The Birmingham age-herald., 1913-06-29

erosity of Mr.. Carnegie, refrain from
| making the following statement:i
THE chief burden of both Bishop Hoss
and Bishop Chambers complaint is that
| instead of this being a donation to the
university, The university gives away
| its medical department to the new gov
| erning board without limitations or re-
| strictions Of any character whatever.
| THE above is quoted from Bishop Hoss
| article. If Bishop Hoss had taken the
| trouble to inform himself fully with ref
erence to the facts, it is fair to assume
he would not have made this statement
| since the following are the rules for the
conduct of the medical department in ac-
| cord with the conditions of the Carnegie
doration, which were adopted by the
board of trust at it's recent session.
Conditions of Gift
''f'irst-The members of the governing
board of the medical department shall be
! elected by the board of trust If vacan-
| cies occur previous TO the annual meet
] ing of the board, the executive committee
| shall have power to fill the same until
! the next regular meeting of the board of
| trust.
'Second-ATembers, of the said governing
| board shall hold office for eight years
| or until their successors are elected, but
! may be removed for cause by the board
"fhird-Said governing board of seven
shall elect its own secretary and keep a
| record of its own proceedings, which rec
ord shall be always open and accessible
| to The board of trust or to the executive
mmittee of said board or to the presi-
| dent of the board of trust
| "Fourth-The chancellor shall in con-
neetion with his annual report make
summary of the most important business
| transacted by the governing board of the
| meoical department and these actions OF
governing board shall be subject to rat
| ification and approval of the board of
| trust.
Bishop Hoss. in his communication. in
| cludes protest from four members of the
/ board of trust who have been following
| his leadership in their attitude on univer-
| sity matters. out of more than twenty
| trustees who were present at the annual
| meeting. This protest cantains state
| ments along similar lines to those of Bish-
| op Hoss, but does not contain the slight
est reference to the rules adopted for the
,conduct of the medical department, despite
the fact that these rules were proposed or
| adopted with all of the four members
referred to present The protest referred
| to was not spread upon the records OF
| the board as is implied in the language
used in the opening rortion of it. 1t was
| presented for this purpose but the board
| declined to permit same to be spread upon
| its records; first, because statements con-
| tanned therein were misleading. TO such
an extent was this true that the authors
of the protest We're obliged to recognize
| this fact, and struck out certain state
| ments which appeared in the original draft
| Of their protest Second because it was
| couched in language disrespectful alike
| to Mr.. Carnegie and the board of trust,
| and was virtually an insult to the former.
Bishop IIoss states the two chief OBJ
| Jections to the contract. The first has
/ Deen noted in the quotation from his ar
| ticle given above that the university is
| giving away its medical department. That
such is not the case will certainly be ap.
parent to any fair minded man from the
| action of the board in establishing the
| rules quoted above. Particularly is this
! clearly seen from the fourth rule, which
provides that the chancellor shall in con-
| nection with his annual report. make
| summary of the most important business
transacted by the governing board of the
medical department, and these actions
of the governing board shall be subject to
! ratification and approval of the board
! of trust. 1t will thus be seen that the
| plan of government provided for the med
| cal department is in fact merely a plaG
| to insure the detailed supervision of the
| work of the medical department by the
| governing board, which shall contain
| among its members three men of recog
| nized standing in medical education or
| medical science. That the members of
| this board should be chosen without re
! gard to denominational considerations.
and solely because Of fitness for the SER
/ vice desired. may moi, and probably does
not, meet the approval of Bishop Hoss,
| since he has certainly shown by his con-
| tinuous attitude in university affairs, that
| this character of administration does
not suit his peculiar views, but I do not
| believe that the pubic the friends OF
| the university will find in this stipu-
lation anything which threatens the su-
premaey of the board of trust in the
| conduct of the university.
Board of Control
1T will be observed-First that this
governing board is practically a COM
mittee of the board of trust, particularly
as the other four members of the body.
constituting a majority, are members OF
the board of trust.
"Second-That this governing board is
not all Incorporated body and that there
is not transferred to it any of the prop
erty of the university. That the board
of trust has the right, and that it is
proper to exercise this right, to govern
the various departments of the unver-
sity by arranging such details of orga-
nization and administration as it may
deem proper, can hardly be successfully
contradicted by even Bishop Hoss him
self.
The protests of certain of the mi
nority trustees, upon which Bishop Hoss
lays such stress as to publish it in full,
fixes the value of the property which it
is proposed to give over to another body
at S300.000 Bishop Gambler i'm his Asso-
ciated Press dispatch makes substant-
tally the same statement, fixing the value
of this same property at about s50o,000.
ITO those familiar with university af-
fairs this reference would be amusing
We're it not for the gravity OF the sit
| uation. 1t is a matter of court record
| that when the bishops filed their suits
against the trustees of the university
there was embraced in their bills a.
prayer for injunction which would
+! have made impossible the acquiring of
the south campus upon which the med
ica and dental departments are now To-
Gated and to enable the university to
accomplish which Mr. w. X. Wander
I Gilt had contributed Sl50,0c0 and the gem
eral education board $150,000. This atti-
tude the part of Bishop Hoss and
his following was quite in line with
with their present attitude with respect
to Mr.. Carneges donation. In the for
mer case they soon saw the error of
| their way and withdrew the application
| for the injunction referred to, thus re-
moving the stumbling block which they
| had deliberately placed in the way of
| the progress fthe university and the
acquisition of an additional sum Of
| 100000. 1T may be that he will likewise,
| in the present instance recognize the
| injustice of his present position towards
| the university and the South. However,
the amusing feature of it is that the
value of the property which they are
| now, without foundation in fact claim