Your note warning me what to expect reached me some three weeks ago. The pamphlet has not yet come. One of the Hopkins men,
however, wrote me perhaps ten days or more ago asking a question about it, in reply to which I told him simply that my copy
had not yet arrived. He replied by sending me his own.
I think, that understanding my report as you did, you were very good indeed to call me any kind of an angel, even an angel
of Bethesda! It ought, however, to have been clearly explained when the report was mailed to you that it did not at all undertake
to do what you appear to have judged. I was endeavoring not to characterize the Johns Hopkins Medical School in its entirety
but only to make a cross-section as the thing now stands, to describe what I saw, and to make recommendations as to the use
of the proposed gift, looking at the question from that point of view. The opinion that the report reflects is therefore entirely
consistent with a decidedly different opinion as to what conditions were during your incumbency. My former report embodies
my conviction as to that. I knew, for example, perfectly well - everybody knows it - that what I have to say of the pay wards
has not the remotest or slightest application to you. I did not trouble to state that fact, simply because everybody thoroughly
well understood that what I said was intended to apply only to conditions at this moment.
I don't want to think that I am at all deceived as to my own limitations in dealing with the subject of this nature. I
should be the first to admit that nothing that I suggest carries weight except insofar as it wins the approbation of those
scientifically and professionally trained and experienced. Had the medical board turned down my recommendation, I should have
felt that to be the end of it, and I still feel that whatever persuasiveness it has is a consequence more of their approval
that of my suggestion.