# Armed Forces Institute of Pathology: Its First Century 1862-1962/Chapter XII

CHAPTER XII
Between the Wars
Chronic difficulties of too little space and too small a staff continued to plague the operation of the Army Medical Museum in the years between the 1918 armistice and Hitler's invasion of Poland, 21 years later.
"The rapid accumulation of materials * * * burdened the museum staff with the labor of preparation" of specimens for several years after the First World War, said Maj. Virgil H. Cornell, addressing the International Association of Medical Museums at its meeting in Washington in May 1933. The combination of the volume of materials for display and the shortage of space had tended to bring about overcrowding of the exhibits, particularly since, "anticipation of the early erection of a new museum had led to the postponement of rearrangement" of materials in the existing building. By 1933, it had become apparent that the new building for which a site had been purchased 11 years earlier was, like many another hopeful project, a victim of the great depression. "In view of a rather indefinite postponement of any new construction," Major Cornell added, "we are attempting to improve the material accumulated with what facilities are at hand. Though no progress has yet been made in the new grouping of exhibits, it is none too early to begin the assembling of materials so that it may be ready for transfer in group arrangement to the new museum when that time comes."
The time when such a transfer and rearrangement was to be made was not to come about until after two wars, three temporary homes, and four removals of the Museum, so that it is no wonder that the idea of making ready in 1933 for an anticipated move to a new building might, in Major Cornell's words, "sound overoptimistic." But, he added, in extenuation of his seeming overoptimism, "we have lived too long in an atmosphere of pessimism, so it is time to reverse the trend." 1
In the discussion which followed Major Cornell's presentation of the current activities of the Museum, Dr. Howard T. Karsner of Cleveland, professor of ​ pathology at Western Reserve University, declared that it demonstrated what could be done by the U.S. Army Medical Corps "in the face of most distressing conditions."
The oral presentation by the Curator was backed up by a tour of the Museum, in which the members of the Association had an opportunity to see in actual use the methods of mounting, lighting, and display which had been presented and discussed earlier in the day. The tour, according to the minutes of the Association, afforded "an extremely interesting and valuable time * * * in the examination of the treasures and resources of this great Collection." 2
Deterioration at the Museum
The collections of the Museum were indeed great, but there can be no doubt that by the early 1930's, as a result of restricted space and reduced staff, they had deteriorated relatively, if not absolutely.
This was made plain in a special report to The Surgeon General of the Army by Maj. (later Brig. Gen.) Raymond Osborne Dart (fig. 73), who had served as Major Cornell's Assistant Curator and who succeeded him. The new Curator was a native of Kansas, who received his academic education in the University of that State and took his medical degree at Rush Medical College of the University of Chicago. He entered the Army in 1917, and started his first tour of duty as Curator of the Museum in 1935. Before his second tour of duty with the Museum ended, he was to affect profoundly its organization and direction.
The purpose of Major Dart's special report of 19 July 1935 was to point out and make "recommendations for the correction of defects in the organization which have seriously handicapped the successful operation of the institution in the past." Continuing, he wrote:
Figure 73.-Brig. Gen. Raymond O. Dart, eighteenth Curator of the Museum, 1935-1936; second Director, Army Institute of Pathology, 1946-1949, and first Director, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, 1949-1950.
Taking up in turn the "four chief non-professional departments," he outlined their condition and described its effects upon the professional work of pathology and scientific research.
​ The "department of museum display and gross technique" was, he said, the "most important non-professional department" and the one which had "gravitated to the lowest level of all." He continued:
From 1919 to 1922 this department was in charge of Captain C. F. Silvester, Infty (Res), an excellently trained technician and administrator. During this period he not only supervised the preparation and display of a large amount of war material but published many articles on museum technique of such importance that the Army Medical Museum enjoyed an eviable position of leadership in this field. Since that time the work of this department has been done by a succession of enlisted men from the detachment at Walter Reed General Hospital or the Army Medical School who have been detailed temporarily to the Army Medical Museum for this purpose. Desultory efforts to supervise this work have been made by the Curator and his assistants when time could be spared from other duties, but only the mounting of rare and important specimens could be given this attention and all others requiring more than the simplest technique have of necessity been either destroyed or dumped in large vats in duplicate storage. 4
Inadequate Space, Insufficient Personnel
Even this attenuated attention to museum display had been further diluted by reduction in staff from three enlisted men to one, who was due to retire for age in a few weeks, with no trained replacement on hand. In the circumstances, preparation of special exhibits for display in the building and at various scientific meetings was "taking many hours of time from the more important duties of the curator and his assistants" and the "undertaking of modernizing the general museum exhibit" was "out of the question."
On the clerical and administrative side, the loss of Capt. Theodore Bitterman, principal clerk, through retirement in 1931 without replacement, "was probably the most serious handicap to the successful administration of the museum." The loss of this experienced administrator had imposed upon the Curator multitudinous details requiring attention.
The Department of Photography, headed by Roy M. Reeve, was "inadequately staffed by a succession of enlisted men of the Medical Department who as soon as they have become sufficiently trained to be of any real help in the advancement of the department have either been transferred elsewhere or have accepted more remunerative positions with civilian institutions." Mr. Reeve's advances in the field of color photography, keeping up the tradition of leadership in the photographic arts established by Dr. Joseph J. Woodward and Dr. Edward ​Curtis, and carried on by Dr. William M. Gray, had been done, Major Dart noted, "entirely after office hours and on Sundays and holidays," since routine official duties had "occupied his entire government time."
The Department of Histology, except for the loss of personnel, had "maintained its former status," largely because of the publications and contacts of Mrs. Helenor Wilder and the training which she had given the other members of this unit.
Comparing the period of 1924-26 with 1932-34, and taking the average number of accessions as a fair index of the volume of work accomplished, the special report found that the average had been 2,666 per year in the later period as against 1,990 per year for the earlier. The difference was widened by the fact that approximately 1,200 per year of the earlier accessions were not new cases but simply re-accessions from the old museum, requiring only the paperwork of entering them in the modern system of classification, while in the later period, lack of personnel had precluded the work of re-accessioning, so that the accession figures represented new cases, the majority of which were specimens sent in for diagnosis. The actual work in the 1930's was nearly double that in the period in the 1920's, while the personnel had been reduced from 31 to 21 in all categories. Major Dart continued:
This is an insufficient number to carry on more than the routine and consequently the work on large projects essential to the orderly classification of the museum which have been started in previous years from time to time have been stopped and a large part of the vast museum collection still remains in a hopeless muddle. The very building has degenerated into a shambles of cobwebs and dirt, filled with antique furniture and the debris of worn out equipment and broken exhibits.
Working Under Handicaps
The state of affairs in the Museum proper, characterized as a "breakdown," imposed such a handicap upon the work of the Curator and his professional assistants that they were able to accomplish the routine pathology only with difficulty and had "little time" for the "scientific research with which the officers on duty at the museum are charged by regulation."
Major Dart's views on the state of the Museum were shared in large degree by his successor, Capt. Hugh Richmond Gilmore, Jr. (fig. 74) » who served as Acting Curator for a few months in 1935 and 1936. In a memorandum of 5
Figure 74.—Capt. Hugh R. Gilmore, Jr., nineteenth Curator of the Museum, 1935-1937.
50 percent while the size of the civilian staff had decreased by almost the same percentage.
"Due to this decrease in civilian personnel the Museum exhibits have not been kept up to date," he wrote. "Instead of being a leader in its field the Army ​ Medical Museum is rapidly becoming nothing but a storehouse of poorly arranged and poorly exhibited pathological specimens * * *. Also the Museum's files and records are six months from being up to date."
The situation of Mr. Reeve, chief photographer and the only civilian employee in the department, was singled out. "If anything should happen to him," the memorandum read, "the department would collapse." 5
More restrained in their language, but much the same in import, were the Annual Reports of The Surgeon General of the Army for this period in the life of the Museum.
"The continued increase in routine pathological and administrative details has again prevented renovation of the museum exhibits which has been needed badly for a number of years," said Surgeon General Robert Urie Patterson in his annual report for 1934. "The changes made in the main museum in 1933 have but accentuated the need for further work of this type * * *. An attempt to reduce and prevent overcrowding is continually being made but the present quarters necessitate removal of some portion of present exhibits when anything new is added." Personnel was not adequate, The Surgeon General said, to permit the making of the studies which should be made.6
In 1935, when the Museum was visited by 81,423 persons, the largest number which had done so in any year up to that time, Surgeon General Charles R. Reynolds spoke again of the great need for revision of the general museum, but said that because of insufficient personnel it could not be done.7
The subject was discussed more at length in General Reynolds' report for 1936. "The routine pathology," he said, "is more than sufficient to fully occupy all of the [time of the] officers regularly assigned to duty. However, in addition to the purely professional work, a large amount of time is required for the administration of the museum, the proper conduct of the registries and in teaching the course in pathology at the Army Medical School. All of the officers are required to spend additional hours of duty in the institution and to take part of the routine work to their homes to be done during the evenings and on Saturday afternoons and Sundays. As a consequence, very little time can be spent in the proper care and display of the permanent Museum exhibit."
Revision of the "entire exhibit on a modern basis" was "sorely needed," The Surgeon General said, but shortage of trained technical personnel precluded such a possibility. ​ The entire permanent exhibit, he said, "must be reviewed, relabeled, and modernized as soon as funds and personnel are available * * *. This Museum must be rearranged so as to tell the story of disease as well as to display its morbid processes. By so doing it would then become one of the greatest teaching institutions in its field." 8
The picture of the Museum, however, was not all dark. The photographic department, which had been "functioning under the handicap of worn-out equipment, leaky plumbing, and ineffective lighting" had been aided by the installation of new sinks and the rearrangement of its layout.
The Edgar Bequest
New cases for better display of the Museum's great collection of microscopes were procured, thanks to the William F. Edgar Bequest, a fund left to The Surgeon General of the Army, to be expended for the benefit of the Medical Museum and The Surgeon General's Library. The donor of the fund was Dr. William F. Edgar who, in 1849, traveled overland by covered wagon from the Missouri River to Oregon, and thence to California. There, in Los Angeles, he prospered and accumulated a substantial estate. In a will drawn in July 1893, ne made the Museum and the Library co-sharers in the residue of his estate, after the payment of numerous bequests to individuals and to charitable, educational, and civic organizations. In 1894, by a codicil to his will, he had changed the division of his bequest to The Surgeon General by providing that the Museum should be the beneficiary of four-fifths and the Library of one-fifth of the fund bequeathed. Dr. Edgar died in 1897, but his estate could not be settled until after the termination of a life estate left to his widow. In 1931, the trustees of the estate sought to make final settlement with the Army, but this could not be done until after the Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing acceptance of the bequest. This was not done until 1933, at which time the bequest amounted to $18,309, and the four-fifths going to the Museum, to $14,647. This amount was to be spent for equipment, supplies, and services outlined in War Department General Orders No. 5, dated 8 May 1933, and was to be "available until expended." The largest items of expenditure, by far, were for new display cases, but the Edgar funds made it possible to meet such peripheral expenses of the Museum-Institute as paying the inheritance tax of the State of Pennsylvania on the portrait of Dr. John H. Brinton, the first Curator, which was given to the Museum by Dr. Ward Brinton, his son. ​ The fund dwindled over the years, as was inevitable, but it lasted for a quarter of a century before its final extinction in 1958, after the last $42.51 had been spent in December 1957.9
Lt. Col. James E. Ash returned to the Museum in 1937 for a second tour of duty as Curator — a post which he was to hold for 10 fruitful years. In the first of these years, the Museum attracted more than 97,000 visitors, making it, according to Surgeon General Reynolds' report for 1937, "one of the show places of the Nation's capital" — to which he added the wry comment that it was "about the shabbiest." The largest medical museum in the world "from the standpoint of amount of material," the report said, "suffers considerably by comparison with other museums in Washington, with their fine buildings and modern equipment." 10
The status of the Museum as the Army's "clearing house for pathology" and the "large number of cases sent into the various registries * * * ," said the report, "require the constant application and considerable overtime effort of the limited personnel to keep it moving at a reasonable pace. There is no time for the study and investigation that this material warrants, and the Museum itself can be given only perfunctory supervision." Many exhibits needed revamping and a large percentage of the labels, some of them actually illegible, needed replacing, but "with the present personnel it is possible to make scarcely any appreciable progress in this rejuvenation."
Gaining Ground
Nevertheless, progress was made. The collection of microscopes, ophthalmoscopes, hard-of-hearing aids, and stethoscopes — each collection as comprehensive as any to be found in the world — were exhibited to "much better advantage than they have been heretofore," 11 using the new exhibit cases purchased out of the Edgar Bequest. During 1938, the main museum room was improved, the work being done by the staff using materials purchased from the limited funds available. To relieve some of the overcrowding, several of the old wooden exhibit cases were retired and the number of exhibits was ​ reduced, it having been found that the display had a "greater appeal to the laity if it is not confusingly overcrowded." The great bulk of the collections were relegated to storage, but in such form that the material was always available for study. The Museum had taken its place "as one of the more popular sights in Washington," having had, for the first time, more than 100,000 visitors in a year. 12
Substantial evidences of ground gained were found in the number and distinction of the medical collections given to the Museum in the years of its resurgence (fig. 75). Important contributions during 1938 included a collection of models, pictures, and actual specimens covering comprehensively the history of appliances used in maxillofacial surgery, assembled by Dr. George Morris Dorrance of Philadelphia, and described as "an unique collection of great historic value"; a collection of historic and modern bronchoscopes and esophagoscopes devised by Dr. Chevalier Jackson of Philadelphia and his son, and of hundreds of foreign bodies removed by their use; a collection of models and drawings developed in the postgraduate course in otolaryngology at the Harvard Medical School under the supervision of Dr. Harris Peyton Mosher, together with material representing Dr. Mosher's original research in diseases of the esophagus; and several types of artificial larynxes, with which persons who have lost their larynx can talk, presented by Dr. LeRoy Allan Schall of Boston.
The most notable gift of this period was the world-famous Huntington collection of anatomical material, perhaps the largest collection in the world in its field. The collection had been gathered by Dr. George Sumner Huntington of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, the first full-time professor of anatomy in this country, in the years between 1889 and his death in 1925. It includes some 5,000 specimens, illustrating the form, development, and evolution of most parts of the body in many species, including man. These specimens, presented to the Museum for display and study, were an important educational resource of the Museum, particularly in the field of comparative anatomy.13
Prospects for a New Home
Figure 75 .—Maj. Harry A. Davis, after 28 years of military service, served the Museum for 21 years, first as entomologist and later in historical work in the course of which he gave special attention to the Museum's collections of medical instruments.
the present Army Medical Library and Museum Building." The new building was to be put up in the District of Columbia, on a site to be chosen after consultation with the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, and subject to approval by the National Park Service. The total cost of the new building was not to exceed $3,750,000, but the bill carried no appropriation for this or any other amount.14
The dream of a new building had persisted ever since Col. William O. Owen's time as Curator, and even before. In earlier days, the dream was for a building on the Washington Mall; in more recent times, as the great Army Medical Center developed around the Walter Reed General Hospital, the favored site had come to be one in the vicinity where, indeed, additional lands had been purchased for the purpose of housing the Museum and Library.
This point of view was vigorously and thoughtfully presented by Dr. Howard T. Karsner in letters to congressional and executive department leaders. Writing in his capacity as secretary of the American Association of Pathologists and Bacteriologists, and as chairman of the National Research Council's committee on the American Registry of Pathology, Dr. Karsner declared that even in their present state the Museum and Library "have proved of the greatest value to the medical profession of the United States" as "living, active, useful collections rather than mere repositories. Numerous medical research projects would have been sadly handicapped had it not been for the library and museum. The same would be true of the future if the work of these institutions were in any way limited."
As to cost, Dr. Karsner said that "These great institutions" were operated at a "relatively much smaller cost than could be expected in any other circumstances." His familiarity with the Library and the Museum and his extensive experience in university work convinced him that no possible combination with other national libraries and museums, unless they were of identical objectives, would result in any further economy, while it was his opinion that any such combination would lead to "deterioration of the collections and of their usefulness."
The doctor strongly favored the Walter Reed site, feeling that it would form a highly desirable adjunct to the work of the hospital and would aid and improve the teaching in the Army Medical School and associated schools already located in the Walter Reed area. ​ In concluding, Dr. Karsner wrote, "No words can overemphasize the importance to the Nation of the preservation of the integrity of these two institutions as part of the Army organization and of their proper and adequate housing at the Army Medical Center." 15
A New Building — Where and When?
In the work of securing favorable action by Congress on the bill authorizing the new building, the medical profession of the country was foremost. Dr. Karsner's letter was typical of the more than one hundred letters, from distinguished doctors, which were submitted to the committees of the House and the Senate when, in 1938, those bodies had hearings on the identical bills introduced by the chairmen of the Committees on Military Affairs of the Senate and House.
In addition to these individual recommendations, the American Medical Association "officially endorsed the movement by authority of the House of Delegates," a circumstance which recalled to the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association the fact that the Association had "played a great part in obtaining the legislation for the old building" which had housed the Museum and the Library for 55 years and had "contributed with equal force in obtaining the new," — thereby treating the prospective new building as if it were an accomplished fact and not a project which was to take another 15 years of struggle and delay so far as the Museum was concerned, and an even longer time for the achievement of the new Library.
On 18 June 1938, in an editorial published only 3 days after the Presidential approval of the authorization bill, the J.A.M.A. exulted that "at last the world's mightiest collection of medical literature and one of the largest of medical museums will be given adequate quarters. The medical profession," the editorial went on to say, "may congratulate itself on the enactment of the bill to authorize the new building."
"But," the editor added, "this is not enough. Under our legislative procedure the appropriation called for by the authorization bills must be obtained. The Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives will shortly consider this. If we want the new building built now — and the need is nothing less than urgent — we must let our representatives in both houses of Congress know of our desire. The foundation for the building is already ​laid; not the foundation of stones and mortar but that of Congressional approval." 16
Efforts to build upon this foundation of congressional approval were promptly forthcoming, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt included in his budget for the fiscal year ending 30 June 1941, submitted on 4 January 1940, an item of $600,000 for preliminary expenses in connection with the new building.
Support for the adoption of this item in the appropriation bill included an article by Joseph M. Lalley, in the Washington Post of 11 February 1940, entitled "Neglected Treasures," which thus described "the plight of the Army Medical Library and Museum":
* * * Two years ago Congress authorized the expenditure of $3,750,000 for the construction of a new building for the Army Medical Library and Museum. This benignant gesture was merely an imprimatur. The Secretary of War is now free, within the limits of that sum, to have a new edifice built for the library and museum whenever and if ever he gets the money. He has not got it yet. The new War Department budget, however, does contain, among the Surgeon General's estimates, a special item of $600,000 for the acquisition of a site. But with Congress in its present temper, and with the estimates for national defense tremendously swollen, the fate of this item appears precarious.
All the same, it is unlikely that many high officers outside the Medical Corps, give any great attention to the concerns and difficulties of the library and museum. None of them, of course, would dream of parting with it. But when, in the course of the hagglings with the Congressional committee, it may mean the difference between a few extra tanks or bombing planes there may be a temptation to let the library wait another year for a new home. But it has already waited too many years, and can wait no longer.
Adoption of the budget item in the War Department appropriation bill was urged by the Washington Post in an editorial of 10 February 1940, entitled "Priceless and Unique." The estimate of $600,000 for the purchase of a site and the preparation of plans for "a new building which will more adequately house the Army Medical Library and Museum" was termed "modest" in amount and pressing in importance.
"Whatever the needs of other forms of national defense, there is no part of the current Army estimate more worthy of public support than this relatively tiny item," the editorial said. "Nearly two years ago Congress authorized a new building to replace the present antiquated Army Medical Museum, erected in 1887. Economy of a glaringly penny-wise pound-foolish variety has heretofore blocked action under this authorization. In view of the long delays and ​ the urgent need in providing this new building, the least that can be done at this session is to make a start in a matter so patently overdue." 17
Between the time of submission of the estimate and action upon it, the war in Europe passed from a period of comparative inactivity to the furious "blitzkrieg," with the German invasion of Denmark and Norway in April 1940, the invasion of the Low Countries in May, the disaster at Dunkirk in the last week of that month, all culminating in the fall of France in mid-June.
Against this background of rapidly moving events and precipitately deteriorating situations, the proposed appropriation was considered in the Congress.
Action Delayed
On 3 April 1940, the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives recommended the adoption of $130,000 of the budget item, being that portion of the expenditure proposed for the drawing of plans and pre- paring of specifications, and recommended against the $470,000 included for the purchase of a site for the new building.
In the 1938 authorization, Congress had assumed that the new building was to be erected on Government-owned land, presumably adjacent to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. When it became generally known that the site of the new building was to be in that region, then somewhat remote, "great opposition developed from the rank and file of the civilian medical profession of the country" and this influence, among others, led to "the abandonment of the plan to move * * * to the Army Medical Center and a return to the idea of constructing it near its present location."
The National Capital Park and Planning Commission had to be consulted under the terms of the act of authorization; it had other plans, however, and recommended a location east of the Library of Congress, and Surgeon General James C. Magee acquiesced in that decision. 18
The Appropriations Committee, however, felt that the whole question of a site was out of order, since the preceding Congress, in passing the authorization act, had not contemplated purchase of a site but had assumed that the building was to be put on Government-owned land. The House accepted the Committee's interpretation of the situation but the Senate, when the bill ​ came before that body, restored the full $600,000 item by amendment 78. The matter came before the House again on 10 June, when Representative Ross Collins of Mississippi urged acceptance of the Senate amendment, while Representative John Taber of New York opposed its adoption, taking the stand that there were more pressing military needs. The House supported Mr. Taber's view and "disagreed to the amendment of the Senate numbered 78." 19
The bill, with its appropriation of $130,000 for getting on with the preliminaries of construction, passed and was approved on 13 June 1940— by coincidence, the day before the German armies entered Paris. 20
Acting under the authority granted, the Secretary of War and The Surgeon General selected as architects for the building the New York firm of Eggers and Higgins, whose works included the National Gallery of Art, then nearing completion. Preliminary plans, submitted in February 1941, were gone over by a consulting board consisting of the incumbent Librarian, Col. Harold W. Jones, the incumbent Curator, Lieutenant Colonel Ash, a former Librarian, Col. James M. Phalen, a former Curator, Col. George R. Callender, and Lt. Col. John R. Hall of the Surgeon General's Office. Early difficulties as to the division of space between library and museum activities were ironed out and, at a meeting of the consulting board on 11 August 1941, the plans in general were approved. 21
Figure 76.—Architects' drawing of a new home for the Library and Museum, authorized by Congress in September 1941, just before Pearl Harbor, an event which brought an end to the plan.
much and labor is so scarce," suggesting that construction "ought to be postponed until some more appropriate time" after the national defense program then underway was ended.
Mr. May urged the necessity of the new building but in effect accepted the position taken by Mr. Rich, pointing out that the bill was merely an authorization, without an appropriation, and expressing the belief that nothing further, other than the preparation of plans then underway, was to be done about the matter "until after the emergency is over." Unanimous consent was accordingly given to consideration of the bill, which was passed and, on 24 September 1941, was signed by the President (fig. 76).
Representative May's estimate of the lack of effect of passage of the increased authorization upon actual construction proved to be well founded. Work on plans continued until in December, when the events at Pearl Harbor transformed the "emergency" into active participation in full-scale, all-out, unlimited war—a state of affairs in which, by tacit consent, the Nation's medical treasures of the Library and Museum would continue to be housed in a "rather decrepit old red brick building" to whose "dingy halls * * * the world's foremost medical scholars" would continue to come—as they had been coming for more than half a century.
* ↑ 1 Cornell, V. H.: Current Activities at the Army Medical Museum. Typewritten memorandum for remarks at International Association of Medical Museums Meeting, 13 May 1933. is on file in historical records of AFIP. Published in: International Association of Medical Museums Bulletin 13: 183-185. 1934.
* ↑ 2 Ibid., pp. 184, 185.
* ↑ 3 Maj. R. O. Dart's report, 19 July 1935, Surgeon General's Office file number 024.9 (Army Medical Museum and Library). On file in historical records of AFIP.
* ↑ 4 Among the published articles of Capt. Charles F. Silvester were: (1) Mounting War Collections at the Army Medical Museum. International Association of Medical Museums Bulletin, pp. 49-53, December 1922 (2) Typewriting Labels on Museum Jars. International Association of Medical Museums Bulletin, pp. 83-86 December 1922.
* ↑ 5 Memorandum, Capt. H. R. Gilmore, for The Surgeon General, 5 August 1936. On file in historical records of AFIP.
* ↑ 6 Annual Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Army, 1934. PP. 154. 157.
* ↑ 7 Annual Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Army, 1935. P. 149.
* ↑ 8 Annual Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Army, 1936, pp. 145, 147.
* ↑ 9 Just what led Edgar to make the Army Medical Museum the principal beneficiary of his will does not appear in the will and codicil thereto. Among his other bequests, however, there was one for the sons of Surgeon General Robert Murray, which might indicate an interest on the part of Dr. Edgar in The Surgeon General's office. Material on the Edgar Bequest is in the AFIP historical files, which contain legislative and court proceedings, accounting records, and correspondence between The Surgeon General and the trustees under the Edgar will. Uses made of the bequest are mentioned in the Annual Reports of the Surgeon General, U.S. Army, for 1936, pp. 145, 146, and for 1937, P. 170.
* ↑ 10 Annual Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Army, 1937, PP- I71-172.
* ↑ 11 Ibid., p. 170.
* ↑ 12 Annual Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Army, 1938, pp. 179, 181.
* ↑ 13 Memorandum. Lt. Col. J. E. Ash, for Colonel Harden, Surgeon General's Office. 5 January 1939, Copy on file in historical records of AFIP.
* ↑ 14 H.R. 10455, approved 15 June 1938, Public Law Number 611, chapter 384, U.S. Statutes at Large, 75th Congress, 3d session, 1938, volume 52, p. 684.
* ↑ 15 Letters, Dr. Howard T. Karsner. various dates in August 1933. Copies on file in historical records of AFIP.
* ↑ 16 Editorial entitled, "Army Medical Museum and Library." Journal of the American Medical Association 110: 2084-2085 18 June 1938.
* ↑ 17 The article and editorial are quoted in: Congressional Record, Appendix, 76th Congress, 3d session, volume 86, part 14, pp. 1336, 1337.
* ↑ 18 Memorandum of Maj. Gen. James C. Magee. The Surgeon General, U.S. Army, 27 April 1940. On file in Record Group 112. Surgeon General's Office file number 631.1 (Army Medical Museum and Library), from the records of the National Archives.
* ↑ 19 Congressional Record, 76th Congress, 3d session, volume 86, part 7, pp. 7895 ff.
* ↑ 20 U.S. Statutes at Large, 76th Congress, 2d and 3d sessions, volume 54, part I, chapter 343, p. 363, 13 June 1940.
* ↑ 21 (1) Letters, Robert P. Patterson, The Assistant Secretary of War, to Maj. Gen. James C. Magee, 2 December 1940; Colonel Birdseye, for The Quartermaster General, to Messrs. Eggers and Higgins, 12 December 1040; Daniel Paul Higgins to Colonel Birdseye, 16 December 1940: and drafts of letters to Eggers and Higgins, approved by The Surgeon General, 3 January 1941. All on file in Record Group 112. Surgeon General's Office file number 631. 1 (Army Medical Museum and Library), from the records of the National Archives. (2) Letters, Lt. Col. J. E. Ash to Col. H. W. Jones, 10 February 1941 and Lt. Col. J. E. Ash to Maj. J. C. Magee, 13 May 1941; Office Order 119, Surgeon General's Office, 21 May 1941: Report of Meeting of the Consulting Board, 11 August 1941. All on file in historical records of AFIP.
* ↑ Congressional Record. 77th Congress, 1st session, volume 87, part 7, pp. 7122, 7214, 7378, 7415, 7571. (2) Public Law Number 256, chapter 418.
* ↑ 23 (1) Editorial: American Journal of Public Health and the Nation's Health 26: 930-932, September 1936. (2) Editorial: British Medical Journal, 26 October 1935. (3) Editorial: The Military Surgeon. volume 78, April 1936.