not make any opening. But in regard to the act of the other doctor, which I have referred to, the evidence in regard to which rests upon the sworn statement of many witnesses, I will simply say that another woman was put in solitary for ten and one-half days and kept there until by the testimony of Mr. Upton and others he was compelled to let her out. And this woman was insane, so they say, and when she got out she went to the office of the Commissioners on Beacon street and showed them her condition, made her complaint, and then produded a large wad of hair which she exhibited to them and said that the doctor had torn it out from her head.

Now. then, that statement is true or it is false. Several of the witnesses have sworn to it; not a human voice has been heard in denial. The doctor has been here day after day, is probably here now, and he has not sought to contradict it. Silence again.

Of course, it is asking too much from us to ask us to say that it is untrue. Then, again, if that woman was insane the doctor had no business to punish her. By what right does anybody treat an insane person in that brutal and cruel way? And if she was not insane he had no business to interfere with her and pull the hair out of her head.

Now, I don't say it is true, because I know nothing about it. I say those officers there have sworn to it, and I say the man accused has sat here day after day and has made no denial, and I can come to no conclusion but that the silence is brought about by guilt. How can I? How can you?

Then I am going to speak of the neglect of the doctors. There was another woman who left the hospital and fell in the yard for lack of treatment. I think she had failed to get treatment there, and when they picked her up she was dead.

There was still another, sent from the hospital as cured, who died three days after; and still another woman who was a poor cripple, hobbling about on crutches, and she was sent adrift from the hospital and did not get proper treatment. Either these statements are true or they are false, and nobody denies them.

I now come to the drunken officers, and here the testimony has been extensive. The institution seems to have been permeated with drunkenness on the part of the officers. I will call your attention to page 1886. I am sorry to take your time, gentlemen, but this is a very serious matter. I don't know of any case I have ever tried that has appeared to me so serious as this. It affects you and me, it affects us all. is true we should act upon it at once; if it is wrong we should know it as speedily as possible. On page 1886 there is the following evidence:

If it

Q. Do you remember an officer named Everdean being in the superintendent's office at one time under the influence of liquor?

A.

Q.

().

A.

2.

A.

Yes, sir.

And using profane language?

I do.

Now, will you describe that?

I think he had been up town. He came in in an intoxicated condition, with his hat on, and used profane language; called the superintendent " Jim." That is the most I remember about it on that occasion.

Now, this statement is very significant. The superintendent is here, has been here all along. The superintendent has not been upon the stand. Counsel may suggest, or somebody may suggest for him, that he has been cut off, that he has not had a chance. That is not true. As. you know, early in this investigation in your presence and hearing 1 asked the superintendent to take the stand; and if you will turn to the printed report of the evidence you will read his reply: "Not now, I will be there when my time comes." And then, repeating the request

and failing again, I turned to Commissioner Devlin and I said, Devlin, will you take the stand?" The reply was, Not now."

. Mr.

I will now call your attention to page 1888, in the testimony of the witness whom I quoted a moment ago:

Q. I asked you awhile ago about the taking of some men to Long Island by an officer-it was Officer Stanwood, wasn't it?

That is the man who in the morning took seventy-two men to Long Island, and in the evening reported to the superintendent with twelve men missing. Why, of course the man was drunk. And no explanation of this testimony has been given. On page 1345, we have this:

Q. Well, give the instances.

4.

Well, there were numbers of officers came down there. - some of them were drunk, and a number of them were sick at times, afterwards, all the way from two days to a week.

That is, they were sick from two days to a week.
And on the next page, this :

A. Well, there was William Ward who came down there a number of times drunk. He was in bed drunk one day, and a deputy went there and Ward used some insolent and indecent language to him, didn't know that it was the deputy, and Ward left, with a recommendation to Mr. Gerrish and Mr. Perkins, the deputy.

Q.

4.

Recommendation to what effect?

That he was a good officer and performed his duties. I didn't see the recommendation. I knew that he received a recommendation from each one, the best recommendation that would be given to any officer.

A. I saw him when I went up to get my account one night, up in the attic I think it was, either the dormitory or the attic, and he had something over 120 men, and I saw him staggering - staggered down the hall.

Q. In presence of the men?

A.

Q.

4.

...

Yes, sir.

And was that called to the attention of the superintendent ?

I understood that he knew all about it, that they had had conferences.
You knew at the time or soon after that the superintendent was told to

discharge him, didn't you?

A. I understood so. The man told me so himself.

Q. You learned after a while that he was discharged?

Q. At all?

A.

He wasn't discharged.

A.

No, he went on leave of absence and never came back.

2. Then they took him back again?

A. Yes, after some time. He has been there lately.