The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-01-16
Gives Evidence in
Defense of Himself.


Dr. Foster undertakes % defend him
s..f through his answer. drawn by his
counsel a. great length against all the
charges SGT out. and much Of the matter
conta-ne> IN the paper Is the evidence
~ the superintendent before the invesu-
getting committee boiled down" Under
the head % Superintendent" which
branches ogt into the tresltment Of va
-io-S questions. the answer says:
"til ~ 70 The charge that there has
been lack 81 cordially. cooperation
and harmony between the superintendent
ara hi- assistant physicians. your respond
emit denies the same. except as herein
before indicated. and calls for proof
"th' AS - the allegation that Ruio 10
'l t-e bylaws has not been cornulfed
with, ln that be failed 20 visit the wards
as often AS Dee should have YOUR re-
-i .na~nt alleges that the rule I'm question
refers only 20 visitations 10 the wards for
the purpose Of ascertainlng the condf-
tipn OF urgent and critical cases as am
EXAMINATION ~ the rule in question VIII
Your respondent alleges that while
,-at '"ie was made 70 apply 10 aIr Of
the hospitals OF the State by the general
board which promui "A ted 10. and 10 tbre,
oI me four State hospitals may be q nee
essary rule. IL IS not essential 10 rho
welfare OF this Institution for the reason
that II alone, OF the four State hosnitale
mas an lniirmary into which all critical
anu urgent cases are removed from the
various wards. When these removals 10
the infirnary ara made they are reported
by the assistant physicians to the stiner
intenoent and your respondent alleges
that he has made to such inhrmar, visifx
ranging from two 20 five times daily In
mis- care and superintendence Of sucn
cases. In addition 20 these visits YOUR
respondent alleges that he made az many
ID tom
male and female sides az the conditions
OF the patients OF the wards required
and as IL was practicable for him 10 do
and give that attention To his other
various and manifold duties which their
importance required. HOur rasuOndent
respectfully refers 20 the findings OF the
committee OF Investigation on this
charge. 10 be found on page 40 of their
report. 10 the following words. If This
duty were imposed upon the superin-
tendent OF making n daily visit through
both wards. as well as the innrnlarv
for the purpose OF ascertaining an mr.
gent and critical cases and for other
purposcs-more than double what was
required Of either one Of his assistants
it would have been so exacting upon
him and would have consumed so much
Of his time that It would have seriously
interfered with his discharge OF other
and imperative duties. and IN fact
would have practically prevented. to q
great extent. their performance at all
urgent and critical cases having been
withdrawn from the wards ana carried
to the inhrmary there was not only no
necessity of the superintendent going
through the wards FOR the purpose OF
examining each patient. bat ne would
not have found them there at all. so that
ne deemed II ineNpedient TO carry out
that rule for IL would have been a vain
and useless thing "A tax upon his time
and energy. serious hindrance 10 the
performance of his other duties. He
was practically acting under an ola
maxim OF the law-'the reason Of the law
oeasine. Nthe law itself ceases We
therefore think that the specific REQUIRE
ment OF Rule 10 was more honorcd In the
breach than in the observance. ana that
the best interests OF the institution and
Of the patients were best subscrved bv
IL being disreearded." etc. etc.
Denies Charge and
Calls for Proof.
% As 70 tic charge that thasS has