The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-01-16

board served on DR.. Foster as to the
trial. and part of this was de-
murrer to the notice.
The reading of this demurrer and
answer consumed great deal OF time
as the paper Is n most voluminoua
typewriter document. Colonel Law
less read In strong, clear voice, and
Org Foster sat Just behind him, with
4 his friend, Senator J. Boyd Sears, of
Mathews, and apparently followed his
attorney closely.
A large number of citizens attended
tho proceedings. and among them were
the assistant physicians and DR.. Lyon
G. Tyler. OF William and Mary College.
Reads Remurrer to
Charges Against Foster.
The demurrer to the suificiency of
the charges reads:
Your respondent, without waiving
| any of HIS rights as to the competency
and propriety of this body to hear and
determine certain charges preferred
against him, as set out in a notice re-
| ceived on the first day of January,
1907, to appear before 1t on the l4th
day of January, 1907. in the city OF
| Williamsburg and show cause why he
| should not be removed from office for
neglect OF his official duties in the par
| ticulars set out In said notice, answers,
| and says as follows:
81 Your respondent insists that your
| board IL, in good conscience. debarred
| from hearing and determining SAID
| charges for tho reason that 1t has already
| twice passed upon the same. without
notice to him and without legal evidence
! to sustain sem and for the reasons set
| out In a pdtest filed herewith. which Is
made a part Of this answer, and asked
| to be read In connection herewith.
"2 Your respondent dsmurs to the SUI
| fcency of the charges preferred against
| him upon the grounds:
"(al That the so-called charges and
specifications are but report of a sub
committee of the general board, contain
ing matter with which this respondent
has no concern. and relating to subjects
over which he has no control. and do not
constitute such legal charges and speci-
ficatious az this respondent is entitled to
have preferred against him.
t'b) The allegations OF said report,
which report is sought to be used as the
charges and specifications against this
respondent. are vague, general and In
definite and for that reason are wholly
insufficient.
"Cc) No time or place when any of the
alleged acts of incompentency or neglect
of official duty occurred is alleged and
no facts sustaining said charges and
specifications are stated therein"
The answer which follows the demurrer
Is very lengthy, and undertakes to fully
meet all the charges set out in the no.
tice of the board to DIR. Foster. Time
and again the respondent, in his answer,
says: II deny the charge, and call for
proof" but on many of the subjects
treated he goes into great detail.
Gives Evidence in
Defense of Himself.
DR.. Foster undertakes to defend him
self through his answer, drawn by his
counsel at great length. against all the
charges set out, and much of the matter
containeS in the paper is the evidence
OF the superintendent before the investi-
eating committee boiled down" Under
the head OF Superintendent" which
branches out into the treatment Of va
rious questions, the answer says:
"ta) AS to the charge that there has
been lack of cordiality, cooperation
and harmony between the superintendent
and his assistant physicians, your respond
ent denies the same. except as herein
before indicated, and calls for proof
OBJ As ~ the allegation that Rule 10
OF the bylaws has not been complied
with, in that he failed to visit the wards
as often as he should have your re-
spondent alleges that the rule in question
refers only to visitations to the wards for
the purpose OF ascertainine the condi-
ton OF urgent and critical cases. as an |
examination of the rule in question VIII
disclose.
Your respondent alleges that while
that rule was made to apply to ali, of |
the hospitals of the State by the general
board which promulgat ted it. and to three
OF the four State hospitals may be nee
essary rule, 1t is not essential to the
welfare of this institution for the reason
mat II alone, OF the four State hospitals,
has an in'irmary into which all critical I
and urgent cases are removed from the
various wards. When these removals to
the inhrmary are made they are reported
by the assistant physicians to the s,1per- i
mtendent. ana your respondent alleges
that he has made to such infirmary vists
ranging from two to five times daily In
his care and superintendence of such
cases. In addition to these visits your
alleges that he made as many
visits TO the various wards on both tho
male and female sides as the conditions
OF the patients OF the wards required,
and as 1t was practicable for him to do.
and give that attention to his other
various and manifold duties which their
Importance required. Your respondent
respectfully refers to the findings Of the
OF investigation on this
charge. to be found on page 40 of their
report, in the following words: II this
luty We're imposed upon the superln-
tendent of making daily visit through
both wards. as well rs the inflrmary,
or the purpose OF ascertaining all ur-
gent and critical cases and for other
than double what was
'equired of either one of his assistants
t would have been so exacting upon
lin and would have consumed so much
If his time that it would have seriously
nterfered with his discharge of other
md imperative duties, and, In fact,
would have practically prevented, to
treat extent, their performance at ALL
urgent and critical cases having been
withdrawn from the wards and carried
Q the infirmary there was not only no
necessity of the superintendent going
through the wards for the purpose OF
Examining each patient. but he would
lot have found them there at ALL so that
lie deemed it inexpedient to carry out
hat rule, for 1t would have been a vain
nd useless thing, tax upon his time
nd energy, serious hindrance to the
performance of his other duties, He
vas practically acting under an OLD
x.t,