Answer. A sufficient amount of vision to enable him to attend to his business, or to the ordinary business of life.

Cross-Examined.

Question by Com. If a man who was a tradesman,-a shoemaker for instance, was so afflicted with cataract as to be unable to make a "waxed-end "but could see to do many other parts of his trade, would you recommend an operation?

Answer. I should not of my own accord recommend an operation. I might operate if he desired it.

Question by com. Is it proper that a surgeon should be much influenced by the desire of a patient to be operated upon?

Answer. It is not proper under all circumstances, but it might be proper, provided the operation did not involve a risk of life.

Question by com. Would you recommend operating on both eyes at the same sitting, where there was sufficient vision to do some kinds of work?

Answer. I think I should not. There is equal authority, however, both one way and the other.

Re-Examined.

Question by Dr. Hill for Dr. Dawson. Why would you be unwilling to operate unless asked, in the case of the shoemaker above named?

Answer. I should be unwilling to perform any operation without being asked; or without the consent, from the risk attending all surgical operations, those upon the eye included.

Cross-Examined.

Question by com. Is not the umcertainty of success in surgical operations on the eye for cataract, greater in restoring a more perfect vision where partial vision exists, than of success in most other surgical operations?

Answer. No sir.

Question by com. About what is the proportion of success in surgical operations on the eye for cataract?

Answer. I cannot tell the exact per centage of cure.

The proportion is large. A large proportion though, of cases in which operations are performed, under the most favorable circumstances are unsuccessful.

And further deponant saith not.

S. LOVING.

Dr. Arthur B. Williams, of lawful age, being first duly sworn deposeth, and saith as follows:

Questions by Dr. Hill for Dr. Dawson.

Question. Are you acquainted with A. J. Watts, a guard in the Ohio Penitentiary?

Answer. I am.

Question. Do you know of any reason why said Watt's should entertain malignity of feeling towards Dr. John Dawson?

Answer. I do.

Question. Did you ever hear him express any such malignity of feeling?
Answer. I have.

Question. Is that malignity of feeling of such a nature, and so intense, as that you think him unreliable as a witness against Dr. Dawson?

Answer. I do most, positively.

Question by com. Answer. I am. Question by com. expressed?

Answer. On the

Cross-Examined.

Do you reside in this city?

Are you a practicing physician here?

When did you hear the malignity of feeling above spoken of

evening of the trial I had with him, he said-"If it was not for Dr. Dawson's evidence-damn him, I would have beaten you." Question by com. When was that trial?

Answer. Some time in the year 1856, I think.

Question by com. Was that trial a lawsuit in relation to a professional bill? Answer. Yes sir.

Question by com. What other expression of malignity did you hear from him? Answer. About the time I settled the bill with him, he then remarked,—" If it was not for him (Dr. Dawson) the damned old granny, I would not have the bill to pay?"

Re-Examined.

Questions by Dr. Hill for Dr. Dawson.

Was Dr. Dawson subponed at that trial by Watt's or yourself?
Answer. By Watts.

And further deponent saith not.

A. B. WILLIAMS.

Dr. Wm. Trevitt re-called.

Question by Dr. Hill. How are the doors to the cells in the Ohio Penitentiary painted?

Answer. Black.

Question: How are the tickets to the cells fastened upon the doors?
Answer. They are suspended against them-central, literally towards the top.
Question. What is the size of the tickets, and of what material are they?

Answer. About 8 to 10 inches in length, by two inches in width,-black letters upon light ground.

Question. Do they in that position, form objects favorable or otherwise, for a cataract patient to see in those halls, and if so, why?

Answer. Those halls being imperfectly lighted by direct rays with no crosslights-the rays falling directly upon the black letters painted upon a light ground, which is suspended upon a black wall, the hall being comparatively dark, the amount of light resembling twilight-the most favorable for dilating the pupil of the eye-would be the most favorable situation for vision to a cataractus person. And further deponent saith not.

The State of Ohio, Franklin county, ss :

I, Stillman B. Hannum, a notary public, of the State of Ohio, within and for said county, do hereby certify, that the several witnesses whose testimony appears, herein, were by me first, severally, duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, in the investigation made in pursuance of the resolutions herein attatched; that the foregoing testimony was reduced to writing by me, and subscribed by the witnesses in my presence.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name, and affixed my Notarial seal, in Columbus, this 28th day of January, A. D., 1857. S. B. HANNUM, Notary Public,

Franklin County, Ohio.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

To the Chairman of the Committee on the Penitentiary:

The following resolution passed the House of Representatives, January 12, 1857: WHEREAS, statements have been made to members of this House that a gross outrage has been perpetrated, by the late Physician of the Ohio Penitentiary, upon patient in the Hospital of that Institution; Therefore

Resolved, That the standing committee on the Penitentiary be instructed to make inquiry into the correctness of said statements, and report thereon to this House; and that to enable them so to do said committee is hereby empowered to send for and to take testimony under oath or affirmation. JAMES S. ROBINSON, Clerk, H. R.

persons

and papers, Attest: Jan. 12, 1857.

GENTLEMEN :- -The Secretary of State, in answer to the Resolution of the House requiring that officer to report to the House the bids for the printing and binding of the public documents, journals, &c., and who were the successful bidders for the same, respectfully submit the following report :

That the Commissioners of Public Printing, (the Secretary, Auditor, and Treasurer of State,) having given due notification in the public journals by advertisement, according to law, proceeded within the time prescribed to open the sealed proposals.

That there were fourteen bidders, in whole or in part, for the various contracts, as is shown in the subjoined table:

That they judged many of them to be irregular and unfair upon their face; that some were wanting in sufficient security as required by law, and that others were without the visible means of performing the work required at their hands.

That they, on due consideration for the interests of the State, awarded the entire contract for the Public Printing, for two years, from the first Monday of November, 1856, to Richard Nevins, of the Ohio Statesman, of the City of Columbus-his being the considered the lowest, fair and uniform bid, and properly supported by sufficient security.

That for the Binding there were ten bidders, as shown in the subjoined table: That they found most of them as unfair and irregular as the bids for printing, and that on due consideration they awarded the entire contract for the Public Binding, to N. W. Lefavor. of the Ohio State Journal, of the City of Columbus, for two years from the first Monday of November, 1856, his bid being considered the lowest, fair and uniform bid, and properly supported by sufficient security. I herewith transmit the annexed table showing the contracts, bidders and bids.

All of which is respectfully submitted,

J. H. BAKER, Secretary of Stute.