Armed Forces Institute of Pathology: Its First Century 1862-1962/Chapter X

by Robert S. Henry

CHAPTER X

The Institute Idea

"At no time during the war was there a sufficient number of trained pathologists in the service," said Surgeon General Merritte W. Ireland in his annual report for the fiscal year ending 30 June 1919. "The same condition seems to exist in civil life," he added, "for it proved impossible to find a sufficient number of trained men."

A start toward correction of this situation was made when the position of the chief of the laboratory service in Army hospitals was made "coordinate in standing and authority with the chiefs of the medical and surgical services," thereby opening the previously blocked path to promotion for practitioners of pathology. During the year, also, special arrangements were made for the instruction of medical officers in pathology at the Government Hospital for the Insane (St. Elizabeths), in Washington, D.C., at the Brady laboratories of the hospital in New Haven, Conn., and at the Army Medical Museum, where special instruction in neuropathology was given.

"Pathology, however," as The Surgeon General said in his report, "is a subject in which a large experience is acquired slowly, and, in spite of efforts to train additional men by the arrangement of special courses of instruction, the number of qualified pathologists could not be greatly increased during the war." 1^[1]

Meeting the need for more and better-trained pathologists became, in the period following the First World War, a prime purpose of the Museum. Col. Charles F. Craig, the first postwar Curator (fig. 61), was not primarily a pathologist but was distinguished for his studies of dengue fever, filariasis, the dysenteries, and, most particularly, malaria and its control. The incidence of the last-named disease in the Army was reduced in the first quarter of the 20th century from more than 700 to less than 10 per 1,000. This control of malaria in the

Army was not the result of any one man's efforts, but Colonel Craig's contribution, through his "extensive investigations, writings, and advice" on the subject, was outstanding. He was chosen by a board of officers appointed by Surgeon

Figure 61.—Col. Charles F. Craig, eleventh Curator of the Museum, January-September 1919.

General William C. Gorgas to prepare for the Army the compendious treatment of the subject entitled "The Prophylaxis of Malaria with Special Reference to the Military Service," published by the War Office of the Surgeon General as Bulletin No. 6, August 1914. This special interest, demonstrated ever since the time of the Spanish- American War, was further evidenced by his post-retirement career as professor and chairman of the Department of Tropical Medicine at Tulane University.2^[2]

The First Practicing Pathologist to Become Curator

His successor at the Museum, in 1920, was Maj. George Russell Callender (fig. 62) , a native of Massachusetts and a graduate of Tufts Medical College, who had served as Assistant Curator during Colonel Craig's administration. Major Callender was the first practicing pathologist to head the institution which was foremost in the Nation in the collection, preservation, and presentation of the raw materials of pathology and which, a quarter of a century later, was to become in name as well as in function an institute of pathology.

The problem which the Museum faced in the years after the First World War was three-pronged, with an enormous increase in the quantities of materials received, a diminishing work force to accession, catalog, and process the materials, and rigid limitations in the space available.

During and just after the First World War, the collections of the Museum more than doubled, rising from fewer than 48,000 to more than 100,000 specimens. The new specimens had to be accessioned and given numbers in a filing system which contemplated bringing together and keeping with each specimen all available pertinent information such as clinical histories, protocols of autopsies, photographs, X-ray plates, tissue blocks, microscopic slides, and anything else which might shed light on the pathological condition of the specimen.

Keeping up with the routine of accessioning and cataloging these materials as they came in "entailed a very large amount of work upon a very small clerical force," which was "the more difficult because of the constant decrease of personnel and the constant increase of work due to the material received from France," as well as that which came in from the hospitals in the United States as they were closed after the War.3^[3]

Space Problem Intensified

More difficult to deal with than the problem of doing more work with fewer people was the problem of finding space in an already overcrowd.

Figure 62.—Maj. George R. Callender, twelfth Curator, 1919-1922, and fourteenth Curator, 1924-1929, of the Museum.

building for the display, or even storage, of the inflow of materials. This problem was further complicated by a slow delivery of museum glass jars, which made it necessary to store many specimens in 10-gallon stone crocks in the basement of the west wing of the Museum and Library building. Not being fitted with airtight tops, the crocks allowed evaporation of the preserving fluids, so that it was necessary to inspect and refill the crocks at intervals to prevent spoiling of the specimens. 4^[4]

Some slight relief from the pressure for space was found in the discontinuance, on 1 March 1919, of the production of moving pictures, because of a lack of funds and personnel. This closing of the production end of the Museum's motion-picture activity did not stop the circulation and showing of films already made, which was continued both by the Museum and by the U.S. Public Health Service. Much of the demand for showings came from civilian sources, including medical colleges, medical associations and societies, and educational institutions. 5^[5]

Before 1 May 1919, exhibits in the Museum were open to all the public. Feeling that the lay public would neither understand nor profit by viewing many of these exhibits, the Museum began on that date a systematic rearrangement of exhibitions, insofar as available space permitted, under which preparations and specimens not regarded as suitable for indiscriminate showing were to be removed from the floor of the main museum hall to the gallery and to rooms on the first floor which were to be open only to the medical profession, including students and research workers. 6^[6]

"It is hoped eventually," Colonel Craig wrote, "to replace all pathological material on the main museum hall floor with material of general public interest, as specimens of ordnance, missiles, gas masks, sanitary appliances and apparatus used in the Army in the prevention of disease."

By the middle of 1920, gross pathological specimens, wax models illustrating skin diseases, and anatomical models and sections, had been removed to rooms on the first floor, as part of the plan of segregating material of interest primarily to physicians and medical students. At the same time, but for reasons involving the more effective use of available space, the exhibits illustrating the method of transmission and treatment of the hookworm disease, and the collection showing the historical development of the microscope were also removed from the main hall to the first floor.

The material removed from the main hall was replaced by material showing diseases from which both military and civil communities suffered, including malaria, typhoid fever, dysentery, and tuberculosis, displayed in such fashion as to be "valuable in the instruction of the general public in hygiene and preventive medicine." 7^[7]

No amount of shuffling and reshuffling of exhibits within the confines of the 30-year-old building occupied by both the Library and the Museum could produce enough space to permit either a proper display of the exhibit materials or an effective use of the study collections (fig. 63). It was estimated, indeed, that proper display and exhibit of the World War materials alone would take up the entire room of the building, while the whole of the Museum's materials would fill a building twice the size of the one occupied by both the Library and the Museum. Accordingly, The Surgeon General earnestly recommended construction of a new building at as early a date as was possible. 8^[8]

Plans for a Great Medical Center

The first concrete step toward such a new building was the appropriation by the Congress, on 11 July 1919, of $350,000 "for the purchase of land contiguous to Walter Reed General Hospital, District of Columbia, 26.9 acres more or less, for the final location of the Army Medical Museum, the Surgeon General's Library, and the Army Medical School." Supplemental to this appropriation, was an additional grant, on 22 September 1922, of $44,109.22 "for the site of Medical Museum and Library." 9^[9]

The project contemplated a great medical center, with the School, the Library, the Museum, and the Hospital in mutual support of one another. The plan as projected was never to be carried out fully. The Army Medical School moved from its rented quarters on Louisiana Avenue to its new building, in suburban Washington, in September 1923. The Museum, later transmuted into the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, was to remain in its downtown location for yet another 30 years before moving the greater part of its activities to the Walter Reed site; while the Surgeon General's Library, under its new name of the National Library of Medicine, was to stay on Independence Avenue for still another decade and then move — not to Walter Reed, but to the grounds of the National Institute of Health.

At the time of the purchase of the land contiguous to Walter Reed, however, there were plans for a new building for the Museum in which The Surgeon General could carry out more effectively the idea of making available

Figure 63.—The "Great Hall" of the Museum in the 1890's.

to research workers facilities for the study of the Museum's rich resources in pathological materials (fig. 64). So long as the Museum was crowded into its half of the old building, however, it was "impossible to furnish working rooms for research purposes," and the Museum's materials could be used by others than its immediate staff only by sending out available materials on loan, upon request by recognized research workers.^[10]

Nevertheless, and despite the handicap of limited space and facilities, the Museum was, as The Surgeon General described it in his 1920 report, a very valuable connecting link between the Medical Department of the United States Army and the general medical profession of the United States, from the stand-point of scientific medicine and surgery." Every feasible encouragement was offered for the use of the Museum's collections by civilian physicians, it being "believed that only in this way will the Museum fulfill its larger function of

Figure 64.—A 1920 photograph of the gross pathological laboratory of the Army Medical Museum.

being not only a place for the exhibition of pathological and other material, but a great instruction center in pathology and epidemiology."^[11]

This concept of the Museum as a connecting link between military and civil medicine, expressed by The Surgeon General in 1920, was not new. It was foreshadowed by Surgeon General William A. Hammond in the very beginning of the institution and had been repeated by other medical men, both military and civilian. It had been most eloquently voiced by Col. John Shaw Billings in his address to the Congress of American Physicians and Surgeons, meeting in Washington in 1888. Billings, in fact, had gone a step further when, in 1895, he entered into an arrangement under which the Museum became the repository of the dental and oral collections of the American Dental Association.^[12]

American Registry of Pathology

In June 1921, there was initiated another and more active form of cooperation between the Museum and important segments of the medical profession. The first such arrangement— there are now 27— was outlined in a joint letter of Major Callender, representing the Museum, and Doctors Harry S. Gradle and Ira Frank, of Chicago, representing the Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology. In substance, this undertaking reflected the realities of a situation in which the Academy's members could furnish pathological materials which the Museum did not have, while the Museum could supply the home for the Academy's collections and the technical staff for the preparation of specimens. The arrangement thus entered into was confirmed by the Academy at its meeting in October 1921.

It was noted that the Army Medical Museum, at that time, did not have on its staff anyone well versed in the pathology of the special fields covered by the Academy and qualified to do the consultative diagnosis, which was to be a major feature of the active cooperative work contemplated under the new arrangement. It was necessary, therefore, to set up a committee of the Academy's specialists, to whom all specimens on which there was any doubt in diagnosis were submitted. Most active in this work were Dr. Frederick Herman Verhoeff of Boston, the committee chairman, and Dr. Harry S. Gradle of Chicago. Both men were prompt in reporting on the doubtful cases and specimens submitted to them by Major Callender, who did much of the work on the easier specimens himself. 13^[13]

At first without a name or title, the new arrangement finally came to be called the Registry of Ophthalmic Pathology and became the first of the registries which make up the American Registry of Pathology. This great collaborative endeavor is housed and administered by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, but draws its strength and substance from the memberships of the 17 medical-specialty societies which sponsor the 27 individual registries now in operation. The name "registry," which came to be applied to this form of cooperative medical endeavor, probably grew out of a case of suspected bone sarcoma in a patient of Dr. E. A. Codman of Boston. The patient's family wished to know of cases of recovery from what was, or was supposed to be, bone sarcoma, and the treatment which had resulted in a cure. Informally, Dr. Codman called on his personal acquaintances in the profession for such light as they could throw on cases, and their cures, if any. The first cases collected were placed in the Registry in July 1920, less than a year before the Museum and the Academy entered into their arrangement. Although the original patient for whose benefit the information had been gathered had died, it was realized that the information itself was too valuable to lose. Dr. Codman, therefore, took up the matter with Dr. James Ewing of New York and Dr. J. C. Bloodgood of Baltimore, with whose cooperation the Registry was informally organized. Other surgeons and pathologists became interested in the project, which was to be taken over, as part of its work, by the American College of Surgeons.

On 3 January 1922, Dr. Codman, using a bound, blank book with the printed heading "Register," began the diary of "The Registry of Bone Sarcoma." The primary object was to "keep an up to date list of all supposed-to-be sarcoma cases" by registering "every case (1) of which we have a brief history and an X-ray picture or a slide or tissue. (2) certain interesting or unusual bone tumor cases which have been confused with sarcoma."

The objectives were not greatly different from those of the almost contemporary and still nameless arrangement between the Museum and the ophthalmologists, and the basic idea of the operation was so nearly the same and so well contained within the idea of a registry of pertinent information in individual cases, that it was most natural to call the Museum-Academy arrangement by the same name of a "registry." Particularly is this the case since Dr. Codman was a friend and patient of Dr. Verhoeff, chairman of the cooperative committee of the Academy, 14^[14] to whom he might well have given the idea of calling the new alliance between military and civilian medicine a "registry."

Working in a New Direction

At any rate, and regardless of the name, the new movement was destined to give a largely new direction to the work of the Museum. At the first annual meeting of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology, held after the new relationship between that organization and the Museum, the Museum exhibited some of its resources in the way of specimens of ophthalmic pathology, most of which had been collected from members of the Academy during the year since the joint project was undertaken. The exhibit received high praise from the doctors in attendance, and was the subject of commendatory letters and expressions of appreciation from Dr. Walter R. Parker of Detroit, president of the Academy during the first year of its sponsorship of the Registry. 15^[15]

The arrangement between the Museum and the professional sponsors of the Registry was strengthened by the subsequent addition of Dr. Jonas Stein Friedenwald of Baltimore and Dr. Georgiana Theobald of Chicago to its sponsoring committee. It was further advanced during its first year in operation by the gift, from Dr. James Moores Ball of St. Louis, of his entire collection of historical and operative ophthalmic materials. The Ball collection became, indeed, something of a cornerstone in the building of the Registry. It included 136 items of historical interest and value, which alone "would have been a generous donation" to the Museum. But this was only a portion of the gift, which included an interesting collection of ophthalmic instruments, large numbers of microscopic slides and other items, nearly 500 gross pathological specimens, and more than 1,000 pictorial items.16^[16]

While the movement for what came to be called the Registry of Ophthalmic Pathology originated with the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology, and that organization continued to be its major support, it was soon strengthened by the affiliation of the two other groups of specialists in this field, the American Ophthalmological Society and the Ophthalmic Section of the American Medical Association.

The Registry was fortunate both in its professional sponsorship and in the Army personnel with which it had to deal. Surgeon General Ireland and Curator Callender were of one mind in feeling that the Medical Museum should, as Major Callender put it, "become a live activity in pathology in addition to its function of collecting, studying and reporting on the injuries and diseases of armed conflict." 17^[17] And the movement was doubly fortunate in the member of the Museum staff assigned to the operation of the first registry—Miss Helenor Campbell, a young lady whose previous experience included 6 years as a technician in pathology at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Miss Campbell, afterward Mrs. Wilder (fig. 65), joined the Museum staff in 1920 as a medical technician. In 1953, upon her marriage to Mr. Rudolf Foerster of San Francisco, she retired as an ophthalmic pathologist—justly renowned as "the famous Mrs. Wilder." Upon the occasion of her retirement, after more than 30 years of distinguished

Figure 65.—President and Mrs. Eisenhower congratulate Mrs. Helenor Campbell Wilder (now Mrs. Rudolf Foerster) upon her achievements in ophthalmology which won for her the designation as "Woman of the Year in Science" by the Women's National Press Club in 1953.

service, Mrs. Foerster, as she then was, was presented by her associates at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology with a bound collection of her published contributions to an increasing knowledge of pathology and ophthalmology. The collection covered a span of 32 years, from 1922 to 1954. It included 35 articles, appearing in 17 different publications. In 18 of the articles she was the sole author; in 17 she had as collaborators some of the outstanding authorities in the field covered. Speaking in 1952 of the early days of what is now the oldest medical registry in the United States, General Callender gave the "highest credit" for its success to the woman who served it so brilliantly for so many years, and whose scientific attainments were such as to lead to her election to membership in professional medical societies, despite her lack of the college degrees ordinarily required for entrance. Mrs. Wilder made "two of the most eminent discoveries in ophthalmology of the past two decades" by her demonstration of toxoplasmosis in many cases which had previously been diagnosed as tuberculous, and her finding that the larvae of nematodes are "a not infrequent cause of endophthalmitis" or inflammation of the inner structure of the eye.18^[18] By her outstanding achievements, she well merited the honorary degree of doctor of laws conferred upon her in 1955 by Mills College, Oakland, Calif.

Varied New Activities of the Museum

Another new service of the Museum, evidencing its increasingly close relations with the medical profession in general, was its designation as the institution entrusted by the Society of American Bacteriologists with the custody and maintenance of its type cultures. Under this arrangement, which went into effect in May 1922, the Museum became the depository of the "purebred" strains of every differentiated bacterium of interest to medicine, from which subcultures of particular strains were supplied upon request. This arrangement, valuable alike to the medical profession and to the Museum, continued for 3 years until, adequate funds having been obtained, the activity was transferred to the National Research Council, with the type cultures located at the McCormick Institute for Infectious Diseases in Chicago. During the time the cultures were maintained at the Medical Museum, the subcultures distributed came to number as many as 4,000 a year, in response to 700 requests — a use which increased approximately eightfold while the work was being done at the Museum. 19^[19]

Still another new activity of the post-World War I period, which helped to intensify the turn taken by the Museum toward becoming an institute of pathology, was the designation of the Museum as the location of the central exchange for pathology specimens of the American and Canadian Sections of the International Association of Medical Museums. This work had been carried on, somewhat informally and in a limited way, as an addition to her other duties, by Dr. Maude E. Abbott of McGill University who, over the years, had been the mainspring of the work of the International Association. In the spring of 1921, Prof. James W. Jobling of the College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York, brought to a head the rather formless discussions of the subject of a central exchange by a letter to The Surgeon General of the Army suggesting the establishment of such an arrangement, to be housed and administered by the Army Medical Museum. The subject was submitted to Major Callender for his recommendation. Major Callender strongly urged the adoption of Dr. Jobling's suggestion, saying in a memorandum of 13 April to The Surgeon General, that the establishment of such an exchange at the Museum would be of material benefit "by bringing the Museum into the closest contact with our medical educational institutions" by rendering to them a most valuable service and, at the same time, would enable the Museum to strengthen its collections.

The Surgeon General agreed, the Secretary of War approved and authorized the issue of a revocable lease for the necessary quarters at the Museum, and The Surgeon General authorized the officers at the Museum to undertake the administrative details. On 1 May 1922, the Museums Association authorized the removal of the central bureau for the preservation of results of medical research and the exchange for pathological specimens from Montreal to Washington.

In an editorial in Bulletin VIII of the International Association of Medical Museums, Major Callender said:

The central bureau for the preservation of the results of medical research will have a permanent file of records entirely independent from those of the Museum as a whole, and separate cabinets for slides and cases for specimens representing the result of original research. It will be kept carefully under suitable safeguards to prevent loss and will be open for consultation under adequate supervision to those qualified to consult it. 20^[20] Busy as he must have been with the launching of such a variety of new and valuable prospects, Major Callender was faced, in 1922, with proposals for combining the Army Medical Museum with the Smithsonian Institution. This movement had what probably was its fullest and most elaborate exposition in a letter from Dr. Arthur MacDonald of Washington, sent to many scientists and inserted in the Congressional Record by Representative Melvin O. Mc- Laughlin of Nebraska under the title "Consolidation of Government Science Under the Smithsonian Institution." 21^[21]

Dr. MacDonald's letter was not directed solely at the Army Medical Museum. His plan contemplated placing 33 bureaus of government organizations having to do with scientific matters under the jurisdiction of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. Among the agencies which would have been affected were the Geological Survey, the Reclamation Service, the Bureau of Mines, the Patent Office, the Census Office, the Bureau of Standards, the Bureau of Fisheries, the Public Health Service, the Army Medical Museum and Library, the Library of Congress, the Government Hospital for die Insane (St. Elizabeths), the Coast and Geodetic Survey, the Naval Observatory, and all the scientific bureau of the Department of Agriculture.

The advantages claimed for this wholesale transfer of government agencies was that under it government science would develop to the highest efficiency, by correcting illogical and haphazard arrangement of bureaus or departments, and by reducing to a minimum political influence in scientific bureaus. The plan was likened to the administration of a university, with the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution being analogous to the president of the university, and the Board of Regents, consisting of die Chief Justice, the Vice President of the United States, and three members each from the Senate and the House of Representatives, corresponding to the university trustees.

Possible Courses of Action

The movement for consolidation of all governmental scientific activity does not appear to have developed any great popular strength, but coming as it did, just as the Army Medical Museum was changing its direction so as to expand its services to medicine in general, as well as military medicine in particular, such public discussion of the plan led Major Callender to give serious and concentrated thought to the position and the future course of the Museum.

Possible courses of action, as outlined in a memorandum of 13 February 1922, for The Surgeon General, were fourfold: (1) The Army Medical Musuem might continue "to be maintained as the only medical museum of national character as it has been for the past sixty years," with exhibits "for the purpose of educating the lay public in preventive medicine and hygiene" and an "entirely separate collection of a scientific nature" or (2) that the Museum should confine its activities to fields of general and preventive medicine as directly applied to the Army, leaving the broader field of medicine to be dealt with by another institution; or (3) that the Museum should "confine its activities to diseases particularly affecting troops;" or (4) that the Museum, as a temporary policy only, should continue to accept "temporarily the display of hygienic and preventive medicine, awaiting further developments."

In analyzing the various plans, Major Callender put the cost of maintaining and operating the Museum proper, exclusive of rental and repairs to the building, at about $40,000— an expense so small that the institution was being "run below par." Costs under plan 1, he estimated, would be about $100,000 more than the prevailing level of costs, in addition to the requirements of larger space. Plans 2 and 3 would have little effect upon costs, while plan 4 would mean that additional help from some source would be required, if exhibitions of preventive medicine and hygiene were to be done by the Museum.

"The Army has had the only national museum worthy of the name in the United States * * *" Major Callender wrote, which "is one of our most valuable contacts with the civilian profession." Under Army control the facilities of the Museum had been offered "to other government services which might and should be interested in studying, particularly human pathology." Specifically, the U.S. Public Health Service and the Veterans' Bureau had been "apprised of our willingness to take care of their material for them."

"In a similar way," he continued, "we are now cooperating with all societies who desire special representation in a museum of national character with the idea that one medical museum is sufficient for all." Because Army medical personnel are so mobile and are therefore subject to infection with diseases to which they are not accustomed, he added, "medical museums are absolutely necessary" for the education of medical officers in dealing with unfamiliar diseases. The same thing was "becoming important to the civilian profession because of the ease of travel throughout the world today" — truly a prophetic note to strike in 1922, when transatlantic flight had been achieved by only two stripped-down military planes, and the age of the jet airliner was not yet even on the most advanced drawing boards.

Major Callender also pointed out that the Medical Department of the Army was in far better position to conduct a medical museum than was any other government service or an independent organization. "This is true," he said, "for preventive medicine and hygiene, as well as for pathology. Army officers have, since the advent of modern means of disease control, led the field in preventive medicine and hygiene. This work is largely a development of the last 25 years and was first brought to notice by Reed. It has since been ably continued by Gorgas, Ashburn, Russell, Craig, and scores of others * * *." The comparative richness of the results of Army medical research was attributed, in part, to the fact that "the civilian profession, while frequently establishing the principles used as a basis for disease control, lack the opportunity to prove their worth which are offered the military by reason of the latter's contract with bodies of troops under discipline."

The Medical Department of the Army, moreover, "by reason of its control over 1,400 officers, including dental, veterinary and administrative corps, is in a more favorable position to collect material illustrating disease conditions. Thus, it can direct the collection of pathological and other material as it now does disease bearing insects and thus obtain results impossible for an independent institution without the expenditure of enormous sums of money and the sending of details of scientific men to all parts of the globe."

Balancing various considerations, without closing the door on any of the suggested plans, Major Callender concluded that under any plan of organization there still would be need for a museum aimed at both educating the lay public in preventive and hygienic measures and also at the further education of medical personnel. "I believe that eventually there will be a large national medical museum," he said in his memorandum for The Surgeon General, "and I am sure that the military medical aspects of such a museum must be an integral part of the Army Medical School. Otherwise it will be a curio shop appealing only to morbid interest while its real value is purely educational for graduates in medicine, more particularly officers of the Medical Department." 22^[22]

For yet another quarter of a century after Major Callender finished his first tour of duty as Curator, the Museum would continue in its same quarters, combining under one roof its functions as a place for professional study and research and as a place for interesting and informing the lay public in matters medical. But already, in the years just after the First World War, the differentiation in objective and function was emerging. The Museum was becoming, more and more, an Institute.

1. 1 Annual Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Army, 1919, p. 1043.
2. 2 Ashburn, P. M.: A History of the Medical Department of the United States Army. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1929. pp. 267, 268.
3. 3 Annual Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Army. 1919, pp. 1063, 1064.
4. 4 Memorandum of Maj. J. F. Coupal: Activities of the Pathological Section of the Army Medical. Museum During the World War. On file in historical records of AFIP.
5. 5 Annual Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Army, 1920, pp. 246, 247.
6. 6 Annual Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Army, 1919, pp. 1067,1068.
7. 7 Craig, Charles F.: The Army Medical Museum and the Medical Profession. Modern Medicine 2: 542, August 1920.
8. 8 Annual Reports of the Surgeon General, U.S. Army, 1919, p. 1068, and 1920, p. 243.
9. 9 (1) 41 U.S. Statutes, 122. (2) 42 U.S. Statutes, 1029
10. Craig, Modern Medicine, 2 (1920), p. 542
11. Annual Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Army, 1920, p. 247.
12. See chapter V, pp. 89-106.
13. 13 (1) The Atlases of Pathology. A symposium, presented at the Joint Session of the 57th Annual Session of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology, in Chicago, 12-17 October 1952, and reported in: Transactions of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology 57: 13-26, January-February 1953. (2) Zimmerman, L. E.: The Registry of Ophthalmic Pathology: Past, Present and Future. Transactions of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology 65: 61-65, January-February 1961. (The 17th Jackson Memorial Lecture presented at the 65th Annual Session of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otoaryngology.) Dr. Zimmerman's lecture is as broad as its subject signifies and contains much of value, both historically and professionally.
14. 14 Zimmerman. Transactions of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology, 65 (1961) pp. 62, 69-71.
15. 15 Ibid., pp. 65-67.
16. 16 (1) Dr. Ball's gift to the Registry was made at the instance of Dr.George E. deSchweinitz of Philadelphia. Other major donors to the Registry in its early years included Dr. Harris P. Mosher of Boston who gave more than 600 specimens and Dr. E. C. Ellett of Memphis, whom General Callender declared was "the largest single contributor and active supporter during the first ten years of the Registry's existence." (2) Coupal, James F.: Special Report: The Ophthalmologic Collections from the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology at the Army Medical Museum. American Journal of Ophthalmology 6: 853. 854, October 1923.
17. 17 Callender, George R., Transactions of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology 57 (1953).PP- 14-15.
18. 18 (1) Idem. (2) AFIP and Ophthalmology. Archives of Ophthalmology 67: 31. May 1962. (3)AFIP Centennial. Archives o£ Ophthalmology 67: 177-178, May 1962. (4) Lebenson, J. E.: The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. American Journal of Opthalmologv 53: 695, April 1962. (5) Zimmerman, Transactions of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology, 65 (1961) PP-.78. 79.
19. 19 Annual Reports of the Surgeon General, U.S. Army, for fiscal years 1922, p. 108; 1923, p 104; 1924, p. 161; 1925, p. 210.
20. 20 (1) Letter, Major Callender to Professor Jobling, with memorandum to The Surgeon General 13 April 1921. On file in historical records of AFIP. (2) Callender, G. R.: The Exchange of Museum Specimens. International Association of Medical Museums Bulletin VIII, December 1922, p. 12.
21. 21 Congressional Record, 67th Congress, 1st session, volume 405, pp. 8833-8835, 26 October 1921.
22. 22 Memorandum, George R. Callender, Curator, for The Surgeon General, U.S. Army, 13 February 1922. On file in historical records of AFIP.