Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-04-24


EsTISG COMPARISONS OF DATES
The reasons for the secret manner in which
Commissioner Wheatley conducted his inquiry
into the charges against the management Of
the Washington asylum have not TRANSFERRED
nor has any explanation been made of the ex-
clusion from the hearing of much testimony
tending to throw light on some of the charges.
Commissioner Wheatley deemed it unadvisable
to take the testimony of inmates of the poor
house, prsferring, as he says, to rely upon the
statements of Mr.. Stoutenburgh's paid subordi-
mates. This decision, however, does not appear
to have been reached until he had received IN
sworn statements from inmates of the aims
house and knew their damaging character.
The inquiries made by Mr.. Wheatley of the
witnesses, as shown by the official re-
port of the testimony, even after
it had been carefully edited before
being given to the reporters, were not appar-
emily very wide reaching. The witnesses were
shown Mr.. McGuigan's charges and asked in a
general way what they knew about them. The
testimony was directed largely to explaining or
attempting to disprove statements published
In The STAR as the result of its reporters in
quiries into the charges.
MATTER NOT REFERRED TO.
One publication in The STAR, however, was
not referred to anywhere in the testimony As
shown in the published synopsis of the testi-
mony, several of the employees testified not
withstanding the risk they ran in giving such
evidence, to having seen the matron under the
influence of some intoxicant at different times.
The Commissioner sought to break the effect
of this testimony by eliciting the fact that at
such times the matron was able to walk or to
go about her business.
The Commissioner stated in his report to his
ll.,nrr h. a.
matrons habits was not sustained by the testi-
mony. He adds the following TO explain the
testimony of those employees who obstinately
persisted that they had seen her under the in
huence of something:
There is, however, some testimony appear
ing to sustain the charge, which is counter
balanced by affidavit of physician. showing
that, owing to physical causes. the matron has
been constrained at times to use opiates by his
direction"
THE PHYSICIANS AFFIDAVIT.
The only affidavit of a physician in testi-
mony is one by DIR. Thomas |. Chew, who, how
ever, does not say that the matron has been
constrained Eat times to use opiates by his
direction. All he saws on that point is: I'm the
the fall of 1888 l attended her in a severe at
tack of illness, when il was necessary to give
OPIUM. The Commissioner did not call for
the testimony of DIR. hoones, the resident ply
stefan. or DR.. Compton, who was stationed at
Il
cured some testimony in regard to the
use OF opium liquor, which the
Commissioner did not bring out on his inquiry
There We're the notes sent by the matron of the
asylum asking whisky and laudanum to be sent
TO her. These notes were sent in the spring
and summer of 1887, before the time DIR. Chew
found 1t necessary to prescribe opium. In
view OF the physicians testimony which is de-
pended upon to clear the matron of the charges
these notes and their dates are interesting, es-
peclally the last one, requesting to know
whether the doctor had destroyed the orders or
not. The notes were signed by Mrs. Stouten-
burgh, either with her initials or her full name
ORDERS FOR LAUDANUM AND WHISKY
Some of those without dates read as follows:
''Dr. K: Please send me some laudanum and
the bottle of sweet oil. SIS"
DIR: Please send me some laudanum and
some vaseline and some camphor SIS"
DR.: Please give me this bottle of laudanum.
SIS"
'Dr. X: Please send US some whisky or
brandy. SIS"
DIR. Koones: Please give me this bottle of
whisky or brandy for an almshouse patient and
small bottle of paregoric for my own cought
only little. S. s."
''Dr. Koones: Please send me some lauda-
mum. S. s."
On April %, 1883, so the doctors penciled in
dorsement says, the following request from the
matron was complied with:
DIR: Please send me a dOz. 11s-grain NOR
phine powders, IS"
similar request, filed June "a, is as fol-
lows:
DR.: Please send me some morphine pow
ders. S. S"
Eight other orders are dated covering period
of fifteen days. They are as follows:
DR.: Please fill this bottle SIS"
This was dated July IL, 1887. and on the back
was the doctors Endorsement, &c or. lauda-
num-"
Three days later there was another one:
DR.: Please fill this bottle and give me dose
of headache medicine. SIS"
Across the face is written "July IA, 6 o. of
laudanum."
On July II this was sent to the dispensary:
DR.: Please send me little whisky. S. So
The doctor responded by sending the Gus
tomary doses ounces.
On July Is the scrap of paper had penciled
on it:
DIR: Please fill this bottle. SIS"
This bottle" was the regular laudanum
bottle but it was not filed because the lauda-
mum supply had been exhausted and the
doctors hieoglyphics on the foot of the order
show that. Two days later another request
was made: doctor, please send me a little
whisky. S. s." Across the face in pencil is
July 20, 81; o."
On July q the dispensary supplied another
''little" dose of laudanum-six onnces-on the
following:
lease HI DOttle. .. y.
The medical records between July q and 25
seem to be missing, but on the latter date the
note read
Or: Please fill this bottles. S."
1t was the slx-ounce laudanum bottle, and it
was filled.
On July &c came another request from the
matron. accompanied by an explanation:
DR.: Please send me some whisky 1 want
to I'LL up my glycerine bottles. s."
The Series of notes is closed with the follow
ing significant one:
Or. Rdlrhngs, tcU you tell me are all the notes
and orders hare sent TO you kept on tle or de-
Stoyed! Very respectfully,
S. SToUTENBURGH.
These notes were not explained in testimony
but statements were made at the time of their
publication that the liquor was used to flavor
puddings, and that the opium was used among
the inmates or to cure MIR. Stoutenburgh of a
headache.
Based on the testimony of DIR. Chew that in
the fall of 1888 he had found it necessary to
prescribe opium the Commissioner, whenever
witness said that he had seen her that way"
or under the influence or in some other
way describe Mrs. Stoutenburgh as being not
in normal state, at once inquired whether the
witness knew that Mrs. Stoutenburg was taking
opiates by direction of physician.
HOW ONE PRESCRIPTION GREW.
As the testimony proceeded the evidence of
DR.. Chew grew in importance in the mind of
the Commissioner. Not only was the prescription
given in the fall of 1888 spread out SO as to ex-
tend to all times and to cover both opiates and
liquor, but DIR. Chew was multiplied into
several physicians. as the following instance of
zion, ed r., cx.-l,<~