Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1898-06-28

The Orphans Home Directors
Makes a Report

J> ~ bIi1i 4lh, lc9O
my findings which are borne out by tn,
testimony given at said investigation
are as follows:
First: Day testifes that Miss Moore
the teacher, was i'll treated two wear,
ago.
Second: He testifes to the i'll treat.
ment of a boy a few months after he
Day was employed at the Home, that
was about two years ago.
Third: The instance he cites to
prove improper conduct on the part OF
the Assistant Matron and Seamstress, he
testlhes occurred about a year ago.
The question arises, if Mr.. Dav was
acting in good faith why did he wait
tor from one to two years before bring
ing his charges?
Although Day strongly asserts mis-
conduct on the part of the Assistant
Matron and Seamstress, he makes but a
very weak attempt to prove it. The
only evidence he offers of his own
knowledge is, that he saw Stanton start
toward the sewing room with the Assist
ant Matron and Sea1nstress about nine
O'Clock at night; that he told Stanton to
go to bed, that Stanton answered "A1l
right, as soon as l take my pants up to
the sewing ROOM Day said, eve will
wait till you come back" Stanton
answered VERY well, " and he went up.
He testiies further that Miss Cation.
Miss Ruth Heritage and himself sat out
on the sewing room steps for an hour
and a half Miss Cation says less than
an hour and Stanton did not come
down. The three her LETT the steps.
Day going to bed, leaving Stanton SUD
posedly III the sewing room. By his
own testimony II was DAYS duty as
workman to see hat the BOYS were in
bed at the proper time, $50 P. III. Dav
further testlties that he laid awake read
Ing a novel until about II O'Clock, when
he went up to the bows dormitorv to see
II Stanton was there; that Stanton was
not there, so he day went down and
went to bed.
Day seeks to prove by this testimony
that he knew where Stanton was all the
time; he knew hat it was wrong for
MIN to be there; he t~estifies himself,
hat 1t was his duty as workman to see
that Stanton was in bed in the dornitorv
with the other boys, yet he made no
effort to carry out this duty and although
this occurred a year ago, he never in
formed the Superintendent of the Home
OF this occurrence, nor OF any other occur
until he left or was about to leave
the employ OF the Home.
From the foregoing facts gathered
from Days own testimony II fair
minded person must arrive at one of two
conclusions: either Day grossly ne
his duty, and not only condoned,
out aided and abetted the crime COM
nltted, or, that this story OF his is a ma
icious falsehood.
am drawn to the latter conclusion
rom the following facts:
Almost every word of the testimony
by Day as hearsay was contra
ilcted by those whom he testified had
aid certain things. Day in the first
art OF his testimony, referring to Mr..
Mrs. Beebe, says, ~ told them if
hey didn't do something 1 would re-
This something p from
he testimony of Mr.. Beebe and the
asked Mr.. Day by Mr.. Wester-
.eld to be the discharge OF Miss Stock
she was discharged everything would
e all right. Mr.. and Mrs. Beebe both
that Mr.. Day said to them that !
e hated Miss Stock, and, in fact, this {
aired OF Day for Miss Stock seems to be
l2 primary cause OF his charges. One
Days witnesses, Frank Lopez, sounds G
lie keynote when he says that, he had l
III Tor Miss Stock, that he wanted to @
ct = EN- OH her, because lie says, "She
adj It reported around that when he was \
ok IN bed, he asked for a chicken din l.
er. 1t is to be hoped that Mr.. Day t
at least as good a reason for his S
aired OF Miss Stock and his attempt to T
lin her reputation.
One thing that impresses me through -
1T Is that every one OF Mr.. Days wit !,
esses testified that he or she had a
rudge against the person whom he or
lie testified against; in other words, all !
- IL