Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-04-01

Il zoo n year. and did II well. 1t Is true.
he did not buy postase-stamps ior the
college. -
7 ought 10 say that there IL one Item
In the disbursements not charged 10 ths
state and that 10 the cost OF running the
dlsepcnsary, which Is Sf7.72. ana tor winch
the city OF Richmond pays them n,u1,
In stating the relation OF .ne "e ~
College OF Virginia to the STATE, VIC
Faculty use language exactly applicable
10 any public school OF virginia. The
naraIIel il complete until they come TO
Tho benefit 10 be derived by the state.
whom they are suddenly and discrectly
silent. They gay THE Medical college, OF
Virginia holds all It's property AT the pea
sure OF the Legislature, but iaii 10 say
nays no rent either in money or pubic
services. They say 1.-THE Legislature has
continually made an annual appropriation
Tor ia maintenance and support since
1850" hut fail TO say that the State ox-
poets nothing In return Tor this' ana 10
not disarpointesi. They fail to say that
under the present practice the entire
profits from the use OF state bulldingS
and State money go 20 the personal beneht
OF the gentlemen who compose us lacuIty'
and that I'm return they neither give free
tuition. nor indulge in any public charity.
Einallv. they omit the inevitable conclu-
sion that TO call the Medical College OF
virginia a State institution" Is delu-
sion to the public mind and snare for
the public treasury.
Practically to illustrate how the money
appropriated by the state TO the Medical
College of Virginia helps the pockets OF
its professors, and TO show that these
gentlemen have heretofore had dim
perception OF this practical truth, i re-
related an incident In my last letter
M
tice. and OF which / have proof. n pro-
lessor OF the Medical College Of Virginia
was I'm debt to prominent merchant
OF this city, and was unable TO meet
his obligation. Upon being pressed for
the money he said that his college had
bill before the Legislature for an appro-
priation OF 5000 and that IL it passed
his share would be a certain sum. and
he not only promised the merchant TO
pay him half OF the money he expected
to receive because OF this Appropriation,
but he afterwards gave him a written
order on the dean of the faculty for the
amount. l did not mention the name
Of the professor in my communication,
and apparently / had more consideration
for the gentleman than have his col
leagues who published IT, ] sincerely re-
greet having had to bring into q contro-
versy the private affairs Of an individual.
and only did so because they vitality af-
fected my argument and State apprO-
priation. But the Faculty reprove me
for suppressing in my account of the
affair the action OF their dean, and l
now cheerfully supply tho omission. The
merchant took the order to the dean.
The dean declined to pay II, saying that
at a recent meeting OF the Faculty they
had passed a resolution forbidding tho
disbursement of the money in this way.
The merchant Indignantly asked why
such an order had been given him II IL
was worthless. Tho dean stated that IN
justice to the professor lie would say
that this gentleman was not nc the
meeting at which this resolution was
passed. This professor had been dean OF
the Faculty for several years, ana was
familiar with the details OF the otnce
and knew how money was generally dlS-
tributed, and was plainly following
precedent What was the need OF pass
ing a resolution I'm regard 10 the state
money? They had been receiving IL Tor
many, many years. Had they suddenly
and was 1t after my Mushbach letter
determined 10 change the manner or its
application? Why, II the order was SIM
ply one upon students fees. was the
dean 50 emphatic in his refusal 10 re-
cognize It? Why was it necessary. 10
use their own language, for the dean
without hesitation to decline either Off
cially or personally TO take cognizancs
OF the order?
The merchant took the order back,
and the same day surrendered It 10 n
mutual friend. after agreeing TO COM
promise the professors debt at 30 cents
on the dollar
The Faculty Of the Medical College
OF Virginia state that my account Of
their position in reference TO the petit
ton Of their students 70 be exempted
from the operation Of the Medical Ex-
aiming Board OF Virginia, IS incorrect.
Whatever may lie the technical facts,
the practical effects of their action IN
this matter was well understood. and on
this point l content myself with sub
hitting the following evidence:
Hon. ]. II. II. Figgatt. OF Ffncastle,
who was chairman of the Committee Of
the Legislature, before whom the Faculty
and students made their appeal. says IN
a recent letter: The recollection Of the
bitter and undignihed fight made by the
Faculty and students OF the Medical
College OF Virginia TO have their gr2du-
ates exempted from the operation OF the
proposed amendment TO the law regulat
ing the practice Of medicine in Virginia,
Is very vivid" - II am not surprised
that you should characterize their con-
duct as you do in your article, though l
cannot say whether the Faculty 'incitef'
the students. or the students melted the
Faculty"
Or. II. Cray Latham, OF Lynchburg, who
was president OF the Medical Examining
Board at the time, says with reference TO
the affair in his annual report for that
year: "a majority OF the members OF tho
faculty and a number Of students OF the
Virginia Medical College were present and