During the daylong series of meetings, three plans were considered — separate buildings for the Library and the Institute-Museum, to be located on adjacent blocks of land on Capitol Hill; or, in the alternative, to place the
Library near the Capitol, and to transfer the Institute-Museum to a site close to the other educational and research organizations of the Army Medical Department, either on or immediately adjacent to the Walter Reed reservation or at the Forest Glen site, where it was contemplated that a great new medical research and training facility would be set up.6[1]
At a meeting, held on 5 May 1945, of the special board created to deal with the relocation of the Institute-Museum, and after consideration of the real estate appraisals of the several sites under consideration, General Kirk decided that the Library should be located on a square block southeast of the Capitol, and that the Institute should be located on a site immediately south of the Walter Reed reservation.7[2]
The reasons for this decision were stated in a letter from General Kirk to the Chief of Engineers, through Brig. Gen. J. S. Bragdon, Director of Military Construction. "The Army Medical Library," said The Surgeon General, "will continue to serve not only the Army but the medical profession of the world. Its usefulness is in some part dependent upon its accessibility to the public and to other major library collections. The building to house the facility should, therefore, be located on the site * * * adjacent to the Library of Congress which has previously been discussed * * *."
"The Army Institute of Pathology and the Army Medical Museum will continue to serve both the Army and the civilian medical profession. Their service to the Army will be closely related to the functions of the Army Medical Center. Their service to the civilian profession will be handled to some degree directly but in larger degree by mail. Their proper function requires immediate access to hospital beds. It is, therefore, desired that the institute of pathology and the museum be separated physically from the library and studied in relation to the Army Medical Center."
The Surgeon General felt, however, that "additional major investment in the Army Medical Center," such as would be involved in the proposed new building, "should be carefully considered in relation to future requirements." Study was requested "looking to the development * * * on an unrestricted site" of a new Army Medical Center, of which a new 1,000-bed hospital and the new Institute-Museum building would "form a present nucleus." The site for the
