instruction in and the treatment of diseases of children be done by Dr. Dock, Professor of Theory and Practice. (R.P., 1896-1901, p. 433.) Thus, in spite of the apparent implications of Martin’s new title, both the association of obstetrics and gynecology were continued — nor has the actual teaching of pediatrics ever been assigned to the occupant of the Bates chair. One of these resolutions brings to light a fact not mentioned elsewhere, namely, that at some previous time — possibly only a year or two before — Martin had delegated the instruction in gynecology to an assistant, concentrating his own efforts on the work in obstetrics, and that he again taught both subjects in 1899. It was reasonable to establish the Bates chair to fulfill the terms of the bequest, but it was wholly unnecessary to exclude the word “obstetrics” from the title of the chief professorship of the department. Ever since the beginning of medical instruction at the University in 1850, obstetrics, internal medicine, and surgery had been treated as major subjects of equal importance. The occupant of the new chair was expected to be primarily an obstetrician, and this fact should have been indicated by some such official title as the one finally adopted in 1923, which Obstetrics and Gynecology (1942) 15 was “professor of obstetrics and gynecology and Bates professor of the diseases of women and children.” The actualities of the situation were recognized in the period 1899-1923, however, by the use of the unofficial title, “Bates professor of obstetrics and diseases of women,” in the faculty list of the Announcement, though elsewhere in the University publications “Bates professor of the diseases of women and children” was the title ordinarily used. The nominal “abolition” of the chair of obstetrics and gynecology was not the only strange result of accepting the Bates bequest. The amount set aside for the professor’s salary was only about one-third of the income of the bequest. As has been noted, the faculty originally endorsed a plan of saving as much as possible of this income for a building fund for a children’s ward. Eventually, in December, 1901, the Regents adopted a motion to make the projected Palmer Ward a children’s ward, thus ending the possibility that any of the Bates money would be used for that purpose. Before this happened, however, and while Martin still held the Bates professorship, the Regents established a policy of meeting the regular expenses of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, not by the customary appropriations from the general University fund, but instead, by revenue from the Bates fund. This policy was made effective with the adoption of a resolution that, after October 1, 1900, “the expense of maintaining the Chair of the Bates Professorship of the diseases of women and children be paid from the Bates fund” (R.P., 1896-1901, p. 602). The obvious reason for the bequest was the donor’s desire to enlarge the facilities for medical education, especially for women, in a university that had early admitted women to its medical school, and the greatest deficiency in the Medical Department and in the University Hospital when the bequest was received was the lack of adequate clinical instruction in obstetrics. Had this resolution not been passed the greater part of the Bates income might have been saved for the building and equipping of a maternity hospital as soon as the idea of a Bates ward for children was given up, or — though this was perhaps too much to expect in those days — it might have been used to finance a broad, intensive program of research. 16 Obstetrics and Gynecology A small hospital laboratory equipped with apparatus for the investigation of gynecological and obstetrical cases had been set up in 1897-98, and the Regents in 1901 did appropriate $500 of the Bates income for additional equipment for this laboratory, but under the plan adopted in 1900, and with the growth of the department and of its cost of operation, the possibility of obtaining continuous support for research or for other special projects from this source steadily declined. The result of the new policy was, therefore, that the department did not actually benefit from the money. In fact, within a few years the gift became more of a handicap than a benefit, for, while the other clinical departments expanded and were granted successively larger budgets, the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology was retarded because the Regents refused to appropriate anything for it except the income from the Bates fund. As the principal professorship of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology was named in honor of Dr. Bates, her bequest should have been devoted to ways of increasing the efficiency of that department. In justice to the Regents it may be stated that they acted in good faith and thought that under the provisions of the will no action except the one which they took was feasible. It would seem that a donor should specify more definitely the purpose of a bequest and yet give the governing board the greatest possible freedom in its administration. Martin was aided continuously after the summer of 1888 by James Gifford Lynds (’88m), who was promoted in 1892 from an assistantship to the position of Demonstrator of Obstetrics and Diseases of Women. During the year 1897-98 he was Acting Professor of Gynecology.