HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, March 28, 1879-- 9 a. m.The morning session was opened with prayer by Mr. DAVIS, representative from the county of Boone.
The reading of the minutes was omitted.
The SPEAKER, by consent of the House, added to the committee on enrollment Messrs. Fancher and Dailey.
The business pending at the time of the adjournment last night being the consideration of the bill [S. 353] concerning trusts and powers, which had been read the third time, it now failed to pass the House for want of a constitutional majority--yeas 42, nays 37.
Mr. Johnson's bill [H. R. 701] fixing the per diem of members of the General Assembly and the salaries of the judges of the several courts of this State, and--
Mr. Watson's bill [H. R. 700] to ascertain the amount of fees and salaries or officers therein named, were severally read the second time, ordered engrossed and passed to the third reading.
page: 82[View Page 82]Mr. EDWINS introduced a bill [H. R. 702] for an act in relation to enrolling the acts of the General assembly, which was read the third time and passed to the second reading.
The bill [S. 16] in reference to change of venue in cases of preliminary examination for felonies before justices of the peace, etc., was read the third time and failed to pass the House for want of a constitutional majority--yeas 42, nays 32.
The bill [S. 71] authorizing justices of the peace to require additional replevin bail in cases where insufficient bail has been taken, etc., was read the third time.
Mr. WATSON was opposed to the passage of this bill. Where the defendant is not in fault it places upon him additional cost. It is the duty of the justice to see that the bail is good, and by failing to do so he involves the defendant in additional expense and litigation. The remedy would be to issue the execution upon the affidavit of the plaintiff.
Mr. BRIGGS was in favor of the bill. It would have a tendency to compel the defendant to procure bail that was sufficient.
Mr. MARCH paid the defendant was the man responsible for the bail, and it was the intention of this bill to hold him responsible during the stay that he gets.
The bill then passed, the House by yeas 67, nays 10.
The Senate concurrent resolution authorizing the payment of $1,118 to the county of Marion for coal, gas, use of furniture, rooms, etc., was referred to the committee on claims.
The bill [S. 47] to enable owners of wet lands to drain the same, etc., was read the third time and
On the motion of Mr. KIRKPATRICK the bill was indefinitely postponed.
The bill [S. 427] legalizing the acts of the board of trustres of the town of Washington, in the county of Wayne, was read the third time, and finally passed, the House by yeas 58, nays 16.
The bill [S. 55] to legalize the incorporation of the Kokomo building, loan, fund and. saving association of Kokomo, was read the third time and passed the House by yeas 60, nays 10.
The bill [S 79] to secure more efficient work and material in performance of contracts for public works, and to prohibit officials from being in any manner interested therein other than as an official, etc., was read the third time and failed to pass the House by yeas 32, nays 42.
Mr. FAULKNER said being a believer in the Bible, and as that teaches us we are all brethren, he moved--ineffectually--that the bill be indefinitely postponed.
The bill [S. 427] to amend sections one and two of an act regulating public warehouses, inspecting and mixing grains, etc., was read the third time and passed the House by yeas 64,nays 8.
The bill [S. 138] in relation to congressional township school funds, etc , was read the third time and passed the House by yeas 67, nays 3.
The Senate amendments to the bill [H. R. 620] for a codification of the common school bill being read.
On the motion of Mr. MIERS, the bill and Senate amendments was referred to a special committee of three.
The SPEAKER makes the committe to consist of Messrs. Miers, Overmeyer and Works.
Mr. DAVIS offered she following:
Whereas, An article published in the Indianapolis Journal of March 27, charging 25 or 30 members of the Legislature with such indignity as to bring disgrace upon the General Assembly and State of Indiana, by participating in a shameful orgie in a disreputable hall on East Washington street, and,
Whereas, The names of the participants are withheld from the public, thereby resting the odium equally and alike upon each member of the General Assembly; and,
Whereas, This Generaly Assembly, by the appointment of committees and otherwise, investigated the records of State officers runt justice might be brought to the line and justice to the plumet; therefore,
Resolved, That the editor of the Journal be, and is hereby requested to furnish to the public the name of each member of this General Assembly that participated in the disgraceful scene at Crone's Beer Garden, that the innocent may be exonerated and the odium fall where it belongs.
On the motion of Mr. WILLIARD, the resolution was postponed and made the special order for Monday next, at 10 o'clock,
The bill [S. 355] concerning trusts and powers, which failed this morning for want of a constitutional majority, was again called up and passed--by yeas 72, nays 5.
Mr. HEROD introduced a bill [H. R. 703] for an act to amend section 1 of an act entitled an act touching foreign corporations, and providing that certain acts thereof shall work, forfeiture, which was read the first time, and passed to a second reading.
Mr. SHANKS, from the committee on conference on the bill [H. R. 22] for a homestead: exemption, submitted that they had compromised by allowing an exemption of $600 in either real or personal, as the party claiming: such exemption may select.
Then came the recess until 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The report of the conference committee, pending at adjournment, was concurred in.
Mr. OVERMEYER offered a resolution that no bills on their final passage, nor any resolution to pay any one. will be acted upon in thia House after 12 o'clock noon on Saturday, March 29,1879.
On motion of Mr. LEHMAN, the resolution was made the special order for to-morrow at 10 o'clock.
Mr. CARTER called up the bill [S. 374] to alter and amend the charter of the town of Clarksville, when--
On the motion of Mr. LEHMAN, the bill was laid on the table--affirmative 37, negative 29.
Mr. HESS moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was laid on the table.
Mr. LEHMAN moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.
The yeas and nays were demanded, and being ordered and taken resulted, yeas 38, nays 41, so the House refused to lay the latter motion on the table.
The motion to reconsider was then rejected by yeas 39, nays 42.
Mr. JOHNSON moved ineffectually--yeas 43, nays 31--for a suspension of the constitutional rule in order to take up the bill, H. R. 701, and put it up on its passage.
Mr. DAVIDS0N called up his bill [H. R. 10] to exempt from execution insurance claims and interests of the wives, children and dependents of members of masonic and other charitable institutions.
Mr. DAVIDSON, explaining, said this bill prohibits life Insurance policies from execution, and permits suits to be brought against the societies wherever they may have an agent.
The bill then passed the House by yeas 70, nays 0.
Mr. ENGLISH called up bis bill [H. R. 564] to legalize the official acts of the board of trustees of the town of Woodruff Place, in page: 84[View Page 84] Marion county, which was read the third time, and finally passed the House by yeas 67, nays 4.
The Senate amendments to the bill [H. R. 158] in relation to settlements made by boards of county commissioners with county, township and school officers, being read--
Mr. SHANKS insisted that if this bill is passed, it would open the door for endless litigation. It should be a general law, and not an act intended to apply to but one or two cases, and he objected to it because it would allow either party to open investigation by suit of the other.
Mr. MARCH said if there were no defaulting county officers in the State this bill would not hurt any one. No man in Indianapolis had spoken to him with reference to it before it had been introduced. It was introduced to prevent fraud, and not in any particular local interest.
Mr. THAYER thought this bill was gotten up to fit some particular case. As a business principle he believed that when a settlement had been made it should stand unless fraud could be proven. As he understood it he was opposed to it.
Mr. WORKS thought this was a bill in which, the whole Stats was interested, and he wanted this law to apply to his county. If a man had defrauded his county that man ought to be made to pay back the money so fraudulently taken. He thought it was competent to pass a bill by which the county could receive back any money fraudulently taken from it.
Mr. HEROD thought that this Senate amendment was put in to fit a certain case in which certain parties desire to cover up fraud.
Mr. TAYLOR of Daviess,could not see any good and valid reason to oppose this bill. He did not caro whether Democrats or Republicans were angeled, he wanted all to disgorge Who had fraudulently taken the public funds.
The Senate amendments way then concurred in by yeas 62, nays 27.
Pending the roll call--
Mr. ARNOLD of Grant, when his name was called, said the people of Grant county, so far as he knew, were in favor of this bill, and if there was any opposition to it it comes from the county officers.
The Senate amendments to the bill [H. R. 477] to define the crime of burglary and house breaking, were read, and concurred in.
Mr. CALDWELL called up Mr. Briggs' bill [H. R. 697] for a more speedy determination of causes of actions in the circuit and superior courts, which was read the third time and finally passed the House by yeas 70, nays 1.
Mr. HUBBARD, from a majority of the committee appointed a to investigate the benevolent institutions presented their report, as follows:
MAJORITY REPORT.
Charge first against Dr. Jameson, corresponding to charge six against Dr. Everts-- making expenditures of money received for work and labor, products and earnings of the institutions, charged to be in violation of the act of March 10, 1875. [Acts Reg. Sess. 1875, p. 5.)
To the Hon. H. S. Cauthorn, Speaper of the House of Representatives:
The undersigned, Exum Saint, Charles S. Hubbard and J. H. Thornburg, on the part of the House committee to Investigate the charges again Patrick H. Jameson, president of the board of benevolent institutions, and against Dr. Everts, superintendent of the Hospital for the Insane, beg leave to submit the following report:
First--As to the matters and specifications set forth in charge first, above set out, we say that the testimony does not show any illegal expenditure of money by Dr. Jameson, received for work and labor and products and earnings of the Institute for the Blind, or of the Asylum for the Deaf and Dumb, but as far as said charge relates to the Hospital for the Insane, and affects Drs. Everts and Jameson in connection therewith, we are of the opinion that, although their manner of accounting for money received, and for work and labor performed, and for the products and earnings of the farm connected with said hospital, is much the same as that of previous managements; and, although the testimony does not show that any of the money or proceeds derived from the sources above mentioned have been misappropriated or misapplied, yet the books and accounts of this institution are kept in such a manner that said funds are not kept separate and distinct, so as to show the amount received from the various sources, and how and in what manner accounted for, as they should be. We think there should be a full and strict account kept of each fund, that the books should show in detail the amount received from the earnings of the hospital, from labor, from the different farm product", etc., and show how, when and by whom expended.
Charge two against Dr. Jameson (not affecting Dr. Everts)--that he received additional pay as a member of the provisional board, etc.
As to the second clurrg0 against Dr. Jameson, and not affecting Dr. Everts, which is that said Jameson received a large sum of money for pay as a member of the provisional board contrary to law, we say that said charge is not sustained by the evidence.
The testimony shows that Dr. Jameson received $40O per year as treasurer of the provisional board for his services in drawing and paying out the sum of $225,000 in the construction of the new Hospital for the Insane. While the law does not specifically authorize said board to appoint a treasurer for the disbursement of so large a fund, yet it does provide for the salary of certain other officers and agents, provided the board see proper to appoint them, and it nowhere prohibits the appointment of a treasurer or limits the board in providing the necessary means for carrying out the purpose for winch the board was created. If the board, which is an entire different body from the board of commissioners of Insane Asylum, although composed in part of the same men, deemed the magnitude of the work sufficient to justify the creation of the office of treasurer at a salary of $400 per annum, and had confidence in one of their number for that place, we do not feel justified in censuring them for their action when there is no law forbidding the exercise of such power on their part. It will be further remembered that the board was comprised of such men as Governors Williams, Hendricks, Jameson, etc., who, with the exception of one member, served without pay.
We will say, however, that in view of the fact that the law only authorized the payment of S300 to the secretary of the board, that amount might more properly have been taken as the compensation for the treasurer. And as a further reason for our opinion in this case we mention that the testimony does not bring out any fraud or intention to defraud the State.
Charge three against Dr. Jameson, corresponding to charge two against Dr. Everts employment of relatives, charged to be in violation of the act of February 25,1875. (Acts Reg. Sess., '75, p. 108.)
As to the specifications in this charge, we say that, as far as they relate to the employment of Miss Churchman, Miss Maclntire and Mrs. Everts, they are sustained by the evidence, and, while there is a difference of opin-[ion]
page: 85[View Page 85][opin]-ion among legal gentlemen as to the legality of such employment, and though there is no evidence (or, if any, very slight) that the State was in any way the loser thereby, yet we are of the opinion that it was contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the law, and that the custom is greatly against public policy and the interest or the public service. However, Attorneys General Buskirk and Woollen hold that such employment is legal.
As to the employment of young Everts, Thomas and another person, relatives of some of the members of the board, in the painting and construction of the new Asylum for women, we fail to find any law forbidding it in letter or spirit, and are sustained in this opinion by eminent legal authority.
And there was not sufficient evidence to convince us that the State was in any way the loser thereby.
Charge four against Dr. Jameson [not affecting Dr. Everts]--that he has received as president of the boards of benevolent institutions salary in excess of the $500 provided by the act of March 12, 1875.
This charge is made against Dr. Jameson only, and the act he is charged with violating is superseded, or in effect repealed, by the act of the special session of the Legislature of 1877, page 6, section 11, which provides that the president of the benevolent institutions shall receive the sum of $300 per annum for each of the three institutions under his control, and the testimony does not show more than that amount of salary paid to him during any one year for services as president of said board. Therefore we think the charge is not sustained.
Charge five against Dr. Jameson, corresponding to Charge three against Dr. Everts--employment of extravagant and useless labor.
This charge against said Jameson, corresponding to the third charge against Dr. Everts, is sustained as to both or as to either of them, only in this, viz: the un contradicted testimony of one or two witnesses that Miss _____ was employed and occupied solely in sewing and fancy work for the family of said Dr. Everts for the space of years, at the expense of the State. This being admitted by the failure of the defense to offer any evidence contradicting it, we must, say that we do not think the obligation of the State to support the superintendent and his family can be extended to the employment of a seamstress or servants in a private capacity, and that the payment for such services by the State was unlawful.
Charge six against Dr. Jameson, corresponding to charge one against Dr. Everts--accepting gifts from tradesmen furnishing goods, etc., to the asylums, whereby they were influenced and rendered partial.
This charge against Dr. Jameson corresponds to the first charge against Dr. Everts, and, in our opinion, is unsustained by the testimony.
There was some testimony, and we believe not denied, that three cans of fruit were presented to Dr. Jameson by a tradesman of whom he made part of his purchases. It was also shown that a box of tea at one time, two or three dozen oranges and some other small items had been given and sent to Mrs. and Dr. Everts in trifling quantities and at divers times by parties who were furnishing supplies to the Asylum; also, a box of cigars when the legislative committee were visiting there on one or two occasions; but neither the amount or value of these presents, nor the manner of the transaction, nor even the testimony itself, show anything illegal or improper either in the giving or accepting.
Charge seven against Dr. Jameson, corresponding to charge four against Dr. Everts-- purchases at exhorbitant prices.
As to this charge against said Jameson, which corresponds to the fourth change against Dr. Everts, we say that the evidence does not sustain the charge, but that, on the other hand, the preponderance of testimony was to the effect that said Jameson was a cautious and discreet buyer, generally purchasing where lie could get, the best bargain; and not paying for goods or supplies any more than the market price.
The charge, however, in relation to Dr. Everts was sustained in particular instances, but not in general; it should be stated, however, that they were so sustained upon the uncontradicted testimony of the prosecution. Whether the defendant was unable to disprove them, or neglected to do so, is not for us to say. It was shown that he purchased a large bill of clothing from Heitkam & Co. at their own prices, and without making any personal examination of said goods at the time they were purchased. It was further shown that he had often purchased large bills of goods of the same firm, but it did not appear but what lie had exercised reasonable care in their selection, except on the occasion referred to.
While the evidence was not specific as to any other particular instances of want of care on the part of said Everts in the purchase of goods or supplies, yet we are of the opinion that there was an occasional lack of skill and watchfulness in the last year or two in the pus chase of goods and supplies.
Charge eight against Dr. Jameson, corresponding to same number against Dr. Everts making certificate of insanity before a board of inquest, and reccing into the Asylum a sane person (Gordon Grimth), to prevent criminal prosecution, etc.
In the matter of the inquest set forth in this charge we would simply say that innocence is presume until the contrary is proven; that where no self-interest or other impelling motive is shown, the evidence,to convict a man ' of even fair or average standing in society, of certifying to the insanity of a sane man, ought to be susceptible of no explanation, and reconcilable with no theory but that cf his guilt. Such was not the testimony. There was not even a preponderance, if we judge evidence by its value, against the accused or against Dr. Everts.
Charge nine against Dr. Jameson, not affecting Dr. Evarts--that Dr. Jameson, while ex- officio member of the provisional board for building the new Asylum for Insane Women drew sums of money aggregating $225,000 ($300,000), and placed it on deposit to his own credit, and received interest thereon which he applied to his private use, and refuses to account therefor.
This charge affects only Dr. Jameson, and we are of the opinion that if said money, appropriated for the construction of the new female department of the Asylum,had remained in the treasury and been drawn out by the provisional board or its agent as became necessary to pay contractors, employes, materialmen, etc , no interest would have been realized. It is in evidence that said money was drawn out, in manner and amounts as set forth in said charge, by said Jameson as treasurer of said board upon the order of said board, and deposited in certain banks of this city on interest; and that said interest amounted to $1,819, out of which the compensation of said treasurer was paid, and a balance of $419 placed to the credit of said fund, which last amount the State would not have received had said appropriation remained in the treasury and drawn out as needed.
While we may not in words justify this action, yet in view of the fad t hat the State is not shown to be the loser thereby, and the matter was approved by a board of men of
page: 86[View Page 86]such high character of both political parties, we can not censure the accused, and until we can be shown what particular law has been violated, we can not say that the charge is sustained.
As to the legality of said Jameson receiving the salary of treasurer of said board,and which was deducted from said interest, we have given our opinion under charge.
Charge 10 against Dr. Jameson (corresponding to charge seven against Dr. Everts)publishing false statements and statistics for the purpose of deceiving, etc.
About all the testimony adduced on this subject or charge was the report submitted to the regular session of the General Assembly for the expenditures of the Blind Asylum for the year 1878, which showed that the cost of subsistence per capita, for each mouth in the year, estimating upon the basis of 50 weeks in the year, was $6.27, while the evidence showed that the pupils were kept in said institution but 40 weeks in the year. The only effect of this record is to mislead as to the actual cost per month for subsisting each pupil in said institution, there being no evidence to show that any of the money for the support of said Blind Asylum had been unaccounted for or misappropriated. We are of the opinion that the proper plan would be for said reports to disclose the actual cost of subsisting each inmate for the actual time he or she may have been provided for in said institution. There being no further evidence as to false or improper entries, or showing in said reports, we dismiss this charge with the finding and recommendation above made.
Charge 11 against Dr. Jameson, corresponding to charge five against Dr. Everts-- permitting incurable patients to remain in the Insane Asylum, receiving money on account of such incurables, and discharging curable patients as incurable.
As to this charge, we do not find from the evidence that incurable patients have been permitted to remain in said Hospital to the exclusion or detriment of curable patients. There is evidence, however, of donations to the Asylum by the relatives of inmates therein, but the defendants claim, that they have accounted for all such money, and their reports show that money has often been so received and how the same was expended. As to further findings on this subject, see that part of our report under charge No. 2 of this report.
There was testimony, un contradicted by the defense, that one Gavin paid the superintendent, Dr. Everts, the sum of $300, whereas his report of the donations to the Hospital shows only $200 paid by said Gavin; and there was the further testimony that one Goodwin (we believe that was she name) had donated the sum of ------, whereas the evidence of accused and the report of said Everts show the payment of $75 or $100 less than that amount.
As a portion of said payments were made, or at least one of them, only last fall, it may be that a future report may account for the difference, but your committee have reported the facts as they found them.
Charge 12 against Dr. Jameson, corresponding to charge nine against Dr. Everts--keeping boobs in a loose and uncertain manner.
As to that part of this charge which relates to the keeping and manner of keeping the books of the Asylum in such a way as is calculated to deceive the public or mislead them, we affirm that the charge is not sustained by the evidence. And as to whether they have been kept in a business-like manner as they should be, or not, we refer to the opinion expressed under charge first against Dr. Jameson, corresponding to sixth against Dr. Everts.
We will say here that we have made no personal examination of the books, and our opinion is based upon the testimony, on admission of accused, and a casual reference to said books, or a portion of them, and the expert testimony. We can not say further, unless time and opportunity had been accorded the accused to bring in their entire books and accounts and explain them, which was denied because time was too short.
Charge thirteen against Dr. Jameson, (not affecting Dr. Everts)--suffering and approving purchases for the Blind Asylum from Churchman, its superintendent
As to this charge, which only affects Mr. Jameson, we have to say that. there only ap-. pears to have been two or three small bills purchased of said Churchman, and the practice thou discontinued. It does not appear that the State lost anything by these transactions. We certainly should condemn such purchases were they in vogue, or had been to any considerable extent.
Charge 14 against Dr. Jameson, corresponding to charge 10 against Dr. Everts--general charge of irregularities and abuses.
Under this general charge there was no evidence adduced, in fact, no attempt on the part of the prosecution to connect either Drs. Jameson or Everts personally and directly with any of the charges preferred but only as they were accountable for neglect of duty and bad conduct of subordinate officers and attendants.
The point upon which the prosecution mainly relies in support of this charge is the alleged neglect of duty, malpractice or professional ignorance of Dr. Hester, an assistant physician, in the treat me 111 of one Mrs. Williams who died at the hospital; in this, that the said Hester either ignorantly or purposely made an improper and false diagnosis of the malady of this patient, and treated her for troubles arising from uterine disorders, when in fact she was suffering from nervous prostration, debility, etc., incident to pregnancy, and prescribed for her accordingly,which said treatment,together with certain unusual hardships imposed upon her by the order of said Hester, notably pushing the rubber, brought about a miscarriage, from the effects of which, and inattention when in labor, she died. From certain testimony, introduced by both parties, it was shown that this patient had, on her first commitment to the hospital, been treated by Hester for 10 months; that she was of a stupid, listless and unobservant disposition, and would remain standing against the wall or in a sitting posture, entirely unconcered and indifferent as to what was taking place around her, for an indefinite space of time, unless compelled by the attendants to change her position. That she simulated the usual symptoms of pregnancy, even to the swollen condition or appearance of the parts; was greatly constipated, unless something was constantly given to prevent it, and had no appetite for food. It was further shown that under pretense of trying to improve her by change of scene and surroundings, and frequent enjoyment of fresh air and sunlight, her husband obtained leave to take her into the city to live, and it is shown that she was returned to the hospital, after about two weeks, with but little apparent improvement, and it is further shown by the landlady, who furnished them a room during her said stay in the city, that she and her husband occupied the same bed. Here the testimony diverges; the witnesses for the prosecution claiming that upon her return she was subjected to unusual hardship; that the attendants were n required by Dr. Hester to keep her constantly ai some exercise, principally pushing the "rubber" that is
page: 87[View Page 87]used to polish the oiled floor of the ward; that this work was by tar too heavy for her; that her treatment, i. e., her medicine, was such as to aggravate the troubles incident to pregnancy, which condition of the patient was apparent to them a few weeks after her recommitment; that about seven months after she came back she was unexpectedly discovered to be far advanced in travail, and nearly exhausted with her unassisted labors; that the accused was notified, but failed to respond until called the second time; that after the accouchement she was so unskillfully treated as to greatly increase the perils of her situation, which contued to grow worse until death relieved her.
On the other hand, the accused himself testifies, and he is corroborated by the evidence of one or two others in many respects, that when Mrs. Williams returned to the hospital, and, for that matter, when she left with her husband, her mental and physical condition was such as to preclude all suspicion or thought of any man having sexual intercourse with her; that her symptoms and apparent condition were almost the same as before she left (and in this he is corroborated by Dr. Parvin); that, having failed to make much improvement by his former treatment, he abandoned it in a great measure, using occasionally a tonic and some preparations to produce a laxity of the bowels; and, for the purpose of diverting her attention, and preventing her proneness to listlessness and stupidity, he directed the attendants to keep her reasonably occupied with the rubber or other devices. He avers that, under the circumstances, he never suspected pregnancy, neither did either of the attendants, who are the main witnesses against him (the two who were in charge of said patient) ever communicate their suspicions to him, and it was their duty, no says, to inform him of any change that may or ought to take place. He denies that he was called more than once, and that he then responded as promptly as he could, and 'within three minutes of being so notified, and in this he is corroborated by at least one other witness. He further says in relation to the unexpected confinement of said patient, that if said attendants had been attending to their duty, he would have been called at a much earlier stage of this trouble. He further says that he did all in his power to alleviate the condition of said patient, and prescribe just such treatment after the bringing forth of said foetus, as the symptoms of said patient seemed to demand. And he avers that he left nothing undone that his experience and the usual practice in such cases suggested should be done to insure her recovery, if the same was possible. He further testifies, and a this he is borne out by the evidence of Dr. Everts and others that there was no attempt at concealment of this transaction either on his part or that of the officers and attendants of said institution, further than was customary to prevent the inmates from learning that anything unusual had taken place, and that much is necessary on account of their natural and proverbial tendency to excitement and misconstruction of everything that they do not readily understand, or that will afford them an opportunity to create a sensation.
Now in this connection your committee would mention a few facts that may be of value in determining the value of the testimony. They concede that while the interest of Drs. Everts and Hester should be kept in view in deciding what weight should be given to their evidence, yet in very many of the main points of their testimony they were corroborated by a number or witnesses, mostly from the Insane Hospital, who certainly know that the accused no longer have any power to retain them in the employment they now have, as there has already been, or is about to be, an entire change in the management of the institution, and the declaration by some of them that they came voluntarily, without subpoena, to testify for the accused, because they thought he was being unjustly assailed and the victim of spite and revenge, ought rather to strengthen than weaken their testimony. While on the other hand, there was not a material witness against Dr. Hester that did not acknowledge there was a bad feeling on their part against him, which was very evident, from their willingness to testify and their proneness to step aside and give him a thrust that savored more of jealousy than a desire to do even-handed justice. And one very significant fact of more than ordinary importance in this connection, is that the very witnesses whose evidence is intended to sustain this charge, both repeatedly swore that up to within the last 18 months, and during the long years of his connection with said institution, Dr. Hester had been uniformly kind, patient and attentive to the inmates under his charge, and, though strict in the enforcement of discipline among the attendants, yet courteous and just to them they could not recall an instance of bad treatment or lack of duty on his part until the time before mentioned.
Your committee feel at a loss just how to ex plain the fact that a man who, upon the testimony of both sides, had been so entirely devoted to the interests of the institution and the welfare of the inmates during a period that ante-dates in its commencement even the beginning of Dr. Everts' term of office could suddenly, and within the last 18 months, commence a system of cruelty to those under his charge that has no equal in the annals of the most uncivilized and barbarous tribes. Just how far this testimony of these female attendants can be explained by the fact that Dr. Hester, who was very popular up to the time referred to, introduced in the Hospital a lady to assist him in his arduous duties, and for whom he yet retains a deserved partiality, we do not pretend to say; but we do insist that the charges of criminal neglect and malpractice in three or tour cases by Dr. Hester are so inconsistent with his former character for years, as shown by the witnesses for the prosecution, that when taken in connection with the testimony of Dr. Everts that he was the most attentive and devoted officer in the discharge of duty that he ever knew, and well qualified for his place, and the additional testimony of Dr. Jameson and others to the same effect, that it would be violating all rules of evidence and establishing a precedent whereby the character and reputation of almost every officer in charge of a large number of inmates of any public institution might be irretrieveably blasted were we to say that said charge was sustained by the evidence. We will say, however, that the failure of the officers of the hospital to discover the pregnancy of Mrs. Williams, notwithstanding the circumstances tending to mislead, and the fact that the attendants were in a measure to blame, is, in our opinion, a case of inexcusable neglect, and in that far affects, of course, the whole management of the Institution. But we feel in duty bound to add that Dr. Hester, for want of time, was denied any opportunity of offering evidence in his own defense, which fact should go far in preventing an arbitrary judgment or verdict against him. It will not do to say that he was protected because he was allowed to testify, for when on the stand he was the witnesss of Dr Everts and exam-[ined]
page: 88[View Page 88][exam]-ined by counsel interested only in the defense of said Everts, and allowed to answer only such questions as said counsel asked, being himself without counsel. How far he or Dr. Everts are excusable for not discovering the condition of Mrs. Williams on account of a rule obtaining in almost all similar institutions prohibiting personal and critical examination of females simulating pregnacy we do not pretend to say. It is said that such a rule is in the interest of public policy, in this, that otherwise the officers would sometimes be exposed to unjust criticism, their motives and conduct very liable to be misconstrued by a class who are ever ready to seize upon the most trifling circumstance to create a sensation, thereby imperiling the reputation of the institution and endangering its efficiency; but we maintain with the number of females now to be found who are skilled in medicine, and especially familiar with the disorders of their sex, that a board might be created in every asylum that could safely and with propriety investigate every case necessary to be examined without detriment to the welfare of the institutions and its patrons, and we would recommend something of that kind.
There was some evidence as to the confinement during the whole of one day of a feeble female patient in a bed room where there were two beds, and without fire in the winter time. Dr. Hester had no chance to defend on this point, and there were grave doubts from the testimony of the prosecution whether the officers, the attendants, or the patient herself, was most to blame. We say that the charge is unsustained on this point. The case of Mrs. Knapp, who suicided by hanging, is adduced as another case of neglect on the part of Hester and Everts, but the testimony does not sustain the charge.
The only other case considered of sufficient importance upon which to condemn a management of over 600 crazy people and 140 subordinates and attendants during a period of 12 years, is the inexcusable tantalizing of a nervous and flighty patient by the name of Mrs. Wheedon, which charge is also unsustained by the evidence of prosecution alone.
We close our report with the following general finding, supplemented by a few observations suggested by the investigation:
We are of the opinion that the discipline in the Insane Hospital for the last year or 18 months has been generally bad. How far that may be attributed to the prospect of a change of management to suit the political turn of affairs we can not say, but that the addition of one or two persons to the care and supervision of some of the female wards--which the management had a right to make, and did make about a year and a half ago--proved to be a serious disturbing element, which we think the management might have suppressed by a timely removal of the unruly ones, as we think; but this not being done, the bad feeling extended until for some time past there has been an unfortunate lack of harmony, respect for each other and laxity of discipline that should not exist in an institution where a common desire and unity of purpose and effort; is necessary to promote the efficiency of the Institution and the welfare of an unfortunate class of our fellow-citizens.
It is our opinion, however, that the accused, Drs. Everts and Jameson, have ever had sincerely at heart the welfare of this great and important public charity, and that, in a general way, have zealously striven to promote its efficiency, increase its usefulness, and make it the equal of any similar institution in the country. That they may have failed in particular instances to do the best we do not deny, but against that should be placed the magnitude of their responsibility, the character of the people with which they have had to deal, and the long period covered by their term of service--and we, perhaps, should refer to the fact that for two or three years past, in addition to their ordinary duties, they have had on their hands the construction of the new Asylum for Women, which must necessarily have engrossed much of the time that could illy be spared from the duties of the Asylum proper. We are of the opinion further, that with the most sensitive and sympathetic natures long continued service in these positions and long familiarity with physical and mental infirmities tends to breed indifference and blunt the sensibilities in regard to the wants and requirements of that class of people, and while we make no recommendation on that point, we submit whether or not a change of management ought not occur every few years, and for fear we might not all agree on that point we express no further opinion.
We now submit this tedious report with the remark that the defendants or accused should go acquit on any charge where they had not the opportunity to offer testimony in defense, and we are sorry to say that time did not permit a full and fair investigation on both sides, for each of them insist that they were cut off without a full and fair opportunity to make their case. However, as to many of the charges preferred, we think we have had sufficient evidence on which to base a correct opinion.
C. S. HUBBARD, EXUM SAINT, JOHN H. THORNBURG, WILLIAM SMITH, W. B. TREAT.
Mr. EDWINS from the minority of the committee submitted a minority report, as follows:
MINORITY REPORT.
Your committee was appointed to investigate certain charges of irregularities against Dr. P. H. Jameson, president of the board of benevolent institutions, and Orpheus Everts, superintendent of the Hospital for the Insane. After as careful a consideration of the subject, as could possibly be given in the limited time allotted for that purpose, we find the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties concerned shows the following state of facts, clearly and beyond any doubt or question:
We find charge first sustained against Patrick H. Jameson in this: that he, the said Patrick H. Jameson, permitted and was directly instrumental in allowing money to be used unlawfully and without warrant of law, and in violation of act of March 10,1875, namely: that moneys received for the farm products and the products of the green-house were never turned into the treasury as the law directs, but expended in such manner as the management of the Insane Asylum saw fit, in direct contravention of all law on the subject,. without giving an itemized statement of how such moneys were expended. We also find that this same charge against Orpheus Everts has been sustained.
CHARGE SECOND.
We further find that Patrick H. Jameson received extra salary as treasurer of the provisional board of commissioners for the new building for the Insane Hospital to the amount of $1,400, which, in the opinion of your committee, was entirely without warrant of law, and we believe the proper steps should be taken to cover the same back into the treasury. Such an office is unknown to the law.
The law of 1875 fixed said Patrick H. Jameson's salary, as president of all the boards, at $500. The appropriation bill of 1877 (acts special session, pages 5, 7) fixed it at $300 for each institution, or $900 in all; but we fail to find any law where it authorizes the provisional
page: 89[View Page 89]board, or, in fact, any board, to create the office of treasurer and pay him the sum of $400 extra per year for his services as treasurer of said board. The plea is, however, set up that this $400 was derived from the interest on the ($300,000 taken out of the treasury to build the new Hospital for the Insane, but your committee is of the opinion that $900 was sufficient for the services of said president, and that the $1,400 derived from such interest should be covered back into the treasury of the State, where it properly and legally belongs.
CHARGE THIRD.
' We find that the employment of Miss Churchman, Miss MacIntire and Mrs. Mary Everts is not contrary to law, according to the opinion of the attorney general. Your committee does not find any law directly prohibiting the employment of relations, yet the practice of employing such is reprehensible, and would advise its discontinuance in the future.
CHARGE FOURTH.
This charge is, in the opinion of your committtee, substantially the same as charge second, and our finding herein is the same as in that charge against the respondent, Patrick H. Jameson.
CHARGE FIFTH.
In the employment of useless labor, we find that Orpheus Everts has had one Miss Harding in his employ as seamstress for several years, who has been constantly employed in exclusive work for said Everts and his family, the State deriving no benefit from said services, although she was paid by the State.
CHARGE SIXTH.
That Dr. Patrick H. Jameson received presents to Influence him in giving the trade of the institution to certain merchants and tradesmen. Your committee find that while there were several witnesses who swore to such having been the case, yet the evidence was so conflicting we are unable to come to any definite conclusion in the matter. We find, however, that such presents were received by Dr. inverts and his family, and we can not justify such a practice, no matter in what small amounts the presents may have been received.
CHARGE SEVENTH.
In reference to goods bought, we find the preponderance of the evidence will show and does convince your committee, that Dr. Everts bought and paid at least retail prices for goods bought of William I. Kipley and H. H. Lee and Geo. H. Heitkam & Co., and although the goods were purchased in wholesale quantities, that if a more careful system of purchasing had been followed, a better class of goods could have been obtained at a much less rate, thereby saving considerable sums of money to the State. We find that the clothing was bought by order, and left to the merchant selling the goods to select the kind and quality and fix the prices. That such carelessness on the part of Dr. Everts, and neglect in not better protecting the State's interest, should meet from this Assembly the censure it justly deserves.
CHARGE EIGHTH.
In relation to Gordon Griffith, the testimony is of such a vague character and of such a contradictory nature that we have failed to find either of the officers of the Insane Asylum guilty of anything censurable in the case.
CHARGE NINTH.
In this, Dr. Jameson is charged with applying to his private use interest on the provisional board appropriation. We find that he did turn a small amount of such interest to his private account in bank, but subsequently changed it to its proper place in the State' funds.
CHARGE TENTH.
That the reports of 1878 are incorrect; but in the case of the Blind Asylum, we find that the misrepresentation is due to an improper calculation. We also find that the per capita should not be calculated or the Deaf and Dumb and Blind Asylums for more than 40 weeks in the year, instead of 52 weeks, as is done in their printed reports.
CHARGE ELEVENTH.
This is in regard to donations to officers to influence the retention of certain parties,with the knowledge of Drs. Jameson and Everts; your committe find that donations to a large amount have from time to time been received by Dr. Everts, and that he has failed entirely to show any proper or legal authority by books, memoranda, or other proof how such funds were expended, and your committee have had no means of knowing whether incurable patients were maintained in the hospital and curable ones denied admittance. Such practices amount to gross neglect of duty and malfeasance, which can not be too strongly condemned by the General Assembly.
CHARGE TWELFTH.
That the books were so kept as to mislead the public. We find no correct system of bookkeeping has been followed. The books at the Asylum have been kept in a very loose and bungling manner, and are unintelligible to such a decree that it is impossible to find in what manner the institution funds, gathered from the various sources, have been expended.
In the opinion of your committee too much censure can not be attached to the officers of an institution that have so conducted. their business.
CHARGE THIRTEENTH.
That Dr. Jameson had goods purchased of W, H. Churchman, superintendent of the Blind Asylum. We find that such goods were purchased to a small amount, but very properly stopped by order of Dr. Jameson.
We find in the general charge in relation to cruelty and neglect to the inmates of the Insane Asylum, that as a general charge this has not been sustained: but we find that in exceptional cases the charge has been more than sustained, notably in the case of Mrs. Knapp who was neglected in her room until the hanged herself; also a Mrs. McDowel, who under the same circumstances, committed ti. like deed, and in the case of Mrs. Ashland, who was left, on a cold winter day, locked in a room without fire or food, and of Mrs. Mary Harris, who was sick from April to July, and who received no treatment, and who died from this neglect in the early part of August; and in the case of Mrs. Williams, than which a greater case of professional ignorance or criminal neglect, to put it in its mildest form;, was never display ed by any professional man than by Dr. W. W. Hester, first assistant physician,in his treatment of this case. We find this poor demented woman, an inmate of the Insane Hospital for about eight or 1c months, under the care of Dr. Hester, who treated her for suppressed menses, with what is known as Hooper's female pill and a bitter tonic. Getting some better she went home for two weeks. Returning at the end of that time, we find from the evidence of three credible witnesses, that she was again placed under the same treatment, and continued taking said pills, until she had taken 150 of the same. The menses never returned. The woman kept getting larger weekly, according to Dr. Hester's own evidence, and the attendants about the hospital called the attention of Dr. Hester to her case, intimating that the woman was
page: 90[View Page 90]enceinte. He still ordered the pills, which experts, Drs. Theophilus Parvin and T. B> Harvey, as well as Dr. Walker and Woodburn, say would most probably have produced an abortion, and the evidence shows that Dr. Hester compelled this poor, demented, impregnated patient to pull a 30-pound rubber over the floor, despite her continued desire to lie down, and her continued compliant of "beating down pains."
We further find that even after the birth of the child, Dr. Hester continued an unheard of and unprofessional practice in carrying off the foetus and afterbirth, together with the bedclothing, to his dispensary, where he let it remain until it was discovered by its offensive odor. That he then placed the foetus in pickle and threw the afterbirth in the water closet, and afterward tired to burn the sheet, like a person who had committed a great crime and was trying to hide his guilt. Your committee have failed to find any cause for such conduct, or of such neglect and cruelty as this unfortunate created received, who was utterly incapable of helping herself. We do not know nor can we conceive of any cause why a medical officer of a public institution should stoop to the more than reprehensible practice of burning the bedclothing of a woman who had been delivered a child.
Your committee further find that Dr. Everts after having been notified of the fact, did not perform his duty by immediately discharging Dr. Hester for being guilty of such improper conduct, and that Dr. Everts is justly censurable for continuing him in office, and this approving his conduct.
We further find that the Asylum for the Insane has been in a state of demoralization for a number of years last past; the attendants and the officers continually clashing and forming "rings," thereby tending to demoralize the institution and destoy its efficiency. We find that no record of prescription is kept, and would recommend that a registry of all prescriptions be kept in the dispensary of the hospital. That unruly and meddlesome attendants be discharged. That the present medical officers, proven culpable, be discharged and a careful scrutiny be hereafter maintained by both the board of directors and the superintendent over the medical officers and other attendants, and see that said attendants treat the poor unfortunate people under their charge with that humanity and professional care that should actuate every one worthy the name of man
I.J. Foster, Chairman, Senator from Allen county; W. F. Reiley, Decatur, Jennings and Scott; Stanley W. Edwins, of Madison county; A. C. Handy, of Hancock county
Your committee recommend the adoption of the following:
Resolved, That the evidence taken down in the investigation of the charges preferred against Patrick H. Jameson and Dr. Orpheus Everts by Daniel V. Hubbard be ordered printed in pamphlet form.
Resolved, That the board of commissioners of the Indiana Hospital of the Insane be requested to throughly examine all the books, vouchers and accounts of said hospital, during the term of Orpheus Everts; and further, that they inaugurate a system of accounts, which will clearly show the financial transactions of said institution.
Resolved, That Patrick H. Jameson and Orpheus Everts be and are hereby censured for malfeasance in their respective offices.
Resolved, That the attorney-general of the State is hereby requested to institute suit against Patrick H. Jameson for the recovery of $1,400 wrongfully appropriated by him as salary, and that said attorney general is hereby requested to take such steps to recover any sum or sums of money retained or appropriated by either Patrick H. Jameson or Orpheus Everts contrary to law.
EDWINS and HANDY.
The report were laid on the table until to-morrow, without reading.
Mr. ROBINSON called up his bill [H. R. 636] to amend section 15 of an act regulating elections, which was read the third time and passed the House by yeas 62, nays 8.
Mr. OVERMEYER, from the special committee to which was referred the common school bill [H. R. 620] reported that the committee had agreed to the Senate amendment allowing the trustee to select the teachers, but had disagreed to several others.
Mr. FANCHER objected to the House concurring in the report of the conference committee on the school law, especially to that part in which they recommend the continuation of the law as it now stands in regard to the trustees being allowed to select and employ the teacher, after it had already been decided by the House, by a large majority, that they preferred that the patrons of the district should select the teacher, and after the Senate had concurred therein. It was, in fact, allowing two or three men, by force of circumstances, to control the entire House and Senate, they well knowing the desire of the members to pass the bill, and, in order to do it, the House must concur in their report.
The report of the committee was then concurred in.
Mr. DAILEY called up Mr. Tulley's bill [H. R. 147] to enable married women, whose husbands are insane or incapacitated, to exercise the right of resident householders in having property exempted from execution or attachment, which was read the third time, and finally passed by--yeas 68, nays 0.
The House adjourned.
