Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1912-03-05
LETTER TO THE EDITOR.
Statement by Dr.. Bert {. Dow


Mr.. Editor: My attention has been
called to an item published in this
mornings edition Of The Bulletin, as
an editorial, under the caption. The
Governor Exonerates General Averill,'
which says, in one paragraph.
"rhe finding declared that it was
proven that Dr. Bert X. Dow of Will
mantle, General AveriIrs deputy, was
not a graduate If a recognized col
lege, but that Commissioner AveriH
made the appointment in good faith,
and BOWS inexperience was not suffi-
cient cause for Averilrs removal
This statement is untrue. The gov
efnor's decision, or findings, in the
charges of Frank Atwood against
Commissioner Averill, a cory of which
I have before me, does not state that
l am not a graduate of a recognized
school, or that 1 am, or have been in
any way inefficient in my duties TO the
office.
All that the findings contain that
could be construed as detrimental to
me in any particular, is contained in
paragraph 10. which says:
There is question whether Dr.
Burt X. Dow is a graduate of a veter-
mary college of recognized standing,
the commissioner, howe1 e., acted in
good faith in appointing him; and il
the law be so that DR.. Dow has not
the necessary qualifications prescribed
BY statute las to which I express no
opinion his appointment is not sIf-
tlcient cause for removing the COM
missioner"
The only question in regard to the
college was in paragraph II of the
| charges against General Averill, which
states: That l did not graduate from
| a recognized college,; am not an ex-
pert in veterinary science as required
| by CHAPTER 254, Public Acts 1911, and
| that the commissioner well knew Of
| these facts when he appointed his
! deputy AS to this charge, like most
of the Others was so ridiculousiy
| false and as the complainant grad
uated from the same college, and all
| he knows, or probably ever will know
! about veterinary science, was what
| he obtained at that institution. Judge
| Henney, the commissioners counsel
considered there could be no doubt
| whatever as to the legal standing of
| the Ontario Veterinary college (from
which [ graduated. q department Of
| the University of Toronto, and under
| the direc. control or the department of
| agriculture of Ontario; and is now and
! has been for several years recognized
! as a qualified institution Of learning
! by the laws of this state, and of every
| other state in the union having laws
| regulating the practice of veterinary
| science, he decided not to waste the
! governors valuable time in hearing
any testimony on that poing, prefer
! ring to leave the question Cif 1t be a
! question: entirely with the governor
| for his opinion. The governor does
not state in his findings that [ am,
! or have been, inefficient in any way.
! I am not easily disturbed by criti-
! ism Of my professional character anG
reputation, nor am I sensitive to news
| paper knocks" bur feel that the
| paper. with due regard to fairness and
! justice, should correct those misstate
| ments; which l now request you IL
/ do, as they are absolutely false In
, every particular, as, in justice to my
friends and clients, and to Hon. He
man 0. Averill, commissioner on do
nestle animals, who appointed me his
deputy. ! specifically deny that | an
not a graduate of a veterinary college
of recognized standing; l specifically
deny that | am, or have been at any
time, inefficient in my professional anC
official duties: and I further specifi-
cally deny that the commissioner was
in any way deceived as to my quail
fications under the law when he made
me his deputy in good faith.
Very respectfully,
B. K. DOW.
Willimantic, Conn, March 4, 1912.