The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1905-07-25
Denies Responsibility for Trouble
at State Hospital for
Insane.
DIssEcTs REPORT OF COMMIT
TEE AND STATEMENT OF COM.
MITTEEMAN IN DETAIL AND IS
WILLING TO ALLOW PUBLIC TO
BE JUDGE OF HIS ACTIONS.

Jacksonville Times-Union.)
SubjoIned statement from d. w. C..
Ysrbrough is sent TO the Times-Union,
with the request thar it be given
prominent place in these columns:
Chattahoochee, Fla, July 19.-Now
that | have allowed a sufficient tine
for the excitement to subside and
calmer thoughts to prevail, | desire
10 correct some startling and alto
gether misleading statements attribut-
ed TO ME in the communication pub
lished in the Times-UniOn of the Sth
inst. over the signatures of the gentle
men now somewhat unenviably known
as The First Committee" If this
statement of the facts in the case is
In direct contraction to assertions made
by a member Of that committee, l can
only affirm that, whether Intentionally
or otherwise, this member has made
statements misleading and untrue.
Date Of Telegram.
In the first particular noticeable mis-
statement in the communication so
far as concerns this article, is at the
bottom of the third column. The date
of the telegram signed Twenty Flor
ida Women" is therein given as May
Il, and an attempt is made to make
capital of it, when as a matter of fact,
il was dated and wired on the date
it was read in the House of Represen-
tatives. /. e., May p. Witness this
certificates:
''River Junction, Fla. July II, 1905.
Il hereby certify that the telegram
signed by Twenty Florida Women"
and addressed to the speaker OF the
House of Representatives, at ITALIA
hassee. Fla, was received at this office
on the morning of May II, bore that
date, and was sent at $40 a. m, Of
that date.
"a. B. WEEKS, Mgr. w. U. T. Co."
Further confirmation OF this and the
dates of the letters of like import adj
dressed to the Speaker of the House
the President of the Senate and the
Governor may be had by reference 10
the files of the journals of the two
houses and the officials named. Why
this committee or the member respol-
sible saw fit to insert Il with wrong
date. | cannot answer, probably he
could.
The committee says further (the
parentheses are mine):
"D. W. c. Yarbrough cid volunteer
(note this expressfon) some very dam
aging information to one member VI
the committee with reference, as he
expressed il. to the reprehensible con
iuct between male and female attend
ants. He said they had gone out in
nj IN
week, rambling and lying. out until
late. and in one instance couple Were
out all night. This last is absolute
lv untrue.) That whe1 DIR. Gwim
was away so long last summer, ne,
Yarbrough. determined to stop 1t, etc;
that in one instance he was satished
that something was wrong IN a room,
and he opened the door quickly, and
found them in a very compromising
position; that they had gone TO such
an extent that there seemed 60 De no
degree Of shame of one couple in the
presence of another. He did not CAL
names, nor was he asked to do so
(why not?) He also referred to some
two or more female attendants and
probably one patient, who had given
birth within two TO four months after
leaving the hospital. He also referred
10 the conduct of DR.. Gwinn and a te-
male employee
The foregoing excerpt IS such mix
lure of TACT and fancy, the latter pre-
dominating, as to require detailed an
swer.
What He Did Say.
When questioned as to why the en-
plovees had been restricted to two
evening masses per week, / answered
that the privilege of being allowed to
90 ont on any evening had been, in
some instances. abused; that these in
stances had laid the entire force OF
EMPLOYEES open to censure and mis-.
Judgment. and for their own protec-
tion as well as that of the institution
# had been thought best to limit THIS
privilege. When further asked as 20
examples of this abuse Of privilege, L
rited the case of myself having seen
ono couple in the act OF very fond
embrace not in a room, as stated Dy
the committeeman, but on an outside
gallery: that there had been another
couple present whom | did not recos-
nize: that this had beed the only case
coming under my observation, but that
other and more serious infractlons
of decorum had been reported 60 the
MANAGEMENT upon which two even
ings had been set aside in which the
young ladies were given passes TO go
outside the Enclosure. If the said COM
mitteeman will refer to my testimony
before the Mobiles committee, he will
note that | was questioned by the.
chairman Of that committee upon this
very question. At whose suggestion
these questions were put can only
guess. The gentleman will find, how
ever, by this reference, that my an
swers were substantially as above AMI
that | added that the couple so seen
by me had resigned shortly after
wards. anc been married.
Relative to some one having given
birth shortly after leaving the hospl-
tai: did say, not voluntarily as
considered it as having 20 bearing on
present conditions, but in answer 90
Questions, that had heard some such
runner: that the alleged guilty party
had left the hospital before / came
here; and that | did not even know
the mama nj the accused party. That