Truth Again Victorious ! 
READ IT FOR TRUTH'S SAKE. 
Atlanta, Ga., Feb. 4th, 1873. 
Dr. 1'ho*. 8. Powell, 
Dear Sir:-You ask in your letter ot 24th ult. "if I have given 
more than one written statement in regard to the communication 
of the Faculty to the Trustees of the Atlanta Medical College, in 
which it was proposed, (among other things,) to make you an Emer- 
itus Professor." I answer that I have given none, except my letter 
to you of August 22nd, 1872, which was endorsed by Dr. Thompson, 
Judge Ezzard. Judge Whitaker, Judge Hammond, Judge Collier, 
and others. 
I see by referring to an article published in the December number 
of Dr. Gaillard's Journal, that Dr. G. claims to have received certi- 
ficates from some of the gentlemen who certified to the correctness 
of my letter to you, which certificates he construes to contradict 
those of given by these same gentlemen, to me. 
To show the subtleness of Dr. Gaillard in attempting to destroy 
the effect of my letter to you, by referring to what he calls contra- 
dictory statements, of others, rather than to publsh them, that his 
readers might be their own judge-as well as to set this whole mat- 
ter at rest and, at the same time, do you a simple justice. I herewith 
enclose copies of letters received from Judge Ezzard, Judge 
Whitaker, Judge Hammond and Dr. Thompson. These letters ex 
plain themselves. Also, please find copy of a letter fr<5m Mr. I. 0. 
McDaniel, received too late to hand you with mv letter of August 
22nd 1872. 
This communication furnishes additional evidence of the correct- 
ness of the statements made in my first letter. 
Yours truly, 
C.L. REDWINE. Extract from the December number of the Richmond ami Louisville Medical Journal. 
In the September Journal, evidence was given that a certain Dr. 
Thomas S. Powell, of Atlanta, Ga., the editor of the " Georgia Medi- 
cal Companion," had -fraudulently claimed to have been made an 
Emeritus professor, (chair not stated) in the Atlanta Medical Col- 
lege. The Faculty by letter denied the fact; repudiated the man ; 
and demonstrated, that instead of having honored, they had publicly 
expelled him from their Institution. Their declarations being pub- 
lished, Dr. Powell obtained a few certificates, stating that he had 
been honored as claimed. Wishing to do him justice, the inquiry 
has of course been made. What is the result ? The President of 
the Board of Trustees, Dr. Joseph Thompson, Judges Whitaker and 
Ezzard, all Trustees also, deny all knowledge of the official docu- 
ment represented by Dr. Powell to have been received and acted 
upon by them. Their letters are now before the writer. Dr. A. 
Means, in a long letter, says, as a clergyman, he will not deny hav- 
ing written what he is represented to have written, but that he has 
no recollection whatever of having done what is claimed by Dr. 
Powell he did do-viz: the writing of an official statement that Dr. 
Powell had been made an Emeritus Professsor. The Faculty deny 
having ever proposed to do this; there is no record of any such 
proposition; their chairman, Dr. Means, has no recollection of it; 
the President of the Board of Trustees and his associates have no 
remembrance of ever having seen or read any official communica- 
tion upon this subject. The paper claimed by unfortunate Dr. Pow- 
ell to have been executed, has, as he admits, neither stated locality 
nor date upon it, and, now that it is wanted, has been lost! A prob- 
able story, truly. Such subterfuges, legerdemain, and chicanery, 
can be treated only in one way. It is to banish the representative 
of them from further notice or thought; to consign him, as an un- 
fortunate man, to professional, social and moral Coventry. "So 
much for Buckingham!" 
Atlanta, Ga., Feb. 4th, 1873. 
Dr. C. L. Redwine, 
Sir :-Our attention has been called to the above statements, made 
by Dr. E. S. Gaillard in the December number of the Richmond & 
Louisville Medical Journal. His language will justify his readers 
in believing that he has written to us and that he has our letters be- 
fore him authorizing him to make the above statements. In justice 
to ourselves, as well as to yourself and Dr. Powell, we take pleasure 
in saying that we have never received a letter from Dr. Gaillard or 
written one to him, nor have we given to any one any statement 
verbally or in writing which would justify any of the above state- 
ments, but to the reverse. We have stated that such a document, 
proposing to make Dr. Powell Emeritus Professor was received by 
the Trustees, that it was read as an official document and acted upon 
by the Trustees as such. We did give Dr. W. F. Westmoreland a 
2 statement after we gave you the one published in Dr. Powell's letter 
to Dr. Gaillard, but it did not conflict with the one given to you or 
with any statement in this communication, which will be seen if 
Dr. Gaillard will do us and his readers the justice to publish our 
letters which he says he has in his possession. And until he has 
done this we feel in duty bound to ask his readers not to regard his 
statements as correct representations, but an arrangement of words 
calculated to mislead, and which have done us great injustice. 
It is'to be hoped that all who have read Dr. Gaillard's statements 
referred to will do us the justice to read the above as a disclaimer on 
our part of his interpretation of our certificate given to Dr. W. F. 
Westmoreland. 
Very Respectfully, 
WILLIAM EZZARD, 
JARED IRWIN WHITAKER. 
Dr. C. L. Redwine: 
I was asked by some of the professors of the Atlanta Medical Col- 
lege if I examined the hand writing of the proposition coming from 
the Faculty proposing to make Dr. Powell an Emeritus Professor. 
I stated 1 did not, but that the proposition was received from the 
Faculty through accredited channels and acted on upon their au- 
thority, and its genuineness had never until recently been called in 
question, and no man has any authority from me to state anything 
to the contrary of the above facts. 
D. F. HAMMOND. 
Atlanta, Ga., January 24th, 1873. 
Dr. L. Redwine, 
Dear Sir:-Inasmuch as there are discrepancies between state- 
ments made by Dr. Gaillard, in the December number of his Medi- 
cal Journal, and the transactions of the Board of Trustees of the 
Atlanta Medical College, at a certain meeting held by them some 
years ago, I beg leave to state the facts as recollected by me, (some 
of them distinctly). In the morning previous to the meeting I was 
asked by one of the Faculty if the Trustees were going to meet on 
that day. I answered, yes. He remarked to me that the Faculty 
had prepared a proposition, in writing, to make Dr. Powell Emeritus 
Professor, which he hoped would be accepted, and it would be pre- 
sented by Dr. Means, and in the event that Dr. Means did not 
attend the meeting, he would thank me to represent it, which I 
promised him I would do, and I am very certain 1 did approve of 
the proposition, provided Dr. Powell assents to it. I recollect dis- 
tinctly, before acting on the communication, it was suggested that 
Dr. Powell be called iu, that he might be conferred with. He was 
not found and the document was laid on the table, and, doubtless, 
3 4 
for the reasons assigned by yourself in your letter to Dr. Powell, 
dated August 22nd, 1872, and approved by others. 
In justice to Dr. Powell and the Board of Trustees, I think I can 
safely say that Dr. Gaillard has not made a single statement in ac- 
cordance with the facts as we understand them, or as they appear in 
the minutes of the Board of Trustees. 
In closing this communication I don't hesitate to say that Dr. 
Powell knew nothing of the proposition made by the Faculty until 
after its rejection. 
JOSEPH THOMPSON, 
President, Board of Trustees. 
Allatoona, 26th November, 1872. 
Dr. C. L. Redwine : 
I have received your letter of this date, asking me certain ques- 
tions in reference to a communication from the Faculty of the At- 
lanta Medical College, to the Trustees of the same. 
I distinctly recollect that when I was a member of the Board of 
Trustees a communication from the Faculty, signed, "A. Means," 
was received by the Board of Trustees in which it was proposed, 
among other things, to make Dr. Thomas S. Powell an Emeritus 
Professor. I am quite certain that it was understood by the Board 
to be official from the Faculty, and was discussed as such, and was 
rejected by the Board for the reasons assigned in your letter to Dr. 
Powell, to which you have referred me. Soon after the action of the 
Board as above, I had a conversation with Judge Whitaker, one of 
the Board of Trustees, on the subject of said proposition. I cannot 
remember precisely what was said by him, but have no recollection 
there was any doubt expressed as to the official character of the 
document. I also had a conversation, I believe, the same day with 
Dr. D. 0. O'Keffe, on the same subject. He was then a member of 
the Faculty, and Secretary, and neither in this conversation nor any 
subsequent conversation on the subject did he express anything con- 
trary to the official character of the communication, but regretted 
the settlement proposed by the Faculty in that communication could 
not be accepted by the Board of Trustees. 
i. o. McDaniel. 
The above correspondence speaks for itself. I publish it in justice 
to the truth. Considerations of honor forbid a single comment. 
My friends I know will now excuse me tor declining to take any 
further part in this controversy, but leave Dr. Gaillard to settle the 
points at issue with his friends in such a manner as may, to him. 
seem best. 
T. S. POWELL. REPLY OF 
THOS. S. POWELL, M. ID.. 
TO THE STRICTURES OF 
E. S. GAILLARD, M. D., 
Contained in the " Richmond and Louisville Medical Journal." 
To the Editor of the Richmond f Louisville Medical Journal: 
In the March number of your journal you indited a squib 
entitled "Quackery in Medical Journals," in which you took the 
ground that the publication of commendatory letters in a medical 
journal was charlantry. This, although The Companion was 
not named, was intended as a reflection upon it, and its manage- 
ment. This was a question of taste solely, and while it did not 
justify the epithet of charlantry-as it is almost an universal cus- 
tom of the press, both literary, political and medical, as has been 
shown-which you so ungenerously applied to it, still as the Com- 
panion was not named in your article, it received no reply. Not 
content with this, and evidently with the desire to provoke a con- 
troversy and to bring unmerited reproach upon our Journal, you 
in your next number, came out in a most vindictive and vitupera- 
tive denunciation of the Companion, charging among other things,, 
that the editors had violated "good taste, decorum, ethics and pro- 
priety." Thus personated and abused, the Companion could no 
longer evade a controversy you sought to thrust upon it, and your 
vindictive article was replied to in a manner which placed you, 
upon your own assumption, as a violator of "good taste, decorum, 
ethics and propriety." In that article you were challenged upon 
your self-chosen ground, and the demand was made upon you to 
show, by the law, wherein ethics had been violated by the Com- 
panion. This demand you evaded, and your refusal to appeal to 
the ethics demonstrated the reckless absurdity of your charges. 
Finding that the ethics would not sustain you, and pressed to the 
wall by your own folly, you sought to escape from the difficulty 
by diverting the line of argument from an ethical to a personal 2 
The Georgia Medical Companion. 
one, in a crusade upon the private and professional character of 
the writer. You thought it easier and safer to succeed in your 
selfish scheme to destroy the Companion by making war upon 
my good name and reputation. Your first movement in that 
direction was to publish (which I have every reason to believe was 
furnished you by your new-found allies in Georgia) a review of 
a pamphlet without signature, but fathered by the Westmorelands. 
This pamphlet which you considered a God-send in your dilemma, 
had been circulated twelve months before your review, and upon 
which, with other pamphlets, you had expressed the unqualified 
opinion that "the Faculty of the Atlanta Medical College" should 
be "justly censured" by the profession. Enraged by the truth- 
ful exposure of your inconsistencies, in our reply to your stric- 
tures, you proceeded to "eat up your words" and to swallow with- 
out nausea, the slanderous statements contained in that pamphlet 
against the honor and integrity of almost the entire profession of 
this State-in order to reach one who had, in self-defense, ex- 
hibited the bloated egotism and self-inflated pretentions of the edi- 
tor of "the (so-called) largest medical monthly in America." With 
this feeling, prompted by your ill-chosen advisors, you attempted a 
review of that pamphlet, throwing aside all the facts upon which 
you had, some months before, based your opinion that these parties 
were justly entitled to the deserved "censure" of yourself and the 
profession. In reply to this so-called review you were clearly shown 
the mistakes contained therein and that the "chief editor" 
of the Companion had been fully sustained, by the Board of 
Trustees of the Atlanta Medical College, the Fulton County 
Medical Society, the State Association, and the so-called charges 
themselves had been withdrawn by the bogus Faculty in a docu- 
ment addressed by them to the Trustees of the College. 
At this juncture, driven to the wall the second time, your in- 
terested allies of Atlanta no doubt furnished you with the cele- 
brated Memorial-a document the State Association declared to 
be false and slanderous and the publication and circulation of 
which by them, had received the highest penalty of that body, in ex- 
pulsion-the justice of which action having been fully admitted 
by them at the last meeting of the Association at Columbus, by an The Georgia Medical Companion. 
3 
apology and a virtual acknowledgement of falsehood on their 
part, as construed by those who accepted the settlement. 
So, the ethical gladiator of the medical press, hugs to his bosom 
a document, the authors of which, for publishing, were publicly 
denounced as slanderers by the official action of the State Asso- 
ciation, and in consequence thereof were expelled from that body, 
as the proceedings will show. This Memorial shall not consume 
my time here-as, by the advice of friends, I will allow you 
and your allies the opportunity of proving the charges therein 
contained against me. As stated, in our reply, a letter 
was published in which the charges against the writer were pro- 
posed to be withdrawn by the Faculty, and the proposition made 
to the Trustees by them to confer an Emeritus Professorship upon 
him, signed by "A. Means, Chairman of the Faculty of the At- 
lanta Medical College." 
Of this letter I knew nothing, until it had been read at a 
meeting of the Trustees and rejected by them, as a cunning 
scheme to secure the recognition of the Board by stamping 
falsehood upon their previous acts. There could be no com- 
pliment to any man by a tender of a professorship from such 
hands-from a bogus Faculty of a College pronounced irregular 
by the Association, and from which body they were "expelled" as 
unworthy of membership; and at a meeting at which I was not 
present. And even now, although reduced by discipline, to a 
quasi-respectability, a number of the Trustees do not hesitate 
to affirm that it (the College) is a disgrace to the profession. 
And I think the facts which will be brought to light by this cru- 
sade of yours upon me, will "crop, mark and stamp" it so indeli- 
bly that it will receive the "just" and righteous "censure" of the 
profession as it did of yours one year ago. 
In your September number you published the following letter: 
Atlanta, Ga., July 19, 1872. 
Dr. E. S. Gaillard: 
Dear Sir.-In the "Georgia Medical Companion" of June, 
1872, pages 375-6, is published a paper purporting to be the pro- 
ceedings of the Faculty of the Atlanta Medical College; the 
paper is without date, and addressed to the President of the 4 
The Georgia Medical Companion. 
Board of Trustees of said College, and purports to have been 
signed by Dr. A. Means, as Chairman of said Faculty. Such 
proceedings were never had by said Faculty, with our knowledge, 
consent or approval; nor is there a record of such proceedings 
upon the minutes of the Faculty. 
Of the members of the Faculty mentioned in said paper, we 
three are the only ones now present in the city of Atlanta; Dr. 
O'Keefe is deceased, Dr. Miller is temporarily absent, and Dr. 
Hillyer is a resident of Rome, Ga. Dr. Means's letter, herewith 
accompanying, speaks for him. 
Respectfully, W. F. Westmoreland, M. D., 
J. G. Westmoreland, M. D., 
S. H. Stout, M. D., 
Resigned in February, 1867. 
In addition to this you copy some extracts from a letter of A. 
Means, in which he asserts- 
" I have no recollection that this subject w as ever presented to 
the Faculty in session, and cannot, therefore, recall any action of 
that body, officially, authorizing me to make such a proposition." 
And that he has "no recollection that the Faculty officially ten- 
dered, through myself or any one else, those terms." 
Upon the above letter, endorsed by Dr. Means, you are pleased 
to say that "it is melancholy that any member of the medical pro- 
fession could be guilty of so infamous a fraud upon the public, but 
when the guilty and convicted imposter proves to be one who is 
always prating of ethics and propriety, nothing less than the evi- 
dence here given could make the perpetration of such a fraud 
creditable." The only excuse-if excuse were possible-for so 
rash a verdict, can alone be found in the fact that you endorse a 
body of men of whom you are pleased to say "whose records, acts 
and purposes" you are "profoundly ignorant." While I must 
admit that the manner in which you used the extracts from Dr. 
Means' letter, justifies you in making him an endorser of the 
above charge against me, yet, knowing him as I do, and believing 
that he would not intentionally and willfully slander any one, I 
bespeak for him another hearing. 
Before the September number of your journal had been issued, 
I had discovered by your remarks in your previous number that 
the authenticity of the letter of the bogus Faculty in which they The Georgia Medical Companion 
5 
attempted, through the Trustees, to confer upon me the position of 
"Emeritus Professor," and at the same time, as a bid in a new form 
for pardon, admitted that the charges against me had no truth in 
them-was denied by them. I, therefore, at once addressed 
a letter to Dr. C. L. Redwine, the Secretary of the Board, who 
had placed the Faculty's letter in the hands of a Committee of the 
Fulton County Medical Society, who, under the direction of that 
Society published it in a pamphlet, giving a history (from the re- 
cords) of the controversy between the old Board of Trustees and 
this bogus Faculty of the College ; also, with the Fulton County 
Medical Society and the Georgia Medical Association. 
This letter was printed in the pamphlet from the original docu- 
ment as sent to the Trustees and the proof corrected by it by the 
committee. The one that appeared in the June number of the 
Companion is an exact copy of the one in the pamphlet. There- 
fore it is an exact copy of the original official document. 
And it is worthy of note that this pamphlet was issued in April, 
1871, containing this letter; was read by the profession generally, 
and yet it was unchallenged as a true official document. The de- 
cease of Dr. O'Keefe since that time-who was Secretary of the 
Faculty-may, at this late date, account for the denial of its offi- 
cial character, and he, if living, would doubtless testify that he 
delivered it to the Trustees by request of the Faculty. 
Atlanta, Georgia, August 21st, 1872. 
Dr. C. L. Redwine, Secretary Board of Trustees, Atlanta Medi- 
cal College. 
Dear Sir : In the June number of the Georgia Medical 
Companion, there appeared an article in reply to Dr. Gaillard, of 
the Richmond and Louisville Medical Journal, who has thought 
proper to voluntarily resurrect certain charges long since refuted, 
against my professional record and character, in the following 
statement, to-wit: "The Faculty of the Atlanta Medical Col- 
lege have admitted the falsity of the charges themselves, in that, 
after the charges were made by which our reviewer asserts the 
"Chief Editor" was stained, the Faculty did, upon their own mo- 
tion, propose to rescind all action heretofore had against him 
and tendered him, through the Trustees, the position of Emeritus 
Professor, as will be seen from the following : 6 
The Georgia Medical Companion. 
To the President of the Board of Trustees of the Atlanta Medical 
Colleq e: 
The Faculty of the Institution under your supervision being 
•earnestly desirous of terminating amicably the difference existing 
between them and the Trustees, without further litigation, beg 
leave to submit, through you to the Board, that you represent the 
following basis of settlement, viz : 
1st. That the origihal charter of the College and the amend- 
ment thereto, be superseceded by a new charter, to be obtained as 
early as practicable, which shall be mutually acceptable to the 
Trustees and Faculty. 
2d. That until such charter is obtained, the Faculty shall have 
the power of nominating proper persons to fill all vacancies ■which 
may occur, and the Trustees the power of approving or rejecting 
such nominations. 
3d. That the Faculty shall consist, until altered by future ac- 
tion of the Faculty and Trustees, of seven regular Professors and 
one Emeritus Professor, as follows, viz : 
Thomas S. Powell, M. D., Emeritus Professor. 
A. Means, M. D., Professor of Medical and General Chemistry. 
D. C. O'Keefe, M. D., Professor of Theory and Practice of 
Medicine. 
W. F. Westmoreland, M. D., Professor of Principles and Prac- 
tice of Surgery. 
H. V. M. Miller. M. D., Professor of Obstetrics and Diseases of 
'Women and Children. 
Ebin Hillyer, M. D., Professor of Institutes of Medicine. 
S. II. Stout, M. D., Professor of Anatomy. 
J. G. Westmoreland, M. D., Professor of Materia Medica and 
.Therapeutics. 
4th. As a part of this settlement, it is understood that the 
Faculty rescind all action heretofore had in relation to Professor 
T. S. Powell. A. Means, 
Chairman Faculty Atlanta Medical College. 
The Richmond and Louisville Medical Journal, for August, 
contained the following extraordinary statement of its editor, Dr. 
Gaillard, to-wit: 
"One of the Faculty states that the records show why and 
when Powell was expelled, but there is no record of his reinstate- 
ment, or of the Faculty's action publicly claimed." 
If the above extract or statement means anything at all, it 
means to deny the fact that there ever was any such letter emanat- 
ing from the Faculty, and that Dr. Gaillard has in hand the proof 
to the contrary, in the person of "one of the Faculty" above re- The G-eorgia Medical Companion. 
7 
ferred to. In other words, it charges that the letter purporting to 
be addressed by A. Means, Chairman of Faculty, Atlanta Medi- 
cal College, to the President of the Board of Trustees, in which 
it was proposed to make me "Emeritus Professor," is a forgery. 
It is very clear that its author intended to make the impression, 
secretly, upon the mind of Dr. Gaillard, that he nor his colleagues 
had ever admitted the falsity of the charges by which the chief 
editor of the Companion was stained. That he nor they never 
sactioned any proposition to rescind all action heretofore had 
against him. That no proposition was ever made by the Faculty 
or approved by him, to make him Emeritus Professor. 
The language of his letter to Dr. Gaillard, as shown by the 
above statements made by Dr. G-, warrants the conclusions and 
demands of me proof of the truth of my statements made in the 
June number of the Georgia Medical Companion. 
Now sir, as you were Secretary of the Board of Trustees at the 
time this letter signed A. Means was received by the Trustees, 
and still hold the same office, you are in a position to know the 
facts. I therefore beg leave to propound the following questions : 
1st. Is not the letter embraced in this communication which is 
addressed to the President of the Board of Trustees and signed 
by A. Means, Chairman of the Faculty, a true copy of the 
original ? 
2d. Was not the original letter sent into the Board of Trustees 
by the then acting Faculty as an official document ? 
3d. Was the original letter recorded on the minutes of the 
Board ? If not, why ? 
I am, sir, yours, respectfully, 
Thomas S. Powell. 
Atlanta, Georgia, August 22d, 1872. 
Dr. Thomas S. Powell, Atlanta, (h. 
Dear Sir: In reply to your letter of the 21st inst., I have 
to state that at the time the letter in question was received from 
the then acting Faculty of the Atlanta Medical College, I was not 
Secretary of the Board of Trustees, but simply a member thereof, 
and not being able, at this time, to lay my hand upon said com- 
munication, I can only say, in answer to your first question, that 
I believe the letter published to be an exact copy of the original 
communication which came from the Faculty. I remember, in the 
basis of settlement offered by the Faculty, a proposition was made 
by them to constitute you "Emeritus Professor." 
In reply to your second question, I answer, that the communi- 
cation from the Faculty was officially signed. 8 
The Georgia Medical Companion. 
In reply to your third question, I would state that said com- 
munication was not recorded in the minutes of the Trustees, for 
the reason, as I understood it, that the Trustees did not recognize 
the then acting Faculty as a legally organized body, and having 
repeatedly refused to recognize the right of the Faculty to either 
fill or vacate chairs in their body, and having, by resolution, (as 
the minutes will show) recognized yourself as the legal Professor 
of Obstetrics, and requested that you would not resign said chair, 
they could not stultify their action by accepting such a basis of 
settlement. The communication in question was therefore laid 
upon the table. I recollect furnishing the original communication 
from the Faculty to the Fulton County Medical Society, and on 
its being returned, I have, doubtless, mislaid it. The fact, how- 
ever, that such a communication was received by the Trustees, 
from the Faculty, is indisputable, and I presume would readily 
be admitted. 
With feelings of personal regard, I remain, very respectfully, 
yours, C. L. Redwine, 
Sec'y Board of Trustees, Atlanta Medical College. 
The following gentlemen testify to the authenticity of the Fac- 
ulty letter. It is proper to state that they have done so without 
solicitation on my part: 
I indorse the above statements as made in the letter of Dr. 
Redwine to Dr. Powell, this September 30th, 1872. 
Joseph Thompson, 
President Board of Trustees, Atlanta Medical College. 
I indorse the above statements as they are made by Dr. Red- 
wine, this 30th of September, 1872. 
D. F. Hammond, 
Former Trustee Atlanta Medical College. 
I remember that the communication referred to by Dr. C. L. 
Redwine, was received by the Trustees, proposing to make Dr. 
Thomas S. Powell Emeritus Professor in the Atlanta Medical 
College. October 2d, 1872. 
Jared Irwin Whitaker, former Trustee. 
I remember that there was a communication addressed to and 
received by the Board of Trustees of the Atlanta Medical College 
and I believe the above to be a true copy of the same. October 
1st, 1872. William Ezzard, Trustee. The Georgia Medical Companion. 
9 
I remember that a communication signed A. Means, was re- 
ceived by the Board of Trustees of the Atlanta Medical College, 
in which it was proposed, amongst other things, to make. Dr. 
Thos. S. Powell an Emeritus Professor in said College. 
John Collier, 
Former Trustee and Sec'y of the Board. 
October 4th, 1872. 
Atlanta, Georgia, Oct. 2d, 1872. 
I remember distinctly having seen a letter addressed by Dr. A. 
Means, Chairman of Faculty, to the Board of Trustees of Atlanta 
Medical College, proposing to make Dr. Thomas S. Powell Emeri- 
tus Professor in said College. Chas. Pinckney, M.D. 
Atlanta, Georgia, August 25th, 1872. 
The letter which appears in the above correspondence, signed 
"A. Means, Chairman of Faculty Atlanta Medical College," in 
which the Faculty of that College sought to confer an Emeritus 
Professorship, through the Board of Trustees, upon Dr. T. S. 
Powell, was placed in our hands by Dr. C. L. Redwine, and is an 
exact and true copy of the letter so placed in our hands and 
signed "A. Means, Chairman of Faculty, Atlanta Medical Col- 
lege." 
' W. T. Goldsmith,, M. D. 
J. J. Knott, M. D., 
E. J. Roach, M. D., 
Committee Fulton Co., Medical Society. 
Thus it will be seen that three members of the old faculty en- 
dorsed by A. Means, repudiates this letter, thereby making a 
direct issue of veracity between themselves and members of the 
Board of Trustees. 
You have, without investigation, pre-judged this matter, and 
with your usual adroitness have attempted to place the is- 
sue between the Faculty and myself-endorsing their statements 
in the case. Quoting Dr. Gaillard upon himself, I do not hesitate 
to say that "it is melancholy that any member of the medical 
profession could be guilty of so infamous an act." The truth 
is-as all honest men will see, and which all honorable men would 
have, at least, sought to investigate before resorting to slander- 10 
The Georgia Medical Companion. 
ous invectives-that the Faculty and Trustees are alone concerned 
in a question of veracity in the matter. 
I am ready to admit, with you, but from far different motives, 
that a "great fraud" has been perpetrated-either by the Trustees 
or the Faculty, and by one of these parties upon our respective 
readers. As I have endorsed the statements of the Trustees, and 
you by renouncing your former opinions, have endorsed the bogus 
Faculty, our readers have the right to demand who has perpetrated 
"so infamous a fraud." Good ethics and morals-which you may 
deny in this case, but not in others-teach, that to deceive, though 
no untruthful words be spoken, is a lie. To lie, they also teach, 
and which you are wont to proclaim, is dishonorable-so dishon- 
orable that disgrace should be forever stamped upon such a char- 
acter. To be deceived by falsehood is not always dishonorable, 
but it is made so by endorsing it. You cannot fail to discover 
that either the Trustees or the signers of the letter published 
by you, and given verbatim above, are guilty of an "infa- 
mous fraud," and common honesty would dictate that you 
retract your epithets used against me, when other parties so emi- 
nently deserve them. If the facts prove the Trustees have lied, 
I am implicated to the extent that I published and endorsed their 
lie. On the other hand, if the Faculty have been guilty of the 
"infamous fraud" you have endorsed and published it to the injury 
of the Trustees. If the Trustees, by the facts, should be branded 
with falsehood, I for one will denounce them. Should the Faculty 
fail to prove themselves clear, you may still endorse them ; but 
should you do so, you will again do violence to your record should 
you fail, to use your own words "to cancel publicly and prompt- 
ly" so "infamous a fraud." If you are not entirely lost to the 
instincts of a gentleman you will own that you have done me in- 
justice, and you will at once place the issue between the true par- 
ties. I will unite with you in any honest effort you may make in 
denouncing "imposters," but you cannot escape by sheltering your- 
self behind a convenient letter written by men whose statements 
have been pronounced false by the Board of Trustees, the Fulton 
County Medical Society, and the State Association-from which 
Body they were expelled, and by which Body they are said to be tfThe Georgia Medical Companion. 
11 
restored by recantation and the acknowledgment that their state- 
ments in the Memorial, in regard to the Association, were false. 
You see the justice of this. If I had to rely upon the state- 
ments of your enemies in any portion of the country, as con- 
tained in pamphlets, etc., to meet you in argument, on any sub- 
ject, I should abandon so convenient a route if shown to be un- 
worthy of respect or confidence. I could no longer encourage 
such means unless I had some dirty end to subserve, which if true, 
should receive the merited contempt and scorn of every honest 
man. 
With me, personally, it matters not what course you may choose 
in this matter. If you desire to blacken your record, in order to 
gratify your vindictiveness by refusing (to use your language) "to 
cancel publicly and promptly" your mistake and "to affiliate with 
those who you must believe, by the evidence furnished in this let- 
ter, have misrepresented the facts, you can so elect. In a warfare 
of this kind you can gain no honor or succeed in damaging one 
whose only fault is that he, in part, edits a medical journal which 
we have reason to believe, you desire to suppress. 
I have no taste for personal controversies. Nothing is more 
averse to my feelings and nature. My object in life has been to 
aim at the accomplishment of some good in all I say and do, and 
hence it will be seen that I have never attempted to divert you or 
our readers from the issue of your own choosing, but offered to 
discuss them with you, logically and respectfully upon ethical 
principles. If I believed that even any individual good could be 
accomplished, I would willingly discuss with you the subjects of 
fraud and slander. It is not asserting too much to say that no 
human power can adequately portray the horried outlines of these 
crimes against heaven and human society. To truthfully prove a 
man guilty of them should forever brand him with the mark of 
infamy. If I had been guilty of fraud and forgery, as you and 
your allies have attempted to prove, I should deservedly merit the 
scorn and contempt of every honorable man. If guilty, its 
damnable stain ought to exile me from the society of the good 
and virtuous, and consign me to that infamy which a character so 
corrupt should receive from God and righteous men. 12 
The Georgia, Medical Companion. 
If, however, as the facts will prove, I have been grossly slan- 
dered, and that the slanderers have been guilty of the crime of 
fraud and forgery upon honorable men in order to shield their 
acts; and the worse crime of attempting to clothe an in- 
nocent party with their fraud, for his ruin, no language mortals 
can employ can fitly depict the devilish spirit by which they are 
actuated and the depravity by which they are moved. 
Nor can one be far behind these unfortunate creatures preying 
upon the good names of their fellows, who will knowingly aid 
them in perpetrating a fraud, and in slandering the bright repu- 
tations of honorable men. To be the ally of such men, in such 
schemes, ought to and will, as long as honor and truth survives, 
be esteemed the last analysis of meanness, and will bring upon 
one so lost to honor and manliness, the scorn and righteous in- 
dignation of God and Christian men. 
In conclusion, I ask you to carefully review the facts given 
above. The gentlemen whose names appear in testimony of the 
authenticity of the Faculty letter, are men of position and repu- 
tation-noted for truth and honor. All have been, and some are 
still, members of the Board. If such facts, established by such 
testimony should fail to convince you of your error and you should 
refuse a frank and manly acknowledgement of the injustice you 
have done them and myself, I can no longer-with proper respect 
for myself and readers-recognize your claims to that degree of 
respect which shall call for any notice of you in future. 
Thomas S. Powell.