The citizen. (Frederick City, Md.) 1895-1923, 1905-06-02
Further Communication on
Subject Of Hospital Consoli-
dalton.

A letter has been addressed to
Mrs. A. G. McCardell. President
of the Frederick City Hospital
Association by DR.. Ira j. Nc
Curdy, Secretary of the Frederick
County Medical Society, in answer
to the reply of the former to the
proposition made by the Medical
Society about two weeks ago,
having as its object the CONSOLE
datiOn of the two hospitals. The
two letters referred to were pub
lished in our last issue. In adj
dition paper has been signed by
a number of the business men of
Frederick urging an amicable out
come. Both letter and paper are
reproduced here:
RESPONSE FROM DIR. M'CURDY.
Mrs. AlfOretta Il. MEGA r d e | =,
President, Board of Managers,
and E. S. Willard, Secretary.
Executive Committee, Frederick
City Hospital.
LADIES' am in receipt Of your
communication under date OF May
Goth, in which you reply to a
proposition made by forty three
physicians, to arbitrate the differ
ences now existing between the
Frederick City and Emergency
Hospital, with a view to con
solidation of these two important
enterprises. l desire to thank
you for the promptness of your
answer.
l believe | state the contents of
your letter fairly when l say. that
substantially it raises four objec-
tions to our proposition
First-You say our proposition
is not specific enough in its dec
larations as to questions to be
submitted for arbitration.
Second-YOu object to the gen.
eral principle of arbitration as ap
piled to this case. because "prop-
erty rights" may be affected. and
particularly as a decision would
be made by residents of this
county.
Third-You ask to what extent
would an abdication of this kind
endanger the integrity of your
corporations charter also, would
it be permissible to enter into ar
bitratiOn as suggested in PROPOSE
tions submitted?
FOURTH note your statement
of the readiness of the Fredericb
City Hospital, as at present man
aged, to receive patients from all
physicians, which statement car
ries with it, to our minds, the
natural inference, there is no ne
cessity for arbitration.
AS to the first objection,
would only say that we purposelN
refrained from making any definite
statements of the differences ex
listing between the two institu
tions, and if you will permit M
to express an opinion, believe t.
do so now, would only be to .jeo
pardize any possibility of success
before the movement is fairly
started.
These differences are known
and to set them forth again wOult
result in discussion, a general con
troversy, and possibly such an
tagonism that the breach already
wide enough would be wider, and
the work of the committee of arbi
tration if appointed, would bt
very much more difficult.
The time to state them is before
this committee of disinteresteC
gentlemen.
Your second objection is rather
surprising, in this day when arbi
tration is regarded as the highest
and broadcast way to settle caHS
where honest differences arise, lot
only between individuals, but be
tween nations. So imbued with
this idea indeed have the nations
become that, as you we'll know,
permanent Court of Arbitration
has been established at The
Hague, which not only settle,
questions involving large property
values, but actually decides owner
ship of property and rights Of
States.
You will recall, too, that in the
strike of the anthracite coal miners
few years ago, when the matter
was taken up by the President oil
the United States, he insisted on
but three things-that the men
return to work, that the operators
allow them to resume, and that
all differences between miners and
operators be referred to and settl
ed by a disinterested committee.
Here questions were settled in
volving large sums of money, and
more than that, the physical well
being of the men. The success Of
the principle of arbitration as ap
piled here, must be apparent tc
you. Surely, if a contention SC
widespread in its effect as that
could be settled by arbitration,
the differences that have arisen