The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-10-21
MR.. HAMILTON TO
On. C J. \ B | n |
Long and Rather Spicy Reply to
Last Criticism Of the Rich
nond Physician.
DEFENDS COURSE OF BOARD
That Body 70 Continuc Its Work
As to It Seems Bcst--some
Interesting Letters.
n
Petersburg. We. October ii, 1905.

i ArJsIi !
Petersburg, vn. October II, 1905
Editor OF Tho Times Dispatch.
Sir,-.I read DR. Clearinghouse contn,,-
rication inr your issue or October 18th,
and have delayed my reply until 1 could
obtain certain information as to statc-
ments made BY him.
Allow mo to say first that ,Ipon a
careful reading OF DR. Carringtons last
communication. do not understand that
no INTENDED to make IL personal con
troversy With me- or TO question my We
racity, but that he deprecated such n
controversy, and intended only 10 con-
trovcrt tile existence OF certain facts
which ! had stated that "as I am adj
vlsed. constituted his only connection
hlthc Institute; / have been confirmed
In this understanding by gentlemen whom,
thought qualified to Judge Of such n
question. and also by his statement that
Il (hc) Will not be put in the position
Of having personal controversy with
thel board or any member OF II,
although u: Mr.. Hanilton's special case
the temptation is great
now reply. 1t should be noted that
In juno last, some three months prior
10 tho date OF the first letter written
by DIR. Darlington, the board. being In
formed as to the food conditions. con-
sdered and acted upon them, taking def
mite action to correct defects, and pac-
Ing the official III Immediate charge OF
n the food upon probation. On September
18th Dr. Carrintgon wrote his letter to
me. and the utmost courtesy and frank
ness were shown DR.. Darlington In the
reply. In this reply he was assured that
tho board and the superintendent were
thoroughly alive to the question; that.
the board would meet again on Septem-
Der both and proposed to do everything
possible to have proper food, properly
cooked and served for the cadets. The
board. consisting OF the individuals here
tofore named in this correspondence did
20 meet, and did fully consider the mat
ter, and Unanimously set forth Its con-
clusion In the following resolution: q
.ReDolved. by the BOARD Of Visitors. af;er
Investigation. that the board ls OF oplnion
that the complaint made by Dr. e. ~. Car
ng,on q ths ,od turnlsned cadets Is
- re- %ss:ias, ss,Ss1 gsoS y, T.
~ has been charged; !, Is deemed advisable
ras tia, thsss !. no Jass s1ouna ios
ns foa for Pc
~ such q statement. Al the same time It must
be dia.ine.iy unders,ood .ha. the board Is ., Of
Wis. the department should be rcorganized
M POSITION OF THE BOARD.
It Will be observed that the board.
whilst recognizing the real defects. did
8 not think that the extreme statements
OF DR.. Carrlngtons letter were Justified;
but DR.. Darlington does not seem able
TO comprehend the differences between
facts" and "intenperate allegations"
X DR.. Darlington, having made tho con,
plaint, and being entitled to a reply, was
courteouaIy furnished with a copy Of tho
resolution showing the action, OF the,
hoard This seems TO have greatly an
Kered him.. as think, without Just
Rround for, 1T was simply the opinion
OF members OF the board, in which they
differed with Dr. C.rrinston. The board
had no idea that anything unpleasant to
Z DR. Darlington personally had occurred,
hut, on tho contrary, thought no was
friend OF the institution and so treated
him.. .4
Here It should he noted what the
unanimous opinion OF the members OF the
4 thna "a wa 9 a = to the food-viz.: that the
food ts neither SO well cooked nor served
It should be, nor so unsa tisfac Glory as
has been char cd It Is deemed advisable
to state THAT THERE IS NO&JUsTS
GROUND FOR THE STATEMENT
THAT CADETS DO NOT RECEIVE
SUFFICIENT FOOD FOR PROPER
NoURIsFINrENT. ALL THE CONDl-s
TIONS, NOW AND HERETOFORE
REFUTE SUCH "A STATEMENT This
being the deliberate tud glnent, after IN
syestigation OF the eight members OF the
board present, Is entitled TO such weight
rs their characters. intelligence and the 4
nature OF their duty would indicate.
Against it isGthe stntementaof DR.. Car
rlngton. which was evidently made under
excitement and irritation, II not in ex-5
q trnme anger. Then DR.. Darlington made
Z his first publication, in which he violent
~ attac sed the members OF the board,
charging thcm with not taking time to
attend to their duties and saying that
he happened to know that some OF the
members were guilty Of this charge.
This charge has been refuted. He was
asked TO name the men whom he said
he knew were guilty He has not named
them, and has not attempted In his last
paper to justify this charge He also.
in his first paper. attacked the board Tor
not Diminishing the colnmssary. Mr.. Gil
more This have In q prior paper an
swered, and will not consume more
space in again doing so. The members
OF the board, acting on their best In
formation and Judgment and In the dis
charge Of their duty, deemed It mad
visable to dismiss Mr.. Gilmore AT THAT
TIME Which was most likely to have
formed a correct opinion. tho board or
DR.. Darlington? .,ta
Just hero I should notice a sentence
In Dr. Carringtons last paper. He says;
Must these conditions exist until Feb
r,,ary /, 1906 because Mr.. Hamiltons
a CONFERRED Of the constitutional Con
vention is h the qunrtermaster?"| This
means either nothing as an argument.
or that Mr.. Gilmore was not DISCHARGED
merely because he was a lco-menber with
B me OF the convention, and hence, by IN
nuendo, was unduly favored by mo. i
the latter was meant, then the name Of
Col. Francis T., Smith, of Alexandria, an,
VA other member OF the convention ana
present as a member OF the board, should
have been mentioned with mine, There
was no ground known to me to justify
!. his suggestion In tho relations of either