A'\"" >> St I A NARRATIVE OF THE I.SS OLUTION OF THE NLEDlCAli FACETS OF TRANSYLVANIA UNIVERSITY. By EUi\SFORB P. YANUELL,. NASHVILLE: w. hasell hunt, printer 1837. NARRATIVE The Medical Faculty of Transylvania University was dissolved on the 25th of March last; and in the organization of the new Faculty, it is known, Dr. Caldwell, Dr. Cooke and myself were not included.— A large and very respectable portion of the communi- ty feel an interest in these events. They are curious to know how it came, that an institution of the highest respectability, and regarded as in the most prosperous condition, should suddenly fall into such confusion; and why men who have long acted together have become estranged? Added to these considerations, which im- pel me to this publication, the part which I have had to act in this affair, has been grossly and industriously misrepresented. A distorted and false account of the whole transaction has been given to the public. The Lexington prints, for some months past, have stream- ed with abuse, directed partly against me. My name has been held up, by anonymous writers, in a way cal- culated to do me much injury, if their statements be credited. Such assaults I might disregard, were it not evident that the men who make them are set on by Dr. Dudley, who supplies them with materials, and offers the incentives. Under these circumstances, I feel, that, in justice to my character, I cannot longer remain si- lent; and I proceed, therefore, in the following pages, to give a history of the dissolution of the Faculty.— My narrative will be made up chiefly of documents eli- cited by the late investigation of the Trustees. I be- gin with the bill of charges preferred by Dr. Dudley, against Dr. Caldwell and myself. 4 11 To the Trustees of Transylvania University: Whereas, events deeply injurious to the Medical De- partment of Transylvania UnivoiMly,havingsome time since been brought to such a crisis as in my judgment to render an entire dissolution and renovation, or a radical reoi's;a uzation and reform of the present Faculty, essen- tial to the honor and future prosperity of the Institution, and personal collisions among the professors, respecting a projected removal of the medical department to the city of Louisville, or the establishment there of a rival institution at the instance, and for the private interest of some of them, and greatly to the prejudice of the medical school here, have occurred, and become of such general notoriety, as deeply to affect the charac- ter of the institution, and the honor of some of its pro- fessors; anH having believed on a former occasion, as I do now, that the only appropriate and effectual remedy is in your hands, and conceiving it to be my duty to Transylvania, to you, and to my own reputation, to bring the whole subject without delay, before your honorable board, as the only tribunal for proper action upon it, did then invoke your prompt intervention; and whereas, for certain reasons deemed prudential by your- selves, you postponed the investigation until the close of the then unexpired session, and said session having terminated, and my application having been renewed, you have thought proper to require from me, at the instance (as 1 understand) of one of the patties impli- cated, the exhibition of formal and specific allegations, therefore, in obedience to your request, and in fulfil- ment of what I consider a sacred public duty, I, Ben- jamin W. Dudley, as one of the Medical Faculty of Transylvania University, now invite your serious and scrutinizing investigation of the following allegations, which I make upon my own personal and official re- sponsibility, against two of my professional associates Doctor Charles Caldwell, and Doctor Luntford p' Yandell. The said Caldwell and Yandell, have been jointly and severally, guilty of treacherous and faithless con- duct towards Transylvania University, its presiding guardians, and some of their associate professors 1 hey have secretly conspired, and persevering urg- 5 ed the removal of the medical department from Lex- ington and Transylvania University. They have studiously endeavored by artful and im- proper means, to conceal the whole plot from you for many months past, until it might be too late for you to counteract it successfully. They have countenanced and encouraged, for their own benefit, the establishment of a rival institution in the city of Louisville, after the removal of the medi- cal department from Lexington, had been ascertained to be hopeless. They have either published and propagated, or have aided in publishing and propagating, through a deluded or prostituted press at Louisville, many false and de- famatory allegations, and vulgar and disparaging epi- thets against two of their associates (Dr. Richardson and myself) after, and because it was known that we were resolved to stand or fall with Transylvania, and for the treacherous purpose on their part, of prostra- ting as far as they could, (by our degradation) the in- stitution which had long cherished, and was then boun- tifully supporting them, and of building up for their own profit, a rival which they expected and wished to see established on the ruins of Transylvania, under whose auspices they had acquired their fortune and fame. They have exacted fiom their public pupils, high fees for private instruction, under the delusion created by themselves, or through their connivance, and for their unjust gain, that such a course was important for insuring diplomas. And also they have endeavored to excite or have connived at, and encouraged among the pupils, unjust prejudices against Lexington, and in favor of Louis- ville, for the faithless and treacherous purpose of there- by facilitating the transplanting of the Medical School. They have conspired against Dr. Richardson, one of their associate professors, by endeavoring to procure his dismission from the chair he,fills. And they lave also, without just and proper cause, endeavored to create prejudices among the pupils a- gainst myself, by declaring before them as a class, and by public declarations in the streets of Lexington, that the charges before alluded to as published in the Lou- 6 isville Journal, were all true, and that my conduct had been cowardly and mean. They have been guilty of a wilful violation of the laws prescribed for the government of the medical school, by habitually charging separate high and unau- thorized fees for private instruction and lectures.* Dr. Yandell has wilfully and artfully outraged the spirit of an ordinance of the department, and defraud- ed his associate, Dr. Peter, by withholding from him the sum to which he was entitled for each pupil who had taken the ticket of the Professor of Chemistry, by procuring his assistance for a less sum, without disclos- ing to him the existence of the ordinance, fixing his compensation and regulating his appointment. Upon the foregoing allegations, I am ready to have an investigation, whenever and wherever your honora- ble body shall direct. Respectfully, B. W. DUDLEY." March 17, 1837. A copy of these charges was handed to me by the Secretary of the Board of Trustees on Sunday morn- ing, the 19th of March—the investigation commencing the Thursday following. They found me without any preparation. Ignorant of Dr. Dudley's machinations during the winter—of his tampering with my private pupils—in fact, of the whole ground of complaint a- gainst me, except the affair of the removal, I had col- lected no testimony. I expected Dr. Caldwell to be present with facts establishing one or two points con- nected with that controversy, and for the rest, I relied, and, as the issue proved, with a well-grounded confi- dence, upon the evidence of the other members of the Faculty. Dr. Caldwell being detained in Louisville, was unable either to answer to the charges, or aid me with the testimony which he had collected. On Thurs- day morning the enquiry began, when the charges be- ing read by the Chairman of the Board, I madelhe fol- lowing answer: *The next charge, relating exclusively to Dr. Caldwell, as the follow i::- ona ooes to myself, ia here omitted. 7 Mr. Chairman: In replying to the charges preferred again9t me by Benjamin W. Dudley, before your honorable board, I shall take them up severally in the order in which they are presented, adducing such testimony in refu- tation as the short space of time since they were plac- ed in my possession has enabled me to collect. I shall endeavor to do so briefly, and with plainness; but, at the same time, in a spirit of moderation and mildness becoming the place and my own character, avoiding those harsh epithets in which his memorial abounds, and which appear to me better calculated to excite an- gry feeling, than to elicit truth. Passing for the present, over his long preamble, I proceed to the first charge. 1. That I have "secretly conspired and persevere- ingly urged the removal of the Medical Department from Lexington and Transylvania." This charge, coming from my accuser, I confess, Mr. Chairman, fills me with surprise, and I doubt not will excite in you similar emotions when you are in- formed of the circumstances under which the project of removing the department had its origin. As will be established by the testimony of my colleagues, my accuser must be held the author of that scheme.* He has long complained of the ineligibility, in many re- spects, of Lexington, as a site for a Medical School. He has habitually declared that its prosperity was safe only so long as its present faculty should live. It was his loud, oft-repeated and alarming complaints of the impracticability of procuring a sufficient supply of subjects, that caused his colleagues to think of a re- moval, f Sir, he was in the habit of avowing to his co'leagues that he was obliged to "discourage dissec' tions" which all physicians know are of the first im- portance to the student of medicine. And why? "Lest the pupils should discover his scarcity of subjects"] Could sensible men look upon a school, with so capi- tal a defect, as secure? They did not; and hence I repeat *See appendix A. for Dr. Cooke's testimony: Dr. Short's was verbal, but quite as strong. t Sea appendix A. The testimony of Dr. Short was to tha same point, as all will remember who ware present at tha investigation. s that the step was prompted by the exigencies of the chair of my accuser. And I aver, with the testimo- ny of my colleagues still to sustain me, that he first proposed the removal, in the Medical Hall, and in the presence of the faculty; and that he was one of the most ardent advocates of the scheme in the second and regular faculty consultation.* It will also be shown by separate evidence, that my accuser, as late as the middle of June, acted upon the presumption of a re- moval, f But I deny the charge of "treachery" and bad faith, as imputed by my accuser to my colleagues and my- self, on account of this measure. On the contrary, I affirm that we were led to it by the highest regard for the good of the institution. Our oath, it must be re- membered, is to promote the interests of Transylva- nia, wherever placed. We entertained no doubt, when the project was conceived, of the ability of the Legis- lature to transfer the department to Louisville. We re- garded the situation of the school as a critical one, and believed that its true interests would be promoted by a removal to a large city, commanding resources de- nied to smaller ones. We had seen our pupils drawn off in augmented numbers, by the facilities for dissec- tion, and the opportunities afforded for witnessing hos- pital practice, in the cities of our seaboard, and in a neighboring city. We saw that our class no longer maintained its relative rank among the schools of the country, being stationary in numbers, (the last winter it declined) while others were advancing. It was re- marked, that boarding had risen in Lexington, to near- ly the same price, (just the same last winter) paid by students of medicine in Philadelphia. We listened, until we were in despair, to the descriptions of the professor of Anatomy of his difficulties in procuring the requisite materials for his department. And we concluded, that the time had come, and would soon pass by, for making an effort to place the institution on a safe and permanent basis. I pretend not to decide, sir, that in all these opin- * See appendix A. t See appendix B 9 ions, the faculty were not wrong, but I will affirm my conviction that if so, they were honestly wrong; while it must be conceded, on all hands, that the situation of the faculty enabled them to judge as well as others of the deficiencies and the prospects of the institution; and that they had, at least, an equal stake in its pros- perity. Nor were these opinions hastily or cheerfully adopted. They were forced upon us, by passing events against which it was impossible to shut our eyes. But if with these facts and arguments set forth honestly and fairly before you, your honorable board shall still come to the conclusion, that the conduct of the faculty in resolving, through the instrumentality of the Legislature, and by a legal process, to remove the Medical Department was treacherous to Transylvania, an ample share of the crime must be assigned to my accuser, who proposed it so promptly, and supported it at first so warmly. I know many persons believe the representations of my accuser were not correct. It is a sufficient answer for me, that I had not then had cause to suspect him of misrepresentation. 2. I am charged in the second place, with having "studiously endeavored, by artful and improper means, to conceal the whole plot from you, for many months past, until it might be too late for you to counteract it successfully." I call upon my accuser for specifications. What "art- ful and improper means" have I used to conceal it? With what grace does he denounce that as a "plot", which he himself recommended? With what fairness can he charge that upon me as a crime, which he came under an obligation to perform? Will he deny that the Faculty were acting with reference to what they deem- ed the good of the institution, and that secrecy was considered indispensable to the success of the enter- prise? I le will not. He knows that his colleagues were actuated in this movement by proper feelings; and I will do him the justice to believe, that his representations of his own peculiar hardships were true, and his appre- hensions for the fate of the school sincere. Why did [0 we desire a transfer of the school? In order that his department might be sustained? Why was it agreed upon to keep it secret? Because nothing could be ef- fected until the Legislature should have met, and to have disclosed the design would have been to prevent the assembling of a class, the succeeding fall. If the evils forcing us, as we supposed, to remove, had been such as the citizens of Lexington could remedy, then it would have been the duty of the Faculty to lay their troubles fully before your honorable Board. But, it was believed they were not ;and to have exposed them, would have been to cripple the institution before the time for the transfer bad arrived. 3. I am charged with having "countenanced and en- couraged, for my own benefit, the establishment of a rival institution in the city of Louisville, after the re- moval of the Medical Department from Lexington, had been ascertained to be hopeless." 1 demand of my accuser, proof of this charge. Let him point to a single act of mine by which I have at- tempted to establish such a rival institution. Can he show a single line written by me to the Legislature, (the only power by which a school could be created) or to any member of it, or to any citizen of Louisville, on the subject of a rival school; or prove a single con- versation with any Senator or Representative, in which I "encouraged" the establishment of a "rival institu- tion?" He can not, Sir, and this accusation, thus falls to the ground. 4. It is charged that I have "either published and propagated, or have aided in publishing and propagating through a deluded or prostituted press at Louisville, many false and defamatory allegations and vulgar and disparaging epithets against two of my associates—Dr. Richardson" and my accuser, &c. &c. I deny the charge, and offer the letter of George D. Prentice Esq., one of the Editors of the Journal, as evidence. Louisville, March 28th, 1837.* Dr. L. P. Yandell: Dear Sir:—I have just received your note of the 11 27th, in which you state, that you have pledged your- self to prove that you neither wrote, nor communicat- ed any of the statements contained in that article of the Louisville Journal which related to the conduct of Professors Dudley and Richardson. Sir, I most cheer- fully bear my testimony to the rectitude of your deni- al. I myself, wrote the article in question. You had nothing to do with the writing of it, and as far as I know, you never authorized a single statement contain- ed in it. Your note of yesterday is, as far as I now recollect, the very first communication that I have re- ceived from you, either verbally or in writing. AH this is true—so help me God. Yours trulv, GEO. D. PREiNTICE The fact being disproved, all the parade of my accu- ser about his resolution "to stand or fall with Transyl- vania," and the inference of my design to "degrade" him, and prostrate the institution which had given me "fortune and fame," &c. &c, pass for nothing. 5. That I have "exacted from my public pupils, high fees for private instruction, under the delusion created by myself, or through my connivance, and for my un- just gain, that such a course was important for insuring diplomas." I reply, that I have received fees from my private pupils, as has been the practice of the Faculty ever since I have been connected with it.f In looking over the catalogues of the Medical classes for the last six years, I find that in 1830 my accuser had 16 private pupils; in 1831, 14; in 1832,8; in 1S33, 1.6; in 1834, 20; in 1835, 11; and in 183f>, the last winter, 14—ma- king in all, 89. In 1832,J I observe, Professor Rich- ardson had 14 private pupils. Other members of the *It will be seen from the date, as well as the tenor of this letter, that it was written after the close of the investigation before the Trustees.— Dr. Caldwell had received one from Mr. Prentice of the same purport, which I expected to adduce, but was disappointed, in consequence of his absence. I wrote to Mr. Prentice, and received the above answer a few days afterwards. tSee Dr. Cooke's testimony in Appendix A. 4.The winter when the class prayed the Trustees" to "strengthen hi* chair " 12 Faculty have had them, as the catalogues show. The number of mine may have been greater or less than that of my accuser; but he will not deny that he has "exacted" from his a higher "fee." Most of mine have lived in my family, and have been under my care for a period varying from four months to nearly three years. During their pupilage, I have made it a point, (as every preceptor who discharges his duty must do,) to examine them occasionally, and have required of them, during the summer recess, to write theses on subjects connected with medicine, for the purpose of improving them in the art of composition. Generally, they have expressed themselves satisfied with my course, and as the best evidence of it, have committed their own pupils and relatives to my charge. The ex- pression of the estimate which a few of them place up- on my mode of instructing, I am able to lay before your honorable Board.* Scattered, as they are, over all the States in the valley, it is impossible, in any rea- sonable time, to collect the testimony of a great num- ber; and most of those who were under my care last winter had dispersed before my accuser preferred his charges. But most earnestly do I wish, that every private pupil who has ever been under my care, was assembled here before you; and if a single one would rise in my presence, and say that I had ever "created or connived at the delusion" that he could obtain a di- ploma unworthily, for being my private pupil, then would I acknowledge myself to have done flagrant in- justice to my colleagues, whose honesty I should thus have impeached, and to be most unworthy of a place by the side of such honorafole men. If any young man has ever become my pupil with such expectations, truly, in my belief, did he labor under a delusion; and I regret that any one should have been governed by motives so little becoming a candidate for the honors of the medical profession. I had supposed that gentlemen sought the aid of my admonitions and counsel, as they did the Lectures of the School—to be instructed; and I am yet to be satisfied that there have been many who acted from other considerations. ♦Appendix C. 13 6. That I have "endeavored to excite, or have con- nived at and encouraged among the pupils, unjust pre- judices against Lexington, and in favor of Louisville, for the faithless purpose of thereby facilitating the trans- planting of the Medical School." I reply, that I have no recollection of conversing with pupils on the subject of the transfer, until after the meeting of the class on the 23rd of December, when it became a common subject of remark: That the private pupils of my accuser were of the committee to memorialize the Faculty on the subject;—that his assis- tant. Dr. Bush, was at that time, notoriously, the warm advocate of the measure; and that the complaints of my accuser, of being unable to do justice to his depart- ment—of being obliged to "discourage dissections to conceal his lack of subjects,''1 &c. &c, were the argu- ments by which, it is presumed, the minds of the class were influenced, as, assuredly, they were those which prevailed with the Faculty in deciding on the removal. If, therefore, the "prejudices" which unfortunately, do exist against Lexington, as a site for a Medical School are "unjust," my accuser is chiefly to blame for crea- ting them. If there was no just ground of complaint against it, then has he done it most wanton injustice, and deceived his colleagues without cause. If the school promised to continue successful here, why should we cherish the "faithless and treacherous" pur- pose of transplanting it? Does not the assertion carry Us own contradiction on its face? Would sane men seek to perform a work of so much labor, except for the benefit of the institution?* And what arguments so likely to convince them of its pressing necessity, as those adduced by my accuser? 7. That I have "conspired against Dr. Richardson, one of my associate professors, by endeavoring to pro- cure his dismission from the chair he fills." This charge is not specific. If my accuser means ♦The interests of the institution and the Faculty cannot be separated. It was silly in the Doctor to make this charge—it was admitting the fact, that our ground in Lexington was not deemed, by the Faculty, tena- ble. 11 that 1 have spoken slightingly of Dr. Richardson's qualifications as a teacher, my reply is, "he that is with- out sin among you, let him cast the first stone." Nev- ertheless, I do not plead this in justification of what may, perhaps, justly be complained of as a breach of courtesy. I adduce it to show the effect of "evil com- munications." It is the fault of my professional edu- cation—having been taught by my accuser, and even by that colleague himself, whose wrongs are, thus late, brought up to be repaired, to speak my mind freely, of the supposed incompetency of "associate professors." It is a vice, Sir, not peculiar to modern times; but one in which pupils were most skilfully indoctrinated at least thirteen years ago. Let me add, that it was rio longer ago than the commencement of our last course of Lectures, that my accuser, in his public Introducto- ry, assailed Professor Cooke in a manner the most of- fensive to his feelings, and the best calculated to mar the harmony of the Faculty. If, then, I have erred, I have erred after the fashion of my teachers. And I must be allowed to plead this additional circumstance in extenuation;—that I labored under an impression, at that time, that Dr. Richardson had followed up some boyish affront which he had received from me, with most persevering and malignant hatred—that he had op- posed ray election with more than his usual violence— had done me much injustice, and was still my enemy. It was under such a conviction, Sir, that more than five years ago, with the inexperience and ardor of a young man, I committed this offence—Which all my colleagues will do me the justice to say, is far from lying exclusive- ly at my door.* I am not aware that Professor Rich- ardson has complained of my conduct towards him since that time—we have lived ever since, I had thought, on good terms, in the exercise of the usual courtesies, and the cultivation, I had hoped, of feelings better be- coming men of our professions. I believe it is not at his instance, that this old affair is now dragged to light. *! sP°ke t0 a graduate, of Dr. Richardson's incompetency. Dr. Dudley has been in the habit of speaking of it, to the pupils—as hun- dreds can testify. Of his penchant for dismissing professors, Dr. Blyf he's case, (see appendix D.) is an example. I 15 I am sure, at least, that he has, within a few years, dis- countenanced the revival of it. I hope nothing may grow out of the present allusion to it, offensive to his feelings. Far is the disposition from me, to renew any pain which it may have occasioned him while transpir- ing. 8. That I have also, "without just and proper cause, endeavored to create prejudices against" my accuser, "by declaring before the class, and by public declara- tions in the streets of Lexington, that the charges be- fore alluded to, as published in the Louisville Journal, were all true, and that my (my accuser's) conduct had been cowardly and mean." My reply is, that in discharge of what I felt to be a sacred duty, I had, long before the artile appeared in the Journal, when enquired of by gentlemen concern- ing the effort at transplanting the school, made a num- ber of the statements contained in the article, as to the part my accuser had taken in the transaction. To some of your honorable Board, when spoken to on the sub- ject, I had made similar statements. And hence, when my accuser denounced the article to the class, as "a tis- sue of falsehoods," it was understood that the allega- tion fell upon me. Such was also his own understand- ing of it—as is proved by his refusal to retract, or in a- ny manner modify, his declaration to the class, when, with two of my colleagues, I addressed him the follow- ing letter. Lexington, Jan. 31, 1837. Professor Dudley: Sir,—We have been informed that in an appeal made by you to the Medical Class, on the 28th instant, you declared the statements respecting Professor Richard- son and yourself, contained in the Louisville Journal Extra, of the 25th, to be false and slanderous; and that you were in possession of documents to prove it so.— Though this information has reached us through seve- ral channels entitled to credit, we are willing to hope that it is in some shape inaccurate; because if it be not, it leaves Us no alternative between its refutation, and submission, on our part to the groundless and defama- tory charge1 of having violated truth, and been guilty i<; of calumny. In such a dilemma, you will not sup- pose it possible for us to hesitate a moment in our choice of measures. That we may not, however, in a matter of such del- icacy, take action on dubious or debateable ground, we be0- leave respectfully but earnestly to inquire of you, whether you include, under the charge of "falsehood,v the following statements, made either positively or indi- rectly in the Louisville Journal. 1. That you "began years ago," and have continued to complain of Lexington, with entire justice, as "an improper site for a medical school," because "sufficient provision" cannot be made in it for "your department" in the institution. 2. That "in a Faculty meeting last spring, you open- ly proposed a removal to Louisville." 3. That "at another Faculty meeting held subse- quently, the matter was formally discussed, and that you and Professor Richardson were most enthusiastic in expressing your approbation of the measure." 4. That "on that occasion, Professor Richardson mentioned Mr. Guthrie of Louisville, as the man who would find means to cary the project of removal into execution." 5. That "the Faculty then pledged themselves to each other on two points; to keep the matter secret un- til the arrival of the proper time for action; and then to use all their means and exertions for the accomplishment of the object." 6. That "all the members of the Faculty were in favor of the project of removal," and that "when the crisis arrived, you and Professor Richardson, shrinking from responsibility," (or actuated by some other mo- tive hitherto concealed from us, and respecting which we forbear to inquire) arrayed yourselves against the project. 7. That you thus deserted your colleagues, with whom you had previously acted; and, as they believed and still believe, had pledged yourselves to continue to act faithfully, and left them to breast, as best they might, the storm of opposition and angry feeling, which you had been at least as instrumental in provoking as them- selves, and the measures productive of which, were 17 intended for your accommodation, much more than for theirs. These several allegations, with a few others of less moment, actually made, or plainly implied are contain- ed in the Louisville Journal already cited. We know them to be true; and have already pronounced them so, in open conversations with our fellow-citizens. Nor shall we hesitate to do the same again, should such re- ferences be made to them, as may require from us a free and full expression of our sentiments. If therefore, from inadvertence, forgetfulness, or any other cause, you have positively or by implication, de- clared them to be false, the act, however innocently and inoffensively intended, is an impeachment of our vera- city, to which we must not be expected to submit. We earnestly entreat you then, to lose no time in dis- avowing any design exceptionable to our feelings, or injurious to our reputation, and in making such further communication to the medical class, as may remove from their minds every shadow of doubt, if they now entertain any, respecting the truth of the foregoing state- ments, and save us from the painful alternative of doing it ourselves. We perceive by a paragraph in one of the public prints, that you promise to act on this subject, in some form, after the close of the present session of the medical school. What your precise object then may be, we are not informed. Nor, as respects the matter now in hand,does it concern us to know. Be the end aimed at by you, however, what it may, your movement is far too slow to suit our purpose. We cannot submit to the mortifying condition of having our veracity held doubtful, for five or six weeks, by a body of honorable young men to whom we are communicating the truths of Science. Our call is for prompt and decisive action; and noth- ing short of this will satisfy us.* C JOHN E. COOK, Signed, J CH: CALDWELL, . ( LUNSFORD P. YANDELL. ♦This letter was conveyed by Dr. Short, who concurred in the matter contained in it. C 18 He had now brought the controversy before the class. He had charged me, with others of his colleagues, with falsehood, and had declined giving any explanation whieh would save us from the necessity of appealing to the same body. This was the only course left us of defending our character. Accordingly, on the 9th of February, I addressed the class in the following words, having written down the remarks I designed making: "It is known to you all, Gentlemen, that a plan has been on foot for removing the Medical Department of Transylvania to Louisville. You are aware that it raised a great clamor in Lexington when it was made public; and may know that Professor Caldwell was a- lone censured. Now, I was as little concerned in the enterprise as any of my colleagues, and, in fact, came very reluctantly to the conclusion, that a removal of the school was indispensable to its prosperity. It would have been very easy for me to have avoided all blame; but it appeared to me cowardly and base to allow all the odium to fall upon one man, and he the oldest in the Faculty, when all the Faculty were concerned; and hence I declared to citizens that all had given their as- sent to the removal, and that Professor Dudley had first audibly proposed it in the Faculty, &c. &c. Now, I am informed that Professor Dudley has pro- nounced this statement false; and although, possibly, he meant this only for the Louisville Journal, yet it falls upon me—having, as is well known all over Lex- ington, made many of the statements contained in the Journal. What then am I to do? I must either lie un- der the charge, or repel it. I choose the latter, and will now proceed to repeat the assertions I have made, concerning Professor Dudley's participation in the mea- sure. I aver, then, that all the Faculty, last spring, were in favor of the removal—that not only was Professor Dudley so, but that he first proposed it to the Faculty, as a Faculty; and that this is known to every member of the Faculty. That up to October, as far as I could judge, he was as warmly in favor of it as any member of the Faculty, That when the thing became known, and popular indignation arose, he retired—as I admit 19 he had a right to do—and left his colleagues to breast the tempest as they might. Of the fury of that storm, you are as good judges as I am. We are still in it.__ The end of it I pretend not to see. But, Gentlemen, all is easy in my conscience; and having now discharged this duty to you and to myself, which, perhaps, I have postponed too long, I shall "calmly wait to-morrow's hidden season,"fearless of the events that it may bring." It will be perceived that, in all this, my course was strictly defensive. As an act of justice to a colleague; I declared the participation of all the Faculty in the measure. Without any agency of mine, the statements were repeated in a newspaper. My accuser pronoun- ced them "false"—thus implicating me. I repelled the aspersion, aided by two witnesses, I believe my accu- ser admits, successfully.* I went no further. Could I have done less? No one will say I ought. 9. That I have "been guilty of a wilful violation of the laws pr escribed for the government of the Medical school, by habitually charging separate, high and unau- thorized fees for private instruction and lectures. This is a repetition of the 5th charge, and the an- swer given to that applies to this. Of the grace with which it comes from that member of the Faculty, who, at every period since the organization of the school, has been in the receipt of the largest amount of fees from private pupils, your honorable Board can decide. The tenth and last charge of my accuser against me is the most serious. It is in these words: "Dr. Yandell has wilfully and artfully outraged the spirit of an ordinance of the Department," &c. See the charge, page 6. This is, indeed, a grave accusation, and if sustained, would acquit my accuser of blame in the estimation of honorable men, for arraigning me before your honorable Board.f But, sir, he knew, or as an officer of the in- *Yes; he knows the class went away satisfied of his treachery and falsehood. tThis is admitting too much.—If Dr. Dudley's charge were true, he was acquainted with the fact, for years, and as an honest man was bound to complain of it. But he knew his charge was untrue when ha made it. 20 stitution ought to have known, that Dr. Peter is not my "associate"—that he is not recognized by the Fa- culty or the Board of Trustees as holding any connex- ion with the Medical Department, save that of Libra- rian. Since the death of the lamented Eaton, with whom his receipts show that I settled honorably, I have had no "associate." I engaged the services of Dr. Pe- ter on my own responsibility, and by the advice of my colleagues, for a sum with which I always understood that he was satisfied. And, if not satisfied, he was al- ways at liberty to retire from the'situation. The ar- rangement, therefore, was a private one, with which my accuser has no more right to intermeddle, than I have to complain of his private engagements with Dr. Bush. Dr. Peter, having no official connexion with the chair of Chemistry, was "not entitled," it is plain, to any part of the sum paid the Professor of Chemis- try. And while he held no such connexion, it concern- ed him not whether any ordinance existed, fixing the compensation of the assistant, and regulating his ap- pointment. But it is not true, that Dr. Peter was ignorant of the existence of such an ordinance. The existence of it was a thing of general notoriety; and Dr. Peter has both expressed to me a wish to be appointed under it, and, on my declining to bring the matter before your honorable Board, to have it repealed—the first, some years since—the latter, more than a year ago. Having now, Sir, answered each and every one of the charges of my accuser in a manner, I trust, perfect- ly satisfactory to your honorable Board, I would re- spectfully submit the question, in conclusion, whether my accuser, in travelling back over all the years of my official life, for matter to destroy the reputation I have been laboring to acquire, has been actuated by a regard for the prosperity and honor of Transylvania? Or is it not, rather, that he may be able to accomplish that "dissolution and renovation of the present Faculty " to which he so significantly points in his preamble, and .™\.he has more plainly expressed in conversation with his friends—saying, "that he would not remain in the institution with me?" What, I would ask has for- 21 ced upon him the conviction of this urgent necessity for "an entire dissolution and renovation of the Facul- ty?" Is it my alleged old offences against Drs. Richard- son and Peter—and of receiving private pupils? Then, my accuser was my friend and eulogist a few months ago—prompt to counsel and admonish, as friends should be—not reserved or backward in advising—and ought to have put me right. Or, to speak more properly, if to receive private pupils was "a wilful violation" of the laws of the School, he ought himself to have set me a correct example by refusing to receive them. But, Sir, is it not most evident, that the true cause of this importunate desire of my accuser to witness this "entire renovation'''—which he backs by a threat, if his wishes are countervailed—has its origin in matters of more recent date? Is it not plain, that it is because I have been able to prove, that all the "conspiracy" a- gainst the school, of which he now professes so honest and deep a horror, was countenanced, fostered, and, in a principal degree, matured by himself? That it was his reiterated confessions—to which no honorable man who knew the value of anatomical knowledge could listen without feelings of deep humiliation—that Stu- dents of medicine, in this school, were lulled into "the delusion that dissections were not necessary, in order to keep out of sight the poverty of the dissecting room" —which brought his colleagues, with one mind, to con- sent to break up their attachments here, and, braving all the hazards and hardships incident to the enterprise, make a great and united effort to place the Medical De- partment of Transylvania on a broad and permanent basis? The fact cannot be disguised, Sir, that the aim of my accuser is to deprive me of my office—and the sen- tence, out of doors, is considered as already passed upon me. And why, I would again inquire? For any alleged incapacity, or indolence, or neglect as a teach- er? Or any moral obliquity? Or any act of violence, or injustice? For none of these; but because my accu- ser has suddenly conceived this fancy for a "dissolution" of the Faculty—because he has resolved that both cannot remain, and it is supposed that he must remain. 22 It has been my good fortune, Sir, to be associated, in this Faculty, with able and honest men—men whose learn- ing and probity are known throughout the whole length and breadth of the land. I am a young man in com- parison with most of them; but I appeal to them, whether I have failed in attracting and retaining the attention of my classes? Whether I have pretermitted any opportunity of impressing upon their minds those high moral principles which adorn our profession, as well as the truths of Science, which are to guide them in pursuing it? Whether my,Lecture-room has been less frequented, or fewer of my Lectures marked by the particular approbation of my class? Or whether, on special or extraordinary occasions, I have been less frequently than my gifted associates, called on to ap- pear as their orator or instructor? I ask them, and, Sir, I would respectfully enquire of your Board, what was the Chemical Laboratory when I entered it?— Look at it now, with apparatus for illustrating clearly, and often brilliantly, all the principles of Chemical Sci- ence. And I appeal to my colleagues, whether the whole cost of refitting it was not paid, originally, out of my private funds—a considerable portion of which, as my report made in December, to your honorable Board shows, still remains my private property? I put it to them, and to that one of them the most un- friendly to me, what was the rank of the Chemical Chair, in this school, when, a young man of five and twenty, I was elected to it? They shall say what it is now. I say these things, Sir, not in a spirit of boasting, or for the purpose of disparaging or offending any human being. But, in defence of a reputation which I have toiled hard to attain, and which is naturally dear to my family as well as myself, I must be allowed to speak plainly. Should your decision be adverse to the wishes of my accuser, and should my connexion with Transylva- nia continue, it will be my pride, as it is my duty, to put forth whatever of energy, skill or address I may have, to repair any injury it may have sustained from recent dissensions in the Faculty, to extend its useful- 23 ness, and exalt its fame. It is an institution which, for many years, has shared my warmest regards, as it has commanded my sincere admiration. Since I entered its halls, a student, more than thirteen years ago, its prosperity and honor have been objects near and dear to my heart; and most devoutly could I wish, that a lit- tle more candor—or whatever quality in him would have averted the mischief—had prevented my accuser from luring his colleagues into this difficulty. Most devout- ly do I wish, that the institution could be restored to the ground which it occupied before these troubles began. Sir, I leave the question with you.—For my ability, zeal, and fidelity as a teacher—for my deportment as a man—I refer you to my colleagues and my classes.— From their verdict I will not appeal. Such were the charges, and such was my answer to them. My accuser was then permitted to adduce his testimony; and after bearing with two of his speeches —one of them written, and perhaps the most labored effort of his life—after listening with extraordinary pa- tience to all the street scandal, which none but a veteran gossip could have collected—after hearing all his cer- tificates, and all his witnesses, who testified alike to what they knew, and what they had heard others say —at the close of the investigation, "the Board did not take up the charges (as preferred against myself,) to regard them; but passed them by in silence. No one made a motion to take them up." I quote the words of a member of the Board. One member, it is not known whether in jest or in earnest, offered a resolu tion claiming for the University, a part of my fees, as suggested by Dr. Dudley; "but he had no second to his motion." The Chairman (Robert Wickliffe Sen., Esq.,) proposed a preamble and resolution dismissing Dr. Caldwell, which has been published; "and another for dissolving the Faculty." It was in these words: "Whereas controversies and difficulties have arisen among the members of the Medical Faculty of Tran- sylvania University, which imperiously require that this Board shall dissolve said Faculty, as now organized, and remove the professors from their respective chairs 84 and cause them to be filled by new appointments; be it therefore resolved, That the said Medical Faculty shall be, and it is hereby dissolved, and the members thereof, removed from their respective chairs, and from all connexion with Transylvania University.* The above preamble and resolution was passed by the Board of Trustees of Transylvania University on Saturday evening March 25,1837. (A true copy, attest) D. LANDRA VIGUS, Secretary, B. T. T. U/' "Whilst offering this resolution," my informant con- tinues, "Mr. Wickliffe avowed to the Board, one lead- ing object with him in the postponement of the elec- tion of Professors, was the hope of seeing harmony re- stored, and particularly his wish, from his view of your talents, character, and influence, that the College should retain you as a Professor. In these sentiments, which were also avowed by one or two other members, I have no doubt the great body of the Board sincerely participated. Your being left out of the Faculty in the new organization, you may rest assured, has not taken place from any want of respect or confidence of a ma- jority of the Board—from no view of deficiency in qualification, or want of faithfulness in the discharge of your duties: but solely from the necessity of a har- mony in the Faculty, which could not be had, were you still retained—a conviction that it was of more vi- tal consequence to retain the Professor of Surgery than any other in the institution. * * * * * One of the principal reasons avowed by the Board for dissolving the late Faculty, was the want of harmony between the members. That condition of things continuing in the same degree as before, and the es- trangement—after all the appeals and efforts of friends which were made, and the lapse of four or five weeks —continuing as wide and unshaken as ever, what could be left the Board, who are called by their oaths of of *A few days after the dissolution of the Faculty, I left Lexington for my residence in Tennessee, and did not return until after the re-orean- uation. B 25 fice to be true to the interests of the University, but to build upon one or the other of the two parties op- posed to each other, and though strict justice might not be done, to do the best in their power, under the cir- cumstances of the case? It resolved itself, therefore, into a case of expediency," &c, &c. In other words, I was sacrificed to the passions of Dr. Dudley. By his shuffling and prevarication, he had brought about a misunderstanding between himself and some of his colleagues, and was resolved, by perpetua- ting it, to exclude them from the school. He could not have me dismissed; but while I was out, he deter- mined to shut the door against me. He thus dictated to the Board. " You take me, or you take Dr. Yan- dell—not both," was his language; and the Board ac- quiesced. I do not complain of the Board. I know the mem- bers too well to believe, that a majority of them are ca- pable of doing an intentional wrong. I believe, in thus submitting to the tyranny of Dr. Dudley, they were governed by a sincere wish to promote the interests of the University. They regarded his connexion with it as indispensable to its existence. I believe the submis- sion was exceedingly galling to many of them; but stern necessity, they thought, imposed it upon them. In this whole proceeding, the impartial reader who has attentively considered the facts embodied in these pages will admit, the conduct of Dr. Dudley was as weak as it was dishonorable. To turn for a moment again to his charges.—The 1st, 2nd, 5th, 7th and 9tb, are—that I urged the removal of the school—"conceal- ed the plot"—have "charged high fees for private in- struction"—and "conspired against Dr. Richardson"— in all of which, if his senses had not quite deserted him, he must have known that I could prove, that he stood on precisely the same ground with myself. And these constitute the whole body of his charges, except the separate and ridiculous cne of "defrauding Dr. Peter." But it was an act of still greater folly to declare before the Board, as he did with peculiar earnestness, "that he had never been in favor of the removal of the school,—that he had held but one language on the D 26 subject—that of decided opposition;" which a writer in the Lexington Intelligencer, of Feb. 3rd, had done for him before. That writer says, "not a word can be got from them, (Drs. Dudley and Richardson) unless in answer to questions put almost in violation of the ordinary courtesy of polite intercourse, and then all that they can be prevailed on to say, is, that they have been uniformly opposed to the transfer." Such have been Dr. Dudley's declarations. What are the facts? / proved, on the investigation, by all the Fa- culty, that his language was just the reverse. See Dr. Cooke's testimony. Dr. Richardson's remark was, when the proposition was made in the Faculty, he did not remember by whom first, "it was like an electrical shock—all embraced it at once. In August he asked Dr. D. how comes on the removal, and then found, for the first time, that he was very cool." Dr. Short's testimony was, that "Dr. Dudley first moved an ad- journment to Louisville—that it is hard to say which was most ardent for the removal, Dr. Richardson, Dr. Dudley, or Dr. Caldwell—who were decidedly the most active; and that he had no intimation that Dr. D. tvould not go until mid-winter." Dr. Caldwell's evi- dence is contained in the joint letter of himself, Dr. Cooke and myself, to Dr. Dudley. True, Dr. Dudley admitted that "he had used strong language to his colleagues; but then, it was only to bring others out!" Be it so. A book of high author- ity with all good men, though despised by him, says, "as a madman who casteth firebrands, arrows and death, so is the man that deceiveth his neighbor, and saith, am not I in sport." He "used strong language to bring others out." He admits then, with his candid friend, Dr. Richardson, that he has "prevaricated, and stated every thing but the truth!" But if he meant to deceive his colleagues, onlyund entrap them, why tell Mr. Sayre that the school would probably be removed to Louisville, and that, therefore, he did not wish to pur- chase his house, &c. &c? Why say to Mr. Peers, late in June, that "he need not be surprised at seeing him in Louisville"—that "it was possible the school could be removed there"—that, whether or not, he, (D.) would 27 prefer bringing up his sons in a large city, &c.—au- thorizing him to mention their conversation to citizens of Louisville?* Why, in the winter, tell a Professor in another department, a citizen of Lexington of high standing, that he was under a pledge to his colleagues to go, which he could not get over—creating in the mind of that individual so positive a certainty of the removal, that he wrote to Dr. Drake, to enquire wheth- er he would come to Lexington and organize a new Faculty,? Is this but one language? To his colleagues, his ex- pressions were most clear, positive, ardent and san- guine. "Louisville is the place; we shall have no trou* ble there," <^c. tyc, he often said, speaking on the sub- ject. To Dr. Gibney, and other citizens, his mercenary "Friend to Truth," (alias, Dr. Peter) says, he held different language. To the citizens of Lexington, gen- erally, I believe he did hold "but one language;" for their resentment he feared. He wished to share with his colleagues in the benefit only, of the removal—leav- ing the entire blame to them, "I will go with my colleagues," he remarked to me late in October; but I cannot be active, as our friend Caldwell wishes me to be;—with my possessions here my friends would say I was a lunatic, if I were active." These words he spoke to me standing on the steps of his own door, a few days after my return to Lexington from Tennessee, and were communicated very soon afterwards to Dr. Caldwell, whose remark was characteristic—that "so timid a course was unworthy of a man of Dr. Dudley's stand- ing." I know Dr. Dudley professes to remember no- thing of this conversation. It does not suit his purpos- es to remember it. The memory of a man who states the same thing differently, to different individuals, in the same hour, is not to be relied upon. From first to last, I have never denied being in favor *This evidence I tried hard to biing out during the investigation; but with an adroitness peculiar to the Doctor, he contrived to keep it out of view. I have since seen Mr. Peers' letter. The Doctor knew better than to produce it. Will he autlwrize Br. Bell to publish his (Dr. D's.) letter to him? If he will, I doubt not, it will be seen that lan- guage is held in it similar to that used to Mr. Peers. 28 of the removal. I have seen nothing in all that has transpired to change my opinions. But while Dr. Dud- ley was charging me with "conspiracy" on this head, he was conscious that he had himself urged the measure with surpassing earnestness—that it was intended es- pecially for his benefit—as expressed by Dr. Short, before the Board, the increase of anatcmical illustra- tions, being the main object in the removal—and that to at least a majority of his colleagues, he had countenan- ced it until mid-winter! So he charges me with "keep- ing the plot secret," when he had enjoined secrecy up- on Mr. Sayre—and effected it with other citizens of Lexington, by "prevaricating, and stating every thing but the truth;" and this, while revealing the "plot" to citizens of Louisville, with permission to use it. Nor is this the worst. The charge was made in the face of his own declaration, "that his colleagues were honest in wishing a removal." This language he used in a letter to the Senator from Fayette; dated Dec. 21st, which was read before the Board. Consequently, he knew the charge was false when he was preferring it. And in this manner he goes on to the end of the chap- ter—gravely accusing me of things common to the Fa- culty. He dwelt with peculiar emphasis upon my "con- spiracy" against Dr. Richardson, detailing a conversa- tion overheard by Dr. Knight, in the public stage, be- tween Dr. Caldwell and myself, as proof of it, knowing full well that he had "conspired" against him as far as ev- er I did. This matter of "conspiring against associate professors," like the right to receive private pupils, he seems to fancy his own high prerogative. He may "conspire" against a colleague whenever he crosses his humors. He "conspires" against Dr. Blythe, because he is disobedient, and does not subscribe a particular sum of money to a favorite object. And he "conspires" a- gainst Dr. Caldwell, Dr. Cooke and myself, because when beset by our friends in Lexington on the subject of the removal, we did not, in imitation of his bright example, "prevaricate, and state every thing but the truth." ° Of the conversation in the stage coach, of which his hireling scribbler, "A Friend to Truth," has also made 29 much use, I have this to say—that it was held subse- quently to the movement of the class against Dr. Rich- ardson, and that it was, therefore, too late to "discuss the plot." Nor could Dr. Hughes, a graduate of that spring, and a gentleman of fine attainments and high standing, who, according to the story, was to be the "tool to carry out the plot," have been spoken of in that light—for the good reason, that no such plot was meditated, and that Dr. H. was then settled in practice, with a family, and with no expectation of again attend- ing Lectures. He is the "pupil" alluded to, and his name ivas mentioned in connexion with the effort of the class; and naturally—as he has himself explained it in his "Card," in the Louisville Journal of the 26th May—because "he was understood to have been con- cerned in getting up the memorial, and was actively en- gaged in the effort." The movement of the class was spoken of as a thing past and abortive. No "plot" was '-'discussed." The whole story is absurd;—that men in their senses would discuss such a plot in a stage coach full of pas- sengers; that it should be laid a month after the affair had terminated; and that a graduate should be fixed upon as the instrument to carry it on! Dr. Knight may have fallen innocently into an error, or Dr. Dud- ley may have distorted his testimony, as he did that of many others. One or the other is true. The last charge—of defrauding my Assistant—gave Dr. Peter an opportunity of making a return for the kind officf s I had supposed I had rendered him. He was one of Dr. Dudley's most pregnant and doughty witnesses. It is true, he proved the falsehood of ths charge; by admitting that he had been informed of the ordinance before entering upon his duties, and in time to have allowed the action of the Trustees in his rase; and that, the next season, he did apply to me to be ap- pointed my Assistant--which I refused, saying "I would resign first." But he amused the Board with a ridicu- lou "story about "teaching me Chemistry," which, al- though he did not believe it, seemed to gratify the ma- lignity of his patron. The fabrication was attempted to" be palmed upon the Board on the authority of Mr. so Peers. But this was an unlucky plunge for the wit- ness. Mr. P. has not sustained him; but, instead of the certificate sought, has probably read him a friendly lec- ture on the subject of random statements. This is not the first instance, by many, in which Dr. Peter has made such a leap in the dark. In his first number of "A Friend to Truth," he averred, that it was known to Dr. Short "two weeks" after the Faculty pledge, "that Dr. Dudley had declined all co-operation in the meas- ure." And Dr. Short has required him to take the statement back, as untrue. I have been disappointed in Dr. Peter. I had esteem- ed him a young man of probity. As such, I have en- deavored to serve him. But the strong temptation of the Chemical Chair in Transylvania, placed, as he was taught to fancy, just within his grasp, has been an o- ver match for his principles. Standing where Dr. Dudley does in regard to fees, he should have been cautious how he provoked his col- leagues to cast stones. Dr. Cooke (See appendix A.) has stated the amount allowed him above any other pro- fessor, expressly to procure materials for his depart- ment. Will it be credited that with this sum, for ma- ny years past exceeding $ 1600, each winter, he pro- cured, last season, according to the testimony of Dr. Bush, but eleven subjects? And the worst is to be told. Notwithstanding this liberal allowance, he does not pay his Dissector, but makes the class support him, by shutting the Dissecting room against every pupil who does not buy his ticket. This is an outrage of which his colleagues have complained, and what aggra- vates it, after all this outlay—this annual tax upon the class—so effectually has he "discouraged dissections," that, as testified by his Dissector before the Board, but one pupil dissected last winter! Classes which have acquiesced so quietly in this imposition, certainly de- served something better at his hands than the slander- ous allegation, that they have been for several years past retrogade—"that the standard of qualifications in the Transylvania school is lowered." This averment he made, in these words, before the Board of Trustees; and the truth of it he proved by Professor Richardson! 31 It may be that the recollection of the utter disgust in which the class of last winter, generally, took leave of Professors, who were capable of "prevaricating, and stating every thing but the truth" provoked these gen- tlemen to make a declaration so unjust, and cruel to their pupils, and so condemnatory of themselves. But this narrative must be brought to a close. When the movement of which it treats began, it was my hope to see Transylvania transplanted in a soil where it would flourish beyond its early and latter growth. That hope has been disappointed. The name remains to Lexing- ton; and by the force of events which have been detail- ed, I have been driven from the school, with two of its oldest and brightest ornaments. Instead of laboring, in Louisville, as was our purpose, for an institution to which we have all been united for years, and with the fame of which, the name of one of my associates, at least, cannot be separated, we are forced to commence the erection of a new school; nor, with the advantages which that city enjoys, with the munificent endowment of the Medical Institute, and the able men who are to co-operate with us, do we entertain a single doubt of our success. Missing Pages P. 1-2 3 entirely unnecessary now; and that the best way was to advise Dr. Yandell to employ Dr. Peter on what- ever terms they could agree upon between themselves. Q. Were you in the school when Dr. Dudley's fee was raised to $ 30? A. I moved it in Faculty; and it was carried. Q. What was your motive for proposing the mea- sure? A. At that time every member of the Faculty de- livered private lectures, and had from 40 to 100 attend- ing. This excited very great complaints amongst those students who could not afford to take the private tick] ets, who alleged that they had not the same advantages as to gaining information, and did not stand in the same favorable light for a degree. In order to do away these complaints. I therefore moved that private lectures be done entirely away; but as it was impossible for Dr. Dudley to give a full course of lectures on Anatomy and Surgery, if he lectured but six times a week, I proposed that he be required to lecture at least nine or ten times a week, publicly, and that his fee be raised to $ 30; and that no student be required to pay, in any way whatever, more than $ 110 for the entire course— which included all the tickets and the matriculation fee. This was adopted, and ratified by the Trustees, and gave very great satisfaction to the class* Q. Was that sum intended to cover all the expenses of the dissecting department? A. Certainly it was. Dr. Dudley was originally al- lowed $ 5 in addition to the $ 15 fee, (making his fee $ 20) for the purpose of paying the expenses of the dissecting establishment; and a corresponding propor- tion of the additional $ 10 fee would give a still larger amount to that department. Q. Did you expect that an additional fee would be demanded from pupils for access to the dissecting room? A. No, I did not. I did not expect, where subjects were so scarce, and where students were discouraged from dissecting, that there would be much private dis- section; but my intention in moving the measure was, that whatever advantages there were, as to access to 4 the dissecting room, all should enjoy them without dis- tinction. And I considered, and I do consider the de- manding of a dissecting fee, a violation of the spirit of that ordinance; because it was a means of making stu- dents pay the expenses of the dissecting establishment, and the dissector, when they had already paid all that it was intended they should pay in the extra fee to Dr. Dudley, for that special purpose. JOHN E.COOK. March 23d, 1837, B Lexington, March 23d, 1837. Dr. L. P. Yandell: Dear Sir:—In answer to your letter of last evening, enquiring of me whether my friend, Dr. Dudley, did not, some time in June last, relinquish a contract he made with me, and give as a reason that the Medical School would be moved to Louisville. I can only say, that some time in May or early in June, I sold to Dr. D. (with the consent of Dr. Marshall who was joint owner with me) the Masonic Hall at the same price we gave, with the expectation that it was to be used as a Hospital for the sick. Near the middle of June, Dr. Dudley called on me and wished to cancel the contract, offering at the same time to pay any loss I might sus- tain, and giving as a reason, that he did not wish to pur- chase at present, as he thought the Medical School would be moved to Louisville; and wished me not to mention to any person that the school would likely be moved from this place; as he felt himself bound to tell me of it, as being the reason why he wished to cancel the contract. Yours respectfully, DAVID A. SAYRE. C „ r „ Versailles, Ky., 21st March, 1837. Professor Yandell: I this moment received your communication in which you ask, whether I ever knew you to hold out or con- nive at an idea that your private examinations were ne- 5 cessary to obtaining a a diploma-pr whether I ever heard you speak of your private examinations before the pubr lie class—or ever was aware of your using any exer- tions to swell the number of yqur private class? I un- hesitatingly answer each of these questions negatively. During the winter of 1835, I fyd the pleasure of being a member of your family, as well as of your private class. I never heard from you the most distant allu- sion, hint or insinuation, that your private examinations were necessary to the obtension of a diploma. Nor do I ever recollect to have heard you speak of our private examinations before the public class. And as to your using exertions to swell the number of your private class, it must be false; for I always believed that you had as many as you desired, or could well attend to.— I know I have heard you repeatedly so express your- self. Such charges are, surely, petty gjtf, silly, in themselves, and ought, of themselves, to convince any unbiased mind that they are the suggestions of envy and malice, gotten up with the vain hope of being sus- tained by falsehood alone.. I am respectfully and truly, Your friend, RIDGLEY GREATHOUSE, Lexington, March 22d, 1837. I was called on a few days since by Professor Yan- dell to say, whether or not I deemed his examinations advantageous to his private pupils. I hesitate not to certify and affirm, that I gained more practical informa- tion from them than any one chair in the institution; and believe that they are well calculated to prepare the stttdent for his final examination; and further believe the amount paid for them is by no means equivalent to the information obtained. And I also certify, that I never knew him to hold out any inducement to pu- pils to become his private pupil, or to intimate that it would aid in obtaining a diploma. Respectfully, ■*,J. S. DYER, M. D. Springfield, Ky,, March 24th, 1837. Dear Sir:—Yours of the 18th, to Booker and my- 6 self, has just been handed me. I am indeed surpris- ed, that the charge that your private instructions are worthless, and an imposition, should have been made by a professor or sustained by a student. I have no hesitation in saying that such a charge might have been made with equal truth against the public course of lec- tures of any professor in the institution. In other words, such a charge is groundless. I have enjoyed the advantages of your private instructions, and am, therefore, to some extent prepared to judge. I have never known you to speak of your private examinations in public. I have never seen or heard of your making exertions to get private pupils in any way. Having been a member of your private class in 1833-4, and '34-5, I am free to state that so far as my acquaintance extended, every one was quite delighted, and perfectly satisfied with your instructions; I would have hurled back to its source, as slanderous, the charge that your examinations were an imposition. I write in haste, and am, as ever, your friend &c, M. L, LINTON. These are from among a number of the same tenor and quite as strong—some received before, and some since, the investigation. I have had many private pu- pils, and would cheerfully rest my reputation, as a man and a teacher, upon their testimony. The necessity of the case must be my apology for publishing such testi- monials concerning myself. B Extract from a letter of Dr. Blythe's, dated Lexing- ton, March 29th, 1831, to the Dean of the Faculty. "Four years ago, I was formally brought before the Board by Mr. Chinn, upon the plea of unfitness for my chair, as not being a medical man. This took place a few days after I had been, in the most angry manner, threatened by Dr. Dudley with the interference of the Board, as to my standing in the school, unless I sub- scribed a certain sum to a particular object, which sum he dictated! I refused, and was brought before the Board, &c, &c." 7 E The article of the Louisville Journal having been so often alluded to, and being the cause of Dr, Dudley's implacable hostility to me, is here inserted. Louisville Journal Extra—January 25th, 1837. We understand, that the people of Lexington are anxious to discover who were the Arch-traitors of the Transylvania Medical Faculty, that conspired against their city. In order to inform them upon this subject, we now re-publish, in the form of an Extra, the following article, which appeared in our paper of Friday, and shall take the liberty of sending it to some of our Lex- ington friends. We hardly ne*>d say, that every word of our statement is susceptible of proof. Let the trai- tors be dealt with according to their deserts, THE MEDICAL SCHOOL.—TREACHERY. We have a few words to add to what we have al- ready said in regard to matters connected with the Medical School at Lexington. We intend to use due plainness of speech, ardently hoping to have no future occasion to allude to the disagreeable subject. It is, we suppose, well known, that the project for the transfer of the Lexington Medical School to this place originated, not in Louisville^ but in the bosoms of the Professors of the School itself. Those Professors, one and all, were strongly in favor of the transfer; they caused their wishes to be made known to certain influ- ential individuals of this city; and, in order to the ac- complishment of their purposes, they urged a course of prompt and energetic action on the part of Louisville. The members of our Council were made acquainted with the state of feeling on the part of the Lexington Faculty, and of course they saw no reason to hesitate as to the adoption of a measure, which, they presumed, would redound to the general prosperity of their city, and the advancement of the cause of science. Nei- ther the members of the Council nor any other man here, would ever have been the first to suggest the transfer of the School; but, when they found that the Professors themselves, who certainly understood the subjeet thoroughly, and whose opinions and wishes seemed entitled to all consideration, were strongly and unanimously in favor of the removal, they would in- deed have been recreant to the interests of the commu- nity. if they had neglected to give their countenance to the measure. In a spirit of kindness, hospitality, and liberality, they met the advances of the Professors by making a generous donation to the school upon condi- tion of its coming to Louisville; and this is the grievous crime, for which our city is now charged by the people of Lexington, and even by members of the Legislature, with avarice, with cupidity, with a spirit of robbery, with a desire to wrest from all the other parts of the State their scientific institutions and their very means of livelihood. If those who make the charge will not retract it after a knowledge of the facts, eternal shame be their portion. We learn that two of the six Professors of the Tran- sylvania School, Dr. Dudley and Dr. Richardson, are not now in favor of the removal of the institution, but vehemently opposed to it. We also learn, that those two individuals deny ever having been for the project, and are uniting with certain of the citizens of Lexing- ton in a dishonest endeavor to cast the whole odium of the business upon the other members of the Faculty. From this false position we deem it our duty to drag them forth. They have acted towards our city and to- wards their colleagues the parts of hypocrites and trai- tors, and their hypocrisy and treachery shall be known as far as their names are known. We are acquainted with all the facts of the transaction from beginning to end, and we have sat down to state them. Simply to tell the story is to damn the renegades beyond the pow- er of fiction. Dr. Dudley, years ago, began to com- plain of Lexington as an improper site for a Medical School. The reason was evident: sufficient provision could not be made there for his department in the school. He frequently, we may say habitually, remarked to his colleagues, that "the school must go down"—that it was "destined to wither." Dr. Richardson also was very loud in his complaints. In the course of last winter and spring, the conversations of the Faculty upon the sub- «r--- ject became frequent, plain, and definite. At length, in a Faculty meeting, Professor Dudley openly proposed the removal of the school to Louisville, and assigned his reasons for it. At another Faculty meeting, held subsequently, the matter was still more formally dis- cussed, and Professors Dudley and Richardson were more enthusiastic than the rest in expressing their ap- probation of the measure. On that occasion, Professor Richardson mentioned Mr. Guthrje, of this city, as the man, who would find means to carry the project of re-' moval into execution. The Faculty then pledged them- selves to each other on two points—to keep their secret until the arrival of the proper time for action, and then to use all their means and exertions for the accomplish- ment of the object. This was about the middle of last March. In the following May, Professor Richardson, at Frankfort, during the session of the Court of Ap- peals, in disregard of the obligation of temporary se- crecy, disclosed the matter to Mr. Guthrie; and in June, Professor Dudley disclosed it to a highly respectable clergyman of this city, giving him permission to make it known to others. Thus, although the time for action had not arrived, these two Professors were so full of the scheme of removal that they could not even contain it: it ran freely from their lips; and Professor Dudley, we are sure, will not dare to deny that it ran from his pen. All the members of the Faculty, as we have before re- marked, were ardently in favor of the project; all of them were in favor of it when the appropriation for the benefit of their institution was made by the Lou- isville Council; all of them were in favor of it when we defended the measure in our columns: but, when the crisis arrived, Professors Dudley and Richardson, the originators of the scheme, treacherously shrunk from responsibility, arrayed themselves against the pro- ject, professed to regard it as an outrage upon the rights of Lexington, and made every effort to fix the whole opprobrium upon those who had acted with them and who had ever been their personal and professional friends and sustainers. After luring their colleagues on with exhortations and the strongest pledges of effi- cient and active co-operation, they suddenly and cause- F * 10 lessly betravcd them, leaving them to breast the awa- kened storm as they might. Now we put it to an en- lightened community, and especially to the honorable and highminded members of the medical profession, whether conduct so treacherous and base ought not to be fiercely visited with the indignation of an avenging community. Perhaps our readers may ask the cause of the sud- den change in the course of Dr. Dudley and Dr. Rich- ardson. In regard to Dr. Richardson, it is hardly worth our while to seek for any particular motive. He is 'a mere compound of chops and changes,' and turns as ea- sily without a cause as with one. As for the cause of Dr. D's. change, it was a miserable moral cowardice— a fear of the anger of the people of Lexington—a dread of the petty resentment of a village- a suspicion that he might not stand as well in Louisville as at his pit sent location—and a boding apprehension, that, if he came here, he would be permitted to fill but a single professorship, and thus find himself deprived of one half of the double salary which he is now pocketing.— The two Professors are essentially mercenary and hol- low-hearted; and not the least singular fact connected withtheii; present conspiracy against their colleagues is their venomous and secretly cherished hatred of each other. They are held together by no other tic than that of moral cowardice, like certain ravening but im- becile beasts of prey that prowl together, not from so- cial feelings, but that they may the more effectually succeed in their attacks upon others. If we have dealt harshly with the Professors, let it be remembered that they have brought it upon them- selves by the clamor which they have wantonly raised against our city in places where she may be seriously affected by unfounded prejudices. We now call upon the Legislature, in the name of our fellow citizens, to charter a Medical Institution in Louisville forthwith. Let that be done, and then l^t .the Transylvania School look to itself.