1. Homeopathic Medical College (1942)

BURKE A. HINSDALE stated that homeopathy was first recorded in University history in 1851 (Hinsdale, p. 106). However, as early as 1848 the practioners and patrons of homeopathy in Michigan were petitioning the legislature and the University, setting forth their rights and claims, to the end that homeopathic instruction be included in the curriculum of their state institution. The abstract of the minutes of the Michigan Institute of Homeopathy in 1849, printed in the Michigan Journal of Homoeopathy, mentioned the appointment of a committee of three to “address the Regents of the University of Michigan, praying them to establish a Professorship of Homeopathy in the Medical Department of that college” (I: 105). Even earlier, committees were appointed by various lay groups to formulate petitions of a similar nature. The first meeting of the Michigan Institute of Homeopathy in 1845 devoted a portion of the single session of June 12 to the question.

Previous legislation regarding medical practice in the state included a law passed in 1846 (Mich. Rev. Stat., 1846, pp. 168-73), giving to the state and county medical societies power to issue and revoke licenses to practice, and making all persons who practiced as physicians or surgeons without obtaining such license subject to fine or imprisonment. The result of the activity on the part of groups of physicians to pass laws favorable to themselves was an action by the legislature to place the question of medical practice and its control in the hands of the committee on the judiciary for investigation. In 1851 the Honorable Thomas B. Church, chairman, reported that “sundry petitions praying for … the establishment of a professorship of homoeopathy in the University of this State” were referred to his committee. He discussed the general medical situation in regard to its legal control and advised that Chapter XXXVI of the Revised Statutes of 1846 be repealed. This was done. Further, he recommended that the homeopathic question be referred to the newly appointed Board of Regents, “fresh from the people,” who had been elected under the Constitution of 1850. The several petitions were referred to the committee on education of the legislature.

In the memoir prepared by Dr. Zina Pitcher at the request of the Regents, embracing an epitome of the transactions of that body from 1837 to 1851 (J. Doc., 1851, pp. 312-28), several pages were devoted to this question. Pitcher took a militant stand against any favorable recognition of the petitions or of the petitioners. One gathers that the author was expressing his personal views rather than the considered opinion of the entire Board. Petitions, both to abolish the Department of Medicine and Surgery, founded in 1850, and to establish homeopathic instruction in that department, constituted the immediate occasion for this part of the memoir. It must be remembered that Dr. Pitcher was the sole author of this review. However, a perusal of the document will explain the feeling that any discussion of the subject must have caused.

Several problems were satisfactorily solved with the election of the new Board of Regents in 1851, but the exact delineation of its powers was still to be determined. For forty years the homeopathic controversy furnished the trial material which at last made hard and fast the position of the Board in relation to the lawmaking and judicial bodies in Michigan.

An interesting episode developed regarding the selection of a president by the new Board. In June, 1852, Tappan was favorably considered, and during the investigation of his abilities and background, Dr. Pitcher, using the name of D. B. Minor, wrote Dr. Vanderburgh of New York — Tappan’s medical adviser and a homeopathic physician. According to Vanderburgh (Mich. Journ. Homoeop., 2: 126-27) the letter expressed a sympathetic attitude toward homeopathy and asked whether or not Tappan’s inclination was in that direction. An affirmative reply resulted in Tappan’s temporary defeat, if we may believe the letter from Vanderburgh which shows his chagrin at being tricked. In July of the same year, the Board elected to the presidency the Reverend William Adams, much to the amusement of Vanderburgh, who had been his physician for twenty years (ibid., p. 124), but Adams declined. As a consequence, the lesser of the two evils, as viewed by some of the Board, was the reconsideration and election of Tappan. From fragments of reports and contemporary correspondence one gathers that Dr. Pitcher was disappointed but continued to be the constructive worker he always had been.

From 1851 to 1855 the legislature and the new Board of Regents were continually being bombarded with petitions and various other legal procedures to induce them to include homeopathy in the University curriculum. Most of these instruments, at least those addressed to the legislature, were referred either to the committee on the judiciary or to the committee on education. The committee on education was responsible for the examination of the organization of the University. As a result of these activities the legislature of Michigan in 1855 passed an act providing for the appointment of at least one professor of homeopathy in the Department of Medicine and Surgery (Laws, 1855, No. 100). For the next twelve years, an almost constant legal battle was waged to compel the Regents to comply with the act. They refused to do so, and since the act of 1855 provided no enabling funds they resisted all efforts against them. However, the real reason for the refusal is apparent from contemporary correspondence between the Regents and various state officers. While there was very real opposition to teaching homeopathy in the University, the main objection arose from the effort to establish chairs of homeopathy in the Medical Department. Until this effort was abandoned the partisans of homeopathy were doomed to failure.

About the time of the passage of the 1855 law, Dr. A. I. Sawyer, a graduate of the Western College of Homeopathic Medicine in 1854, took up his residence in Monroe, Michigan. Intensely partisan, gifted with intelligence and sound political judgment, he hurled himself into the fight. It was said that for twenty-five years he attended nearly every session of the Board of Regents and of the legislature as well. Very promptly dissension developed in the homeopathic ranks and a demarcation appeared, based, first, on the championship of Ann Arbor as the proper location for the homeopathic teaching as against Detroit; and, second, on the belief that it would be wise to add homeopathic chairs to the Medical Department rather than to establish a separate college within the University. As a consequence, the attack lost momentum and, on occasion, lost its force entirely.

At the annual meeting of the Michigan Institute of Homeopathy in 1866 a committee was appointed to employ counsel to apply to the Supreme Court of the state to force the Regents to comply with the law of 1855 (Proc. Mich. Homoep. Instit., p. 3). To this end the members of the Institute were assessed to defray the costs of such a step. Possibly it was as a result of this move that the rider was added to the law of 1867.

It must be remembered that the growth of the University during the fifties and sixties had exceeded its resources, and had the legislature not come to its relief in 1867 serious consequences must have followed. In that year a law was passed giving to the University one-twentieth of a mill from each dollar of taxes collected (Laws, 1867, No. 59). To this bill a rider was attached rendering void the mill tax assessment unless at least one professor of homeopathy were appointed in the Medical Department. Much excitement followed, and many resignations were offered. The department most affected succeeded in delaying the action for one year, and at the end of that time the Regents endeavored to establish a school of homeopathy outside Ann Arbor but under University auspices.

In 1869 an act was passed amending the law of 1867 and appropriating $15,000 to the University directly instead of continuing the tax rate of one-twentieth of a mill (Laws, 1869, No. 14). In this act homeopathy was not mentioned. Petitions and injunctions were again the order of the day, and dissension in the ranks of the petitioners served only to heighten the controversy. The Michigan Institute of Homeopathy, founded in 1847, had taken the leadership in the attack on the Regents and the legislature. Legal steps begun by laymen and taken eventually to the Supreme Court were instigated by the Institute. In 1870 the Homeopathic Medical Society of the state of Michigan was organized, however, and at the second meeting, in May, 1871, all the books and papers of the old Institute of Homeopathy were taken over (Trans. Homoeop. Med. Soc., 1871, p. 3).

At this meeting a committee was appointed to “institute legal proceedings against the Board of Regents of the University of Michigan” to enforce the law of 1855. The continued efforts of this committee were being felt in both Uni versity and state circles — so much so, in fact, that the meeting of the Regents in September, 1871, brought forth the following resolution:

Prior to this a memorial had been presented, signed by citizens of Detroit (R.P., 1870-76, p. 104), offering land for the site and money for the erection and conduct of such a school in Detroit, to be connected with the University. Just what was intended by this resolution is not clear, but it served to hearten the group interested in establishing such a school in Detroit. And the direct result may have been the launching of the Michigan Homeopathic Medical College at Lansing in November, 1871, though the first announcement of this college makes no attempt to claim a University connection.

The result of the legal steps taken by the Homeopathic State Society was a Supreme Court decision against forcing the University to establish a chair of homeopathy in the Department of Medicine and Surgery. A second college to be organized in Detroit with the backing of the Regents was discussed at a meeting of the state society. At this meeting the president’s address stressed the fact that dissension in the ranks caused the failure to force the Regents to recognize homeopathy in the University. Three points of view were put forward: one group wanted a teaching unit outside Ann Arbor; the second faction urged enforcement of the law of 1855; and a third group insisted on abandoning the fight because it was prejudicial to the good name of the University. The two sessions of the society in 1871 (May and November) served to crystallize the sentiment of that body into a set of resolutions insisting on the teaching of homeopathy in the Department of Medicine and Surgery.

On March 20, 1873, the House of Representatives appointed a committee with instructions to proceed to Ann Arbor to study the question whether homeopathy could be successfully taught in the Department of Medicine and Surgery. To this end nineteen responsible witnesses, all faculty members, were questioned, and testimony covering 110 closely written pages was obtained. Included among the witnesses were such men as President Angell, Judge Cooley, Professors Douglass, Cocker, Williams, and Olney, and, finally, Dr. Corydon L. Ford, Professor of Anatomy. All these men testified that to teach homeopathy in the Medical Department would be a great mistake and would ultimately kill the department itself. One must remember that in the year before the Department of Medicine and Surgery was opened, 1850, there were only sixty students in the University, and that in the fall ninety students began the study of medicine. In the early seventies there were 575 registered in the Department of Medicine and Surgery alone. Any legislation unfavorable to this important unit of the University was considered seriously. The testimony reveals that both President Angell and Judge Cooley employed homeopathic physicians at the time of the interview by the committee.

The legislative committee of the State Homeopathic Society, due to the “unwearied industry … and Spartan courage of Dr. S. B. Thayer” (Mich. Journ. Homoeop., 1 [1873]: 89), its chairman, succeeded with the legislators, and as a result a law was passed in 1873 appointing two professors of homeopathy in the Department of Medicine and Surgery and repealing all other laws of related content (Laws, 1873, No. 63). That same year the 1869 law — or, rather, amendment— granting a lump sum to the University was repealed and again one-twentieth of a mill was assessed against all taxable property for the benefit of the University (Laws, 1873, No. 32). This bill had no rider attached, since special legislation had solved the situation relative to the teaching of homeopathy.

The Regents again refused to comply with the law, urging that, because of the existing state of feeling, it was impossible to combine the teaching of two schools of medicine in one department. Since no special funds had been appropriated, nothing was done. As has been said, the Regents were consistent and had been so from the first. From 1851 to 1875 the controversy was constantly in evidence, a controversy developed in part for the general public welfare, but in no small part for the play of personal ambition and desire for partisan advantage. The enemies of the University displayed great zeal in creating strife and used homeopathy as a shield.

The gradual trend toward the establishment of a separate school was very noticeable after 1871. Early in 1875 the Regents restated resolutions adopted two years before, declaring their willingness to assume direction of a separate School of Homeopathy when funds should be provided for its support. This action was predicated on the knowledge that the legislature then in session would act favorably on a bill which was to be presented, establishing such a school. As expected, in April, 1875, the law was passed establishing a Homeopathic Medical College as part of the University in Ann Arbor.

For almost twenty-five years (since 1851) the Regents had been in a position of opposing the legislature, and they had always denied that this position was the result of “factious opposition to … that body,” as Hinsdale put it. Rather, they had insisted that the true and best interests of the University were being served by their attitude. In the state generally, a large group felt that the wishes of the commonwealth were being ignored.

The year 1875 proved a busy one for the administration of the institution in Ann Arbor. Both the College of Dental Surgery and the Homeopathic Medical College were organized. On May 11 the Regents passed resolutions that seemed wise and far-reaching in their effects. In brief, they accomplished the following: The Homeopathic Medical College was established, with two professors appointed to it, one, a professor of materia medica and therapeutics, and the other, a professor of the theory and practice of medicine. (The students paid the same fees as those in the Medical Department and received instruction in that department in all work except that included under the two homeopathic chairs.) The same conditions as to curriculum and graduation were observed in both schools and it became the duty of the president to see that all rules were enforced. The homeopathic medical graduates received diplomas designating the college in which they were enrolled.

The new college grew rapidly for some time. President Angell, in his report for 1877, observed that it had fully twice as many students as in the preceding year, and “the number this year promises to be at least half larger than it was last year” (p. 159), in spite of the fact that it was “the only Homeopathic School which has courses of nine months, and it must attract the students, who desire a thorough training” (p. 159).

Both President Angell and the Board of Regents were sincere in hoping that this experiment would prove successful, because it removed at least one obstacle from the path of much-needed legislation for steady financial support of the University. The friends of homeopathy, and those partisans aligned with them from other motives, were silenced. The plan was to keep them so.

The State Homeopathic Society wisely recommended for the two chairs men widely removed from the bickerings and discussions of the local groups. Samuel Arthur Jones (M.D. Missouri Homeopathic Medical College ’60, M.D. Homeopathic Medical College of Pennsylvania ’61), of Englewood, New Jersey, was chosen to teach materia medica and therapeutics, and John Coleman Morgan (M.D. Pennsylvania Medical College ’52) of the Hahnemann College of Philadelphia, was selected for theory and practice. The correspondence of these two appointees with the President prior to their acceptance of the positions is most interesting. Though Dr. Angell’s letters have not been available, the other half of the communications of the two men has been preserved, and shows an earnest desire by both the administration and the prospective faculty members not to overstate or understate the situation. The prejudices on the part of members of the medical faculty were fairly stated and were as fairly considered, if one may judge from the responses of the two men appointed. Dr. Jones, particularly, became an important figure in the life of Ann Arbor. In addition to his professional ability, he was a scholar recognized for his knowledge of the literature of Thoreau and Carlyle. The greater part of his book collection is now in the University Library. He became the first Dean of the Homeopathic Medical College.

The long controversy that had begun before the founding of the Department of Medicine and Surgery was quieted with the founding of the Homeopathic Medical College in 1875, but flared periodically, as in the attempt to amalgamate the two schools in 1893, and in the legislative action of 1895 directing that the College be moved to Detroit. In both instances the Regents refused to comply.

The right of the Regents to act independently of the legislature was finally established on a firm and unquestioned basis largely through this controversy. In the decision anent the 1895 removal, the court said, in effect, that the Board of Regents was empowered by the state constitution to have direct and exclusive control of the University as direct representative of the commonwealth.

The legislature, however, exerted pressure through its control of appropriations. The act founding the Homeopathic Medical College provided for additional funds — a device which had not been utilized in any previous legislation on this question. The fear of harm to the Medical Department, which had activated the Regents up to this time, was quieted, and a sincere effort was made to organize the new College in such a way as to ensure scientific soundness in its teaching.

From the founding of the College to its termination very little of a major controversial nature developed between the two medical schools in Ann Arbor. Difficulties involving personalities were of frequent occurrence, but nothing that approached the problems of the previous twenty-five years gave cause for official action. As much cannot be said for the cause of homeopathy itself. The internal dissension among the practitioners in the state erupted often and vigorously. Resignations and new appointments were frequently made, in an effort to soothe the various elements.

During the years following 1875, the need for funds grew more and more acute and jeopardized the entire program of the University, which was receiving the one-twentieth of a mill from the total state tax collection granted in 1873. The mill-tax rate was changed in 1893 to one-sixth of a mill; and the act (P.A., 1893, No. 19) included the proviso: “The Board of Regents … shall maintain at all times a sufficient corps of instructors in all departments … as at present constituted, … said departments being known as [listed with other units] the Homeopathic Medical College…” Failure to observe this clause carried a penalty of reduction of the funds to one-twentieth of a mill. So was brought into existence the homeopathic rider which was guarded so jealously by its partisans.

In 1899 the rate was raised from one-sixth to one-fourth of a mill, but the rider was retained. No further change was made until 1921, when, under the regime of President Burton, the rider was dropped from the appropriations bill. As an immediate consequence the legislature passed a resolution requesting the Board of Regents to effect a consolidation between the two medical schools and their respective hospitals.

In the early days of the new College, feeling ran so high that the position of medical men in both schools was difficult. But as the new unit grew the situation eventually resolved itself, though the anomaly of two medical schools within one university was never without its critics. This growth was such that when the legislature in 1895 reversed itself and ordered the Homeopathic Medical College moved to Detroit, the Regents battled successfully to retain it in Ann Arbor.

All medical faculty groups before the turn of the century were torn with dissension that arose largely from the individual jealousies so prone to develop among men who devote a part of their time to private professional activity. All men teaching clinical subjects were so occupied. The Homeopathic Medical College presented a typical picture of such a group. The later eighties saw the development of a long and bitter personal quarrel which culminated in the sending of a letter signed by four faculty members to the Board of Regents requesting the removal of the Dean. Dean Henry L. Obetz, as a defense measure against his colleagues and as a means of settling their differences, had suggested a scheme for amalgamating the two medical departments. This was not formally presented to the Board, but individual Regents knew that such an idea was being considered by certain members of both medical faculties. The American Institute of Homeopathy addressed a communication to the Board arguing against such a merger. The reply to this letter shows conclusively that no such plan had been formally considered, nor would be, unless presented as the expressed desire of both faculties. In part, the answer stated: “It has been and will be the pleasure of this Board to advance to the utmost of its power, within the means at its disposal, the interests of the School of Homeopathy” (R.P., 1891-96, p. 370).

The Dean was vindicated completely of any harmful intent and resigned voluntarily in November, 1894. At the meeting at which the resignation was acted upon, the Board called for the resignation of the remaining members of the homeopathic medical faculty, to take effect in October, 1895. These were forthcoming as requested. An entirely new faculty, headed by Wilbert B. Hinsdale (Hiram ’75, M.D. Homeopathic Hospital College of Cleveland ’87, A.M. hon. Hiram ’00, A.M. hon. Michigan ’34) as Dean, was appointed. Dean Hinsdale, an able administrator, a scholar, and a competent physician, occupied his position till the merger of the two medical schools took place in 1922.

Soon after the appointment of the new faculty the legislature in 1895 enacted a law which in effect directed the Regents to move the College to Detroit (P.A., 1895, No. 257). At their meeting in December, 1895, the Board drew up a resolution refusing to comply with the law. The proponents of “removal” carried the matter to the Supreme Court of the state, where it was decided that the law was constitutional. But the Board still refused to obey, thus completely reversing its position of the sixties and early seventies, when it wished to aid in organizing a school outside Ann Arbor. Then a mandamus was asked in order to compel the Board to obey the law. The court in replying to the request ruled that inasmuch as the Board had full control of all matters appertaining to the University, it might obey the law or not, as it chose.

The decision regarding the mandamus proceeding was more momentous for the University than it was for the Homeopathic Medical College. It reaffirmed the decision of 1859 by the same court, as clarified at that time by Judge C. B. Grant. A joint committee of members of the law and homeopathic committees of the Regents reported to the Board in January, 1897 (R.P., 1896-1901, pp. 21-29). This report explains the refusal to obey the law. It was maintained that although land in Detroit for the College had been promised, none had been deeded to the University; further, that Grace Hospital, which was to be used by the College, had been deeply in debt for years, and that no guarantee was forthcoming that it could be maintained without expense to the state. In obeying the law, the Board would be in the position of assuming the burdens without receiving the benefits contemplated by the act. These reasons rather than a desire to keep the school accounted for the action taken.

The new faculty appointees took part in the “removal” fight as their initial activity in the University. The struggle moved through the legislative halls to the Supreme Court, and at last back to the Regents, where the decision was final.

Strangely enough, the final years of the School were comparatively free from controversy. Periodically, as new appropriations were being considered, the proponents of homeopathy saw to it that the rider was included in the act as finally passed. In 1921 the legislature passed a resolution requesting the Regents to consolidate the two medical schools for reasons of economy. The Board complied promptly, in 1922 (R.P., 1920-23, pp. 373-74), with the result that the teaching of homeopathy became University history.

From 1875 to 1922 the deanship of the College was conferred upon five men: Samuel A. Jones, 1875-78, Edward Carroll Franklin (M.D. University of New York ’46), 1878-83, Thomas Pardon Wilson (M.D. Western Homeopathic College [Cleveland] ’57), 1883-85, Henry Lorenz Obetz (M.D. Homeopathic Hospital College of Cleveland ’74), 1885-95, and Wilbert B. Hinsdale, 1895-1922. Beginning with two departments — that of the theory and practice of medicine and that of materia medica — the institution gradually expanded, until, in 1909, all the branches of clinical medicine were taught in separate departments.

The Department of Surgery, organized in 1876, was headed by John C. Morgan. He was followed by Dr. James G. Gilchrist, 1876-78; Edward C. Franklin, 1880-83; Henry L. Obetz, 1883-95; Oscar Le Seure (’73m, M.D. Bellevue Hospital Medical College ’74), 1895-1900; Dean Tyler Smith (Nebraska ’87, M.D. Chicago Homeopathic Medical College ’89, M.S. hon. Michigan ’14), 1901-14; and Hugh McDowell Beebe (’07h), 1914-22. The separate Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics was also organized in 1876, with Dr. Frank Augustus Rockwith (M.D. College of Physicians and Surgeons [N. Y.]) as head. He held this position for one year. Newton Baldwin (’75m) was appointed in 1883 and served two years; James Craven Wood (’79h, A.M. Ohio Wesleyan ’91) served in the years 1885-93; Maurice Patterson Hunt (M.D. Homeopathic Hospital College of Cleveland ’79), 1893-95; Myron Holly Parmalee (M.D. Hahnemann Medical College [Chicago] ’70), 1895-97; Claudius Bligh Kinyon (Illinois State Normal University ’76, M.D. Chicago Homeopathic Medical College ’78), 1897-1918; Theron Grover Yeomans (’09h), 1918-20; and Scott Clark Runnels (M.D. Indiana ’07, ’08h), 1920-22.

The Department of Materia Medica, organized by Samuel Jones, maintained a high degree of excellence. This department was served in turn by Jones, in the period 1875-80, by Henry C. Allen (M.D. Western Homeopathic College [Cleveland] ’61), 1880-84; by Allen Corson Cowperthwaite (M.D. Hahnemann Medical College ’69, Ph.D. Central University of Iowa ’76, LL.D. Shurtleff ’88), 1884-85; by Hugo Emil Rudolph Arndt (M.D. Western Homeopathic College [Cleveland] ’69), 1885-89; by Charles Samuel Mack (Harvard ’79, M.D. College of Physicians and Surgeons [N. Y.] ’83), 1889-95; and by Willis Alonzo Dewey (M.D. New York Homeopathic Medical College ’80), 1896-1922. Instruction in the theory and practice of medicine, with Morgan as the first Professor, developed rapidly. After Morgan, in 1879, was Charles Gatchell (M.D. Pulte Medical College [Cincinnati] ’74), who served for one year and later returned and occupied the chair from 1883 to 1893. Eugene Ransom Eggleston (M.D. Homeopathic Hospital College [Cleveland] ’75) served during the years 1893-95, and Wilbert B. Hinsdale, 1895-1922. Dr. Hinsdale carried on work on American Indian archaeology for many years thereafter as a member of the staff of the University’s Museum of Anthropology.

The separate Department of Pharmacology was started in 1882 and until 1919 was administered by the professor of materia medica. During the last three years of the School’s existence Linn John Boyd (’18h) was in complete charge, and during his regime some excellent work was done. Boyd later became head of the Department of Internal Medicine in the New York Medical College.

The teaching of ophthalmology, otology, laryngology, and rhinology was all done within a single department in 1880, under Thomas P. Wilson. Charles Frederick Sterling (M.D. Pulte Medical College [Cincinnati] ’77), appointed in 1887, served until 1889; he was followed by Daniel A. MacLachlan (’79h), 1889-95. Royal Samuel Copeland (’79h, LL.D. Syracuse ’23), later United States Senator from New York, held the position in the years 1895-1908, and Dean Wentworth Myers (’99h) during the period 1908-22.

Some clinical subjects were taught by nonresident instructors. Rollin Howard Stevens (’89h), Professor of Dermatology (1904-9), made an outstanding contribution in his field. O. R. Long headed the Department of Nervous and Mental Diseases from 1890 until 1914. Both of these men were nonresident.

The necessity for enlarging the scope of instruction, which by 1909 resulted in so many separate departments, led to unforeseen difficulties. The duplication of departments in the Homeopathic Medical College and the Medical School resulted in a great deal of unfavorable comment among both the friends and the enemies of homeopathy. In the original plan no duplication had been intended, and the trend was most unfortunate. Then, too, the number of students in the Homeopathic College fluctuated within very wide limits, never exceeding 125 and often less than fifty. The steadily increasing budget of the school was offset largely by income from the University Homeopathic Hospital, which was showing a steady growth. Here, as well as in the school proper, the duplication was apparent. The Hospital rendered a great service to both the University and the state, and this service was recognized widely.

For a time after the Homeopathic Medical College was organized, a part of the hospital of the regular Medical School on the campus was used by the department (P.R., 1877, p. 13). This arrangement, however, proved unsatisfactory, and in 1879 an appropriation of $6,500 was made by the Regents for the erection of a Homeopathic Hospital and amphitheater, as an extension of the west professorial residence on the north side of the campus, together with $1,250 for hospital expenses. This building served the department until, as part of the Hospital group on Catherine Street, a new hospital was built in 1891. This was occupied until the erection of a third hospital in 1900, when it was taken over by the regular Medical Department and became the Medical Ward. It was destroyed by fire in 1927.

The Homeopathic Hospital, providing for one hundred patients, erected in 1900 on the northeast corner of the campus, served until the department was discontinued in 1922. It is now known as North Hall. As an addition to this building a children’s ward was erected in 1918 just to the south, which was later the Health Service; since 1940 it has been the Annex to the University Museums. For many years the old residence of Judge William A. Fletcher, at one time Regent of the University, stood near this hospital and was used first as a nurses’ home and later as an administration building. Subsequently, quarters for nurses were provided in the hospital building and in near-by residences taken over by the University.

As the institution increased its patronage, however, the legislature became more and more cognizant of two medical schools in one University, each with an associated hospital. The natural result was a move to consolidate by a merger of the two schools. This was resisted by the members of the homeopathic medical faculty, and the resultant merger never received their co-operation. The subsequent history of the merger was much as had been predicted by the enemies of such a move prior to 1875.