Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1921-07-04
i. VA. MEN ONCE IA VORED
BIG MEDICAL SCHOOL HERE,
HU.NTON TELLS DR.. YOUNG
Distinguished Lawyer and President of r., f. & P
Replies to Physician Who Is TERRIBLY Disappointed"
That He Wants Merged College in Richmond.

partment OF the university to Rich
mond
Il have been Interested in this
question for years. at one time hav-
ing been on the board of one of the
iichmond institutions and the board
OF the University OF Virginia at the
same time. ann As familiar with the
iactS as any one who has been con-
nocicd with it for ten or nf,ccn years.
ana more familiar with them ;han
amy one who has recently become,
| connected with them Moreover.
believe my training in my profess
sion has lifted me 30 review and 10
weigh testimony a:.d 1" reach Il dai:
conclusion as 20 waat il established
Expert Opinion Divided.
~ on know that expert opinion is
greatly divided upon this subject. and
my own belief is that the propondcr-
ancc of expert testimony is in favor
OF locating the new school in Rich
| mo2i. You may not know that Nil,
fleAncr and DIR. Wclch were not m
Nitcd To appear before tho Commits
sion on Medical Education in Vir-
giuia until pr. Alderman had inter
viewed them ANA OF course. knew
their opinions. ana the board invited
them rs matter courtesy and d,d
not call other experts Mr. Flexncr.
in his statement before the commits
sion. says:
Under these circumstances. If
the question were put TO me as to
whore the state of Texas should To-
cate its medical school. should say
at Austin. not At Houston or san An
tonic
You Will recall that the univcr-
sity OF Texas Is located at Austin
and its medical department at CAL
weston. pr. W. :. Carter dean Of
the University of Texas. writes a
letter in which he says.
When DIR. Abraham rlCNncr made
made his survey in 1909 he advocated
in the Carnegie Foundation report on
medical education. publication in
1910, tina; the medical school Of the
University OF Texas should he re-
moved from Galveston To Austin so
that it could be united more closely
with the main univcr> ity.
When he was held in January,
1920. | asked him If lie still held
that opinion. lie replied that he did
not. that the advantages OF getting
plenty of clinical material in Il large
city are so great thar he thought ii
would he much better If it We're re-
moved To large city like Houston
or san Antonio, each of which has
gives the opinion az Il disintcrcstcd
and competent observer
Il feel sure that the state Of Njr-
ginia could not safely be guided IN
the settlement OF a great question by
the opinion OF man who makes
such conflicting statements.
Il have not only carefully exam
iucd the opinion OF experts who have
advised against the removal. but OF
those who have advised in favor OF
| the removal.
Did Not submit Replies.
1T is Il significant fact that Dr
Hough did not submit To- the Com
mission on Medical Education the re-
| plies Of the doctors to whom he
wrote who. even on his ~ partc
| statement favored the removal or
| the new school At Richmond.
Il recognized the merits Of the
| medical department Of tho univcrs lily
| of NirGiuiu - haviu. high standards
and giving q lin" scientific training
! but deny that il has wonderful!
or even sufficient clinical facilities
/ ana such as it has is the result OF
large expenditure from the state APP
| propriations and from its scanty En-
! dowmcnt Fund. thereby Gripping the
! Growth Of the medical department in
| other directions. and Gripping also.
! ,,h,r 1,pnrtmcuts of tho uuiNcrSity
! an az ,h,sc cxpcudi,urcs have boon
| u,ra. - Graduate twelve Virginia
| ..,d,nis in tho session lust closed
TN. STAT. of Virginia should not
/ lao .xr.,.t.d to make such cXpcudi-
| ,urcs whom abundant clinical mate
/ ri,l can be had i'm Richmond practi-
/ ,uuv witbou, charge.
| II agree with DR. Pritchc,t ;hat
/ this question is rather one of sound
! roligv aud educational craftsmanship
! man one 10 he determined upon cN-
urr, testimony reached by con-
/ 'lnsiors rrinr ia 1918 in conference
| v.ith pr Alderman ana pr. George
/ ION Johnston. and have seen no rca-
/ SON since to change them am
/ s,,r. ma, III. cxpcrt opinion of IN.
( Johnson j. entitled 10 as much weight
1 H. onipiou of any other expert,
ann urnr fine location al the u,w
! .rhn.r in virginia. would carry more
,,...,,, Ina, ina, Of any cxpcr, not
r.s,d.n, If virginia
&c me- yniycrsity in this matter
! ,,,,,s,.. ,,a course SO earnestly adj
/ yora,ca hy vou ana makes no cf-
,or, - SUNNY the growing nccd of
-. ,.. l,.,,,. d,