The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1878-02-13

Neville also testIhes that no report OF 'he
/ case wis made TO him. 1t such IN outrage
! was committed here is 10 witness known TO
| your committee by whom il can be proved.
Tie fourth charge relates TO the Head At
teDdant and his reports to the superinten-
dent. The Attendant alluded to IN this
charge was George Foxtcn. Acc riding to
Haekley's testimony lie does not know
of his own knowledge that Foxton was
ever reported to the Superintendent or AS is
tant Physician, by Conway, the then Senior
Attendent. Hackley further says, that he
himself never reported case to the Superin-
/ tendcnt, that was not at once investigated.
Conway, the above named Head Attendant
who, Hackley AYERS, informed him of the mat
| ter contained in this charge, was examined.
He estfes that he has recollection OF hav-
! ing reported said Attendants but once for cru
! city to patients, and cannot say wheeler the
case reported by him was duly Investigated
| or not but that the Superintendent never,
within his knowledge, failed to investigate
reported case of cruelty to patients.
The fifth charge states case of cruelty 10
| an old man. named George Work. Your COM
mittee gave this charge a careful and COM
plete examination. Aside from the absurdlty
OF applying porous plasters to bruises this
charge wholly contradicts itself. Blu. as mat
| ters of fact are required In explanation ana
contradiction Of these charges and not argu-
ment, the testimony of Hackley and Conway
is briefly stated.
Hackley says: THAT he does not know that
George Work resisted any Attendant. that he
learned from W ork himself that Attendant,
named Puliam, who is now supposed to be in
| Texas, had beaten him badly; and that An
drew Kelley, another Attendant, told him he
saw Pulliam do the beating" he further
says: That he did not report the matter to
the Superintendent" Upon cross examIna-
lion he says that he knew George Work to
be violent patient and given to resisting his
Attendants. Conway, the above named Senior
Attendant says, that he does not know OF any
mistreatment OF George Work by the Attend
ant; that he constantly complaining to
af mi 81 Y
and that he had a kind Of mania fer making
complaints" Andrew Kelley tie titles, that
PuIliam came to his ward with his face bleed
| ing, and told him that w ork had hit him with
a truss that he went with Pulliam to assist
him in securing the truss; that Work was not
beaten, and that only sufficient force was
used to overcome MIN; that he was. wild and
; | excited
Charles Young testifies that Work was
brought to his ward Immediately after the
, struggle; that he was very much excited but
not hurt or bruised, and that 10 porous plas-
+ tiers were applied as stated by Hackley" DR..
, Melville says, that he never heard word OF
, the assault on Work charged to have been
made, and neither did t1c Superintendent,
within his knowledge.
: The sixth charge relates to UNDECIDED COM
, plants to the Superintendent on the part
! of patients about the cruelties and mis- rea t.
ments of Pullam Hackley, when interrogat-
ed on this point, says that he could not say
0 that he heard the patients complain to the
informed him that they complained" 1t
is not at all unlikely that the SUI
: perintendent met with complaints on the
e part of patients. 1t would be extraordinary
o If such were not the case. Some of the very
r diseases Of patients possibly take this form
And, even in well regulated communities
= there are some persons more given to COM
q planning than others. This, however, should
t furnish excuse in an Institution of the
8 kind we are now considering. All compaints,
unless they are clearly unfounded, should be
+ investigated as fully when made by patient,
e as when made by an Attendant.
l. The seventh charge, brings your committee
d to the disgusting attic scene. The patient re-
+ ferred TO is Davis, the same one spoken of in
It charge number three. Both Hackley and
Stephen ORhyan testify that Charles Young
e told them that he had treated Davis as charged
y in Hackley's card. Charles Young was exam
$ ined fully upon this point He testified with
great candor, that Davis, in crazy fit had
o Uttered his room and that after rinsing the
r cloth in a bucket of water, that he wiped
6 Davis lace with it that he did it in playful
: ness and that the cloth clean. He furth-
:. er testified that he did not report the matter.
i as he did not deem it of sufficient importance y
! Neithr Hackley nor Rhyan made any report OF
it TO any of their superiors. Being ignorant OF
e the matter it was Of course impossible for the
r. Superintendent or Assistant Physician to in
b stitute an investigation. 1t will be observed
i that Hackley nor Rhyan testify of their own
knowledge, but claim to repeat the words of
II Young. Young gives milder version. But
IS the whole story is calculated to leave a dOubt
It as to whether Young did not mean something
If more than play fulness." At all events his
conduct by his own admission, was rough
% and displayed temper No blame, however
# could possibly attach to the Superintendent
i | 1t is one of those cases known only to the At
n | tendant and his insane charge, whose absence
3 | of reason deprives him of credibility 1t is
q just to Young to state that Conway gives him
J., good character for gentleness and Kindness
# The eighth charge is wholly unsustained
| HaoE lnU n HICp hop fOT bai,,
: ocrat, but because he WrOle letters criticisinp
f and rejecting on the action of the Board OF
: Trustees in cutting down the wages of the At
p | PENDANTS and for lnefficiencv. ACCORDING IN
n his own evidence, which is of course the best
: all Of the white employees at the Asylum, ex.
: cept two, are Democrats. The two included in
the exception were employed by the present
: SuperIntendents predecessor, and have been
$ long since discharged by him for improper
! conduct.
! The ninth, and last charge it will be seen
r from the evidence, is fraught with mystery.
Y The witnesses all agree that there was q man
o at the Asy lum, about the time of the Clinton
t riot, who appeared to be hiding. Gordon. the
b hack driver, testifes that nearly as he can
d recO lect, thIs mysterious, parsonage was there
in the Spring of the year. Every witness
q except Gordon, further agree in the Statement
+ | that shortly after the riot a man was sent
= away from the Asylum, toward Canton in the
V hack. Conway concluded that it was Charles
8 Caldwell, Jr., for The reason that he heard on
# of the employees of the Asylum, whose name
O he could not recall, address woman. who
il made her appearance shortly after the hack
J. left, as Mrs. Caldwell The hack driver saws
e that he knew both of the Caldwells ard Eu-
| gene Welborne and that the man he carried r.
s the railroad station, the occasion referred
= to was neither of them He does not know
n who it was DR.. Compton voluntarily stated
t that 1T was Peter Crosby, the fugitive Sheriff
e OF Warren county, and that he permitted Ri
omeet his wife at the Asylum ba n ,1l
afraid of encountering GlGner Bv refaron u,
to, James Hii's AFFIDAVIT made before Che
IS Justice Slmral14~w which is filed with the evi
y dence herelh,-it will be seen that he renuest.
e ed Ut. compton to permit Eugene Welborne r.
e remain at the Asylum until the excitement
d consequent upon the Clinton riot, had passed
9 put that Or Compton replied that the Asylum
q q inSt it11tia