competent than the letter which I now offer here in regard to the institution at Long Island. The writer of that letter could have been produced here equally well with the writers of these letters. Mr. BRANDEIS. officer. Mr. PROCTOR. officer. Mr. BRANDEIS. You could produce a communication from a public Ah, but a member of the Grand Jury is a public I think not. Mr. PROCTOR. -I think so. Mr. BRANDEIS. — I think not under any possible construction of the This other letter, being an official letter, was different. It was not official. terms of the law. Mr. PROCTOR. Mr. PROCTOR. What was the nature of the letter? A personal letter written to a man who has been an inmate of the Westboro' Almshouse or State Farm. Mr. REED. — I might say, Mr. Chairman, that when Mr. Tudor was on the stand before I had it in mind to offer these letters, but I thought, as the chairman now thinks, that perhaps it would be the best evidence to get the writers of the letters here. So I delayed bringing this before the committee until this time. But, being unable to bring those men here, I simply ask now the same rights that were granted not perhaps to Brother Brandeis but to Brother Riley, who certainly represented semebody here, although as far as we have been able to ascertain we cannot tell whom. Being unable, as I say, to get the writers here I now want to give the committee the benefit of the visit of the Grand Jury. Ald. FOTTLER. - Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the committee is entitled to listen to the contents of this letter. On page 2152, I think, of the thirty-sixth hearing, a letter was read before this committee, notwithstanding the counsel for the defence objected all the way through. In spite of that objection the letter, as I see here now by the testimony, by the minutes of the testimony, was read piecemeal, and finally the letter is printed here in full. I think this is a case exactly like that one, and I move that this letter be read. Mr. BRANDEIS. As far as the letter Mr. Proctor has referred to is concerned Ald. FOTTLER. You will find it on the next page, I think, in full, but it was read piece by piece with objections all the way through. Mr. BRANDEIS. (After examining letter referred to.) Why, isn't that a letter written in the course of official duty? It seems to have been in answer to certain inquiries in regard to certain property that Mr. Cutter asks for. Ald. FOTTLER. Well, read the letter in full, on the next page. Mr. BRANDEIS. Yes, that is what I am reading, but it appears to be in answer to an inquiry for certain property which Mr. Cutter had at the institution. I don't know anything about the facts, as that relates to a part of the case with which I had nothing to do, but that seems to be hardly a reason for putting in these letters at this time. Ald. FOTTLER. Well, I can't see any particular difference. Of course I don't know the contents of this letter. I don't know what it is really, but it seems to me to be a parallel case. Mr. BRANDEIS. Well, why cannot any statement made by anybody be put in here from hearsay ? Mr. PROCTOR. You have been putting in more hearsay than you have direct testimony, Brother Brandeis. You wouldn't say that that isn't so, would you? Mr. BRANDEIS Yes, I will deny that statement, certainly. The CHAIRMAN -Alderman Fottler's motion is before the committee, in regard to the letter. Is there any more than one letter, Mr. Reed, that you desire to put in of this nature? Mr. REED. Only that letter and then the replies to it. The CHAIRMAN. Have you the replies? Mr. REED. — I have the replies in my band. The CHAIRMAN. Well, then, perhaps we had better put the question on the first. The question before the committee is, shall the letter of Mr. Tudor to the members of the Grand Jury be admitted as a part of the evidence ? Mr. BRANDEIS. -I think, Mr. Chairman, that the dates of those letters and the replies are proper to be put in evidence. The CHAIRMAN. Are you ready for the question? The question was put, carried. Q. (By Mr. REED.) and Alderman Fottler's motion was declared Read the letter Mr. Tudor. 95 MILK St., BOSTON, March 26, 1894. MY DEAR SIR: Will you kindly write to me by return mail telling me whether you observed anything at Long Island deserving of censure when we made our visit there, and if not, whether you were favorably impressed by what you saw? Please reply today and greatly oblige Yours truly, FREDERIC TUDOR. (By Mr. REED.) Did you send that letter, Mr. Tudor, to each member of the Grand Jury with whom you served? A. To twenty-two men, I being the twenty-third. A. I don't remember the exact number, but I think from nearly all of them. Q. Is there a reply attached to the letter which you have just read? A. Yes. DEAR MR. TUDOR: I didn't go, so can't really say much on the subject. Yours, W. C. LEWIS. Q. Will you kindly look at this letter, Mr. Tudor, and see if this is one which you received in reply to the communication which you have read? F. TUDOR, 95 Milk street, Boston, Mass.: DEAR SIR: Yours under date of March 26 was received by me on my arrival home last evening. Should have answered you earlier if I had been able to do so, but as it was late on my arrival home last night I hasten to answer by this morning's mail. I did not make the trip to Long Island, business preventing my going. This I believe answers your inquiries, and I remain, as ever, Yours truly, Q. Is that another of the replies, Mr. Tudor? A. Yes, sir. Q. Read that, please. A. (Reading:) ALBERT S. CASWELL. BOSTON, March 27, 1894. DEAR SIR: In answer to your note in regard to the visit to Long Island, I saw nothing but what I considered was all right. DEAR SIR: On my visit to Long Island with the Grand Jury I saw nothing to censure the Commissioners for; the window screens that we called their attention to were in process of completion. I was very favorably impressed with what I saw and saw nothing to complain of. I can but say, that, in my opinion, the Commissioners are to be congratulated for the manner in which the buildings are kept and the kindness exhibited by the officials in charge towards the inmates. No. 9 PROSPECT St., CHARLESTOWN, March 27, 1894. DEAR SIR: In reply to your query, I was very satisfied with everything I saw in Long Island at my visit there, so far as I could observe. Q. Is that another? A. Yes. (Reading :) Yours respectfully, THOMAS MCBREARTY. DEAR SIR: I didn't go with the jury on any of those trips. Q. Is that another, Mr. Tudor? A. Yes. (Reading :) Yours truly, MORTON ALDEN. MY DEAR SIR: I am very sorry I can give you no information, but I did not go. Q. Is that another? A. Yes. (Reading :) MR. FREDERIC TUDOR, 95 Milk Street: Yours truly, F. W. FULler. BOSTON, March 27, 1894. DEAR SIR: Your favor of 26th inst. in regard to my visit to Long Island last summer at hand. In reply will say, that I was very favorably impressed by what I saw there. There was surely nothing deserving of censure. If I were to make a suggestion it would be to have wire nettings for the windows and doors, to keep out flies during the summer. Q. If you please. A. (Reading) FREDERIC TUDOR, Esq.: Yours of the 26th received. institutions. Q. Is that another? A. Yes, sir. (Reading :) BOSTON, March 27, 1894. Did not visit the Yours truly, JOHN M. JORDAN. MY DEAR SIR: Did not visit Long Island with the others. MARCH 27, 1894. Respectfully yours, E. W. HUNTRESS. 430 BENNINGTON STREET, March 27, 1894. MY DEAR SIR: When we made our visit to Long Island I saw nothing at all deserving of censure; but, on the contrary, thought that everything that came under my observation was worthy of commendation. Q. Is this another? FREDERIC TUDOR: Yours truly, JOHN M. CUNNINGHAM. 178 PRINCTON STREET, EAST BOSTON, March 28, 1894. DEAR SIR: Yours to hand of late date; as I did not go to Deer Island with the Grand Jury, therefore did not see anything deserviug of censure. Very glad to hear from you just the same. I am, Q. All those letters you received, Mr. Tudor, from members of the Grand Jury who visited Long Island with you, did you not? A. Yes. Q. Now, do the statements there from the gentlemen who visited Long Island with you correspond with your judgment of the institution ? Q. (By Mr. BRANDEIS.) Mr. Tudor, how many went down to Long Island? A. As I remember there were six or seven. Q. Six or seven ? A. It seems to me that that was about the size of the party. Q. Where were the rest of the Grand Jury? A. Well, didn't go, I suppose. Q. Well, you knew that wasn't a quorum, didn't you? You couldn't act on anything with so small a number as that. A. We didn't go with that view, we didn't go officially. Q. Oh, you didn't go officially at all? A. Certainly not. Q. Simply went down from curiosity? A. I didn't suppose I had any right to address those men officially when it wasn't official. Q. And this was not in any way an official communication? Q. And you went down there on a purely personal investigation ? A. Simply because I happened to meet these men and somebody proposed going down. Q. You had been down there before, had you? A. Yes, sir. Q. When was this visit? A. These letters are dated March, and it must have been Q. Dated March, 1894. Now, when did you make the visit down there? A. Must have been a little more than a year ago. Y. Well, it was in January, was it? A. No, it was while our jury was in session. That was between July and January. And this was written after our jury was discharged. These letters were written after we were discharged. Q. How did you happen to ask them to go down there? A. Because this hearing had begun and some evidence had been brought in here, as I remember it, which I thought was mistaken evidence, and it seemed to me so important to bring the evidence the other way that I at once wrote to these gentlemen. Q. No, but I mean how did you happen to go down then? A. Well, because some one of the jurors got up and proposed going to see all the institutions; and I said, " Very well, I will be glad to go with you to Long Island, because I know the ropes a little there." And I did go with them there, but not to the other places. Q. You didn't go anywhere except to Long Island? A. No. Q. Well, you let them know you were going, I suppose, before you went down? A. Certainly; I agreed that I would go down with them. Q. I mean you let the Commissioners know? A. Certainly did. Q. Didn't spring it on them and suddenly spring in and see how things looked there? A. I will tell you. I asked to go Saturday. The Commissioners said, “No; Saturday is the day of all days when we prefer not to have you go, but any other day that you may arrange for we will be glad to have you go. Q. Well, how soon was this Saturday after the time when you talked with them? A. I don't know just the Saturday. Q. No, but I mean the Saturday you wanted to go? A. I think perhaps that very week. Q. And they objected to your going on that Saturday, did they? A. Yes, or any Saturday. Q. Did you tell them when you would go? A. No. Q. What did you tell them? A. They said, You can go any day that you desire to make arrange ments to go except that." Q. But not that Saturday? A. No, any day but Saturday. Q. And what day did you announce ? A. I don't think we announced any day. I don't remember. Q. When did you go? A. If I recollect aright, Wednesday afternoon. Q. Following that Saturday? A. I think so. |