Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1888-12-18
H-srREET DIssEcTING ROoM.
Answer OF the Medical College Authoe'
lilies 30 the BIN Filed Against Them.


Before Judge Cox yesterday the case Of o..
Josephs orphan asylum against the medical
department OF Georgetown university-biu %
restrain the use OF building on II street. be-
tween sth and 10th, for dissectine purposes
was heard Mr.. H. Il. Davis for the petitioners
and MesrS Morris ana Hamilton for the re-
spondents.
The answer Of the defendants 20 the bin de-
mics that the bodies brought 10 the dissectins-
room are exhumed in various stages Of de-
composition. and asserts that they are eli
''fresh bodies" known ss 'subjects," which
are received never more than once per week,
and then in the early part Of the night be-
tween October and February, and are tsken
directly 10 the dissecting-room and are never
placed i'm a vat; that the remnants are NOT
burned and no great and offensive smoke ID
created; but they are barreled. packed in dis
infectants, securely fastened. and disposed OF
under the regulations Of the health depart
ment They state that the furnaces burn
nothing but hard coal and deny that the dis
sections are carried on 50 as 20 be visible
70 neiehbors. They refer 10 the notice Of
the health Officer and his statement: II nov
find all cause for complaint removed and the
nuisance, IN 90 far as . violation Of the health
ofhces IL concerned, abated-" They assert
that dissection Is necessary 20 the school. which
wiil be irreparably injured IL it is restrained
quently passing in and out Of the premises
they state that several students who live in the
country keep their horses and buggies in the
yard Ind are in the habit Of driving out Of any
time suiting them.
The answer is sworn 10 by DR.. Kleinschmidt
and afhdavits Of Drs. Magruder, Lovejoy. BIZ
lings, Stafford, II. NJ. Smith and of Watson
Stoutenburgh and other students were read
SHOULD MAKE ALLOWANCE FOR THE pocroRs.
Mr.. Davis, in his argument for the continu-
ance of the injunction, said that the court
should make allowance for the doctors who
were so used 10 odors that they could not per-
ceive what would be perceived by a layman.
de read an affidavit of Mrs Dashiel 10 the
effect that the odors had awakened her from
ner sleep, and could even be perceived In her
tapestry.
Mr.. Hamilton commented on the fact that eli
the complaints come from women. and asked
why their husbands did not Join in this case.
Mr.. Davis replied that thew being more about
their homes than their husbands were the ones
to complain.
Mr.. Hamilton continued. saying that women
are always sensitive when in the proximity Of
the dead and imagine many things.
JUDGE cox DENIES A RESTRAINING ORDER.
This morning the argument was concluded
and Judge Cox denied the restraining order,
but gave complainants the right 10 renew
the application after the expiration Of ten days.
4 MS was 10 give the defendants an opportunity
TO show whether they can carry the dissecting
room on without annoyance 10 the neighbor-
hood The judge said that there had been
Misunderstanding on both sides. IL was sd-
mitted by the college that at one time there
was cause Of offense from the cdors and there
was probably some offense 10 sight. The COM
plainants, however, were shown 10 be wrong
as to their assertion about fumes from the
burning Of dead bodies, and also as 10 the
sounds from moving bodies at night.
The complaint was that, however careful this
branch of education is conducted the offensive
ness cannot be prevented; that offensive odors
will be unavoidably diffused- The very agita-
ton Of the subject would stimulate the imagi-
nation somewhat, and after all the-e would be
residuum that cannot be accounted for in that
way. The evidence as 10 odors was somewhat
weakened by the defendants affidavits tending
to show that there were no unpleasant odors
inside the building. In consideration Of the
large amount Of capital invested by the college
people in their building and school, and the
necessity Of heavy bonds to make the injunc-
ton effective, it seemed that at this time il
would be proper TO go no further until il can
be demonstrated whether or not the respond
ents cannot conduct the business in such Q
manner that il may not be offensive