In Massachusetts, we are citizens before we are partisans. The good name
of the Commonwealth is of more moment to us than party success. But
unfortunately, because of existing conditions, that good name, in one
particular at least, is now in jeopardy.

Massachusetts, for twenty years, has been able honestly to boast of the
care it has bestowed upon her sick, poor, and insane. Her institutions
have been regarded as models throughout the world. We are falling from
that proud estate; crowded housing conditions, corridors used for
sleeping purposes, are not only not unusual, but are coming to be the
accepted standard. The heads of asylums complain that maintenance and
the allowance for food supply and supervision are being skimped.

On August 1 of this year, the institutions throughout the State housed
more than 700 patients above what they were designed to accommodate, and
I am told the crowding is steadily increasing. That is one reason I have
been at pains to set forth that I do not see the way clear to make a
radical reduction in the annual State budget. I now repeat that
declaration, in spite of contradiction, because I know the citizens of
this State have no desire for economies gained at such a sacrifice. The
people have no stomach for retrenchment of that sort.

A charge of overcrowding, which must mean a lack of care, is not to be
carelessly made. You are entitled to facts, as well as phrases. I gave
the whole number now confined in our institutions above the stated
capacity as over 700. About August 1, Danvers had 1530 in an institution
of 1350 capacity. Northampton, my home town, had 913, in a hospital
built for 819. In Boston State Hospital, there were 1572, where the
capacity was 1406. Westboro had 1260 inmates, with capacity for 1161,