The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-04-01

declined to pay IL. saying that at a recent
meeting OF the Faculty they had passed
a resolution forbidding the disbursement
OF the money in this way. The merchant
Indignantly asked why such an order
had been given him II II was worthless.
The dean stated that In justice 10 the
professor he would say that this gentle
man was not at the meeting at when
this resolution was passed. This pro-
fessor had been dean OF the Faculty
for several years. and was famiiiar
with the details Of the Office. and knew
how money was generally distributed,
and was plainly following prece-
dent. What was the need Of passing
resolution in regard TO the State money?
They have been receiving II for many.
many years Had they suddenly. and
was II after my Mushbach letter. deter
mined to change the manner OF its appli-
cation? Why, II the order was simply
one upon students fees. was the dean
so emphatic in his refusal TO recognize
II? why was IL necessary, 10 use their
own language. for the dean without hesi-
tation to decline either officially or per-
sonally to take cognlzance Of the order2
The merchant took the order back, and
the same day surrendered it TO mutual
frierd. after agreeing TO compromise the
professors debt at fifty cents on the dol
lar.
The Faculty Of the Medical College OF
Virginia state that my account Of their
position In reference to the petition OF
their students 20 be exempted from the
operation Of the Medical Examining
Board Of Virginia, is incorrect. Whatever
may be the technical facts, the practi-
cal eject OF their action IN this matter
was well understood. and on this point
l content myself with submitting the fol-
lowing evidence
Hon. j. II. II. Figgatt Of Fincastle who
was chairman OF the Committee of the
Legislature. before whom the Faculty ana
students made their appeal, says in a re-
cent letter: The recollection Of the bitter
and undignified fight made by the Facul-
ty and the students Of the Medical Col
lege Of Virginia 10 have their graduates
exempted from the operation of the pro-
posed amendment to the law regulating
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
/ cannot say whether the Faculty incit-
ed the students. or the students in
cited the Faculty"
DR.. II. Gray Latham, OF Lynchburg
who was president of the Medical TX
aiming Beard at the time, says with
reference TO the affair in his annual re-
port for that year: "A majority Of the
members of the Faculty and a number
of students of the Virginia Medical Col
lege were present and addressed the COM
mittee We regret 10 say that the
Faculty, while expressing their belief in
the value of medical examining boards In
the abstract, were very warmly opposed
to any examination Of their own stu
dents and their speeches amounted TO an
earnest protest against the board end in
favor of the bill which had been presented
for its abolition"
AT the close of the recent session or
the Legislature the Faculty had secured
their appropriation. the bill Of the Vir-
ginia Hospital had failed, and this in
stitution is now unable TO respond to
many of the piteous appeals which it
daily receives from the sick poor who
require hospital care or surgical opera
tons.
The Faculty had also my Mushbach
letter, which they were showing about
the town. giving it an Interpretation not
very creditable TO me and doing il in a
way not very creditabe 10 themselves.
This little success on their part made
them reckless, and induced them to
make the violent attack upon me in their
letter OF the 18th Of March. l have been
obliged TO say some severe things about
them. They have themselves 10 blame.
now leave them 10 a discerning public.
Now gentlemen. I have done. Not get
ting $500 a year from the State. / can
not afford to continue this correspond
ence, for which. OF course. / have 10 pay.
II / have done you any wrong the law
gives you. If you choose 10 appeal TO II, |
ample redress. HUNTER MCGUIRE.