$20.00 


Pharniacy's 
Foundation 

• 
Ill Texas 
BY HENRY M. BURLAGE AND MARGOT E. BEUTLER 
The American Association of Col­leges of Pharmacy and other phar­maceutical organizations celebrated the recent Bicentennial in various forms. One means of marking this historic occasion was to initiate a compilation of the history of pharmaceutical educa: tion, including histories of colleges and schools of pharmacy. 
With the encouragement ofJames T. Doluisio, Dean of the College of Phar­macy, Dean Emeritus Henry M. Burlage and historian Margot E. Beutler undertook the task of recording the events leading to the development of the College of Pharmacy of The U niver­sity of Texas at Austin. Pharmacy's Foun­dation zn Tex_as traces the development of the College of Pharmacy from its humble beginnings in the "Old Red" basement at Galveston to the modern, multicampus complex in Austin and 
an Antonio. Factual detail and re­search, woven with wit and style into the experiences of the College, create a realistic approach to make this book in­teresting reading as well as a reference source for every Texas pharmacist. 


Pharmacy's Foundation in Texas 




Pharmacy's Foundation in Texas 
HENRY M. BURLAGE MARGOT E. BEUTLER 
PHARMACEUTICAL FOUNDATION OF THE COLLEGE OF PHARMACY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 
©1978 by the Pharmaceutical Foundation of the College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin. All rights reserved 
Printed in the United States of America 
Designed by Ben Smith 
Contents 

Preface  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  ix  
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  x1  
Prologue: Establishing the Profession through Education  . 1  

Part I: The Galveston Era, 1893-1927 . . . . . . . 13 
Chapter 1 : The Origins of the College of Pharmacy 
Prior to 1895 ............................ 15 The First Pharmacy Law in Texas. Organization of the School of Pharmacy. Professional Recognition for Phar­macy. Dr. James Kennedy. Dr. Edward Randall. Dr. Seth Morris. Life in Galveston. Curriculum and Requirements in Pharmacy. The Students. 
Chapter 2: Development of the School under 
R.R.D. 	Cline, 1895-1915 .................... 52 "Daddy" Cline. The First Five Years under Cline, 1895-1900. The Storm of 1900. Cline's Administration, 1900-1915. The Faculty. Student Life. 
Chapter 3: Educational and Legal Professional Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 
Chapter 4: The War and Its Aftermath, 1915-1924 . . . . 111 The European Conflict. Curricular Developments. The Faculty. The Drive for a Pharmacy Building. The Death of Dr. Cline. 
Chapter 5: A New Dean and a New Campus, 
1924-1927 	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 William Francis Gidley. William Rust Neville. The Chang­ing Curriculum. Continuing Problems. The Burning of the Chemistry Building. Conclusions. 
v 
Part II: The "Forty Acres,'' 1927-1947 ..........177 


Chapter 6: The Shack Era, 1927-194 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 The Faculty. Louis William Schleuse. The Curriculum. Student Activities. 
Chapter 7: The Efforts to Maintain Accreditation, 
1929-1947 ..............................205 Visitation and Accreditation, 1929. University Funding. Depression Years, 1929-36. Enrollment Explosion and Its Problems. Visitation and Provisional Accreditation, 1939. The University Drug Garden. The College of Pharmacy and the War Effort. 
Chapter 8: The College of Pharmacy as a Political Pawn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 
Part III: Renaissance of the College, 1947-1962  .255  
Chapter 9: The Transition, 194 7  . . . . . . . . . . . .  .257  
Henry Matthew Burlage. A New Administration.  
Chapter 10: The Interim Years, 1947-1952  . . . . .  .277  

An Expanding Faculty. Curricular Changes. Graduate Work. Improvement of Accreditation Ratings. Student Ac­tivities. 
Chapter 11: The Pharmaceutical Foundation ........310 Establishing the Pharmaceutical Foundation. Resources of the Foundation. Foundation Personnel. Accomplishments of the Foundation. 
Chapter 12: The Pharmacy Extension Service . . . . . . . . 323 Extension Personnel. Extension Programs. 
Chapter 13: Realization of a Dream, 1952 ..........341 Completion of the Pharmacy Building. Efforts to Expand the Building. 
Chapter 14: Building a First-Class College, 
1952-1962 ..............................356 The Graduate Program. Five-Year Undergraduate Cur­riculum. Faculty. Experience Requirement and the Student Health Center. Visiting Lecturer Series. Texas journal of Pharmacy. Accreditation Ratings. A Look to the Future. 
..
Contents Vll 
Part IV: The College and a Changing Profession, 
1962-1972 ....................... . .393 Chapter 15: Reevaluation of Pharmacy Education, 1962-1966 ........................ . .395 
Undergraduate Curriculum. Graduate Program. Faculty Research. Faculty Changes. Student Council. Resignation of the Dean. 
Chapter 16: Pharmacy in Transition: 196 7-1972 . . . . . . 418 Joseph Barnett Sprowls. Reevaluation of Education and the Profession. Curriculum. Enrollment. New Faculty Members. Drug-Abuse Education. Student Activities. Death of Dean Sprowls. 
Part V: Pharmacists for the Future, 1973-....... .457 


Chapter 17: Planning for the Future .............459 Long-Range Plans. Objectives of the College. Reorganiza­tion of the College Administration. Faculty. Research Programs. Continuing Education. Physical Facilities. Sum­mary. 
Chapter 18: New Concepts in Pharmaceutical 
Practice & Education ...................... .493 Redefining the Profession. Clinical Pharmacy. Revision of Preclinical Studies. Doctor of Pharmacy Program. Sum­mary. 
Epilogue: Looking Ahead .521 
Appendixes ........ . .523 


Appendix A: Administrative Officers, Faculty and Staff, 1895-1976 ......................... 525 Appendix B: Members of the Advisory Council of the Pharmaceutical Foundation, 1952-1976 ...........534 Appendix C: Officers of the Advisory Council, 1952-1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .539 Appendix D: Gifts to the Pharmaceutical Foundation, 1950-1976 .......... . .540 Appendix E: Gifts to the College of Pharmacy, 1893-1976 .................... . .541 
Appendix F: Undergraduate Enrollment in the College of Pharmacy, 1893-1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .544 Appendix G: Graduate Enrollment in the College of Pharmacy, 1950-1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545 Appendix H: Graduate Degrees Awarded in Pharmacy, 1950-1976 ......... . ..................546 Appendix I: Recipients of Doctoral Degrees in Pharmacy and Their Dissertation Titles, 195 7-197 6 . . . . . . . . . . 548 Appendix J: Pharmacy Graduates, 1895-1976 ........553 Appendix K: Curricular Changes throughout the Years, 1922-1976 . . . . . . . . . . . 586 Bibliography . . 589 Index .................................593 


Preface 
THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION of Colleges of Pharmacy and other pharmaceutical organizations celebrated the . recent Bicentennial in a number of ways. One means of marking this historic occasion was initiating the compilation of the history of pharmaceutical education, including histories of colleges and schools of pharmacy. 
With the encouragement of James T. Doluisio, Dean of the College of Pharmacy, historian Margot E. Beutler and I undertook the task of recording the events leading to the develop­ment of the College of Pharmacy of The University of Texas at Austin. 
It is hoped that the story from 1893 through 1976 will prove of interest to the alumni of the college and to all pharmacists of the state. 
Henry M. Burlage 
ix 


Acknowledgments 
THIS WORK WOULD NOT have reached print without the assistance of a number of individuals who furnished information, made available various materials, and provided essential ser­vices. These persons include Dean James T. Doluisio, who recognized the need for a history of the College of Pharmacy; 
J. P. Grumbles, executive assistant of the College, who made available the dean's records; Sara Rumbo, library assistant of the Texas Collection Library, and Ralph L. Elder, assistant archivist of the University Archives, Eugene C. Barker Texas History Center, both of whom spent innumerable hours locating and relocating materials; Margaret Peloquin, librarian of the Pharmacy Library and her staff, who provided essential materials and retrieved old journals; Lydia Taylor, editor for the Little Campus Printing Division, whose obsession with style and consistency resulted in a more accurate book than would otherwise have been possible; Mildred Gerding, supervisor of the Little Campus Printing Division; Jane Sullivan, coordinator for the publication; Beverly Zigal and other typesetters who patient­ly turned the manuscript into type; Louis Schleuse, graduate and former faculty member who interviewed several persons and provided his own reminiscences; Anna Cline Mann, Alice Klotz Conklin, J ohnnita Albers, Irma Smith Schmidtzinsky, Ava Josephine McAmis, Francis Garbade, and his sister, Mrs. Tom 
H. Fraser, whose recollections and family records provided in­valuable insights into an earlier day; Professor Esther Jane 
xz 

.. 
XU Acknowledgments 
Wood Hall, her history of pharmacy students, and her research associate, Carmen Bustamante, who compiled and furnished historical data; Betty Anne Thedford, secretary of the Board of Regents of The University of Texas at Austin, who opened her records for inspection; and to Janice Gill and Nancy Ward who assisted with the manuscript typing. 
Pharmacy's Foundation in Texas 


PROLOGUE: 	Establishing the Profession through Education 
THE STORY OF The University of Texas College of Pharmacy intertwines continually with the development of phar­maceutical education in the United States. Pharmacists, long concerned with the quality of education and the state of their profession, have created numerous local, state, and national bodies to analyze, regulate, and advise on various aspects of pharmaceutical development. Each one of these organizations has had a significant effect on the continuing struggle of the faculty of the College of Pharmacy to improve the quality of education in Texas. Although each is mentioned in the text chronologically, together they prove a confusing welter of ab­breviations. This prologue, therefore, aims to give a brief over­view of the national trends in pharmacy regulation in order to provide a backdrop for the story in Texas. 
Early pharmaceutical education in the United States remained in an amorphous state far longer than did professional preparation in other disciplines. Apprenticeship had long been the accepted method for acquiring any skill-be it that of apothecary, lawyer, or blacksmith; toward the end of the nineteenth century, however, such a nonstandardized method of education was no longer considered suitable for the needs of a rapidly expanding country. Although apprenticeship as a method of acquiring professional training was not entirely 
1 

abolished in some fields until the 1920s, a collegiate course of in­struction was rapidly becoming the norm by the turn of the cen­tury. 
The proliferation of schools of pharmacy was of particular concern to the American Pharmaceutical Association (APhA), which wished to establish standards of education and supervise the quality of pharmacy instruction that was being offered. Prior to 1900, only the APhA 's Section on Education and Legislation appears to have been concerned with such matters. As a result of the disorganization and lack of agreement within this group, however, very few guidelines had been formulated to aid phar­maceutical educators in establishing effective courses of study. In 1900, however, twenty-one departments and colleges of phar­macy joined together to form the American Conference of Phar­maceutical Faculties (ACPF), an organization that served as the first standardizing core for schools of pharmacy. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy was created four years later, to extend uniform regulation to the licensing bodies of various states. Thus, with national associations encompassing both the educational and accrediting institutions of many states, the pharmaceutical profession was well on its way toward es­tablishing high professional standards throughout the country. 
The year 1904 proved to be a landmark as ACPF established uniform standards for pharmaceutical education, and the state of New York required graduation from a recognized school of pharmacy as a prerequisite for obtaining a license to practice. These two events marked the first successful attempts to bring the practice of pharmacy up to the standards set by the medical profession. Although others, including some physicians, did not feel that the pharmacist was as vital to the well-being of the na­tion as was the physician, the American Pharmaceutical As­sociation and its affiliates continued their quest to make their profession the equal of any in the country. 
The New York law was of particular importance for the prece­dent it established in the legal regulation of pharmaceutical education. The law stipulated that no one could become a licensed pharmacist unless he presented to the State Board of Pharmacy a diploma from an institution that required a two­year course and was registered by the Board of Regents of the State of New York. To be eligible for registration, a school had to be legally incorporated, maintain proper pharmaceutical stan­dards, and require for entrance an examination in subjects equivalent to a high school education. The law established an outline of an acceptable pharmaceutical curriculum to govern registration by the board of regents and to guide the New York State Board of Pharmacy in licensure examinations. This law was the most extensive that had been enacted up to that time and consequently served as a model for other states as well as for the American Conference of Pharmaceutical Faculties. 
The idea of a syllabus of an acceptable curriculum gained such wide acceptance within pharmaceutical circles that a National Syllabus Committee was organized in 1906 to develop guidelines for use throughout the United States. Because of the impact of the New York syllabus, three representatives were selected from that state. Representatives from the National As­sociation of Boards of Pharmacy and the American Conference of Pharmaceutical Faculties completed this committee, which worked for four years to adapt the New York syllabus to fit the requirements of the majority of the states. In 1910, the New York State Board of Pharmacy published the report, entitled simply the Pharmaceutical Syllabus, the standards of which were in effect for New York from 1August1910 to 31 July 1915. 1 
After the publication of the syllabus in 1910, the National Syl­labus Committee was revised and expanded to include seven members each from the American Conference of Pharmaceutical Faculties, the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, and the American Pharmaceutical Association. The breadth of membership was intended to encompass all aspects of the varied profession of pharmacy. The expanded committee undertook the task of revising the syllabus to keep pace with the continual changes occurring in pharmaceutical education. In 1913 a sec­ond edition of the syllabus was published, a third was published 
1National Syllabus Committee, Pharmaceutical Syllabus (New York: New York State Board of Pharmacy, 1910). 
in 1922, a fourth in 1932, and a tentative fifth edition in 1945. These subsequent versions of the Pharmaceutical Syllabus will be discussed later in connection with the educational developments that followed. 
This concern with educational standards was not unique to pharmacy. The medical profession was taking a similar interest in its own schools and universities. In 1910, the Carnegie Foun­dation for the Advancement of Teaching sponsored a broad study on medical education in the United States, which was con­ducted by Dr. Abraham Flexner. 2 In preparing his report, Flex­ner visited medical schools around the country to examine the various programs as a basis for his recommendations to the medical profession. His informative, in-depth investigation served as the basis for standardizing medical education throughout the United States. Unfortunately, the Carnegie Foundation did not extend the same opportunity for self. examination to the pharmaceutical profession. 
While the National Syllabus Committee prepared an accept· able pharmaceutical curriculum, the American Conference of Pharmaceutical Faculties (ACPF) was establishing other educational requirements. As with the syllabus, these voluntary guidelines were widely accepted by the most reputable schools and colleges in the nation. However, those institutions that aimed primarily at preparing students to pass the state board ex­aminations maintained little interest in raising educational levels and largely ignored the national requisites of the ACPF. 
The only requirement established by the ACPF was that of a minimum age of seventeen years for licensure by a state board of pharmacy. In 1906 this was amended to include at least one year of work in an accredited high school as a prerequisite to the study of pharmacy. This change was accepted by ACPF schools for the academic year 1908-09 in all but thirteen western states and the Indian Territory. The prerequisites became effective in those areas in the academic year 1911-12, when their matricula­tion exemption was eliminated. With educational standards con­stantly on the rise, the ACPF increased the requirement to two 
2Abraham Flexner, Medical Education in the United States (New York: Carnegie Founda­tion for the Advancement of Teaching, 1910). 
full years of accredited high school work in 1914. By 1920, graduation from high school was required for admission to a school or college of pharmacy, a regulation that put phar­maceutical study on the same level with other academic dis·­ciplines. These ACPF criteria advanced more rapidly than those developed by many state pharmaceutical organizations and boards of pharmacy. Opinion was widely divided on every aspect of the establishment of professional accreditation, but through compromise and diplomacy ACPF was able to maintain its in­fluence in the educational field. 
ACPF also regulated the length of the school year. In 1904, the requirement of a school year of not less than forty weeks effec­tively eliminated so-called cram schools from the list of recognized institutions. In 1907, the standard was expanded to a program of fifty weeks, requiring two full years to complete, separated by a two-month summer vacation. Such a course en­compassed 1,100 hours of study before·the student was eligible for the Ph.G. (Pharmacy Graduate) or similar degree. The total number of hours for graduation was increased to 1,200 in 1912 and 1,500 in 1922. 
Meanwhile, through a joint effort by the Committee on Degrees in Colleges of Pharmacy of the A CPF and the Section of Education and Legislation of the American Pharmaceutical As­sociation, a controversial report was presented in 1913 concern­ing the delineation of college degrees in pharmacy. 8 The report recommended that the degree ofPharmacy Graduate (Ph.G.) be awarded in recognition of 1,200 hours of course work, which comprised the approved two-year curriculum. It also recom­mended that entrance requirements for any degree beyond the Ph.G. level be established at four years of high school credit or the equivalent. For the Ph.G. degree, two years of high school work would continue to be acceptable preparation. In 1914, the Committee on Degrees in Colleges of Pharmacy recommended that the Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.) degree be awarded at the completion of a four-year program. These suggestions were 
'Joint Report of the Committee on Degrees in Colleges of Pharmacy of the American Conference of Pharmaceutical Faculties and the Section on Education and Legislation of the American Pharmaceutical Association (Washington D.C.: American Pharmaceutical Association, 1913). 
only recommendations of the ACPF rather than requirements; as such they were not widely adopted by member schools. By 1925, the pharmacy curriculum had expanded so greatly that ACPF decided to make the basic pharmaceutical degree-the Ph.G.-a three-year course. Some schools continued to offer a Ph.C. (Pharmaceutical Chemist) degree, but after 1925 this program usually comprised one year of study beyond the Ph.G. program. In 1930, the Association advocated a four-year 
B.S. (Bachelor of Science) degree in pharmacy as the basic program in pharmaceutical education. 
In 1925, the ACPF changed its name to the American Associa­tion of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP), although its functions of accreditation and establishment of criteria remained the same. Previous to 1925, the organization had established guidelines that, although generally followed by its member institutions, were not obligatory for member schools. By 1925, however, AACP had gained such prestige that it was able to grant or deny recognition to schools on the basis of compliance with its stan­dards. Those schools denied accreditation or given a low rating suffered both loss of national prestige and difficulty in recruiting serious students and faculty. The era of the cram school, which offered a short course designed solely to enable students to pass state examinations, was on its way out of existence. AACP's power to grant or deny recognition created some problems for many essentially sound schools, but it also helped to create truly national standards. 
One result of the AACP standardization was the evolution of the four-year Bachelor of Science degree in pharmacy. Throughout the decade of the 1920s, the association worked toward establishing such a degree. To jump from a two-year course to a four-year program was quite radical, so the AACP permitted a gradual changeover to the more advanced degree. In 1925, the minimum pharmacy degree was recommended to span three years, and the majority of schools adopted this proposal. As this step became widely accepted, the AACP decided, in 1928, to adopt the four-year program. This extra year would not contain additional technical or professional courses, but would permit liberal studies from the general university curriculum to be incorporated into a preprofessional first year. However, to al­low schools sufficient time to adapt to these new standards, AACP postponed implementation of the B.S. degree in phar­macy until 1932. As pharmaceutical knowledge continued to ex­pand, AACP increased the minimum number of hours required for a B.S. degree from 3,000 hours in 1932 to 3,200 in 1936. 
Because of the increasing mobility of Americans in the twen­tieth century, AACP found it necessary in 1935 to adopt a reciprocity system whereby credits from one accredited school might be accepted by another for the course in pharmacy, provided the student not be permitted to complete the degree program in less than two collegiate years. In 1936, the cur­riculum was increased to three years. The effect of the reciprocity system was to allow students to transfer between schools without losing credit while protecting the degree­granting institution from those who might manage to circumvent the required preparatory work. The question of reciprocity between states had long represented a widespread problem for boards of pharmacy. 
AACP also continued the work of the National Syllabus Com­mittee. By 1932, the decennial Pharmaceutical Syllabus was in its fourth edition and had become the standard for most schools of pharmacy throughout the country. Each course subject covered by the syllabus was classified as being either required or op­tional, and a section was devoted to the subject matter ap­propriate for state board examinations. AACP utilized the syl­labus as an accreditation reference after 1937 by granting recognition to those schools following the guidelines and denying recognition or designating a low rating to those that followed a more independent course of instruction. In 1942, a fifth edition was issued on a tentative basis for a two-year trial by AACP members. A revision of this tentative edition was again submit­ted to participating schools for approval, but because of growing criticism of the syllabus as both an educational guide and a stan­dard of accreditation, AACP decided to suspend its publication. Thus, after forty years as a yardstick for measuring the quality of pharmaceutical curricula, the syllabus was discontinued. 
The only other attempt up to that time to review the condition of pharmaceutical education had been a report published in 1927 entitled Basic Material for a Pharmaceutical Curriculum.' This study furnished information for improving pharmaceutical programs by examining the responsibilities of the pharmacist and the specific training needed to fulfill his obligations to the profession a!ld the community. By analyzing thousands of prescriptions furnished by 1,200 pharmacies, questionnaires submitted to pharmacists and faculty members, and inventories of pharmacies, as well as other sources, the study came to the conclusion that pharmacy was indeed a profession rather than a trade. It offered suggestions appropriate for professional training that were very similar to those of the Pharmaceutical Syllabus. In ef­fect, Basic Material for a Pharmaceutical Curriculum reaffirmed the educational standards of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP). This book was updated in 1937, 1942, 1948, 1952, and 1960, extending well beyond the 1945 demise of the 
Pharmaceutical Syllabus. 
The next major step was taken in 1946 by the American Coun­cil on Education, which worked through the AACP to set up a committee for a national study of pharmaceutical education. The results were published in 1948 in several sections under the title Findings and Recommendations of the Pharmaceutical Survey.' The first two sections presented an overview of earlier standards for pharmaceutical education as well as the accreditation standards for colleges up to 1937. The first accreditation list, published in 1940, included The University of Texas College of Pharmacy. Part three of the survey dealt with the development of a teaching staff. Part four presented recommendations for the selection of students, guidance and career counseling, and examinations. Parts five, six, and seven were devoted to regulations and procedures of state boards of pharmacy. Part eight examined the 
'W.W. Charters, A. B. Lemon, and Leon Monell, Basic Material for a Plumnaaulical Curriculum (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1927). 
•American Council on Education and American Association of Colleges of Phannacy, Findings and Recommendations of the Pharmaceutical Survey (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1948). 
curriculum within colleges of pharmacy, while part nine dis­cussed in-service training for graduate pharmacists. This last section would be the instigating factor in the creation of the Pharmacy Extension Service of The University of Texas. 
The Pharmaceutical Curriculum, published by the American Council on Education in 1952, is an elaboration of the recom­mendations of the Pharmaceutical Survey. It carefully analyzes the nature of pharmaceutical training and its relation to the respon­sibilities and requirements of the profession. Many of the sugges­tions contained in this study have since been adopted by colleges of pharmacy to supplement and enrich the basics provided by the standard curriculum. 8 
More recently, the American Pharmaceutical Association (APhA) sponsored a study on the public attitudes toward the pharmacist and pharmaceutical services. This project, con­ducted by the Dichter Institute for Motivational Research in 1973, warrants examination for the insights it provides into the role of the pharmacist in contemporary America. Foremost among the results was the indication of "a strong desire for the return of the personal pharmacist and the reestablishment of a professional relationship between the pharmacist and the patient. "7 In an era of rapidly expanding health-care facilities, this suggests a public longing for the type of service that old-time druggists once provided. In formulating their curricula, the study concluded, schools of pharmacy should not overlook the service aspects of their profession. 
In 1975 Pharmacists for the Future: The Report ofthe Study Commis­sion on Pharmacy, a project of the American Association of Col­leges of Pharmacy, examined "current and future practices in the delivery of health care, the impact of changes upon the role and functions of the pharmacist, the identification of alternative roles for the pharmacist of the future, the relationship of the 
8Lloyd E. Blauch and George L. Webster, 1he Pharmaceutical Curriculum (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1952). 
"Dichtcr Institute for Motivational Research, Communicating the Value of Comprehensive Pharmaceutical Services to the Consumer (Washington, D.C.: American Pharmaceutical As­sociation, 1973). 
pharmacist to other health workers, pharmacy manpower needs, and appropriateness of pharmacy education. "8 This report found that the greatest weakness of schools of pharmacy in the 1970s was "lack of an adequate number of clinical scientists who could relate their specialized scientific knowledge to the de­velopment of the practical skills required to provide effective, effi­cient, and ne~ded patient services.' '9 Because of the complexity of pharmaceutical practice in the late twentieth century, schools would need to tailor their curricula to meet a multiplicity of professional goals. Much of the training for the more differen­tiated roles of pharmacy practice would need to come at the graduate level after the student had mastered, as an un­dergraduate, the skills and knowledge common to all phases of pharmacy. 
Through this brief analysis of the various studies conducted between 1910 and 1975, one can gain an understanding of the evolution of the pharmaceutical profession's self-image and its attempts to modify educational policies to meet the challenge of an ever-changing field. Although the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy no longer requires adherence to a published set of standards, pharmacy education in the United States has continued to develop within a common framework. The extreme mobility of people within the United States makes inevitable the fact that many pharmacists trained in Texas will eventually practice in distant places. Colleges of pharmacy today look toward preparing a health-care specialist taught to serve the needs of the nation rather than the limited demands of a state or region. 
This review of the development of pharmaceutical education in the United States gives a better perspective for studying the history of The University of Texas College of Pharmacy. It helps explain the difficulties under which Texans labored as they brought pharmaceutical education from apprenticeship training 
'American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, Pharmacists for the Future: The Report of the Study Commission on Pharmacy (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Health Administration Press, 1975), 
p. 	161. 'Ibid., p. 142. 
in the late nineteenth century to graduate and professional studies in the late twentieth century. This achievement did not come easily, for many special-interest groups, some within the profession itself, have worked against the steady improvement of pharmaceutical standards. Much of this story, however, must be left for later study as the authors concentrate their efforts on the development of the College of Pharmacy, which in itself is a rich and varied chronicle. 

PART I 

The Galveston Era) 
1893-1927 


CHAPTER ONE: The Origins ofthe College 
of Pharmacy Prior 


to 1895 
THE COLLEGE OF PHARMACY of The University of Texas owes its existence, in great part, to early efforts by the Texas State Pharmaceutical Association (TSPA) to establish more stringent standards for the practice of pharmacy as a profession. The TSPA was organized in 1879 with its main ob­jective "to suppress empiricism, and as much as possible, to restrict the dispensing and sale of medicines to regularly educated druggists and pharmacists. m The definition of a "regularly educated" pharmacist was as unclear to the general populace as it probably was to the association. Until the passage of regulatory laws, anyone could dispense any drug for which he could find a market. And everyone did dispense medicines. The physician frequently maintained a drug supply for the use of his own patients following his own prescriptions. The itinerant medicine vendor who traveled around the countryside dispensed spices, household goods, candy, patent and proprietary medicines, and anything else his customers demanded. The local 
1"Texas Pharmaceutical Association Official Proceedings, 1880-89," Texas Collec­tion, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas, p. 13 (hereafter referred to as Texas Collection). 
15 

dry-goods store likewise carried a complete stock of items that early Texans required. With such a variety of people dispensing medicines, and without any regulation as to which drugs could be purchased, the potential for misuse was great. 
Despite such competition from outside the profession, however, the trained pharmacist was not an unknown figure in nineteenth-century society. Apprenticeship was the standard method of acquiring skill in the compounding and dispensing of prescriptions. A boy as young as eight years of age might begin to learn the trade by washing bottles, sweeping out the shop, and running errands for the proprietor. As his knack at these mun­dane tasks increased, the apprentice slowly began to learn the mysteries of the powders and ointments that the master dis­pensed. Five years was not an uncommon apprenticeship to be served, after which the boy, now approaching young manhood, might branch out into an operation of his own. 
By 1879, however, formal pharmaceutical education was becoming more common and acquiring greater esteem. Many of the original members of the TSPA had attended schools of phar­macy, and their first president, L. Meyers Connor, held a degree from the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy, the oldest and most prestigious school of pharmacy in the United States. Another early president of the TSPA noted: 
The people are embracing the idea that the calling of the phar­macist is second only to that of the physician; that the pharmacist ever stands between the physician and the sick and afflicted; that it often becomes his duty to correct the mistakes, and in some in­stances to supply the want of knowledge and skill, of him who writes prescriptions for compounding. 2 
To provide pharmacists of such caliber in Texas, a school along the lines of the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy was required. No such school existed in Texas, so the TSPA resolved to fill the void. The association had dedicated itself to raising professional standards, an endeavor that embraced both education and regulation. 
'Ibid., p. 26. 
THE FIRST PHARMACY LAW IN TEXAS 

Because the association was anxious to establish a school of pharmacy in Texas, E. M. Wells, president of the TSPA in 1883, recommended that a committee be appointed "to endeavor to secure a chair of pharmacy" at the newly established state uni­versity, which was to begin classes in Austin in the fall. After long discussion, the association decided that it would be better to postpone such action until the proposed Medical Department of the university could be organized because a school of pharmacy was rightfully a branch of the medical profession. The TSPA felt that such a school should be made legitimate by legislation that would set standards for the practice of pharmacy. The members thus resolved to seek such legislation as a prerequisite to the goal of a school of pharmacy. 3 
At its first annual meeting in May of 1880, the TSPA had ap­pointed a legislative committee to draw up a suitable bill providing for the licensing of pharmacists and outlining the stan­dards of preparation deemed appropriate for the practice of pharmacy in Texas. Members were concerned lest Texas fall behind other states in establishing and maintaining high profes­sional standards.' The immediate concern was to protect the state against uneducated and/or unethical persons who had been driven out of other areas and who were seeking their for­tunes in the entrepreneurial climate of the West. During the 1880s, Texas experienced a rapid population growth as settlers poured in from other parts of the nation to stake a claim to a new life while such was still available. Not every settler, however, was considered a desirable addition to the community. William Radam, a Prussian immigrant who had settled in Austin, was marketing his own "universal non-poisonous antiseptic," a po­tion reputed to "cure the microbes" responsible for all diseases. If stringent laws were not passed, the TSPA warned, people of this sort would be drawn to the easy market of Texas. 6 
'Ibid., p. 19. 
'Ibid., p. 24. 
5lbid. 

Not everyone, however, felt that Texas needed such protec­tion. There were those, such as a Dr. McGarrity of Gonzales County, a member of the House Legislative Committee on Public Health in 1883, who believed that Texas had not yet ad­vanced to such a degree of civilization as to require a pharmacy law. 8 No mention is made in the legislative records as to how he felt about the regulation of medicine, but it should be noted that the Medical Practice Act setting standards for physicians was not enacted until 1907. The other members of the House Legislative Committee on Public Health deferred to Dr. McGar­rity 's opinion on such matters and thus refused to recommend a bill regulating pharmacy practice to the house. Opposition was also strongly voiced by those groups whose interests would not be served by such legislation, and this had a dampening effect on the TSPA 's efforts to secure passage of its proposal. 
Similar bills were introduced in every legislative session from 1881 until the final passage into law of such a bill in the closing minutes of the twenty-first legislature in 1889. The bill passed into law without the governor's signature. For undisclosed reasons, Governor Lawrence Sullivan Ross refused to sign the bill, although he did not veto it. The victory, however, was not quite as sweet as the TSPA had anticipated. Although the phar­maceutical profession now had the protection of the law, that law differed significantly from the one the TSPA members had proposed. But, consoling themselves that "a half a loaf is better than no loaf at all," they accepted the new law and began laying plans for amending it in the next legislature. 7 
Due to the innumerable revisions to which it had been sub­jected before enactment, the new pharmacy law was ambiguous and lacked the cohesion of the bill that the TSPA had endorsed. The proposed bill would have required all applicants to be at least twenty-one years old and to have a minimum of four years' experience in a prescription-compounding store. 8 The law as enacted, however, lowered these standards somewhat by requir­ing only that each applicant pass a satisfactory examination 
'Ibid., p. 25. 
1Ibid., p. 124. 
'Ibid., p. 31. 

before a board of pharmacy within his legislative district. If the applicant was a graduate of "a regular incorporated college of pharmacy" requiring not less than two years of experience in "stores where prescriptions of medical practitioners have been compounded," then he needed only to pay the registration fee in order to obtain a license. 9 The rationale behind these sections of the law was that a licensed pharmacist needed theoretical as well as practical knowledge of the compounding of drugs. 
The law contained two major deficiencies as well. The first was the substitution of numerous district boards for the one state board that the TSPA had advocated. The association felt that a uniform standard for pharmacists within the state would be im­possible to obtain unless one board systematically examined all applicants. This lack of a uniform standard in fact was to hinder severely the maintenance_of high professional standards for Texas pharmacy until the law was finally amended in 1907 to es­tablish the Texas State Board of Pharmacy with jurisdiction throughout the entire state. It is impossible to detail accurately the inequities of these earlier district boards because of the lack of any systematic or uniform record keeping on their part. Some boards undoubtedly maintained fair and uniform standards for applicants within their jurisdiction. However, the very nature of a board of examiners composed of the influential professionals within a community made it susceptible to the abuses of in­fluence, favoritism, and occasional bribery. A person denied the right to practice pharmacy in one district could, in all likelihood, have found a board somewhere in the state willing to grant him a license on one condition or another. 
A second flaw in the bill was the vague definition of what type of education was acceptable in lieu of experience. Membership in the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy later became the standard for Texas State Board of Pharmacy, but in 1889 no such association existed. A "regularly incorporated col­lege of pharmacy" could be defined in almost any manner a board saw fit. Thus, this provision of the pharmacy law alone defeated the prime intent of the Texas State Pharmaceutical 
'Ibid., P-146. 
Association-the creation of uniform standards for the practice of pharmacy within the state. 
The second major deficiency of the law was its failure to make any provision for the establishment of a school of pharmacy; rather, it simply recognized the value of formal schooling and made special provisions for those who had obtained such an education. Apprenticeship, however, was the least expensive and by far the most popular method of learning the profession. This would later affect the School of Pharmacy of The University of Texas, where early enrollments were minimal in comparison with those of the School of Medicine. The Medical Practice Act of 1907 required a degree from a recognized school of medicine before a license to practice medicine was issued, whereas a similar requirement for the practice of pharmacy was not enacted until 1929. Although pharmacists pioneered the field of medical legislation in Texas, they found it extremely difficult to convince their legislators of the need for requiring a degree for all pharmacists. Another factor that would later affect pharmacy enrollments was the fact that one year of college work or less was often all the preparation needed to pass a district board ex­amination. Thus, a very low percentage of those who matriculated in the School of Pharmacy remained through the second year to graduate. Only when the 1929 amendment to the law was added that required graduation from a .recognized col­lege of pharmacy did enrollments begin to compare favorably with those in the School of Medicine. 
ORGANIZATION OF THE SCHOOL 
OF PHARMACY 

Secure in the knowledge that Texas was at least partially protected by the pharmacy law after 1889, the TSPA turned its efforts toward the establishment of a school to train future phar­macists. These efforts had been postponed until the Medical Department could be organized, but by the fall of 1891 the department was in operation. Considerable debate had centered on the question of the location of the Medical Department. Most legislators as well as educators had agreed that a site apart from the main campus of the university at Austin was desirable. A ­number of cities were anxious to host such a school because of the increased health-care facilities that would thus become available to their citizens. Galveston gained favor, however, when the executors of the estate of shipping magnate John Sealy promised to provide a training hospital if the Medical Depart­ment was located in their city. The question was put to a statewide referendum, and Galveston was selected as the loca­tion. 
In many ways Galveston would have been a logical site for the building of a medical school even if the Sealy heirs had not of­fered to build the hospital that bears his name. Located on a sand spit just two miles from the mainland, Galveston Island encloses a natural deepwater harbor that served as the major port facility for Texas during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Throughout the republic and early statehood periods, Galveston was one of the most important cities in Texas and, un­til the 1890s, the largest. From the wharves of Galveston over a half million bales of cotton were shipped in 1878, a figure that would quadruple before the end of the century. 10 As a regional port of entry, Galveston soon came to rival New Orleans. Other cities in Texas are of greater vintage, but the early growth of the state depended greatly on the port facilities of Galveston. 
Despite these advantages, however, Galveston had its draw­backs. Any busy, semitropical port is a natural harbor for dis­eases as well as ships, and Galveston had more than its share of such pestilences as yellow, dengue, and typhoid fevers as well as occasional outbreaks of smallpox, cholera, and bubonic plague. Health and sanitation were constant concerns of the citizens of Galveston; the earliest hospital in Texas was built on Galveston Island in 1839. Yellow fever first appeared in 1839, only three years after the founding of the city. It reappeared subsequently in 184~ 1858, and 1859, with the worst epidemic of all striking in 1867. Because of these recurring illnesses, clinical . facilities developed here earlier than in any other city in the state. 11 
1°Sam Griffin, History of Galveston, Texas: Na"ative and Biography (Galveston: A. H. 
Clawston, 1931), p. 60. 
111bid. 
Attempts to organize a medical college in Texas began as ear­ly as 1853. Soule University, located in Chapell Hill, was granted funds by the state legislature to establish a medical department on its campus, but the Civil War intervened before such an operation could begin. Less than five months after the formal surrender of the Confederate Trans-Mississippi Forces on the island, the Galveston Medical College was organized on 23 Oc­tober 1865. This college was essentially the Medical Department of Soule University, which had earlier been moved from Chapell Hill to Galveston. It continued operation until 1873, when it was superseded by the Texas Medical College. In 1881, when the citizens of the state voted to locate the medical branch of the state university in Galveston, Texas Medical College suspended classes in the belief that the new school would soon be in opera­tion. The faculty, however, had not anticipated the leisurely pace with which the state legislature would proceed in this matter. By 1888, a number of physicians from Galveston, beginning to lose hope of seeing a state-supported medical college in their town, decided to organize a new Galveston Medical College and Hospital. 12 
Finally, in 1889, the legislature appropriated $75,000 for the construction of buildings on two city blocks of land donated by the citizens of Galveston for the campus, while the Sealy heirs provided $50,000 for the building of a training hospital. In 1890, the main college building was erected at a cost of $86,000, ex­clusive of furnishings and equipment, and the hospital was com­pleted with an additional bequest from Mrs. John Sealy. 18 This hospital, established for the purpose of training medical stu­dents, was provided with the finest clinical facilities to be found anywhere in the South and Southwest. Such outstanding facilities made possible the solid reputation The University of Texas would soon establish in the field of medicine as well as in pharmacy. To supplement the bequests by the state, the city, and the Sealy family, Galveston Medical College and Hospital offered its equipment and faculty to the new school. All of the 
12Ibid., p. 112. 
131bid. 

equipment was readily accepted, and three of the faculty members were added to the new staff. i. 
For the Texas State Pharmaceutical Association, all of its dreams of the past decade were finally materializing. The phar­macy law had been passed in 1889 by the same legislature that had appropriated the funds for constructing the Medical Depart­ment. According to the timetable envisioned at the second meeting of the TSPA, this was the moment to begin working toward the establishment of a school of pharmacy. The associa­tion put all of its efforts over the next four years into arousing the public support necessary to prod the legislature into action. Texas pharmacists hoped that the establishment of a pharmacy school would not be as long in the making as had been the School of Medicine. The Legislative Committee of the TSPA urged all members to write letters to their representatives and to develop support among other citizens in their areas. This cam­paign appears to have been successful, for the records of the twenty-third legislature are filled with petitions from people in a wide variety of occupations. The following, read on the house floor by one of the representatives, is typical of such appeals: 
A petition from physicians and citizens of Caldwell County ask[s] 
for the establishment of a chair of pharmacy in the medical 
branch of the University at Galveston.15 
The campaign was ultimately successful. In 1893, two years after the Medical Department had begun operation, the legislature appropriated $2,500 to the budget of the Medical Department for the establishment of the School of Pharmacy. 
The Medical College Committee of The University of Texas Board of Regents met in June of 1893 to allocate funds so that the new school could begin operation in the fall. From the $2,500 appropriation, $2,000 was utilized to create a chair of pharmacy. Another $500 was added to the remaining monies, giving a total of Sl,000 to equip a pharmaceutical laboratory. Fees were set at $30 for matriculation and SS per year for use of the laboratories. 
14lbid., p. 113. 
iau.s., Texas, Legislature, House of Representatives ] ournal, 10January 1893, p. 599. 

No additional fees were to be assessed, nor would there be a tui­tion charge for Texas residents. Students from other states would be required to pay SSO tuition annually. The faculty of the new school consisted of a professor of pharmacy, serving an initial two-year term, and a professor in both chemistry and materia medica from the Medical Department. The program was to con­sist of two seven-month sessions over a period of two years, at which time the student would be awarded a Graduate in Phar­macy (Ph.G.) degree. 18 
Logic dictated that the new School of Pharmacy be located on the campus of the Medical Department in Galveston. Clinical and laboratory facilities essential for pharmaceutical instruction were available nowhere else in the state, and the funds to es­tablish the school had been appropriated as an addition to the Medical Department budget. Despite the fact that the idea of a pharmacy school had been discussed before the medical campus was established, no space had been provided for such an addi­tion to the department. The School of Pharmacy, almost as an afterthought, was grafted onto the Medical Department and al­located whatever space could be made available. These new quarters generally consisted of basement rooms originally in­tended only for storage. The new laboratories were dark, gloomy, and damp. Wooden platforms finally had to be built so that students and faculty using the laboratories would not have to stand in the water that often seeped in after rains or high tides. 17 
Faculty and students of the School of Pharmacy gained the impression that pharmacy was subordinate to the School of Medicine as long as pharmacy remained in Galveston. The School of Pharmacy, the School of Medicine, and later the Training School for Nurses were all subdivisions of the Medical Department, but throughout the years the School of Medicine played the dominant role on campus. The decision to maintain the School of Pharmacy in cramped and inadequate basement 
18University of Texas, University Course Catalogue, 1893-94, Texas Collection (hereafter cited as Catalogue). 1"University of Texas, Annual Report ofthe President and Faculty of The University of Texas for tM Session of 1897-98, Texas Collection. 
quarters is symbolic. of the secondary position to which phar­macy was relegated while in Galveston. Clinical and laboratory facilities on the campus may have been the best in the state, but no great effort was spent to set up adequate quarters for the new School of Pharmacy. 
PROFESSIONAL RECOGNITION 
FOR PHARMACY 

This subordinate position set the stage for the ongoing fight by pharmacists in the state of Texas for proper professional recogni­tion within the medical and health-care fields. Their status among the professions has long been a concern of pharmacists everywhere. Much to their chagrin, pharmacists have seldom been accorded the status allotted to physicians. The structure of the medical profession today has its beginnings in the guilds of eighteenth-century London. A short historical review will illustrate the traditions with which pharmacy has had to contend in its long struggle to obtain due recognition. 
Early medical practice in London was generally divided among the three guilds of physicians, surgeons, and apothecaries. Physicians were the elite, and though some began as apprentices, nearly all received a university education and the right to be addressed as "doctor." The other medical prac­titioners had to be content with "mister.,, The exception to this rule was the case of midwives, who received neither a respectful term of address nor any professional status. Physicians practiced largely among the upper classes, and though they dealt with all types of diseases, as gentlemanly scholars they did not work with their hands as did surgeons and midwives, nor did they engage in trade as did apothecaries. Surgeons and apothecaries learned their skills through apprenticeship and hospital instruc­tion, but their professions were considered peripheral rather than essential to the art of medicine. Surgeons used their hands to treat structural and superficial complaints that were below the status of the physician; the apothecary sold his wares and often­times prescribed to the lower classes, who could not afford the services of a physician. In the rural areas of England and most especially in the colonies, these distinctions became blurred as less highly trained persons assumed many of the functions of the physician. The physician was not as likely to give up his social position and emigrate to the colonies. Thus, guilds did not find a firm footing in America. 
However, much of this stratification, particularly as it applies to differences in educational requirements and subsequent social status, remains within the medical profession today. The College of Pharmacy at The University of Texas, as is the case with similar schools, has had to strive since its inception to maintain its integrity and to avoid being overshadowed by the medical, biological, and physical sciences. 
The endeavor of the pharmacist to attain status comparable to that of the physician has been exacerbated by the low entrance requirements of schools of pharmacy. The only requirement for admission in 1893, when the School of Pharmacy opened, was an examination to test the applicant's literacy and general scientific background (i.e., elementary physics and mathematics). In the School of Medicine, on the other hand, a high school diploma was required at that time for matriculation. 18 By1910, pharmacy study required one year of high school, while medicine required one year of college. 19 By 1917, medicine required two years of college, and by 1921, a college degree. 20 Pharmacy, which had by then been elevated to the status of a college, had to wait until 1922 before the board of regents authorized the requirement of a high school diploma for admission. 21 Beginning in 1925, the Col­lege of Pharmacy offered a three-year course. 22 By 1936, it had eliminated the Ph. G. degree in favor of a four-year Bachelor of Science program. 28 Today the B.S. in pharmacy encompasses five years, but pharmaceutical education is still somewhat behind medical education, which has now become a graduate program requiring four years of premedical preparation. 
18Catalogue, 1893-94. 
"'Ibid., 1910-11. 
20Ibid., 1917-18. 
211bid., 1922-23. 
22lbid., 1925-26. 
21lbid., 1936-37. 

Another issue that has been a source of grievance to the pharmaceutical profession is the recruitment of many of its graduates by the medical schools. Unfortunately for pharmacy, its programs for both the earlier Ph. G. and the later Bachelor of Science quite adequately covered the prerequisites for the study of medicine, and not a few students chose this course of training. A degree in pharmacy could gain one not only admission to a medical program but also a good job to finance the costly M.D. degree. A number of demonstrators and tutors in the early School of Pharmacy worked part-time to support their medical studies. A very early example of this· phenomenon was the case of Conn L. Milburn, an honors Ph.G. in 1897, who served as demonstrator in chemistry and botany to the pharmacy students while attending classes in medicine. The medical profession profited from the expertise of these physicians in the fields of pharmacology and therapeutics, but the pharmaceutical profes­sion was thereby deprived of some of its more promising stu­dents. 
DR. JAMES KENNEDY 
In September 1893, just one month before the school year began, the board of regents met to interview candidates for the chair of pharmacy. From a field of more than fifty applicants, the board appointed Dr. James Kennedy of San Antonio. 24 Kennedy was a physician, but he also held a Ph. G. degree and had operated a pharmacy in San Antonio before he began the study of medicine. His appointment appears to have been acceptable to both the medical and the pharmaceutical professions as ap­parently no objections· were raised. 
Kennedy's appointment set a trend in the School of Pharmacy toward a dual background in medicine and pharmacy. Both 
24C. C. Albers, "Fifty Years of History of The University of Texas College of Phar­macy," personal files of Johnnita Albers. In an abridged form, this paper was read before the Joint Session of the Section on Historical Pharmacy of the American Pharmaceutical Association and the American Institute of the History of Pharmacy at the 1948 San Fran­cisco meeting of the American Pharmaceutical Association and subsequently was published in American journal of Pharmaceutical Education 13 (April 1949): 376-85. 
~ 
~ 
e ~ 
I en (iJ
... 

James Kennedy and the first College of Pharmacy class, 1893-94 
R.R. D. Cline and W. F. Gidley, who were subsequently to oc­cupy the chair over the next fifty years, had training in medicine; it wasn't until H. M. Burlage became dean in 1947 that the school was directed by a person with a purely pharmaceutical background. The domination of pharmaceutical education by medically trained men was symbolic of the hold exercised over the School of Pharmacy by the Medical Department during the Galveston years. The removal of the College of Pharmacy to Austin in 1926 seems to have brought little relief, for the Depart­ment of Chemistry overshadowed the College of Pharmacy for many years. 
Kennedy's qualifications for the position of professor of phar­macy and lecturer on botany appear to have been substantial. He was born in Louisville, Kentucky, in 1863 to a family of limited means. To support himself and his family, he sold news­papers while quite young; at the age of ten he graduated to washing bottles for the drug manufacturing firm of Arthur Peter and Company in Louisville. This job served as an introduction to the profession of pharmacy for the young Kennedy. He advanced in the business, and the firm later paid his way through the Louisville College of Pharmacy, where he received a Ph.G. degree "with high distinction" in 1884. He returned to Arthur Peter and Company upon graduation and took charge of its manufacturing laboratory. A bout with tuberculosis, however, forced him to seek a drier climate, so in 1885 he moved to Texas. Galveston was his point of arrival, but within a month he had sought out the reputedly healthful climate of San Antonio. With his finances nearly depleted, Kennedy immediately set about to find some sort of employment. Strolling into City Drug Store, owned by Elliot and Ragland, he assured Mr. Ragland that, although he had no retail experience, he "knew more about drugs than could be read in all the books." His self-confidence moved Ragland to give him a job, and upon the retirement of Mr. Elliot the following year, Kennedy was awarded a partnership in the firm. 211 
28lbid. 
Kennedy's devotion to professional activities was equally diligent. He was a charter member and first president of the San Antonio Pharmaceutical Association and played an active role in state pharmaceutical affairs. At various times he served the TSPA as a member of the Executive Committee and Committee on Notes and Queries, as chairman of the Committee on Adulterations, and as vice-president. In 1890, the association sent him to Washington, D.C., as a delegate to the United States Pharmacopoeial Decennial Convention, which revised the United States Pharmacopoeia. During his tenure with the Medical Depart­ment, Kennedy also served as president of the Galveston Phar­maceutical Association. 26 
Throughout his life, Kennedy had had a desire to study medicine. While he worked as a pharmacist at City Drug Store in San Antonio, he devoted his spare time to the reading of medical books. In 1888, two years after assuming a partnership in the pharmacy, Kennedy sold his interest and enrolled in the New York College of Medicine. After graduating with honors in 1890, he returned to San Antonio, where he formed a partnership with a Dr. Caffery. He practiced medicine and sur­gery there for three years until his appointment, in 1893, to the chair of pharmacy in Galveston. 27 
Kennedy was as diligently involved in medical activities as he was in pharmaceutical associations. He became a member of the West Texas Medical Association, which had been organized in San Antonio, but with his partner, Dr. Caffery, he soon became involved in a dispute with the association's officers that eventual­ly led to the expulsion of both of them and the resignation of many other prominent San Antonio physicians. 28 
Kennedy appears to have been quite an individualist with a 
rather flamboyant style. A former student recalled that "by per­
sonal habits he would hardly have been chosen as president of a 
21 The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston: A Seventy-five Year History by the Faculty and Staff (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1967), p. 68 (hereafter cited as Medical Branch History). 
"Ibid. 
,.l+oceedings of the Texas Pharmaceutical Association 1890-95, Collections Deposit Library, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas (hereafter cited as l+oceedings of TPA, 
7890-95). 
temperance society. " 29 In 1894, Kennedy proposed that the Texas State Pharmaceutical Association hold its next meeting in Galveston a week earlier than was customary: 
[We could] all get there together to witness the magnificent blowout we [will] have when we turn out our first graduates in pharmacy. I am satisfied you all would be well pleased and enjoy it. We have lots of pretty flowers and beautiful girls, and everything that makes that sort of thing pleasant. 80 
Other members of the TSPA do not appear to have shared Ken­nedy's desire for a big graduation celebration in Galveston and voted to meet in that city on the scheduled date one week after commencement activities. 81 
Unfortunately, Kennedy did not live long enough to see his first students receive their degrees. He died one month before the graduation exercises took place in May of 1895. Before his death, however, Kennedy had signed the diplomas of the first two graduates in the following manner: "Dr. James Kennedy, Ph.G. and M.D., Professor of Pharmacy, Lecturer on Botany, and Dean of the School of Pharmacy, University of Texas." Eugene Dabney, who received diploma number one, recalled that Ken­nedy always signed his name in this manner. 82 
Kennedy had begun his two-year appointment with high hopes. In his address before the students on the opening day of classes in 1893, he recognized the Texas State Pharmaceutical Association for its role in creating a demand for the School of Pharmacy and for ''actively ridding the state of quackery behind the dispensing counter. "88 He praised the School of Pharmacy · for being as well equipped as any in the United States. This statement, however, was made before he had taken up his duties in the basement laboratories. A little more 'than a year later, he 
n<•The First Class," Texas Druggist, December 1931, p 17. 
80Proceedings of TPA, 1890-95. 
"Ibid. 
12lbid. 
18Ibid. 

was to criticize these facilities as being "far from what they should be.'"' 
His initial enthusiasm soon waned, and on 1 December 1894 he tendered his resignation to the board of regents, to be effective at the expiration of his contract on 30 April 1895. He explained to the regents that the climate in Galveston was bad for his health, but he also criticized the conditions ofemployment at the school. He reported that the annual salary of 12,000 was not ade­quate to compensate for the labor that the position entailed and that the facilities were inadquate for instructing the students. "Having placed the school upon a secure foundation," he told them, "I feel that I am justified in resigning.,,. These hanh words were softened, however, by his closing remarks in which he said he would always feel grateful to the board of regents for the honor of the appointment conferred upon him and that he would continue to feel a deep interest in the university.• 
Kennedy's health deteriorated so rapidly, however, that he was not able to finish out the school term. Shortly before Christmas in 1894, he returned to San Antonio, hoping that the drier climate would improve his condition. His classes in phar­macy were conducted by the dean of the Medical Department, Dr. Allen J. Smith, so that the students were able to finish their studies. Kennedy resumed his medical practice in his ~Id offius on Alamo Plaza, but his illness became critical and on March 29 he died. Kennedy had fought a long battle with tuberculosis, but it was Bright's disease that finally claimed him at the age of thirty-two. 
During his tenure in the School of Pharmacy, Kennedy was assisted by Dr. Edward Randall and Dr. Seth Morris, both of whom held full-time appointments with the School of Medicine. Randall taught the courses in materia medica and in therapeutics, while Morris conducted those in chemistry and toxicology. These courses were at times given in conjunction 
"L"ni\•crsity of T cxas, "Minutes of the Board of Regents. December 5, 1894," News­paper Colltttion, Barker T cxas History Ccnttt, Austin, T cxas {bcrcafttt rcfernd to as ~C""A-spapcr Collection). 
-Jbid. 
MJ:bid 
with those intended for medical students; at other times special classes were scheduled solely for pharmacy students. 
DR. EDWARD RANDALL 
Randall, a native Texan, was born in Huntsville but was raised and educated in Galveston. During the Civil War, his father, Samuel, and his Uncle George-both physicians-served as medical officers for the Confederacy at Vicksburg. The citizens of Galveston, however, petitioned the army to have them transferred back home to help fight a more serious battle, one of Galveston's yellow fever epidemics. After the war, Samuel, who had lost his wife to the fever, settled with his three children in Galveston. The next yellow fever epidemic struck in 186 7, and Samuel became a victim. His three young children were then left in the care of their bachelor uncle. The young Edward was great­ly influenced by his uncle and resolved to follow the medical profession. After attending preparatory school in Lexington, Virginia, Randall earned a B.A. degree and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa at the newly created Washington and Lee College there. For a year he studied law and then entered the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. There he received the M.D. degree in 1883, after attaining an average of 95 in medicine and of 100 in therapeutics. After an internship in Philadelphia, he spent two 'postgraduate years in Europe, attending lectures given by Rudolf Virchow and E. Martin in Berlin and Heidelberg, by Winckel in Munich, and by Carl Braun and Theodore Bilroth in Vienna. While abroad he met Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister. After the broadening intellectual experience of Europe, Randall returned to Galveston in 1886 to practice medicine with his uncle. 87 
Shortly thereafter he was appointed to the faculty of the Texas Medical College as professor of materia medica. After the Texas Medical College was succeeded by the Medical Department of The University of Texas, he continued to teach as well as to practice medicine. Randall lectured to pharmacy as well as 
11Medical Branch History, p. 34. 
medical students until the College of Pharmacy moved to Austin in 1926. He remained in Galveston and retired the fol­lowing year. His tenure spanned a period of over forty-two years. After his retirement, Randall was elected a life member of the Executive Committee of the Medical Faculty and later became vice-chairman of the Board of Regents of The Uni­versity of Texas. In this capacity he was able to render further service to the Medical Department. 88 
Randall was a man of many talents, and his public service ex­tended beyond the university. He was a member of the Board of Trustees of the Rosenberg [Public] Library Association in Galveston for twenty years and was later president of the Board of Managers of the John Sealy Hospital, as well as vice-president of the Sealy and Smith Foundation, which administered various philanthropic affairs. He served as medical director and later director of the American National Insurance Company, as direc­tor of the International Creosote and Construction Company, and as director of the News Publishing Company, which published one of the local newspapers. Despite all of these ac­tivities, Randall managed to maintain a thriving medical prac­tice in partnership with Dr. James E. Thompson of the Depart­ment of Surgery of the School of Medicine. 11 
Randall was a very dignified man in the classroom, not given to theatrics or humor. One student, however, recalled an exam­ple of his wit: 
Quizzing the class on drug dosage, Dr. Randall asked a student the prescribed dose of croton oil, a powerful purgative. The answer the student gave was "one or two drams," to which Dr. Randall replied, "If you gave that much to a bull, there would only be horns left. "'0 
This certainly was an appropriate allusion to make on the campus of the Texas Longhorns. Randall died in 1944 at the age of eighty-four; his only child, Dr. Edward Randall, Jr., followed a similar career, retiring from the Medical Departmentin 1959. 
11Ibid., p. 35. 
19lbid. 
'°Ibid., p. 34. 

u.. 
0 
> 
fa ' 
~ 
::> 
0 
0 
Edward Randall 
Seth Mabry Morris 
DR. SEIB MORRIS 

The third member of the first pharmacy faculty was Dr. Seth Mabry Morris, the only faculty member at that time with the distinction of being an alumnus ofthe main branch ofthe univer­sity in Austin. Morris was born in Austin, the son of a physician who had been one of the founders of the Texas State Medical As­sociation. Matriculating at the age of sixteen, he was a member of the first class when The University of Texas opened in tem­porary quarters in the state capitol building in 1883. Morris was a spectator at the laying of the cornerstone for the main building. ' 1 While an undergraduate, he served as tutor in chemistry with Dr. Edgar Eberhardt and received his Bachelor of Science degree in that subject in 1888. That same fall he entered the Physicians and Surgeons College of New York, which was affiliated with Columbia University. When he received the M.D. degree in 1891, he was one of 10 honor stu­dents in a graduating class of 125.42 
Morris returned to Austin to practice medicine with his father, but within two months he applied for and was appointed to the chair of chemistry and toxicology in the newly created Medical Department of the university. Morris, who could not have been older than twenty-four when he began his teaching career, re­called later: 
I was younger than most of my students and had cultivated a set of immature sideburns, was timid, but tried to be serious and dignified." 
When the School of Pharmacy opened two years later, these stu­dents were also added to his chemistry classes, which he taught until 1908. During this period he wrote four of the texts used in the pharmacy curriculum at that time as well as teaching ad­ditional classes in physics, otology, rhinology, and ophthalmology to the medical students." 
411bid., p. 41. 
UJJob Nesbitt, "Dr. Seth M. Morris: Sole Mmiber of the Original Medic.al Faculty Still on Staff of Institution," Galvesum Daily News, 6 December 1940. 
"Seth M. Morris, "Opening Address to the Medical Department," lJnUJnTity M«liml 41 Oanuary 1937): 8. 
64Catalogue, 1893-94. 
Morris, who was affectionately referred to by his early stu­dents as "Old Test Tube," found teaching conditions in Galveston less than ideal. 45 
[He] recalled that in his early years of teaching chemistry, lec­tures were given at two o'clock in the afternoon in the lower west lecture room of the Red Building (Old Main), with no fans, and he "didn't blame the students for an occasional lapse into audible unconsciousness." He also remembered that the terrific noise of the switch engines under the windows, although it drowned out his voice, helped to keep the students awake. By his own admis­sion, he was guilty of writing chemical equations on the blackboard with his right hand and simultaneously erasing them with his left. 48 
Morris spent several summer vacations in New York studying the diseases of the eye, ear, nose, and throat, and in 1907 he resigned the chair of chemistry and toxicology to become prof es­sor of otorhinolaryngology, a newly created position in the Medical Department. Later he explained that he had realized, in the early years of the twentieth century, that biological chemistry was growing in importance and would soon be the branch of chemistry to be taught in the medical school. Since he had neither training nor liking for biochemistry, he chose to take up a new area of study. No one, however, could be found to take his place immediately and for the 1907-08 school year he filled the positions in both otorhinolaryngology and chemistry. Of these hectic times, he later recalled: 
In 1908 I was teaching chemistry, giving lectures, and holding clinics in ear, nose, and throat, practicing my specialty [ophthalmology], taking X-ray pictures by day and developing them by night. 47 
This was one of the heaviest teaching responsibilities ever carried by a faculty member in Galveston. 
X-ray photography was another of Morris's many interests. In late 1895, Wilhelm K. Roentgen of Germany announced the dis­covery of X-ray photography of opaque objects. A small group of 
48Medical Branch History, p. 41. 
' 8lbid. 
47Seth M. Morris, "Opening Address to the Medical Department," University Medical 

41 (December 1936): 8. 
faculty members in Galveston foresaw the medical possibilities for this technique and began collecting the apparatus necessary to build such a machine. Morris found someone to translate the article describing the procedures from German into English, and the group proceeded with the project. A fourth-year medical stu­dent was induced to spend a part of the sweltering summer winding a coil for the apparatus, using an old Singer sewing machine as a lathe. Toward the end of the summer the final parts arrived from London, and the X-ray machine was com­pleted. R.R. D. Cline, the new professor of pharmacy, was a member of the group that made the first X-ray photograph in Texas. This picture of the bones of a nurse's hand was put on display in a store window in town but had to be removed because sidewalk traffic became obstructed as people gathered to view the curiosity. 48 Morris developed this technique further and produced X-ray photographs for other physicians in Galveston. He was fortunate to escape the malignancies and death that af­fected other pioneers in this field, but he did have a number of keratoses on the backs of his hands, which he attributed to X-ray injury.'' 
In 1936, Morris addressed the freshman medical class on the opening day of the session and explained his philosophy to them: "The only thing in life is uncertainty.... All is change.... Most of what you know isn't so .... Your certainties of today are your uncertainties of tomorrow. "60 Morris finally retired from his many teaching duties in 1937; he died fourteen years later at the age of eighty-four. 
LIFE IN GALVESTON 
When the first classes in pharmacy opened on 3 October 1893, Kennedy and his new students did not find the most hospitable climate awaiting them, nor one conducive to serious study. Besides the tropical heat and humidity throughout most of the year, Galveston had a special susceptibility to hurricanes and 
"Medical Branch History, pp. 159-60. 
"Morris, "Opening Address" (December 1936): 10. 
IOSeth M. Morris, "Opening Address to the Medical Department,'~ University Medical 
41 (October 1936): 11. 
fever outbreaks. Located on the east end of the island, the campus was particularly vulnerable to the winds and water and over the years sustained substantial damage from the storms. 
Water also created other kinds of problems for Galveston. Morris had been horrified at the state of the drinking water when he first arrived and gave this account of conditions at the seaside resort: 
All water came from unscreened overhead or shallow cemented underground cisterns and was literally alive with wiggletails, so that the water was always strained through a cloth before using, otherwise it would have been meat as well as drink. For most of the year mosquitoes were unbearable, the houses had no screens, insect sprays were unknown; we slept under hot mosquito nets over beds and to sit on a porch at dusk meant a real fight with towels and fans. 
A few years later Dr. Truehart, the city physician, improved the situation greatly by compelling the citizens, over much op­position, by a city ordinance, to screen the cisterns. 111 
It is not surprising that, given these breeding grounds for mos­quitoes, yellow and malarial fevers posed such serious threats to the health of the inhabitants. But it was not until 1897 that the concept that fevers were spread by mosquitoes gained any accep­tance. Once measures were taken to eliminate the breeding places, fever became much less of a pestilence, and quarantines were lifted against travelers and cargoes moving from Galveston to the interior. These precautions, however, did not come soon enough to ward off the yellow fever epidemic of 1897. The in­terior cities were quite terrified at the prospect that this attack might spread inland, and when an epidemic struck Galveston just prior to the opening of school in the fall, many parents sent their prospective students elsewhere. The effect on enrollments in the medical classes was devastating; of a pro­jected enrollment of 150, no more than 58 matriculated. For some unexplained reason, it seems that pharmacy students were more fearless, as the size of these classes was only slightly reduced.112 
611bid., p. 5. 
62l.Jniversity of Texas, University Course Catalogue, 1897-98, Texas Collection. 

An early pharmacy laboratory in the Old Red Building 
Heat and humidity combined to make the laboratory classes in the basement of the Main Building a trial. Conditions in the upstairs classrooms were not improved when fumes from these laboratories were added to the atmospheric problems. Kennedy, suffering from tuberculosis, found the climate of Galveston par­ticularly uncomfortable. 
The worst scourge of Galveston, however, was the turbulent weather that blew out of the Gulf of Mexico in the summer and fall. By the late nineteenth century, hurricanes had come to hold much less terror for the citizens than in earlier days of less sturdy building construction. Aside from damage to beachfront property and water-soaked merchandise on the wharves, the only loss generally suffered was a day's work while the citizens took a holiday and stayed home. When calamitous storms did materialize, the people of Galveston were totally unprepared for the destruction to life and property that resulted. 
Despite these adversities, Galveston was an exciting place in which to live and work. Ships crowding the harbor and im­migrants with their colorful speech; wealthy businessmen whose speculations caused Broadway, the main street of Galveston, to be termed the Wall Street of the Southwest and the city, the New York of the Gulf; the tourists who found the winter climate much to their liking68-all of these helped to make Galveston the nerve center of Texas and her gateway to the outside world. 
CURRICULUM AND REQUIREMENTS 
IN PHARMACY 

Classes opened on 3 October 1893, with a staff of three and an enrollment of eleven. The faculty attributed the low enrollment to "the fact that the School was not publicly announced until too late in the season to attract students to its first session. "6' The board of regents felt sure that this problem would soon be remedied and reported that "it is the intention of the Professors 
"Griffin, History of Galveston, p. 61. 
°'University of Texas, "President's Report of the Medical Department," Annual Report of the President and Faculty of The University of Texas for the Session of 1893-94, Texas Collec­tion. 
composing this School to attend the various Pharmaceutical As­sociations and canvas the State thoroughly in its behalf. "11 
Kennedy, Randall, and Morris administered the work, which extended from October to May in two sessions. The Ph.G. (Graduate in Pharmacy) degree program covered two years and was described by the University Course Catalogue as follows: 
The teaching consists of two lectures upon Pharmacy, two upon Chemistry, two on Materia Medica, one on Botany, and one on Physics, each week throughout the term, with two hours work per day for three days in each week in the Laboratories of Pharmacy and Chemistry.641 
The availability of the laboratories and clinical facilities of the Medical Department had been one of the main reasons for locating the School of Pharmacy in Galveston, and these facilities were put at the disposal of the students. The University Course Catalogue promised the student that work in the phar­maceutical laboratory would teach 
the various pharmaceutical preparations, official and unofficial; the manufacture of inorganic acids and salts; the separation of alkaloids, neutral principles, and volatile oils; the preparation of pills, plasters, fluid extracts, tinctutes, etc. The plan pursued will be to have each student conduct his operations in the same man­ner as if he were preparing the medicinal substances for actual use.67 
The facilities were described in glowing terms: 
The Pharmaceutical laboratory occupies three rooms on the first floor of the college building, which is admirably adapted to the practical teaching of Pharmacy, being well lighted and ven­tilated and supplied with every form of apparatus required for the teaching of this important branch. 68 
What the catalogue failed to mention was that these "well lighted and ventilated" first-floor quarters just happened to be below the ground level in a cramped room that seldom felt a fresh breeze but was often filled with water during periodic 
NUniversity of Texas, Biennial Report of the Board of /UgmJs, 1893-95, Texas Collection. 
,,.Catalogue, 1893-94. 
17Ibid. 
llJbid. 

flooding and high tides. Even as late as 1926, Professor Gidley taught classes in the basement "sometimes without shoes because of water. "159 
Despite these handicaps, the students were required to master a great variety of skills. In the basement laboratory they managed to manufacture 
salicylic acid, boric acid, lactic acid, aloin, podophyllin, gun cot­ton, sulphocarbolates, oil of copaiba, oil of thyme, terpin hydrate, pepsin, scale salts of iron, amyl nitrite, ether, chloral, acetone, gallic acid, pyrogallol. They also calibrated flasks and graduates, assayed asafetida, myrrh, cinchona, nux vomica, opium, bel­ladonna and their preparations. 80 
Very few pharmaceutical preparations, save the patent and proprietary medicines, were available in finished form at this time; the pharmacist's skill in making up the prescription was essential to the effectiveness of the medicines. Therefore, con­siderable lecture and laboratory hours were spent on perfecting craft in the reading, writing, and filling of prescriptions. 
The textbooks used in these first classes were the best ob­tainable at the time. When adequate manuals for the laboratory classes were not available, Kennedy and Morris wrote their own. The syllabus for the two-year course ran as follows: Remington's Pharmacy, Kennedy and Morris's Laboratory Guide, Shepard's Ele­ments of Inorganic Chemistry, Ganot's Physics, Bastin's College Botany or Gray's Manual and Lessons in Botany, Atfield's General Medical and Pharmaceutical Chemistry, and Wood's Materia Medica. In addi­tion, the students had access to the United States Pharmacopoeia, the National Formulary, and Remington's Practice of Pharmacy.81 
Such a rigorous course of study required previous and sub­stantial education, but graduation from an organized high school was not mandatory. In 1893, many matriculants at The University of Texas still prepared at home under private tutors. 
'WW. F. Gidley, "A History of the College of Pharmacy," Longh<mz Pharmacist, March 1950, p. 4. '°W. F. Gidley, "The University of Texas College of Pharmacy," Texas Druggist, September 1931, pp. 20-22. "Catalogue, 1893-94. 
To handle the wide variance in academic preparation, the School of Pharmacy maintained the following entrance require­ments: 
1. To write an essay of about three hundred words in length, as a test of orthography and grammar. 
2. To pass an examination in elementary arithmetic. 
A candidate who has a scientific or literary degree, or a diploma from a recognized normal or high school, or who has passed the entrance examination of a recognized college, or who holds a first grade teacher's certificate, may enter wit~out ex­amination. 
Students who have attended one full course of lectures in a recognized school of Pharmacy may be admitted to the second year of the course upon passing satisfactory examinations upon the Physics of Pharmacy, the Processes of Manufacture, and the Chemical Constituents of Official Inorganic Compounds, and the Pharmaceutical Preparations of Crude Drugs, General Inorganic Chemistry, and Materia Medica.82 
These entrance requirements, however, do not appear to have been sufficient to eliminate those ill prepared for the require­ments of the course work. Of the eleven students who began the course in 1893, only two were graduated in 1895. The School of Medicine was likewise plagued by poorly prepared students who were not able to complete its course work. When the School of Medicine raised its entrance requirements in 1908, its entering class was substantially reduced, but a higher percentage of stu­dents who attempted the work remained to graduate. The School of Medicine had always required a high school diploma, but the School of Pharmacy did not require such an education until 1922. By that date, home study was more or less a thing of the past. 
Another problem affecting pharmacy enrollments in the second year was the standards of some district pharmacy boards for issuance of a license to practice. Requirements varied from district to district, but one year of course work in Galveston was generally more than adequate preparation for the examinations. As a consequence, only a fraction of the 
°Ibid. 
entering students returned to earn their diplomas. Even when the district boards were abolished in 1907 and one board was created for the entire state, graduation from a college was not required for a license. Therefore, until graduation was required for licensure in 1929, many students continued to attend classes only until they were able to pass the examinations. The oddity was that such a practice was tacitly encouraged by many pharmacy proprietors. Although a great many citizens had petitioned the legislature to create the School of Pharmacy, prejudice against the college-trained ~'clerk," as opposed to the apprentice, remainecl for many years. This resistance to formal education was not a unique attitude in frontier areas at the close of the century; time and an increase in the college-educated population, however, contributed to a change in this outlook. 
While requirements to begin the study of pharmacy were not very vigorous, those for graduation entailed a substantial amount of preparation. The University Course Catalogue stipulated that · 
an applicant for graduation must have attended two full courses of lectures, the last of which has b.een in this school, and in order to be advanced to his degree, must pass satisfactorily an examina­tion in each of the branches taught here, and write a thesis (original) on some subject pertaining to Pharmacy, or allied branches of science. 81 
This amounted to 392 hours of lectures and 672 hours of laboratory work in addition to the preparation of the thesis. Those who earned the Ph.G. degree had certainly merited it. 
Degrees in the health sciences, however, were not difficult to come by at the turn of the century. Ifone could not complete the requirements of a reputable school, a "diploma mill" could be found from which the degree could be purchased. Medical dereliction and lack of professional responsibility had beset the nation for generations. Against this background the Medical Department at Galveston made definite inroads toward ensuring adequate health care at all levels for the people of Texas. As the reputations of the School of Pharmacy and School of Medicine 
"Ibid. 
spread, graduates from Galveston were preferred and even sought out over graduates from other colleges. 
The price of a good education at the university was very low in comparison to that of other schools. The university charged all students a matriculation fee of $30, to be paid only once. Therefore, if one completed .an academic degree at the main campus in Austin and then enrolled in the School of Pharmacy in Galveston, as a number of students did, there was no ad­ditional charge. Laboratory fees of SS per session per laboratory were assessed. In the beginning, the only laboratory courses were in chemistry and pharmacy, but within a few years physics and prescription compounding had been added. In 1893, these fees amounted to $20 in addition to the matriculation fee, total­ing SSO for instruction for seven months. Nonresident students were also required to pay a SSO tuition fee, but university records show that the overwhelming majority of students were from Texas.84 
THE STUDENTS 
The family backgrounds of the pharmacy students were as varied as the demographic profile of the state. Ifany parental oc­cupation prevailed, it would have to be that of farmer, as agriculture was one of the main industries of Texas at this time. Although school expenses were generally within the reach of most families, over half of the students in the university con­tributed to their own support. 815 
Another interesting feature of the student body of the state university was the presence of women students on campus. Education, particularly higher education, was far from norm for women in 1883 when the university began classes. The original legislative act establishing the university in 1858 had provided only for "an institution of learning for the instruction of the youths of the land" with the purpose "of conferring upon the 
84lbid. 
"H. Y. Benedict, A Source Book Relating to the History of The University of Texas: Legislative, Legal, Bibliographical, and Statistical, University of Texas Bulletin no. 1757 (10 October 1917), pp. 812-15. 
sons of the State a thorough education. "81 By the time the legislature got around to organizing the university in 1881, its ideas as to who was entitled to a state-subsidized education had broadened. This provided that the university "shall be open to all persons in the State who may wish to avail themselves of its advantages, and to male and female on equal terms, without charge for tuition, under such regulations as the Board of Regents may prescribe. "87 
Women were among the matriculants in the entering class in the fall of 1883 on the main campus. In 1895, two years after the School of Pharmacy was organized, the first women began these studies. These women, members of the class of 1897, were Sister Mary Etienne, Sister Mary Rosalie, May Everett, and Bertha L. Howze. Howze was a particularly outstanding student; for at­taining the second-highest grade average in the school during her senior year she was awarded the W. E. Hubbert medal.88 
To have had even one female graduate would have been in­novative enough for the School of Pharmacy in comparison with other schools throughout the South. In this same year, 1897, the University of North Carolina was opening its doors for the first time to women students, although it had been founded before the Civil War. However, its school of pharmacy did not grant a degree to a woman until 1916. 89 The University of Mississippi was no more successful in attracting women to its pharmacy program. Its school of pharmacy first offered courses in 1908, yet it was 1919 before a woman was awarded a Ph.G. degree. 70 The University of Michigan had led the way in pharmaceutical education for women when it awarded Bessie Good White a Ph.G. degree in 1883, but she had been thwarted in her career by the state of Kentucky, which refused her a license to practice that same year. White successfully sued the Kentucky State Board of 
..Ibid., p. 170. 
'1lbid., p. 226. 
"University of Texas, University Course Catalogue, 1898-99, Texas Collection. 
"Alice Noble, A History of the School of Pharmacy of the University of North Carolina (Chapel 
Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961), p. 61. 
10Leslie Caine Campbell, Two Hundred Years of Pharmacy in Mississippi Oackson: Univer­
sity Press of Mississippi, 197 4 ), p. 73. · 
Pharmacy, and the courts finally allowed her to practice there in 1886. 
Against this background of discrimination, the women of Texas benefited from residence in a state that sanctioned coeducation on a higher level. Though public opinion was favorable to such enterprises, it was still assumed that such studies would lead to the betterment of the home. Some women, of course, would become school teachers, and the enrollments in the literary departments of the university were heavily weighted toward such women. In the professional schools of engineering and law, however, women students were not seen, and in 
·medicine and pharmacy their numbers were substantially smaller than in the nonprofessional schools. Throughout the years, however, pharmacy attracted a higher percentage of women than did medicine.71 Of course, the pharmaceutical and medical sciences were eclipsed in numbers by the Training School for Nurses, which opened on the Galveston campus in 1896. Nursing was considered a much more appropriate occupation for young ladies, and the enrollment was limited entirely to them. 
Women in the School of Pharmacy had a champion for their civil rights in the person of R. R. D. Cline. In the opening ad­dress to the Medical Department in the fall of 1895, the begin­ning of his first year on campus, Cline left no doubt that he was a strong proponent ·of education for "ladies": 
Since it has been conclusively demonstrated that women reason and imagine as well as men, they should have the same oppor­tunities with men, and all walks of life should be thrown open to them. Their education should be of the same kind and degree as that of a man.72 
The women also found a benefactor in the person of George Brackenridge, a wealthy member of the board of regents. In 1895, he anonymously donated S50,000 for the construction of a 
71Statement based on analyses of annual enrollment figures from University Course Catalogues, Texas Collection. 72R. R. D. Cline, "Opening Address to the Medical Department," University Medical 1 (October 1895): 6-7. 
dormitory for women of the Medical Department, to be called University Hall. For some odd reason, nursing students were excluded and had to find shelter in the decrepit building that had once housed the old Texas Medical College. The wo­men in pharmacy and medicine, however, could avail themselves of the very comfortable, homelike quarters of University Hall. The main floor of the building was utilized for the Dining Club, to which the majority of students belonged. Any profits from this group were used to offset the operating expenses of Univer­sity Hall. No such quarters, however, were provided for the men, who were expected to find accommodations with private families or in boarding houses in town. The University Course Catalogue ad­vised prospective students that such accommodations could be had for an average of SS to S6 pet week. 78 Meals, however, were generally provided on campus, and the Dining Club appears to have served the social function for Galveston students that frater­nities did on the main campus at Austin. 
The Pharmaceutical Association of The University of Texas (PAUT) was organized in 1896 by the junior class "to bring all members of the Pharmaceutical Department closer together and to elevate pharmacy. "7' This group aimed to be more than just an honorary association. Regular meetings were held, and members presented papers on topics of professional interest to pharmacy. 
Prizes for academic achievement were established with the idea of encouraging and rewarding outstanding work. The Texas State Pharmaceutical Association offered a medal to the graduating senior with "the highest grade of proficiency in Phar­macy." After Kennedy's death, medals in his honor were awarded to the junior student with the highest grades and the senior with the second highest. The Singer Book Company of Galveston offered "an appropriate pharmaceutical publication" to the member of each class who attained the highest average for the year. And in 1897, W. E. Hubbert, one of the first two graduates of the school, offered a prize to the junior student with 
11Catalogue, 1893-94. 
14Caclus, 1000: Yearbook of 1he University of Texas, Texas Collection. 

the second highest average. In 1898, these individual prizes were replaced by the honors system, which gave recognition to those students with an average grade of 90 or better.71 
In response to this change, the Texas State Pharmaceutical Association offered a scholarship in place of its earlier medal. This scholarship was first awarded in 1899 to a promising stu­dent after the completion of the junior year. When first awarded, the scholarship was worth S150, but due to the conditions follow­ing the disastrous storm of 1900, the amount was increased to 1200. The scholarship was also changed to a loan fund in 1900, to be carried without interest until graduation, whereupon in­terest would accrue at the rate of 4 percent per annum, to be repaid in annual installments of SSO over a four-year period. Two scholarships were originally offered to honor James L. Hazlett and W. Arthur Skillern, a former TSPA president. In 1905, Frank Glassock, the first scholarship winner, donated the money for a third such fund in acknowledgment of his gratitude for the assistance he had received.71 
Some ex-students were prompt in repaying their loans, but other alumni either took their time in repaying the debt or defaulted entirely. The annual financial statements of the Texas State Pharmaceutical Association are filled with the accounts of such bad debts. The loans, however, were repaid at a sufficiently high rate to enable the funds to continue operation. In 1920, the Ladies Auxiliary of the TSPA offered a scholarship specifically for a promising female student, and in 1922 the auxiliary es­tablished a second such scholarship. The regular loans of the Texas State Pharmaceutical Association carried no such restric­tions as to the sex of the recipients of its awards. 
Over the years TSPA continued to support the School of Phar­macy. Its efforts in the 1880s and early 1890s were instrumental in the creation of the school, and after its initial vision had been realized, its continued support in the form of scholarships and 
11Annual Report of the PresidmJ 1897-98,' p. 67. 
1•R. R. D. Cline, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1905-1906," Medical Depanment Files, Records of the Office of the President, The University of Texas Archives, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas. 
loans ensured the availability of a pharmaceutical education to those who otherwise would have been unable to afford it. The as­sociation's efforts served to further its own cause, for in the con­tinuing education of pharmacists the profession gained accep­tance and respect a1nong the citizens of Texas. Many phar­macists still had never seen the inside of a college, but university­trained pharmacists quickly came to be highly valued and sought out by proprietors interested in a quality pharmacy. The Texas State Pharmaceutical Association's efforts in encouraging and supporting such education reaped benefits for both the as­sociation and the individual pharmacist. 
CHAPTER TWO: Development ofthe School 
under R. R. D. ClineJ 


1895-1915 

THE FIRST CHANGE IN THE School of Pharmacy came during the spring semester of 189 5. Kennedy had informed the board of regents of his intention to resign at the end of the term in April, but the rapid deterioration of his health forced him to leave Galveston before Christmas. His sudden departure left the pharmacy students without an instructor. Dean Allen J. Smith of the Medical Department assumed the majority of Ken­nedy's classes with help from the remainder of the faculty. 1 
In April, the Medical College Committee of The University of Texas Board of Regents again began the search for a professor of pharmacy. The number of applicants was considerably smaller than the fifty who had applied for the original position in 1893. All of those who applied in 1895 were considered by the commit­tee to be well qualified, making the selection of a successor to Kennedy no easy matter. 2 One of the strongest ·candidates was L. Meyers Connor of Dallas, then president of the Texas State Pharmaceutical Association. Connor's credentials were 
1A. J. Smith to L. Waggener, 3 April 1895, Medical Department Files, Records of the Office of the President, The University of Texas Archives, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter referred to as Medical Department Files, UT Archives). 
2University of Texas, "Minutes of the Meetings of the Board of Regents, May 16, 1895," Newspaper Collection, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas. 
52 

impressive. He had been both a charter member and first presi­dent of the Texas State Pharmaceutical Association and was a graduate of the Saint Louis College of Pharmacy. Connor's candidacy drew national as well as statewide endorsements. Those supporting him included William Simpson, president of the American Pharmaceutical Association; Robert G. Eccles, a well-known chemist in Brooklyn; C. S. Hallberge, director of the National Institute of Pharmacy in Chicago; and the editorial staff of the Texas Medical ]ournal.8 The committee, however, finally recommended Raoul Rene Daniel Cline, a pharmacist from Houston. Although Cline had limited practical experience in pharmacy, he had received an extensive scientific education­a rare achievement for a Texan in the 1890s. 
The selection of Cline illustrates the academic viewpoint of the board of regents in opposition to the practical philosophy of some of the state's pharmacists. L. Meyers Connor was a spokesman for the latter. He felt that the purpose of a college of pharmacy was not 
to manufacture botanists, analytical chemists, or microscopists, but simply to give the student an elementary or primary training in such branches in order, should he choose to make such profes­sion a calling in life, he would be better prepared for further prosecution, together with such limited knowledge as may be ex­pected of him by the people at large. 4 
In the 1890s a drug clerk received no more pay than a grocery or dry-goods salesman. Connor felt that, from a business stand­point, extensive instruction for pharmacists was of little value: 
To make a success of anything means nothing more or less than to make a financial success, and further the trade is not demanding 
'C. C. Albers, "Fifty Years of History of The University of Texas College of Phar­macy," personal files of Johnnita Albers. In an abridged form, this paper was read be­fore the Joint Session of the Section on Historical Pharmacy of the American Pharmaceu­tical Association and the American Institute of the History of Pharmacy at the 1948 San Francisco meeting of the American Pharmaceutical Association and subsequently was published in American journal of Pharmaceutical &lucation 13 (April 1949): 376-85. 
'Proceedings of tht Texas Pharmaceutical Association, 1890-95, Collections Deposit Library, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas, pp. 70-71 (hereafter cited as Proceedings of TPA, 1890-1895). 
this high grade of education. . . . The practicing pharmacist must look forward to his business interest, and his trade interest demands his closest attention to matters directly bearing upon success: devoid of these intricate researches that divide his time, and from which no fruit is the result of his labor. 6 
This point of view did not appeal to the academically minded regents, who preferred a scholastic and scientific rather than a business education for university students. With nearly ten years of academic training and numerous degrees to his name, 
R. R. D. Cline embodied the educational philosophy of the board of regents and was deemed the "proper person for the position. "8 Cline was therefore appointed for one year at the original salary of S2,000, despite Kennedy's earlier complaint that this amount was inadequate. The minutes of the regents' meeting offer no clue as to why Cline was only appointed for one year while Kennedy had been appointed for two. The board of regents, however, renewed Cline's contract in 1896, and "Dad­dy" Cline, as he was affectionately known to his students, con­tinued in the chair of pharmacy for twenty-nine years. 
"DADDY" CLINE 
The Cline home was in Woodville in Tyler County, Texas, when Raoul was born in 1868, but shortly thereafter the family moved to Houston. The boy's early schooling came from his grandfather Cline. Grandfather, however, must not have been an overwhelming influence on his grandson; although the Civil War had been over for many years, "R. R." considered himself to be a "rebel," in direct conflict with the Yankee cause his grand­father had supported. 7 Cline's southern sympathies, however, were not so strong as to prevent him from going to live with an uncle in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, at the age of eleven. In due time he attended Gettysburg College, now Pennsylvania State 
61bid., p. 273. 
1"Minutes of the Board, May 16, 1895." 
7Anna Cline Mann and C. P. Mann in an interview with C. C. Albers on the occasion of the presentation of the portrait of R. R. D. Cline to The University of Texas College of Pharmacy, t November 1952, personal files of Albers family. 
~ 
0 
~ 
0 ~ 
~ 
w 
l­
a: 
::::> 
0 
0 
Raoul Rene Daniel Cline 
University, studying during the winter months and working as a farmhand during the summer. 1 
After this brief stay at Gettysburg College, Cline traveled to Montpellier, France, to live with his sister, who had married her cousin, Louis Mercier, a chief chemist with the pharmaceutical company of Societe Anonyme de Croix. Mercier had a brother who maintained a large pharmacy in Montpellier. • Under the guidance of these relatives, Cline began the study ofpharmacy in nearby Lille and medicine and basic science at Montpellier. The Mercier family was large and growing, so to help pay expenses Cline taught English in the La Rue Boys' School. In 1889 he was awarded a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Montpellier. 
Shortly thereafter, he returned to the United States and in 1891 obtained a Ph.G. degree from the New York College of Pharmacy. After this stay in New York, he returned to Houston to practice pharmacy and in 1892 joined the Texas State Phar­maceutical Association.1°Cline's father had practiced law, so in his spare time Cline studied with an attorney and was licensed by the First District Court of Civil Appeals. He practiced law for a short time but eventually returned to Gettysburg College, where he obtained a Master of Science degree in 1896.11 His ap­pointment as professor of pharmacy at the age of twenty-seven slowed his academic career but did not halt it entirely. In 1909, while carrying a heavy, full-time teaching load, Cline obtained an M.D. degree from The University of Texas. 
The terms of Cline's appointment were no less hectic than his personal life. He was designated professor of pharmacy, lecturer in botany, and demonstrator in both botany and pharmacy. Though his primary responsibility was to the students in the School of Pharmacy, he was obliged to instruct medical students in pharmaceutical subjects and nursing students in matcria 
'Ibid. 
'Ibid. 
10Promdlngs of TPA, p. 82. 
11"A Famous Southern Pharmacist," SuutlzLm /fumnaautical joumal 9 (August 1917): 

635. 
medica and therapeutics. 12 Cline must have been a man of un­bounded energies. In addition to his classroom and laboratory duties, he somehow found time to do research. In 1901 the board of regents appointed an assistant to assume the duties of lecturer on botany so that Cline would be able to devote more of his time to research. Thus relieved, Cline pursued studies into the nature and effects of ipecac, digitalis, aconite, caffeine, and ergot, with much attention paid to the assaying processes. 18 The amount of original research that he contributed over the years was substan­tial. 
In 1898 Cline married Anna Kaufman, who herself came from "a family of distinguished educators and was a very able linguist. m' She quickly became a well-known figure on campus. According to one source, "She loved and mothered the phar­macy students, entertained them, was truly a mother to them. ma Anna Cline did not live long, however. She died suddenly in 1902, leaving her husband with a small daughter to raise. "Little Anna," as she was affectionately known to the pharmacy stu­dents, was a frequent visitor on campus and no meeting of the Texas State Pharmaceutical Association was complete without Anna and her "Dad. " 18 
Cline was interested keenly in his students and their welfare. In order to encourage those from poorer families to study phar­macy, Cline actively endorsed the establishment of the Texas State Pharmaceutical Association's scholarship program, the first stipend of its kind in the Medical Department. During the first few years the scholarship was off ereci, Cline personally paid a considerable portion of the amount. 17 He also sponsored hon­orary medals to junior and senior students. 
Cline's interest in his students extended beyond recognizing 
outstanding achievement. For those who lacked adequate 
''University of Texas, University OJurse Catalogue, 1902-03, Texas Collection, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter referred to as Texas Collection). 
""Famous Pharmacist," p. 635. 
"Ibid. 
18lbid. 
"Ibid. 
11R.. R. D. Cline, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1902-1903," Medical Department Files, UT Archives. 
preparation in one field or another, he would offer tutoring free of charge, a service that other instructors would later offer for a fee. During the sultry Gulf Coast summers most of the faculty and students would leave the campus for cooler environs, but Cline frequently spent these months preparing the laboratories for the return of the students in the fall. During one summer Cline tutored a young woman from the main campus at Austin who needed more preparation in laboratory work before she could be admitted to the freshman medical class. 
Cline brought a flamboyant style and a sense of theater to the dreary classrooms and laboratories of the Old Red Building. One student recalls Cline striding up and down the aisles, roar­ing in an enormous voice and frequently climbing on top of a table to emphasize his point. In class he would wear a fashionable stand-up wing collar and a swallow-tailed dress coat and would "flop those spiked tails around, while he paced back and forth ...[getting] chalk dust all over the coat" in his vehemence.18 Cline's antics served their purpose, however, for his students seldom forgot an idea that was so embellished. Louis Schleuse, who was in his junior year when "Daddy" Cline died, remembered nearly fifty years later Cline's lesson on frugality: 
At almost every laboratory session, Dr. Cline admonished us not to waste materials; a particular fetish was the conservation of powder papers. We were urged to use them over and over again. During one session he picked several off the floor, and from waste containers retrieved a number of crumpled ones that he con­sidered reusable. He smoothed out the crumpled papers and, holding all above his head, he rapped for attention. "Folks," he said, "look at these papers I found on the floor and in the crocks. These are still usable, and we are wasting the taxpayer's money!" 
He walked to the blackboard and calculated the extra cost for one school year if each student in the college wasted an average of two papers at each laboratory period in pharmacy preparations and prescription compounding. He had made his point. 19 
18Colonel John Bartlett in an interview cited in The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston: A Seventy-five Year History by the Faculty and Staff (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1967), p. 69 (hereafter referred to as Medical Branch History). 
11'L. W. Schleuse to H. M. Burlage, 30 October 1975, personal files of H. M. Burlage. 
Old Red Building 
Cline's dedication as a teacher would be difficult to deny. Kennedy may have complained that his salary was not adequate compensation for the hours involved, but Cline devoted far more time than was required of the overburdened chair of pharmacy. The extra hours he devoted both inside the classroom and out were given not out of a sense of duty as much as out of concern for the well-being of his students and the school. This devotion was amply returned by his students, who remember him fondly. Schleuse said, "My memories of him are still green-for as he often told us, 'Folks, as long as you remain green you'll grow; otherwise, you're just deadwood! "'20 
THE FIRST FIVE YEARS UNDER CLINE, 1895-1900 
Under Professor Cline's administration the School of Phar­macy grew indeed. In May of 1895 the first graduating class con­tained 2 members. Twenty-nine years later, in the spring of 1924, the graduating class numbered 37, and 482 pharmacists throughout Texas and other states had received their training under Cline. 21 During his first few years, Cline was faced with a very slim budget, inadequate laboratory facilities, and lack of ac­ceptance of his students by many pharmacists throughout the state. Despite these handicaps, he set high standards for phar­maceutical education, which eventually gained The University of Texas recognition for excellence. Under his guidance, the school grew from a fledgling stepchild of the Medical Department into a nationally recognized college of pharmacy. 
In the fall of 1895, the School of Pharmacy consisted of twenty-four junior students and ten seniors. Fewer students returned for the second year of the program because the ad­ditional course work was unneccessary for obtaining a license. Although education was not required by law, graduates of the school had the advantage of being able to obtain their licenses without examination. In spite of this, the four-year appren­ticeship was by far the most common method of preparation. 
20Ibid. 
21University of Texas, University Course Catalogue, 1924-25, Texas Collection. 

Quite frequently, students would attend the school only until they had absorbed enough information to pass the examination. In 1903 Cline wrote to the president of the university: 
I am sorry to report that during the current year, as in the past, 
much fewer students returned here to graduate than should. 
Indeed, so far as I have been able to learn those that could but 
did not return have not graduated anywhere, but obtained cer­
tificates from some one of the numerous boards and have gone 
into business. I am convinced that, ifjudicial district boards were 
abolished, a State board created and examinations be more 
vigorous it would result in sending us three times as many stu­
dents as come to us under present conditions. It would result in a 
very, very much better and safer service to the public.22 
Cline campaigned throughout his administration to have graduation from a school of pharmacy become a requirement for licensure, but without success. After this requirement was finally enacted into law in 1929, enrollments in the school did substan­tially increase, just as he had predicted. 
The belief held by L. Myers Connor that pharmaceutical education should be purely practical was widely accepted throughout the state, and many pharmacists preferred a clerk with apprenticeship training. Such a clerk-assistant would be well versed in the mechanics and operating theories, which had little relevance to dispensing prescriptions. 
Professor Cline took note of this prejudice and added a course in prescription compounding to the curriculum in 1896.28 He emphasized dispensing work because he felt that in dispensing "all the knowledge acquired in all the branches crystallizes. The work done here is proof of efficient or inefficient work in other departments. "24 Junior students received nine hours of instruc­tion per week in the reading, writing, compounding, and dis­pensing of prescriptions, plus laboratory experience in the manufacture of simple medicinal and cosmetic preparations. In the student's senior year, six hours weekly were devoted to the 
12Cline, "Annual Report," 1902-1903." 
28University of Texas, University Course Catalogue, 1896-97, Texas Collection. 
1'R, R. D. Cline, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1897-1898," Medical 
Department Files, UT Archives. 
dispensing laboratory and seven and one-half hours to the phar­macy laboratory. 26 
Cline placed great emphasis on laboratory work, justifying the expense of this method of education to the university president by reporting: 
This is the method adopted by the masters for training the best of their classes. It is this method that made many of them .... While making an apparently large and unseemly expense, in view of the quality of men thereby graduated I think it exceedingly cheap.• 
He believed firmly in his methods and felt that many profes­sional pharmacists were beginning to change their opinions toward formal education. He wrote to President G. T. Winston: 
To this feature of my teaching I especially attribute the favor our graduates in pharmacy are receiving, and to this I also attribute their high standing in pharmacy circles. rr 
By 1903 Cline was able to discern a definite change in the climate of professional opinion. That spring he noted: 
The prejudice heretofore existing against graduates has practical­ly disappeared. Pharmacists, actively engaged in business, realize the superiority of "Graduate Pharmacists" and invariably adver­tise "Graduate in Pharmacy preferred. "28 
In this respect, then, Cline had overcome one of the obstacles in his path and could turn his efforts to other aspects of curriculum that needed strengthening. 
In the fall of 1895 the original seven-month session had been lengthened by two weeks to accommodate additional work in the microscopic laboratory on the subjects of vegetable histology and pharmacognosy. In 1897 the term was lengthened to eight months, where it remained for the next twenty years. Additional course work had to be fitted into evenings or Saturdays. 
As lecturer on botany, which was a part of his job description, Cline devoted long hours to laboratory work and field excur­sions, as well as classroom lectures. Stormy weather, however, 
'l$Catalogut, 1896-97. 
-Cline, "Annual Report, 1897-1898." 
27lbid. 
38Jbid. 

The Medical Department campus on the western end of Gal~eston Island 
limited the number of such trips that could be made on the island and to the mainland. Laboratory work was severely hampered by the lack of apparatus as well as a special room for the work in vegetable microscopy and plant analysis. This work was performed in a corner of the pathology laboratory when this facility was not in use. 29 
Cline had great hopes for establishing a botanical garden on the campus of the Medical Department, which would contain exotic as well as indigenous medicinal plants. In his mind he en­visioned such a garden as embellishing the campus while giving students a "practical and exceptionally easy and interesting road to botanical knowledge. "80 Money was the major obstacle to Cline's dream. He estimated that such a garden would require $500 to $1,000 to establish and SSO or so a month for a gardener to maintain it. Plants would have to be obtained from around the world, and soil would have to be imported to replace the island sand. Because money for the Medical Department was extremely limited, many of Cline's projects did not receive funding. The botanical garden was not budgeted on Cline's initial request, but in 1908 the regents appropriated a limited sum for this purpose. The establishment of this garden distinguished the Medical Department as one of the few schools in the country to offer such a practical method of botanical instruction. The care of the gar­den fell to the demonstrator of botany on an unsalaried basis. 
Cline's duties as professor as well as administrator increased so rapidly during these years that an additional faculty member was appointed in 1897 to serve as demonstrator in botany and pharmacy. Conn Lewis Milburn, who had graduated at the top of his class in 1897, served in this position until 1904. Milburn's appointment was on a half-time basis because of limited means. He utilized his spare time, however, to attend classes in the School of Medicine. Upon graduation, he resigned from the faculty to go into private practice in San Antonio. 
29R. R. D. Cline, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1899-1900,'' Medical Department Files, UT Archives. 
1°Cline, "Annual Report, 1897-1898." 
Budgetary limitations created many more problems for Cline. The School of Pharmacy was housed in the basement of the Medical Department building in quarters that had been designed only for storage. The high casement windows admitted little light, and the foundation allowed considerable water to seep in. Instructors and students alike often conducted their experiments barefoot because of the high level of water in the basement.81 Cline reported that the lack of adequate equipment forced him to improvise many containers. Laboratory exercises conducted under such conditions were only partially success­ful. 82 Cline estimated that $600 would be needed to equip the dispensing laboratory fully and $250 to establish a botany laboratory. The board of regents was not immediately responsive to these requests, and the School of Pharmacy continued in its original quarters with outdated equipment until the hurricane of 1900 effected a general housekeeping. 
Besides the monetary restrictions imposed by the board of regents, Cline had to cope with the inflationary trend in the prices of drugs and chemicals due to shortages created by the Spanish-American War. In 1899 he made the following request: 
Apparatus from R. Muericke (Germany) $181.18 Apparatus from Eimer & Amend (U.S.A) 303.79 Chemicals from E. De Haen & Co. (Germany) 162.07 Drugs & Chemicals from Eimer & Amend 340.80 Repairs, freight, drayage, insurance, and containers 149.26 
$1,137.lOH 
This budget had been revised three times due to inflation when it was finally presented. 
Steadily increasing enrollments in both pharmacy and medicine made it difficult for Cline to predict in early spring the supply of chemicals and apparatus that would be needed for the labortories for the ensuing academic year. Many of the goods were only available through European suppliers and thus were 
11W. F. Gidley, "History of the College of Pharmacy," Longhorn Pharmacist, March 
1950, pp. 4-5. 
12Cline, "Annual Report, 1897-1898." 
"Cline, "Annual Report, 1899-1900. " 
subject to conditions well beyond his control. At least six months had to be allowed for delivery, which necessitated the es­timating of budgets more than a year in advance. The only ad­vantage Cline enjoyed on this account was the location of the campus near the docks of Galveston, where most goods entering Texas arrived. 
Cline operated under many handicaps during his first few years in the chair of pharmacy, but these did not seem to hamper his enthusiasm or dampen his desire to provide the best possible education to the pharmacy, medical, and nursing students who studied with him. In addition to the work he performed in the School of Pharmacy, Cline served as lecturer to medical students on pharmacy and to nursing students on materia medica and therapeutics. Pharmacy was not particularly a popular course with medical students, but Cline reported in 1900: 
The dislike that [medical] students manifested, in previous years, for this part of their course [i.e., pharmacy] has been gradually decreasing. . . . I attribute this change of taste largely to the fact that our present students are better prepared and more fully realize the benefits of such a course to the physician than in former years.84 
The University was one of the very few schools to extend such training to its medical students. Cline himself believed this to be one of the most valuable courses given in the School of Medicine. He felt that in view of the "almost criminal adulteration" of drugs being sold, every physician needed to become "acquainted with drugs and chemicals and their . .. modifying influences upon one another. "86 
The evil of patent medicines was beginning to receive publicity during the early years of the twentieth century. Through a series of muckraking articles in Collier's Magazine in 1905, Samuel Hopkins Adams did more than anyone else to bring to the atten­tion of the nation the extent to which highly dangerous drugs were adulterating nonprescription medicines. The Harrison 
14Jbid. 
161bid. 

Anti-Narcotics Act of 1907 was aimed at the elimination of such abuses, but the habit of "self-dosing" with patent medicines was so ingrained in America that the practice lingered on. These campaigns, however, had considerable effect on the attitudes of students in the School of Medicine. Instead of objecting to the courses in pharmacy, Cline reported many students were complaining that not enough time was being devoted to the subject. These students were able to see for the first time the relevance of pharmacy to their own careers. 
THE STORM OF 1900 
During the first five years of his administration, Cline had attempted to give his students the best education that the limited facilities in Galveston would allow. One of his problems, that of outdated equipment and apparatus, resolved itself in the fall of 1900 before classes began. The hurricane that devastated the Texas coast on September 10 and 11 did a remarkable housecleaning job in the basement laboratories of the Old Red Building. This storm of unprecedented magnitude laid waste to the island and city of Galveston, but the campus of the Medical Department suffered comparably slight damage. The laboratories of pharmacy, chemistry, and anatomy fared the worst. Equipment and chemicals were destroyed, experimental projects were swept away, and water soaked everything that the wind had spared. 
The citizens of Galveston had not been caught unawares. For days the newspapers had carried reports of a "tropical distur­bance" headed in the general direction. Few, however, paid any heed to warnings from the U.S. Weather Bureau during the late summer months. Although not in the usual path of seasonal storms, the Texas coast frequently experienced rough seas and high winds. As conditions worsened on Saturday, September 9, visitors and residents calmly walked the beach to watch the waves and the threatening clouds. The blustery winds, however, increased steadily in force, and the ocean's swells soon flooded the city streets. Only as inhabitants from low-lying areas sought 
The storm-damaged campus of the Medical Department 

refuge on higher ground did many people begin to realize the severity of the approaching storm. On the long, low island of Galveston, high ground was exceedingly scarce. The safest quarters were within the sturdy walls of the town's few brick buildings, such as John Sealy Hospital on the medical campus. 
The University Record gives the following account of the most in­tense minutes of the storm: 
About all was one continuous roar, the heavy sound of the rush of the wind like one never-ending, deafening thunder, drowning the cries of the distressed, the smashing of homes and the grinding of timbers, or merging them all into one in­distinguishable whole. The house, a large, well-braced frame structure, set on pillars a few feet from the ground, quivered and rocked, plaster fell, a heavy chimney came down, and the rain dripped and splashed through the broken windows and roof; but it all was a part of the awful whole. One room alone remained practically unharmed out of the dozen or more, and that one was occupied by the ... family.... Outside, to the south within sixty feet fell one house like a house of cards, crushing all within; to the north two, within nearly the same distance, were heaps of ruins; to the east a large two-storied house was swept into the yard from its blocks on the neighboring property; outhouses, stables, and sheds were all in one unending tangle and jam; and on the sidewalk to the southeast thirty feet away began the edge of the drift which was all that was left of thousands of homes. 88 
The winds lessened during the night after blowing for eleven hours. In many places, the waves had swept entirely across the island until they joined with waters from the bay. Everywhere a slimy, sour mud covered the city. Citizens came out of the shelters to assess the damage, bury the de.ad, and begin the task of rebuilding their city. Approximately 7,000 people, nearly 20 percent of the population of Galveston, had perished, and property damage ran into the millions of dollars. Martial law was declared to enable city authorities to direct the reclamation activities without delay, and all able-bodied men were put to work. Food had to be imported from the mainland, so those who refused to work were simply not fed. Waterlogged ground 
..University Record 1 (March 1901): 56. 
prevented the digging of graves, so the dead, humans as well as 
animals, were hauled to sea on barges and dumped. Many of the 
corpses subsequently washed ashore with the tides, necessitating 
the building of large funeral pyres. The enormous task facing the 
survivors was lessened somewhat by the gradual influx of relief 
from around the nation. On the campus, buildings remained intact and fared somewhat better than the rest of the town. According to The 
llniversity ll.ecord, 
the walls of the college building stood, but much of its adven­turous architecture was gone; the great dome was down and a huge gap in the middle part of the roof and front wall marked where formerly it had stood. The ornaments of the slide roofs, the cornices and gutters, the slates from nearly the whole broad covering of the building, the minaret-like caps of the ornamental pillars of the structure-all were gone or wrecked. The windows were blank, with broken glasses and ruined blinds, the porch scarred and broken, the approaches piled high with fallen bricks, timber and lumber wreckage; and a boat or two lay in the rubbish at the foot of the steps. The trees and fences were almost all gone: and the handsome lawn, which had come to be one of the orna­ments of the college, was littered with slates, glass, trees, and all types and descriptions of broken things. To one climbing over this rubbish and wading into the basement, one great jumble and tangle of chemical tables, gas and water pipes, bottles and ap­paratus, impeded the passage, in some places piled high, in others in low heaps of broken lumber. The floor of the west end, where the concrete pavement did no.t-extend, rose in hills as high as the waist and partitions and tables were thrown into an indescribable mess. So in the stock room, and so in the department of pharmacy in the east end of the basement. To the rear of the basement one could not penetrate directly from the front, for the partitions of the shop and all sorts of loose rubbish had been heaped up into a barricade over which no progress was possible. 17 
A brief survey of the wreckage was sufficient to convince Dean 
W. S. Carter that the Medical Department would not be able to open as scheduled on October 1. Dr. William L. Prather, presi­dent of the university, was undaunted; the message he wired to 
171bid., pp. 57-58. 
Galveston read, "The University stops for no storm. "88 His mes­sage was prophetic, although few in Galveston on September 13 could appreciate these words. 
If classes were to be resumed before Christmas, the arduous job of clearing the wreckage had to begin at once. Funds could not be appropriated by the legislature immediately, so Regent George Brackenridge advanced the university S12,725 to begin repairs. State funds were later allocated to repay the loan. Stu­dents and faculty alike pitched in to salvage what remained of the once-peaceful campus. The pharmacy and chemistry laboratories, soaked from above by rain and from below by seawater, were nearly a total loss, although damage to the remainder of the department was considerably less. The wind had blown the glass from most windows, and the contents of classrooms and laboratories were strewn about. Books and jour­nals in the reading room were badly soaked, but many were later dried out and salvaged. 
Such hard work bore out the truth of President Prather's words, and on November 15 classes commenced. The loss of a month and a half was not a serious handicap to the determined faculty and student body. Dean Carter was able to report that, "by a liberal elimination of holidays from the college calendar and by crowding class work as much as possible, the Faculty was able to recommend closing on June 15 "-two weeks earlier than anticipated.89 An early ending to the belated school year was re­quired so that reconstruction of the campus buildings by a private contractor could begin. These repairs were completed in time for the opening of classes in the fall of 1901, but many rooms and laboratories were plagued for years by falling plaster and leaking roofs. 
Despite the devastation, the storm did have its bright side. The University Record reported in December 1901: 
All over the institution there are signs that at least from a material standpoint storms are not unmixed evils. In the course of 
"W. L. Prather to W. S. Carter, 13 September 1900, Medical Department Files, UT Archives. 18 Universit-v Record 1 (September 1901): 291. 
the first ten years of operation of the school much of the equip· ment had become worn, some useless and much antiquated; and removal of a large amount of such stuff by the disaster of 1900 now proves not so much of a disaster after all, for it has been replaced by new serviceable modern apparatus.'° 
The laboratories of pharmacy and chemistry were rearranged and enlarged, new furniture built, and new equipment and sup­plies ordered. By the fall of 1902 the laboratories were in operating condition, although they still occupied the basement quarters. 
Repairs to the Medical Department finally reached SS0,000, a sum of much greater proportions in 1900 than today. ' 1 Such a figure, however, cannot represent the energy expended by the faculty and students in organizing classes and completing the work of a session under adverse conditions and a shortened school year. The president had been correct: No storm could stop the university I 
The storm, however, had repercussions that no one could have anticipated in the hectic days of September 1900. Several cases of typhoid and varioloid fever broke out among students in the fol­lowing months. Elmer Green, a senior in pharmacy from Athens, Texas, became delirious from the fever and jumped from a second-story window of the hospital. His fractured ankle became infected, leading to his death from gangrene. 42 Enrollments for the fall semester suffered a sharp decline, with the freshman medical class reduced by half. Fear of fever and the opportunity to attend less-handicapped schools induced many prospective students to sit out the year or enroll elsewhere. Students of phar­macy, it seems, had either more faith in the university or fewer options-their numbers were down by only one-quarter. 48 The botany classes, however, incurred a loss that could be remedied only by time. The winds and water had stripped the island of nearly all vegetation, leaving a salt-saturated soil that would not be capable of supporting plant life for years to come. Many field 
' 0Ibid. (December 1901): 406. 
"Ibid. 
"Ibid. (March 1901): 96. 
"Ibid. 

trips in the past had been taken to the mainland to observe vegetation that could not survive the island's salty climate, but in the years following the storm such trips became a necessity. 
In the wake of the disaster, the citizens of Galveston decided to fortify their city against a repetition of such a storm. Galveston's low elevation, in many places only a few feet above the high-tide line, was the major weakness in the town's defense against hur­ricanes. It was therefore decided to raise the grade of the island by five to seven feet and to build a seawall to break the force of the water. The seawall was completed in 1903, but the task of raising every building in town was of much greater magnitude. Wooden buildings were jacked up on stilts while workmen filled in the spaces below with a sand and water mixture dredged from the bay. During this operation, homes and businesses were con­nected by a series of catwalks. Strolling along these makeshift sidewalks and watching the filling operation became a favorite local pastime until the completion of the grade-raising effort in 1911. More substantial structures that could not be raised above their foundations were left at their original elevations while the grade was raised around them. One such building was Old Red on campus. The basement laboratories, which had been gloomy when only slightly below ground level, became even more dismal after the grade was raised by five feet. The building appeared to have sunk into the ground. 
The test of these protective works came in 1915. On August 16 and 17 a storm of greater magnitude than that of 1900 lashed the Texas coast, but the damage suffered in Galveston was relatively minor. The seawall broke the fury of the waves, resulting in a loss of only eight lives within the city. Damage to outlying areas beyond the protection of the seawall was ex­tensive, but within the city limits only S142,148 in property damage occurred." The time and money spent on building the seawall and raising the grade were clearly justifed, as the citizens of Galveston rode out this storm well above the raging waters. 
"Sam Griffin, History of Galveston, Texas: Narrative and Biography (Galveston: A. H. Clawston, 1931), p. 91. 
Situated at the extreme east end of the island, the Medical Department was afforded less protection by the seawall, which only extended around a portion of the campus. The total damage from the 1915 storm and another that had struck in 1910 was around $100,000. The damage done to the Medical Department was by far the most extensive sustained within the city. As in the 1900 storm, the basement laboratories sustained the most damage. The Medical Department, however, was better prepared for this storm than it had been for the previous one. At the close of spring semester of 1915, the vast majority of faculty and students left town for cooler climates, but department procedure dictated the securing of all apparatus and equipment against possible storm damage before they departed. Conse­quently, the losses were considerably less than in 1900. Cline reported to President Winston that, through the efforts of a gang of Negroes under his direction, a number of microscopes and other equipment had been salvaged in repairable condition. Glass ware and chemicals were totally destroyed, a loss that severely hampered the pharmacy and chemistry laboratories in the coming semester. An appropriation by the regents of $3,380 covered the cost of restocking these supplies.46 
Although damage to the campus was not as extensive as in 1900, school was postponed a few weeks while faculty and stu­dents pitched in to clean up the wreckage. Much work remained to be done when C. B. Carter, then a freshman medical student, arrived on campus in late September. "We were ... greatly shocked when we arrived at the medical school . . . to find water still standing everywhere with cadavers and other debris floating in the basement. "48 An outbreak of fever was always a threat un­der such conditions, but the fall semester opened in October 1915 without any such occurrence. 
Hurricanes would continue to harass Galveston in the coming years, but never again would the city or the campus sustain the damage of 1900. 
"R.R. D. Cline, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1915-1916," Medical Department Files, UT Archives. 
"Medical Branch History, p. 106. 
CLINE'S ADMINISTRATION, 1900-1915 

During the first decade of the new century, normal routine in the city was somewhat disrupted by the grade-raising operation, but business continued almost as usual. Despite lingering mementos of the storm, such as falling plaster and leaking roofs, the Medical Department pushed forward. Under the leadership of Cline, the School of Pharmacy grew to be the leading phar­maceutical institution in the South and Southwest. 
Dedication and innovation were the key aspects of Cline's ad­ministration. Despite the long hours and undesirable working conditions, Cline managed to be an effective as well as inventive educator. Continually aware of the changing conditions of the pharmaceutical profession, he modified the curriculum in the School of Pharmacy to such an extent that the school was not only responsive to the needs of the profession but often exercised leadership in bringing about basic reforms. Educational in­novation and the struggle to attain high professional standards were the principal achievements of the School of Pharmacy dur­ing the early years of the twentieth century. 
Under Cline's direction, the curriculum was greatly expand­ed. In 1893, when the School of Pharmacy opened its doors, only ten courses were required-two lecture classes each in pharmacy, materia medica, and chemistry; one class each in botany and physics; and laboratory work in pharmacy and chemistry. The first addition Cline made was that of a prescription laboratory in 1897. In 1903 he informed the dean of the Medical Department that it would be advisable to add ! courses in biology, histology, physiological chemistry, embry­ology, and bacteriology. Such additions, he felt, would "certain­ly put our school not among the first in the land, but the first. "47 To attain a competitive edge over other schools was not Cline's primary motivation, however. He was especially anxious that students in pharmacy be given courses in bacteriology and physiological chemistry "as such instruction will make them vastly more efficient to the public and specially fit ... as 
' 7Cline, "Annual Report, 1902-1903." 
members of State Boards of Health enabling them to do sanitary as well as chemical work in examination of foods, drugs, and waters. "48 
Cline was definitely ahead of popular opinion in recognizing the need for regulation and examination of foods and drugs. Despite the national controversy created by the expose by muckraking journalists of abuses of drugs and adulteration of foods, the Texas legislature voted down a pure food and drug bill in 1907. Cline was astounded at such shortsightedness. He felt: 
The revelation of criminal adulteration of foods and medicines growing out of investigations of Health Boards of eastern cities should be a warning to which we should pay attention. I believe it is our duty not only to prepare our students to do this kind of work but also to do all in our power to have laws passed control­ling sale of foods and drugs and punishing adulteration or offering for sale of unwholesome foods and deteriorated drugs or phar­maceuticals.49 
He urged that the medical and pharmaceutical professions do all they could to procure regulative legislation, as well as to modify school curricula so as to prepare students to render competent advice on such matters. 
The field of botany was an area in which many changes were made. In the original list of courses, botany was an adjunct to the regular courses in pharmacy. In 1897 Conn L. Milburn, a recent graduate of the School of Pharmacy, was appointed demonstrator in botany on a part-time basis while he pursued his medical studies. His course work included the recognition of crude drugs and preparations under the microscope as well as the determination of the order, family, genus, and species of various specimens gathered on field excursions to the mainland. Vegetation slowly returned to the island after being swept away by the 1900 storm, but specimens remained scarce for many years. After many requests by Cline, a laboratory in botany was finally established under the direction of the chair of pharmacy. This new laboratory was squeezed into the already crowded 
"Ibid. 
"'Ibid. 

basement occupied by pharmacy and chemistry, but the ad­ditional space at least allowed for more advanced work in botany. 
In 1903 Cline had urged the adoption of courses in biology, histology, physiological chemistry, embryology, and bacteriology.60 The administration was slow to react, but by 1910 Cline had finally met with some success in implementing these courses into the curriculum. Embryology and biology did not yet appear in the course catalogue, but the other recom­mended courses were incorporated into the curriculum for the junior year. Bacteriology consisted of seven hours of laboratory work a week for the last one-third of the session. 111 The addition of a special bacteriological laboratory greatly facilitated this work. 
Course work in the areas of pharmaceutical, medical, and analytical chemistry was added in 1904-05; this work was to be taken in the School of Chemistry. Subsequently this course work was expanded to include organic and physiological chemistry. This strong emphasis on chemistry for pharmacy students created a burden on the School of Chemistry, necessitating the hiring of an assistant to instruct the pharmacy students. Walter Garbade, who held an A.B. degree in chemistry from Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College (Texas A&M) and a Ph.G. degree from the School of Pharmacy, assumed the position of demonstrator in 1904. Ever sensitive to the standards of other schools around the nation, Cline was able to report in 1910 that the School of Pharmacy was on a plane with the best schools in the country. 62 
By this time the curriculum in the School of Pharmacy had stabilized; it would change very little in the coming decade. A quick review of the requirements for each class will show the ex­tent to which Cline had improved the course offerings. For the junior year, the major subjects were pharmacy (including 
00Ibid. 
61University of Texas, University Course Catalogue, 1910-11, Texas Collection. 
12R. R. D. Cline, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1909-1910," Medical 
Department Files, UT Archives. 
prescription compounding and dispensing), general chemistry, and materia medica. The minor subjects included botany, vegetable histology, pharmacognosy, chemical physiology, physics, and bacteriology. Second-year students were required to study pharmacy, pharmaceutical manufacturing, analysis and assaying, and the purification of drugs, as well as medical and organic chemistry and the physiological action and uses of drugs.153 
Cline gave particular attention to laboratory work because he felt this method of instruction was superior to classroom lectures. He attributed the increasing demand for graduates from the school to the excellent preparation the students received in these courses. The demand for graduate pharmacists was growing so rapidly that Cline was unable to satisfy it. He received letters "from druggists throughout the state who write me how well pleased they are and how efficient, industrious, neat, intelligent and upright our boys and girls are."" 
One reason, no doubt, for the solid preparation the students received was the close interaction with a dedicated teacher. With a total enrollment in the School of Pharmacy of less than sixty, Cline was able to tailor the course work to fit the background of each class. Thus, when he discovered that the majority of his junior students were deficient in the mathematics necessary to perform laboratory work, he spent classroom time tutoring them in this subject. In a similar manner, the junior class of 1902-03, which as a whole was better prepared than any of his previous classes, was able to complete a year and a half's work within the regular session.1515 Technical expertise alone did not constitute su(ficient training for a pharmacist as far as Cline was con­cerned. Along with skill as a compounder of prescriptions went confidence in one's work. Confidence, however, was oftentimes the most difficult quality to impart to his students. Out of neces­sity Cline would at times resort to amusing but effective means to make his point. A student recalled: 
neatatogue, 1910-11. 
MCline, "Annual Report, 1902-1903. " 
66lbid. 

The &hool under Cline 
On one occasion [Cline] spent more than one-half of the class period on the calculations involved in preparing W /V and V/V solutions. After concluding the discussion and answering several questions, he sent a student to the blackboard; he then dictated a problem to be solved by all. When the student at the blackboard had finished, he was asked to check his work. That was done, and the following dialogue ensued-
Cline (in normal voice level): Good, Mr. Wilson. You have an 
answer and have checked it. Is your answer correct? Wilson: Yes sir, I think it is. Cline (in rather loud voice): You think it is, Mr. Wilson? I'll 
bet you four bits (puts a half dollar on the table) it is not right! 
Are you still sure it's correct? Wilson: Yes sir, I believe .... Cline (not allowing him to complete the statement): Now I'll 
raise the ante and wager five dollars more (making a motion 
towards his hip pocket) it is not right! Wilson (now visibly nervous): Well, I thought I had.... Cline (again breaking in): Mr. Wilson, your answer IS correct, 
but even though you understand the problem and have rechecked your work, you have no confidence in your answer! (Putting an arm around Wilson's shoulder and turning so that both faced the class) Folks, when you understand a problem or an issue and have reached a conclusion you know is right, DON'T LET ANYONE KNOCK YOU OFF YOUR DUNGHILL! 68 
It is doubtful that anyone attending that particular lecture ever forgot the necessity of maintaining confidence in one's work. 
Cline exacted high academic standards from his students, and these were not achieved without some sacrifice. Students spent six hours a day, six days a week for eight months out of the year in the classroom or laboratory, with evenings set aside for out­side preparation. In two years they covered more material then did many students at three-year institutions. Cline, however, ex­pected no less of himself then he did of his students. His hours spent in teaching and administration often approached forty per week, with the preparation of laboratories and lectures and the grading of classwork requiring additional evening hours. 57 In 
HSchleuse to Burlage, 24 September 1975, personal files of H. M. Burlage. 61A. J. Smith, "Annual Report of the Dean of the Medical Department, 1902-1903," Medical Department Files, UT Archives. 
spite of such a heavy load, Cline managed to find time for other academic pursuits. Although The University of Texas Medical Department was considered a teaching rather than a research in­stitution, Cline devoted considerable time to the investigation of a number of drugs. His contributions to the Texas State Phar­maceutical Association were substantial, and he attended as many other pharmaceutical meetings as department funds would allow. 
The quality of education that he could impart to students was uppermost in his mind. After teaching in the Medical Depart­ment for a decade, Cline decided that his students, those in phar­macy as well as medicine and nursing, needed to learn about drugs and pharmaceuticals from a physician's perspective. Cline was the only member of the Medical Department not holding an 
M.D. degree, a deficiency he resolved to eliminate. While main­taining his full teaching obligations, Cline enrolled in the freshman medical class of 1905, graduating with honors along with this class in 1909. He never practiced medicine, nor had he ever intended to do so. His sole purpose in this undertaking was to improve himself to meet the criterion of his students. 
During his tenure Cline attempted to do more than just educate pharmacists. He strove to build The University of Texas School of Pharmacy into an institution of national prestige as well as to develop pharmacists in Texas who would be a profes­sional and competent group. In more than one instance he was one step ahead of the times. In 1903 he advocated the adoption of courses in bacteriology and physiological chemistry. These courses were finally implemented in the fall of 1908. Two years later Cline reported to President Sidney Mezes of the university that the Association of American Colleges of Pharmacy was pre­paring to inspect and classify all of the schools in the United States in an attempt to expose the poor ones and recognize those of merit. "I am therefore doubly glad we introduced [the courses in bacteriology and physiological chemistry] as, instead of being censured, we will be commended for the nature and extent of our work. "58 In 1911 he reported that "the best schools of Phar-
NCline, "Annual Report, 1909-1910." 
macy" were requiring these courses, and that, beginning in January 1912, the Texas State Board of Pharmacy would in­
clude an examination in these subjects. 59 
In 1903 Cline was also privately developing the requirements for a three-year optional -program he envisioned as leading to a Doctor of Pharmacy degree. The failure that year of a bill to regulate further the practice of pharmacy ended Cline's hopes of implementing this program. 80 Ifthe legislature was unwilling to regulate pharmacy to any greater degree, the board of regents could hardly be expected to approve a program of greater technical training for pharmacists. Cline's dream of a three-year program was not realized until 1924, the year he died. In that year a program leading to the degree of pharmaceutical chemist (Ph. C. ), which he had developed with Professor Henry R. Henze, was approved for a limited number of advanced students. Six years later, in 1930, the regular course in pharmacy was ex­panded to three years of study. 
Part of the problem of poor preparation lay in the condition of secondary education in the state. Although there had always been private academies and a few public high schools in the more populous areas, secondary education in Texas was not available on a large scale until after 1910. The Rural High School Law, enacted in 1911, created county boards of education to prescribe a course of study and establish high schools in rural areas. In 1915, under the sponsorship of Governor Jim Ferguson, the legislature passed a compulsory attendance law requiring children between the ages of seven and sixteen to attend school for sixty days out of the year. In 1917 this was raised to eighty days, and in 1918, to one hundred days. 81 These laws did much to increase the educational level of Texans in general as well as to provide better preparation for institutions of higher learning. 
In 1915 the School of Medidne required two years of work at a university for admittance, while the School of Pharmacy would admit those with no formal education. This simply meant that 
"R.R. D. Cline, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1910-1911," Medical 
Department Files, UT Archives. 
'°Cline, "Annual Report, 1902-1903." 
''C. E. Evans, 'I'M Story of Texas Schools (Austin: Steck Co., n.d.), pp. 120-23. 
medicine demanded higher standards than did pharmacy. Together with the Texas State Pharmaceutical Association, Cline agitated for many years to have these requirements in­creased. In the fall of 1916, the scholarship qualifications were fixed at eight high school units, which was the equivalent of two years attendance at a first-class high school. 82 In 1921 the re­quirement was increased to twelve units or three years' atten­dance, and in 1923 graduation from a first-class high school was finally required. Dean Keiller reported in 1924: 
The result of the higher entrance requirements has been very evi­dent in the higher tone of the first year class, especially in that only 3 were dropped for low scholarship this year after the first semester as compared with 6 last year.11 
Just as Cline had been predicting for years, higher entrance requirements eliminated those who were unprepared for the rigorous program of the School of Pharmacy and reduced the rate of failure in the program. The resistance to change exhibited for many years on this point is but one of the many obstacles that faced Cline and the TSPA as they strove to improve the quality of the profession. 
THE FACUL1Y 
As the enrollment of the School of Pharmacy burgeoned under Cline's leadership, the faculty also expanded. Demonstrators and lecturers were hired to assist with the teaching load in the subjects of pharmacy, botany, and chemistry. A demonstrator was responsible for preparing the laboratories before class, issu­ing supplies to students, and supervising the laboratory work. A lecturer took charge of the oral and written work in the class­room. Those in the fields of pharmacy and botany were under Cline's supervision, while the demonstrator in chemistry reported to the School of Chemistry. As enrollments continued to rise, these assistants became ever more essential in providing the individualized instruction in which Cline believed. 
"R.R. D. Cline, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1916-1917," Medical Department Files, UT Archives. "W. Keiller, "Annual Report of the Dean of the Medical Department, 1923-1924," Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
Conn Lewis Milburn 
The first assistant to be hired was Conn Lewis Milburn, who served as demonstrator from 1897 until 1904. Milburn's duties appear to have been quite varied. At various times he is listed in the University Course Catalogue as demonstrator in chemistry, phar­macy, and botany, probably serving wherever the need was greatest. Milburn was hired shortly after the beginning of the school year in 1897 when the newly appointed demonstrator, a Dr. Adolph Bernhard, resigned. An epidemic of yellow fever had plagued Galveston Island all summer, reducing enrollments in the School of Medicine by as much as SO percent. Attendance in the School of Pharmacy was little affccted, but this was slight reassurance to Bernhard. Whether the fever or general condi­tions at the school discouraged him is not known, but Bernhard resigned one week after arriving in Galveston. Milburn, who replaced Bernhard, found that teaching duties left him plenty of free time, which he utilized to study medicine. On receiving his 
M.D. degree in 1904, he resigned from the School of Pharmacy and returned to San Antonio to practice medicine. 
The next demonstrator to be hired was John 0. Kemp, a senior pharmacy student when he was appointed to the position. Although Kemp's appointment was also on a half-time basis, his duties kept him very busy. In addition to assisting Cline with laboratory classes, he served as both lecturer and demonstrator in botany. With Kemp's assistance, Cline reported to Dean Carter in 1903, the junior pharmacy class was able to ac­complish the equivalent of one and a half year's work in the course of the regular session. Cline also found the work done in botany to be excellent. 
The students seemed to enter into [the work] with more interest and so far as I can learn are well pleased with results obtained. The good work done in this department is due almost entirely to Mr. John Kemp's deep interest and faithful application." 
The course was conducted almost entirely by Kemp, who delivered the lectures and gave the laboratory instruction. The class, however, was severely hampered by lack of both apparatus 
"Cline, "Annual Report, 1902-1903." 
and a room for the microscopical work, a situation that had held back study in botany from the beginning. In field work, Kemp was assisted by Milburn, who had given the class in previous years. Additional classroom work by Kemp in the area of crude drugs allowed Cline to devote more of his own time to pharmacy and prescription work. 
Professor Cline took a personal interest in Kemp's career and advised him to prepare himself for either a regular position at another institution or as a government expert in the field of food and drugs. Kemp heeded this advice and spent his summer vaca­tions at various schools in the East taking postgraduate work in botany .16 In 1904 Kemp was appointed as demonstrator and lec­turer in botany as well as in pharmacy, while Milburn was as­signed to the School of Chemistry. 88 The following year both resigned. 
John C. Buckner was hired to replace Kemp in pharmacy and botany, and Walter Tell Garbade was appointed demonstrator in chemistry. Following the precedent to employ graduates of the school, both Buckner and Garbade were former students of Cline's. Garbade, with an A.B. degree in chemistry from Texas A&M, had received his Ph.G. degree in 1903. Buckner had graduated in the pharmacy class of 1904. Buckner and Garbade were both to be on a full-time basis, which represented a change from the half-time positions of their predecessors. With enroll­ments steadily expanding, the instructional work in the School of Pharmacy had become more than a half-time demonstrator could manage. 
Buckner devoted long hours to the school. Between twenty 
and thirty hours per week were spent in classroom and 
laboratory work, leaving afternoons and evenings for course 
preparation and the grading of student work. Cline was pleased 
with the results of these efforts, reporting to the university presi­
dent that Buckner's work "has been the equal of that done in the 
very best schools of America" and that his assistance "has made 
it possible to give our students more and more advanced work 
"Ibid. 
"University of Texas, University Course Catalogue, 1903-04, Texas Collection. 

Walter Tell Garbadc 
than is given in the majority of the best schools. "87 Cline, ever sensitive to the quality of education in Texas, constantly strove to bring his school up to the standards set by those in the eastern states. 
Buckner's duties as demonstrator were varied. He assisted Cline in the pharmacy courses given to medical students. These classes were an added burden on the chair of pharmacy, and Cline reported that he could not have accomplished the ad­ditional work without "Mr. Buckner's very valuable assistance. "88 The botanical gardens, established in 1908, were under Buckner's care, as were the botany classes for both phar­macy and medical students. In 1911 Cline reported that the work Buckner was doing in botany, vegetable microscopy, and the microscopic study of powdered drugs and chemicals "was abreast with that of the very best schools in America. "89 
Cline may have aspired to the academic standards he believed to be set by the established schools, but he could not compete in the realm of salaries. This was a problem with which the Medical Department in general was plagued, and one that made it difficult to attract and retain highly qualified personnel. The School of Pharmacy seems to have been frequently on the short end of these appropriations, as the case of Buckner reveals. 
Buckner was hired in 1904 at an annual salary of S1,000 and advanced in 1907 to S1,200. Garbade, hired the same year at S1, 100, had been advanced to $1,500 by 1910. To supplement his salary, Garbade conducted private quiz classes, for which he received S150 to S200 per year. Cline called the attention of President Mezes to the fact that Buckner, who devoted more hours to the university than did Garbade, had no outside source of income. "Now Mr. Garbade certainly earns all he is paid,'' Cline wrote, "and I was very pleased to see his work appreciated and recompensed. ''1° The fact that Garbade held an additional 
ITR.. R. D. Cline, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1911-1912," Medical Department Files, UT Archives. 
•R.R. D. Cline, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1913-1914," Medical 
Department Files, 	UT Archives. "Cline, "Annual Report, 1910-1911." 1°Cline, "Annual Report, 1909-1910." 
degree in chemistry may have had some bearing on the dif­ferences in salary, but Cline did not mention this. Buckner, nevertheless, was being paid S600 a year less than what he could have made in a wholesale or even a first-class retail drug outlet. 71 He had, in fact, received more than one offer to go into commer­cial pharmacy but preferred teaching. 72 In addition to his work with the Medical Department, Buckner served as a delegate to the 1910 convention for the revision of the United States Phar­macopoeia.78 
The problem of salary discrepancies was not the fault of the faculty, which year after year had recommended Buckner for salary advancement. The Medical Department operated on a very slim budget, and the needs of the School of Pharmacy were not considered to be among the most pressing. One year the faculty recommended salary increases for the professor of pathology and the assistants in anatomy and chemistry, as well as the establishment of a chair of preventative medicine with a professor and an assistant. They also recommended a raise for Buckner, but the available funds were exhausted before his name was reached.74 Finally, in 1912, Cline offered to trim his budgetary request if this money could be used to increase Buckner's salary, saying "I would much rather have to push and squeeze along on S 1,000 per year and have my assistant Mr. Buckner's salary increased to Sl,500, as I realize that good teaching is even more important than an abundance of material. "715 Buckner eventually received his raise, but his salary as demonstrator of pharmacy would never be on a par with that of the demonstrator of chemistry. In 1920 he was finally made adjunct professor with a salary of S2,400, but in 1922 he resigned this position to go into the more lucrative practice of commercial pharmacy. 
Walter Garbade was another faculty member who would eventually retire to go into private practice. A native of Flatonia, 
711bid. 
72Cline, "Annual Report, 1911-1912." 
78The spelling was later anglicized to United States Pharmacopeia. 
7'Cline, "Annual Report, 1913-1914." 
76Cline, "Annual Report, 1911-1912." 

Texas, he had attended Texas A&M, where he had received the highest military and scholastic honors. After receiving his degree in chemistry in 1901, he immediately enrolled in the course in pharmacy in Galveston and graduated there in 1903. He was hired the following year as demonstrator in chemistry. Although he worked under the direction of the chair of chemistry, his teaching duties were primarily with the students in pharmacy. 
In 1910 the professor of chemistry resigned, and numerous students in both medicine and pharmacy petitioned the dean in support of Garbade's appointment to the position. Garbade, however, was not seriously considered for appointment to a chair in the Medical Department. Dean Carter felt that without an 
M.D. or other advanced degree Garbade was not qualified to fill the position. It was believed that his training in pharmacy did not qualify him to head the School of Chemistry in the area of organic chemistry and in the physiological and pathological processes in biochemistry. 78 These were the areas that the faculty had decided the School of Chemistry should develop. 
Garbade had two inadequacies in his background. Despite the fact that he was a very popular teacher, he had not received any advanced training. Although the Medical Department generally required an M.D. degree of all its faculty members, it was con­ceded that in specialized areas such as pharmacy and chemistry an advanced degree in one of those fields would suffice. An A.B. degree from Texas A&M, such as Garbade possessed, was con­sidered neither adequate training nor prestigious enough as credential for a full professorship in the School of Chemistry. Also, Garbade had not conducted any original research. Dean Carter advised the president that he did not feel Garbade "capable of doing research work" but had to admit that there were no facilities for that type of work anyway. Even if such facilities had been available, Garbade's teaching load would not have allowed time for such additional work. 77 The position final­ly went to Dr. William A. Rose. 
7'Carter to S. E. Mezcs, 19 May 1910, Medical Department Files, UT Archives. 77lbid. 
Under the direction of Rose, the School of Chemistry was reorganized in 1913. Garbade was promoted from demonstrator to adjunct professor at a salary of S1,800 per year and put in charge of teaching inorganic chemistry to the medical students and all of the chemistry and physics classes to pharmacy stu­dents. Such an arrangement freed Rose to devote his time to developing the physiological and pathological aspects of chemistry.78 
Garbade was a dedicated instructor if not a well-known scien­tist. One of his contributions to the field was his Laboratory Manual of Inorganic Chemistry, which he prepared to assist his stu­dents in mastering the basic aspects of chemistry. When ex­amination time approached, he would conduct after-class review sessions, which were heavily attended. The strongest evidence of his teaching success lies in the memories of his students. Shortly before the outbreak of the First World War, the father of a former student wrote to Garbade saying that his son had told him that "he never had an instructor who was as lucid in his ex­planations and teaching as you were ... [and] you gave him a lasting knowledge of the subject of chemistry. "79 
Though a scientist by training, Garbade had a broad and idealist view of the world of science that contrasted with the nar­row professionalism of some of his colleagues. Speaking at a formal opening in the Medical Department shortly after the out­break of war in 1914, he expressed the hope that chemists would ultimately be able to make war impossible: 
While the work of chemistry in the main is constructive it is not always so, for at times it also becomes destructive. The enor­mous slaughter of men and destruction of property in the pre­sent conflict between the European nations has been made possi­ble by the chemist who has placed in the hands of men powerful weapons and explosives which cannot be resisted. Let us hope that the chemists will continue their investigations along these lines and bring forth explosives and weapons of warfare so power­ful and destructive that war will become impossible; and in its 
7'Carter to Mezes, 18 April 1910 and 18 October 1913, Medical Department Files, UT Archives. 
711john K. Edwards to W. T. Garbade, 27 June 1914, personal files of Garbade family. 
place let there be arbitration, careful investigation of the ques­tions involved and amicable adjustment. Then will we have disar­mament, the swords will be turned into plowshares, the golden grain will flourish where once flowed the martyr's blood and the vast armies of men will engage in the support of nations instead of being supported by them. 80 
Little could he know how nonprophetic his words would be. Not only would the achievements of his fellow chemists not bring peace, but they would make possible another, far more destruc­tive war within the span of his own lifetime. 
STUDENT LIFE 
The frivolity normally associated with life on a college campus was a rare diversion in the Medical Department. Long hours in the classroom and laboratory left little time for socializing. Classes were held six days a week, and most evening hours were spent in preparation for the next day's class or laboratory. 1he Alcalde, the student magazine, gave an idea of the extent to which medical matters dominated students' lives: 
The talk is all shop-talk, at meals, at night, between the acts at the theatre, even sometimes in unguarded moments while call­ing. There is no beautiful campus, covered with bluebonnets and poppies, and populated by strolling couples. Instead, at intervals over the rough shell sidewalks, there rushe's a horde of busy men and women whose clothes are designed more for service than for display. Occasionally one sees the opposite sexes walking together, but if one listens to their conversation, he will hear dis­cussed the romantic and sentimental topics of extirpation of the gall bladder, typhoid, fibroids, and kindred ills. 81 
Fraternities and sororities may have been the mainstay of stu­dent activities on the main campus, but in Galveston oppor­tunities for intermingling were limited: 
Of social life there is very little. The great majority of the stu­dents belong to the Men's Dining Club, an organization which lives strictly up to its name. . . . Some calling is done among the calico of the city but it does not amount to much. 82 
'°Galveston Daily News, 3 October 1914. 
11"From the Medical Department," Alcalde 2 (November 1914): 88. 
atibid., pp. 85-86. 

With the crowded schedules that the pharmacy and medical students faced, very little time remained at the end of the day for lighthearted recreations. Likewise, little time was available for physical exercise, and none was allotted in the course schedule. In 1910 Dean Carter suggested to the president that tennis and handball courts be built on campus: 
The students of this department suffer greatly from the lack of physical exercise. Few of them are accustomed to such hard men­tal work and such sedentary lives as they lead during the . . . course. 88 
Hard work and lack of recreation, he noted, were taking an enor­mous toll of the health of many students: 
Quite a number have become nervous wrecks and others have developed tuberculosis. A very large proportion of them suffer from digestive derangements caused by continuous mental work without any recreation. They recover from these disturbances during the summer vacation as the result of getting more exercise, but return to the same condition each session. 14 
Occasionally, however, students devised methods of recreation other than tennis and handball. The annual football game between the university and Texas A&M was an exciting event, and many students would travel by train to the Austin or College Station campus for the game. During the era of Prohibition, stu­dent frivolity proved disconcerting to the university president. In 1922 President Vinson wired the dean shortly before the annual game, urging him to curb some of the less acceptable enthusiasms: 
The U.S. Marshall has informed me that certain students or groups of students in the Medical Branch of the University con­template the transportation of whiskey from Galveston to Austin in connection with the Thanksgiving football game. . . . Please call a meeting of the entire student body of the Medical Branch, and inform them that if any such act is contemplated it will be carried out at a risk of detection which is almost certain, and that in addition to the penalties imposed by law for such violation 
"W. S. Carter, "Annual Report of the Dean of the Medical Branch, 1909-1910," Medical Department Files, UT Archives. "Ibid. 
every case will be seriously disciplined by the University authorities.... I am loath to believe that any such action is con­templated by University students, and the discovery of any stu­dents participating in such action would be a humiliating disap­pointment to me. 86 
If any students ignored these warnings, they did so successfully, for no record exists of any being caught in the act of nipping bootleg whiskey at the 1922 game. 
Student government on the Galveston campus did not have the importance it did in Austin for budding politicians, but it did provide the students with a small voice in department affairs and a little diversion from their studies. During the 1911-12 session, students drew up a new constitution that enfranchised the nurs­ing students, who until then had not enjoyed the v()ting rights granted to students in pharmacy and medicine. Student affairs were administered by an executive committee elected by the various classes within the Medical Department. The enfranchisement of students from the Training School for Nurses gave women considerable influence on the campus. After the constitution was revised, women began to flex their political muscles. The Alcalde of 1913 noted: 
We have not been without our suffragette demonstrations. Ex­citement ran high for some time, during the adoption of the new constitution, when our women students, who were the "op­pressed" minority, clamored for constitutionally assured repre­sentation for the weaker sex upon the Executive Committee. Man's brutality refused this in a legal form, and then proceeded to the election of a woman member of the Committee. Women are always eligible to office on the Committee, and as far back as the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, have held offices in the student body. 841 
Despite the playful note of this article, the fact remains that on the Galveston campus, as well as throughout tl].e country, women were exercising their political strength and demanding equal political rights with men. The student government in 
86R. E. Vinson to Keiller, 28 November 1922, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. "''From the Medical Department," Alcalde 1 Oune 1913): 283. 
94 The Galveston Era 
Galveston, however, was many years ahead of the rest of the na­tion in granting women the right to vote. 
Student politics, an occasional football game, or a round of tennis were some of the the few diversions available to students in the Medical Department. Obtaining a medical or phar­maceutical education was a serious matter and demanded nearly all of a student ,s time and energies. Although Galveston was a winter resort and the playground of Texas, the Medical Depart­ment campus was, for the most part, a somber place. To a visitor, the campus would appear deserted. Suddenly a bell would ring signaling the end of one hour of classes, and the campus would fill with students rushing from classroom to laboratory. In a few minutes the campus would again be silent as the scholars retreated for another hour of concentration. 
Students of pharmacy were particularly busy, as the two-year instruction under "Daddy,, Cline covered as much material as other schools in the nation included in three years. According to The Alcalde: 
Professor Klein [sic], of the School of Pharmacy (Galveston) has a neat way of evading faculty regulations. There is a rule re­quiring all exams to be only three hours long. Professor Klein [sic] is therefore going to give his classes two examinations. 87 
Cline, however, was sympathetic and kind. Although he demanded a great deal of application from his students, he went to great lengths to ensure that they were well prepared for their future roles. A pupil of Cline,s recalls: 
Dr. Cline patiently coached us in the proper way to take prescrip­tions over the telephone-although no telephones existed except in our imagination. Shortly after we had learned about the history of the prescription, its several parts, and some of the more com­monly used directions given by physicians to pharmacists and patients, our laboratory assignments were often given "over the 
87" In the Medical Department," Alcalde, May 1896, p. 8. (Early issues of the Alcalde were published independently as a weekly journal for The University of Texas. In 1913, the format was changed and the Alcalde became the official publication of former students of The University of Texas.) 
telephone" with some member of the class serving as the answer­ing pharmacist. All of us, therefore, had to follow closely the in­terchange between teacher and student. 
We could always expect a little extra something to keep our at­tention. Quotations from the Bible, Victor Hugo, Ben Franklin, etc., were heard often; short colorful stories were delivered, often in dialect, with appropriate gestures and facial expressions. One day he came through the doorway saying, "Tingaling, Tingaling," until he had reached his usual station. He pointed to a student and said, "Mr. Smith, that was your telephone ringing." Smith, who had learned the modus operandi well, answered: 
Smith: Hello. This is Smith's Pharmacy. Smith speaking. 
Cline: Dr. Cline speaking. This is for Baby Mary Caldwell. Age 2 years-610 Avenue H. Smith: For Baby Mary Caldwell, Age 2 years-610 Avenue H. Cline: Acetanilid, 1 dram Mft. 12 powders Sig: one powder in a little water every 3 hours for fever. 
Smith (repeats same and closes with): Thank you, Doctor. 
Dr. Cline then walked to a window, stood there for a minute or so, turned and resumed his original position. Again we heard, "Tingaling, Tingaling. Mr. Smith, your telephone is ringing." 
Smith: Hello. This is Smith's Pharmacy. Smith speaking. 
Cline (affecting a high, shrill voice): Oh, Mr. Smith, that medicine you sent for little Mary has made her very sick. (Cline mimics a sobbing woman for a few seconds). What shall I do? I can't reach the doctor. 
Smith (mesmerized by Cline's antics, and believing an answer was expected, could only manage a weak): I'm sorry. 
Cline (sobbing loudly and hysterically): Oh, my God! I think that she is dying! She looks like ashes and her nails are turning blue! (Now screaming and wailing): You've killed her, you've killed her! 
The climax reached, Dr. Cline took a handkerchief and wiped tears from his eyes and cheeks. After regaining his composure, he admonished us, "Don't advertise that you always fill prescrip­tions exactly as the Doctor orders. You might kill a little Mary or even a big Joe." 
Because of this considerable histrionic ability, the mock tragedy enacted by Dr. Cline was an emotional experience for the class and served as a perfect setting for impressing us with the awful responsibilities incurred daily by pharmacists in protecting both the doctor and patient. The importance of knowing the recommended doses of all drugs, the monitoring of all prescrip­tions for possible overdoses, and the application of Young's Rule in determining doses for children were stressed. 
He closed by remarking that we were not expected to know, at this stage of studies, that the usual dose of acetanilid for an adult was only two grains; the five grains per dose for little Mary was hazardous indeed .... so be aware of the great responsibilities you are assuming in becoming pharmacists!• 
Cline's theatrical flair lightened the burden somewhat for his students, and most could recall at least one such anecdote. 
USchleuse to Burlage, 24 September 1975 
CHAPTER THREE: 	Educational & Legal Professional Standards 
CLINE'S VIEW OF THE ROLE OF THE SCHOOL OF Pharmacy reached beyond the preparation of a few students to be better pharmacists. He felt that the school should be in the vanguard of the profession, paving the way for higher standards to protect the people of the state from incompetent practitioners as well as criminal abuses of drugs and medicines. In Cline's day, the role of leader in improving pharmacy standards was wide open for the school to assume, a condition Cline attributed "to our lax laws or rather to our lack of laws. "1 Together with the Texas State Pharmaceutical Association, he waged a lifelong battle to bring the criterion of practice in Texas at least up to par with those in other states. 
The state of pharmaceutical practice in the country in 1900 was none too high, but in Texas it was deplorable. Cline sum­marized the situation as follows: 
Of all the civilized countries the United States is the one which 
least protects her people 	from dangers of contaminated or 
adulterated foods and medicines, from dangers of ignorance or 
unscrupulousness. 
Of all the states in the United States, Texas is the one which 
least protects her people in these regards. Indeed, ours is one of 
'University Record 1 (June 1901): 191. 
97 

the very few states that have neither food, poison, nor pharmacy laws. Knowing the importance of national as also of State legisla­tion on foods and medicines, in their bearing on maintenance or restoration of public health, this school from its establishment has advocated academic training as well as graduation from a school of pharmacy as prerequisite to board examination.2 
Since its inception in 1879, the Texas State Pharmaceutical As­sociation had been trying to impress the public with the neces­sity of education and training in pharmacy to protect the sick as well as the healthy and of regulating the practice of pharmacy to safeguard the public from the incompetent and the un­scrupulous. By 1900, however, TSPA had failed "to awaken the public to its own interests. "8 
The pharmacy law enacted in 1889 had provided only that an applicant for a license to practice be at least twenty-one years of age, have a minimum of four years' experience in an establis­ment with a prescription department, and be able to pass an ex­amination given by a local board within each judicial district. If the applicant was a graduate of "a regular incorporated college of pharmacy" requiring not less than two years' experience, he only needed to pay the registration fee in order to obtain a license. This law created several problems that were to hinder those attempting to raise professional standards in pharmacy for many years. The most serious obstacle to maintaining uniform standards was the establishment of district boards to examine applicants. The TSPA had proposed the creation of a state board to maintain control over all pharmacists within Texas, but the legislature had vested this power within local bodies. The law also excused pharmacists in small towns from licensure, creating a lower class of pharmacists known as "permit men." These pharmacists were issued a permit to practice without be­ing subject to written examination. 
The second barrier to raising standards was the stipulation in the law that graduates of a college of pharmacy have two years of practical experience. Much debate within the Medical Department faculty centered on whether such experience should 
7Ibid., p. 192. 
'Ibid. 

be a requirement and whether it was a necessary part of a phar­maceutical education. 
Finally, the law accepted apprenticeship training in lieu of a college education. Cline felt this to be the most serious hindrance facing the school and the profession and fought to have graduation from a recognized school a prerequisite for licensure. Another education deficiency that Cline campaigned against was the lack of the requirement of a high school diploma for studying pharmacy. While the rest of the Medical Depart­ment recognized the value of a good premedical background in the sciences and required a year of study at the main campus before matriculation, such preparation was not deemed essential for pharmacy students. Cline finally saw his efforts in this direc­tion achieve fruition when high school graduation became a prerequisite in 1923, but he did not live long enough to witness the requirement of a Ph.G. degree for licensure. This standard was not enacted until 1929, six years after Cline's death. A closer look at each of these problems will illustrate the tremendous ob­stacles that faced the pharmacists of Texas and the students. 
The creation of district boards effectively negated TSPA's in­tention of uniformly regulating the quality of pharmacists al­lowed to practice in Texas. In the first place, each board was al­lowed to establish its own standards, and these varied widely from district to district. A person failing the examination in one district had only to try in other districts until he found one with standards low enough to license him. Second, a local board was even more susceptible to favoritism and bribery than a state agency would have been. Thus, obtaining a license was at times dependent more on political considerations than on educational qualifications. Most of the records of these early boards have dis­appeared, leaving one to speculate about the workings of these bodies, but it was generally known that such abuses were not un­common. The license to practice pharmacy was a requirement only in towns with more than 1,000 inhabitants. As stated earlier, in the more rural areas of the state a person could be is­sued a permit to practice without the necessity of being ex­amined. The intent of this unequal provision was not to subject small towns to unskilled pharmacists, but rather to induce peo­ple to operate pharmacies in areas that would otherwise hold lit­tle attraction for them. Under this provision, nearly every com­munity of more than just a few families had easy access to drugs and medicines. The weakness in this rationale, of course, was that those least qualified to practice pharmacy were drawn into rural communities. Once this class of pharmacist had been created, the state was saddled with these permit holders. Any law aimed at abolishing the practice would have had to be made retroactive in order to eliminate these people from practice, a measure that the legislators would surely have found unpopular within their districts. 
Cline was highly critical of these methods of regulating the practice of pharmacy. In 1900 he reported to the president and faculty of the university: 
Texas stands almost alone in having a number of examining boards of pharmacy instead of one only. The requirements of these different boards are anything but similar or equivalent. It is generally conceded that the abolishment of judicial district boards and establishment, instead thereof, of a single State board would do much toward the advancement of pharmacy as a science and result in much better and safer service to the public.' 
Aside from his concern over the quality of pharmacy in the state, Cline saw how the lax regulations were hurting the School of Pharmacy. Only a small percentage of the yearly applicants for licensure had ever attended a school of pharmacy, and of those who received some pharmacy education, few had graduated. Cline felt that a revision of pharmacy laws would be necessary before enrollments would rise and students come back in great numbers for the second year of the Ph.G. degree course. As he stated: 
I am convinced that, if judicial district boards were abolished, a State board created and examinations be more vigorous it would result in sending us three times as many students as come to us 
'RR. D. Cline, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1899-1900," Medical Department Files, Records of the Office of the President, The University ol Texas Archives, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hcrcaftcr referred to as Medical Department Files, UT Archives). 
under present conditions. It would result in a very, very much better and safer service to the public. 6 
The inconsistencies of the district boards were resolved in 1907 when the legislature passed a bill establishing the State Board of Pharmacy, with jurisdiction over the entire state. 
This new pharmacy legislation, however, did not deal with the question of those pharmacists who already were practicing with permits issued under provisions of the old law. Separate legisla­tion to end the practice of issuing permits had been discussed within the TSPA, but no action was taken. By 1911, the permit holders had grown to such a number that the State Board of Pharmacy sought the opinion of the attorney general on the mat­ter. The attorney general indicated that the question could be solved without special legislation by simply refusing to issue any permits after 12 July 1912. Given the legislature's slow record in enacting pharmacy regulations, such a decision vastly simplified matters for the board. 
At the suggestion of the TSPA, a summer-session course es­pecially designed to remedy the deficiencies of the permit holders was held in 1912 on the campuses of the four colleges of phar­macy within the state. 6 Cline and Buckner conducted the course at the Medical Department from 1 June to 30 August 1912. A special examination by the board at the close of the summer ses­sion enabled the vast majority of permit holders to be issued a regular license. This special course was not offered again. 
Although the Pharmacy Law of 1907 did not require gradua­tion from a college of pharmacy, as Cline had wished, it did make some provision for those applicants who had received academic training. In lieu of four years' experience, those who had attended a college could substitute their academic pursuit for two of the required years, but in no case would less than two years' experience be required for registration as a licensed phar­macist.7 This provision applied to anyone who had attended a 
IJbid. 
'Besides The University of Texas, these schools included Fort Worth College of Phar­macy, Southwestern College of Pharmacy in Fort Worth, and Baylor University College of Pharmacy in Waco. 
"Texas. Pharmacy l.Aw of 1907, sec. 3. 
1he Galveston Era 
college, regardless of whether he had passed any examinations. Clearly, the value of an academic degree was not fully ap­preciated at this time. The faculty of the Medical Department had hoped that a distinction could be made between those who had graduated from the School of Pharmacy and those who had merely attended one session. The attorney general was queried as to whether graduates of the school could be exempt from the experience requirement on the basis of their superior training. The decision of the attorney general was that the law specifically stipulated that no less than two years' experience would be ac­ceptable for the issuance of a license. 
This requirement of practical experience caused considerable consternation among the faculty of the Medical Department, who felt that an academic education was far more important in the making of a good pharmacist than was "salesmanship ex­perience." Dean Carter gave voice to this opinion: 
After all, this matter of drugstore experience, which is greatly overrated by the State Board of Pharmacy, does not have to do with a man's technical training or qualifications to compound prescriptions and dispense drugs, but is merely a training which makes a drug clerk more valuable to his employer .. . . It is ob­vious that the Board attaches more importance to the qualifica­tions of a salesman than to the thorough training which is re­quired for a prescription clerk and dispenser of drugs. 8 
To emphasize his point, he drew an analogy in the field of medicine: 
The Medical Practice Act was passed in the same way to protect the people against incompetent practitioners in medicine. The State Board of Examiners merely determines whether or not applicants for license to practice have had sufficient training and experience to qualify them for the practice of medicine. It does not undertake to determine whether the applicants have the qualifications which go to make a successful practitioner aside from his technical training. 9 
Dr. Cline and the entire faculty were concerned over the fact that the indoctrination by the Medical Department was not 
SW. S. Carter to S. E. Mezes, 8 March 1912, Medical Department Files, UT Archives. "Ibid. 
considered by the law to be sufficient preparation for a practic­ing pharmacist. To remedy this insufficiency, the idea of requir­ing practical experience as part of the curriculum was discussed. At a meeting of the faculty this alternative met with widespread opposition. Explaining this attitude to President Sidney Mezes, Dean Carter wrote that "there is no means by which the amount or character of practical training in Pharmacy from drugstore experience could be determined or counted for the degree. " 10 He continued: 
Some few clerks in drug stores derive some benefit from their work, but such depends upon their individual effort on their own initiative. There is no drug store which gives systematic instruc­tion or training in the dispensing of drugs or the compounding of prescriptions. Ifthe University should require a year of drugstore experience for graduation, we would give credit for work over which we would have absolutely no control and concerning which we could form no definitive idea. It seems absurd that the Univer­sity should require, or even recognize, a year of service in a small country drug store, which would amount to nothing more than selling soda-water, toilet articles, patent medicines, etc. 11 
This attitude is illustrative of the gulf that existed between the perspective of the academics and that of the state board and legislature. 
Cline, however, felt that the rapport he had with the State Board of Pharmacy would enable him to have some considera­tions granted to the graduates in pharmacy. His long-range goal, he told President Mezes, was to persuade "most of the represen­tative druggists in the state" to agree to sponsor a bill that would require only one year's experience for graduates in pharmacy. He stated further: 
In the meantime I believe I can get the Board to allow graduates to take the Examination and if they pass issue to them a certificate stating they have passed and that as soon as they have had sufficient store experience they will be given a full cer­tificate without having to take an additional examination.12 
IOJbid. 11Ibid. 12R. R. D. Cline to Mezes, 13 December 1911, Medical Department Files, UT 
Archives. 
Graduation did not become a prerequisite for board examina­tion until 1930, despite Cline's strenuous efforts to have phar­maceutical education recognized as essential to the well-being of both the citizens and the profession. As long as it was not essen­tial to graduate from a reputable school of pharmacy, less than half of the applicants for the examination felt it necessary to at­tend such a school. Of those who had received some formal train­ing, the majority had not graduated. Although the State Board of Pharmacy continually increased its standards, some appli­cants were able to successfully combine experience with after­hours study in preparation for the examination. 
Cline felt that the majority of abuses in the practice of phar­macy came from this group of applicants: 
My personal acquaintance with druggists of Texas, covering a period of twenty six years or more, enables me to assert without challenge that the druggists who do counter prescribing, sell habit forming drugs and dispense old or adulterated drugs come largely from among those who have never had any school train­ing. I must acknowledge that in a great majority of cases these men handle old, deteriorated and adulterated drugs innocently, and do so because of their ignorance. 11 
Although he was aware that criminal abuses did exist, Cline's concern was with educating the scrupulous pharmacists: 
Drugs and medicines deteriorate more rapidly than food stuffs and more easily. It requires more knowledge and skill to care for, manufacture and compound medicines than is required to prepare the food that we eat. Recent analysis made by our own Pharmacy Laboratory and analysis made successively for the last ten years reveal an unwarranted inferiority in an enormous number of the most useful and the most potent medicines used in the preservation and restoration of health. 
Even tablets which are believed to be uniform and permanent, and so advertised and for that reason used in large quantities by our physicians have been found only three fourths, one half and even one fifth strength and some of them wholly inert. All of this means retarded cures, sometimes deaths and unwarranted and unneccessary drug bills.14 
1'R. R. D. Cline, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1915-1916," Medical Department Files, UT Archives. 1'1bid. 
Lack of understanding of drugs and their properties on the part of pharmacists, Cline felt, was seriously interfering with the quality of health care available to the people of Texas. 
Of more insidious nature was the indiscriminate sale of addic­tive drugs. Cline discovered that a disturbingly large number of school-age children were addicted to cocaine. Despite the Har­rison Act of 1906, which regulated the sale of such drugs, a few pharmacists were selling the restricted items in violation of the law. Dr. J. P. Simonds, professor of preventative medicine, was also concerned with these offenses and wrote to President Mezes in 1913: 
Prof. Cline tells me that in Houston and Fort Worth almost a hundred children in the schools have become cocaine habitues because of the ease with which the drug can be obtained and because of pernicious efforts of certain druggists to induce them to use it. 111 
Cline felt that he had the solution to these abuses-education of the pharmacist. Cline was not alone in this belief; he reported the following in 1916: 
It is generally believed by our Food and Drug Commissioners, by Pharmaceutical Chemists, by teachers in Pharmacy, by State and National Associations of Pharmacy that the drug habit evil, the counter prescribing evil and the deplorable and unnecessary deteriorated conditions of our drugs, medicines, sera and vaccines can all be cured by proper Pharmacy Laws. All agree that a drug­gist should be one with at least a high school education and in ad­dition a thorough training in the care of, manufacture of and com­pounding of medicines; a training such as can be obtained only in a reputable school of pharmacy. 18 
Texas was certainly not in the vanguard of the movement to re­quire pharmacists to be duly educated. Cline noted that many states had already taken steps to eliminate these inadequacies by requiring all pharmacists to have completed at least one year in a reputable school of pharmacy. "Sixteen truly progressive states," he wrote, "required graduation for the pharmacist as 
18J. P. Simonds to Mezes, 1 January 1913, Medical Department Files, UT Archives. 11R. R. D. Cline, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1912-1913." Medical Department Files, UT Archives. 
well as the physician." Among the foreign countries that fol­lowed this practice were those of Europe as well as Japan, Cuba, and the American territory of the Philippine Islands. 17 Cline also felt that such a requirement would elevate the pharmacist to the professional status enjoyed by the physician. He was certain that, as long as people could practice pharmacy without a thorough grounding in the field, the pharmacist would be likened to a tradesman such as a grocery clerk rather than a pro­f essional person such as a doctor.18 
Despite the lack of adequate regulation of pharmaceutical education, the State Board of Pharmacy was working, within the limitations of its powers, to raise the standards of licensed phar­macists. The content of the semiannual examinations was deter­mined by the board. In response to suggestions from Cline and the Texas State Pharmaceutical Association, the board added subject areas and increased the complexity of the questions. By the 1920s, the examination had been so strengthened that those applicants lacking college training were at a serious disadvan­tage in competing with others on the examinations. 
In the past, success in the examinations for licensure had not been a serious obstacle to those who had been diligent in their apprenticeship or in their classes. When they were held, from two-thirds to three-fourths of the applicants passed and were able to begin practicing pharmacy immediately. In the early 1920s, however, this trend reversed itself, and as few as 20 per­cent of the applicants were successful. Cline quickly concluded that "lack of sufficient academic preparation and training in a College of Pharmacy is conceded to be the cause. " 11 Cline was correct in assuming that applicants lacking training in a school offering laboratory work would have had difficulty obtaining this kind of knowledge. Over the years the examinations had ex­panded to encompass laboratory techniques as well as theoretical and practical knowledge. Training in all three areas 
17Ibid. 
1'R. R. D. Cline, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1918-1919," Medical Department Files, lJf Archives. 
~-R. D. Cline, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1923-1924," Medical Department Files, lJf Archives. 
was difficult to obtain anywhere except in a school of pharmacy. Despite the lack of adequate legal standards, the State Board of Pharmacy was achieving its goal of producing better-trained pharmacists by raising the standards on the examinations for licensure. 
The fact that the examinations were more difficult in these three areas solved one of the problems that had impeded the profession of pharmacy in Texas for years, but it left a void in the shaping of future pharmacists. With the success rate of appli­cants as low as 20 percent, an adequate supply of pharmacists to meet future demands could not be sustained over a very long period of time. In the early years of the twentieth century, 100 applicants was not an uncommonly large number to appear at any one examination. By January 1924, when the population of the state had increased considerably, only 47 students "had the courage to appear before the Board," according to Cline, and of these only 15 were expected to pass. 20 
The state board, however, was not acting solely on its own volition. Pharmaceutical standards were being increased by most states, and Texas was in danger of losing reciprocity with other states if its measures did not keep pace with those throughout the nation. Reciprocity is a system whereby one state will recognize a license issued by another if the standards of both are similar. The standards in Texas, however, were not among the highest in the nation. If the state continued to fall behind national standards, Cline concluded, those who had passed the board examinations were in danger of losing reciprocity with the thirty-six other states that had granted recognition to Texas pharmacists.21 
The School of Pharmacy and the State Board of Pharmacy were in a tenuous position. On the one hand, the legislature, since 1907, had consistently failed to enact more stringent regulations on the practice of pharmacy. On the national level, however, pharmaceutical organizations were demanding more thorough education for pharmacists. The American Conference 
10Ibid. 
111bid. 

The Galveston Era 
of Pharmaceutical Faculties (ACPF) was preparing to examine every school in the country with the intent of separating the bet­ter schools from those less qualified. Cline was caught between these forces as he tried to maintain high standards for the school in a state that failed to recognize the need for high-quality phar­macists. As the board raised its standards, the number of appli­cants failing the licensing examination grew at an alarming rate. Those who had received no formal schooling were at a distinct disadvantage. 
One solution to this concern would have been for the board to take action by requiring graduation from a "recognized school of pharmacy" even though the law did not so stipulate. Cline predicted that, because of the danger of losing reciprocity with other states and "because of the unfairness and futility of allow­ing unprepared or poorly prepared students to go before them," the board would most likely adopt a definition of "Recognized School of Pharmacy" and would allow only students from such schools to apply for licensure. 22 The board, however, failed to take such action, and the discrepancy between standards and the law was not resolved until the 1929 legislature finally required the Ph.G. degree of all pharmacists. 
Standards for admission to the School of Pharmacy were also under dispute. Again, Cline had been urging for years the re­quirement of a high school diploma for matriculation in the School of Pharmacy, but to no avail. He found many of the enter­ing students poorly prepared in mathematics and basic sciences. Students without sufficient training in these subjects were ill prepared for the laboratory work that Cline emphasized. Increasingly, students were dropping pharmacy studies after one semester. Higher standards for pharmacists demanded better preparation from prospective students than many of them had received. 
High school attendance had not been compulsory in Texas for very long. Although a few public high schools had been in opera­tion, secondary education did not begin on a large scale until after 1910. In 1915, Governor James Ferguson enacted a 
DJbid. 
Professional Standards 
compulsory-attendance law that required sixty days of schooling per year. Subsequent legislatures increased the number of man­datory days per year. By the 1920s, secondary education had become widely available to the families in the most rural areas. 
Despite the fact that a high school education was not com­monly available in 1905, the School of Medicine had begun re­quiring a high school diploma of its matriculants that year. Cline felt that pharmaceutical standards should be comparable to medical standards, but the board of regents had voted down at­tempts to raise entrance requirements in pharmacy to a par with medicine. 
The faculty of the Medical Branch, which had been so named in 1919, made an analysis in 1921 of the entrance credits of those students in pharmacy who had been unsuccessful. The study showed that most of these students had barely satisfied the minimum requirements of eight high school credits. The faculty, therefore, recommended that the number of hours required for matriculation be raised the following year to twelve hours and to fifteen (i.e., graduation) in 1923.28 
The board of regents acquiesced, and the entrance require­ments were gradually increased. In 1923, when the prerequisite of graduation from a high school or the completion of an equivalency examination was instituted, the dean reported a marked improvement in the academic level of the entering class and noted that only three students had been dropped for low scholarship as opposed to six the year before. 24 
Another nudge toward higher standards came from the American Conference of Pharmaceutical Faculties (ACPF). In 1924, the ACPF listed the now renamed College of Pharmacy of The University of Texas among its recognized schools, but warned that its curriculum was deficient in the areas of materia medica, legal pharmacy, and Latin. The latter had never been 
UW. S. Carter, "Annual Report of the Dean of the Medical Branch, 1920-1921," Medical Branch Files, Records of the Ofice of the President, The University of Texas Archives (hereafter referred to as Medical Branch Files, UT Archives). 
"'W. Keiller, "Annual Report of the Dean of the Medical Branch, 1923-1924," Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
offered in the Medical Branch.11 The suggested additions amounted to an increase of 20 percent in course hours over the standard curriculum.• Such an increase placed considerable strain on the thin resources of the College of Pharmacy. Cline shouldered the brunt of the additional course work, but the in­structors were also called on to increase the number of hours they spent in the classroom. 27 Despite the crowded schedules of both students and instructors, Cline submitted a schedule for the year 1924-25 that satisfied the recommendations of the ACPF, thus assuring continued recognition for The University of Texas College of Pharmacy. 
Despite these deficiencies, however, the College of Pharmacy received a more than adequate rating from the ACPF. While it fell short in three subject areas, these were offset by the more than adequate amount of instruction offered in such courses as pharmacy, prescription work, botany, pharmacognosy, chemistry, and mathematics.• Despite the handicaps under which he operated, Cline had managed to maintain a respect­able level of academic standards in the college. Without his foresight and persistence, the college would not have received as strong a rating as it did. 
-Cline, "Annual Report, 1923-1924." 
-Keiller, "Report of the Dean, 1923-1924." 
17Jbid. 
-Cline, "Annual Report, 1923-1924." 

CHAPTER FOUR: 	The War & Its Aftermath, 1915-1924 
THE EUROPEAN CONFLICT 
THE SUMMER OF 1914 WAS HOT AND HUMID in. . Galveston, with tropical storms threatening the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. In Europe, a different kind of storm was brew­ing. The threat of war had hung over the continent for months, and in August hostilities flared. Although President Woodrow Wilson declared neutrality at the outbreak of war, repercussions were immediately felt in the United States. American opinion was sharply divided over support of the belligerents, making Wilson's neutrality a very difficult stance to enforce. German at­tacks on American vessels and the loss of American lives aboard passenger liners sunk within the war zone proved to be the straw that broke the back of American neutrality. On 2 April 1917 Congress declared war on the Central Powers. Although the first American soldiers arrived in France on the Fourth of July, the majority of troops would not be mobilized until the following spring. By November of 1918 the war was over. 
Although active American involvement in the Great War had lasted only slightly over a year and a half, citizens at home had felt the effects of war from its outbreak in Europe. The British Blockade of the North Sea had effectively halted all trade with 
111 

Germany and jeopardized all ships entering the North Sea. For the pharmaceutical industry, which depended heavily on Ger­many for supplies and chemicals, the blockade had serious economic consequences. Prices rose drastically until German goods finally became unavailable. Cline was forced to rely on American suppliers for the School of Pharmacy. On short notice and with a heavy demand to meet, these suppliers were slow to respond when they were able to deliver at all. The goods they supplied were higher in price and lower in quality than the duty­free foreign goods. The expense of adequately equipping the laboratories of pharmacy and chemistry from domestic sources increased by 40 percent. 1 This placed a severe strain on tight budgets, and Dr. William C. Rose, head of the School of Chemistry, warned the president of the university that some classes could not be maintained as before unless additional funds were appropriated. 2 The regents responded positively, and all classes were conducted as planned. 8 
As the war continued into 1916, the situation of the Medical Department became more severe. Cline reported prices soaring tenfold and twentyfold and warned that no relief was expected. 
These prices are going to remain high for some tim~, possibly two 
or three years and in many cases still further because of the 
destruction of factories and the killing of trained workers.' 
Many medicines, in fact, were no longer available at any price. Cline noted that the inflation of prices for American apparatus was so rapid that manufacturers sent weekly price quotations to pharmacists.5 These shortages and expenses severely hampered instruction, but the classes continued despite the difficulties. 
To add to the Medical Department's difficulties, a storm swept over Galveston on 21 and 22 August 1915. Although the 
1W. S. Carter to S. E. Mezes, 19 October 1914, Medical Department Files, Records of the Office of the President, The University of Texas Archives, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter referred to as Medical Department Files, UT Archives). 
"W. C. Rose to Mezes, 19 October 1914, Medical Department Files, UT Archives. 
"W. J. Battle to Carter, 11 September 1915, Medical Department Files, UT Archives. 
'R.R. D. Cline, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1915-1916," Medical Department Files, UT Archives. 1Ibid. 
losses were minimal when compared to those in 1900, the campus suffered serious damage. The pharmacy laboratory was completely wrecked, and a shed housing the organic-chemistry laboratory was demolished. Supplies, balances, apparatus, and equipment in the chemistry laboratory had to be replaced. 8 With the acquisition of German supplies an impossibility, Cline decided to salvage as much of the laboratory as possible. He reported: 
I had several Negroes, under my personal supervision, to most carefully dig up and rake over the debris. Many articles were found absolutely intact, but many more were not found at all or found very badly broken or damaged. 7 
He estimated the losses at inventory prices to be $459.00 for the botany laboratory and S861.28 for pharmacy, with over Sl,000.00 in equipment damaged but repairable at an unknown cost. 8 The estimated cost of replacing apparatus and chemicals in the chemistry laboratory was Sl,564.55. 9 Refurbishing these laboratories created considerable difficulty, especially when prices of supplies increased after the estimates were made. Despite these problems, the laboratories were able to function on a limited basis. Cline found that the money appropriated fell far short of the actual costs of replacement, and many items could not be purchased. 10 
Meanwhile, students and faculty alike were caught up in the spirit of war as Americans debated the desirability of neutrality. The faculty, apparently feeling that the United States would soon be drawn into the conflict, considered the possibility of con­ducting another session during the summer so that students could complete their studies and begin military service more rapidly. The idea was rejected by the regents as being too dif­ficult to implement. 11 When war finally came in 1917, President 
'Carter to Battle, 30 August 1915, Medical Department Files, UT Archives. 
'Cline to Battle, 23 September 1915, Medical Department Files, UT Archives. 
'Ibid. 
'Rose to Battle, 14 September 1915, Medical Department Files, UT Archives. 
1°Cline, "Annual Report, 1915-1916," 
11University of Texas Medical Department, "Faculty Minutes for the Year Ending 

August 31, 1915," Medical Department Files, UT Archives. 
Wilson proposed conscription to raise the massive army needed to fight an overseas war. On July 20 the secretary of war drew numbers by lottery to supply the needed three million troops, and another two million men volunteered. 12 Numerous students were drafted as were some of the younger f acuity members. A few professors chose to serve, but the majority received oc­cupational deferments. Many medical students were deferred until they finished their studies, at which time they were to be drafted into the Army Medical Corps. Enrollment in the School of Medicine did not decline significantly as most students remained on campus or hastened to enroll to avoid being taken into the infantry. The spirit of war was a pervading influence on campus, however, and few if any students sought to evade service entirely. 
The situation in the School of Pharmacy was considerably dif­ferent from that of the Medical Department in general. Phar­macy students were not considered essential to the efforts of the medical corps in the war and were therefore drafted directly into the army as foot soldiers. Dean Carter tried to have pharmacy students exempted from the draft as being engaged in essential work. Some graduates, he felt, could be taken into the army sec­tion on chemical warfare, but the strongest argument for defer­ring pharmacists was the need for their services to the civilian population at home. 18 The War Department, however, viewed the situation differently and continued to draft pharmacy stu­dents. 
Conscription of pharmacists did create difficulties for many areas in Texas when a large number of pharmacists were called for duty. The Pharmacy Law of 1912 provided that prescriptions could only be filled by a licensed pharmacist. Dean Carter reported that 
the druggists all over the state are complaining of the great dif­
ficulty in getting competent pharmacists and practicing physi­
cians are also complaining that there is great difficulty in having 
12Forrest McDonald, Leslie E. Decker, and Thomas P. Govan, The lASt Best Hope: A History of the United States, 3 vols. (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1971), 3: 
747. UCarter to R. E. Vinson, 12 August 1918, Medical Department Files, UT Archives. 
prescriptions properly compounded as the local draft boards do 
not exempt pharmacists on account of their necessary occupa­
tions and technical training.14 
The country was placed in a peculiar situation as physicians were def erred in order to minister to the health needs of the country, but pharmacists were drafted in such numbers that prescriptions could not easily be filled. 
Efforts by the American Pharmaceutical Association to es­tablish a pharmacy corps in both the army and navy had be~n initiated in 1894. In 1898, during the Spanish-American War, Congress had passed the Hale Bill establishing the United States Navy Hospital Corps, which included a classification for phar­macists. The United States Army, in 1916, created the positions of hospital sergeant and mast:er hospital sergeant, but failed to stipulate pharmaceutical training as a prerequisite for such a classification. On the home front, strict laws had been enacted to protect citizens from unskilled prescriptionists, but the soldiers wounded in battle were entrusted to the care of draftees, most of whom had had no previous training in the dispensing of medicines. Despite repeated petitions from local as well as national pharmaceutical organizations, the War Department refused to amend these policies. 16 
The drafting of pharmacists had a detrimental effect on the School of Pharmacy. Enrollment dropped off dramatically as the figures in table 1 show. The first noticeable effect on the ~chool was the doubling of the number of women students in the . fall of 1917, the year war was declared. 16 The Training School for Nurses also received far more applications for admission than could possibly be handled. The reason for the increase in women's interest in these professions was obvious. Unable to serve the country in battle, women found an outlet for their 
14Carter to Vinson, 26 August 1918, Medical Department Files, UT Archives. 10Glenn Sonnedecker, Kremers and Urdang's History of Pharmacy, 3d ed. (Philadelphia: 
J. B. Lippincott Co., 1963), pp. 302-3. 
1•w. S. Carter, "Annual Report of the Dean of the Medical Department, 1919-1920," Medical Branch Files, Records of the Office of the President, The University of Texas Archives, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter referred to as Medical Branch Files, UT Archives). 
TABLE 1 
ENROLLMENT IN THE COLLEGE OF PHARMACY, 1914-20 
Year  Men  Women  Total  
1914-15  53  4  57  
1915-16  51  1  52  
1916-17  48  4  52  
1917-18  42  8  50  
1918-19  23  16  39  
1919-20  63  16  79  

SOURCE: University of Texas, University Course Catalogues, 1914-20, Texas Collection. 
patriotism through the health-care professions. Nurses with the Red Cross served in hospitals near the front lines in Europe, an occupation more fulfilling to many women than knitting socks and rolling bandages at home. The lack of men to fill phar­maceutical positions undoubtably drew women into this field. In the fall of 1918, the shift in enrollments became even more drastic. While the number of men students decreased by nearly half, the women students doubled in number from the previous year. Previously, women had numbered four out of every sixty students at the most. By the spring of 1918, American troop buildup in Europe was reaching its maximum. Five men stu­dents in the junior class had dropped out of school to enter the service and eight seniors were in the next call. 17 Those not already drafted into service were expecting to be called up short­ly, resulting in a considerably reduced enrollment of men stu­dents in the School of Pharmacy in the fall. 
To keep the school from being closed, which had been the fate of the School of Pharmacy of Baylor University, President Robert E. Vinson applied to the War Department for the assign­ment of a commandant for the Medical Department and the in­troduction of a Student's Army Training Corps (SATC). A unit of the Medical Enlisted Reserve Corps (MERC) had been es­tablished on the Galveston campus, but pharmacy students and 
17R. R. D. Cline, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1917-1918;'' Medical Department Files, UT Archives. 
many others were ineligible. 18 The purpose of both SA TC and MERC was to enlist students into the army while they were still in school and to provide them with military training in addition to their studies. These students would then enter the army as enlisted men at the completion of their studies. Medical students would enter the U.S. Army Medical Corps, while pharmacy stu­dents would be assigned wherever they were needed. SA TC was finally implemented on the Galveston campus at the beginning of th~ fall session in 1918. 
SATC, commonly known around campus as "Safe at the Col­lege," was a popular activity. With patriotic fervor invading all of American life, students were caught up in the compulsion of war. Over 180 enrolled in SATC. Each student was issued a un­iform and drew a salary for drilling with wooden guns on campus in the afternoons. All of this maneuvering came to little avail when the armistice was declared two months later. The corps quietly disbanded when the final retreat was sounded on December 12, and the students returned again to their laboratories. Fifty-two graduates and students from the School of Pharmacy had served in the military. The end of the war brought far greater problems for the school than had existed dur­ing the conflict. In the fall of 1918, while the students were still drilling with mock guns, an epidemic of influenza had struck. Throughout the country the epidemic had caused many casualities, as had the war. Military training camps were par­ticularly vulnerable to contagious diseases, as were all public gatherings where numerous people congregated. Many students and faculty members on the Medical Department campus became ill, and a number of students dropped their studies because of the fear of the lingering contagion. Attendance throughout the fall session was so sporadic that the course work fell behind schedule. 19 To add to the difficulties of a widespread epidemic, medications could not be distributed adequately, due 
111Carter to Vinson, 28 August 1918, Medical Department Files, UT Archives. 19R. R. D. Cline, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1918-1919," Medical Department Files, UT Archives. 
to the draft-induced shortage of pharmacists. 20 By the end of January 1919, however, the danger had passed, and the stu­
dents returned to their normal activities. 
With the war no longer a threat to education, students en­rolled in the School of Pharmacy in unprecedented numbers. From a low of thirty-nine students during the last year of the war, the school's enrollment rose to seventy-nine by the first year after the end of the war. The sharp increase in wages for prescription clerks, brought about by the shortage of phar­macists during the war, was a strong inducement to many to enter the field. Others who had had their education interrupted or postponed by the conflict were anxious to resume their studies. Cline felt that the increase was largely due to the fact that pharmacists and physicians all over the South were demanding the services of pharmacists with higher qualifica­tions. He noted that pharmacists' salaries had risen from an average of $85-$100 per month to an average of S125-S150 and up to $17 5 for better graduates. 21 
This sudden influx of students had been neither anticipated 
nor provided for in the 1919-20 budget, and the School of Phar­
macy was ill prepared for the job it faced. Supplies continued to 
be in very short supply for a number of years after the end of the 
war, and prices remained high. Cline warned the president of the 
university that numerous drug journals were predicting that 
prices would continue their upward trend in most cases. If this 
prediction came true, he noted, equipping the pharmacy and 
chemistry laboratories would become an expensive proposition. 22 
A survey of his classes and of practicing pharmacists convinced 
Cline that enrollments would continue to increase and that more 
students would be returning for the second year. 
The board of regents approved Cline's budgetary request for 
the year 1920-21, enabling him to equip the laboratories well 
enough to meet the demands of the incoming students. The 
20lbid. 
21 R. R. D. Cline, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1919-1920," Medical 
Branch Files, UT Archives. 
22lbid. 
regents, however, were not able to provide in the budget for ex­panded physical facilities for the great influx of students. The physical plant of the School of Pharmacy had not been substan­tially enlarged since the construction of the Old Red Building in 1891. The alterations that had been made were chiefly efforts at utilizing every nook and cranny into which something could be jammed. The old basement was so cramped that valuable ap· paratus was stowed in spaces between rafters. 23 The problem of inadequate quarters, however, was not easily remedied even by budgetary increases, and laboratory classes in pharmacy and chemistry continued to be held in the basement until the school was moved to Austin in 1 927. 
CURRICULAR DEVELOPMENTS 
Regulation of food and drugs through national as well as state legislation was becoming quite common in the postwar years. The Pure Food and Drug Act passed by Congress in 1906 had been expanded and amplified on the state and local levels and the long-standing fight against alcohol was finally reaching a climax. The Eighteenth Amendment, which instituted the phenomenon known as Prohibition, was ratified by the last state in 1919 and implemented by the Volstead Act. The Texas Poison Law, restricting the sale of poisons and requiring that such sales be registered, became effective in 1918. These and many other legal restrictions on the pharmaceutical profession made it imperative that every drug clerk understand and comply with the law. Failure to register the sale of one gram of laudanum could net both the clerk and proprietor heavy fines. 
In response to the increased legal responsibilities placed on the pharmacist, Cline instituted a new course entitled "Com­mercial Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Jurisprudence." In his annual report, Cline explained: 
21R. L. Wilson, "Recollections of School Days, '95-'99, Medical Department, Univer­sity of Texas," Alcalde 3 Ouly 1915): 853. 
Because of the new rules and legislation, both state and federal, and sometimes municipal, such as Narcotic Laws, Exempt Nar­cotic Rulings, Poison Laws, Prohibition Laws, Stamp Tax Laws, Food and Drug Laws, and laws governing sale of certain remedies used in social diseases, it has become absolutely necessary to devote a considerable amount of time in teaching and explaining these laws. 
In addition, now that the Druggists are paying better wages they are demanding instruction for future Drug clerks in Commer­cial Pharmacy such as-ordinary Book Keeping-Buying and Selling-Care of Stock-Record Keeping-Mode of Calculating Costs and Net Profits, etc. 2" 
Educating future pharmacists in legal responsibilities as well as professional competence was an integral part of Cline's crusade to improve professional standards in Texas. The State Board of Pharmacy concurred and placed emphasis on such topics. 
The now renamed College of Pharmacy was subjected to pres­sures from outside of the state, as was the State Board of Phar­macy. The American Pharmaceutical Association (APhA) and the American Conference of Pharmaceutical Faculties (ACPF) were the most important influences in the field of phar­maceutical education. While the APhA campaigned through its journal for better education, the ACPF took it upon itself to in­vestigate as many colleges as would cooperate and to rank these schools in comparison to one another. The University of Texas College of Pharmacy was granted recognition and rated as a Class A School, the same classification given the Medical Branch by the American Medical Association. 
Although ACPF recognized the college as a Class A school, it made some suggestions for improving the curriculum. One area in which the college fell short was in the number of hours of in­struction given in materia medica. The ACPF suggested fifty-six hours as desirable, but the college only offered thirty-two hours in 1924. 25 Cline was in agreement with this recommendation. 
24Cline, "Annual Report, 1919-1920." 26R. R. D. Cline, " Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1923-1924,'' Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
As druggists have to fill orders for allopathic, eclectic and homeopathic doctors they must know something of the drugs not only in the U.S.P. IX [United States Pharmacopoeia, 9th ed.], but also in the N.F. IV [National Formulary, 4th ed.], besides the newer drugs that come out. They must also know these to have a better chance to pass the Board of Pharmacy Examiners. Hence the Pharmacy students need a different and more voluminous course in Materia Medica than the Medical students need. 28 
Cline proposed to teach this expanded course for pharmacy stu­dents himself and to let Professor Carl Clarence Albers, who had joined the staff in 1923, give all the senior laboratory work and one-half of the senior arithmetic class. 27 
Another suggestion of ACPF was the institution of a course in Latin. The College of Pharmacy had never had such a course in the past, although other schools around the nation were beginning to require it. Cline was anxious to maintain the col­lege's national reputation and hurried to prepare such a course in Latin, which was to be given by Albers during the 1924-25 school year. Because the course in "Commercial Methods and Pharmaceutical Jurisprudence," which Cline had instituted earlier, did not quite measure up to ACPF's standards, it was improved under the direction of Walter Garbade. In other areas of the curriculum, however, the college ranked fairly well and of­fered even more work in such subjects as pharmacy, prescription work, botany, pharmacognosy, chemistry, and arithmetic than did most other schools.28 
As health-care professions expanded, the demand for phar­macists became more diversified. The pharmacist who operated a hospital dispensary required more specialized training, leading to the need for the addition of courses in hospital pharmacy to college curricula. Beginning with the spring semester in 1924, 
28lbid. 
27lbid. 
28lbid. 

senior pharmacy students in the college received thirty hours of practical experience in compounding and dispensing prescrip­tions in the dispensary of John Sealy Hospital under the super­vison of the hospital pharmacist, Bernetta Michel. In order to give her "the necessary authority over the students," Cline re­quested that she be given the rank of instructor in pharmacy without additional pay. 29 This arrangement proved beneficial to the hospital as well, for they received the compounding and dis­pensing services of the students Tree of charge. These services represented a considerable saving on operational costs for the hospital, while providing the students with experience un­available to them in the laboratory. Dean William Keiller of the Medical Branch rioted that the course was 
proving exceedingly popular with the students as it is giving them something very closely allied to ordinary drugstore experience in compounding and dispensing prescriptions. It is a course closely allied to the clinical clerkships in hospital wards served by senior medical students. so 
Pharmacy students served two at a time in rotation, providing the wards with continuous service. During the 1924-25 session, the course was offered during both semesters. 
Despite these additions to the curriculum, the College of Phar­macy was barely keeping abreast with the rapidly growing in­terest in pharmaceutical education. Dr. Henry R. Henze, who had joined the medical faculty in 1921, warned Dean Keiller in 1922: 
Repeated inquiries during the present semester, from the student body, for information concerning the curricula of Colleges of Pharmacy in other states have impressed me with a sense of a growing need for more instruction in Texas in the subjects of pharmacy and pharmaceutical chemistry than that now offered in this school. 81 
A brief inspection of college catalogues had revealed to Henze that thirty other schools offered at least some work leading to a 
29Cline and H. R. Henze to W. S. Sutton, 5 March 1924, Medical Branch Files, UT 
Archives. 3°W. Keiller to Sutton, 21 March 1924, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 31Henze to Keiller, 1 April 1922, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
degree other than the Ph.G. Henze continued, "Even at Baylor there are, each year, a few candidates for the Ph.C. [Phar­maceutical Chemist] degree. "32 Henze recommended that a similar postgraduate course in pharmaceutical chemistry, phar­macy, and allied subjects leading to a Ph.C. degree be given during the 1923-24 session.33 
His suggestion drew support from the faculty, and on 23 May 1922 a committee composed of Professors Randall, Cline, Henze, and Keiller submitted a proposed curriculum for the degree to the president of the university with the recommenda­tion that it be implemented as soon as financially feasible. 34 The course was listed in the University Course Catalogue in the fall of 1922 as being offered "when finances permit. "35 Statistics on degrees awarded, however, record no student ever having received a Ph.C. degree. 
THE FACULTY 
The postwar boom in enrollments in the College of Pharmacy created a demand for more faculty members, resulting in a period of rapid expansion for the college. During this time, a number of women were added to the staff, making the College of Pharmacy one of the few departments on the campus to employ women. The faculty had remained the same ever since the ap­pointments of Buckner in 1902 and Garbade in 1905, save for the continual turnover of laboratory assistants. The first major change in the pharmacy faculty came in 1921 when Garbade resigned to go into professional pharmacy. 
Walter T. Garbade 
Garbade had served on the faculty of the college for sixteen years and by 1920 had risen to the position of associate professor 
121bid. 
11Ibid. 
"University of Texas, College of Pharmacy, "Report of the Committee on Third Year Pharmacy Course Leading to Degree of Ph.C., May 23, 1922," Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 16University of Texas, University Course Catalogue, 1922-23, Texas Collection, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter referred to as Texas Collectiqq). 
at a salary of $2,500. However, feeling that his salary was not sufficient for the increasing demands of a growing family, he sub­mitted a request to the dean of the Medical Branch that he be permitted to operate a professional pharmacy for additional in­come while remaining on the faculty. 86 The request was passed on to the board of regents, who refused the request on the basis that the university required all of his time. They did suggest, however, that he might be allowed to operate such a pharmacy if he were a part-time instructor. 87 Garbade gave this suggestion serious consideration before submitting his resignation at the end of the summer of 1921. 88 
Garbade had been a popular and effective teacher, and the faculty of the Medical Branch was not anxious to see him leave. Dean Keiller wrote: 
Mr. Garbade's teaching was characterized by its clearness. His personal relation with his students was one of the utmost respect and marked affection on their part and he had, at all times and in every way, a warm place in the regard of his colleagues. 89 
The Medical Branch proposed that, "in acknowledgement of ... fifteen years faithful service and expressive of the high regard in which he is held by the Faculty and by the alumni of the Col­lege of Pharmacy," he be made an emeritus associate professor. '0 This designation, usually reserved for retired faculty, was unique for one who had resigned his appointment. The faculty, however, did not give this distinction without the hope of some compensa­tion. In exchange for the honor, the faculty proposed that Gar­bade gratuitously teach one course to seniors on commercial pharmacy. This course would cover the same material that Cline had been offering as "Commercial Methods and Pharmaceutical Jurisprudence," a course that Cline thought should rightfully be taught by someone in closer contact with actual business prac­tice. Garbade readily agreed to offer such a course for he had not 
88W. T. Garbade to Carter, 23 March 1920, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
17Carter to Vinson, 17 September 1920, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
SSCarbade to Carter, 23 May 1921, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
811Keiller to Vinson, 18 December 1922, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 

•°Keiller to Vinson, 9 December 1 922, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
been anxious to resign from teaching entirely. Thus, in 1923, he was appointed part-time instructor in the College of Pharmacy. 
Garbade opened a pharmacy in Galveston under the name Walter T. Garbade, Pharmacist and Chemist on the ground floor of the original American National Insurance Company Building. One of his employees, Louis Schleuse, described the business as "a strictly professional-type pharmacy" that, in addition to "a superb prescription service ... stocked many surgical instru­ments, trays, sickroom supplies, and maintained stocks of Bard­Parker knives and platinum hypodermic needles (before in­troduction of stainless steel); also leaches and a number of French and English pharmaceuticals. It served as a biological depot for E. R. Squibb & Son and H. K. Mulford. "'1 
In an era of soda fountains and sundry merchandise, Gar­bade's pharmacy provided a sharp contrast to most corner drugstores. Schleuse recalls: 
The concept of the commercial clinical laboratory was new, and most physicians (or their nurses) did their own blood counts, urinalysis, etc. Garbade's supplied both qualitative and quantitative Benedict's Solution, normal and tenth-normal sodium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, etc.-all made and standardized in the pharmacy. Since many physicians in the Galveston-Houston area had been his students, they became good customers. Frequent shipments were made to Houston via in­terurban. 42 
Since the turn of the century, proprietary medicines had become common items of stock. Any preparation from either the United States Pharmacopeia or the National Formulary that has been compounded and prepackaged by the manufacturer is con­sidered a proprietary. Pharmacists were limited by such products, which eliminated much of the need for their skill in compounding prescriptions. If a physician prescribed a certain preparation, the pharmacist was obliged to fill the prescription with this product rather than with his own preparation. Gar­bade, however, prided himself on preparing his own stocks. 
uL. W. Schleuse to H. M. Burlage, 18 November 1975, personal files of H. M. 
Burlage. 
' 2Ibid. 
If a prescription called for Syrup Wild Cherry, the U.S.P. IX product was dispensed. Also manufactured on a regular basis were: Syrup Tolu, Brown Mixture, Burow's Solution, Citrate of Magnesia, iodoform suppositories, Sippy's Powder in bulk, and Basham 's Mixture. Prescriptions for emulsions of guaiacol car­bonate, cod liver oil, or balsam copaiba-sandalwood oil were received frequently, and occasionally orders for cachets, enteric­coated pills of ipecac and Yellow Wash added interest to our work.'3 
Schleuse found work in Garbade's pharmacy "ajoy and a con­stant challenge.""" He describes Garbade as "an excellent teacher", "a tall man, quiet in manner and speech," who "had a wonderful sense of humor, was an excellent story teller, and a master poker player. ""5 Although Garbade retired from the operation of his pharmacy in 1968, he continued to lead an active life until December of 1972, when he died at more than ninety years of age. 
Garbade's resignation in August of 1921 left vacant the posi­tion of associate professor of chemistry. By this time, the reorganization of the Medical Branch had taken place, and the School of Pharmacy was now designated a college. The School of Chemistry had been divided, with the chair of chemistry and organic chemistry becoming a department within the College of Pharmacy. The position of associate professor held a salary of $3,000 when Garbade left. 
Henry R. Henze 
The Medical Branch had long experienced difficulty in at­tracting and retaining an excellent faculty. Although all divisions within the Medical Branch, including the College of Pharmacy, enjoyed fine reputations, salaries were below the national stan­dard and facilities for research were limited. In addition to these handicaps, the climate in Galveston appealed to few people on a year-round basis. Filling a chair in the College of Pharmacy was further complicated by the dearth of qualified professors. The 
43 lbid. 
44 lbid. 
45lbid. 

Medical Branch, however, was able to hire Dr. Henry R. Henze, newly graduated from Yale in 1921 with excellent recommenda­tions. Because of his youth and lack of professional experience, Henze was willing to come to Galveston, despite the fact that he was placed on conditional status. The dean of the Medical Branch felt that Henze was hardly old enough and had scarcely sufficient teaching experience to warrant his appointment at once to the full benefits of the chair of chemistry at the level of as­sociate professor. Therefore, Henze was appointed adjunct professor at $2,500 with a promise of further advancement and increase of salary for satisfactory service. 48 He quickly proved himself to be a very valuable addition to the staff of the College of Pharmacy and was promoted to associate professor the following year. 
Henze was born in New Haven, Connecticut, on 11 January 1896. After graduation from high school at the age of fifteen, the death of his father forced him to take a job as assistant in the Carnegie Nutrition Laboratory of the Connecticut Experiment Station. While with the laboratory, young Henze became as­sociated with and was greatly influenced by Dr. T. B. Osborne and Professor L. B. Mendel. After four years with the laboratory, Henze entered Yale University with a fellowship from the National Aniline and Chemical Company to cover his college expenses. ' 7 He received the Ph.B. degree, magna cum laude, in 1918, and the Ph.D. degree in chemistry in 1921. He had left Yale temporarily during the war to serve as junior chemist in the U.S. Bureau of Mines and the Chemical Warfare Service. At the time of his appointment to The University of Texas, Henze was serving as assistant instructor on the Yale faculty. 
Although there had been some reservation concerning Henze's teaching ability before he arrived, he quickly dispelled the fears that a twenty-five-year-old was not capable of duties in the 
"Carter to Vinson, 6 August 1921, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
•7lJniversity of Texas, "Report of the Memorial Resolution Committee for Henry R. Henze by Margaret A. Eppright, Philip S. Bailey, and William Shive (Chairman)," Documents and Minutes of the General Faculty, 1975-76, The University of Texas Archives, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas. 
Henry Rudolf Henze 
Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry. Dean W. S. Carter, who had originally expressed these doubts, assured the univer­sity president that "Dr. Henze's teaching has been highly satisfactory here during the present session and, in fact, I regard him as a teacher of very exceptional ability. He is full of enthusiasm and his work has already attracted attention from other institutions. "48 The Dean was so impressed with Henze's teaching that he recommended that Henze be promoted to the position of assistant professor with an increase in salary, con­cluding that "teachers of his ability are so rare and difficult to find that every effort should be made to hold him. "'9 
The academic .profession was quick to take note of Henze's ex­ceptional ability. After little more than a year on the faculty of the Medical Branch, Henze had received offers from Rice In­stitute in Houston and Antioch College in Ohio. He refused the Antioch appointment, despite its far better remuneration, on the grounds that he would be required to act as consulting chemist to certain mercantile interests and he felt himself too young to assume that responsibility.6° Keiller, who had just been ap­pointed dean of the Medical Branch, urged that Henze be ad­vanced in rank and salary before he could be lured away from the university: 
The faculty feels (and I agree with them very strongly from my own personal observation) that it would be an exceedingly serious loss to the whole School, and especially to the College of Phar­macy, should we be unable to retain Dr. Henze's services. Not only has he been valuable in his own special subject, but his whole influence in the College of Pharmacy promises to be of the utmost value and assistance to Dr. Cline in this Department of the Medical Branch. 61 
A great deal of Henze's time during his first few years on campus was devoted to reorganizing the Department of Phar­maceutical Chemistry. The year before he arrived, the Medical Branch had been reorganized and the new College of Pharmacy 
"Carter to Vinson, 20 January 1922, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
41lbid. 
'°Keiller to Vinson, 22 March 1922, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
&llbid. 

had been given more autonomy. Henze became head of the Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry within the College of Pharmacy. As mentioned earlier, one of his most important ef­forts was in organizing the requirements for the degree of Phar­maceutical Chemist (Ph.C.) as a one-year program beyond the Ph.G. requirements. 
When the college relocated in Austin in 1927, Henze became affiliated with the Department of Chemistry there, where he served as professor of pharmaceutical chemistry, while continu­ing as lecturer in pharmacology and toxicology in Galveston. He served as chairman of the Department of Chemistry from 1929 until 1939. As a result of administrative efforts to eliminate titles of specialty positions, he became professor of chemistry, although his work remained in the direction of pharmaceutical chemistry. His services were in heavy demand for premedical ad­vising and other health-oriented activities. In 1945, he was awarded a one-year University Research Professorship. 52 
Henze was very active in professional organizations. He was a member of the American Chemical Society, the American As­sociation for the Advancement of Science, the Texas Academy of Science, Sigma Xi, Phi Lambda Upsilon, and Alpha Chi Sigma. He was also an associate member of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. 53 
Research with practical applications was Henze's major in­terest, and the work he did led to eleven patents. With his stu­dents and coworkers, he published one hundred research arti­cles. With C. M. Blair, Henze prepared a series of papers that were the first to deal with calculating the number of theoretically possible isomeric aliphatic hydrocarbons and alcohols. These publications received wide recognition. His experimental work centered on the synthesis of heterocyclic nitrogen compounds, primarily hydantoins, pyrimidines, and related compounds. His major concern was in discovering compounds that would be useful as anticonvulsants in the control of epilepsy. 54 
62"Memorial for Henze." 
531bid. 
6·Ibid. 

Henze was a hard worker, and his efforts did not go unnoticed. In 1953 he received the Southwest Regional Award of the American Chemical Society, and the Lemuel Scarborough Foundation Faculty Award for 1956 was given him in recogni­tion of his teaching ability. The board of regents recognized him in 1968 for his services on the premedical advisory committee and adopted a resolution stating that his 
contributions to the education, counseling and idealism of ... students serve as a source of inspiration to all engaged in the fulfillment of The University's obligation to the medical welfare of the people of the State of Texas. 55 
By 1966, Henze, then seventy, was semiretired; in 1969 he retired entirely from teaching as professor emeritus of chemistry. His former students took this opportunity to demonstrate their respect for him by providing a permanent endowment for two 
H. R. Henze Teaching Excellence Awards, which are given annually to the outstanding teaching assistant in organic chemistry and in one other area of chemistry. Although some of his students found him as "tough as a boot," Henze had a way of obtaining the maximum effort from them. 66 
Henze had always been an avid fisherman and hunter and was eventually converted to ornithology by his wife. On a bird­watching tour in Canada in June of 1974 he suffered a heart at­tack and died in Austin on 12 September 1974. 
j. C. Buckner 
Following Garbade's example, J. C. Buckner, Professor Cline's assistant for many years, resigned in 1922 to go into com­mercial pharmacy. For many years, Buckner's salary had been at the bottom of the list of funding priorities. Although he had turned down many more lucrative offers to go into business in favor of teaching in the College of Pharmacy, the board of regents had repeatedly failed to raise his salary to a level com­petitive with other instructors in the Medical Branch. In 1920, Buckner was finally promoted to adjunct professor at $2,400 per 
"Ibid. 
68lbid. 

year after nearly twenty years of service. This promotion, however, did not entail sufficient remuneration to entice him to remain on the faculty. After his resignation became effective in August of 1922, Buckner moved to nearby Houston, where he, too, operated a professional pharmacy. Unlike Garbade, however, Buckner did not enjoy a long life. In 1929, he died at the age of forty-nine. 
Adelaide Richardson 
To fill Buckner's position, Cline recommended Adelaide Richardson, another graduate of the school, as instructor in pharmacy. Both the dean of the Medical Branch and the presi­dent of the university approved her appointment at a salary of $1,800.57 After receiving the Ph.G. degree in 1919, Richardson had worked as a pharmacist at Missouri Kansas and Topeka Hospital in her home town of Denison, Texas. In 1920, she was appointed to the State Board of Pharmacy, being the only woman to have served in this capacity. 58 In 1922, however, she planned to marry and move to Saint Louis; the fact that she would no longer reside in Texas forced her to resign from the State Board of Pharmacy. Richardson's term with the College of Pharmacy proved to be of even shorter duration. Her appoint­ment to the instructorship in the spring of 1 922 was to have become effective when classes resumed in the fall. She was plan­ning to take summer courses in botany and pharmacognosy at Columbia University to qualify herself to teach, but illness forced her to resign on September 1 before she could assume her duties. 59 Shortly thereafter, she married Luther R. Bobbett and moved to Saint Louis, where she served as hospital pharmacist for many years at Jewish Hospital. 
Irma Smith 
To fill the vacant instructorship, Richardson suggested Irma Smith, who had also received her Ph.G. in Galveston in 1919. Smith, a native of Stockdale, Texas, had studied at The Univer­
67Keiller to Vinson, 31 March 1922, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. ~Keiller to Vinson, 23 March 1922, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 69Keiller to Vinson, 27 September 1922, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
sity of Texas, Texas Christian University, and the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy, where she took special work for several summers under Dr. Herbert W. Youngken, a noted phar­macognocist and botanist. At the time of her appointment as in­structor of pharmacy she was serving as hospital pharmacist at John Sealy Hospital in Galveston. 
The appointment of Smith was a hasty one as Richardson's resignation came one month before the beginning of the fall ses­sion. Despite this disadvantage, she performed her duties so well that Cline wrote in his annual report in the spring: 
She has made a splendid success in her work and is held in high esteem by the classes .... She came to us in an emergency and yet has succeeded in her work in a degree beyond all we could ex­pect.... [She is a] hard worker and very ambitious. 60 
Smith's assignment was to conduct the pharmacy laboratory for junior students and to assist Cline in his courses. During the summers she studied botany in Philadelphia, and in 1924 her duties were expanded to include medicinal plants and the care and development of the medicinal herb garden. Cline reported in 1924 that "for the first time in the history of the School [phar­macognosy] has been thoroughly taught this year. "61 Smith devoted considerable energies to the College of Pharmacy and was rewarded in 1926 with promotion to the position of adjunct professor, at a salary of $2,600. 62 
Her promotion to the professorial level gave her a unique posi­tion in the medical field. A number of women were then working in the various departments of the Medical Branch as laboratory technicians or assistants, but few women attained the rank of professor. The only other women on the regular faculty in the Medical Branch were Dr. Marie Charlotte Schaefer, who oc­cupied the chair of histology from 1901 until her death in 1927, and Dr. Violet Keiller, daughter of Dean William Keiller, who served as associate professor of surgical pathology from 1914 to 
80R. R. D. Cline, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1922-1923," Medical 
Branch Files, UT Archives. 
81Keiller to Sutton, 13 May 1924, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
8"W. F. Gidley, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1925-1926," Medical 
Branch Files, UT Archives. 
1927.68 Smith was the first woman to be named to a professorial position in the College of Pharmacy and was one of the first female professors of pharmacy in the nation. The University of Texas had from the beginning been receptive to women students and, at least in Galveston, had also been receptive to women on the faculty. 
In the spring of 1927 Smith received a leave of absence to at­tend Texas Christian College in Dallas with the intention of eventually attaining a Bachelor of Science degree in botany. She attended TCC from February to July of 1927, at which time she resumed her duties in Galveston. 64 In the fall of that year, when the college was moved to Austin, Smith transferred with the rest of the faculty. In July of 1928, however, she resigned her position to marry. With her husband, B. W. Schmidtzinsky, she opened the Bonnie Brae Pharmacy in San Antonio, which they operated until 1934. The following year the Schmidtzinskys purchased the Lakeview Pharmacy, also in San Antonio, which is still operated by their son, Ben Schmidtzinsky, Jr.611 Their pharmacies were well known for professional operation and tidy appearance. Irma Schmidtzinsky died on 8 March 1977. 
Ava Josephine McAmis 
Joining Smith on the faculty of the College of Pharmacy in 1922 was Ava Josephine McAmis. She was a graduate of San Antonio High School and had received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Randolph-Macon Woman's College in Lynchburg, Virginia. In 1921, McAmis returned to Texas and earned a Master of Arts degree in chemistry at the main university in Austin. She served for one year as tutor in chemistry there before her appointment as instructor under Henze in the newly formed Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry in the College of Pharmacy. McAmis continued in this position until 1924, when 
88 7he University of Texas Medical Branch: A Seventy-five Year History by the Faculty and Staff (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1967), pp. 39, 87 (hereafter cited as Medical Branch History). 
84Schleuse to Burlage, 18 November 1975. 
86lnterview with Irma Smith Schmidtzinsky by L. W. Schleuse in October 1975, as reported in a letter from Schleuse to Burlage, 30 October 1975, personal files of H. M. Burlage. 
she accepted a fellowship at Yale University to work toward the Ph.D. degree, which she received in 1929. Since that time, McAmis has pursued a varied and active career. She has held fel­lowships with the American Association of University Women, the National Tuberculosis Association, and the National Research Council. In 1932, she was appointed Assistant Profes­sor of Biological Chemistry at Mount Holyoke College, where she taught for six years. In 1940, she became Chairman of the Department of Chemistry at San Antonio College, a position she held until her retirement in 196 7.86 
Other Faculty Women 
Women were quite numerous on the College of Pharmacy campus in the 1920s. Bernetta Michel, who served as pharmacist at John Sealy Hospital, was also given the title of instructor of pharmacy in 1924. Michel came from a long line of pharmacists, which also included her older sister, Beth Angeline Michel. After graduation, Bernetta Michel served as chief pharmacist at John Sealy Hospital. When senior pharmacy students began receiving practical training in the hospital dispensary, Michel was given the rank of instructor in order to exercise the proper authority over her assistants. The position carried no additional salary, and Michel retained her appointment and duties at the hospital. Shortly thereafter, she married Dr. Paul A. Wooder and settled in Bryan. Except for a few temporary jobs around Bryan, she never pursued her career further. 87 
In the minor positions of tutors and assistants, women were also being recognized. J. S. Dimmitt, who had received a Ph. G. under "Daddy" Cline, served as instructor in biochemistry dur­ing the 1920-21 school year. Before her appointment as tutor, Dimmitt had been in charge of the Clinical Laboratory at John Sealy Hospital.88 Her husband, Dr. Frank W. Dimmitt, Jr., who 
88lnterview with Ava Josephine McAmis by L. W. Schleuse in October 1975, as 
reported in a letter from Schleuse to Burlage, 30 October 1975, personal files of H. M. 
Burlage. 
"Gus Michel to Esther Jane Wood Hall, 13 January 1976, personal files of Esther Jane 
Wood Hall. 
88University of Texas, University Course Catalogue, 1920-21, Texas Collection. 
also had a Ph. G. degree, served on the faculty of the Medical Branch. In the field of bacteriology, Evelyn Kerns served as tutor from 1922 to 1924, and Anna Marie Carroll was employed as in­structor from 1924 to 1930.89 Mrs. P. A. Woodard, another former student of Cline's, served as instructor in pharmacy dur­ing the 1926-27 year. 70 Mary Acton Steussy, who held the B.A. and M.A. degrees from the main university, was appointed as in­structor in inorganic chemistry in 1925 by Henze and promoted to adjunct professor the following year. 71 Earlier Ethel W. Sykes had served as a fellow in chemistry during the session 1909-10, being the first woman to be employed by the School of Phar­
macy.72 
Alice G. Klotz was another woman who served under Henze in the Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry. Klotz, who held a B.S. in medicine, had been studying for the M.D. degree but found it necessary to supplement her resources while in school. Succeeding Josephine McAmis, she worked as a part­time tutor under Henze from 1924 until 1927. When the college was moved to Austin in 1927, she abandoned her medical studies and served as a full-time instructor. On the main campus, Klotz met and married Willet T. Conklin, then a young instructor in the Department of English. 
After her marriage, Klotz was asked to resign because of the university's nepotism rule, which forbade the employment of related persons. This policy, however, was not uniformly en­forced by the regents. Dr. Violet Keiller, professor of pathology, had been allowed to teach in the Medical Branch in Galveston despite the fact that her father was professor of anatomy and dean of the Medical Branch. 
Carl Clarence Albers 
With enrollments continually expanding during the early 1920s, the need for additional faculty in the College of Pharmacy increased. Hired in 1923 during this era of growth was Carl 
811lbid., 1922-30. 
TOJbid., 1926-27. 
711bid. 
72lbid.' 1909-10. 

Clarence Albers, or "C. C.," as he was known to friends. His position, that of instructor in pharmacy, was a new one, created to provide additional teaching assistance to Cline. Filling this position had been no easy matter for the College of Pharmacy as the pay was not as high as a good pharmacist could make on a beginning job in a retail pharmacy. Albers was hired at Sl,800, or S150 a month. Starting salaries for pharmacists ran as high as S175 or more in 1923. Cline, therefore, was delighted that Albers would accept the instructorship, and wrote to the dean that ''this man is an [ un] usually good one, was a good student, has educated himself, and is anxious to do advanced work .... I am very glad to get him. ms 
Albers was born in Lincoln, Texas, in 1898. From 1917 until 1919 he taught in public schools in Texas before entering Blinn Memorial College in Brenham, Texas. 74 In 1923, he earned the Ph.G. degree under "Daddy" Cline, joining the faculty that same year. As a student, Albers had done exceptionally well. It had been common practice in the Medical Branch since its in­ception to appoint outstanding students as instructors and tutors, and such was the case with Albers. Albers worked during the summer of 1923 at Brunner and Williams Drug Company in Taylor, Texas, before being appointed to the new instructorship in pharmacy in the fall. After the college moved to the main campus in 1927, he took advantage of the numerous course offer­ings there. Albers earned the B.A. and B.S. degrees in 1930 and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. During several summers, Albers studied for a Ph.D. at the University of Wisconsin under Dr. Edward Kremers. In 1935, he was granted a year's leave of absence so that he could complete his Ph.D. studies before the retirement of Dr. Kremers; he received his doctorate in 1936.75 
Albers held the rank of instructor in pharmacy from 1923 to 1928, at which time he was promoted to assistant professor. In 1937, the year after he received the Ph.D., he was made associate professor, a position he held until 1947, when he became a full 
71Cline to Keiller, 3 August 1923, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
1"' Memorial: Carl Clarence Albers," American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 31 
(November 1967): 549-50. 
76lbid. 
professor of pharmacy. On a two-year leave of absence from his duties in Texas, Albers served as visiting professor and organizer for the Department of Pharmacy at University College, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. During the 1966-1967 school year, he served as acting dean of the College of Pharmacy after the death of Dr. Joseph Sprowls; however, he died shortly after the beginning of the school year in 1967 at the age of sixty-nine. 78 
THE DRIVE FOR A PHARMACY BUILDING 
The decade of the 1920s was a period of extensive growth for the College of Pharmacy, and the growing pains were severe. The postwar enrollment boom had been anticipated by Cline and his staff, but funds had not been appropriated to cover the added demands. Supplies were less than adequate, the staff was overtaxed, and space was at a premium. Conditions became so bad in 1923 that the dean described the quarters as "totally un­suitable for teaching purposes. "77 
In reviewing the conditions under which the College of Phar­macy existed, the following excerpt from an article in the Galveston Daily News in 1924 helps reveal some of the reasons why the issues were as great as they were. 
The College of Pharmacy was grafted on to the Medical Col­
lege in the second or third year of its existence; as it was not 
originally contemplated at all, it was necessary to find accom­
modation for it in any odd corners that happened to be available. 
Until about three years ago, when a separate lath and plaster 
building was provided for the laboratory for organic chemistry, 
the College of Pharmacy was entirely lodged in the basement of 
the College Building [Old Red Building]. 78 
During the years before the turn of the century, the laboratories had housed seven to ten junior students and a handful of seniors. By the 1920s, the junior class often numbered sixty, with half as many seniors enrolled. For Cline to say that the laboratories were "strained to the utmost" was an understatement.79 
1'Ibid. 
77Keiller to Sutton, 15 September 1923, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
11Galveston Daily News, 1 January 1924. 
79Cline, "Annual Report 1922-1923," 

(,/) 
~ 
0 
~ 
I&. 
0 
>
Cl) 
Ir w 
=>
0 
0 
Carl Clarence Albers 
Dean William Carter recommended to the president of the un­iversity in 1920 that the laboratories be enlarged and rearranged and that forty additional chemistry desks be provided. The pres­ent arrangement, he noted, had not been capable of handling the students enrolled during the previous academic year. 80 The board of regents failed to arrive at any solution to the problem, so the basement was hastily rearranged in another attempt to properly utilize what little space existed. Instead of additional desks for the chemistry laboratory, an extra drawer was added to the existing desks, which remained in the "dark and undesirable parts" of the ·building, but no substantial renovation was attempted.81 The following year, in 1921, a shack was erected near the main building to accommodate a chemistry laboratory for those pharmacy students who simply could no longer be squeezed into the basement. 82 
These crowded conditions were creating serious plights for other departments within the Medical Branch. Dr. B. M. Hendrix, professor of biological chemistry, complained of inac­curate experiments due to contamination from the laboratories situated directly below him: 
The fumes produced by the class in chemistry in the School of Pharmacy make it impossible for me to do any research work in my own laboratory. We have found it impossible to prepare water which is free from ammonia under present conditions. We are do­ing some of our work in the laboratory of Experimental Surgery, but find this exceedingly inconvenient because the equipment must be carried back and forth each time an experiment is done.11 
When the facilities in experimental surgery were unavailable, Hendrix had to borrow space in the pharmacology laboratory. Needless to say, such transient conditions were not conducive to good research. Hendrix noted that "this arrangement causes a great loss of time and effort on the part of the members of this laboratory," and requested new quarters.84 His pleas went un­answered for lack of any feasible ahernative. 
'°Carter to Vinson, 10 May 1920, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
11lbid. 
82Alcalde 9 (November 1921): 832. 
"B. M. Hendrix to Vinson, 27 March 1923, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
"Ibid. 

The College of Pharmacy had a long history of such trials. Requests on the part of the Medical Branch for better quarters for pharmacy and its allied fields had been made to each session of the legislature since the turn of the century. Seth Morris, who for many years taught chemistry to pharmacy students, recalled some of the earlier tactics the faculty employed to convince legislators of the pressing need for more space: 
We had requested of each legislature a new laboratory building and used every argument we knew to convince it of our needs, in­cluding this one, namely: At every legislative session a committee from the house and senate, separate or collectively, would visit us to get information at first hand and so when I knew they were up­stairs I would with the help of some students, and the permission and encouragement of those above, if the regular work was not going on, start to evaporate dishes of ammonia and hydrocloric acid and to generating hydrogen sulphide gas, so that the com­mittee, sneezing, tearing and coughing and holding their noses would almost be driven from the building. In spite of such mas­terly tactics, however, we did not get the building. 86 
By 1922, overcrowding became so severe that the board of regents adopted a recommendation of the dean and faculty of the College of Pharmacy to restrict enrollments. If more space could not be acquired immediately, the college would be forced to ad­mit fewer students. Beginning with the 1923-24 session, the entering class was limited to sixty, and admission to advanced standing was granted only if the senior class numbered less than forty. Admission by individual approval of the dean was abolished.86 This was also the first year that the college required a high school diploma for admission. As only fifty-nine students qualified for admission, the restriction on enrollment was not in­voked during that year. In subsequent years, however, these limitations were enforced, and the problems of overcrowding were stabilized by complying with these restrictions. 
The long-anticipated laboratory building was finally scheduled to become a reality in 1924. This building, to be sup­plied with the latest in equipment and facilities, would house 
80S. M. Morris, "Opening Address to the Medical Department," University Medical 61 (November 1936): 10. 88"Medical Department News," Alcalde 10 (November 1922): 1,580-1,581. 
most of the laboratories within the Medical Branch. The College of Pharmacy, however, was not scheduled for the new quarters, despite the fact that it had long occupied the most undesirable portions of the Old Red Building. Instead, the old library space was to be converted into an additional pharmacy laboratory, while two more such laboratories would remain in the basement with those of chemistry. This rearrangement would give phar­macy and chemistry needed floor space, but not the satisfac­tory environment for which they had hoped. 
It became obvious to the pharmacy faculty as well as others in the Medical Branch and around the state that the only solution to these problems was to erect a separate building for the College of Pharmacy. Dean Keiller chided the president of the university, saying: 
There can be no doubt that in regarding the College of Pharmacy as an appendage of the medical College we are altogether behind the times. I doubt if there is any other great state university that does not have special accommodation for its College of Pharmacy. 87 · 
The Galveston Daily News echoed the sentiments of many people when it wrote: Galveston citizens have done their share in making a Medical College in Galveston a possibility. It is too much to hope that the pharmacists of the State of Texas may see their way to acknowledge the excellent service given to the state by the College of Pharmacy by making a contribution toward a new pharmacy building, as would enable the Board of Regents to consider this addition in the near future.88 
These words, however, failed to give proper credit to the Texas State Pharmaceutical Association for its continuing efforts in the organization of the College of Pharmacy. Nevertheless, TSPA responded to the challenge and began a fund drive to raise money for the proposed building. The cost of such a building was estimated at $300,000; a lot just across the alley from the new laboratory building would have provided an excellent loca­tion. This site was large enough to provide space for the 
87Keiller to Sutton, 15 December 1923, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
88Galveston Daily News, 1 January 1924. 

botanical garden and a greenhouse, both of which would be un­der the direction of the college, while still allowing room for pro­jected expansion over a twenty-year period. 89 
This proposition had a great many enthusiasts, but there were also sceptics. The sum of $300,000 was substantial, and not everyone felt that TSPA would be able to raise a significant por­tion of that figure. The dean foresaw a second possibility if the new building should not materialize within three to five years. A substantial amount of the space in Old Red had been vacated when the new laboratory building was completed. For $50,000 or $60,000, Dean Keiller suggested, this space could be substan­tially remodeled to suit the needs of the College of Pharmacy. 90 Such an expense, however, could be justified only if attempts to fund a new building failed to materialize. 
The enthusiasm of TSPA and of Cline and his staff lay with the idea of a new home exclusively for the College of Pharmacy. At its annual meeting in 1924, TSPA pledged its efforts to raise the funds and began to canvas the state to collect the money. Although the dean's alternative was by far the more attainable, support of the pharmacists around the state was behind the new building. Consequently, plans for the remodeling of Old Red were shelved. 
THE DEATH OF DR. CLINE 
As the week of examinations concluding the spring semester of 1924 approached, everyone hurried to finish the session's work. Cline, as was his habit, remained in his laboratory late in the evening of May 19, finally retiring to the house of his daughter, Anna Cline Mann. Shortly after midnight, he suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died.91 The suddenness of his death, at the age of fifty-six, came as a shock to his family and associates, for he had shown no indication of illness. As Dean Keiller said at Cline's death: 
"W. Keiller, "Annual Report of the Dean of the Medical Department, 1923-1924," 
Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
"Ibid. 
81Galveston Daily News, 20 May 1924. 
Dr. Cline for quite a number of years has not been in good health, and yet has during the nine months of the session worked with unlimited enthusiasm, teaching many extra subjects in order to keep his men up to the increasing requirements of the State Phar­macy Board. 93 
Cline was buried in Lakeview Cemetery in Galveston with members of the pharmacy class serving as pallbearers. The Galveston Retail Pharmacists' Association attended as a group, and the response from pharmacists and their organizations throughout the state was substantial. The campaign to raise funds for a pharmacy building dedicated to Cline was inten­sified, and the Texas State Pharmaceutical Association planned to launch the project at its June meeting in Austin. 91 Dean Keil­ler told the Galveston Daily News that Cline had "practically made the College of Pharmacy and had the love and respect of his students. "9' 
Despite this unexpected loss, final examinations in the College of Pharmacy remained to be held. Since Cline's death came only a few days before the end of the session, his work had to be con­cluded by his instructors and tutors.95 
Cline's daughter, Anna Mann, requested from the board of regents the remainder of her father's salary for the year ending 30 August 1924. The board at first objected, claiming that Cline had not served out the full year and his estate was not entitled to his summer salary. On reconsideration, the regents decided that, since summer salaries were awarded for work performed during the academic year, Cline would have been entitled to his full an­nual salary.96 With this money, Anna Mann established the Dr. 
R.R. D. Cline Memorial Loan Fund for the College of Phar­macy in memory of her father. The loan consisted of S25 monthly for the duration of the session, with repayment at low interest extending over four years, repayable at SSO annually."' It was awarded annually to a deserving senior student. 
92Keiller to W. M. W. Splawn, 28 August 1924, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
93Galveston Daily News, 23 May 1924. 
94 Galveston Daily News, 21 May 1924. 
96Keiller to Splawn, 12 August 1924, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
MUniversity of Texas, "Minutes of the Meetings of the Board of Regents, August 1924," Office of the Board of Regents, The University of Texas System, Austin, Texas. 
97C. P. Mann to Splawn, 17 October 1924, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
Memorial picture of R. R. D. Cline 
CHAPTER FIVE: 	A New Dean & a New Campus 
WITH THE DEATH OF "Daddy" Cline, the pharmacists of Texas suffered the loss of a beloved friend and mentor. In his teaching he combined a love of pharmacy with a penchant for hard work as he strove to build the fledgling School of Pharmacy into a nationally recognized college. His early pursuits under the leading pharmacists of Europe gave him a professional approach to the field that contrasted sharply with the commercial orientation of most Texas pharmacists. Without the benefit of his guidance, the pharmaceutical profession in the state could hardly have kept abreast of the important changes taking place around the nation. 
The College of Pharmacy was now faced with the urgency of finding a professor of pharmacy to replace Cline in the three months remaining before the opening of the fall session. In reviewing the conditions under which Cline had worked, the Ex­ecutive Committee of the Medical Branch Faculty realized how overburdened the chair of pharmacy had been. The committee also discovered that, despite the excellent academic training that pharmacy students had received, they were somewhat deficient in the practical aspects of pharmacy. Cline's scholastic creden­tials had been impeccable, but at the time of his death he had not worked in a retail pharmacy for over thirty years. In view of these 
746 

laxities, the committee "determined to seek the services of a Professor of Pharmacy who would be thoroughly equipped to teach the scientific and theoretical aspects of the subject and to supplement this teaching by the appointment of an Associate Professor, who should have special charge of the prescription department. ''1 
The committee, in deference to the efforts of the Texas State Pharmaceutical Association to raise the funds for a new phar­macy building, decided to discuss the appointment of the new professors with leaders of the association. Such was not the nor­mal policy in filling vacancies within the Medical Branch, since consulting professional organizations conceivably could lead to political influences within the academic realm. 2 However, due to the "active interest shown by the pharmacists of the State," the faculty conferred with the two TSPA leaders-Wilfred R. Harrison, president of the State Board of Pharmacy, and Walter Cousins, editor of the Southern Pharmaceutical journal.8 
After a wide inquiry concerning those available for the posi­tion, the committee narrowed its choices to a Dr. Needham of the Fort Worth Medical School and Professor William F. Gidley of Purdue University. Needham favorably impressed the com­mittee, which reported that "he is a very nice fellow and we can quite understand his being popular with his students and the State Association. "4 Needham, however, had one serious handi­cap, according to the committee: 
While he has a degree [Pharmaceutical Chemist] from a good school, it is some years since he was teaching pharmacy. For six years he has been practicing as a physician. He has entirely lost touch with pharmacy in its more modern developments, as well as with the interests and progress made by the Texas State Board of Pharmacy. In our conversation with him, it became apparent that 
1W. Keiller, "Annual Report of the Dean of the Medical Branch, 1924-1925," Medical 
Branch Files, Records of the Office of the President, The University of Texas Archives, 
Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter referred to as Medical Branch 
Files, UT Archives). 
2Keiller to W. M. W. Splawn, 16 August 1924, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
31bid. 
4Keiller to W. R. Harrison, 15 August 1924, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
William Francis Gidley 
he did not have a close personal appreciation of the needs of a College of Pharmacy. 5 
Such considerations on the part of the committee show that Cline's leadership in the advancement of pharmacy had not gone unnoticed. The committee was clearly looking for someone who would be a catalyst in pharmaceutical affairs as well as a compe­tent instructor. 
The impression that Gidley made was entirely different. The committee described him as "being a shy, retiring, modest man, who, however, grows on one as one becomes better acquainted with him and impresses one as knowing his work thoroughly. "8 In Gidley, the committee felt it had found the type of educator for which it was searching: 
We feel that he is intimately acquainted with the needs of a modern College of Pharmacy. He is a man who does not impress one strongly at first, but he undoubtedly grows on one with ac­quaintance. 7 
The committee concluded that he was "thoroughly familiar with the teaching of pharmacy in two of the leading schools ... in this country" and that he was "a man of academic ideals and well­fitted to hold a Chair in the University of Texas. "8 Consequently, in 1924, he was appointed professor of pharmacy and head of the College of Pharmacy. 
WILLIAM FRANCIS GIDLEY 
Born in Holly, Michigan, in 1883, Gidley began his career as a drug clerk while attending high school. At the University of Michigan he pursued the study of pharmacy, receiving the Ph.C. (Pharmaceutical Chemist) and B.S. degrees in 1908. After com­pleting his undergraduate work, he began the study of medicine and earned his expenses by serving as a tutor, but other interests drew him away from a medical career. His expertise in the field of bacteriology led to his appointment as a special assistant to 
6lbid. 
8lbid. 
1Ibid. 
8lbid. 

work on bacterial proteins in the food and drug laboratory of the University of Michigan. In the fall of 1909, one year after receiv­ing his undergraduate degrees, Gidley was appointed to the deanship of the College of Pharmacy at Mercer University in Macon, Georgia. He was twenty-six years old when he accepted this position. While serving as dean, he also acted as chemist and bacteriologist for the Board of Health of the City of Macon. 9 
After three years in the South, Gidley returned to the Midwest upon his appointment by Purdue University as professor of materia medica. Although this position may have appeared to be a lesser appointment, it gave him the opportunity to return to teaching and laboratory work. During the twelve years he spent at Purdue, Gidley served as professor of materia medica and later as professor of pharmacy. During a leave of absence in 1918, he served as assistant chief of the medical staff of the phar­maceutical firm of E. R. Squibb and Sons of New York. Like Cline, Gidley also appreciated the benefits of a medical educa­tion for a professor of pharmacy. During the summer months he pursued his interrupted medical studies at Rush Medical School of the University of Chicago, one of the more prestigious medical institutions in the country. Although Gidley completed all of the course work for the M.D. degree, he lacked the clinical ex­perience required of all medical students and thus did not receive the degree. For his own purposes, such work had little relevance because the classroom studies aided immeasureably in his effec­tiveness as professor of pharmacy. At the time of his appoint­ment to The University of Texas College of Pharmacy, he was chairman of the Section on Education and Legislation of the American Pharmaceutical Association. 10 
If he had a limitation, it was the same one that had affected Cline-lack of personal acquaintance with the practical work­ings of the prescription department of a retail pharmacy. 11 By 
9University of Texas, "Report of the Special William Francis Gidley Memorial Resolu­
tion Committee," Documents and Minutes of the General Faculty, UT Archives. 
IOJbid. 
11Keiller to Harrison, 15 August 1924. 

the 1920s, however, the study of pharmacy had become such a complex field that a professor was no longer expected to be an expert in every branch of the field. To fill the position of associate professor, the committee took the unprecedented step of hiring a man with an extensive retail background but no actual teaching experience. William Rust Neville, a 1902 alumnus of the College of Pharmacy, was the man selected to round out the pharmacy department with Gidley. As head of the prescription department of the Griffith Drug Company of Austin, Neville had handled not only a very large local prescription business but also much of the contract prescription work in the state. On the recommendation of Henry W. Harper, professor of chemistry on the main campus, the committee appointed Neville as associate professor of pharmacy with special charge of the prescription department. 12 
WILLIAM RUST NEVILLE 
W. R. Neville, born in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1881, was raised and educated in Texas. His father, also a pharmacist, had been active in the early affairs of the Texas State Pharmaceutical Association and had read numerous papers on various phar­maceutical topics before its annual meetings. Young Neville fol­lowed his father into the profession by enrolling in the pharmacy program in Galveston, where he was awarded the first TSPA scholarship. After receiving his Ph.G. degree in 1902, young Neville accepted a position with the Chiles Drug Company of Austin, which was later known as the Griffith Drug Company. In this capacity he developed a reputation as an excellent com­pounder of prescriptions. Therefore, when the Executive Com­mittee of the Medical Branch Faculty decided to hire a person with practical experience to teach the courses in prescription compounding, Neville was the ideal choice. 18 
12lbid. 
18University of Texas, "Report of the Special William Rust Neville, Jr., Memorial Resolution Committee," Documents and Minutes of the General Faculty, UT Archives. 
THE CHANGING CURRICULUM 

When Gidley and Neville assumed their duties in Galveston in the fall of 1924, the College of Pharmacy was approaching a time of great change in the nature of its degree program. The American Conference of Pharmaceutical Faculties (ACPF) had established, as a standard, the three-year degree program and refused recognition to those schools that did not comply. Although The University of Texas College of Pharmacy offered as much work in two years as most of the other schools did in three, recognition was not extended to any two-year program. 
If lack of recognition by this prestigious body was not suf­ficient incentive for the board of regents to authorize the three­year program, the fact that Baylor University in Dallas had received recognition was certainly a stimulus to The University of Texas. Although Baylor did not offer the three-year program in 1924 when ACPF approval was granted, recognition had been extended on the pledge by Baylor to institute the program dur­ing the 1925-26 session. 14 Dean Keiller expressed the feelings of the entire staff of the College of Pharmacy when he wrote to the university president, W. M. W. Splawn: 
Pharmacists in the State will only consider the fact that Baylor is giving a three-year course and we are only giving a two-year course, and conclude, of course, that we are declassed, without taking into consideration the fact that we are giving the same number of hours in two years as the Conference is giving in three, owing to the fact that we work our men longer and do not give them time to partly earn their expenses by working ·in drug stores. 15 
Opinion in favor of the establishment of a three-year program in Galveston ran strong. The Texas State Pharmaceutical As­sociation strongly favored the idea and invited Gidley to address its annual meeting in 1925 on this topic. 18 The faculty of the Medical Branch also supported such a program, and Dean Keil­ler urged the president and the board of regents of the university 
14Keiller to Splawn, 4 December 1924, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
15lbid. 
164 'Three Year Course in Pharmacy,'' Texas Druggist 45 (June 1925): 131-33. 

William Rust Neville 
to consider offering the first year of such a program during the 1925-26 session. 17 This recommendation was based on the fol­lowing considerations, as outlined by the dean: 
That the present two-year course is much overcrowded, con­sisting of [over] 1, 120 hours per annum; this for men with only a high school training is undoubtedly too heavy a course for them to carry. 
It is exceedingly desirable that we should qualify without delay for acceptance in the American Conference of Pharmaceutical Faculties. We now have all the necessary requirements for such qualification if we can pledge ourselves to adopt a three­year course next year. 
It is the more urgently necessary that we should take this step since Baylor College of Pharmacy is already a member of the Conference and unless we adopt the three-year curriculum, we shall be outclassed.18 
The fact that Baylor, which was a somewhat newer school, had received recognition when the university had not offended the sensibilities of many educators and alumni, who pressured the board of regents to comply with the three-year program. 
Competition from Baylor University was not the sole motiva­tion for expanding the Ph. G. program in Galveston. Many other schools and colleges throughout the nation had adopted three­and even four-year programs. A few were offering the M.S. degree in pharmacy for five years of work, with such innovative courses as "Lit-Pharmic" and "Pharmic-Medic" listed. The faculty of the College of Pharmacy felt that "those schools are at­tracting large numbers of students, and public health of the future, and the medical profession as well, will be better served by the movement. "19 
In light of this trend toward increasing the length of phar­maceutical study, the faculty of the College of Pharmacy had decided in 1924 to expand the number of course offerings as 
11Keiller to Splawn, 4 December 1924. 
181bid. 
111University of Texas, College of Pharmacy, Report of the Faculty of the College of 

Pharmacy to President W. M. W. Splawn and the Board of Regents, 2 March 1927, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
Faculty of the College of Pharmacy in 1927 included (left to right, top row) Instructor C. C. Albers, Professor H. R. Henze, Associate Profes­sor W. R. Neville, (bottom row) Adjunct Professor I. Smith, Dean 
W. F. Gidley, and Instructor A. G. Klotz. 
much as the budget would allow. The work for the 1924-25 ses­sion had been increased by 30 percent, from 1,935 hours to 2, 505. 20 The majority of these hours were in the Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, where the laboratory hours were in­creased by 7 5 percent. In 1924, the Department of Phar­maceutical Chemistry of the College of Pharmacy consisted of Associate Professor H. R. Henze, Instructor McAmis, and three part-time tutors, one of whom was paid out of Henze's salary. 21 The increase of 30 percent in the teaching load placed a severe strain on the department's faculty. Henze urged the university president to consider the appointment of additional faculty to lighten the teaching load and to respond to ACPF's criticism of the college's inadequate number of instructors. 22 Appropriations in this area, however, were not forthcoming, forcing the Depart­ment of Pharmaceutical Chemistry to continue despite the understaffing. 
Considering the strain placed on the budget of the College of Pharmacy by the increase in the amount of work taught, Henze felt that a three-year program could not be added without a sub­stantially increased appropriation: 
To extend our course to three years is not at present feasible without a large increase in the number of laboratories and quiz rooms. Moreover, the present staff of instructors, giving all of their efforts to the College of Pharmacy, would need to be in­creased by at least seventy-five percent. 28 
Henze's predictions may have been overstated, but his point was well taken. If the College of Pharmacy was overextended in meeting the demands of 2, 505 hours of instruction, it could hard­ly be expected to offer the 3,000 hours of a three-year program without additional staff, supplies, and quarters. Dean Keiller recognized this need and recommended to the university presi­dent that substantial alterations be made in the Old Red 
20R. L. Wilson, "Recollections of School Days, '95-'99, Medical Department, Univer­sity of Texas," Alcalde 3 Ouly 1915): 752. 
21Ibid. 
22Ibid. 
23R. R. D. Cline and H. R. Henze to W. S. Sutton, 5 March 1924, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
Building to better accommodate the College of Pharmacy, regardless of whether the three-year program was or was not adopted.2' 
The proposed three-year program posed another problem for the college. The American Conference of Pharmaceutical Faculties (which was renamed the American Association of Col­leges of Pharmacy-AACP-in 1925) suggested that the three­year program leading to the Ph.G. degree include practical ex­perience equal to one-half of the senior year. This requirement 
was suitable for a school (such as Baylor) that was located in a large city. In Dallas, a sufficient number of pharmacies ex­isted to keep most students employed part of the time, allowing them to earn a portion of their expenses. In Galveston, however, only three pharmacies were capable of employing student as­sistants.25 The catalogue even warned prospective students to begin their pharmacy studies with the necessary funds because part-time work was not available and adequate time was not al­lotted in the course schedule to permit such employment. 28 
In January of 1925 the board of regents approved the three­year Ph.G. curriculum in pharmacy, the first year of which would be spent during the 1925-26 session. More work was of­fered in the areas of advanced pharmacy, pharmaceutical chemistry, and commercial pharmacy, while new courses were added in the history and ethics of pharmacy, in food and drug analysis, and in the use of the United States Pharmacopoeia and the National Formulary.27 Provision for practical experience for senior students was postponed until the 1926-27 school year. Money was allocated to remodel the old library quarters into a new prescription laboratory. 
The faculty of the College of Pharmacy was delighted at the 
prospect of regaining its standing as a first-class school. Gidley 
summarized these feelings in his first annual report: 
24Keiller to Splawn, 4 December 1924. 
:l&Jbid. 
ZCUniversity of Texas, University Course Catalogue, 1924-25, Texas Collection, Barker 
Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter referred to as Texas Collection). 
77lbid., 1925-26. 
It has been a source of great satisfaction to us that we would make this advance at the identical time it is made by the more than two score pharmacy schools of the American Conference of Pharmaceutical Faculties. As soon as we are established in our new prescription room and have the same equipped in the suitable fashion, we will make application for membership in the AACP, be inspected, and acquire an official rating. 28 
Recognition was ultimately extended by the AACP, placing the College of Pharmacy of The University of Texas on a par with fifty-two other schools throughout the country. Ironically, the Baylor University School of Pharmacy subsequently resigned its membership and elected to return to the two-year course. 29 
The AACP, however, was not entirely satisfied with the organization of the College of Pharmacy. In the past, the dean of the Medical Branch had served as the administrative officer for all of the various schools, including pharmacy. Instead of operating internally under the direction of one person, however, the College of Pharmacy was subdivided into two autonomous departments-pharmacy and pharmaceutical chemistry. These were headed respectively by Gidley and Henze, who each held equal authority in the affairs of the college. Of this arrangement, the chairman of the AACP Executive Committee wrote to Presi­dent Splawn: 
This committee recommended that a Dean or directing head be appointed. The Executive Committee does not believe that the best interest of pharmacy can be conserved under your present ar­rangement.... 
We believe that every college should have a Faculty with a directing head, said Faculty to report to the general Faculty or to the President of the University. 80 
IfThe University of Texas would "perfect the organization of its college of Pharmacy," the AACP indicated its willingness to ad­mit the college to membership. 81 
28W. F. Gidley, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1925-1926," Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 29W. F. Gidley and H. R. Henze, "A New Status for the College of Pharmacy," Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 8°C. B. Jordan (Chairman of Executive Committee, AACP) to Splawn, 24 September 1926, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 81lbid. 
Gidley and Henze were assured that the requirement of autonomy was in the best interests of the College of Pharmacy. They reported to the administration that the Executive Commit­tee of the AACP "had no difficulty in convincing us that our ar­rangement was not ideal, nor likely to prove indefinitely tran­quil, and that their stand was taken, as much in an effort to benefit us as to maintain standards within the AACP. "32 The major benefit of such a reorganization would be the establish­ment of a definite pharmacy faculty within the Medical Branch, an arrangement that AACP felt might counteract the long­standing subordination of the College of Pharmacy to medical interests. On paper, the pharmacy faculty had always been separate and distinct, but in practice the situation had become blurred. Although the subordinate position of pharmacy in rela­tion to the schools of the medical sciences did not change once the suggested new policy was implemented by the board of regents, the new terminology was satisfactory to AACP. 33· 
The board of regents, accepting the rationale for this ad­ministrative alteration, created the office of dean of the College of Pharmacy, instructing the pharmacy faculty to designate one of their members to the newly created position. 3' By a unanimous vote, Gidley was nominated. 36 Although his own position was now that of dean of the College of Pharmacy, he still reported to the dean of the Medical Branch, a situation that had been in ef­fect since the college began operation in 1893. In many ways, this action by the regents merely gave a prestigious name to an existing system rather than reorganizing the lines of authority within the Medical Branch. Nevertheless, accreditation was ex­tended by AACP to the college in 1926. 
Even as the three-year program was being implemented, however, a more comprehensive program was in the offing. Gidley explained the current state of thought on the subject to University President Splawn: 
82Gidley and Henze, "A New Status." 
38lbid. 
84University of Texas, "Minutes of the Meetings of the Board of Regents, October 19, 
1926," Office of the Board of Regents, The University of Texas System, Austin, Texas. aauniversity of Texas, Colleg'e of Pharmacy, Voting List for Selection of the Dean of the College of Pharmacy, Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
Pharmaceutical educators and administrators have proceeded on the assumption that they were training young people for a profes­sion and not merely for a trade. The report of the Commonwealth Fund Committee, a non-pharmaceutical body headed by Dr. 
W.W. Charters of Chicago, which has been investigating phar­macy and pharmaceutical education for over two years, states that in their opinion pharmacy has been proven to be a profes­sion. The old apprenticeship system in the drug store is but a name, as you well know. Pharmaceutical training has been given over almost entirely to the schools.36 
If pharmacy was to be considered a profession, as the report sug­gested it already was, many educators as well as pharmacists felt that students should receive a general education in addition to technical training. The new three-year training program ade­quately covered the technical side of a student's education, but it left no time for studies in the arts and humanities or in such practical fields as business administration or economics. To al­low time for the pursuit of such studies, a four-year program leading to a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degree in pharmacy was being considered by some schools. 
The new three-year program was actually out of date before any students had received degrees. Gidley assured President Splawn that the three-year course would remain as the minimum pharmaceutical course for at least five years. He did note, however, that the secretary of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy was of the opinion that a minimum four­year course would become the commonly accepted university standard within the next ten years. 87 Gidley had been con­templating the possibility of adding an optional four-year B.S. degree in addition to the three-year Ph.G. 
All our three year course now needs to make it into an excellent four year course, of the variety now in operation at many state universities, is a year of cultural subjects. . . . I am convinced more than ever that it is unwise not to come forward with such opportunities for Texas high school graduates, if it can be made possible. Members of our senior class this year expect to go out of the state to get additional work for a B.S. in Pharmacy. 18 
36<'Minutes of the Board of Regents, October 19, 1926." 
371bid. 
381bid. 

One major factor, however, stood in the way of a four-year program. The Medical Branch in Galveston offered only the technical courses necessary for medical, pharmacy, or nursing degrees. Medical students were required to have had two years preparatory work at the university level, and the ma­jority had studied on the main campus in Austin. Therefore, very little need existed for duplicating the same courses in Galveston. One solution for the College of Pharmacy was to follow suit and require a year of study before entry into the Ph.G. program. Another proposal was to move the entire College of Pharmacy to the campus in Austin. In the spring of 1926, however, these con­siderations were postponed, and the college was forced to deal with the aspects of a growing student body housed in the anti­quated laboratories of the Old Red Building. 
CONTINUING PROBLEMS 
When Professor Gidley assumed the chair of pharmacy, he in­herited all of the difficulties that had troubled Cline for twenty­nine years. Every year the college was faced with the questions of where to put all of the students and how to equip the laboratories. The opening of the new laboratory building in 1924 had vacated many of the rooms in the Old Red Building, and the College of Pharmacy moved into these. Henze was given a new office in a converted space above the boiler room. Smith's botany classes moved into the old histology laboratory, although the specimens and supplies had to be stacked on the floor for lack of proper shelving and were subject to damage from mites, worms, mildew, and rats.89 The college occupied two floors of the three-story building as well as the basement, which continued to house the manufacturing and prescription laboratories as well as the Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry. Even the chronic annoyance of water seepage had been resolved to an extent with the construction of wooden flooring that placed the teacher and students above the flooded cement. The basement, however, was still in dire need of repair. Dean Gidley recounted his first ex­perience with the annual floods: 
·~. F. Gidley, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1924-1925," Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
Water, in places four inches deep, stood for weeks on the freshman pharmacy laboratory floor in a section of the east end of the basement, at last forcing us to move from the laboratory. For­tunately the small number in our freshman class made this move possible. The water pressure from underneath was great enough to break through the cement in two places producing fountains of mud and water.40 
The most pressing need, however, was for adequate supplies. No matter how much Cline or Gidley reduced their budget re­quests, the board of regents always appropriated less. Because of the great expense involved in equipping the manufacturing and prescription laboratories, these requests of the College of Phar­macy were among the highest within the Medical Branch. The teaching in these subjects was severely affected by decreased funding, as Gidley explained to President Splawn: 
It is as impossible to give correct training in the filling of prescriptions without the necessary drugs as it is to teach dissec­tion without the cadaver. The only way to learn how to fill prescriptions is to fill them. But it is somewhat discouraging to make out a list of prescriptions demonstrating certain principles you desire your pupils to master, only to find that you are forced to change many-sometimes all-because of lack of material. ... We have had to make literally scores of substitutions, while at the same time trying to teach our students never to substitute. The bald fact is, maintenance and equipment for the courses in manufacturing pharmacy and in prescription practice is quite in­adequate and probably has been for years. 41 
The faculty of the college, in a report submitted to President 
W. M. W. Splawn and the board of regents on 2 March 1927, foresaw no resolution to these problems in the immediate future: 
Regardless of whether the College of Pharmacy inaugurates an optional four year course or not, certain marked improvements must be made at the College in Galveston by 1928. The prescrip­tion laboratory is only half equipped at present. In 1928 the de­mand for this laboratory will at least double what it is today. This is due to the fact that we will then have, for the first time in the school's history, seniors on the three year course, and these will 
40lbid. 
41 lbid. 

take 180 hours of laboratory work in prescription practice in the same room in which junior students will be taking a similar number of hours of elementary prescription practice. There are now but twenty desks in the room. The other half of the room must be equipped. 
In 1928 senior students, for the first time in the history of the school, will be offered a clear cut course in food and drug analysis. Where this course is to be administered has not yet been deter­mined..... The chemistry library of reference books, as well as that of modern business methods, is decidedly inadequate at Galveston. Research is practically debarred by the conditions ex­
tant.•:l 
One hope for better accommodations lay in the plans of the Texas State Pharmaceutical Association to raise the money for a new building solely for the use of the College of Pharmacy. The cost of the new building, to be dedicated as a memorial to Cline, was estimated at $500,000. Such a project had been considered during Cline's lifetime, but it was not until after his death that the movement gained momentum. Other activities of the TSPA, many of which also required large subscriptions, delayed the Cline memorial movement, and TSPA made slow progress toward its $500,000 goal. 
Many people, however, were counting on the erection of this building. In addition to the desires of the College of Pharmacy, the general faculty and the board of regents also had hopes that TSPA would be able to raise the funds so that this obligation would not have to be assumed by the university. The slow progress of the fund-raising efforts proved· exceedingly vexing to the faculty, which noted in exasperation in its report: 
It has been the understanding of the staff of the College of Phar­macy that the Regents were definitely considering ways and means of securing a new building for this College in Galveston. A site has been shown to us (back of the new medical building) and we were asked over two years ago to construct plans for a new pharmacy building. This mirage has served to assuage our feel­ings as we have labored in the basement of the old medical building, at times stepping from board to board trying to keep our 
' 2Report of Faculty to President and Board, March 2, 1927. 
feet dry, or when we were forced to throw away drugs, needed at the moment, because of destruction by mold. It is no small task to keep students in good humor under such conditions. 48 
The administration, however, reasoned that, if plans for a new building had any chance of realization, it would be wasteful to substantially renovate the old quarters of the college. As Dean Keiller reported in 1925: 
With this new building in view, the alterations on the old building for the accommodation of the College of Pharmacy are being planned as a temporary expedient so that as little money as is consistent with temporary efficiency will be spent on providing for the accommodation of this College. 
The exceeding difficulty under which the College of Pharmacy at present labors, however, and the remoteness of the hopes for building extension in the College of Pharmacy, make it absolutely necessary that some better accommodation should be provided for this College." 
Reluctance on the part of the regents and the dean to allocate funds for adequate housing of the College of Pharmacy exacer­bated the problem of substandard quarters. 
By the fall of 1926, the task that confronted Dean Gidley had become nearly insurmountable; in addition to the afore­mentioned problems, he was faced with the need to expand the curriculum and services of the College of Pharmacy to keep pace with the AACP's increasingly stringent educational standards and the national trend toward a four-year program leading to a Bachelor of Science degree in pharmacy. The move toward a four-year program required an expansion of the number of courses as well as substantially increased laboratory and class­room facilities. In Galveston, the Old Red Building was indeed old and quite out-of-date. The best possible use had already been made of the available rooms, but the fact remained that the College of Pharmacy was confined to makeshift quarters. The Texas State Pharmaceutical Association's drive to raise funds for the construction of a pharmacy building had run into con­siderable delay, and the faculty finally had to admit that the goal of a new home in Galveston was far from realization. 
431bid. "W. Keiller, "Annual Report of the Dean of the Medical Branch, 1925-1926," Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
THE BURNING OF THE CHEMISTRY BUILDING 
Events on the Austin campus, however, soon led to a solution to the concerns of the College of Pharmacy. In the early morning hours of 16 October 1926 a fire of undetermined origin swept through the old Chemistry Building, destroying everything but the library and the old brick walls. The spectacular blaze, which drew spectators as well as firemen and eight pieces of city equip­ment, had been reported at 5 :25 A.M. by a milkman, who had been alerted by several minor chemical explosions. 46 
When the flames finally died down, damage to the building and its contents was estimated at $150,000, approximately two­thirds of which was covered by various insurance policies. Due to the foresight of the Austin fire department, old and irreplaceable volumes of foreign drug treatises were saved along with most of the contents of the library. 46 Although these materials were thoroughly water-soaked, they were removed to other buildings and dried in slow ovens. The personal books and research work of the faculty and graduate students, however, suffered heavily in the flames. 47 Because classes, for the most part, were already held in the old army barracks, which served as temporary buildings at that time, they were not interrupted by the loss of the Chemistry Building. The laboratories, which had been destroyed, were reconstructed as well as could be managed in other temporary quarters around the campus. 48 
Fortunately for the Department of Chemistry, a new building was the number-two priority on the regents' construction list. The building of first priority was the Main Library; its construc­tion was about to begin at the time of the fire. 49 Much to the sur­prise of the university community, the regents decided to go ahead with construction of the library before authorizing con­tracts on a replacement for the Chemistry Building. In the mean­time, the Department of Chemistry settled into makeshift quarters until its permanent building could be completed in 1930. 
46 Daily Texan, 17 October 1926. 
"Ibid. 
47 Alcalde 16 (November 1926): 5. 
48 Daily Texan, 19 October 1926. 
41lbid.. 17 October 1926. 

Unfortunate as the fire might have been for the Department of Chemistry, pharmacists throughout the state were quick to recognize the opportunities it presented to the College of Phar­macy. The $25,000 that the Texas State Pharmaceutical As­sociation had already raised for its building fund would not have gone far toward erecting a home for the College of Pharmacy in Galveston. The construction of new quarters for the Department of Chemistry, however, presented a real opportunity-an addi­tion for pharmacy could be included at a substantially reduced cost. Three days after the fire, A. W. Griffeth, a member of the Executive Committee Qf the TSPA, appeared before a meeting of the board of regents to request that, in the plans for the new chemistry building, the regents "make provision for the teaching of pharmacy thus permitting the removal to Austin by the School of Pharmacy. ''60 
This proposal had many advantages. Of primary importance would be the availability of the resources of the main university for the pharmacy students. The faculty, in its report to Splawn and the board on 2 March 1927, pointed out the limitations of college life at the Medical Branch: 
As located at present in Galveston, the College of Pharmacy of­fers the high school graduate no campus life, no real college ex­perience, no chance to engage in athletics or other extra cur­ricular activities as would prevail at Austin. The medical student arriving here has had these advantages and his attitude toward his work, as well as his mentality is on a different plane than that of the pharmacy student. The pharmacy student at the Medical Branch in Galveston has always been, and will ever be, con­sidered an inferior individual to the medical student and this is only a natural result of the prevailing system. 61 
Besides the advantages of improved extracurricular activities, the main university offered a broad range of academic courses unavailable in Galveston. This was of particular significance for the pharmacy program. In 1925, when the college adopted the three-year curriculum recommended by the American Associa­tion of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP), the faculty was already 
&O<'Minutes of the Board of Regents, October 19, 1926." 
61Report of Faculty to President and Board, March 2, 1927. 

anticipating the requirement of a four-year Bachelor of Science program in pharmacy within the next five years. Although AACP could only recommend curricular standards, most state legislatures were expected to begin requiring completion of a minimum four-year program for licensure within a few years. 52 As the pharmacy faculty report stated, "The important thing to the pharmacy student is that his school provide the comforts of a van [guard] position, rather than take the results of being in the wake, when [the] state board of pharmacy make [sic] rulings on increased educational requirements. "53 
In analyzing the current Ph.G. program, the faculty made the following prediction: 
The usual three year curriculum of a university college of phar­macy contains but few cultural subjects, while baccalaureate degrees imply the completion of a considerable amount of general informative studies. (In reference to "cultural subjects" in our present curriculum, the following might be classed as semi-cultural at least: Botany ... , Pharmaceutical Latin ... , Phar­maceutical Arithmetic ... , Pharmaceutical Jurisprudence ... , History of Pharmacy ... , General Chemistry. 54 
Other colleges of pharmacy situated within general universities could allow students to take work in subjects such as English, physics, typewriting, bookkeeping, and other business subjects during the course of the pharmacy program. Because of its loca­tion on the campus of the Medical Branch, however, the College of Pharmacy of The University of Texas was unable to offer stu­dents such variety, and over 80 percent of the course work was of a technical nature. 55 
Anticipating the implementation of a Bachelor of Science degree in pharmacy, the college faculty began to consider the circumstances entailed in attempting such a course in Galves­ton. 
The standard B.S. in Pharmacy course is built around a three year curriculum by adding the equivalent of a year's general 
12Ibid., p. 2. 
61lbid. 
"Ibid. 
66lbid. 

academic training. Any educator would concede that the ideal place for the cultural subjects would be to precede, rather than follow, the specific studies of pharmacy but no inflexible rule for all cases should govern the point. 
The staff of the University of Texas College of Pharmacy has had the situation before it for over two years. We have studied the formed three and four year courses in many university colleges of pharmacy, in the light of the needs of pharmacy in Texas and with due consideration for the equipment of the present school of pharmacy at Galveston. There is no reason why a strong school of pharmacy in Texas will not attract large numbers of students to its halls, just as has happened in so many university centers. 68 
The major obstacle to developing a "strong school of phar­macy" was the lack of adequate facilities for "cultural" as well as scientific studies. Despite the difficult conditions previously chronicled, the faculty felt it would be possible to offer a B.S. degree in pharmacy, with some allowance made for acquiring course work in "cultural subjects." Three possible alternatives were suggested. The first plan was to hire additional instructors, enlarge accommodations, and increase .the equipment at the Medical Branch "so as to assure a properly conducted and suf­ficiently inclusive three-year course and a properly balanced elective four-year course. "67 The main quandary with this solu­tion was the extensive and expensive duplication in course work that would occur between the curriculum of the main university in Austin and the campus in Galveston. "Without the additional instructors to teach sufficient of the cultural subjects," the faculty report warned, 
the University of Texas College of Pharmacy located at Galveston will never be able to rise above its present three year course in pharmacy. If this is our future outlook we should know the truth, so that we may withdraw our support from the Texas State Board of Pharmacy and other bodies striving to raise the standards of pharmacy in Texas, less [sic] such new standards prove to be tomorrow's boomerangs. "68 
511Jbid. 
57lbid., p. 4. 
58Jbid. 

The second proposal entailed arranging accommodations for a properly conducted three-year course at Galveston to follow one year of preparatory work in general subjects in Austin. The faculty, however, felt the year of preliminary work in Austin to be the weakest feature of this second scheme. 
Ifthe time were considered ripe for requiring two years' collegiate training at Austin (as in the case of medicine) this plan would be much more commendable. The difficulty lies in securing the proper sequence of subjects, in adjusting time schedules and in providing for students who should fail in single subjects. This plan does permit the future establishment of a four year course in pharmacy, but it does not provide the ideal curricular arrange­ment for its administration. Also, conditions favoring research are not provided thereby. 59 
If such a plan were followed, the faculty envisioned a new phar­macy building at Galveston as a future objective of the college. 
Neither of these alternatives, however, appeared totally satisfactory to the members of the pharmacy faculty. The plan they favored was the removal of the College of Pharmacy to Austin, and they outlined the following arguments in favor of their case: 
[The college's] technical and scientific subjects can be given as proficiently in Austin as in Galveston. There are no exceptions to this statement. Indeed several subjects could be considerably strengthened by the move. Our Department of Chemistry could co-ordinate and co-operate with the Department of Chemistry at Austin. The same is true for several of our other regular divisions. The School of Business Administration at Austin could greatly strengthen our commercial training effectiveness. Exactly on this point we could then make our strongest appeal for the full support of the pharmaceutical profession of Texas. 80 
Under such a plan, the three-year course could be continued as long as the AACP allowed, with courses in the humanities pur­sued by those desiring a more rounded education and advanced degrees. With the advent of the four-year Bachelor of Science degree, the "cultural subjects" could be interwoven into the first 
69lbid. 
80lbid., p. 5. 

two or three years of the pharmacy curriculum. The more central location in Austin would also be a distinct advantage in attracting increased enrollees, particularly from areas in northern Texas. 61 On main campus, students enrolled for ad­vanced work in pharmacy or allied fields would be available to serve as laboratory assistants and instructors, thus reducing the number of adjunct professors on the payroll. In Galveston, such assistants were unavailable because no graduate work could be given. Another economic advantage of relocation in Austin would be the assumption by the College of Pharmacy of the task of instructing all premedical students in organic and inorganic chemistry; such an arrangement would afford greater utilization of laboratory space, equipment, and furniture and would eliminate duplication of such subjects later in the medical cur­riculum.62 In addition, students in pharmacy 
would enjoy greater facilities for graduate and advanced research, and benefit by the availability of the chemical, the botanical, and the School of Business libraries and by contact with the numerous instructors interested in these and in other educational fields. 88 
In short, every department would appear to benefit from this third alternative. The faculty of the College of Pharmacy fores aw the possibility of a regeneration in pharmaceutical education in Texas. 
Our numbers are on the increase. Given an opportunity to ad­minister our three year course well, and to standardize the phar­maceutical curriculum in general by creating an elective four year's course, there will result the strongest school of its kind in the South. We believe we have mutual ambitions in this regard. The achievement is much more feasible in Austin than in Galveston. The staff of the College of Pharmacy recommend the third plan. 64 
Support for the removal of the College of Pharmacy to Austin gained momentum throughout the 1926-27 school year. At the July 1927 meeting of the board of regents, University President 
"Ibid. 
•21bid. 
83lbid. 
84lbid., p. 6. 

Splawn presented the case for the proposed move. As evidence of the broad support that this proposal generated, Splawn ex­hibited a petition from the newly renamed Texas Phar­maceutical Association; favorable telegrams from pharmacists throughout the state; and a letter from the professor of chemistry at the main university pointing out the advantages of the proposal and suggesting that it would reduce the teaching staff required in the Department of Chemistry. Splawn also informed the board of the attorney general's opinion that the board had the power to take such action. Only the faculty of the Medical Branch was recorded as opposing the move by a vote of twelve to five. 65 
Despite the substantial support generated in favor of removing the College of Pharmacy to Austin, not everyone felt his own in­terests would best be served by such actions. In addition to the opposition of the faculty of the Medical Branch, as expressed in a resolution requesting the board of regents to retain the College of Pharmacy in Galveston, the Galveston Chamber of Commerce conducted an active campaign throughout the summer to pre­vent the proposed move.88 The Galveston Daily News in an editorial on 21 July 1927 criticized the decision of the regents to move the college. "The pharmacy school has been located in Galveston since its establishment, and for reasons of local pride we are loath to see it taken away. "87 
In any controversy, rumors abound, and the issue of the loca­tion of the College of Pharmacy was no exception. Dean Gidley received a letter from the Galveston Chamber of Commerce re­questing his views on the proposed move and asking for clarifica­tion of allegations made against the pharmacy staff. However, he was out of town when the letter was sent and did not have time to reply before the contents were printed in the Galveston Daily News. 
96University of Texas, "Minutes of the Meetings of the Board of Regents, July 18, 1927," Office of the Board of Regents, The University of Texas System, Austin, Texas. Although a breakdown of the individual votes was not recorded, in all likelihood the five favorable votes represented the voting members of the pharmacy faculty-Gidley, Henze, Neville, Smith, and Albers. 
"Galveston Daily News, 20 July 1927. 
871bid., 21 July 1927. 
In part, the letter from the Galveston Chamber of Commerce read: Many rumors have floated into this office regarding the personnel of your [institution], as well as yourself; that certain of your faculty own homes in Austin, and other personal reasons given why they would prefer to live in Austin. Since the proposed removal of the college of pharmacy from Galveston, where it has been established so long without, in our opinion, sufficient justification, we are anxious to get at the root of the proposition, believing the personal preferences of your faculty should not enter into the matter. 68 A later editorial in the newspaper, however, summed up more accurately the general objections to the move: From every angle the proposed transfer impresses The News as unfortunate. The argument that it will encourage attendance at the pharmacy school is based upon mere speculation. But it is plain enough that the main university will be inconvenienced and that the pharmacy school will be divorced from an association which will become increasingly valuable as the medical center surrounding the State Medical College expands under the provi­sions of the Sealy bequest. There is yet time left to avert this mis­take by prevailing upon the board of regents to reconsider an order made, we feel assured, without sufficiently weighing the situation.69 
Despite numerous objections to the proposed relocation, the board of regents decided to remove the College of Pharmacy to Austin in time for the opening of school on September 21, and to authorize the comptroller of the University to make arrangements necessary for moving the 
laboratory equipment and material from Galveston to Austin and for the housing of the work at the Main Branch.70 With a display of foresight, the Galveston Daily News retorted: 
"Thus the pharmacy school, which the board of regents were persuaded to order moved from Galveston on a plea of crowded conditions, will find itself in a much worse plight in Austin should the removal plans be carried out. "71 
88lbid., n.d. (undated clipping, circa 1924-27), Medical Branch Files, UT Archives. 
89lbid. 
7°''Minutes of the Board of Regents, July 18, 1927." 
11 Galveston Daily News, n.d. (undated clipping, circa 1924-27), Medical Branch Files, 

UT Archives. 
Although this prediction would all too soon be borne out, the pharmacy faculty faced the impending move with optimism. The vote by the board of regents came on 18 July 1927, just two months before the beginning of the fall semester. Although the time that remained was short, the faculty of the College of Phar­macy accomplished the arduous task of relocating laboratories and classrooms in new quarters in Austin before the students ar­rived. 
CONCLUSIONS 
Thus ended the thirty-four-year tenure of the College of Phar­macy in Galveston. Over the years since the college had opened in 1893, 482 students had received their Ph.G. degrees under the two-year program. Kennedy had assumed the tremendous task of establishing the curriculum and bringing the initial class to graduation. Under Cline, the School of Pharmacy had pro­gressed from 2 students in the initial graduating class to 37 who had received the last degrees offered under the two-year pro­gram. In 1925, the year after Gidley assumed the chair of pharmacy, the Ph. G. program was expanded to three years as an intermediate step to the anticipated four-year Bachelor of Science degree in pharmacy. 
Thirty-four years had also witnessed a vast change in the ac­ceptance of pharmacy graduates. When the College of Pharmacy was still a dream of the Texas State Pharmaceutical Association, TSPA President E. M. Wells had argued against too much technical education for the future "drug clerks." Cline, on the other hand, had waged an unending campaign to gain accep­tance for his students and public recognition of the value of a broadly educated pharmacist. By the time Gidley arrived at the college in Galveston, the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy had won national acceptance for a Bachelor of Science degree in pharmacy and was well on the way to seeing such a program instituted in schools around the nation. 
Change had come slowly but steadily in the years from 1893 to 1927. As student enrollment had gradually increased, more in­structors and tutors had been added to meet the demand. 
Intense lobbying on the part of Cline and the Texas State Phar­maceutical Association had resulted in a number of changes in the law as it related to both education and professional practice. The trend toward stricter regulation of which drugs could be sold and of the persons authorized to dispense them helped protect the public from dangerous drugs and unscrupulous salesmen. Such legislation resulted in stricter entrance require­ments for the College of Pharmacy. Whereas in the early years a prospective student needed only to prove his literacy, a student after 1921 had to be a graduate of a recognized high school. As the pharmacy curriculum had expanded to keep pace with the growing pharmaceutical field, the student had needed more ex­tensive training in mathematics and the sciences to complete work for the Ph. G. degree. 
In comparison with this slow but steady growth in the school and profession, changes during the next period came quite rapidly. Whereas Cline had only been able to plead with the public and the profession to increase standards for the college, the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy was able to compel, through the granting of recognition for compliance with its standards. Recognition by such a prestigious organization was considered a valuable credential for a school of pharmacy, and universities around the nation quickly adopted the recom­mended curricula and standards. Enrollments in The University of Texas College of Pharmacy very quickly increased as the three-and four-year programs went into effect and even more quickly after 1934, when the legislature required a university education of all candidates for licensure. By 1941 the college boasted the second largest enrollment in the nation. The con­comitant problems of so large an enrollment, however, were im­mense. Gidley inherited many of the difficulties with which Cline had been forced to cope during his tenure. The educational milieu was changing rapidly in the 1930s and 1940s, but Gidley still faced some of the old discords, such as the long-standing battle against inadequate space and tight budgets. Although the removal of the college to Austin was intended to resolve many of these problems, the solution was slow to materialize. A special 
New Dean, New Campus 
building intended solely for pharmacy, the goal so long sought by the TSPA and the faculty, was still a long way from realiza­tion. Burgeoning enrollments coupled with stagnating ap­propriations created a rapidly deteriorating situation within the College of Pharmacy that Dean Gidley was powerless to halt. The removal of the college to Austin thus ushered in, not the era of expansion and development envisioned, but long years of neglect and overcrowding. In actuality, the College of Pharmacy was to trade one damp and crowded basement in Galveston for several cramped and scattered shacks in Austin. 

PART II 

The 'Forty Acres,' 
7927-7947 


CHAPTER SIX: The Shack Era, 1927-1947 
THE REMOVAL OF THE COLLEGE OF PHARMACY had been discussed seriously by the pharmacists of the state as well as by university officials following the destruction by fire of the old Chemistry Building, but decisive action on the move was not taken until the summer of 1927. At the July meeting of the board of regents, President Splawn presented the case of the Col­lege of Pharmacy, and Dean Gidley appeared briefly to present his views on the subject. 1 Despite the fact that little time remained before the beginning of the fall semester, the board of regents voted to move the college to Austin in time for the open­ing of school on 21 September 1927. 
With scarcely two months remaining in which to reassemble the laboratories and offices of the College of Pharmacy on the main campus before students arrived, pharmacy faculty members were required to shorten their summer vacations in order to accomplish this monumental task. Alice Klotz Conklin, chemistry tutor, later recalled some of the problems the staff faced in accomplishing the move. One particular hurdle was the transport of the chemistry desks. Earlier Henze had fought to have additional drawers installed in the desks to increase their 
1University of Texas, "Minutes of the Meetings of the Board of Regents, July 18, 1927," Office of the Board of Regents, The University of Texas System, Austin, Texas. 
179 

capacity; the added weight and bulk of these drawers made them particularly difficult to move. 2 
Despite the relatively small size of the College of Pharmacy, the quantity of supplies and apparatus involved was con­siderable. In December of 1927 Gidley recalled the experience: 
The College of Pharmacy was removed, "root, stock and barrel," as directed by the staff of the College working in conjunction with the Comptroller of the Main University. Few appreciate the magnitude of this task. Over 500 boxes and barrels were required for packing the chemicals, solutions, tinctures, elixirs, testing reagents, crude and powdered drugs, microscopes, balances, retorts, beakers, flasks, mortars, condensers, ovens, drug mills, sieves, books, etc., etc. Then came the shelving, wall cases, laboratory desks, sinks, work desks, benches, chairs, etc.... Also, incidentally, the staff of the College had to move three households to Austin by September 1st. 1 
Despite these hardships, most of the twenty pharmacy courses began on 21 September, with two operating on a part-time basis for the first few weeks. 
Much to the dismay of the faculty and students, the new quarters turned out to be little better than those they had left behind-the damp and moldy basement in Old Red had been exchanged for temporary tar-paper and wood army barracks. One of these structures, V Hall, had been outfitted with two laboratories and a few offices to house the technical pharmacy work and the administrative office of Dean Gidley; this building was to become the headquarters for the scattered sections of the College of Pharmacy. Microscopic and crude drug work was conducted on the top floor of the recently completed Biology Building. Henze and Klotz were established in G Hall, located on the north edge of campus, which also temporarily housed the Department of Chemistry. Some chemicals and apparatus for the pharmaceutical chemistry classes went to laboratories in A Hall, while the remainder of supplies were turned over to the 
2A. K. Conklin to H. M. Burlage in telephone conversation, 10 November 1975, per­sonal files of H. M. Burlage. 'W. F. Gidley, "College of Pharmacy Takes Place on Forty Acres," Alcalde 16 (December 1927): 64. 

Pharmacy quarters on the Austin campus with the new Chemistry Building in the background 
UNJVICUITY or Tll:Xil 
••,-.,. Ual•-1" ••IWI-........._ ... 

MrtfJ' er wllollr fw Ual••,..,.f .,......_ IHDU TO aUILDUIO. 
UNIVERSITY CAMPUS 
The university campus as it appeared in the 1930s and 1940s 
general storeroom of the Department of Chemistry, which had assumed responsibility for some of the chemistry courses. 4 Begin­ning in September of 1928, the Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry of the College of Pharmacy became a subdivision of the university's Department of Chemistry, with Henze representing the interests of pharmacy in department matters.11 
Such makeshift quarters, however, did not reflect the attitude of the administration toward the College of Pharmacy. In the years immediately following World War I, enrollments at the university had rapidly increased. The funds available for the maintenance of the university had not been adequate to handle pre-World War I expenses; with the unanticipated influx of stu­dents following the armistice, the available resources could not have begun to meet the demand. The solution to the severely overcrowded conditions had been to erect a number of tem­porary wooden buildings while the board of regents petitioned the legislature to appropriate additional funds for the construc­tion of permanent quarters. The state legislature eventually responded to these pleas for assistance, but not before the univer­sity resembled a refugee camp rather than the largest educational institution in the South and Southwest. 
The tract of land on which the campus developed had originally encompassed slightly over forty acres, a fact that gave rise to the university's nickname-the "Forty Acres." What had appeared to be a spacious and sprawling campus in 1881 diminished considerably in size when the student body grew from a few hundred to over 9,000 in the 1920s. 8 After this period of rapid expansion, the university could no longer remain within its original boundaries and overflowed to the north, south, and east. Despite this expansion, references to the "Forty Acres" remained a part of the campus jargon for many years. 
'Ibid. 
6E. P. Schoch, H. L. Lochte, H. R. Henze, and W. F. Gidley to H. Y. Benedict, 18 August 1927, Medical Branch Files, Records of the Office of the President, The Univer­sity of Texas Archives, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter referred to .as Medical Branch Files, UT Archives). 
11University of Texas, University Course Catalogue, 1881-82, Texas Collection, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter cited as Catalogue). 
Pharmacy Laboratory in V Hall 
A view of the campus looking west from Speedway toward a row of shacks in front of the old Law Building 
THE FACUL1Y 
The move of the College of Pharmacy to Austin in 1927 left one faculty member of long standing behind. Associate Professor Emeritus Walter T. Garbade, who had lectured on commercial methods and pharmaceutical jurisprudence in his spare hours, remained in Galveston to operate his highly respected phar­macy. 
Faculty members who occupied quarters in the old World War I barracks on the main campus included Dean Gidley, As­sociate Professor Neville, Adjunct Professor Smith, Instructor Albers, Professor Henze, and Henze's assistant, Alice Klotz. Henze and Klotz immediately became associated with the Department of Chemistry and were henceforth included on that roster and subsequent budget appropriations. Thus, the staff of the College of Pharmacy was composed of Gidley, Neville, Smith, and Albers. 
Carl C. Albers 
Carl C. Albers, who had received his Ph.G. degree in Galveston in 1923, was actively pursuing his teaching career. As soon as the college became established in Austin, he was named secretary of the pharmacy faculty and diligently recorded the minutes of every meeting. 7 Despite these demands on his time as well as his full teaching schedule, Albers pursued his education further; in 1930 he acquired a Bachelor of Science degree in pharmacy and a Bachelor of Arts degree in botany and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. Meanwhile, he had been promoted from instructor to adjunct professor. After receiving his bachelor's degrees, Albers spent several summers at the Univer­sity of Wisconsin doing doctoral work in pharmacognosy under Dr. Edward Kremers, a noted scientist. When he received word that Dr. Kremers planned to retire in the fall of 1936, Albers ob­tained a leave of absence from his teaching duties in Austin to complete his doctoral program, receiving the Ph.D. degree in 1936.8 
1Catalogue, 1927-28. 
'Ibid. 

Since Henze was no longer associated with the College of Pharmacy, Albers became the only full-time faculty member with the Ph.D. degree, adding greatly to the prestige of the col­lege, both on campus and with the American Association of Col­leges of Pharmacy. Dean Gidley recognized the esteem that Albers brought to the pharmaceutical faculty and recommended to University President H. Y. Benedict in 1937 that Albers be promoted from assistant to associate professor. Budgetary limitations, however, prevented a salary increase from accom­panying the promotion. At the same time, Gidley also suggested that Neville retain his salary level but be reduced in rank to assis­tant professor so that Albers could be more readily advanced in title and salary.9 This reduction in rank was based, not on any shortcomings in Neville's teaching, but on the fact that his ap­pointment as associate professor in 1924 had come at a time when the faculty was being developed. The position of associate professor had been considered by the board of regents to designate his subordinate position to Gidley, who had been ap­pointed to the chair of pharmacy. By 1936, the relationship of faculty appointments in the College of Pharmacy had shifted somewhat, and Neville, with only a Ph.G degree, outranked Albers. Thus, this apparent demotion was in reality only an ad­ministrative move to redefine the staff rankings within the Col­lege of Pharmacy. 10 Although Albers was promoted to associate professor in 1937, his advancement to full professorial rank was delayed until 1948 because the heavy teaching load within the College of Pharmacy prevented him from conducting the original research generally considered a prerequisite to the promotion. 
Irma Smith 
Irma Smith was another faculty member who was to further her education. During the spring and summer of 1927 
'W. F. Gidley, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1935-1936," C.Ollcgc of Pharmacy Files, Records of the Office of the President, The University of Texas Archives, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter referred to as Pharmacy Files, UT Archives). 
IOJbid. 
she received a leave of absence to work on a bachelor's degree in biology at Texas Christian University in Forth Worth. 11 After receiving this degree, she returned to the College of Pharmacy for one year before resigning her position to marry. She had served on the faculty of the College of Pharmacy from 1921 until 1928, a total of seven academic sessions. With her husband, Ben Schmidtzinsky, she operated the Bonnie Brae Pharmacy, which enjoyed the reputation of being one of the finest professional pharmacies in San Antonio. 12 Eventually they sold this operation and established the Lakeview Pharmacy, which has now passed to the management of their son, also an alumnus of the College of Pharmacy. 18 
Louis William Schleuse 
To replace Irma Smith Schmidtzinsky, Louis W. Schleuse, a 1925 graduate of the college, was appointed instructor in phar­macy. Schleuse, a native of Denison, Texas, was a first-year stu­dent during "Daddy" Cline's last year. As an honor student, he was awarded the first Lehn and Fink gold medal for scholarship.14 Immediately after receiving his Ph. G. degree, he served as pharmacist at the McGowen Pharmacy in Houston and then in the establishment of his former professor, Walter Garbade, in Galveston. After his appointment to the faculty in 1928, Schleuse continued to work as a pharmacist during sum­mers to supplement his meager instructor's salary. After the col­lege relocated in Austin, Schleuse worked in the W endeland Pharmacy in nearby Manor. 
Schleuse did not terminate his education upon receipt of the Ph.G. degree. He also studied for a B.S. degree in pharmacy, which he received in 1932, and a B.A. degree in botany and bacteriology, awarded in 1938. Thereafter, he began graduate work under Dr. B. C. Tharp of the Department of Botany. Schleuse described the origins of his research project as follows: 
111. S. Schmidtzinsky to Burlage, 19 May 1976, personal files of H. M. Burlage. 
12L. W. Schleuse to Burlage, personal files of H. M. Burlage. 
11Schleuse to Burlage, personal files of H. M. Burlage. 
HCatalogue, 1944-45. 

Louis William Schleuse 
[Dr.] Tharp suggested that I determine the identity of a small plant he had found on a golf course. He thought it might be a new specie of Callitriche. A literature search revealed no contrary evidence. 11 
Schleuse began extensive work on this species of plant, preparing hundreds of stained slides of all parts of the small plant and tak­ing many photomicrographs. Because of the confused state of the literature on the genus of this plant, Tharp advised Schleuse to rework the entire genus for his doctorate and to include the work on the new species in the dissertation. Although he made con­siderable progress in this study, Schleuse was never able to finish his work. As he recalled: 
All went down the drain when W[orld] W[ar] II made it impossi­ble for Dr. Tharp to borrow the European Callitriche type specimens from the University of Berlin. When the smoke had cleared away, I was embarked on a new career. 111 
His research and advanced course work may not have earned him a Ph.D., but he did receive promotion from instructor to as­sistant professor of pharmacy in 1937. He also served as secretary of the pharmacy faculty, succeeding Albers in 1937. 
In this capacity, Schleuse continued to teach and pursue his research until the war cut off his source of material. In 1943, he received a year's leave of absence to pursue work with Texas Pharmacal Company, a San Antonio-based drug-manufactur­ing firm. The following year he applied for and received another leave to finish this work, finally resigning from the university in 1945 to become director of manufacturing and product develop­ment for the company. In 1948 he rose to the position of vice­president, and in 1955 he became president of Texas Pharmacal Company, a position he held until his retirement in April of 1966.17 
A.lice Klotz 
Alice Klotz, instructor in chemistry, also retired shortly after the College of Pharmacy moved to Austin, but her retirement 
11Schleuse to Burlage, 18 November 1975, personal files of H. M. Burlage. 
1'Ibid. 
17Ibid. 

may not have been voluntary as had been that of Irma Smith. Shortly after relocating in Austin, Klotz met Willet T. Conklin, a young instructor in the Department of English. After their mar­riage in 1929, Alice Klotz Conklin continued in her duties in the Department of Chemistry. During this period, however, the board of regents was actively investigating faculty and staff relationships in an effort to enforce the university's nepotism rule. The minutes of the board of regents record numerous ex­ceptions to the nepotism rule that were granted on the basis that the employment of certain related persons would be in the best interests of the university. The employment of a female instruc­tor, however, was not considered to be vital to the continued ef­fectiveness of the Department of Chemistry or the university, and in 1930 Alice Klotz Conklin was compelled to resign from her position at the university. 18 
Other Faculty Members 
Additional members of the teaching staff included instructors, lecturers, and part-time personnel who served varying tenures as the College of Pharmacy entered a period of rapid growth. The first part-time lecturer was C. P. Hardwicke, who had received the M.D. degree in Galveston in 1926. He assisted with lecture courses in pharmacology from 1927 to 1939. 11 John Richard Stockton joined the faculty in 1938 as a tutor, but advanced to the position of instructor after receiving a Bachelor of Science degree in pharmacy with highest honors. In 1941, Stockton earned a master's degree and was subsequently named assistant professor and research associate in bacteriology. In 1946, he resigned from the college to become director of Highland Laboratories in Los Angeles. 20 
18C::onklin to Burlage, telephone conversation. Conklin stated that she was asked to resign because the continued employment of both her and her husband was in direct violation of the university's nepotism rule. A study of the minutes of the board of regents for the year 1930 reveals no discussion of the Conklin case. Nepotism cases under discus­sion by the board generally concerned the granting of exceptions to the rule. Since an ex­ception was not granted in the Conklin case, it appears as no surprise that the matter did not come to the specific attention of the board. Based on the recorded number of such cases at this time, the assumption may be made that the Conklin claim is valid. 
'"Catalogue, 1938-39. 
20 Texas Droggist, November 1946, p. 8. 
John Richard Stockton 
Women continued to hold positions in the College of Phar­macy. Virginia B. Fuchs, who received her Bachelor of Science degree in pharmacy in 1945, served as instructor from 1945 to 1946.21 Mary Ellen White Shimek, with a B.S. in pharmacy degree, served as half-time director of the Student Health Center Dispensary from 1946 until 1948. 22 In 1941, Adela Schneider was one of three students appointed to assistantships in the College of Pharmacy. Schneider subsequently became director of the dis­pensary at Southern Pacific Hospital in Houston and was one of the founders of the Texas Society of Hospital Pharmacists. 28 
As the College of Pharmacy experienced a period of tremen­dous growth from 1934 to 1948, the faculty also expanded. Many assistants, tutors, and instructors were employed for short periods of time. These persons are given recognition in Appendix A, but are not included in the text. This omission, however, is not intended to diminish their contributions to the College of Pharmacy during a period of sustained growth. 
Although salaries within the College of Pharmacy had improved considerably since "Daddy" Cline's day, they were generally lower than those in other departments of the univer­sity. In 1941, Dean Gidley received S4, 500 annually; Albers and Neville, as associate and assistant professors, respectively, received $3,200 each; and Schleuse received $2,800. Instructor Stockton, who devoted five-sixths of his time to teaching, only received $1,800. Dean Gidley noted at the bottom of his budget recommendations for the academic year 1941-42 that Stockton, who was actually spending the whole of his time in teaching ac­tivities, was very much worth keeping and should receive an in­crease. After all, Gidley noted, Stockton was married and trying to raise a family on his instructor's salary. 2' Although Stockton 
21Catalogue, 1945-46. 
22Catalogue, 1947-48. 
UUniversity of Texas, Pharmacy Extension Service, brochure on the First Annual Hospital Pharmacy Seminar, 1946, Division of Extension Files, Records of the Office of the President, The University of Texas Archives, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter referred to as Extension Files, UT Archives). 
2'W. F. Gidley, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1941-1942," Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
remained with the College of Pharmacy until 1946, he was per­
suaded eventually to become director of the Highland Laboratories in Los Angeles at a substantially increased salary. Thus, during Dean Gidley's administration, three faculty members gave up university teaching because of low salaries­Walter T. Garbade, Louis W. Schleuse, and John R. Stockton. Whereas keeping highly qualified faculty members was a major problem for the College of Pharmacy, attracting new members at the low salaries offered was an even greater one. This deficiency proved to be one of the factors that prevented the College of Pharmacy from developing into a first-rate institution during the administration of Dean Gidley. 
THE CURRICULUM The twenty years following the College of Pharmacy's move to Austin represented a period of great change. Legal and academic regulations substantially altered the curriculum, while a rapidly increasing enrollment placed inordinate strains on the limited facilities of the college. Throughout this period, the college endeavored to bring the curriculum into accordance with the rapidly changing character of professional practice in the United States. The first decision the college faced after the move to Austin was the length of the pharmacy program. In 1925, the Ph. G. program had been expanded to three years, and the last two-year degrees were awarded in 1926. Dean Gidley had anticipated a sharp drop in enrollment following the announcement that an additional year of studies would be re­quired, and his prediction was borne out. The enrollment in 1924 of seventy-eight students dropped to forty-seven in 1925 and thirty-three in 1926. By the time the college had become es­tablished in Austin in the fall of 1927, however, enrollment began to recover as fifty-seven students signed up for classes in the fall. By 1928, eighty-one were studying pharmacy in Austin, and this figure remained the average for the next six years. 25 Entrance requirements for the College of Pharmacy were nearly identical with those for other departments within the 
26Catalogues, 1923-35. 
university. The adoption of high school graduation as a pre­requisite for the study of pharmacy, a requirement that became effective in 1921, brought the College of Pharmacy to a par with the main university. The only difference was the exemption of pharmacy students from the foreign-language requirement. 28 
In 1928, the Bachelor of Science degree in pharmacy, the four­year requirement toward which the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy had been aiming, became an optional course in addition to the standard three-year Ph.G. program. The first B.S. degrees were awarded in 1929, and by 1934 they had become the norm as the Ph.G. program was eliminated. Re­quisites for the B.S. degree in pharmacy included 125 semester hours of course work with a minimum grade average of C and satisfaction of the general university requirement in English. American government and history were later added to the bachelor's degree program when the state legislature and the board of regents, respectively, required such studies of all univer­sity students. 27 
The state legislature in 1929 passed a law regulating the prac­tice of pharmacy. The provision most closely affecting the college was the stipulation that all those presenting themselves for ex­amination by the State Board of Pharmacy be graduates of a recognized school of pharmacy. This aspect of the law was due, in large measure, to the efforts of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, which had worked to have such standards established in every state, and to pressure from other states on Texas to maintain a high level of professional standards in order that registered Texas pharmacists might continue to enjoy reciprocity with other states. 
Although this bill did not become law until 1934, the University Course Catalogue carried such a notice beginning in 1929. When the law finally became effective, enrollments in the college im­mediately jumped from 86 students in 1933 to a record number of 120 in 1934. Although prospective students appear to have 
28Catalogue, 1921-22. 
21Catalogue, 1928-29. 

The Shack Era 
been hesitant to enroll for the new three-year program in 1925, by the time four years of education were required by law in 1934, potential pharmacists enrolled in the college in droves. From this point on, the student body of the College of Pharmacy continued to increase at such a rapid rate that the facilities available were unable to accommodate adequately such an enrollment. 
A quick reference to the enrollment figures for these years, as shown in table 2, will give an indication of the unusual growth rate that confronted the College of Pharmacy. This explosive in­crease in the number of students created nearly insurmountable problems for the college, which also faced severe budgetary restrictions due to the reduced financial circumstances brought on by the depression years. Dean Gidley and his small staff in­deed functioned under adverse conditions. 
TABLE 2 
ENROLLMENT IN THE COLLEGE OF PHARMACY, 1933-40 

Year  Men  Women  Total  
1933-34  73  13  86  
1934-35  107  13  120  
1935-36  134  16  150  
1936-37  165  19  184  
1937-38  218  24  242  
1938-39  258  30  288  
1939-40  274  31  305  

SOURCE: University of Texas, University Course Catalogues, 1933-40, Texas Collection. 
Advances within the College of Pharmacy, however, did not come to a complete halt as a result of the depressed economy. A model drugstore, complete with fixtures and merchandise, was acquired through donations from wholesale, manufacturing, and jobbing firms. Through practice in pharmacy, students learned the commercial techniques of decoration, display, salesmanship, advertising, buying, inventories, show-card writing, window trimming, and so forth. 28 During a time of reduced business ac-
SSW. F. Gidley, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1937-1938," Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
tivity, student interest turned toward the practical applications of the profession. 
In 1938 this trend toward the more practical aspects of phar­macy became formalized with the adoption of a dual program for the Bachelor of Science degree. Plan I was tailored for those stu­dents who desired a professional, scientifically oriented program. Physics, mathematics, and chemistry as well as advanced phar­macy courses were given added emphasis during the last two years of the program. Plan II, which differed from the standard course only in the junior and senior years, included courses in business administration, economics, and psychology. The focus of the Plan II curriculum was the preparation of students for the business phase of a commercial pharmacy.29 To help counteract the pattern of drugstores that more closely resembled depart­ment stores, the Plan II curriculum stressed a professional ap­proach to the practice of pharmacy: soda vending did not appear in the curriculum. 
In 1944, however, the two-curriculum plan for a B.S. degree in pharmacy was dropped in favor of a standardized course in keep­ing with the guidelines established by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. The new standardized curriculum, which combined features of both the earlier options, was in­creased from 125 semester hours, which had been the standard requirement for a bachelor's degree within the university, to 135 hours as the college strove to bring the course offerings to a par with those at other schools of pharmacy throughout the country.80 This earlier optional specialization, however, was the forerunner of similar programs that were later to be more exten­sively developed in the 1950s. 
New courses added during the 1930s and early 1940s give an idea of the changing nature of pharmaceutical practice. Schleuse first taught a course in the manufacturing of cosmetic prepara­tions in 1932. 81 An outgrowth of his interest in this field was his 
29Catalogue, 1938-39. 
80Catalogue, 1943-44. 
81Catalogue, 1932-33. 

development of the formula for the widely used preparation known under the trade name of Pond's Cold Cream. Also at this time Neville instituted a course in parasiticides and parasitology.82 These two courses are indicative of the divergent directions in which the profession of pharmacy was developing. In 1938 a new course on the sources of pharmaceutical informa­tion given by Albers was introduced as an elective to help stu­dents keep abreast of the rapidly expanding literature in various fields of pharmacy. That same year, Dean Gidley felt the need to start a course in biological medicines so that the students, as future pharmacists, could keep pace with the extensive research being conducted in medical fields. 88 Subsequent courses entitled "Diagnostic Reagents of the USP and NF," "Diagnostic Procedures in Blood, Urine, and Stomach Analysis," "Tox­icological Analysis," and "Official Medicines" were also designed to keep the future pharmacist cognizant of his rapidly changing field. 8' During these years, Albers developed additional courses in pharmacognosy, such as "History of the Cultivation of Medicinal Plants" and "Plant Extraction," which consisted of an investigation of crude plant material for mineral content and proximate principles. 815 · 
Even though the professional option had been merged with the commercial program in 1943, the trend of research and teaching within the College of Pharmacy· was clearly inclined toward new­ly developing areas of scientific knowledge. Minimum facilities for research and overburdened teaching schedules kept the faculty from conducting any far-reaching research, but the limited experimental work that was conducted by the pharmacy staff despite adverse conditions attests to faculty interest in such endeavors. 
The introduction of laboratory work in dispensary practice was a significant achievement in pharmaceutical education in Texas. Not only did this course work encourage students to 
82Ibid. 
88Catalogue, 1938-39. 
"Catalogue, 1942-43. 
85lbid. 

perfect their pill-rolling techniques, but the State Board of Phar­macy eventually decided to allow such training to satisfy the legal requirement of one year's experience in professional prac­tice. Students who held licenses based on this dispensary ex­pertise, however, could not obtain a reciprocal license in another state until they had acquired another year of full-time experience.86 
Opportunities for students to gain professional experience were expanded when the board of regents in 1940 allowed the College of Pharmacy to dispense at cost prescriptions written by the University Health Center physicians. Although this had been the practice at John Sealy Hospital in Galveston, students in Austin had previously been unable to prepare medicines for ac­tual sale and use. Because the stock and fixtures of the model drugstore had been donated by private industry, students had not been permitted to prepare competitive products. The deci­sion of the regents to allow the dispensing of actual prescriptions under strict supervision not only afforded pharmacy students the opportunity to gain confidence and experience through actual practice, but it also effected considerable economy in the opera­tion of the University Health Center. Gradually, this operation began to show a profit. In 1941, President Homer Rainey ap­proved a proposal by Dean Gidley to allow 7 5 percent of the in­come from the compounding of prescriptions in the dispensary to be reapportioned to the budget of the College of Pharmacy. Thus, even further economies were realized through the co­operation with the University Health Center Dispensary. 87 
Another interesting aspect of the curriculum was the annual student visit to the plants of various drug-manufacturing firms. Every spring the College of Pharmacy chartered a railroad car so that students, faculty chaperones, and spouses could make the three-or four-day trip together. Although the cost was borne by the individual, the trip became a degree requirement. Such ex­cursions also allowed the student interested in manufacturing 
38W. F. Gidley, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1941-1942," Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
37H. P. Rainey to Gidley, 6 October 1941, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
pharmacy to make valuable contacts with prospective employers. Those unable to participate were allowed to sub­stitute additional dispensary work for this requirement. 
Provision for a medicinal plant garden had long been a regular budgetary request of the College of Pharmacy. After many years of lobbying in Galveston, Cline had finally been able to establish such a garden in 1920, but this project and all of the plants that he had so laboriously acquired from around the world had been left behind when the college was transferred to Austin. Albers, Schleuse, and Gidley had frequently petitioned the university president for authorization to establish a similar garden on the main campus. During the depression years, when money even for salaries was scarce, a medicinal plant garden was one of the least important concerns of the administration. In 1941, however, when Fred Adams of the Adams Extract Company in­dicated willingness to give money explicitly for the creation of such a garden, the administration showed more interest in the project.88 The garden was finally established on a plot of ground to the northeast of the Texas Memorial Museum now occupied by the university's Physical Plant. Some differences of opinion arose between Albers and the university comptroller over the cost of constructing the garden. In 1942, Albers had estimated a minimum of $935, while the comptroller foresaw $1,200 to $3,000 to cover the cost of fencing, pipe, and soil, and $510 for a half-time gardener.89 Although the eventual cost was never recorded, the Adams donation of $725 toward the project was in­strumental in establishing the garden in Austin. "0 
STUDENT ACTIVITIES 
Student organizations have played an important role on the main campus, and the College of Pharmacy quickly entered into this aspect of student life. Pharmaceutical organizations on the 
88Rainey to C. C. Albers, 20 October 1941, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
89Rainey to Albers, 25 February 1942; and C. W. Simmons to Rainey, 
1 December 1941, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
'°Rainey to Fred Adams, 13 May 1942, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
campus have generally been strongly oriented toward com­munity service and the development of professional pride and morale among members. Some of the activities in which various clubs have participated over the years have included community­health campaigns such as blood and plasma drives, blood­pressure testing, and immunization drives; appearances before school groups concerning drug abuse, dangers of smoking, and the use of alcohol; and working with the mentally retarded, the deaf, and the blind. Student pharmaceutical organizations have also been responsible for lobbying in the state legislature in favor of or opposition to measures that would directly affect the profes­sion of pharmacy. Social functions have played a large role in the group activities as have various intramural sports. 
The first of these groups to be organized was the Lambda chapter of Phi Delta Chi, which was founded in Galveston in 1905. Membership in this professional fraternity was open to academically qualified pharmacy students who were "interested in promoting leadership, scholarship, and professional ethics in the field of pharmacy. "'1 Although Phi Delta Chi had existed on the Medical Branch campus for twenty-seven years, little is known of its activities during this period. The rigors of the Ph.G. program may have precluded much active participation by its members. When the College of Pharmacy was moved to Austin in 1927, the Phi Delta Chi organization remained in Galveston under the leadership of the medical students. In 1932 it became inactive but did not fade into oblivion. This fraternity was reac­tivated in 1956, in Austin, and has played an active role in student affairs ever since. 42 
The Nu chapter of Rho Chi, a national honorary phar­maceutical society, was the second student organization within the College of Pharmacy. Established in 1930, Rho Chi filled some of the gap left by the inactivity of Phi Delta Chi from 1930 to 1956. Rho Chi, however, is an honorary society rather than a service organization as is Phi Delta Chi. Charters for local 
41"History of Phi Delta Chi," unpublished manuscript, Lambda chapter of Phi Delta Chi, Austin, Texas. 
'2Ibid. 

The campus in Austin, showing the Main Library at right 
chapters of this organization are granted only to schools that are members in good standing of the American Association of Col­leges of Pharmacy. Eligibility for individual membership is based on high scholarship as well as other meritorious contribu­tions. Members are selected after they have completed the first half of the fourth year with the approval of the dean of the Col­lege of Pharmacy." Since the fall of 1952, the Rho Chi Scholarship Award has recognized the student obtaining the highest scholastic average during his first professional year and has presented this student with a pertinent reference book. As an honorary society, Rho Chi is open to women as well as men stu­dents, whereas Phi Delta Chi is open only to men. 
Women students in pharmacy, wanting to form an honorary professional sorority limited to women of good academic standing within the College of Pharmacy, founded Kappa Ep­silon. Unlike Rho Chi, whose academic standards are very demanding, Kappa Epsilon is open to all women who have maintained a 2.0 grade-point average or higher. The local group was organized in 1941 as the Mortar and Pestle Club, but in 1943 it was chartered as the Xi chapter of Kappa Epsilon." Upon becoming chartered nationally, the chapter assumed the nomenclature of fraternity in keeping with the national usage of the word, which denotes a professional organization. Each year the chapter sponsors a number of projects, including an award for the outstanding female student in the College of Pharmacy and a tuition scholarship. 46 
The Gamma Gamma chapter of Kappa Psi was originally es­tablished in 1933 as a service organization open to any student with an interest in professional as well as extracurricular ac­tivities. The chapter became inactive during the war years in the 1940s, but was reactivated in 1950 and has since played a major role in student life on the Austin campus." 
.,,Longhorn Pharmacist, November 1952, p. 6. 
"Longhorn Pharmacist, December 1943, p. 4. 
46lbid. 
"Longhorn Pharmacist, January 1951, p. 3. 

During the 1930s, The University of Texas Pharmaceutical Association was organized by students in the College of Phar­macy. Later on, student branches of the American Phar­maceutical Association (APhA) and Texas Pharmaceutical As­sociation (TPA) were also organized. These groups held monthly meetings at which scientific papers were often presented by faculty members or students. The main objective of these organizations was to foster professional pride and to in­troduce students to their state and national organizations. Groups of students would often attend the annual convention of the Texas Pharmaceutical Association during the summer months. Little has been recorded of the activities of any of these organizations until the publication of The Longhorn Pharmacist began in 1941. This student-published journal served as the of­ficial organ of The University of Texas Pharmaceutical Associa­tion (UTPhA). Although the first mimeographed issue only in­cluded four short articles, a lengthy history of the college by the dean, and a listing of students enrolled in pharmacy, the journal quickly prospered. By the late 1940s, it had expanded to ten or more pages and appeared in printed form with numerous photographs. In the first issue of The Longhorn Pharmacist) the president of UTPhA described the purpose of the journal as that of serving as a forum for student ideas as well as a stimulant of good fellowship among students. 47 When the enrollment in the College of Pharmacy had equaled no more than 80 or 90, com­munication between students and faculty had not been difficult. However, by the time the second issue of The Longhorn Pharmacist was published in April of 1941, enrollment was approaching the 300 mark, and the editors felt the need to urge students to become acquainted with as many other students as possible. 48 
Succeeding issues and volumes of The Longhorn Pharmacist recorded many aspects of student interest. Activities of the honorary and professional associations were reported, as were the annual visits to pharmaceutical plants and faculty-student 
' 7Longhom Pharmacist, November 1940, p. 3. 
' 8Longhom Pharmacist, April 1941, p. 4. 

social affairs. Dean Gidley often wrote a column as did the presi­dent of UTPhA. On the lighter side were humorous articles, stu­dent gossip, and a monthly section on current jokes. The most important function of The Longhorn Pharmaci.st was to serve as a forum for student opinion on issues of importance to phar­macists. During World War II the journal kept students in­formed of their ever-changing status with the draft and urged the conservation of such items as rubbing alcohol and quinine, which were needed for the war effort. The introduction in both the 1943 and 1951 state legislatures of bills proposing to lower the professional standards of pharmacy prompted The Longhorn Pharmacist to wage an editorial campaign against these measures. As a result of such articles, many students lobbied against these attempts to lower standards, an effort that met success when the measures were defeated. As the research capabilities of the col­lege expanded in the wake of World War II, The Longhorn Phar­macist began to carry the same types of scientific articles as did the professional journals that it emulated. In 1959 The Longhorn Pharmacist was superseded by The Texas journal of Pharmacy. 
With this myriad of organizations and activities, student life on the main campus encompassed more thanjust academics. In Galveston, the only organized diversion to the scholastic routine had been the dining clubs, which had lived strictly up to their names. With the advent of the three-year Ph.G. program, most of the studies that "Daddy" Cline had crowded into two years were extended over a longer period of time. This lengthened program not only allowed students to pursue the required work in more depth, but it also permitted time for social and profes­sional activities as well as elective courses in other fields. 
CHAPTER SEVEN: 	The Efforts to Maintain AccreditationJ 1929-1947 
THROUGHOUT HIS TENURE in Galveston, Cline had endeavored to raise the curriculum of the college to a par with prevailing standards at the established schools around the country. In 1925, one year after his death, the American Associa­tion of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) granted recognition to The University of Texas College of Pharmacy after the adoption of a three-year Ph.G. program. Recognition by the AACP en­tailed periodic inspections to ensure that standards were main­tained. 
VISITATION AND ACCREDITATION, 1929 
The first such visit by the AACP to The University of Texas occurred in 1929, two years after the move to Austin. Although classes were being held in army barracks scattered around the campus until the new Chemistry Building could be completed, the AACP inspector submitted a generally favorable report. In coming to his conclusions, the inspector considered six factors: 
(1) the control, organization, and internal administration of the college; (2) the financial suppport; (3) the instructional load of the faculty; (4) the faculty itself; (5) the plant and equipment; 
205 

and ( 6) the curriculum. A brief discussion of his findings will give a general impression of the conditions of the College of Pharmacy in 1929 on the eve of the Great Depression. 
In his report to the AACP, the inspector judged the control, organization, and administration of the college to be satisfactory and noted a spirit of cordial cooperation between the university administration and the faculty and staff of the various depart­ments and colleges of the university. 1 He found the finances to be properly handled and in excellent order and reported that "the wealth of the State together with a sympathetic legislature in­dicate that the future financial needs of the University will be adequately taken care of. "2 
Although the faculty as a whole was deemed well trained, Dean Gidley and Professors Neville and Albers were thought to be carrying excessive teaching loads. The report suggested that "research and literature productiveness in the Department [sic] of Pharmacy would probably be increased if the [teaching] loads were diminished. "3 Although the housing and equipment of the College of Pharmacy were adequate, the AACP looked forward optimistically to the better housing conditions expected after the scheduled completion of the new Chemistry Building in 1930. In addition, equipment was needed for research and supplementary teaching. A shortage of equipment may have accounted for the disproportion of lecture-to-laboratory hours that the inspector found. The AACP preferred that the ratio of laboratory hours to lecture hours be greater than the 5 :4 ratio that the College of Pharmacy offered.4 
In a concluding statement, the inspector noted: 
Although at present housed in barracks, the chemical and phar­
maceutical laboratory furnishings are quite satisfactory and the 
instruction is excellent. The College of Pharmacy has made rapid 
1A. R. Bliss, Jr., "Report of the Visitation of College of Pharmacy, University of Tex­as," 1929, College of Pharmacy Files, Records of the Office of the President, The Univer­sity of Texas Archives, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter referred to as Pharmacy Files, UT Archives). 
2Ibid. 
8lbid. 
'Ibid. 
strides since its removal from Galveston to Austin, and the next two years will probably show the successful consummation of present plans which will make this College of Pharmacy one of the best appointed schools in the country. The authorities should be urged to bend every effort toward securing the new Chemical Building so that Pharmacy can be removed from the "shacks" at an early date. There is a splendid spirit of cooperation, confidence and respect evident among the executive and administrative af­fairs of the College and the University. 6 
Although the "splendid spirit of cooperation" continued to exist within the College of Pharmacy, the AACP prediction that it would soon become one of the "best appointed" schools in the country did not transpire. The College of Pharmacy had the potential for such achievement, but the AACP report could not foresee the economic straits that would face the country nor the sudden surge in enrollments that would swell the College of Pharmacy to its limits. These concerns would beset the college in the 1930s and eventually undermine the Class A rating that the 1929 inspection had reaffirmed. 
UNIVERSITY FUNDING 
The nature of the funding of The University of Texas is unique and should be explained in order to clarify the budgetary problems that faced not only the College of Pharmacy but the entire university during the early years of the twentieth century. At the time of the chartering of the university by the Texas legislature in 1853, one million acres of state lands were ap­propriated for the support of "a university of the first class." Throughout the years this endowment was expanded until, in the 1920s, it included over two million acres. The constitution of the state of Texas, adopted in 1848 when the Republic of Texas joined the Union, specifically stated that no public monies were to be spent on the construction of university buildings, although no mention had been made in regard to state funding of salaries or equipment. In keeping with this dictum, the charter of The 
6lbid. 
University of Texas provided that funds for the construction and maintenance of the institution had to be drawn from interest earned on the investment of monies generated from the leasing of various rights to university lands. Thus, two million acres of arid plains in West Texas, plus the money from grazing rights that these holdings commanded, formed the untouchable Permanent Fund. Interest earned from the investment of these monies filled the coffers of the Available Fund, which could then be allocated by the board of regents for the support of the university. 
In addition to these two funds, university income was derived from legislative appropriations and private donations. During the nearly one hundred years of its history, private donations have played a substantial role in the university's development, particularly in regard to the construction of buildings. Donations by the Sealy-Smith Foundation in Galveston, which have con­tributed substantially over the years to the growth of the Medical Branch, serve as an example of the generosity of wealthy Texans to the support of education. 
Because of the large land holdings of the university, it was as­sumed by legislators and educators alike that the income from this endowment, increased to some extent by low student fees, would provide sufficient support for the university. Until the 1920s, however, the Available Fund seldom exceeded $300,000 a year. Even in a time of relatively low cost of living, $300,000 did not extend far in supporting upwards of 10,000 students with concomitant staff and facilities. Capital for running expenses was chronically short, as is noted in the tight budgets approved for the College of Pharmacy. Given this shortage of funds to cover the numerous requests, the board of regents developed a policy around 1908 of allocating money for salaries and equip­ment at the expense of constructing new buildings. Although the university was thus able to attain a reputation for academic ex­cellence and membership in exclusive educational associations, the campus consisted of numerous ramshackle structures erected in the open spaces between the few permanent buildings. 
In view of this chronic shortage of money in the Available Fund, the board of regents continued for many years to ask the 
legislature to appropriate enough money to cover operating ex­penses of the university, thereby freeing the endowment monies for use in the construction of badly needed permanent buildings. The legislature ignored such requests for many years, but in the early 1920s finally acceded to the regents' request. Fortunately, about the time the legislature passed an act designating the university's income from the endowment to the erection of buildings and permanent improvements, oil was discovered on university lands, which would soon fill these coffers to overflow­ing. As money from oil leases, royalties, and other sources rolled in, the Permanent Fund expanded from $2 million in 1923 to over $50 million in 1944. This unexpected wealth, coupled with legislative acts directing these funds toward permanent improve­ments on the campus, sparked a tremendous era of expansion between 1925 and 1935. Although a legislative act in 1934 re­quired The University of Texas to share this income with Texas A&M College, ample funds were by then available for both. While other cities throughout the state and the nation were plunged into depression in the 1930s, the people of Austin and Galveston enjoyed considerable affluence brought on by the con­struction program of The University of Texas. Between the years of 1925 and 1935, the board of regents allocated $6 million from the Available Fund and, by special act of the legislature, $4 mil­lion from the Permanent Fund for construction projects. As a result of long years of neglect, the campus was in such dire need of permanent improvements that all of the $10 million was re­quired to place the university in a comfortable setting. Suddenly, The University of Texas was transformed from an impoverished school that could not even house itself properly into the richest state university in the country. 8 
The College of Pharmacy benefited from this newly found wealth in a circuitous and indirect manner. The determining fac­tor influencing the decision to move the college from Galveston 
'W. J. Battle and H. Y. Benedict, "The Construction Programs of the University of Texas, 1925-35," American School and University, Texas Collection, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter referred to as Texas Collection). 
The old Main Building on the university campus in Austin as it appeared in the 1920s 
to Austin had been the anticipation of a modern and well­equipped chemistry building that would contain adequate facilities for the laboratories and classrooms of the College of Pharmacy. When the old Chemistry Building was destroyed in 1926, a new structure for this department was the second order of priority on the board of regents' construction program, superseded only by the new Main Building and Main Library. When the new chemistry rooms became available for use in the fall of 1931, however, the least desirable areas were allocated to the College of Pharmacy. The dreams of Dean Gidley and his faculty for spacious and well-lighted quarters were frustrated as pharmacy was assigned to the attic, basement, and other un­desirable areas of the new building. Even these inadequate ar­rangements, however, were soon to be lost. Expanding enroll­ments within the Department of Chemistry soon prompted the department to demand full use of the building. Because the Department of Chemistry maintained control over space alloca­tions, the College of Pharmacy was forced out of its second-rate facilities in the modern, well-equipped building into such un­suitable sites as a remodeled gymnasium, the attic of the Biology Building, and, again, the shacks. Although acquisition of a separate building was a continuing project of the pharmacy faculty and the Texas Pharmaceutical Association, such a struc­ture would not be completed until 1952. Ironically, for all of the newly acquired wealth of The University of Texas, the College of Pharmacy continued to be ill housed for twenty-five years after the move to the ."Forty Acres" and the promise of spacious new quarters. 
DEPRESSION YEARS, 1929-36 
Despite the university's substantial wealth, the depression years of 1 929-36 took their toll. Wealth from the oil royalties could only be spent on the construction of permanent buildings and not to supplement faculty and staff salaries. Thus, the university depended on the state legislature to appropriate funds for the maintenance and operation of the campus. In response to 
The Forty Acres 
the economic crisis that the state of Texas faced, the 1933 legislature passed a reduced appropriations bill for the university for the 1933-35 biennium that substantially lowered all salaries. Salaries in the upper one-third were reduced to 70 percent of the 1932-33 level, while the middle and lower salaries were reduced to 7 5 percent of the earlier standard. During the legislative ses­sion of 1935, as the effects of depression began to lessen, the uni­versity was provided for more generously. Appropriations for the 1935-37 biennium increased the higher and middle salaries to 80 percent of the predepression rate, while the lower salaries were restored to their regular level. 7 The following legislature, in 1937, restored all university salaries to the full pay scale. 
Although the entire university endured times of reduced salaries and restricted budgets, those departments that received the smallest allotments were the most severely affected. Foremost among this group was the College of Pharmacy. Dur­ing the relative prosperity of the 1920s, Dean Gidley had been re­quired to use the utmost ingenuity to make his budget allotments cover the needs of the college. During the 1930s, ends simply would not meet, and the quality of education that the college could provide was seriously impaired. To make matters worse, the enrollment in pharmacy increased dramatically during the depression years, placing even further stress on the limited funds of the college. This combination of too many students and not enough funding resulted in a serious impairment of the college's national rating. Within a decade, The University of Texas Col­lege of Pharmacy would be dropped by the AACP from a Class A rating to a Class C one. An examination of the enrollment situation during this period will illuminate the conditions that precipitated this decline in the national rating. Ultimate respon­sibility for the impaired condition of the College of Pharmacy, however, lay with the university president and the board of regents, whose decisions in budgetary matters continually slighted the needs of the College of Pharmacy. 
7University of Texas, "Minutes of the Meetings of the Board of Regents, March 20, 1935," Office of the Board of Regents, The University of Texas System, Austin, Texas. 
ENROLLMENT EXPANSION AND ITS PROBLEMS 
Throughout its history, the College of Pharmacy had enjoyed a slow but steady growth from the eleven who enrolled in 1893 to the average of eighty students that prevailed through the 1920s and early 1930s. In 1929, however, the legislature passed a bill at the urging of the Texas Pharmaceutical Association that would require a degree in pharmacy from a reputable school before a candidate be permitted to take the state licensure examination. This regulation was to have far-reaching consequences on the nature of the profession of pharmacy in Texas. Throughout most of his tenure with the College of Pharmacy, Cline had actively urged the adoption of such a law. He felt that not only would it improve the quality of pharmacists within Texas, but also such a regulation would be a boon to the College of Pharmacy in terms of increased enrollment. As a result of the adoption of this law in 1929, both aspects of Cline's prediction came true; increased enrollments, however, did not prove to be as advantageous as an­ticipated. 
Although the bill establishing a college degree as a pre­requisite to licensure was passed in 1929, it was not scheduled to go into effect until 1934. This five-year delay was intended to give ample notice to those who might intend to apply for licen­sure without such an education. Previous laws had established that a four-year apprenticeship would be acceptable in lieu of a two-or three-year Ph.G. degree. Thus, by allowing a five-year delay, the legislators gave prospective apprentices and those already embarked on such a course a last opportunity to com­plete this method of study. 
Passage of the bill in 1929 did not immediately affect enroll­ments within the College of Pharmacy. No statistics are available on the number of persons subsequently beginning appren­ticeship studies. However, when a law became effective in 1934, enrollments in the College of Pharmacy jumped from 86 to 120 the first year, 150 the second year, and 184 the third year. By 1939, the first year of war in Europe, enrollment peaked at 305. Thus, in five years the student body of the College of Pharmacy 

The pharmacy laboratory in the new Chemistry Building (with photograph of "Daddy" Cline against the wall) 
'I 

The Biology Building, which was used for some of the pharmacy classes 
had nearly quadrupled. The college attempted to deal with the problems associated with such a sudden increase in students, but lack of funds as well as limited space made the task nearly insur­mountable. 
Space in which to conduct lectures and laboratories was a recurring concern for the college. Offices for faculty were non­existent, and the quality of secretarial help depended on the dean's ability to type and file. The College of Pharmacy had been moved to Austin with the aim of being housed in a spacious new building. The Chemistry Building, as it became known, was ready for occupation in August 1931, but these new quarters soon proved inadequate for the expanding programs of both pharmacy and chemistry. 
Although the new building had been planned to house the Department of Chemistry and the College of Pharmacy, the power to allocate available space was quickly assumed by the Department of Chemistry. As the enrollment in both disciplines increased, the College of Pharmacy was gradually assigned to classroom space in the attic and basement of the building as well as in the Biology Building and any other available location throughout the campus. By the fall of 1936, Dean Gidley reported to the faculty that only two laboratories in the Chemistry Building were available for the five technical phar­macy courses. One of those courses required the full-time use of one laboratory, leaving six sections of the four remaining courses to be scheduled in the one remaining laboratory. Gidley noted that this situation had given him "many headaches" each year when he had to try to avoid scheduling two laboratory sections for the same hour in the same room. In 1935, he had been forced to schedule two sections for the same laboratory at the same time, which resulted in much confusion and dissatisfaction.8 
Within each laboratory, conditions were no better. Students quickly outnumbered the desks and lockers available, creating the need to assign more than one student to each space. At one 
'University of Texas College of Pharmacy, "Minutes of the Meeting of the College of Pharmacy Faculty, November 3, 1936," Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
point, four students were assigned to each locker and equipment was checked out at the beginning of each class because of the lack of room in which to store the assigned apparatus. 9 The laboratory in pharmacognosy, under the direction of Albers, en­countered unique conditions. The room, situated under the eaves of the Biology Building, received such poor light through the half windows available in the attic that students complained of headaches from eyestrain. Because the room was not intended to be a pharmacy laboratory, the electrical outlets were so placed that it became impossible to provide illuminators for each microscope. 10 
In the spring of 1937, the congested facilities were insufficient to handle the projected enrollment of the fall. Although separate quarters for the College of Pharmacy had been the tenth priority on the board of regents' building agenda for a number of years, the completion of such a project within the foreseeable future was an extremely remote possibility. Consequently, the phar­macy faculty searched the campus for a location that would al­low the college to concentrate its classes in one area large enough to meet current as well as projected enrollments. 
In a report concerning possible quarters in the old Women's Building, Dean Gidley, in his self-effacing manner, wrote: 
It should be understood that we are in sympathy with the "relief from congestion,, desired by the Department of Chemistry and by the Biology Division. Existing conditions constitute a definite hamper to their possible expansion. 11 
However, he went on to explain: 
We know that the College of Pharmacy is more congested than either of the aforesaid groups and we welcome any reasonable project which will allow us to respond to our greatly increased student numbers. 12 
9lbid. 
lOJbid. 
uuniversity of Texas, College of Pharmacy, "Report of the College of Pharmacy: Housing of the College of Pharmacy in the Women's Building, May 10, 1937," Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
121bid. 
Although he did not want to interfere with the needs of other departments on the campus, Gidley asked "careful consideration for Pharmacy-one of the oldest units of the University." He continued: 
We are a respected member of a great national association­American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy-and we are ex­pected to present our profession to students in a dignified man­ner, generating a laudable self-esteem and esprit de corps. We want to take a serious task seriously. 18 
The need for sufficient space that confronted the College of Pharmacy was not unique to Texas. All sixty members of the AACP had experienced an uncommon growth rate as short courses throughout the country were discontinued and univer­sity schools moved toward higher requirements and four-year programs. In addition, The University of Texas College of Phar­macy had the added responsibility of being the sole school of pharmacy in the state of Texas. From 1903 until 1931, Baylor University in Waco had maintained a reputable school of phar­macy, but the restricted economics brought on by the depression of the 1930s forced the closing of this pharmacy program in 1931. Therefore, any deficiencies in The University of Texas College of Pharmacy would have severe repercussions for the profession throughout the state. 14 
Despite this responsibility to the pharmacists as well as the health-care profession and the citizens of Texas, the College of Pharmacy had been unable to fulfill its commitments. In the twelve years between 1924, when Gidley had assumed the deanship, and 1937 the only faculty addition within the College of Pharmacy had been that of Dr. Hardwicke, who taught one subject during the spring semester of every year. During this time period, however, enrollments in the college had doubled and would quadruple within the next two years. 16 Conditions became so crowded that classes were held in the hallways of the 
18lbid. 
141bid. 
18lbid. 

Chemistry Building for lack of any other space. Dean Gidley was firm in his analysis of what was needed: 
New additions are now imperative. It is the only answer to the 
rapidly increasing enrollment in pharmacy. All of which is tied up 
with larger (not smaller) needed laboratory space. us 
This request, however, was not the first indication the ad­ministration had received that the College of Pharmacy was in severe distress. In 1934, the pharmacy faculty had prepared a detailed request for the removal of the college from the Chemistry Building to the upper floors of the Women's Building. This move was intended as a solution to the congestion ex­perienced by pharmacy as well as chemistry, biology, and botany. This request, apparently, was ignored, for the university administration failed to act on the request. The following year, 1935, another report outlining the crowded conditions and the need for a pharmacy building was submitted, but to no avail. 17 
Conditions became so acute in 1937 that Dean Gidley and the faculty again looked around for larger quarters. The old Women's Building was considered but was quickly rejected as being unsuitable. The basement offered very little light and no ventilation. Conversion of the ancient gymnasium and the filling in of the pool were also contemplated, but lack of ventilation and excess heat from steam pipes created an atmosphere highly un­suitable and even dangerous for many of the chemical and medicinal preparations. The College of Pharmacy faculty finally decided to remain in their cramped conditions as best they could for the 1937-38 school year. 18 
In 1940 the board of regents authorized the College of Phar­macy to operate the Student Health Center Dispensary, which would give students in the manufacturing pharmacy classes an opportunity to fill genuine prescriptions. Such an arrangement had been the practice in Galveston and again proved to be of value to the pharmacy curriculum. However, the dispensary 
18lbid. 
17Ibid. 
18lbid. 

faced the same lack of housing that afilicted the College of Phar­macy. In 1938, Dean Gidley reported that the dispensary was forced to use part of the same desk equipment that the prescription-practice course and another laboratory class shared. Schleuse, who had charge of the dispensary, located an unused room within close proximity to the Student Health Center Dispensary that was capable of being converted into a makeshift laboratory. He proposed that a drain sink and a "plain pine-board prescription desk" without gas, water, or air be added to the room. Electric hot plates were to serve as a source of heat, and distilled water manufactured in chemistry laboratories was to be carried to the dispensary in ten-gallon bottles. 19 In the event that the plan failed to be approved, Gidley had proposed an alternative solution. The west end of the base­ment of the Chemistry Building could be partitioned off and the dispensary established in that area. The same "makeshift prescription desk" could be used, and a National Youth Ad­ministration (NYA) worker could be provided to carry and wash utensils in the nearest sink in the Chemistry Building. 20 During the depression years of the 1930s, people willing to work were more plentiful than money, and a worker to carry bottles back and forth was a less expensive alternative than installing a new sink. Eventually, however, the dispensary was relocated in Brackenridge (B) Hall. 
The problems for the laboratory courses, however, were not so conveniently solved. Because no space could be found in which to conduct the classwork, the laboratory courses in microscopy of drugs, organic pharmaceuticals, and pharmaceutical qualitative chemistry were abandoned between 1939 and 1941.21 Concerning the remaining courses, Gidley reported the following conditions: 
In the basement of the Chemistry Building are the two phar­macy laboratories_ filled to overflow.ing. Five different laboratory 
19W. F. Gidley to C. D. Simmons, 29 September 1938, Pharmacy Files; UT Archives . . · 
20Ibid. 
21Gidley to Simmons, 12 November 1941, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 

Old Brackenridge (B) Hall, which housed the Student Health Center Dispensary for many years 
subjects are taught in two laboratories, in eight sections, ag­gregating 40 clock hours per week. Two subjects drop out at the end of this semester and three other laboratory subjects begin-if possible.22 
Although the depression and later the war brought severe stress to the university in general, not every department was af­fected as severely as pharmacy. Gidley reported to the university comptroller in 1941 that a laboratory across the hall from his of­fice built to hold sixty-four students was being used by five or six research students. Normally a placid man, such inequities drove him to write in exasperation, "There was absolutely no reason why half that laboratory should not have been used by pharmacy workers at special periods. "28 He continued: 
One grows weary of so much dog-in-manger business. The second semester of last year [1940], after almost prayerfully im­portuning Dr. Schoch, we were allowed to use 15 unused desks in [Chemistry Building room 12], but it was to [be] on the "Q.T." By that, we understood we were not to let the regular chemistry staff know that we were allowed to work in C.B. 12. Should it be known, then ... [Dr. Schoch] could not lay claim to the room the following year. A similar situation maintained at the first of this semester-but the chemistry group wrote us that the room was now reserved for research. We had an immediate need of 14 desk spaces for ... Pharmacy 262f. [This course] is now being taught in the prescription laboratory in an unsatisfactory manner and may have to be abandoned next year.2' 
While . the Department of Chemistry enjoyed the luxury of maintaining quarters for pure research, the College of Pharmacy was forced to trim its curriculum drastically as courses were eliminated when suitable quarters could not be found. Despite this discriminatory situation, Dean Gidley tried to sustain a balanced viewpoint. To the comptroller, he wrote: 
Pharmacy has no quarrel with research. As one of the oldest of sciences it has great need of new fact-finding experimentation. We have 75 to 80 projects upon which we would devote a great 
22Ibid. 
28lbid. 
24lbid. 

deal of research should space permit. It is important work. But we contend that one research worker does not require 10 or 15 stu­dent desks upon which to work. We contend thaf pharmacy has some rights in the Chemistry Building. 26 
Part of the reason the College of Pharmacy fared so poorly in the ensuing power struggle with the Department of Chemistry lay in the gentle nature of Dean Gidley. Never one to play the ag­gressive role, he was quick to empathize with the other party and slow to push his own cause. His easy-going nature won him a devoted following among students and staff within the College of Pharmacy. However, in the struggle for power and a share of the limited university funds, his leadership was much less effec­tive. As a result, other departments gained recognition of their own needs while the College of Pharmacy was largely overlooked. 
Equitable treatment with the Department of Chemistry, however, was only an interim solution to the problem of housing for the College of Pharmacy. Shortly after the college moved to Austin in 1927, plans had been discussed for a S200,000 phar­macy building to be located at Twenty-fourth and Speedway in close proximity to the other science buildings. Although the board of regents had approved these plans for its building program, nine other projects held precedence. Despite the fact that The University of Texas College of Pharmacy had the largest enrollment in the country in 1939 and was the sole school of its kind in Texas, the college remained in temporary and in­adequate housing until 1952. 
This unfortunate situation undoubtedly hampered the development of the College of Pharmacy. With neither funds nor equipment for use beyond minimal course requirements, faculty research was a matter of wishful thinking. Dean Gidley sum­marized the situation as follows: 
The College has existed and grown in basements and make-shift quarters for close to fifty years. Naturally, research has been most difficult and "spotty" in character, while the pharmacists of Texas have passed over hundreds of unsolved pharmaceutical 
26lbid. 

~ 
Students at work in the prescription laboratory 
problems due to our inability to "take them on." Laboratories are needed for pharmaceutical testing, for microscopy of drugs, for crude drug extraction and assay, for advanced pharmaceutical manufacturing, for toxicology and detection of poisons, for cosmetology, as well as additional stock storage space, a drug museum room, additional office space, a room for optical instru­ments, etc. Many more books and magazines are needed, as are also additional staff members.• 
Gidley also wrote in an article for a pharmaceutical journal: 
Lack of working space is our greatest handicap. The College of Pharmacy of the University of Texas needs a new building, and could double its enrollment and triple its usefulness, should one be supplied. 27 
Despite the enormous enrollment, the secretary of the State Board of Pharmacy was of the opinion that, were it not for straitened circumstances, enrollments in the college would be even higher: 
The state of Texas needs 100 new pharmacists each year. The Army and Navy have drawn heavily on the ranks of the younger pharmacists. We could double our enrollment should we solicit the cooperation of hundreds of our tax-paying alumni over the State.28 
Ultimately, the secretary's predictions held true, for it was through the efforts of the Texas Pharmaceutical Association and pharmacists throughout the state that the College of Pharmacy was eventually funded and housed in a manner suitable to its position. 
VISITATION AND PROVISIONAL 
ACCREDITATION, 1939 

The American Council on Pharmaceutical Education (ACPE), as the accrediting arm of AACP was now known, an­nounced its third inspection of the college in 1939. The College 
llW. F. Gidley, "The University of Texas College of Pharmacy," Longhorn Pharmacist, 
May 1941, pp. 3-4. 
rT&Juthern Pharmauulica/ journal 33 (December 1941): 14. 
2S(;idley to Simmons, 12 November 1941. 

of Pharmacy was ill prepared for such close scrutiny at that time. Hardships resulting from the depression, along with the reduc­tion of classes and space, had noticeably impaired the effec­tiveness of the college. Such conditions did not escape the notice of the examiners from the ACPE committee. The committee report indicated the College of Pharmacy to be poorly cared for and held in low regard by the university administration. 
The findings of the ACPE committee fell into four categories: curriculum content, faculty, physical assets, and finances. The committee met with the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, 
H. T. Parlin, who represented the university administration dur­ing the visitation. Upon asking for a frank appraisal of the condi­tion of the College of Pharmacy, Dean Parlin was informed that the following deficiencies existed: 
inadequacy in number of pharmacy books in the library; inade­quate number of full-time teachers of professorial rank in the pharmaceutical subjects ... ; inadequate number of as­sistants ... ; lack of laboratory space for manufacturing phar­macy. Attention was called to the fact that there was some ap­paratus and machinery for this purpose scattered about the two laboratories used by the pharmacy but that there was no room in which to set it up or to operate it; excessive teaching load carried by the Dean of Pharmacy in addition to his administrative work; deficiencies in and unbalance of the curriculum; apparent lack of effort to cultivate the proper relationship between the College of Pharmacy and the pharmacists of the state. 29 
Dean Parlin was receptive to these criticisms, assuring the com­mittee that he was not entirely ignorant of many of these needs, and he pledged that he would do all he could to correct deficien­cies and bring the college up to required standards. He also agreed with the committee that pharmacy should receive the same treatment as did other departments of the university.80 In this statement, Dean Parlin tacitly acknowledged a fact of which the pharmacy faculty had long been aware-that the College of 
29American Council on Pharmaceutical Education, "Report of the Inspection Commit­tee, September 14, 1939," Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 8°Ibid. 
Pharmacy did, indeed, receive less consideration than most other divisions within the university. 
The committee noted that the College of Pharmacy had been moved to Austin in 1927 as a Class A school, but that since that time the college had made less progress than other departments of the university in terms of quarters, personnel, salaries, and curriculum. It found progress by the College to be inadequate. After interviewing Dean Gidley, the committee decided that salaries for the pharmacy faculty were definitely lower· than those of professors in other departments. 81 Although the univer­sity did not dispute this fact, no justification for the discrepancy was offered. 
Not only were salaries too low, the committee noted, but the college was understaffed, and the existing faculty carried ex­cessive teaching loads. Because Dean Gidley had assumed a heavy instructional schedule in addition to his administrative duties, he did not have time to serve adequately as a liaison between the academic and professional worlds. The committee recommended that his teaching hours be reduced and that he be provided with adequate secretarial help. 82 
The faculty fell short of the ACPE requirement that a full-time instructor of professorial rank serve each of three areas­pharmacy, pharmaceutical chemistry, and materia medica. As a result of the move to Austin, the College of Pharmacy had been forced to sacrifice some of the advantages eajoyed through as­sociation with the Medical Branch in Galveston. The composi­tion of the faculty was one such instance. While the staff of the Medical Branch had taught jointly in the College of Pharmacy and the School of Medicine, in Austin no such interchange was available. Henze qualified as professor of pharmaceutical chemistry, but he had joined the Department of Chemistry when he came to Austin and was no longer affiliated with the College of Pharmacy. Although he still taught chemistry courses at­tended by pharmacy students, the ACPE did not consider him a member of the pharmacy faculty. Dean Gidley was listed as 
81lbid. 
32lbid. 

professor of pharmacy, but his numerous administrative duties curtailed his effectiveness in the classroom. Albers was the only faculty member with the rank of assistant professor, although he possessed the experience and education for a full professorship. The committee noted that, although Albers 's title did not denote any specialization, he could easily qualify as professor of phar­macology and should be so recognized. Within the lower ranks of the faculty, instructors and assistants were particularly lacking. The committee also noted that the majority of the faculty were graduates of The University of Texas and recommended that such excessive inbreeding be eliminated in the future. Despite these criticisms of an overworked and understaffed faculty, the committee felt that they were capable, interested in their work, and cooperative in spite of handicaps. 33 
The curriculum came under sharp criticism, however, as the ACPE committee decided that the division of course work did not satisfy its standards. It felt that an excessive number of hours were alloted to quantitative analysis at the expense of instruction in general pharmacy. Dean Gidley explained that lack of laboratory space necessitated the limiting of much laboratory work within the College of Pharmacy. The committee also com­plained of inadequate provision for instruction in those biological sciences important to pharmacy and the lack of courses in pharmacology and bioassaying. It was the commit­tee's opinion that "the curriculum contains too many elective courses and that desirable instruction in the pharmaceutical subjects has been sacrificed to provide for these electives which are of lesser importance."" Although Dean Gidley did not com­ment on this censure, it is obvious in retrospect that the reason for this condition was that these electives were provided through other departments in the university and did not have to be funded through the College of Pharmacy's meager budget. Although many pharmacy classes had been reduced or eliminated because of straitened financial aid, other disciplines 
881bid. 
34lbid. 

were sufficiently supported to provide a wide range of course of­ferings. 36 
The physical quarters of the college were perhaps the most deficient feature and came under severe criticism by the ACPE committee. As already noted, laboratories were spread throughout the campus. Classes were so large that frequently no time could be allowed for adequate cleaning and preparation of the laboratories before a new group of students arrived. Lack of storage space for materials added to the untidiness of the rooms, and the scanty apparatus available could not be properly utilized. The committee made no mention of the fact that no per­manent home had been provided for the College of Pharmacy in the twelve years since its relocation in Austin. Undoubtedly, the committee had been informed by the administration that such a building was on the construction list of the board of regents, but was of such low priority that no concrete action had been taken on the project by 1939. 
Another critical area was the library. Wedged in among rows of books in the Chemistry Library, the 1,500 volumes of phar­maceutical texts were not considered adequate for the largest school of pharmacy in the nation. However, the library was served by a trained librarian and was readily accessible to stu­dents in both pharmacy and chemistry.86 
In summarizing their findings, the ACPE committee submit­ted a lengthy list of recommended improvements covering all aspects of the College operation. Despite these deficiencies, however, the ACPE extended a provisional rating to The Univer­sity of Texas. Its report stated: 
In view of the fact that the college is an integral part of a great 
state university and because it is the opinion of [the] committee 
that it is the desire of the administrative officers of the University 
to maintain the proper standards in education in all of the depart­
ments and that the deficiencies pointed out in this report will be 
corrected as soon as possible, it is recommended that provisional 
accreditment be given. 87 
36lbid. 
36Jbid. 
37Jbid. 

Thus, because of the assurances of the administration that all measures would be taken to ensure compliance with ACPE stan­dards and because of the fine reputation that The University of Texas in general possessed, the committee believed that a provisional rating would bring Texas up to their standards. Such an agreement did not rest entirely on good faith, however. The ACPE recommendation was made contingent on a revisitation within two years to ascertain whether the required changes had been made. 
Both Dean Gidley and Dean Parlin had assured the ACPE committee that these deficiencies would be removed as soon as feasible. The storeroom facilities, which had received severe criticism, were quickly improved, and a qualified storeroom at­tendant was hired. These changes were relatively inexpensive to accomplish and overcame the disorder that had greeted the ACPE committee. In November of 1939, Dean Gidley finally ac­quired the services of a full-time secretary, a request that had been continually denied in years past. With this help, he was better able to keep abreast of administrative and professional matters, although his teaching load remained unaltered. 
In regard to the curriculum, Dr. C.R. Johnson of the Depart­ment of Chemistry had submitted to Dean Parlin a revised out­line for a quantitative chemistry course for pharmacy students that had been approved by the Course Committee of the General Faculty. This proposal, however, required a substantial initial investment in apparatus and supplies. In late 1939, Dean Gidley submitted a budget request on this matter, but was confronted with the perennial problem of lack of funds. 
Thus, the attempts to approach the ACPE standards fell short of expectations. The inadequacies that were remedied were the least significant in terms of the ACPE report. Three major con­cerns remained, despite Dean Gidley's attempts to upgrade the college. These deficiencies were in the realms of salaries, cur­riculum content, and number of faculty. All of these deficiencies were outside Gidley's province, falling instead within the jurisdiction of the board of regents. Thus, although Dean Gidley endeavored to comply with the established ACPE standards, the most significant weaknesses o( the College of Pharmacy were beyond his power to change. The failure of the board of regents to provide adequately for the College of Pharmacy during the years 1940·and 1941 resulted in the ACPE decision to grant The University of Texas College of Pharmacy a Class Crating. Thus, in a little more than a decade, the sole college of pharmacy in the state of Texas had dropped from a Class A to a Class C institu­tion. 
THE UNIVERSITY DRUG GARDEN 
Although attempts had been made by the College of Phar­macy to reestablish a medicinal plant garden in Austin to replace the one that "Daddy" Cline had started in Galveston, very little money had been appropriated for this purpose. Conse­quently, the garden that was begun was small and lacked variety in its plantings. With the creation of the University Development Board in 1938, however, a new source of support for such proj­ects became available. Each faculty member was requested to submit a list of those projects that would contribute most to the prestige and quality of education offered at the university. Dr. 
C. C. Albers took this opportunity to renew the request for an adequately appointed drug garden. To the lasting benefit of the College of Pharmacy, one member of the Advisory Committee of the University Development Board was Fred Adams, president of a pharmaceutical manufacturing firm in Austin that had developed Adams' Best Vanilla Extract. 88 
After conferring with Albers, Adams agreed personally to finance the erection of a combination drug-drying and tool house if the university would agree to furnish the land and maintain the garden. Despite this offer, the university administration did not firmly believe that such a project would add materially to the educational offerings of the College of Pharmacy. In 1937, however, the Upjohn Company of Kalamazoo, Michigan, offered 
381bid. 
a $500 scholarship for the study of the pharmacognosy of a drug in which the firm was interested. In view of these financial off er­ings, the university administration agreed to finance the fencing in of a two-acre tract and the hauling of nearly 360 cubic yards of soil from the Colorado River. 39 
No provision was made, however, for clearing or preparing the site. Therefore, Albers and several interested students cleared the tract of brush and stumps and built the enclosing fence. The location of the drug garden on a sloping site presented some technical problems until the Travis County road-grading crew terraced the land free of charge. In 1942, the drug house was built at a cost of $750, and the board of regents appropriated $500 per year for a half-time gardener. Ironically, the first gar­dener was a pharmacy student named James Bauerle, who sub­sequently served on the Board of Regents of The University of Texas after establishing a successful dental practice in Texas. The drug garden expanded under the direction of Albers, and in 1947 both a full-time gardener and a small tractor were acquired to cultivate and improve the site. In subsequent years, student workers were hired on a part-time basis to supplement the ser­vices of the regular gardener. '0 
The University Drug Garden serves a number of functions. As a teaching adjunct, it serves students in pharmacognosy courses, w~o can examine there specimens of many living medicinal plants, both those native to Texas and those imported from other climates. As the faculty and graduate programs developed in the 1950s, the garden played a vital role in providing research material and facilities for experimental work in testing plant­growth substances, improving medicinal plants, and studying the effects of chemicals on plants of various species. Some atten­tion was also given to the adaptability of species to the central Texas climate and soil conditions with a view to improving future commercial crops of medicinal plants. 41 
89lbid. 
'0Ibid. 
41lbid. 

THE COLLEGE OF PHARMACY 
AND THE WAR EFFORT 

Although official American participation in World War II did not begin until after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, many students anticipated being called for military service before the end of the school year and, conse­quently, declined to enroll in the fall. Following the United States' entry into the conflict, The University of Texas quickly responded to the emergency. When the spring semester began in late January, seven weeks after Pearl Harbor, the university was operating on a full war-time basis. Summer vacation had been abolished in 1942 as the various departments prepared to operate a year-round curriculum, with emphasis on such war­related fields as physics, chemistry, engineering, and medicine. The administration, however, failed at first to recognize the strategic importance of pharmacy in the total war effort. In the university's plans to produce technicians and·medical personnel at the fastest possible rate, bachelor's degree programs were ac­celerated to thirty-two consecutive months of classroom and laboratory work. 42 
Departments that normally had little in common with military strategy suddenly began to emphasize the "war angle" of various courses. Chemical warfare and translator's German were stan­dard fare, but some of the more uncommon offerings included the economics of war, the art of camouflage, and cryptanalysis. Pharmacy also received renewed interest as the war progressed and the shortage of health-care personnel became acute. 48 
The Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps and the pilot­training program of the Civil Aeronautics Authority became the university's major contributions to the war effort, but the faculty and staff of all departments joined in by pledging 5 percent of the monthly payroll and one day's pay per month to be invested in war bonds and stamps. University funds were also utilized to purchase war bonds as part of the regents' general investment 
42Alcalde 30 (May 1942): 132. 
48University of Texas, University Course Catalogue, 1942-43, Texas Collection. 

program." The student newspaper, The Daily Texan, constantly ran articles urging such economies as reconditioning old shoes, forgoing silk stockings so the material could be utilized in the manufacture of ammunition bags, and spending weekends on campus to save gasoline. Shortly thereafter, such economies became mandatory as the rationing system became effective. ' 5 
As American involvement in the hostilities loomed closer, pharmacy students anxiously awaited a decision from the army concerning the military status of pharmacists. In March of 1942, the assistant to the surgeon general of the army announced that pharmacists would not be assigned to a special corps, although he promised that they would not be employed elsewhere while unqualified recruits dispensed drugs, as had been the case in the previous war. Pharmacists or pharmacy students who volunteered or were drafted would receive basic training at the 
U. S. Army Medical Department Replacement Center, after which a few would be selected for Army Officers' Candidate School. The remainder would be transferred to Army Medical Department installations, assigned to pharmaceutical duties, and given various noncommissioned ranks." 
Pharmaceutical organizations and educators from around the country took an active role in the campaign to assign phar­macists to professional duties within the service. A bill was in­troduced before the U. S. House of Representatives that would require all governmental dispensing of drugs to be done by graduate, registered pharmacists. '7 At a special meeting of of­ficers and local representatives of the American Pharmaceutical Association, government spokesmen revealed that the combined services would require as many as 10,000 to 15,000 pharmacists by the end of 1944. The need for the services of trained men was clearly recognized, but the procurement of pharmacists was hampered by the lack of provision for this category in the selec­tive service laws. If the draft failed to provide for the anticipated 
"Alcalde 30 (May 1942): 132. 
•&Daily Texan, 1941-45. 
46 Longhorn Pharmacist, March 1942, p. 1. 
47 Longhorn Pharmacist, April 1942, p. 3. 

number of pharmacists that the army required, a spokesman warned the APhA, the army would train its own pharmacy technicians.48 As a result of the APhA council meeting, a Phar­macists' Selective Service Advisory Committee was to be created within each state to advise local draft boards as to the best utilization of trained pharmacists. 49 
Within th( navy, pharmacists received more recognition than they did in the army. Naval enlistees were given the rating of pharmacist's mate second class and employed on bases and in the dispensaries aboard ships. Using this method, the navy ex­perienced little difficulty in filling its projected quota of 1,500 pharmacists under the age of twenty-five. For students in the College of Pharmacy who did not want to wait for Uncle Sam and the draft, enlistment in the navy was a popular option. 150 
Numerous other students opted for the army reserves, although this course of action did not keep many pharmacists from being absorbed into the services. By February of 1943, reservists were rapidly being called to active duty with little regard to the nature of their professions. Although a bill es­tablishing a pharmacy corps within the army had been in­troduced into Congress in the fall of 1942, action on the measure was slow in coming from the House Military Affairs Commit­tee.51 Pharmacy, however, was gaining recognition as a critical occupation. In February of 1943, The Longhorn Pharmacist com­mented: 
Pharmacy, as yet, is not recognized as being an essential profes­sion although the Selective Service System ... has recognized pharmacy as a critical occupation in the maintenance of civilian health. and welfare services. [It] also advise[s] draft boards, in weighing the conscription or deferment of a pharmacist, to give consideration to the training, qualifications, and skill required in this occupation. This is, in no sense, a blanket deferment order, but is an acceptance of the fact that pharmaceutical services are essential to civilian health. 152 
48lbid. 
49lbid. 
60lbid. 
61 Longhorn Pharmacist, October 1942, p. 1. 
62 Longhorn Pharmacist, February 1943, p. 3. 

Despite the increasing opportunities for students in the Col­lege of Pharmacy to serve their country in a professional capacity, many students were reluctant to leave the safe environs of the campus. The Longhorn Pharmacist featured numerous arti­cles on those students called up by the draft, many before they were able to graduate. To allay readers' fears of similar fates, the following seven solutions were offered for draft-board woes: 
1. 	
Marry a widow with nine kids. 

2. 	
Chop off your toes. (You should be able to count without them by now, anyway.) 

3. 	
Jump off the tower. 

4. 	
Discover a high explosive. 

5. 	
Become president of the United States. 

6. 	
Wear an Aggie uniform to a Texas pep rally. 

7. 	
Volunteer! (Why not?)118 


By the end of 1942, numerous students were following the last alternative. 
The staff of The Longhorn Pharmacist wrote many humorous ar­ticles concerning the students' problems with the services, but they also recognized the serious aspects of the conflict. In the November 1942 issue, the following editorial note appeared: 
For fear of disclosing the location of various branches, and other information concerning the armed forces, information concerning our exes [ex-students] in the service will not appear for the duration.u 
As men were called to service, the student profile changed as it had during the First World War. The first noticeable alteration was a slight drop in the enrollment in 1941, as many men, uncer­tain as to whether or not they would be called, decided not to begin or continue their academic careers. This initial reduction in the number of students attending classes was in fact an advan­tage, for the university had experienced excessive growth as the effects of the depression has lessened. 66 By the fall of 1940, the total of 11,146 students far exceeded the capacity of the Austin 
58 Longhorn Pharmacist, November 1942, p. 3. 
5'lbid., p. 6. 
65Alcalde 30 (October 1941): 2. 

campus. Thus, the prospect of warfare dampened some students' academic inclinations, allowing the board of regents time to prepare for the influx of students that would surely follow a ma­JOr war. 
The departure of men from the campus created a vacuum, which women hurried to fill. In the field of pharmacy, as well as in the other health sciences, the professional ranks were seriously depleted as men were called for duty. Women were urged to fill the positions vacated by the soldiers, and many enrolled in the College of Pharmacy with just this intent. The enrollment figures for the prewar, wartime, and postwar years, as shown in table 3, illustrate these dramatic increases. After World War I, the number of women enrolled in the College of Pharmacy had dropped drastically as the men had returned from combat and resumed their studies. Following the Second World War, however, the women did not relinquish their educational oppor­tunities, and their numbers reached a record high of eighty-four during the 1947-48 academic year. Although this was nearly three times the enrollment of women just prior to the war, the men far outpaced the women in the postwar rush to acquire an education. 
Although during the war the total enrollment in the college dropped radically, the student body was not depleted to the ex­tent that had occurred during World War I. At the peak of that conflict, only twenty-three men and sixteen women were able to continue their studies. So few students were able to obtain defer­ments during the spring of 1918 that the administration con­sidered terminating pharmacy classes until the war ended. Such desperate measures were unnecessary during the Second World War, however. As the enrollment figures in table 3 show, a sub­stantial number of students remained in the College of Phar­macy at all times. Undoubtedly, when the pharmacy corps was finally created in 1943, it did much to relieve the drain of stu­dents. Many engaged in the study of pharmacy were able to resume their studies after basic training prior to being called to active duty. 68 
68Longhom Pharmacist, February 1943, p. 3. 
TABLE 3 
ENROLLMENT IN THE COLLEGE OF PHARMACY, 1939-48 
Year  Men  Women  Total  
1939-40  274  31  305  
1940-41  264  21  285  
1941-42  225  25  250  
1942-43  145  25  170  
1943-44  80  36  116  
1944-45  75  54  129  
1945-46  295  71  366  
1946-47  565  77  642  
1947-48  705  84  789  

SOURCE: University of Texas, University Course Catalogues, 1939-48, Texas Collection. 
The members of the faculty of the College of Pharmacy per­formed their services by implementing an accelerated cur­riculum to train pharmacists at a faster rate than would normal­ly be possible. The War Manpower Commission had designated pharmacy as one of the critical occupations, and in 1943 the University Course Catalogue urged prospective students to begin study in one of these critical fields. 51 Although the College of Pharmacy had offered courses in the summer session for some time, the year-round schedule that the university had adopted increased the work of the already overburdened pharmacy faculty. Nevertheless, the minuscule staff of Professors Gidley, Albers, Neville, and Schleuse plus Instructor Stockton managed to produce pharmacists at a record rate. 
The war gave rise to some restraints within the College of Pharmacy. The first such stringent measure was the elimination of a large, semicentennial celebration for the college. Some con­sideration had been given to bringing a visiting professor to campus for a semester, but in the end only brief attention was given to the fiftieth year of the College of Pharmacy, and celebra­tion was postponed until after the war. 58 
67University of Texas, University Course Catalogue, Fall Semester 1943, Texas Collection. 68Southem Pharmaceutical journal 36 (February 1944) : 85. 
The Forty Acres 
The Longhorn Pharmacist, the student publication, was also a casualty. It suspended publication after the April 1943 issue, to be revived in its original format in 194 7. The rigors of a wartime curriculum necessitated more attention to studies than to stu­dent journalism, and the reduced student body decreased the need for such a publication. 59 Other extracurricular activities, such as the annual college banquet and student-faculty social af­fairs, were also deemed incompatible with the war effort. Although the cessation of hostilities in 1945 permitted many of these activities to be resumed, the tremendous postwar increase of students in the college made the camaraderie that faculty and students had previously shared a thing of the past. 
When the war ended and the troops returned, the college was confronted with the problems of raising its Class C rating, educating 600 to 700 students with a faculty of 5, and securing the long-promised building for pharmacy. Also, within two years, the college would acquire a new dean, since Dean Gidley was approaching retirement age. If the rigors of leading the col­lege through years of administrative disregard and teaching overloads had not made retirement seem desirable to the overworked Gidley, then certainly the dispute that was to rock the Medical Branch in Galveston and the main campus in Austin during the war years should have made him anxious to pass these burdens on to a new administrator. Before discussing the new administration and the postwar era, a brief look at this dispute and the complicated state of affairs that ensnared the College of Pharmacy during the war years is in order. 
69Longhorn Pharmacist, June 1947, p. 1. 
CHAPTER EIGHT: 	The College ofPharmacy as a Political Pawn 
THROUGHOUT THE 1930s and 1940s, the College of Pharmacy had tolerated conditions that seriously hampered the development of a quality education. Limited funds and unful­filled expectations of acceptable housing created conditions so severe that the national rating of the college was endangered. A new dilemma presented itself in 1944 when the board of regents decided to move the College of Pharmacy back to Galveston, in complete disregard of the curricular requirements of the phar­macy degree program. For two years the fate of the college remained in limbo as University President Homer P. Rainey and the board of regents engaged in a power struggle that embroiled the university community as well as public opinion throughout the state and that required an investigation by the Texas House of Representatives before a solution could be reached. Subse­quently, the board of regents, almost as an afterthought, rescinded its decision to move the College of Pharmacy to Galveston. The use of the college as a pawn in this power strug­gle, however, caused severe damage to its prestige and educational capabilities. Many of the local problems that the new dean would have to resolve stemm.ed from the bitterness and academic disruption that followed the Rainey affair, as this con­troversy came to be known. Because of its severe repercussions 
239 

1he Forly Acres 
for the College of Pharmacy, this episode warrants a thorough review. 
This controversy, which began with administrative actions within the Medical Branch at Galveston, stemmed from a strange pattern of governance that had evolved over the years. Although the Medical Department, as it was then known, had originally been governed in a democratic fashion, with issues decided through a vote of the general faculty, by 1914 the ad­ministration of the various departments and training hospitals had become so complex that the faculty willingly entrusted its responsibilities in these matters to a committee composed of five faculty members. Since that time, the faculty had ceased to deliberate as a body and had operated on a formal and perfunc­tory basis with no real voice or authority. Although this Ex­ecutive Committee of the Medical Branch Faculty was elected by secret ballot at the beginning of each fall semester, the membership changed very little, as those who held power within the Medical Branch became firmly entrenched. After 1929, the board of regents followed the example of the faculty and inter­fered very little in the affairs of the Medical Branch. 1 President Rainey summed up the situation as follows: 
The President of the University and the Board of Regents have merely approved the recommendation of the Executive Commit­tee upon the advice of one of its own members without exercising the proper knowledge, authority, and responsibility through their President and the Dean of the Medical School. 2 
Power concentrated in the hands of this committee would not have created administrative problems if the bureaucratic en­tanglements had ended there. To complicate matters, however, the Executive Committee of the Medical Branch Faculty was but one of four ruling bodies within the Medical Branch system. The board of regents, in theory, exercised final control over the affairs of the various academic departments and the administration of 
1Texas, Legislature, Senate, "Investigation of the University of Texas by Senate Investigations Committee," vol. 4, Legislative Library, State Capitol Building, Austin, Texas, p. 765. 
2lbid., p. 765. 
the university's training hospitals. The Sealy-Smith Foundation, representing the interests of the family that had originally built the John Sealy Hospital and donated it to the university, ad­ministered the large grants that the Sealy-Smith heirs continued to donate to the School of Medicine and the hospitals. Finally, the Board of Managers of John Sealy Hospital attended to the practical affairs of hospital administration and maintained rela­tions with the city of Galveston, to whom the original hospital had been leased. This situation-a university hospital leased to local interests-was unusual enough in itself. But in addition The University of Texas Medical Branch was unique in being the only medical school in the country subject to four governing bodies, each with functions overlapping those of the other groups. 8 
As if this situation were not enough to cause confusion, the problem was further compounded by an overlapping of the per­sonnel composing the different boards. Dr. Edward Randall, one of the original members of the faculty of the Medical Branch, who had once instructed pharmacy students in materia medica, was the epitome of entrenched power. An original member of the Executive Committee of the Medical Branch Faculty, he also served for years as chairman of the Sealy-Smith Foundation, chairman of the Board of Managers of John Sealy Hospital, and member as well as chairman of the board of regents. Dr. James Thompson, who served as head of the Department of Surgery in the School of Medicine, was for many years a member of both the Executive Committee and the Board of Managers of John Sealy Hospital, in addition to maintaining a private practice in partnership with Dr. Randall.' This excessive inbreeding not only resulted in much confusion of authority and responsibility, but also concentrated great power in the hands of a few persons. 
So disconcerting was the state of affairs within the Training School for Nurses that the chief administrator was not even cer­tain to whom she was responsible. 5 Because of the uncertain 
'Ibid., p. 764. 
4lbid. 
albid., p. 766. 

nature of the hospital lease-contract between the city of Galveston and the board of regents, confusion existed over the legal and administrative responsibilities. 8 Dr. L. R. Wilson, superintendent of John Sealy Hospital, found the task of recon­ciling differing factions so difficult that he resigned in protest in October of 1940.7 
The resulting favoritism and delineation of power can most ex­plicitly be seen in the case of the distribution of clinical materials to the various departments. Galveston had once been a bustling seaport, the population of which furnished the Medical Branch with an ample number of charity patients for clinical use in training students. By the 1930s, however, Houston had become the major port for the state of Texas and the population of Galveston had dwindled. One of the consequences of this shifting economic pattern was a sharp decline in clinical patients available to the Medical Branch. With such teaching materials in short supply, many departments felt that hospital beds were not distributed in the most equitable manner. As President Rainey reported: 
It is further charged by some department heads that it is neces­sary to be "in the good graces" of the Superintendent of the Hospital in order to have clinical materials provided. 8 
One fact, however, was evident. While most departments had to be content with a severely limited number of patients per stu­dent, the Department of Surgery was allocated sixty-five out of the eighty-one beds just in the Children's Hospital of the Sealy Hospital complex. 9 Such an advantage undoubtedly arose from the fact that the head of the Department of Surgery was a member of the Board of Managers of Sealy Hospital, which held direct authority over the superintendent of the hospital. 
Such favoritism interfered with the ability of the Medical Branch to provide a balanced program of study. The uneven 
8Ibid., p. 767. 
1 lhe University of Texas Medical Branch at Galves/Qn: A Seventy-five Year History by the Faculty and Staff {Austin: University of Texas Press, 1967), p. 357 (hereafter cited as Medical Branch History). 
ll<'Investigation of the University," 4:767. 
11Ibid. 
quality of education offered in Galveston eventually came to the attention of the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC), th,e accrediting agency for such schools. In 1942, AAMC placed The University of Texas Medical Branch on probation because of the dissension and the ill-balanced and poor quality of education that prevailed at that time. 10 
President Rainey felt that the unrest, antagonism, and uncer­tainty among the faculty members at the Medical Branch arose from a lack of proper and sound administrative control by the board of regents. 11 In 1940 the board tried to change its operating methods toward the Medical Branch in order to re­assert its own authority and straighten out the tangled affairs of the Medical Branch. The task, however, took on proportions larger than the regents had expected as the entire story began to emerge. Not only did the School of Medicine require attention, but the regents were also forced to deal with the entanglements of the Sealy-Smith Foundation, the various hospitals within the Medical Branch, the Training School for Nurses, and the univer­sity's relations with the city of Galveston. 
The first move by the board of regents in its efforts to resume control over affairs at the Medical Branch took place in October 1939 when the board's Medical College Committee conducted an investigation on the campus. The committee received con­fidential testimony from Dean John W. Spies of the Medical Branch, the superintendent of hospitals, and various department heads. In protest over this investigation, Randall resigned from the board of regents. Realizing that they had only scratched the surface of the situation, the regents directed President Rainey to make a complete examination of the situation and submit a writ­ten report. 
In his report of January 1940, Rainey made eleven recommen­dations concerning the resolution of these issues. He concluded that the power of the Executive Committee of the Medical Branch Faculty inhibited the dean's ability to administer the 
10Medical Branch History, p. 167. 
11"lnvestigation of the University," 4:767. 

Medical Branch: "I don't care how good he is, no one can go down there and be a free soul in that situation. "12 In his in­vestigations, ·Rainey had discovered that every dean in the past had capitulated to the wishes of the committee. Dean Spies, who had assumed his duties in 1938, was the first dean not to cater to its will, a position that caused severe difficulties in the relations among the administration, . the committee, and the faculty. Although public opinion would later be divided in regard to Dean Spies, in early 1940 he enjoyed the strong support of in-· fluential groups such as the Texas Medical Association, The University of Texas Medical Alumni Association, and the Texas Federation of Women's Clubs; of many newspapers; and ofmore than two-thirds of the medical student body. 18 
Then in the spring of 1941, two members of the board of regents made an unannounced, on-the-spot survey of the situa­tion at the Medical Branch. On their return, they joined with other members of the board in sending President Rainey an ultimatum demanding that Dean Spies not b~ reappointed. This demand came just as the affairs that had been jeopardizing the · Medical Branch were in the process ofbeing resolved, although dissension among the faculty members was still widespread. Over Rainey's protest, the board of regents decided to relieve Dean Spies of his duties "for the sake of harmony," only to be forced by opposition from the medical profession to reappoint him within two weeks.14 This compromise by the board of regents failed to support either the medical dean or the univer­sity president. Rainey later summarized · its failure to take a definite stand: 
· Their refusal to do so led to one crisis after another until a year later the situation had become so intolerable that there · was nothing that could be done except to get a new administration for the Medical School. 111 
12lbid., p. 699. . 
13Alcalde 30 (October 1941): 5. 
14"lnvestigation of the University," 1: 155. 
15Ibid., p. ·1s7. 

President Homer Price Rainey 1939-1944 
The failure of the regents to endorse Spies encouraged his detractors among the faculty, who conducted a publicity cam­paign to air their own views. 18 Under such conditions of opposi­tion, Dean Spies had no chance of implementing improvements within the Medical Branch. 
Because the internal dissension had reached public attention, an investigation by the Un-American Activities Committee of the Texas House of Representatives was conducted both in Galveston and in the house chamber in Austin. As a result of its findings, the committee recommended that the board of regents discharge Dean Spies and instruct President Rainey to rebuild the academic structure of the Medical Branch to avoid a proposed censure by the AAMC medical school examiners. 17 Despite their previous desire to remove Spies, the regents balked at this suggestion from the house committee, claiming that they were obliged to retain Spies until his contract expired unless specific charges of unfitness could be substantiated. 18 
By May, however, relations between the administration, staff, and students of the Medical Branch had deteriorated to such an extent that the alumni magazine reported "class work so serious­ly hampered as to be practically nonexistent in some cases. "1t During this time, the Medical Branch was placed on probation by the American Association of Medical Colleges with the con­currence of the American Medical Association. Following this development, the board of regents finally dismissed Dean Spies and replaced him with Dr. Chauncey Leake, a noted phar­macologist. The medical students, angered at both sides and un­appeased by this action, retaliated by hanging in effigy President Rainey, Dean Spies, and one of the regents. 20 
At the request of the board of regents, President Rainey and Leake each submitted a report concerning the medical situation in Texas, as well as suggestions for long-range educational plan­ning. President Rainey recommended moving the Medical 
111lbid., p. 240. 
11Alcalde 30 (March 1942): 134. 
181bid. 
19Alcalde 30 (May 1942): 170. 
20 Daily Texan, 5 July 1942. 

Branch to the main campus in Austin as a solution to the con­flicting interests of various groups in Galveston. 21 Dr. Leake proposed just the opposite-he favored the return of the College of Pharmacy to Galveston to unite the medical sciences.22 Without consulting any professional pharmacists or educators, the board of regents adopted Dean Leake's suggestion. In the words of the student newspaper: 
In a tense session Friday, characterized by decisive and seemingly hurried action, the University Board of Regents repudiated completely President Homer P. Rainey's recommen­dation that the University Medical School in Galveston be moved to Austin and went a step further by instigating plans for moving to Galveston the School of Pharmacy, now on the Main Univer­sity, and the nursing and health education which is conducted here. 28 
The best interests of the College of Pharmacy played no role in this decision, but the financial interests of the Medical Branch were of major concern. Preceding the meeting of 29 September 1944 of the board of regents, the Sealy-Smith Foundation of Galveston had offered a $2 million grant for equipping and erecting a new hospital on the condition that the Medical Branch remain in Galveston. 24 During the board meeting, a citizens' group from San Antonio proffered a $10.5 million en­dowment and the promise of a sufficient supply of clinical material if the Medical Branch were moved to San Antonio. 25 In light of the large investment in equipment and buildings already on the campus in Galveston, the board of regents adopted the of­f er of the Sealy-Smith Foundation to build further at that loca­tion rather than be forced to construct an entirely new medical campus. 
Although this solution proved beneficial to the Medical Branch, it turned out to be an unmitigated disaster for the Col­lege of Pharmacy, which was kept in limbo for four years. One of 
21University of Texas, The Future Development of The University of Texas: A Report to the Board of Regents by the President of the University, 15 July 1944, pp. 55-71. 
22"lnvestigation of the University," 1: 159. 
28 Daily Texan, 1 October 1944. 
24lbid. 
26lbid. 
the major reasons for moving the college to Austin in 1927 had been to bring the curriculum into compliance with national stan­dards, a goal that had been impossible to meet previously because of the lack of adequate course work at . 
the Medical Branch. 26 Dean Gidley advised The Daily Texan that, if such a move were completed, the College of Pharmacy would most like­ly be forced to give up membership in the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) because it could not attain the curricular standards of the organization.27 In addition to a firm background in the basic sciences,, AACP required a broad-based liberal-arts background. The few courses pertinent to pharmacy that were offered at the Medical Branch were tailored for the stu­dent with extensive premedical training rather than one with the undergraduate level of most pharmacy students. In addition, the bulk of the courses in the pharmacy curriculum would need to be duplicated, a situation that President Rainey had hoped to avoid by concentrating all of the medical course work in Austin.28 
Dean Gidley did see one possible solution to this difficulty. He suggested that aprepharmacy year, similar to the premedical program, might be offered in Austin, with subsequent work to be done at the Medical Branch. The major drawback he foresaw was that "under this plan, the best men would go into medicine. It would probably make for fewer pharmacists. "29 Unless some plan were worked out to give students in pharmacy the liberal­arts courses they were required to take, Gidley suggested, it would be highly probable that the enrollment would decline sharply if not disappear entirely. Since the college would lose its accreditation, a student's credits from the Medical Branch would not be recognized by other AACP-approved schools.80 If the College of Pharmacy were to lose recognition by the AACP because of the inadequate curriculum in Galveston, Gidley added, its reputation would be hurt beyond repair. 31 
261bid. 
27lbid. 
28"lnvestigation of the University," 1:123. 
29Daily Texan, 1 October 1944. 
30Ibid. 
31lbid. 

Ironically, Dean Gidley was not officially informed of the board of regents' action immediately. Acting on newspaper reports only, Dean Gidley began planning three separate cur­ricula to meet any situation that the board of regents might final­ly approve. 82 Nor was Gidley given any suggestion as to when the move could be anticipated. The regents had specified that "an adequate building be prepared at Galveston as soon as pos­sible," but gave no indication as to, when this might be ac­complished.88 
The decision to move the college back to Galveston dashed the hopes of pharmacists and students for a new building. "We stood high on the list to get a new building on this campus after the war," Gidley lamented; he felt that such a promise would not be maintained if the college was moved. 34 
Students at the Medical Branch at first received the decision of the board of regents with resignation. After four years of turmoil on the campus, few even took notice of this latest development. 
1he Daily Texan reported: 
Students on the campus characterized their reactions with two degrees of comment. "Oh well," some said. Others commented, "Oh well, hell. "86 
A few weeks later, however, a .majority of the medical students showed a little more spirit when they signed a resolution asking that the Medical Branch be moved, outlining the poor conditions still existing at the school as their reason for their petition. 86 This maneuver, however, received very little attention and had no ef­fect on the decisions of the board of regents. 
Pharmacy students reacted much more strongly to the impru­dent decision of the board of regents. 1he Daily Texan described the opposition registered by the student chapter of the American Pharmaceutical Association: 
82 Daily Texan, 3 October 1944. 
83lbid. 
341bid. 
35Daily Texan, 1 October 1944. 
36lbid. 

Campus demonstration opposing the firing of President Rainey 
President Ben Fischer reports that one of the main objections raised by the group of approximately forty was the fear of being placed under the control of medical interests in Galveston. Phar­macy has always had trouble in keeping its interests independent from the control of the medical profession, they said. 87 
Maytee Robinson, a pharmacy student, foresaw even more im­mediate consequences of the proposed move: Intermingling of the pharmacy and medical students to the mutual advantage has been played up far too much .... Dif­
ferences in age and amount of college work will keep the phar­
macy students in an inferior position. 88 
The problems of the logistics of moving the College of Phar­
macy to Galveston were indefinitely set aside, however, as the breach between President Rainey and the board of regents widened. Newspapers around the state headlined the regents' decision as an open repudiation of President Rainey. The Austin Statesman pointed out that the three regents who composed the board's Medical College Committee had been prominent in the organized opposition to President Rainey on charges that he was too liberal in his policies and views.89 As the controversy con­tinued, the charges against Rainey multiplied. Although the fact that his views contradicted those of the regents was undisputed, charges against him also included harboring communist sym­pathies, advocating the admission of Negroes to The University of Texas, supporting the use of an obscene book-USA by John Dos Pasos-in literature classes, and failing to oust university professors suspected of homosexual activity.'° The final break came on 27 October 1944, when the board of regents voted to relieve Rainey of his duties as president of The University of Texas. 
On the main campus in Austin, Rainey had been a very pop­ular president and support for him ran high. When students and faculty learned of the regents' decision to fire him, 5,000 persons marched through downtown Austin "to the dirge of muffled 
87Daily Texan, 5 October 1944. 
88Jbid. 
89Austin Statesman, 30 September 1944. 
"'Alcalde 33 (December 1944): 53-54. 

Students and faculty march on the capitol, protesting the "death" of academic freedom. 
drums and bars of Chopin's 'Funeral March' in a funeral proces­sion for 'Academic Freedom.' ''41 At the head of the parade of mourners was a black casket and a banner stretching from curb to curb that declared, "Academic Freedom Is Dead. "42 In Galveston, however, sentiments ran in the opposite direction. The faculty of the Medical Branch passed a resolution sup­porting the decision of the regents on the basis that Rainey had supported the policies of Dean Spies, which were felt to have been in violation of tenure rules and academic freedom. 48 
Long before the board of regents had made its final move, however, the confrontation had become a public issue. During 1944, when the dispute peaked, newspapers throughout the state as well as national newsmagazines granted full coverage to the situation. The decision to fire Rainey, however, created such a sensation that the state legislature felt compelled, in November of 1944, to investigate a wide range of issues that had contributed to the unrest. In nearly 4, 000 pages of sworn testimony and evidence, the Investigations Committee of the Texas Senate at­tempted to unravel the complexities of the rumors that had been rampant on the campus for over five years. At the conclusion of these hearings, the committee could only admonish the governor of Texas to exercise better judgment and consider the views of the university committee in making his decisions on appoint­ments to the board of regents. 
Shortly thereafter, a new university president and several new regents were appointed to office, and the bitter memories were assuaged as the new administration tried to bring harmony to the strife-torn campus. The incident, however, was in no sense forgotten, and hostile reactions and accusations of selling out to the board of regents were hurled at Theophilus S. Painter of the Department of Zoology as he assumed the duties of acting presi­dent. For many years to come, memories of the affair would fester on campus. The task that faced Dean Gidley's successor was complicated by such unhealed wounds. One aspect of the controversy that was quickly forgotten, however, was the fate of 
41 Daily Texan, 5 November 1944. 
421bid. 
48Alcalde 33 (December 1944 ): 53-54. 

the College of Pharmacy. While the rest of the university com­munity strove to return to a more normal existence, the College of Pharmacy was left in suspense as to where it would finally be located. 
Such uncertainty created additional difficulties for Dean Gidley's beleaguered administration. The low salaries that the college could offer prospective faculty members had always made staffing a major problem; this, combined with the threatened loss of accreditation and the dismal prospects of residence at the Medical Branch, made a position at The Univer­sity of Texas a far from appealing proposition. One faculty member, Louis W. Schleuse, had already accepted employment in the more stable environment of a private pharmaceutical firm. His departure was sorely regretted by a small faculty of four professors and one or two instructors. In addition, both Gidley and Neville were approaching retirement. With the adverse publicity that the university had received as a result of the preceding dissensions, the difficulty of filling these positions was magnified. 
The question of the location of the College of Pharmacy was subsequently resolved in early 1946. At the request of Dean Gidley, the board of regents reconsidered the issue and rescinded its decision to move the College of Pharmacy to Galveston." Ex­cept for the frantic and fruitless planning into which Gidley had been forced, no action had been taken on the original decision. Now that the college was finally freed of the threat of moving, pharmacists around the state were hopeful that the long­promised pharmacy building might soon be built. President Rainey had assured Dean Gidley that such a project would be of prime consideration when the war ended. He had referred, of course, to World War II. Acting President Painter was equally sympathetic to the needs of pharmacy, reaffirming the promise of his predecessors. Thus, after two bleak years of suspense from 1944 until 1946, the College of Pharmacy was at last able to look to the future with some assurance that its long-neglected needs would receive attention. 
44University of Texas, " Minutes of the Board of Regents, January 11 and 12, 1946," Office of the Board of Regents, The University of Texas System, Austin, Texas. 
PART III 

Renaissance of the 
College, 1947-1962 


CHAPTER NINE: The Transition, 1947 
WITH THE ADVERSITIES OF World War II and the tensions between President Rainey and the board of regents in the past, the College of Pharmacy undertook the peacetime tasks of rebuilding its sagging national rating, stretching a restricted budget to cover the demands of a burgeoning student body, and persuading the board of regents to honor its promise of a new building. These tasks, however, were not to fall on the shoulders of Dean Gidley, who was nearing his retirement after twenty years with The University of Texas. 
In his monthly column for The Longhorn Pharmacist, Gidley couched the topic of his impending retirement in humorous tones. In the June 1947 issue, "Notes from the Dean's Desk" read: 
Old Age, stay off my tail. I can make another lap if you stop crowding. It's a one-horse shay you're riding. Speed still fair, but when the break-up starts, look out for the pieces. 1 
Although Gidley mentioned his age as the reason for the decision to retire, he did not add that university regulations left him little choice in the matter. The procedure was for professors, as well as deans, to give up full-time duties at the age of sixty-five, although they were allowed to teach on a modified basis for a number of 
1Longhorn Pharmacist, June 1947, p. 4. 
257 

years thereafter. A normal teaching load in the university averaged twelve classroom hours per week, with a modified schedule consisting of six hours. Dean Gidley, however, did not get off so lightly. Upon retirement, his teaching duties, which had mounted to twenty-three hours during his last years, were only reduced to seventeen. Thus, in retirement, he would be called upon to teach five more hours than most full-time profes­sors normally carried. 2 
Gidley's teaching schedule was but one example in a long history of overburdened schedules for pharmacy faculty members. The college, however, received sympathetic attention and encouragement from the new university president, Theophilus S. Painter, who had assumed his post in the midst of controversy and protest. Presented with overwhelming evidence that the College of Pharmacy desperately needed an infusion of new talent as well as more funds, Painter authorized Dean Gidley to begin the search for additional faculty members. 8 Dur­ing the war, the College of Pharmacy had lost an associate professor of long standing, Louis W. Schleuse, to the higher salaries offered by private industry. This left a meager staff of four professors and one instructor to teach a postwar student body of over 600. Although Gidley was not able to offer very lucrative salaries, he was optimistic that a few individuals might be interested in the positions available. 
His search for new faculty members at the 1946 convention of the American Pharmaceutical Association (APhA) in Pittsburgh did not result in the immediate hiring of any new faculty, but Gidley did have the opportunity to renew the acquaintance of one of his former students at Purdue University, Dr. Henry M. Burlage, who then held the position of professor of pharmacy at the University of North Carolina.' Athough no firm offer of a position in Austin was tendered at this time, Burlage expressed interest in a position of research professor at The University of 
'Z\V. F. Gidley, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1946-1947," College of Pharmacy Files, Records of the Office of the President, The University of Texas Archives, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas. 
3lbid. 
4lbid. 
Texas. In November, however, Gidley unexpectedly inquired as to his interest in the deanship.15 After Burlage visited the Austin campus in February 194 7, President Painter offered him the position of dean of the College of Pharmacy. 
HENRY MATTHEW BURLAGE 
Born on 23 May 1897 in Rensselaer, Indiana, Henry M. Burlage spent his early years in the town of Earl Park, Indiana. There he received his preliminary education, graduating from the local high school in 1915 in a class of six. He immediately enrolled in the University of Indiana, where he studied chemistry while working to meet his expenses. For a brief period he served as a chemist for the government at Muscle Shoals, Alabama. During his last year of college, he gave up his job of firing fur­naces and waiting on tables to serve as an assistant and tutor in chemistry. In spite of these demands, he graduated in 1919 with an A.B. degree in chemistry and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. During a two-year residence at Harvard University between 1919 and 1921, he furthered his studies while serving as teaching fellow in chemistry and graduate assistant in industrial chemistry.6 
After receiving the Master of Arts degree, however, his academic career was interrupted by lack of finances. Although positions in chemistry were not abundant, he found employment as a chemist in the laboratory of Charles B. Jordan, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Purdue University in Indiana. In an oral history transcribed by Dr. Esther Jane Wood Hall, Burlage described his first work in pharmacy: 
My laboratory experiences in filling prescriptions began here as an aide to Professor William F. Gidley .... I also tested urine samples for the ROTC ... and filled prescriptions for students at the Purdue Health Service. This is where I really became in­terested in Pharmacy as a profession. 7 
6W. F. Gidley to H . M. Burlage, 12 November 1946, personal files of H. M. Burlage. 
6H. M. Burlage, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean, College of Pharmacy, The 
University of Texas at Austin (hereafter referred to as Office of the Dean of Pharmacy). 
7Esther Jane Wood Hall, "Henry Matthew Burlage, Ph.D.: A History," Office of the 
Dean of Pharmacy. 
Henry Matthew Burlage 
While working at Purdue, Burlage received the Ph.G. degree and the newly offered B.S. degree in pharmacy in 1924. 
As a final step in the dedication of his career to pharmacy, he accepted appointment as instructor in pharmacy at the Univer­sity of Washington in Seattle under Dean Charles W. Johnson. Washington was one of the few universities that offered the Ph.D. degree in pharmacy, and Burlage took advantage of the opportunity to earn this degree in 1928 under the direction of Dr. 
E. V. Lynn. After completing his graduate' studies, he accepted appointment as associate professor of drug analysis at Oregon State College, while he wrote his doctoral dissertation, which was finished in 1929. While in Oregon, he also served as an in­spector for the Oregon State Board of Pharmacy.8 
During the course of his studies in Seattle, Burlage married Alleda Virginia Robb in 1925. A skilled botanical illustrator, she has contributed many illustrations to scientific publications. In their leisure time, the Burlages have combined their keen in­terests in ecology and natural history in various endeavors. 
In 1929 Burlage accepted a position as associate professor of pharmacy and pharmaceutical chemistry at his alma mater, Purdue University, where he remained for two years before being lured to the South by the offer of a full professorship at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. Pharmacists with the Ph.D. degree were as rare in 1931 as were professorships in pharmacy. Burlage recalled, ''It was considered one of the top openings, but did not turn out to be so financially. "9 Although the demand was great for the training that he possessed, the economic conditions that plagued the country took their toll. As he recalled: "It was the bottom of the Depression, and all the state budgets were tight, and my salary was cut 50 percent, which created an additional burden along with an expense of moving from Indiana to North Carolina. "10 Despite the adverse conditions, the Burlages were able to purchase an acreage that they christened Hidden Hills. 
8Burlage, " Curriculum Vitae." 
11Hall, " Burlage," p. 9. 
lOJbid. 

During the years he spent in Chapel Hill, Burlage attempted to build up the graduate and research programs in pharmacy. Although he was successful in creating the Pharmaceutical Research Foundation, his efforts toward improving graduate education at North Carolina met with considerable resistance. For this reason, he was attracted by the offer of the deanship from The University of Texas in 194 7. As he wrote to President Painter in his letter of acceptance on 13 March 194 7: 
If the research program and graduate school had been sup­ported that I came here to establish nearly sixteen years ago, I doubt that any inducement would influence me to leave this campus and locality. However, since this program has not received proper encouragement by the administration of the un­iversity nor is there any evidence of immediate fulfillment of these obligations, of any scope, I feel the necessity of accepting your of­fered position in order to devote the remaining years ... to teaching in the manner I deem imperative to the maintenance of the high standards required of a student of pharmacy concurrent with the advances in modern trends of pharmaceutical education. 11 
In contrast, The University of Texas appeared to offer the oppor­tunities he desired: 
The position offered me at the University of Texas seems to en­tail a confidence in my capabilities as a teacher and ad­ministrator in directing the college and evident acceptance of my qualifications in the establishment and direction of a research and graduate program and such trust is indeed encouraging. 12 
Offered the opportunity to develop more fully the vision he held of excellence in pharmaceutical education, Burlage made the decision to leave Hidden Hills and Chapel Hill after sixteen years and to accept the challenge presented by The University of Texas College of Pharmacy. 
11Burlage to T. S. Painter, 13 March 1947, personal files of H. M. Burlage. 121bid. 
A NEW ADMINISTRATION 

Burlage carefully weighed his decision before accepting the position of dean of the College of Pharmacy. During his visit to Texas, he conferred with then Acting President Painter, Dean Gidley, and other members of the faculty, as well as the secretaries of the Texas Pharmaceutical Association and the State Board of Pharmacy. Burlage was aware of the tenuous position concerning national accreditation of the College of Pharmacy. Unless certain conditions were met, the American Council on Pharmaceutical Education (ACPE) would withdraw the college's accreditation. 
To supplement these interviews, Burlage contacted a number of prominent individuals in pharmacy seeking their advice on matters pertaining to the college. Walter Cousins, Jr., secretary of the State Board of Pharmacy, detailed his viewpoint on the greatest needs of the College of Pharmacy: 
We do feel that the more obvious needs of the University at this time are first, a building which the school can call its own; second, a more aggressive attitude in behalf of better public rela­tions with pharmacy throughout the state with the legislature and with the people of Texas generally; and third, a more -adequate faculty than is possible perhaps at this time. It seems to me that these things are basic and that any other actual needs of the University can be filled by the acquisition of these things in the beginning. 13 
C. C. Albers elaborated in great detail the major needs of the college: 
1. 	
A pharmacy building, or at least four times the space now al­lotted to pharmacy, to provide all facilities needed; 

2. 	
Graduate instruction through at least the master's level; 

3. 	
Departmentalizing the college into possibly four divisions with a full professor and an associate or assistant in each division ... ; 

4. 	
An increase of permanent staff to eight members and a dean, plus adequate instructors and assistants to provide sound teaching; 


18Walter Cousins, Jr., to Burlage, 20 February 1947, personal files of H. M. Burlage. 
5. 	
Additional permanent equipment to permit instruction at the graduate level; 

6. 	
Addition of new courses, such as manufacturing pharmacy, laboratory work in pharmacology, pharmaceutical assaying, cosmetology, and other advanced elective courses; 

7. 	
Adequate support of the medicinal plant garden for research and training; 

8. 	
Substantial additions to the pharmacy library. 14 


Burlage talked to numerous people about the situation that would face him as dean of the College of Pharmacy, but one aspect was never mentioned-the residual bitterness harbored by many members of the university faculty and administration as a result of the Rainey affair. Because of the national attention that the incident had received, Burlage was not unaware that problems had existed, but he had no inkling that the controversy continued to fester. Some faculty members resented Painter's ac­ceptance of the presidency and his attempts to reestablish order by silencing all dissent. As dean, Burlage encountered these and other unspoken hostilities with no means of understanding the origin or import of them. In researching this history, he finally uncovered the source of many of the difficulties that he had first encountered as dean. 
Despite the discouraging conditions prevailing in the college, Burlage decided to accept the deanship with its associated chal­lenges. In his acceptance letter of 13 March 1947, he wrote: 
I make this decision because I feel that the college, with the support I know you will give me and with the help that I might expect from a well-coordinated staff, can be made one of the out­standing schools of pharmacy in the country, because of its natural resources of student material and geographical situation. 15 
In his acceptance of the deanship, he was careful to extract promises of administrative support for research and graduate programs at The University of Texas.18 
14C. C. Albers to Burlage, 12 March 1947, personal files of H. M. Burlage. 
15Burlage to Painter, 13 March 1947. 
"Ibid. 

Although the College of Pharmacy had operated for years un­der budgetary neglect, the administration had only become aware of the full effects of this neglect when the national rating of the college began to decline in 1939. President Homer Rainey had realized that the college could no longer be disregarded, but the controversies that had beset his administration had precluded the formulation of a solution adequate to the needs of pharmacy. Burlage arrived at a time when long-delayed improvements were finally a possibility; his leadership, com­bined with the advantage of a sympathetic administration, was able to effect the changes that had long eluded Dean Gidley in the adverse climate prevailing during his tenure. 
The conditions of Burlage's acceptance were sixfold: that the question of a building for the college be resolved quickly, that the staff be increased to a level commensurate with enrollment, that a graduate program be established with instruction leading to the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees, that undergraduate enrollments be limited to a level commensurate with the facilities available and the demand for pharmacists, that the dispensary be enlarged and improved, and that the administration assist the proposed new faculty members in securing housing in the limited real es­tate market of Austin. 17 All these conditions were acceded to by Painter except the last, which was beyond the scope of his authority. 
Burlage, along with the rest of the pharmacy faculty, recognized that a new building was the most critical issue facing the college. As he wrote to President Painter, "all promotion of future plans depends upon an early solution of its housing difficulties. "18 Cognizant that such a structure had been on the agenda for nearly twenty years, Burlage was careful to secure the word of President Painter that a pharmacy building would be a top priority in the S10 million postwar expansion program. 19 In making a prognosis for the College of Pharmacy, Burlage had one warning for the president: 
171bid. 
18lbid. 
19Painter to Burlage, 25 April 1947, and Gidley to Burlage, 5 May 1947, personal files 
of H. M. Burlage. 
It will be difficult to interest and keep additions to the staff under the present housing conditions unless there is hope for new quarters at an early date because there are too many schools of pharmacy which have more adequate and up-to-date quarters than the present situation obtaining on campus. 20 
In his plans to expand the programs of the college, Burlage considered the development of the faculty to be his first priority. To President Painter he wrote: 
With the present high enrollment of the College, an examina­tion of the teaching loads of the staff indicates that additional help should be engaged immediately, especially to bring relief in the supervision of the laboratories. In order to initiate the graduate program, further qualified help should be secured. 21 
Although President Painter was in agreement with the new dean, budgetary problems were to be a hindrance to realizing these goals. Despite below-average salaries and other monetary restrictions, the graduate program began operation two years after the arrival of Dean Burlage. One of the primary reasons for increasing the faculty was to create a proper ratio of instructor to students; Burlage's proposal to limit the undergraduate enroll­ment was to be another step in this direction. As the postwar boom in enrollments tapered off, however, such a limitation became less urgent. The creation of a new school of pharmacy at the University of Houston in 1949 served as an additional check on enrollments at The University of Texas. 
Despite all the disadvantages that seemed to prevail in the col­lege, it had in the dispensary one instructional advantage that many other schools lacked. Crowded into the basement of old B Hall, however, the dispensary was far too cramped to attain its potential as a focal point for developing students' skills in pharmaceutical dispensing and manufacturing. Burlage pressed for improved surroundings that would allow student phar­macists maximum efficiency in supplying the pharmaceutical needs of the university at a cost much lower than would be available even on a state contract. 22 
20Burlage to Painter, 13 March 1947. 
21Ibid. 
22Jbid. 

These concerns, which Burlage attempted to resolve before his arrival in Austin, are significant for two reasons. First, this com­pendium of the ills of the College of Pharmacy serves as a recapitulation of the situation that prevailed for the previous twenty years, the years following the removal of the college to Austin. Second, this detailing of the expectations that he brought with him to Austin lays the framework for the achieve­ments that would be realized under his administration. 
The appointment of Burlage was well received in Texas in general as well as in pharmaceutical circles. 23 Dr. Andrew G. DuMez, the secretary of the American Council on Phar­maceutical Education, wrote to Burlage: 
I was, indeed, pleased to be informed that you had accepted the Deanship at the University of Texas. If you are not already familiar with the situation there, you will soon learn that there is much to be done to place the college of pharmacy on the proper footing. 24 
DuMez apprised him of some of the problems that he would soon face, one of which DuMez had become aware of on a previous visit to the university. He had been "impressed with the fact that [the College of Pharmacy] was controlled by the Department of Chemistry. "215 The second problem was that of establishing a working relationship with the administration so that the views of the college would be taken into consideration in planning for a new pharmacy building. Finally, the secretary congratulated Burlage on his goal of strengthening the faculty, but cautioned him that this would be difficult in lieu of the low salaries that he would be able to offer. In summary, the American Council on Pharmaceutical Education appeared relieved that someone could be found who was willing to assume the deanship at The University of Texas. 28 
In preparation for his assumption of duties in September 1947, Burlage worked closely with Dean Gidley and President Painter 
23A. G. DuMez to Burlage, 4 June 1947, and Cousins to Burlage, 26 May 1947, per­
sonal files of H. M. Burlage. 
24DuMez to Burlage, 4 June 1947. 
26lbid. 
26lbid. 
to resolve a number of issues that would affect new plans for the college. The most urgent of these was that of securing an ap­propriation for the new pharmacy building. After two years of indecision following the firing of University President Rainey, the board of regents finally voted on 30 November 1946 to retain the College of Pharmacy on the main campus in Austin. 27 In view of this action, President Painter informed the regents that it was imperative that the College be given dignified and ade­quate quarters for teaching and research. 28 No opposition to this opinion was heard among the members of the board. While the College of Pharmacy had been at the bottom of the building priority list in 1933, it had gradually risen to the top as all of the other structures had been completed. But now that the entire ad­ministrative personnel agreed that a pharmacy building was in­deed a good idea, the perennial problem of funding loomed large. 
In the past, construction of permanent improvements had been financed solely by the income from the university's oil-and gas-producing lands in West Texas. In the late 1930s, however, the board of regents had ruled that Texas A&M College, as a branch of The University of Texas, was entitled to a one-third share in these funds. With a massive building program slated for the postwar period, the board of regents and the state legislature realized that the Available Fund would not begin to cover the contemplated expenses for the university. As for using state monies, the fourteen other state-supported colleges and univer­sities, which did not even share in the Available Fund, also had building programs planned for the postwar years. During years past, bonds had been issued to support construction costs at the university and were redeemed through the income of the Available Fund. This practice, however, was not sanctioned by the state constitution or laws. 
To resolve finally this common dilemma they shared, repre­sentatives of the sixteen state-supported institutions met on 
27University of Texas, "Minutes of the Board of Regents, November 30, 1946," Office of the Board of Regents, The University of Texas System, Austin, Texas. 
28lbid. 
6 December 1946 and adopted a proposal in the form of a con­stitutional amendment to provide funds for building and equip­ment needs. The University of Texas and Texas A&M College would be authorized to issue bonds to be redeemed from the Available Fund, while building programs at the other schools would be financed through a property tax. 29 The plan was a reasonable one and would not have aroused much attention, but for the fact that Texas Technical College in Lubbock was not scheduled to benefit from the property tax. The fact that Texas Tech was not included did not provoke the residents of Lubbock County, but the imposition of the tax meant that they would be supporting institutions that would probably not be of direct benefit to them. so 
Despite this objection to the proposed financing, the bill passed the senate on 17 February 1947 and the house of representatives on May 5. During the intervening three months, much discussion and compromise had centered around the property tax clause. Although the residents of Lubbock County were not appeased, the proposed constitutional amendment was placed before the voters of Texas on 23 August 194 7 and was ap­proved by a scant 5,215 votes.81 Although opponents of the financing plan filed suit in federal court in Austin, they were un­successful in their challenge of the election. After nearly a year of heated debate, the issue of funding for the state's college­expansion program was finally settled. 
This prolonged situation had created additional difficulties for the College of Pharmacy as Burlage, Gidley, and Painter at­tempted to solidify plans for a new pharmacy building. By the time Dean Burlage arrived in Austin in mid-August of 1947, the issue had not yet reached a vote. Despite the uncertainties, Presi­dent Painter had asked Dean Gidley in the fall of 1946 to renew his plans for the proposed building. As early as 1938, Gidley, ever hopeful of resolving the housing question, had prepared preliminary sketches. As acting president, however, Painter had 
29Dallas Morning News, 7 December 1946. 
801bid. 
11Dallas Morning News, 24 August 1947. 

proceeded in this direction on his own initiative without con­sulting Dean Gidley. This lack of communication was the source of some embarrassment when the national accreditation examiner was shown the blueprints before Gidley had been con­sulted.82 Despite these fractured efforts, Burlage was able to review all suggestions before authorizing the final plans. 
The most pressing problem that Burlage attempted to solve before his arrival in Austin was the acquisition of additional faculty. Dean Gidley briefed his successor in this area: 
I have been repeatedly accused of being much too conservative in my requests for teachers and assistants. Undoubtedly it is true. With our student enrollment the largest by 93 of any pharmacy school in the United States, we have one of the smaller teaching staffs. When our enrollment was lower the teaching did not seem so difficult. We all graded our own examinations. Our enrollment is now ten times as many as we brought up to Austin from Galveston in 1927. We need all the teachers requested [in the 1947-48 budget request ]-and then some, in fact. 88 
On the advice of President Painter, the board of regents had authorized, for the 1947-48 academic year, the first increase in the pharmacy faculty since the college had moved to Austin. This authorization included positions for one associate professor, two assistant professors, and two instructors in addition to the three currently employed. The creation of these new positions met with the approval of Burlage. He informed President Painter that such a staff "would put us in good line to proceed with graduate work at an early date. "84 
Low salaries had created a long-standing obstacle for the Col­lege of Pharmacy in acquiring and retaining qualified faculty. Staff members had resigned in years past to take advantage of the more lucrative salaries available in private industry and practice. For those remaining with the college, promotions were also slow to materialize. The dedication shown by Albers had gone unrecognized for so long that he was tempted to assume the 
32DuMez to Burlage, 4 June 1947. 
33Gidley to Burlage, 5 May 1947. 
84Burlage to Painter, 12 May 1947, personal files of H. M. Burlage. 

deanship of a fledgling school in another southern state. For­tunately for Texas, Burlage persuaded Albers to remain and help build a stronger college. 35 In 1947 the monetary disadvan­tage was lessened somewhat by an authorization from the board of regents -increasing pharmacy salaries by 10 percent. Such an increase was essential to the procurement of professors with Ph.D. 's: a school of pharmacy in western Oklahoma was offering beginning salaries between $4,000 and $5,000 annually, while The University of Texas College of Pharmacy had scarcely been able to offer $4,000 to its tenured faculty. 38 
One solution to attracting qualified faculty was to hire women, who could be employed for substantially less pay. Burlage tentatively inquired of Dean Gidley whether the univer­sity had a regulation against engaging women, explaining that the university where he was currently employed did have such a stipulation, although there were numerous exceptions to the rule. 37 Gidley advised him that the situation in Texas was quite different: 
There are no regulations against women teachers here. Nearly every division of the University has them. Doctor Painter is not in favor of taking on women teachers past the mid-life period. I do not think he would be antagonistic to younger women. There· are dozens in the Home Economics division. 88 
Although the nepotism rule at the university often hindered the employment of women, the overt hiring policies during the first half of the twentieth century had been relatively equitable, in contrast to other southern states, where such had not been the practice. 
A person to teach in the fields of pharmacology and toxicology was the most pressing need of the college. The ACPE required some instruction in these areas, and no one currently on the main campus was qualified to offer these courses. Burlage hoped 
HBurlage to Albers, 11 May 1947, personal files of H. M . Burlage. 
88Gidley to Burlage, 5 May 1947. 
87Burlage to Gidley, 12 May 1947, personal files of H. M. Burlage. 
aacidley to Burlage, 23 May 1947, personal files of H. M. Burlage. 

to find a qualified person who would also "fit into a well­balanced graduate program. "89 The low salaries offered, how­ever, caused him to ·feel this position would be the most difficult to fill: 
A good man is going to be the hardest of the staff to locate since pharmacologists are in demand by medical schools with their higher salary scales. 40 
A graduate student who had been working with Burlage at the University of North Carolina was completing an M.S. degree in pharmacy, but the lack of a graduate program at The University of Texas College of Pharmacy prevented him from relocating im­mediately in Austin.41 Consequently, William J. Sheffield finished his M.S. degree as well as most of his doctoral work in North Carolina before moving to The University of Texas. 
The upgrading of the faculty was an arduous chore with which Burlage and Gidley had to contend while fulfilling their teaching obligations. In a report to President Painter entitled "A Recapitulation of the Search for Staff Members," Burlage sum­marized their efforts: 
More than seventy-five letters have been sent to deans of the colleges and schools of pharmacy, to staff members of schools, and to friends in the profession and commercial fields where it was felt that some leads might be suggested. This correspondence is being continued. 
In the earlier letters the ranks, fields, and revised salary scale, as submitted by Dean Gidley, were presented. It was soon ap­parent that these scales, in-so-far as pharmacy was concerned, would not bring any surprising results. A remark of the Secretary of the American Council on Pharmaceutical Education is perti­nent to this situation: "I doubt if you will be able to get very far (in building up the staff) because of the salaries that you are able to pay." Therefore, in letters that were written later, only ranks, fields, and plans for the college were included, without reference to salaries. 42 
39Burlage to Painter, 20 April 1947, personal files of H. M. Burlage. 
'0Ibid. 
'1Ibid. 
' 2H. M. Burlage, "A Recapitulation of the Search for Staff Members: A Report to 

President T. S. Painter, " 20 April 1947, personal files of H. M. Burlage. 
The response to these seventy-five letters was not overwhelming. Burlage suggested a few reasons for such a poor response. His analysis shed considerable light on the state of the profession during the postwar years, as well . as the predicament that the College of Pharmacy faced: 
1. 	
Students of pharmacy were not draft-exempt during the war as were medical and dental students. This accounted for a decreased enrollment in pharmacy and a decrease in appli­cants for advanced degrees and hence a decrease in the number of teachers. There is, therefore, a real teacher shortage in pharmacy. 

2. 	
Holders of advanced degrees are being attracted to industry because of the higher salaries even though on a 12-month basis. This means a shortage of teachers. · 

3. 	
Salary scales in state institutions of the South are lower than for the northern institutions. Some southern schools, as a result of recent legislative action, have more attractive salaries than Texas. It is, therefore, difficult to attract men from the northern schools. 

4. 	
The lack of a graduate program [deters] possible applicants. This should be started as soon as possible. 

5. 	
Lack of housing facilities for the college has the same effect. 

6. 	
Lack of housing facilities for the staff. Many universities have a campus committee which makes it a point to see to housing placements for staff members. "3 


Although these conditions severely handicapped efforts to build the pharmacy program at The University of Texas, Burlage did have some recommendations that he felt might al­leviate the situation. In the field of salaries, he recommended that pharmacy, as a professional school, be made competitive . with the fields of law, medicine, and engineering. "No greater teacher shortage exists than in the field of pharmacy," he reported."" He also felt that lucrative salaries for tenured faculty would enable the college to attract personnel with sufficient ex­perience to participate in the graduate program that Dean Gidley had been trying to implement for years. Departmen­talization of the college was also suggested. This procedure 
' 81bid., p. 2. 
"Ibid., p. 3. 

would allow the selection of a department head, at a higher salary, who could be expected to build up the staff and program within his own department. These recommendations were based on comments made to Burlage, both in person and by letter, by prospective applicants, as well as on Dean Gidley's lack of suc­cess the previous year in attracting new staff. 46 
Next in importance to increasing the faculty was the establish­ment of a program for a Master of Science degree in pharmacy at the university. Dean Gidley had formulated an entire program in the early 1940s that had met with the approval of the Graduate School. Implementation of the degree, however, had been de­f erred because of the lack of working space for research.46 Despite this determent, the faculty had attempted to carry on limited research activities. Albers had developed a research facility in his pharmacognosy laboratory, and Stockton had managed to equip an office-laboratory and begin some research work. In addition, a small research laboratory had been es­tablished in the basement of another campus building that was used as an overflow area for regular classes. With the announce­ment that Burlage would assume the responsibilities of dean of the College of Pharmacy, Dean A. P. Brogan of the Graduate School agreed that a proposal for master's work in pharmacy should again be submitted and made it clear that it would most likely be approved. 47 
The final dilemma that Burlage and Dean Gidley needed to resolve was that of the excessive undergraduate enrollment. A student body of more than 700 in the college was far too large for the facilities, teaching staff, and room accommodations. Even the additions to the staff recommended by both men would not be adequate to provide for such a large enrollment. Gidley, however, had hopes that there would be some reduction in the number of students entering pharmacy as the postwar influx of students subsided. He assured Burlage: 
45lbid. 
48(;idley to Burlage, 5 May 1947. 
47Gidley to Burlage, 5 May 1947, and A. P. Brogan to Burlage, 9 July 1947, personal files of H. M. Burlage. 
The present student body is swollen by the returned students from the Service. Pharmacy students had little protection from the Draft, and few wanted protection. I look upon our present situation as of temporary duration. True, salaries are higher and the practice of pharmacy never more enticing than at the present. I believe our enrollment will recede rather promptly to about 400 to 450.48 
Despite Gidley's optimistic views in this regard, the specter of the need to limit undergraduate enrollment presented itself. Un­til 1934, each pharmacy class had been unusually small. The re­quirement of a college degree for all registered pharmacists, which had gone into effect in 1934, had radically altered this situation, and students had swelled the enrollment of the College of Pharmacy in ever-increasing ranks. The yearly growth had been slowed by the wartime draft of students, but returning veterans, who had postponed their education, enrolled in phar­macy in record numbers with the aid of the G.I Bill.' 9 The responsibility of being the largest school of pharmacy in the na­tion was more than the limited facilities and staff of the College of Pharmacy could bear. Beginning in 1950 students were selected from those making application for admittance to the professional work of the sophomore year. In this manner, a predetermined number of students could be selected from among those most qualified, thereby lessening the possibility of academic failure and eliminating the burden of overenrollment. After this procedure had been in effect for seven years, Dean Burlage reported that it had "proven to be a wise, fruitful and economical step. "60 
This limit on enrollment would be but one of the many in­novations that Dean Burlage would bring to the campus. As a result of the cooperation that he received from both the univer­sity administration and Dean Gidley, the transfer of respon­sibility within the College of Pharmacy was relatively smooth. Although some worried that the transition might present 
48(;idley to Burlage, 5 May 1947. 
49lbid. 
&OH. M. Burlage, "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy, 1956-1957," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
problems, Gidley assured readers of The Longhorn Pharmacist that this would not occur: 
Whither the College of Pharmacy? That could cause serious reflection if the way were not charted. We'll just carry on. Many letters and personal inquiries seem[ed] to imply that the Univer­sity of Texas College of Pharmacy was about to enter an unknown country; that an experiment was in the making; that we were pulling into a garage for repairs. Those similes do not fit the occa­sion. One driver simply slides over and relaxes while an ex­perienced hand takes the wheel. We are rather familiar with the immediate terrain and will gladly offer advice. The whole change does not worry us in the least. Ifwe did not know the new dean it might be different. Burlage will take the College places, and you may depend on it. 51 
Dean Gidley's predictions were realized, as the College of Phar­macy entered an era of unprecedented growth and achievement. 
511..-0nghom Pharmacist, July 1947, p. 4. 
CHAPTER TEN: 	The Interim Years, 1947-1952 
THE TASK THAT AWAITED Dr. Burlage on his arrival in Austin was substantial. The national reputation of the College of Pharmacy had suffered from the publicity received during the Rainey affair, the professional rating of the school was at an all­time low, and the size of the student body had overextended the capabilities of the small teaching staff. Structural changes within the college would need to be made before it could once again be considered a first-rate school, but the most immediate demand was to strengthen and enlarge the faculty. Without a staff ade­quate to instruct the 739 students enrolled in the college in the fall of 1947, any other improvements would have little effect on the quality of pharmaceutical education offered by the college. 
The budgetary neglect that had eliminated the possibility of any advancement for the College of Pharmacy during Dean Gidley's administration was manifested particularly in the failure of the board of regents to increase the number of faculty positions in relation to the rapidly expanding student body. When Gidley became dean in 1924, the student-teacher ratio was 78 to 6. 1 By the time of his retirement in 1947, this ratio had 
1University of Texas, University Course Catalogue, 1924-25, Texas Collection, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter cited as Catalogue). 
277 

worsened drastically to 642 to 6. 2 Although two additional in­structors had been added to the faculty, two professorial posi­tions that had become vacant were never filled. Thus, in many respects, the status of the faculty had diminished instead of being raised to meet the needs of an expanding college. 
Because of these circumstances, the pharmacy faculty had long carried one of the heaviest teaching loads in the university. As an example, Gidley's schedule, as a retired professor, should have been one-half of the regular teaching load, but instead was considerably higher than full-time assignments of most other faculty members on the campus. Such rigorous teaching schedules, along with a severe shortage of research funds and equipment, precluded original research of any but the most superficial nature by pharmacy faculty members. Caught in a frustrating dilemma of this type was Dr. C. C. Albers; prevented from pursuing research for lack of time and funds, he was denied promotion to the ranks of full professor because he had done no original work. Conditions such as these hampered the develop­ment of an effective graduate program within the College of Pharmacy, although Dean Gidley had developed a proposed program in 1938. 
Even before he had left North Carolina, Burlage realized that his most pressing obligation would be to strengthen and expand the faculty. In the spring and summer of 1947, before his arrival in Texas, he began the search for qualified teachers, but a number of factors contributed to the futility of this initial search. In order to build a sound graduate program at The University of Texas, a number of the faculty positions had to be filled by persons with doctoral degrees in the several areas of pharmacy. During the postwar years, however, a national shortage of 350 to 500 pharmacy teachers existed, and only five schools in the country offered the Ph.D. degree in pharmacy. 3 Compounding this problem was the fact that The University of Texas was in a poor bargaining position. Censorship by the American Associa­tion of University Professors following the Rainey affair had 
2Catalogue, 1.946-47. 
3 Texas Druggist, 67, no. 12 Oune, 1948): p. 32. 

diminished the academic reputation of the university. During this time, the College of Pharmacy had sustained a loss of profes­sional credibility due to its unstable rating by the American Council of Pharmaceutical Education (ACPE). To make matters even worse, salaries at The University of Texas were well below the national average, and those within the College of Pharmacy were among the lowest at the university. These three factors con­tributed to the failure of both deans-Gidley and Burlage-to attract qualified personnel to the College of Pharmacy in 194 7. In an effort to increase the faculty during his first year, Dean Burlage was forced to resort to hiring instructors with little or no graduate training who desired to pursue further studies. Because of the shortage of male applicants at this level, two of the new ap­pointments were women. With these additions, the faculty, in the fall of 1947, was expanded to eleven full-time members, doubling the staff of the previous year. 
Dean Burlage's nationwide search for faculty members met with more success in subsequent years. With the increased salaries approved by President Painter, the College of Pharmacy was able to offer more financial enticement than previously. Some new faculty were induced to join the staff on the basis of former associations with the new dean, who was able to persuade old acquaintances that Texas would offer better opportunities in the future. In 1949 ACPE revised its appraisal of the College of Pharmacy and granted a Class B rating. Although more improvements within the program were needed before the original Class A rating could be restored, the standing of the col­lege improved along with its rating. Such progress, including the prospect of organizing graduate programs within the Cqllege of Pharmacy, made a faculty appointment at The University of Texas a more lucrative proposition than in previous years. These factors all contributed to the subsequent success of Dean Burlage in attracting the caliber of personnel he had originally en­visioned. From 1947 to 1952, the faculty had expanded nearly threefold, with six full professors, four associate professors, five assistant professors, nine instructors, and a number of graduate 
teaching fellows. 4 This early period of expansion slowed in pace 
as the faculty of the College of Pharmacy took on the proportions 
of a well-balanced graduate and undergraduate instruction · 
team. After 1952, appointments were generally made to fill va­
cant positions rather than to create new ones. As the graduate 
program expanded at the master's and doctoral levels, however, 
an. increasing number of teaching fellows were appointed· to 
short-term positions while . they pursued their studies. 
After a disappointing start, Dean Burlage had succeeded, within five years, in building a strong faculty capable of offering a full graduate program. Within The University of Texas, the College of Pharmacy had gained prestige from its advanced . . programs and the achievements of its faculty. No longer was it regarded as a trade school for the neighborhood druggist. Since this time, the faculty has grown to such proportions that each member cannot be discussed at length. Those who have remained with the college for many years and have contributed substantially toward its development will be discussed in detail, while whose whose tenure was brief will be mentioned in Appen­
dix A. 
AN EXPANDING FACULTY 
1947-48 
Of the four new instructors hired in 1947, only Esther Jane Wood was to remain with the College of Pharmacy, eventually being promoted through the ranks to a full professorship. She was born in Birmingham, Alabama, to a family of pharmacists and followed in the steps of her father and brothers at a time when women, particularly in the South, did not work outside of the home unless compelled by economic circumstances. Despite the hindrance of sex, Wood attended Howard College in her hometown, where, in 1939, she became the first woman to graduate in pharmacy. She studied under the direction of the dean, A. Richard Bliss, who had once visited The University of 
•catalogue, 1952-53. 
Esther Jane Wood Hall 
Texas as an inspector for the ACPE. After receiving her B.S. degree in pharmacy, she did production-control and legal work for the Warren-Teed Products Company, a pharmaceutical manufacturing firm in Columbus, Ohio. In 1944 she held a similar position with the S. E. Massengill Co. of Bristol, Tennes­see. She arrived in Austin with the intention of pursuing graduate studies in the fields of manufacturing and commercial pharmacy, her main interests. 
During her first few years in Texas as an instructor in phar­macy, Wood taught courses in principles of pharmacy and in drugstore management. In the latter field, she brought to the classroom considerable practical experience gained in her father's pharmacy in Birmingham. In 1949 she married Julian Kennis Hall of Austin. That same year she became an instructor in pharmaceutical management; in 1950 she was promoted to assistant professor. In addition to her teaching load, she pursued graduate work, being awarded the master's degree in 1953. The American Council of Pharmaceutical Foundations thereupon awarded her a three-year teaching fellowship to work for a Ph.D. degree in pharmacy administration, which she received in 1957. Her doctoral degree was the first to be awarded by The Univer­sity of Texas College of Pharmacy. In 1961, she was advanced to the rank of associate professor of pharmacy administration. Promotions within the College of Pharmacy had always been slow, regardless of capabilities; Hall would not progress to the rank of full professor until 1975, twenty-eight years after her ar­rival at the university. Throughout these years, however, she has been a prolific writer. 
The three other new instructors in the fall of 194 7 were Ben­jamin Levy, Mildred Elizabeth Showalter, and Charles K. Raley. Levy, who had studied at the University of Florida before receiving a master's degree from Columbia University, served as instructor in organic and inorganic pharmaceutical chemistry. Showalter, from Raleigh, North Carolina, had come to Texas at the suggestion of Dean Burlage, under whom she had studied at the University of North Carolina. As an instructor, she taught pharmaceutical mathematics while pursuing a master's degree. Raley was the only Texan among Dean Burlage's first appoint­ments. He had received his B.S. degree in pharmacy under Dean Gidley in 1946 and worked briefly in his father's pharmacy in Miles, Texas, before his appointment as instructor in the area of prescription compounding. 6 
To further upgrade the faculty, Dean Burlage had won ap­proval for the reclassification of student assistants as teaching fellows. As such, these graduate students were delegated more responsibility and received a better salary for the work they per­formed while pursuing graduate degrees. In 1947, Frances Underwood Morter and Jemmie Loree Tindal, both of whom had received B.S. degrees in pharmacy from the university in 1947, served as teaching fellows; Martha Jane Jones was ap­pointed after her graduation in 1948. Jones was one of the first two students to be awarded the M.S. degree in pharmacy in 1950.6 · 
The secretarial staff within the College of Pharmacy was ex­panding nearly as quickly as was the faculty. From the time the College of Pharmacy was organized in 1893 until 1942, the dean had performed all of the administrative functions. Ad­ministrative work had become so time consuming by the 1940s, that the dean was finally allotted funds to hire first a part-time and later a full-time secretary. By the time Dean Burlage as­sumed office within the College of Pharmacy, this work had ex­panded to such an extent that the addition of two assistant secretaries was required. As the college continued to grow, a large percentage of the routine administrative work was delegated to these women. In 1948 the position of secretary to the dean was advanced to that of administrative secretary, and Margaret Loftis assumed much of the work that had over­burdened deans Cline and Gidley. When her husband received his law degree in 1952, Loftis resigned, leaving a void in the office staff that was difficult to fill. 
5Longhorn Pharmacist, 1948. 
8Longhorn Pharmacist, 1948. 

1948-49 
The efforts that Burlage and Gidley had expended between 1947 and 1948 generated some response from potential faculty members, and over the summer of 1 948 a number of appoint­ments were made. · Most of these faculty members, however, remained in Austin only a short time before being lured to other schools that could offer higher salaries and/or more rapid promotion. In a period when instructors with advanced degrees in pharmacy were in short supply, The University of Texas could never maintain a competitive position on the basis of the salaries that it could offer. Andrew G. DuMez of the ACPE had warned Burlage that salaries would be his biggest obstacle in efforts to strengthen the faculty. 7 The 10 percent pay increases that the board of regents had authorized for the fall of 194 7 brought salaries at the university into better alignment with national trends, but in a competitive field such as pharmacy, even this remuneration would not be sufficient to guarantee the loyalty of many professors. 
Consequently, a large percentage of the first faculty appoint­ments by Dean Burlage were of short duration. Stanley G. Mit­telstaedt, who held degrees from Washington State College and Purdue University, was appointed associate professor of phar­macy and pharmaceutical chemistry. In 1953, however, the University of Arkansas offered him the position of dean of the School of Pharmacy, and Mittelstaedt left Texas. 8 
For the position of professor of pharmaceutical chemistry, Dean Burlage appointed Charles Owen Wilson of the University of Minnesota in the fall of 1948. While studying toward the Ph.C. degree (Pharmaceutical Chemist) at the University of Washington, he had made the acquaintance of the dean, who was then a doctoral student. Burlage had hopes of rapidly building a graduate program in pharmacy; the appointment of Wilson, who had some experience with the graduate program at the University of Minnesota, was intended to further this trend 
7A. G. DuMez to H. M. Burlage, 4 June 1947, personal files of H. M. Burlage. 8Longhorn Pharmacist, 1948. 
in Texas. The road to establishing a well-regarded graduate program, however, was strewn with unanticipated obstacles; in 1960 Oregon State College offered Wilson the position of dean of the School of Pharmacy. With only two weeks notice, Wilson resigned his position at The University of Texas, leaving a vacancy that required more than a year to fill. To staff the classes in pharmaceutical chemistry, the dean resorted to dividing the salary for this position between two graduate teaching fellows. 9 
1949-50 
In 1949, Dean Burlage had more success in appointing faculty members who would remain at the university long enough to make substantial contributions to the College of Pharmacy. Wil­liam Reese Lloyd, who had received B.S. and B.A. degrees at the University of Colorado, studied toward the M.S. degree in phar­macy at the University of North Carolina during Burlage's tenure there; he later received the Ph.D degree from the Univer­sity of Minnesota in 1941. Lloyd was appointed associate profes­sor of pharmacy and also served as secretary of the faculty. Although student enrollment in the College of Pharmacy leveled off in the 1950s, the administrative work continued to expand as the affairs of the college became increasingly complex. In 1952 the board of regents authorized the appointment of Lloyd to the position of assistant dean, _a post he held until 1956, when he re­quested reassignment to full-time teaching duties. In addition to being a capable researcher and an able administrator, Lloyd had considerable experience in industrial and manufacturing aspects of pharmacy. In 1962, when the Texas Pharmacal Company of San Antonio offered him a more lucrative position, Lloyd retired from academics. After nearly fifteen years with the company, Lloyd retired in 1977 from the position of chief of production. 10 
Prior to his arrival in Austin in 1947, Dean Burlage had deter­mined that a pharmacologist was the most urgently needed addi­tion to the pharmacy faculty, but two years passed before the position could be filled. A large percentage of the teachers with 
9lbid. 
lOJbid. 




Robert Graves Brown Wallace Louis Guess 
--~-~-~-----··--··· 
·---------

I _____ 

William Reese Lloyd Frederick V. Lofgren 
The Interim Years 
this training were able to find positions with medical schools, which, of course, could offer more attractive conditions of employment than existed at The University of Texas College of Pharmacy. However, in 1949, the college was fortunate to secure Robert Graves Brown for the position of assistant professor of pharmacology. Although born in McKinney, Texas, Brown was raised in Oklahoma. Like many members of the pharmacy faculty, he came from an extensive line of pharmacists; his grandfather, father, two uncles, and three cousins were all professionals. In 1939 he entered the University of Oklahoma College of Pharmacy; he graduated with the B.S. degree in 1947 after returning from a tour of duty with the U.S. Army in the Pacific. At Oklahoma, he had been a member of Rho Chi, Kap­pa Psi pharmaceutical fraternity, and the freshman honorary fraternity Phi Eta Sigma. During his senior year, he was presi­dent of the Oklahoma University Pharmaceutical Association, a group unique at the time as the only student organization to hold practice conventions at which students presented papers. While serving as a teaching assistant at Oklahoma, he earned a master's degree in pharmacology in 1949. As assistant professor of pharmacology in Austin, Brown spent his summers in Galveston studying pharmacology at the Medical Branch; a leave of absence for the academic year 1957-58 enabled him to complete his work for the Ph.D. degree. Upon receipt of this degree, he was promoted to his current position of associate professor of pharmacology. Brown's research has been in the areas of pharmacodynamics, autonomic and marine phar­macology, psychotherapeutics, and nutritional elements versus drug action. 11 
Appointments as instructor in pharmacy in 1949 included Tony Everett Jones and Wallace L. Guess. Jones, a native of Greenville, Texas, received the B.S. degree in pharmacy from the university in 1949 and subsequently became one of the first two students to receive the Master of Science degree from the College of Pharmacy in 1950. After resigning from the college in 1956, he 
11Longhorn Pharmacist, December 1949, p. 4. 
studied toward the Ph.D. degree at the University of Colorado. 12 Wallace Louis Guess, a native of North Carolina, had studied pharmacy at the University of North Carolina before following Dean Burlage to Texas. He finished the B.S. degree in pharmacy in Austin in 1949 and was appointed instructor in pharmacy. He received the M.S. degree in 1951 and, after a leave of absence to attend the University of Washington, was awarded the Ph.D. in 1959. After his return to Austin, Guess was appointed associate professor and finally full professor in 1968. In the meantime, he also served as director of the Drug-Plastic Research and Tox­icology Laboratories at the Balcones Research Center. In 1972 the University of Mississippi offered him the position of dean of the School of Pharmacy. With so many of his faculty members accepting such positions, it seemed that Burlage was operating a training school for deans in addition to the regular graduate program.13 
1950-51 
With the appointment of Frederick Valentine Lofgren as professor of pharmacy in 1950, the College of Pharmacy began to increase course offerings in the fields of manufacturing and hospital pharmacy. Lofgren was well qualified in these fields; before his appointment to The University of Texas, he had served as scientific director for the Hart Drug Corporation of Miami, Florida, where he had directed production and control in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals as well as personally testing new products. A native of Seattle, Lofgren received all of his training at the University of Washington, where, as a graduate student, he had known Dean Burlage. After receiving his Ph.D. degree, he was appointed assistant professor and later dean of pharmacy at Valparaiso University in Indiana. When that school of pharmacy was discontinued in 1939, he taught at the University of Florida temporarily before joining the Hart Drug Corporation. Lofgren remained with The University of Texas until his retirement in 1971 as professor of pharmacy emeritus. 14 
121..nnghom Pharmacist, March 1950, p. 8. 
13lbid. 
141..nnghom Pharmacist, November 1950, p. 4. 

The Interim Years 
Although numerous faculty members remained with the Col­lege of Pharmacy only a short period of time, a few have given long years of service. The distinction for longest tenure in more recent times belongs to Jose Ruben Moreno, who began his career at The University of Texas in 1939 as a freshman phar­macy student from Brownsville, Texas. After working his way through graduate school, he was appointed to the faculty in 1950 and has remained with the College of Pharmacy ever since. While an undergraduate, Moreno earned part of his expenses by serving as personal secretary to C. E. Castaneda of the Depart­ment of History. He also did research work and translated source materials for Pat Nixon's A Century of Medicine in Texas and Monsignor Oberste's The History of Refugi,o Mission. In early 1942, he joined the army, spending most of his tour of duty with the Military Intelligence Service as a counterespionage special agent in the United States and in Panama. Before returning to Texas to resume his studies, Moreno married a Panamanian. After completing the B.S. degree in pharmacy in 1948, he began graduate work under Dean Burlage. A grant from the American Pharmaceutical Association aided his research on the rapid as­say of cinchona bark for total alkaloids. In 1949 he received a teaching fellowship; he was appointed special instructor in phar­macy in 1950, finishing his studies for the master's degree in 1953.16 Although students of Mexican-American descent had previously studied pharmacy at The University of Texas, Moreno was the first from this background to receive a faculty appointment in the College of Pharmacy. 
Another new faculty member from a minority background was Daniel Peh-Nien Tsao, who had previously been acquainted with Dean Burlage in Seattle. With a bachelor's degree from the Central University of China, Tsao had traveled to the University of Washington in 1928 to begin graduate work. There he received the Ph.C. and M.S. degrees, before returning to China in 1932 to teach. Eighteen years later, in 1950, Tsao returned to Seattle for his doctoral degree. During this visit, Dean Burlage was able to persuade him to accept an appointment in Texas. He 
i6Longhorn Pharmacist, March 1950, p. 8. 
remained in Texas for only a brief period before resigning in 1953 to further pursue his career, specializing in plant metabolism and pharmaceutical chemistry. 18 
Another appointment for the 1950-51 academic year was that of Vernon Green, who joined the faculty as assistant professor in pharmacology. After receiving the Ph.D. degree in phar­macology in 1960, he resigned from the college to assume a posi­tion with the School of Pharmacy at the University of Kansas City. 17 
The Student Health Center Pharmacy provided employment for a number of women in the college. The position combining lecturer, chief pharmacist, and student-pharmacist supervisor was filled during the 1949-50 year by Madolie Links Williams, from 1950 to 1952 by Ruth Bradley Ham, and from 1952 to 1955 by Louise Pope. All three women had received their training in the College of Pharmacy before assuming the varied duties of this position. 18 Nadine Jean Watson, who received her B.S. degree in pharmacy in 1951, served as assistant pharmacist in the Student Health Center before her marriage to William J. Sheffield of the faculty of the College of Pharmacy. 19 
1951-52 
The appointment in 1951 ofJohn Emerson Davis to a profes­sorship in pharmacology placed the College of Pharmacy in a position to offer graduate work in this field. Davis was well­known for his research in the effects of drugs on the blood and his experiments on anemia in cats, dogs, and humans.20 He received the A.B. degree from Oberlin College in 1930, a master's from the University of Michigan in 1931, and the Ph.D. degree from the University of Chicago in 1936. Before coming to Texas, Davis had taught physiology and pharmacology at the Medical College 
18lbid. 
17lbid. 
18Catalogues, 1949-56. 
19W. J. Sheffield, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin. 
20Longhom Pharmacist, December 1951, p. 5. 
John Emerson Davis 
William Johnson Sheffield 
of Virginia, the University of Alabama, the University of Ver­mont, and the University of Arkansas, where he was a full profes­sor of pharmacology. His contributions to the College of Phar­macy and its growing graduate program were extensive throughout his tenure, from 1951 until retirement in 1973. 21 He died in Austin on 3 November 1975. 
William Johnson Sheffield joined the staff in February 1952 after completing most of the work toward the Ph.D. degree at the University of North Carolina. A native of New Hampshire, he received his primary and secondary education in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Maine. After graduating from the School of Pharmacy of the University of North Carolina in 1942, he served with the U.S. Air Force during World War II. Returning from the service, he received the M.S. degree from North Carolina in 1949 and the Ph.D. degree in 1954. While pursuing graduate studies, he held a graduate assistantship as well as research fellowships from the North Carolina Phar­maceutical Association and the William S. Merrell Company. At The University of Texas, his teaching areas have been in beginning pharmacy, pharmaceutical preparations, and animal­health pharmacy. In 1960 he was promoted to associate profes­sor and in 1 968 to professor of pharmacy. Sheffield served as as­sistant dean from 1956 to 1958 and again from 1968 to 1971. After the death of Dean Joseph B. Sprowls in 1971, Sheffield served as acting dean for two years, after which time he became associate dean. In addition to these administrative duties, he has been active in college and student affairs, published numer­ous professional articles and manuals, and been a regular partic­ipant in various conferences and meetings. 22 
CURRICULAR CHANGES 
One of the more serious problems facing Dean Burlage in the fall of 1947 was the need to bring the College of Pharmacy cur­riculum up to the standards of the American Foundation of 
21]. E. Davis, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean, College of Pharmacy The University of Texas at Austin. ' 
22Catalogue, 1948-49. 
Pharmaceutical Education (AFPE ). Due to the lack of faculty members and the shortage of laboratory space during much of Dean Gidley's administration, a number of courses had been eliminated from the curriculum entirely, a trimming that had contributed to the college's declining rating. The war effort had also wrought changes in the curriculum and standards of the College of Pharmacy. In the drive to produce pharmacists at a rate sufficient to satisfy the demand of the armed forces, the col­lege had adopted the accelerated program that prevailed throughout the university during those years. Although the un­iversity, in general, had returned to the regular four-year un­dergraduate program in 1946, the College of Pharmacy had never officially eliminated either the accelerated program or ad.., mission by individual approval of the dean. Such practices were clearly in violation of ACPE accreditation standards, which stipulated a minimum of fifteen high school units for admission along with six semesters, or ninety-six weeks, of resident study as a prerequisite for the B.S. degree. The retention of these wartime measures added to the enrollment ·explosion as other schools of pharmacy returned to the more stringent, prewar standards. 
In an effort to return the College of Pharmacy to a standard curriculum, Dean Burlage conducted a study, with the as­sistance of the Office of the Registrar, of the various require­ments as stated in the university publication. Injanuary of 1948, the Faculty Senate and the Board of Regents of The University of Texas approved the following changes: elimination of admis­sion to the College of Pharmacy by individual approval for stu­dents with less than the minimum entrance requirements, cessa­tion of the practice of granting credit in excess of that regularly available during the first three years of the pharmaceutical cur­riculum, elimination of the accelerated programs that allowed a student to receive the B.S. degree in pharmacy with less than the minimum number of hours or work in residence, limitation of the admission of new students to the fall semester, and the offering of beginning courses and restri<;:tion of correspondence study to 3 percent of the total required hours of nonprofessional courses. By regulating these particular measures, Dean Burlage aimed at eliminating all nonstandard practices that prevented the College of Pharmacy from meeting the national accreditation standards. The Class C rating that had been conferred in 1941 was a serious hindrance to the prestige and effectiveness of the college and one that faculty and administration alike hoped to have removed during the scheduled AFPE inspection in 1949. 
Higher scholastic standards were also adopted by the faculty in the fall of 194 7. A first-year student was required to register for at least nine semester hours, and all others for at least twelve hours on a full-time basis. A student maintaining outside employment was required to have his schedule approved by the dean and was urged to attempt fewer hours over a greater length of time. Despite the number of hours for which a student registered, his continued residence in the College of Pharmacy depended on maintaining an average grade of C on all work. Failure to maintain the minimum average would result in scholastic probation and elimination from the College of Phar­macy roster if the deficiencies were not removed. 23 During the war years, these scholastic standards had seldom been enforced so that the student could hurriedly complete his training before being called to active duty. In the postwar environment, however, these lax standards no longer served a purpose. 
The continuance of these practices had also hurt the prestige of the College of Pharmacy within the university. Pharmacy had long struggled to gain recognition as a professional and scientific school, but the maintenance of accelerated programs and low scholastic standards, in variance with general university stan­dards, detracted from such an image. With the adoption of his recommendations, Dean Burlage felt that the standards of the College of Pharmacy were as high as those of any professional school or college at the university. 2' 
Curricular innovations during the first few years of the Burlage administration were numerous. The most important of these was the implementation of the optional five-year program, which combined a B.S. degree in pharmacy with specialization 
"Catalogue, 194 7 -48. 
24 Texas Druggist, May 1948, p. 9. 

in another field. Under this option, which was approved by the faculty in the fall of 194 7, a student could choose electives to earn a joint degree in the field of business administration (B.B.A. ), journalism (B.J.), or library science (B.L.S.). The joint B.S.­
B.B.A. degree was probably the most widely sought of these op­tional degrees. Aimed at students interested in retail practice, the program had an optional specialization in the field of retail­pharmacy management, wholesale management, or medical sales. 
Dean Burlage had envisioned strong support from retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers to make this program viable. 
With this program and the options allowed in the four-year cur­riculum, we hope to eliminate somewhat the criticism often directed at the College of Pharmacy that insufficient time and in­struction is allowed and given to the retail distribution of drugs. We hope to announce other optional five-year programs within the next year which will further broaden the usefulness of the Col­lege to the field of pharmacy in Texas. 25 
The B.S.-B.B.A. degree, however, met with considerable resistance from retailers and especially wholesalers. Although the degree more than adequately prepared students for these fields, job offers were slow in coming to those who held such degrees. One reason for this lack of enthusiasm from employers might have come from an anti-intellectual bias among the many so-called self-made men who dominated the wholesale and manufacturing fields. A large number of these men did not hold pharmacy degrees, let alone possess specialty training. Despite a lack of enthusiasm among many employers, these dual degrees were retained on an optional basis until 1960, when they were superseded by the required five-year B.S. program. 
Although this longer program as a minimum requirement was 
· then more than a decade away, pharmacy educators were already beginning to give consideration to five-and six-year programs as early as 1948, when an investigative report was published by the American Council on Education. The faculty of the College of Pharmacy discussed the possibilities of such a 
26lbid. 
program during the weekly faculty meetings, but the teaching staff and facilities were so limited at that time that many courses could only be offered once in an entire academic year. 26 As the faculty expanded during the early years of Dean Burlage's ad­ministration, the college was able to offer more innovative programs. Although administrative acceptance of the standard five-year program was not immediately forthcoming, the dual­degree programs provided students with the option of a more diversified education. 
A number of other curricular innovations were instigated dur­ing these years. Although "Daddy" Cline had introduced stu­dents in the early 1 900s to the use of the telephone for receiving prescriptions, this training had been neglected in the intervening years. Students were failing to develop the technique of transcribing such prescriptions clearly and intelligibly, a short­coming that drew much criticism from employers. While the telephone had been a novelty in Cline's day, by mid-century it had become a necessary means of communication between physician and pharmacist. To counteract this deficiency, telephones were installed in the prescription laboratory in the fall of 1949 to allow students the opportunity to develop these aural skills. 27 
As the field of pharmacy expanded, the duties of the phar­macist increased accordingly. Consequently, such courses as "Animal Health Pharmacy" and "Raw Materials of Industrial Pharmacy" were offered to senior students on an elective basis. Another new course, "Household Remedies," offered instruction in emergency and home use of commonly known drugs to both pharmacy and nonprofessional students. Electives such as "History and Commercial Preparation of Plant Drugs," "Original Pharmaceutical Research," and "A Survey of Literature and Pharmacy and Allied Fields" were intended to give the advanced student more detailed preparation in specialized areas of the profession. 28 
28 Texas Druggist, June 1948, pp. 22-23. 
27 Longhorn Pharmacist, December 1949, p. 2. 
28 Longhorn Pharmacist, March 1950, p. 5. 

Although the curriculum was expanding at a rapid rate, many instructors felt that some educational features could not be fitted into the structure of the established courses. Therefore, during the 1949-50 academic year, at the suggestion of pharmacy faculty members, a pharmacy convocation was initiated on a weekly basis. The agenda of the convocation varied from speakers on scientific topics to films dealing with pharmacy as a profession, laboratory techniques such as glassblowing, new regulations of the Food and Drug Administration, an~ first-aid skills. The meetings, held for one hour on Thursday afternoons, were compulsory for new students, and other students were urged to attend. 
As the curriculum expanded, the bureaucratic procedures necessary to process the increasing load of administrative work increased. Such procedures created so many problems for stu­dents that Margaret Loftis, secretary to the dean, began to write a monthly column in The umghorn Pharmacist explaining various aspects of these procedures to the confused students. Install­ments of "Foggy Questions Clarified" dealt with scholastic probation and how to avoid it or get off it, absences-excused and unexcused, and grading procedures. If students remained confused in spite of her efforts, Loftis 's columns at least helped make the administration of the College of Pharmacy a little less removed from student lives. 
Enrollment, like the curriculum, had expanded rapidly since the end of World War II. Although the initial influx of students that followed the armistice gradually subsided, the enrollment of 637 during the 1949-50 year was far in excess of the capabilities of either the faculty or the physical facilities. Therefore, in the fall of 19SO, the faculty decided to require application for admis­sion to the professional work of the sophomore year. The successful applicant was required to have completed at least twenty-four of the semester hours of work prescribed for the freshman year in pharmacy, including English, biology, chem­istry, and mathematics, with a grade average of C or better. In the event that the number of eligible applicants exceeded the number for which facilities were available, final selection would be made on the basis of the applicants' previous scholastic rec­ords. This latter method of limiting enrollment never became necessary during Dean Burlage's administration, however. By enforcing the established standards of the college and eliminat­ing those students ill prepared for the rigorous professional program, enrollment was brought within the capabilities of the college. 
GRADUATE WORK 
Although undergraduate education for pharmacy in the United States had developed substantially by the end of World War II, graduate work had been greatly neglected. In 1946, only five schools in the entire country offered the doctoral degree, and they awarded only eleven such degrees that year. This lack of adequate opportunity for graduate study seriously limited the availability of teaching personnel to staff the gradually growing number of undergraduate institutions. The University of Texas College of Pharmacy, like most of its counterparts, had been primarily interested in producing pharmacists for the phar­maceutical community, with little regard for the academic and scientific aspects of the profession. However, as the field of medical research expanded during the early postwar years, the pharmaceutical profession came to realize the growing need for more advanced training. 29 
These developments had been anticipated by the College of Pharmacy long before the war. In 1938 Dean Gidley developed a plan for a master's program in pharmacy. His suggestions, however, had no possibility of implementation at that time due to shortage of funds, lack of adequately trained staff, and insuf­ficient facilities in which to conduct such a program. C. C. Albers was the only pharmacy faculty member at the time holding a doctoral degree, and the teaching load that he carried precluded any additional activities. The remainder of the over­burdened staff lacked any advanced training in the field of phar­
macy.30 
29Southem Pharmaceutical journal 43 (September 1950): 36-37. 
3°Catalogue, 1937-38. 

With the arrival of Dean Burlage in 1947, the situation quickly began to change. Before he accepted the deanship at The University of Texas, Burlage had been assured by the ad­ministration that a graduate program would be established within a few years after his arrival. President Painter, a zoologist by training, was sympathetic to the needs of the College of Pharmacy and worked at great length with Dean Burlage to de­velop and implement such a program. Through the ministra­tions of Painter, the College of Pharmacy budget was expanded to permit the hiring of numerous faculty members, many of whom possessed the advanced training necessary for the development of an adequate graduate program. By the time the 
M.S. 
degree in pharmacy was implemented, the riew faculty in­cluded Charles 0. Wilson (pharmaceutical chemistry), William 

R. 
Lloyd (pharmacy), Melvin Chambers (pharmacognosy), Robert F. Doerge (pharmaceutical chemistry), and Stanley Mit­telstaedt (pharmacy and pharmaceutical chemistry). These faculty members, in addition to Albers and Burlage, made possi­ble, for the first time, the offering of graduate instruction by The University of Texas College of Pharmacy. 


In light of the stagnation that had plagued the college in previous years, the early goals of Dean Burlage's administration were ambitious. He anticipated the development of a graduate program to offer both the master's and doctoral degrees with complete facilities for advanced research. In the fall of 194 7, after reviewing Dean Gidley's earlier plans, Burlage began to organize his ideas, and in the fall of 1948 he submitted a program with specializations in the fields of pharmacy, pharmaceutical chemistry, and pharmacognosy. After final approval from the board of regents, the program was implemented in the fall of 1949. 
Many of the first students to participate in this program were younger members of the pharmacy faculty. Although the College of Pharmacy still could not offer lucrative salaries to beginning personnel, the opportunity to pursue graduate studies on a part­time basis induced a number of promising young pharmacists to enter the academic field at Texas. The first master's degrees were awarded in the spring of 1940 to Tony Everett Jones in the field of pharmaceutical chemistry and Martha Jane Jones in pharmacognosy. Although no relation to one another, both served on the faculty, Tony Jones as an instructor and Martha Jane Jones as a teaching fellow. 
IMPROVEMENT OF ACCREDITATION RATINGS 
1949-Class C 
Although major improvements in the curriculum and faculty of the College of Pharmacy had been realized during the first few years of Dean Burlage's administration, the American Council on Pharmaceutical Education (ACPE) lowered the rating of the college in 1949. The examining committee concluded: 
The College of Pharmacy of The University of Texas does not now fully meet the standards of the Council for accreditation. In view of the past history of this College and the favorable prospects for its development in the immediate future under the leadership of Dean Burlage it is recommended that the accreditation of the College be continued and that it be placed in Class C, in accor­dance with the stated standards of the Council.11 
In explanation of their decision, the examiners cited three ma­jor faults: excessive enrollment, insufficient teaching staff, and curricular problems. Concerning enrollment, the examiners made the following recommendation: 
[The number] of undergraduate students [should] be adjusted to the optimum utilization of the physical facilities and the teaching staff and so as to avoid the graduation of numbers in excess of the needs of the State and of the area normally served the adjust­ments of attendance should be made with the advice of the State Board of Pharmacy. In the opinion of the examiners the present high enrollment indicates a number of graduates far beyond the number likely to be needed in the State of Texas.12 
11American Council on Pharmaceutical Education, "Report of the Examination of the College of Pharmacy of The University of Texas for Accreditation," 16 March 1949, Col­lege of Pharmacy Files, Records of the Office of the President, The University of Texas Archives, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter referred to as Pharmacy Files, UT Archives). 
12lbid. 
In regard to the teaching staff, the report advised the university to "provide the College with a teaching staff having the educational background and professional experience necessary to meet requirements of the Council, and compatible with the number of students enrolled. "33 And, finally, the examiners sug­gested that "the curriculum be revised so as to secure effective content and logical sequence of instruction with special attention to the coordination of the physical and biological sciences re­quired for pharmacy. "34 
Despite these far-reaching criticisms, the ACPE examiners were optimistic that the college could develop the advanced programs of study envisioned by the dean and faculty. They felt that The University of Texas, with its established influence and large resources, was "in the distinctive position to develop an im­portant center for the graduate study of pharmacy. "35 However, they added a warning: "Present plans for the new building for the College apparently do not provide the essential facilities for such development. "36 Because no elaboration was offered on this point, it is not possible to determine what aspects of the building were deemed insufficient. This criticism, however, was not raised again during the subsequent examination in 1951. 
Thus, although the College of Pharmacy did not meet the standards of the ACPE committee in 1949, the examiners felt op­timistic that the college, under the leadership of Burlage, would easily be able to rectify the noted deficiencies. Although this Class C rating came after a period of intense revamping of the college during the first year and a half of Burlage's administra­tion, the faculty accepted the judgment of the examination com­mittee and resolved to improve the rating before the next scheduled visit in two years. 
7951-Class B 
Despite the fact that the college was involved in semester ex­aminations and classroom conditions could not thoroughly be 
83lbid. 
84lbid. 
86lbid. 
88lbid. 

observed, an ACPE inspection committee visited the campus on 19 and 20 January 1951. After touring the still-scattered facilities (the new building being still under construction), the examiners noted favorably the improvements that had been implemented in the ensuing two years, concluding that "the steps taken by the University for the welfare of professional work" in pharmacy were "indicative of a positive and constructive policy. 87 The con­ditions previously criticized-excessive enrollment and lack of adequate teaching staff-had largely been corrected, and the ac­quisition of additional equipment and library holdings was favorably noted. 
Considerable work, however, remained to be completed. As the committee report pointed out, 
There has been very little progress with the reorganization of the curricula. The Examiners' report of 1949 called particular atten­tion to the need for such curricular reorganization so as to secure effective content and logical sequence of the professional instruc­tion, also the better coordination with the physical and biological sciences. Until the College presents a working plan for the better organization and sequence of the material of the professional courses of instruction it cannot be rated as a Class A College. 88 
The examiners, however, anticipated that many of these short­comings would be overcome when the College of Pharmacy set­tled into its new quarters. Consequently, they reached the fol­lowing decision: 
In order to provide the College with opportunity for the intensive study of its curricular problems, and for such administrative ac­tion as may be necessary it is recommended that the accreditation be continued until July 1, 1952, and that the College be placed in Class B.39 
Although a Class B rating was not all the faculty had hoped, it conveyed official approval of the efforts that the dean and teaching staff had expended in raising the standards of the col­lege. After another brief visit by the ACPE committee in 1952, 
87American Council on Pharmaceutical Education, "Committee Report of the Ex­amination of The University of Texas College of Pharmacy for Continuation of Ac­creditation," 21 January 1951, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
381bid. 
311lbid. 

the Class B rating and the accreditation of the college were con­tinued until the next regularly scheduled visit in 1956. 
STUDENT ACTIVITIES 
Although most service personnel had been demobilized follow­ing the end of World War II, military life was still visible on the campus. During the war, the university had contributed to the training of army, navy, and air force personnel through the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) programs on campus. In the fall of 1948, the U.S. Army Medical Service Corps was organized to offer students continued service t? their country during peacetime. 
The Korean Conflict 
The university had scarcely recovered from its accelerated wartime programs, however, when the country became involved in another war. Although this conflict did not deplete the student population as had previous involvements, the Korean War did not pass unnoticed at the university. In the fall of 1951, campus organizations participated in a blood drive to benefit American soldiers in Korea. To spark the interest of various social, profes­sional, and academic organizations, a competition was arranged, with women students selected to represent each group. Each candidate received one vote for every pint of blood donated by her classmates, with the winner given the honorary title of "Bloody Mary." The staff of The Longhorn Pharmacist felt that this particular activity was especially relevant to its readers and urged participation in the drive: "We, as pharmacy majors, should try to make our donation a unanimous affair, for no other group on campus knows better than we the importance of blood. "'0 Evidently this editorial was effective, for the represen­tative of the College of Pharmacy was elected "Bloody Mary." In succeeding years, the Union Activities Council, an organization of the general student body, and the Longhorn Pharmaceutical 
40Longhorn Pharmacist, December 1951, p. 1. 
Association sponsored a blood drive on an annual basis to benefit the local blood bank. ' 1 
A more serious side of the Korean War concerned the draft and the various alternatives to it for pharmacy students. Under the revised selective service regulations issued 25 September 1951, pharmacy students were deferred from service if engaged in study found to be necessary to the maintenance of the national health, safety, or interest. An elaborate series of conditions were utilized to determine which students would be considered to fall in these categories. Essentially, any student enrolled in an un­dergraduate or graduate program in pharmacy prior to 1 July 1951 would be deferred from service until completion of study. A student admitted to pharmacy study after this date would be deferred if he fell within the following criteria: for a student who had completed the third or fourth year, ranking in the upper three-quarters of the full-time male students in his class or equivalent ranking on a qualification test prescribed by the director of selective service; for a student who had completed the second year, ranking within the upper two-thirds of his class or similar score on the qualification test; and for a student with one year of studies completed, ranking within the upper one-half of his peer group. ' 2 Under such provisions, a large percentage ofthe students within any class was eligible for the draft. Not all of these students were inducted immediately, however, because a few options still remained open to them. 
During World War II, a Pharmacy Corps had been created as a separate unit within the army. This corps created considerable controversy within the U.S. Army Medical Department; therefore, in 194 7, with the consent of various pharmaceutical organizations, a Medical Service Corps was established in both the army and the navy that brought increased opportunities for graduate pharmacists. ' 8 A student still in school, however, was not eligible for assignment to the Medical Service Corps. 
41 lnnghom Pharmacist, June 1958, p. 19. 
42Robert P. Fischelis, "New Selective Service Regulations with Respect to Pharmacy Students," n.d., Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
"3Glenn Sonnedecker, Kremers and Urdang's History of Pharmacy, 3d ed. (Philadelphia:
J. B. Lippincott Co., 1963), pp. 303-5. 
. Therefore, two options were open to circumvent conscription into the general armed forces. A student could either enroll in one of the regularly established ROTC programs and then transfer to the Medical Service Corps upon graduation, or he could enlist in the Quartermaster Corps and hope to be assigned to pharmaceutical duties. In either case, pharmacy students were not given the consideration for their future profession routinely granted to students of medicine. 
Manpower requirements during the Korean War, 1950-53, were nowhere near as large as those of World War II. This fac­tor, combined with the increased alternatives to service open to pharmacy students, kept enrollments in the College of Pharmacy from decreasing to the extent encountered during previous wars. During the 19 50-51 academic year, the first session under which students were selectively admitted, enrollment totaled 485 men and 45 women."" By 1951-52, the figure had dropped to 395 men and 42 women, and by 19 52-53, to 360 men and 3 7 women.45 Thereafter, enrollments climbed fairly steadily throughout the ensuing twenty-five years, notwithstanding the later Vietnam . War. 
Pharmacy students during the Korean War period were active 
in a number of extracurricular activities. A directory of 
graduates was prepared by the student branch of the American 
Pharmaceutical Association, 1he Longhorn Pharmacist staff, 
Instructor Esther Jane Wood Hall, the Texas State Board of 
Pharmacy, and the Texas Pharmaceutical Association. Through 
his monthly column in 1he Longhorn Pharmacist, entitled "Gidley's 
Backfires," the retired dean kept students informed of some of 
the activities of their former classmates, but the directory was the 
first systematic attempt to collect information on all alumni of 
the College of Pharmacy. 
Kappa Psi 
Kappa Psi professional fraternity became newsworthy in 1950 as members worked to reorganize the chapter, which had 
"Catalogue, 1950-52. 
'6 Catalogue, 1952-54. 

become inactive during World War II for lack of membership.48 Not only were members successful in rebuilding their organiza­tion, but they also managed to make theirs the first professional fraternity on the campus to acquire a chapter house. Located at Twenty-sixth and Wichita streets, with living quarters for twelve members as well as a council room and a chapter room, it served as the focus for Kappa Psi activities, although most members did not live there. 47 The activities of this group, one of the most professional fraternities on campus, included an orientation ses­sion for freshmen and sophomores. At those sessions, held in the library toward the beginning of each spring semester, fraternity members ofTered tips on courses, instructors, and regulations. Attendance was usually quite large. 48 
Kappa Epsilon 
Kappa Epsilon, the women's fraternity, created an unex­pected furor in the fall of 1947 when it invited Dr. George Deckerd, director of the Student Health Center, to address one of its meetings on the topic of contraception. Following his lec­ture, a film by a producer of contraceptive devices was shown, with the prior approval of the dean of women. Despite this ad­ministrative sanction, a Catholic nun in charge of the nursing program at Seton Hospital was outraged that such a film would be shown to college women and severely berated Dean Burlage for allowing the film to be screened. The incident subsided, however, without any further restrictions being placed on the content of educational materials utilized by the university. 49 
Phi Delta Chi 
The Lambda Chapter of Phi Delta Chi, national phar­maceutical fraternity, had functioned at The University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston from 1905 until it disbanded in 1932 due to hardships encountered during the depression. In 
*Longhorn Pharmacist, August 1950, p. 8. 
'1 Longhorn Pharmacist, November 1951, p. 6 . 
..Longhorn Pharmacist, Spring 1958, p. 18. 
"'University of Texas, College of Pharmacy, "Minutes of the Meeting of the College of 
Pharmacy Faculty, December 5, 1947," Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
March of 1956, however, the chapter was revived through the ef­forts of William]. Sheffield, who served as faculty sponsor. Shef­field, who had been a member of Phi Delta Chi during his stu­dent years at the University of North Carolina, remained active in its affairs while at The University of Texas. In 1961, he was elected grand vice-president of the national organization; he served as grand president from 1965 through 1969. Dr. Lee F. Worrell, who joined the faculty in 1960, had been a member of the Alpha Chapter at the University of Michigan and became ac­tive in the affairs of the Texas chapter. 60 Reporting on the group's activities in The Longhorn Pharmacist, the Phi Delta Chi representative noted: 
Since the reactivation, the fraternity has been moving ahead rapidly in fulfilling its objectives of advancing the profession and developing a fraternal fellowship among its members. Among the activities of Phi Delta Chi have been ... the following: setting up display windows during National Pharmacy Week; acting as guides at Pharmacy Seminars and open houses; helping out at a picnic; giving out information to new students during registra­tion; or just having a fraternity get-together.151 
Longhorn Pharmaceutical Association 
By the 1950s, student pharmaceutical organizations had become quite numerous. In addition to the professional frater­nities, student branches of the American Pharmaceutical As­sociation (APhA) and the Texas Pharmaceutical Association (TPA) existed in competition with The University of Texas Pharmaceutical Association (UTPhA). With so many organiza­tions in existence, membership and attendance for all were quite low. To resolve this problem, the student branches of APhA and TPA voted in the fall of 1951 to consolidate under the auspices of the UTPhA, which was renamed the Longhorn Pharmaceutical Association. Since 1949 all pharmacy students had been re­quired to attend a weekly, one-hour, noncredit convocation, con­sisting of lectures or talks by various faculty members or the 
60Lambda Chapter, Phi Delta Chi, "History of Phi Delta Chi," 1976, personal files of 
H. M. Burlage. 
61/...nnglwrn Pharmacist, November 1956, p. 10. 

dean, in an effort to bring before the students various topics of general interest or of educational merit that did not fit into ex­isting courses. After the decision by the student branches to con­solidate, the faculty, in order to recognize the value of membership in this professional student organization, voted to allow membership to count for three of the monthly convocation meetings.52 
Although it had never been the policy of the student editors of The Longhorn Pharmacist to dedicate an issue to a specific in­dividual, an exception was made in the March 1954 edition for Eugene M. Caskey, one of the most active pharmacists in main­taining interest in the College of Pharmacy. The front page editorial noted: 
For many years there has been a force working with the College of Pharmacy about which one seldom hears. This force I am speaking of is that group of pharmacists over the state who main­tain an everlasting interest in the college of pharmacy... . 
One of these is particularly deserving of mention .... Mr. Eugene M. Caskey of Jacksonville, Texas. To many students, this name is unfamiliar because he never publicizes his contributions. But contrarily, it is a name that should be familiar to everyone. He has made numerous contributions to the Pharmaceutical Foundation; he has been figurative in the move to keep the college of pharmacy on the main campus; and it is largely because of him that we are in a new building. 53 
Since the university maintained a policy of not awarding honorary degrees, the local chapter of Rho Chi recognized the contributions that Caskey had made to the college by electing him to honorary membership in the organization. These un­precedented honors brought recognition to a man who had diligently worked behind the scenes for many years to better the interests of the profession of pharmacy in Texas. 
Pharmacettes 
With the increase in married students on the campus in the wake of the war, student wives became a new and influential un­iversity group. Although many other departments on the campus were to follow suit, the College of Pharmacy was the first to 
52lJniversity of Texas, College of Pharmacy, "Minutes of the Meeting of the College of Pharmacy Faculty, December 3, 1951," Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 53Longhorn Pharmacist, March 1954, p. 3. 
sponsor a wives' group and to involve them in the educational process.64 Many of the wives were working to support their hus­bands' education, and the wives' club helped them to be recognized as an important part of this educational process. The Pharmacettes, later known as the Pharmacy Wives' Club, was organized by a large group of women in the fall of 1950 under the sponsorship of Alleda Robb Burlage. The club was organized as a social group to bring together women with similar interests and objectives and to provide assistance for the numerous social functions of the college. 66 Participation in various campus ac­tivities and sponsorship of an annual scholarship for the husband of a member were major activities of the Pharmacettes. When a member's husband completed his education, the Pharmacettes awarded the member the degree of P.H.T. (Pushing Hubby Through) in recognition of her contributions to her husband's success. 
Black Students 
Although The University of Texas had long admitted women in the face of widespread discrimination against them by other southern schools, the doors had been traditionally closed to blacks. Several universities had been established solely for black students; one of them, Texas Southern University in Houston, opened its School of Pharmacy in 1949. Two graduates of this school were admitted to the College of Pharmacy in the 1950s, despite the general university policy to the contrary. William B. Harrell received an M.S. degree in pharmaceutical chemistry in 1953, thereafter earning his doctorate from Oregon State Univer­sity. Eugene Hickman, who earned his M.S. degree in pharmacy in 1955, went on to receive the Ph.D. degree from the University of Iowa. Both men now serve on the faculty of the School of Phar­macy at Texas Southern University. (In 1957, after considerable controversy concerning integration of the university, the board of regents would finally allow black students to be regularly admit­ted to all programs of The University of Texas.) 
64The Law School sponsored an organization for the wives of graduate law students, 
but the College of Pharmacy was the first on the campus, as well as in the nation, to spon­
sor a club for undergraduate wives. 
66Longhorn Pharmacist, December 1950, p. 1. 
CHAPTER ELEVEN: 	The Pharmaceutical Foundation 
THE CONCEPT OF SUPPORT by a foundation for a professional school was fairly new at The University of Texas when the Pharmaceutical Foundation was created in 1950. The University Development Board was established in 1938 by the Board of Regents of The University of Texas and the Ex­Students' Association to encourage and seek donations from all available sources to assist scholarly work that could not be funded through the biennial legislative appropriations. Such ac­tivities could not draw support from the income of the Perma­nent Fund, which had been committed by constitutional provi­sion solely for the construction of physical facilities on the cam­puses of The University of Texas and Texas A&M College. Therefore, sources outside of the university and the state would need to be tapped if educational programs were to sustain their increasing growth rate. 
The major function of this board is overseeing the UT Development Fund, whose main objective is 
to build an appealing case for private support ofThe University of Texas System by continuing to present to the people of the state, and to other friends of the University elsewhere, evidence of the institution's distinctive character, valuable service, good manage­ment and real need. Much has been done in this field, but these 
310 

facts need to be re-emphasized until generally accepted. The University must profit from the growing, nationwide recognition of the need for voluntary support of all educational institutions, both public and private, if they are to attain excellence. This is demonstrated by the effect on educational caliber of successful gift programs at ...[other state] Universities. 1 
With a great many departments and schools making demands on the facilities and resources of the University Development Board, it became apparent in the late 1940s that a school or col­lege of the university might be more successful in attracting and sustaining gifts for itself by a specific appeal to its own con­stituency. The Law School Foundation, established in 1949, was the first such effort, closely followed in 1950 by the Phar­maceutical Foundation. By 1962 similar foundations had been established by the schools and colleges of arts and sciences, business administration, engineering, fine arts, geology, and journalism. Each foundation was guided by an advisory council of volunteers, many but not all of whom were alumni. These councils held the responsibility for planning and implementing programs to attract financial patronage. This plan was so suc­cessful, with nearly all schools enjoying significantly increased revenue, that the idea was implemented at other state colleges and universities.2 
ESTABLISHING THE PHARMACEUTICAL 
FOUNDATION 

When Dean Burlage arrived at The University of Texas in 1947, he brought with him a knowledge of the creation and operation of such foundations. While occupying the position of professor of pharmacy at the University of North Carolina, he had been instrumental in the organization of that school's Phar­maceutical Research Foundation. The Pharmaceutical Founda­tion at The University of Texas followed the general guidelines 
1University of Texas, Annual Report of the UT Development Fund, 1961-62 (Austin: Univer­
sity of Texas, 1962). 
21bid. 
established by the North Carolina organization. Unlike its North Carolina counterpart, however, which is a corporation separate from the university, the Pharmaceutical Foundation at Texas was patterned after that of the Law School-that is, it forms a subdivision of the University Development Board under the ultimate control of the board of regents. 8 
Outlining the main objectives of the Pharmaceutical Founda­tion, University President T. S. Painter stated that the first was "to bring the University into much closer contact with the people it serves." To this end, the Pharmaceutical Foundation would assist the University Development Board in publicizing the programs being carried out in the College of Pharmacy. The Foundation would also be concerned with research. As Painter pointed out: 
Twenty to thirty years ago, the College of Pharmacy might have trained men for the retail field only, but now it must train for teaching, manufacturing and research as well as retail work. For this purpose a Pharmaceutical Foundation is needed to bring the pharmaceutical industry in the State, the South and the whole country into closer contact with our College of Pharmacy.' 
The University of Texas, which was the only educational institu­tion in the South or Southwest to receive more than $1 million annually for research contracts, was in a unique position to develop advanced pharmacy research that would benefit both the profession and the college. 6 President Painter felt that the best way to develop such research programs would be to have a foundation to receive and administer funds. 8 
SUniversity of Texas Pharmaceutical Foundation, "Minutes of the Advisory Council 
for the Pharmaceutical Foundation of The University of Texas, April 19, 1952," Office of 
the Dean, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin. 
'Ibid. 
5Although a number of schools of pharmacy had existed in Texas for short periods of 
time prior to the establishment of accreditation standards by the American Council on 
Pharmaceutical Education in 1925, the School of Pharmacy at Baylor University, Fort 
Worth, Texas, which operated between 1913 and 1932, was the only other reputable 
school during this period of time. Schools that later received ACPE accreditation were es­
tablished at the University of Houston in 1949 and Texas Southern University in 1957. 
84 'Minutes of the Advisory Council, April 19, 1952." 
After the tremendous contention that had surrounded the earlier attempts to move the College of Pharmacy back to Galveston had subsided, the board of regents realized that "a clear and specific need" existed to provide unrestricted funds to finance the College of Pharmacy in addition to the regular budgetary provisions. In a resolution setting up the Phar­maceutical Foundation, the board of regents outlined the pur­pose of the foundation as 
to foster and promote the growth, progress and general welfare of pharmaceutical education, research and graduate study in the College of Pharmacy ... and to encourage the making of gifts to the Foundation by deed, grant, will or otherwise for any purpose appropriate to the work of the Foundation. 7 
Although it was not specified in this resolution, another purpose of the Pharmaceutical Foundation was to further the develop­ment of the graduate and research curricula. 8 
The foundation was also expected to bring the College of Pharmacy into greater interaction with the elements of the phar­maceutical industry, including manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacists throughout the state. 9 During this postwar period, the pharmaceutical industry was beginning to subsidize large research projects, and the College of Pharmacy wanted to tap this area of contributions. The Longhorn Pharmacist stated the mat­ter succinctly: 
Who knows what lies ahead [in the field of scientific research]? All we can know is that the progress made in the laboratory in the past few years has been so outstanding that to fail to continue and to expand is to disregard the plainest evidence one could have. 10 
That pharmaceutical research in the state of Texas managed to meet the challenge of this period of rapid growth in medical and pharmaceutical knowledge was due to the support from many sources made available through the Pharmaceutical Foundation. 
7University of Texas, Pharmaceutical Foundation, Your Pharmaceutical Foundation: Its 
Purposes and Needs (Austin: University of Texas, n.d.). 'Longhorn Pharmacist, August 1950, p. 1. 9lbid. 10Ibid. 
RESOURCES OF THE FOUNDATION 

In establishing the foundation in January of 1950, the board of regents approved a nine-point program to support many facets of pharmaceutical research. An examination of these plans will also illuminate the severe disadvantages that the College of Phar­macy has been forced to endure throughout its history. The greatest need was for research fellowships for worthy graduates seeking specialized training in pharmacy; these could enable the college to train personnel for teaching and industrial _research. Such stipends would afford a living allowance, with provision for special supplies and equipment. Some fellowships were created in the name of the donor or as a memorial, and these generally carried the name of that person. In the past, similar grants had been received from pharmaceutical firms for the study of topics of particular interest to the donor and had been administered by the College of Pharmacy. The few grants of this nature that had been received in the past, however, had been intended for specialized and not general study .11 In contrast, fellowships from the foundation would not stipulate a particular area of study, leaving that decision to the student and his major professor. 
Provision for the purchase of special equipment was also a part of the program. The apparatus that the College of Phar­macy possessed at the time of Dean Gidley's retirement in 1947 was inadequate even for undergraduate instruction; to supply additional programs with adequate furnishings from the general budget would be impossible because of the high cost of the highly specialized equipment required for modern phar­maceutical research. 
The library of the college also needed additional funding from the foundation. Although the Main Library of the university was one of the best in the South and Southwest, the pharmacy library lacked journal holdings and many reference publications essen­tial to advanced work. Allocations from the foundation for this purpose would be designated for a special purchase or for the 
11Ibid. 
general endowment of the library. 12 One of the most important grants received by the foundation during its early years was a SS,000 library bequest from Margaret Cousins and Walter Cousins, Jr., honoring their father, Walter Cousins, Sr., who had played an important role in the development of pharmacy in Texas. 
Another area of concern was faculty compensation. Supple­ments to the salaries of teachers and researchers were necessary to place their remuneration on a par with those of other schools throughout the nation. One severe handicap facing the college in the past had been its inability to compete financially with other institutions in attracting qualified personnel. With rapidly ex­panding graduate and research curricula, this deficiency would seriously impair the quality of education that the college could offer. Resources were also needed to provide for the establish­ment of designated lectureships in order to attract, on a short­term basis, authorities in specialized fields to present seminars for postgraduate training. Under Dean Burlage, the college was able to appoint two visiting lecturers for summer sessions without foundation support; foundation support would ensure that the curriculum would. continue to be enriched through similar appointments in the future. 18 
The foundation could also provide postdoctoral fellowships to attract scholars with the desired training to participate in par­ticular research projects undertaken in the College of Pharmacy. Such plans would bring advanced researchers to the university to further their own work while assisting faculty members with studies in progress. Postdoctoral awards were a luxury that the college could not possibly afford with its small biennial budget. With foundation help, however, such fellowships would place the college on a high professional level, providing for technical research of great importance to the pharmaceutical industry. As could be expected, manufacturing firms often designated that their contributions be utilized in such a manner. In a similar 
121bid. 
181bid. 

vein, the foundation could promote the development of facilities at the Balcones Research Center of the university. Space was al­lotted at the center for the installation of large-scale apparatus for the distillation and extraction of medicinal plant materials and for a pilot plant for the development of synthetic and natural materials and chemurgic studies. 14 
With the aim of providing community service, the foundation could also supply the means for establishing a drug-information bureau and a speakers' bureau. The drug-information bureau would aid in the solution of commercial and scientific problems arising in the practice of pharmacy, particularly in the retail field. The speakers' bureau would serve to disseminate any infor­mation that community groups might desire about the work within the College of Pharmacy and the pharmaceutical profes­sion. 15 
Such a prospectus may have seemed overly ambitious in light of the previous resources of the College of Pharmacy, and as the Pharmaceutical Foundation began operation, financial support from the community and the federal government was not very substantial. Small contributions from individual pharmacists made up a large portion of the foundation's resources. In order to administer these funds properly, the board of regents agreed to accept in trust all gifts made to the Pharmaceutical Founda­tion under an established procedure. Donations to the founda­tion would be used for the furtherance of the College of Phar­macy by funding pharmaceutical education, research, and graduate study in the college. No foundation monies would be used for ordinary operating expenses of the college. Although the Board of Grants of the Pharmaceutical Foundation would transmit to the university president its approval or disapproval of the use of such funds, the donor would retain the option of specifying the general purpose to which his contribution would be applied. Undesignated gifts would be assigned to the general fund and utilized entirely at the discretion of the governing bodies. The assets of the foundation were to be separate from the 
1'Jbid. 
15lbid. 

317 
Permanent Fund of the university and could not be appropriated by the state legislature. 18 
FOUNDATION PERSONNEL 
Serving in a decision-making capacity, the Board of Grants of the Pharmaceutical Foundation was composed of those most directly benefiting from the resources-the dean and faculty members of the College of Pharmacy with full professorial rank. This board submitted recommendations on the allocation and expenditure of all foundation assets, except in cases in which such sums would be used to supplement the salaries of or otherwise compensate members of the college staff. In such cases, the dean alone would recommend these expenditures to the president. 17 
The Advisory Council of the Pharmaceutical Foundation, which conducted the administrative affairs of the foundation, was composed primarily of professional pharmacists. Members of the council were appointed to two-year terms by the president of the university; officers were elected by the council members. Although ultimate control over foundation matters lay with the board of regents, the council had the authority to solicit and dis­perse funds and to determine the direction in which the founda­tion would develop and grow. 
Six men, serving terms of two years each, acted as chairmen of the Advisory Council during the first twelve years of operation. The first to serve, from 1952 to 1954, was Walter Cousins, Jr., of Dallas, editor of the Southern Pharmaceutical ] oumal and son of a well-known early Texas pharmacist. Under Cousins, the founda­tion gave support to the establishment of the Pharmacy Exten­sion Service, which will be discussed in the next chapter. The idea of a pharmacy manpower study was also conceived during his chairmanship.18 
11 Your Pharmaceutical Foundation . 
17lbid. 
18University of Texas, Pharmaceutical Foundation and College of Pharmacy, A Study of 
Manpower in Texas Pharmacy (Austin: University of Texas, 1955). 

LAMBERT
COUSINS 

SEIBERT MAYES 
Chairmen of the Advisory Council of the Pharmaceutical Foundation from 1952 to 1961 were Walter Cousins, Jr., Southern Pharmaceutical]our­nal, Dallas; T . Arthur Lambert, San Antonio Drug Company, San An­tonio; Walter N. Kuntz, Southwestern Drug Company, Dallas; W. Lacy Clifton, Behrens Drug Company, Waco; James W. Seibert, McKesson and Robbins, New York City; and Leo W. Mayes, Behrens Drug Company, Waco. 
T. Arthur Lambert of the San Antonio Drug Company served as chairman from 1954 to 1956, during which time the first edi­tion of A Study of Manpower in Texas Pharmacy, conducted by Esther Jane Wood Hall, a professor in the College of Pharmacy, was completed. During Lambert's tenure, the foundation scholarship plan was created; the success of this venture brought national recognition to the university and the foundation. The scholarships and the implementation of the recommendations of the manpower study were continued under the subsequent chairmanship of Walter Kuntz of the Southwestern Drug Cor­poration of Dallas. During the 1956-58 biennium, Kuntz was in­strumental in the establishment of the Endowment Fund, designed to enable the foundation to eventually become self­sustaining and be financially independent of the University Development Board.19 The achievement of this goal of self­sufficiency would greatly increase the foundation's ability to serve the College of Pharmacy and the pharmaceutical profes­sion.20 
By the time W. Lacy Clifton of the Behrens Drug Company of Waco assumed the chairmanship of the council in 1958, the foundation was firmly established as a supportive institution, and its promotions produced many benefits for the college. Most of its accomplishments during the years of his term consisted of successfully administering continuing programs. To him fell the tremendous responsibility of final organization of the details for raising monies throughout the state for the Endowment Fund. 21 
When J. W. Seibert of the New York-based drug company McKesson and Robbins, Inc., assumed the office at the begin­ning of the academic year 1959-60, the development of a method to obtain additional space for the college, particularly one wing to house research laboratories and another for classrooms, was a pressing concern. If such facilities had been built previously, as originally planned, the already-crowded new building could have been devoted to space badly needed for undergraduate 
19 Your Pharmaceutical Foundation. 
20Ibid. 
21Ibid. 

laboratory instruction. The fact that these wings were never con­structed was not due to any lack of effort on the part of Seibert or his successor, Leo W. Mayes, 1960-61. 22 Allocations from the Available Fund, which the council had to rely upon, were ap­propriated by the board of regents for other campus buildings. 
Under the direction of Leo W. Mayes of the Behrens Drug Company of Waco, foundation scholarships were increasingly necessary to students to defray the added expenses of the newly implemented five-year curriculum. During his term, significant advancements in research and instruction were also seen in the development of the Aerosol Packaging Laboratory and the Drug­Plastic Research Laboratory. 23 
During the last year of the administration of Dean Burlage, 1961-62, C. R. Sublett of the Eli Lilly Company, now retired and residing in Austin, was chairman of the Advisory Council of the Pharmaceutical Foundation. Under his leadership, the foun­dation raised more money than in any year since its inception. More than $18,000 was raised from various sources and dis­bursed to faculty assistance and college improvement, to scholarships, to student recruitment in the form of a prephar­macy advisors' conference, to fellowships, to the Endowment Fund, and to underwrite the operating expenses of the founda­tion. The Endowment Fund, as of 1 June 1962, had grown to over $13,000 and contributed greatly to realizing the founda­tion's goal of self-sufficiency. 24 
ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE 
FOUNDATION 

One of the major projects of the foundation during its first decade was the continuation of Dr. Hall's manpower study between 1955 and 1976. In 1954, the Pharmaceutical Founda­tion decided to paint "a true and continuing picture of [phar­macy's] manpower requirements for the future" in order to plan 
22Ibid. 
23University of Texas, Pharmaceutical Foundation, Annual Report of the Pharmaceutical 
Foundation, 1960~1 (Austin: University of Texas, 1961 ). 
2'University of Texas, Pharmaceutical Foundation, Annual Report of the Pharmaceutical 
Foundation, 1961-62 (Austin: University of Texas, 1962). 
a long-range program of recruitment to meet the demands from all branches of medical science and technology.25 The study in­cluded direct solicitation of ideas from the members of the phar­macy profession as well as from wholesalers and manufacturers, the State Board of Pharmacy, and retail pharmacy owners, and members of the other health professions throughout the state. 
This survey revealed the fact that, during the period of re­adjustment and stabilization following the war, the economic conditions relative to pharmacy had undergone a marked improvement. This change was attributed in part to 
the burgeoning national economy, dependent to an increasing ex­tent on an improved health service to the civilian population; the consequent inadequacy of the supply of pharmaceutically trained personnel, particularly those newly trained; a steady increase in starting salaries as a result of increased competition for the inade­quate supply of recent graduates; and the persistent inflationary trends throughout the period.28 
These conditions affected educational institutions, particularly as demand increased for more and better schooling, guidance and career counseling, and better qualified teachers. 27 
Population predictions for the ensuing two decades indicated future trends for the profession. With the expectation of a burgeoning populace, the state of Texas would require more pharmacists to operate pharmacies, conduct research, supervise manufacturing facilities, and market new and improved phar­maceuticals. To meet this demand, enrollments in the state's schools of pharmacy would need to be increased steadily, as would the staff and facilities of such institutions. In light of these expectations, the manpower study concluded that more young men and women would have to be motivated to choose the field of pharmacy as a career. With these predictions and goals in mind, the Pharmaceutical Foundation was able to plan its recruitment and scholarship programs. 28 
BUniversity of Texas, Pharmaceutical Foundation, The Pharmaceutical Foundation of The 
University of Texas: 10th Anniversary (Austin: University of Texas, n.d.). 
28lbid. 
21Ibid. 
281bid. 
One effort in this direction was the career-guidance program, which sponsored conferences for prepharmacy advisors, provided for representatives of the college to attend career clinics around the state, and made available effective literature on phar­macy careers for potential students. Although the availability of funds for scholarships fluctuated from year to year, they were given nearly equal priority with subsidies for pharmaceutical research. The foundation's long-term goal, which was far too op­timistic for immediate realization, was to be able to provide tui­tion scholarships for all needy, qualified undergraduate ap­plicants.29 
Another goal of the foundation was to continually improve educational opportunities for those students who chose to em­bark on a career in pharmacy. The means used to realize this second goal included improved library acquisitions, the purchase of needed special equipment, provision for faculty at­tendance at educational and professional meetings and con­ferences, and the educational programs of the Pharmacy Exten­sion Service. 30 This last program has greatly aided the efforts of the College of Pharmacy to provide a continuing educational ex­perience beyond the baccalaureate degree in pharmacy. The organization and activities of the Pharmacy Extension Service, therefore, merit discussion in the following chapter. 
29LJniversity of Texas, Pharmaceutical Foundation, Annual Report for the Year September 7, 1963-August 37, 1964 (Austin: University of Texas, 1964). 
80lbid. 
CHAPTER TWELVE: 	The Pharmacy Extension Service 
As THE PROFESSION OF PHARMACY entered a period of rapid development during the postwar years, educators began to take a closer look at the effectiveness of training programs. In 1948, the American Council on Education (ACE) conducted a survey of pharmaceutical preparation, examining every aspect of the educational experience from selection of stu­dents to continuing and postgraduate education. In the latter case, the report of the Committee on the Pharmaceutical Survey of the ACE made some definite suggestions for development of in-service training programs for practicing pharmacists. Based on the recommendations of this survey, The University of Texas Pharmacy Extension Service was developed. 
After reviewing the history of pharmacy education in the United States, the survey concluded: 
Most of the institutions for professional training in pharmacy owe their origins to the activities of local groups of practicing phar­macists. In the cases of the early institutions two needs were clearly recognized: first, to secure a sufficient number of appren­tices with at least a minimum of practical knowledge of phar­macy; and, second, to provide opportunity for the further instruc­tion of these apprentices in scientific pharmacy during their service. 
323 

Essentially these needs continue today. The first need is being met. The second has developed problems not yet solved. 1 
In a poll of the accredited colleges and schools of pharmacy in the United States, the survey discovered that only seven of the fifty schools queried provided any type of in-service or off­campus training for practicing pharmacists, and those were generally brief programs of refresher courses, special seminars, and organized public relations. 2 
Among those few schools offering continuing education was The University of Texas College of Pharmacy, which had begun to sponsor the hospital pharmacy seminars in the fall of 1948 and the pharmacy refresher courses in 1949. These programs, con­ducted in cooperation with the Division of Extension under Dean 
T. H. Shelby, brought favorable recognition to the college at a time when the dean was attempting to strengthen its standards. Similar efforts were instigated by six other schools. However, the survey concluded that, in general, little progress had been achieved nationally in the development of in-service programs. 8 
This prospect was particularly discouraging in light of the ef­forts of the federal government to stimulate the development of vocational training in fields such as pharmacy. Beginning in 1937, the George-Deen Act provided funds "for training in dis­tributive occupational subjects,'' to prepare the student for useful employment. 4 In 1941 the United States Office of Educa­tion issued suggestions for the study of the distributive phases of retail-drugstore operation within the schools, and in 1942 and 1943 similar outlines were issued for teachers of these subjects. 6 
To determine the degree to which these actions on the part of the government were affecting pharmaceutical education, the survey committee inquired, through several state departments of vocational education, as to the extent to which programs falling under these guidelines had been developed. Of the thirty-eight 
1American Council on Education, Findings and Recommendations of the Pharmaceutical Survey, 7948 (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1948), p. 48. 
2Ibid. 
1Ibid. 
'Ibid. 
5Ibid. 
replies received, thirty indicated that no programs were in opera­tion, although eight of these thirty states had established but dis­continued such efforts. Of the eight states that still maintained vocational pharmacy education of any sort, only Wisconsin con­ducted an active program. Shortly after the inquiry was made, however, The University of Texas, in cooperation with the State Board for Vocational Education and the Texas Pharmaceutical Association, implemented a program for drugstore owners and employees.8 
The survey defined the problem of continuing education in the following manner: 
The continuous changes taking place and the character, number, and form of medicinal substances have placed upon the competent pharmacist the obligation of continuing his serious professional study. In this connection it is to be noted that the current records contain 600 new drug items appearing during 1946 and 1947. 
This obligation must be met if he is to regard himself [as] fit for his responsibilities to the members of the other health professions and to the cause of public health. Under existing conditions the great number of pharmacists are not provided with ready means and methods whereby the newer scientific information may be ac­quired systematically and economically. 
What pharmacy needs today is an effective mechanism designed to furnish those practicing on the all-important retail level with new pharmaceutical knowledge in a systematic and continuous manner, properly organized and digested. A live profession of pharmacy lives on the live knowledge constantly ap­pearing from the modern scientific laboratories. The organization and communication of the new knowledge are tasks to be as­sumed by professional training institutions. 
The Survey recognizes the importance of the vocational merchandising instruction contemplated under the provisions of the George-Deen Act. Such instruction, however effective, does not and cannot take place on a level required by the modern profession of pharmacy. 7 
To meet this need, the ACE's Committee on the Phar­maceutical Survey issued three recommendations. First, each ac­credited college or school of pharmacy was urged to recognize 
8Ibid. 
%id., pp. 48-49. 

Three generations of Extension deans-T. H. Shelby, Norris A. Hiett and James R. D. Eddy, 
and assume responsibility for providing organized programs of continuing education for pharmacists within its sphere of in­fluence. To be set up under competent, professional direction, the program should be referred to in each case as the division of pharmaceutical extension. Second, each division of phar­maceutical extension should include in its programs refresher courses conducted on campus, programs of reading and cor­respondence courses, and the systematic visitation and personal counseling of pharmacists. Finally, the committee recommended that each state board of pharmacy take the initiative in creating a pharmaceutical extension council, made up of education and pharmaceutical officials, to ensure maximum cooperation on these endeavors. 8 
The University of Texas College of Pharmacy, which in 1948 was one of the national leaders in the field of continuing profes­sional· education, responded quickly to these recommendations. After four years of planning in cooperation with the Division of Extension of the university, the college inaugurated the Phar­macy Extension Service in the fall of 1953. Although identified with the College of Pharmacy, the Pharmacy Extension Service operated under the administration and budget of Dean James 
R. D. Eddy of the Division of Extension. A director, financed jointly by the Pharmaceutical Foundation and the Division of Extension, was appointed on a full-time basis to manage the ser­vice and to serve as assistant to the pharmacy dean. Norris A. Hiett, then associate dean and later dean of the Division of Ex­tension, worked with the director in coordinating the various pharmacy extension programs. In addition, the Division of Ex­tension provided funds for secretarial assistance and later a half­time salary for an assistant director, as well as maintenance, of­fice, equipment, and travel expenses. 
In his annual report to the Texas Pharmaceutical Association for the 1953-54 academic year, Dean Burlage wrote: 
This type of service is the first of its kind devoted to pharmacy in 
the Southwest and is in line with the purposes of a state university 
8Jbid., p. 49. 
in that its campus is not the forty acres in Austin but the entire state. The aim of this Service, through conference and seminar procedures and publications, is to help the pharmacists of Texas to solve problems confronting the profession and to improve its practice and standing and to promote professional and public relations.9 
Burlage and Eddy, in setting up the service, foresaw the follow­ing developments: 
1. 	A series of professional institutes ... conducted on the campus as well as on an area basis, made necessary because of the size of the state; 
2.... a stimulation in the interest and growth of the Phar­maceutical Foundation, in the College of Pharmacy and the University; and 
3. 	in an indirect manner, a strengthening and enhancement of alumni relations.10 
In the twenty-five years since the organization of the Pharmacy Extension Service, these predictions have proved accurate in forecasting the development of such programs. 
The first function of the Pharmacy Extension Service was to provide in-service training and postgraduate education by scheduling pharmacy management conferences to be held in various areas of the state. The Pharmacy Extension Service planned on eventually conducting ten to twelve such conferences each year. The service also assumed responsibility for operating the previously established annual hospital pharmacy seminars and the pharmacy refresher courses, the innovativeness and suc­cess of which had earned the college national recognition. 11 
9H. M. Burlage, "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy of The University of Texas to the Texas Pharmaceutical Association, July 20, 1953, to July, 1954," Office of the Dean, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin (hereafter referred to as Office of the Dean of Pharmacy). 
10Burlage to Logan Wilson, 10 September 1953, College of Pharmacy Files, Records of the Office of the President, The University of Texas Archives, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter referred to as Pharmacy Files, UT Archives). 
11University of Texas, "Application for a Grant from the Gustavus and Louise Pfeiffer Research Foundation to the College of Pharmacy, the Pharmacy Extension Service, and the Division of Extensien of the University of Texas, October 13, 1958," Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
EXTENSION PERSONNEL 

The first director of the Pharmacy Extension Service was Wil­liam Ellis Woods, a 1938 graduate of the College of Pharmacy who had received a Bachelor of Law degree (LL.B.) from the university in 1953, the year he was named director of the service. Woods brought to the director's job a varied background that in­cluded experience as assistant manager of two of the largest prescription pharmacies in Houston, service with the Texas State Department of Health, nearly four years as a reserve officer in the U.S. Public Health Service, research and analysis for the ACE's Committee on the Pharmaceutical Survey, manufactur­ing and marketing experience with Eli Lilly and Company, and service as executive assistant to a Texas state senator. Woods resigned as director in 1954 to accept the position of legal counsel for the National Association of Retail Druggists.12 
The second director of the Pharmacy Extension Service was Joseph Hoyland Arnette, who served from 1954 until 1959, when he was appointed secretary of the State Board of Pharmacy, a position from which he retired in 1976. He also brought a diverse background to the Pharmacy Extension Service. Before entering the health field, he served as a high school principal and coach, moving on to become a chemist for the Texas State Department of Health and later chief chemist and toxicologist for the Texas Department of Public Safety. After wartime service, he studied pharmacy at The University of Texas, receiving the B.S. degree in pharmacy in 1949. While serving as part-time director of the Pharmacy Extension Service, he also worked as a community pharmacist. Even after Arnette left the Pharmacy Extension Ser­vice, he maintained a strong interest in the field of continuing education. He appeared on numerous programs presented by the Texas Pharmaceutical Association and served as a represen­tative of the State Board of Pharmacy to the Texas Tripartite Committee on Continuing Pharmacy Education, established in 
12William E. Woods: "Curriculum Vitae," 1 August 1953, Office of the Dean of Phar­macy. 

L 

William Ellis Woods Joseph Hoyland Arnette 

Luther Ray Parker Bill David Jobe 
Pharmacy Extension Service Directors 

1975. In recognition of over twenty years of service to the prof es­sioh, members of TPA recognized him as the 1975 Pharmacist of the Year. 18 
Succeeding Arnette was Luther Ray Parker, a 1954 graduate of the College of Pharmacy, who served in the capacity of direc­tor from 1959 until 1964, when he was appointed executive secretary of the Texas Pharmaceutical Association. After com­pleting the B.S. degree, he pursued graduate work at the univer­sities of Texas and Buffalo. During his service as a noncommis­sioned officer with the United States Army, he was in charge of the laboratory service at Martin Army Hospital, Fort Benning, Georgia. While director of the Pharmacy Extension Service, Parker was associate editor of the Texas ] ournal of Pharmacy, published by the College of Pharmacy between 1958 and 1964. Upon his resignation from the Pharmacy Extension Service in 1964, he was awarded the Longhorn Pharmaceutical Associa­tion's Merit Award for support of pharmacy education. 14 
Due to the availability of funds from a three-year grant from the Gustavus and Louise Pfeiffer Research Foundation, the posi­tion of assistant director on a half-time appointment was created in 195911 The first person to hold this position was Harold Dean Powell, who was a pharmacy owner as well as practicing phar­macist. 18 Upon the resignation of Powell in 1962, Billy Burben Wylie was appointed to this position as well as to that of chief pharmacist of the university's Student Health Center. In 1963 Wylie was appointed half-time assistant instructor to teach dis­pensing practice in addition to acting as chief pharmacist. 17 Suc­ceeding him in the position of assistant extension director was 
11 Texas Pharmacist, July 1975, p. 17. 
1'Luther R. Parker, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
llff. M. Burlage, "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy, 1959-1960 Long Ses­sion," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
1'H. M. Burlage, "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy of The University of Texas to the Texas Pharmaceutical Association, July 27, 1959, to July 24, 1960, Phar­macy Files, UT Archives. 
1'H. M. Burlage, "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy, 1961-1962 Long Ses­sion," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy; and University of Texas, Course Catalogue, 1964-66 Biennium, Texas Collection, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter referred to as Texas Collection). 
Bill Jobe, who was appointed director in 1964. At that time, the position of assistant director was abolished. 
Bill David Jobe is the only director of the Pharmacy Extension Service to have held two appointments to the position. In 1962, he received the B.S. degree in pharmacy; he was appointed assis­tant director of the service the following year. Upon the resigna­tion of Luther Parker in 1964, Jobe was promoted to the direc­torship, which he held until September 1967, at which time he accepted the position of director of continuing education with the School of Pharmacy and Pharmacal Sciences at Purdue University. After receiving the Ph.D. degree at Purdue in 1971, he was named associate professor in addition to his duties as director of continuing education. After six years away from his native Texas, Jobe returned to The University of Texas in his previous capacity as director of the Pharmacy Extension Service as well as in the additional capacity as associate professor of pharmacy administration, positions that he currently holds. 18 
During the period of Jobe's tenure at Purdue University, the position of director of the Pharmacy Extension Service was held by Gerald Sullivan, assistant professor of pharmacognosy, dur­ing the 1968-69 year and by Charles Alborn Walker from 1969 until 1973. Walker, who had received a B.S. degree in pharmacy as well as a B.A. degree in 1948, returned to the university after many years in practice to earn the M.S. in pharmacy degree, which he was awarded in 1968.19 After leaving the Pharmacy Ex­tension Service, Walker returned to private practice. 
EXTENSION PROGRAMS 
Hospital Pharmacy Seminars 
Although considerable planning and time were required to organize the Pharmacy Extension Service before programs could be given under its aegis, the college meanwhile sponsored hospital pharmacy seminars in 1948 and 1949 in cooperation with the Division of Extension. An outgrowth of these seminars 
18Bill David Jobe, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 111University of Texas, Course Catalogue, 1968-70 Biennium, Texas Collection. 
333
is the present Texas Society of Hospital Pharmacists, organized in 1949 with Adela Schneider as its first president. After its organization, the Texas Society of Hospital Pharmacists cooperated with the Pharmacy Extension Service in promoting the annual seminars, which quickly attracted both national recognition and participants from many other states. These seminars were so successful that the College of Pharmacy was selected as host for one of the national institutes on hospital pharmacy sponsored by the American Hospital Association20 Additional recognition was received from the American Council on Pharmaceutical Education in the report of its 1956 visitation, which commended the Pharmacy Extension Service as ''one of the most important phases of the program at Texas. "21 
Because the field of hospital pharmacy was a relatively new specialization in the early 1950s, the educational programs that were presented had a significant impact on the dissemination of knowledge and skills as applied to the hospital environment. Seminar topics ranged from new drugs to narcotic control, useful equipment in hospital pharmacies, therapeutics, manufacturing, and outpatient pharmacy management.22 
Pharmacy Refresher Courses 
Impressed with the success of the first hospital pharmacy seminar, which was to be offered annually, Burlage and Shelby planned an annual pharmacy refresher course, to begin in the fall of 1949. Along with its predecessor, the refresher course gained national recognition for the College of Pharmacy. These conferences, held on the campus of The University of Texas each year, were intended to expand the knowledge and awareness of the community pharmacist with new developments in the medical and pharmaceutical fields. Some topics presented at the 
»•Application for a Grant from Pfeiffer Foundation." 
211bid. 
UUniversity of Texas, Pharmacy Extension Service, Hospital Pharmacy Seminar brochures, Division of Extension Files, Records of the Office of the President, The University of Texas Archives, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter referred to as Extension Files, UT. Archives). 
first conference included surgical appliances, the status of en­docrine therapy, sex hormones, sensitivity and resistance of bacteria to drugs, the theory of action of antihistamines, develop­ing and promoting an animal-health department, and the chemistry of antihistamines. 23 Speakers included members of the college faculty as well as leaders in pharmacy and industry. The two-day conferences were brought to a close with a luncheon, often followed by attendance at a Texas Longhorn football game. 
With the inauguration of the Pharmacy Extension Service, both the hospital pharmacy seminars and the refresher courses came under its direction. As the Pharmacy Extension Service ex­panded and acquired more resources, both of these programs were continued while others were being developed. In 1977 the hospital pharmacy seminar entered its twenty-ninth year while the postgraduate pharmacy seminar (as the refresher course became known in the 1960s) was offered for the twenty-eighth consecutive session. 
Pharmacy Management Conferences 
The first function of the Pharmacy Extension Service, on its organization in 1953, was "to provide in-service training and post-graduate education and training by planning pharmacy · management conferences in selected areas of Texas with a goal 
"24 A
of offering from ten to twelve such conferences each year. grant from the Gustavus and Louise Pfeiffer Research Founda­tion to the Pharmacy Extension Service of S3,000 per year ex­tending for three years made the development of this and other programs feasible. In an effort to reach as many Texas phar­macists as possible, the Pharmacy Extension Service determined that postgraduate training in pharmacy management would have the greatest impact for both pharmacists and the com­munities they served by providing training in better manage­ment as well ~s improved professional services. 
UUniversity of Texas, Pharmacy Extension Service, "Fourth Annual Phannacy Refresher Course, 1955," Extension Files, UT Archives. 
2••Application for a Grant from Pfeiffer Foundation." 

The need for such conferences was determined on the basis of four points: 
1. 
Many pharmacies are inadequately managed, hence giv[ing] oftentimes inadequate professional and attendant services. 

2. 
The pharmacist by law is the chief dispenser of phar­maceuticals and should know about them-thus serving as a source of information concerning therapeutic agents to the doc­tors, the patient, and the layman. 

3. 
By tradition the pharmacist is a counselor . .. and it is his duty to advise these persons as to the proper sources of medical care. 

4. 
Because of his contact with numerous persons, there is a ... need for providing education in human relations as well as profes­sional relations to the pharmacist.25 


The first pharmacy management conferences, held in 1954 at various locations throughout the state, were conducted jointly by the Pharmacy Extension Service, the College of Pharmacy, and the Division of Extension of The University of Texas and were cosponsored by the Texas Pharmaceutical Association and various local pharmaceutical associations. 26 This combined ef­fort was the most extensive cooperative venture within the phar­maceutical profession in Texas to date. The topics presented through lecture and discussion included professional manage­ment, relationships of prescription specialties, analysis of super­vision, communication of ideas, public relations, merchandising, personnel relations, relationships between physicians and phar­macists, and trends in pharmaceutical specialties. Speakers at the first conference included faculty members from the College of Pharmacy as well as professionals from numerous fields. In addi­tion to attempting to reach pharmacists in the communities, the Pharmacy Extension Service hosted a seminar on pharmacy ad­ministration for teachers to improve the expertise of educators in this area. This additional seminar, held on the campus of The University of Texas in July of 1956, was cosponsored by the 
26lbid. 
26University of Texas, Pharmacy Extension Service, Pharmacy Management Conference brochures, 1954-55, Extension Files, UT Archives. 
American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy and the American Foundation for Pharmaceutical Education. 27 
Support from the Pfeiffer Research Foundation from 1958-61 made possible the expansion of the pharmacy management con­ferences. The conferences have been held annually since 1954 in every major area within the state of Texas. 
Industrial Pharmacy Conferences 
The first industrial pharmacy conference was held on the university campus in 1962 "for the pharmaceutical industry and all interested members of the pharmaceutical profession. "28 These annual conferences have featured various speakers, one of whom usually has been a pharmaceutical leader from another country. Eventually, the name of the meetings was changed to international industrial pharmacy conferences. Unlike other continuing educational programs, these conferences were con­ducted around one specified theme, rather than numerous topics; some of these subjects included "Biological Contamina­tion of Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics" in 1970 and "IND and NDA Submissions for Quality Drug Products" in 1976. Conference speakers have been experts in a particular industrial field; one brochure described the speakers thus: "[those] who can project .their own problems, solutions, and experiences so that all may benefit. The talks are not academic papers but prac­tical applications of workable answers to actual and potential situations. "29 
Regional Seminar Series in Pharmacy 
Because of the distances required for travel to the university campus from various parts of the state, the Texas regional seminar series in pharmacy was inauguarated in 1966 to bring postgraduate educational courses to pharmacists in their own 
27University of Texas, Pharmacy Extension Service, "Teachers' Seminar on Pharmacy 
Administration, July 6-7, 1956," Extension Files, UT Archives. 
28University of Texas, Pharmacy Extension Service, "First Annual Industrial Phar­
macy Conference, 1961," Extension Files, UT Archives. 
2t{Jniversity of Texas, Pharmacy Extension Service, "Fifteenth Annual Industrial 
Pharmacy Conference, 1976," Extension Files, UT Archives. 
localities. Dedicated "to the professional growth of pharmacists through continuing education," this series has dealt with such topics as the pharmacist's role in medicare, reference literature in pharmacy practice, legal conditions in pharmacy, newer developments in therapy, and other issues and changes within the profession about which pharmacists need to keep informed. 80 These seminars, to a large extent, have covered material similar to that of the postgraduate pharmacy seminars; these regional meetings, however, have made the courses available to large numbers of pharmacists who have been unable to attend the postgraduate courses held in Austin. 
Prepharmacy Advisors Conferences 
The prepharmacy advisors conferences, organized in 1964, have been scheduled on a periodic basis to acquaint preprofes­sional pharmacy advisors from the junior and senior colleges around the state with the changing developments in the profes­sional programs offered at the college and the prepharmacy courses required of applicants for the professional program. Funds from the Pfeiffer Research Foundation were instrumental in establishing this program. As the faculty and administration of the college continued to expand the undergraduate and graduate programs, knowledge of these developments was essen­tial for those students transferring to the first professional year from other educational institutions. In 197 4 the tenth con­ference presented the following topics: changes in the cur­riculum, the professional doctoral degree (Pharm. D. ), admis­sion procedures, Pharmacy College Admissions Test (PCAT) and other special requirements for admission to the professional years, problems and opportunities of recruitment, externship­internship experiences, and opportunities for. pharmacy prac­
tice.Sl 
-University of Texas, Pharmacy Extension Service, "Texas Regional Seminar Series in 
Pharmacy, 1966," Extension Files, ur Archives. 
11University of Texas, Pharmacy Extension Service, "Tenth Annual Pre-Pharmacy Ad­
visors Conference Program, 1974," Extension Files, ITT Archives. 
In 1968 Dean Joseph B. Sprowls reported that the number of students enrolling at the university for preprofessional studies had continuously declined during the previous five-year period, but that enrollments for the professional sequence had increased. The figures he presented indicated that nearly one-half of the students entering the professional program had completed their preprofessional courses at other schools. Total enrollment dur­ing this period, however, had risen, indicating the success of the prepharmacy advisors conferences that had been conducted dur­ing most of the period surveyed by Sprowls.s2 The dean's report indicated that the conferences had been effective in adequately preparing students for the program of the College of Pharmacy. 
Pharmacy Placement Conferences 
In keeping with its attempts to advise pharmacy students, the Pharmacy Extension Service initiated pharmacy placement con­ferences also, to offer graduating seniors the opportunity to be interviewed by employers representing community hospitals and industrial pharmacy firms throughout Texas and the United States. These conferences, held semiannually in April and November, are planned for periods just before fall and spring graduation.ss 
The programs of the Pharmacy Extension Service have provided the pharmacists of the state with opportunities to con­tinually broaden their expertise so as to better serve their com­munities. Although some states require attendance at some of these programs as a condition of relicensure, Texas is not among them. Ironically, however, through the Pharmacy Ex­tension Service, the state of Texas has been a pioneer in the field of continuing professional education, particularly in its efforts to bring educational opportunities to the pharmacists in their own localities, thereby overcoming the disadvantage of distance in a large state. As a result of the efforts of the Pharmacy Extension 
12J. B. Sprowls, "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy, 1967-1968 Long Ses­sion," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 11Memorandum, B. D. Jobe to the Faculty of the College of Pharmacy, 27 March 1974, Library, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin. 
Service, these programs have reached an average of 10 percent of the registered pharmacists annually, either through regional conferences, professional association meetings, or on-campus seminars. These programs ensure that pharmaceutical educa­tion in Texas does not have to end with graduation. 
CHAPTER THIRTEEN: 	Realization of a Dream, 1952 
ONCE DEAN BURLAGE HAD SUCCEEDED in building a faculty which was capable of conducting the un­dergraduate and graduate instruction, he was able to turn his at­tentions to securing suitable housing for the college. Throughout his thirty-one years as dean, Gidley had contended with this es­sential need, and by the time of his retirement in 1947, he was on the verge of seeing his efforts materialize. Of all the proposed constructions on the Austin campus of the university, the Phar­macy Building had been under consideration for the longest period of time. A brief recapitulation of the thirty-year effort by faculty and alumni to begin the actual erection of the building will put the final achievement into perspective. 
Originally housed in the basement of the Old Red Building on the Medical Branch campus in Galveston, the College of Phar­macy had outgrown this space by the end of the First World War. Many alternatives were considered, but finally, in 1925, a new laboratory building was constructed to house many of the classes formerly herd in Old Red. The College of Pharmacy, however, was relegated to the abandoned, but remodeled, quarters in the damp, old building. During the early 1920s, the then Texas State Pharmaceutical Association (TSPA) con­sidered raising the necessary funds to construct a pharmacy 
341 

building in Galveston, but numerous other projects assumed priority and little was accomplished in this direction. On the death of "Daddy" Cline in 1924, TSPA members decided to fund a building dedicated to his memory. Eventually, $25,000 was raised, but this amount fell far short of the $500,000 pro­jected cost of such a structure. In 1926, TSPA supported the proposal to move the College of Pharmacy to Austin, and the idea of a Cline Memorial Building was quietly forgotten. 
Housing conditions in Austin were no improvement for the College of Pharmacy. Although originally scheduled to share space with the Department of Chemistry in a building con­structed between 1930 and 1931, pharmacy was shunted out of these modern facilities as both disciplines experienced unex­pected growth throughout the decade. The College of Pharmacy was relegated to makeshift quarters scattered throughout the campus, while efforts to gain a separate building were renewed. University President H. Y. Benedict was sympathetic to this goal and arranged to have it included on the priority list of the board of regents; a pharmacy building, however, was the tenth item on that list. Although considerable construction was completed throughout the depression years, funds were never allocated for a building for the College of Pharmacy. When World War II in­tervened, all such projects were halted. 
During the war years, The University of Texas was wracked by a violent controversy that centered on the Medical Branch in Galveston. In an effort to end the dispute and reassert its authority, the board of regents voted to return the College of Pharmacy to Galveston. By this time, a pharmacy building had finally attained high priority on the regent's construction slate, but the prospective removal of the College of Pharmacy to Galveston would abrogate such plans. In 1946, however, the board of regents rescinded this decision, the College of Phar­macy remained in Austin, and efforts toward construction of the new building were renewed. The 1947 legislative debate over methods of financing structural costs at state educational institu­tions effectively halted the construction schedule at The Univer­sity of Texas for a full year. This issue, however, was finally settled by a statewide vote of approval for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing adequate support for all schools and universities in the state. 
With the last obstacle between the College of Pharmacy and its new home removed, plans for the structure began to coalesce. When the Committee on Accreditation of the American Council on Pharmaceutical Education (ACPE) visited the Austin campus in 1946, University President Painter showed them ten­tative architectural designs for such a building. These projec­tions, however, had been developed by the administration without the advice or knowledge of Dean Gidley, who had developed extensive plans of his own. All of these efforts were still in the formative stage when Burlage was named dean in 194 7. As a condition for his acceptance of this position, he managed to extract a promise from the administration that a building for pharmacy would be constructed within a very short period of time. Thus, after thirty years of anticipation, a new home for the College of Pharmacy was near realization. 
COMPLETION OF THE PHARMACY BUILDING 
For many years the indifference that the university ad­ministration had shown toward the College of Pharmacy was a puzzle to pharmacists throughout the state. To some degree this attitude was explained in a letter from President Painter to Eugene M. Caskey, a past president of the Texas Phar­maceutical Association, following the announcement of Caskey's appointment to the Advisory Committee of the Pharmaceutical Foundation. President Painter wrote: 
As you know, the College of Pharmacy was moved from the Medical Branch in Galveston to the Main University campus in the late twenties and, for a number of years following, its needs did not appear so pressing to the Administration as some other fields of endeavor. This was due to a number of reasons, among which was the relatively small number of people who elected to go into this profession linked with the then-trend of medicine away from the use of many drugs in the treatment of disease. In recent years, of course, this trend has been reversed because of the development of sulfonamides, antibiotics, hormones, and other spectacular medicines; and by the time I came into office as Presi­dent of the University in 1944, it was clearly apparent to all that the pharmaceutical industry had expanded to such an extent, and the demand for men trained for pharmaceutical research and as practitioners was so great, that something needed to be done about the College of Pharmacy here on our campus and as quick­ly as possible. 
Accordingly, I recommended to the Board of Regents that they take action definitely locating the College of Pharmacy on the Main University Campus and that a separate building for Phar­macy be listed as one of the most urgent needs of the campus to be met as soon as possible. Both actions were approved by the Board of Regents, and a really splendid Pharmacy Building is now in the finishing-up stage of construction. Hand-in-hand with meeting the physical needs of this College was the necessity, because of large enrollments in this College, for recruiting a larger faculty, and especially the recruiting of men who were trained for and actively engaged in pharmaceutical research. While we have not yet been able to recruit all the permanent staff needed posses­sing these qualities, we are well on the way toward this objective, and the College of Pharmacy is now in a position to take its place as one of the very important educational units of the Main Campus designed to meet the needs of the people of the State and of the Southwest. 1 
The appointment of Caskey, a pharmacist from Jacksonville, Texas, to the Advisory Council was particularly appropriate in light of the efforts he had exerted over the years to advance the interests of the College of Pharmacy, particularly in the acquisi­tion of a permanent location. After being elected president of TPA in 1942, Caskey invited Dean Gidley to address the associa­tion on the needs of the college so that closer cooperation might exist between these organizations. When Gidley spoke of the ne­cessity for a pharmacy building, Caskey publicly promised that TPA would "do something about it."2 While in office, Caskey publicized this issue in the pages of The Texas Druggist and later served as chairman of a committee to aid in procuring such a building. Together with A. A. Thompson, a pharmacist from 
1T. S. Painter to Eugene M. Caskey, 12January 1952, personal files of E. M. Caskey. 2Caskey to Painter, 12 January 1952, personal files of E. M. Caskey. 
San Benito, Texas, Caskey wrote numerous letters to the board of regents, until finally an investigation was conducted concern­ing their claims. The regents found conditions within the College of Pharmacy to be indeed as dire as these men had stated and concurred that resolution of this situation should receive high priority.8 
The problem of gaining the interest of the board of regents, however, was not the sole obstacle in the fight for a pharmacy building. Orville Bullington, a member from Wichita Falls, Texas, explained the situation to Caskey in December of 1946: "Ifthe people of Texas permit the Regents to issue bonds against the securities we have, so we can start a building program next year, we hope to have one of the finest Pharmaceutical Schools in the United States."" Considerable debate in the 194 7 legislature centered around the issue of funding for college and university construction, but a statewide referendum finally garnered ap­proval for a $10 million bond issue for The University of Texas. With the question of finances resolved, the board of regents held to its promise and initiated plans for the Pharmacy Building. 
The original concept for the building was developed by Gidley during the last year of his administration. In 1947, revised plans were submitted to the Building Committee of the General Faculty, subject to inspection and comment by faculty members of the College of Pharmacy. In keeping with a general construc­tion policy previously adopted by the board of regents, the new building was to be one of the first on the campus to be equipped with central air conditioning. 6 Although the drafts developed by Gidley called for a contemporary facade, President T. S. Painter felt that such a design would not be in keeping with the Spanish Renaissance theme of the majority of campus structures. Conse­quently, the Spanish style-with brick facings, white limestone trim, and red tile roof-was adopted in a simplified form. The 
'Ibid. 
40. Bullington to Caskey, 13 January 1946, personal files of E. M. Caskey. 
6"Minutes of the Meeting of the College of Pharmacy Faculty, October 3, 1947," Col­lege of Pharmacy Files, Records of the Office of the President, The University of Texas Archives, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter referred to as Pharmacy Files, UT Archives). 
------~--~--~·-­
1 
1 
~ 
1 
\ 
1 
1 

Architect ,s sketch of the Pharmacy Building on the Austin campus 
347
elimination of much of the ornamentation typical of this style created a building more in keeping with the budget as well as the simplicity of contemporary architectural designs. 6 
Decisions concerning the ultimate size of the proposed building were left to Dean Burlage and his faculty. President Painter had requested that they consider projected enrollments in determining the capacity needed as well as the minimum amount of floor space required to adequately house the college in the ensuing years. 7 After much deliberation, the staff requested a structure designed to house 700 undergraduate and 50 graduate students. Lecture rooms would be constructed to hold classes of 40 to 50 and laboratories to accommodate 24, 48, and 96 students.' 
The board of regents, at its meeting of 29 January 1949, al­located the sum of S1.25 million for the construction and equip­ping of a building with a total floor space not to exceed 50,000 square feet. This amount was specifically allocated to cover all costs of what President Painter noted would be "a turn-key job, complete and ready for immediate use. "9 Because the board of regents had concurrently authorized a number of other projects, Painter cautioned Dean Burlage, "all building funds in sight have been committed so that everyone will have to keep within the limits set by the Board of Regents. "1°Consequently, if the cost of constructing a building of 50, 000 square feet exceeded the allocated S1.25 million, floor space and other accommodations would need to be trimmed. 
The preliminary design, developed by Mark Lemmon, a con­sulting architect with The University of Texas at Dallas, con­sisted of a five-story building, with two wings facing south, that contained an auditorium, classrooms, offices, research laboratories, and animal quarters for the proposed Research In­stitute of Pharmaceutical Sciences. This total floor space, 
'Daily Texan, 2 October 1952. 
7Painter to H. M. Burlage, 8 January 1949, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
8"Minutes of the Meeting of the College of Pharmacy Faculty, June 12, 1948," Phar­macy Files, UT Archives. 
'Painter to Burlage, 3 January 1949, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
IOJbid. 
however, exceeded the 50,000 square feet authorized by the board of regents. As a result, the architectural design was revised to include only the main section of the five-story structure, shortened by 40 feet; the two classroom wings were eliminated from the final draft and left for later construction. The area remaining comprised 52,920 square feet-2, 920 feet larger than authorized. The excess footage, however, was not considered substantial enough to warrant further revision, and the final plans were approved in April of 1949. 11 
Despite these deletions, the completed structure would be by far the best-appointed quarters that the college had occupied during nearly sixty years of operation. To be located at Twenty­fifth Street and University Avenue, the building was situated directly south of the Student Health Center and in close prox­imity to the experimental science, chemistry, and biology departments. The first floor was occupied by a prescription laboratory, student activity room, dean's suite of offices, dental and veterinary-medicine laboratories, a small research laboratory room, and an advanced dispensing laboratory, as well as a library with reading and stack rooms, which alone occupied one-quarter of the floor space. The second floor included four large laboratory rooms, a balance room and storeroom com­bined, and two suites of offices for the departments of pharmacy and pharmaceutical chemistry. Laboratories and offices for pharmacology and pharmacognosy were located on the third floor along with space for expansion for a museum and instru­ment room. The top floor housed the various animals used by pharmacy students and faculty in experimentation. 12 Storage and receiving facilities, as well as additional laboratory and of­fice space, were located in the basement. 
Special features of the then-modern structure included a specially designed laboratory for dispensing practice with model desks and telephones, a drug-grinding and distillation room, a large industrial pharmacy laboratory with control accessories, a 
11 M. Lemmon to C. D. Simmons, 23 April 1949; and Burlage to A. E. Cooper, 13 March 1954, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
12 Daily Texan, 3 October 1952. 
sterile-solution room, an herbarium on the fourth floor, and in­terconnecting doors in some of the laboratories to allow altera­tion of room dimensions as needed. 
Additional economies employed by the architect contributed to the reduced cost of the building. A much simplified version of the usually ornate Spanish Renaissance design was employed for the building. The stone facing on the exterior walls was replaced with brick and limestone trim, the cornices were simplified, and considerable stone and metal ornamentation around the win­dows was eliminated. Because the building was intended, primarily, for laboratory work, considerable savings were realized in the interior finish over the standard costs of a class­room structure, where more durable materials would be a necessity.18 The final cost of the building proper, which ran to $19.90 per square foot, amounted to $1,116,148. Additional ex­penses were incurred through the contracts for heating, air con­ditioning, and ventilating, which totaled $159,800, and the cost of furniture for the laboratories, which amounted to $185,000. 14 
Although economy was a primary concern in designing and furnishing the building, the library received considerable atten­tion and money. One imperative for establishing a well­appointed library was the stringency of the accrediting guidelines of the American Council on Pharmaceutical Educa­tion (ACPE), · which made the following stipulations for the library of the College of Pharmacy: 
[It should be] a well-selected library of not less than 2,500 volumes (standard reference books, text books and periodicals) in addition to duplicates and public documents, bearing specifically upon the subjects taught. Approximately 1,500 of these volumes should pertain specifically to the professional and allied subjects of the pharmaceutical curriculum. 111 
More important, however, the general university policy en­couraged the development of departmental libraries. President 
13Lemmon to Simmons, 23 April 1949. 
14T. S. Painter, " Data on Building Contracts Awarded April 28, 1950, for Two Projects 
on the Main Campus at Austin, Texas," Pharmacy Files, UT Archives; and Lemmon to 
Simmons, 23 April 1949. 
15Cited in Burlage to A. Moffit, 13 April 1949, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
The Pharmacy Building viewed from the south 
Painter looked favorably on the development of a pharmacy library and informed Dean Burlage, "While these are expensive to maintain and operate they are certainly worth the cost in an active department, school, or college. me Projected enrollment figures for the College of Pharmacy clearly indicated in 1949 that this facility would become increasingly well used in the ensuing years. 
Prior to the establishment of such a library, the pharmacy col­lection had been housed with the chemistry and chemical engineering collections in the Chemistry Building. The chairman of the Library Committee of the General Faculty, in reporting favorably on the proposed pharmacy library, described the inadequacies of the previous arrangements: 
The space occupied is inadequate for the use of the three groups; the bookshelves are full; and it is often impossible for library users to find a seat when they wish to make a literature search. The as­signment of space for a Pharmacy Library in the Pharmacy Building would alleviate the situation to some extent. 17 
The library, as envisioned by the pharmacy faculty, would contain a broad range of materials, including textbooks and reference works devoted to pharmacy and allied fields, current and bound journals, handbooks and works of a bibliographic and abstract character that would be essential tools in a well­developed research program, official and legal standards of the profession, formularies and directories of various types, and works devoted to the history of pharmacy and its allied professions.18 Not only was the proposed library, with its adja­cent reading room, not altered in the revised plans, but President Painter even urged the faculty to allow adequate space for shelv­ing future volumes.19 
Contracts for the construction of the building were awarded on 28 April 1950, and operations began in early May. Assisting the university architect on the final, revised plans were Atlee B. 
u1Painter to Burlage, 13 May 1949, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
17Moffit to Painter, 11 May 1949, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
18Burlage to Moffit, 13 May 1949, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
19Painter to Burlage, 13 May 1949. 

and Robert M. Ayres of San Antonio. The firm of Matthews and Kenan of San Antonio provided the structural detailing, and Martin E. Staley, also of San Antonio, performed the mechanical engineering services. After more than two years of actual con­struction, the offices of Dean Burlage and his administrative staff were ready for occupancy on 7 September 1952. Dedication ceremonies for the new building, however, were not held until 1 and 2 November 1952. 
Planning for the dedication spanned the same amount of time as the actual construction of the building. Shortly after the ground-breaking ceremonies, a committee composed of Gidley, Albers, and two other faculty members had been appointed to make arrangements for the dedication and concomitant ac­tivities. A major feature of their plans for the dedication proceedings was the first in a series of annual refresher courses, cosponsored by the Division of Extension and the College of Pharmacy, for practicing pharmacists. Topics at this first course ranged from the practical aspects of marketing to innovations in pharmaceutical research. A highlight of the first seminar, held on 30 and 31 October 1952, just prior to the dedication, was a lecture by former faculty member Louis Schleuse, research director at Texas Pharmacal Company of San Antonio. Other notable pharmacists filled out the agenda. 20 
On Saturday morning, 1 November 1952, approximately 400 ex-students and guests were present to witness the formal dedication of the building. Speaking on the accomplishments of the profession were George Urdang, director of the American In­stitute of the History of Pharmacy; George Beal, director of research for the Mellon Institute at the University of Pittsburgh; and Austin Smith, editor of the]ournal ofthe American Medical As­sociation. During these ceremonies, the five departments of phar­macy gave demonstrations of their work and displayed examples of course material and official publications pertinent to each field. As a reminder of the years of effort that had preceded the event, the contributions of faculty, students, and alumni toward 
20 Dmly Texan, 28 October 1952. 
the erection of the building were recalled. And, in a final tribute to the man who had initiated those efforts, the alumni presented the College of Pharmacy with an oil portrait of "Daddy'' Cline, which was to be displayed prominently in the new library. 21 On hand for the unveiling of the portrait were Anna Cline Mann and her son, Raoul. 
EFFORTS TO EXPAND THE BUILDING 
Although the acquisition of a modern and spacious environ­ment, a long-standing goal of the College of Pharmacy, had now been accomplished, this achievement was overshadowed by the fact that the new building contained significantly less floor space and facilities than had originally been designated. The loss of the two wings due to economy measures severely hampered the ability of the staff to efficiently instruct students, thus making the building inadequate before it was even occupied. Although the offices and laboratories within the structure were sufficient, not one classroom was included in the design. Thus, students and staff were once again forced to utilize classrooms wherever they could be found. 
Dean Burlage worked for the remainder of his tenure to rectify this omission. Estimating that completion of the wings would cost around S240,000, he wrote to President Logan Wilson, just two years after the dedication ceremonies, outlining the reasons why such an addition was necessary so soon after completion of the building: 
If enrollments follow the expected trends, the College will need more and more classrooms in other buildings because the tem­porary classrooms in the Pharmacy Building will not accom­modate the larger classes which will arise or the increased number of sections if smaller classes are maintained. 22 
Burlage noted that, since the Building Committee of the General Faculty was in the process of screening requests for expansion projects for other buildings on the campus, he hoped that the 
21 Daily Texan, 2 November 1952. 
22Burlage to Logan Wilson, 9 November 1954, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 

College of Pharmacy's request for a classroom addition would be included in the overall building program. 21 
Although Wilson's predecessor, T. S. Painter, had lent a sym­pathetic ear to the concerns of the College of Pharmacy, the new president failed to appreciate the deficiencies that prevailed. In response to Dean Burlage's letter, Wilson replied: 
The point that disturbs me greatly is why there should already be a room utilization problem when you moved into your new quarters just two years ago. My guess would be that few if any Schools of Pharmacy in the country occupy more expansive quarters.24 
Wilson failed to appreciate the fact that the original design, which would have included adequate space for future needs, had been modified to reduce the ultimate expenditure on the building. He therefore informed Burlage that the needs of the College of Pharmacy would be taken into consideration in plan­ning for the future, but he added, "Frankly, I don't see how in fairness to the other divisions of the University we can give the College of Pharmacy a very high priority. "26 
In response, Burlage assured President Wilson that the phar­macy faculty members were "most appreciative" of their "pres­ent favorable position" in relation to other departments and schools at the university and that th!!Y did not entertain "the idea of acquiring a position of precedence over other divisions of the University in the projected building program. "28 However, he reminded President Wilson of the situation in regard to the classroom wings: 
The original plans for the Pharmacy Building included a wing or addition consisting of an auditorium and classrooms, which would have fulfilled the instructional needs of the College for some time to come in spite of increased enrollments. Because of increased costs between blue-print stage and the constructional stage, the classrooms and auditorium were temporarily 
23lbid. 
2'Wilson to Burlage, 11 November 1954, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
ZSfbid. 
26Burlage to Wilson, 18 November 1954, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 

355 
eliminated in order to stay within the amount allotted for the structure. It, therefore, seems logical that this classroom addition have a place somewhere on the present building agenda. 27 
Despite the logic of this argument, Wilson failed to appreciate the predicament that the college faced. Throughout his tenure, spanning the years 1953 through 1960, he continued to evade ef­forts to complete the Pharmacy Building through construction of the classroom wings. By the time of Wilson's resignation as un­iversity president, other concerns of the college had taken precedence, and the addition was never approved. 
271bid. 
CHAPTER FOURTEEN: 	Building a First-Class College, 
1952-1962 
THE FIRST FIVE YEARS of Dean Burlage's administration, 1947-52, represented a time of fruition for the College of Pharmacy. In comparison to the previous long years of inertia brought on by shortages of funds and facilities, the transformation of the college during these years was truly impressive. Under the favorable guidance of President Painter, the College of Pharmacy was able to realize its potential as a leading institution of pharmaceutical education in the Southwest. 
A brief recapitulation of these years illustrates the resolution of most of the major problems that had plagued the College of Pharmacy since its inception. The first area of need to which Dean Burlage turned his attention was that of acquiring an ade­quately qualified staff. At the time of Gidley's retirement, a faculty of 6 had administered a student body of 642. Within five years, 18 new faculty members had been hired and enroll­ments reduced to 437. 
The establishment of a graduate program in 1949 was a major milestone for the college. Both Cline and Gidley had tried to implement advanced work beyond the standard pharmacy 
356 

degree. Cline had won approval for the degree of Pharmaceutical Chemist (Ph.C.) in 1922, but facilities in Galveston were never developed enough to warrant admission of the students to the program. Gidley had given considerable attention to structuring a curriculum for a Master of Science (M.S.) degree in pharmacy, but his efforts, which had initially garnered some interest within the Faculty Senate, were never realized. The awarding of the first graduate degrees in 1950 was a tribute to the earlier efforts of these two men. 
The establishment of the Pharmaceutical Foundation in 1950 and the Pharmacy Extension Service in 1953 brought national recognition to the college. In its inspection report for 1956, the American Council on Pharmaceutical Education (ACPE) com­mended the college for being one of the few schools in the country to have developed a successful extension program. While the Advisory Council of the Pharmaceutical Foundation was concerned with procuring the funds necessary to support basic education as well as advanced research, the Pharmacy Extension Service aimed to bring the benefits of continuing education to pharmacists already in practice. 
As these accomplishments accumulated, the ACPE took note and improved the rating of the college. Although the rating had slipped from B to C in 1949, this setback had resulted from the deteriorating conditions prevailing at the time Burlage assumed the deanship. By 1951, the situation had improved enough to warrant a Class B rating, and in 1952 the college had gained status as a Class A institution. 
Capping the achievements of the college during these years was the acquisition of a home of its own. The inferior conditions prevailing for pharmacy studies from as early as 1894, when the first pharmacy professor, Dr. ]G\;mes G. Kennedy, retired, have already been detailed. Efforts to improve this situation had taxed the energies of both Cline and Gidley, but to little avail. At best, the college had been shunted from one location to another to try to improve its condition. Although the new Pharmacy Building was less than the ideal envisioned by the faculty, it was one of the best appointed structures of its kind in 1952. For the first time since the college had been relocated in Austin in 1927, all the faculty members were under one roof. 
In light of these accomplishments of his early years, the charge facing Burlage for the remainder of his term was to consolidate these gains and maintain the direction of the college toward con­tinued improvement. 
THE GRADUATE PROGRAM 
The establishment of the Master of Science degree in phar­macy in 1949 paved the way for greater advancements in phar­macy education in Texas. Although the next step, which was the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) degree in pharmacy, was not a new idea, only a few schools had thus far granted it. By 1950, however, fourteen schools had adopted the Ph.D. degree program, which was essential to the training of teachers for col­leges of pharmacy and scientists for industry. So inadequate were the number of such graduates in terms of manpower needs that a shortage of 300 to 500 teachers of pharmacy existed by 1947. 1 The rapid advances in medicinal research and manufac­turing that occurred during the postwar period created an in­creased demand for pharmaceutically trained individuals with higher degrees; the lucrative salaries offered by private industry only served to exacerbate the existing shortage of teachers. All of these factors increased the need to implement a doctoral program in pharmacy at The University of Texas. 
Student interest in such an offering had been exhibited as ear­ly as 1951. As a report from the dean's office noted: 
Because of our limited facilities, the college has not recruited stu­dents for [the master's degree program] ... ; however, three such degrees have been awarded and two more are expected to be awarded in August, 1951. At the present time, nine students are pursuing work toward this degree and the number would most 
1University of Texas, College of Pharmacy, "Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Phar­macy," 1951, College of Pharmacy Files, Records of the Office of the President, The University of Texas Archives, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter referred to as Pharmacy Files, UT Archives), p. 1. 
359
certainly increase if instruction leading to the Ph.D. was being of­fered, since a sizeable increase of persons interested in such a program have written us about it only to be informed that the College was not in a position to train them at the present time. 2 
The report concluded that, based on participation at colleges then offering the Ph.D. program, enrollment could quickly reach twenty-four graduate students and continue to rise to an es­timated capacity of fifty in the soon-to-be-completed building. 8 
The need for The University of Texas College of Pharmacy to offer such instruction was compounded by the fact that, in the South and Southwest, the Ph.D. degree was only offered by two schools-the universities of North Carolina and Florida.' The American Council on Pharmaceutical Education (ACPE), noting this fact, pointed out the following in the report of its visitation committee in 1949: "The University of Texas, with its established influence and large resources, is in the distinctive position to develop an important center for the graduate study of pharmacy. ''6 
With the need and demand for the Ph.D. program growing rapidly, the dean and his staff began plans for instituting the degree. Graduate work at the master's level was offered in the five fields recognized by the ACPE: pharmacy, pharmaceutical chemistry, pharmacy administration, pharmacognosy, and pharmacology. Doctoral programs were being considered for these fields, with minor work available through the departments of chemistry, bacteriology, zoology, botany, pure and applied mathematics and statistics, and physics, as well as the College of Business Administration.6 Laboratories in the Pharmacy Building were designed to accommodate the work of advanced graduate students, and the library's holdings of journals and special works of reference had been planned accordingly. Space had also been allotted to the college at the Off-Campus Memorial Research Center (now Balcones Research Center), 
21bid., p. 2. 
'Ibid. 
'Ibid. 
6lbid. 
6lbid., p. 3. 

where special laboratories and pilot-plant installations could be equipped at a later date. 7 
Of particular advantage for the development of a doctoral program was the availability of financial support for generarex­penses and research work from the Pharmaceutical Foundation. Although the foundation would require several years of fund­raising activities before the support could become substantial (see Appendix D), its very existence lent credence to the plans for advanced work and research. 
Lack of faculty members with doctoral degrees had once been an inhibiting factor in the growth of a graduate program, but Dean Burlage's recruitment efforts during the early years of his administration had increased the number considerably. By 1'954, faculty members were available to supervise doctoral instruction in all of the major fields: Gidley and Burlage in pharmacy, Charles 0. Wilson in pharmaceutical chemistry, Albers in phar­macognosy, John E. Davis in pharmacology, and A. Hamilton Chute of the College of Business Administration in pharmacy administration. Other faculty members holding the doctorate and therefore able to instruct in such a program included Gun­nar Gjerstad, William R. Lloyd, Frederick V. Lofgren, and Stanley G. Mittelstaedt. 
Therefore, in 1953 the College of Pharmacy petitioned the Graduate Council of the university to approve its request to offer the Doctor of Philosophy degree in pharmacy. After receiving a favorable committee report, this request was approved by the council in the fall of 1953 for specialization in the fields of phar­macy, pharmaceutical chemistry, pharmacognosy, and pharmacology.8 Final approval for the Ph.D. program in 1954 marked the culmination of efforts by the faculty spanning six years. 
So great was the demand for this degree that some students had begun doctoral studies under individually approved 
7lbid., p. 4. 
8University of Texas, College of Pharmacy, "Report of the College of Pharmacy of The 
University of Texas to the Texas Pharmaceutical Association, August 9, 1952, to July 20, 
1953, and July_20, 1953 to July 1954," Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
programs during the years 1952-53.9 The dean reported the fol­lowing year that three of these students had made substantial progress toward the completion of their programs and that in­creasing numbers of students were completing work for the M.S. degree. 10 Based on the experience of other universities, the faculty felt that enrollments at the master's level would increase noticeably with the opportunity for continued study that a doc­toral program would provide. 11 
The first Ph.D. degree was awarded in August of 1957 to Esther Jane Wood Hall in the field of pharmacy administration; this represented the first Ph.D. degree in the field to be awarded to a woman by an American university. Hall, who had been promoted from instructor to assistant professor of pharmacy ad­ministration in 1952, had received a three-year teaching fel­lowship from the American Foundation for Pharmaceutical Education that had allowed her to reduce her teaching assign­ments to half-time while pursuing the Ph.D. degree. Her work comprised an interdepartmental major with the College of Business Administration. The second Ph.D. degree was awarded in 1960 to Assistant Professor Vernon Green in pharmacology, and the third, in 1962 to James C. King in pharmacy. 
It is interesting to note that two out of three of the first Ph.D. degrees awarded were to faculty members. Due to the shortage of persons holding the degree, many of the faculty members first hired by Dean Burlage held only B.S. or M.S. degrees and utilized their spare time to complete further study. Among those faculty members who were awarded the degree elsewhere while on leave of absence from The University of Texas were William 
J. Sheffield (University of North Carolina, pharmacy, 1954), Robert G. Brown (The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, pharmacology, 1958), and Wallace L. Guess (Univer­sity of Washington, pharmacy, 1959). Although the faculty members of the College of Pharmacy were generally young and 
91bid. 
IOJbid. 
"University of Texas, College of Pharmacy, "Ph.D. in Pharmacy," n.d., Pharmacy 
Files, UT Archives. 
inexperienced, most showed a remarkable determination to suc­ceed in their chosen scholastic field. 
The development of graduate work and attendant research programs was slow and tedious because of insufficient financial support for equipment and assistantship stipends and research fellowships for students. Faculty research grants, however, were more readily available. Through the Pharmaceutical Founda­tion, S127, 100 in research grants had been made available to the college by 1962. The largest grant was for $107,500 from the Benjamin Clayton Foundation for Research, a grant held in cooperation with the Biochemical Institute of the university. 12 Grants were also received directly by the college from the Atomic Energy Commission for the establishment of an isotope laboratory to be used for instruction in this area, the National Institutes of Health for studies in pharmacognosy and for drug­plastic research, and the National Science Foundation for studies in historical pharmacy. In addition, funds were made available through the Excellence in Teaching Program on the campus and the University Research Institute for the establish­ment of an aerosol laboratory and support of research and graduate studies. Much of this was spent to acquire expensive special equipment that had heretofore been unobtainable. 18 Therefore, while grants had been scarce when Burlage arrived in 1947, they had become increasingly available by the time he retired in 1962. 
FIVE-YEAR UNDERGRADUATE 
CURRICULUM 

The advancement of the standard undergraduate degree in pharmacy to five years had long been anticipated by pharmacy educators. Gidley had seen this possibility in 1928 when the four-year B.S. degree in pharmacy was first introduced. At that time, many educators were predicting that a five-year course 
17University of Texas, College of Pharmacy, Progress and Prophecies: A Report ofthe College of PhaTTT111Cy (Austin: The University of Texas, 1962), p. 15. 
"Ibid., pp. 20-21. 
would be taught within a few years of that date, but these predic­tions failed to materialize; depression and war intervened to thwart these expectations as the country, in general, con­centrated on conserving manpower and resources. With the rapid development of the drug industry that followed in the wake of the postwar economic boom, however, the necessity for in­creased education in the pharmaceutical sciences became ap­parent to educators and representatives of private industry alike. Despite the great changes in the profession and industry, however, the idea of increasing the undergraduate pharmacy curriculum to five years was a subject of much controversy. 
The major argument in favor of the five-year program, 
summed up by Albers in an article published in The Longhorn Pharmacist, was that the rapid advancements in medical science since the inception of the four-year course necessitated an extra year of education to prepare the pharmacist in the basic natural and biological sciences so as to enable him to keep pace with medical technology. 14 In addition to the basic sciences, however, the practice of pharmacy was becoming more diversified as new specialties emerged. A four-year plan, which included general education and basic science courses in addition to professional pharmacy work, could not provide enough time to acquaint the student with the various possibilities of the profession. 
As logical as was the rationale for an expanded program, the arguments against the proposals were numerous. Albers enumerated some of the points against a five-year program: 
The mass of technical education acquired by the pharmacist in the present program is seldom put to use; only a small percent of the time of the pharmacist, on a national average, is devoted to professional activities and then only a small portion of his profes­sional activity consists in the actual compounding of prescrip­tions ... ; the pharmacist is ... primarily a merchandizer and secondly a distributor of ready-made prescriptions and as such requires little technical skill or knowledge; the manufacturers of these ready-made prescriptions, moreover, supply the physicians and pharmacists alike with technical information and literature 
1'Longhorn Pharmacist, November 1955, p. 6. 
concerning their respective specialties; the present four;.year course can be greatly improved and thus made to conform to the present day needs. 16 
These statements presented a rather bleak portrait of the phar­macist as little more than a clerk, a point of view that profes­sional pharmacy organizations and most educators had hoped that they had overcome by that time. 
The strongest argument against the proposed five-year schedule, however, was that it could be rendered unnecessary by revising and improving the four-year curriculum to consolidate much of the material and eliminate obsolete subjects. 18 Albers, who favored the five-year curriculum, did see merit in the argu­ment that there was still some extraneous material in the phar­macy curriculum that could be eliminated. On this point, he noted the following: 
Perhaps the proper analysis of the pharmacy curriculum would be to recognize the four-year curriculum as only a two-year phar­macy or technical course (comparable to the 4-year medical cur­riculum), since about 68 semester hours in the curriculum are devoted to non-pharmacy courses. The impending five-year course, then, could be considered or recognized as a three-year technical course, requiring two years of prepharmacy study. With such a background, the pharmacy student will have had an op­portunity to prove to himself and to others that he is ready for professional study. 17 
Many possibilities existed for incorporating additional technical training into a general curriculum, but the important fact was the general acceptance of the five-year calendar within phar­macy education circles. 
At a joint meeting of the American Council on Pharmaceutical Education (ACPE) and the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) in January of 1957, their representatives adopted a resolution that stated their desire "that no student beginning a pharmacy or prepharmacy curriculum in or after April 1960 be permitted to enroll in an academic program of less 
ulbid., p. 6. 
18Ibid., p. 12. 
17lbid., pp. 12-13. 

than five years. "18 By 1957, the question had become one of implementation rather than desirability; the group discussed the nature of the degree to be awarded for completion of the five-year program, concluding that it should be a baccalaureate degree and preferably designated as Bachelor of Pharmacy to make it a distinctive professional degree. A definitive regulation on the matter, however, was left to the discretion of the AACP. 19 
Contrary to the anticipated objections of the critics, the new curriculum was not intended to extend the technical training un­necessarily or to burden the student with unusable theories and outmoded ideas. A statement issued by the ACPE and AACP at their joint session attempted to clarify their position on this mat­ter: 
Every member college has, for its goals, good teaching and graduates who can begin a useful career in Pharmacy. Introduc­tory studies in the physical and biological sciences, mathematics and economics are fundamental to the professional applications of these in such subjects as Pharmacy, Pharmacology, Public Health and Management.... Whichever program pattern [for introductory courses] is adopted, it can be said with assurance that the kind and quantity of scientific courses will vary no more from college to college under the five year program, than they do now under the four year program. If a college of pharmacy has kept abreast of the recommendations and reports of Association committees during the past decade, the total number of hours which will be devoted to scientific and technical subjects in the five year program will need to vary only slightly from their pre­sent requirement. The additional time will be devoted to (1) improving effectiveness of teaching by better sequence and lower concentration; (2) increased attention to the business of phar­macy; and (3) broadening the education of the graduate by per­mitting more electives in the Arts and Humanities.20 
"University of Texas, College of Pharmacy, "Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the Of­ficers of the American Council on Pharmaceutical Education and Officers of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, Chicago, Illinois, January 9, 1957," in "Faculty Minutes of the College of Pharmacy, March 1, 1957," Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
"Ibid. 
10University of Texas, College of Pharmacy, "The Five Year Program for Pharmacy," in "Faculty Minutes of the College of Pharmacy, February 9, 1957," Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
The major purpose of the additional year was to allow presen­tation of a generalized education in addition to the scientific and technical training of the professional courses. Varying combina­tions were considered, such as one year of general studies and four years of technical courses or two and three years, respective­ly. The general aim was to achieve an equitable mix of the two aspects of study. The joint statement noted: 
Faculties now believe that they have a responsibility for the performance of their graduates as business men and as persons. The added material to be included in the additional year was recommended to remedy the neglect of these areas which a preoc­cupation with the science and technology of pharmacy had made necessary.31 
An atmosphere of general acceptance of the five-year program prevailed at the College of Pharmacy, with discussion centered around the method of presenting course material. The advantage of two years of prepharmacy work and three years of professional courses lay in the value of a concentrated technical program both for increased individual skill and in promoting better public rela­tions. Other schools around the country that had already adopted five-year plans had opted for either one year of general studies and four years of technical work or five years spent en­tirely under the direction of the professional school. Plans that gave four or five years to the professional sequence were more desirable because they produced closer coordination with service courses and ensured uniformity of quality in such classwork. They also enabled students to acquire the practical experience required for licensure over a longer period of time. 22 When the college finally adopted a five-year program in May of 1959, its plan followed a sequence of two preprofessional years followed by three years of professional studies. 28 
In order to ensure a thorough understanding of and com­pliance with the new requirements, the staff of the college drew 
211bid. 
22Ibid. 
21lJniversity of Texas, College of Pharmacy, "Faculty Minutes of the College of Phar­macy, May 9, 1959," Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
367
up detailed guidelines for the new procedures as well as inserting a special note in the course catalogue for the year preceding implementation of the new program. In addition, a special con­ference for prepharmacy advisors, offered through the Pharmacy Extension Service, was held on 6 and 7 July 1959 to acquaint high school and junior college counselors with these procedures. Thus, when the extended course went into effect in the fall of 1960, incoming students who would be required to graduate un­der the new curriculum had been informed of the change in procedures. Students who had matriculated prior to April 1960 were allowed to complete the necessary work in four years. Although the ACPE and AACP had indicated a preference for a professional Bachelor of Pharmacy degree, The University of Texas maintained the Bachelor of Science degree in pharmacy when the first students from the five-year program graduated in 
May of 1965. 
FACULTY 
Development of a premier faculty had long been a major problem confronting deans of the College of Pharmacy, made difficult due to the lack of postgraduate training. Although Burlage had achieved considerable success in this area, many factors contributed to the difficulty of the task of attracting and retaining the type of faculty necessary to a first-class institution. In his annual report for the 1956-57 academic year, Burlage out­lined some of these difficulties: 
One of the greatest needs of pharmacy, educationally, is qualified teachers. It is estimated that there is a shortage of 300-500 teachers with the doctorate degree and until these are available, all colleges and schools of pharmacy will be handicapped in developing curricula and graduate work of the highest standard. The College is faced with the shortage constantly especially in light of the fact that our salaries at the instructor and assistant professor ranks are below the median of salaries for these levels of­fered by the accredited colleges and schools of pharmacy. 24 
24H. M. Burlage, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1956-1957," Phar­macy Files, UT Archives. 
This shortage was attributable to several factors, the most im­portant of which was that graduate education had only recently become widely available. Therefore, the number of graduates was severely limited, and staff members possessing the Ph.D. degree were generally young and inexperienced. Second, the ex­cellent salaries available in the 1950s for pharmacists in the retail distribution of drugs, in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, and in medical sales compounded the difficulty facing univer­sities in attracting high-caliber graduate students. 26 As the an­nual report concluded: 
It becomes a primary problem to interest young B.S. graduates in pursuing graduate work involving an expenditure of time of 3-5 years. Also, the College has an unusually high percentage of ex­cellent students who are married and have children and cannot make the financial sacrifice. The present inducements such as teaching assistantships, research fellowships, etc., are far too low in remunerations, particularly with the depreciation of the dol­lar.26 
The dean noted the next year, 1958, that, because of the low salaries budgeted for the college over the years, the graduate program had been slower in developing than was originally an­ticipated.27 
This lack of funds was alleviated somewhat during the 1961-62 school year, when increased stipends and more satisfac­tory work loads for teaching assistants were approved by the ad­ministration. One particular difficulty that the faculty hoped the salary increases would mitigate was that of attracting graduate students as teaching assistants. Because of the low remuneration available in the past, some f acuity members, both in the college and around the campus, had encouraged the more promising graduate students to seek part-time positions as research scien­tists. The result had been a lack of highly qualified persons to fill the available teaching positions and, consequently, less compe­tent instruction for undergraduates. After 1961, when the college 
26lbid. 
211Ibid. 
27JI. M. Burlage, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1957-1958," Phar­macy Files, UT Archives. 
369 
was finally able to offer a competitive wage for such positions, the quality of the teaching assistants improved markedly. 28 
Although the acquisition of high quality faculty members was difficult, the college was able to obtain the long-term services of three such men during the decade from 1952 to 1962-Gunnar Gjerstad in 1953, Jaime N. Delgado in 1959, and Lee F. Worrell in 1 960. Although numerous other appointments were made during this period, staff turnover remained high as many of these people accepted appointments to higher, better-paid positions at other universities. 
Gunnar Gjerstad, a native of Norway, received his elementary and secondary education in his hometown of Haugesund. After graduating in 1941 with distinction from the Haugesund Gym­nasium (the equivalent of an American junior college), he entered the Institute of Pharmacy at the University of Oslo, where he received a pharmacy degree (similar to a bachelor's degree) in 1945 and a Candidatus Pharmaciae diploma (comparable to a master's degree) in 1946. Following honorable discharge from the armed services in the fall of 1948, he returned to the University of Oslo as a research scientist and instructor in galenical pharmacy and pharmaceutical chemistry. In 1951, the 
U.S. State Department awarded him a joint Fullbright/Smith­Hundt Grant to begin work toward the Ph.D. degree at Purdue University, where he also held a two-year fellowship from the Purdue Research Foundation. Although he did not receive the Ph.D. degree until 1954, he was appointed visiting professor of pharmacy at The University of Texas in 1953. Although the terms of his fellowship had stipulated that he return to Norway for several years after he had completed the requirements for the doctoral degree, Gjerstad was allowed to leave Norway almost immediately to return to Texas to assume a permanent position as assistant professor of pharmacognosy in the fall of 1954. In 1963, he was promoted to the rank of associate professor. Gjer­stad has taught courses at all levels of instruction, specializing in pharmacognosy and in the chemistry and biochemistry of 
28H. M. Burlage, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1961-1962," Phar­macy Files, UT Archives. 
Gunnar Gjerstad Jaime N. Delgado 
natural products, with his main research interest lying in the biosynthesis of alkaloids. 29 
In 1959, Jaime Nabor Delgado, a native of El Paso, Texas, was appointed assistant professor of pharmaceutical chemistry. Delgado was raised in El Paso, where he acquired his early education. In 1950, he entered The University of Texas College of Pharmacy, graduating in January of 1954 with honors. After completing work for the M.S. degree in pharmacy in 1955, he at­tended the University of Minnesota, where he received the Ph.D. degree in 1960. Returning to Texas after completing the major portion of his doctoral work, Delgado joined the faculty of the College of Pharmacy in 1959 as assistant professor of phar­maceutical chemistry. In 1963, he was promoted to associate professor, and in 1972, to full professor. Delgado's teaching specialty is medicinal chemistry, and his research interests in­clude the synthesis of organic medicinals, structure-activity relationship studies, natural products, mechanisms of drug­receptor interactions, anticholinergics, and anticonvulsants. Throughout his tenure, Delgado has been an active participant in college and university affairs as well as a prolific writer. He has served on numerous university, Graduate School, and col­lege committees, the most important being the Budget Council of the College of Pharmacy. He has also served as phar­maceutical-chemistry area coordinator. As graduate advisor, he has supervised thirteen successful doctoral candidates, more than any other member of the faculty. Several chapters that he has authored have appeared in standard textbooks in his field, and he was the first pharmacist from Texas to serve on the Revi­sion Committee of the United States Pharmacopeia. These efforts as well as his research capabilities have earned him local, state, and national recognition. 30 
One particular feature of the faculty of the College of Phar­macy at that time was the youth of most individuals. Largely because the college could not offer salaries sufficiently lucrative 
29Gunnar Gjerstad, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin (hereafter referred to as Office of the Dean of Pharmacy). 30Jaime N. Delgado, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
to attract established scholars, the majority of new faculty members had accepted their first appointments with The University of Texas. Consequently, more of these positions were at the level of assistant professor. In the spring of 1960, however, the college was successful in retaining the services of two es­tablished and well-known men from the University of Michigan, Lee Frank Worrell and John Autian. Worrell was appointed professor of pharmaceutical chemistry and a member of the graduate faculty, replacing Charles 0. Wilson, who had resigned the preceding year. A graduate of Purdue University, his main research interest was in pharmaceutical instrumenta­tion. Upon the retirement of Dean Burlage in 1962, Worrell was appointed to the deanship of the College of Pharmacy, two years after coming to Texas. Autian, who had received his doctorate from the University of Maryland in 1954, was named associate professor of pharmacy and also a member of the graduate faculty. His appointment filled the vacancy left by William R. Lloyd, who had accepted a position in private industry. Autian, who had received national recognition for his investigations of plastics in pharmacy, was named director of the Drug-Plastic Research Laboratory and the Toxicology Laboratory when they were organized in 1964.31 In 1967, however, the University of Tennessee offered him a joint appointment with the schools of pharmacy and dentistry, which he accepted; in 1975 he was selected as dean of the School of Pharmacy at the University of Tennessee. 
A number of other new faculty members served short terms under Dean Burlage. David Marshall Stuart, who had received the Ph.D. degree from the University of Wisconsin, served as as­sistant professor of pharmaceutical chemistry from 1955 to 1958 before accepting a position at Oregon State College. Er-Hung Djao was the second professor of Chinese descent to serve on the college faculty. After receiving the Ph.D degree from the Univer­sity of Washington, Djao taught at the Detroit Institute of 
81H. M. Burlage, "Annual Report to the President and Faculty, 1960-1961," Phar­macy Files, UT Archives. 
Technology before becoming assistant professor of phar­macognosy in Austin, where he served from 1956 until 1961. Frank Peter Cosgrove, who had completed his doctoral work at Ohio State University in 1953, served as assistant professor and later associate professor of pharmacy from 1958 until 1968, at which time he accepted the deanship ofpharmacy at Idaho State University. Alex Berman, from the University of Wisconsin, was associate professor of pharmacy between 1961 and 1968 and chief pharmacist at the Student Health Center during the 1 961-62 academic year; in 1968, he accepted a position with the University of Cincinnati. All four of these men were researchers and teachers of great potential and remained with The Univer­sity of Texas College of Pharmacy for only short periods of time before moving on to other academic positions. 
A sense of continuity in the College of Pharmacy was main­tained by the long-term dedication and administrative achieve­ments of Dorothy Jane Lidiak, who served first as administrative secretary and later as executive assistant to the dean from 1951 until her early retirement in 1970. Lidiak, who held a Bachelor of Business Administration degree, tended to the daily ad­ministrative affairs of the college, thereby freeing the dean for long-range planning, public relations, and administrative work. The profession of pharmacy was a common bond in the Lidiak family: her husband, a graduate of the College of Pharmacy, practiced in Austin for many years. From this background, Lidiak developed an understanding of the interrelationships of the profession, which proved indispensable to the college and the dean. In her position as executive assistant, she served as an ef­fective liaison between the administration, faculty, students, and alumni. As a warm and intuitive person, she was able to resolve many of the conflicts arising from the daily interactions of a growing faculty and student body. 32 
In spite of the tremendous increase in new, young faculty members, the older members remained active throughout most of the 1950s. By the end of the 1950s, however, after many years 
32Longhorn Pharmacist, December 1951, p. 6. 
of service, two long-time educators were ready to retire. At The University of Texas, a professor must retire from active teaching at age sixty-five but may elect to continue on a modified basis for another five years or more with the approval of the administra­tion. Gidley had retired from the deanship in 194 7 and con­tinued teaching on modified service until 1957, when he became professor emeritus of pharmacy, thereby ending a teaching career that had spanned forty-nine years. In recognition of his years of dedication, the Texas Pharmaceutical Association (TPA) honored him at its annual banquet in 1957, the Longhorn Pharmaceutical Association presented him with an oil portrait, the Alumni Association of the College of Pharmacy established the W. F. Gidley Appreciation Fund, and the editors of the Southern Pharmaceutical ] ournal featured him as their Man of the Month. In its feature on him, the Southern Pharmaceutical Journal described him as "a tender, kindly man" and "a great teacher because of his own continuing search for knowledge.' '88 In many ways, the editors captured the essence of Dean Gidley when they noted: 
Gidley-graduates of the University of Texas retain a warm ap­preciation of him as a friend_ and preceptor. He was sympathetic to a fault .... and many a graduate will recall his distress at be­ing forced to throw any real obstacle in their way toward gradua­tion." 
As the journal article concluded: "Few will have more under­standing teachers. "85 Gidley died in Austin on 18 May 1965 at the age of eighty-three. 
William R. Neville, who had joined the faculty with Gidley in 1924, retired in 1959 after thirty-five years of teaching, the last eight of them on modified service. After twenty-two years as a pharmacist in Austin, 1902-1924, Neville had assumed respon­sibility for the prescription-compounding courses of the College of Pharmacy. Because he only possessed the Ph.G. degree, which had been the standard credential when he graduated from the 
AStJuihern Pluirmauutical Journal 49 (August 1957): 10. 
"Ibid. 
"Ibid. 


Dorothy Jane Lidiak Billy B. Wylie 
college in 1902, Neville had remained at the level of associate professor for most of his tenure. In 1950, however, the university administration made an exception at the suggestion of Dean Burlage and awarded Neville the rank of full professor of phar­macy one year before he went on modified service. Neville passed away in 1962 at the age of eighty-one. 38 
EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENT AND THE 
STUDENT HEALTH CENTER 

Although practical experience as a prerequisite to licensure had once been a requirement of the State Board of Pharmacy, the revised pharmacy law of 1929 eliminated such a requirement in favor of graduation from an accredited school of pharmacy. The board, with authorization from the legislature, began to re­quire that all students entering pharmacy after January 1953 have completed one year of practical experience prior to taking the licensure examination. Many other states have maintained such a regulation, and Texas pharmacists were not granted reciprocity until they had attained such experience. In many ways, the experience requirement paralleled the internship served by all medical students or in-service training for teachers (student teaching). 
The editorial staff of The Longhorn Pharmacist interviewed Howell Jordan, president of the State Board of Pharmacy, and reported his explanation for the establishment of the experience requirement: 
First, this will offer the student an opportunity to obtain practical knowledge of his chosen field prior to the time when he assumes the larger responsibility of a registered pharmacist. It will permit the graduate to concentrate his efforts on rendering the finest professional services without the distraction of adjusting to an en­tirely new environment and routine. As there is no provision in Texas law for working as assistant pharmacist, as in some states, this training is a method of allowing a similar status in the areas other than actual prescription work. 
UUniversity of Texas, "In Memoriam: William Rust Neville, Jr., February 28, 1963," Documents and Minutes of the General Faculty, The University of Texas Archives, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas. 
The second reason is that this regulation will facilitate reciprocation for licenses with other states .... The fact that we may obtain this experience prior to graduation means that we are able to complete in four years that which in some states would re­quire five. 87 
The actual work required would amount to the equivalent of about one thousand hours of employment in a community or hospital pharmacy, with time spent on fountain or delivery work excluded. The experience could be obtained by working four hours a day, five days a week, for one year or through ac­cumulating hours spent on summer employment. Forms were to be provided by the State Board of Pharmacy on which to notify the agency of the beginning and termination of each assignment. Although the requirement might at first seem to work a hardship on many students, the editors assured their readers that such was not the case: 
This regulation . . . was . . . meant . . . to make each of us better prepared to accept the responsibilities of our profession, and to be able to hang up our new sheepskins with a greater confidence in our own abilities. 88 
Students were required to locate their own work assignments during these years, with little monitoring by the board or the col­lege. Although many students received excellent training from their preceptors, the experience was not uniform, but varied from student to student. In later years, the dean's office under­took the administration of the internship program, as it came to be known, making this experience an integral part of the phar­macy curriculum. 
The renamed Student Health Center Pharmacy had long provided prescription-compounding services for the university, but with the passage in 1953 of a law permitting students to work in the Student Health Center Pharmacy, its activities expanded greatly. College of Pharmacy students were now able to obtain through dispensing work in the center a portion of the practical 
37Longhom Pharmacist, November 1954, pp. 3-4. 
38lbid., p. 5. 

experience required by the State Board of Pharmacy. The super­vision of these students fell to the chief pharmacist of the center, who held a joint appointment with the College of Pharmacy and instructed students in dispensing practice. Louise Pope, who served from 1952 to 1955, was designated as lecturer in phar­macy in addition to her duties as chief pharmacist. Kenneth E. Tiemann, who succeeded her and served until 1961, was ap­pointed as lecturer and then promoted to special instructor of pharmacy. Billy Burben Wylie, who was appointed as lecturer in 1962, has moved through the faculty ranks to the position of clinical assistant professor of pharmacy, the title he currently holds. He also continues as Chief of Pharmacy Services, Student Health Center. 
VISITING LECTURER SERIES 
Changes in the pharmaceutical and medical sciences occurred with such rapidity in the years following 1940 that the College of Pharmacy found it necessary to supplement regular instruction through noteworthy presentations to students, graduates, and the faculty. The Visiting Lecturer Series, which was held from 1958 through 1964, featured experts from various areas of impor­tance to pharmaceutical education who were brought to the Austin campus to present lectures on ideas, interpretations, and conclusions in their areas of expertise. The intention of the faculty in initiating this series was that the lecturers would in­spire qualified students to consider the opportunities open to them, beyond the practice of community pharmacy, in graduate study, teaching, research, and other fields. For the graduate stu­dents and faculty, the various lecturers were intended to open avenues for improving undergraduate and graduate instruction and to stimulate ideas for the conduct of basic research. 89 
Speakers were brought to the university throughout the year to present three lectures. The first two presentations were directed toward the faculty, graduate students, and pharmacy graduates registered for the professional seminar; a third was 
39" First Annual Visiting Lecturer Series," Pharmacy Extension Service Bulletin, Summer 1958, p. l. 
directed especially to members of the junior and senior classes. Each speech was then published through the Pharmacy Extension Service Bulletin and distributed to a wide range of interested par­ties. This program received considerable support from the faculty, students, and graduates, as well as national and worldwide recognition. In 1964, the Visiting Lecturer Series, as a formally scheduled program, was abandoned in favor of a more informal method of hosting guest presentations. 40 
TEXAS JOURNAL OF PHARMACY 
Since the time The Longhorn Pharmac£st was first printed as a mimeographed newsletter in April of 1941, a number of other publications have been sponsored by the College of Pharmacy. Among these have been the Bulletin of the College of Pharmacy, the Pharmacy Extens£on Service Bullet£n, The Longhorn Pharmacist (which later became a regularly issued journal of the Longhorn Phar­maceutical Association), and various newsletters of the Alumni Association of the College of Pharmacy. In an attempt to com­bine the publications of these diverse organizations, the Texas journal of Pharmacy was first issued in 1960 as ''a voice of the stu­dent body, the faculty, the alumni of the college and others" who wished to contribute to its columns. 41 Scientific and professional articles appeared along with a column by the dean, reports of student and alumni organizations, and general news from the college. In its first issue, the editors expressed their hopes for it: "Contents will be of high caliber and will serve as a stimulus to good pharmacy reporting which is so urgently needed. "42 
The publication of the Texas]ournal of Pharmacy was a result of the combined efforts of a broad section of faculty and students. The position of managing editor was held by the dean, and the director of the Pharmacy Extension Service and the secretary­treasurer of the Alumni Association of the College of Pharmacy served as associate editors. Faculty representation came through 
40Progress and Prophecies, pp. 17-20. 
41 Texas journal of Pharmacy 1 (Winter 1960): 2. 
421bid. 

the journal's Board of Review of Scientific Publications, con­sisting of three members of the faculty. The board selected scien­tific articles for publication in the journal. Students were represented by a student editor and the presidents of all official college organizations and all classes in the college, who served as assistant editors. This journal was issued quarterly and was published from the winter 1960 issue through autumn of 1964. 
Although the journal was conceived as a long-term attempt "to bring to the pharmaceutical industry of Texas a professional and scientific publication, which previously has been sadly lack­ing in the pharmaceutical literature of the state of Texas," th~ venture lasted less than five years. •3 In a farewell editorial, the editorial staff of the journal cited some of the pitfalls that had been encountered: 
Although the journal has received national recognition, a number of factors have made necessary its discontinuance. These factors include the inability to inculcate in the minds of a majority of the students in pharmacy the importance of association membership and their support of its student publication, indifference on the part of some of the faculty of the College in the effort, lack of sup­port on the part of the industry, a general lack of interest in such a publication on the part of many of the pharmacists of Texas, sharp increases in the costs of publication, and frustrations en­countered in trying to meet publication schedules. 44 
Thus, although initial interest in the publication had been high, support slackened eventually to such an extent that continued publication became unfeasible for the only scientific and profes­sional pharmaceutical journal ever to be published within the state of Texas. This, unfortunately, has been the path of many other such publications in the field of pharmacy. 
ACCREDITATION RATINGS 
1956 
In the examination by its inspection committee in 1952, the American Council on Pharmaceutical Education had been 
43 Texas j oumal of Pharmacy 5 (Autumn 1964) : 132. 
"Ibid. 

critical of certain aspects of the curriculum, most notably the content and illogical sequence of courses and the lack of coor­dination between the physical and biological sciences. The com­mittee had then noted that pharmacognosy should be taught concurrently with organic chemistry and that organic phar­maceutical chemistry should be expanded to encompass two semesters. The committee had also felt that obsolete material cluttered up a number of courses and had advised elimination of this material as well as better coordination and integration in other areas of instruction. "5 
In its 1956 report the examiners found the curriculum, in general, to be ''substantially equivalent to those of other Colleges of Pharmacy having 4-year programs. ""6 Although not all of the weaknesses delineated in the earlier report had been corrected, the committee recognized that considerable effort had been ex­pended to bring the college into closer accord with ACPE stan­dards. Therefore, after due consideration, the committee decided that the college complied with ACPE standards for a Class A rating and should be so designated. "7 Thus, after a decade and a half of fluctuating credentials, the College of Pharmacy finally regained its original designation as a school of the first class. 
When the ACPE committee revisited the Austin campus in 1961, a few deficiencies were still noted, but recent achievements were also commended. Singled out for special commendation was the Pharmacy Extension Service. The ACPE report stated: 
This College is fortunate in having a full-time extension depart­ment for pharmacy . . .. Because of the importance of continuing education and because of the geographical size of a state such as Texas, the examiners wish to commend this University for this forward looking step that they have taken. '8 
"American Council on Pharmaceutical Education, "Report on The University of Texas College of Pharmacy," 7 March 1956, Office of the Dean of Pharmacy, p. 9. 
"Ibid., p. 8. 
47Jbid., p. 11. 
"American Council on Pharmaceutical Education, "Report on The University of Texas College of Pharmacy," 11October1961, Office of the Dean of Pharmacy, p. 11. 
The unsatisfactory conditions within the college were perceived as ( 1) the lack of classrooms in the building, (2) the difficulty the college had encountered in developing a strong graduate and research program, and (3) the need for more research equipment. A brief review of these three points gives a clue to the problems that would face the faculty and staff of the college in the next decade. 
The physical facilities of the college received hearty approval from the ACPE committee, which deemed them "unusually well planned" and "adequate" up to that time "for undergraduate laboratory instruction and offices for faculty members. "'9 The committee, however, anticipated the possibility that the college might soon outgrow its building because of the lack of any provi­sion for classroom space. As the inspection report noted: 
The activities at the undergraduate level have become somewhat extended and appear to be growing still further which may tax the provisions for such undergraduate instruction in the not too distant future. If the graduate program should increase in size, a question about which there is some doubt, the amount of space may become even less adequate and particularly if the staff should develop project research to a material extent as is happen­ing in many colleges of pharmacy in the country.60 
This criticism of inadequate space, despite the relative newness of the building, came as no surprise to the faculty. The university administration had been pressed by the college to recommend to the board of regents that the deleted classroom wings, as en­visioned in the original design, be finished. The dean and University President Wilson, however, were at loggerheads over the matter. 
Space would become a particular problem if the graduate program expanded very greatly over the 1961-62 enrollment of ten. The inspection report observed that the graduate program had not registered much success in attracting students, al­though two Ph.D. degrees had been awarded and three more were expected to be granted shortly. The committee attributed 
491bid., p. 7. 
501bid. 

part of the difficulty in attracting students to the "somewhat isolated location" and to the fact that the university required a heavy teaching commitment from graduate assistants. 51 Another factor that served to inhibit the development of the graduate program was mentioned: 
Because the College has been only professionally oriented to the undergraduate program in the past, it seems to find it difficult to convince some parts of the University administration that the College is serious in its attempt to get research grants and build a stronger graduate program. The release of more University funds for needed and carefully selected equipment would help convince others of seriousness of purpose also. 52 
This lack of the equipment necessary for extensive research ac­tivity had long been a shortcoming of the college program. Although the supply of apparatus had increased since the time of the last examination, the college had not resolved this dis­crepancy, and the shortage of supplies had been exacerbated by a general increase in enrollment. The college had recently added a radioisotopes laboratory (funded largely though the Atomic Energy Commission) an aerosol laboratory, and a drug-plastic laboratory. These operations added greatly to the potential of the college in graduate instruction and research capabilities but placed further demands on the already sparse equipment budget. Despite these handicaps, the inspection committee found the faculty "well trained and eager to strengthen its position," and although "the morale... appeared to be good in general," the difficulties that the staff had had in bringing its graduate program "into fruition and strengthening the research program" had been "somewhat hard on morale. "53 
Always keeping a critical eye on curriculum content, the in­spectors found several inadequacies in the new five-year program but generally viewed the undergraduate courses to be sound and well within ACPE guidelines. They did make the following recommendation: 
61lbid., p. 10. 
12Ibid., p. 11. 
68lbid., pp. 8-9. 

Since some of the members of the staff are relatively new and the five-year program is still new, ... the faculty [should] give seri­ous study to the curriculum over the next year prior to making any substantial changes rather than to correct the curriculum in bits and pieces. The examiners feel certain that careful study of the curriculum by the faculty can lead to a more satisfactory program than the one currently at hand.64 
• 
Upon learning that Dean Burlage planned to retire at the end of the academic year 1961-62, the inspection committee gave some thought to the effect this would have on the college. Itcom­mended the dean for his "fine stewardship," which the commit­tee felt had led the college to its present position and recom­mended: "In the interest of continuing the momentum which has been gained the staff should be giving some serious attention now to directions that they believe the College should take in the immediate future. "55 Since the college had managed to overcome the difficulties that had once endangered its accreditation, the committee expressed the following hope: 
[that] the faculty will take the opportunity to delineate carefully the aims, hopes and aspirations for the College and take stock of its needs in order to attain its objectives so that the College can continue to grow as it has in the past. It is expected that annual reports to the Council will continue to show progress in the various phases of the program of the College of Pharmacy. 66 
A LOOK TO THE FUTURE 
As the faculty began to look to the future and a new dean, Burlage reviewed his fifteen years of administration in a booklet entitled Progress and Prophecies: A Report of the College ofPharmacy. A brief examination of this work will serve as a recapitulation of what had transpired during the years 1947-62 and the prospects he foresaw at the time of his retirement, which gave an indication of the difficulties and achievements that lay in store for the col­lege in the next decade. 
Reviewing the conditions prevailing when he assumed the deanship, he wrote: 
5'lbid., p. 10. 
55lbid., pp. 11-12. 
56lbid., p. 13. 

In 1947, physically the College was scattered over the campus in five buildings, with very poor laboratory and office facilities; the student-teacher ratio was entirely too great for the then available staff of nine full-time staff members to handle; with few exceptions, the faculty did not have the advanced academic train­ing that is necessary for a professional college; and the library was very inadequate. 67 
The college at this time was threatened with loss of accreditation unless improvements were quickly implemented. By 1962, it had regained its reputation for providing sound professional educa­tion and was also showing signs of developing into a research in­stitution. Some of the factors contributing to this progress were listed: 
(1) 
Gradual strengthening of the faculty in most areas in spite of inadequate salaries and teaching loads; (2) improvement of the undergraduate curriculum; (3) improved physical facilities; ( 4) improvement of library holdings; (5) gradual addition of scientific equipment; ( 6) the formation of the Pharmaceutical Foundation; 

(7) 
the establishment of the Pharmacy Extension Service; (8) the Visiting Lecturers Series; and (9) gradual development of graduate program and research.68 


These changes within the College of Pharmacy, however, barely kept pace with the spectacular development of the phar­maceutical industry during the postwar decade. Research and discovery progressed at such a rapid rate that the medical dis­coveries since 1 940 outranked those of all previous medical history. So effective were these advancements in reducing the scourge of contagious diseases that the youth of the 1950s were scarcely aware of the epidemics that had plagued their parents' generation. As Burlage stated, "There are too many Americans, and certainly too many citizens of our world, who do not yet have even minimal care, but the very fact that among a majority of Americans today adequate health care is taken-for-granted is some testimony to the great strides forward in medicine in the last few years. "59 
57Progress and Prophecies, pp. 5-6. 
58lbid. 
59lbid., p. 25. 

In order to adapt the curriculum to the changing nature of pharmacy, the faculty polled a cross section of professionals in an attempt to determine anticipated changes and ways in which this challenge to education could best be met. On the basis of these responses, projections were formulated concerning phar­maceutical practice of the future; the nature of the industry; coming developments in research and manufacturing; and the relationship of population growth to the need for pharmacists. The report of these projections was included in Burlage's booklet; a look at this report gives a fairly accurate description of what the industry and profession would be in the decade to come. 
By 1962 pharmaceutical practice had changed drastically from apothecary techniques that "Daddy" Cline had taught. 
Anyone even casually aware of the tremors and trends in the medical professions ... knows that the random stock, small scale, jack-of-all-trades "corner drugstore" is, if not a thing of the past, a rarity of the future. Medicine, like everything else in the vast "mixed economy" of the United States is becoming "big busi­ness," a highly technical, highly competitive, highly professional, and moving "business. "60 
Two replacements for the corner drugstore were envisioned. The registered pharmacist would either operate in "vast merchandising marts featuring prefabricated pharmaceutical products and fully-equipped for professional services," or he would be employed in "high quality professional centers featur­ing top-flight specialists, expert compounding, and fast, around­the-clock service with highly-trained pharmacists keeping as up­to-date as physicians on the latest medical developments. "81 In whichever situation the pharmacist sought employment, the trend would be toward pharmacies that emphasized professional services rather than general merchandise: 
Most pharmacists will be occupied more with high-level profes­sional work and less with extraneous merchandising, although the need for broader managerial skills may be greater. The future 
60lbid., p. 27. 
811bid., pp. 27-28. 

389 
should demand more $pecially-trained pharmacists for retail groups, for hospital pharmacies, for manufacturing, for medical sales work, and for research. The pharmacist's meal ticket will thus be his professional specialty but he will need more com­munication skills and the "manager" will need more "generalist" abilities in a world of bigness than were ever needed before. 82 
With an increasing emphasis on research in all sectors of the American economy, demand would increase for pharmacy graduates in the areas of research and production in the lucrative business of pharmaceutical manufacturing.68 The resulting changes in pharmaceutical products would be substantial: 
The increasing emphasis on research will result in new and bet­ter products, specifically tailored to various conditions. As described above, more "prefabricated" prescriptions are being manufactured and the physician is demanding them more and more. Competition for more efficient drugs will be accelerated. Most pharmaceuticals are being developed and sold by one or a few manufacturers as prescription specialties. Product research as it must be conducted today and in the future necessarily involves fundamental research. University centers are therefore becoming the hubs rather than the spokes of research enterprise in the nation.64 
The implications of this increasing emphasis on research for the pharmacy labor market would include a redirection of employment opportunities. Industrial research laboratories would absorb more pharmaceutical scientists with specialized training, and the retail pharmacist would be expected to have in­timate knowledge of the uses and misuses of the myriad of new drugs. In many ways, the biggest changes to come would be felt by the retail pharmacist, who would be "the best-trained and most sophisticated 'middleman' in the American economy" and "the center of the increasingly 'automated,' 'prefabricated,' specialized and research-dependent medical team. "66 Thus, there would be less demand for retail pharmacists in relation to the population, but a growing demand for specially trained 
62lbid., p. 30. 
68lbid., p. 32. 
64lbid., pp. 32-33. 
66lbid., p. 33. 

pharmacists in the larger merchandising establishments and in manufacturing. 
In the survey conducted by the faculty, an official in the phar­maceutical industry foresaw the following profile for future careers: 
(1) 
Need for a graduate with a better grounding in phar­macology, organic chemistry, etc., and less emphasis on compounding-thus more of a scientific pharmacist is needed and less of an apothecary artisan. 

(2) 
Need for highly trained "formulation pharmacists" in the research laboratories of the pharmaceutical manufacturers­more graduate training will be expected for this endeavor. 

(3) 
Need for hospital pharmacists with a combination of skills in retail and manufacturing pharmacy and special abilities in ad­ministration.66 


Such a trend involved more highly specialized pharmacists and less commercially oriented small businessmen. Indications were that, to survive with their professional status intact, pharmacists of the future would need to revise their "shopkeeper viewpoints" and realize their broad public responsibilities as highly trained members of the health-care team. "Good pharmaceutical service in the future will be much more dependent on mental skill and less on physical skill techniques. "87 
The trend toward automation of many aspects of modern life contained threats as well as promises for the pharmacist. This "automated" future could bring greater prestige and more plea­sant working conditions to the pharmacist. On the other hand, it could lead toward the development of a profession caught between prefabricated drug products and a physician­dominated medical-care establishment or to a government­directed practice. 
[The trend of] "big business" in drug manufacturing and "big advertising" as well as the rise of more "automation" and "self­service" puts the professional pharmacist on the defensive. The public demand for lower cost and more responsible and publicly 
•
Ibid., p. 34. 
"Ibid., p. 36. 


•
Ibid., p. 37. 


controlled medical care puts the entire health-care team on the defensive.69 Government control of the profession, the report noted, would be unnecessary if pharmacists would take the initiative in regulating themselves. The following factors were of major con­cern to the profession: 
(a) The tremendous volume of drugs which are being handled outside of normal channels-manufacturer supplanting the phar­macy, (b) drugs for self-medication, (c) insurance and welfare programs influencing distribution patterns and threatening more government or other external control, (d) modern advertising methods, unchallenged and unrestricted, cheering on the tenden­cies toward self-diagnosis, self-medication, short-cut palliatives, and non-professional medical care, ( e) archaic and non­reciprocal state examining, (f) prescription discount houses emphasizing cost over care and pharmaceutical services. 70 
Governmental control of medicine had already been partially successful by 1962. Pharmacists feared that, if insurance and welfare programs became means of distributing drugs, the danger of governmental ownership of dispensaries in hospitals would arise, which could easily threaten the existence of com­munity pharmacies. Another area that invited governmental regulation was drug manufacturing and sales, an area already subject to numerous and complex laws governing the labeling, standardization, and marketing of drugs. Developments con­tributing to this possibility included the gradual elimination of the pharmacist as a compounder through the manufacture of prepackaged medicines, as well as the need to control narcotics, barbiturates, and other dangerous drugs, which had brought about changes in the processing of medicines. The consequences of leaving these trends unchecked were viewed ominously: 
It is feared by many that the influence of government in phar­macy will be of such a nature that either a major war or depres­sion would undoubtedly give us outright state medicine. It is clear that unless the retail pharmacy profession is well-policed and well-organized it will be largely at the mercy of such influence. 71 
"Ibid., p. 38: 
10Ibid., p. 39. 
11Ibid., p. 40. 

The report concluded that the most action that the phar­macists could take to maintain a proper professional environ­ment would be to work for more stringent federal drug-control laws. The prevention of the sale of drugs to the public without the benefit of trained medical advice (i.e., over-the-counter products) was considered to be in the best interest of the con­sumer; the unrestricted advertising of such products only served to increase the demand for such potentially dangerous items. Failure to promulgate adequate controls could result in the pas­sage of laws that might be impracticable, inequitable, or tend to lower the pharmacists' professional standing. 
The challenges to the profession are clear. They must be met by the thoughtful and concerted efforts of all the profession in the public interest or unenlightened intervention by government in the name of an external "public interest" might prevail and bring down the professional walls around the heads of us all. 72 
This quest for higher standards in the profession had had a direct impact on colleges of pharmacy throughout the country, as seen in the inauguration of five-and six-year undergraduate programs. "In increasing the quantity of time available for un­dergraduate instruction it is hoped that the quality of graduates will rise concomitantly. "73 The expansion of such programs and curricula, however, raised important questions concerning the role that the educational community would be required to play in the advancement of the profession; the report concluded that the answers to these questions would determine the role of col­leges of pharmacy at both state and national levels in the years to come. 
12Ibid., p. 41. 73lbid. 
PART IV 

The College and a Changing 
Profession, 1962-1972 


CHAPTER FIFTEEN: 	Reeva!uation of Pharmacy Education, 


1962-19(56 
THE PENDING RETIREMENT OF Dean Burlage, to be effective 1 September 1962, raised numerous questions concern­ing which direction the college would take over the next decade. These concerns included the role the college would play in regard to the demands of the profession, the quality and content of courses offered, and the need to avoid duplication of subjects offered by other departments. The answers to these and other questions would, of course, depend on the experience and view­point of the new dean. During the 1961-62 academic year, con­siderable discussion of these questions occurred among faculty members in pharmacy and allied fields and the university ad­ministration. 
During this time, an ad hoc committee was appointed to review and recommend candidates for the deanship. Members included Lee F. Worrell and Wallace L. Guess of the pharmacy faculty and representatives of the microbiology, chemical engineering, and history faculties. Henry R. Henze, professor of chemistry and former faculty member of the College of Phar­macy, served as chairman of the committee. Because of the far­reaching significance of the appointment, a panel of outside con­sultants was retained to advise on candidates who might not per­sonally be known to the committee members. These consultants 
395 

Changing Profession 
included a representative of the American Council on Phar­maceutical Education, two prominent pharmacy deans, and two representatives of the drug industry.1 
In the selection of the dean, two quite different approaches were possible. On one hand, an outstanding pharmaceutical educator capable of presenting his own plan of development for the college could be selected. On the other hand, a dean could be selected who was suited to continue the policies currently in operation.2 Eventually, the ad hoc committee reached a unanimous conclusion about the role of the incoming dean: 
[He] must be given the same degree of responsibility for, and freedom in making, changes as was given Dean Burlage. It seems clear to us that in selecting the successor, the Administration will be making decisions concerning the place in both undergraduate and graduate instruction which the College of Pharmacy shall oc­cupy during the near future. 3 
Although the committee agreed on the type of administrator to be sought, the question of background and orientation raised considerable debate. Some of the faculty members believed that a dean should hold a baccalaureate degree in pharmacy and, preferably, a Ph.D. degree in one of the areas of pharmaceutical instruction. Others were reluctant to place such stringent limita­tions on the background of the person selected. Nevertheless, the committee in general tended to prefer someone with solid specialization in and orientation toward the field of pharmacy rather than a dean more oriented to administrative matters.' 
Despite this disagreement over the academic orientation of the new dean, the majority of the faculty as well as the committee members believed that a distinct reorganization of the ad­ministration of the college was in order. The position had grown so complex after Burlage had assumed the deanship in 194 7 that 
1]. R. Smiley to H. R. Henze, 7 September 1961, College of Pharmacy Files, Records of the Office of the President, The University of Texas Archives, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter referred to as Pharmacy Files, UT Archives) 
2Henze to Smiley, 9 September 1961, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
3Henze to Smiley, 21 March 1962, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
4Henze to Smiley, 20 November 1961, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
one person could not fulfill all the duties that had previously fal­len to the dean. One alternative was to appoint an associate dean to care for the details of undergraduate instruction, with a senior dean to work with the faculty and "to raise the graduate instruc­tion to the level of that in natural science in this university. "5 Another alternative was to appoint a dean whose chief respon­sibility would be to provide administrative leadership, with an associate dean to develop the graduate program. In the end, the committee decided that such a decision should best be left to the person selected as dean. 
Determination of the appropriate development of pharmacy at the university was a matter delegated by President]. R. Smiley to the selection committee. In a letter to Committee Chairman Henze, Smiley wrote: 
As the State University, we obviously have had certain obliga­tions to our constituents in this field, but I am sure the committee will want to consider carefully the future scope and form of these obligations. Would our best contribution be to undertake to train only the practitioner, or should we go beyond this level and place increasing emphasis upon graduate education and research in Pharmacy? I also hope that the committee will carefully re­examine the question of offering in the College of Pharmacy basic natural science courses which might be available in the College of Arts and Sciences.6 
Smiley presented the committee with another possibility­disconcerting to those who had striven to build a strong college-as to the future of the college. He broached the idea that the college might be phased out due to competition from new schools of pharmacy at the University of Houston and Texas Southern University in Houston, both in close proximity to the university's burgeoning medical center in Houston. 7 
Ultimately, the committee, in consultation with the ad­ministration, concluded that the principal obligation of the Col­lege of Pharmacy was to train professional pharmacists, but that the graduate program should also be encouraged and brought 
61bid. 
8Smiley to Henze, 15 September 1961, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
7lbid. 

up to the curricular and performance standards of other branches of the natural sciences. Parallel to this policy was the determination that the teaching efforts of the college should not duplicate courses already offered through the College of Arts and Sciences and the College of Business Administration. Norman Hackerman, vice-president and provost of the university, ex­plained the administration's decision on the future of the college when he wrote to Henze: 
In summary, it is clear that we anticipate the College of Phar­macy will remain on this campus and that it will continue to serve its by now historic purpose of turning out professionally compe­tent pharmacists.8 
With these fundamental questions resolved, the selection com­mittee began the long process of reviewing the list of forty-seven names submitted by various persons, both on the campus and off. After screening candidates and consulting with the phar­macy faculty, the committee arrived at the names of four among whom was Worrell, professor of pharmaceutical chemistry in the college. The selection committee wanted to retain Worrell as a member, feeling he was invaluable for his personal knowledge of and acquaintance with many of the persons under consideration. In order to retain his services while guaranteeing him all fairness as a candidate, the selection committee decided to consider his name separately from those of the off-campus candidates. 
As a consultant to the selection committee, Dean Burlage ex­pressed his concern over the pending nomination: I hope that the dean selected will carry on the advancement which I feel has been accomplished under my deanship, and that he will be able to develop, which I have been unable to do, the graduate and research programs of the College by convincing our faculty colleagues, the administration and the Board of Regents that support of such programs in the pharmaceutical and medical sciences should be on a par with the support for space, electronics, and other technological sciences, since mankind can­not fully enjoy the contributions of the latter unless it in itself is healthy and also lives in a healthy mental, social and economic environment.9 
8Norman Hackerman to Henze, 28 December 1961, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 9H. M. Burlage to Henze, 7 March 1962, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
Because the College of Pharmacy was moving into a new era of potential growth as well as further development of the graduate programs implemented in the 1950s, the selection of a new dean was crucial for sustained progress. 
LEE FRANK WORRELL 
After considerable deliberation, Worrell was appointed dean of the College of Pharmacy. In the small town of Orleans, In­diana, where he grew up, his father had been part-owner of the only pharmacy, and he remembered working in the establish­ment since the time he was big enough to see over the counter. His father owned 25 percent and managed the business, while his silent partner, who owned the remainder, operated a nearby furniture store. Early in the depression, the furniture store failed, forcing the partner to sell his share of the pharmacy. A similar fate befell the owners of the building the pharmacy occupied. Although the Worrell family had just gone into considerable debt to buy a home on the outskirts of Orleans, the family purchased both the business and the building; despite con­siderable hardships, this venture eventually proved successful enough to support three children through college. 
Worrell attended Purdue University, receiving a B.S. degree in pharmacy in 1935. Immediately thereafter he began study toward a doctoral degree. A research fellowship from Eli Lilly and Company helped him support his wife and daughter. Dur­ing his first year of study, this fellowship amounted to $90 per month, but the monthly stipend was reduced to $60 the follow­ing year as funds from the Lilly grant were used to support three instead of two students. When the bulk of his work had been completed in the fall of 1938, Worrell felt compelled to seek im­mediate employment and accepted a position as instructor in pharmacy at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. During the following summer, he returned to Purdue to complete his disser­tation and pass the examinations; doctoral degrees, however, 
Dean Lee Frank Worrell 
were only awarded at commencement in June, so he did not of­ficially receive his degree until 1940. Returning to Drake, he con­tinued as instructor until 1942, at which time he accepted a similar position at the University of Michigan. 
During his first year at Michigan, the School of Pharmacy began the construction of an annex. Although this project enabled Worrell to considerably expand and improve his work­ing quarters, an outside wall in his office was torn down and the space was covered with a tarpaulin for two years. Despite the noise and cold, however, Worrell was able to accomplish enough work to earn promotion to the position of assistant professor. The first doctoral student to work with Worrell began his studies in 1946 and completed the degree in 1952. Despite a heavy un­dergraduate teaching load, Worrell managed to supervise five doctoral students during his tenure at Michigan and had two more in various stages of completion when he transferred to The University of Texas. 
Although Worrell had been promoted to associate professor, his career potential at Michigan was severely limited by the small size of the school and the large number of full prof essors already on the faculty. In 1960, Dean Burlage was faced with the necessity of filling two vacancies at The University of Texas Col­lege of Pharmacy. When Worrell's colleague at Michigan, John Autian, was interviewed for a position as associate professor, he informed Burlage of the possibility of Worrell being available. A brief correspondence resulted in the appointment of Worrell as full professor of pharmaceutical chemistry, entailing both a promotion and substantial raise in salary. Worrell recalled that, when another colleague from Michigan, Alex Berman, was hired the following year, his former dean, Tom D. Rowe, took this loss in stride by referring to the College of Pharmacy at Texas as a southern branch of the University of Michigan. 10 
When a committee was formed in the fall of 1962 to select a successor for Dean Burlage, Worrell was asked to serve because he was the only faculty member with any personal acquaintance 
10L. F. Worrell in interviews with M. E. Beutler, 13 and 18 May 1977, Austin, Texas. 
Three generations of deans-H. M. Burlage, W. F. Gidley, and L. F. Worrell 
with national figures in pharmaceutical education and ad­ministration. As the selection process progressed and he became a serious contender for the position of dean, his membership on the selection committee proved somewhat difficult. Despite the obvious conflict of interest, however, President Smiley desired Worrell 's continued participation on the selection committee and instructed Chairman Henze to consider Worrell 's name separately from those of his competitors. In this manner, Wor­rell's advice could still be sought without compromising his own candidacy. 
As dean, Worrell administered the affairs of the College of Pharmacy from 1962 until 1966, when ill health necessitated his resignation from the deanship and return to full-time teaching. During his tenure as dean, he concentrated his efforts on strengthening the undergraduate and graduate programs. As a result of the intensive review and revision to which he subjected the curriculum, substantial improvements in the quality of in­struction were realized. Worrell, as a teacher, had long been con­cerned with the quality of education that his students received, and the major accomplishments of his administration were in this area. 
UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM 
In accordance with recommendations from the American Council on Pharmaceutical Education (ACPE ), the College of Pharmacy initiated the five-year undergraduate program in the fall of 1960. All new students enrolling subsequent to this time would be required to pursue the new program, while those who had begun under the four-year plan would be allowed to finish that course of study. Although this approach was by far the most logical, it presented considerable difficulty in implementation for the pharmacy administration and the faculty. By the time of the regular ACPE inspection in the fall of 1961, the new program had been in operation for one year. In its written report, the visitation committee noted some deficiencies in the curriculum: 
Changing Profession 
This College started the five-year program in September 1960 coincidently with the time the majority of colleges of pharmacy did so. The program has many improvements over the previous four-year program but it is acknowledged that there are certain weaknesses present, also. One of the weaknesses is the fact that the pharmacology course comes in the next to the last year coin­cidental with biochemistry. The pharmacologists would much prefer to have students with an adequate biochemical background before reaching this point. 11 
In addition to this criticism on the sequence of pharmacology, the committee also noted that all of the elective hours occurred 
. during the senior year. This was judged undesirable for various reasons, principally because it was not possible to build courses in sequence in the elective fields when these hours were all taken during the same year. Absent from the curriculum was a basic course in quantitative analysis, a deficiency that the ACPE felt should be corrected. Rather than revise the curriculum piecemeal, however, the committee suggested that serious con­sideration be given to these problems over the next year prior to making any substantial changes. 12 Therefore, on the basis of this mandate, Dean Worrell initiated a year-long investigation into a revision of the undergraduate curriculum. 
After reviewing the existing program with the faculty, Dean Worrell outlined two main objectives to be achieved through an extensive revision: first, to try to reduce the total number of semester hours from 170 to 160 and second, to allow more flex­ibility in the last three years so that a sequence of electives would be available to the student. 13 The reduction in the number of semester hours required for graduation was arranged to enable the student "to do a more effective academic job and to par­ticipate to a greater extent in extracurricular activities of a professional nature. "14 Rescheduling the elective courses to be 
11American Council on Pharmaceutical Education, "Report on The University of Texas College of Pharmacy, " 11 October t 96 t, Office of the Dean, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin (hereafter referred to as Office of the Dean of Phar­
. macy). 121bid. 13University of Texas, College of Pharmacy, "Faculty Minutes of the College of Phar­
macy, March 20, t963," Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 14L. F. Worrell, "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy, t962-1963," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
taken to make them available throughout the undergraduate program rather than all in the senior year would permit the stu­dent to plan a series of courses in sequential order, thereby developing competence in a particular area of interest. 
In addition, many courses were arranged into a more logical order to enable students to assimilate information gained in previous courses. Consequently, general microbiology was moved from the third year to the second, and mammalian physiology from the fourth to the third year. Presentation of pharmacology in the fourth year had received particular criticism from the ACPE, so this course was offered to fifth-year students to allow them to use knowledge gained from the biopharmaceutical chemistry course of the fourth year. Quan­titative analysis, offered through the Department of Chemistry, was also reinstated in the third-year schedule. 
Selection of students for the undergraduate program had been initiated in 1950. With the advent of the five-year program in 1960, application for admission to professional studies was re­quired of students at the beginning of the third year instead of the second, as had previously been the case. The result was a delineation of the undergraduate program into a prepharmacy phase of two years, during which time basic science and general university requirements were met, and a three-year professional sequence, which concentrated on pharmacy and allied subjects. For admission to the professional work of the third year, a stu­dent was expected to complete sixty semester hours with a grade-point average of C or above, including forty-two hours of prescribed course work. Formal application on the part of the student at least two weeks prior to the opening of the semester was required for admission to any of the three sessions. In the event of more qualified applicants than the faculties could han­dle, final selection was to be based on academic standing and priority of date of application. 15 
The initial review was submitted to the Faculty Council on 23 April 1963. During the academic year 1963-64, the faculty 
16University of Texas College of Pharmacy, "Faculty Minutes of the College of Phar­macy, April 23, 1963," Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
Changing Profession 
studied and revised the contents of individual courses in prepara­tion for the implementation of the alterations approved for the curriculum in general. Part of this review included the renumbering of some courses as clarification of their content and their relationship to other offerings in the curriculum. When the revision process was completed in the spring of 1964, nearly every course had been revised, and the curriculum in general presented a more logical and coherent presentation of the body of knowledge required of pharmacy graduates. 
This extensive revision was a monumental undertaking. To complicate matters, however, the adopted alterations had to be completed four years after the new program had become effec­tive, at a time when the first graduates under the five-year plan were entering their final year. Therefore, the rearrangement of courses had to be effected in such a manner as to neither exclude students nor require them to repeat work. The majority of stu­dents enrolled under the old four-year program graduated in the spring or summer of 1963, but a few, who had been detained for scholastic or personal reasons, lagged behind. These students would be required to finish their course of study no later than January 1965, after which time no degree would be conferred for work done under the old program. These few remaining students presented considerable adjustments to a faculty trying to revise a curriculum that had not yet been fully organized. Despite such complications, the revised five-year curriculum was introduced successfully, with minimal difficulties. 
GRADUATE PROGRAM The great emphasis on undergraduate education in the past had somewhat adversely affected the graduate program. Although Dean Burlage had overcome many obstacles and some expressed hostility in establishing both master's and doctoral programs, these had not developed as far as had been expected by the time of his retirement. One of the primary challenges of Worrell 's administration, then, was to bring the program of graduate studies in pharmacy up to its potential to meet the acute demand for scientists and teachers in the 1960s. 
To accomplish this goal, Worrell pursued a four-point program. From the beginning, he encouraged younger faculty members to assume active roles in the guidance of graduate stu­dents. Secondly, he initiated a review of the graduate curriculum that paralleled in scope and time that directed toward the un­dergraduate curriculum. Financial support for graduate stu­dents in the college had never been sufficient, but Worrell managed to arrange for a greater number of teaching fellowships with better employment conditions. And finally, through rear­rangement of budget priorities and negotiation with the univer­sity administration, he was able to increase the allotment for equipment and supplies for use in the graduate and research programs. 
When Worrell assumed the deanship in 1962, a stratification had developed between older and younger faculty members. Each of the five areas of pharmaceutical specialization was under the direction of a full professor, with the exception of pharmacy administration. Worrell felt that some of these professors were not aggressive enough in seeking out and encouraging potential graduate students and that the active research in the college was carried out largely by the younger faculty members. He, therefore, encouraged the development of graduate courses and research programs centered on basic principles and modern con­cepts of medicinal chemistry, pharmacodynamics, and physical pharmacy. Efforts of the faculty in this capacity were recognized through salary increases, promotions, research funds, and graduate-student assistants. A number of faculty members responded impressively to this challenge, and the reputation that their efforts gained for the college proved fruitful in attracting promising graduate students. 16 
Many recipients of the doctoral degree during Worrell 's ad­ministration have since gone into education and hold responsible faculty positions with other colleges of pharmacy. Leon D. Wilken who received his degree injune 1963 and Man M. Koch­har Oune 1964) are now both full professors at Auburn Univer­sity in Alabama. Sidney Rosenbluth Oune 1966) is professor of 
18J. N. Delgado in an interview with M. E. Beutler, 19 May 1977, Austin, Texas. 
pharmacy at the University of Tennessee, and Reynaldo Saenz Qune 1967) and Paul F. Geiger Qanuary 1967) are full profes­sors at Northeast Louisiana State University. 17 Through the ad­vantageous placement of many of its doctoral students, the Col­lege of Pharmacy was able to gain national recognition of its doc­toral program. 
One of the major problems affecting the graduate program in the past had been the limited number of stipends for the support of graduate students. Because of restricted funds and the de­mands of a growing undergraduate program, the few teaching assistants employed by the college were required to devote twenty contact hours per week to instructional duties. As a result of this heavy work schedule, an extended period of time was generally required for the completion of graduate work. After considerable negotiation with the university administration, Worrell succeeded in acquiring increased budgetary allotments to provide for additional teaching assistants with lighter work schedules. As a result, more students could be promised support with the prospect of fairly rapid completion of the doctoral program. In 1962, two fellowships from the United States Public Health Service for graduate students were received, the first of this type for the College of Pharmacy. 18 These improvements in financial aid to graduate students contributed substantially to the growth of the program during these years. 
A continual shortage of laboratory supplies and research equipment existed, due in large part to stringent budget alloca­tions on the part of the state legislature and the university ad­ministration. Most of the routine laboratory supplies, such as chemicals and glassware, were expended in undergraduate in­struction, creating severe shortages for graduate studies and faculty research. The expansion in both of these areas that oc­curred during the Worrell administration exacerbated the problem. 19 Allocation of special funds for the purchase of un­dergraduate equipment in 1962-63 and for research equipment 
17Records, May 1950 to May 1977, Office of the Graduate Advisor, College of Phar­
macy, The University of Texas at Austin. 
18Worrell, "Annual Report, 1962-1963." 
19lbid. 
and supplies in 1963-64 helped alleviate the most critical shor­tages. In annual reports to the university administration, Wor­rell continually emphasized the necessity of increasing the regular budget for equipment and supplies to meet the steadily increasing demands of the various programs. 20 In an attempt to further trim the college budget to allow for more expenditure in this area, the Visiting Lecturer Series was reduced to two lec­turers per year and then finally eliminated in 1966. Publication of the Texas ] ournal of Pharmacy was a considerable expense; it was finally discontinued with the autumn 1964 issue. The sav­ings thereby effected were applied to acquisition of equipment and supplies, thus alleviating to a considerable extent one of the major deterrents to the development of advanced research within the College of Pharmacy. 
As a result of these major improvements in the quality of graduate education, enrollments began to increase steadily. This growth is illustrated by the number of degrees awarded to stu­dents who had begun their graduate programs during Worrell 's administration. In his annual report for the academic year 1964-65, Worrell was able to report: 
We believe that the quality of instruction in our graduate program has been gradually improving and we are beginning to attract better qualified students interested in graduate degrees. 21 
TABLE 4 
GRADUATE DEGREES AWARDED TO STUDENTS 
BEGINNING PHARMACY STUDIES UNDER WORRELL 
Year  M.S.  Ph.D.  Total  
1962-63  0  1  1  
1963-64  3  2  5  
1964-65  1  2  3  
1965-66  5  2  7  
1966-67  11  2  13  
1967-68  7  0  7  

SOURCE: L. F. Worrell, Annual Reports of the College of Pharmacy, 1962-68, Office of the Dean, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin. 
20Ibid. and Worrell, "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy, 1963-1964," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 21W orrell, "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy, 1964-1965," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
His assessment was supported by the ACPE inspection commit­tee, which noted favorably in its 1966 report that the graduate program had been strengthened, more students were enrolled, and an active research program was underway. 22 
Under Worrell 's leadership, the graduate program developed from a fledgling operation beset by official indifference and financial neglect into a well-organized and ably directed program capable of training much-needed personnel for the heal th-science professions. 
FACULTY RESEARCH 
Research conducted by faculty of the College of Pharmacy had long been minimal, due mainly to lack of funds, equipment, and space. Toward the end of Burlage's administration, however, the situation began to change. Although the Pharmacy Building was inadequate in respect to instructional facilities, ample laboratories had been provided to accommodate research by faculty and graduate students. As the graduate program developed and the national stature of the college rose, research grants from both private and governmental sources became in­creasingly available, thus encouraging and facilitating both basic and applied research. 
In December of 1961, shortly before his retirement, Burlage wrote to University President J. R. Smiley concerning the rationale for establishing a research institute in the College of Pharmacy. Similar projects had been established at the univer­sities of Connecticut and Michigan. In support of this type of venture, Burlage quoted Dr. Max Tishler, president of the manufacturing firm of Merck, Sharp and Dohme: 
To restore the proper emphasis to teaching and to restore an atmosphere of complete freedom in research within the univer­sity, it seems to me that we must move to separate from the un­iversity campus most, if not all, of the mission-oriented basic research and development, and even mission-oriented basic research. This mission-oriented basic research could be handled in separate research institutes administered either by universities or private organizations. 23 
22American Council on Pharmaceutical Education, "Report on The University of 
Texas College of Pharmacy," 30 November 1966, Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
23Burlage to Smiley, 19 December 1962, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
As envisioned by the faculty, the proposed Pharmacy Research Institute would be dedicated to basic and applied research involving problems of public health. The benefits of such an institute for the college would be substantial. 
It would also be dedicated to [increasing] the effectiveness of the graduate and research program of the College, particularly dealing with the pharmaceutical sciences-pharmacy (phar­maceutical formulation, hospital pharmacy, pharmaceutical technology, theoretical pharmacy), pharmaceutical chemistry (synthesis and analysis), pharmacognosy (medicinal phytochemistry), pharmacology (chemotherapy and bioassay) and pharmacy administration (pharmaceutical distribution). 24 
These research programs would be developed in cooperation with other schools and departments within the university as well as in cooperation with industrial concerns, professional organizations, and governmental agencies. 
Ample precedent for this kind of project existed at the univer­sity, and the administration enthusiastically supported the proposal. The Pharmacy Research Institute would be housed at the Balcones Research Center, located off-campus on the site of an old government magnesium plant that had been donated to the university. The center housed those research projects for which space was not available on the campus and allowed the development of extensive research that would otherwise not be possible. It was anticipated that the Pharmacy Research In­stitute would be supported by grants obtained from nonuniver­sity sources, thus bypassing the budgetary restrictions that had obstructed faculty research in the past. Such funds were not im­mediately forthcoming, however, and a grant of $3,000 from the University Research Institute on campus was necessary to enable the institute to begin operation. Robert G. Brown worked with Burlage from 1962 to 1965 on the screening of biological charts for therapeutic activity. When the original funds were ex­hausted, the Pharmacy Research Institute became inactive. 
Although this project did not receive adequate support, the idea of applied research within the College of Pharmacy was still 
24lbid. 
a viable one. The Drug-Plastic Research Laboratory, the first facility of this kind in the country, was established at the Balcones Research Center in 1960. Organized by John Autian with the assistance of Wallace Guess, the laboratory was developed to investigate the use of plastics in medical and phar­maceutical practices; later, its functions were expanded to in­clude toxicology and carcinogenic studies of plastics. 25 
Because of the timely nature of the topics investigated, the laboratory was able to attract substantial funding from a variety of sources. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) supplied the original grant of $80,000 and continued to support the laboratory throughout its existence. Several grants from private sources, combined with research contracts from the U.S. Public Health Service and the U.S. Army Edgewood Arsenal, provided funds that enabled the Drug-Plastic Research Laboratory to gain national and international recognition and to reflect creditably on the College of Pharmacy. The various projects un­dertaken by the laboratory provided employment for Autian's graduate students as well as for research and laboratory techni­cians, but the projects investigated were oriented toward acquir­ing technical knowledge rather than providing educational op­portunities for graduate students.26 
Autian served as director of the laboratory from 1960 until his resignation in 1966, at which time he was succeeded by Guess, who had served as first assistant and then associate director. When Guess resigned in 1972 as director of the renamed Drug­Plastic and Toxicology Laboratories, outside support had begun to slacken, and the entire project was finally discontinued. 
Research grants to the College of Pharmacy during the 1966­67 academic year increased substantially over previous years. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded a postdoctoral fellowship of $8,000 in the area of pharmacology, predoctoral research grants of $6,000 for toxicological studies, and S7,600 for studies in the history of science as related to the drug industry and legislation. To Alex Berman, NIH awarded a two-year grant 
i~John Autian to Burlage, 26 September 1961, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 26Worrell, "Annual Report, t 964-1965." 
of S28,000 for research in the history of nineteenth-century French pharmacy. Substantial awards were received from numerous other sources by Gerald Sullivan and Esther Jane Wood Hall. 27 This improvement in nonuniversity support for research enabled various faculty members to exercise their research capabilities, which had long been thwarted due to lack of funding. In years to come, the increased availability of such support would make possible the development of advanced research projects in all fields of pharmacy. 
FACULTY CHANGES Three faculty members joined the College of Pharmacy during Worrell's administration. Donald Bates Meyers, who had received all of his pharmacy training at the State University of Iowa, was appointed associate professor of pharmacology in September of 1962 but resigned at the end of the academic year. To fill this position, Glenn D. Appelt, a graduate of the college, was appointed in the fall of 1963. After receiving a B.S. degree in pharmacy in 1957 and an M.S. in 1959 from The University of Texas, Appelt earned his doctorate from the University of Colorado in 1963. He remained with the college until 1966. In the spring of 1963, Eugene I. Isaacson, who had obtained a Ph.D. in pharmaceutical chemistry from the University of Minnesota, was appointed assistant professor of pharmaceutical chemistry, a position he held until 1969. Herbert Frederick Schwartz, who had been appointed special instructor in phar­maceutical chemistry in 1954 after earning an M.S. in pharmacy from the college, was promoted to assistant professor in Sep­tember 1965 after completing the Ph.D. degree; he remained on the faculty until 1972. 28 In 1967, during the tenure of Interim Dean C. C. Albers, Jay Nematollahi was named assistant professor of pharmaceutical chemistry. A native of Iran, Nematollahi received the degree of Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.) from the University of Tehran 
27C. C. Albers, "Report to the Vice-Chancellor from The College of Pharmacy, 
1966-1967," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
28University of Texas, University Course Catalogues, 1962-66 and 1970-72, Texas Collec­
tion, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter referred to as Texas Collec­
tion). 
in 1950. He earned an M.A. in microbiology in 1954 from the University of California at Berkeley, a Pharm.D. degree from the University of California at San Francisco in 1958, and the Ph.D. degree in 1962. After serving for one year as a postdoctoral fellow at the University of California at San Francisco, he was ap­pointed assistant professor at the University of Rhode Island for the year 1963-64 and associate professor at Texas Southern University for the 1964-65 year. From 1965 to 1967, Nematollahi worked with the Drug-Plastic and Toxicology Laboratories as a special research associate prior to his appointment to the faculty by Albers. 29 
Also appointed by Interim Dean Albers was Gerald Sullivan, who became assistant professor of pharmacy in 1967 shortly after receiving the Ph.D. degree from the University of Washington. A native of Magazine, Arkansas, Sullivan received all of his pharmacy training in the state of Washington. After earning the Bachelor of Pharmacy from Washington State University in 1957, Sullivan served as an officer with the U.S. Army Medical Corps from 1957 through 1959. In 1963, he earned a master's degree in pharmacognosy at his alma mater before transferring to the University of Washington for doctoral work. During his tenure with The University of Texas, he has been active in undergraduate and graduate education as well as pursuing original research supported by a number of grants. In 1972, Sullivan was promoted to associate professor. 30 
Two faculty members received leaves of absence to pursue work at other universities during this period. C. C. Albers, on leave from 1961 to 1963, served on the faculty of the University of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to assist in the establishment of a school of pharmacy. Burlage traveled to Europe during the summer of 1963 on a study tour supported by a special appreciation award from the Texas Pharmaceutical Association. After his return, Burlage spent the fall semester of 1963 at the University of Florida, where he did research in the area of chromatography with the use of modern analytical equipment, in conjunction with Edward R. Garrett, a research professor. 
~Jay ;\ematollahi, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
30Gerald Sullivan, " Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 

Gerald Sullivan 
Jay Nematollahi 
STUDENT COUNCIL 

In the fall of 1963, at the suggestion of Dean Worrell, the Stu­dent Council was organized to give pharmacy students an official voice in affairs pertaining to the college and to encourage par­ticipation in various activities relevant to student interests. Originally, representatives of each class were elected from every convocation group along with representatives from the various fraternal and social organizations. When first established, the Student Council was concerned solely with matters within the College of Pharmacy and maintained no affiliation with the stu­dent governmental organizations of the general university. Dur­ing the interim period following the resignation of Dean Worrell, the council became inactive. When later revived during Dean Sprowls' administration as the Pharmacy Council, it became more involved in university-wide activities. 81 
RESIGNATION OF THE DEAN 
During the spring of 1964, Dean Worrell had been briefly in­capacitated by ill health, and William]. Sheffield conducted the business of the college during the months of May and June. Although Worrell returned to his duties thereafter, his recovery was not complete. In May of 1966, Worrell tendered his resigna­tion as dean and received a leave of absence over the summer; in the fall of 1966, he returned to his former position as professor of pharmaceutical chemistry. While the College began another search for a permanent head, C. C. Albers was named interim dean for the year 1966-67. 
In retrospect, the main accomplishments of the college during the four years of Worrell 's administration center on the revision of the undergraduate and graduate curricula. In the report of the 1961 ACPE inspection committee, major criticisms had been leveled at both of these programs concerning the illogical se­quence of some courses and a need to improve the content of others. As a teacher, Worrell had long been concerned with such matters and agreed wholeheartedly with most of these com­
31Worrell interview, 18 May 1977. 
ments. Under his direction, the faculty spent considerable time analyzing every aspect of both the undergraduate and graduate curricula, resulting in vital alterations to both programs. 
The ACPE had long criticized the college for lack of adequate research equipment. Due to specific efforts in this area by Dean Worrell, this situation was alleviated somewhat by the time of the 1966 inspection. With more adequate equipment, a revised curriculum, and a growing research resource, the graduate program began to attract increasing numbers of graduate stu­dents and received commendation from the ACPE. 32 
Worrell's success as an administrator lay in his ability to recognize those areas where he could effect the most-needed improvements. Lack of adequate classroom space had been a critical issue for years, but the Ten-Year Plan of the Building Committee of the General Faculty contained no provision for ex­pansion of the pharmacy quarters. Another criticism by the ACPE concerned the lack of adequate financial support for the graduate program from outside sources. Worrell had intended to turn his energies in this direction once his curricular revisions had been implemented, but due to the early termination of his leadership, his success in attracting research funds was not as great as he had anticipated. With the appointment of a new dean from outside the university, the College of Pharmacy developed in a much different direction than had been envisioned originally when Worrell assumed the deanship in 1962. 
32American Council on Pharmaceutical Education, "Report, November 30, 1966," 
p. 7. 
CHAPTER SIXTEEN: 	Pharmacy in Transition: 1967-1972 
UPON THE RESIGNATION of Dean Lee F. Worrell, 
C. C. Albers was appointed interim dean until a permanent replacement could be found. Throughout the academic year 1966-67, a committee composed of faculty members from the College of Pharmacy and academic disciplines allied to phar­macy conducted an exhaustive search for a new dean. 
In a joint letter to Albers, who served as chairman of the Phar­macy Dean Selection Committee, nine pharmacy faculty members outlined the criteria they considered essential to the ef­fective performance of the person selected. Most important of these was that the dean should be a registered pharmacist with doctoral training in one of the recognized areas of phar­maceutical sciences. This particular criterion, which had been mentioned during the selection of Burlage's successor, emphasized the importance the faculty members placed on nominating someone within their own discipline. A firm commit­ment to education at the prepharmacy, undergraduate, and graduate levels was essential, as was a demonstrated interest in basic research in the pharmaceutical sciences. Because of the notable success of the Pharmacy Extension Service, these faculty 
418 

members also urged the appointment of a dean who would sup­port a strong continuing education program and work to extend the influence of the existing programs throughout the state. 1 
In late February 1967, the committee finally offered the posi­tion to Joseph Barnett Sprowls, then dean of the School of Phar­macy at Temple University. Speaking before a breakfast of the Ex-Students' Association of The University of Texas shortly before assuming his duties, Sprowls commented on his decision to accept the deanship: 
When I was approached a year ago by a committee from the faculty, and asked if I would be willing to consider the possibility of becoming the dean at Texas, I must confess that I had given no thought to the possibility. However, as I met with your Chancel­lor and Vice Chancellor and other representatives of the Univer­sity and as I explored the position with faculty, alumni, and friends of the college, I became more and more intrigued by the challenge which exists. It is, therefore, with great enthusiasm that I look forward to my new assignment. If I receive the cooperation which has been promised by University officials, faculty, and alumni, it will indeed be a profitable and enjoyable experience for all of us. 2 
Because of his previous commitments at Temple University, Sprowls was given the option of being appointed at any time prior to 1 February 1968. After conferring with the administra­tion at Temple, he decided to plan on assuming duties as of 1 October 1967, an arrangement that allowed him to complete preliminary plans on a construction program for pharmacy and the allied health professions that he had developed at Temple. 8 
As the fall semester approached, the faculty began to prepare for the arrival of Sprowls and the return of Albers to full-time teaching. The transition, however, was hastened by the untimely death of the interim dean: while visiting the family of one of his 
1W. J. Sheffield et al. to C. C. Albers, 17 June 1966, College of Pharmacy Files, Records of the Office of the President, The University of Texas Archives, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter referred to as Pharmacy Files, UT Archives). 
2J. B. Sprowls, "Future Perfect," speech given at the Annual Breakfast Meeting of the Pharmacy Alumni Association, The University of Texas at Austin, in Corpus Christi, Texas, 25July 1967, Office of the Dean, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin (hereafter referred to as Office of the Dean of Pharmacy). 
1Sprowls to Norman Hackerman, 12 March 1967, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
daughters in Springfield, Ohio, Albers suffered a fatal heart at­tack." 
In recognition of his many years of service to the university, the pharmacy faculty established a C. C. Albers Memorial Library Fund through the Pharmaceutical Foundation, to be utilized for the purchase of books and journals in the field of pharmacognosy. In addition, a copy of the student annual, The Cactus, which contained a photograph taken of Albers during his tenure as interim dean, was presented to his widow, Johnnita Albers, accompanied by a dedication sheet signed by the faculty of the College of Pharmacy. 5 
To fill the administrative void left by Albers's sudden death, Sprowls canceled a planned vacation and arrived in Austin on September 22, two weeks earlier than his contract with the university specified. With the fall semester already in progress, his considerable responsibilities required immediate attention. 
JOSEPH BARNETT SPROWLS 
Born in Lajunta, Colorado, in 1912, Sprowls received his ear­ly education there and in another small community. At the University of Colorado in Boulder he studied pharmacy and chemistry, receiving the Ph.C. and B.S. in pharmacy degrees in 1936, the M.S. in 1938, and the Ph.D. in 1941. During these years, his major studies were concentrated in foods, drugs, and bacteriological chemistry. As an undergraduate, he worked part­time in a pharmacy, where he received an injury that would leave him slightly handicapped for the remainder of his life. Con­valescence required his absence from class attendance for long periods, for which he compensated through correspondence studies. When he recovered, Sprowls returned to the University of Colorado to complete his professional training. 
After receiving the doctorate in 1941, he taught on the faculty of the University of Colorado in the field of materia medica 
4University of Texas, "In Memoriam: Carl Clarence Albers," Documents and Minutes of the General Faculty, 8 January 1968, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives, pp. 9278-9280. &University of Texas, College of Pharmacy, "Minutes of the Meeting of the College of Pharmacy Faculty, September 30, 1967," Pharmacy Files, UT Archives. 
Dean Joseph Barnett Sprowls 
before accepting the position of full professor of pharmacy at the University of Buffalo in 1945. In addition to these teaching responsibilities, he served as a consulting pharmacologist for Meyer Memorial Hospital in Buffalo, New York. In 1948, he was appointed professor of pharmacy at Temple University, becom­ing dean of the School of Pharmacy in 1950. While in Philadelphia, he worked extensively with the local division of the American Cancer Society in educational and administrative capacities, was a member of the Drug Device and Cosmetic Board, and worked closely with various hospital pharmacy groups.6 
As professor and dean at Texas, Sprowls proved to be an effec­tive as well as a genial administrator. His colleagues described him in the following terms: 
[He was] discreet, discerning, precise, and infinitely patient. Outwardly, he was charming, obliging, and serene. Behind this countenance was a tenacity and perseverence which was tempered by fairness and understanding which was respected by the faculty, students and alumni.7 
A spokesman for the American Association of Colleges of Phar­macy noted: 
Perhaps the thing that has always impressed me about Joe Sprowls is his ability to analyze a situation or problem and to come up with a wise and logical appraisal or solution. His keen insight results from thorough and dedicated study of the argu­ments on either side of the question which enables him to see through the verbiage which might mislead or confuse others. His ability to sift the wheat from the chaff is exceptional.8 
During his two and one-half years as dean, Sprowls earned the respect of students, pharmacists, and colleagues. In 1970 the Longhorn Pharmaceutical Association presented him with its annual merit award for outstanding contributions to phar­maceutical education in Texas, The Travis County Cancer 
8J. B. Sprowls, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 7University of Texas, "In Memoriam: Joseph Barnett Sprowls," Documents and Minutes of the General Faculty, 29 November 1971, Pharmacy Files, UT Archives, pp. 10359-10364. 8Jack Orr, cited in "In Memoriam: Joseph Barnett Sprowls." 
Society gave special recognition to his support of that organiza­tion, and the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy con­ferred upon him the title of honorary president. Lonnie J. Yarbrough, a community pharmacist from Denton, Texas, sum­marized the attitude of many toward Sprowls' contributions: 
He will be long remembered for his dedication to the better­ment of pharmaceutical education. This has resulted in a futuristic look with a practical application for those of us who have been touched with his zeal-Dean Sprowls was a great man. Not just because of recognition on a national level. Not just because he had been dean of a great College of Pharmacy. Not just because of so many big things, but because he was a man: kind, sincere, polite, and in earnest in dealing with fellow phar­macists no matter what their educational attainments might have been.9 
The description of Dean Sprowls as "futuristic" is apt. Shortly after his arrival in Austin, he initiated an exhaustive study of the needs and deficiencies of the College. 
REEVALUATION OF EDUCATION 
AND THE PROFESSION 

In October of 196 7 Sprowls submitted to the university ad­ministration a lengthy report entitled "A Program for Pharmacy at The University of Texas," which surveyed the manpower needs of the profession, future trends in health care and research, and the implications of these for the College of Pharmacy. A brief examination of this study will illustrate the basic philosophy and outlook with which Sprowls began his ad­ministration and provide an understanding of many of the con­cepts he later attempted to implement. 
Sprowls noted that one of the most remarkable characteristics exhibited by the American public during the last century was an overwhelming interest in affairs of health. One result of this con­cern had been a search for the means to improve, maintain, and construct facilities for the care of the ill and to train personnel for 
'Ibid. 
the many occupations needed for improved health care. The per­vailing philosophy of the health-care professions had been to make available to the patient a combination of services, rather than simple maintenance care. Implementing this concept had created a variety of new types of health personnel, who had to be trained to provide limited services in a competent manner so as to relieve more highly skilled practitioners for other duties. 10 
This changing nature of the various health-care professions prompted Sprowls to investigate the manpower needs of Texas. After a survey of the state in 1967, he concluded that Texas fell short of the national average of pharmacists per 100,000 people. Utilizing census statistics for 1965, Texas appeared to need an additional 625 pharmacists to bring it up to the national average. Considering the total number of students graduated during the years 1965, 1966, and 1967, he concluded that the three schools of pharmacy in Texas would have to graduate 30 percent more pharmacists each year just to maintain the current ratio of phar­macists to overall population. If a deficit were to ensue, the number of annual graduates required would be even greater. 11 
Due to advances in the health-care field, the practice of phar­macy had changed considerably during the early 1960s, from "a profession which consisted of hardly more than a group of technical skills to a collection of specialties extending from the practice of community pharmacy on the one hand to the highest levels of scientific research on the other. "12 Such specialties as hospital, institutional, and industrial pharmacy required pro­fessional rather than academic education beyond the bac­calaureate level, necessitating changes in the nature of some degree programs. As compounding medicines came to be per­formed by large manufacturing concerns, the duties of the com­munity pharmacists tended toward consultation on drug usage and reactions, collection of data on toxicity, maintenance of patient drug profiles, and distribution of health information to 
10]. B. Sprowls, "A Program for Pharmacy at The University of Texas," October 1970, 
Office of the Dean of Pharmacy, pp. 1-2 
11Ibid., pp. 5-6. 
12Ibid., p. 33. 
the general public. To train students for these new roles, profes­sional pharmaceutical education would have to be changed from an emphasis on the physical sciences to a biological and patient­centered orientation. As a result of such alterations in the role of the pharmacist, contact with members of health-care groups in a clinical setting during the undergraduate years was needed to provide the student with experiences relevant to his later career. Sprowls concluded his report with four recommendations: 
1. 	That the University restudy its commitment to phar­maceutical education with the intent of determining 
a. 	
The anticipated manpower need, in light of the changing role of the pharmacist in modern society; 

b. 	
The capability of meetin~ this need in terms of numbers of qualified faculty members and adequacy of facilities. 


2. 	
That the University determine the best means of providing clinical training for students in the College of Pharmacy, in­cluding the possibility of moving all or a portion of the instruc­tional program to one or more of the health science campuses of the University. 

3. 	
That the University evaluate the extent of its commitment to pharmacy service in the teaching hospitals to determine the extent of need for additional pharmaceutical services in such hospitals, the obligation to provide leadership through the ser­vices of the College of Pharmacy and the possibility of develop­ing a suitable atmosphere for the clinical training of students of pharmacy at the undergraduate and graduate levels. 

4. 	
In order to implement the many-faceted recommendations in­cluded in the foregoing, it is suggested that a study committee be appointed which will include representatives of pharmacy, medicine and nursing-the committee to be charged with the tasK of investigating in depth questions which have been raised by this report and making recommendations thereto. 13 


The University administration was particularly receptive to Sprowls' recommendation that representatives of the health sciences be appointed to investigate the profession of pharmacy and make specific recommendations for improving educational programs. In February of 1968 such a committee was appointed. Members were selected from a wide variety of professional 
13lbid., p. 34. 
backgrounds, including faculty members from the medical schools, the College of Pharmacy, and the Training School for Nurses; professors of management, aerospace engineering, and clinical medicine; a community pharmacist; and a represen­tative of the university administration. After a series of meetings during the spring and summer, this System-Wide Long-Range Planning Committee submitted a report to President Norma!l Hackerman on 19 October 1968, outlining certain alternatives to current educational policy that required immediate attention. 1' In essence, this committee elaborated on the basic ideas as out­lined by Sprowls in his earlier report. 
In this interim report, the committee explored in some detail the institutional aspects of the practice of pharmacy and the need for more clinical experience in the undergraduate cur­riculum. The report noted, "The major emphasis in phar­maceutical practice is no longer upon the technology of com­pounding; it is upon more clinical aspects of drug use. " 16 The future role of the pharmacist would be involved "more extensive­ly with informational services and with distributional and control functions than with dosage formulation. "18 Although dosage formulation was still a vital aspect ofpharmacy and com­prised a major portion of the pharmacist's informational background, it had become a specialty so highly advanced as to have passed into the realm of graduate study. While this aspect of the pharmacist's traditional role of endeavor had been largely assumed by the manufacturer, opportunities were opening up through the creation of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which had greatly extended the responsibilities of the phar­macist into the areas of drug-distribution control and patient services. At the same time, dramatic increases in institutional care of patients, as in hospitals, nursing homes, extended-care facilities, and community health centers, presented the phar­macist with increased opportunities to become more closely 
1'j. B. Sprowls, "Interim Report of the System-Wide Long-Range Planning Commit­
tee of the College of Pharmacy," 19 October 1968, Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
15lbid., p. 10. 
18fbid. 
identified with essential health services. New functions that had arisen for the pharmacist included providing "drug information systems, poison control, pharmacy and therapeutic committee decision making, as well as the normal function of supply and distribution of pharmaceuticals. "17 Because of the growing shor­tage of health professionals in the 1960s, some educators had suggested that the community pharmacist might provide more patient services, such as 
(1) taking greater responsibility for selection of appropriate prescription drugs, (2) instruction in the use of proprietary remedies, (3) maintaining complete records of patient drug use and drug reactions, and ( 4) serving as the community reference center for health services of all sorts. 18 
Regarding these drastic alterations in pharmaceutical prac­tice, the System-Wide Long-Range Planning Committee con­cluded that the College of Pharmacy needed to implement a dif­ferent type of educational program than that which had been traditional. The numerous consultants who spoke to the commit­tee all agreed that future educational programs would have to contain a clinical component that would permit the student to gain experience in ongoing programs of patient care. One of the most radical suggestions for changing traditional phar­maceutical education came from William Whitten, a graduate of the college and a member of the Texas State Board of Pharmacy, who served as a consultant to the committee. Whitten recom­mended a complete "overhaul of pharmacy education in Texas, with movement of the Colleges of Pharmacy to the medical centers" that were being developed by The University of Texas System.19 
The committee investigated clinical programs that had been adopted at other colleges of pharmacy. One practice of par­ticular interest to members of the committee was the offering of an optional or required sixth year devoted to instruction in a teaching hospital. Completion of this additional year beyond the 
11Ibid., p. 11. 
18lbid. 
"Ibid., p. 13. 

standard five-year baccalaureate curriculum led to the profes­sional degree of Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.), which had just received the approval of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP). 
During the curricular revisions instituted by Dean Worrell, the undergraduate program had been revised in the direction of clinical pharmacy. A course entitled "Community and In­stitutional Pharmacy" had been created, which induded a limited amount of experience in the Student Health Center Pharmacy. So many students had enrolled in this course, however, that contact time in the pharmacy was limited to two hours per week per student. The committee further concluded the following : 
Such service is in no way comparable to similar experience in a general hospital providing a breadth of service to broad popula­tion groups, and the students have little opportunity to develop a rapport with other professionals, since no other health profession students are present. 20 
A master's degree in hospital pharmacy was also offered by the College of Pharmacy, but the absence of a suitable teaching hospital in Austin severely limited the effectiveness of this program. 
As a result of these investigations, the System-Wide Long­Range Planning Committee redefined the criteria for a college of pharmacy to reflect the needs of a college of pharmacy "completely prepared to meet its instructional and societal obligations. "21 A close examination of these lengthy criteria will reveal the basis on which many later innovations in pharmacy education at The University of Texas were founded. The com­mittee concluded the following as to the obligations of the Col­lege of Pharmacy: 
1. 	[It] must offer those instructional needs in general education and in basic science which are required by the University for the baccalaureate degree and which are essential as 
20Ibid.' p. 16. 
21Ibid., p. 17. 

background for the professional curriculum. It is presumed that the general education requirements are designed to prepare the graduate for citizenship in the society of which he will become a part. It is essential that this portion of the cur­riculum have sufficient flexibility to accommodate the special needs of students with varied capabilities. 
2. 	
[It] must provide instruction in those areas of knowledge and of skill which are essential for the practice of the profession. 

3. 	
[It] must be capable of providing those elements of instruction which permit the gifted student to advance beyond the bac­calaureate level. It must also provide opportunity for the stu­dent to explore special avenues of instruction so that he is capable of assuming unusual roles or developing specialized areas of service as opportunities are presented. 

4. 	
[It] must provide opportunity for the student to develop an ap­preciation of the totality of health care and to understand the professional and societal obligations of the group of which he will be a part. He must have the experience of patient contact under the most realistic conditions possible in order that he may emerge as a fully competent and confident practitioner. Opportunity must be provided for the students of the various health professions to maintain contact and to learn to work together in model programs of patient care. 

5. 	
[It] must be equipped for the encouragement of continuing education for practitioners of pharmacy. The ideal situation is one which provides a ready supply of potential lecturers who are specialists in the various disciplines which contribute to the totality of health education. 

6. 	
[It] must furnish the opportunity for faculty members and graduate students to conduct programs of research not only in traditional areas of basic pharmaceutical technology and ser­vice. 

7. 	
[It] must make available to faculty members the opportunity of maintaining continuous contact with all elements of health care in order that an appropriate interchange of concepts and philosophies may take place between the faculty of pharmacy and other health-oriented faculties and in order that the faculty of pharmacy may make a contribution to the maintenance and improvement of pharmaceutical services in the health care centers. 

8. 	
[It] must provide opportunity for the faculty to exercise con­tinuous leadership for the profession and an arena in which new ideas and philosophies may be explored and evaluated. It 


must attract and nurture a faculty that will inspire students at 
all levels of training to engage in original thought and pursuit 
of innovative concepts. 22 
In a discussion of these criteria, the committee noted that op­portunities for acquisition of basic science and general education courses could be provided on the Austin campus, but that little opportunity existed there to allow faculty and student contact with health-care programs and other professional faculties as en­visioned in the criteria the committee had set forth. The commit­tee also pointed out that the College of Pharmacy was the only school of the health professions within The University of Texas System that was unable to provide a clinical environment that would allow students to gain experience in providing profes­sional health care to the general public. 23 
As a consequence of this lack of clinical exposure, considera­tion was given to various procedures to allow the student to gain such experience. Three alternatives were proposed: 
1. 	
To maintain the College of Pharmacy in Austin and to en­courage the arrangement of clinical programs in such clinical facilities as exist in the city of Austin. 

2. 	
To maintain the College of Pharmacy in Austin but to en­courage and facilitate the development of a portion of its program in the medical centers of the University system. 

3. 	
To maintain the College of Pharmacy in Austin but to reap­praise its role and to develop new professional programs of pharmacy education within the University's medical centers. 24 


The committee considered that, in order for a hospital to meet the requirements of pharmaceutical education, it should be able to "provide a breadth of pharmaceutical service, have a phar­macy facility of sufficient size to meet its service obligations as well as the instructional requirements, and employ personnel who [had] accepted a commitment to education. " 26 Given this definition of an acceptable clinical program, facilities available 
Z2J:bid., pp. 17-19. 
21lbid., pp. 19-21. 
34}bid., p.23. 
26lbid. 

in Austin were generally insufficient. Acceptance of the first op­tion would not allow provision for faculty and students to in­teract with other health-science faculties or students since no such programs existed in Austin. 
Adoption of the second option would involve dividing the un­dergraduate program into clinical and nonclinical portions, with one year of instruction offered at another part of The University of Texas System. Such a proposal had some merit in the eyes of the committee members, but several disadvantages were in­herent in such a program. Besides requiring increased mobility of students, a one-year clinical program would provide only limited time for establishing professional contacts and would limit the educational impact of study in a health-science at­mosphere. Little opportunity would exist for interchange between the basic sciences and the professional components of instruction, and the division would dilute the strength and breadth of the pharmacy faculty between a medical center and the main campus. 
After considering their three options, the committee members decided that only the third option would satisfy the projected conception of the college. Through development of the entire professional program in a health-care setting, the college would be able both to achieve the desired public-health orientation of the student and "to provide the professional faculty with an op­portunity to lend support and guidance to pharmaceutical aspects of patient care services and the educational problems in­volved. "26 The first option-the encouragement of clinical programs within the facilities existing in Austin-would provide little improvement over the status quo. Implementation of the se­cond option-the development of a portion of the professional program in the existing medical centers of The University of Texas System-might serve as an intermediate step, but would not meet the long-term requirements of an innovative pharmacy program for the future. Therefore, the committee favored a reap­praisal of the role that the College of Pharmacy would have to fill 
21Ibid., p. 25. 
in the coming years and the development of new professional programs within the university's medical centers to meet an­ticipated educational needs. 
Implementation of this alternative, however, gave rise to the question of the ultimate location of The University of Texas System's College of Pharmacy. The College of Pharmacy, while located in Austin, might serve as a graduate and research center for the pharmaceutical sciences with access to the resources of strong basic science departments existing on the main campus. Undergraduate programs might conceivably be offered within the various medical centers, and totally new colleges of phar­macy might be established at these locations. Implementation of such extensive innovations, however, would necessitate ad­ministrative decisions as to the future of the College of Pharmacy in Austin. 
The committee gave brief consideration to a six-year profes­sional curriculum, which would provide for an optional ad­ditional year of clinical experience. Some schools had such a program leading to the professional Doctor of Pharmacy degree (Pharm.D. ). The major di_sadvantage of such a program, however, was that clinical exposure would be available only to those students electing to pursue additional work. The commit­tee members expressed their reservations about such an;.'alter­native by noting in the report, "We can hardly feel comfortable with a program which might permit the major portion of the future graduates to leave the University without having an educational experience which is adjudged by many as the most critical need for the future. "27 They did recommend, however, that further consideration be given to such an alternative before any decisions were made concerning the future of phar­maceutical education at the university. 
In the process of arriving at its conclusions, the committee based its ideas on two major premises: first, that a pressing de­mand existed for significant change in the educational procedures existing at that time and, second, that the most 
27lbid., pp. 27-28 
significant need for the future of pharmaceutical education would be for faculty and students to have the opportunity to become involved with other health-care personnel and to have an impact on the pharmaceutical component of such health-care systems. With these premises in mind, the System-Wide Long­Range Planning Committee made the following recommenda­tions: 
That the College of Pharmacy be designated and recognized as a system-wide school with the obligation to develop plans for the establishment of more appropriate programs of pharmaceutical education at one or more suitable locations in the University System. 
That appropriate consideration be given to designating the future role and purpose of the College of Pharmacy in Austin as a graduate center for pharmacy and a research center for phar­maceutical sciences. 
That the Dean of the College of Pharmacy be authorized to proceed with planning and program development for multi­location pharmacy educational facilities and to develop a budget for pilot interinstitutional programs to be operational within the next four years. 
That the present Committee be continued to serve as an Ad­visory Committee to the Dean of the College of Pharmacy during this period of planning and innovative developments.28 
This report, submitted in October of 1968, established the rationale and impetus for extensive reevaluation of the role of the College of Pharmacy of The University of Texas at Austin in the education of pharmacists in the future. Dean Sprowls did not live to see the implementation of these ideas, but his efforts, as ex­emplified in the two reports prepared during his administration, laid the foundation for improvements in the quality and type of education available to pharmacy students in the 1970s. 
CURRICULUM 
During the second year of Sprowls 's administration, from the fall of 1968 through the summer of 1969, the faculty undertook 
28lbid., P. 29. 
"a rather drastic rev1s1on of the curriculum. "29 During this period, the faculty gave consideration to a number of trends con­sidered by educators throughout the country to be of great significance for the new patterns of health care evolving during this period. Such trends included: 
a) increa~ing emphasis upon interdisciplinary aspects of health care; b) increasing importance of biological science in the education of health professionals; c) increasing awareness of the patient-oriented aspects of drug therapy (as opposed to drug-oriented aspects); d) continued growth of specialization in pharmacy. 80 
Sprowls reported to the university administration that the faculty was abreast of the changes in the practice of pharmacy; one of the most significant of these innovations was the new role of the pharmacist as a provider of information rather than solely as a dispenser of drugs. 
Required for the informational functions is a better under­standing of the pharmacology and toxicology of drugs, a more fundamental knowledge of the physical and chemical aspects of dosage form design, and a greater appreciation of community organization and interaction.81 
To meet these requirements, the faculty moved one semester of the pharmacology course from the fifth to the fourth year, there­by allowing the student to utilize pharmacology principles in sen10r-year courses. 
The growing emphasis on specialization in pharmacy, which was becoming predominant in many schools throughout the · country, led the faculty to allow more elective courses during the later years of the curriculum to enable the student to tailor a program suitable to his own career goals. Several required courses became electives, and a requirement of ten semester 
29J. B. Sprowls, "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy, September 1, 
1968-August 31, 1969," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. '0Ibid. 31lbid. 
hours of professional electives was adopted. This brought the total number of elective hours from ten to twenty. Earlier revi­sions under the administration of Dean Worrell had moved many of the basic science courses to early years, thereby allow­ing the student to develop the expertise needed for the specialized electives during the later years of the undergraduate program. 
On the basis of many of the findings in the System-Wide Long-Range Planning Committee reports, the faculty came to recognize that the role of the community pharmacist was evolv­ing toward more intimate involvement with all aspects of patient care. To prepare the student for this feature of professional prac­tice, the faculty wanted to involve the student with ongoing programs of patient care that would allow observance of drug therapy and patient reaction in a clinical setting. Since two hours of experience per week in the Student Health Center Phar­macy was inadequate to develop such expertise, arrangements were made to offer the laboratory portion of a new course in clinical pharmacy in a variety of settings, including hospitals in the Austin area and medical centers within The University of Texas System. In the summer of 1970, an experimental program was introduced to permit fifth-year students to spend longer periods of time in treatment areas of the Student Health Center, where they were able to review cases with staff physicians and participate in discussions concerning the rationale behind various drug therapies. 32 This successful program was expanded to include similar instruction at Seton Hospital during the 1970-71 academic year and at Brackenridge Hospital the follow­ing year. 
A medical library grant from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare made possible the purchase of a microfilm service and related equipment by the pharmacy library. This provided the student with current drug information and served as a basis for the establishment of a drug-information 
32J. B. Sprowls, "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy, September 1, 1969-August 31, 1970", Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
center serving both the university and the community. In an era of rapidly expanding pharmaceutical discoveries, such a center was essential to make the lates~ information readily available to those who needed it. 
A number of innovative new courses directed at providing the student with clinical skills were introduced during Sprowls's ad­ministration. "Pathology of Disease Processes," conducted un­der the supervision of several physicians, focused on changes in the bodily organs as a result of disease. "Biopharmaceutics" en­compassed the study of biological and physical principles of dosage forms as related to absorption, metabolism, and excre­tion of drugs. Implementation of this course required the redesign of a laboratory with several thousand dollars' worth of equipment and instruments. In line with the new philosophy of the pharmacist as disseminator of drug information, a course en­titled "Nonlegend Pharmaceutical Preparations" introduced the various over-the-counter drugs commonly used by the public, providing the information and expertise necessary to recommend the proper medication effectively and accurately. An additional semester of clinical pharmacy and a new clinical pharmacy ex­ternship provided the student with further experience in an in­stitutional setting, exposing him to various interprofessional aspects of health-care delivery. 
Some of these courses, particularly "Biopharmaceutics," re­quired considerable alterations to existing facilities to enable the instructors to conduct laboratory sections in these areas. Many of the required alterations to the physical structure of various laboratories were made possible through an institutional improvement grant of $214,000 received in the fall of 1970 from the Bureau of Health Professions Education and Manpower Training. Special equipment, which could not be supplied through the annual budget, was also purchased with these funds. 33 
Although the report of the System-Wide Long-Range Plan­ning Committee briefly mentioned the possibility of an optional 
33W. J. Sheffield, "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy, September 1, 1970-August 31, 1971 ," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
sixth year leading to the Doctor of Pharmacy degree (Pharm.D.), recommending an investigation into the feasibility of such a program, the establishment of such a degree would not come un­til the following administration. 
Because of the rapidly changing profile of pharmaceutical practice in the United States during the twenty-five years follow­ing World War II, continual revisions of curricula had been the practice of most colleges of pharmacy. Dean Sprowls spoke brief­ly about these changes shortly before he became dean: 
We must recognize the great phenomenon of change which is taking place in our lives. Not only are science and technology ad­vancing at an unprecedented rate as we race toward the twenty­first century, but social customs, too, are changing more rapidly than they have during most periods of history. Graduates of our pharmacy colleges during the past few years have been faced with two major problems: first, will they be able to master the machines before they have learned to be their masters? Now they are faced with the additional question of whether they will be able to keep abreast of new patterns of patient care as rapidly as these are developed by those who give guidance to public policy. 3" 
In order to meet such challenges effectively, Sprowls believed that the College of Pharmacy would need to adopt a highly flexi­ble curriculum and develop within the faculty the ability to make rapid adjustments in pertinent areas without losing the essence or destroying the continuity of the educational program. His solution to this challenge was the implementation of a core cur­riculum that would allow the student to build on a foundation of basic studies an overlay of specialized elective courses, designed to permit some degree of individual determination in education. 35 
This philosophy underlay the curricular changes wrought during Sprowls' administration. Such an arrangement provided faculty members with the opportunity to introduce experimental courses without disrupting the entire curriculum and students with the opportunity to select those courses most relevant to in­dividual career objectives. In short, the core-curriculum concept 
34Sprowls, "Future Perfect," p. 3. 
86lbid., pp. 3-4. 

allowed enough flexibility for the college to meet the demands of a rapidly advancing profession. In the coming years, this concept would allow an expanded clinical program to mesh readily with a solid foundation in basic sciences and techniques. 
ENROLLMENT 
During the years of Sprowls' administration, enrollment pat­terns in the College of Pharmacy were at variance. Undergraduate enrollment increased steadily, and the college was one of the three largest schools in the nation throughout the period. On the other hand, the number of graduate students decreased markedly, by 1972 reaching the lowest total for the preceding ten years. The reasons for these fluctuations, as well as their consequences, illustrate many trends occurring within the college and, therefore, bear close examination. 
In his annual report for the 1967-68 year, Sprowls reported that, although the College had been outstandingly successful in the recruitment of students for the practice of community phar­macy, the recruitment of faculty had not kept pace. The full-time faculty equivalent, which included part-time instructors and teaching assistants, equaled twenty-two, for a student-faculty ratio of nearly 14: 1. Although this was a respectable ratio for a general undergraduate curriculum, Sprowls noted that it could not be regarded as appropriate for a professional college which was expected to provide "a complete program of undergraduate and graduate specialties, a continuing education program of note, and a full range of university and community advisory ser­vices. "36 Due to personnel shortages, it had been virtually impos­sible to enrich the curriculum with options such as a schedule of undergraduate electives or opportunities for special development of gifted students through such programs as research projects and honors programs. 
The physical facilities of the college were also inadequate to accommodate an enrollment that had grown from 574 in 1966-6 7 to 753 in 1971-72. Sprowls conducted a survey of the 
36J B. Sprowls, "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy, September 1, 1967-August 31 , 1968," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
439 
space available for instructional purposes and found that the total of 32,455 square feet provided less than 80 square feet per professional student. According to the United States Public Health Service, 100 to 200 square feet per student was con­sidered adequate for undergraduate instruction. This crowding had resulted from the elimination of the classroom wings from the original building plan, an economy measure that left only one room designed for lecture purposes. This single classroom, which accommodated 58 students, was in continuous use as the dean's office tried to schedule as many courses as possible within the building. One laboratory with seats, which was utilized for emergency classroom space, was occupied so frequently that laboratory instructors had difficulty finding time to prepare their work. Needless to say, with space for graduate and faculty research at a premium, no provisions could be made for laboratory electives or special undergraduate research. 37 Resolu­tion of these difficulties would be essential before the quality of undergraduate education could be improved. 
Although total undergraduate enrollment increased rapidly during these years, the number of students receiving their early preprofessional training at The University of Texas declined steadily throughout Sprowls' administration. The figures in Table 5 indicate that approximately one-half of the students in the professional sequence completed their preparatory studies at other institutions before transferring to the college. Sprowls con­cluded, "These data, coupled with the total enrollment report, are regarded as evidence of the success of the pre-pharmacy ad­visors conference carried out through the Pharmacy Extension Service.38 
During the second year of Sprowls' administration, enroll­ment dropped by twenty-six students, although the loss was soon rectified. This decrease reflected, not a decline in the number of students desiring to study pharmacy, but a more rigid enforce­ment of admission requirements. For several years the Commit­tee on Acceptance and Progression of the Pharmacy Faculty had 
171bid. 
"Ibid 

TABLE 5 
UNDERGRADUATE ENROLLMENT UNDER DEAN SPROWLS 
7967-68  7968-69  7969-70  7970-77  7977-72  1972-73  
Prepro­ 
fessional  112  212  194  225  247  280  
First year  188  152  204  162  189  226  
Second year  119  119  112  181  194  156  
Third year Total  105 524  115 598  108 618  95 663  143 773  135 797  

SOURCE: "Annual Reports of the College of Pharmacy," 1967-73, Office of the Dean, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin. 
routinely allowed students with minor grade-point deficiencies to progress to the professional sequence on a probationary basis. A review of the administrative records, however, indicated that the majority of such students experienced academic difficulty and were nearly always forced to withdraw before graduation. Due to the shortage of facilities and personnel within the college, the faculty decided to adhere to the stated admission require­ment of a 2.0 grade average. After one year of this stricter policy, Sprowls reported: 
The result had been a decline in the number of students admitted to the professional sequence but there was no change in the preprofessional enrollment and it is not believed that there will be any decline in the number of students who will successfully com­plete requirements for the degree. 39 
An analysis of the number of degrees awarded since 1969 showed a steady increase, bearing out Sprowls' belief that elimination of marginal students would not affect the number of students com­pleting the program successfully. Another result of the strict adherence to admission standards was the excellent quality of work produced by those students who did gain admission. Scholastic achievement among professional students was con­sistently high, with an average of 20 percent placed on the honor roll each semester. 
39Sprowls, "Annual Report, 1968-69." 
Financial support for pharmacy students increased substan­tially during Sprowls' administration. The Health Manpower Act of 1965 provided extensive loans for undergraduates in addi­tion to the scholarships available through the college's Phar­maceutical Foundation, fellowships from the American Founda­tion for Pharmaceutical Education, and smaller grants and awards from private sources. Of particular note among the latter was the Skillern Scholarship, offered by the Zale Foundation of Dallas between 1967 and 1970. This award was made annually to a minority student in financial need from the Dallas area. Table 6 illustrates the total amount of financial aid and the number of students benefitting from these funds. Undoubtedly, this readily available financial aid contributed to a greater en­rollment by enabling students to attend the university who otherwise would have been unable to afford the expense. 
TABLE 6 
FINANCIAL AID FOR PHARMACY STUDENTS, 1967-73 
Year  Amount  Number ofStudents Assisted  
1967-68  $32, 152  60  
1968-69  55,700  81  
1969-70  63,065  93  
1970-71  71,900  101  
1971-72  71,560  109  
1972-73  70,431  112  

SOURCE: "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy," 1967-73, Office of the Dean, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin. 
Another significant increase occurred in the number of women enrolled in pharmacy. Sprowls noted that the substantial rise in undergraduate women students had raised the percentage of women in 1968-69 to 19 percent of the professional and preprofessional students. This figure compared favorably with the national average of 18.2 percent women in 1968-69. 40 Phar­macy has traditionally been a profession receptive to women. As 
'°Ibid. 
the number of women attending colleges and universities rose during the 1960s and early 1970s, it was logical that pharmacy should receive its share of this increase. 
In contrast to the expansion in undergraduate enrollments, the number of graduate students in the college declined marked­ly, as seen in Table 7. One of the major hindrances to the devel­opment of the graduate program had long been the lack of finan­cial support available for such study. Because of the college's in­ability to provide adequate stipends, those schools that could of­fer such funding quickly depleted the limited number of graduate students available. During the academic year 1967-68, 
TABLE 7 
GRADUATE ENROLLMENT IN PHARMACY, 1966-73 

1966-67  1967-68  1968-69  1969-70  1970-71  1971-72  1972-73  
39  28  24  20  25  15  15  

SOURCE: "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy," Office of the Dean, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin. 
only two graduate students were supported through University Fellowships out of an enrollment of twenty-eight, and in 1968-69, only one.41 Sprowls reported to the university ad­ministration, "This offers very poor competition with the several graduate schools which are able to award some type of graduate assistance to almost every accepted student. "'2 The United States Public Health Service and the American Foundation for Pharmaceutical Education did make available some funds in various years, but a program of regularly available funding was not developed until the next administration. 
Another factor affecting graduate enrollment was the attrac­tiveness of employment opportunities-particularly in commer­cial pharmacy and manufacturing-for many potential graduate students. In 1970-71, graduate enrollment increased by five to a total of twenty-five students, probably due to the business reces­
' 1Ibid. 
'2Ibid. 
sion that gripped the country in the early 1970s. This gain, however, was sharply offset the following year when the enroll­ment dropped to fifteen. 
Selective service regulations definitely contributed to the decline in graduate students as the Vietnam War escalated. Although deferments remained in effect for undergraduates, ex­emptions for graduate students were eliminated later. Some potential graduate students were inducted shortly after gradua­tion, while others were reluctant to begin further studies that might be interrupted before completion of degree requirements. Although the implementation of a draft lottery in the spring of 1970 eliminated much of the uncertainty surrounding military­service obligations, enrollment did not begin to increase until 1973-74.43 
Although the college could not provide financial assistance for students engaged in graduate study, the Biomedical Research Institute, inaugurated in the fall of 1968, generated research space and financial support for two Ph.D. candidates from the Department of Chemistry and up to twelve postdoctoral research fellows by 1971-72. Although the institute was supposedly oriented toward biomedical research as well as specialized graduate education, opportunities for students in pharmacy at the institute were never abundant. 44 
Dean Sprowls was not able to increase budgetary allotments to any great extent, nor did he have any success in expanding the physical facilities of the Pharmacy Building. His major achieve­ment toward the alleviation of the problems confronting the pharmacy educational programs was the addition of a number of new faculty members, some of whom were definitely oriented toward scientific research. 
NEW FACUL1Y MEMBERS 
In the fall of 1968, Karl Folkers, president of the Stanford Research Institute, was appointed to a joint professorship in the College of Pharmacy and the Department of Chemistry. Jean 
43Sprowls, "Annual Report, 1968-69" and "Annual Report, 1969-70. " 
44Sheffield, "Annual Report, 1970-71." 

Scholler, director of the Laboratory of Experiemental Therapeutics at the Stanford Research Institute, was appointed professor of pharmacology and director of the newly formed Laboratory of Comparative Pharmacology. Stephen Shlanta, senior scientist from Mead Johnson Research Laboratories, was appointed assistant professor of pharmacy. All three of these people brought to the college a strong background in basic and applied research. Folkers and Scholler collaborated with a number of graduate and postdoctoral students as well as research assistants in the Biomedical Research Institute, created by University President Norman Hackerman in 1968 "to bring together into one organizational unit individuals to work together on . . . an interdisciplinary basis. "45 
The Biomedical Research Institute was primarily oriented to clinical research in the life sciences. Cooperative research efforts were made between the institute and clinicians at various hospitals and medical schools. The two major subjects of research were coenzyme Q, a then-new vitamin with implica­tions of great significance for the nutritional sciences, and the chemistry and endocrinology of new hormones of the hypothalamus, particularly the chemistry of the thyrotropin­releasing hormone (TRH) of the hypothalamus. In the report of the Biomedical Research Institute for 1968-69, the following description of some of the activities was given: 
The research on coenzyme Q has extended into several sub­fields including synthesis of the inhibitors, basic biochemical studies on malaria, mammalian nutritional deficiencies, cancer, and diseases of muscle. Cooperative studies at medical schools and hospitals in the fields of malnutrition, reproduction, heart disease, muscular dystrophy, and related disorders have been conducted not only within the United States, but in Japan, Europe and India. 46 
During the following year, personnel of the institute dis­covered the chemical structure of a porcine thyrotropin-releasing hormone that stimulates the release and synthesis of thyrotropin, 
45Sprowls, "Annual Report, 1968-69." 
46lbid. 

the thyroid-stimulating hormone of the thyroid gland. Although these hormones had been recognized for several years, this was the first instance of one of the hormones being isolated and iden­tified by chemical analysis. For these efforts, Folkers and his as­sociates received the Van Meter Prize of the American Thyroid Association.47 Because of the success of its research efforts, sub­stantial grants were awarded the institute to support further projects.48 
In addition to her research at the institute, Scholler also served as director of the Laboratory of Comparative Pharmacology, located at the Balcones Research Center in northwest Austin. Through the cooperation of the Office of the President and the Office of the Graduate School, funds were provided for the es­tablishment of an animal facility and laboratory space to house her research projects in the determination of toxic properties of experimental cancer drugs. Her laboratory was equipped to car­ry out comparative studies on several species of animals. 49 
Victor A. Yanchick, who received his Ph.D. from Purdue University in 1968, was appointed that same year as assistant professor of pharmacy in the college. A native of Illinois, Yanchick earned his B.S. and M.S. degrees from the University of Iowa, where he specialized in hospital pharmacy. From 1962 to 1964, in the interim between completing his B.S. and begin­ning work toward the master's degree, Y anchick served as as­sistant chief pharmacist with Silver Cross Hospital in his hometown of Joliet, Illinois. While working toward his doctorate at Purdue, he held the position of managing pharmacist at the Student Health Center Pharmacy. After serving on the faculty at The University of Texas for three years, he was promoted to as­sociate professor. Although his major interests were clinical and hospital pharmacy, he moved into administrative work when he accepted the position of assistant dean in 1 971.5° 
47lbid. 
48Sheffield, "Annual Report, 1970-71" and "Annual Report, 1971-72." 
49Sprowls, " Annual Report, 1968-69" and "Annual Report, 1969-70"; and Sheffield, " Annual Report, 1970-71" and "Annual Report, 1971-72." 
50V. A. Yanchick, "Curriculum Vitae." Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
In 1970, Alan B. Combs joined the faculty as assistant profes­sor of pharmacology after receiving the Ph.D. in comparative pharmacology from the University of California at Davis. He grew up in Boulder, Colorado, where his father studied phar­macy under Sprowls. Combs received much of his education at the University of the Pacific in Stockton, California, where he earned a B.S. in pharmacy in 1962 and an M.S. in physiology­pharmacology in 1964. At The University of Texas, his major research interests have been in the area of neurogenic and drug­induced pulmonary edema and cardiovascular pharmacology. 51 
Dale D. Maness, a native of San Antonio, Texas, joined the faculty as assistant professor in 1971. A 1965 honor graduate of the College of Pharmacy, he received his graduate preparation at the University of Florida, earning the Ph.D. in 1969. Before returning to Texas, he served as research chemist at the Esso Research Laboratories in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Maness' research interests include photolytic and thermal stability of drugs and drug analysis. 52 
Gerald J. Yakatan was appointed assistant professor of phar­macy in 1972 by Acting Dean Sheffield. A native of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, he earned his B.S. and M.S. degrees from Temple University under Dean Sprowls. In 1971, he received the Ph.D. in pharmaceutical sciences from the University of Florida. Yakatan's research fields have been pharmacokinetics, biophar­maceutics, analysis of drugs in biological fluids, and drug stability. In 1975, he became assistant director of the newly formed Drug Dynamics Institute of the College of Pharmacy.61 
The year 1970 marked the retirement of the Executive Assis­tant Dorothy Jane Lidiak. She had been hired by Dean Burlage in 1951 as an administrative secretary and over the years had become undoubtedly the most knowledgeable person in the College of Pharmacy concerning academic and institutional af­fairs. To replace her was not easy, but Sprowls found in J. P. Grumbles a combination of business training and the skills 
51 A. B. Combs, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Phannacy. 
52D. D. Maness, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
53G. J Yakatan, " Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 


Associate Dean William Sheffield and Assistant Dean Victor Yanchick 

Graduate Advisor Jaime Nabor Delgado 
Alan Brooks Combs 
Dale Dwayne Maness 
J. P. Grumbles 
Gerald Joseph Yakatan 
A Laboratory Rat Abusing Common Drugs 
suitable to the variety of responsibilities that fell upon the ex­ecutive assistant. Grumbles, a native of San Saba, Texas, received his early training at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, where he earned a B.S. in commerce with a major in of.;. fice administration in 1962. While serving with the United States Air Force as an administrative officer, he studied at Inter­American University in San German, Puerto Rico, where he received the degree of Master of Business Administration in 1966. After being discharged from the air force, he served as director of administration for an Austin manufacturer prior to his employment with the College of Pharmacy. To supplement his credentials, Grumbles recieved recognition from the Ad­ministrative Management Society as a certified professional secretary in 196 7 and as a certified administrative manager in 1973. He was the first executive from the Austin area to achieve the latter distinction, which recognized competence in five areas of administration: personnel management; financial manage­ment, control, and economics; administrative services and systems and information management; case-problem analysis; and practical application of management skills. M As institutional affairs have increased in complexity over the years, the executive assistant has come to be an indispensible link in the smooth operation of the College of Pharmacy. 
DRUG-ABUSE EDUCATION 
Because community service is one of the elements considered by the university administration in awarding tenure, faculty members are generally quite conscientious in devoting time to worthy causes. Service on university, civic, or national commit­tees or advisory groups of various types as well as participation in continuing education programs of the Pharmacy Extension Service all receive recognition. These activities are too numerous and varied to be mentioned individually, but the drug-abuse 
6'.J. P. Grumbles, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
education project of the College of Pharmacy is of particular im­portance for its effect on the university and community and for the amount of time contributed by the faculty members. 
In June of 1970, the college received a grant of $88,206 from the United States Office of Education for planning and implementing a regional drug center for drug-abuse education. The program took the form of a conference held for four weeks during July and August, which attracted nearly seventy-five par­ticipants from many states. Of an interdisciplinary nature, the project, under the direction of Dean Sprowls, involved faculty members from the colleges of pharmacy, education, and social work on the main campus as well as from The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Trinity University in San Antonio, and Austin State College. State agencies taking part in the project included the Texas Education Agency, the Depart­ment of Public Safety, and the governor's office. 66 
From 1970 to 1973, faculty members took part in a number of activities directed toward educating the university and com­munity on the problems of drug abuse. Victor Y anchick served on a university-wide committee that studied the use of drugs on the campus and investigated procedures to bring about better control of the situation. He also acted as chairman of the Sub­committee on the Legal Implications of Drug Use, a part of the Governor's Task Force on Drug Education and Prevention. Jay Nematollahi, who cooperated with the Student Health Center in identifying and analyzing samples of drugs commonly used by students, discovered that many of the drugs available to students were both adulterated with other dangerous substances and quite variable in potency. In cooperation with the Texas State Department of Public Safety, Robert G. Brown and Jean Schol­ler presented a training course on drug abuse for members of the State Police and Highway Patrol; Brown presented a similar course for the Training School for Narcotic Agencies of the State Department of Public Service in Austin. Phi Delta Chi fraternity, with William Sheffield as faculty advisor, operated a program of 
&5Sprowls, "Annual Report, 1969-70." 
education on drug abuse for local junior and senior high schools until 1973, when its activities were gradually terminated. 56 
STUDENT ACTIVITIES 
Although students on university campuses throughout the na­tion exhibited considerable discontent during the latter years of the 1960s, those within the college remained un­disturbed. Relations between the faculty and students had traditionally been cordial and remained so throughout this period of unrest. Students did, however, exhibit an increased desire to participate in activities of the college that affected their academic careers. To further this interest, the pharmacy faculty decided during the 1968-69 year to include student representa­tion on its Committee on Curriculum and Committee on Student Activities, the two faculty groups on which the student voice would be most pertinent to student interests. 57 
The Pharmacy Council, which was originally organized as the Student Council under Dean Worrell, was composed of student representatives of the various organizations and classes within the college. During the winter of 1969, the council received faculty approval to conduct an evaluation of the courses offered during the spring semester. In its petition to the faculty, the Pharmacy Council explained that the purpose of the project was "to evaluate course content and not teacher performance." The council proposed to evaluate all of the courses offered during the semester and expressed the hope that its evaluation sheets would be retained and utilized fully by the faculty Committee on Cur­riculum of the Pharmacy Faculty. At its meeting of 7 February 1969, the faculty assented to this request; these evaluations have since proved to be an accurate reflection of student opinion con­cerning the various courses offered. 
In addition to Phi Delta Chi's participation in the drug-abuse education project, a number of students initiated a program to 
HSprowls, "Annual Report, 1969-70"; Sheffield, "Annual Report, 1970--71," "Annual 
Report, 1971-72, ", and "Annual Report, 1972-73." 
57Sprowls, "Annual Report, 1968-69." 
provide information to dormitory residents, sororities, and civic groups on the subject of venereal disease and birth control. Yanchick, as faculty sponsor and coordinator of this program, worked with three senior pharmacy students to produce A Hand~ book for Pregnancy Prevention and Venereal Disease, which was made available to university students in the spring of 1972. Paul Davis, a community pharmacist in Austin, compiled a slide series on the subject of venereal disease in cooperation with Young Drug Products Corporation of New York, the Texas Pharmaceutical Association, the Texas State Department of Health, and the Bexar County Pharmaceutical Association of San Antonio. The College of Pharmacy provided the series for presentations throughout the year.58 
DEATH OF DEAN SPROWLS 
Throughout most of 1970, Dean Sprowls, who had been in poor health, spent varying lengths of time in local hospitals and at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Research Center on the campus of The University of Texas Medical School in Houston. During his absences, administrative duties within the College of Pharmacy were assumed by Assistant Dean William Sheffield. On 9 January 1971, Dean Sprowls died at the age of fifty-nine. As the college mourned his unexpected loss, Acting President Bryce Jordan appointed Sheffield as acting dean, while a consultative committee was appointed to begin the arduous task of selecting a new dean for the fourth time in ten years. 59 
In memory of Dean Sprowls, contributions for the establish­ment of a scholarship fund in his name were solicited by Gordon Jensen, instructor in clinical pharmacy, and Wallace Guess, professor of pharmacy. Money collected for the Joseph B. Sprowls Fellowship Fund was turned over to the American Foundation for Pharmaceutical Education to be administered on a national basis. The first award, appropriately, was made to a 
58Sheffield, "Annual Report, 1971-72." 
59Sheffield, "Annual Report, 1970-71." 

graduate student in pharmacy at The University of Texas at Austin. 
Throughout his administration, Sprowls had been confronted with the usual pressures of insufficient money, large enrollment, and an administration that was at best indifferent to the needs of pharmaceutical education. Despite these handicaps, Sprowls managed to lay the groundwork for the educational trend of the coming decade-that of clinical pharmacy. Under his leadership, the first exploratory steps were taken toward the es­tablishment of a practice-oriented curriculum that would prepare the student for the rapid advances in the expanding field of health-care services. Sprowls had taken a college that was floundering under the impact of discontinuous leadership and divided opinion concerning directions to be followed and had formed it into an institution prepared to meet the challenges of an uncertain future. 

PARTV 
Pharmacists for the 
Future) 1973­

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN: 	Planning/or the Future 
OPERATIONS WITHIN THE COLLEGE of Pharmacy continued to expand rapidly under Acting Dean William J. Shef­field. Fallowing trends established under Sprowls' administra­tion, undergraduate enrollment increased as graduate enroll­ment declined, but research programs continued to receive sub­stantial funding. The major deficiencies affecting the college, as Sheffield noted in his annual report for 1970-71, were lack of equipment, the need to develop clinical instruction, and the paucity of building space. An educational improvement grant, awarded in the fall of 1970 for three years, had made possible many of the necessary alterations to existing space as well as the purchase of equipment and library materials. The availability of these funds during the two years of Sheffield's administration helped to relieve the shortages that had delayed the development of undergraduate and graduate programs and faculty research in previous years. 1 
Although Sprowls had developed the rationale for clinical­pharmacy programs in the undergraduate curriculum and gar­nered administrative acceptance for such a concept, he had been 
1W. J Sheffield, "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy, 1970-71," Office of the Dean, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin (hereafter referred to as Office of the Dean of Pharmacy). 
459 

able to implement only a minimal number of hospital clerkships during his administration. Under Sheffield, an experimental program was proposed to the administration that would permit selected students to complete their senior year at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, thereby allow­ing students specializing in clinical pharmacy to acquire the necessary preparation. Support for experimental courses came from a National Science Foundation Institutional Grant.2 The success of this program would lead to the expansion of clinical education and implementation of the Doctor of Pharmacy degree under the next administration. 
The lack of space available to the College of Pharmacy con­tinued to be critical. Dean Burlage had first experienced crowded conditions in classrooms and lecture courses within a few years after completion of the Pharmacy Building. Deans Worrell, Albers, and Sprowls had continued to emphasize the impeding effects of this shortage of space on the development of undergraduate and graduate curricula; Sheffield was forced to remind the administration that such deficiencies could result in restriction of existing research projects, which had brought in­creased funding and recognition to the college. These efforts were largely ineffective as the Building Committee of the General Faculty continued to give the needs of the college intermediate priority, at best. 
During the two years in which he served as acting dean, Shef­field continued the projects initiated under Sprowls. He pointed out to the administration the current and future needs of the Col­lege of Pharmacy and laid the groundwork for improvements that would be realized in coming years. 
JAMES THOMAS DOLUISIO 
A consultative committee, composed of faculty members from pharmacy and allied fields, a professional pharmacist, and three pharmacy students was appointed during the 1971-72 year to begin the arduous task of selecting a new dean. For the fourth 
2Sheffield, "Annual Report, 1970-71 "; and W. J. Sheffield, "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy, 1971-72." Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
time in ten years, the college faced the ordeal of searching for a permanent administrator. Under the chairmanship of Acting Dean Sheffield, the committee adopted the same criteria developed for the selection of Sprowls. In essence, the committee members were looking for a registered pharmacist, with a doc­toral degree in one of the areas of pharmaceutical science, who maintained a firm commitment to education at all levels as well as a demonstrated interest in basic research. After more than a year and a half of deliberation, the position of dean of the College of Pharmacy was offered to James Thomas Doluisio, then prof es­sor of pharmacy and assistant dean at the University of Ken­tucky. Doluisio's acceptance in the fall of 1972 occurred after the beginning of the fall semester for both schools; consequently, his appointment would not become effective until the summer of 1973. 
Doluisio, who was raised in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, com­pleted the B.S. and M.S. degrees at Temple University in Philadelphia. He then attended Purdue University, where he received his doctorate in physical pharmacy in 1962. From 1961 until 1967 he served as assistant, then associate professor at the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science. He later was professor and assistant dean of the College of Pharmacy at the University of Kentucky until 1973. His research interests have been in the fields of physical pharmacy, biopharmaceutics, bioe­quivalencies, factors affecting drug absorption, and phar­macokinetics. Professionally, he has participated in numerous national and international symposia as well as the visiting scien­tist program of the American Association of Colleges of Phar­macy (AACP). Other activities include membership in numerous organizations and societies, most notably as chairman of the Council of Deans of the AACP, chairman of the Pharma­ceutical Science Section of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and vice-president of the APhA Academy of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 8 
8J. T. Doluisio, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 

Dean James Thomas Doluisio 
LONG-RANGE PLANS 

Upon assuming the office of dean in the summer of 1973, Doluisio began preparing a plan for achieving the potential of ex­cellence that had long been possible for the college but never ful­ly attained. This plan was eventually submitted to the university administration in May of 1975, along with a discussion of the ac­complishments of Doluisio as dean during 1973-1975. The plan delineated three areas to be developed as soon as reasonably pos­sible: professional programs, graduate and research programs, and physical facilities and the budget. A brief look at this 1973 plan provides a background for the developments that occurred during Doluisio 's first three years as dean. 
Under the proposal for the professional undergraduate cur­riculum, Doluisio noted that the college would have to develop a broad spectrum of clinical programs if it were to meet the varied demands placed on it by the changing nature of pharmaceutical practice. Although the college had one of the largest enrollments in the nation, pharmacy education in Texas had not kept pace with national trends, particularly in the area of clinical ex­perience. In order to improve the professional programs, the dean outlined these goals: 
(a) 	
Limit enrollment in baccalaureate program to ... [210] un­dergraduate students per year. 

(b) 
Revise 	the baccalaureate program so that the senior (third professional) year can be taken off-campus by 1976. 

(
c) Develop off-campus clinical programs and a Doctor of Phar­macy program at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio by 1975. A broad range of clinical pharmacy activities is planned since this location will serve as an operational base for most of the clinical programs of the College. Pharmacy programs will include: 

(1) 	
a drug information center developed in conjunction with the medical library and the Department of Phar­macology of the Medical College, 

(2) 	
a clinical pharmacokinetics laboratory for monitoring drug levels in patients and providing emergency analytical services in cases of poisoning, 

(3) 
in-patient 	pharmacy services in medical services in­cluding pediatrics, surgery and general medicine, 

(
4) out-patient 	clinical pharmacy services involving per­sonalized instructions for the proper use of medicines, and 

(5) 
community-oriented pharmacy services. 



(d) 
Develop (by 1976) programs 	at The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston 

(1) 	
for involvement of pharmacists in poison control center activities, 

(2) 
for limited in-patient 	pharmacy services in medical ser­vices, and 

(3) 
for involvement in the Area 	Health Education Center grant which placed health professions students in South Texas. 



(e) 
Develop 	(by 1976) at The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Hospital and Tumor Institute pharmacy programs unique to cancer chemotherapy. 

(f) 	
Develop (by 1976) off-campus programs at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Dallas.' 


Clinical-pharmacy programs, which had been developed dur­ing the previous five years, were beginning to assume major im­portance in undergraduate curricula by the time Doluisio became dean. Federal financing for colleges of pharmacy, authorized in 1971 through congressional legislation, was depen­dent on the development of clinical-pharmacy programs at recipient institutions. In order to receive such grants, the College of Pharmacy was required to present a plan outlining the implementation of clinical training to be established with the funds. The development of such training, in the form of senior­level clerkships and the Doctor of Pharmacy degree, as well as the philosophy behind this movement will be discussed in the fol­lowing chapter. 
Graduate programs in the pharmaceutical sciences had not developed to the extent first envisioned during Dean Burlage's administration. Although the college offered the only doctorate in pharmacy in the state of Texas, graduate studies in pharmacy had not attained the reputation for excellence that other depart­ments on the Austin campus enjoyed. To improve graduate 
~-T. Doluisio, "A Plan for The University of Texas at Austin College of Pharmacy," May 1975, Office of the Dean of Pharmacy, pp. 3-4. 
education in the pharmaceutical sciences to a level competitive with other fields on campus, the following proposals were developed: 
(a) 	
Recruit ten new basic science faculty having special interest in graduate education and research by 1976. 

(b) 
Establish a research institute, 	the Drug Dynamics Institute, that would be devoted to all aspects of pharmaceutical research and development. 

(c) 	
Revitalize interest of current faculty in graduate programs and research. 

(
d) Promote 	interdisciplinary research efforts and working relationships. 

(e) 	
Double graduate student enrollment to 50 by 1978. 

(f) 	
Obtain resources sufficient to have five post-doctoral students in training by 1978 and ten by 1980. 

(g) 	
Obtain extramural research grants and contracts at an an­nual rate of $8,000 per faculty member by 1976 and $20,000 per faculty by 1980. 

(h) 
Publish scientific articles at a minimum rate of 1.0 per faculty member by 197 6 and 1. 5 per faculty member by 1 980. 6 Although these figures were arbitrary, they established levels that the dean and faculty felt were necessary for a growing and improving graduate program in pharmaceutical education. Achievement of these goals would greatly help to correct the deficiencies that had prevented the graduate program from realizing its potential. Physical accommodations, the student-faculty ratio, and in­. substantial budgets had drawn continuing criticism from American Council on Pharmaceutical Education (ACPE) in­. spectors since the college had first been granted accreditation in 1925. Although the facilities of the Pharmacy Building had been considered adequate for an enrollment of 397 in 1953, by 1973 the college had fallen far below the national average in square feet of space per student. Although 80 square feet had been available per student in 1Q68, burgeoning enrollments had reduced that total to 48 square feet by 1973; this compared poor­


ly to a range of 127 to 185 square feet per undergraduate student in recently constructed pharmacy buildings throughout the 
61bid., pp. 4-5. 
country .. The Pharmacy Building contained no lecture rooms, and its forty or more courses per semester were conducted in as many as fifteen different buildings. The dean's plan called for an addition of approximately 60,000 net square feet-40,000 to be in Austin and 20,000 at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. This would be an increase of 200 percent over the 30,000 square feet that had been in use since 1952. 8 
Although the student-faculty ratio had decreased since Dean Gidley's day, when it once ran as high as 107:1, the proportion in 197 3 of 21 : 1 did not compare favorably to the national average of 14: 1, nor the ratio of 8: 1 in the leading schools. 7 Doluisio hoped to improve the ratio to 15:1by1977 and 11:1by1980. To increase the faculty to such an extent, however, would require the hiring of sixteen new members in 1977 and an additional seventeen by 1980 if enrollments did not increase substantially. 8 
A national survey on the costs of education in the health professions indicated that the college, although not included in the tabulation, was exceeded by eight of the ten schools surveyed in terms of expenditures per student. The average of the ten schools surveyed was $2,654, within a range of $1, 131 to $4,549. The University of Texas College of Pharmacy budget for 1973-7 4 provided a total of $814, 898, or only $1, 500 per student. These rising expenditures reflected the higher cost of phar­maceutical education as a result of greater emphasis on clinical instruction. The dean's plan called for an increase to $1.5 mil­lion, or $2,300 per student, in 1977 and to $2.2 million, or $3,400 per student, by 1980.9 
Further analysis of the operating budgets of the ten schools surveyed revealed that the percentage of revenue attributed to federal capitation funds ranged from 8 percent to 28 percent, with an average of 13 percent. In contrast, The University of Texas College of Pharmacy relied on federal aid for 33 percent of 
6lbid., p. 5. 
7University of Texas, University Course Catalog, 1946-47, Texas Collection, Barker Texas 
History Center, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas (hereafter referred to 
as Texas Collection); and Doluisio, "A Plan," p. 5. 
6Doluisio, "A Plan," p. 5. 
9lbid., pp. 5-6. 
its total budget. 10 Doluisio noted the dangers of relying so heavily on such resources: 
This comparison places The University of Texas College of Pharmacy in a precarious position for projecting current un­dergraduate programs as well as developing new programs since Federal capitation funds have been authorized only through 1975. Certainly, these statistics point to an over-reliance on Federal capitation funds for providing pharmacy training, and every effort must be made to increase the total operating budget for the Col­lege of Pharmacy. 11 
Although the financial position of the College of Pharmacy was rather tenuous when Doluisio assumed the deanship in t973, the plan that he formulated proposed far-reaching improvements and innovations for pharmaceutical education in Texas. Not every point in his plan was achieved by the targeted date, but considerable advancements were made within a relatively short period of time. 12 These accomplishments, as well as the struggle to implement new ideas, form the story of Doluisio's administration from t 973 to t 976. 
OBJECTIVES OF THE COLLEGE 
Activities within the college were expanding rapidly during Doluisio's first year; to clarify his ideas on pharmaceutical education for the university administration, he included in his first annual report an outline of the objectives of the College of Pharmacy. Some of these points were newly defined as a result of the expanded clinical program; others had long been an integral aspect of the operation of the college but had never been defined as such. These objectives, developed in t 973 through consulta­tion with the faculty, covered the areas of education, research, and service. A brief examination of these objectives helps to bring into focus some of the ideas that had been developing for many years and to delineate future trends. 
lOfbid. 
11Ibid. 
12for means of comparison, statistics from Doluisio's tenure will be contrasted with 
those from the 1972-73 academic year. Because Doluisio was able to influence con­
siderably the activities of the College during the 1972-73 year, the results of his 
leadership can be seen during his first administrative year rather than the second. 
In the area of education, the major responsibility of the college was to provide up-to-date courses and clinical experiences leading to the Bachelor of Science degree in pharmacy for the student interested in community practice. For the instruction of special practitioners in pharmacy, a course of study leading to the advanced professional degree, Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.), would be offered. In the area of the pharmaceutical sciences (i.e., medicinal chemistry, pharmaceutics, pharmacy administration, pharmacognosy, and pharmacology) graduate programs involving advanced studies and original research were available leading to the Master of Science and Doctor of Philosophy degrees. A second objective of the college was "to maintain teaching excellence and provide modern methods for learning and testing through seminars, work shops, and constant attention to improved techniques of teaching and learning. "13 
Research objectives were of a scientific and clinical nature. At the academic level, the faculty aimed to carry on active research in the development of new medicinal agents, the mechanisms of drug action in animals and man, the improvement of drug therapy, national drug administration and laws, and the socioeconomic aspects of the marketing and distribution of drug products. Among clinical concerns were the initiation of research on how pharmacists could "make even more meaningful con­tributions to patient care by expansion and extension of their professional responsibilities. "14 While affirming that research was the individual responsibility of each faculty member, the col­lege organized the Drug Dynamics Institute to consolidate these disciplines into a vigorous and effective program. 
In the area of service, the college had long provided the phar­macists of the state with an inclusive program of continuing education through the Pharmacy Extension Service. On an in­dividual basis, faculty members served the community, state, and nation in advisory or consultive capacities in matters related to the science and practice of pharmacy. 
13J. T. Doluisio, "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy, 1973-74," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy, p. 9 
141bid. 
REORGANIZATION OF 
THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATION 

Through the statement of these objectives, the faculty and the university administration were made more aware of the direc­tions in which individuals and the College were expected to evolve. The extensiveness of these objectives illustrates the com­plex nature of the programs that had developed in recent years. During earlier days, the dean had performed all the ad­ministrative duties of the College, including typing cor­respondence and annual reports. Under Dean Burlage, various administrative· and clerical assistants had been appointed, and under Sprowls the position of assistant dean had been created. By the time Doluisio assumed office in July 1973, the affairs of the College had become so complex as to necessitate an associate as well as two assistant deans. 
With the appointment of Doluisio, Acting Dean Sheffield became associate dean in charge of the development and supervi­sion of all college programs. He assumed responsibility for registration and advising of undergraduates, administration of the College's scholarships and loans, supervision of orientation sessions, approval of add/drop and withdrawal requests, bien­nial revision of the course catalogue, annual inventory, and general authority over bookkeeping duties. 15 
Victor Yanchick, who had served as acting assistant dean dur­ing the interim period, was appointed assistant dean for academic affairs. His general responsibility was to develop the curricula for baccalaureate, master's, doctoral and professional degrees. He supervised and evaluated all aspects of the un­dergraduate curriculum except clinical training and experience, scheduled classes, and managed the goals and teaching resources of all educational functions provided by the College. 16 
In 1973. Charles A. Walton was appointed assistant dean for clinical programs. The responsibilities of this new position, with offices at UTHSCSA, included "supervision of interprofes­sional collaboration in the development, implementation, and 
16j. T. Doluisio, "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy, 1975-76,'' Office of the Dean of Pharmacy, p. 18. 
16lbid., p. 18. 

Assistant Dean Charles Anthony Walton 
evaluation of innovative patient care services and clinical teaching in the baccalaureate and Pharm.D. programs. " 17 As as­sistant dean, he was the chief administrator of all aspects of the College of Pharmacy's clinical projects. 
In Austin, the lines of responsibility included a director of the Drug Dynamics Institute, a director of the Pharmacy Extension Service, an executive assistant, a graduate advisor, area coor­dinators, and an assistant to the dean. Each of these people became responsible for the performance of staff members in one particular sector. By the fall of 1973, the employees of the college had increased to twenty-seven faculty members, sixteen teaching assistants, three administrative staff members, ten secretaries, and nine supporting staff members. 18 With such a large number of people working in diverse areas, an intricate administrative organization was essential to the efficient operation of the col­lege. 
ENROLLMENT TRENDS 
Enrollment of undergraduate students in the prepharmacy and professional sequences increased steadily throughout the 1960s, placing the college within the top four schools of phar­macy in the nation in terms of enrollment. Upon the institution of the five-year baccalaureate program in 1960, provision had been made for limiting enrollment by requiring application for admission to the first professional (third) year. Previously, all applicants meeting the minimum stated requirements had been admitted. Beginning in 1974, however, only a predetermined number of students were admitted to the professional program. As Doluisio noted, "Until additional facilities are provided, it ap­pears ... the number of qualified applicants will continue to ex­ceed the number that can be accepted into the College. " 19 
The decision to limit enrollment was made at a time when ap­plications were rising rapidly. Throughout the 1973-74 year, 76 percent of the applicants were accepted; in 1974-75, however, 48 
17Ibid. 
1'Doluisio, "Annual Report, 1973-74," pp. 69-70. 
11'Ibid., p. 21. 

percent were granted admission, and in 1975-7 6 the figure was 36 percent. 20 Students were admitted three times per year, short­ly before the beginning of the fall, spring, and summer semesters. The vast majority, however, applied for the fall semester of each year, although admission statistics show that those requesting entrance for spring and summer semesters stood a better chance of being accepted. Figures recorded in the 1975-76 annual report illustrate this pattern, as shown in Table 8. As a result of this selection process, the preparedness of students admitted to the professional sequence improved. Choice of students was based primarily on grade-point average, with an overall average of 2.8 for new students admitted in the 1973-74 year, rising to 3.1 by 1975-76.21 This higher quality of student resulted in increased numbers on each semester's honor roll and a lower number of students who failed to graduate. 
TABLE 8 
PERCENTAGE OF PHARMACY APPLICANTS ACCEPTED, 1975-76 
Fall  Spring  Summer  Total  
Applications Received Applications Accepted Percentage Accepted  226 79 303  134 69 513  115 59 513  475 207 443  

SOURCE: "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy, 1975-76," Office of the Dean, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin. 
By admitting students three times per year, instead of only during the standard fall entrance, as the majority of schools of pharmacy did, the college could function at a level far beyond its fiscal base and physical capacity. By admitting and graduating students more often and in smaller classes, the college could 
20Doluisio, "Annual Report, 1973-74," "Annual Report, 1974-75," and "Annual Report, 1975-76." 
21Doluisio, "Annual Report, 1973-74," p. 21, and "Annual Report, 1975-76," p. 13. 
employ faculty time and laboratory space more effectively, while providing students with the educational advantage of a lower student-teacher ratio. Thus, although the college compared un­favorably to other schools in terms of available resources, it was able to graduate annually some of the largest classes in the nation. The composition of incoming students changed significantly during Doluisio's first three years. In 1973-74, women students comprised 22 percent of the third-year class, with Mexican Americans making up 14 percent, blacks less than 1 percent, and foreign students (mainly Chinese from Hong Kong), 6 percent.22 Two years later, women constituted 62 per­cent of the incoming professional students for the fall semester, with 22 percent Mexican American, 5 percent Asian, and slight­ly more than 1 percent black.23 Although ethnicity and/or sex were not determinants for admission, the percentage of minority and women students in the entire student body was quickly in­creasing. 
Unlike undergraduate enrollment, graduate enrollment had steadily declined during Sprowls' administration. The factors contributing to this have already been mentioned. Throughout Doluisio's administration, however, graduate enrollment in­creased steadily, growing from fifteen students in 1972-73 to thirty-six during 1975-76.24 One of the major reasons for this ex­pansion lay in the increased amount of financial assistance available to graduate students. In 1973-7 4, seventeen as­sistantships of various categories were awarded. Teaching as­sistantships accounted for the bulk of positions, although one as­sistant instructor, two research assistants with the Drug Dynamics Institute, and two academic assistantships were available. Active recruitment by individual faculty members, through advising graduating seniors within the college and visiting other schools, also played a substantial role in increasing graduate enrollments.25 
22Doluisio, "Annual Report, 1973-74," p. 22. 
23Doluisio, "Annual Report, 1975-76," p. 13. 
24lbid., p. 14. 
25Doluisio, "Annual Report, 1973-74," p. 47. 

Table 9 summarizes the enrollment statistics for the first three years of Doluisio's administration, illustrating the un­precendented growth of this time. In his 1973 plan for the Col­lege of Pharmacy, Doluisio had set two goals concerning enroll­ment: that entering undergraduate students be limited to 210 each year and that graduate students at the M.S. and Ph.D. levels be increased to 50 by 1978. The limiting of undergraduates was an unqualified success. Although admission applications totaled 575 during 1975-76, only 207 were admitted during the year, allowing for selection of only the most qualified students. At the graduate level, attainment ofthe targeted enrollment of 50 students by 1978 was becoming a possibility as enrollments in the master's and doctoral programs had increased from 15 in 1972-73 to 36 in 1975-76, a growth of 240 percent. Clearly, in the area of enrollments-whether decreasing undergraduate or increasing graduate figures-Doluisio's achievements far ex­ceeded his projected goals. 
FACULTY 
Implementation of the college's clinical programs at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio 
TABLE 9 
GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE ENROLLMENT, 1973-76 

1973-74  7974-75  1975-76  
Prepharmacy  377  295  388  
Program  
Baccalaureate  564  591  558  
Program  
M.S. and Ph.D.  26  31  36  
Programs  
Pharm.D.  12  24  36  
Program  
Total  979  941  1,018  

SOURCE: " Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy, 1975-76," Office of the Dean, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin. 
(UTHSCSA) occurred in the fall of 1973. Although both compo­nents were under Dean Doluisio's jurisdiction, they effectively functioned as separate units. Clinical faculty members had am­ple opportunity to interact with the medical staff and personnel at UTHSCSA but had limited contact with the pharmacy faculty in Austin. These clinical faculty members will be dis­cussed subsequently in conjunction with the development of the clinical programs on the San Antonio campus. 
During his first year in office, Doluisio appointed two full professors: Alfred Martin, professor of pharmacy and director of the· Drug Dynamics Institute (DDI), and Jerry Fineg, professor of pharmacology and director of the Animal Resources Center. Martin, who received a B.S. in pharmacy from the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science in 1942, completed his M.S. in 1948 and Ph.D. in 1950 at Purdue University. In addition to his duties as director of DDI, his research interests encompass an­tibiotic research, physical medicinal chemistry, drug-transport dynamics, physical chemistry of drug and prodrug formulations, and manufacturing principles of pharmaceuticals and cosmetics.26 
Jerry Fineg, professor of pharmacology, received the degree of Doctor of Veterinary Medicine from Texas A&M University and a master's from the University of Southern California. He s·erves as director of the Animal Resources Center in Austin, a program housing all university research animals under conditions meeting federal standards. His research includes drug effects and drug distribution in disease conditions of laboratory animals. 27 
In 1974-75, eight new faculty members were appointed. They included one associate professor, five assistant professors, an ad­junct associate professor, and an assistant professor of clinical pharmacy. Robert Victor Smith, who completed the M.S. in 1964 and the Ph.D. in 1968 at the University of Michigan, was appointed associate professor of pharmaceutical chemistry and assistant director of the Drug Dynamics Institute. In 1976 he 
28A. Martin, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
27J. Fineg, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 

Alfred Martin, Robert Victor Smith, and Salomon Ayzenman Stavchansky William Harvey Riffee (standing) and Jerry Fineg 


L 

Daniel Acosta and Steven Wayne Leslie 
-~···----1 

Kenneth Boyette Roberts, Esther Jane Wood Hall, William Lavoice Hightower, and Bill David Jobe comprise the area of pharmacy administration. 

'''""~"""•"""'_.. ........._........

_ 
, 
I 
I
I ~ 
~ 


I ~ I I I I 
~ 
I 
I 
r 
I 
I 

I I I I I 
~ 
.I 
:1 
Jerotd Newburger 
became associate director of DDI. His research has been in the areas of analysis of drugs and microbial and mammalian metabolism of biologically active compounds. 28 
Daniel Acosta, assistant professor of pharmacology, finished his undergraduate education at the college before earning a doc­torate from the University of Kansas in 1974. His research in­terests encompass cellular toxicology and drug metabolism. 29 
William Lavoice Hightower, assistant professor of pharmacy administration, received the B .S. in pharmacy from Southwestern Oklahoma State University in 1968 and the M.S. in 1973 and the Ph.D. in 1975 from the University of Mississippi. His principal interests include health-care and pharmacy ad­ministration and management, health-status measurement, and clinical pharmacy. 30 
Stephen Wayne Leslie, assistant professor of pharmacology, received all of his professional training at Purdue University.. Since completing his doctorate in 1974, he has conducted research in the field of endocrine and biochemical phar-· macology, as well as in the mechanism of termination of secretory functions. 31 
Jerold Newburger completed his B.S. and M.S. degrees at Temple University in 1951 and 1954, after which he owned and operated a community pharmacy in Philadephia while teaching part-time at his alma mater. In 1974 he completed the Ph.D. from the University of Kentucky and joined the College of Phar­macy faculty in Austin as assistant professor of pharmacy. His research interests include pharmacokinetics, absorption of quaternary ammonium compounds, and phototherapy. 32 
Salomon Ayzenman Stavchansky, assistant professor of phar­macy as well as biopharmaceutics coordinator of DDI, obtained a baccalaureate degree from the National University of Mexico 
28R. Smith, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
29D. Acosta, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
8°W. L. Hightower, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
81S. W. Leslie, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
82J. Newburger, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 

in 1969 before coming to the United States to earn his doctorate from the University of Kentucky in 1974. His scientific pursuits include the physical chemistry of pharmaceutical systems, pro­tein binding, pharmacokinetics, and the application of short­lived isotopes for the identification of neoplastic tumors. 81 
Kenneth Edward Tiemann, who holds B.S. and M.S. degrees from the College of Pharmacy, served as chief pharmacist of the Student Health Center from 1955 to 1961, when he resigned to go into community pharmacy, owning and operating the Hyde Park Pharmacy, and served as director of pharmacy service for the Brown Schools for Exceptional Children, director of pharma­cy service for Westminster Hospital in Austin, and pharmacy consultant to various nursing homes and extended-care facilities in the Austin area. He rejoined the faculty in 1974 as adjunct professor, and instructs students in consulting and other clinical aspects of pharmacy practice.34 
Jack Christopher Bradberry, who holds B.S. and M.S. degrees from Northeast Louisiana State University, received the Pharm.D. degree from the University of Tennessee in 1972. He was appointed assistant professor in 1974 and conducts varying aspects of the clinical pharmacy program in Austin.86 
During his first two years as dean, Doluisio filled the majority of positions for which he had received budgetary allotment. Dur­ing the 1975-76 year three positions for assistant professor became available. William Harvey Riffee, who received the B.S. in pharmacy from West Virginia University ·in 1967 and the Ph.D. from Ohio State University in 1975, was named assistant professor of pharmacology. His research has been in the fields of neuropharmacology of the central nervous system, catecholamine, and biochemical pharmacology.ae Kenneth Boyette Roberts was named to assistant professor in pharmacy administration, but only remained with the college for two years. 
In the first three years of Doluisio 's administration, twenty persons were appointed to the f acuity of the college, ten based in 
33S. A. Stavchansky, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 34K. E. Tiemann, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 35J. C. Bradberry , "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 38W. H. Riffee, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
r ---------~---------------,--------·. 
·-~------------------------------------------~=--·-········----­

Kenneth Edward Tiemann 
Austin and ten in San Antonio. From a staff of twenty-two at the level of instructor or above during the 1972-73 year, these ap­pointments nearly doubled the faculty of the college. Although development of the clinical program in San Antonio created half of these openings, the ten academic appointments in Austin represented a considerable expansion of the academic personnel. In his 1972-73 annual report, Acting Dean Sheffield had noted that the college needed to fill positions in clinical pharmacy as well as in pharmaceutical chemistry, pharmacology, and phar­maceutics. At the end of the 1975-76 year, these needs had been adequately met. With ample faculty to instruct a student body of 1,018, the dean could turn his efforts toward improving the quality of the educational format at all levels. 
RESEARCH PROGRAMS 
In the summer of 1973, the concept of a center within the Col­lege of Pharmacy for pharmaceutical and allied health research and training had developed, gradually at first and then quite rapidly under Sprowls and Sheffield. In the 1970s, this aspect of pharmaceutical science received increasing emphasis within the college. 
The idea for a Drug Drynamics Institute (DDI) emerged from a meeting of the faculty, students, and administrators of The University of Texas; Dean-elect Doluisio; Alfred Martin, then dean and professor of medicinal chemistry at Temple University; and individuals from other institutions in the United States and Latin America. DDI was designed to apply the information gained from pharmaceutical research and development to the discovery of new medicinal agents, the improvement of drug therapy, and the marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical products. The institute also serves as a training center for analysts, formulation specialists, manufacturing technologists, managers, and administrators capable of assuming positions in industry, government, and educational institutions. It provides the opportunity for academic, governmental, and industrial researchers and practitioners interested in various aspects of 

Jack Christopher Bradberry 
pharmaceutical science and economics to work together. Despite its close relationships with governmental and industrial organi­zations and its dependence on these organizations for some funds, DDI is unique as a research facility because of its structural independence from such partisan influences. 37 
A research institute of this magnitude provides a strong impetus to related research throughout the college; DDI was organized in part to consolidate the efforts of the faculty toward an effective research program. Research, however, is the respon­sibility of each individual faculty member. As Doluisio noted in his first annual report: 
Faculty members ... are not required to carry on individual research through the DDI if they prefer to develop programs within their own divisions or in cooperation with colleagues elsewhere within The University of Texas System. However, the establishment of an institute that concentrates specifically on drug research and is able to coordinate programs by inter­disciplinary teams has resulted in a more efficient and effective utilization of professional talent and financial resources. 88 
Within its first year of operation, DDI proved to be a valuable catalyst toward intensified research activities throughout the un­iversity and the state. By the fall of 1974, one-half of the phar­macy faculty members were involved in research projects con­nected, to one degree or another, with DDI. 
DDI researchers have served as consultants to industry and governmental agencies in the areas of biopharmaceutical analysis, pharmacokinetics, biopharmaceutics, new drug­product design, and the evaluation of marketed products. In cooperation with the Drug Abuse Division of the Texas Depart­ment of Community Affairs, DDI researchers have served as analysts and consultants on commonly abused drugs, as well as being involved in publishing a monthly bulletin and assisting in drug-screening activities for various state health agencies. 39 
87University of Texas, College of Pharmacy, "A Self-Study Report of the College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin, March 1976," Office of the Dean of Phar­macy, p. 60. 
38Doluisio, "Annual Report, 1973-7 4," p. 55. 
89Doluisio, "Annual Report, 1975-76," p. 8. 
Alfred Martin joined the faculty in the fall of 1973 as director of DDI. His staff includes Robert Smith, associate director for physical and analytical studies; Gerald Yakatan, assistant direc­tor of pharmacokinetics; and Salomon Stavchansky, biophar­maceutics coordinator. The entire faculty of the college are con­sidered to be members of DDI, with associate members found in many other departments of The University of Texas System, and in university, governmental, and industrial groups throughout the country. 
In an effort to create a reliable source of support for DDI that would not be affected by the periodical variations in research awards, base financing from the annual college budget was es­tablished for the 1974-7 6 biennium. In addition to these funds, a substantial number of grants were received from the University Research Institute. Most of this support is made available for the initiation of research projects, and the pharmacy faculty has been quite successful during recent years in attracting such funds. As so-called extramural support from outside the univer­sity-from government, industry, and private donors-became available for the support of postdoctoral and predoctoral re­searchers as well as visiting research scientists, Doluisio pre­dicted that this trend "should portend markedly improved extramural funding over the next decade. "40 
Independent research activities by pharmacy faculty members increased rapidly during Doluisio's administration, partially in response to the impetus provided by DDI. Projects ranged in scope from basic biopharmaceutical, pharmaceutical chemistry and pharmacological studies to evaluations of socioeconomic factors influencing pharmacy practice in the United States. Research funds attracted to the college through faculty efforts supported a number of graduate and postdoctoral students in advanced studies. As evidence of increased research, scholarly production by the faculty, ranging from scientific and profession­al papers to invited lectures, increased markedly during the years from 1973 to 1976.41 
4-0(;ollege of Pharmacy, "Self-Study Report," p. 65. 
41Doluisio, "Annual Report, 1975-76," p. 9. 

CONTINUING EDUCATION 

Developments in pharmaceutical practice that occurred dur­ing the previous decade required greater emphasis on the biological sciences and clinical expertise in schools of pharmacy. No longer could a pharmacist be content to recall the facts alone; he had to be able to assimilate this knowledge in order to deter­mine a rational course of drug therapy. To meet these challenges as well as those of developments of the future, the practicing pharmacist was becoming ever more dependent upon continuing education to maintain and improve his professional competence. More and more states were beginning to demand demonstration of continuing competence as a requisite for relicensure, generally in the form of specified numbers of approved course credits. Although Texas did not have such a requirement, a bill was scheduled for introduction in the 1977 state legislature. In the 1970s, therefore, the work of the Pharmacy Extension Service took on renewed significance. 
As continuing education expanded, better coordination on both the national and state levels became imperative. A national tripartite committee on continuing education, composed of representatives of the American Pharmaceutical Association, the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, and the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, issued reports in 1971 and 1972 delineating this need for more extensive cooperation between pharmaceutical organizations in the promotion of con­tinuing education. Upon his return to the directorship of the Pharmacy Extension Service in 1973, Bill Jobe recognized the need for a similar organization in Texas. In a report to the faculty of the college, Jobe wrote: 
Given the existing situation, it can be seen that continuing educa­tion in pharmacy should not be viewed chauvinistically as the purview of any one institution or association, but one in which all involved should contribute their unique resources and talents and exercise their appropriate authority.42 
'2B. D. Jobe, "The Texas Tripartite Committee on Continuing Pharmacy Education: A Report to the Faculty, The University of Texas at Austin, College of Pharmacy," Col­lection of Pharmacy Library, The University of Texas at Austin, pp. 2-3. 
In August of 1973, upon the suggestion by Jobe, the Texas Pharmaceutical Association (TPA) called an exploratory meet­ing of the colleges of pharmacy, the State Board of Pharmacy, and the TPA, resulting in the organization of the Texas Tri­partite Committee on Continuing Education, composed of representatives of each institution. The first actions of the committee were to eliminate the conflicts of schedules between ongoing programs listed by the individual institutions and to plan a comprehensive calendar of continuing education services. As a result of this cooperative effort, the committee coordinated the existing phases of the Pharmacy Extension Service of The University of Texas with those of the schools of pharmacy of the University of Houston and Texas Southern University and various professional meetings of pharmaceutical organizations. 43 
As a result of these cooperative efforts, attendance at continu­
ing education sessions increased dramatically. Courses were of­
fered on the campuses of the colleges of pharmacy as well as 
through regional seminars, some of which were offered evenings 
and also by correspondence for the first time during the 
1974-75 academic year. In years past, programs of the Phar­
macy Extension Service had been directed solely at the state's 
pharmacists; under the auspices of the Texas Tripartite Com­
mittee on Continuing Pharmacy Education (TTCCPE), 
however, some of these seminars were directed at health profes­
sions other than pharmacy. Conferences during the 1974-75 
year involved the interaction of nurses, dieticians, and phar­
macists; the first in a planned sequence of courses for op­
tometrists was also offered. 44 In the coming decade, the Phar­
macy Extension Service and TTCCPE are expected to play an 
ever-increasing role in keeping practicing pharmacists abreast of 
the changing nature of their profession. 
PHYSICAL FACILITIES Housing had been a perpetual problem throughout the history of the college. Substantial accommodations designed solely for 
"Ibid. 
''University of Texas, Pharmacy Extension Service, "Annual Report Summary, t974-75: Pharmacy Extension Service, The University of Texas at Austin," Office of the Pharmacy Extension Service, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin. 
use by the college were first realized with the dedication of the Pharmacy Building in 1952, only to be marred by the fact that nearly one-half of the structure originally planned had been eliminated to trim the cost of the project to fit the appropriated budget. In the 1950s, the new building provided amply for the needs of graduate and faculty research at a time when these ac­tivities were in their infancy. Classroom space for undergraduate students, the most pressing requisite at the time, was nonexistent within the building. Lecture courses were scheduled in whatever space was available, often at a considerable distance from the college. Although each dean had subsequently requested com­pletion of the originally conceived classroom wings, these pleas had gained little consideration from the university administra­tions. In the fall of 1973, Dean Doluisio faced the same impasse of inadequate classroom facilities and a growing student body; to complicate matters for him, however, the numerous new facul­ty members whom he had appointed placed a severe strain on the once-adequate office and laboratory space. Doluisio, how­ever, would have better luck than his predecessors in resolving this matter. 
Ifthe experience of faculty, staff, and students was not enough to convince the administration of the urgency of an addition to the existing building, figures gathered from other colleges of pharmacy documented the scarcity of the facilities available in Austin. The 34,700 net square feet available for educational use in 1973 represented 42 square feet per pupil. Under Dean Sprowls, the lower enrollment figures had created a more favorable average of 80 square feet per student, but even this figure was grossly under the national average range of from 127 to 185 square feet per student. Despite this handicap, the college succeeded in educating one of the largest student bodies in the country by operating on a year-round basis.45 The use of laboratory space for three sessions per year instead of two allowed more students to receive instruction within the existing facilities. In order to accomplish this feat, however, as many as nine sections of some laboratory courses were offered during any 
45College of Pharmacy, "Self-Study Report," p. 33. 
given semester, with some sections scheduled for the evening hours. Such a method was not new to the college, for "Daddy" Cline had reverted to the same method in an effort to provide his students with the necessary laboratory work. 
Conditions were no better on the San Antonio campus. When clinical-pharmacy programs were developed at UTHSCSA in the fall of 1973, no permanent quarters had been assigned for their use. Instead, the clinical-pharmacy faculty and students were sandwiched into whatever space could be spared by the Department of Pharmacology and the two teaching hospitals. With only a few senior pharmacy students enrolled in the pilot program in 1972, their presence created no additional burden for the recently constructed medical center. By 1976, however, when 36 candidates for the Doctor of Pharmacy degree and approx­imately 150 senior students were in residence in San Antonio, overcrowding became a major concern. "6 
Because of the limited facilities of both campuses, the dean submitted a request in 1975 for a permanent addition to the Pharmacy Building in Austin as well as new facilities in San An­tonio that could be incorporated into expanded quarters for pharmacology and clinical pharmacology. Instead of granting this request, the administration assigned the college 3,500 square feet of office space in a renovated sorority house one block from the Pharmacy Building across a major thoroughfare. Although the addition of this annex lessened the strain on the faculty and clerical staff, it did nothing to alleviate the absence of classroom space in Austin or the cramped conditions in San An­tonio. Housing for the College of Pharmacy, however, could not be ignored any longer, and on 13 February 1976, the board of regents gave preliminary approval for both of the projects that the dean had requested. 
Construction of an addition to the existing building in Austin was given top priority by the regents on 14 May 1976. A feasibility study by the Office of Facilities Planning and Construction of The University of Texas System i.qdicated that 
' 8lbid., p. 34. 
approximately 65,600 gross square feet of floor space could be achieved by constructing nine levels on the south side of the twenty-four-year-old Pharmacy Building. Such an addition would include research and laboratory space as well as classrooms and offices. The construction, scheduled to begin in the spring of 1978, would cover a period of thirty months at an estimated cost of $8 million. Although no concrete plans con­cerning the clinical-pharmacy requests were finalized at that time, by 1980 faculty and students in Austin, at least, could ex­pect to be comfortably housed. •7 
SUMMARY 
During his first three years as dean of the College of Phar­macy, Doluisio had effected substantial improvements in all aspects of pharmaceutical education. In his 1973 report, "A Plan for The University of Texas at Austin College of Pharmacy," he outlined several goals to be reached within the first few years of his tenure. These included limiting undergraduate enrollment, revising the baccalaureate curriculum, increasing the number of faculty members, establishing a research institute and promoting research, strengthening the graduate program, and obtaining additional physical facilities. Substantial achievements in all of these areas had been realized by the fall of 197 6. Although efforts at implementing and/or strengthening these accomplishments would occupy the dean and faculty for years to come, prospects for the College of Pharmacy had never been more promising. At the end of Doluisio's first three years, the college appeared to be entering into a new era of growth and accomplishment. 
One area in which the college scored substantial success was in the implementation of clinical pharmacy programs in Austin as well as at other sites throughout the state. 
47lbid., p. 33. 
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN: New Concepts in 
Pharmaceutical 

Practice & Education 
THE NATURE AND PRACTICE OF pharmacy had undergone dramatic changes in the eighty years from the founding of the College of Pharmacy in 1893 to the appointment of Doluisio as dean in 1973. During the nineteenth century, the pharmacist compounded and dispensed medicines originating from sources occurring in nature. His drug manufacturing took place in the back of the apothecary, and the item was sold direct­ly to the patient, often without a physician's written prescrip­tion. As the demand for drug products increased, manufacturing firms gradually took over a portion of the labor, providing the pharmacist with prepared powders, extracts, and solutions. At this point, the pharmacist began to lose some of his autonomy to the industrial process. 
The rise of synthetic chemistry toward the end of the nine­teenth century brought another major change to the pharma­ceutical profession. No longer limited to substances occurring in nature, the pharmacist could now compound a growing array of man-made materials, limited only by his understanding of 
493 

their various properties. Pharmaceutical knowledge at this point encompassed a command of synthetic chemistry as well as phar­macology, and the field of manufacture began to take on the more complicated nature of an industrial process. 
As the pharmaceutical industry developed in the twentieth century, the pharmacist came increasingly to be a distributor of ready-made products rather than the dispenser of his own com­pounds. Instead of supplying only processed materials for com­pounding, the manufacturing firm gradually assumed respon­sibility for medicines in standard dosages. The expense involved in formulating many of the new compounds made bulk manufac­ture the more economical method of supplying the growing de­mand for pharmaceuticals. 
These changes occurred gradually over the course of several decades. Although today the pharmacist's compounding skills are seldom called into action, he is expected to provide informa­tion to patients concerning the drug products he dispenses. The pharmacist has thus evolved into a member of the health-care system, oriented more toward patient than product and service than sales. 
REDEFINING THE PROFESSION Because of the rapid changes occurring in the health-care professions, the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) became aware of a growing need to reevaluate the state of the profession as well as the education of pharmacists. In 1971 the AACP Study Commission on Pharmacy was appointed to conduct just such an examination; in 1975 it published its report, citing many of the developments that were occurring in pharmaceutical education throughout the country, and par­ticularly at The University of Texas.1 The report defined the entire health-care service as a knowledge system that 
generates or integrates knowledge about man in sickness and in health, takes knowledge from other sciences and arts, criticizes 
1American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, Commission on Pharmacy, Pharmacists for the Future; 77ze Report of the Study (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Health Administration Press, 1975 ). 
and organizes that knowledge, translates knowledge into technology, uses some knowledge to create products, devices, and instruments, transmits the knowledge through the education of practitioners and dissemination to others, to the end that an in­dividual known as a patient may benefit from the particular knowledge system and its consequent skills. 2 
Knowledge was conceived as the thread holding together research, education, and practice; application of these methods to the restoration and maintenance of health was seen as the ultimate aim of the health-care professions in the 1970s. 
As one component of this system, pharmacy "generates, tests, applies, transmits, and utilizes knowledge. "3 It differs from other health professions only in the sense that a substantial share of the knowledge of pharmacy is translated into application of a product-the drug-rather than into physical care of the patient. Employing this concept, the study commission for­mulated a definition of the profession of pharmacy in terms of its relationship to the other health-care professions. 
[It is] a system which renders a health service by concerning itself with knowledge about drugs and their effects upon men and animals. Pharmacy generates knowledge about drugs, acquires relevant knowledge from the biological, chemical, physical and behavioral sciences; it tests, organizes and applies that knowledge. Pharmacy translates a substantial portion of that knowledge into drug products and distributes them widely to those who require them. Pharmacy knowledge is disseminated to physicians, pharmacists, and other health professionals and to the general public to the end that drug knowledge and products may contribute to the health of individuals and the welfare of society. The knowledge system of pharmacy through its therapeutic use is a substantial and significant segment of health care in the United States.' 
The report examined the state of the profession and concluded that the primary and overriding responsibility of a college of pharmacy was to its students. 
It is responsible for furnishing the minds of its students with the requisite knowledge, equipping their minds and hands with the 
IJbid., p. 13. 
'Ibid. 
'Ibid., p. 14. 

necessary skills, molding their habits, and encouraging those at­titudes and motivations which are essential to successful, effec­tive, and satisfying practice in one of the many roles of phar­macy. 5 
The report saw the overall objective of pharmacy education as that of preparing practitioners with a ready knowledge of all aspects of drugs-how they act upon and are used by patients­so that practioners may possess the competence to serve in­dividual as well as societal drug needs. 6 Thus, the preparation of pharmacists should encompass knowledge as well as skill, ac­cording to the report: "Professionals are people who know and who use their knowledge to do. m 
After reviewing the curricular content of various colleges of pharmacy, the study commission concluded that courses in the physical and biological sciences were extensive, but those in the behavioral, social, economic and managerial sciences were ex­tremely limited. 
One must conclude that the present day pharmacy graduates have much greater knowledge of drug products and their effects on the human organism than they have of human behavior, cultural determinants, health service systems, and their economics. Clearly pharmacists must have ready knowledge about drugs, but they also must have ready knowledge about peo­ple, about relationships and communication with them, and about systems and costs of service. The Study Commission reiterates the point that pharmacy is a knowledge system in which chemical substances and people called patients meet and in­teract. Needed and optimally effective drug therapy results only when both drugs and those who consume them are fully understood.8 
The study commission, therefore, suggested that one of the first steps a college of pharmacy should take in reviewing its educational programs should be to weigh the relative emphasis given to the physical and biological sciences against that given the behavioral and social sciences in order to provide students 
5lbid., pp. 112-13. 
6lbid., pp. 107-8. 
7lbid., p. 122. 
8lbid., pp. 126-27. 

with a broad base of knowledge relevant to their future roles as pharmacists. 
In addition to relevant knowledge, pharmacists were seen as needing to develop certain skills for the practice of the profession. General skills included problem identification, problem solv­ing, and ability to continue learning, abilities developed through specific learning experiences as well as from the total impact of the baccalaureate program. The more differentiated skills, however, were much harder to define; the community phar­macist would require a different set of skills than one practicing in a hospital environment. Also, a student trained in the 1970s might not have the requisite skills for pharmacy practice in the 1980s. 
After considerable investigation, the study commission came to some conclusions about the competencies required for prac­tice in the 1970s. These competencies included skill in com­municating with patients, physicians, and nurses; skill in management; and skill in recording and using drug information about patients, including utilization of and reaction to drugs. The report also uncovered attitudes among professionals about competencies they felt pharmacists should develop, such as the abilities to devise and operate more effective and economical procedures for drug delivery, to keep more complete and meaningful patient drug records, and to assist in education of the public concerning drugs and drug usage. Most phar­macists did not perform these tasks at the time of the study com­mission report, and a precise definition of how they could be performed or of the proficiency required to perform them had not been developed. These attitudes of other health-care profes­sionals toward the roles pharmacists should play were seen by the report as increasingly pertinent considerations for the future as health-care professionals developed closer interactions. 9 
This study reached the conclusion that pharmacy education should be based on competency as well as knowledge-that knowledge of the basic sciences underlying pharmaceutical science was an essential aspect of the pharmacist's training, but 
9lbid., pp. 127-28. 
that his competency must reach beyond the scientific realm into the behavioral, social, economic, and managerial aspects of in­terpersonal relations. Pharmacists would have to be able to com­municate with the people involved in delivering the health-care services, as well as the recipients of those services. 
In light of these attitudes, the study commission prepared a recommended outline of the minimum objectives that should be attained by the student awarded the first professional degree 
(B.S. in pharmacy) that most practicing pharmacists would ob­tain. These objectives included the following: 
1) 	The inculcation of the knowledge, attitudes, and habits which are common to the practice of pharmacy in all of its differen­tiated roles. 
2) 	The translation of that knowledge into the skills common to pharmacy practice in the several roles which are not differen­tiated by additional knowledge and practice experience. 
3) 	The development of a familiarity with the nature and require­ments of the practice roles which do require additional knowledge and more complex skills to orient students to the career options open to them. 10 
In essence, the study commission proposed a core curriculum based on essential requirements, coupled with the opportunity to develop more specialized skills through clinical experience. Only in this manner would pharmaceutical education be able to keep pace with the rapid developments occurring in the health-care field. 
CLINICAL PHARMACY 
During the 1960s and early 1970s, numerous pharmaceutical conferences were held throughout the country in an effort to define and direct the changing roles of pharmacists and the development of the clinical-pharmacy concept. The adjective clinical used to modify the word pharmacy is an innovation of this period. The phrase has been used to describe an attitude, a con­cept, an emphasis, an orientation, a mode of practice, a role, a 
lOJbid., p. 109. 
philosophy, and a specialty of pharmacy practice. 11 Con­siderable debate in pharmaceutical circles has centered on the use of the term clinical pharmacy, but as yet, no precise definition has been generally accepted. 
The concept of clinical pharmacy emerged as a response to the situation of medical care in the mid-1960s. Although technological advancements had occurred rapidly, the cost of medical care and drugs rose markedly, preventing large seg­ments of the population from utilizing the so-called miracle drugs. As a response to the concomitant social pressures to make goods and services widely available on a basis other than ability to pay, the health professions gradually came to be more people­oriented. In this realignment of opinion, the pharmacist came to be regarded less as a distributor of a product and more as an ex­pert in the use of drugs. 12 
In 1968 the Curriculum Committee of the American Associa­tion of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) attempted to define the subject area of clinical pharmacy. 
Both the profession and pharmaceutical education seem to be agreed that the pharmacist's role in health care services is ex­panding to include responsibilities in monitoring drug utilization. His role in providing information on drugs and their use to the public and to other health professionals is also enlarging. On this basis it seems reasonable to anticipate curricular changes designed to meet these responsibilities. 13 
The committee suggested this definition of the ·role of clinical pharmacy in education: 
Clinical pharmacy is that area within the pharmaceutical cur­riculum which deals with patient care with emphasis on drug therapy. Clinical pharmacy seeks to develop a patient-oriented attitude. The acquisition of new knowledge is secondary to the at­
11Donald C. Brodie and Roger A. Benson, "The Development of Clinical Pharmacy," in Proceedings ofthe First International Congress on Clinical Pharmacy Education, 13-16July 1976, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Bethesda, Md.: American Association of Colleges of Phar­
' macy, 1976), p. 9. 12Ibid., pp. 10-11. 13" Report of the Committee on Curriculum, American Association of Colleges of Phar­
macy," American journal of Pharmaceutical Education 32 (August 1968): 435. 
tainment of skills in interprofessional and patient com­
munications.14 
The University of California School of Pharmacy, in 1970, sponsored a conference on pharmacy manpower designed to improve communications among pharmacists, physicians, nurses, attorneys, hospital administrators, and public officials. One concept of particular significance that arose from this meeting was the realization that health practitioners could no longer deal with the broad problems of health care in isolation from other professionals. If the social goal of comprehensive health care was to be realized, a sharing of responsibilities would have to occur. From this conference came the following idea: 
The challenge to pharmacy in the Seventies is the challenge of all health professions-to place the health care of the nation above the provincial and selfish desires of the individual professions-to develop the health team as a fact rather than a slogan.15 
Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, pharmaceutical prac­tice developed in a number of directions. At one end of the spectrum was the community pharmacist, whose traditional role as dispenser of drugs had expanded to include maintenance of patient-medication profiles, consultation with prescribing physi­cians, and dissemination of pharmaceutical knowledge to patients. At the opposite end was the hospital pharmacist, prac­ticing directly on the patient ward, participating in the prescrib­ing decisions, monitoring patient response to therapy, maintain­ing drug histories and detailed records of drug utilization and response, participating in the formulation of drug protocols and institutional drug policies, and providing pharmaceutical infor­mation to physicians and nurses as well as to other health profes­sionals. Common elements in the practice of both the com­munity and the hospital pharmacist were the collection of data 
14lbid. 
15William S. Apple, " The Changing Role of the Pharmacist," in Challenge lo Pharmacy in tlu 70s: Proceedings of an Invitational Conference on Pharmacy Manpower, ed. Joe B. Graber and Donald C. Brodie (San Francisco, Calif.: Health Service and Mental Health Administra­tion, Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1970), p. 11. 
and dissemination of information concerning drug properties and their application. These functions have come to be defined as clinical pharmacy. 
The clinical pharmacist in the 1970s has become a patient­oriented drug specialist. With the overcrowding that exists in physicians' offices and hospital emergency rooms, a definite need exists for the pharmacist to be the first contact in the health-care delivery system. Traditionally, many patients have consulted a pharmacist before resorting to the more expensive advice of a physician. This role was largely ignored by pharmacy schools and derided by physicians in the past, but the assump­tion of such a role by a suitably trained pharmacist would facilitate the health-care process by allowing the pharmacist to assess symptoms and advise the patient regarding further care. Such a patient-oriented pharmacist would be concerned with the consequences of drug therapy and aware of drug-related problems and would serve as the first line of defense in the battle against disease. 
Government Support for 
Clinical Education 
Given this close relationship between the various health-care professions, one main discrepancy in pharmaceutical education became apparent. While the pharmacist could logically expect to work in close connection with other members of the health professions throughout his career, the student was being educated in isolation from those very people with whom he would need to develop a close operating relationship. Some col­leges of pharmacy were located on the campuses of health­science institutions, but the majority of colleges have long operated within a general university setting. Although a close al­liance traditionally existed between pharmacy and the basic science departments of a university, this relationship would come to play a much less significant role in the future develop­ment of the clinically oriented pharmacist. 
Throughout the decade of the 1960s, the U.S. Congress had approved various programs of federal funding for training health professionals. As pharmacy schools were added to these programs, vast improvements in pharmacy education became possible. The Comprehensive Health Manpower Training Act of 1971 was particularly significant for the development of clinical programs in pharmacy. One feature of this act was financial sup­port based on enrollment, with incentives provided for annual in­creases. The basic capitation grant for colleges of pharmacy con­sisted of $50,000 plus $600 for every student. As a means of en­couraging schools to increase enrollment, while maintaining or improving standards, the act provided bonus awards of S300 for each additional student in the entering class. Another feature of importance to pharmacy was the provision of incentives for the establishment of training programs in clinical pharmacy. In order to receive the total capitation award for which it was eligi­ble, a school was required to submit a plan to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare detailing a program for clinical training. Failure to carry out the plan as submitted would result in a school's ineligibility to receive subsequent bonuses for in­creases in enrollments. This penalty would not, however, affect basic eligibility for capitation grants. 18 
Funding of this sort was essential to the development of ade­quate clinical-pharmacy programs. Such education entailed sub­stantial costs in meeting additional faculty salaries, reorganizing curricula, planning new teaching approaches, and instituting a variety of new programs in affiliated hospitals and other in­stitutional settings. In 197 4 Congress passed a bill authorizing grants to pharmacy schools for implementation of such special projects as (1) establishing cooperative arrangements between the training programs for clinical pharmacy and other health professions; (2) teaching pharmacy in hospitals, extensive-care facilities, and other clinical settings; (3) providing clinical­pharmacology training; and ( 4) training pharmacists to assist physicians in counseling patients on the effects of and reactions to drugs. Schools of pharmacy were authorized to receive StO 
16U.S., Con.~ress, Senate, Congressional Record, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., 1971, 117, pt. 108. 
million for the first two projects and SS million for the other two programs.17 
The University of Texas College of Pharmacy's share of this subsidy amounted to a substantial portion of the cost of implementing and administering the clinical programs at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. For the first three years of Doluisio's administration, the following amounts were received from federal capitation grants: for 1973-74, S442,894; for 1974-75, $387,887; and for 1975-76, $232,861. These allotments accounted for approximately 25 per­cent of the total operating expenses of the college during these years, almost all of which was incurred by the clinical-pharmacy training program. 18 
A survey on the cost of education in the health professions, released in 1974, showed that only one other school of pharmacy in the nation relied more heavily on federal capitation grants than did the college. 19 In his annual report for 1973-74, Doluisio analyzed the situation and determined that the college was 
in a precarious position for projecting current undergraduate programs as well as developing new programs, since Federal capitation funds have been authorized only through 1975. Cer­tainly, these statistics point to an overreliance on Federal capita­tion funds for providing pharmacy training in the State of Texas, and every effort must be made to increase the total operating budget for the College of Pharmacy to effectively decrease the dependency on Federal capitation funds in providing pharmacy education in the State. 20 
Although annual extensions of this revenue by Congress provided funding through 1976, thereby assuring continuance of the clinical programs, the college's heavy dependence on federal 
17Memorandum, Charles W. Bliven (Executive Secretary, American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy), to Deans of Active-Member Schools, 24 July 1974, Office of the Dean, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin (hereafter referred to as Office of the Dean of Pharmacy). 
18J. T. Doluisio, "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy, 1973-74," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy, p. 13. 1'National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, "Report of a Study on the Costs of Education in the Health Professions," January 1974. JODoluisio, "Annual Report, 1973-74," p. 14. 
funding for a large percentage of its operating budget placed it in a precarious financial position. The University administration, however, assured the dean that budgetary allotments would be made to ensure continuance of the clinical programs once capita­tion f uncling was discontinued. 
Implementing Clinical Studies 
The feasibility of implementing clinical studies on a formal basis for undergraduate students was first explored by Dean Sprowls and Victor A. Yanchick during the 1968-69 academic year. Yanchick, a specialist in hospital pharmacy, was appointed to help develop a practice-oriented curriculum at Austin. From 1968 until 1 970, Y anchick and Sprowls investigated the 
resources available for clinical instruction in Texas and dis­
cussed with various medical schools of The University of 
Texas System the possibility of operating a clinical program on 
their campuses. The University of Texas Medical Branch at 
Galveston was willing to allow such a program to be developed, 
but distance was a handicap. Ties between the clinical program 
and the College of Pharmacy would necessarily be close, and the 
two hundred miles between Austin and Galveston would create a 
hardship for faculty members required to commute between the 
two schools. The opening of The University of Texas Health 
Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA) in 1969 provided an 
ideal setting for such a pilot program. A college of pharmacy had 
originally been scheduled for construction in San Antonio but 
was never finalized. The new administration at San Antonio, 
therefore, was quite willing to consider the proposed experimen­
tal program. ~1 
Approval from the board of regents to begin the pilot program 
was received in early 1970. Frank Radzai, who had been ap­
pointed in 1971 to conduct lecture courses in clinical pharmacy 
and to supervise pharmacy students engaged in clinical rotations 
in Austin, was transferred to the UTHSCSA campus, and 
21W. J. Sheffield, in an interview with M. Beutler, 27 June 1977, and V. A. Yanchick, in an interview with M. Beutler, 29 June 1977, personal files of H. M. Burlage, Austin, Texas. 
Y anchick commuted two days a week to San Antonio. Students were requested to volunteer to spend their senior year engaged in the pilot program. Of the fifteen who indicated a willingness to relocate to San Antonio, six were selected. 22 
During the first year, several decisions arose concerning technicalities of the program. The teaching responsibilities that Radzai and Yanchick undertook were substantial because the clinical experience required a much closer interaction between instructor and student than did academic classes. Also, the un­dergraduate program had not been designed to allow the entire senior year to be devoted to practical experience. Although the final, or sixth, semester was relatively free of required courses, only a few elective hours were provided for the fifth semester. Numerous exceptions, therefore, had to be made for those stu­dents engaged in the clinical work. As a solution to these dif­ficulties, only the last semester of the senior year was taught on the UTHSCSA campus from 1971 to 1973. After a thorough revision of the preclinical undergraduate curriculum during the 1973-74 academic year, two semesters of work in San Antonio were once again available. 23 
The successful completion of the pilot program by the original six students in the spring of 1971 as well as by other students during the next two years confirmed the feasibility of offering clinical studies away from the main campus. The program had demonstrated the practical capability of attaching a clinical­training unit to a major medical center removed from the preclinical science components of a college of pharmacy, the ability to attract students to the challenges and opportunities of interprofessional education, the capacity of the medical faculty and staff to provide cooperation and support at the ad­ministrative and instructional levels, and the enthusiasm and ap­proval of the participants for expanding and intensifying the program.24 
221bid. 
23lbid. 
2'Doluisio, "Annual Report, 1973-74," p. 34. 

Although Doluisio's appointment as dean was announced in the fall of 1972, he did not assume his duties until the summer of 1973. During the ensuing year, however, he remained in close contact with the college, traveling to Austin on a monthly basis to confer with Acting Dean Sheffield, Acting Assistant Dean Y anchick, and other faculty members. Of major concern during this interim period was the development of a permanent un­dergraduate clinical program in Austin and San Antonio, as well as the origination of a Doctor of Pharmacy degree. When Doluisio finally arrived in Austin in July of 1973, the ex­perimental clinical program was placed on a regular basis, and the new clinical faculty members whom Doluisio appointed al­lowed the clinical program to operate on a two-semester basis again. 
Clinical Faculty 
Because of the success of the experimental clinical program, the university administration was willing to approve the appoint­ment of faculty members to provide expanded clinical education. Among those appointed for the fall of 1973 were Charles Anthony Walton, assistant dean for clinical programs, and Stephen G. Hoag, Robert George Leonard, and Louis Clifford Littlefield, assistant prof esso rs of pharmacy. 
As assistant dean, Charles Walton was responsible for ad­ministrating the clinical programs. Walton received his B.S. in pharmacy from Auburn University in Alabama and his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in pharmacology from Purdue University. At the University of Kentucky, where he became acquainted with Doluisio, Walton served as professor as well as chairman of the Department of Materia Medica in the College of Pharmacy, as Director of the Drug Information Center with the University of Kentucky Hospital, and as professor in the Department of Oral Biology with the university's College of Dentistry. His leading areas of interest were in clinical pharmacy, drug information, and the development and supervision of Doctor of Pharmacy programs. With the implementation of the Pharm.D. program at San Antonio in the fall of 1973, the structuring of such a program became one of his main responsibilities. 25 
Walton's staff came from diverse backgrounds and different parts of the country. Stephen Hoag, whose expertise was in clinical pharmacy and bionucleonics, obtained his baccalaureate training at North Dakota State University and completed his graduate work at Purdue. He resigned after one year. 26 Robert Leonard, who had received the B.S. in pharmacy from Mas­sachusetts College of Pharmacy, earned the Pharm.D. degree from the University of Kentucky. His professional experience in­cluded a term as chief of the pharmacy service at U.S. Ireland Army Hospital in Fort Knox, Kentucky and assistant director of the Pharmacy Central Supply and instructor at the University of Kentucky Medical Center. His interests lay in the development of appropriate methodology and systems for preparing patient­oriented pharmacy practitioners.27 Louis Littlefield came from California, where he was awarded the B.S. degree from San Fer­nando Valley State College in Northridge, California, and the Pharm.D. degree from the University of Southern California. After receiving the Pharm.D., Littlefield served as chief phar­macist at Sierra Memorial Hospital Pharmacy, Sun Valley, California, and as lecturer in clinical pharmacy at the University of Southern California. His specialty was in hospital and clinical pharmacy.28 
In 1974, David Warner Hawkins and Ronald Paul Evens were appointed assistant professors of clinical pharmacy. Hawkins, who received the B.S. degree from the University of Georgia and the Pharm.D. from the University of Michigan, specialized in the development of training programs in ambulatory-patient care for baccalaureate and doctoral students. 29 Evens 's area of interest lay in the implementation of progressive programs in pharmacy education and practice involving drug information and patient­
26W. J. Sheffield, "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy, September 1, 1972, to August 31, 1973," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
"S. G. Hoag, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
"R. G. Leonard, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
28L. C. Littlefield, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
290. W. Hawkins, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 

Assistant Dean Robert George Leonard Charles Anthony Walton 

Louis Clifford Littlefielci David Warner Hawkins Ronald Paul Evens Unamarie Clibon 
Thomas M. Ludden Robert M . Talbert 
care services. He earned the B.S. from the State University of New York at Buffalo and the Pharm.D. degree from the Univer­sity of Kentucky and completed a two-year internship in hospital pharmacy at the E. J. Meyer Memorial Hospital at Buffalo, New York, in 1971. 30 
Four new faculty members were added to the staff in the fall of 1975. Unamarie Clibon attended the School of Pharmacy at the University of California in San Francisco, which gave the Pharm.D. program in lieu of a baccalaureate degree. After com­pleting a residency program in 1975, she was appointed to the position of assistant clinical professor. Her fields of interest in­cluded the development of clinical-pharmacy services for vascular and oncology surgery. 31 Richard Donald Leff, with a 
B.S. in pharmacy from Creighton University in Omaha and a Pharm.D. from the University of Minnesota, was appointed as­sistant professor of clinical pharmacy. His chief research was in pediatrics.32 Thomas M. Ludden, assistant professor of phar­macy, received the B.S. in pharmacy in 1969 and the Ph.D. in 1973 from the University of Missouri at Kansas City. His special interests included pharmacokinetic evaluation and assay of new drugs and drug-delivery systems. 33 Robert L. Talbert, also ap­pointed as assistant professor, earned the B.S. and Pharm.D. degrees from the University of Kentucky. After graduation, he served as an assistant professor of pharmacy at the University of Nebraska for the 1974-7 5 academic year. His major interest is in the performance of patient-oriented services in community pharmacies.3" 
Clinical-Pharmacy Curriculum 
A student completing the baccalaureate program at the UTHSCSA had available an increased number of elective courses in clinical practicum in the fall of 1974. The student was supervised directly by community pharmacists in eight separate 
30R. P. Evens, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
31U. Clibon, "Curriculum Vitae," Office oJ the Dean of Pharmacy. 
32R. D. Leff, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
33T. ~1. Ludden, " Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
3'R. L. Talbert, "Curriculum Vitae," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 

rotational experiences, five of which were guided by full-time clinical faculty members and three of which were completed through the cooperation of pharmacists from the Bexar County area who volunteered their services. Eighty-five percent of the student's time, however, was supervised by the clinical­pharmacy faculty. During the 1975-76 year, the optional clinical-laboratory experience became a requirement, with facilities available both in Austin and San Antonio. This profes­sional practice clerkship, scheduled for the first time during the summer session of 1976, further increased the extent of profes­sional education through clinical experience. 35 
A prime objective of the program was to achieve a close and continuous working relationship between the clinical-pharmacy faculty and students and those within the medical sciences at UTHSCSA. By the end of the first year of full-scale operation, Doluisio was able to report significant progress. Using the clinical-pharmacy faculty, the Drug Dynamics Institute and the UTHSCSA departments of pharmacology and pathology developed interdisciplinary research teams organized across departmental lines and to attract outside support of their pro­jects.Clinical-pharmacy faculty was quickly assimilated into the environment of the medical center, being accepted as members of committees in special training programs and as lecturers in medical, dental, and nursing courses. Ronald Evens, who had been appointed during this year, became director of the Drug In­formation Center, a service to the medical center faculty and stu­dents and other professionals that was operated within the medical library. 38 So completely assimilated were the clinical faculty and students by the second year of regular operation, the 1974-75 year, that Doluisio was able to report the following achievements: 
Specialty conference presentations, in-service education, and ac­
tive participation in house staff conferences by faculty and stu­
dents have expanded to the point where documentation of phar­
llDoluisio, "Annual Report, 1973-74," p. 5. 
"Doluisio, "Annual Report, 1973-74," pp. 36-37. 

macy input into the education and training of other health profes­sions students, residents and staff is no longer quantitatively feasi­ble. Complete integration has been achieved in two acute medical services, pediatrics and ambulatory care. 37 
To maintain close professional and educational ties with the preclinical program of the college in Austin, a number of cooperative activities were scheduled. Meetings of the clinical faculties from both institutions were held at various times of the year on both campuses, and the San Antonio members were invited to give lectures or teach courses in Austin. Clinical research studies conducted under the auspices of the Drug Dynamics Institute were administered by various clinical faculty members with considerable success. The San Antonio faculty was urged to attend meetings and retreats held periodically in Austin, and the personnel from the Austin campus regularly at­tended clinical meetings and participated in joint committee work and clinical research. 38 
In addition to the federal capitation grants, which provided the majority of operating expenses for the clinical program, the faculty was able to attract considerable extramural funding dur­ing 1975-76, the third year of regular operation. Support was available from the University Research Institute; the Public Health Service of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW); and a two-year Health Professions Special Pro­ject Grant from HEW. Although clinical faculty members were principally oriented toward providing professional education rather than conducting research, these awards indicate that some San Antonio faculty were maintaining close ties with basic fields of research. 39 
REVISION OF PRECLINICAL STUDIES One of the most significant accomplishments of Doluisio's first year was a major revision of the undergraduate professional cur­
37Doluisio, " Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy, 1974-75," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy, p. 5. 38Doluisio, "Annual Report, 1973-74," p. 39, and Doluisio, "Annual Report, 1974-7 5," p. 5. 39Doluisio, "Annual Report, 1974-75," and Doluisio, "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy, 1975-76," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
riculum aimed at providing more extensive practical experience for the student before graduation. Because of the need to publish curricular changes in the biennial catalogue, however, this program was not activated until 1975-76. The program was based on the development of competency in various skills deter­mined to be necessary for pharmacy practice. The clinical prac­ticum, which had previously been an elective course, was incor­porated as a requirement for the Bachelor of Science degree. In order to allow the student to devote eight hours a day during the final semester to practicum courses conducted at a variety of off­campus sites, all required courses were scheduled for the first two years of the professional program. With the senior year en­tirely open, students were able to engage in clerkship training in such cities as Galveston, Dallas, Harlingen, McAllen, Temple, Corpus Christi, and Fort Worth. 40 
Such an arrangement had many advantages over the standard didactic curriculum. While earning course credit toward gradua­tion, the student also added substantial hours of internship experience toward the total required by the Texas State Board of Pharmacy. Practice in a community setting provided a more valuable experience for student pharmacists than the lecture courses in clinical pharmacy that had previously been available. Such an educational arrangement, however, required a closer in­teraction between student and supervisor than was possible with the current number of faculty members. The resort to volunteer practicing pharmacists in an educational capacity, therefore, gave students the advantage of an intimate working relationship with an experienced professional, while relieving the college of the expense of additional staff. While making a positive contribution to a health-care system, the student would also have an opportunity to develop confidence in his own abilities and a feeling of pride and accomplishment in his profession. 41 
Competency, however, is a difficult concept to define. A proficient pharmacist is noticeable by the quality of his practice, but what factors contributed to this high quality? To answer this 
'0Doluisio, "Annual Report, 1973-74," pp. 30-31. 
"Doluisio, "Annual Report, 1975-76," p. 4. 

question, the pharmacy faculty instructed its curriculum com­mittee to develop specifically defined competencies desirable for graduates of the college to serve as a basis for baccalaureate­curriculum design. To develop this statement on competencies, an eight-member task force was appointed, consisting of three practitioners, an educational psychologist, a member of the Texas State Board of Pharmacy, and three pharmacy faculty members.•:i 
The final task-force report to the committee, pending at the end of the 197 5-7 6 year, was intended to clarify the rather amorphous concept of proficiency in pharmaceutical practice. The task force worked to delineate specific skills necessary to function effectively on every level at which the graduate would be called upon to perform and to subdivide each of these skills into detailed functions. By reducing the various roles played by the pharmacist in professional practice to a minimum level, the com­mittee hoped to develop guidelines that would enable the phar­macy faculty to meet the demands of pharmacy practice as it ex­isted then and as it would exist in the future. In this manner, stu­dents could be trained in areas of competency as well as in areas of knowledge. •3 
The committee also formulated specific educational objectives to guide the college in the development and evaluation of its programs. The major objective determined was to provide a program of study in the pharmaceutical sciences capable of providing the state of Texas with scientifically trained phar­macists professionally and clinically competent to deliver the en­tire spectrum of pharmaceutical services required by a society expecting and demanding increasingly effective health care. Instruction in the fundamentals of physical and biological sciences as these subjects pertain to modern pharmaceutical theory and practice was one method of reaching this goal. Direct experience in applying the knowledge and proficiencies gained in the preclinical sciences to clinical practice was deemed 
'2University of Texas, College of Pharmacy, "A Self-Study Report of the College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin, March, 1976," Office of the Dean of Phar­macy, p. 27. 
43lbid. 
another important educational feature, as well as exposure of all students to the practice of pharmacy in hospital and community settings. Through the clinical experiences particularly, the educational program would provide guidance for the develop­ment of high ethical and professional standards in the conduct of pharmacy practice." 
The other objectives developed by the committee were less concrete. Through the framework of educational encounters, students would be made aware of and prepared to adjust to the rapidly changing character of health-care delivery. Development of advanced programs at the doctoral level would serve the needs of the state and the nation for competent educators, scientists, and researchers. Because education in a rapidly changing field cannot end with graduation from the university, the college would need to develop in each student the ability to expand and improve his level of professional knowledge. Therefore, the col­lege was committed to develop postgraduate education and to further innovative training programs to prepare pharmacists for future roles that might evolve from the ever-changing nature of pharmaceutical practice. 
DOCTOR OF PHARMACY PROGRAM 
Doluisio warned in his 1973-74 annual report, "The profes­sion cannot afford to limit its ultimate service aspirations to that level of performance which characterizes contemporary prac­tice. "46 The college, he added, would need to develop, at least to a limited degree, a core of practitioners who could contribute to the growth of the health-service capabilities of various institu­tions through the advancement of knowledge and the develop­ment of a better methodology of health-care delivery and greater expertise in pharmaceutical practices. 48 
To achieve this level of competency in a select group of stu­dents, the program of Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.) was 
"Ibid., pp. 27-28. 
' 6Doluisio, "Annual Report, 1973-74," p. 88. 
46lbid., p. 89. 

started in the fall of 1974. In his annual report for this year, the dean explained the fundamental scope of this new. program: 
[It provides] a combined academic and clinical practice ex­perience for selected pharmacists and pharmacy students whose abilities and career aspirations suggest significant potential for in­novative leadership roles in professional practice. Upon the graduates [of the Pharm.D. program] will rest the primary responsibility for functionally defining the profession's status in an evolving interprofessional system for health care delivery. 47 
Such a graduate would represent the highest level of professional practice in the pharmaceutical aspect of the health-care system in Texas. 
[The Pharm.D. graduate] possesses those technical, intellectual, moral, ethical, and professional skills and attributes demanded of the baccalaureate pharmacist in meeting the needs of society for contemporary services. He possesses, moreover, the requisite clinical skills, knowledge, and judgement to function within the interprofessional organization of health care workers with whom he is associated in primary, secondary, or tertiary care institutions.48 
Thus, the Pharm.D. recipient is seen as one who is capable of functioning as an independent member of the health-care delivery team, competent to engage in professional practice on an equal basis with other faculty members or physicians within his area of specialty. 
The Pharm.D. program was conceived to be comparable to other doctoral programs within the university, but with an emphasis on clinical practice rather than research. The profes­sional doctorate was to be considered a certification of com­petence at the time the degree was awarded, along with as­surance that this level of capability would be sustained throughout the course of one's career. After receiving a basic grounding in pharmaceutical practice through completion of the baccalaureate degree, the Pharm.D. candidate would pursue a course of study intended to refine his knowledge and techniques 
47Ibid., p. 83. 
48lbid. 

through didactic courses as well as through extensive practicum training. 
In the fall of 1972, Dean-elect Doluisio met with University President Stephen H. Spurr, Sheffield, Yanchick, and other members of the pharmacy faculty to formulate a proposal initiating the Doctor of Pharmacy degree in cooperation with The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA). The resulting proposal was subse­quently approved by the board of regents in December of 1972. In the university's procedure for adoption of new degree programs, approval by the State Coordinating Board was the next step. This board first considered the Pharm.D. proposal in April of 1 973 but postponed final action until January of 197 4, at which time the university administration assured the board that existing resources were sufficient to actuate the program for the fall of 1974. 49 
A joint Pharm.D. Committee, composed of three faculty members with the Pharm.D. degree, three with the Ph.D., and three UTHSCSA faculty members with the M.D. degree, for­mulated a series of concepts and guidelines for implementing the program; these subsequently were approved by the faculty of the College of Pharmacy and by the UTHSCSA administration. Although the Pharm.D. program was a professional degree joint­ly sponsored by the college and UTHSCSA, academic jurisdic­tion for the students who participated lay with the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin. Operational control of the program at San Antonio, however, was vested in the dean of the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences as an associated educational program within the Department of Pharmacology.150 
The essence of the Pharm.D. curriculum was to develop within the candidate an understanding of the importance of his contributions as an essential component of the system of health­care delivery and to provide him with scientific and professional abilities requisite to such a position. Doluisio described the 
-
49Doluisio, "Annual Report of the College of Pharmacy, 1972-73," Office of the Dean of Pharmacy. 
5°Doluisio, "Annual Report, 1973-7 4," pp. 84-85. 
purpose of the didactic and clinical-laboratory components of the Pharm.D. program in his 1973-74 annual report: 
1. 	
An appreciation and compatible working knowledge of the unique contributions which each person provides within the [health-care] system. 

2. 	
An ability to communicate effectively and work harmoniously in the provision of quality health care. 

3. 	
The knowledge and skills necessary to function effectively in obtaining and recording data base information for problem­oriented medical records. 

4. 	
A knowledge of drugs, drug products, pharmacotherapeutics, toxicology, and pharmaceutics unique among his colleagues and, in terms of sophistication, unique to his profession. 

5. 	
The ability to organize, implement, and evaluate appropriate investigations capable of confirming or refuting empirical impressions of phenomena related to his professional services. 

6. 	
Mastery of the knowledge, technical skills, and systems management which permit him to function in an appropriate capacity as a participant in investigational assessments of pharmacokinetic, pharmacotherapeutic, or toxicologic proper­ties of medications and medicating technology. 

7. 	
The technical capabilities to perform adequately as a classroom lecturer. 

8. 	
An appreciation of the importance of his role as a model for student emulation and acceptance of his responsibility for perpetuation of the profession through clinical preceptor func­tions. 

9. 	
The technical and professional expertise to use the clinical drug literature efficiently and effectively, to provide extem­poraneous drug information services to colleagues, and to in­fluence decision-making processes with literature documenta­tion of rational pharmacotherapeutic concepts.111 


While trained in clinical methods, the Pharm.D. graduate would possess the scientific capability to assess innovations in and studies of drug utilization and be able to document these obser­vations and conclusions by acceptable scientific methods, com­municated through publications and other such means neces­sary, so as to influence the practice and direction of the prof es­sion.62 
61lbid. 
62lbid. 

Twelve students were admitted to the first Pharm.D. program in the fall of 1974, the optimum number that the college faculty determined could be absorbed by the profession within Texas per year. This class would graduate from the three-year program in the spring of 1977. In order for students to be admitted to classes with regular medical students, the program operated on the same schedule as UTHSCSA, beginning onJuly 1 of each year rather than on the fall opening of the main university. 
Administrative support from the UTHSCSA faculty for the Pharm.D. program was immediately evident, but acceptance by the medical faculty and students was slower in coming. A signifi­cant step in the acceptance of the pharmacist as a clinician at UTHSCSA was the granting of the authority for faculty and Pharm.D. students to enter on patient medical records their comments concerning drug interactions and therapy. The Medical Record Committee of Bexar County Hospital District granted approval for this innovation on April 21, 197 6.53 As the Pharm.D. program moved into its third year of operation in the 1976-77 academic year, the prediction for success within the academic and scientific setting at UTHSCSA was excellent. Whether Pharm.D. professionals would be accepted in educational and clinical settings in other institutions as well as the ultimate number of graduates that could be absorbed by the profession were questions that remained unanswered. 
SUMMARY 
Clinical education at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio was well-established by 1975, the date which Dean Doluisio had established as his target for full implementation of the clerkship and Pharm.D. programs. In the report that he filed during his first year, Doluisio outlined several additional programs that he hoped to develop on the campuses of other university-system schools by 1976. Although these pro­jects were not fully functioning at this time, plans were well un­derway to introduce various pharmaceutical services at The 
"Doluisio, "Annual Report, 1975-76," p. 7. 
University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, The Univer­sity of Texas M. D. Anderson Hospital and Tumor Institute in Houston, and The University of Texas Health Science Center at Dallas. With the basic clerkship and Pharm.D. programs operating effectively at UTHSCSA, the dean and faculty would be concentrating their efforts on developing further projects throughout the state to extend the educational impetus of the College of Pharmacy to all areas of the state of Texas. 
EPILOGUE: Looking Ahead 
WHEN THE SCHOOL OF Pharmacy was first organized on the Medical Department campus in Galveston in 1893, many pharmacists throughout the state questioned the proposal of a two-year college degree in pharmacy when appren­ticeships were available. Eighty-four years later, in 1977, phar­macists are debating whether to continue the combination of a five-year Bachelor of Science in conjunction with the Doctor of Pharmacy degree or to institute a single, professional doctoral degree for all students. This latter idea was endorsed by the American Pharmaceutical Association's House of Delegates in May of 1977. Discussion of the possibility of requiring colleges to inaugurate a single Pharm.D. program and drop the B.S. degree by 1983 is scheduled for the 1977 APhA annual meeting. 
The advantages of a single professional degree in pharmacy are numerous. One advantage would be to eliminate any confu­sion and hierarchical structure resulting from the existence of two degrees, which could conceivably lead to two classes of pharmacists-the one with a subordinate B.S. degree and the other with a superior Pharm.D. degree. Pharmacy has now reached such an advanced stage in the delivery of health care as to surpass parity with other baccalaureate degree-based occupa­tions. The final year of the B.S. in Pharmacy program, along 
521 

with the internship-experience requirement, produces phar­macists of a more elevated status than do bachel6r's degrees in other fields. Institution of the single Pharm.D. degree would have the advantage of giving greater recognition to the more heightened proficiency that pharmacists have had for many years. 
The decision on which form of credentials to adopt will be a difficult one for the profession to reach, just as earlier efforts to increase the basic degree to three, four, and five-years generated considerable controversy. Whether the profession eventually decides to adopt the single degree or to retain the existing multi­ple degrees, it is clear that pharmacy education will continue the rapid advancement exhibited within the last decade as the profession strives to provide pharmaceutical services capable of meeting the demand for high-quality health care which Americans have come to regard as a basic right. 
APPENDIXES 


APPENDIX A: Administrative Officers) Faculty) and Staff, 1895-1976 
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS 

Until 1895, the university was without a president, the chairman of the faculty being the chief executive officer. Professor J. W. Mallet was chairman for the opening year, 1883-84; then Professor Leslie Waggener until the summer of 1894; then Professor Thomas S. Miller for 1894-95. In 1895, the office of president was created and has been filled as follows: Leslie Waggener, M.A., LL.D., ad interim . ........ .... ........ ........ ..1895-96 George Tayloe Winston, M.A., LL.D...... ... .. ..... ....... . . ... ...... . 1896-99 William Lambdin Prather, B.L., LL.D . . .............................. 1899-1905 David Franklin Houston, M.A., LL.D...................................1905-08 Sidney Edward Mezes, Ph.D., LL.D....................................1908-14 William James Battle, Ph.D., D.C.L., LL.D., ad interim . ...... . ...........1914-16 Robert Ernest Vinson, D.D., LL.D. ....................................1916-23 William Seneca Sutton, M.A., LLD., ad interim ..........................1923-24 Walter Marshall William Splawn, Ph.D., LL.D.......................... 1924-27 Harry Yandell Benedict, Ph.D., LL.D.... .... .... . ..... ... ... .. . . . .. ....1927-37 John William Calhoun, M.A., LL.D., ad interim ..........................1937-39 Homer Price Rainey, Ph.D., LL.D.............. ........................1939-44 Theophilus Shickel Painter, Ph.D., D.Sc., LL.D., M.N.A.S., Acting President ..1944-46 Theophilus Shickel Painter, Ph.D., D.Sc., LL.D., M.N.A.S. . ..............1946-52 James Clay Dolley, Ph.D., Acting President ..................................1952 Logan Wilson, Ph.D., LL.D. . . .............................. ..........1953-60 Harry Huntt Ransom, Ph.D., Litt.D., LL.D., L.H.D. . . . .. ..... ..... ... .. . 1960-61 Harry Huntt Ransom, Ph.D., Litt.D., LL.D., L.H.D., Acting President ... . . .... .1961 Joseph Royall Smiley, Ph.D. . .........................................1961-63 Norman Hackerman, Ph.D . .. ........................ .................1967-70 Bryce Jordan, Ph.D. ad interim .........................................1970-71 Stephen H. Spurr, Ph.D ..... ................................ ......... 1971-74 Lorene Lane Rogers, Ph.D., D.Sc., F.A.l.C., ad interim . .... .... . .. .. .. ....1974-75 Lorene Lane Rogers, Ph.D., D.Sc., F.A.l.C...-.. ............... ........... 1975­From 1963 until 196 7 there was no office of president. 
The office of chancellor was created in 1950, and James Pinckney Hart occupied the position from the time it was created until his resignation 31 December 1953. On 1 January 1954, President Logan Wilson became president and acting chancellor until 30 September 1954, at which time the chancellorship was abolished by the board of regents. In September 1960, the chancellorship was reestablished, and President Logan Wilson became chancellor of The University of Texas. On the same date, the title of the chief ex­ecutive officer of the main university was changed to president of the main university, and 
525 

Harry Huntt Ransom became president. On 1 April 1961, Logan Wilson resigned as chancellor, and Harry Ransom was appointed chancellor, continuing as acting president of the main university until the appointment of a president on 31 May 1961. Harry Ran­som resigned from the chancellorship on 31 December 1970, and became chancellor emeritus 1 January 1971 , the date of the appointment of Charles A. LeMaistre as chancellor. 
SOURCE: University of Texas, The University of Texas Catalogue, part 5, General Information, 7976-77, University of Texas Publication no. 7615 (1 August 1976), pp. 25-26. 
FACULTY ABOVE LEVEL OF INSTRUCTOR 
Acosta, Daniel, Jr. B.S. in Pharmacy; Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Pharmacology, 1974 to present. 
Albers, Cari Clarence. Ph.G. ; B.S. in Pharmacy; B.A.; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Instructor in Pharmacy, 1923-24; Instructor in Pharmacy and Phar­maceutical Arithmetic, 1924-28; Adjunct Professor of Pharmacy, 1929-34; Assistant Professor of Pharmacy, 1934-37; Associate Professor of Pharmacy, 1937-47; Profes­sor of Pharmacognosy, 1947-67; Secretary of the Faculty, 1929-34 and 1945-52; Director of the Drug Garden, 1952-62; Acting Dean, June 1966-September 1967. 
Appelt, Glenn D. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Assistant Professor of Pharmacology, 1962-66. 
Autian, John. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S. in Pharmacy; Ph.D; Registered Pharmacist: Pennsylvania. Associate Professor of Pharmacy, 1960-64; Director, Drug Plastic Research Laboratory and Toxicology Laboratory, 1964-66; Professor of Pharmacy, 1964-67 
Berman, Alex. Ph.G.; B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S.; Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacy and Chief Pharmacist, Student Health Center, 1961-68. 
Boenigk, John W. B.S.; M.S.; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: Pennsylvania, Indiana, Texas. Assistant Professor of Pharmacy and Director of the Pharmacy Dispensary, 1948-50. 
Bradberry, Jack Christopher. B.S. ; M.S.; Pharm.D. Assistant Professor of Pharmacy, 1975 to present. Brown, Robert Graves. B.S.; M.S.; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: Oklahoma. Assistant Professor of Pharmacology, 1949-62; Associate Professor, 1962 to present. 
Burlage, Henry Matthew. B.A.; M.A.; Ph.G.; B.S. in Pharmacy; Ph.D.; D.Sc. (Hon.); Registered Pharmacist: Washington, North Carolina, Texas. Professor of Phar­maceutical Chemistry, 1947-48; Dean of the College of Pharmacy, 1947-62; Profes­sor of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Chemistry, 1948-72; Emeritus Professor, 1972 to present. 
Clibon, Unamarie. B.S.; Pharm.D. Assistant Professor of Pharmacy, 1975 to present. Cline, Raoul Rene Daniel. M.A.,; Ph.G.; M.D. Professor of Pharmacy, 1895-1924; Dean of the School (later College) of Pharmacy, 1895-1924. Chambers, Melvin A. B.S.; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Assistant Professor of Pharmacognosy, 1949-50. Combs, Alan Brooks. B.S.; M.S.; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: California, Nevada. Assistant Professor of Pharmacology, 1971-76; Associate Professor, 1976 to present. 
Cosgrove, Frank Peter. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.A. in Sc. Education; M.S. in Pharmacy; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: Oklahoma, Louisiana, Texas. Assistant Professor of Pharmacy, 1958-60. Associate Professor of Pharmacy, 1960-68 (resigned to become Dean of the College of Pharmacy, Idaho State University). Davis, John Emerson. B.A.; M.S.; Ph.D. Professor of Pharmacology, 1950-72; Emeritus Professor, 1973 . 
Delgado, Jaime Nabor. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S. in Pharmacy; Ph.D.; Registered Phar­macist: Texas. Assistant Professor of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, 1958-62; Associate Professor, 1962-72; Professor, 1973 to present. 
Djao, Er-Hung. B.S. in Pharmacy; YLS.; Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Pharmacognosy, 1956-61. Doerge, Robert F. B.S.; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: Minnesota, Texas. Assistant Professor of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, 1948-54. 
Doluisio, James T. B.S.; M.S.; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Texas. Professor of Pharmacy and Dean of the College of Pharmacy, 1973 to present. Fineg, Jerry. B.S.; D. V.M.; M.S. Professor of Physiology and Pharmacology and Direc­tor, Animal Resources Center, 1973 to present. 
Folkers, Karl. B.S.; Ph.D.; D.Sc. (Hon.); D. Pharm. (Hon.). Professor of Pharmaceutical Chemistry and Director, Institute for Biomedical Research, 1968 to present. Franks, Robert C. B.S.; M.D. Professor of Pediatrics, 1974-75. Garbade. Walter Tell . ..\.N.; Ph.G. Demonstrator in Chemistry, 1905-13; Adjunct 
Professor of Chemistry. 1913-20; Associate Professor of Chemistry, 1920-21 (resigned); Associate Professor Emeritus of Pharmacy, 1922-23; Associate Professor Emeritus of Chemistry and Lecturer on Commercial Methods and Legal Regula­tions, 1923-27. 
Garrett, Ronald Duane. B.A.; ~1.S.; Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Pharmacognosy, 1968-73. 
Gidley, William Francis. Ph.C.; B.S.; Registered Pharmacist: Michigan. Professor of Pharmacy, 1924-4 7. Dean of the College of Pharmacy, 1926-4 7; Modified Service, 1952-57; Professor Emeritus of Pharmacy, 1957-65. 
Gjerstad, Gunnar. B.S.; M.S.; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: Norway. Assistant Profes­sor of Pharmacognosy, 1952-63; Associate Professor, 1963 to present. Green, Vernon A. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S. in Pharmacy; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: Oklahoma, Texas. Assistant Professor of Pharmacology, 1950-62. 
Guess, Wallace Louis. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S. in Pharmacy; Ph.D. ; Registered Phar­macist: Texas. Instructor in Pharmacy, 1949-51; Special Instructor in Pharmacy, 1951-60; Associate Professor, 1960-68; Assistant Director, Drug Plastic Research Laboratory, 1960-62; Associate Director, Drug Plastic Research Laboratory, 1962-68; Director. Drug Plastic and Toxicology Laboratories, and Professor, 1968-72 (resigned to become Dean of the School of Pharmacy, University of Missis­sippi). 
Hall, Esther Jane Wood. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S. in Pharmacy; Ph.D.; Registered Phar­macist: Alabama, Texas. Instructor in Pharmacy, 1948-49; Instructor in Phar­maceutical Management, 1949; Assistant Professor of Pharmaceutical Management, 1949-51 ; Assistant Professor of Pharmaceutical Administration, 1951-55; Assistant Professor of Pharmacy Administration, 1955-61 ; Associate Professor, 1961-75; Professor of Pharmacy, 1975 to present. 
Harris, Richard Holland. B.S.; Pharm.D. Assistant Professor of Pharmacy, 1973. 
Hawkins, David W. B.S., Pharm.D., Assistant Professor of Pharmacy, 1975 to present. 
Henze, Henry Rudolf. Ph.B.; Ph.D. Adjunct Professor of Chemistry, 1921-22; Associate Professor in the Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, 1922-24; Professor of Chemistry, 1924-27 (became affiliated with the Department of Chemistry at Austin). 
Hightower, William L. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S.; Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Pharmacy Administration, 1975 to present. Hoag, Stephen G. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S.; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: North Dakota. Assistant Professor of Pharmacy, 1973-74. Isaacson, Eugene I. B.S. in Pharmacy; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: Minnesota. Assis­tant Professor of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, 1962-69. 
Jobe, Bill David. B.S. in Pharmacy; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Assistant to the Dean, 1965-66; Assistant Director, Pharmacy Extension Service, 1962-64; Direc­tor, Pharmacy Extension Service, 1964-6 7; Associate Professor of Pharmacy and Director, Pharmacy Extension Service, 1973 to present. Kennedy, James. M.D.; Ph.G. Professor of Pharmacy, Lecturer on Botany, and Dean of the School of Pharmacy, 1893-95. Leff, Richard D. B.S. in Pharmacy; Pharm.D. Assistant Professor of Pharmacy, 1975 to present. Leonard, Robert G. B.S.; Pharm.D. Assistant Professor of Pharmacy, 1973 to present. Leslie, Steven W. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S.; Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Pharmacology, 1975 to present. Littlefield, Louis C. B.S.; Pharm.D. Assistant Professor of Pharmacy, 1973 to present. Lloyd, William Reese. B.A.; B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S.; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Associate Professor of Pharmacy, 1949-60; Assistant Dean, 1952-56. Lofgren, Frederick Valentine. Ph.G.; B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S.; Ph.D.; Registered Phar­macist: Washington, Florida, Texas. Associate Professor of Pharmacy, 1950-60; Professor of Pharmacy, 1960-66; Modified Service, 1966-71; Professor Emeritus of Pharmacy, 1971 to present. Ludden, Thomas M. B.S. in Pharmacy; Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Pharmacy, 1975 to present. Maness, Dale Dwayne. B.S. in Pharmacy; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Assis­tant Professor of Pharmacy, 1970 to present. Martin, Alfred. B.S.; M.S.; Ph.D. Professor of Pharmacy and Director, Drug Dynamics Institute, 1973 to present. Meyers, Donald Bates. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S. in Pharmacy; Ph.D.; Registered Phar­macist : Iowa. Associate Professor of Pharmacology, 1962-63 Mittelstaedt, Stanley G. B.A.; B.S.; Ph.C.; M.S.; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: Washington. Associate Professor of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Chemistry, 1948-51 (resigned to become Dean of the School of Pharmacy, University of Arkansas). Morris, Seth M. B.S.; M.D. Professor of Chemistry and Toxicology, 1893-1908. Nematollahi, Jay. Pharm.D.; M.A.; Ph.D. Registered Pharmacist: California. Assistant Professor of Pharmacy, 1967-69; Assistant Professor of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, 1969-71 ; Associate Professo~, 1971 to present. Neville, William Rust. Ph.G.; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Associate Professor of Pharmacy, 1924-51 ; Professor of Pharmacy, 1951-52; Modified Service, 1952-59; Professor Eme-itus, 1959. Newburger, Jerold. B.A.; M.S.; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: Kentucky, Tennessee. Assistant Professor of Pharmacy, 1973 to present. 
Radzai, Frank Robert. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S.; Pharm. D.; Registered Pharmacist: Pennsylvania, Texas. Instructor in Pharmacy, 1971-73; Assistant Professor of Phar­macy, 1973-74. 
Randall, Edward. B.A.; M.D. Professor of Materia Medica and Therapeutics, 1893-1926. Riffee, William H. B.S.; Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Pharmacology, 1975 to present. Roberts, Kenneth B. B.S. in Pharmacy; M. B.A.; Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Pharmacy Administration, 1975 to present. Rosier, Karl Heinz. M.S.; Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Pharmacognosy, 1969-70. Schleuse, Louis William. Ph.G.; B.S. in Pharmacy; B.S. Instructor in Pharmacy, 1929-35; Assistant Professor of Pharmacy, 1935-45; Associate Professor and Secretary of the Faculty, 1944-45 (on leave 1945-46; then resigned). Scholler, Jean. B.S.; R.N.; Ph.D. Professor of Pharmacology and Director, Laboratory of Comparative Pharmacology, 1968-73. 
Schwartz, Herbert Frederick II. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S. in Pharmacy; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: Pennsylvania, Texas. Special Instructor in Pharmacy, 1954-65; Assis­tant Professor of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, 1965-72. 
Sheffield, William Johnson. B.S.; M.S.; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: North Carolina, Texas. Assistant Professor of Pharmacy, 1950-60; Associate Professor, 1960-69; Professor, 1969 to present; Assistant Dean, 1956-58, 1969-70; Acting Dean, 1970-73; Associate Dean, 1975 to present. 
Shlanta, Stephen, Jr. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S. in Pharmacy; Ph.D.; Registered Phar­
macist: Michigan, West Virginia. Assistant Professor of Pharmacy, 1968-70. Smith, Irma. Ph.G. Instructor in Pharmacy, 1922-26; Adjunct Professor, 1926-28 Smith, Robert V. B.S.; M.S.; Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, 
1974 to present. 
Sprowls, Joseph Barnett. Ph.C.; B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S.; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: Colorado, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas. Professor of Pharmacy and Dean of the College of Pharmacy, 1967-70. 
Stavchansky, Salomon A. B.S.; Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Pharmacy, 1974 to present. 
Stockton, John Richard. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S. in Bacteriology. Tutor, 1937-38; Instructor, 1938-41; Assistant Professor of Pharmacy and Research Associate in Bacteriology, 1941-46. 
Stuart, David Marshall. B.S. in Pharmacy; Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Pharmaceutical 
Chemistry, 1955-58. Stuhr, Ernst Theodore. Ph.G.; Ph.C.; B.S.; M.S. Associate Professor of Pharmacy, 1948. Sullivan, Gerald. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S. in Pharmacy; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: 
Washington. Assistant Professor of Pharmacognosy, 1967-71; Associate Professor, 1971 to present. Talbert, Robert L. B.S. in Pharmacy; Pharm.D. Assistant Professor of Pharmacy, 1975 
to present. Tell entire, Alan. Ph.C.; M.S.; Ph.D. Visiting Professor of Pharmacy, 197 5 to present. Tiemann, Kenneth Edward. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Phar­
macist: Texas. Lecturer in Pharmacy and Chief Pharmacist, Student Health Center, 1954-59; Adjunct Associate Professor of Pharmacy, 1975 to present. Tsao, Daniel Peh-Nien. B.A.; Ph.C.; M.S.; Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Pharmacognosy, 1950-52. Walton, Charles Anthony. B.S.; M.S.; Ph.D. Professor of Pharmacy and Assistant Dean, 1973 to present. 
Wilson, Charles Owens. Ph.C.; B.S.; M.S.; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: Washington, Minnesota, Washington, D.C. Professor of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, 1948-60 (resigned to become Dean of the School of Pharmacy, Oregon State College). 
Worrell, Lee Frank. B.S. in Pharmacy; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: Indiana, Michigan, Texas. Professor of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, 1960 to present; Dean of the College of Pharmacy, 1962-66. 
Wylie, Billy Burben. B.A.; B.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Lecturer in Pharmacy, 1962-64; Chief Pharmacist, Student Health Center, 1962 to present; As­sistant Instructor, 1964-68; Instructor in Pharmacy, 1968-72; Clinical Assistant Professor of Pharmacy, 1972 to present. 
Yakatan, Gerald Joseph. B.S.; M.S.; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: Pennsylvania, Florida. Assistant Professor of Pharmacy, 1972 to present; Assistant Director, Drug Dynamics Institute, 1975 to present. 
Yanchick, Victor Andrew. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S. in Pharmacy; Ph.D.; Registered Pharmacist: Illinois, Iowa. Assistant Professor of Pharmacy, 1968-73; Acting Assis­tant Dean, 1973-75; Associate Professor, 1973 to present; Assistant Dean, 1975 to present. 
SOURCE: University of Texas, University Course Catalogues, 1893-1976, Texas Collection, Barker Texas History Center, Austin, Texas (hereafter referred to as Texas Collection). 
INSTRUCTORS, LECTURERS, TECHNICAL 
OFFICERS, TEACHING FELLOWS, TUTORS, 
ASSISTANTS, AND DIRECTORS 

Alvarez, Herman, Jr. B.S. in Pharmacy. Dispensary Director, 1946-48. 
Arnette, Joseph Hoyland. B.A.; B.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Lec­turer in Pharmacy and Director, Pharmacy Extension Service, 1955-60. Barcus, John McFerrin. B.A.; B.S. in Pharmacy. Instructor in Pharmacy, 1935-36. Beerstecher, Ernest, Jr. B.S.; M.A.; Ph.D. Lecturer in Pharmacy, 1949-50; Research 
Scientist, 1950 Belisle, Malcolm. B.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Clinical Instructor, 1976 to present. Bode, Charles Williams, Jr. B.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Assistant Instructor in Pharmacy and Comparative Studies, 1971-73. 
Borth, Fred. B.S. in Pharmacy. Instructor in Pharmacy, 1946-49. 
Boyea, Lyle Henry. B.S.; M.D. Lecturer in Pharmacy, 1968-72. 
Buckner, John Clark. Ph.G. Demonstrator in Pharmacy and Botany, 1905-20; Adjunct Professor of Pharmacy, 1920-22. Burkett, Donald Lee. B.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Instructor in Pharmacy, 1950-52. 
Bodansky, Meyer. B.A. Instructor in Organic and Biological Chemistry, 1922. 
Cousins, Walter, Jr. Lecturer in Pharmacy Administration, 1972-73. 
Dimmitt, J. S. Ph.G. Instructor in Biochemistry, 1920-21. 
Dunkelberg, Walter Rienzi. B.S. in Chemistry. Research Scientist, 1949. 
Frank, Charlene Jones. Secretary to the Dean, 1948-49. 
Fuchs, Virginia Blanche. B.S. in Pharmacy. Tutor, 1945-46; Instructor in Pharmacy, 1946. 
Geiger, Paul Frank. B.A.; B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S.; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Special Instructor in Pharmacy, 1961-63. 
Golaz, Marilyn Blackstone. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S. in Pharmacy. Assistant Instructor in Pharmacy, 1970-71. 
Greenberg, David. B.A.; B.S. in Pharmacy. Instructor, 1947. 
Grumbles, J. P. B.S.; M.B.A. Executive Assistant, 1971 to present. Ham, Ruth Bradley. B.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Lecturer in Phar­macy and Chief Pharmacist, Student Health Center, 1950-52. Haney, William G., Jr. B.S. in Pharmacy. Assistant Instructor in Pharmacy, 1969-70. Hardwicke, C. P. M.D. Lecturer in Pharmacology, 1927-39. Huerta, Pedro, Jr. B.S. in Education; B.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. 
Assistant Instructor in Pharmaceutical Chemistry, 1970-72. Humphries, John T. B.S. Assistant in Chemistry, 1923. Jensen, Gordon Henry. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S. Instructor in Pharmacy, 1969-71; Direc­
tor of the Pharmacy Program, 1970-71. Jones, Martha Jane. B.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Teaching Fellow in Pharmacy, 1948-50. 
Jones, Tony Everett. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Instructor in Pharmaceutical Chemistry, 1949-53; Assistant Professor, 1953-55. 
Kaufman, Jordan William. B.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: Connecticut. Clinical Instructor in Pharmacy, 1951-52. Klotz (Conklin), Alice G. B.S. in Medicine. Instructor in Chemistry, 1924-27; Tutor, 
1927-30. Kochhar, Man Mohan. M.S. in Pharmacy. Special Instructor in Pharmacy, 1963-64. Latimer, Mark. B.A. Assistant in Chemistry, 1923. Levy, Benjamin. Ph.G.; B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S. in Pharmacy. Instructor in Pharmacy, 
1947-48. Lidiak, Dorothy Jane. B.B.A. Administrative Secretary, 1950-61; Administrative Assis­
tant, 1961-69; Executive Assistant, 1969-70. Little, Harry Morrow. B.A. Assistant in Chemistry, 1923. Loftis, Margaret G. Administrative Secretary, 1949-50. Lowe, Reginald. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: 
Michigan, Texas. Special Instructor in Pharmacy, 1963-65. McAmis, Ava Josephine. B.A.; M.A. Tutor in Chemistry, 1922-23; Instructor m 
Chemistry, 1923-24. McGinity, James. B.Pharm.; Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Pharmacy, 1976. McMahon, David Thompson, Jr. B.S. in Pharmacy. Tutor, 1946-47. Massey, Marion Frances. B.B.A. Secretary to the Dean, 1944-48. Meyer, Imo Knox. B.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Special Instructor 
in Pharmacology. 1951-52. Michel, Bernetta. Ph.G. Instructor of Pharmacy and Chief Pharmacist, John Sealy Hospital, 1924-26. Middleton, Donald L. B.S.; B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S.; Registered Pharmacist: Louisiana. Assistant Instructor in Pharmacy, 1970-72. Milburn, Conn L. Ph.G. Demonstrator in Botany, 1897-1904. 
~forgan.. Sheridyn Shelby. B.S. in Pharmacy; ~l.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Phar­macist: Texas. .-\ssistant Instructor in Pharmacy, 1971-73. 
~loner. Frances l'nder.vood. B.S. in Pharmacy. Teaching Fellow, 1947-48. 
~loreno. Jose Ruben. B.S. in Pharmacy; ~f.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Instructor in Pharmacy. 1949-51; Special Instructor, 1951-64; Procurement Officer. 196-l to present. :\'ash. Joe Bert. B.S. in Education; B.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Tutor. 1946--P. Instructor.. 1947-48. :'.'\eighbors, DeWitt. B....\.: ~I...\. Instructor in Organic and Biological Chemistry, 1922-23. :\'unzio.. Paul DeSantis. B.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: New Mexico, Texas, ~lissouri. Part-time Clinical Instructor, 1976 to present. Ortega. Gustavo Ramon. B.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Assistant Instructor in Pharmacy, 1972-76. 
Parker. Luther Ray. B.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Lecturer in Phar­macy and Director.. Pharmacy Extension Service, 1959-60; Assistant to the Dean, 1961-63. 
Pea,·y .. James E. ~LO.: ~LP.H. Lecturer in Public Health Pharmacy, 1967-70. Pope. Louise ~I. B.S. Registered Pharmacist: ~-lichigan, Oklahoma, Texas. Lecturer in Pharmacy and Chief Pharmacist, Student Health Center, 1953-55. 
Powell. Harold Dean. B.S. in Chemistry; B.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Special Instructor in Pharmacy and Assistant Director, Pharmacy Extension Sen·ice.. 1960-62. 
Radcliffe .... .\rthur Warren. B.A.: B.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. 
Instructor.. 1949-50. Raley. Charles Knudson. B.S. in Pharmacy. Instructor.. 1947-48. Randeri.. Kiran. B.S. in Chemistry; B.S. in Pharmacy; ~f.S. in Pharmacy. Special 
Instructor in Pharman·.. 1963-64 Richardson....\delaide. Ph.G. Instructor in Pharmacy, 1922. Shimek (White), ~lary Ellen. B.S. in Pharmacy. Director, Dispensary, 1946-48. Showalter. ~lildred Elizabeth. B.S. in Pharmacy. Instructor, 1947-48. Solomon...\rthur Charles. B.S. in Pharmacy; ~f.S. in Clinical Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: Indiana. Instructor in Clinical Pharmacy, 1972-73. 
Spangler. Susanne. B .. .\. Research Scientist. 1949-50. 
Steussy. ~lary Acton. B.A.; ~I.A. in Chemistry. Instructor in Organic Chemistry, 1925-27. Stewart. Sidney Earl. B.S.; ~f.D. Lecturer in Pathology, 1970-73. Stockton.. John Richard. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S. in Bacteriology. Tutor, 1937-38; 
Instructor, 1938-41; Assistant Professor of Pharmacy and Research Associate in Bacteriology.. 1941-1946. Stuart. Da,;d ~larshall. B.S. in Pharmacy; Ph.D. in Pharmacy. Assistant Professor of 
Pharmaceutical Chemistry. 1955-58. Sykes. Ethel \\". Fellow in Chemistry, 1909-10. Tindall (Brown). Jemmie Loree. B.S. in Pharmacy. Teaching Fellow, 1947-49. \"og1. Donald Duane. B.A.: B.S. : ~l.S.: Ph.D. Instructor in Pharmacy, 1968-69. Walker. Charles . .\!born. B.S. in Pharmacy; B.A.; ~l.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Phar­
macist : Texas. Instructor in Pharmacy Administration and Director, Pharmacy Ex­tension Sen·ice. 1968-73. 
Watson (Sheffield), Nadine Jean. B.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. As­sistant Pharmacist, Student Health Center, 1951-52. Wertheimer, Henry Abraham. B.A.; B.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Special Instructor in Pharmacy, 1951-52. Wilken, Leon Otto, Jr. B.S. in Pharmacy; M.S. in Pharmacy; Ph.D.; Registered Phar­macist: Louisiana, Texas. Special Instructor in Pharmacy, 1953-63 Williams, Madolie Marjorie Links. B.S. in Pharmacy; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Student Pharmacist Supervisor, 1949-50. Woods, William Ellis. B.S. in Pharmacy; LL.B.; Registered Pharmacist: Texas. Special Instructor in Pharmacy and Director, Pharmacy Extension Service, 1953-54. Yotiv, Simon Peter. B.S. Special Instructor in Pharmacy, 1953-54. 
SOURCE: University of Texas, University Course Catalogues, 1893-1Q76, Texas Collection. 
APPENDIXB: Members of the Advisory Council of the Pharmaceutical Foundation, 1952-1976 (According to Service and/or Appointments) 
RETAIL (COMMUNITY) PHARMACISTS 
Brooks, Charles A., Bremond: 1965 
Cleveland, T. H ., Dublin: 1962-65 
Caskey, Eugene M., Jacksonville: 1952 
Collier, Bob, Post: 1962-64, 1965 
Ewald, Harold, Taft: 1963-65, 1966, 1967 
Fowler, John R., Memphis: 1964-67, 1970 
Good, Ralph L., Jr., Tyler: 1969-73, 1975-78 
Halsey, John, Lubbock: 1953-55 
Harrell, E. C., Dallas: 1958-60 
Hawkins, Tom, Austin: _1971-74 
Hogg, Billy Jack, Gilmer: 1966-69, 1969-72 
Hollingsworth, Lonnie, Lubbock: 1975-77 
Krieger, Ralph, Abilene: 1961-64 
McKnight, Dan A., Rock Springs: 1952-53 
Martinez, Noel, McAllen: 1965-68, 1968-71, 1971-78 
Mulkey, Homer F., Port Arthur: 1952-54 
Park, G. B., Dallas : 1955-56, 1959-61 
Patteson, H. C., San Antonio: 1953-55 
Pipkin, Hazel, Bryan: 1971-75, 1975-78 
Ray, John, Abilene : 1954-56 
Seibert, J. E., San Antonio: 1956-58 
Seitz, Russell L., San Angelo: 1966-69, 1969-72, 1972-75, 1975-78 
Shokes, F., Lancaster: 1962-64, 1965 
Steenken, Gus, Georgetown: 1973-76 
Tiemann, Kenneth, Austin: 1963-66, 1966-69 
Trevino, J. A., Houston: 1973-76 
Tucker, Joe, Austin: 1961-63 
West, Jess, Plainview: 1957-59, 1962, 1963, 1965-68 
Wood, Sam G., Kileen: 1960-62 
RETAIL CHAIN DISTRIBUTORS 
Corrigan, Walter N., San Antonio: 1957-59 
Dugan, James S., Houston: 1960-62 
Huddleston, J. M., Houston: 1962-63, 1963-65, 1966 
Kloesel, vVilliam Arlyn, Austin: 1975-1978 Lallier, Groce, Houston: 1958-60 
534 

Mobley, M. N., Fort Worth: 1953-57 Renfro, J. F., Austin: 1952-54 Shimek, Ray C., Dallas : 1961-64 Skillern, Frank, Dallas: 1954-56 Skillern, R. E., Dallas: 1952-53 
RETAIL PROFESSIONALS 
Brusenhan, H. H., San Antonio: 1971-74 Brusenhan, R. L., San Antonio: 1958-60 Collier, Jack, Fort Worth: 1952 Fowler, James B., Odessa: 1953-57 Gound, Wayne, Odessa: 1960-62 Halsey, John, Lubbock: 1953-55 Jones, W. T., Houston: 1954-56 Jordan, Howell, Austin: 1952-54 Kelley, Aubray B., Beaumont: 1957-59 McKee, P.R., El Paso: 1952-53, 1966-69 Meyers, W.R., Dallas: 1956-58 Riddle, Joy, Lubbock: 1967-70, 1970-73 Rosser, George R., Dallas: 1959-61, 1961-64, 1962-65 Trantham, Paul, Sr., Fort Worth: 1965-66, 1968-71, 1974-77 Vilcik, Eugene C., Austin: 1972-75 Vondenbaumen, Tim, Sr., San Antonio: 1970, 1973-76 Wasserman, Ray, Corpus Christi: 1963-65 Whitten, W.R., Fort Worth: 1960-62, 1963-65, 1966, 1975-77 Yarbrough, Lonnie, Denton: 1961-64, 1964-67, 1967-70, 1970--1973, 1973-76 
HOSPITAL PHARMACISTS 
Batey, John L., Abilene: 1975-78 Bowers, Frank, Houston: 1952-54 Henry, Charles, Dallas: 1968-71; 1971-74 Jeffers, C. M., Temple: 1953-55; 1959-61 Kelly, Guy T., Dallas: 1961-64 Lewis, Reuben C., Dallas: 1962-65 Marusich, Irma, EI Paso : 1969-72 McKinley, J. D., Houston: 1956-58 Muenzler, Leslie R., Victoria: 1966-69, 1969-72, 1972-7 5, 1975-78 Smith, Lewis, Dallas: 1952, 1955-57, 1958-60 Waters, Betsy, Dallas: 1964-6 7 
MEDICAL SALES AND MANUFACTURING FIRMS 
Alexander, R. D., Fort Worth: 1963, 1965-66 
Armstrong, C. Moody, San Antonio: 1961, 1961-64, 1965, 1965-68, 1968-71, 1971-74, 

1974-77 Arthur, Winston, Dallas: 1955-57 Ashworth, Henry, San Antonio: 1956-58, 1959-61, 1964-67, 1967-70, 1970-73, 1973, 
1976 Bailey, Foster, Dallas : 1962-64, 1965 Bearden, Porter, Dallas: 1966 Burns, F. 0 ., Dallas: 1952-54 Clark, A. R., San Antonio: 1952-53 Conner, W. C., Fort Worth: 1957-59, 1960-62, 1973-76 Epperson, Robert J., Dallas: 1963-65, 1967-70, 1970-73, 1973-76 Farr, Freci E., Dallas: 1964-67 Gaddis, J. A., Jr., Houston: 1959-60 Gound, Wayne A., Dallas: 1969-72, 1972-75 Hornbuckle, T. C., Houston: 1952 Lloyd, William R., San Antonio: 1968-71, 1971-74, 1974-77 Logan, Howard, Bellaire: 1958 Lowe, Fred M., Dallas: 1953-55 Rega~, Chris S., Dallas: 1965-68 Schleuse, L. W., San Antonio: 1954-56 Sublett, C.R., Dallas : 1961-64, 1964-67, 1974-77 Vykukal, Eugene, Dallas: 1964-67, 1967-70, 1970...:73, 1973-76 Waldsorf, Neill B., San Antonio: 1973-76 
WHOLESALERS 
Beall, C.R., Dallas: 1956 Clifton, W. L., Waco: 1956-58, 1959-61, 1967 Henley, H. H., Dallas: 1952-53 Jones, M. L., Dallas: 1957 Kuntz, Walter, Houston and Dallas: 1954-60, 1961-64 Lambert, T. A., San Antonio: 1952-62 Mayes, Leo M., Waco: 1961-64, 1964-67, 1967-70 Minton, M . E., Dallas: 1960-61 Proctor, D. C., Beaumont: 1952, 1964-65 Proctor, Winston, Beaumont: 1953-56 Seibert, J. W ., Dallas and New York: 1958-60 Truett, Fred M. ; Dallas: 1952-53 Walker, Virgil, Waco: 1952-55 Walsh, Pearson, Texarkana: 1957-59, 1964 
MEMBERS-AT-LARGE 
Bennett, B. W., Brownwood: 1952-53 Cousins, Walter, Jr., Dallas: 1952-54 George, J. F., Boerne: 1955-57 Gunning, Tom, Jr., El Paso: 1954-56 Klinck, C. L., McAllen: 1959-61 Mitchell, Ruth R., McGregor: 1963-65, 1966 Philips, Shine, Big Spring: 1952 Schroeder, Emma, Fredericksburg: 1957-59 Soape, Lorene, Corpus Christi: 1960-62 Stinson, Lee, Snyder: 1953-55 Thompson, A. A., Austin: 1956-58 Wells, Benjamin, Birmingham: 1974-77 White, Lois P., Cleburne: 1958-60 
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS 
Albers, C. C., Austin: 1957 
Arnette, J. H., Austin: 1957-59, 1963, 1964 
Ashworth, Henry, San Antonio: 1955 
Autian, John, Austin : 1965 
Baker, Edward, Arlington: 1968-70 
Black, Hulon, Austin: 1952-59 
Blanton, W. Graves, Austin: 1970, 1972, 1973 
Blunk, W. D., Austin: 1960, 1964, 1965, 1967, 1971 
Brinkley, Fred, Austin: 1971 
Brooks, W. F., Denton: 1960 · 

. B"rown, B. B., Dallas: 1954, 1960 Brusenhan, R. L., San Antonio : 1961 Bryant, W. C., Fort Worth: 1961 Burlage, H. M., Austin: 1952-60 Carroll, Paul, Texarkana: 1953 Clark, W. T., Waco: 1961 Collier, Bob, Post: 1960 Collier, Wynne, Tahoka: 1957 Culver, Joseph H., Austin: 1973, 1974 Davis, J.E., Austin: 1958 Day, T. R., Dallas: 1959 Delgado, J. N., Austin : 1970 Doluisio, James, Austin: 1973, 1974 Gholston, Thurmon, Amarillo : 1953 Hargis, Gerald E., Pasadena: 1971 Harris, W. C., Dallas: 1963 Hestand, Howard, Sherman: 1954 Hopper, Clifford, Dallas: 1970 Jobe, Bill D., Austin: 1965, 1967 Jordan, Howell, Austin : 1955 Kahanek, Leon, Ha,lletsville: 19 58-59 Kelley, Guy F., Jr., Dallas: 1960 Kidwell, James, Corpus Christi: 196 7 Kinard, Jack, Temple: 1963 Lewis, R. C., Dallas: 1962 Linney, Harry A., George West: 1955 Lloyd, W. R., Austin: 1960 Lofgren, F. V., Austin : 1960, 1961 Lowe, Fred, Dallas: 1957..,.58 McKinley, J. D., Jr., Houston : 1959 McKnight, Dan, Rock Springs: 1962 Mayes, Leo, Waco: 1960 Minor, Ed~ Austin: 196 7 Minton, W. Ellis, Dallas: 1971 Moreno, Hector, San Antonio : 1969 Mullen, James, Dallas : 1970 
Park, G. B., Dallas : 1958 Parker, L. R., Austin: 1960, 1963 Parma, Benjamin, La Marque: 1965 Patteson, H. C., San Antonio: 1952 Payne,John M., Fort Worth: 1961 Perkes, Carl H., Austin: 1964 Philips, Shine, Big Spring: 1956 Reese, Frank, Houston and San Antonio: 1954-55, 1959 Robinson, Edd, Abilene: 1959 Roesch, C. J.M., Austin: 1961 Ryan, T. J., Dallas : 1956 Schleuse, L. W., San Antonio: 1952-53 Sheffield, W.J., Austin : 1971, 1972 Shokes, Francis, Lancaster: 1957 Simpson, Hatton, Tyler: 1964-65 Smith, C. Clay, Fort Worth : 1964 Smith, Glenn, Waco: 1973-76 Sprowles, Joseph, Austin: 1969, 1970, 1971 Starr, Tom, Dallas: 1967 Stehley, George F., Dallas: 1969 Stinson, Lee, Snyder: 1952, 1957 Triolo, James, Austin: 1961, 1962, 1963 Wade, G. S., Dallas: 1965 Walker, Charles, Austin: 1969, 1970 Walsh, W. F., Texarkana: 1964, 1969 Webb, George G., McKinney: 1971 Webb, John A., Tyler: 1965 Weller, Ken, Corpus Christi: 1962 West, Jesse, Plainview: 1956 Wilson, C. 0., Austin: 1959 Wood, Bill, Midland: 1956, 1961 Woods, William E., New York City: 1959 Wood, Sam, Killeen : 1964, 1971 Woodyard, James, Houston: 1958 Worrell, Lee F., Austin: 1962-65 
SOURCE: Pharmaceutical Foundation, "Pharmaceutical Foundation Advisory Council Minutes, 1952-76," Office of the Dean, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin. 
APPENDIXC: Officers of the Advisory 


Council, 1952-1976 

1952-53 Chairman: Walter Cousins, Jr., Dallas Vice-Chairman: D. C. Proctor, Beaumont 1953-54 Chairman: Walter Cousins, Jr., Dallas Vice-Chairman: Joe Renfro, Austin 1954-56 Chairman: T. Arthur Lambert, San Antonio Vice-Chairman : Walter Kuntz, Houston 1956-57 Chairman: Walter Kuntz, Houston Vice-Chairman: Tom Gunning, El Paso 
1957-58 Chairman: Walter Kuntz, Houston Vice-Chairman: Buck Park, Dallas 1958-59 Chairman: W. Lacy Clifton, Waco 
Vice-Chairman: E. C. Harrell, Dallas 1959-60 Chairman: J. W . Seibert, Dallas Vice-Chairman : Lewis Smith, Dallas 1960-61 Chairman: Leo Mayes, Waco Vice-Chairman: Lewis Smith, Dallas 1961-62 Chairman: Leo Mayes, Waco Vice-Chairman: C. R. Sublett, Dallas 1962-64 Chairman: C. R . Sublett, Dallas Vice-Chairman: Moody Armstrong, San Antonio 1964-65 Chairman: Moody Armstrong, San Antonio Vice-Chairman : Lonnie Yarbrough, Denton 1965-6 7 Chairman: Lonnie Yarbrough, Denton Vice-Chairman: Ken Tiemann, Austin 1967-68 Chairman: Ken Tiemann, Austin Vice-Chairman: Paul Trantham, Sr., Fort Worth 1968-70 Chairman: Paul Trantham, Sr., Fort Worth Vice-Chairman: Ralph Good, Tyler 1970-72 Chairman: Ralph Good, Tyler Vice-Chairman : Harry Brusenhan, San Antonio 1972-74 Chairman: Harry Brusenhan, San Antonio Vice-Chairman : Leslie Muenzler, Victoria 1974-76 Chairman: J. Adan Trevino, Houston Vice-Chairman: Eugene L. Vykukal, Dallas 
The dean and assistant dean served as secretary and assistant secretary, respectively, for each year. 
SOURCE: Pharmaceutical Foundation, "Pharmaceutical Foundation Advisory Council Minutes, 1952-76," Office of the Dean, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin. 
539 

APPENDIX D: 	Gifts to the Pharmaceutical Foundation, 1950-1976 (In Thousands of Dollars) 

80 
70 
60 
50 
40 
30 
20 

10 
o.__~__._~~---~~_._~__.~~_. 

1950 195 5 1960 1965 1970 1975 
SOURCE: Office of the Dean, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin. 
540 

APPENDIX E: Gifts to the College of Pharmacy, 1893-1976 
Gifts to the College of Pharmacy during its first fifty years are of historic note mainly due to their paucity. The scarcity of alumni support may be attributed, in part, to the fact that during these early years most practicing pharmacists were not graduates of any school or college of pharmacy. The pharmaceutical industry was still in the formative stage and did not develop rapidly until the years of economic prosperity that followed the Second World War. In order to illustrate the vast difference this made between the sup­port received by the college before World War II and that received after, the following enumeration of gifts is listed in two parts-the first from 1893 to 1946 and the second from 1946 to 1976. In addition to the scholarships and loans listed here, students in the College of Pharmacy have been eligible for unrestricted university grants and awards. The year in parentheses following each listing denotes the initial instance of the gift. 
1893-1946 
Abbott Laboratories-Display case of pharmaceuticals (1925) 
Alumni of the College of Pharmacy, Class of 1924-Framed picture of R. R. D. Cline 

(1924) Bauer & Bauer-Display case of gauzes, tapes, plasters, and bandages (1929) Burroughs Wellcome Co.-Display case of fine chemicals (1926) Cline, R. R. D.-Medal for the student with the highest scholastic average in pharmacy 
for the academic year 1896-97 (1897) Gidley, W. F.-Numerous contributions to the library and archives (1927 and following years) 
Glascock, Frank T.-Glascock Loan Fund, established by Glascock (who had held the Hazlett Scholarship as a student) to lend $225 for the years 1920-21 and 1921-22 to a senior student (1921) 
Kennedy, James-The James Kennedy Medal for the years 1894-95 and 1895-96 to the 
highest-ranking student in pharmacy (1895) McCracken, H. S., Box and Label Co.-Display of dispersion cartons and boxes (1929) Mulford, H. K., Co.-Display cases of fine biological products and veterinary biologics 
{1926); display case of drugs and commercial packages (1927) Ochse, William-Marble soda fountain, show globe, and drugstore stock valued at $1,000, used in the model pharmacy in the Chemistry Building (1931) 
San Antonio Drug Company and Southern Drug Company-Mahogany and plate-glass wall display cases, valued at $2,300, used in the model pharmacy in the Chemistry Building (1932) 
Sharp and Dohme-Display case of manufactured pharmaceuticals (1921) 
Squibb, E. R., and Company-Display of biologicals (1927) 
Texas State Pharmaceutical Association-Medals for the years 1894-95 and 1895-96 for 

the member of the graduating class of the Medical Branch ranking highest in phar­macy (1895); a $150 scholarship for a student in the School of Pharmacy (1899); sti­pend increased to $200 (1900); became the Hazlett Loan Fund in memory of James]. Hazlett, a prominent pharmacist of Texas (1920) 
541 

Texas State Pharmaceutical Association and San Antonio Retail Druggists Association-$725 for the Arthur Skillern Loan Fund, established with money originally given by TSPA to aid the retail druggists of San Antonio after the flood of 1921 and returned to the Executive Committee of TSPA to establish a loan fund in memory of Skillern by the San Antonio retail druggists (1922); a second loan fund of $200, established for women students of the junior class in pharmacy (1922) 
Texas State Pharmaceutical Association, Ladies' Auxiliary-Scholarship of S200 for the years 191 7 -18, 1918...:.19, and 191 9-20 for a young woman desiring to study pharmacy (1917); changed from a scholarship to a Joan fund (1920); $200 provided for a second loan fund for women students of the junior class in pharmacy (1922); loans discon­tinued (end of World War II) 
1947-76 
Honors and Awards 
Bristol Laboratories-Annual award to a senior student (1948) Johnson & Johnson-Annual award for accomplishments in the study of pharmacy ad­ministration (1962) 
Lehn and Fink-Scholarship plaque given to the graduating senior with the highest average; awarded during the early years of the college and again from 1946 to 1964 ( 1946) 
Eli Lilly Company-Achievement award consisting of a gold medal given for superior scholastic and professional achievement (1966) Merck & Company-Valuable reference books awarded to senior pharmacy students making the highest grade average in each chemistry and pharmacy course (1948) Rexall Drug Company-Annual award to student who has made an outstanding con­tribution to pharmacy while in the college (1957) Rho Chi Society-Annual scholarship awarded to the pharmacy student making the highest grade average during his or her first professional year (1952) Uphohn Company-Annual award give to a student who has shown noteworthy achieve­ment in the area of public service during his or her college career (1974) 
Scholarships and Loan Funds 
Alcon Laboratories, Inc.-Grant of $1,200 for the years 1940-52 to the Pharmaceutical Foundation for a research fellowship in the field of ophthalmological preparations (1949) 
American Foundation for Pharmaceutical Education-Three annual scholarships of $200 each and fellowships for students working for advanced degrees in pharmacy (1948) 
American Pharmaceutical Association, Women's Auxiliary-Loan fund available to women in the last two years of professional training ( 1966) Armour Laboratories-Three-year research fellowship of Sl,600 annually offered for the years 1952-60 through the Pharmaceutical Foundation (1952) Behrens, Inc.-Two $500 scholarships to students in the professional sequence of courses who are in good scholastic standing and who show financial need (1948) 
Borden Company Foundation, Inc.-Annual scholarship award in pharmacy of $300 for the years 1948-60 to the most outstanding senior in the College of Pharmacy ( 1948) 
Brackenridge, George W.-Loan fund for women students, in which pharmacy students are eligible to participate (1962) 
Burroughs Wellcome Co.-Loan fund in honor of Charles E. Taylor, a pharmacist from El Campo, Texas (1975) 
Dargavel, John W., Foundation-Loans available to students in pharmacy (1960); $200 to a worthy student in the third, fourth, or fifth year of pharmaceutical education (1965) 
Drug Travelers Association of Texas-Award of $100, given each year from 1952 to 1958, to a senior student deemed deserving, both scholastically and financially (1952) 
Eckerd Corporation-Two scholarships of $500 each to students in the professional se­quence of courses who are in good standing academically and who show financial need (1974) Elko Charitable Trust and Foundation-Ten scholarships of $500 each to be awarded to qualified pharmacy students (196 7) Health, Education, and Welfare, U.S. Department of-Loans under the Health Profes­sions Loans Program, not to exceed $3,500 a year, to pharmacy students (1970) Klinck Family-Loan fund making three loans a year, two open to all university students and one open to pharmacy students only ( 197 5) Massengill, S. E., Company-Research fellowship in pharmacy of $2,000 made available from 1952 to 1954 through the Pharmaceutical Foundation (1952) Parke, Davis and Co.-Research fellowship of Sl,200 given to the university for two years of research, 1948-50, in the field of pharmaceutical chemistry, S 1,000 to be paid the fellow and S200 to be used for special equipment and chemicals that might be neces­sary in the studies undertaken ( 1948) Pharmaceutical Foundation, The University of Texas College of Pharmacy-Tuition scholarships of $200 each to students having specified grade-point averages, given to high school graduates, students transferring from other institutions, and students with one or more semesters of residence at the university (1952); numerous substan­tial grants for the support of various research programs of the College of Pharmacy, in addition to the grants specifically intended for undergraduate or graduate student awards mentioned separately (1950) Skillern Drug Division of the Zale Foundation-Scholarships given from 1967 to 1970, in . amounts up to Sl,200 per year to continue through student's graduation, to minority residents of the Dallas area (1967) Southwestern Drug Corporation-Fund providing an annual award of $500 used to match funds for scholarships given by the American Council on Pharmaceutical Education ( 194 7) Pharmacy Wives' Club, The University of Texas College of Pharmacy-A $50 scholarship in honor of Alleda Robb Burlage, given every long session to the husband of a club member, primarily based on need (1950) 
SOURCE: Helen Hargrave, List of Gifts: 7883-7932, University of Texas Bulletin no. 3315 (Austin, 1933 ), pp. 9-91, and University of Texas, University Course Catalogues, 1933-76, Texas Collection. 
APPENDIX F: Undergraduate Enrollment in the College of Pharmacy, 1893-7975 
1898 1908 1918 1928 1938 1948 1958 1968 1978 SOURCE: University ofTexas,University Course Catalogues, 1893-1975, Texas Collection. 
544 

APPENDIX G: 	Graduate Enrollment in the College of Pharmacy, 
1950-1976 

SOURCE: Office of the Dean, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin. 
545 

APPENDIXH: Graduate Degrees Awarded 

in Pharmacy, 1950-1976 

Year 
1953 
1954 1955 
1956 
1957 
1958 1959 
1960 1961 
1962 1963 1964 
1965 
Master of Science 
Martha JaneJones 
Tony Everett Jones Wallace Louis Guess Billy Gayle Mallard 
Williamjackson Campbell Bonnie Lorene Evans Esther Jane Wood Hall William B. Harrell Jordan M. Kaufman Imo Knox Meyer Jose Ruben Moreno Leon Otto Wilken 
Herbert Frederick Schwartz 
William B. Stavinoha Joseph Shedrick Alexander Jaime Nabor Delgado Eugene Hickman David Safwat Kutob 
Vincent Bernard Christ 
Homi Hirjibhoy Kavarana Mathias Peter Mertes, Jr. Bachubhai Damodardes Parikh 
Richard Melvin Berezin Charles William Ewing James Perry Fields 
James Charles King 
John William Ladd, Jr. Glenn D. Appelt Cecil Pershing Cloughly Kenneth Tiemann 
Kantilal Bhailah Kuvadia Hemantkumar Dhirajlal Boradia Edward Esquival Gonzales 
Vishnu Das Gupta Man Mohan Kochhar Paul Frank Geiger 
Sidney Allen Rosenbluth 
Diane Marie Altwein Thomas Franklin Burks II Michael Byron Rodell 
Reynaldo Saenz 
Doctor ofPhilosophy 
Esther. Jane Wood Hall 
Vernon Albert Green 
James Charles King 
Leon Otto Wilken 
Man Mohan Kochhar 
Kiran J. Randeri 
Abhaysinghj. Kapadia 
Herbert F. Schwartz 
546 

Year  Master ofScience  
1966  Sushi! Kumar Gomer  
Robert Kent 0 'Leary  
Carlos Valdez  
Donald Duane Vogt  
Billy Burben Wylie  
1967  David Jefferson Calley  
Abdulwahid Hussein Daoud  
Marilyn Blackstone Golaz  
Mario Alberto Gonzalez  
Joseph William Kosh  
Donald Lewis Powell  
Fred Dewitt Reed, Jr.  
Charles David Ross  
Deanna Marye Dimmitt Scott  
Faoud Ahmad Shihab  
Ronald Kent Stobaugh  
1968  Timothy Ray Covington  
Alan Beaty Jones  
Timothy Haskell McCoy  
Arvind Trimbak Modak  
Stephan Peter Stephan  
Charles Alborn Walker  
Walter David Watkins  
1969  Judith Eilene Albers  
Michael Duke Ellis  
Anthony Charles Jung  
Nelson Louis Schiller  
1970  Edward Paul Bornet  
DavidJosephJones  
Donald Lynn Middleton  
LillianJeannine Watson  
1971  James Victor Bruckner  
Ernest David Henry  
Jean Sheridyn S. Morgan  
Edward Donald Zost  
1972  Maryan Amini  
Marlin Douglas Rose  
Cheryl Elaine Ellis Troup  
1973  Albert Stanton Pennock  
1974  Bonita Louise Bower Herr  
Kasina Sidhakar  
1975  Tseeng Pu Fan  
Mary Elizabeth Blair Haralson  
Fay Lun Woo  
1976  Shuri-Ling Chi  
Sushan R. Gautam  
Julie A. Nelson  

Doctor ofPhilosophy 
Michael B. Rodell Sidney A. Rosenbluth 
Paul F. Geiger Reynaldo V. Saenz 
Jagveerabhadra Rao Nulu 
Robert Kent 0 'Leary 
Donald Duane Vogt 
William G. Haney, Jr. 
Arvind Trimbak Modak 
Fred Dewitt Reed, Jr. 
Faoud Ahmad Shihab 
Loyd Vernon Allen, Jr. 
Pedro L. Huerta, Jr. 
Donald L. Middleton 
Wesley W. Han 
Francis Dean Stiles 
Charles William Bode, Jr. 
Michael Ray Moore Gustavo Ramon Ortega 
SOURCE: Compiled by Dr. Esther Jane Wood Hall, Professor of Pharmacy Administra­tion, from her personal correspondence and records in the Office of the Dean, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin. 
APPENDIX I: 	Recipients of Doctoral Degrees in Pharmacy and Their Dissertation TitlesJ 1957-1976 
Loyd Allen (Supervising Professor: Dr. Victor A. Yanchick) Associate Professor University of Oklahoma Medical School Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Dissertation (1972): Increasing the Dissolution Rates of Some Corticosteroids Utilizing Glass 
Dispersions and Partial Solid Solutions 
Charles William Bode, Jr. (Supervising Professor: Dr. Robert Graves Brown) Researcher Department of Pharmacology The University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, Texas 
Dissertation ( 197 6) : Effects of Nicotinamide on the Pharmacodynamic Activity of Ethanol m Inherently Sensitive and Resistant Mice 
Paul F. Geiger (Supervising Professor: Dr. John E. Davis) Professor of Pharmacology Northeast Louisiana University Monroe, Louisiana Dissertation (196 7): The Effects of Acetylcholinesterase and Cholinesterase Inhibitors on the Phar­
macological Action of Barbital 
Vernon A. Green (Supervising Professor: Dr. John E. Davis) Director of Toxicology Services Children's Mercy Hospital 
and 
Professor of Pharmacology-Toxicology University of Missouri-Kansas City Kansas City, Missouri Dissertation (1960): A Study of the Influence of Some Cholinesterase Inhibitors on the Activity of 
Certain Drugs 
Esther Jane Wood Hall (Supervising Professor: Dr. Aaron H. Chute) Professor College of Pharmacy The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas Dissertation ( 195 7): An Analysis of Professional Pharmaceutical Personnel in Texas Pharmacy 
548 

Wesley W. Han (Supervising Professor: Dr. Dale D. Maness) Research Investigator Searle Laboratories Chicago, Ilinois Dissertation (1975): The Kinetics and Mechanisms of Hydrolysis of 1,4-Benzodiazepines 
William G. Haney, Jr. (Supervising Professor: Dr. Jaime Delgado) Pharmacist Corpus Christi, Texas Dissertation ( 1970): The Synthesis and Structure-Activity Relationships of Selected Isomeric Oxime 
Ethers as Anticholinergic Agents 
Pedro Huerta, Jr. (Supervising Professor: Dr. Jaime Delgado) Associate Professor of Pharmaceutical Chemistry Southwestern Oklahoma State University Weatherford, Oklahoma Dissertation (1972) : The Synthesis, Stereochemical Characterization, and Preliminary Phar­
macological Evaluation of Enantiomeric Oximino Ethers as Potential Anticholinergics 
Abhaysingh Jethabhai Kapadia (Supervising Professor: Dr. John Autian) Researcher 
A. H. Robbins Company Richmond, Virginia Dissertation (1965): Interaction of a Group of Weak Organic Acids with Insoluble Polyamides 
James Charles King (Supervising Professor: Dr. William J. Sheffield) Professor and Director of Clinical Pharmacy University of the Pacific Stockton, California 
Dissertation (1962): Investigation of the Use of the Triethanolammonium Salts of Several Alkyl­sulfuric Acids as Dermatologic Vehicles 
Man Mohan Kochhar (Supervising Professor: Dr. Jaime Delgado) Professor of Toxicology and Director of Drug Screening Programs Auburn University Auburn, Alabama 
Dissertation (1964): Anticholinergic Heterocyclic Ketoximino-Ethers and -Esters 
Donald L. Middleton (Supervising Professor: Dr. Jaime Delgado) 
Pharmacist 
Middleton Pharmacy 
Crowville, Louisiana 

Dissertation (1972) : The Synthesis of Some N-Riboside Semicarbazides as Potential Anti-Cancer Agents 
550 Appendix I 

Arvind Trimbak Modak (Supervising Professor: Dr. Robert G. Brown) Researcher The University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, Texas Dissertation (1970): Effects ofCholinergic and Anti-Cholinergic Drugs on the Nicotinamide-induced 
Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide Biosynthesis in Mouse Brain and Liver Tissue 
Michael Ray Moore (Supervising Professors: Dr. Robert V. Smith 
Researcher and Dr. Jean Scholler) McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research University of Wisconsin Medical Center Madison, Wisconsin Dissertation (1976) : Toxicological Evaluation of the Mycotoxin, Sterigmatocystin, an Environmen­
tal Carcinogen 
Jagaveerabhadra Rao Nulu (Supervising Professor: Dr. Jay Nematollahi) President and Co-Owner Blewett Laboratories San Antonio, Texas Dissertation (1969): Synthesis, Structural Elucidation, and Pharmacology of Some lmida<.,olecar­
boxylic Acid Hydrazones and Hydrazides 
Robert Kent O'Leary (Supervising Professor: Dr. Wallace L. Guess) Director of Research and Development Patient Care Division Johnson & Johnson, Inc. New Brunswick, New Jersey Dissertation (1969): The Desorption Kinetics of Ethylene Oxide from Polyethylene, Polypropylene 
and Polybutylene 
Gustavo Ramon Ortega (Supervising Professor: Dr. Jaime Delgado) Assistant Professor Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry Southwestern Oklahoma State University Weatherford, Oklahoma Dissertation (1976): A Study of Selected Geometrical Enantiomorphic Oxime Ethers as Potential 
Anticholinergic Agents 
Kiran Jaswantlal Randeri (Supervising Pr<:>fessor: Dr. Frank P. Cosgrove) Director of Biosciences Allergan Pharmaceuticals Irvine, California Dissertation ( 1964): An Investigation of Certain Tablet Formulation Factors on In Vitro Drug 
Release and In Vivo Drug Absorption 
Fred Dewitt Reed (Supervising Professors: Dr. Eugene I. Isaacson and Dr. Jaime Assistant Professor of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Chemistry Delgado) Idaho State University Pocatello, Idaho Dissertation (1970): A Study of the Synthesis and Pharmacological Evaluation of Some 2­
Diphenylmethylene-1-Acyl-1-Alkylhydrazines 
Michael Byron Rodell (Supervising Professor: Dr. John Autia~) Director of Regulatory Affait-s and Clinical Development Hyland Division Travenol Laboratories Costa Mesa, California Dissertation (1966): Interaction of a Group of Weak Organic Acids and Phenols with Nylon 6 
Sidney Alan Rosenbluth (Supervising Professor: Dr. John Autian) Assistant Dean, Professor of Pharmaceutics, and Director of College Statewide 
Program of Education and Service College of Pharmacy University of Tennessee Memphis, Tennessee Dissertation (1966) : Inhibitory Effects of Citric Acids Ester Plasticizers on the Growth of Mam­
malian Cell Cultures 
Reynaldo V. Saenz (Supervising Professor: Dr. Jaime Delgado) Associate Professor of Pharmaceutical Chemistry Northeast Louisiana University Monroe, Louisiana Dissertation (1967): A Study of Alpha, Beta-Epoxy Carbonyl Compounds 
Herbert F. Schwartz (Supervising Professor: Dr. Jaime Delgado) Stockholder and Member of the Board of Directors Discount Pharmacy Corporation Seguin, Texas 
and 
3006 Hunt Trail Austin, Texas Dissertation (196 5): A Study of Selected Cyanoacetamides as Anticorwulsants 
Fouad Ahmad Shihab  (Supervising Professors: Dr. William J Sheffield  
Instructor  and Dr. Jay Nematollahi)  
The University of Mosul  
Mosul, Iraq  

Dissertation (1970): Solubility Study of Some Alkyl p-hydroxybenzoates 
Francis Dean Stiles (Supervising Professor: Dr. Gerald Sullivan) Route 2, Box 4-0 Thorndale, Texas 
Dissertation ( 197 5): A Phytochemical Investigation Concerning the Xanthones of Eustoma Gran­diflorum (Raf.) Shinners 
Donald Vogt (Supervising Professor: Dr. Alex Berman) Associate Professor of Pharmacy University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky 
Dissertation (1969) : 7M Antibiotic Era: Foundations of Economic Power in the American Phar­maceutical Industry 
Leon Otto Wilken, Jr. (Supervising Professor: Dr. Frank P. Cosgrove) Professor of Pharmacy and Hospital Pharmacy Auburn University Auburn, Alabama Dissertation ( 1963) : A Phytochemical and Pharmacologic Evaluation of Carya lllinoensis 
( Wangh.) K. Koch 
SOURCE : Compiled from the records of the Office of the Graduate Adviser, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin. 
APPENDIX]: Pharmacy Graduates) 1895-1976 
Graduate in Pharmacy (Ph.G.) degrees were awarded in Galveston until the School of Pharmacy was moved to Austin in 1927. The first Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy degree was awarded in 1929, and both degrees were awarded until 1937, when the Ph.G. degree was dis­continued. 
GRADUATE IN PHARMACY RECIPIENTS 
1895 Dabney, A. E. Hubbert, W. E. 
1896 Clark, Carroll S. Fuller, J. E. Hodges, J . R. Koerth, E. C. Koester, Herman Maymon, M. Morris, T. J. Sparks, Conde W. Warner, H.J. 
1897 Ankerson, Gus E. Bright, J. C. Etienne, Sister M. Everett, May Gordon, E. S. Howze, Bertha Hurt, R. A. Laging, W. C. Lawrence, D. H. Milburn, Conn L. Rosalie, Sister M. 
1898 
Cordray, E. 
Coulson, J. T. 
Hill, T. 0. 
Johnson, J. A. 

Krouse, Albert 

Milburn, Ted H. 
Nestor, H. A. 

Rouse, S. 

Wagner, W. A. 
Wysong, E. E. 

1899 
Anglin, C. C. 
Bonner, T. H. 
Brandenburgh, J. B. 
Breustedt, 0. A. W. 
Leatherman, D. K. 
Parker, W. M. 
Richter, R. B., Jr. 

1900 
Ball, M. L. 
Domingo, Emma 
English, D. P. 
Flavin, Harry J. 
French, G. T. 
Gatewood, B. E. 
James, T. R. 
McCullough, Frank 
Perkins, J. H. 
Reynolds, C. L. 
Smith, W. L. 

1901 
Bush, J. W. 
Cunningham, C. W. 
Fisher, Minnie 
Hoffman, Herman 
Hoffman, R. H. 
Holand, J. T. 
Holloway, William 
Hoting, L. J. 
Pace, J. W. 
Risien, C. J. 
Stroop, J. W. 
Treadwell, B. B. 
Weaver, S. F. 
Wheat, G. D. 

1902 
Aiken, J. H. 
Burson, John 
Clark, Frank 

553 

554 
Cookenboo, W. S. Donald, L. 0. Jacobs, 0. E. Kemp, J. 0. Meier, E. J. H. Neville, W. R. Roeller, E. F. Sanders, L. B. Skrivanek, F. Spruiell, S. H. Thomas, Rush 
1903 Carruthers, C. C. Chambers, J. R. Crittenden, J. R. Davis, R. C. Garbade, W. T. Giddings, M. Greenwood, T . B. Holmes, W. E. Ingle, B. B. Johnson, W. H. Jones, W. F. Keahey, V. S. Kendrick, H. W. Longmire, T. R. McCracken, R. S. Miller, A. 0. Nichols, C. L. Sherman, J. L. Stuckey, N. E. Waller, J.]. Willoughby, H . 
1904 Buckner, John Clark Glasscock, Frank Travis Glissman, Carl Heiligbrodt, Ludolph 
Herff, Adolph Paul Mason, Herman Victor Parkhill, May Phelps, John Baily Reynolds, Arthur Jake Tynes, Rex Arthur Wilding, Ferdinand Woodburn, Charles Pulaski 
1906 Britton, Thomas Marvin Cox, Frederick McKnight Cox, Sun Set Delaney, Edward Earl Ehrhardt, Charles David Elder, Joseph H. Holman, Millard Filmore Keidel, Kurt Keown, William Leard Kerr, Cloyd Looney Mahaffey, Clifford Matthews, Charles Joseph Watson, William D. Wise, Ernest C. Wright, Wesley S. 
1907 Cone, Harvey Earl Hensel, George Adolph Hinman, Alexander John Jones, Elisha Roy Joseph, Erwin Kyzer, Thomas Meier, William Ludwig Pfeiffer, Philip John Robinson, Henry Reid Shield, Hubert lo Shipe, Columbus Annie Sholars, Orvin Lewis Tanner, Charles Garner 
Johnson, Arthur Burdette Tims, Joseph Emmet 
Jung, Joseph Frederick 
Mack, Merrill Frank 
McCain, Joseph Henry 
Morris, Earnest Stubbs 
Stone, Robert Mathew 
Viereck, Edwin Frederick 
Bruce, Byron Sanford Cochran, Edward Elias Cyrus, Elbert Munsey Fooshee, Jewel Landy Gates, Lillie Hoencke Whittington, William George 
1908 Campbell, William Henry Garcia, Alfonso Yldifonso Harris, Roy Holman, Scott White Mahaffey, Luther Marek, Emil Henry Mast, Henry Reuben Nichols, Cranz Skaggs, Leonard Alton Turk, Bascom Andrew 
Appendix J 
Voclcker, Edwin Bruno Wallace, Thomas Reuben Wallis, Walter William 
1909 Arnett, William Dudley Caldwell, Clifton Reedy Chapman, Earl Olgus Crofts, Cyril Ernest Douglass, Frances Figley, Ward Carroll Harris, Jared J. Hoover, Lon Mabry Mackey, Gordon McAdams, Rosalie McKinney, Vernon Vane Oxford, Thomas David Schaefer, Elfrieda Carrie Schaefer, Laura Thompson, Robert Luther Wheat, Cicero Lafayette 
1910 Albert, William Frederick Alexander, Thomas Howard Gatling, John Massey Heineke, Frederick Hennessy, James Patrick Jackson, Bruce Krug, Kenney Edward LeMay, Ernest Gilpin Little, Fletcher F. Mallow, Luther Forrest Murphy, Robert Oliver North, Thomas Murphree Odom, Scott Gregg Payne, Claiborne Vinson Pfueffer, Ida Frances Reuss, Edward Mugge Rogers, Willoughby Eugene Russell, Edward Spencer Sparkman, John Thomas, Jr. Voelcher, Julius Grube Wilder, Claude Lawrence 
1911 Bass, Everett William Bratton, William Ennis Cooper, John Walter Crain; Perry Levi Howard, David Malone Jones, Robert Andrew Kavanaugh, Elma · Nevada Man, Jacob Ralph 
555
Manor, William Rosco Loper, Berry 1917 
McCormick, Thaddeus Chai:les Moseley, Thomas Quitman Rogers, Lieuen Moss Pearce, Francis Marion Roman, William Buchanan, Jr. Ratliff, Frank Allen 
Schaffer, Isadore 
Seymour, James Forest 
Shaw, Geoffrey William 
Shiller, Joseph Frank 
Urdong, Bertha 
Young, Barnett Rogers 
1912 
Carter, Robert Courtney 
Cernosek, Eustace 
Dobbins, Thomas Malcom 
Glass, William Turner 
Halsey, Marcus Alexander 
Hill, Claude Earnest 
Menke, William Adolph 
Parks, Charles, Jr. 
Powell, Mary Lee 
Ryan, Henry Michael 
Templin, Samuel Sharp 
Van Pelt, Paul H. 
1913 
Cone, John Regnor 
Grant, Gaston Thomas 
Grilftn, Ben Harris 
Latimer, Arthur James 
McDaniel, Ely Terry 
Mercer, Louis Desire 
Miller, Murray Woodard 
Oates, Oscar Eugene 
Philips, Earl Cleveland 
Randal, Thomas Eugene 
Sams, Hamilton Hillyer 
Slator, Paul 
White, Jesse Edwin 
1914 
Barkley, Henry Marvin 
Bartlett, John Louis 
Boucher, Thomas Carl 
Currie, Chester Coleman 
Denham, Stephen Edward 
Dickinson, Grady Norris 
Dimmitt, Frank W., Jr. 
Halsey, John Wesley 
Hoerster, Samuel August 
Hurt, John Clifford Jones, William Ira 
Kuykendall, Emmett Slator 
Loeffler, Alvin William Skinner, Larkin Peyton Stachowiak, Louis R. P. Stem, Roy Denton Stone, James Nevelle Woody, William Prible 
1915 Baillio, Brett Simeon Bartlett, Henry Leigh Brill, Harry Karl Bryan, Harry Clarence Cain, Jess~ Hurst Dimmitt, James Sterling Glover, Margaret Verna Graves, George Douglas Hall, Joseph Dudley Hatler, Harry Gant Moore Herring, Garrett Rufus Hervey, Alonzo Garner Lawhon, Edgar C. C. Mann, Sam Maris, Robert Earl McKee, William Jack Munford, Colley Lafayette Murray, Walter Wirt Wiggins, Chester Bernaye Wright, James Clifton 
1916 Bell, Eugene Carter Bono, Frank Nicholas Barnes, Thomas George Davis, Erroll Bird Hudson, Dow Olsen, Chris Antone Price, Leslie Carroll Robinson, Reuben Tarrant Rochelle, George Calvin Thompson, Clarence Walther, Gerald John Williamson, Payne Lee Windle, James Edgar 
1918 Aiden, Sister Mary Allison, Charles Bryan Billings, Franklin Clay Bishop, Virgil Grady Buttery, Lester LeRoy Clarke, Horace James Conwill, Floyd Clifton Doss, William LaFayette, Jr. Fellbaum, Paul Howard Hruzek, Victor T. Jenkins, Edwin Gillespie Karbach, Nelson William Lacy, George Claude Latimer, Oscar Louise, Sister Mary Martin, Walter Ellis Milligan, Edward Riedel, Wilfred Herman Rogers, William Merle Saunders, Villa Clyde Simmang, Robert Andrew Ward, Maurice Taylor 
Clampitt, George Washington Winters, Joe Oppenheimer 
Cobb, Walter Vontreese Davis, William Isaac Dickinson, Andrew Flint Douglas, Clyde James Harle, Francis Marion Hodde, Louis Frederick Kleas, Walter Richmond Lane, William Horatio Mann, Robert Earl McCormick, Leroy Dudley Munro, Robert Murdo Richards, Edgar Elmer Stevenson, Charles Adlai Williams, Alford Williams, Cora Greer Youngblood, Robert S. 
1919 Harrington, Charles Edwin Hensley, Duncan Hornbuckle, T. C. Levyson, Sidney Maurice Mehner, George Herman Mosel, John Dale Richardson, Adelaide Fulton Rosenthal, Albert Marion Smith, Basil J. 
Smith, Irma 1920 Bartlett, Robert Allen 
Cooper, Leslie Samuel Dimmitt, Pauline Strickland Fidelis, Sister Mary Harrington, James Wilfred Kieran, Sister Mary King, Nettie Ruby Michel, Bernetta Christine Pate, Calvin Frank Lee, Robert Edward Martin, Walter McFatter, Artie DuPont Robinowitz, Bessie Schwab, Elliott Frederick Thigpen, Benjamin Jackson 
Pendergraft, Lucy Wallbridge Tolle, Randolph George 
Rawley, Walter Miller Walls, Rex Milton 
1921 Bennett, Bessie L. Boyce, Jean Benjamin Brooks, Gertrude Irene Callender, Henry Grady Carson, Delbert Clarence Duke, Innes W. Fimpel, Jennie Lucena Galloway, Clifton Garner, Charles William Goolsby, Jehu Lee Goolsby, Royall Murchison Heard, John Wilson, Jr. Hill, Robert Hollub, Charles Julius Jones, Beulah Grubbs Langford, Cohen Hay Ledbetter, Abbe Alzu Maddox, William Gordon McDonald, William Frank Pendergraft, Clifford E. Shindler, Harry Frank Stinson, Theo Hasson Treadwell, Joe · Walter Truitt, James Joshua Vorderman, Sam Houston Walters, Clarence Oliver Wegner, William Albert Whaley, Dallas Flay York, Milton 
1922 Ballard, James Frank Bergfeld, Edwin Adolph Carter, Marie Tilitha Clarkson, Lawrence Denton Clewis, Raymond Richard David, Johnnie Doyle, James Daniel Heineke, Carolyn Hewitt, Robert Huston Hooker, Samuel Thomas Krause, Raymond Robert Wall, Phillip E. 
1923 Albers, Carl Clarence Brock, Ross Jackson Burges, Richard Joseph Chernosky, Joseph Lee, Jr. Connally, John Thomas Cude, Willis Lamar DuBose, Jack Weber . Elstner, Carl Joseph Finch, Jesse Edward Haines, Raymond Charles Hanretta, Aloysius Thomas Harrington, Clifford L. Hohn, Anselm Charles Inzer, Iral Caldwell J011es, Harold Kloppenburg, Henry Fred Lichnovsky, Richard B. McGuire, Thomas Hubert Metz, Julius Caesar Nichols, Richard Samuel Palmer, Elmer Reichenau, Esthef B. Robertson, Flynt Rugeley, Robert Alexander Storment, Omer Lloyd Suttle, J. Marvin Thompson, Hardy Evans Truly, Henry George Von Dohlen, Leonard Harold Walker, James Carter Walling, Otto Estes Wells, Irvin Charles White, William Nathan Wolff, Melvin Robert 
1924 
Blasdel, ·Alice Ruth 
Brieger, Gerald T. 
Bugg, Joe Harrison 
Cole, Winford S. 
Coleman, Charlotte Reid 
Crawford, Jack M. 
Daugherty, Estes E. 

Foitik, Rudolph John Philip Fulcher, Robert Lee Fuller, J. E. Gusman, Virginia Lee Hinzie, William Gore Jones, Cecil Stewart Kotzebue, Roy L. Land, Louis Howard Leazar, Marshall C. Long, Cecil Audrin Perkins, Andrew Petta, Joe Nick Priesmeyer, Herbert John Pyka, Joseph V. Reed, Leon Roy Ressmann, Felix Richter, Arnold P . Sample, Ralph W. Sengelmann, Wilbur A. Shulz, Paul Adolph Solis, Alicia Stachowiak, Valerian Roman . Stork, Walter Jacob Termini, Domenic Joseph Tindall, Lucy Velma Trevino, Rolando C. Wagner, Horace Chilton Wahrmund, Max, Jr. Walker, Campbell Lee Wilson, Robert Lee, Jr. 
1925 Allison, Lester Louis Burns, Francis Oliver . Cartledge, Bertha Turner Cathey, Bennie F.' Cordray, Florence Agnes Fifer, William Herbert Finley, Sampson Hamilton Gallemore, Roger . Guerra, Humberto G. McClanahan, Curtis Adair Michel, Gus Bowers Mike, George Edward Norton, Margaret Bradford Poye, Frank Joseph Rawson, William Henry, Jr. Redkey., Charles Howard Ruiz, Juan Jose Scarborough, Thomas C. Schleuse, Louis William Sh~pp, Oran Smith, James Lowell 
Sykes, Homer E. 
Vilches, Sam N. 
Wall, William H. 
Watson, Harold Villons 
Watson, William Bell 
Witbeck, Charles 

1926 Beakley, Bennie Marie Brinkley, Palmer Goeffrey Burton, Lowell Curtis Clements, Rex Earl Fry, Gordon Gallemore, Adolphus Grebe, Alfred August Guttman, Abe Hooker, Lynn Collins Kelling, Ralph Victor Koonce, AllYert Thurston Leissner, Butler E. Lopez, Juan Vela McKee, Peter R. Michel, Ernest Grabow Odom, Thomas Lee, Jr. 0 'Keefe, Thelma Edwina Piperi, Agnes Cecile Poetter, Wilbert L. C. Reed, Elmo 0: Seitz, Russell Travis Smith, David Heaton Stengel, F. C. Tietz, Otto L. 
1929 Balcer, John Fielding, Jr. Bradley, Sister Mary Finnian Burton, George Dewey Cashman, Sister Mary Ethnea Deasy, Sister Mary Roche Garagnon, Edward Alpha Grote, Roland Alexander Richards, Elmer Alton Terry, Sister Mary Rosaria Usher, Francis Cowgill Wagenfuehr, Robert H., Jr. Zalichin, Minnie 
557 
1930 	Shapiro, David Weise, Ewald Otto
Black, Sol L. 
Wright, Clarence Rosser Brown, Jesse Winson Guffin, Frank Cherry Joyce, Sister Mary De Sales 1934 
Krumm, Annie Marie 
Passmore, Glen Gorman 
Ryan; Sister Mary Grace Weiser, Morris 
1931 
Gidley, Ann Dell Jopling, Hulon Sterling 
Kallenberg, Emmie Irma 
Levy, Bernard Joel 
Neumayer, Anson Joseph 
Trousdale, Henri Gordon 
Woellert, Herman F. 
1932 Brau, Hubert Robert Damian,· Ibrahim John Jordan, Howell Romie Lang, James Russell Longoria, Cristina McCracken, Anne Jo Maley, Elbert Oertling Nau, Ladner Melvin Okies, Joe Palmer, Ernest Austin Sands, Raymond Reginald Voelter, Charles William 
1933 Anderson, Travis Raymond Austin, Emilia Farias Bohlmann, Victor E. Bahls, Raymond William Brannon, Jack Gordon Daleo, Tony Joseph Guerra, Fernando Harmes, Alfred Theodor McGlothing, Paul Glass Nipper, Bonita Eleanor Pawlosky, Herbert George Polansky, Fred Henry Hocott, Kelley Griffin Lakey, Joe Frank McKnight, Daniel A. Okies, Michael Faris 
Posnick, Jake Reese, Delmer Lane Robinson, Eleanor Buaas 
Schaffer, Henry Simpson, Hatton William Watzlavick, August Joseph 
1935 Baron, Bertha Bratten, Hugh Terrell Cook, Keith Eugene Cooper, Halley Love Estes, Robert Orr Garza, Estela Victoria Hart, Walter Wadsworth Lee, Mourine Louise Malouf, Joseph Shahady Miller, Elsie Ella Miller, Helen Mussil, Velasta Lillian Noble, GordGn Otis Poth, Ernest Phillip Ross, Marlin Edison Sands, Samuel Joseph, Jr. Struve, Arno Tritico, Joseph John 
1936 Acker, Marion Cole Boals, George Carson Casten, James Thomas Peyton, Thomas William Quick, Eugene Olaf Scheffel, Fritz Bernard Taliaferro, Moncure M. 
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN PHARMACY 

RECIPIENTS 

(* = honors; ** = high honors; *** = highest honors) 
August 1929 Bradley, Sister Mary Finnian Cashman, Sister Mary Ethnea Terry, Sister Mary Rosaria 
June 1930 Joyce, Sister Mary De Sales Ryan, Sister Mary Grace Usher, Francis Cowgill 
August 1930 Albers, Carl Clarence 
June 1931 Corley, Thomas Jacob Guffin, Frank Cherry Passmore, Glen Gorman Schleuse, Louis William*** 
August 1931 Jopling, Hulon Sterling 
June 1932 Black, Sol L. Domian, Ibrahim John Gidley, Anna Dell 
August 1932 Palmer, Ernest Austin 
June 1933 Austin, Emilia Farias Daleo, Tony Joseph McGlothing, Paul Glass Nipper, Bonita Eleanor* 
August 1933 Trousdale, Henri Gordon 
June 1934 Delaney, Edward Earle, Jr. Giammalva, Joseph Charles Hocott, Kelley Griffin Lowry, Albert Dawson McKnight, Daniel A. Schaffer, Henry 
June 1935 June 1937 Barcus, John Mcferrin Arrington, Victor Presnall Baron, Bertha Benning, Karl Franklin Cooper, Halley Love Bowers, Frank Huron 
Estes, Robert Orr Bussey, Frank Rather Hart, Walter Wadsworth Cavanaugh, Elliott William Malouf, Joseph Shahady Cunningham, Ernest Samuel, Jr. Miller, Elsie Ella Dehnish, Harold Harry Miller, Helen Dielmann, Ray Ernest Poth, Ernest Phillip Engelking, Mrs. Henry Martin Stockton, Junior Flake, Glenn Desmond Struve, Arno Hawkins, Thomas Willis 
Henry, William Paul August 1935 Howard, David Currie Peters, Leo Joseph, Jr. Kasper,· Irene Emily Klecka, Theodore Arthur 
June 1936 Linney, Harry Alexander Carter, Donald Metris Roaten, Shelley Poe Henry, Carl Albert, Jr. Wagner, Wilson Orr Jones, Minnie Zalichin Warhaft~g, Hyman Kalmbach Melvin Robert Warhaft1g, Matthew Koch, Wiliiam Theodore, Jr. Wille, Jeptha Wilson 
Kroulik, Frank Chester August 1937 Lidiak, Laddie Fred 
Fernandez, Joseph Nance, Everett Grady Hatch, James Thompson Nau, Hilton Ernest Lo Voi, Rose Lee Nussenblatt, Joe Lakey, Joe FrankPeyton, Thomas William Samano, George Barton 
Pfluger, Walter Richards, James Thomas June 1938 Richardson, James Albert Abrego, Frank Reyna Warhaftig, Morris Allison, Alwin Truett, Jr. Wisdom, Lee Elliott, Jr. Criswell, Thomas Floris, Jr. Wolf, Fred Dominey, Joseph Barnett, Jr.•• 
Dunn, Robert Arrington August 1936 Garcia, Adolfo Jose Basila, Gregory Fares Griffith, Elbert Warren 
Carman, Paul Eve Grossman, Joseph Casten, James Thomas Halamicek, John F. Harkrider, Robert Elmer, Jr. Larnce, Paul Cable 
Hooten, Lundy Flanoy, Jr. Love, Albert Frederick Sellers, Ferdinand Wilson ·Mayfield, Iv;m Garrett Zarate, Ismael, Jr. Minor, Edward 
558 

Moser, Douglas Franklin Nussenblatt, Samuel Oakes, Sherrill Breard Page, Clay Dee•• Parker, Homer Claud Parra, Ram6n Pittman, James Harper Polansky, George Alexander Porter, James Leon Quick, Clarence Carl Roberts, Walter Donald Stockton, John Richard*** Swanson, John Daniel Walker, William Jackson Wright, Joe Vitringar Young, Alma Pipkin 
August 1938 Bearden, Fabian Pinkney Bunce, Harvey Campbell, Lillian Louise Dunn, Clifton Shirley Harris, Robert D. Johnson, Kenneth Bradley Krause, Lothar August Vela, Marie Conchita Woods, Bill Ellis 
June 1939 Baylis, Dorothy Oleta•** Borth, Fred Reinhold Brian, Sam Clyde Buttery, William Patterson Dupree, Rufus Lee Evans, Junius Anthony•• Flores, Ignacio Deciderio, Jr. Floyd, Paul Fowler, James Alexander Gamble, William David Guy, Harold Calvin Halamicek, Almo Hastings, Walter Clyde, Jr. Hill, Charles Maurice Hudgins, Carl Knight James, George Taylor Janak, Benedict Joseph Jones, Charles William Kestler, Leland Pearson Keyser, Fields McKee Mulkey, Homer Temple Neese, Gilbert Edward Palmore, Jesse George Patterson, Wayne Boyce Pfennig, Melvin Louis 
Pfluger, Werner Martin Price, Andrew Sterling, Jr. Searcy, Marshall Mays* Simnacher, Ernest Joseph Verheyden, Floyd H. Wiseman, Claude Ernest Zapalac, Estella Vlasta Zuehl, Arnold Walter 
August 1939 
Acker, Milton Thomas Besse, Joseph Maury Bomba, Onufry Joseph, Jr. Bussey, Dan Rockwell Carnahan, Preston Don Duckworth, James Walter Franks, Harriet Mary Gude, Joseph Alonso* Gutierrez, Fernando Domingo 
Hale, Leon Hawkins, Howard Homer Herring, Alvie Edmond, Jr. 
Hilley, Arthur Gayle Irby, James Reddell Janak, Alois Peter La Rue, Gordon Leonard 
Leonard, Dwain Erwin McKay, Chester Jack Pierce, Anna Mary• Spence, Julius Hoff 
June 1940 Adams, Valeska Inez Baer, Cecil Albert, Jr. Bomar, Thomas David Britt, Kelly Morgan, Jr. Butts, James Blaine Carubbi, Frank Clement Cavenaugh, James Lawrence Chunn, Wilbur Howe Davis, Woodrow Wilson Diebel, Clarence William Estrada, Ramiro Padilla• Fasullo, Frank Joseph Fuchs, Milton Emmitt Galindo, Leo Garcia, Dionisio Garcia, Joe Isabel, Jr. Guess, John Eitel, Jr. Hanson, Hugh Henderson* Harper, Edward Tracy Halstead, William Earle Hokanson, Doris Marguerite 
Joseph, Samuel William Kinard, Jack Koen, Cleo Mavis Koether, Gladys Emma Krause, Paul Gerhert Lawrence, Paul Samuel* MacDonald, Etta Mae••• Mann, James Oliver Marsh, Claron C. Moreno, Alfredo, Jr. 
Palmore, Gerald William Porter, James Harvey Prock, Glen Cleve, Jr. Pursley, William Henry Ramsey, Charles Oakley Slaughter; John Arthur walters, Joe Wansley, Charles Jennings Webb, Henry Barriger 
Whitley, Herbert Arnold, Jr. Williams, Bert David Wright, Roberta Opal 
Zatopek, Norbert Edmund 
August 1940 Abramson, Alfred 
Benson, Burnell Dooley, Marion Franklin Duffy, Thomas James Epperson, Robert Allen Fly, Orceneth Asbury, Jr. Franks, James Noel Griffin, Ben O'Daniel Haag, Victor Herbert Harris, Jodie Kraege, Roland Henry Kennedy, Billy Collier Larson, Charles Gorman Lozano, Henry McCarthy McMahon, Robert David Paige, Ray Frank Palacios, Oscar Gonzalez Smith, Henry Herman Sosa, Alfonso Julian• Urban, William Joseph Walton, Worth June 1941 Aguilar, Carlos, Jr. Arretteig, Ulysses Joseph Bornstein, Frances Sarah Casteel, Warren Eugene••• Chapman, James Campbell Coussons, William Thomas 
Holland, Owen Webster, Jr.••• Crews, Helen Louise 
560 
Dulaney, Donald Lavern Earle, Charles Thomas Fagan, Noa! Earl Glass, Emery Wright Gonzalez, Raul Garza Grant, Durward Daniel Haag, Francis Edwin Hailey, Sam King Hall, Marvin Dunlap Henry, Robert Lasater, James Allen McClendon, Bill Wesley McDonald, Joseph B., Jr. McGaughey, Herbert Sharp McMurry, Gyle Nash, Thomas Willard Neese, Aurel John Nichols, Marvin Lee O 'Daniel, Roy Leon Rushing, Ellison Dumas Schiller, Edward Otto, Jr. Settle, Abner Kinsey• Skolaut, Milton Wilbert Slaughter, Paula Louise Stringer, Charles Franklin Tally, Carolyn Ray . Tate, Louis Franklin Wager, Dorothy Jean• 
W arhaftig, Arthur Weaver, Samuel Eugene Weber, Elmer Henry 
August 1941 Armstrong, Curtis Moody Ball, Clifford Crozier Boyd, Charles S. Boydstun, Ward Lundy Brands, Bernard Carl Byars, Eldon Carter• Cox, DeWitt Walker, Jr. Dossey, Roy Conoly Grove, Donald Wayne Kaplan, David Louis Lakey, Calvin Hart McClelland, Gene Allen McMahon, David T ., Jr. Martinez, David Leal Moreno, Hector Saldivar Powell, Laurence Henry Seale, Hardy, Jr. Sullivan, Gordon Boone Tankersley, Randle Vick, Jack Farquhar Wasserman, Ramuel Irvin• 
June 1942 Anderson, Blaine Marvin Arredondo, Cecilio, Jr. Benavides, Enrique Fernando Bullock, Charles Foxworth Carreras, Jose Antonio Casten, Pete Colletti, Paul Frank Dezo, George Steve, Jr. Durham, Travis Russell Egozcue, Edward Joseph Elizondo, Cesar Manual Finck, Marion Henry Fischer, Newton Duchan*** Fleming, Harry Lemual Fort, Tom Penihing Goldstein, Stanley Edward Hay, Howard Glen Johnson, Billy Frank• Jordan, Carolyn Lenore Kraege, Carter Glass Kuczynski, Edward Lambert, Cyrus Hill McSpadden, James Hilton Meadows, Wade Hampfon,Jr. Miller, Virginia Inez Murray, Alonzo Archie Olivares, Avelino Oliver, Walter Wood Perez-Majul, Felix Luis; Jr. Pringle, Charles Quitman Reeder, Glen Don Rios, Alfred Robert Schneider, Adela Annie*** Schoener, Mercedes Margaret Sherman, Dana Marie Sligar, Warren David Smith, Mary Ellen Whelchel Smith, William Louis Thornton, Howard Wesley Vacek, John Roman Williamson, John Henry Wolters, Edith Ottillie Wootten, Horace Greeley Zatopek, Leland Frank 
August 1942 
Allen, William Marion 
Burrows, Edgar Allan 
Carter, Clarence Maurice 
Craft, Francis Edward 
Garza, Gustavo 
Goodrich, Thomas Eldon 
Hancock, William Roland 

Appendix J 
Hatch, Alanson Miller Hawkins, James Cleveland Hicks, Betty Jane Holbert, Robert Charles J arrott, William Krayer, William James Railsback, Darlene Marie Tucker, Joe L., Jr. Watkins, R. G. Woodyard, James Samuel Wren, Joe Leslie 
January 1943 Carmichael, Alan Eugene Jordan, Hugh Dawley Kay, Clyde Elkins McSwain, Hansel Thomas Stansell, Howard 
May 1943· Allison, Louis Alexander, Jr. Bauerle, James Ernest Carreras, Luis Isidoro Costolow, Roy Maurice Fernandez, Martin Ernesto Garviri, Chet Golf, Jack Henry, Charles Robert Lentz, Malan Burton Lopez, Alonso Euclid Lucas, Orville Waco Mathison, Howard Otis Nichols, Jefferson Davis Nichols, Ralph Laurin• Northrup, Robert Lewis Pratt, Jack Edward 
Rankin, Everett Delmer Rutledge, Harold Kendrick Shidler) Sarah Adele 
Steed, oe Dean• Stewart, Ollie Reed Thalmann, Charles Harvey Oosfrom, Bert Van Vogt, Ruth Jeanne Walker, Wayne Rufus Ware, Tommy Lynn Wern, George Herman• 
August 1943 Backus, William Bryan Curry, James Nelson Garcia, Alfredo Tomas Riddle, Joy Lee Sharpe, Robert Holmes Stewart, Norman Mays Taylor, Eva Jeanette Wolf, John Elmo Yzaguirre, Marlo 
February 1944 Brown, Mary Elizabeth Croley, Joseph Merrell Garcia, Alicia Gibson, Whitmel Hardy Hoyt, Odis Archer Shive, Glynice Madell Smith, Ernest Grady, Jr. Tankersley, Frances Irene Vick, William Dale 
June 1944 Garcia, Martha X. Carrillo 
Rosenkranz, Joseph• Williamson, William Roy August 1944 
Goodrich, Louise Mayon Goudchaux, Leo Philip 
February 1945 Benjamin, Emily Boyd, Elvin Marvin Fuchs, Virginia Blanche Keltner, Carl Eugene Metzger, Elmer William, Jr. Payne, Graydon Wesley Stein, David Marion 
June 1945 Beck, John Lewis Bedingfield, James Morris Berosek, Dorothy Jean• Beyer, Robert 0.• Byars, James Ralph Fisch, Benjamin R. • Hansard, Mary Evelyn Marshall, Robert J. Norris, Thomas Alonzo II Robinson, Maytee Dora• Shelton, George Edward Soape, Lorene• Thompson, Edith Marie 
October 1945 Abramson, ldelene Shirley Hughes, Mary Louise May, W. T., Jr. Montemayor, Librado, Jr. McDow, lshmel Mayo O'Grady, Norman B. Winniford, Charles Edison February 1946 Booe, Myrtle Dean Butler, James Patterson Huckabee, Frances Gaile Lind, Leslie William Massad, Edmond Massad Phillips, Gladys Skinner Raley, Charles Knudson St. Clair, James Bonnie 
June 1946 Agee, Robert Giles Anderson, Emory Eugene** Duke, Charles Clayton Hawkins, James Vernon, Jr. Kelly, Guy Terrell . Lindsey, Joye Wanda Moorman, Jesse Adams*** Olsen, Chai-les Melvin• Pineda, Danilo Salvador Smart, John Daniel• Windisch, Max Emil 
August 1946 Brown, Renee M. Handler ••• Bunkley, Claud Elmer, Jr. Jones, Edward Jefferson King, Henry Fred Miles, Robert Louis Petty, Marven Wesley, Jr. Putegnat, George William Robinson, Stanley Donald Sanders, Florence Betty Sanders, Johnnie William, Jr. Valdes, Guadalupe Escobar Yarbrough, Lonnie Jordan 
January 1947 Arnett, Lloyd Kenneth Aves, Priscilla Gertude Berryhill, Robert Hamilton Bigham, Harral Aiken Del Rio, Armando Greenberg, David Guffey, Emmett Merlin Lerma, Aroldo Omar Lewis, Joseph Dan Milburn, Douglas Lafayette Moore, Richard Lee Nash, Joe Bert Nored, Clarence Eugene Oliveira, Carlos A. Orlando, Louis Matthew Paull, Betty Jo 
561 
Price, Oran Douglas Pumphrey, Hobart Odell Ramos, Filemon, Jr. Spring, Jerry Baker Way, Donald Wayne Westmoreland, William Peck June 1947 Alexander, Richard Lee Bean, Luther L. Brown, Betty Bernice Fitzpatrick, Frank Huff Frederick, Cecil Charles Greenburg, Mary L. . Killingsworth Haas, Raymond Otto Hatch, James Barry Hatch, Ruth Helen Howard, Clarence Lee** Johnson, Patsy Estell ~ointer Johnston, Jesse Ross*** Jones, Joe Coopwood* Jones, Mark Edward, Jr.• Keel, Weldon Eugene King, Marion Allen• Lindsay, Si Osier Clarence Maddox, Robert Wallace Rape, Joe Glenn•• Ramirez, Gloria Olizia Shokes, Francjs Marion Skaggs, Bertha Faye Magee Spalding, Dexter Basil Spoonts, Paul R. A. Tindall, Jemmie Loree Turner, Harry Conover Undel"Wood, Frances Corinne• Vaughan, Thomas Leo Wakefield, Robert Clinton• Whitten, William Ray Wilson, Samuel Woodrow Woodall, Morris Dale August 1947 B~rclay, Charles Richard Billingsley, Olen Clifton Bowden, Heflin McGee Bowen, Cl if ton Capel• Davis, Elbert Grady Gerow, Billie Jean Hartman, James William Henna, Robert Lee Janeway, William Collins Kemp, Clarence Smith*** Krieger, Ralph Maurice• Leshikar, Marvin James Mitchell, John Henry 
~Iitchell, Robert Wiley, Jr.  Biles, Roy Kenneth  
~Iuegge, William Henry  Billington, Lula Jean  
Nelson, Alton Arnold  Brady, James Jackson  

Nelson, Clarence Theodore, Jr. Campbell, Ruth Bernice 
North, Thomas Murphree Perk.ins, Tillman Porcher Sanchez, Abel Gonzales Skrivanek, Frank Julius Sousares, Kathryn Arlyne Southard, James AJan• Spears, Jean Wiley• Teague, Joe Hinton Trevino, ~fanuel Angel Walling, Jo Beth West, .Mack William, Jr. 
1948
J
anuary Alvarez, Hernan, Jr. 
Applegate, John Parmelee Bell, John Leon Blaylock, Lee Anson Bowen, Charles William 
Brandes, Edward Powers Collier, Robert Henry, Jr. Damron, Bobby Sam Fooshce, Joseph French Glazer, Jack Harry Glover, ~uane Ellery H:"l, Mill~ McCabe Kilgore, Robm Houston Lacy, George Claude Lindemann, Ira Floyd McGee, Milton Stephens Marney, Houston, Jr. Mills, William C., Jr. 
Moreno,~R~ 
Parker, 
Powell, H~ld Dean 
Ray, TraVIS Earl 
Stubbs, Mary Ann
T Cyrus Job•• 
erry,
Val~uela, Raymundo ~f. 
Weise, Clarence Herman 

. F
1
Wooclil. Ha~L-..
ley, WG_olli~a
W1
' am uual Wroten, Thomas Watters Wyont, Barrett Houston, Jr. 
. 
Yee, Sing 

May 1948 
Ables, Bill Tindell 
Adair,· John Garland 
Anderson, Boyce Clayton 
Arrington, James Millard•• Campbell, W. J. Cigarroa, Rebeca Gonzalez Coker, Charles James Connor, Thomas M. Cunningham, William Otto, Jr. Davis, Gerald Eugene Dean, Jimmie Franklin Dube, Clarence Oscar• Foster, Boyd Pershing Foster, Evelyn Slay Pfluger•• Foster, Robert Dewitt Francis, Harvey Mosby Grisham, James Marion 
Gunning, Thomas Cha.mer Guy, Mary Alice Hall, Clayton Pierce, Jr. Ham, Ruth Rolatcr Bradley .. Harris, Charles Robert Heinz Kenneth Warren Hielscber, George Charles Hilburn, Frank Allen Hilliard, Richard Hobart•• Houts, Noble Lloyd 
Jones, Martha Jane•• 
Kappel, Leland Joseph•• Kelly, Joseph Michael•• Krause, Elmer Alex Lafon, Louis Anthony, Jr. Laskowski, Lucille Gladys .. Lea, Robert Edward Lovoi, Denny Joseph•• McClure, John Wesley 
McDow, Evangeline Mary McKinley, James Daniel, Jr.•• McK.inzie, John Ory• M Mull "{ 11 M J
• 
c~ en, .~ orre • · . , r. ~lecce, Roger Monroe•• Mohrmann, John Marvin, Jr. N H---1: Sea J

• 
ance, CUUJe y, r. Nutley, John William, Jr.••• Occhipinti, Fara ~-Will" Ch l J 


~l, tam ar cs, r. 
p R"chard Will"
atterson, i iam 
Presley, Leon Claud 

Quinn, Charles Rainer, Earl Lee Reilly, Thomas Francis .. 
Russell, Glenn, Jr. Self, Boyd Allen 
Appendix j 
Shelton, William Earl Smith, Esker Earl, Jr. Sorola, Edmund Charles Tidmore, George Watson Turner, Edgar Barrett Walker, Charles Alborn .. Wright, William Cecil 
August 1948 Allen, Samuel Bevel Altman, Bertram••• Arwine, Joe Arnold, Jr. Beach, Arthur Carter••• Brown, Carl Harry• Buck, Llewellyn Scott Carpenter, William Smith Carson, Oran Delber• Clark, Thomas Edward 
Clarke, William Travis, Jr.• Crawford, Ardell Ray Daniel, Truman Redus Day, Edith Ethel Dobbins, Charles Alvin Doherty, John Lowell Ferguson, Harvey Norman Gautreau, Valmond Joseph, Jr. Geddie, Buford Cyril Gray, Ouida Yvonne Griffin, John Edward• Guarino, Peter Jerome Hatch, Milton Charles Heller, Ernest Morton Henderson, George William Hill, Robert Eugene Hoge, Paul Laurin Hoyle, Paul Winston Hugues, Harry Wayne Johnson, Robert Dean Kellam, Virginia J. Northcutt Kiblinger, Quincy Nicholas, Jr. Laborde, Alfred Louis Leck, Nelton James Lewis, James Kaye McNatt, James Kenneth Martin, William Franklin Myers, Frank Martin Noles, David Roy• Railsback, Dale Reed Repka, Frank Joseph Rhoades, Charles Howard• Robinson, Herbert Gordon Salinas, Cesar••• Scarborough, Harold Simmons, Clyde Eugene 
Smith, Luke Thomas May 1949 Smith, Vance Wendell Allison Haskel Claude Sousares? Ted~y Malcolm Arredo~do, Hector Trejo 
Stachowiak, Richard James Bailey, Aubrey Marvin Taylor, Robert Bo~ner Benfer, Eugene Lewis 
Volpe, Romeo Mano Biles, Perry Eugene 
W~~ster, R~bert Allen Blakeway, James Goin 
Williams, Kit, Jr. Bond Reid Arthur 
Wilkinson, Malcolm Doyle* Bone~ Frank Newton 
W~lson, Joe Dotson Bray, Carey Hand 
W~lson, Joe Obe Bridges, Ruth 
W~lson, L~na Jenelle Jacobs Brittain, Jim Tom 
Witt, Verhn William Yates, James Wallace 
January 1949 Brooke, Bennett Trainer Brooks, Edison Archie Byrd, Truston Robert Carpenter, Jerrold Lanier• Carpinteyro, Rafael Carter, Dalton Truman Carver, Joe Wilbur Christie, Peggy Jean Cranford, Luther Joyce Ellison, Geree Fly, William Sidney French, Jack Elmo Galvan, Oscar Arispe Hanby, Brown Mcinnis Harris, Louis Vann Hrncir, Gustin Methidous Hunter, Edwin Lamar Jones, Tony Everett Karasek, Emil Albert, Jr.• Martinez, Celia Nash, Glynn Irvin Piercy, James Arthur, Jr. Porter, Bill Ed Powell, Cordelia Francis Provencio, Antonio V. Radcliffe, Arthur Warren Risinger, John Raymond Schuler, John Henry Scott, Thomas Bruce Simon, Frank, Jr. Surguy, Robert Guy•• Svrcek, John Cyril Teel, Conrad Winston, Jr. Timmermann, Terrell Weisman, John Jacob Wheeler, John Emery, Jr. Yandell, Roy Houston 
Brown, Willis Hickman, Jr. 
Bryan, Redick "C", Jr.•• Cleveland, Thurman Hamilton Cook, Shirley D. Blomeke*** Curtis, Edwin Earl Dalton, Patrick Francis Davis, Duane D. Dezso, Elmer Leroy Dobbins, James Pete Engle, Edna Eugenia* Fielder, Horace Steve Floyd, Bert Allen** Fox, James Dudley Franks, Marvin Luther Frazell, Charles Wesley Frazier, Billy Parks Freels, John Henry Freeman, Charles Franklin Freytag, Marvin Lewis Gerhardt, Harold Frederick Gillespie, James Doyle Gomer, Joseph Pierre Harfeny, Feris Harrel, Nicholas Murphy, Jr. Harris, Chester Lee Hill, Gordon Lee, Jr.*** Howard, Coy Howard, William Carroll Hunter, Lue Allen Husky, R. V. Korkmas, Frederick Joseph* Latham, Clarence Edward Little, Alworth Austin Longley, Raymond Lyndon McMullen, Hollis Eugene Manning, Patricia Leslie Marion, Malcolm Charles•• Marr, James Edwin Maultsby, Imogene 
Morgan, Jack Irving Morrell, Frank James 
563 
Morris, Fred Lee, Jr. Morris, William Howard Nauert, Marilyn Louise Niermeier, Grace Dorothea Pace, Harold W. Park, Horace Richard Parrish, LeVeaux Augustus Pearl, Ralph Lee Perez, Guadalupe• Perrone, Paul Mike Pharis, Fred A.•• Pineda, Frank Flores, Jr. Pumphrey, Marion Paul••• Riley, Helen Sue Robertson, Jack Dean Rogers, Emil Martinez, Jr. Roman, William Buchanan Saleh, Phillip Shields, Joe Jerry Shillingburg, Laurance Edward Smith, Vernon Goodall* Stephens, Harold Baker Strickland, Jack Andrew Tucker, William Thomas, Jr.* Wagnon, William Eli, Jr.• Walker, Benjamin Richard** Warmack, George Milton Weathers, M. L. McCutchen••• Whigham, Harold Smoot Williamson, Patricia Anne* Wilson, James Leon•• Wren, John Calvin Yarbrough, Orville Manker 
August 1949 Adams, Charles Thomas, Jr.• Adrian, George Buck Allen, Dewey Eugene Anderson, Eric Paul Anding, Chester Eddins, Jr. Arnette, Joseph Hoyland** Berg, Kenneth Bontempo, Frank Joseph Borchers, Charles Lewis* Braun, Howard Edward Bullard, Harold Burns, Elton Andrew Cabell, Ben Mills Castiglioni, Aldo Joseph* Chavez, Manuel Vincent Clark, Rayford William Claybrook, Ancil Oran Coleman, Charles Stafford 
Collard, William Edwin Cordova, Richard Dacus, Joe Darby DeLeon, Jose Rodolfo, Jr. Douglas, James Walter Dunn, Robert Elmer Dyer, Jack Leon Easley, Rex Lee•• Edwards, William Joe Estep, Carl DeWayne Fitzpatrick, Billy Joe Florence, Paul Wayne Frank, James Herman Fuchs, John Edmund Gazis, Manuel Victor Gee, George E. • Gonzalez, Fernando Felipe Good, Ralph Louis, Jr. Griffin, Joseph Brand Grimes, William Morris•• Grossman, Gene Lively Guess, Wallace Louis Hall, Carl L., Jr.•• Harris, Raymond Young Harvey, James Fenton, Jr.• Hefley, William Philip Helmer, Richard Earle, Jr. Hernandez, Oscar Zuniga Hollub, Alexander Adolph* Hudson, Lewis Townsen Hunsaker, Robert Leland Ishizuka, Yuriko* Jackson, Lewis Albert, Jr. .Tones, Charles Everette 
1<.atzmark, Ray Franklin Kawas, Jeanette Bishara Kimbrough, Joe Delbert King, Alan Deupree King, Thomas Myles, Jr. Langdon, Donald Lloyd* Lee, Thomas Carroll Lilley, Ray Davisdon McBride, Arthur Daniel McCabe, Edward Patrick* McFarland, Frank Cheetham McGee, Charles Joseph Maldonado, Felix Gilberto Martin, Lemuel Leo• Metcalf, Margaret June Meyer, Doris Sue Hollingsworth Meyer, Imo Knox• Miller, Martha Lee Milburn Mitchell, Bennie Mixon, Jr. 
Moss, Edwin Boyd•• Norsworthy, Hiram, Jr. Olszewski, Roberto Edgardo Pate, Jack Elliott Perez-Majul, Fernando Riedel, Milton Charles Sanchez, Cosme Solis Satterwhite, Raymond Davis Sedwick, Robert Hall Sengelmann, Sam S., Jr. Sherrill, Wade Hampton Sikes, Henry Bradley, Jr. Skinner, John Pitman Slaughter, Richard Earl Smith, James Parham 
Appendix J 
Ford, Dennis Melvin Gonzalez, Rodrigo Hewell, John Bird Kiefer, Norman Louis Kremer, Wilfred Walter McKennon, William M., Jr. Mitchell, Joe Richard Moss, Robert Cuthbert••• Murphree, Donald Netardus, Eugene August••• Oates, John Richard, Jr. O'Keefe, Oscar Roberts, William Roy Rowan, Joseph James Saldana, Leonel Antonio 
Thompson, Charles William, Jr. Schrader, Joe Edward 
Totah, George Anthony Tullos, Mary Jane Vachule, Martha Catherine Vela, Baldomero Villagran, Raul Fernandez Villanueva, Bertha Walker, William Ray Ward, Glenn Max Watkins, James Robert Webster, David Hollis Wern et, Louis Jacob Williams, Madolie M. Links Wolfe, A. T. Wright, Clyde Weldon Wright, Jewell Orville Wyninegar, Barney Clifford 
January 1950 Abrego, Solomon, Jr. Bader, Rodgers Mayer Balas, Louis John Barrera, Pat Rogers Bennett, Estel Perl Bolser, Charles Edward Book, Hubert Ellis Briley, Clyde, Jr. Brink, Alvah Edwin Champion, Emile Oswald Conoley, David Ross Courrege, Gustave, Jr. Cowherd, Dessie Sublette, Jr. Crenshaw, Earl Shannon•• Davis, Vernon Lee DeFratus, Frank William, Jr. Doner, Abe Duke, Ralph Durham, Abel James, Jr.•• 
Stevener, Antone Henry Templeton, Silas E., Jr.•• Webb, John Alva Weller, Kenneth Vernon 
June 1950 
Acevedo, Leonel M. Avery, William Oliver, Jr. Baggett, Charles Bennett Barker, Billy Edward•• Beauchamp, Norma Jean Bell, Elmer Campbell Beltran, Mary Louise Bielamowicz, Leonard Boriack, Erwin Henry•• Borrego, George, Jr. Burnett, Floyd, Jr. Burt, John Edward, Jr. Burton, Samuel Hendren Caldwell, Clifton Reedy, Jr. Calk, Eldon Thomas Chancellor, Warren Eugene Chapman, Irvin Stanley•• Cohen, Solomon James Cotten, Clifford Otto Cross, George Goodwin Davidson, Stanley Cornelius Eakman, Harold Douglas Eeda, Edna Louise Eng, James Howard• Estrada, Jesus Fietsam, Henry Joe Gabbard, Richard Bruce• Garrett, William Henry Gordon, James Allen Hall, Wallace Russell Hanna, Thomas Alva, Jr. 
Henrichsen, Wilbert Edgar• Hoefle, Martin Paul Jones, J. W. Keele, Paul Benjamin, Jr.*** Kohler, Billy Ray LaLonde, William Wyatt Landon, John Irvin Leatherman, Edwin Virgil Ley, Hugo Frank Lowrey, Jack Stephen McDuff, John Edward Magness, Robert Wayne Meyer, Marjorie Ruth Miculka, William Max Moreno, Reynaldo Avalos Munoz, Frank** Neal, Isaac Moa Nelson, Billy Clifford Osburne, Wyman Doulard Oviedo, Mercedes Jo Pennock, John Calvin Ramirez, Ramiro Cortez Rhea, Burrel Newsom Salinas, Conrad Sanov, Seymour Joseph* Scaff, Martin Charlie Schwenker, Stanley Roy Slaton, James Kenneth Stephens, Roy Byron Talasek, Johnny William Tate, Robert Lee Tatum, Kirby Jack Vickers, Charles Nay Wallace, J arnes Horner••• Wicker, Ramona Kathryn Wilborn, Jack Poe Wilkerson, Samuel Edward Williams, Orville Leslie* Williamson, Brent Vandean Zimmerman, Edward Ernest 
August, 1950 Anderson, B. Ellen Mcintire Ash, Paul George Blevins, Orville Sterling Brown, Seldon Dale*** Burnett, Arnold Dow Cadena, Viola Maria Conde, Henry A. Costantino, Mario Sylvester Dahlin, Howard Bourauel Davis, Weldon Bryan Dennard, Billy Hugh Dismukes, Willis Herbert 
Dunlap, Wayne Howard Dupuis, Abel Joe, Jr. Fowler, John Richard Graham, Wesley Dale* Gordon, Robert Louis Gutierrez, Teresa Julieta• Hayes, James William• Hurta, Leroy Jaroszewski, Milford Fred Kaplan, Norman Mayer••• Leuty, Gregory Mount Mallard, Billy Gayle** McCormick, Ray Foster Malone, Truett Carlisle Mitchell, J. Phil Moorman, Artie Lee Morgan, Paul Kinsley• Ott, Ariel Adrian Parma, Benjamin George Parsons, Baylor LaFayette Pender, John Teal Perrone, Sam Perry, Robert Edward Poole, Charles W. Powell, Buford Nolen• Ritzen, Horst Reinhold Roaten, John Gerald Robinson, Jack Rowland Rubin, Julian Edward Sanchez, W enceslao Anacleto Schatte, Doris Schwartz, Jane MacKenzie Schwartz, Virgil Henry Seay, James Earl, Jr.• Seay, Marion Link Huck** Sepulveda, Carlos Miguel Shattuck, Harold Woodman Smith, Carl Richard Smith, Charles Linden Smith, James Dallas Stone, Gerald Lee* Tanner, William Alfred Taylor, Horace Charles, Jr.•• Thede, Kenneth Alfred•• Thomas, Daniel Bert Thompson, Ted Burton Valenzuela, Y. C. Rodriguez Walker, Bob Wertheimer, Henry Abraham•• White, William Earl Williams, William Delta Wilson, Charles A. Wood, Clifford Warren Wynn, Ward William• 
565 
January 1951 Alexander, Billy Bob* Anderson, Edward Livingston Arwine, Gene Thomas Barksdale, Joe F. Bellos, James Frank Bertrand, James William Bevilacqua, Sam, Jr.* Bosquez, Roberto Byars, Rodney Leroy Canales, Frank E., Jr. Cate, Alvin Louis Cobb, William Ford Cooner, Gladys Jean Early, Robert Dean Edwards, Billy Charles Fomby, Kenneth Carl Godsey, John T., Jr. Gorena, Adan Luis, Jr.* Hudler, Robert Lee Krechnyak, Daniel Lee Lane, George Richard McAfee, John Taliaferro* Mendoza, Florentino, Jr. Meredith, Frank Kerr Mumme, Alva Gerald Norman, Harold David* Quintana, Jose Ramon Ranton, Lewis Harding Regas, Christie Stam Schimmel, Moses H. Shipman, Leonard C. Shouse, Melvin Lorell* Slaughter, Ellison King Smith, Gerald Leon Stark, Billie Joe* Stark, Thomas Jefferson Stavinoha, William Bernard Stroman, William Tullie Vogt, Donald Duane 
June 1951 Aguilar, Carlos Manuel Beran, James Franklin Brennan, Clyde Mike Brown, George Bruce Brown, Truman Edward Brown, Warren Corder Burkett, Donald Lee*** Cammack, James Marvin Dedek, Frank William Engelbrecht, Marvia William Euors, Lester D. Friedrich, Major Lawrence* Fuentes, Antonio Tony Fuentes, Fernando Gonzalez, Alfredo Dagoberto Greenslade, Dave Wendel Greer, Baxter D. D., Jr. Halamicek, Paul B., Jr. Harkrider, Susan Harper, Ben Hauser, George Henry, Jr. Heintschel, Joe Fred Henderson, Gerald LeMoyne Hogg, Billy Jack Hubenak, Daniel Stephen Keating, Thomas Edward*** 
Martin, Benson L. Massey, Billy Burk Milligan, Barth Moore, Robert Edwin Muckleroy, Paul Harris Neel, Jack Taylor Nichols, Jack Curtis Ortiz, Richard Aguirre Parada, Trinidad Daniel Peace, Hugh Ellis Perez, Abel Bernal Pippin, George Marion Jack Preston, Lon Harper, Jr.** Rainbolt, Tommy Read Raschke, Raymond Douglas Riley, Jason Jackson, Jr. Salinas, Hermilo, Jr. Schindler, Albert John Schrimsher, John Franklin, Jr. Serrett, John Leslie Shadoin, Thomas Wagner Stewart, John Dale Swindle, Paul Bonaparte, Jr. Teniente, Richard Rodriguez Wailing, David Daniel Watson, Nadine Jean Whitworth, Randolph Howard Wicmandy, Daniel Robert Williams, Dorothy Mae Sorgen Williams, Patricia Lorraine Wolf, Carl Frederick Woodruff, Don Winston Wyatt, W. B. Y arritu, Relio Augustine 
August 1951 Austin, Sidney Morris, Jr. Bazaldua, Ricardo Antonio Boepple, Fred Charles, Jr. Brown, Donald 
Caldeleugh, James Donald Davila, Joaquin Bruno Davis, Alda Lois Larson Dunlap, Arthur Harold Dunlap, Perry Thomas, Jr. Goddard, David William Gonzalez, Jose Jacobs, Gordon Frank King, James Earl Lamey, Homer Austin McElmurry, Jack Mandrona, George Joseph Miles, Charles Irby Pearl, Martha Jean Norman Rangel, Herminia Lerma Tillerson, Edwin Earl Treadwell, James Hurley, Jr. Ward, Ervin Daniel, Jr. Wells, Weldon Earl Wood, Samuel Gordon 
January 1952 Campbell, William Jackson Carter; Bill Ray* Castro, Ruben Ray Collins, Reed Cooke, Frank Isaac Cooper, Bruce Walker Dannelley, Frank H. * Davis, Wallace Harvey Eichelberger, Philip T . Ellis, Benny Val* Ewald, Harold Everett Garza, Baldemar Lino Gassaway, Turner Ford Godwin, Dewey Weldon Greenberg, Richard Charles Haley, James Bennett Hielscher, Lillian Marie Laughlin, Donald Kenneth Leach, James Roy Lindner, Harvey Embert Miller, Franklin Emerson Papa, Albert Perez, Robert Sellinger, Henry Allen Smith, John Henry* Steenken, Gus Arlie Vasquez, Arnulfo Alvarez Vineyard, Ben Lynn, Jr.** Vykukal, Eugene Lawrence Willmann, Ferdinand Ernst Wilson, William Conrad, Jr. 
Appendix J 
May 1952 Bartos, Leonard Frank Beall, Jesse Levi, Jr. 
Broder, William Cocke, James Richardson Cooper, Carroll Clinton Culpepper, Reuben Curtis Davidson, James Edward Davila, Louis Santos Duncan, Walter, Carlyle Eblen, Earl Doolen* Elizondo, Concepci6n Ellis, Robert Lee Evans, Bonnie Lorene* Ewing, Charles William Fordtran, Robert Lee France, J.C.• Fulenwider, Jerry Gerth, Richard James** Gonzales, Pete, Jr. Gray, John William, Jr. Grimes, Arnold Lee Gude, Robert A. Haney, Frances Marion Hanretta, Allan Gene Hanus, Ernest Joseph Hestand, Howard Anthony, Jr. Highsmith, Robert Vaughn Hill, Charles Elliott Hughes, Dale Ray Jabalie, Edward Nasif** Kellam, David Clayton Krause, Clarence Edwin Lively, Billy Houston Logan, Newt Augustus Lungwitz, Clemens Friederich May, Thomas Kirk Mercer, Wilburn Clyde Merkley, Jackie Merrill, Van Matthew* Moore, Gordon Dale* Nixson, Charles Alvin Norrid, Leon Dawson Odom, Hughe! Young Ortega, Mario Gamez Parma, Thomas James Phillips, James Alvin Powell, William Henslee, Jr. Protas, Jacob Meyer••• Reeves, Ebb Willis Riedel, Larry Otto*** Romo, Thomas, Jr. Sacaris, Johnnie 
Pharmacy Graduates 
Spires, James Edward Sykes, Roy Anderson Tarango, Charlie Valasco, Jr. Taylor, William Dwight Thornton, Lady Gracelyn Tiemann, Kenneth Edward Trott, Gene Allen•• Valdez, Robert J. Volcik, Eugene Charles Walker, Carl Eugene Williams, John Thomas 
August 1952 Anderson, William Leslie Barker, James Raymond, Jr. Bjorum, Bernard Harold Carder, Richard N., Jr. Graves, Marion Alexander Lester, Iris Pace Miller, Bonnie Dale Palafox, Fernando Pinado, Samuel Fraijo Wolfe, Archie Leonard 
January 1953 Antoine, William Travis Attra, William Anthony, Jr. Bailey, William Jenell Balli, Juan Jose Byars, Henry Logue Camacho, Jesse Cantu Cross, Wilfred Arthur• Garber, Rudolph Charles• Garcia, Jesus Indalecio Garrett, Thomas Rice Gillespie, Ralph Harold Gremmel, Robert Alvin Haase, Billy Ray Haynes, Earnest Lee Jones, Richard Cogswell Key, John Roberts King, Ray Klump, Leroy Delbert Miller, Arthur Charles, Jr. Miller, Kenneth Albert Mrosko, Walter George Rangel, Lionel•• Sabrsula, Herman Daniel Scaff, William Rogers Stone, Noah Wilson Terrell, John Tyler Thompson, Edward Earl Woods, Sehorn Enloe 
May 1953 Abell, James Edward Allison, Robert Bryan••• Arnold, Karl Gene Arthur, Jennie Ann Avery, David Blaschke, Kenneth Earl Britt, Luther Anderson Brooks, Harvey Dillard Carson, John Mabry Clark, Scott Cole, Billy Ray Davila, Celia Sifuentes Davis, Billy Dean Duke, John Whitley Ellis, Dan Edward Emmitt, John Elbert Estrada, Hector Rafael• Estrada, Miguel Benito, Jr. Falcon, Josefina Lesvia Fields, James Perry••• Friedson, Gilbert Edward Gay, Ralph Allen Greenberg, Marvin H. Gregurek, Edwin Emil Herring, James Henry, III Higgins, Carroll Maxwell Hiller, Edward Louis Jindrich, Warren J. Jones, Bobby Wyatt Kirk, Garland Calvin Lamp, Floyd Ray Lennon, Betty Dean Lewis, James Watkins McGrew, Lloyd Dean Maberry, L. C. Martinez, Luis Lorenzo Miller, J. A., Jr. Molinar, Martin Moon, Marvin Rupert•• Morgan, Jacob Richard*** Morrison, Jack Orville Murphy, John Roland Nazzal, Jack Robert Nichols, Charles Anthony Nobles, Jerry Edward Patrick, Roy Coleman, Jr. Pennington, Marion Glenn Pinon, Jose Pedro, Jr. Plover, John Joseph Rholes, David Ray Rodriguez, Rudolph Torres Sonnenburg, Waldie Wilbert 
Spangler, Charles Raymond Tindall, Marvin Baker Trott, Wayne Earle Valdez, Jesus F. Wechter, Max Williamson, Richard Peter 
August 1953 Altwein, Virgil Clayton Cornett, Mickey Dan Nipper, Earl Wayne Sargent, James C. •• 
Janary 1954 Bush, Bettie Jean Camp, David Stafford, III Clark, Robert Eli Clifton, Donald Bedwell Delgado, Jaime Nabor* Garcia, Federico Guerra• Germany, James Myron Hatton, Winifred Ray Hull, Charles Lee Leopold, Christian Girard, Jr. Mebane, Morrison Hawkins Moore, Tommy Jack Morse, Jesse Lee Nichols, Freddie Joe Pace, James Hodge* Perez, Leopoldo G. Pratley, Gus Pratt, Leo Prior Spencer, Robert Wayne Staton, James Gene Thompson, Thomas Anthony* Thorp, Murph Napoleon, Jr.• Tripp, Arthur Franklin* Williamson, Perry Clausiel 
May 1954 Alblinger, Claude Eugene Arnett, Charles Don Bianchi, Vincent Joseph Binford, William Thomas* Bothwell, Martin Ehrfried Carter, Aubrey Lee, Jr. Carter, Robert Wesley Coe, William Douglas Ems, Donna Gale Foster, Billy Joe Garza, Ramiro Miguel Gaston, Barbara Jean Glover, Thomas Hale*** Gonzalez, Hugo Rene 
Greenwood, John Murray, Jr. Guerrero, Armando Gonzales• Hale, Manza Lewis Hamm, Alan Wayne• Harrington, Keith Watson Heny, Joe Samara•• Hill, Arthur James Hutchinson, William Thomas, Jr.• Johnson, Thomas McKinley Kidwell, James Richard*** Koldjeski, John Gerald Luker, Martin Edward McAllister, Aloysius Martinez, Roel McCreary, Howell S. ••• Miller, Riley Ray Murphy, William Kent••• Nitishin, Arnold*** Ordner, Robert Thomas Page, Robert Clayton• Parker, Luther Ray Pawlitscheff, Swetlana Pipkin, Hazel Orlean Maultsby* Salyer, Donald Morgan Summerlin, Harvey Newell Taylor, Charles Edward** Terry, Clyde Everett Trundle, Sylvia Anne• Turner, Ben Howard, Jr. 
August 1954 Barrera, Jose Salazar Bond, Leonard Maurice Brannom, Dale Baird* Carmichael, Alan Ronald Estes, Charels Brooks Greenwood, James Lee Hendry, Charles Durwood Hruzek, Harry Max Jones, H. Grady, Jr. Kerr, Jack Charles Lloyd, Bill Allen Sifuentes, Ben Moreno Spring, Irby Hanna Swaney, Willard Ratcliff, Jr.• Williamson, Billy Wal ton 
January 1955 Berezin, Richard Melvin** Benjamin, Merle Wilson, Jr.• Blume!, Johanna Bordovsky, Paul Kaspar Bordovsky, Rudolph Lenard Bow, Jack Thomas Britton, George Loren Cantu, Olga Lozano Cronfel, Sarah Diaz, Carlos Francisco Everett, Olivero Ruiz** Froebe!, Ed Charles Harrison, Jerry Dean•• Henry, William Otis* Hernandez, Peter Rudolph* Hill, Morris Reagan•• Long, Charles Ray Mcfadin, Billie Andrew Meyer, Daniel Brennon Rikli, Richard Ben Robertson, Curtis Grady Saenz, Pablo Castaneda Stranz, Arthur Mills Tatum, Clarence George Trevino, Jose Adan Trevino, Uriel Martinez Tupin, Joe Paul** White, 0. D., Jr. White, Oscar R. Willard, Nevin Ingram Wright, Robert Terry Wylie, Billy Burben 
June 1955 Allen, Eugene Milton Allison, Mildred Virene Axelrad, Moise Arnold* Bowen, Charles Lee Byerly, James Scott Coats, Jeff Irby Cole, Joseph George, Jr. Czichos, John Francis, Jr. Davila, Rodolfo Gonzales Decker, Jo Anne Chapman• Degenhardt, Everett John Dovalina, David Duncan, Glen Ferguson, Donald Olda Garza, Rolando Abel Green, Donald Duane Hassell, Paul Edward Kirby, Ray Carroll Knott, James Kirk Krummenacher, Bruce C. Leonard, Billy Glenn Lubasch, Inge Joan•• Matson, Jerry Wayne•• Moore, Walter Travis Parker, Robert Fulton, .Jr. 
Appendix J 
Pena, Jose, Jr. Quintanilla, Josue Ramirez, Miguel Angel, Jr. Rieger, Robert Lewis Rogstad, John M. Roof, Glen Edward Saldana, Tadeo P. Schlueter, Delbert Ralph Setliff, Harold Don• Smith, Marilyn Viola Sommer, Franklin George Temple, Ralph Raymond, Jr. Woller, William Henry 
August 1955 Castaneda, Octavio Emilio Castillo, Alfred Conrad Diamond, Paul Marker Halsey, John Wesley, Jr. Owen, James Stanley 
January 1956 Carroll, Joe Neal Clement, Richard W. ** Cronf el, Stella Eberhardt, Billy Joe Esquivel, Filemon V. • Grammar, Nicholas Louis Janicke, Carroll Hobart Lunz, Patricia Louise Maloney, Walter Felton•• McGary, C. Carpenter*** Medley, Jimmie Lee Palmer, John Anderson, Jr. Ray, Norman Wilson** Rush, Kenneth M. • Schumann, Leland Herbert Scott, Malcolm Ray Walters, Thomas E. ••• Williams, Beverly Ann••• Willis, G. W., Jr. Wood, Charlotte Anne Gunter 
June 1956 Bartos, Donald Eugene Bellamy, Murlyn Dean• Boyd, Bryan James Bradshaw, George Cody Brusenhan, Harry Hammet Burnett, Truman Otis** Coble, Robert Charles Cowan, David Douglas Crixell, Vincent L. Cummings, Robert D. *** 
Davis, Charles Edward, II Davis, Don Morris deHoyos, Delia Emma DePetris, William Lawrence Dismukes, William Ira Durso, Sam Martin Flentge, Donald Friedman, Arthur Stuart Garcia, Manuel, Jr. Garcia, Noel Garrison, Shirling Dale Garza, Omar Garza, Robert Eulalio Gonzales, Louis Goudchaux, Leopold•• Gylling, Robert Eugene Harrell, Rease Cleo, Jr. Hawke, Thomas Edwin Hernandez, Irma Delia Isenberg, Don Lee Jeffries, Herbert Clinton, Jr. Johnson, William Lee, Jr.• 
Knebel, Franklin Joseph*** Kollman, B. L., Jr. Leamons, Walter Wallace* Lytle, James Bonner McDonald, Gordon Earle Melendez, Donaciano, Jr. Michulka, Louis James Miller, Charles Edward Miller, James Charles Monk, Donald Ray Osterloh, Roy Emil Paniagua, Victor, Jr. Payne, George E. Pittman, Billy Carl Reddy, James William Reid, Dure! Z. Robbins,Normajane Kenady Robbins, Wesley Murdoch Roof, John Nicholas, Jr. Smith, Herbert Leslie, Jr. Sneed, Langford Houston Sonnenberg, Milton Edward Tislow, Rodney Lee Webb, Billy Rex White, Dale Lan Wilson, William Carroll Zacour, George 
August 1956 Burwell, William Marvin,Jr. Coats, Billy Charles 
Garza, Oswaldo Olivares, Mary Jane Gonzales 
January 1957 Bartrug, James Oliver Beck, Donald Lewis Blackwell, Marion Charles, Jr. Blake, Robert Merrill Calderon, Guillermo Mario Cantu, Juan Carlos Cook, Harlan Cullen, Jr. Cooke, Donald Richard* Cronf el, Semiramis Castillo, Jose Adrian Del Dockray, Lucien Rice Doigg, Charles Ervin Gallardo, Roberto Garcia, Hector Gonzalez Hoefle, John Patrick Krieger, Morton Bernard Kuehner, Marvin Ernest••• Leonard, Henry Jack Maldonado, Francisco Valle Merrill, Samuel••• 
Mumme, E. M. Raab** Ochoa, Alfred Alvarez Owen, Travis Luther Pendergrass, John Scott Penna!, Henry Neil Pevoto, Carl Alton•• Pevoto, Patricia Sue Baker Redfearn, Maurine Kay• Rees, Forest James• Reuss, Joe Burford** Sanders, Billy Jack Sansing, Clyde Gambrell Shahin, Salah Rashid Simmons, Harvey A. Smith, Lamar Richard Tunnell, Richard Tupa, Adolph Vese, Nicholas Anthony Wolters, Wallace Arnold 
June 1957 Appelt, Glenn David Bartos, Justin Victor, Jr. 
Bjork, William Rolland Davidson, Richard LeRoy** DeLeon, Armando Noe England, Bobby Charles• Fox, William Hessel Gage, Tommy Wilton•• 
569 
Garza, Raul, Jr. Gonzalez-Shears, Charles Hayward, Edward C. Hernandez, Alfonso Zuniga Hernandez-Calderoni, Henry Hollingsworth, Lonnie F. *** Hunter, Clifford Barney••• Hydrick, Conrad Lynell* Jenkins, Frederick Raymon, Jr.• Jones, Henry Jean Jordan, James Wilburn Lancaster, William Roy Leath, William Jake Lopez, Ramiro Michell, Gordon Armistead Middleman, Irving Herbert Moralez, Ernesto Morgan, William Helms Nussenblatt, Seymour Obledo, Mario Guerra 
Pannell, Joe Glenn Pinson, David Ray* Pirkle, Gyale Crawford Reese, Raymond Randolph* Reynolds, William Arthur Rose, Herman Schurr, Allan Hartley Shaw, Eddie Bergen Shook, Robert Allen Simon, Burton Smith, Milton Glenn Smith, Nathan Waverly Sommer, J. D. Stephenson, Gary Gene Stevens, Joseph Walter Ware, William Edward Yeakley, Ralph McLynn•• Young, Elmer Kenneth 
August 195~ Gonzalez, William Edward Kelly, Aaron Glenn MacArthur, Yvonne Kathleen Mayfield, James Donald* Noble, Mark Carlyle 
Nohra, Charlotte Mary Stroman, Jack Purdy* January 1958 Arbuckle, Billy Travis 
Brooks, Charles Allan Chambliss, Walter Lynn Copeland, Don Cade Couch, Reba Fay Cutler, Don Edward Damiani, Kirwin Gherbis DeLeon, Hector Foster, William Edward* Garza, Sam Jesse Gist, David Murrell Gonzalez, Alfonso Mario Hanks, Jerry Humphries, James Eldridge, Jr. Lawrence, Hollis Lloyd, Jr. Lee, Roy Gene* Lester, James Edward** Maldonado, Alfonso Estrada Maldonado, Carlos Cuevas Opryshek, John Henry Robb, Richard Douglas Rodrigs, Eurico Scoggins, Henry Ira, Jr. Scott, Bryan Anthony Shafer, Donald Wayne Sykes, Jerre Edwin Tompkins, Milton Dudley Trantham, Paul F., Sr.** Uresti, Gilberto Vacula, Edward Charles Vargas, Jose Elias, Jr. Voges, Roy Harry, Jr. 
May 1958 Adamcik, Robert Frank* Adame, Oscar Ageo Arterberry, Max Edgar Barnett, Ruie Durwood Black, Billy Thomas Borja, Jose David Brooke, Robert Mitchell Brown, Thomas Winthrop Bruce, Don Richard Busshart, Gene Edward Cohen, Paul Elwood Coulter, Ernest Ames*** Crow, Evelyn Grace Curry, Charles Alton Dyer, Frances Sue Ekery, Norman Michael Elliott, James Millard Garcia, Francisco Jesus Garza, Mary Ida Geiger, Paul Frank* Gillespie, Joe Roger* Gossett, Haskell Eugene Guerrero, Joe Gregory, Jr. Hammond, Carol Ralph* 
Harvey, George Allen Haslund, Arnold Dahl Jordan, Marjorie Frances Allen Keer, Peggy Ann* Kolodetsky, Maurice Sweet Lara, Maria Luisa Larson, Carl Edwin, Jr. Lee, Robert Joseph Lind, Leon Dwight Loew, Raymond Richard Martinez, Arturo Benecio, Jr. Maryanow, Aaron Harold Meinstein, Charles Sol* Mendez, Raymond, Jr. Miller, Carl Louis, Jr. Moreno, Ernest, Jr. Morse, Elbridge Edward Owen, William Rexford Rangel, Marta Riddick, Billy Austin 
Roberts, Margaret R. Riebe Rodriquez, David Ramos Saenz, Aurelia Sauer, Richard Elgin Schlueter, Virgil Smith, Connie Mary Marek* Smith, Donald Cloyse Snead, Thomas Dewitt, Jr. Standefer, Harmon Bishop Starkey, Joseph Stevenson Stokes, James Cecil Sturdivant, Arlen Young Summers, Cynthia Ann Teichmann, Franklin Edward* Ward, Richard Elbert Zatopek, Harvey Lee 
August 1958 Bianchi, Robert Allan Camero, Eduardo Jesus Daniel, Burl B. Eschberger, Leon McCain lcet, Carl Louis Richmond, Brian Keith* Varner, Harold Lloyd Walker, Norman Oliver* 
January 1959 Anderson, John Herbert, Jr. Asaff, John George Bandy, Lloyd Don Brunson, Thomas Clyde, Jr.* Canales, Nieves Cejda, James Milton** 
Conoly, Dan Bartlett, Jr. Couch, Joe Hicks Coulter, Tommie J. Williams Craig, Carolyn Jane Dooley, Max Don* Durden, James Marvin Flores, Richard Patino Gonzales, Francisco Trinidad Gonzalez, Rogelio Nires Gutierrez, Maria Celeste Halamicek, Lynn Carl Hampton, Clarence Truett Herry, Michael Lee Hijazi, Ahmad Tawfik Hurley, Frederic Doyle Kleinman, Herbert Erich Kubala, Velma Jean Pokorny Lipscomb, Peggy Elaine Longoria, Rolando Malone, William Travis, Jr. Mucha, Marvin James Narro, Ramiro*** Neu, William Nash Orand, Windell Weldon Pannell, William Lester, Jr. Prenzler, Norman Herbert* Sangalli, Alfred Robert* Siemer, Eleanor Julia Smith, Carlos Clyde, III Sturrock, Robert Lee Valadez, Adolfo Jesus, Jr. Weich, Cyril Blackmore Williams, Danny Ray* Winburne, Herman Leroy Wright, Clyde Wesley, Jr. Zacarias, Jose Luis, Jr. 
June 1959 Abernathy, Dorothy Joe** Acuna, Arnold Soto Angell, Richard James Askew, Jackie Thurman Blanchette, Gaston Fernand Bourgeois, Allen Bertie, Jr. Bulko, Simon Alex Clark, James Leaton Coulter, John William Cox, Royal Clifton Crawford, James Edgar, Jr. Delgado, Amadeo Gamaliel Dietz, Oscar Leon, Jr. Ebel, Charles Elroy Fralin, Rodney Clark 
Franke, Erwin, Jr.•• Galvan, Eustacio Garcia, David Fraire Goertz, Ralph Benedict Gonzalez, Edward Esquivel Gonzalez, Ismael Gravley, Lowrey Franklin Hamner, William Villarreal Herrera, Alfonso Alfredo, Jr.• Holsomback, Thelma F. Clarke* Hudson, Harold Duane Koehn, Walter Leedy Lane, Samuel Arthur, Jr.• McWhorter, Robert Dean Machac, Marvin Edward Martinez, Irma Martinez, Noel Morales, Andres Castillo Murray, Emory Paul, Jr. Park, Joe Buck Parma, Jimmie Frank Posey, Randal Earl• Robinson, Guy Durwyn Ruiz, Manuel, Jr. Scheffel, Fritz Bernard, III Scott, Edward Eugene Serface, Eddie Ragan Shipp, Lloyd Stephen Smith, Pauline••• Stinson, Harold Wayne Stoner, Jimmy Don Strain, Norman Thomas Vallejo, Roland J. Villarreal, Evelio Flores Villarreal, Jose Perez Wasicek, Walter Joseph, Jr. Watkins, George Edward Webb, Arthur Darrell, Jr. White, Roy, Jr. Williams, Thomas Lee Wong, Billy K. 
August 1959 Dinesman, Marvin E. Frierson, John Edward Grove, Vernon Eugene, Jr. Roberson, William Herbert Sorenson, Gene Franklin 
January 1960 Adamo, Michael Charles III Allen, Charles Wesley Barnes, Charles Earl Bass, Lon Roy Burk, Jimmy Leon Canales, Pilar Bowles Drago, Alphonse Joseph Ebner, John Pruett Emerson, Buford Lynn Gaulden, Joe Thomas Gilreath, Charles Nelson Gutierrez, Maria Del Rosario Harper, J. D. 
·Hein, Robert Arthur Jarratt, John Robert Klatt, James Monroe• Krum, Charles Leo, Jr. Kyler, Thomas Chandler La Force, Bruce Raymond Laws, Thomas Carlyle, Jr. Leach, James William•• Lew, Barnett Lopez, Lazaro Franco Mcinnis, Jerry Dan Moore, Jimmy Dale Moore, William O'Neal Murphree, Boyce Edwin Saucedo, Juan Alberto Shifrin, Bernard Salman Senter, Donald Fred•• Smith, Wright Treadaway, Thalmann Lester West, Hollis Steve West, Russell Cleve Yee, Edwin 
June 1960 Arias, Edmund Barnes, Charles Wesley Bell, Craig Manley Blackmon, Barry Welch* Blasingame, Jack Walton Boepple, James Patrick Bruckner, Robert Allen Cantu, Julian, Jr. Carrillo, Jose Maria Chaplin, Byron Larry Costantino, Benjamin Ross Cox, Hazel Dell Dincans Davenport, Grace Ray Erwin, Carroll Gene Falk, Alvin Ray Frierson, William Donald Fuentes, Jose Eliud Golaz, Carey Wayne•• Haddon, Sarah Jane Harrington,James Wilfred, Jr. Jenkins, Michael Ray 
571 
Kloesel, Lawson Gregory Langford, Floyd Thomas Laxson, Florence Gaye••• McCann, James Beebe Menconi, Lawrence R . ** Miller, Maynard L. ** Moore, Bettye A. Anderson Mossberg, Kenneth Edwin Overbeck, Jerry Lawrence Pena, Moises Barrientos Powell, Leona Louise Quan, Elmo Richardson, Carol Ann Roussett, Clarence Garcia Rutledge, Will Allen Smith, Don Burl Spicer, Glenn Earl Stewart, Landon Wayne** Stokes, Gloria June Voigtel, Rudolph Nicolaus West, Ralph Wayne•• Wong, Don•• W oychesin, Leonard Steve Yarbrough, Melvin Eugene 
August 1960 Atkinson, Jesse Eugene Hatchell, Tommy Donald Weekley, Cecil Chalfant, Jr. Wilder, Ray Hiram, Jr. 
January 1961 Awalt, Warren David Bennett, Dean Paul* Brisbois, Millard Courtney Calame, Franklin D. Cantu, Jose Rene Carnes, Roy Glenn Caywood, E. L. King Chapman, Richard Edward Collins, Wright Betts Douglas, Olen LaRoy Elam, John Madison Garcia, Rodolfo Noel Garza, Santos Leocadio Gavit, William Lindsay Gilliam, James Milton, III Gonzalez, Tomas Henley, Robert Douglas Hodges, Fred Collins* Jones, Frantom Eaton Kapczynski, Raymond J. ** Larsen, Walter B. Lew, Terry 
572 
Luther, Charles Monroe Moffett, Harvel Lewis Moore, Jon Michael Muenzler, Donald Ray* Murphy, Robert Andrew, Jr. Newman, Richard Sanford Nix, Roberto Jorge Novak, Victor Louis** Ogden, Anthony George Perry, James Allen Paul* Reed, Fred DeWitt, Jr. 
Martin, Robert Scott Middleton, Roger Arlan Miller, George Randolph Mohrmann, John Marvin, Jr. Nolte, Glenn Lee Parker, Billy James Peyton, Walter Ferrell, Jr. Robertson, James Richard Robinson, Zack Lawrence Schomburg, Peggy Lou** Seawright, Billy Duncan 
Robinson, Eugene Nolly, III** Smith, Waymon Otis 
Saenz, Delia Rebecca Saucedo, David Seitz, Russell Layton Slaughter, Bruce Elton Smallwood, Albert Chesley Smith, Carroll Clayton 
Solberg, Chris Monroe Swanger, Durwood Franklin Talerico, Alfred Frank 
Woods, Fredrick Ross* Wright, Pat Jo Yeager, William Earl 
June 1961 Alt, Jewel Curtis Ballard, Alice Elizabeth Barnett, David Eugene Bommer, David Robert Bowden, Michael Brinkley, Fred Sinclair, Jr. Cavazos, Miguel Angel, Jr. Coleman, Jimmy Lee Eckert, Jacob Joseph, Jr. Garcia, Anita Sylvia Garcia, Conrado Garza, Ben L. Gonzalez, Ziola Hadden, Virginia Elizabeth Hawkins, Doyle Gene Helsley, Albert Norris, Jr. Henderson, Joe Edd Hengst, Howard Harlen Hinson, Billy Joe Howsley, Andrew Dub Hughes, Larry Evans Jones, Cecil Harold Keuky, Lim Klecka, Rudolph Benedict, Jr. Leach, Edward Hal, Jr. Long, Henry Houston Lyon, Angela N. Louis \fadison, Glenn Dayton 
Steinbach, .J?seph Charles Taylor, W1Tham Allan 
August 1961 Chamberlain,Thomas Edward Cheshire, Carolyn Sue* Kahanek, Albert William, Jr.* Ng, George Toy Saldana, Raul Colunga Sweeney, Lewis Wendell 
January 1962 Arnold, Olice, Jr. Ash, Weldon Lloyd Black, James Wayne Chlapek, Ben Hejl Cuellar, Homero Ehl, Bob Allen Froelich, Weldon Wayne** Garcia, Melquiades Gillaspie, James David Gilliland, Ray Morris Gonzalez, Onofre Jose, Jr. Griffin, Larry Dean Gross, Lynda Kay Gutierrez, Jose Ignacio Haynes, Morris Elwood Heath, Hammond Harold Jackson, Jerry Evans Jinnette, James Saunders• Jobe, Bill David Killion, Walter Ferrell Kirksey, Clarence Irvin Koehne, August, Jr. LaCrosse, Julian Terry Leeves, Wayne Jackson• Long, Granville Doyle McShane, James Edward Martinez, Roberto Moody, Linda Mae Olle, Robert Wayne Peacock, Oren Merritt, Jr. 
Appendix] 
Perez, Lino, III Quarles, Wayne Douglas Rodriguez, Francisco Bernardo, III Saenz, Eligio Elias, Jr. Saenz, Reynaldo Scott, Billy Warren Shaw, Raymond Larry Troup, Donald Edward Villarreal, Elia Drucilla Villarreal, Rodolfo Lucas, Jr.•• Wallace, Earl Duwayne Weinheimer, Edmund Alfred, Jr.• Whitlock, Joe Max Work, Charles Augustus, Ill 
June 1962 Allen, Beverley Charles Altwein, Diane Marie Anderson, Homer Allen•• Armstrong, Elizabeth Ann•• Askew, Hubert Carl Barth, Brenda Nan• Bellas, Jack Frank Burford, Dickie Garner• Burks, Thomas Franklin, II** Burtis, Julian Wilson Caldwell, James Bramlitt Chatelain, Fred Davis Cloud, Joe Monroe Cochran, Woodrow Harmon Goers, Pat Handley Cuellar, Martin Carlos Donop, Gordon Turne, Jr. Field, Janie Grace• Franklin, David Lee Garner, William Mark Garza, Gilberto R. Garza, Jaime Rolando Garza, Ruben Dario Gerhardt, William Mathais, Jr. Gieser, Ronald James Gilliam, Burl Darwin Grandstaff, George Grady Guthrie, Glenn Maxwell Hammons, Edwin Eugene 
Hilley, Milburn Dayle, Jr. House, Robert Franklin Kelso, Larry Paul 
Kirchoff, Allen Adolph 
Kloesel, William Arlyn 
Krumrey, Wayne Elton 
Kwan, Roy Lester 
LeNoir, Alton Wilburn 
Livingston, Bruce Callendar• 

Longmire, Geneva Anne Lanier* Longmire, Jerry Allen Lopez, Arnoldo Lopez, Juan Heberto Martin, Bobby Jack Michna, Anthony Joseph Miears, James Paul Odom, Gerald Scott Peden, Robert James Pope, Johnny Rollins* Prescott, John Donley Prince, Kenneth Franklin Richter, Mary Ellen Rodriguez, Isabel Russell, George Ray* Saenz, Roberto Hector Schulze, Tom Walton, Jr.* Schweers, Roxene Kay** Sherrod, Mary Jane Simpson, Gerald Hatton Stamps, William Thomas Stengel, Thomas Karl Stripling, Clifford Bennett Taylor, John Robert** 
Black, James William, Jr.** 
Borsellino, Paul Don 
Carrizales, Fausto 
Coleman, James Towson 
Curb, Noel Thomas*** 
Dietze, William Edward*** 
Everett, Orel 
Garza,GuadalupeAntonio,Jr. 
Hensler, J. B. 

Jow, Sun Ke! Leland 
Krenitsky, Jane Ann 
Kwan, Ken Melvin 
Labay, Lambert Sylvester 
Lee, Ray Barton 
McFarland, Francis Donald 
Mize, Wilbur Allen 
Novosad, Charlie Thomas 
Olvera, Jose Rolando 
Parker, Dayton E. 
Rayburn, Darrell David 
Ridgway, Donald Nelson 
Rowlett, Larry Alfred 
Seeker, Emma Jean 
Smith, Robert Arnold 

Trautwein, Adolph Raymond, Jr. Spain, Billy Ross 
Varley, Robert Ray Vela, Jose Julio Ward, Beverley Sue Watson, Ann Elizabeth Zamponi, Rosa Beth Gilmore Zimmerman, Sandra Lee August 1962 
Adlof, David Paul Botello, Elena Maria Copeland, Douglas Carroll Craft, Russell Davila, Robert Evans, James Edward Garza, Lydia Ana Hardy, Thomas Howard Kellum, Daniel Hansford Riley, Linda Rhea Schulz, Mary Virginia* Shell, James Harvey, Jr. Sim, William Yangwei Sutkin, Eddie Philip Wilkes, Russell, Wayne Wimberly, Robert Byron, II 
January 1963 Acuna, Arturo Arellano, Oscar Sanchez 
Baker, Charles Duane Barrentine, Paul Stanley Staha, Monte Jerome Tilma, Geurt Levi, Jr. Valdez, Carlos Villarreal, Teodulo Carlos, Jr. Wallsmith, Richard Lyle Wilcox, Morris Allen Woodward, Billy Wayne*** 
June 1963 Beaulieu, Margaret Agnes Benbow, Mary Suzan Clemmer, John Lee Davis, Robert Cecil Dossey, Garry Dean Dossey, Larry Gene** Edwards, Julia Ellen* Elliott, Ronnie Joe Foy, Jimmie McBratney Franz, Roy Lloyd Gardner, Thomas Lloyd Garza, Gerald Allen** Golaz, Marilyn Blackstone Gray, Billy Don Griffin, Darrell Alton Guerra, Francisco Javier Hackbardt, Robert George Hall, Ronald Lee Harrison, Benjamin Mark Hashop, Rebecca .Jo* 
573 
Henry, Harland Weldon 
Hernandez, Santiago Rios 
Irvin, Ima Dell 
Jones, Jerry J erel 
Jordan, Kenneth Wayne Karacostas, RaymaJeanWatson Maass, James Charles Martinez, Domingo Rodolfo Middleton, Thomas Wayne Minyard, Annis Marie Neuendorff, Weldon Anton Nix, James Sheldrid Pair, Douglas Bryan 
Payne, Bobby Lee 
Polson, Wilbert Arvid*** 
Rosen, Robert Alan 
Rowland, Donald Richard 
Schroeter, Carolyn 
Sexton, Leah Raye 
Smith, Roger Wayne 
Snow, Peggy Jeanne Robertson 
Stewart, Charles Tyree 
Sweet, Bernard Eugene 
Vera, James 
Voelter, William Wayne* 
August 1963 Allen, James Orval, Jr. Anderson, Earl Weldon* Arevalos, Henry Gomez Batey, John LaRoy Beaty, Rodney Owen Daleo, Frank Anthony Darr, Richard Glenn Drozd, Daniel George Escamilla, Margarita Estrada, Ramiro Miguel Ferrell, Jack Earl Furqueron, Carl Edward Gound, Norman Alford Harper, Joe Wayne Hayes, Timothy Alden Hernandez, Raymond Holloway, Billy Wayne Hubble, James Goffrey 
Jimenez, Enrique Kenady, George Calvin, Jr. Ladner, James Allen* Laurent, Marvin Alvin, Jr. Marshall, Leslie Baylor Montemayor, Adolfo Saenz Nau, Larry Melvin O'Banion, Billy Bryan O'Canas, Enrique 
574 
Ortiz, Richard R. Scoggins, Davis Lee Scott, Edwin Grant, Jr. Soto, Ernesto Spears, Kenneth W. Thibeaux, Warren Albert Tindel, Paul Vessel Weise, Douglas Charles Whitfield, Joe Fred• Whitsitt, Leighton S. • •• Willard, Ivan Ernest Willett, John Thomas Zamora, Santiago Armando 
January 1964 Anderson, Jimmy Arden Anderson, John Charles Berry, James Malcolm** Bird, Jay Thomas Callaway, Joe Edd Carnes, Ana Maria Rosales Carson, John Russell Dimmitt, Deanna Marye Dunn, Jack Leslie Freshour, James Don Gonzales, Mario Alberto* Gore, William Hamilton, John Denis Harrell, Milvern Richard Harris, William Weaver Herrera, Jose Rodriguez Neeley, Jackie Ray Oliveira, Carlos Patrick, John Raymond Perry, Gerald David Pope, Archie Wilson, Jr. Poutra, George John, III Sander, Albert August, Jr. Scheel, George Raymond Sifuentes, Everett Silva, Felipe, Jr. Templin, James Charles Watson, Harland Andrew West, Jess Wayne 
May 1964 Boudloche, Lloyd Henry, Jr. Curtis, Daniel••• Edmiston, Kearney E., Jr. Finley, Virginia Sue Garner, Billy Jack Gonzalez, Achilles Goodwin, Charles Benton Guetersloh, Ronnie Milton 
Herrera, Henry Harrison Johns, Philip Barnett Kennedy, Sherman Charles• Kennemer, Michael Eugene Kosh, Joseph William · Laurel, Sylvia Esther Leinbach, Charles Harry, Jr. McDougall, Herbert Emil, Jr. Pittman, Larry Jay Rodriguez, Timoteo• Saunders, Robert Wayne• Shocket, Beth Anne Skor, Arnold Barry• Soza, Roberto Lee Thompson, Lillie Mae Tovar, Paulino, Jr. Tully, Max Dwyane Tyson, Robert Lindsey Vordenbaumen, Timothy Lee White, James William Williams, Francis Lynn 
August 1964 Brown, Edward Earl Burke, James Oscar Cousins, Marvin Dickey DeShazo, Charles Don• Douglas, Bud Allan Dusek, Bernay Franklyn•• Ethridge, Ben M. Graham Garner, James Beall Guerra, Raul Emilio Hendrick, Richard Gary• Henry, Charles Marion, Jr. Holland, Robert Gillett• Jackson, Billy Ross Krum, Yvonne Johnette Powell, Thomas Edward Ruiz, Rodolfo Cisneros Saenz, Aaron Saldana, Florencio, Jr. Smith, Jimmy Ray• Wiegand, John David Yeates, James Puttnam 
January 1965 Bates, James Herbert Bean, George Roger• Brownlow, William Clyde* Cardenas, Robert Carmona, Jesse Manuel Cate. Rodney Michael** Cavazos, Juan Humberto Collier, John Paul 
Appendix] 
Crews, Albert Doyle, Jr. Crisp, Bobby Gene Crixell, Adolph Ernest Daniel, Billy Bass• Davila, Jose Francisco Donnell, Stanley Joe Dunavant, Otis Keith Easley, James Wesley, Jr. Ebel, Fred Andrew Garcia, Gloria Elma•• Gee, Jerry Joseph Gibson, John James Goldberg, Edwyn Irving• Gunn, Robert Harold Hall, Joseph Haley Mendez, Lee Rios Muenzler, Leslie Harding••• Simpson, Bobby Lawrence Simpson, Michael William Talasek, David Michael Thompson, Richard Delbert Wallace, James Astor Ward, Harry Raymond Wasicek, David Lloyd Weaver, Gary Mack Wernet, Louis Jacob, Jr. White, Walter Miller, Jr. Wilson, Robert Keith Winans, Larry Ray 
Winn, Rowland Lawrence 
May 1965 Baltzer, Glenda Jean Noah Bradley, John Brooks, Jr. Burney, Freddie Ivan Bush, Henry Alan Corman, Rosemary Dillard, Jane Reed Esparza, Ernesto Frazier, William Sumpter Galloway, James Randall* Galindo, Rodolfo Rene Gauntt, James Lloyd Guerra, Manuel B. Hall, Janet Claire Hunt Hallmark, Don* Hawkins, Alvah Chester, Jr. Hodge, Everett Allen Lanagan, John Anton Luce, Jo Nell McRorey, Merle Dwaine Maness, Dale Dwayne,...• Mueller, George Ann Nelson, Sharon 0 . Herbert•• Nowlin, Barbara Ann Parle, Jay Henry Patek, William David Ross, Charles David** Stein, James Daniel* Tindel, Jerry Ray Trevino, Samuel J ., III Valdez, Jose Antonio Whisenhunt, Jimmie Lee* Wilkes, Patty Jo Winfree, Luther Jerald 
August 1965 Anderson, Mary Louise Wranitzky Andrews, James Carlton Appling, Robert Leslie, Jr.• Arage, Philip Maurice Autry, Joe Gene Berndt, Otto Burke Edwards, Ronald Clinton Geiger, Brenda Joyce Smith Henslee, Barry Andrew•• Joseph, Joe Lewis, Jr. McCarty, Troy Gene Majul, Felix Perez Martin, Robert Thomas Meitzen, Travis Charles, Jr. Moore, Guy Ira Nelson. Peggy Joyce Pool, James Riley Reader, .Margaret Elizabeth Riggins, Jimmy Dave Scarbrough, Bobby Gene Tarpley, Joe Mac Thorpe, Joe Henry Townsend, Gloria Marie Walker, Darral Gene Wendland, Alfred Gus West, Roger Dale Whatley, Douglas Carol Willingham, ~iyrle Yvonne Young, Ira Leland, Jr. 
January 1966 Ballard, Darrell Monroe Barnes, Lyngle Dudley, III Beeson, Richard Reagan Bousman, Virgil Franklin Bridges, Jarrell Marion, Jr. Coleman, Jimmy Bert Dildy, William Dolph Helton, John Anthony Hoke, Walter Ford Johnson, Elbert Ruffin 
Johnson, James Alvin Korges, Byron Keith Kriegel, James Robert* Lackey, ~farie Diane Brunson Lawhon, Jerry Wayne :Martinez, Louis Lane Pauer, Gary Alan Peden, Betty Ann Howard Perez, .Maria Josefa** Pickard, Horace Griffin, Jr. Riley, Joe W. Ripple, Lanier Joseph Schmidt, Jan Newsom Shaw, Wiley Joe Smith, Lewis Kenneth* Stiemberg, Lloyd Elseworth, Jr. Sutkin, Stanley Villescas, Jose, Jr. Von Dahlen, Timothy Don White, Ray Gilbert 
June 1966 Allen, Dora Celene Lanham* Baggett, Larry Keith Baker, John Keith Barton, Sterlin Eoff, Jr. Carrigan. Michael Dean• Culbertson, Cathryn Lynn de la Garza, Carlos Alfonso,Jr. Derbes, Harold Joseph, Jr. Duncan, Judith Kaye Edmondson Carol Ann Eisenberg, Cecilia Alba Gah"ani, Wayne Wadsworth Heinemeyer, Louis Chris Howard, Glenn Thompson, Jr. Johnson, Susan Marie Ahlers Kinsey, James Robert Kiowski, Joseph Radford Knight. Glenn Edward, Jr. Lackey, William David Light, Donna Kay Lira, Robert, Jr. ~lcCoy, Timothy Haskell* ~lcKinzie, Paul Ray ~liller, ~lichael Ermon Oakley, Leslie Ann Ramos, Baltazar, Jr.• Rodriguez, Thomas F. Rowe, Loyd Douglas, Jr.** Sanders, Clarence Hoover, Jr. Thedford, Darrell Ray Turner, Joe Michael Varela, Humberto Jose Ward, Betty Carol 
575 
Watson, Lillian Jeannine Weikel, James Alvin 
August 1966 Alvermann, John Albert* Barkley, Robert Calvin Bennett, Carl :\fax* Cariker, Clarence Jefferson Covington, Timothy Ray Ellis, Kenneth Duane Ellis..Michael Duke* Estetter, John Douglas Friou, James Dan Garza, Faustino Gibbs. John Garland Johnson. James Raymond* Jung. Anthony Charles*** LeStourgeon, Wallace Meade Lindahl, Gary Lewis Lock, Charles David Lusk, Jack Duff :\fartin, Roneal Lynn :\fokry. \'ictor Waslislav Ogden. Othel Walker Pierson. Paula Marie Noser Riewe, Cynthia Ann Holland* Ross, James Bascomb Roy, Dennis Terry Samuelson, Robert John*** Schnitz, Joel Edward* Short, ~1ary Aileen Sitra, Julius Smith. Jimmy Ordner Vavra. Jerry Ted Watkins. Walter David Williamson, George Ronald Wolchansky, Lee :\1. 
January 1967 Bates. Nina Carol McConnell Benson, Kenneth Earl Bethard, Uhlus Wayne Borrego, Noe Briggs. Stephen Douglas Clendening, Gerald Clark Coursey. Douglas Ernest Daniels. David ~lackey* Durst. Julian Cook Ford, John William Fox, David Thomas Garcia. Luis Alfonso Gillingwater, Barry Sidney Haines, Andrew Joseph Jackson, Clark Houston 
576 
Javors, Martin Alan Keefe, James Rose, II Klaus, Alfred Bennie Klaus, Ira Joe Linnstaedter, Billy James Martinez, Edmundo Manuel* Martinez, Victor McClarin, Karen Suzanne Key Palmo, Queva Carmella Pavliska, Henry Anthony* Rape, Jerry Mack · Rodriquez, Victor David Santa Ana, Raul Santos, Santiago, Jr. Shaffer, Bobby Mac Smith, James Firman Solis, Miguel Stein, Edward John Stone, Geroge Robert Tisdale, Mike Stewart Woodruff, Edward Michael 
June 1967 Abu-Nassar, Shawki Jabra Alexander, Gerald Wayne Arnette, Jay Hoyland Bartlett, William Dwight Biegert, Eugene Austin** Bigelow, Neal Helme* Boatman, Ralph Arthur Bordovsky, Michael Joseph Brown, Chester Hughey, Jr. Brown, Jimmie Caleb Browr., Lesley Leigh Bugg, Willis Lemuel Burnett, Robert Lee Casanova, Frank, Jr. Clark, Thomas Allison** Craft, John Barton* Cuellar, Pedro Luz Davis, Jim Jo~ Dill, Dallas Charles** Falcon, Clarence Finch, John William Garcia, Perfecto, Jr. Garza, Rudolph Richard Gonzalez, Teresita Goodwin, Roy Thurston Hernandez, Roger Ruben Herrington, Walker Brian Huerta, Pedro, Jr.* Jacob, Ben Eugene Johns, Sammy Ray Krieger, Ralph Edd 
Lewis, Carolyn Sue Mays, Larry Lee McDuffie, Doris Rae Patterson, Robert Rae Podsim, Melvin Vernon** Ransom, Joseph Christopher Riner, Tommy Dean San Miguel, Fructoso Fred, Jr. Smith, Glen Hilton Snell, Thomas Edward** Stengel, Bobby Burford Tottenham, Terry Oliver** Treadway, Lee Roy** Tupa, Leonard Joseph Vasquez, Ana Maria Walker, Paul Lazarie, Jr. Warthan, Travis Lynn* W esterlage, Ray Douglas 
August 1967 Barkett, Sam Charles Barton, Donald Dale Canterberry, James Daniel Crumley, Charles Gene Cunningham, Johnnye Earlene Dietert, Michael Lee Edwards, Jon Hope** Estes, Jacob Thomas, Jr. Fountain, Janet May Garcia, Mauro Ralph, Jr. Haidusek, Edwin Joseph Kennedy, Bobby Joe Lawrence, Jonathan Dale Maxfield, James Marshall Mullings, Douglas Weldon Ortiz, Victor Carlos Pantoja, Luis Ernesto Rendon, Richard Marcelino Saunders, Gordon Neil Smith, William David Taylor, Vicki Jo Valfre, Benjamin 
January 1968 Benavides, Enrique Fernando, Jr. Bode, Charles William, Jr.* Bowers, Phillip Randell Bradsher, Jackey Ray Cawyer, Roscoe Davis Cawyer, Shirley Ann Marshall Cunningham, Ronald De Wayne Evans, Stephanie Anne* Farrow, Larry Glenn Ford, Donnie Lee 
Appendix] 
Frank, Hilda Mae Haney, William Garland, Jr. 0 • Holmgreen, George Lee Jones, David Joseph Kegans, Herbert Eugene King, Joseph Scott Klinck, Jan Michael McBride, Michael Harris McDavid, John Ramsey* Morris, Jerry Lynn 
Peralta, Alexander Richardson, John Warren Riley, John Dawn Sanchez, Marjorie Lee Simmons, Jackie Ross Stringer, Joe Frank Tipton, Roger Dale Tompkins, George Phillip Wilhelm, John Richard 
June 1968 Acosta, Daniel, Jr.*** Alaniz, Reynaldo, Jr. Almond, Malcolm Willie, III Banik, Randal Robert Beamer, Doris June Wolfe Bell, John Woodscfn, Jr. Bell, Sammy Charles Bethard, Donald Gene Blanton, Leamon Charles Brinkman, Charles Barton Broumley, Thomas Charles Browning, Joseph Robert, Jr. Bruckner, James Victor Buchanan, John Wayland Buck, Oscar Allan Bulman, William Joseph, Jr. Burch, Curtis Franklin, Jr. Carmichael, Ellis Preston, Jr. Carr, Raymond Renniks Castaneda, Roberto Chamales, Linda Lorraine Chrane Chamales, Michael Hood* Cole, William David Cox, Ronald Joe Danhaus, Jerald Arnold Davis, Richard John Dippel, Adelbert Louis, Jr. Evans, David Michael Fleming, James Elmer, III Fooshee, Kay Margaret Garcia, Carmela Andrea Giles, James Bobby Gonzales, Ray 
Pharmacy Graduates 
Gonzalez, Alberto Alvino Graef, Gary Edgar Gruber, Jack Cornell, Jr. Gutierrez, Jose Alvar, Jr. Gutierrez, Maria Cecilia Harshbarger, John Lawrence* Head, James Lawson Heaton, Clarence Kenneth House, David Wade Jeter, Edgar Rogers Jones, James Robert 
Krasner, Larry Arnold** Lee, Ronald Alton Lewis, Cheryl Kay Lively, Paul Louis* Lyons, Linda Gene McDowell, William Campbell Mueller, Walter Gustav, Jr. Murray, Roy Lee Nelly, Warren Fordtran Nelson, Jimmie Earl Newberry, Brian Burnham Newcomb, Gayle Raymond Nolan, Don Bischoff Roberts, Richard Lee Rodriguez, Michael Arthur Rogers, Richard Kenneth Rokohl, Harvey Wayne Sanchez, Jose Vasquez Sanders, Hollis Randolph, Jr. Smallwood, Thomas Marion Sulak, Albin Rudolph, Jr. Trevino, Enrique H. Warren, Wendell Williams Watson, James Erskine, Jr. Wiese, Glen Edward Wunsch, Thomas Carl 
August 1968 
Ager, Henry Orien, III Anderson, Paul Roy Barnett, Jerry Leland Beck, Richard Earl Boenig, Gilbert Edwin, Jr. Barnet, Edward Paul Brimberry, Virginia Nell Brimberry, Woodrow Michael Conner, Larry Gene Cox, Willard Butler, Jr. Day, Harry Bob Flores, Santos Manuel Gregg, Cecil Manren, Jr. Gutierrez, Roberto 
Harrington, Patricia Ann Haygood, Donald Bryan* Henry, James Claude Jimenez, Frank Michael, Jr. Langwell, Vaughnie Doy! Laurel, Yolanda Margarita l\1eredith, Norval Dee l\1 uzny, .John Louis Natividad, Nicolas Ng, Gim Louie Propps, Glodine Ray, Travis Earl, Jr. Reyes, Alfredo Castillo Smith, Larry Eugene Stringer, Stephen Charles Suggs. John Clifford Thornhill. Earl Huedell Williams, Bonnie Jeanne*** Wrobleski, Regis Jerome 
January 1969 Adkins. Jack Milburn Anderson. Richard Floyd Barkley, Joseph David* Blackstone, Sam Neal, Jr.* Bowles, Dennis Jefferson Cisneros, Blas Dodd. .John Llewellyn Dunlap. .James Randolph* Esparza, .Juan Cruz Everett, Gilberto, Jr. Farnel, John Allen Garza. :\farin Gonzalez. Anatolia Joseph Grady, Elaine Anne Hinojosa, Miguel Angel Huett, John Edwin Ibanez, Raymond Donicio Kopecky, Samuel Rayner, Sr. Lee, Jung Mae** Marshall, Franklin Linwood !\.1itche!L Donald Anthony '.\forgan,Jean Sheridyn Shelby Ortega, Gustavo Ramon* Overbeck, Gary Wayne** Pollock, James Edwin Richardson, James Allan** Riley, Mary Lisa Rodriguez, Marie Eugenia Satsky, Karen Ann Shumate, Edward Neal Smith, Robert Lynwood Stover, Nancy Eileen** 
577 

Tyre, Richard Dewey* Wheelis, David Lee 
May 1969 Adams, .John William Arnett. Ronald Wayne Haese, Alan Lee Balas, Stephen Kent Harrera, Eladio Lopez Hartlemay. Susan Elaine Bearden, .James Wallace Hottoni, Don .Jon Carvajal. Raymond Roland Cavett, William Andrew Cole, Trenton Cecil, III Cummings, John William Cueto, Charles Del Dobie, Richard Lee, III Dodson. '.\I ildred Gay Earnest, Darrell Douglas* Ellis. '.\1ichael Lee Ellis. '.\1ichael Paul Ellis, Neal Rayburn Foster, Gary Layne Franklin, David Lynn Garrett, Patrick Dennis Garza, Francisco P. Garza, Xavier*** Geers, James Donald Greene, Winston Walton, Jr. Hansen, Andrews Bernard, Jr. Hawkins, Pat Willard, Jr. Henry. Ernest David** Hines, Jerry Ellison*** Houston, 0. C., Jr. Howell, Bennett Wray Janda, James Charles Jones. LeLone James Jowers, Charles Carroll Lake, Larry Keith** Lewis. Robert Edward Loar, .James Edward, Jr. :\fahaffey, .John Michael '.'vlartinrz, Guadalupe Tomas '.\1atejov...-sky, David Lynn '.\kDonald, Joe Bailey McKinley, Gwendolyn Faye '.\·1edrano, Raymond l\1ilton '.\1orales, Joe Ignatius '.\foss, Norvell Ray '.'v1umme, l\1lichael Edward Prince, Carlon Hardy Pyron, Walter Ray 
578 
Puryear, Jimmy Wayne** Read, Ronald Alan Reneau, !\' ancy Carole Frazer Rodgers, Bobby Glen Russell, James Michael Scott, Linda Jean Shel ton, Philip Charles Smith, Jimmy Ray Soza, Noe Stallknecht, William Adams Stefka, Frank Darryl Strong, Tommy Jay Svihla, George Charles Tanowitz, Alan '.\larshall Thomas, Larry Limuel Tichenor, Travis David, Jr. Waldrep, Richard Edmund Walker, Nancy Kay* Watson, Richard \Vayne White, Kenneth Leigh* Wright, Jay Orville Yound, Jana Kay Hamlett 
Zavaleta, Jesus Armando, Jr. 
Zelisko, Jon Carter* 
Zost, Edward Donald 

August 1969 Allen, William Frank Anders, Thomas Yates Anderson, Sharon Ann Brooke, Bennett Franklin Bugna, William Stephen, Jr. Burkett, Joe David Bush, Robert Edgar Canchola, Samual Victor Castaneda, Jaime EDrique Everett, Jim Bob Ferrell, Weldon Eugene Fox, Roger Alan Gary, Albert George Greenwade. Bryan Palmer Hearn, Ralph Howard, .Jr. Henderson, Jerry William Kahanek, '.\lichael .Jerome Lesher . .\lurray \lark Liska, .\1arilyn Kay Tips* '.\lauzey. Stephen Edward* Prensner, Gary Lowell Sanders, Virginia Lee Schlameus, Lloyd Ernest Taylor, Cyrel Dewaine, II White, Martha Dickinson*** 
January 1970 Bazaldua, Gilbert Boenig, Larry Robert 
Briggs, William Michael Brown, Richard Grady Cantu, Ernesto Alfonso 
Coolidge, Judy Ann Patton Davis, John Dillard*** Durham, Tim Lloyd Edgin, Robert Gerald Flores, Elvia Linda Villarreal Garcia, Olga Yolanda Garcia, Rosa Catarina Guerra, Oscar Mendiola Helvey, David Lynn Herr, Bonita Louise Bower*** Huddleston, Carolyn Ann Irwin, James Warren, Jr. Lanier, David Clarance McClure, Dennis Payne Maxwell, Karen Lynn Parmer* Mendez, Oscar Martinez Musel, James Lee Perez, Albert Ramming, Randy Roger Rodriguez, Maria Edna Sanchez, Sylvia Ann Scott, Michael Duane Sellers, Ronald Wilson Thompson, Gerald William Villarreal, Victor Romeo Walker, Edward Smith Wiesner, Dennis Fred Zeitler, Irvin Edwin, Jr.* 
May 1970 Anderson, Darlene Ann Anderson, Diane Marie* Anderson, Reba Jane Averyt, Jack Demarius, Jr. Bane, Ronnie Dean Bailey,Sharon Lizabeth Reed*** Bowen, Earl Anderson Bowmer, Jerald Eugene Braeuer, Don Allen Brock, Harold Rene Brooks, Hugh Michael Brown, Caleb Steve, III* Campbell, William Bryson*** Clark, Charles Thomas Claud, Leonee Lynn** Collins, Harold Ray Cook, Elmer Alfred, Jr. 
Appendix J 
Cowey, Alton Oran* Cunningham, Charles Leonard Davis, Paul Francis Dicken, Darrell Lynn Ellis, Cheryl Elaine** Flynn, Bennie Albert Garza, David Albert Gonzales, Marcelino Griffin, Larry Wayland Herman, James Jay* Hobbs, Eddy Lee Hollenbeck, Robert Allen Hutto, Patricia Kay** Jennings, Linda Jean Johnson, Martha Amy Sawyer Jones, Bobby Jo Jones, Terry Allan Judd, Albert Alvaro, III Kilpatrick, Rufus Underwood, Jr. Knudson, John Benjamin Lawson, Troy Scott Lee, Thomas Leroy* Lively, Nancy Danielson** 
Lyons, Ann Marie*** Mcintosh, James Ronald Marable, Charles Douglas* Martin, George Edward** Miller, Alfred Earl Pender, John Teal, Jr.•• Roaten, Shelley Poe, Jr.*** Stengel, Donald Roy* Stuman, Sandra Lee** Vasquez, Annabella** Walker, Christine Ann** 
August 1970 Acosta, Peter Patrick Briones, Daniel Brown, Charles Owen Carnes, Ben Jay Chapa, Maria Cecilia Guerra Corder, John Tennison Durst, John Wakefield Everett, Brady Lynn Faught, Thomas Nolan Fowler, Harold Max Gosier, Zack Truman Helbert, Dennis Wayne Hill, Gordon Lee, III Holland, Barbara Ethelda Johnson, Lourie Warner Jones, Janet King, Jerrell Lawrence 
Lawhon, Michael Lee Lytle, Edward Curtis Massad, Massad Jordan Miller, James Barnett, III Munoz, Sylvia Aguilera Myers, Patricia Ann O'Neil, Thomas Murry Patterson, Sidney Levi Pyron, Gracie Nell Raniosek Singleton, William Madison, Jr. Skinner, David Ray Smart, Nannette Muriel Nau Springfield, William Francis, Jr. Stone, Gerald Douglas To, Philip Kui-Yuen Todd, John Edd Williamson, David Hal Witcher, Linda Jo 
December 1970 Allen, Robert St. John ·Benavides, Arabella Diana Blackwell, Bruce Franklin, Jr. Boone, James Thomas Brannan, .John Thomas Causey, Ralph Edward Chadwick, William Dale Docekal, Kenneth Lee Downs, John Roland Dunkle, Stephen Craig Fryar, Ronald Stephen Gonzalez, Sergio Alonzo Greenwood, James Worth Guerra, Manuel Santiago Hill, Paul Douglas* Jarrott, George Hensley King, Carl William Lee, Thomas Francis, Jr.* Little, Sue Ellen ~aness, Margaret Lyn ~1cCoy, Mickey Ona Gann McFall, Inez Elizabeth*** McNeil, Michael Ray Miller, Joyce E. Milling, Faith* Preston, Linda Sue* Ranton, Michael Lewis Reeves, Karen Ray Root Richardson, John Strother Roddy, Richard Burns, Jr. Sapp, Joseph Stafford Scalapino, Gregory K. Schiller, Robert Raney Shultz, Tommy Brenton 
Steadham, Joseph Edwin Stiles, Francis Dean Stuckey, Jo Ann Talley, Charles Richard Teague, Keith Lynn Yajdos, Nicholas Anthony Vickers, Gail Michael* Wells, Stephen Jackson Wheelis, Paul Alan Williams, Jimmie Joe, Jr. Zissman, Edward Herman 
May 1971 
Barber, Harlus Freddie 
Brown, Gary Clovis 
Bunton, Donald Denwood 

Carpenter, Joaquin 
Carvajal, Charles Edward 
Clark, Nancy Karen 
Cunningham, Thomas Lynn 
de la Garza, Victor, Jr. 
Doyal, Virginia Lee Humphrey 
Foster, John A., 
Frost, Alvin Harvey 

Garcia, Alfredo Tomas, III 
Garcia, Cesar Adalberto 
Garza, Gumaro 
Guerra, Ernesto Conrado, Jr.** 
Guerra, Sandra Lydia* 
Hargraves, Eddie Jo 
Harris, Gary Don* 
Hoover, Kathryn Jane* 
Horton, James Milton 
Jirasek, Nancy Elaine** 

Lowery, Leon Herchel Magel, James Ben McKinney, Marilyn Orlena*** Mikulas, Patricia Anne** :\foore, Michael Ray* Novosad, Henry Joe Omeis, Alice Fan* Porter, Ronald James Powell, William Iman, Jr. Reyna, Juan Arnulfo* Sanchez, Daniel Gil Taylor, John Thomas Thomas, Walter Irving, II Troup, Thomas Ralph Walker, Wiley Ford, Jr. Wilson, Thomas William Zeigler, Chester Leroy, Jr. 
August 1971 
Anderton, Norman S., III 
Bailey, David Paul 

579 

Ball, Bobby Earl Belisle, Malcolm Bishop, Ronald Thomas Breed, David Al Brown, James Raymond Calabro, Frank Peter Campbell, Michael Allen Campos, Antonio Renteria Chavez, Jose Ricardo Click, Damon Shelton Collins, George Edward Cook, Donald Edward Deleon, Jesse Vianes Elizondo, Robert Louis Esquivel, Manual Silva Foyt, Yolanda Iris Garza Gwaltney, Carol Jean Rawe Haddock, Betty Joyce* Haley, Nancy Jane Poulis Hall, Luther Glenn Hamilton, Roger Dean Harrell, David Allen Hawkins, James Cleveland, Jr. Hill, James Walter Jenkins, Dan Stanley Lyons, Craig Michael** Martinez, Eli :\1atthews, Richard Bruce, II .'.\fatzinger, John Delmo :\1cAmis. David Lynn McEachern, Don Allen Murr, Roddy Jay Ochoa, Juan Alejandro Powers, Glenn Newman, Jr. Randall, Annette Marie Sheffield, Wilbur Leo Vela, Robert* 
December 1971 Adcock.Sherilyn Ann Willhoite Barnett, James Richard Blount, Eugene Debs, Jr.** Bowers, Bill David Bowman, David Earl Buffington, Merwyn Jesse Butler, James Floyd Carroll, Ronnie Lee Daleo, Charles Joseph Davies, Roland Stephen*** DeLaCruz, Jesus Ervin, DeWayne Flores, .'.\laximo Quintanilla Garza, Arnaldo Garza, Vidal, Jr. 
580 

Gonzalez, Pablo Montemayor Gambel, David Charles* Gutierrez, Alex David** Haile, Norma Irene*** Hays, Harlan David Hill, David Ronald Hill, Kenneth Alan Holguin, Jose Antonio Huerta, Fidel Garcia, Jr._ Jahns, Charles Edward Jimenez, Robert Jones, Jimmy Lee Kay, Robert Earl Kelley, James Colvin King, Belinda Jayne Bishop Kuri, Viola America Lenehan, Rosemary Frederick* Lewis, Harold Davis** Lott, John Charles Maas, John Arthur Martinez, Manuel Burciaga Mays, Ford Chapman McKinzie, Kenneth Wayne McLaughlin, Charles Coy Meyers, Ronnie Wayne Mota!, Leroy James Niedelman, Walter Parker, Douglas Homer Pennock, Albert Stanton Phillips, Richard Wayne Polansky, George Alexander, Jr. Rice, Jimmy Bro** Saenz, Eleuterio Lopez Schlecte, Patrice Diane 
Shaughnessy*** Scott, Wesley Arnold Seely, Jack Wesner Shaddix, Jerry Lynn Shaw, '.'vfichael Alfred Shelton, Richard Adams Stirneman, Bobby Ray Sulak, Michael Joseph True, Troy Neil Watson, Don Keith Worsham, David Lee Wroten, Beth 
May 1972 Armstrong, John .James** Barrera, Ramiro Humberto Bartels, William \fichael Blair, '.\lary Elisabeth* Bovd. Carie Gipson Britt. Gwyn Carol Allen Bryant, Terry Lynn* Buchanan, Michael Lynn Byrd, Tracie Jo Lord Carder, James Twyman Carminati, Devon Weldon* Dickerson, James, Ill** Duke, Terry Wayne Durham, Harry Mahlon Eng, Eddie, Jr. Ferguson,Lawrence Homer, III Fish, Edd Thomas Ford, Edward Michael Fulenwider, Ralph Garwood, Kelly Richard Garza, Carlos B. L. Georgas, Nicholas Spiros Glynn, Roger John Gonzalez, Amparo Luisa Gonzales, Arturo David Gonzales, Francisco, Jr. Gruetzmacher, Larry Gene Guerra, George Xavier** Guess, Doris Lynn Hardy, Marilyn Mitchell 
Hadden* Helm, Ollie Lee** Hemmer, Thomas Melville* Hill, Billy Ray Hinojosa, Arnold Joel Hohon, George Michael Holloway, Arnold Gene House, Janet Dianne Hoyt, Odis Archer, Jr. Hudlow, Jon Peyton 
Idar, Rebecca Ann* Janak, Ronald George 
.Johnson, Henry Garry Kelsey, Mary Kathryn Kestler, Edwin Louis, Jr. '.\lackey, James Otis .\fanning, Ray Ellis .\lartinez, Maria Olivia** .\lcDaniel, David Alton .\IcDonald, William Alvin .\lcDow, Charles .\1ayo .\I itchell, David .\lerlin '.\loore, Richard Allen Oney. Samuel Louia Parks, Gary Ray* Phelps, Judith Loraine Ellis Schultz, .\Iilton, Jr. Schwartz, David Edward Staller, Joseph Bass Talley . .\Iichael Leonard 
Appendix] 
Valerio, Juan, Jr. Villarreal, Richard Oscar Woo, Fay Lun Wright, Loren Eugene Young, Sheila Ann Duyka* 
August 1972 
Barnett, Jacklynn Adall Johnson Booth, David William Bowman, Russell B., Jr. Brazziel, Bonner Bennett Brooks, Lloyd William, Jr. Cecil, Melinda Ann** Clark, Ronald Havis Conrad, Richard Arthur de los Santos, Mario Jesus, Jr. Duncan, Frank Jefferson Duncan, Jeanne Celeste Dunn, Jack Calvin* Epps, Thomas James Flowers, Patricia Harlan 
Thompson Fuentes, Rene Garcia, David Blancas* Girard, Lynn Marie Gonzalez, Antonio, Jr. Gurrola, Samuel Ambrosio Harmon, Kevin Randolph Hinojosa, Carlos Homero Holder, Robert Clarence, Jr. Karam, Paul Michael Lacy, Debra De Neese Lake, Noel Rhea Lira, James Long, Frederick William Martinez, Ricardo McFarland, William Starrett, III** Mendez-Suarez, Concepcion 
Vivianne Medrano, Susan Roe* Miller, Harold Wayne Morris, Catherine Lee* O'Neil, James Kelly Nutt, Pamela Ann** Perkins, Michael Lynn Presley, William Melvin, Jr. Reyna, Roberto Jesus, Jr. Rodriguez, James, Jr. Shifflett, Lynn Elliott Smith, Phillip R. Sosa, Jose Ines, Jr. Svatek, Marvin Joseph White, Stephen Brent* 
December 1972 Aguilar, Armando Sebastian Armstrong, Michael Lee Benton, Barbara Lynn* Blissard, Randy Wayne Brummell, Richard James Bullock, Hubert Horace, Jr. Burkett, Donna Marie Burkhalter, Joe Dery! Byman, Roy Glynn Carpenter, William Bickford Compton, James Edward Crabtree, Barbara Ann Crow, Jane Ann Davis, Michael Terry Duncan, Fred Don Failes, Ronald Leon Fortenberry, Mary Kelsoe Fuchs, Howard Francis Gonzalez, Robert Griffith, Adron Neal Harper, Dale Wood Hernandez, Richard Regino Jackson, Philip Randall Jeu, Barbara Jez, Milton Jerry Johnson, Kenneth Ray Johnston, Jimmie Tom Jones, Jimmy Dale Kimbrow, Alan Spencer Knudson, John Stevens Kuhn, john Gail Laber, Barbara Joyce Lendrum, Bruce Carroll Liendo, Alvaro Jesus Marecek, Ronnie James McGregor, Martha Lee Mel nroe, Elizabeth Priscilla Morales, Eduardo Park, Janet Sue Penn, Sue Annette Moore Piper, john Shawn Ramirez, Jose Jesus, Jr. Rector, Marion Eugene Ruano, Sonia Delfina** Sawyer, Royce Weldon Schomerus, David Raymond Shaw, Charley Albert, Jr. Skaggs, Daniel Clayton* Skelton, Victoria Eugenia Stewart, Karen Joyce*** Stoorza, Sharon Elaine Vela, Lucille Irene 
Vernier, John Thomas Wachsmann, Joseph Francis Weber, Sidney Franklin Wissemann, Gail Diane 
January 1973 
May 1973 Alamia, Rodolfo Rogelio* Amstead, Barbara Jane Atkins, Deborah Ann* Bates, Robert Harold Bounds, Donald Rayford Brooks, Judy Lee Cagle, Eldon, Ray, Jr.* Cameron, Donald Ray* Cano, Enrique Carmean, Homer Dunton Chapman, Richard Monroe, Jr. Clement, john Carlisle Coker, Chesney Gabe, Jr. Cordova, Connie Belinda* Corona, Guadalupe Kelly Dubinsky, Mark Bernard Duncan, John Durke, Tommy Lee Forcier, Peter Michael Fuentes, Marsha Marie Paluska Garcia, Anthony Romino Garza, Romeo Rolando Gaudet, Charles Gordon Goehring, Ross Alan Gready, James Thompson Grisham, Milton Wayne Hall, Lewis Allen, Jr. Hammond, James Rodney Harelik, jimmy Haskell Hill, Michael Byrd Hood, Thomas Roy Hull, Melissa Jane Hutcheson, Steven Charles Janssen, James Carroll Kober, Kay Mary** Krueger, Melvin Alvin* Kwok, Yiu Kay Lang, Arthur Burnett Langston, john Barham*** Leal, Ricardo Joel Lilley, Steve LeCompte Martinez, Luis Noe McBride, Michael Curtin Moyer, Lynne Marie Mueller, Glenn Roy Murphy, Grady Fred* 
Ng, Lily Li-Li** Owens, Jerroll Dennis Owens, Leon Edward Reeves, Jon Michael Rios, Claudia Consuelo* Rodriguez, Alejandro Saenz, Juan Jorge Salinas, Jose Daniel Sander, Michael Henry* San Miguel, Esther Sartor, Billy Joe, Jr. Schulz, Stephen Paul Schwencke, Herbert Michael Solis, Renee Elenita Garcia Starr, Ronald Leon* Stuchlik, Dennis Wayne Taliaferro, Linda Kay* Turrentine, Larry Dale VanSickle, Mary Lynn Walters, Charles Anthony* Watson, David Gary West, Ronald Eugene Witt, Patti Lynn*** 
Wong, Ronald Din 
Young, Omer Steven*** 
Zapletal, Martin Frank 

August 1973 
Baetz, Bertrand Oliver, Jr. 

Bohn, Frank Louis* 
Bratton, Turner Norris* 
Breland, P. Kammerer*** 

Carpenter, Carolyn Akins 
Cheng, Cheuk-Pui 
Chun, Sook II Lee** 
Cunningham, Robert Bryce 
Dismukes, David Payne 
Donathen, Roy Edward 
Dyer, Jack Bracey 
Fleming, Jerry Vandiver 
Ince, Mary Lois 
Kwan, Ronald Ray 
Lackorn, Walter Terence 
Lagrone, Ronald Wayne 
Liles, Charles Morris 
Lord, Martha Ann Henna 
McCarty, Danny O'Brien 
Murrah, Lowell Jay 
Nations, William Lawrence* 
Olivarez, Maria Aurora 
Pannell, Jeff Carl* 
Poth, Larry Howard* 

Sanders, Randall Hendrix* 
Stanley, Deborah Ann 

Swim, Jesse Rogene Webb, Jimmy Otis Wroten, Judy** Zavala, Alicia 
January 1974 Adams, James Calvin Ayoub, Jack Emil Balko, David Michael Belson, Patricia Ann* Bowen, Donald Adrian* Boyd, Kirk Lamar* Boyd, Robert Christopher Clark, Leslie Weldon Carameros, Gregory Dean* Conrad, James Edwin** Cruz, Josefina Espiritu** Cunningham, Mary Elaine 
Darnell, Stephen Neal Droughton, David Joseph Dvorak, Linda Hendrix*** 
Garcia, Manuel, Jr. Guess, Virginia Christine* Holbert, Robert Michael Horany, Mitchell Sam** Horton, Charles Lee* Howard, Mary Ann Jacobs, Gerald Ray Jacobson, Steven Karl Jones, Jeffrey Hudson Keene, Robert Michael Landreth, Vicki Lu*** Lefevre, Larry Kent Lehne, William Louis** Longoria, Jose Noe .'.\1almstrom, Royd Edsel YkGahey, Robert Glen .'.\1cGinnis, Carolyn Faye 
Peterson · .'.\leinecke, Charles Len* .'.\1orris, William Yoakum, Jll 
Nelson, Cynthia Carolyn 
Nelson, .Julie Ann 
Pringle . .James Alben 

Pritchett. .James Patrick Roberts, William M ichacl Ruiz, Leopoldo, III* Silva, Humberto Ramor. Slattery, .John Thom;1s Sorrels, John William*** Spene er. Constance Lee* Thompson, Hruce Le Roy Tsu, Chi Chai \ ' aj dos, \ ' anessa Ellen 
Valenzuela, Enrique Vaughan, Hilary Lane* Walthall, Cynthia 
McWilliams*** Ward, Michael Lawrence Whitley, Carl Lee Wiemers, Onis Corwin* Wiltse, Ronald Alan York, Susan Lynn Young, Nancy Alene* Zavaleta, .John Joseph* 
May 1974 Akins, Wynn Martin Amini, Maryam Arrick, Georgelyn Swint* Baltzer, Ann Susan Barks, Barbara MacPherson* Barks, Joel Gene* Bassett, Delane Morgan Blakeman, Charles Leonard Boyd, Sharon Kay Brown, David Robert* Burch, Steven Jack Chen, Doris Ming-See* Cherry, Nadina Leah Cooke, Barbara Ann Hurn Davenport, Sarah Ellen*** Davis, Jerome Kelly Douglas, Jan Clayton** DuBose, Keith Dunn Dunkle, David Pat Esterak, Eugene Stephen* Evans, Frederick Marshall Evans, Ronnie Jack Fitzgerald, Kenneth Jefferson Flores, Daniel Reynaldo Funderburk, Horace, Boyce, III Ginnings, Susan Ann Parker Gonzalez, Arturo, Jr. Gurley, Ronnie Anthony Halton, Patrick Joseph Hashop, William, Jr. Henson, Kim Allen* Hernandez, Ernesto 
Hill, John Sue! 
Huchton, Kevin Dale*** 
Huguenin, Patrice Diane 
Humphries, David Robert 

Janicek, Daryl Joseph David 
Janicke, Carroll Kim 
Jekel, Patricia Ann* 
Jenkins, Leslie Gail* 
Jones, jack Kelly 

Appendix J 
Kazen, Geralyn Ann Kegans, James Russell King, Gail Frances*** Koteras, Charlotte Ann Lamb, Ronnie Dean Martinez, Esteban F., Jr. May, Duane Emerson McRee, Walter Everett Murray, David Truett Nance, Millard Alan Ortega, Adrian Gilbert Ottinger, David Dan Peterson, Jeffrey Alton Price, Jerry Lee* Randolph, Jimmie Dale Riggan, James Michael Roberson, Earl Gordon, III Rodriguez, Carlos Castillo, Jr. Rogers, Bruce Wilson Rogers, William Harle, Jr.*** Rosenthal, Alan Ray Sosa, Alfonso Ramon Spencer, John Richard*** Stanberry, Robert Henry Talamantez, Robert Cavazos Taylor, Jerry Wayne Templeton, Richard Edwin Thompson, Michael Robert* Tovar, Alfred Gutierrez Valdez, Raul Waddell, Rose Mary Balmas*** Wier, Kenneth Kirk Wilhelm, John Frederick* Wilton, Aaron Zanoah Winslow, Karen Frances Wong, Thomas Kam Yuen* 
August 1974 Aguilar, Julian, III Anderson, Albert William Anderson, Alyne Newell Baird, Glen Milton* Bell, David Patrick Bell, Melissa Coffman Boatright, Robert Donald Bohnenblust, Linda Kay Brannam, Hazel Belinda Catties, Kenneth Michael Chapman, Deborah Ann Choi, Kang Ja Chung, David Joe Curtis, Charles Samuel Day, Laura Sue Jobe 
Daniel, Richard Jay* De Jesus, Benjamin, Jr. DeLeon, Victor Octavio Diaz, Jr. Eaton, Minerva Alcala Edgerton, Martha Jane Estrada, Jerry Javier Gilbert, Gib Carl* Glade, John Christopher Gonzales, Gilbert Martinez Gonzalez, Edward Arnold Greenberg, Thomas Richard* Hajek, Johnnie Frank Hardin, Wesley Morgan Hobson, Anne Sparks Hopkins, Richard Don* Jones, John Mark Kenworthy, Eric John Kinard, Billy Wayne Lau, Kwok-Hung* Longenette, Harold J. Lopez, Eugene McDow, Ishmael Mayo McMahan, Michael Foy Mendieta, Ezequiel, Jr. Middleton, William David Miller, Marion Manton, II Munoz, Maria Alma Podsim, Gary Lynn Poynor, Wesley Jim** Rye, James Warren Sandidge, Susan Scott, Stephanie Anne Seto, Churk Ming Shaw, Darrell Dupree Sonnenburg, Randall Ray Staggs, Richard Alan Thompson, William Lawrence Trevino, Rosa Maria•• Vance, Betty Ann* Wallace, Byron Kent Wang, Anni Weaver, Samuel Eugene, Jr. Wong, Mei-Lin** 
January 1975 
Archer, James Richard 
Arnold, David Wayne* 
Bayer, Gary Ray* 
Bennett, Billy Snell** 
Boepple, Mary Katherine* 
Brown, James McFarley** 
Bullock, John Samuel 
Bustamante, Julieta Margarita 
Calloway, Charlene La Verne 

Calvert, Patricia Carlson, Johnette Lynn Cuba• Castillo, Gabriel Chaddick, John Wright Cheung, Chui Ping* Chu, Alfred Ka-Kee Cooley, Roy Byron** Crawley, Robert Eiland Douglas, Jesse Franklin Dugger, Gary Don Escobar, Carlos C. Everett, Stephen Lee Farren, Steven Lee Fithian, Paula Elaine* Ford, Richard Lee Friedman, Gary Victor Gaines, Donna Lynn* Gallman, James Scott* Goodnight, Larry Courtney Grant, Donald Clinton, Jr. Green, Harold Michael Hannemann, Gary Mark*** Harris, Steven Douglas* Helton, William Jefferson Henicke, Ray Ben** Huddleston, William Leslie Hughes, Danny Ray** Hunter, Cynthia Ann* Jackson, Bruce Gergory Jasper, Glenn Martin Kasper, Michael Paul Kieke, Janice Kay Krnich, Michael Mile 
Landman, Ottist Randall Lane, Deborah Jo Sittel* Lawson, Kenneth Allen, Jr.• Lee, Billy Charles* Lena, Manuel Paul, Jr. Leung, Daniel Po Lew, Timothy Jon Lewis, Myron Ray* Lorang, Marvin Keith* Martinez, David, Jr.• Maxwell, Larry Gene Mayer, Mark Steven McNeill, John Milburn, Jr. Mikeska, Victor Thomas Montgomery, Leah Mae Mutz Moreno, Phillip James Morse, Donald Steven** Muecke, Michael David Ng, Kirn Wah* Ng, Shee Chun Olsak, Stephanie Ilene* 
583 
Patterson, Peggy Jo Pearce, Nelson Froyd* Phillips, Robert Charles Pokorny, James J. Rico, Jose Angel Sanders, Timothy Arthur* Sargent, James C., Jr. Schlee, Cynthia Young Sheets, Michael Carter Shirley, Billy Dale Smolik, Jerry Stanley Talamantes, Elia• Tarr, William Carle 11** Taylor, Lee Ricks Turner, Loretta Karen Valadez, Carlos Lauro Vivanco, Jaime Hector Walker, Jimmy Paul* Warden, Dayton Reed, Jr.• Watson, Peggy Ann** Wheeler, Richard Doyle Whitney, George Foster Williams, Mark Thomas Willms, John Norman* Wittenbach, Ronald Gail Wong, Chak Cheong** Wood, Daniel Nelson* Zamora, Leticia** 
May 1975 Adjei, Akwete Alcorn, Joe Abney* Allen, Phillip Campbell Armstrong, Marion Wyatt Gilbreath Baker, Jackie Basore, Steven Dale Beam, Harry Carter, Jr. Borchardt, Judy Jane Jordan Boyd, Stephen Craig Bremer, Byron Lloyd• Calhoon, Thomas Franklin IV Cantu, Enrique Arnoldo Combs, John Clement Courtney, James Patrick, Jr.* Cousineau, Jimmie Don Cowan, Larry Bryant* Cox, John Wayne Crawford, John Paul Currier, Gary Vernon Darnrongrashasakdi, Chaiyuth Delgado, Raymond** DeMarco, Gregory Alan Draper, William David, Jr. 
Durand, George Marion Eng, Bob Wat Faulk, Randy Warren Frangullie, Christopher Anthony Fuchs, John Edmund, Jr. Gaitan, Rozann Gainor, David Kent Geldmeier, Gary Fred•** Gian, Jack Jacob Guffey, Larry Merlin** Hall, Carl L., II I Hardy, Kirby Tate, Jr. Harrison, William Dennis Hatfield, Bruce Patrick Hirt, Darrell Lee•• Hoyle, Randall Joe• Huffman, Gay 
Jalnos, Joseph Mark* Killingsworth, James Milton Labus, Lydia Marie Lasseter, Randy Mallette Lietz, Phillip Elmo Lorea, Richard Raymond Lubke, Stephen Leroy Makarem, Samira Negib Martinez, Alfredo Gonzales McElmurry, Jack Randall Molina, Ray Morin, Eudoxcio Morin, Manuel Nicholson, Mary Priscilla N wokej i, Donatus Alabu-Alabuike Jose Ochoa Owen, William Marshall, Jr. Ozuna, Rudolph Simon Pangle, James Michael* Paul, William Edward Pittman, Jimmy Charles* Rozsypal, Gina Louise 
Garrison••• Rust, Dennis Keith Schrank, Larry Glenn** Smith, Richard Ernest• Sours, Robert John, Jr. Steinbach, John Mathew Stewart, John Pearson•• Stone, Steven Edward Teoh, Noreen Bee Mui Trafton, Guynell Beth Traxler, Marvin Gary* Villarreal, Jose Humberto White, Gary Wrenn Wilson, Charles David* Wilson. Melinda* Wong, James Gan Wortham, Pamela Sue•• 
August 1975 Bailey, Kenneth Lamar Barron, Jesse Ramirez Beitel, James Stewart Bennett, John Scott Biggs, Karen Ann Brewer, Beverly Anne Calderon, Oscar Campbell, W. J., Jr. Chapman, Melody Sue Clark, Danny Lynn* Cohea, Cathryn Cecilia Cook, Royce Gene, Jr.** Courtright, Robert James Crawford, Dennis Lynn Denny, John Bernard* Euers, David Wayne Floyd, John Wallace Foo, Bong Ling*** Fu, Pit Yim** Galjour, Patricia Lynn Garza, David Amadeo Gershater, Mark Franklin Gilland, Larry Joseph Greathouse, William David Griffin, Kathy Elaine** Hahm, Yong Saeng Hirsch, Donald Ray Hooper, Michael Van* Jeter, Waylon Ray Johnson, Yvonne Melinda Joseph, Michael Robert Klick, Gary Kevin Knowlden, Allan Walter Kocian, Donald Wayne Krpec, Larry Gene Laroque, Steven Lane Lau, Kei Fong Lau, Tsun Man Lee, Frederick Sok-Wai*** Lewis, Jacques Brandon Longoria, Rolando Rene*** Martin, Michael Copelan Mayer, Frank J., II* McMillan, Reagan Ben** Mendoza, Jose Antonio Morgan, John David 
Murray, Leslee Kay** Murrell, Thomas Kader, Jr.• N arviz, Joe Andrew Ocanas, Paul Reyes 
Appendix J 
Oelkers, Eddie Carl Perkins, Hubert Lee Poon, Ho Chi Pratt, Stephen Thomas Rendon, Maria Eugenia Rice, Robert Steven Rossi, Bernadette Marie** Saenz, Jesus Alberto Sha.m, Kenny Sui Cheong*** Springer, Randy McNiel • Staab, Joseph Jeffrey** Stovall, Walter Rudolph, Jr.• Tam, Wai Hong Harold* Tamayo, Elizabeth Faith Tevis, Randy Byron Trad, Robert Joseph Turner, Debra Dale Valcik, James Edwin Villarreal, Juan Antonio Webb, Dean Clifford** Weynand, David Albert Wilson, Carolyn Clothien* Wilson, Ronald John Wong, Danny Hon Wong, Dean Lee* Wong, Dwight Samuelson Wong, Hing Cheong** Wood, Michael James Wyninegar, James Daniel Y engst, Michael Dean Young, Douglas Craig Yu, Fu Hing*** December 1975 
Barta, Carolyn Faye Bohannon, Virgil Griffin, Jr. Boyd, Patricia Lynette Bryan, Joe Paul Christensen, Delray M. •• Christensen, Michael Ray Cole, Byron Harrison• Elliot, Rose Ann Jesse Eng, Elizabeth Chiang* Eng, Tommy Chan*** Estrada, Albert, Jr. Ganann, Larry Wallace Gittings, Mark Steven Goodrich, Thomas Eldon Graham, Jean Ann Greene, Raymond Franklin, Jr.*** Guerrero, Yolanda Judith Haralson, Verlie Grant H~skovec, Deborah Jo* 
Hipp, Terry Michael 
Hoey, Paul Scott* 

Hui, David Lap-Tak Irvin, Larry Wayne Kraege, Thomas Roland Kwan, Louis*** Lam, Peter Wood-Pang•• Lee, Dennis Kam-Ching* Leigh, John Marshall Luke, Russelene Elizabeth Ma, Siu-Kee Martin, Barbara Jean Martinsen, Susan Ann*** Mayo, Clay Bradley McKee, Dayne Michele** Mend!, Jerry Edward* Arndt, Billy Keith Ballew, Henry Bernard, Jr. Bandy, Otis Earl, Jr.• Barker, John Matthew Bartos, Leonard Wayne Beckerdite, Steven Keith Boggess, Anita Nadine** Borel, Jacque Milton Boswell, George Edward Breeland, Joe Mack Bryant, Deborah Lynne Butler, Gary Lawrence* Cantu, Vina Louise Carrington, Kyle Reese 
Millington, Nicholas Frank** Cepeda, Francisco Javier 
Moffatt, James Gordon Murphy, Charles William** Myron, Paul Elliott Palmer, Scott Brewer Paxton, Richard Franklin Ponce, Anthony Garcia• Preuss, Charles Wayne• Psencik, Mary Helen Glass* Redfern, Richard Wilder Reeves, Kenneth Roscoe Cheng, Mei-Mei Chiu, Kin Pong Eric Cross, James Lynn Crumley, Gayle Scott* Daniel, Arthur Lee, Jr.• Diamond, Barry Robert Diaz, Peter Harold Dodson, Timothy Morris Duffel, Patricia Galene Smith** Duke, Donna Lynn 
Romero, Frederick Lawrence Everett, Edna M. 
Saldana, Lionel Anthony Schiffer, William John, Jr. Shanley, Melvin Lee• Sibley, Stephen Earl* Smith, Rhonnie Doyle Smith, Roy Randal Spellman, Anne*** Trad, Kenneth George Watassek, Frank Ray Williams, Jack Spencer Wong, Kenneth Paul Wysoki, Joseph* Yee, Pamela Alice Zatopek, Rebecca Sue 
May 1976 Aimone, Nancy Sue Vance•• Armstrong, Marcia Gale** 
Fagala, Karen Lynn 
Fehr, Richard*** 
Foster, Guy Hubert, Jr. 
Gallagher, Maureen*** 
Garcia, Mario Rey 
Gonzalez, David Aranda 
Gosnell, Shellie Marie 
Gouldy, David Charles••• 
Hahn, Ronald Lewis• 
Hall, David Ellis 
Halter, Richard Volpoe, Jr. 
Harrel, Nicholas Murphy, 111* 
Haun, William Michael** 
Havrda, Robert Earl*** 

Hesse, Thomas Michael 
Hodges, Daniel Dotson** 
Jackson, Clemis Laraine 
Jackson, Edwin Kerry*** 

Keepers, Jack Edward* Kellam, Gary Wayne Kelly, Brian Hill* Kerby, Jere! Lynn* Kubenka, Terry Eugene* Lam, Yin-Tak Albert* Landers, Marvin Dean* Lau, Steve Hung Yan Leung, Shuit Mui••• Livingston, ZoLynn Wickson*** Lo, Chi-Lun Long, Kenneth Eugene** Marek, Marvin Richard, Jr. Martin, Richard DeWayne* McCourt, Michael Terence** McGovern, Deborah Meissner, Brian James Miles, John Michael Moore, Kathryn Jane Mosher, Martha Jane Thoreson••• Petty, Martha Elizabeth Pond, Beverly Ann Sharp Posvar, Edward Lee 
Prewitt, Michael Scott* Ryckman, George Branch* Schneider, Therese Elaine Shields, Richard Wayne** Sonnenburg, Gary Lynn Sosa, Isaac Garcia Staton, James Michael Tong, Koon-ho Tse, Yin For Wallis, Scott Wayne Weathers, Timothy David Weidmann, Trena Williams, David Eugene* Williams, David Wayne** Wills, John Ray* Wilson, Charles Louis Witt, James Richard Wood, Billy Don Woody, Ronald Rene Yuk, Clarence Bun Hoi*** Zai, William Zelisko, Michael Lynn 
SOURCE: Graduates in Pharmacy, 1895-1926, are from The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston: A Seventy-five Year History by the Faculty and Staff (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1967), pp. 352-3; degree recipients after that time are from the Official Com­mencement Programs of The University of Texas for the respective dates, Texas Collection. 
APPENDIXK: 	Curricular Changes throughout the Years, 
1922-1976 
Progress in the profession and practice of pharmacy is shown by the advances in the standards of pharmaceutical education from the earliest degree requirements to the doctoral degree: 
Graduate in Pharmacy (Ph.G.)-2 years Graduate in Pharmacy (Ph.G.)-3 years Pharmaceutical Chemist (Ph.C.)-3 years Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy (B.S.)-4 years Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy (B.S. )-5 years Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.)-6 years Combined programs: Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy and Bachelor 
of Business Administration (B.S. and B.B.A.); Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy and Bachelor of Journalism (B.S. and BJ.)-5 years each 
Curricular changes reflecting the progression of pharmaceutical degree requirements are given in the following table. 
PHARMACY CURRICULAR CHANGES  
Years  No . School  
Offered  Degree  Curriculum  Years  
1893-1921  Ph.G.  Junior and senior years  2  
1922-25  Ph.G  Junior and senior years  2  
Ph.C.  Junior and senior years plus one year of  
graduate work  3  
1926-27*  Ph.G.  Freshman-junior years  3  
1928-29  Ph.G.  Freshman-junior years  3  
1930-37  Ph.G.  Freshman-junior years  3  
B.S.  Freshman-senior years  4  

586 

Years  
Offered  Degree  
1938-45  B.S.  
1946-47  B.S.  
1948-49  B.S.  
B.S. &  
B.B.A.  
1950-53  B.S.  
B.S. &  
B.B.A.  
1954-59  B.S.  
B.S.&  
B.B.A.  
B.S. &  
B.J.  
1960-76  B.S.  

No. School Curriculum Years 
Plan I: professional pharmacy; 
freshman-senior years 4 
Plan II: commercial pharmacy; 
freshman-senior years (freshman and 
sophomore years same as Plan I) 4 

Professional pharmacy; 
freshman-senior years 4 

Professional pharmacy; 
freshman-senior years 4 

Professional pharmacy and business 
administration; freshman-senior years 
plus fifth year 5 

Professional pharmacy; freshman-senior 
years 4 

Retail pharmacy; freshman-senior years 4 

Professional pharmacy and business 
administration; freshman-senior years 
plus fifth year 5 

Professional pharmacy; freshman-senior 
years 4 

Retail pharmacy; freshman-senior years 4 

Optional program including one 

preprofessional year plus four 

professional years 5 

Professional pharmacy and business 
administration; freshman-senior years 
plus fifth year 5 

Professional pharmacy and journalism; 
freshman-senior years plus fifth year 5 

Professional pharmacy; two preprofessional 
years plus three professional years 5 

•College became a member of the AACP. 
SOURCES: University of Texas Bulletin nos. 2218 (8 May 1922), 2318 (8 May 1923), 2618 (8 May 1926), 2817 (1 May 1928), 2917 (1May1929), 3808 (22 February 1938); and University of Texas Publication nos. 4608 (22 February 1946), 4807 (1April1948), 5012 (15 
June 1950), 5613 (1July1956), 6007 (1April1960), and 7602 (15 January 1976). 






Bibliography 
Albers, Carl Clarence. "Fifty Years of History of the University of Texas College of Pharmacy." Unpublished manuscript, Austin, Texas, no date. The Alcalde, a weekly for Texas. The Alcalde, a weekly journal for The University of Texas. The Alcalde, The University of Texas alumni magazine. 
American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, Pharmacists For The Future, The Report of The Study Commission on Pharmacy. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Health Administration Press, 1975. American Council on Education. Findings and Recommendations of the Pharmaceutical Survey, 1948. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1948. American journal of Pharmaceutical Education. The Austin Statesman. 
Austin, Texas. Personal Files of Henry M. Burlage. 
Austin, Texas. Personal Files of Eugene M. Caskey. 
Austin, Texas. Personal Files of Esther Jane Wood Hall. 
Austin, Texas. State of Texas, Legislative Library. "Investigation of the University of Texas by Senate Investigations Committee." 
Austin, Texas. The University of Texas at Austin, Barker Texas History Center, Newspaper Collection. Minutes of the Meetings of the Board of Regents: 1881-1902. 
Austin, Texas. The University of Texas at Austin, Barker Texas History Center, Texas Collection Library. Annual Report of the Presi­dent and Faculty of The University of Texas. 
589 

Austin, Texas. The University of Texas at Austin, Barker Texas History Center, Texas Collection Library. Biennial Report of the Board of Regents. 
Austin, Texas. The University of Texas at Austin, Barker Texas History Center, Texas Collection Library. "Texas Pharmaceutical Association Official Proceedings, 1880-1889." 
Austin, Texas. The University of Texas at Austin, Barker Texas History Center, Texas Collection Library. University Course Catalogue, 1893-94 through 1976-78. 
Austin, Texas. The University of Texas at Austin, Barker Texas History Center, Texas Collection Library. University Medical. Austin, Texas. The University of Texas at Austin, Barker Texas History Center, Texas Collection Library. University Record. 
Austin, Texas. The University of Texas at Austin, Barker Texas History Center, The University of Texas Archives. Documents and Minutes of the General Faculty. 
Austin, Texas. The University of Texas at Austin, Barker Texas History Center, The University of Texas Archives. Faculty Minutes of the College of Pharmacy. 
Austin, Texas. The University of Texas at Austin, Barker Texas History Center, The University of Texas Archives. Records of the Office of the President, College of Pharmacy Files. 
Austin, Texas. The University of Texas at Austin, Barker Texas History Center, The University of Texas Archives. Records of the Office of the President, Division of Extension Files. 
Austin. Texas. The University of Texas at Austin, Barker Texas History Center, The University of Texas Archives. Records of the Office of the President, Medical Branch Files. 
Austin, Texas. The University of Texas at Austin, Barker Texas History Center, The University of Texas Archives. Records of the Office of the President, Medical Department Files. 
Austin, Texas. The University of Texas at Austin, College of Phar­macy, Office of the Dean. Current Files. 
Austin, Texas. The University of Texas at Austin, College of Phar­macy, Office of the Dean. Minutes of the Advisory Council for the Pharmaceutical Foundation of The University of Texas. 
Austin, Texas. The University of Texas at Austin, College of Phar­macy, Records of the Graduate Advisor. 
Austin, Texas. The University of Texas at Austin, Office of the Board of Regents. Minutes of the Meetings of the Board of Regents, 1902-present. 
Austin, Texas. The University of Texas at Austin, Pharmacy Library. Esther Jane Wood Hall, "Henry Matthew Burlage, Ph.D.: A History." 
Austin, Texas. The University of Texas at Austin, Pharmacy Library. Verticle File: Pharmacy Extension Service. 
Battle, W. ]., and Benedict, H. Y. "The Construction Programs of the University of Texas, 1925-1935." American School and University (1935). Benedict, H. Y. A Source Book Relating to the History of The University of Texas: Legislative, Legal, Bibliographical, and Statistical. University of Texas Bulletin no. 1757 (10 October 1917). Blauch, Lloyd E., and Webster, George L., The Pharmaceutical Cur­riculum. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1952. Cactus, the yearbook of The University of Texas at Austin. Campbell, Leslie Caine. Two Hundred Years· of Pharmacy in Mississippi. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1974. Charters, W.W.; Lemon, A. B.; and Monell, Leon. Basic Material for a Pharmaceutical Curriculum. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1927. 
Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the 92nd Congress, First Session, Vol. 117, no. 108, July 14, 1971. Conklin, A. K. Telephone conversation with H. M. Burlage, 10 Nov. 1975, Austin, Texas. 
The Daily Texan. 
T1'e Dallas Morning News. 
Dallas, Texas. Personal Files of Walter T. Garbade Family. Delgado, J. N. Interview with M. E. Beutler, 19 May 1977, Austin, Texas. 
Dichter Institute for Motivational Research. Communicating the Value of Comprehensive Pharmaceutical Services to the Consumer. Washington, D.C.: American Pharmaceutical Association, 1973. 
Evans, C. E. The Story of Texas Schools. Austin: The Steck Company, no date. Flexner, Abraham. Medical Education in the United States. New York: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1910. 
Galveston Daily News. 
Graber, Joe B., and Brodie, Donald C., eds. Challenge to Pharmacy in the 70s: Proceedings of an Invitational Conference on Pharmacy Manpower. San Francisco: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Health Service and Mental Health Administration, 1970. 
Griffin, S. C. History of Galveston, Texas. Narrative and Biography. Galveston: A. H. Clawston, 1931. 
joint Report of the Committee on Degrees in Colleges ofPharmacy ofthe American Conference of Pharmaceutical Faculties and the Section on Education and Legislation ofthe American Pharmaceutical Association. Washington, D.C.: American Pharmaceutical Association, 1913. 
The Longhorn Pharmacist. McDonald, Forrest; Decker, Leslie E.; and Govan, Thomas P. The Last Best Hope: A History of the United States. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley Co., 1971. National Syllabus Committee, Pharmaceutical Syllabus. New York: New York State Board of Pharmacy, 1910. 
Noble, Alice. A History of the School of Pharmacy of the University of North 
Carolina. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961. 
Pharmaceutical Foundation. The Pharmaceutical Foundation of The Univer­

sity of Texas, 10th Anniversary. Austin: The University of Texas, no date. Pharmaceutical Foundation. Your Pharmaceutical Foundation, Its Purposes and Needs. Austin: The University of Texas, no date. Pharmaceutical Foundation and the College of Pharmacy. A Study of Manpower in Texas Pharmacy. Austin: The University of Texas 1955. Pharmacy Extension Service Bulletin. 
Phi Delta Chi. "History of Phi Delta Chi," Unpublished manuscript, Austin, Texas, 1976. The Ranger, a weekly journal of college life. Sonnedecker, Glenn. Kremers and Urdang's History of Pharmacy. 3d ed. Philadelphia: J. P. Lippincott Co., 1963. 
The Southern Pharmaceutical journal. 
Texas Druggist (Subsequently Texas Pharmacist). 
Texas journal of Pharmacy. 
Texas Pharmaceutical Association. Proceedings of the Texas Pharmaceutical 

Association, 1890-1899. Austin: Texas Pharmaceutical Association, 
1890-1899. U.S., Texas, Legislature, House of Representatives. journal. The University of Texas. Annual Report of the UT Development Fund, 
1961-62. Austin: The University of Texas, 1962. 
University of Texas, College of Pharmacy. Progress and Prophecies, A Report of the College of Pharmacy. Austin: The University of Texas, 1962. 
The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston: A Seventy-Five Year History by the Faculty and Staff. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1967. 
Worrell, L. F. Interview with M. E. Beutler, 13 and 18 May 1977, Austin, Texas. 

Index 
Page citations in boldface indicate pictures. Year citations are italicized to avoid confusion with accompanying page numbers. 
AACP. See American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy ACE. See American Council on Education 
ACPE. See American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; American Council on Pharmaceutical Education 
ACPF. See American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; American Conference of Pharmaceutical Faculties 
Acosta, Daniel, 478, 481 Adams, Fred, Adams Extract Co., 199, 230 Ad hoc committee for the deanship, 1962, 395-96 Administrative officers, faculty, and staff, 1895-1976, Appendix A, 525-33 
Admission requirements: in 1893, 26, 44; in 1922, 44; in 1934, 194; in 1948, 293; in 1950, 275, 297; in 1975, 472-73 
Admissions, percentage of applicants accepted, 1975-1976, table, 472 
Aerosol packaging laboratory, 320 
Albers, Carl Clarence, 121, 136-38, 
139, 155, 185-86, 263-64, 274, 
363-64, 416, 419-20 
American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP): founding of, 6; accrediting of the College of Pharmacy, 1926, 159 
American Council on Pharmaceutical Education (ACPE): comments on the College of Pharmacy, 267; ratings of the College of Pharmacy, 109-10, 120, 205-07, 212, 224-30, 300-03, 357, 382-86, 403 
American Conference of Pharmaceutical Faculties (ACPF), 2 
American Council on Education (ACE): 8; Committee on the Pharmaceutical Survey, 323-27 
Appelt, Glenn D., 413 
Apprenticeship, 1-2, 16 
Arnette, Joseph Hoyland, 329, 330 
Autian, John, 373 
Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy (B.S.), 6, 7. See also Curriculum Basic Material for a Pharmaceutical Curriculum, 8 Baylor University School of Pharmacy, 
1903-1931, 217 
Beal, George, 352 
Benjamin Clayton Foundation for Research, 362 
Berman, Alex, 374 
Biology Building, 214 
Biomedical Research Institute, 1968-1972, 443 Black students. See Minorities; Integration 
595 

Bond referendum, University of Texas building fund, 1947, 345 Brackenridge (Old B) Hall, 220 Bradberry, Jack Christopher, 482, 485 Brown, Robert Graves, 286, 287 Buckner, J. C., 88, 131-32 Bulletin of the College of Pharmacy, 381 Burlage, Alleda Robb, 261, 309 Burlage, Henry Matthew, 259-62, 260, 263-392 passim, 402 
Career guidance program, 322 Caskey, Eugene M., 308, 341-42 Carroll, Anna Marie, 136 Charters report. See Basic Material for a Pharmaceutical Curriculum 
Chemistry Building: old, burning in 1926, 165; new, in 7937, 211 Chemistry quarters, makeshift until 7930, 185 Chute, A. Hamilton, 360 Clayton Foundation. See Benjamin Clayton Foundation for Research Clibon, Unamarie, 509, 510 Clifton, W. Lacy, 318, 319 Cline, Raoul Rene Daniel, 54-60, 55, 60-67 and 75-82 passim, 143-44, 145, 353 Clinical education, government support of, 501 Clinical faculty, 506-10 Clinical pharmacy, 460, 498-512, See also Curriculum Combs, Alan B., 446, 448 Comparative pharmacology, laboratory of, 445 Comprehensive Health Manpower Training Act of 7977, 502 Conklin, Alice Klotz, 136, 155 179, 189-90 Connor, L. Meyers, 16 Constitutional amendment on bond issue, 7947, 269 Continuing education, 488-89 Convocation, College of Pharmacy, 7949­7950, 297 Cosgrove, Frank Peter, 374 Cousins, Margaret, 315 Cousins, Walter Jr., 263, 315, 317, 318 Cousins, Walter Sr., 147, 315 Cram Schools, elimination of, 6 
Curricular changes: 7893, 43-46; 7919, 119-23; 7940, 198; 1947, 292-98; 1960­7961, 404-06; 7968-7969, 433-35; 1970-1971, 436-37 Curriculum: for Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy (B.S. ), 26, 194, 293-95, 362-67, 403; for clinical pharmacy, 504-06, 510-12; for Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.), 5, 468, 515-19; for Doctor of Philosophy in Pharmacy (Ph.D.), 358-62, 406-09, 442-43, 468, 516; for Graduate in Pharmacy (Ph.G.), 5, 20, 24, 26, 43-46, 152, 156-57, 193-94; for Pharmaceutical Chemist (Ph.C.), 6, 82. See also The Pharma­ceutical Curriculum; Study Commission Curriculum, professional v. commercial, 196-97 
Davis, John Emerson, 290, 291 Degrees: graduate, awarded in pharmacy, 1950-7976, Appendix H, 546-74; recipients of doctoral, in pharmacy and their dissertation titles, 7957-1976, Appendix I, 548-52 Delgado, Jaime N., 369, 371, 372, 447 Dimmitt, J.S., 135 Dispensary, University Health Center, pharmacy students at, 198, 218-19 Distributive education, 324 Djao, Er-Hung, 373 Doluisio, James Thomas, 460-67, 462, 468-92 and 515-20 passim Drug abuse: education, 451-53, picture, 450; regional center for, 492 Drug Dynamics Institute, 471, 484-87 Drug garden, 230-31 Drug Information Center, 511 Drug-Plastic Research Laboratory, 320, 373, 411 Drugs, early distribution of, 15-16 
Eddy, James R. D., 326, 327, 335 Endowment fund, 319 Enrollment -general: 1974-1920, table, 116; 1923­1924, 141; 1929, 213, 7933-1940, table, 195; 1939-7948, table, 237; 7947, 274-75; 7950-7954, 305 
-graduate: 1950-1976, Appendix G, 545, 1967-1973, table, 442; 1973-1976, table, 474 • -of women, 46-47, 236, 441, 473 -undergraduate: 1893-1976, Appendix F, 544; 1973-1976, table, 474 Evens, Ronald Paul, 507, 509 Extension programs, 322-40 
Faculty, in 1927, 155; in 1947-1948, first increase in, 270, 279-82; in 1956-1957, difficulties in building, 367-69; in 1960-1970, research by, 409-12; women on, 135-36 Financial aid for students, 1967-1973, table, 441 Fineg, Jerry, 475, 477 Flexner, Abraham, 4 Folkers, Karl, 443-45 
Galveston: influenza epidemic at, 47; life in, 21, 38-41 ; sea wall construction at, 173; storm of 1900at, 67-74, storm of 1915 at, 112 Garbade, Walter T., 77, 86, 89, 123-26 Geiger, Paul F., 407 George-Dean Act, 324 Gidley, William Francis, 149-51, 148, 155, 157-277 passim, 375, 402 Gifts to the College of Pharmacy, 1893­1976, Appendix E, 541-43 Gjerstad, Gunnar, 369, 370 Graduate degrees awarded, 1950-1976, Appendix H, 546-4 7 Graduate enrollment, 1966-1973, table, 442 Graduates, directory of, Appendix J, 
553-85 Grants for College of Pharmacy, 1973­7976, 412, 435-36, 502-03 Green, Vernon, 290 Griffeth, A. W., 142-43 Grumbles, John Pat O· P.), 446, 449, 451 Guess, Wallace Louis, 286, 287-88 
Hall, Esther Jane Wood, 280-82, 281, 319, 479 
Harrison Anti-Narcotics Act, 1907, 67 
Harrison, Wilfred H., 147 Hawkins, David Warner, 507, 508 Henze, Henry Rudolf, 122-23, 127-31 128, 155 Hiett, Norris A., 326, 327 Hightower, William Lavoice, 479, 481 Hoag, Stephen G., 507 
Integration of Black students, 309. See also Minorities Isaacson, Eugene I., 413 
Jobe, Bill David, 330, 332, 479 Jones, Martha Jane, 283, 300 Jones, Tony Everett, 387, 300 Jordan, Howell, 378 
Kappa Epsilon fraternity, 306 Kappa Psi fraternity, 306 Kemp, John 0., 84-85 Kennedy, Dr. James, 27-33, 28 Klotz, Alice G. See Conklin, Alice Klotz Kuntz, Walter, 318, 319 
Laboratory, pharmacy: in the new Chemistry Building, 214; in the Old Red Building, 40; in V Hall, 184 Lambert, T. Arthur, 318, 319 Law Building, old, with shacks, 184 Leff, Richard Donald, 510 Leonard, Robert George, 507, 508 Leslie, Stephen Wayne, 478, 481 Levy, Benjamin, 281-82 Licensure, 19, 45, 107-09, 378-79 Lidiak, Dorothy Jane, 374, 376, 445 Littlefield, Louis C., 507, 508 Lloyd, William Reese, 285, 286 Lofgren, Frederick V., 286, 288 Loftis, Margaret, 283 Longhorn Pharmaceutical Association, 307 Longhorn Pharmacist, The, 203-04 Ludden, Thomas E., 509, 510 
McAmis, Ava Josephine, 26-27 
Main Library and surrounding campus, 201 Maness, Dale D., 446, 448 
Manpower in Texas Pharmacy. See A Study of Manpower in Texas Pharmacy 
Martin, Alfred N., 475, 476 Mayes, Leo W., 318, 320 Medical Practice Act of 1907, 20 Men's Dining Club, 91 Mexican American students. See 
Minorities Meyers, Donald Bates, 413 Michel, Bernetta, 122, 135 Milburn, Conn Lewis, 64, 83 Minorities: Black, 309; general, 473; 
Mexican American, 289 Mittelstaedt, Stanley G., 284 Moreno, Jose Ruben, 289 Morris, Seth Mabry, 35, 36-38, 306 Morter, Frances Underwood, 283 
NABP. See National Association of Boards of Pharmacy National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), 2 
National Science Foundation Institutional Grant for clinical pharmacy, 460. See also Grants 
National Syllabus Committee, 3-8 National Pharmaceutical Syllabus, 3-4 Negro students. See Black students Nematollahi, Jay, 413, 415 Neville, William Rust, 151, 153, 155, 
375, 377 Newburger, Jerold, 480, 481 
Old Main Building in the 1920s, 210 
Painter, Theophilus S., 253-54, 258-70 
passim, 343-47 Parker, Luther Ray, 330, 331 PAUT. See Pharmaceutical Association of 
The University of Texas 
Pharmacettes, 308-09 
Pharmaceutical Association of the 

University of Texas (PAUT), 49 Pharmaceutical Curriculum, The, 9 Pharmaceutical Foundation -Advisory Council, members of, 1952­
1976, Appendix B, 534-38; officers of, 
1952-1976, Appendix C, 539 
-chairmen of, 1952-1961, 318 
-general, 310-22 
-gifts to, 7950-1976, Appendix D, 540 
Pharmaceutical practice, 1960s and early 1970s, 500-01 Pharmaceutical Survey, Committee on the. See American Council on Education Pharmaceutical Syllabus, 7 Pharmacists for the Future: The Report of the Study Commission on Pharmacy, 9-10 Pharmacy Building, drive for at Medical Branch, 138; at UT Austin, 222, 343­48, 346, 350, 351-55 Pharmacy, College of, housing for, 24, 181, 219-22, 341, 489-92; location of, 254, 268, 342, 430 Pharmacy Council, 453 Pharmacy Extension Bulletin, 381 Pharmacy Extension Service, 9, 323-340, 367, 528; deans of, 326 Pharmacy law: of 1889 in Texas, 18-20; of 1904 in New York, 2 Pharmacy Research Institute, 410-11 Pharmacy, School of, organization of, 20-25 Pharmacy Wives Club, 308-09 Pharm.D. See Curriculum, Doctor of Pharmacy Ph.C. See Curriculum, Pharmaceutical Chemist Ph.D. See Curriculum, Doctor of Philosophy in Pharmacy Ph.G. See Curriculum, Graduate in Pharmacy Phi Delta Chi, Lambda Chapter, 306 Pope, Louise, 380 Prescription Laboratory, 223 Professional recognition for pharmacy, 25-27 Publications, student, 203-204. See also The Longhorn Pharmacist; The Texas Journal of Pharmacy 
Radam, William, 17 
Rainey, Homer Price, 239-54, 245 
Rainey, demonstrations opposing the firing of, 250, 252 Raley, Charles K., 282 
Randall, Edward, 33-34, 35, 241 
Research grants, the Pharmaceutical Foundation, 362. See also Grants Richardson, Adelaide, 132 Riffee, William Harvey, 477, 482 Roberts, Kenneth Boyette, 479, 482 
Schleuse, Louis William, 58-60, 187-89, 188, 352 Schneider, Adela, 333 Scholler, Jean, 443-45 Schwartz, Herbert Frederick, 413 Sealy, John, estate of, 21-22, 241 Seibert, James W., 318, 319-20 Sheffield, William Johnson, 291, 292, 447, 467, 469 Shelby, T. H., 324, 326 Schlanta, Stephen, 444 Showalter, Mildred Elizabeth, 282 Simonds, J. P., on indiscriminate sale of addictive drugs, 105 Smiley, J. R., 397 Smith, Austin, 352 Smith, Irma, 132-34, 155 Smith, Robert Victor, 475, 476 Sprowls, Joseph Barnett, 419-23, 421, 423-25, 454-55 Stavchansky, Salomon Ayzenman, 476, 481-82 Steussy, Mary Acton, 136 Stockton, John Richard, 191, 192-93 Stuart, David Marshall, 373 Student activities: 1896-1922, 91-96; 1927­1947, 199-204; 1947-1952, 303-05, 1970­1973, 453-54 Student Council organized, 414 Student Health Center Dispensary. See Dispensary, University Health Center Student Health Center Pharmacy, 290 Students' Army Training Corps, 117 Study Commission on Pharmacy, 494 
Study of Manpower in Texas Pharmacy, A, 
first edition, 319 Sublett, C. R., 320 Sullivan, Gerald, 414, 415 Sykes, Ethel W., 163 System Wide Long Range Planning Committee, 1968, 426-33 
TPA. See Texas Pharmaceutical Association 
TSPA. See Texas State Pharmaceutical Association Talbert, Robert L., 508, 510 Task force on competencies, 1975-1976, 514-15 Texas journal of Pharmacy, The, 204, 381 Texas Pharmaceutical Association (TPA): name of TSPA changed to, 171; support by for new building, 344 Texas Society of Hospital Pharmacists, 333 Texas State Pharmaceutical Association (TSPA), 15-16, 49-50, 142-43, 341 -42 Texas Tripartite Committee on Continuing Education, 489 Thompson, A. A., 345 Tiemann, Kenneth Edward, 380, 483 Tindal, Jemmie Loree, 283 Toxicology Laboratory, 373 Tsao, Daniel Peh-Nien, 289 
University campus, map of, 182 University Hall, 49 University of Texas -funding for, 207-09 -Medical Branch at Galveston: faculty, Executive Committee of, 147; name changed from Medical Department to, 109 -Medical Department at Galveston: attempts to organize, 22; campus, 59, 63, 64,68 Urdang, George, 352 
Visiting Lecturer Series, 1958-1964, 380-81 Visits to pharmaceutical plants by students, 198 Volstead Act, 119-20 
Walker, Charles Alborn, 332 
Walton, Charles A., 469, 470, 506-07, 
508 
Wells, E. M., 17 
Wilken, Leon D., 407 
Wilson, Charles Owen, 284 
Wilson, Logan, 354-55 
Women students in pharmacy. See 
Enrollment of women 

Wood, Esther Jane. See Hall, Esther Jane Wood Woods, William Ellis, 329, 330 Woodard, Mrs. P. A., 136 Worrell, Lee Frank, 369, 373, 399-403, 400, 402, 406-07, 416 Wylie, Billy Burben, 377, 380 
Yakatan, Gerald Joseph, 446, 449 Yanchick, Victor Andrew, 445, 447, 469 Yellow fever epidemic in Galveston, 21 
X-ray machine, development of, 38 





Henry Matthew Burlage, professor emeritus of pharmacy attended the universiti,es of Indiana, Harvard, Pur­due and Washington, earning the A.B., M.A., Ph.G., B.S. and Ph.D. degrees. He has been a member of the faculties of Purdue, Washington, Oregon State and North Carolina as well as Dean of the College of Pharmacy of The Uni­versity of Texas at Austin. Other posi­tions and honors include Honorary President of the American Pharmaceu­tical Association, President of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, and recipient of the honor­ary Doctor of Science from Purdue University. He was a teacher of pro­spective pharmacists for more than fifty years and is the author of num­erous books aHd articles. 
Margot Elizabeth Beutler, historian and free-lance writer, attended the Uni­versity of Oregon, B.A. 1972 in political science, M.A. 1974 in history, and has pursued post-graduate studies at The University of Texas at Austin. She has worked on numerous newspapers and magazines in Oregon as well as in Texas, is currently on the staff of The 
Texas Observer, and is operating her own business. Included among Ms. Beutler's qualifications to deal with this subject are a grandfather and an uncle who have been practicing community pharmacists.