Morning journal and courier., 1893-02-16
The Now Haven County Home.
A statement has been issued regarding New Haven county h2ma and it's manage mank which ia siora5 l1, fJa f,1Ior;,o

A stateWous uSS UeeE 1SSuso regarding New Haven county home and it's manage ment, which is signed by the following:
 bahab Mss Ice RseaI Bradley Mrs B. Lu Miss Re ma Laing Gillette, Cheshire; Mrs Gould She- ton, to Derby; Mrs E. O. Blatehley, Guilrord; Miss Dickerman, Hamden; Miss Katie H. Cramp- ton, Madison; Mrs. Eli l. Merrimau, Merden Miss M L Louise e.. Townsend, Midd!ebury; Mrs Nathan Harrison, North Branford; Mrs P B. Orcutt, North Haven; Mrs. L. B Treat, Orange; ha Mrs MerWn is Mitche sonth bury; Mrs. F: E Castle, Waterbury; Mrs H: B. GaF,es, 2 pes,, Mrs JRs S Todd, WoleQtt; Mrs; Le Roy ns Jossph e. % 8vord h0isI %rs Tibbais, Cobalt, Miss L. W. Haughton, Bozrah; Miss Kate E. Gris ~old, Hartford; Miss Abby II. E: Ensisn. Berlin; Mrs D John Twiss' Shaker CT SIFs; g. & Wsed Ssadss; Miss E: F aay Is Spencer, Suf1eld; Mrs. John Kelsey, North Gran5y; Mrs. Erwin Chase. Simsbury; Mrs E. G. New Haven; secretary beard Of visitors, New Haven county homo.
 The statement is entitled "A Statement from the Board of Visitors If the New Haven County Home, ana Other Visitors Caring for Children from eaid Home" The statement gives an opening shot or two at the public report recently made by the ConnScticut aumane society es the result of inquiries made by ths committee who were invited to iuveEt!s,ate the county Eoms's management by the society ard to throw light upon certain charges made by their New Haven agent against ssid home. The statement thsn grspples with tho definite charge in said report that "no proper supervision had been exercised" over children, "after passing into the hands of the proceeds as follows: This statement is somewhat obscure, in view of the fact that later in the re port children are said to be ''well csred for' in that home by entering which they ''pass into the hands of the board Of management.'' This lack of coherence, however, is of slight consequence to vision" as properly following the child from the county home to the family in which it is placed. On this point they have to say that county under Secticn 3656 of the General Stat utes are responsible for the supervision of all children placed in families in their respective towns; that large number of children have been so placed, and have been under supervision. Further than this, that they have it on authority which cannot be gainsaid, thac the secretary of their board is in correspondence with he visitors in every town throughout the state, in which children have been placed from the New Haven county home, and has on file reports of their supervision in these cases-and still further that she made this statement to this committee of inquiry acd that the statement has been ignored in their report
 The members of tho beard Of visitors by law mony was of full value in the matt-r of ''srpe'- vision" They could have given full reports of visits made to children m In families They were give any information; they were not even in- formed by the committee that such inquiry was proposed. Two of their number, however, meeting of the committee, uninvited, ard fur | charges made. This evidence has, howe yer, been ignored in the report
 
 faithful supervision has been given to children put into families, and second, that no opportunity which would ave placed matters in different ! light, the undersigned now distinctly state on | their own and other authority which is beyond question, that ali children who have been placed ! in family homes bave been reported to them in 1 their special towns and have been under intelli
 gent gent supervision, except in the case of three
 ties, end six who were provided for by the agent
 he o s9oe M ho hS h ! in writing the placing of these children in l the families he named, and his written promise report, in certain cases, their condition No re port was ever made by him. and the recommen- paper on which they were written In these l cases the county home at last rescued three of ! ths children from the home provided by this agent, and of those remaining he declared him self to have lost trace in two cases and he has never furnished the address of any of them to the It is suggestive fact that these very children neglected by this agent the leases of abuse'' which he instanced to the committee of Inquiry as chargeable to the county home management. His recommendations and promises were put on which begin with Januery 1, sl, and extend to the present day through twelve quarto volumes. These are some of the detai s which do not ap- pear in the ''report' of the committee.
 The board of county visitors exonerate the gentlemen Of this committee of inquiry" from any suspicion of intentional injustice to them. Doubtless these gentlemen suppose themselves to have considered the exact facts in the case. Their report is of course due to untrustworthy and misleading information, and to their not having made themselves familiar with the law concerning county homes. Their conclusions are necessarily without foundation, and wilt not bear the light of an impartial inquiry; or the weight of evidence which could be brought agalnst them by those who alone are in a posi- tion to know the full truth, and who have not been inquired of among the many witnesses said to have been called by this committee.