John Broberg, Milton Sutton, George Lindsey, Walter Heeler, Timothy Whiting, Andrew Kelson; and at request of Hospital authorities, the following; viz., Philip Summers, P. T. Twinting, Butler Buchanan, S. M. Pyle, F. Houseman, J. W. Henderson (Steward of the Hospital). Adjourned to August 3, 1881, at 9 A. M.

AUGUST 3, 1881-9 A. M. Committee resumed sitting. The following named witnesses were examined at request of R. C. Brown; viz., Joseph Campbell, Mrs. Mary Bresenham, J. D. Willeford, L. W. Taylor, Hugh O'Hare; and at the instance of the Hospital authorities, J. W. Henderson (recalled at his own request), and R. C. Brown. Milton Sutton was recalled at his own request. L. A. Palmer, Esq., made a professional statement at his own request as to the scope of examination made and the immateriality of witnesses not examined. Mr. Palmer having stated he had no further evidence to offer on the part of the committee, nor of parties having made the charge under investigation, Dr. Mark Ranney, Superintendent of the Hospital, was placed on the witness stand and his testimony not yet concluded when the committee adjourned to 9 A. M., to-morrow.

Committee resumed sitting. L. W. Taylor, at his own request, was recalled. Dr. Ranney then took the stand and completed his testimony. At its close Dr. Olney announced the following: I find the main charges, as to food and cruelty, not proven. As to the cases of patients Condon and Courtney, I shall reserve the decision on those points for the full committee. I will, with as much speed as practicable, make up my decision in detail and forward the same to the Governor. Adjourned.

In the order as above the investigation of the charges against the Hospital management was conducted and made very thorough and exhaustive. The charges as they appeared in the Mt. Pleasant Herald were taken up and examined seriatim. Mr. R. C. Brown, the editor of the paper, disclaimed having any knowledge of his own in the matter, but had published such information as came to him from others. When called upon to come before the committee and testify, or to give the names of witnesses whom he claimed would testify as to the charges as specified in the issues of June 16 and 23, 1881, he utterly refused to do so until after the most important witnesses, by whom

the "charges" were expected to be proven, were found and subpoenaed without his assistance. Mr. Brown then came forward and assisted in the investigation.

The main charges were furnished by several employes discharged from the Hospital by the Superintendent, for the reason that they were not doing good service in their positions, and, having a grievance, such witnesses showed a great desire in their testimony to make a case against the management of the Hospital. The following are the charges made, as numbered, in the issues of the Herald of June 16 and 23, 1881, and the conclusion arrived at:

JUNE 16.

No. 1. The charge is "a patient was stabbed by an attendant and died in about one week's time."

This case was explained and it was conclusively shown that the injury was accidental, very slight; that the patient died in about a month, and that the injury had nothing to do with his death.

No. 2. "A patient was reported noisy; a dose of medicine was offered him; he threw it at the doctor, who ordered another dose from the dispensary, which the clerk gave, saying 'the man who gets that won't kick much.' This patient died within a few hours." This was testified to by Jno. Madison. The clerk referred to was Lewis H. Munn, formerly drug clerk at the Hospital, now a physician and surgeon in the service of the government in Colorado, as acting assistant surgeon; he denies making any such remark as imputed to him. It was, also, conclusively proven that this patient did not die from the effects of the medicine as described, and that there was nothing unusual in his death.

JUNE 16.

Nos. 3, 4 and 5. In substance these charges were that patients were denied suitable food, or such food as they could eat when ill. The evidence shows that these charges are grossly untrue and unjust, and that sick patients are always furnished with a good quality of light diet, adapted to their constitution.

No. 6. "A new patient was brought in one forenoon, was severely kicked by an old patient, fell to the floor and died in the afternoon of the same day; was reported as dying from a natural cause."

This refers to the case that occurred in 1874, during Dr. Kinney's absence from Hospital and when Dr. Basset was Superintendent.

The chairman of this committee knew of the case at the time it

occurred; it was inquired into by a coroner's jury, and a post-mortem was held by Drs. Marsh and McClure. The decision was that said patient did not die of injuries received in the scuffle with the "old patient."

No. 1. "Spoiled meat was frequently served."

This is most positively denied by the testimony of the butcher, Jacob McCoy, and also by the supervisors of both wings. The evidence shows that, with two or three exceptions, the meat had been excellent; that beef, pork, and mutton of the very best quality in the market is bought; and that the meat that was had on one or two occasions was pork, a "little sour," and that when it got to the diningrooms and was discovered to be bad it was immediately sent back to the kitchen and good meat sent in its place, so that no one was obliged to eat of it.

No. 2. "A suit taken from a deceased patient was put on another, and again charged to the State."

This charge is proved to be wholly without foundation by the evidence of the supervisor of the male wards and the book-keeper, who have charge of and issue the clothing.

No. 3. "The body of a husband was refused his wife, and at the same time dissected."

This charge is most positively denied by the Superintendent and supervisor, and both are sure that no such case occurred.

No. 4. "I remember of two cases who died from starvation and want of medical attention."

The evidence shows that this charge is without any just foundation. The witness King, who it seems was the author of this charge, does not swear to it positively, but has it from hearsay, and does not know that the deaths actually resulted from such a cause; other witnesses, knowing more of the affairs of the Hospital than he, swear that no deaths occurred from such causes.

No. 5. "I am sure refuse stuff was taken from the slop-tubs and hashed up for the back wards, where butter was served but once a day, and half of the time was not fit to eat."

This charge arose from the saving of clean pieces of bread left upon the ward tables, and sending them back to the kitchen to be used as the head-cook thought fit: but the cook and car-men swear positively that none but whole pieces and parts of loaves were so used, and only such as were fit for use. Concerning the part of the charge

as to butter, the evidence shows that the Steward procured the best butter possible, and that, during his administration of three years past, the butter market has so improved that much better butter is obtained than formerly; that much of the butter was then packed for winter use, while now he obtains nearly the whole supply in fresh butter from the best manufacturers in the country about the Hospital. The weight of testimony is that the butter furnished during the year has been good, except in the latter part of the winter, and then it was seldom strong enough to be unpalatable, and was freely eaten by patients and attendants.

No. 6. "Tea and coffee were generally bad, as heretofore described; sugar and sirup likewise, except a few days before Trustees' meeting, when a little better was given."

The Steward testifies that he buys "yellow C sugar," and his bills show that he has bought no lower grade than this since he has held the position; that the sirup used is the best sorghum made in the county, for winter use; for summer, the glucose or corn sirups; that sirups are bought by sample, and must be as good as said sample; that he has never bought any as "black as tar"; and that if the changes were made at "Trustee meetings," as testified to by two or three witnesses, they were furnished outside the Hospital. The attendants, generally, know of no such changes, and the supervisors of both wings have never observed them. This part of the charge has no foundation in truth.

The part relating to tea and coffee is denied by a great portion of the attendants, and the patients whom the committee have conversed with regard the said articles as good, as also does the chief cook. "Worms and filth in meal and pies. I know it was so. It was proven that this occurred once in some cracked wheat, a small quantity left of a package in summer was found wormy and thrown out.

No. 7.

No. 8. "Patients have been very cruelly treated, one crippled for life. Dr. Ranney was aware of it, and did nothing in regard to it."

This charge relates to one Peterson, a violent patient and very powerful man; the injury occurred in an attack upon an attendant named Tyler; in the struggle they fell to the floor, and Peterson was injured in the hip, which, upon examination, proved to be a fracture of the thigh bone; he was so violent and ugly that he would not submit to any proper treatment, and is now a cripple. But there is evidence of

cruelty in the case. The Superintendent was immediately informed of the injury, and all the attention given to the case that it demanded. No. 9. "Patients have been forced out to do work through mud, and in weather when, as it was claimed, it was unfit for horses." This charge is untrue: patients, are never forced out to work at all. No. 10. "The poor are discriminated against. The Matron and Superintendent abused one poor woman so shamefully that she cried like her heart would break. Others, wealthy or of high position, have been known to spend a month at the Hospital, boarding off the State." The evidence in this charge shows it to be a gross and outrageous falsehood, without the least foundation in fact.

No. 11. "Dr. Ranney has for years made patients work out his own and Henderson's road tax."

Dr. Ranney's own statement is a sufficient answer to this charge. He says: "During the period since I returned to the Hospital in 1875, and I believe once or twice before, when our road tax became due, attendants and patients, and Hospital teams have worked it out; we made it a kind of frolic for patients. For my own part of that work I have receipts." Mr. Henderson testifies that he holds the same. "I did it for the double reason that it relieved my employes, and especially the attendants, and was a change. It was relished by the patients." No. 12. This case has been explained before.

No. 13. "A baby was found in a dust pile about two years ago, and nothing was said about it."

The Hospital authorities do not know where it came from, but are sure it was not born at the Hospital, as there was no one sick at the time.

In the Fairfield Tribune a charge of insufficiency of food and of improper kind, is made.

The Committee do not believe, from the evidence before them and their knowledge of the dietary by their own observations extending over the past seven years, that there has ever been an insufficiency of food furnished patients or employes; and there is no truth in, and no just foundation for the charges.

"All the food furnished was unfit to be eaten."

This part of the charge is proven by the evidence to be grossly untrue, and we believe the person making the charge knew it to be so.

The Tribune further states: "Patients who were sick and needed lighter diet were not humored in this respect, and the result of this was innumerable deaths."