Veterans Home Report01

 

Waupaca County Post

March 8, 1906

 

REPORT ON HOME

The Board of Control Gives the Result of Its Recent Investigation.

 

            State of Wisconsin, Waupaca County.

            In the matter of the investigation of the Wisconsin Veteran’s Home.

            To his excellency, James O. Davidson, Governor:

            In accordance with the request of Ex-Governor R.M. LaFollette, which request bears date December 7, 1905, the State Board of control proceeded to investigate the charges preferred by H.S. Maynard against the Wisconsin Veterans’ Home and appointed December 13, 1905, as the date, and two o’clock in the afternoon as the hour, the Wisconsin Veterans’ Home as the place of said investigation, but at the time set for said bearing the complainant did not appear, nor did any other witness appear for or on his behalf, although due and proper notice had been given by this Board. Mr. B.E. VanKueren, complainant’s attorney, appeared and stated that he said complainant, and the other necessary and material witnesses, could not and did not attend for the reason that they lived a considerable distance from Waupaca and were financially unable to pay the necessary expenses which they would have to incur in traveling to and fro from the place of hearing, and that unless the state provided means for paying such expenses the witnesses could not appear and the entire matter would have to be dropped.

            After due consideration, the Board concluded that it was not advisable to drop the matter at that time, because, if the matter were dropped, unwarranted suspicion might be cast upon the Wisconsin Veterans’ Home, and for the further reason that it was certainly the duty, not only of the Board, but of your Excellency, to be fully advised of the truth of all charges preferred.  It was, therefore, decided to continue said investigation to the 6th day of January, 1906.  A list of witnesses thus subpoenaed refused to attend the investigation without any reasonable excuse for such refusal.  Several others, including the complainant, could not be found.

            The complainant’s attorney was requested to amend his complaint, because he verbally stated that the original complaint did not contain all the charges against said Home that he desired to prefer.  The complaint was amended and a copy thereof is hereto attached.

            There is also attached to this report an answer prepared by Mr. E.Q. Nye, who appeared as attorney for said Home.  At the hearing which took place on the 16th day of January, 1906, before the full Board, there appeared Mr. VanKueren as attorney for the complainant:  Mr. Nye as attorney for said Home and Mr. F.T. Tucker, Assistant Attorney General, for and on behalf of the State.

            The greatest latitude was given the attorney for the complainant.

            He was given authority to visit any and all inmates of the Home and Mr. Tucker assisted him in looking up evidence among such inmates for the purpose of finding proof to sustain the charges contained in the complaint.  Upon said hearing twenty-two witnesses were sworn whose testimony is hereto attached and made a part of this report.

            The charges referred may be grouped under four heads:

1.       Cruelty to the inmates.

2.       Mismanagement of the affairs of the Home.

3.       Hardship of the rule requiring inmates to perform detail work

4.       Illegal retention of pension money.

We will take up these four charges in their order.

                                                            I

                                                Cruel Treatment of Inmates

            We are pleased to report that although Mr. VanKueren and Mr. Tucker visited many inmates, and although a number of witnesses who testified were old soldiers, discharged from said Home, the evidence produced absolutely failed to show that any inmate of said Home had been cruelly treated.  On the contrary, even the old discharged soldiers admitted that they had at all times been well treated and knew of no acts of cruelty practiced upon any inmate of the Home.

            At the termination of the investigation Mr. VanKueren did not claim that he had proven any acts of cruelty.

            We desire to have it expressly understood that he investigation has established the fact that the inmates of the Home are treated with the utmost care, kindness and consideration; that nothing has been left undone to make the place what it was intended to be, viz. “A Home for Old Veterans and their wives”.

                                                                        II

                                                            Mismanagement

            The evidence produced at the investigation to show that the affairs of the Home had been mismanaged failed entirely to establish any such fact.  It is our opinion, based upon the evidence produced, that the affairs of the Home are managed in a proper and businesslike manner.

                                                                        III

                                                            Detail Work

            The affairs of the Home are conducted by a Board of seven trustees, all of whom are veterans of the Civil war.  It is the duty of this Board to make all necessary rules and regulations governing said Home.  It is but fair to assume that these old veterans, who have a personal interest in the welfare of the Home and have at heart the happiness and comfort of the old veterans, would not intentionally establish any harsh or improper rule or regulation.  One of the rules adopted by them and to which exception was taken, reads as follows:  “Every officer and member of the Home shall be subject to detail duty for dining room service, and if not able to perform said duty, will be required to furnish the same either by substitute or a sufficient amount of money.”

            This detail duty consists of light work around the dining room and kitchen, lasting a few hours a day, and to be performed for one week once in three months.  The amount fixed by the Board of Trustees to be paid by an inmate who is either unable to perform this duty or does not desire to the same is $1.50 for every three months for the men and $.75 for every three months for every woman, provided always that such inmate receives a pension.

            At first impulse one might think it a hardship to require a sick person, entirely unable to perform any duty, to pay the sum necessary to hire some one to do this detail work for him, but when we consider that this work is of the simplest and lightest kind, and such that nearly every inmate can easily perform, and when we further consider that, unless compelled, many inmates would not perform any work of any name, nature or description, even though such exercise be beneficial to their health, the rule governing such detail work seems perfectly proper and reasonable.  In order to avoid any and all partiality, to have the rule uniform, and to avoid any possible trouble, the only proper method of enforcing this rule is to require each and every one who cannot perform this detail work to pay a small sum as a penalty for failure to perform such duty.  It seems that nearly all Homes of this kind have a similar rule, and those who are posted in the matter give it as their opinion that the rule requiring detail work, or in lieu thereof the payment of a small sum of money, is a reasonable and proper one.

                                                                        IV

                                                            Pension Rebates

            Another regulation adopted by the Board of Trustees reads as follows:

            “Applicants for admission to membership will be required and must voluntarily agree to surrender and pay over to the Home all pension moneys as follows:

            “single man, all in excess of $8.00 per month; married men, whose wives are members of the Home, all in excess of $12.00 per month; widows, all in excess of $8.00   per quarter additional from their pension money for uniform and clothing furnished by the Home.  Married men having dependent wives, not members of the Home, and widows having dependent children shall come under the head of single men, and shall pay over all pension in excess of $8.00 per month for the use of the Home, unless they shall, by satisfactory proof to the Commandant, show that they actually paid for the support of such dependent wife or children, a sum equal to said rebate and one-third of the remainder of pension.  In that case they may be excused by the Board from paying said rebate to the Home.

            “All members of the Home are required to file their pension certificates and vouchers with the adjutant for safekeeping.  Failing to promptly pay rebate of pension or to file pension certificate and voucher with the adjutant, shall subject the offender to discharge, and such person cannot be re-admitted until such rebate is paid and pension certificate and voucher filed with adjutant.”

            It may be safely stated that all the trouble which has occurred at the Home is practically due to this rule and regulation.  The complainant, H.S. Maynard, during the month of September, 1905, circulated a petition among the inmates of the Home, which petition contained a protest against the above rule, and a positive statement that the signers of the petition would refuse to pay any portion of their pension money in the future.  The statement contained in the petition reads as follows:

            “We hereby refuse from this time to pay to the said Board of Trustees or to the said J.H. Woodnorth, Commandant, or to any agent or substitute of said Board of Trustees, or the said Commandant of the said Home, any part of our said pension money as a condition of our remaining in the said Home.”

            This petition was signed by about thirty old soldiers, all of whom, however, withdrew their names from the petition excepting said Maynard and M.B.  Tarr, James Leeson, Walter Doxtater, Thomas E. Nottingham and John O’Neil.  This petition and the protest therein referred to was brought up before the Board of Trustees on the 6th day of October, 1905, and a hearing was given the petitioners; after such hearing was held and after the parties above named stated openly that they would absolutely refuse to pay any portion of their pension money to the Home as required by the rule, they were thereupon discharged from the Home.  The testimony further shows that the said Maynard induced these inmates to take this action and promised them that if they were discharged he would furnish them temporary living accommodations at Waupaca, which promise was taken advantage of by the inmates who were thus discharged.

            The Board of Trustees and the managers of the Home were compelled to act promptly in this matter, because said Maynard was creating a great deal of disturbance and dissatisfaction among the inmates of the Home.

            It is claimed on the part of these old soldiers that the revenues derived from the state and from the national government are sufficient to pay for all expenses of maintaining and running the Home and that the taking of any of their pension money is, therefore, unnecessary; and it is further claimed that it works a hardship on the inmates of the Home to pay a portion of their pension as required by the rule.  On this issue two points are raised.  First, it is claimed that the requirement is contrary to the statute; and second, that it is a harsh and unjust rules.

            That this requirement is not illegal, is readily disposed of by citing the fact that this identical question has been before the highest courts of at least four states, and in each case the decisions rendered by the supreme court held that this rule or regulation is not only legal but that it is also proper and just.  It may be said in passing, that this rule or regulation has not only been adopted in all like Homes in this country but that in most of such Homes the amount allowed to be retained by the pensioner is smaller than the amount allowed the inmates of the Wisconsin Veterans’ Home.  For the purpose of properly and legally carrying out this rule, the Trustees of the Wisconsin Veterans’ Home have been much more careful and explicit than those of most of other Homes, and we can hardly understand why the old soldiers in this particular instance should have complained of this rule, when each and every one of them expressly agreed in his application for admission, that he would comply with all the rules.

            The application which was signed by the parties complaining, contains the following:  “Question 32:  If admitted will you, when called upon, do a reasonable amount of work in and about the Home, unless excused by the Surgeon in charge?  A. Yes.  Question 33.  On condition of being admitted to the Home and accepting its benefits, do you hereby voluntarily agree to promptly pay over and surrender to the Board of Trustees of the Wisconsin Veterans’ Home, for use and benefit of said Home such money received for pension to which you are now or may hereafter be entitled, or such portion thereof as the rules of said Home shall require?  A. Yes.  34.  Did you read the rule in regard to pension money payable to the Home?  A. Yes.”

            This application thus made was properly acknowledged; acknowledgement further deposes and says that he has read or heard read the foregoing questions and answers thereto, and that the same are true and correct; that the answers were made voluntarily by me for the purpose of gaining admission into said Wisconsin Veterans’ Home.

                                                            ___________________ Applicant.

            Subscribed and sworn to before me this ___ day of ___ 190__,”

            (Seal.)

            It will thus be seen that the person admitted to the Home enters into a contract binding upon himself, the terms of said contract being fully understood by him.  We can, therefore, see no good reason why the contracting parties to this agreement should not be held to the performance thereof.  Every good citizen of the state is supposed to live up to terms of any agreement which he knowingly and voluntarily enters into.       

            It is further argued that the requirement to file the pension certificates and vouchers with the adjutant for safe keeping is an unreasonable and illegal requirement; but upon investigation, it is found that this rule is founded on reason and necessity.  Pensions are paid every three months.  Each pensioner is required to sign a pension voucher before a Notary Public or other proper officer.  The acknowledgement attached to this voucher cannot lawfully be taken by the Notary without having exhibited to him the original pension certificate; and it has been found that, if the old soldiers are permitted to keep their certificates, they frequently mislay or lose them and sometimes improperly dispose of them so that when the proper time comes for them to have these certificates in their possession to be submitted to the proper officer, they cannot be found and a great deal of trouble and inconvenience caused thereby.  Thus experience has shown that it is necessary to have all certificates deposited with the Adjutant or some other officer for safekeeping.  These certificates, however, will be turned over to the pensioner at any time if he so desires.  The United States Government sends out an inspector to look over the Home and also to examine these pension certificates.  It is, therefore, also a matter of convenience for him to have the certificates in one place whenever he desires to inspect them.  We have come to the conclusion that the rule requiring pension certificates to be left for safekeeping with the proper officer is a good and necessary rule and really for the benefit of the inmates themselves.

            The following cases hold that the requirement to have the pensioner pay part of his pension money to the Home is a legal and proper one:

            Loser, et al. vs. Board of Managers, etc., 52 N.W. 956 (Mich.)

            Bryson vs. Trustees, etc., 168 Pa. St. 352.

            Brooks vs. Hastings, et al., 43 Atl. 1075 (Pa.)

            Ball, et al., vs. Evans, et al., 63 N.W. 435 (Ia.)

            O’Donohue vs. New Jersey Home etc., 47 Atl. 452 (N.J.)

            But we are urged to find that this rule is unreasonable because it does not leave the old soldiers sufficient money to purchase certain necessaries of life, such as citizen’s clothing, tobacco, etc.  The fact is that the Home furnishes practically everything that the old soldiers need in the way of enjoyments and comforts of life.  They are furnished proper rooms, meals, clothing, entertainment, care in case of sickness, etc., and we can see no good reason why a pensioner should not pay a fair portion of his pension toward his support.  Pension money is granted by the government to the old soldiers, not for the purpose of purchasing luxuries, but to assist them in procuring the necessaries and comforts of life.

            It is apparent that under the present system every inmate of the Home, who is economical, has not only a sufficient sum of money to supply all his needs, but he has also a small sum left which, in many instances, is sent home to needy relatives.  Thus it was shown at the investigation that there is sent by the inmates through the post office at the Home a sum amounting to nearly $1,000.00 a month to relatives of the old soldiers, all of which is saved out of the pension money retained by them.

            We must therefore, report that in our judgment the requirement to pay part of the pension money to the Home is reasonable and just.

            The fact that the old soldiers who made complaint and who failed to pay the required portion of their pension money, were dishonorably discharged, is also bitterly complained of.  The complainants, however, voluntarily submitted to the rule which requires that “any failure to comply with this rule, will subject the offender to dishonorable discharge.”  Every inmate of the Home not only voluntarily agrees to pay the required sum, but also fully understands that he may be dishonorably discharged if he fails to comply with this rule.  Any  one who has had any experience in conducting institutions of this kind, well knows that rules are necessary relating to the proper conduct of all inmates, and that all such rules must be strictly and impartially enforced.  Without discipline, no public institution can be successfully enforced.  Without discipline, no public institution can be successfully managed.  Every inmate who voluntarily or willfully violates an existing rule, after having agreed to conform to the same, ought to be dishonorably discharged.

            Complying with the rule in the case referred to would have caused no hardship to the complainants.  Had these complainants conformed to the rule and paid their share of the pension money, they could then have asked for a discharge and such discharge would have been an honorable one.  In other words, supposing that a soldier gets a pension of twelve dollars per month, he, at the end of three months, would have to pay the Home twelve dollars, while he retained twenty-four dollars.  Upon his paying the amount due to the Home, he would comply with the rule, and if he then desired to leave he could obtain an honorable discharge.  In this particular instance, the complainants knowingly took the course which they knew would result as it did, and they have no reason to complain.  They could have easily avoided a dishonorable discharge by simply complying as before with the rule in question.

            The Board on its own motion, investigated several other matters which were brought to its attention in several ways.  For instance, it was claimed that the chaplain who has been employed at the Home for a number of years was not properly ordained, and that one Weeks had been improperly discharged from the Home in the middle of winter, and in consequence, during a very cold night, froze his hands and suffered other injuries.  After a thorough investigation of these and other charges, we found each and every one of those charges absolutely without foundation.  We found that the Chaplain in question was properly ordained a number of years ago.  We also found that this man Weeks, at the time he froze his hands, was not and had not been an inmate of the Home for some time.  He, however, lived near the Home, and one day walked from one place to another, became intoxicated and fell by the wayside, laying there in the cold until some one came along and picked him up.  His hands were badly frozen.  The Home was notified of the condition of the old soldier, and although he had been previously dishonorably discharged, and although the Home was not obliged to take care of him, he was nevertheless taken in and a physician from Milwaukee sent for, who with the resident physician, operated on him and removed the frozen fingers.  Mr. Weeks, whom we called on, made the statement that he had always been well-treated.

            We cannot help but think that many of the charges preferred were not made in good faith, but were prompted by malice and ill will.  A number of inmates of the Home had to be discharged for drunkenness and disorderly conduct and they are now trying to excuse the disgrace incurred by reason of such discharge against the Home.  They seem to have no charity for the officers who earnestly endeavor to provide a home for them and in many  instances even overlooked irregularities which ought not to have been overlooked.

            All of which is respectfully submitted.

            Madison, Wis., February 21, 1906

                                                                                    Herman Grotophorst,

                                                                                    Allen D. Conover,

                                                                                    L.B. Dresser,

                                                                                    Almah J. Frisby,

                                                                                                State Board of Control